The Irish Savant : What's the deal with Jews and gun control?

What's the deal with Jews and gun control?

The American obsession with owning guns has always been a source of amazement to me. Why would any civilian want to be armed like a commando or have a house resembling Woolwich Arsenal? And if hunting - i.e. killing animals for pleasure - is your thing then why not take a job in an abattoir? 

Having said that the gun control movement there makes no sense in that probably 95% of murders are committed, not by ordinary citizens, rather by criminals who will not be even remotely deterred by more restrictive legislation. So why the raft of legislation and supporting propaganda over the last twenty years or so?

And boy, what a tsunami it's been. Doing some research on the subject I was overwhelmed, staggered, by the sheer number and scope of the laws introduced over that time frame. 

Looking more closely I was also struck by the overwhelming Jewish role in the whole control movement. 

The big breakthrough came with the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was introduced by Emanuel Celler (who also did sterling work in opening America to the Third World tidal wave) while later on Senators Howard Metzenbaum, Herbert Kohl, Diane Feinstein, Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer and Frank Lautenberg continued the good work. Same thing happened in the House. And of course where would we be without good old Chucky Schumer and Mike Bloomberg, who never ever give the subject a rest?

And it's not just politicians. As far as I can see all of the major gun control lobby groups have major Jewish representation and financing, with the corollary that almost all major Jewish organisations support the restriction project.  This from the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility which represents a virtual who's who of leading "American" Jewish organisations including: "The Anti-Defamation League, Bet Alef, Congregation Beth Shalom, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Family Service, Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, Kavana Cooperative, Kol HaNeshamah, National Council of Jewish Women, Stroum Jewish Community Center, Temple Beth Am, Temple Beth Hatfiloh, Temple Beth Or, Temple B’Nai Torah, Temple De Hirsch Sinai, Tikvah Chadashah, Herzl Ner Tamid, Temple Beth El and the Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center."

Why would Jews be so hostile to private gun ownership? 

After all, they portray themselves  - ad nauseam - as hapless hard-working victims of state-sponsored pogroms throughout history. But like so much of the Approved Version of History this trope doesn't stand up. In actual fact Jews have always managed to inveigle themselves into the role of eminence grise, at the side of or behind the actual rulers, as 'advisors', enablers, financiers etc. This role, so obvious in every Western country today, seems to have applied for centuries, even in Muslim regions. My own research into pogroms suggests that for the most part - there most certainly have been exceptions - but for the most part they've been spontaneous outbursts by the hoi polloi.

As an explanation for this apparent paradox I offer the experience of colonialism. Understand that every colonial power assigned top priority to disarming the colonised population. 

Check out this site to get an idea of the blood, treasure and variety of tactics (carrots, sticks, deception) deployed by the British Empire in separating the natives from their arms. Am I uncharitable in suggesting that Jews regard America as colonised territory, a territory in which their position relative to the general population is analogous to  that of - for example - Whites in Kenya under colonialism? The nightmare scenario for the settler there was the prospect of being surrounded by well-armed Kikuyu or Matabele tribesmen. 

Which explains why West Bank settlers are armed to the teeth day and night. (A practice with which Feinstein et al seem, strangely, to have no difficulty.) 

So maybe in the fevered imagination of Jewish gun control advocates White Christians represent the natives outside the compound poised to slit their throats at the first opportunity.

In that case if you are the Government  doesn't it make sense for guns to be controlled by the Government?

 

http://irishsavant.blogspot.gr/2015/03/the-american-obsession-with-owning-guns.html

The Irish Savant : The Tyranny of White Guilt

The Tyranny of White Guilt

I've just finished reading The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner in which he claims that  

"all of modern thought can be reduced to mechanical denunciations of the West, emphasizing the latter's hypocrisy, violence, and abomination." 

He shows how Europeans see themselves as "the sick man of the planet" whose pestilence causes every problem in the non-Western world. When the white man set foot in Asia, Africa, or America, death, chaos, and destruction followed. 

Europeans feel themselves born with stigmata: "the white man has sown grief and ruin wherever he has gone."

Well, maybe he’s over-stating his case. But there’s no doubt that one of the staples of our delusional post-colonial romantic self-flagellation is the myth of the Noble Savage. 

Coined originally I think by Rousseau in the eighteenth century, it’s characterised by misty-eyed fantasies about early men and women, living in Bambi-like harmony with nature while selflessly looking out for each other. But then the (white) colonialists came along to spoil everything, with their pesky hospitals, colleges, literature and so on.

Of all the delusions supporting the anti-white agenda, this is surely the most egregious. So hopefully I won't bore you by taking a look at the reality of some of those idealised lives.

The American Indians.

We have had it drilled into us now for more than forty years. I remember as a small boy when the Indians in movies were depicted as cruel, whooping, primitive savages, while the heroic cowboys or cavalry (calvary!) always kept one bullet – for themselves – in case of capture. You know, these savages would torture him horribly before his ritual slaughter.

We can look back now at this simplistic, ‘offensive’, ignorant and narrow-minded characterisation. We know this from an endless series of moves, and from the full range of ‘White Studies’ (ugh!) programmes, which show the Indian as being brave, peace-loving and chivalrous.
.
In fact, our unsophisticated 1960s view was far more accurate than that portrayed in Soldier Blue, Dances With Wolves or any of the other myriads of panegyrics to the poor Indian. For the Indian was indeed violent, cruel, savage, merciless and at constant war with his own kind, ever before the white man came to spoil everything.

Warfare was ubiquitous; every major culture area of native North America has produced archaeological, ethnohistorical, osteological, or ethnographic evidence of endless armed conflict and ritual violence.

A few examples:
In the Eastern Woodland cultures, warfare often served as a means of coping with grief and depopulation – itself driven by interminable warfare. Such conflict, commonly known as a “mourning war,” usually began at the behest of women who had lost a son or husband and desired the group's male warriors to capture individuals from other groups who could replace those they had lost.

The captive could be lucky. He could be spared and become the mourner’s new husband.

Or he could be unlucky.

“If the women of the tribe so demanded, captives would be ritually tortured, sometimes to death if the captive was deemed unfit for adoption into the tribe.”

Thomas E. Emerson’s study of Mississippian warfare for the period AD 900--1400 concerns the archaeological recovery of disturbing evidence from mass interments of war captives and/or sacrificial victims. According to the author, recent findings reveal that precontact-era hostilities resulted in the massacre and mutilation of hundreds of men, women, and children. He refers to “intensive and bellicose patterns of internecine warfare involving massive casualties.”
The Indians also demonstrated considerable vision and improvisation in developing methods of torture. Apart from the normal slow death by turning on the spit, specialities included smearing the victim with honey and then tying him (or her) to an ant’s nest. The agonising death throes could last for days before the partially eaten victim expired.

Various studies suggest that such practices were also widespread all over pre-Columbine America, including the Caribbean. Here the Carib Indians exterminated – and consumed – their Arawak enemies, before in turn succumbing to white man’s diseases, the poor dears.

New research coming to light (published in Discovery, September 20, 2010) shows that much of the violence was genocidal. “The entire assemblage comprises 14,882 human skeletal fragments, as well as the mutilated remains of dogs and other animals killed at the massacre site—Sacred Ridge, southwest of Durango, Colo. The unearthed bones and artefacts indicate that when the violence took place, men, women and children were tortured, disembowelled, killed and often hacked to bits. In some cases, heads, hands and feet appear to have been removed as trophies for the killers. The attackers then removed belongings out of the structures and set the roofs on fire.”
Must have been whites who did this, surely? Er, no. This took place about 800 AD.

Native New Zealanders

“There is not a bay, not a cove, in New Zealand which has not witnessed horrible dramas, and woe to the white man who falls into the New Zealanders' hands.”
.
When Felix Maynard and Alexandre Dumas wrote this (in The Whalers) they didn’t have the All Blacks Rugby team in mind. Although the similarities are striking, this, being written about 200 years ago, was referring to the native New Zealanders, the Maoris. And he was right to be apprehensive. Here’s a sample of what he could have expected:
.
“In the meantime, a fellow that had proved a traitor wished to come and see his wife and children. They seized him and served him in like manner. Oh, what a scene for a man of Christian feeling, to behold dead bodies strewed about the settlement in every direction, and hung up at every native's door, their entrails taken out and thrown aside and the women preparing ovens to cook them!”

“On our side, there were eight men killed, three children, and two women, during the siege. They got sixteen bodies, besides a great number that were half roasted, and dug several up out of the graves, half decayed, which they also ate. Another instance of their depravity was to make a musket ramrod red hot, enter it in the lower part of the victim's belly and let it run upwards, and then make a slight incision in a vein to let his blood run gradually, for them to drink.”

“I must here conclude, being very scanty of paper; for which reason, columns of the disgraceful conduct of these cannibals remain unpenned.”

Another Sheriden, Daniel Henry this time, wrote “Calm light airs from the north all day on the 23rd November hindered us from putting out to sea as intended. In the afternoon, some of the officers went on shore to amuse themselves among the natives, where they saw the head and bowels of a youth, who had been lately killed, lying on the beach, and the heart stuck on a forked stick which was fixed on the head of one of the largest canoes. One of the gentlemen bought the head and brought it on board, where a piece of the flesh was broiled and eaten by one of the natives, before all the officers and most of the men.”
.
“One of the cannibals thereupon bit and gnawed the human arm which Banks had picked up, drawing it through his mouth and showing by signs that the flesh to him was a dainty bit. Tupia carried on the conversation: ‘Where are the heads?’ he asked. ‘Do you eat them too?’ ‘Of the heads,’ answered an old man, ‘we eat only the brains.’ Later he brought on board Endeavour four of the heads of the seven victims."
.
Edward Tregear, in The Maori Race (1904) tells us “an English missionary has reported that Pomare, a chief of the Bay of Islands, ate six entire heads. Chiefs' heads are usually dried and perfectly preserved by an ingenious process. Before the feast of victory, each warrior drinks the blood of the enemy he has killed with his own hand. After battle comes the terrible and revolting episode of the cannibal feast. Prisoners taken in the fight were slain in cold blood, except those reserved for slavery – a mark of still greater contempt than being killed for food. Sometimes after the battle a few of the defeated were thrust alive into large food-baskets and thus degraded for ever. As a general rule, however, they were slain for the oven. ”
.
Damn white man – coming and ruining this delightful culinary experience and shoving his so-called civilization down their throats (if you’ll pardon that particular analogy).

And a final delight from Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, pp. 197-199

“The warriors, entirely naked, their long black hair, although matted with human gore, yet flowing partially in the wind; in the left hand a human head and in the right hand a bayoneted musket held by the middle of the barrel. Thus, with a song, the terrible expression of which can only be imagined by being heard, did they dance round their wretched victims, every now and then approaching them with gestures, threatening death under its most horrible forms of lingering torture.
.
The captives, with the exception of one old man and a boy who were sentenced to death, were apportioned amongst the conquering warriors as slaves. The tables were laid. About a hundred baskets of potatoes, a large supply of green vegetables, and equal quantities of whale-blubber and human flesh, constituted the awful menu. The old man, from whose neck suspended the head of his son, while the body formed part of the cannibal feast, was brought forth and subjected to torture from the women before the last scene of all.”

In short, the native New Zealanders (and Pacific Islanders generally) were violent bloodthirsty cannibals. Interaction between tribes almost invariably resulted in internecine warfare leading to death on the battlefield, or, if it was your unlucky day, captivity. In the latter case your destiny was to be on the lunch menu for the following day, having first been subjected to the most appalling torture. Another characteristic of these people was the extent to which women and children partook of the torture and general prisoner abuse. This of course was also characteristic of their fellow noble savages on the American continent.

Australia.

In a nutshell, the pre-European Australian aborigines made their contemporary natives in America and New Zealand look like Swedish Social Democrats. I've posted here about what Kevin Rudd called their ‘ancient and proud culture’. Ah yes. If you have the, ahem, stomach, read it. I truly believe that these people were (are?) not fully human.

Africa:

Where to begin, where to end? Does anybody seriously believe in African ‘civilisation’? Well, the answer to that of course is, yes they do. None more so than guilt-crippled white masochists. To them I dedicate the following tiny snippets.
.
In west African there were slave wars, where the coastal African tribes were armed and encouraged to raid in­land and bring their captives to trading ports for sale and shipment. These cannot I suppose, if one is being pedantic, be strictly representative of er, ‘African civilisation’, being as they were, instigated by the white man. But the natives didn’t need much encouragement.
.
The result was a never-ending series of tribal wars and the devastation of immense areas. While some 8,000,000 Africans were sold into the Americas (only about 400,000 into what's now the USA) during the period of slave trade, it has been estimated that at least 40,000,000 more were killed in the wars and raids or died on the voyage. No mercy was shown in any of these encounters, and even the hardened white slavers were shaken by the brutality and savagery displayed by the Africans against one another. (Nothing’s changed in the meantime, then!).
..
Most of African history of course is unknown, as their ‘civilisation’ never got around to inventing reading or writing. Until of course whitey came with his evil ways. We can though get a good sense of the southern and eastern parts of the continent. Due mainly, of course, to the early arrival of whites to this part of the Dark Continent.
.
What they saw did not bring Switzerland to mind.
.
Now, are all you liberals and race-traitors in the back paying attention?

Let’s go!

As every schoolboy knows, Shaka Zulu created a highly centralized, well organized nation-state, with a large and powerful standing army. Then he did what we thought only the evil whites did. He used this army to expand his control! Can you imagine a noble savage doing such a thing?

And he didn’t mess about, creating a waterfall effect of violent tribal displacement and extermination. Refugee groups escaping Chaka invaded the lands of present-day Botswana creating chaos as they tramped westward. The Basotho were pushed into the mountains where they were harassed by cannibals. Setting villages on fire, the Ndebele swept ahead of the Zulu Impi to settle in present day Zimbabwe. Along the way they encountered King Thulare's Pedi empire, which was destroyed and its people wiped out. They then attacked the Mokololo to the northwest. Meanwhile the Xhosa expanded into Khoi-khoi lands, forcing many into the arid Kalahari Desert. The Tlokoa marched from Natal leaving a path of destruction all the way to Botswana. They attacked the Fokeng forcing them west. The Fokeng in turn marched north to the Zambezi River and beyond, where they raided destitute refugees.
.
Fokeng confusing, isn’t it?

All of this was in fact part of a broader series of ghastly massacres in which powerful armies annihilated their weaker neighbours, confiscated their possessions and moved on, knowing full well that if they loitered they too would be attacked by wave upon wave of people advancing from the east. The whole sub-continent was hurled into a maelstrom of destruction, until eventually an estimated twenty-eight distinct clans disappeared, leaving not a trace of their former existence.
.
Oh dear! Who could have imagined?

Anyway, this invariable lead to food supply problems which the victors solved by the simple expedient of consuming their captives. When they ran out of captives to kill and eat, the bodies of the already dead were disinterred and began to appear on the menu. But there are only so many bodies you can dig up, and it wasn’t long before starvation drove them to devouring their wives and children. Having once acquired the taste for human flesh, the cannibals formed themselves into hunting bands and set out daily to replenish their menus.
.
But the end was nigh, as the voertrekkers were heading their way, all set to spoil this pastoral idyll. They have a lot to answer for, them boers.

Conclusions?

Ok, all of this is innocent fun, but there’s a serious side too, one that brings us back to The Tyranny Of Guilt. You might justifiable conclude from what I've written that the noble savages were in fact for the most part grunting dehumanised beasts. Their societies were not comprised of happy hippies harvesting free-range animals who dropped dead naturally, and encounters between tribes were not pipe-smoking love-ins. They killed as many animals as they could, and they killed (and usually ate) as many enemies as they could. Unfortunately —for them— whitey had superior firepower. That’s all.
.
Can you have any doubt, based on what you’ve just read, as to what any of those native leaders would have done, had they only had the white man’s power? As General Phil Sheridan (from Cavan, of all places) said to Red Cloud: “If you had our power and we yours, you’d slaughter every one of us, to the last man, woman and child”.

Hobbes in Leviathan, held that the natural state of mankind is a "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Well, that certainly sums up the Noble Savages we discussed. But what about whitey? Is he alone immune to these natural impulses? Surely not. But what whitey has done is to create and develop, over many centuries, an uncanny assemblage of science, philosophy and ethics, supported by complex legislation and an array of supporting governance institutions. These have not been perfect of course, but they have dramatically mitigated the risk of "war of all against all." In whitey’s world, peoples’ lives are assuredly not poor, nasty, brutish, or short. Some non-Western countries are of course successful, and more will be. But they'll make it by adopting Western inventions, medicine, industry, agriculture, communications.

.They understand this perfectly, unlike our lofty academic assholes, lauding the illiteracy and misery of others as they savour their latest Reisling. These academics will tell you that third-worlders want to come here because the capitalist system has corrupted them, and eroded their "Authenticity". Yeah, right. See, if only we had left them in their pure state, they would revel in hookworm and illiteracy.

Gimme a break. For three centuries just about everything that makes life tolerable has come from the West. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. And so do the academic assholes. They just don't like it.

We have everything to be proud of - our race indeed represents the March Of  The Titans. Don’t let them take that from us.

http://irishsavant.blogspot.gr/2010/10/tyranny-of-guilt.html

The Irish Savant : Elites rise up against the people

Elites rise up against the people

Gene Kerrigan is a leading Irish journalist working for the Sunday Independent. Gene has carved out a lucrative career defending the Little Man against the Elites. He rails against the contempt held by the latter for the former, their arrogant dismissal of their real fears and interests. For Gene the Little Man is a hero, a decent law-abiding provider for his family. The backbone of the country. As indeed he is.

You can imagine my surprise therefore when I read the following in his most recent column. Referring to Brexit he tells us that 'the demographics of the vote tell their story.  The old, those least likely to have a passport, to know anything about anywhere beyond their own narrow borders, wanting their country back'.

By jingo, the most arrogant elitist plutocrat would be hard put to better that. Incidentally did you notice how 'wanting their country back' has now become a Bad Thing. Warming to his subject he continues: 'But the country many of them wanted back was the mythical [my emphasis] England of their youth, a town in Midsomer county where Princess Diana still lives and the marriage to Charles worked out, where Miss Marples investigates cutesy murders, Mrs. Dale still writes her diary, and there's no "political correctness"  to dissuade them from calling Idris Elba dirty names'.

Well Gene, apart Miss Marples that particular country was not mythical. It was real. And it was pleasant, orderly, quiet, wealthy and law-abiding. It was a land wherein a person saying rude things to Idris Elba would not lose his job, still less suffer incarceration. But then it was Aberfaned, engulfed in a toxic black/brown sludge which destroyed everything in its way. And its people did not give it away, it was taken from them by traitors purporting to represent their interests. As I wrote quite some time ago. 

 

'that once green and pleasant land has now been deemed the worst place in the developed world for a child to grow up. Towns all over the country that were a joy to visit 30 years ago are now crime-ridden, racially segmented dumps. England has become a multicultural society, though it’s fair to say that few English people ever wanted it to be.' 

And yes, Gene, they want it back. May Providence grant them success, and your own personal Aberfan in that leafy suburb of yours.

The Irish Savant : A cri de coeur from a nation-wrecker

A cri de coeur from a nation-wrecker

Before I get to the cri de coeur read this:

'If you occupied what was considered the ideological / moral centre ground in 1965, and went to sleep for 50 years and woke up in 2015 you'd find yourself occupying the ideological /moral 'far right'. You didn't have to budge one inch ideologically to find yourself there.  The whizzing sound you heard was the ideological / cultural centre ground zooming over to the Cultural Marxist hard left.

Everything that was considered mainstream, obvious, common sense, logical and moral in 1965 is now considered by our political, academic and media elite to be bigoted, ignorant, hateful, xenophobic, racist, extremist and some form of moral abnormality.

In other words, within the space of 50 years, morality, right, wrong, evil, good, normal, obvious, extreme, sanity, truth, beneficial, dangerous and the instinct for group preservation, has been inverted and stood upside down on its head.

Never before in the entire course of human history has an entire culture, race and civilisation decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and identities to competing and intruding alien cultures without a fight, and even worse, to evolve an ideology that morally justifies and glorifies it as proof of their moral supremacy. 

European man is in a civilisational death dance.'

This brilliant exposition of the West's predicament appears as a comment by reader Dan O'Connor in The Spectator. Or at least  it did. It's since been consigned to the ether. The comment was in response to an article by Nick Cohen, plaintively entitled Why I've finally given up on the Left. The article and accompanying interview represent a summary of his earlier book What's Left.  It appears that that 'left-wing politics had turned rancid'.

Oh dear.

And how exactly have they turned rancid?

"The Labour party has just endorsed an apologist for Putin’s imperial aggression; a man who did not just appear on the propaganda channel of Russia, which invades its neighbours and persecutes gays, but also of Iran, whose hangmen actually execute gays. Labour’s new leader sees a moral equivalence between 9/11 and the assassination of bin Laden, and associates with every variety of women-hating, queer-bashing, Jew-baiting jihadi, holocaust denier and 9/11 truther."

Ah, now a clearer picture emerges. And there's more...

"The position of the Jews is grimmer still. To be blunt, the new leader of the opposition is ‘friends’ with men who want them dead. One Jewish Labour supporter told me, ‘I feel like a gay man in the Tory party just after they’ve passed Section 28.’ Another described his position as ‘incredibly exposed’. He had ‘come to understand in the last few weeks, quite how shallow the attachment of the left is to principles which I thought defined it.’"

So that's it..... the perennial question 'is it good for Jews?'.

Because Nick Cohen and his ilk were active participants in, and progenitors of, the malaise so eloquently described by Dan O'Connor whereby an entire culture, race and civilisation decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and identities to competing and intruding alien cultures without a fight, and even worse, to evolve an ideology that morally justifies and glorifies it as proof of their moral supremacy. 

They loved the Left when it was at its nation-wrecking best, marginalising and diluting the traditional British stock. But that nation-wrecking infested Britain with millions of  left-voting Third Worlders who share the same ethnic outgroup mentality as Cohen's tribe. Which means that they don't give two figs about Jews or their alleged monopoly on suffering. In fact many of them see Jews as embodying the worst characteristics of Whites while lacking Whites' altruistic dimension.

So as they've done throughout history Jews have been too cunning for their own good. For instance Stephen Steinlight (here) has become an immigration control advocate in America. Why?  Because while the replacement and disempowerment of the stock that built the nation was to be celebrated it now unfortunately looks like 'our (Jews) present privilege, success and power do not inure us from the effect' of these developments. Same with the Neocons. Many have wondered why they've migrated from the far left to the far right. The answer is simple: Their policies mirrored Israeli interests and those of Jews generally.

Of course the Jewish ethnic self-interest underpinning this transition gets carefully concealed under a thick and unctuous layer of universal and timeless moral platitudes. But I have news for the Nick Cohens of this world. Your grand scheme is running out of road. Huge numbers of hitherto slumbering goyim are waking up, more and more every day. Maybe - once again - you've prodded the sleeping giant too much.

Be afraid.

The Irish Savant : Living - for now - testaments to the New Woman

Living - for now - testaments to the New Woman

Fascinating to watch 'em crash and burn, victims of their own design. Madonna and Angelina Jolie, the embodiment of the spirit of the New Woman, of Having It All. Sexually active while barely into their teens, an unfathomable number of subsequent partners (of both sexes), glittering careers, vast wealth, late onset "families", some of whom were purchased ready-made, home-wrecking, abandoned marriages (...AJ says of her first husband 'the greatest husband a girl could have......but I needed freedom'), feted and rewarded for dishing out democracy and women's rights to all those cute faces the rest of us see only on TV.

What more could the independent grrrlll of today ask for?

But now?  Being nearly twenty years older than she, Madonna reveals what awaits Jolie.  Excluding paid hangers-on she's now abandoned, alone and unwanted, so detested by her dysfunctional "family" that she used the law on her son when he chose in desperation to flee to his father. A bitter, squalling hair-trigger shrew, ricocheting between rage and self-pity as she frantically struggles to hang on to her collapsing career, each performance becoming more and more an exercise in self-parody.

And Angelina? Twenty five years of feminist freedom have left her a physical and emotional wreck with yet another disintegrating marriage and a squad of  mainly purchased children spiralling out-of-control. Luckily her non-stop filming, human rights status-whoring and stints in rehab mean she incurs minimal personal inconvenience from these little horrors. But pity the surrogate parents!

At least Madonna and Angelina have the wealth to purchase hangers-on and luxury. And, catastrophic as the results might have been, they have fulfilled their basic biological imperative by spawning their own offspring. But what about the ordinary woman, seduced during  her (long vanished) youth by the feminist illusion, and now toiling at her useless career in a tiny impersonal cubicle? For every Angelina or Madonna there are literally millions like her, and for whom a bleak future beckons.

Having decided to put off settling down she's horrified at the speed with which her child-bearing years are disappearing, while all those disposable 'good men' whom she confidently put to one side at an earlier time are no longer available, being married and/or interested only in girls a lot younger than she. The liberated kind  of girl who dispenses sexual favours with reckless abandon....like she herself used to do. But now as her eggs atrophy in her drying ovaries she's doomed to an atomised life with just cats as a surrogate family, doomed to negotiate a Darwinian cul-de-sac.

While I do feel a small tinge of schadenfreude at the fate of such women I also recognise that they're victims. 

Victims of feminism, the single most evil and destructive movement ever to beset the White race.  A curse which most of us, men and women, have fallen under at one time or another. We now need to unambiguously proclaim that this has been a Jewish movement from start to finish, a fundamental component of the Cultural Marxist Revolution developed to destroy the White Christian family and with it the unique civilisation to which it gave birth. Feminism's intellectual genesis in the Frankfurt School, its icons such as Frieden and Dworkin, and its brainwashing enablers in news and entertainment have been overwhelmingly Jewish. As long as this central reality is denied or ignored there never will be a solution, a solution whereby our women revert to being friends and partners, not adversaries.

So let the deprogramming begin!

 

http://irishsavant.blogspot.gr/2016/04/living-for-now-testaments-to-new-woman.html

Prof. Nyborg : IQ, Immigration, and the Welfare State: A Recipe for Civilizational Suicide

http://gatesofvienna.net/2017/07/iq-immigration-and-the-welfare-state-a-recipe-for-civilizational-suicide/#more-43555

Helmuth Sørensen Nyborg is a former professor of developmental psychology at Aarhus University in Denmark (and also a former Olympic canoeist). He has caused controversy in the past by his numerous writings on the forbidden topic of race and intelligence.
Prof. Nyborg gave a speech last month laying out the evidence that the former high civilization of Northern Europe and the European diaspora is well along in the process of destroying itself. It is rapidly reducing its collective IQ by two simultaneous vectors: the welfare state and the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants.
What he says is totally WAYCIST. Yet it is completely true. These are simply the facts that we must face.
Many thanks to Tania Groth for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

https://youtu.be/g9rGJl3TBP4

IQ, Immigration, and the Welfare State: A Recipe for Civilizational Suicide

Posted on July 27, 2017 by Baron Bodissey

Helmuth Sørensen Nyborg is a former professor of developmental psychology at Aarhus University in Denmark (and also a former Olympic canoeist). He has caused controversy in the past by his numerous writings on the forbidden topic of race and intelligence.
Prof. Nyborg gave a speech last month laying out the evidence that the former high civilization of Northern Europe and the European diaspora is well along in the process of destroying itself. It is rapidly reducing its collective IQ by two simultaneous vectors: the welfare state and the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants.
What he says is totally WAYCIST. Yet it is completely true. These are simply the facts that we must face.
Many thanks to Tania Groth for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:00		I would like to say thank you for your invitation (to speak here today).
00:08		Today I intend to talk a little about Europe’s greatness and decay.
00:16		First I want you to imagine something.
00:21		Think of Skagen’s northernmost tip [most northerly part of Denmark, in Jutland].
00:26		From there, travel a little west to England, Scotland, and cut down through Europe.
00:33		Make a turn by Rome and then go up through central Europe
00:40		and cross over to Skagen’s northern tip again.
00:47		Then you have actually outlined the area where the people who have been born
00:54		since the 14th century created 97% of all the scientific
01:02		and artistic progress, that at least 50% of the authoritative sources agree
01:10		are historically unique.
01:13		Some of these Nordic people
01:16		later traveled to the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
01:22		and spread democracy, welfare and civilization like nobody else in history.
01:30		The question now is: What made these people so special?
01:38		One of many suggestions is that it can be explained by Cold Winter theory.
01:46		You get the ultra-short version here —
01:49		those of you who are more interested can read the details on my website helmuthnyborg.dk.
01:55		Cold Winter theory is based on the very simple fact
02:00		that the further the prehistoric African emigrants travelled north,
02:07		the colder the climate became. And that’s not an irrelevant thing…
02:12		Because it requires a better ability to survive
02:15		in a cold environment compared with a hot one, all other things being equal.
02:19		Therefore, the migrants were subjected to a relentless
02:23		Darwinian selection for intelligence
02:27		and for the willingness to share sparse food and warm dwellings.
02:32		We now know that intelligence is related to brain size
02:38		and it is also linked to altruistic sociability,
02:42		or what we may call trust in each other — or the ability to cooperate.
02:48		The correlation between, for example, brain size and intelligence
02:54		is between .34 and .45 and that means that we can actually explain
03:00		some of the individual differences by looking at brain size only.
03:06		But since the correlation is not 1, this means there is also room for other relevant factors.
03:12		The organization of the brain also means something — not only its size.
03:17		But together it shows that there are people who were sorted for brain size,
03:23		for intelligence, and for altruism,
03:26		explaining why the northern peoples could develop sociability.
03:33		If we look at the current figures
03:40		we can see it has something to do with the fact that there is a difference
03:44		between the average brain size in Africa
03:47		and the brain size of northern people of about 100 cubic centimeters.
03:51		In fact, if you look at people’s hats, you can actually start to get an idea
03:57		of where people were born. It sounds odd, but it has been scientifically proven.
04:03		There is a difference in average IQ from Africa up to the northern countries
04:10		of two standard deviations, i.e. about 30 IQ points.
04:15		The average IQ in Africa is 70, in England 100.
04:20		The hereditability of intelligence and also brain size
04:26		actually explains why the northern people —
04:31		when they emigrated to the United States and Canada —
04:36		also brought these same abilities with them,
04:39		and that means that the Cold Winter theory explains
04:44		in a very simple way both the journey towards a highly development Nordic civilization
04:49		and also its later propagation into selected areas of the world.
04:54		Now we have arrived at the more unfortunate part of my presentation.
04:58		Because all of this amazing evolutionary process has gone into reverse gear
05:03		due to a number of different things.
05:06		The high Nordic civilization had already started
05:09		to take a downturn around 1850
05:15		and the explanation is as simple as its first appearance.
05:18		Because at that time, low IQ people began, for the first time in history,
05:23		to have more surviving children than high IQ people.
05:27		And this drives the national IQ average down.
05:31		Next, northern people make less than the 2.05 children needed
05:37		to keep the population stable and that means that a space then opens up for others.
05:42		We are quite simply eradicating ourselves because of low fertility.
05:47		And then comes a little detail that I have had a lot of “fun” telling about.
05:53		High IQ women not only have well below 2.05 children,
05:58		they also have them late in life. And as also almost 25% of high IQ women in the United States
06:06		suffer involuntary abortions, it’s not just a choice, it’s not just high education,
06:12		it actually also has something to do with physiology.
06:15		The problem then lies in that low-IQ women have more than the required 2.05 children —
06:22		the end result being that women’s intelligence goes down from generation to generation in Europe —
06:28		which of course also sends a nation’s average IQ down.
06:31		And I strongly advise you not to talk openly about this knowledge.
06:35		We then also see that the average Danish IQ has fallen a few points since 2000.
06:43		It sounds innocent, but it’s not.
06:46		There is an American researcher, Gerhardt Meisenberg,
06:49		who made a rule saying that if IQ drops by 3 to 5 points, the GDP per capita —
06:56		the average of the country’s financial capability, will fall by 18% over time.
07:04		This is something that takes a long time to happen, but the effect is proven.
07:10		Then there’s a third thing that causes the downturn:
07:13		The welfare state. We consume higher-quality food, we have better hygiene,
07:19		we have better medicine and hospitals —
07:22		and we help the weak to survive in larger numbers than before.
07:27		This also puts evolution into reverse gear.
07:30		This increases average morbidity
07:33		and causes more hereditary diseases to be carried on to the next generation.
07:36		As K.K. Steinke said back in 1920
07:40		when he described the poor in Denmark —
07:43		in two volumes, you should read them, it is very interesting reading —
07:46		the story shows that already at that time the problem could be identified.
07:50		Steincke said, “We must make sure that we do not get too many misfits
07:55		when we establish the welfare state.”
07:58		And by “misfits” he did not mean anything degrading,
08:01		he just meant “below average” (mental underachievers).
08:05		All of what I have just mentioned implies that the European welfare states
08:10		are well on their way through the process of “eating their own children” —
08:13		and they are doing it from within. It has nothing to do with external influences.
08:20		Therefore, it appears to me almost traitorous when leading politicians
08:24		and university people do not want to analyze the situation objectively,
08:28		but on the contrary, misdiagnose the problems
08:32		and talk about racism, extremism and “we hate eugenics,
08:36		because that’s something only Nazis talk about.”
08:40		This is actually not true. Eugenics is the teaching of how to improve human quality
08:45		and we have not really figured that one out yet.
08:48		Until now I have talked about the inner causes
08:52		of the imminent fall of the high Nordic civilization,
08:56		but this can only be seen in the very long term.
08:59		Now I would like to talk about an added external threat
09:02		that has a completely different dynamic built into it,
09:05		and which has irreversible effects.
09:08		And of course I am thinking of the new wave of migration
09:11		that is in the process of replacing Europe’s populations
09:15		in a transition of historic dimensions.
09:18		The replacement of peoples has always taken place,
09:22		but hardly ever before with such force and with such dynamic
09:26		as after the introduction of new modern means of transport.
09:30		A qualified bio-demographic analysis begins by noting
09:36		that immigrants are culturally and biologically very different —
09:40		and this is important when we talk about these things.
09:44		For, oddly enough, these differences are related to whether the immigrants
09:48		come from Northern cold-selected areas or Southern areas
09:52		that have not had that cold selection.
09:56		For example, immigration from the “cold” North East Asian territories,
10:00		i.e. China and Japan and surrounding countries —
10:03		they are of no major importance for Europe.
10:06		These people are generally more intelligent than we are,
10:09		they can take educations and support themselves
10:12		and they are able to contribute in a positive way to society.
10:15		But unfortunately, they are as infertile as we are,
10:19		so they will also disappear out of circulation in the foreseeable future.
10:24		Other Europeans have much the same IQ and infertility as Danes.
10:29		They support themselves and then they, too, disappear.
10:32		The societal danger comes from southern non-Western immigrants
10:38		who have not undergone cold selection.
10:41		Their average IQ is below 90.
10:44		A study I made in 2011 shows
10:48		that the immigrants’ average IQ in Denmark is 86.
10:52		This is disturbingly low.
10:55		This means that at least half will never get a qualifying education,
11:00		nor ever be able to support themselves.
11:05		The problem here is that our leading politicians and researchers
11:12		have long assumed that this problem can be solved through dialogue and education,
11:17		despite the fact that differential psychology has shown for more than 100 years
11:22		that this is not possible.
11:25		It therefore creates a panic when Danish-speaking third-generation immigrants,
11:29		born and raised in Denmark, are already lagging behind during their first years of school.
11:34		With a heredity factor of 60-80%, we can with great certainty predict
11:38		that half of them will run into serious problems and will end up on welfare.
11:46		Especially if we take into consideration that Scandinavia is a high-tech society
11:54		where we systematically eliminate jobs of the sort that could have made a difference —
11:59		like digging ditches and things that today we have machines to do.
12:04		What’s even worse is that the group of functional illiterates
12:08		will grow very quickly, as on average they start having children early
12:12		and some of them have 4 to 6 children per couple.
12:16		Those responsible have not yet understood that religious people
12:20		have more children than non-believers —
12:23		and that Muslims have more children than other fertile religious groups.
12:29		If this trend holds, Muslims could eventually form a majority in Denmark
12:33		and they could lawfully introduce Sharia —
12:37		and most of them also agree that that is actually what they want.
12:41		At the same time, their many cousin-to-cousin marriages
12:48		increase the frequency of genetic damages. And the numbers are disturbing
12:52		when you see the collective results, for example in the Middle East.
12:55		One wonders then, at least I think so, why Europe’s feminists,
13:01		evolutionary biologists, cultural leaders, politicians, and bishops,
13:07		seem quite unable to act on, nor understand what this development means for a free society.
13:13		They just have to look at our neighbor — Sweden —
13:16		a country that is sinking into the abyss in front of our very eyes.
13:19		Here the Swedish national economist Hans Jensevik says
13:23		that even if Swedish GDP is slowly growing,
13:27		the different migrant clans produce less than they consume.
13:33		This is hard, cold and factual economic language.
13:36		At the same time, their numbers are growing,
13:39		thereby creating a ticking bomb under the Swedish economy.
13:42		This cannot yet clearly be seen, says Jensevik,
13:45		because the Swedish state covers the establishment costs of immigration.
13:49		But gradually the municipalities will be required to take over these expenses,
13:53		which means that the welfare of the individual citizen will deteriorate drastically,
13:57		and Swedish companies will be starved.
14:00		You could of course raise taxes, but then incomes would decrease,
14:04		and you will still have gotten nowhere. He also says that Malmö will soon be bankrupt,
14:10		and more than 40 municipalities in Sweden already look like Malmö, financially.
14:15		A mathematical projection of the figures shows that all municipalities in Sweden
14:20		will have finances as bad as that of Malmö as soon as 2025 —
14:25		that is, in only 6, 7, 8 years.
14:29		Before 1960 Sweden could be characterized by economic thinking.
14:33		They talked about which projects they would start
14:36		that would benefit the citizens and the state.
14:39		Today, he says, many Swedish municipalities are reduced
14:42		to merely chasing money where they can find it,
14:45		and Jensevik fears that one of the first things that will happen
14:48		is that Sweden will soon lose their elderly care.
14:51		And then we get to social unrest and crime.
14:54		The head of the Swedish security police Säpo
14:57		said recently that the number of militant Islamists in Sweden
15:01		has now risen from the hundreds to now many thousands.
15:05		“But we have no idea where they are and what they want.
15:10		We have never seen anything like it,” he says. “Säpo now receives
15:14		around 6,000 tips a month about terrorism and extremism.”
15:18		We have now 60 registered no-go zones,
15:22		which the police, however, call “particularly vulnerable zones”.
15:26		Swedish schools and cars are burning in vast numbers.
15:30		The numbers show that non-European immigrants
15:33		account for 49% of all sexual crimes committed since 2015,
15:38		even though they represent only 9.5% of the population.
15:43		They are also younger, but the victims can’t really use that for anything.
15:53		In other words, I think we can safely say that Sweden is about to become
15:58		a failed [third-world] country. Jensevik does not think
16:01		that they can reverse these developments in Sweden
16:04		as long as their politicians do nothing.
16:07		I think Sweden has long since gone past the point of no return.
16:11		What about Norway? Here an economist has calculated
16:15		that those immigrants who came to the country in 2014 alone
16:21		will, in the perspective of a lifetime, cost 600 billion Norwegian kroner —
16:28		That is 14 times the dividend of the Norwegian Oil Fond.
16:32		Danish economists believe that immigration “only” costs taxpayers 50 billion —
16:38		because the third or fourth generation will get educated and get to work.
16:43		This is one of the prerequisites for using the “Dream Model”,
16:47		the mathematical formula by which, amongst others,
16:50		The Rockwool Foundation presents its predictions. But all differential
16:54		psychological research shows that that it is not going to happen.
16:57		Research also shows that low-IQ people commit significantly more crimes
17:02		than high IQ people.
17:05		There is an inverse relationship between intelligence
17:09		and all sorts of social pathology.
17:13		As for the rest of Europe, the trend indicates that most countries are following suit
17:17		and the decay is exponential in character —
17:21		and let me add that only a fool does not fear exponential curves.
17:26		My own analyses suggest that low fertility and declining IQ
17:31		initially will lead Europe towards American black-and-white conditions
17:36		with increasing social tensions and the well-known recurrent racial problems.
17:41		In the second phase, the infertile northern peoples are replaced
17:46		with fertile low-IQ tribal peoples.
17:49		Thus, the enlightenment’s historical democracy, prosperity, and high civilization
17:55		are replaced by a new religious medieval age. I do not hesitate to say
17:59		that the responsibility for this tragic development —
18:02		or the destruction of high Nordic civilization —
18:06		lies with the leading bodies of Europe and the national states.
18:10		They are like anxious old men sitting paralyzed in their rocking chairs,
18:16		letting a brilliant sun be replaced by a dark crescent moon.
18:20		I wish everyone present here a good — and more “active” — future. Thank you.

Vijeta Uniyal : Germany's Quest for 'Liberal' Islam

Germany's Quest for 'Liberal' Islam

by Vijeta Uniyal
July 6, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10629/germany-liberal-islam

• However, the media-driven PR campaign backfired as the news of the opening of the Berlin 'liberal mosque' reached Muslim communities in Germany and abroad. The liberal utopian dream quickly turned into an Islamist nightmare.
• Why do Muslim organizations in Germany fail to mobilize within their communities and denounce Islamist terrorism? Because, if there really is a belief that "international terrorism should not be depicted as a problem belonging to Muslims alone" this view seems to indicate that, in general, Muslims do not see it as their problem.

The newly unveiled 'liberal mosque' in Berlin was supposed to showcase a 'gentler' Islam. An Islam that could be reformed and modernized while it emerges as the dominant demographic force in Europe. German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle touted the opening of the mosque as a "world event in the heart of Berlin."

"Everyone is welcome at Berlin's Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque," Deutsche Welle wrote, announcing the grand opening last month. "Women and men shall pray together and preach together at the mosque, while the Koran is to be interpreted 'historically and critically.'"

German reporters and press photographers, eager to give glowing coverage, thronged to witness the mosque's opening on June 16 and easily outnumbered the handful of Muslim worshipers. Deutsche Welle reported: "fervent enthusiasm in the media and political realm."

"For me there is no contradiction in being a Muslim and a feminist at the same time," Seyran Ates, the mosque's female imam told the German reporters.
"With Islam against Islamism," wrote Germany's leading weekly Der Spiegel. "Society in general will lionize [Imam Ates] as the long-awaited voice of Muslims that speaks clearly against Islamist terror," prophesied another German weekly, Die Zeit.
The Washington Post, not to be outdone by German newspapers, hailed the mosque's female founder Ates for "staging a feminist revolution of the Muslim faith."

In what can only be described as one-way multiculturalism, a Protestant church in Berlin's Moabit district had vacated its prayer hall to make way for this new mosque.

Prayers at the opening of the Ibn-Rushd-Goethe Mosque in Berlin, Germany on June 16, 2017. Seyran Ates, the mosque's female imam, is pictured in the second row, wearing a white robe. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

However, the media-driven PR campaign backfired, as the news of the opening of the Berlin 'liberal mosque' reached Muslim communities in Germany and abroad. The liberal utopian dream quickly turned into an Islamist nightmare. Islamic fanatics from near and far started flooding the Berlin mosque with death threats. Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the foremost authority on Sunni Islam, issued a fatwa forbidding the 'liberal mosque.'
The British newspaper The Guardian reported:

[The mosque's Imam Ates] said she had received "300 emails per day encouraging me to carry on", including from as far away as Australia and Algeria, but also "3,000 emails a day full of hate", some of them including death threats.
Egypt's Dar al-Ifta al-Masriyyah, a state-run Islamic institution assigned to issue religious edicts, issued a statement on Monday declaring that the Ibn Rushd-Goethe mosque's practice of men and women praying side by side was incompatible with Islam, while the legal department of Egypt's al-Azhar university reacted to news from Berlin with a fatwa on the foundation of liberal mosques per se.

After countless death threats, the newspapers reached out to Aiman Mazyek, head of the Central Council of Muslims. He shrugged his shoulders and said there were 2100 mosques in Germany and he "doesn't need to comment on each and every one of them." As the Berlin-based newspaper Der Tagesspiegel reported this week, the 'liberal' Mosque's Iman was finally granted "around-the-clock heightened police protection."

Within days, this was the second establishment-backed project devised to spruce up the image of Islam in Germany, to go up in flames.

Recently, after dragging its feet for years, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany had agreed to call a march against Islamist terror. The Muslim organization boasted 10,000 registered participants for the "Not with us -- Muslims and friends against violence and terror" rally, scheduled for June 17 in Cologne. On the much awaited day, only a few hundred people turned up, many of them ordinary Germans flanked by a huge media entourage. "Many Turkish weddings are larger than this demonstration," wrote Robin Alexander, columnist in Die Welt.

Germany's largest Islamic organization, the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs, DITIB, decided to skip the anti-terror demonstration. DITIB stated that Muslims fasting in Ramadan cannot be expected to "march and demonstrate for hours." DITIB controls about 900 mosques in Germany and has 800,000 members.
The German daily, Die Welt, reported on DITIB General Secretary Bekir Alboga's stated reason behind their withdrawal from the anti-terror march:

"We Muslims are striving to feel the spirituality of the special month that gives us power for the rest of the year." Through the daily Quran recitation, fasting and helping the needy -- in addition to the physical exertion from such a demonstration -- political initiatives such as the planned anti-terrorism march are minimized during Ramadan.
"Had we been informed early enough about the rally and its date we would have suggested planning it for after the Ramadan and roping in other Muslim -- and also non-Muslim organizations -- because international terrorism should not be depicted as a problem belonging to Muslims alone."

DITIB evidently did not want to divert fasting Muslims away from their spiritual pursuits, but it had no problem using its mosques and preachers to spy in Germany on behalf of Turkey's Erdogan regime. In January, DITIB officials admitted that their preachers acted as informants for the Turkish regime.

This is not the first time in Germany that Muslim leaders thwarted an "anti-terror march". The so-called "vigil of Muslims" at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, after the Islamist terror attack on the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January 2015, was also apparently a disappointment. As it turned out, the "vigil" was not even "Muslim". It had been financed and stage-managed from the chancellery of Angela Merkel. As Die Welt revealed:

"That time, too, painfully few Muslims turned out. It later emerged that that Muslim organizations only called the vigil after the initiative of a staffer from Chancellor's office and gentle pressure from the Minister of Interior. The expenses of the 'Muslim vigil' were borne by the Christian Democratic and Social Democratic Parties."

Why do Muslim organizations in Germany fail to mobilize within their communities and denounce Islamist terrorism? Because, if there really is a belief that "international terrorism should not be depicted as a problem belonging to Muslims alone" this view seems to indicate that, in general, Muslims do not see it as their problem.

The Turkish-Islamic organization DITIB would, it seems, prefer to see Christian, Hindu and Jewish organizations address the non-existent problem of terrorism within their communities, than to address the real issue of radicalization of youth within its own congregations or the recruitment by Islamists insides its mosques.
Do not, however, expect the German state to make the Muslim leadership responsible for its failings. The Merkel government continues to hand over millions of euros to DITIB despite what critics regard as behavior that is "unacceptable."

These stage-managed campaigns to fix the image of Islam in Germany come at an interesting time. With less than three months until the German general election, Chancellor Merkel's government, with her career at stake, is probably hesitant to take on Islamic organizations with ability to mobilize the "Muslim vote". Last year's state election in Berlin already saw such a mobilization.

The September election will effectively be a referendum on Merkel's "open door" migrant policy. The media's peddling the liberal, gentler Islam will definitely help ease the German voters' anxiety, given the ongoing demographic transformation of the country in the wake of the continued mass-migration from Arab and Muslim countries.

Merkel and Germany's establishment have their ground game covered ahead of the election, and know full well where their political interests lie. The question is, do the German voters know where their best interests lie?

Vijeta Uniyal, a journalist and news analyst, is based in Germany.

• Follow Vijeta Uniyal on Twitter

Soeren Kern : Europe's Migrant Crisis: Views from Central Europe

Europe's Migrant Crisis: Views from Central Europe

"We are not going to take part in the madness of the Brussels elite."

by Soeren Kern
July 2, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10610/migrant-crisis-central-europe

• Many so-called asylum seekers have refused to relocate to Central and Eastern Europe because the financial benefits there are not as generous as in France, Germany or Scandinavia. In addition, hundreds of migrants who have been relocated to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which rank among the poorest EU countries, have since fled to Germany and other wealthier countries in the bloc.
• "It needs to be said clearly and directly: This is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions." — Poland's Prime Minister Beata Szydło.
• "I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country. That is a historical experience for us." — Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, referring to Hungary's occupation by the Ottoman Empire from 1541 to 1699.

The European Union has initiated legal action against the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland for failing to comply with a controversial order to take in thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

The so-called infringement procedure, which authorizes the European Commission, the powerful executive arm of the European Union, to sue member states that are considered to be in breach of their obligations under EU law, could lead to massive financial penalties.

The dispute dates back to September 2015, when, at the height of Europe's migration crisis, EU member states narrowly voted to relocate 120,000 "refugees" from Italy and Greece to other parts of the bloc. This number was in addition to a July 2015 plan to redistribute 40,000 migrants from Italy and Greece.

Of the 160,000 migrants to be "shared," nine countries in Central and Eastern Europe were ordered to take in around 15,000 migrants. Although the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia voted against the agreement, they were still required to comply.

Since then, several Central European EU member states have vehemently refused to accept their assigned quotas of migrants. Poland, for example, has a quota of 6,182 migrants, not one of whom has been admitted. The Czech Republic has a quota of 2,691 migrants, of whom only 12 have been taken. Hungary has a quota of 1,294, none of whom have been admitted.

In the EU as a whole, so far only around 20,000 migrants have been relocated (6,896 from Italy and 13,973 from Greece), according to the EU's latest relocation and resettlement report, published on June 13, 2017. Of the 28 EU member states, only Malta has taken in its full quota — 131 migrants.

Many so-called asylum seekers have refused to relocate to Central and Eastern Europe because the financial benefits there are not as generous as in France, Germany or Scandinavia. In addition, hundreds of migrants who have been relocated to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which rank among the poorest countries in the EU, have since fled to Germany and other wealthier countries in the bloc.
Meanwhile, the enforcers of European "unity" have sought to shame the Central European holdouts into compliance by appealing to nebulous concepts such as European "values" and "solidarity." French President Emmanuel Macron, for example, recently warned:

"European countries that do not respect the rules should pay the full political consequences. There is a double betrayal. They decide to abandon EU principles, turn their back on Europe and have a cynical approach to the union which gives them money, without respecting its values."

Leaders in Central and Eastern Europe have held their ground. In Poland, Prime Minister Beata Szydło said her country would not be blackmailed by European Union officials. In a speech to Parliament on May 24, two days after the jihadist attack in Manchester, England, in which a Polish couple was killed, she said:

"We are not going to take part in the madness of the Brussels elite.... Rise from your knees and from your lethargy or you will be crying over your children every day.
"If you cannot see this — if you cannot see that terrorism currently has the potential to hurt every country in Europe, and you think that Poland should not defend itself — you are going hand in hand with those who point this weapon against Europe, against all of us.
"It needs to be said clearly and directly: This is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions. Do we want strong politicians who can see the danger and can fight against it efficiently?"

In a May 24 speech, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło said her country would not be blackmailed by European Union officials: "We are not going to take part in the madness of the Brussels elite... This is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions." (Illustrative image source: European Parliament/Flickr)

Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Błaszczak said that agreeing to European Union quotas would "certainly be worse" than any punishment meted out by Brussels:

"We must not forget the terror attacks that have taken place in Western Europe, and how — in the bigger EU countries — these are unfortunately now a fact of life. Remember, that the now very numerous Muslim communities in Western Europe started out as relatively small numbers....
"I tell my counterparts in Western Europe that the relocation strategy only intensifies illegal migration because traffickers get even more customers when would-be migrants hear that people delivered to Europe are being given refuge in EU nations other than Italy and Greece."

Henryk Kowalczyk, a Polish member of parliament, said:

"Poland makes a contribution to the EU.... We are doing what the bloc says, what the treaties say. If the French president was thinking of refugees, well that issue is not mentioned in the treaties and when we joined the European Union we were not taking on that commitment."

Poland's European Affairs Minister Konrad Szymański added: "There is no conflict on values between the Commission and Poland — it is about how to interpret these values."

In the Czech Republic, Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said that "given the deteriorating security situation in Europe and the non-functioning of the quota system, the Czech government will not participate in it." He added: "We are ready to defend our position in the EU and the relevant judicial institutions."
Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Lubomír Zaorálek said that EU should focus on "economic and social convergence among EU countries, rather than attempts to distribute migrants with forced quotas." He pointed out that in some Eastern European countries, "the most vulnerable inhabitants are often poorer than the incoming migrants themselves."
Zaorálek added that "people who are coming have no real interest in being integrated" and want to live with their "partners from similar cultural, ethnic, religious backgrounds." He said that people in Central and Eastern Europe do not want to "repeat the mistake of the Western countries" which have "neighborhoods full of thousands and thousands of people living in imperfect living conditions" and which are "very risky, not only during the night but also during the day." He pointed out that "there are no suicide bombers among Ukrainians or Vietnamese," two long-established communities in the Czech Republic.

In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico said that mass migration and forced multiculturalism would change the essence of his country:

"I think it is the duty of politicians to talk about these things very clearly and openly. I do not want to see a Muslim community in Slovakia. I do not want there to be several tens of thousands of Muslims who gradually begin to promote their ideology. We do not want to change the traditions of this country, which are built on the Christian tradition. It has been like this for centuries. Sovereignty and national pride must be part of our ruling coalition."

Fico added that 95% of so-called refugees were actually economic migrants:

"We will not assist in this folly with arms opened wide with the notion that we will accept them all regardless of whether they are economic migrants or not. We must start telling the truth about migration."

In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has warned of the "explosive consequences" of a culture clash between Europe and migrants from the Muslim world:

"To understand what we must do, we need to grasp the true nature of the situation we are facing. Europe is not in the grip of a 'refugee problem' or a 'refugee situation,' but the European continent is threatened by an ever mounting wave of modern-era migration. Movement of people is taking place on an immense scale, and from a European perspective the number of potential future immigrants seems limitless.
"With each passing day we see that hundreds of thousands have been turning up and clamoring at our borders, and there are millions more intending to set out for Europe, driven by economic motives....
"We must acknowledge that the European Union's misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation. Irresponsibility is the mark of every European politician who holds out the promise of a better life to immigrants and encourages them to leave everything behind and risk their lives in setting out for Europe. If Europe does not return to the path of common sense, it will find itself laid low in a battle for its fate....
"Let us not forget that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent."

Referring to Hungary's occupation by the Ottoman Empire from 1541 to 1699, Orbán said:

"I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country. We do not like the consequences of having a large Muslim community that we see in other countries and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see. That is a historical experience for us."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

• Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook