Cameron pledges the UK to a war without end and without meaning

A comment made by the Prime Minister recently left me feeling poleaxed, and upon reading it I felt like rubbing my eyes and dousing myself in cold water to ensure that I was awake. Surely he could not have uttered the following sentence and believed in the substance of the words that he was enunciating with respect to the recent hostage crisis in Algeria:

What we face is an extremist, Islamist, al-Qaeda-linked terrorist group. Just as we had to deal with that in Pakistan and in Afghanistan so the world needs to come together to deal with this threat in north Africa.

What does he mean by stating “had to deal with”? By using these words he seems to imply that the problem there has been solved. Has it? What has been achieved in Afghanistan? How has the problem been dealt with in Pakistan? Has the Islamist problem been solved in either country, or even here in the UK? Quite clearly, the answer must be no. Our intervention in Afghanistan may have eliminated al-Qaeda training camps, but what in reality has it achieved? When our forces leave that country after well over a decade of death, mutilation, psychological trauma and the expenditure of billions of pounds, what will we see? A prosperous Afghanistan friendly to the UK advocating freedom of opinion and expression for its citizens, together with respect and equal rights for its women, or a jubilant Taliban-dominated theocracy celebrating victory over the infidel, just as antipathetical to the UK and the West in general as it was in 2001 and imbued with a spirit of vengeance? It would seem that the second scenario would be far closer to what emerges than the former one.

A decade on from invasion and its subsequent occupation Iraq remains a religiously and ethnically cleft violent wreck. The Arab Spring, encouraged by the UK Government, has led to increased instability across North Africa and the Middle East, with Islamists playing a major role in the popular uprisings and in the new administrations that have emerged following the toppling of the old regimes. Cameron and Hague were keen to intervene in Libya, and have been chomping at the bit to do the same in Syria, irrespective of the chaos and geopolitical blowback that such meddling can produce. It has been widely claimed that the post-Qaddhafi instability in Libya has helped to flood parts of North Africa with weaponry, assisting an upsurge in violent Islamist militancy that has manifested itself both in the ongoing attempt to overthrow the Malian government as well as in the recent Algerian hostage crisis.

The Prime Minister’s call for a “global response” to what he dubs the “al-Qaeda” threat is thoroughly wrongheaded. Islamism existed before Bin Laden and it will exist long after his passing. Islamism, in one form or another, is as old as Islam itself, and until that ideology dies we will always have a problem with its violent fanatics wishing to impose their crude, vicious and misanthropic ideology upon everyone else: non-literalist Muslims and non-Muslims alike. What, after all, does Cameron mean when he states that:

It requires a response that is patient and painstaking, that is tough but also intelligent, but above all has an absolutely iron resolve and that is what we will deliver over these coming years.

Perhaps the Prime Minister should steer clear of reference to “iron” to denote resolve, for we all now how brittle his “cast iron” guarantee proved to be with respect to an EU membership referendum. Is he committing us to an endless series of wars in which we fight with our hands tied behind our backs, bereft of either a clear goal or modus operandi? If so, who will die and who will pay for this policy? What benefit will it bring and to whom?

It would appear that the immense corrupting wealth of the Saudis and the other Arab petrodollar states of the Gulf has effectively muzzled politicians such as Cameron. The fountainhead of Islamism today, in both its violent and political variants, is Saudi Arabia. Find an effective alternative to oil, and the Saudis’ malign and growing influence would collapse. Thus, to find such an alternative should be one of our key political and economic tasks. The Saudis produce nothing of value other than what they pump out of the ground, with the rest of their wealth being derived from parasitic investment around the globe. If Cameron truly wished to wage war to destroy Islamism he would call for the subjugation and occupation of the Arabian Peninsula, but to be ‘successful’, that sort of war would call forth the logic of total war witnessed in the horrific brutality displayed by both sides on the Eastern Front with its associated exterminist logic. Who wants such a war? Not me. I would prefer the option of the peaceful development of viable alternative energy sources and the concomitant undermining and collapse of the economic, political and cultural influence of the Arab petrodollar states. Only then will we stand a chance of defeating Islamism.

Cameron and Hague are intellectual lightweights, and if they truly wished to root out Islamism they could make no better start than by rooting it out at home, for after all, they and their political predecessors in the Labour Party have allowed it to flourish in Britain. They may as well launch drone strikes on Tower Hamlets and Bradford as upon Pakistan, for there is not a great deal to differentiate the two environments other than an increasingly nominal sovereignty. As it is, the two men seem intent upon poking their noses into as many Islamist hornets’ nests as possible, with Syria and Mali looking like our most probable forthcoming entanglements.

Such interventions will be pointless, bloody, expensive and ineffectual. Moreover, they will generate ever-greater resentment against us, no matter how ill founded, by Muslims around the globe. At the same time, Cameron, Hague and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to push for the economic and eventual political integration of the countries of the Middle East and North Africa into an expanded EU, arguing that this is ‘necessary’ to disseminate economic prosperity throughout the Arab world and thereby undermine support for Islamism. This is the eventual goal of Euromed, but in reality what it would achieve, if its logic were to be fully enacted, would be for every state in the EU to be flooded by a massive demographic wave from the Muslim states of the eastern and southern Mediterranean littoral, bringing economic and cultural decline to Europe, as well as the demographic eclipse and eventual disappearance of the European peoples. Alas, a twin combination of cack-handed interventionism and half-baked policies on economic integration are likely to be the favoured response of the current Government. It is a grim prospect, but we can expect only support for such a policy from an intellectually bankrupt Labour Party. Where is the effective opposition? Who will articulate the much-needed alternative?

David Cameron’s forthcoming EU Speech: Great Expectations?

The Conservative Party currently appears to be in overdrive in its effort to undermine the threat from UKIP, with many leading members taking care to use language that could be mistaken for Euroscepticism by the electorate, whilst in the main remaining resolutely pro-EU. Even the Prime Minister himself, an undoubted Euro-enthusiast, has now been compelled by a solidifying Euroscepticism amongst a section of the British electorate to hint at concessions to public opinion on this score, coyly intimating that a referendum could eventually be in the offing. However, nothing could be further from his intentions than allowing the UK to leave the EU, and any referendum that may eventually be set before us (which in itself is doubtful) would be likely to be rigged in its wording. Nonetheless, anything less than full-blooded Euro-enthusiasm causes the BBC to balk, and thus it is that Cameron’s comment that he wishes to seek a “fresh settlement” between our country and the EU is sufficient for the BBC to take this as being tantamount to the ravings of a xenophobic Little Englander.

In his interview on this morning’s Today Programme, Cameron refused to divulge what he would say in his speech to be delivered in the Netherlands next week, although he stressed his globalist economic credentials by making reference to the UK’s “strong tradition of global trade”. Throughout the interview, the emphasis was very much upon rationalising EU via reference to economic imperatives, whilst ignoring the option of leaving the EU and negotiating mutually beneficial trading arrangements with members of the bloc. Neither the Prime Minister nor his interviewer touched upon the aspects of EU membership to which electors undoubtedly have not given their consent, such as ever-increasing and deeper political union and the intent to eventually form an economic union with the Muslim states of North Africa and the Middle East founded upon the principles of Euromed. There are many non-economic costs to EU membership, and the free movement of labour between member states has in recent years caused many problems in the UK by placing increased pressure upon housing, education and health, whilst undermining domestic wages and helping to entrench long-term structural unemployment. This is not something that either the BBC or Cameron are keen to publicise.

This month witnesses the end of transitional controls on the right of Bulgarian and Romanian citizens to come and work and settle in the UK. Although Cameron was pressed on this matter in this morning’s interview, he refused to provide an estimate of how many people are expected to arrive from these two EU member states. However, with a combined population of roughly 26.3 million and far lower average wages than the UK, it would not be unreasonable, taking into account previous experience with immigration from Poland, Slovakia and other EU accession states, for a wave of several hundred thousand immigrants to arrive. Where, when we have a housing crisis, will they live, and what will they do for a living as we struggle with mass unemployment in the depths of a protracted recession arising from our structurally unbalanced and globalised economy? These are questions that neither the Prime Minister nor the BBC are willing to answer, for they reveal one of the many economically and, importantly, socially costly negative consequences of remaining a member of the EU. Withdrawal from the EU would help us to manage our immigration problem, but that alone would not enable us to solve it completely.

When Cameron delivers his speech on the EU next week it will, like the many speeches delivered by leading politicians on this issue, be more or less interchangeable with those of the leaders of the other two major Westminster parties, whose motto may as well be “In the EU and globalism we trust”. Of one thing we can be sure: Cameron’s speech will be an anticlimax, and any great expectations that some voters may possess regarding the Conservative Party’s intent to allow a meaningful referendum upon EU membership will be dashed; these expectations will remain, like the book of that title, fiction.

Your new neighbours? Romania's Roma

EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström: open the EU to North African immigration

A few weeks ago, Peter Sutherland made it clear to the House of Lords that he believed European countries must be forced to become multicultural through further opening their borders to mass immigration from Africa and Asia. Earlier this week, we had the first release of data from the 2011 census that revealed that the officially recorded population of England and Wales had grown at the fastest rate over any 10-year period since the census began in 1801, with this rise being fuelled predominantly by an historically unprecedented wave of immigration and higher birth rates amongst the immigrant-descended population. Yet, despite economic crisis, permanent mass unemployment, a housing shortage and increasing social Balkanisation, Cecilia Malmström, EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs, has reiterated her belief in an interview with Le Monde that “Immigration will be necessary for Europe”. 

In the interview, conducted in Brussels and published on 10 July, Malmström elaborated upon her earlier comments that immigration to the EU constituted “not a threat, but an opportunity” and should be considered as “a factor of growth”. Moreover, she has described the Arab Spring as an “historical opportunity”, but was critical of the manner in which the EU had reacted, believing that popular hostility to being flooded by a human exodus from North Africa had “led to a deterioration of our relations with these countries”. In her evaluation of the outcome of the Arab Spring she naively interprets it as expressive of “reclaiming liberty and the rights of man”. Quite how that squares with the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt, Islamists winning elections in Tunisia and dominating post-Qaddhafi Libya, it is difficult to say, for by any rational and objective set of criteria Islamism sets itself in direct opposition to the notion of such rights, for Islam recognises the supremacy of its ‘divine’ Sharia over all manmade law.

Although it may be wise to follow Zhou Enlai’s cryptic comment about the impact of the French Revolution (was he referring to 1789 or to 1968?) by stating that “it is too soon to say” what the eventual outcome of the Arab Spring may be, what seems to have happened thus far is that one form of authoritarianism has been substituted for another. Particularistic national authoritarianisms have been traded for a religious variant, with a limited national colouration and universalist aspirations. Malmström appears incapable of grasping this primary fact, this incomprehension seemingly rooted in her inability to see beyond an economistic reductionism which fails to take into account the centrality of people’s cultural identities, as well as their economic situation. Her thinking, if perhaps not strictly speaking Marxist, is certainly in this respect Marxisant.

This blindness to the salience of culture, and to its deep civilisational underpinnings which find expression in structuring distinctive worldviews and psychologies, thus leads individuals such as Malmström to view human beings as interchangeable economic units, not as distinctive beings imbued with integral identities without which there can be no meaningful sense of self. Although the Mediterranean world may have been unified politically and to a considerable extent culturally during late Antiquity, it no longer is so, and has not been since the arrival of Islam in the Seventh Century. To ignore the fundamental differences that have grown since this time is myopic in the extreme, and whereas recognition of this difference is well understood in the Muslim world, it is systematically denied by those of a PC multiculturalist bent in Europe.With Malmström, the spirit of Euromed is very much alive and kicking. 

Ignorance of the centrality of culture is leading to the adoption of disastrous demographic and economic policies for native Europeans. Le Monde, unsurprisingly gave Malmström a sympathetic platform, formulaically referring in pejorative fashion to “the rise of populist and xenophobic forces” in northern Europe, with the interviewee singling out Geert Wilders for special opprobrium. Malmström peddles the official EU line that is familiar to all in Britain today that mass immigration is “necessary” because of our ageing societies. This assertion is false. We have permanent mass unemployment and it should be our aim to match the unemployed with the vacancies in our economy. Where they lack the requisite skills, they should be trained. Moreover, as Greece knows much to its cost, many immigrants possess no skills, and come in search of only what they can take by way of benefits, wishing to assert their “human rights” without taking on any national responsibilities.

Malmström’s opinions are therefore far from unusual amongst members of the EU’s governing oligarchy, but we should take note of what she says because of her influential position and consequent ability to shape policy. I close therefore with her words on the need for the “new immigration”, the implications of which I ask you to reflect upon:  

Yes, but the reality is there. The role of the Brussels Commission is also to encourage politicians to take this into account. To envisage the problems in the long term, and to rise above national contingencies. Besides, the academic world considers what I say to be perfectly commonplace …

 

EU Diktat: open your borders to mass Arab Immigration

A report in the Daily Express highlights that moves are afoot to increase and intensify immigration from outside of the EU, with particular reference to North Africa and Asia. The EU peddles the lie that this immigration is essential for “prosperity” and that “migrant-centred” policies must therefore be tailored to “facilitate and organise legal immigration”. This will of course lead to the increased marginalisation of our own people in the labour and housing markets, and rather than leading to prosperity, is more likely to lead to economic and social collapse and a potential Yugoslav-style denouement.

Why are the leaders of the EU so anti-European? Why do they despise native Europeans so much? A deliberate plan exists to effectively replace the European peoples with Afro-Asiatic, particularly Muslim, immigrants. This is no wild-eyed conspiracy theory, for this intention is well-attested to and publicly documented in sources that you can access, and the overarching plan goes by the name of Euromed. Details of this plan, backed by the International Organization for Migration, can be found here.

The political upheaval in the Arab world provides EU policy makers with the pretext that they require to accelerate the Euromed process, and the surge of culturally hostile and resentful immigrants into Europe via Lampedusa that we have witnessed this year, will be as nothing to the human deluge to come. These immigrants are but the precursors of the mass settlement of our countries by the predominantly Muslim peoples of North Africa and the Middle East. 

The video below illustrates the sort of cultural work that Euromed advocates: the promotion of Islam to indigenous Europeans from the cradle to the grave. The sight of innocent German children in a kindergarten being subjected to Islamic propaganda in this video is frankly nauseating. They are being psychologically softened up for cultural and biological disinheritance in their own land. This could be said to be tantamount to child abuse and genocide by stealth. What can be done to stop this? 

Euromed: Arab Spring, European Winter

The Arab Spring and Euromed

How might these two be linked? The first, an outbreak of mass popular unrest in many countries of the Arab world, in which political Islam plays a significant role; the second, a process initiated by the European Union without the consent of indigenous Europeans for the managed mass ingress of Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East. Are there indeed, any links? No sentient member of the adult population in our country can have failed to have heard of the Arab Spring, yet how many of our citizens have heard of Euromed? Euromed is after all, not something that has been widely publicised, for were it to be so, our people would vociferously object to it; not that this objection would necessarily make any difference to policy of course, for the strong opposition of a majority in Britain to mass immigration has not lessened the intent of the globalist parties – Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative – to facilitate this process. 

Euromed – or the Euro-Mediterranean Process to give it its official title – lists the following as its primary aims:

• Create a common area of peace and stability through political dialogue
• Construct a zone of shared prosperity through an economic and financial partnership and the gradual establishment of a free trade zone
• Promote the rapprochement between peoples by encouraging social, cultural, and human exchanges between cultures and civil societies; The partnership has two complementary dimensions:

• The bilateral dimension: the EU carries out substantial co-operation activities bilaterally with each country, the most important being the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements.
• The regional dimension: one of the most innovative aspects of the Partnership, covering the political, economic and cultural areas of regional co-operation.

With respect to the first of these aims, one can have few quibbles, for the citizens of EU member states surely do not wish for conflict with the states of North Africa and the Middle East. However, once we move away from the first of these goals, the implications for the people of Britain and the other member states of the EU become rather more worrying, for after all, was not the EU itself sold to the peoples of Europe as a free trade area rather than a superstate? The second bullet point in effect lays the economic foundations for political union between the EU and the majority Muslim states of North Africa and the Middle East. Indeed, this intent is alluded to in the third major strand promoting the ‘rapprochement between peoples’ which in effect amounts to the colonisation of a demographically ageing Europe by the high fertility peoples from the southern and eastern littoral of the Mediterranean.

The political tumult in the Arab world which became known as the Arab Spring began in Tunisia in December 2010, rapidly spreading to other countries in the region and ultimately leading to the overthrow of governments in Tunisia, Egypt and – with the assistance of foreign intervention – Libya. By the time the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union met for the 3069^th time on 21 February 2011, significant unrest had manifested itself in fifteen Arab states and the EU was readying itself to declare in favour of the anti-establishment forces now flexing their muscles in these countries, irrespective of the nature of the movements involved.

This meeting adopted a number of conclusions, the first of which made the following tenuous claim: “Europe and the Mediterranean region share a common history and cultural heritage.” Well, if we except the history of conflict that has bedevilled the Mediterranean since the arrival of Islam, this region actually shares nothing in terms of a common cultural heritage and history since the demise of the Roman Empire. I would contend that despite the intense efforts of the early Church to eradicate much of Classical philosophy and scholarship, it is the European nations that today owe much to Ancient Greece and Rome, whereas the rational influence of Classical Antiquity is far more attenuated in those states that fell to Islam. In reality therefore, non-Muslim European peoples and Muslims inhabit fundamentally different psychological and cultural universes. Contrary to the assertion of the Foreign Affairs Council of the EU, there is thus no meaningful “common history and cultural heritage”; we belong to two separate civilisations.

On 29 August 2011 the Council of the European Commission issued a press release regarding its establishment of a ‘humanitarian presence’ in Libya. Amongst the measures it enumerated were:

• Assistance to the people fleeing Libya
• Assistance to refugees who cannot go back to their home country and Libyans fleeing Libya

One of the primary partners associated with this activity was the International Organization for Migration (IOM) which was founded in 1951 with the slogan of ‘Migration for the Benefit of All’. As is evident from this slogan, it can hardly be adjudged to be a neutral body with respect to the question of international migration which is attested to by the following statements taken from its website:

IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society.

As the leading international organization for migration, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to:

• Assist in meeting the growing operational challenges of migration management.

• Advance understanding of migration issues.

• Encourage social and economic development through migration.

• Uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants.

Strategic Focus:

1. To provide secure, reliable, flexible and cost-effective services for persons who require international migration assistance.

2. To enhance the humane and orderly management of migration and the effective respect for the human rights of migrants in accordance with international law.

3. To offer expert advice, research, technical cooperation and operational assistance to States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders, in order to build national capacities and facilitate international, regional and bilateral cooperation on migration matters.

The Italian island of Lampedusa has this year been swamped by tens of thousands of immigrants issuing from Tunisia, Libya and sub-Saharan Africa using the turmoil of the Arab Spring as a pretext to claim ‘political asylum’ in the EU, whilst in fact being economic migrants. Many of these have clearly stated that they wish to settle in Britain, in particular, England.

Underpinning the goals of Euromed is the misplaced assumption that people are little more than interchangeable economic units, with the cultural identities that they carry counting for little, and that no culture can be judged to be superior to any other. Thus, think the policy makers of the EU and the advocates of multiculturalism, it matters but little if the imported population differs radically in its mentality and customs from native Europeans. It is the opinion of the author that this supposition is both fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Culture matters greatly.

Now that Qaddhafi is dead and Libya finds itself under a National Transitional Council; that Tunisia has become a democracy, and Egyptians head to the polls for their national elections on 28 November, the formal preconditions for Euromed’s transformation are being laid: the establishment of democratic forms of governance. The ultimate aim of both Euromed and the British foreign policy establishment is the accession of the Arab states of the Mediterranean littoral and Turkey to the EU; a greater Europe in which European values are effectively replaced by Islam, and the European peoples by Afro-Asiatics. In effect, this Euromed hybrid would not constitute so much the rebirth of the Roman Empire, as a renewed Caliphate with universal ambitions.

Cameron, Hague and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are continuing to push exactly the same line with respect to EU enlargement as was pursued under the Blair and Brown administrations. Recognition of this continuity is important, insofar as former Foreign Secretary and failed Labour Leadership candidate David Miliband made clear in a speech delivered on 15 November 2007 that not only should Turkey join the EU, but that the EU should look in the longer term to create a:

version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Maghreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.

Such a move would be suicidal for Britain and the peoples of Europe. It would be far more rational and beneficial for us to orientate ourselves towards a Euro-Siberian geopolitical axis, rather than towards a North-South Euro-Mediterranean one. Alas, our foreign policy establishment and that of the EU is instead intent upon manufacturing a non-existent enemy in the form of Russia.

The precise ideological complexions of the governments that emerge from the unrest of the Arab Spring have yet to fully reveal themselves, but there exists one certainty: Islamism will play a large if not a predominant role in the politics of these countries. Already in Tunisia we see a coalition government led by the Islamist Ennadha Party; in Libya, Islamists play a significant role in the National Transitional Council and fighting has broken out between rival militias; and in Egypt, the prospect of an Islamist victory in this month’s elections looms large. Egyptian secularists and Copts live in fear of the rise of Islamism, and whereas apprehensions on this score have hitherto focused upon the long-established Muslim Brotherhood, another allegedly more ‘radical’ Islamist party – the Nour Party – linked to Saudi Salafists, has emerged and is causing even greater concerns. Its supporters are reported as having torn down election posters for the Muslim Brotherhood, and whereas Nour is Arabic for “light”, any success on the part of this party of light would serve to bring only the darkness of religious obscurantism to Egypt. According to the Financial Times, Saudi finance is believed to underpin its rise.

Why did the UK intervene in the Libyan conflict? This intervention was ostensibly launched in the name of the principle of ‘humanitarian interventionism’, invoking Qaddhafi’s prospective slaughter of Libyan rebels as a casus belli. Although there was a degree of apprehension amongst sections of the press and some politicians with respect to the wisdom of this move, the public mood at the time was manipulated in a sufficiently skilful manner by the ConDem Coalition so as to win majority support for air strikes. Al-Qaeda militants were known to be amongst the rebels, yet our government took the decision to enter the conflict on their side. The reasons for this are undoubtedly complex and beyond the scope of this particular article, but the implications of the creation of façade democracies in a number of North African countries and their recognition by the EU states are significant. Firstly, it bestows legitimacy on the new governments in the eyes of EU policy makers; secondly, it allows the peoples of the region to express their natural political preference for Islamism; and thirdly, it paves the way for these states to move towards political association with, and eventual membership of, the EU, thus sounding the death knell of European civilisation. Is this what you want? Would this make our lives better? I think not.   

The Member States of Euromed