1. UK ISLAMISTS WANT MUSLIM SCHOOLS BECAUSE BRITS ARE ‘RACISTS’

Further proof that Muslims are incompatible with British society and cannot be integrated into it. Far from creating enrichment,this situation is creating a fertile ground for future tensions.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1948

According to a study, majority of Muslim pupils are underachieving at schools because the curriculum is racist. [...] In state schools, Muslim pupils are placed in situation where they feel pressured into acting contrary to their beliefs and conscience and also experience Islamophobic sentiments and comments within schools. Bristol council spent £18000.00 researching whether there was a demand for an Islamic school. [...] The silent majority of Muslim parents would like to send their children to state funded Muslim schools.

I did a survey in the London Borough of Newham in 1991 to find out the level of support for state funded Muslim schools. I visited each and every Muslim home in the Borough to find out their opinion about Muslim majority state schools to be designated as Muslim community schools. Nearly 90% of Muslim parents supported my proposal. The Guardian newspaper dated 5th of November 1991 devoted half a page on my efforts for state funded Muslim schools.

More from the same source:

Multifaith schools are not going to bring together children from different faiths. State schools are already multicultural and multiracial but relation between different communities has gone from bad to worse for the last 30 years. [...] Muslim children leave schools with Identity Crises crucial for mental, emotional and personality development. Institutional racism is rife in schools and is responsible for poorer academic of most Blacks and Muslim children. There is no sign of respect and understanding between the children of different communities. There will be hardly any difference between future Multifaith schools and present state schools because British teachers have no respect for Islamic faith and Muslim community.

The silent majority of Muslim parents would like to see their children attending Muslim schools. There are few Muslim schools with long waiting lists. There is a dire need for more Muslim schools. There are no shortages of state schools where Muslim pupils are in majority, such schools may be designated as Muslim schools under the management and control of Muslim educational Trust or Charities. In Bradford, two Church schools have 90% of Muslim pupils because Muslims are in majority in the catchment areas and parents have no choice but to send their children. Lord Darring should consider to designate those two schools as Muslim community schools. Where Muslim pupils are in minority, such schools may be designated as Multifaith schools to satisfy the needs and demands of secularist. LEAs can implement such plans straight away with a stroke of a pen at local levels.

State funded Muslim schools need Muslim teachers. Highly qualified teachers can be recruited from Muslim countries for the teaching of National Curriculum, Islamic Studies, Arabic and Urdu languages so that Muslim children do not find themselves cut off from their cultural and linguistic roots. The study of Comparative religions is not required because Islam teaches respect, tolerance and understanding of those who are different from them.

2. EUROPEAN UNION MUST BE DESTROYED TO PREVENT 'EURABIA'

Something that is rarely mentioned is the fact that massive Islamic immigration and multiculturalism are the result of a deal between pro-Europe politicians and representatives of the Arab world. The mess in which we are today is the result of this diabolic arrangement.

http://americaninfidelsmusts.blogspot.com/2007/03/must-read-european-union-must-be.html

Many have already written off Western Europe as lost to Islam. I would be lying if I said that I didn't entertain the same thoughts sometimes, but I do see encouraging signs of a real shift of public opinion beneath the surface. Judging from information such as the extremely high number of Germans hostile to Islam, Europe can be saved. But this hope hinges on the complete destruction of the European Union. The EU must die or or Europe will die. It’s that simple.

Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is right in pointing out that ordinary Europeans have never voted for this merger with the Islamic world through massive Muslim immigration and Multiculturalism. This is closely tied to the rise of the European Union, which has transferred power away from the people and the democratic process to behind-the-scenes deals made by corrupt, Eurabian officials and bureaucrats. Several observers have noted that there is a serious disconnect between the European elites and ordinary citizens. This has been made possible largely because of the EU.

I have heard the term ‘neo-Feudalism’ being used of the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who have never really accepted the loss of power to ‘the mob,’ and think that everything that’s wrong with Europe is because of ‘populism,’ what others call democracy. These are also the people who created Eurabia and ‘forgot’ to consult the public about these plans. The EU should be viewed that way, as a de facto, slow-motion abolition of European democracy, disguised as something else. The real force behind the EU is to cede national sovereignty to a new ruling class of bureaucrats, a new aristocracy and a throwback to the pre-democratic age.

I’m really worried about a complete collapse of the democratic system here. It has already been weakened by the EU, the UN etc. for a long time, and now we also have direct physical threats by Muslims to freedom of speech. Ordinary Europeans are no longer in control of our own fates. Sweden has for instance in reality ceased being a democratic country, in my view. We need to recapture this, or Europe is finished.

In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, former Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, an EUSSR as some people call it. In a speech he delivered in Brussels, Belgium, Mr Bukovsky called the EU a ‘monster’ that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.

‘I am referring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people ‘Europeans’, whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feeli ngs of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.’

Bukovksy replied negatively to Belien’s question whether the member countries of the EU didn’t join the union voluntarily, and that the integration thus reflects the democratic will of Europeans. ‘No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.’

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents. According to him, some of these documents ‘show very clearly’ that the idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was encouraged in agreements between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our ‘common European home’ ‘Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. I am not saying that it has a Gulag.’

‘The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals.’ From 1985 onwards, ‘the Soviets came to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead o f an open market they would turn it into a federal state.’

In January 1989, during a meeting between Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d’Estaing is supposed to have stated that: ‘Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Eastern European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.’ As Vladimir Bukovksy points out, this was 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. ‘How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]?

It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?’Yes, it does smell of conspiracy. This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed talk of a political union to subdue the nation states as scaremongering. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and chief drafter of the awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book of hundreds of pages without any of the checks and balances of the American Constitution, has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referendums in 2005 ‘was a mistake which will have to be corrected.’ ‘The Constitution will have to be given its second chance.’ He said the French people voted No out of an ‘error of judgement’ and ‘ignorance’, and insisted that ‘In the end, the text will be adopted.’ ‘It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.’ Mr Giscard d’Estaing indicated that the treaty could be put to French voters in a second referendum, or be ratified by the French parliament. ‘People have the right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake,’ he said on a possible new referendum. Anybody who still questions whether Eurabia, the deliberate merger between Europe and the Arab-Islamic world described by Bat Ye’or, is ‘just a conspiracy theory’ should read these statements by Giscard d’Estaing. Why should we be surprised if leading EU officials make behind-the-scenes agreements that affect the future of the entire continent, yet say nothing about this in public or flat out lie about their agenda? This is how the EU has been working for decades, indeed from the very beginning.

From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite still want to maintain their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war. President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position ‘They missed a good opportunity to shut up,’ adding ‘These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position.’ Jean Monnet, French economist who was never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity. Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author of the book The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? together with Christopher Booker, describes how Jean Monnet for years, at least from the 1920s , had dreamed of building a ‘United States of Europe.’ Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an ‘anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.’ In their analysis of the EU’s history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in ‘Europe Day,’ contains phrases which state that it is ‘a first step in the federation of Europe’, and that ‘this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation’. As critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people do not even know of their existence. A federation is of course a State and ‘yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws.’ The EU founders ‘were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing proces s, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.’ Booker and North calls the European Union ‘a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history,’ designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so in public.

In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all British political groups in Brussels called for PM Tony Blair to push for an end the ‘medieval’ practice of European legislation being decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws (and the majority of laws in all Western European countries), ‘is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret.’ As one of the signers put it: ‘We still have this medieval way of making decisions in the EU; people hide behind other member states, and blame them. It increases people’s sense of cynicism, but what we need is some straight talking.’ According to British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan, this is how the EU was designed. ‘Its founding fathers understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion.’ ‘Indeed, the EU’s structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.’

Vladimir Bukovksy, too, warns that it looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. ‘Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone.’ ‘Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?’ He doesn’t have much faith in institutions such as the elected, but largely powerless European Parliament, to curtail these developments. ‘The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous.’ ‘It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the S upreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo,’ which was the real centre of power in the USSR, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all.

Another former citizen of the USSR, Vilius Brazenas, has noted some of these similarities between EU and Soviet institutions, too. ‘When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as ‘the new European Soviet.’ He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a ‘common European home’ stretching ‘from the Atlantic to the Urals,’ as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist.’ ‘It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a ‘common European home’ and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model.’ ‘Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as ‘Mr. Socialist,’ was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that ‘the most effec tive way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.’’

Meanwhile, the vast and inflated EU bureaucracy puts its tentacles into regulating every conceivable subject in Europe in great detail, not just the percentage of fat in yoghurt. Beer drinkers in Germany were frothing at the mouth during the summer of 2005 over EU plans to make Bavarian barmaids cover up. The aim of the proposed EU directive was to protect them from the sun’s harmful rays. But the so-called ‘tan ban’ was condemned as absurd by breweries, politicians — and the barmaids. It was eventually withdrawn. In Sweden, most clothes sold in shops contain labels with washing instructions. But the labels were viewed at the EU level as a hindrance to free trade, as it was prejudicial to foreign clothes sold in Sweden that don’t have the labels. A poll commissioned by the Swedish Consumer Agency showed that eight out of ten Swedes read the washing instructions before they wash new clothes, and six out of ten read them before they buy clothes.

These are examples of the more ridiculous or funny aspects of the EU machinery. But there is also a much more sinister side to it: The promotion of an official, ‘Eurabian’ federal ideology promoting Multiculturalism, denouncing all those wanting to preserve their democracy at the nation state level as ‘xenophobes’ and those wanting to limit Third World immigration as ‘racists.’ A report from the EU’s racism watchdog said Europe must do more to combat racism and ‘Islamophobia.’ New anti-discrimination laws to combat Islamophobia are to be enacted, as they already have been in Norway, where Norwegians need to mount proof of their own innocence if Muslim immigrants accuse them of discrimination in any form, including discriminatory speech. The EU also wants to promote an official lexicon shunning offensive and culturally insensitive terms such as ‘Islamic terrorism.’

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, after the ripples caused in early 2006 by the Muhammad cartoons published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that ‘freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.’ Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that ‘religious symbols can be protected’. Such steps could materialize through various mechanisms, ‘and maybe inside the new human rights commission created in the UN’, he said. He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. In a meeting with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Solana said that ‘I expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt’, vowing ‘to reach out… to make sure that people’s he arts and minds are not hurt again.’ Dutch daily De Telegraaf quoted the Dutch state secretary for European Affairs Atzo Nicolai as characterising the appeasing tone used by Mr Solana as ‘shocking.’ Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that ‘the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence.’ The irony that he himself later was trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship and speech codes apparently did not strike him.

Journalist Nidra Poller, commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, noted other incidents of this deliberate, submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands. ‘The Euro-Mediterranean ‘Dialogue’ is a masterpiece of abject surrender. The European Union functions therein as an intermediate stage of an ominous Eurabian project that calls for a meltdown of European culture and its recasting in a monumental paradise of cultural relativism… that closely resembles the Muslim oumma. Isn’t this a more accurate vision of what the Union is preparing for its docile citizens? When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of ‘Dialogue,’ what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word ‘Constitution’?’

Intelligent people have been warning against this development for years. British philosopher Roger Scruton, in books such a The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat and England and the Need for Nations, warns that: ‘We in Europe stand at a turning point in our history. Our parliaments and legal systems still have territorial sovereignty. They still correspond to historical patterns of settlement that have enabled the French, the Germans, the Spaniards, the British and the Italians to say ‘we’ and to know whom they mean by it. The opportunity remains to recuperate the legislative powers and the executive procedures that formed the nation states of Europe. At the same time, the process has been set in motion that would expropriate the remaining sovereignty of our parliaments and courts, that would annihilate the boundaries between our jurisdictions, that would dissolve the nationalities of Europe in a historically meaningless collectivity, united neither by language, nor by religion, nor by customs, nor by inherited sovereignty and law.’ ‘The case against the nation state has not been properly made, and the case for the transnational alternative has not been made at all. I believe therefore that we are on the brink of decisions that could prove disastrous for Europe and for the world, and that we have only a few years in which to take stock of our inheritance and to reassume it.’

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, has said that the EU enlargement with ten new member states, mostly former Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, ‘increased the EU’s democratic deficit.’ He warned that ‘The EU has continued – at an accelerated speed – to expand the number of pages of its legislation which now deals with almost every aspect of human life and human activities.’ Mr Klaus also stressed that the nation-state ‘is an unsubstitutable guarantor of democracy (opposite to all kinds of ‘Reichs,’ empires and conglomerates of states).’

According to Vladimir Bukovksy, ‘the most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse.’ ‘I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles.’ ‘I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.’

Richard North writes that ‘If, against all the odds, the Constitution does go ahead, it would be like locking down the lid on a pressure cooker and sealing off the safety valve. The break-up might take a little longer, but it will be explosive when it comes.’ In the book he co-authored with Christopher Booker, the authors conclude: ‘Behind the lofty ideals of supranationalism in short, evoking an image of Commissoners sitting like Plato’s Guardians, guiding the affairs of Europe on some rarefied plane far above the petty egotisms and rivalries of mere nation states, the project Monnet had set on its way was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster: partly suffocating in its own bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket, providing endless opportunities for individuals and collectives to outwit and exploit their fellow men; partly a mighty engine for promoting the national interests of those countries who knew how to ‘work the system’, among whom the Irish and the Spanish had done better than most, but of whom France was the unrivalled master. The one thing above all the project could never be, because by definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest sense democratic.’ They believe this is why the EU is doomed and why it will ‘leave a terrible devastation behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to emerge.’

I understand concerns that the destruction of the EU could cause ‘instability’ in Europe. It will. But we will probably end up with some ‘instability’ anyway, given the number of Muslims here that the EUrabians have helped in. Besides, if ‘stability’ means a steady course towards Eurabia, I’ll take some instability any day. I can’t see that we have any choice. The truth is that Europe has got itself into a bad fix, again, and will have some turbulent and painful years and decades ahead regardless of what we do at this point. The choice is between some pain where Europe prevails and pain where Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western, cultural entity.

Some would hope that we could ‘reform’ the EU, keep the ‘positive’ aspects of it and not ‘throw out the baby with the bath water.’ I beg to differ. I was naïve, too, once, and thought there were positive aspects to the EU. There aren’t, or not nearly enough to keep any of it.

The EU is all bath water, no baby.

Which is why, as Bukovksy says, ‘the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas.’

The creation of Eurabia is the greatest act of treason in the history of Western civilization for two thousand years, since the age of Brutus and Judas. In Dante Alighieri’s The Divine Comedy, Brutus and Judas Iscariot were placed in the harshest section of Hell, even below Muhammad. If Dante were alive today, he’d probably make some room for Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and his Eurabian cronies in the Hot Place. The EU elites see themselves as Julius Caesar or Octavian, but end up being Brutus. They want to recreate the Roman Empire on both sides of the Mediterranean, bound together by some vague references to a ‘shared Greek heritage.’ Instead, they are creating a civilizational breakdown across much of Western Europe as the barbarians are overrunning the continent. The EU wants to recreate the Roman Empire and ends up creating the second fall of Rome.

Eurabia can only be derailed by destroying the organization that created it in the first place: The European Union.

3. VLAAMS BELANG WARNS USA ABOUT ISLAM

The Belgian Vlaams Belang party is committed, like the BNP, to preserving national identity. This USA trip may represent the begin of a new era in the relation between European and American political groups.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070315-082220-8641r.htm

Without attracting much attention, representatives of the Belgian political party Vlaams Belang recently visited Washington, D.C. Frank Vanhecke and Filip Dewinter hoped to meet members of Congress; but Congress was in recess. They hoped to engender some understanding of their program to reverse the Islamization of Belgium; but the media were strip-mining the tinsel life and tawdry times of Anna Nicole Smith