“THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE”: GEOPOLITICAL REFLEXIONS

Author : Admin | Monday, April 23, 2018
Posted in category Eurasia, Special Analysis
Comments Off on “THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE”: GEOPOLITICAL REFLEXIONS

Several recent events brought to the attention the complex political and social consequences – not only on the continent but also in the geopolitical environment –of the Muslim migration to Europe, a phenomenon that many politicians and analysts call “the Islamization of Europe”.

a) The assassination in France, on 23 March 2018, of a 85-year-old Holocaust survivor, who was stabbed 11 times before being set on fire in her flat in Paris, presumably by two Muslim men, one of whom was her neighbor, is one of the first examples of the growing threat of the Muslim anti-Semitism, seen as a consequence of the Muslim mass migration and the Islamization of Europe. A similar attack took place also in Paris, in 2017, the victim being a Jewish doctor.

Following the assassination, more than 300 French dignitaries and stars, including ex-president Nicolas Sarkozy and actor Gérard Depardieu, have signed a manifesto denouncing a “new antisemitism” marked by “Islamist radicalization”. The signatories condemn what they called a “quiet ethnic purging” driven by rising Islamist radicalism, particularly in working-class neighborhoods. They also accuse the media of remaining silent on the matter.

The manifesto mentioned that in recent history, 11 Jews have been assassinated – and some tortured – by radical Islamists because they were Jewish. Also, French Jews are 25 times more at risk of being attacked than their fellow Muslim citizens. It adds that some 50,000 Jews had been “forced to move because they were no longer in safety in certain cities and because their children could no longer go to school”.

b) In Sweden, gang-related gun murders among men with immigrant backgrounds in the country’s parallel societies increased from 4 per year in the early 1990s to around 40 in 2017. Because of this, Sweden has transformed, from being a low-crime country to having homicide rates significantly above the Western European average. Social unrest, with car torching, attacks on first responders and even riots, is a recurring phenomenon.

Also, while high officials deny the existence of no-go zones in Sweden, the head of the paramedics’ union (Ambulansförbundet), said that some neighborhoods are definitely no-go for ambulance drivers — at least without police protection.

Since crime is intimately linked to the country’s failure to integrate its immigrants, the rise in violence is a sensitive subject, especially after the Swedish government and opposition referred to the country as a “humanitarian superpower” because, during the migrant crisis, it opened its doors to more immigrants per capita than any other EU country.

c) The idea of defending the country, and indeed Christianity, against the invading Muslims was one of the main topics that assured Viktor Orbán’s party Fidesz recent landslide electoral victory in Hungary. The implicit threat invoked by Fidesz’s campaign is the image of the hordes of foreign Muslims whom billionaire George Soros is supposedly eager to settle in Hungary, creating what Orbán has described as an existential threat to the nation. During the campaign, Viktor Orbán warned: “Either we will remain a Hungarian country, a country that we know and love and in which we feel at home; or others will come here, and a country with a mixed population will come into being – with different cultures, parallel societies, and all the related consequences that we can see in Western Europe.”

The same topic appeared in Viktor Orbán’s state of the nation speech in February 2018, when he warned that pro-migration European governments have “opened the way to the decline of Christian culture and the advance of Islam.” He spoke about Western Europe being overtaken by Muslims, saying that “born Germans are being forced back from most large German cities, as migrants always occupy big cities first.” He also warned that “if hundreds of millions of young people are allowed to move north, there will be enormous pressure on Europe. If all this continues, in the big cities of Europe there will be a Muslim majority.” Orbán predicted that Islam would “knock on Central Europe’s door” from the west, as well.

The Hungarian anti-migration campaign was designed with the help of Danube Consulting, a company whose shareholders were the late Arthur J. Finkelstein, a past master of negative political campaigning whose expertise was increasingly sought after in younger democracies, and Arpad Habony, who is known in political circles in Hungary as Orbán’s chief political adviser.

Finkelstein was credited with pioneering the use of “liberal” as a line of attack in American politics, which earned him the moniker “merchant of venom.” After working in the Nixon White House, he built up a client list, including Senator Jesse Helms and George Pataki in the U.S., and Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon in Israel, where he also helped elevate Avigdor Lieberman from the far-right fringe to foreign minister. Danube’s managing director is listed as Tamas Lanczi, who has the same name and date of birth as the senior adviser at Hungarian government-funded think-tank “Szazadveg Foundation”, whose president is also his father, Andras Lanczi.

While Danube Consulting is listed currently as “dormant”, its main shareholders have been instrumental in the creation of a formidable political communications machine in Hungary that was able to defy the E.U. over the refugee crisis. The playbook in which refugees can be scapegoated for political gain was widely followed, not only in the “Visegrad Four” countries but also beyond.

d) The success of the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim message was also illustrated by the recent political successes of far-right and populist formations in France, Germany, Austria and Italy. Consequently, Europe’s establishment leaders are battling to hold back gains made by anti-immigration parties. Several observers noted the efforts of the Brussels authorities to reach a “comprehensive deal” with Turkey concerning the asylum system, in the perspective of the June deadline for the next phase of the €3bn payment due as part of the migration deal signed with Ankara in 2016.

Critics of the EU strategy say the previous approach was both inhumane in its treatment of migrants and politically counterproductive, since the only benefit has been to the far-right.

The Islamization of Europe: between facts and threats

Western Europe’s growing Muslim population has been, especially after 9/11, a focus of debate on issues ranging from immigration policy to cultural identity and to security. Despite signs that Muslims are beginning to succeed in business and academia, many analysts say most of Western Europe’s Muslims are poorly integrated into society. They cite closed ethnic neighborhoods, high crime rates in Muslim communities, calls for use of Sharia law in Europe, the wearing of the veil, and other examples as evidence of a conflict with European values. Fears over a possible demographic shift toward Islam, as well as ongoing Muslim assimilation problems, highlight the divide between Europe and its Muslim population.

The total Muslim population in Western Europe, including immigrant and native born, is about 20 million of the EU’s 500 million residents. Some experts consider that the continuing influx of immigration from Islamic countries, along with higher immigrant birth rates and lower native European birth rates, mean Muslims in Western Europe could significantly increase in coming decades.

Integration challenges

Even if the Muslim migration to Europe is not a new phenomenon, the Muslims in Europe are still facing significant challenges in the integration process:

Poverty and Segregation. Experts say Muslims in Europe are more likely than the EU general population to be poor and to live in segregated, crime-prone neighborhoods. However, other analysts find that some Muslims also self-segregate for reasons such as language barriers and different cultural norms.

High crime rates and dependency on the social welfare system also contribute to European feelings that there is a Muslim problem.

Religion and Identity. Muslims in Germany, Britain, and France were twice as likely as the general public to consider religion a significant part of their daily life and Muslims in Europe are much more likely to identify themselves by their religion before their nationality. Even some Muslims who aren’t particularly religious may be drawn to projecting a strong Islamic identity in response to feelings of isolation and their perceptions of the moral permissiveness of Western culture.

Culture and Democracy. Some argue that Muslim culture is at odds with Europe on issues such as freedom of expression, the rights of women, and the separation of church and state. For Europeans, Islam also is causing a cultural disconnect: on the one hand, Europeans expect a strong division between church and state. On the other, Europeans’ aspirations for tolerance impede their ability to criticize Islam in the same way they have historically criticized Christianity. There have been cases of Muslims using Europe’s “hate speech” laws to defend against what they consider defamation of Islam.

Discrimination and Bias. Muslims face discriminations in many aspects of life, from housing to employment opportunities to education to cultural practices. For many Muslims, being ethnically different and immigrant is often a greater challenge than the religious differences. Also, anti-Muslim rhetoric gained popularity in European politics and Muslims have become an easy target because of terrorism.

Terrorism and SecurityThe focus of the debate over Muslim immigration and integration is also combined with fears of radicalism underscored by terror attacks and a host of other incidents and arrests, even if, in some cases, the culprits were European-born and well-assimilated.

Muslims and the jihadist threat

In 2017, Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, has warned that jihadists are using the migration phenomenon to enter Europe and plot attacks across the continent. Frontex has also conceded that it does not know the true number of migrants who have crossed into Europe and has no way of tracking them.

Also, in an August 31 2017 interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, Gilles de Kerchove, the EU’s Counterterrorism Coordinator said that more than 50,000 jihadists are now living in Europe: “Three years ago, it was easy to identify someone who has become radicalized. Now, most fanatics disguise their convictions. We do not have exact figures, but it is not difficult to do approximate calculations. United Kingdom, it is not a secret, it has been published, it has 20,000. France, 17,000. Spain much less, but more than 5,000, I suppose. In Belgium almost 500 have gone to Syria and there are about 2,000 radicals or more. I would not venture to a specific figure, but tens of thousands, more than 50,000.”

In another interview with the Belgian daily Le Soir, de Kerchove warned that even if Daesh is militarily defeated, it will continue to thrive as a “virtual caliphate.” He also said that Europol, the European police office, has identified at least 30,000 active jihadist websites, but that EU legislation no longer requires internet service providers to collect and preserve metadata (including data on the location of jihadists) from their customers due to privacy concerns, and this was hindering the ability of police to identify and deter jihadists.

 

 

Alert from France

The same threat was mentioned in a recent report on the Schengen Information System (SIS, the EU database for information about individuals that could threaten national security, border control and law enforcement). The report revealed that, with 78,619 entries in 2017, France accounted for 60 percent of all entries in 2017. By comparison, the United Kingdom flagged nearly 17,000 people, while Germany registered about 4,000 threats.

According to Christine Tasin, president of the French anti-Islamization movement Résistance Républicaine, the huge gap was mainly due to the fact that in France there are more Muslims, more criminal Muslims and the Muslim Brotherhood has more influence. Unofficial estimations (ethnic statistics are banned in France) assess that there are 15 to 20 million Muslims in France, a quarter of the French population. Also according to unofficial estimates, up to 80 percent of prisoners in France are Muslims, and 20,000 persons are on the French extremist watchlist, which is more than in any other European country. More than 250 civilians have been killed since 2015 in terror attacks by Islamists, which is more than in any other country in Europe.

One of the main actors of the Islamization process in France is considered to be the UOIF (Union des Organisations Islamiques de France/Union of Islamic Organizations of France) which is working for the Muslim Brotherhood. For the last 40 years, unopposed by the various French governments, UOIF has been working to impose on Muslims the Islamic veil, halal, Ramadan, strict submission to Sharia law, refusal to shake the hands of women, anti-Semitic Koranic verses, whose effects are to push more and more young Muslims to succumb to the terrorist temptation. According to far-right organizations, the Islamization process is also favored by the authorities by passing laws that favor Islam at the expense of other religions and atheists, laws that implement positive discrimination and laws that prohibit criticism of Islam, despite the abolition of blasphemy since the French Revolution of 1789.

Religious and ideological bases: the “Hijrah” and the “Ummah”

According to experts in Islam, the process of Muslim mass migration can be viewed as a religious imperative and holy war called ‘Hijrah,’ a jihad by immigration.

Hijrah” is the term used for the escape of a group of Prophet Mohammed’s followers from Mecca to Yathrib. Mohammed joined them, and when their numbers became significant, he urged his followers to establish their dominance in Yathrib. The city, which they renamed Medina, is the second holiest site in Islam. The Koran states that “whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (4:100)

The modern day “Hijrah” means that at first, Muslims are in minority, as refugees and in a poor condition. As soon as that changes, they have no moral obligation to show gratitude or to assimilate into the host culture. Once they have any kind of strength or standing in the community, they are required to act as the Koran dictates: to take over the nation and make it Muslim.

Other Islam researchers point out that, in the context of the Islamic view of the “Ummah” (community), the Islamization of Europe is progressing at speed, or, according to some, it has already taken place.

Islam understands itself as a homogeneous, mobile mass, a community called the “Ummah”, for which the country of origin, the national or geographical borders are meaningless. The “Ummah” is a homogeneous Islamic community that lives in an area without defined borders. The space where the “Ummah” lives represents a universal world order, which is ruled by the Caliph using Sharia law, which all inhabitants of the “Ummah” must obey.

The construction of borderless areas within the European Union, such as the Schengen Space, compares more easily to the “Ummah” than to the traditional view of a bordered landmass, which would describe a European state. Schengen, like the “Ummah”, is borderless and as such is better aligned with Islamic ideology.

As such, the “Ummah” is thriving in a European Union without borders, which offers the population of any nation, any religion and any gender of the world the opportunity to resettle in Europe, even without the consent of the local people.

Since the collapse of the borders, the “Ummah” has been able to conquer territories without hindrance, place by place; they become no-go zones, secured by street gangs and organized crime networks. High birth rates ensure the longevity and expandability of these areas. This was evident in the case of former Yugoslavia, where the “Ummah” surged forward into European territories, forming a bridgehead in Albania and Kosovo.

In 2017, the “Ummah” grew in Europe to 20 million, a figure that makes the Muslims equivalent to the continent’s 7th most populous nation. The growing process is visible in the streets and daily life of most European cities, with a typical but not isolated example being Molenbeek in Brussels.

“Encouragements” from Turkey

According to a recent declaration made before the AKP Political Academy in Yalova by Alparslan Kavaklıoğlu, MP for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the head of parliament’s Security and Intelligence Commission, “Europe will be Muslim”. Kavaklıoğlu follows in this aspect the 2017 declarations of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who said that Muslims “are the future of Europe.”

In support, Kavaklıoğlu mentioned that the most popular three names in Belgium are currently Mohammed, Melih and Aisha and predicted that the Muslim population will outnumber the Christian population in Europe.

The Turkish official’s declarations refer mainly to the fertility rates of the Muslims in Europe, which are significantly higher than average, making late Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi state as early as 2006: “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquest – will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” Last year, President Erdoğan told Turks in Europe: “Have five children, not three. You are Europe’s future.”

Scenarios for the future

Demographic and social researchers assess that, given the refugee crisis and the steady increase in the Muslim population, the EU is likely to face three scenarios that will determine its future, all of them meaning inevitable ethnic, cultural and religious changes on the Old Continent.

– The first one envisages tough anti-immigration measures including border closures. However, the adoption of cardinal measures will not stop the change in the ethnic ratio in European societies, and the share of the Islamic population will still increase from 4.9 to 7.4 percent in the next few decades.

– Under the second scenario, if Brussels fails to take the migration process under control, the EU Muslim population will soar up to 11 percent. Thus, by 2050 its share will mount to 16 percent in the UK and 20 percent in Sweden.

– The third, “radical” scenario will lead to a sharp and unpredictable transformation of the European Union in case the current pace of migration remains intact. If migration continues at the previous level it will mean that by 2050 in Sweden and Norway Muslims will amount respectively to 30 and 17 percent of the population.

“Islamization of Europe”, “White Genocide” and “New World Order”

The complex phenomenon of the Muslim advance into the Christian world is more and more frequently used in support of populist and far-right ideologies, as well as conspiracy theories.

The “Islamization of Europe” is considered by some analysts to be the most recent, rapid and effective aggression of the globalism’s lords – of whom the most notable example, in Hungary, is George Soros – against the world’s people in the process of achieving a “new world order”. Once Western Europe is conquered, the rest of the Christian world (Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa) is seen as an easy prey. The Islamization of the West is seen as a carefully developed process, which was preceded by the 19th century socialism, the 20th century communism, and the democracies’ “tolerant” principles, such as gender ideology, feminism, LGBT rights etc.

The main goal of the supra-national globalist entities such as the European Union and the transnational elites is to have the “new world” under control without the opposition or revolt that are still possible in democratic societies, a world led from an unique power center (even if divided into states and regions for an easier coordination), with a population of semi-robot slaves driven by consumerism.

The proponents of the theory argue that this process is reflected by several political and social pieces of evidence, such as:

– fomenting and triggering revolutions and wars in and against states and region with potential for ethnic and/or religious conflict (with examples in the Balkans, Middle East and North Africa);

– developing of the so-called “jihadi terrorism” by covertly supporting mercenary groups with money, weapons and assistance;

– moving, under the war refugee status, of large masses of people from Asia and Africa to the Western world;

– promoting mass migration into the European Union and its member states by: renouncing to external and inter-state border protection; offering of substantial material and support superior that that offered for the countries’ own poor population; propaganda in favor of welcoming the “victims of war” (in fact, wars organized by the same global power center); legislative measures to favor migration and favorable treatment for immigrant criminal culprits (non-investigation, acquittal, smaller sentences); harsh legislation against critics; campaigns against “hate speech” and “fake news” directed against Muslims;

– staging internal terrorism and “false flag” terrorist attacks as pretexts for harsher legislation to restrain civic rights, to enforce the police state and in the end, replace the homogenous population with an atomized one.

A precedent: the Kalergi plan

Other theories argue that the Islamization of Europe is in fact implementing the so-called “Kalergi plan” that aims to bring about the atomized and easy to control population of the future.

The plan is called after the Austrian-Japanese politician and philosopher Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972), a pioneer of European integration through the “Pan-European Union” that he founded in 1922 and presided for 49 years.

His ancestry is considered to be one of the main factors that influenced his ideas. The Coudenhoves were a wealthy Flemish family that fled to Austria during the French Revolution, and the Kalergis were a rich Greek family from the island of Crete, whose roots trace back to byzantine aristocracy. In 1300, one of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s ancestors, Alexios Phokas-Kalergis, signed the treaty that made Crete a dominion of Venice. His parents were Austro-Hungarian diplomat Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer and major landowner in Tokyo. In 1919 he became a Czechoslovak citizen and in 1939 he took French nationality until his death.

The Pan-European Union was seen to be “the only way of guarding against an eventual world hegemony by Russia.” European freemason lodges (Kalergi himself was a member of the Masonic lodge “Humanitas” in Vienna), as well as American banks supported the movement. In 1929, Coudenhove-Kalergi proposed Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” as the Anthem of Europe and in 1955 as Anthem of the European Union, a suggestion that was taken up 16 years later. He also proposed in 1930 a Europe Day to be celebrated in May.

During World War II, Kalergi continued his call for the unification of Europe along the Paris-London axis. His wartime politics and adventures served as the real life basis for fictional Resistance hero Victor Laszlo, the character in the well-known movie Casablanca.

His original vision was for a world divided into five states: a United States of Europe that would link continental countries with French and Italian possessions in Africa; a Pan-American Union encompassing North and South Americas; the British Commonwealth circling the globe; the USSR spanning Eurasia; and a Pan-Asian Union whereby Japan and China would control most of the Pacific.

To Kalergi, the only hope for a Europe devastated by war was to federate along the lines that the Romanian-born Aurel Popovici[1] and others had proposed for the dissolved Austria-Hungary Empire. According to Coudenhove-Kalergi, Pan-Europe would encompass and extend a more flexible and more competitive Austria-Hungary, with English serving as the world language, spoken by everyone in addition to their native tongue.

Kalergi’s Pan-Europeanism was fiercely opposed by Adolf Hitler, whose view of Coudenhove-Kalergi was of a “rootless, cosmopolitan, and elitist half-breed” who was going to repeat the historical mistakes of his ancestors who had served the House of Habsburg. Also, National socialists considered the Pan-European Union to be under the control of freemasonry, an organization suppressed by the Nazis.

The elements of the “Kalergi plan” are found mainly in his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), written in 1925, where he describes the future of European racial composition with the following words: “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

Kalergi’s ideas are also at the origins of the model of a “One World Government” with its foundations in the European Union, that he hoped would go on to become the blueprint for a society run entirely by a global elite over a completely powerless population. He wrote that he wished to see the end of national sovereignty and self-determination and he believed that nationalism, and indeed the very concept of nations, could be demolished through multiculturalism. He wrote that a society that was racially and ethnically diverse was one which was easily controllable by the political elite and European integration would be the first step in creating a world government.

According to Kalergi, a diverse and multi-cultural people were easy to control as they had no common identity to rally behind in the event of a political crisis. In addition to that, a diverse population would be easy to conquer by the means of divide and rule. The newly arrived immigrants would be pitted against the native people with both sides believing that they were a persecuted minority.

The “White Genocide” conspiracy theory

Since the final stage of the “Kalergi plan” is seen as being the assimilation of the white race and the non-white immigrants – that will eventually lead to the extinction of the white race – the “plan” is considered as being among the origins of the so-called “White Genocide” conspiracy theory, mainly promoted by the neo-Nazi and far-right groups.

The “White Genocide” conspiracy theory considers that mass immigration (including the Islamization of Europe), racial integration, low fertility rates and abortion are being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn the white population into a minority and cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation. The phrase “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white” is commonly associated with the topic of white genocide.

The theory was present in Nazi Germany through a pamphlet written for the “Research Department for the Jewish question” of the “Reich Institute” with the title “Are the White Nations Dying? The Future of the White and the Colored Nations in the Light of Biological Statistics.” Later on, the phrase appeared sporadically in Neo-Nazi publications in the 1970s and 1980s.

Similar ideas were present in the 1980s White Genocide Manifesto written by American white supremacist David Lane, who claimed that the government policies of Western countries are in fact intended to destroy the White European culture and to make the White people an extinct species. Lane criticized race-mixing, abortion, homosexuality, the legal repercussions against those who “resist genocide” and also the “Zionist Occupation Government” that he said controls the U.S. and the other majority-white countries and encourages “White Genocide”. Jewish influence, people who hate whites and liberal political forces are commonly cited by white supremacists as being the main factors leading to a white genocide.

Far-right figures have also claimed that a “White Genocide” is taking place in South Africa. The manifesto of Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik entitled “2083: a European Declaration of Independence” has a section describing an alleged “genocide” against Afrikaners. Breivik’s manifesto also makes frequent mentions of an alleged ongoing genocide against white Europeans.

Some facts against the “White genocide” theory

The “White Genocide” theory is opposed with several arguments, beginning with the fact that there is no consensus about who or what counts as white, as this frequently changed over the past century. There was a time when the Irish and Slavs were not seen as white and even nowadays racists debate if Southern Europeans and Jews count as white. White Nationalists have an image of an ideal white person as blonde and blue eyed, but few white people actually look like this.

Also, the theory does not fit with the UN definition of “genocide”, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948, as General Assembly Resolution 260, that is “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

In reality, white people are not being starved, sterilized, killed, prevented from reproducing, forced into unsafe and unhealthy living conditions or in any way threatened with destruction. They have the highest life expectancy in the world and access to the best medical care.

Another main idea of the conspiracy points out to the diversity being enforced only in the case of the white countries while, in fact, Africa has the highest level of diversity and Europe has one of the lowest. Nigeria has more than 500 ethnic groups and more than 500 languages. TheCongo region has more than 250 ethnic groups and more than 700 languages and dialects. Also, according to statistics, the countries with the highest level of immigration are not white, with the record being held by the United Arab Emirates of whose population 83% are immigrants. In fact, of the top ten countries, most are Arab and only a single one is white, that is Switzerland, but with 85% of its foreign residents being European and only 1% of African origin.

While it is true that Western Europe has received many immigrants, in most of the European countries the dominant ethnicity comprises more than two thirds of the population. The few exceptions like Belgium, Switzerland and the Balkans include various ethnic groups native to the region. Most of Eastern Europe has a small immigrant population, almost entirely white. Even in countries that have received large numbers of immigrants, the number of non-whites relative to the total population is still small.

 

East and West merging into the globalists’ “new world order”

According to anti-globalists, Muslim migrants are being used to turn Western countries into socially divided societies of easily-controlled consumers.

In this context, Moroccan researcher and academic Prof. Abdessamad Belhaj, in a 2016 interview with Hungary’s Institute for Migration Research, was quoted as stating that Muslim migrants view all property as ‘given’ and not ‘acquired’ by work and they believe that by taking Europe’s land, Muslims will be granted wealth. In Islamic discourses, migration is seen as a beginning of the Islamization of Europe, the rich land that will change the fate of Islam, from a religion of the poor to a religion of the rich. Furthermore, immigration is justified as victory to the community (“Ummah”). Since, for Muslims, state law has no weight compared to the law of God, they establish parallel societies in Europe.

According to Professor Belhaj, this state of affairs is perfect for neoliberalism, since the Muslim zones in Europe disrupt social cohesion and migration is useful for the neo-liberal model of the borderless, minimal, global society.

Anti-globalists also argue that the fact that Islamic terrorism was and still is supported by both Eastern and Western regimes makes it one of the tools used by globalists to enforce the “new world order”.

In the case of Kremlin, the support for Islamic terrorism dates back to the ‘970s, when the USSR decided to turn the Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. and several KGB and Eastern Europe defectors revealed the role played by Moscow in the emergence of the Islamic terror threat.According to assassinated Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB in the late 1990s and deployed to Afghanistan, where he became al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, behind Osama bin Laden who, in his turn was previously supported by the U.S. intelligence services in the 1980s.

Another important Soviet intelligence defector, KGB disinformation specialist Anatoly Golitsyn, also mentioned the Kremlin’s efforts to create and use Islamic terrorism to advance global totalitarianism. In his 1995 book The Perestroika Deception Golitsyn mentioned that “Under concealed Russian guidance, the Muslims of the former Soviet Union… will seek to cooperate and ally themselves with Muslims in Iran and the Arab states while Russia maintains its open policy of cooperation and partnership with the West”… “In this way China openly and Russia secretly will jointly attempt to swing the balance of power in their favor in the highly strategic, oil-producing Arab/Iranian areas of the Middle East.”

The agenda behind globalist support of terror seeks to promote globalism and regionalism, justify domestic police-state measures and the loss of civil liberties under the guise of “safety,” as well as to promote U.S. – Russian intelligence and military cooperation to combat the “shared threat” of Islamic terror.

The globalists’ ultimate plan is that Russia and its allies may someday “merge” or “converge” with the United States and in fact, even the supposed “crises” and “tensions” between “East” and “West” – largely manufactured for public consumption – are helping to drive that process.

Toward that end, globalists have long been advancing what they refer to as “convergence.” In essence, for the world to be ruled under a single global regime, East and West, Third World and First World, will all have to “converge”. The scheme involves making the United States and Europe more like China and Russia, rather than the other way around.

“Crisis actors”, “deep state” and “false flag”

The terrorist acts in Europe and the United States (with or without a Muslim/jihadist element) were sometimes used also to promote the idea that mass shooting victims and witnesses are hired performers serving a dark purpose and over the last decade the idea has came forward from the farthest margins of conspiracy media.

While the “crisis actors” are simply performers hired to play disaster victims in emergency drills or wounded combatants in military exercises, the term has been appropriated by conspiracy theorists claiming that mass shootings are staged, being orchestrated by shadowy actors for some political goal. In most of the cases, the culprit is the “deep state”, meaning segments of the intelligence community and unelected officials who are held to be working against the elected authorities.

The conspiracy culture is also formed around the concept of “false flag” attacks, the idea that powerful forces arrange massacres or terrorist atrocities, and make it appear as if some other individual or group did them, in order to achieve their sinister political goals. A classic example consists of the 9/11 conspiracy theories that asserted that while it appeared that the al-Qaeda terrorist network was responsible for the attacks in New York, they had really been orchestrated by the Bush administration, Mossad, or some other actor in order to provide a basis for war in the Middle East.

The “crisis actor” concept augments the “false flag” idea. It offers an alternative narrative for incidents of mass violence: that government agencies or other powerful actors stage shootings, and then employ actors to play victims, witnesses, and bystanders.

The “evidence” presented is often the resemblance between people featured in media reporting about an event and people who have been filmed in other occasions. YouTube and other video services provide both the raw materials for conspiracy theorizing, in the form of shareable, reusable video, and a venue for the propagation of the resultant “investigations”. It’s no coincidence that the cottage industry of false flag allegations has grown in tandem with the mass uptake of social media – theories are absorbed and spread rapidly online by a range of groups.

The “Islamization of Europe” in a geopolitical context

The Muslim migration to the West and its political and social effects, as well as the anti-globalist and anti-liberal theories and models that make use of the phenomenon have already regional and geopolitical implications, among which the most important seem to be the ascension of populism in new forms of political groups, as well as the use of the anti-globalist ideology to promote the interests of regional and international power actors.

The success of the “civilisationists”[2] 

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the onslaught of globalization created a new global landscape characterized by loss of national sovereignty, open borders, financial deregulation, the rise of China and jobs being displaced by outsourcing or technology. The speed and the disruption of these changes has resulted in a new post-Cold War political context dominated by euro skepticism, fear of immigrants and the anger of an insecure middle class.

Viktor Orbán’s victory illustrates the success of a new and different kind of party that disturbed the political scene not only in Hungary, but in other European countries.

The result of the Italian general election on March 4, 2018 was seen as a victory of nationalist, xenophobic, anti-Europeanist, and anti-establishment groups, such as the Five Star Movement, the Lega of Matteo Salvini, a xenophobic and anti-Europeanist party, as well as the neo-fascist Fratelli d’Italia.

In Germany, the problems generated by more than a million refugees were considered the main factor of the far-right Alternativ für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany, AfD) party’s success in the September 2017 elections. 12.6% of voters cast a ballot to secure a strong position in parliament for a far-right party for the first time since the second world war. In former East Germany – where no true reckoning of the past was possible under communism because state propaganda held West Germans solely responsible for Nazism – the AfD’s popularity was twice as high as in western parts of the country.

In December 2017, the far-right Freedom Party of Austria became a junior coalition partner after striking a deal with the right-wing Austrian People’s Party.

Since these new political groups and parties are yet to be defined in terms of ideology, analysts focused on a key common element: rejecting the vast influx of immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, to Europe. Non-Muslim immigrants also cause strains, especially those from Africa, but the Islamist program also seeks to replace Western civilization with a radically different way of life. Since these parties are traditionalist with a pro-Christendom, pro-European and pro-Western outlook, they may be called civilisationist.

Mainstream opinion generally rejects such parties, especially because they have dubious origins. Staffed mainly by angry political novices, civilisationist parties feature anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim extremists, Nazi nostalgics, power-hungry cranks, econ­omic eccentrics, historical revis­ionists and conspiracy theorists. Some proffer anti-demo­cratic, anti-EU and anti-American outlooks.

On the other hand, these parties emerged quickly and steadily and are rising in popularity because they represent a sizeable and growing body of opinion, bringing a civilization-focused critique, neces­sary if the West is to survive in its historic form. These parties have also a vital role in bringing their issues to the fore: without them, other parties usually ignore immigration and Islamist challenges. Conservative parties prefer to ignore these issues in part because their big business supporters benefit from cheap labor. Leftist parties too often promote immigration and turn a blind eye to Islamism. Therefore, many political experts advocate critical co-operation rather than rejection and marginalization of these groups.

Notwithstanding their many faults, parties focused on immigration and Islamism are seen as being essential for Europe not to become an extension of northern Africa but to remain part of the Western civilization it created.

The alt-right: a passing trend or a new style of political movement?

In the United States, a similar evolution of the anti-immigration current is reflected by the rising popularity of the so-called alt-right, or alternative right, a loosely-connected group consisting of white supremacists, ne-Confederates, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists and other far-right fringe groups.

The term “alt-right” was first used in November 2008 by American philosopher Paul Gottfried, who described himself as paleoconservative and who published in December 2008 an article titled “The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right”.

The alt-right has its roots on some Internet websites where anonymous members create and use Internet memes to help express their ideologies, although it is difficult to tell how much of what people write in these venues is only intended to provoke outrage. Members of the alt-right use websites like Alternative Right, Breitbart, Twitter and Reddit, with postings that oppose non-white immigration, multiculturalism and what they see as political correctness.

A February 2018 report issued by Southern Poverty Law Center expressed strong concern about the alt-right, claiming that its ideologies are radicalizing young, suburban white males and helped inspire several attacks and acts of violence. The report mentioned that over 100 people have been killed and injured in 13 attacks by alt-right influenced perpetrators since 2014.

Since the alt-right does not have (yet?) a formal organization, it is not clear if it can be considered a movement, because of the nebulous nature of anonymous online communities, as well as because many of its proponents often claim they are joking or seeking to provoke an outraged response. The alt-right was also described as a label, like ‘snob’ or ‘hipster,’ and many are drawn to the alt-right not for deeply political reasons but because it promises fun, transgression, and a challenge to social norms.

However, several researchers note that the alt-right inherits a tradition of thought that comes from European philosophers like Friedrich Hegel, Thomas Carlyle, Oswald Spengler and Giovanni Gentile. Alt-right proponents look back to what they imagine to be a golden age when elites ruled and peons obeyed and believe that the loss of identity is the greatest crime against self anyone can imagine.

Islam in European politics: a useful weapon for the Turkish AKP

While the Muslims in Europe are used as a “threat factor” by the anti-globalists, they are also being useful in the process of promoting the interests of Muslim regional political actors on the continent, one of the main ones being Turkey.

In the context of the 2017 electoral campaign in France, local observers noted the presence of a Muslim party, the Parti Egalité Justice (“Equality and Justice Party”, PEJ), which is part of a network of political parties built by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP), to influence each country of Europe, and to influence Europe through its Muslim population.

The PEJ was created in 2015 in Strasbourg, on the border with Germany. For the 2017 elections, PEJ had enough candidates to compete efficiently in districts with Turkish and Muslim populations. PEJ is also closely connected to the Council for justice, equality and peace (COJEP), an international NGO which represents, everywhere it is based, an anchor for AKP. Many managers of PEJ are also in charge in COJEP.

The PEJ program is a classic one for an Islamist party: abolishing the founding secularist law of 1905, which established the separation of church and state; veils mandatory for schoolgirls in public schools; halal food for all schools; support for Palestinians; and community solidarity (as opposed to individual rights) as a priority. All that is wrapped in the flag of the necessity to “fight against Islamophobia”, a concept used against people who might criticize Islam.

The AKP has developed similar political entities in other European countries.

– In Austria, in 2016, “Turkish citizens” founded the New Movement for the Future (NBZ) party, with the goal “to give Turks a voice in politics”. The NBZ made clear its support of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan against the “Gülen movement”, which the Turkish government claims carried out a coup attempt in July 2016.

– In the Netherlands, Denk, a party founded in March 2017, became the first-ever ethic minority party in the Dutch parliament. The party, considered a mouthpiece for Turkish president Erdoğan, won three seats in the 2017 election, which was focused on immigration.

– In Germany, a small party was founded called Allianz Deutscher Demokraten (ADD), which is friendly toward Erdoğan and has been trying to establish an electoral base within immigrant and Muslim communities. Its leaders nevertheless had difficulty collecting the 1,000 signatures necessary to participate in the May 2017 North Rhine-Westphalia state election.

A weapon of the Russian info and propaganda war

The themes related to the “Islamization of Europe” were noted by analysts as being frequently used in the process of supporting Russia’s positions and interests on the continent.

a) One of the narratives warned that, in spite of the growing opposition movements in some Western European countries, it is to be expected that the Islamization policy of the Western European governments will remain unchanged and millions of Muslims will come to Europe and continue their “conquest from within” and step by step will secure for themselves a growing power and influence over policy, administration and the security forces, including in the countries with nuclear capabilities.

The narrative goes on to assert that Islamic influence on the political leadership in Western Europe will become so strong in the short term, that Russia and the former Eastern bloc will represent the sole remaining bulwarks against the proliferation of Sharia in Europe and against the spread of the traditionally aggressive, Islamic ideology of world conquest. Consequently, an Islamized EU-West Europe will become militarily more offensive and potentially hostile sphere of influence to the west of Russia. This antagonistic power base in the West will constitute a geographical supplement to the hostile Islamic sphere of influence which already exists today to the south (Chechnya, Turkic states etc.). Russia, in the not too distant future will find itself trapped between predominantly Islamic powers which are latently or openly hostile.

The Islamization will be even more dangerous for Russia since it will take place simultaneously with a process of anti-democratic development of the EU; the totalitarian trend inside the power apparatus of the EU will gain momentum. This will enhance the willingness inside the EU leadership circle to take political and military risks, hence making the EU considerably more dangerous for Russia.

Since in the coming years Western Europe will almost inevitably become poorer and more violent, and given the foreseeable ethno-territorial fragmentation, large areas will become ungovernable, politicians would yield to the temptation of externalizing the internally fermenting potential for conflict by focusing on an alleged common “enemy”. Russia therefore is at risk of becoming the lightening rod for Western Europe’s economic downfall and for its growing inter-ethnic tensions.

b) Recent data collected by the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD) – a transatlantic initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, which has been monitoring pro-Kremlin Twitter accounts that have been linked to influence operations in the United States – shows that fraying transatlantic bonds has been a consistent thread in Russia’s ongoing information war against the West.

Data obtained reveals two primary messaging strategies used by pro-Kremlin accounts to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe (the analyzed country being Germany). The first involves directly discrediting the transatlantic partners in the eyes of each other by painting a negative picture of Europe to American audiences and of the United States to Germans. The second strategy is a more indirect effort at disrupting the alliance by promoting Kremlin’s version of “traditional values” and attacking the open, tolerant, liberal ideas that have long defined the West.

In pushing an “anti-globalist” narrative, Kremlin-oriented Twitter networks exploit issues that are contentious in both the United State and in Germany, most notably migration/immigration issues and the war in Syria. These topics have made Americans and Europeans question the desirability of the global liberal order, which has long formed the ideological bedrock of the transatlantic partnership. The central message behind the Russian-linked Tweets is thus: “Look what the post-war liberal order has created!” – “Look what your partnership has brought about!”

Russian-linked accounts have consistently amplified xenophobic content that portrays immigrants as criminals, rapists, and cultural invaders. Headlines that have been promoted by tracked accounts include: “Meanwhile in Sweden, crime hits all-time highs;” “Italian city removes Christmas tree to avoid offending Muslims;” and “Germany: Syrian migrant kills defenseless dog by throwing him out of a high window.” Similar headlines tarnish the idea of open societies, like: “Swedish workers have to work longer to pay for migrant benefits;” or “Disabled elderly woman violently robbed by two North Africans in the Netherlands.”

The narrative that Europe is under attack from “Islamization” and the failed liberal policies of the West allows Russian-linked accounts to champion the illiberal policies and governments favored by the Kremlin. This most clearly manifests itself in the high praise given to Viktor Orbán for his hard-line immigration policies and anti-EU stance, as well as the portraying of Hungary as an oasis in a collapsing continent. One of the promoted headlines is “Western Europeans flee from Islam and set up colonies in Hungary.”

By amplifying instances of migrant-related chaos, crime, and violence in Europe – actual, highly exaggerated, or simply fabricated – Russian-linked Twitter accounts attempt to discredit Europe in the eyes of targeted American audiences.

Conclusion

The conflicts between Europe and the Muslim world come from history, well over a thousand years. Muslims invaded Europe in the 8th century, seizing Spain and penetrating France. Muslims also invaded Europe from the southeast, penetrating as far as Vienna in the 17th century. Europe invaded Muslim lands during the Crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries. The Europeans again mounted major penetrations in the 19th and 20th centuries. These were accompanied by lesser attacks as well as population movements.

This has been a conflict between two religions, which both see their foundations in the Old Testament, but expanded on that with new and in some ways contradictory revelations. Both have many followers, and fairly defined, vast territories. Both have lost at some times and won at others, but neither has been able to decisively defeat the other.

Those who think that they will simply expel all Muslims from Europe or somehow manage to eliminate Islam from Europe are deluded. Likewise, the Muslims who want to create some kind of Caliphate in Europe are no less deluded. In fact, all those who offer simple, straightforward “solutions” to the current crisis should understand that the outcome of this crisis will not be the return to a status quo ante, nor the creation of an absolutely new reality.

On the other hand, a real threat lies in the resurgent far-right ideology that makes use of the Islamization phenomenon, particularly as memories of the second world war begin to erode. Far-right advances across nations embolden the far right in other nations. This trend is likely to continue.

The rising right-wing populism and authoritarian politics worldwide have engendered a continuing debate over whether these are driven by racism and other cultural concerns “or” by economics, while, in fact, both factors play their roles.

The recent global recession marked the shattering of the world order. While the post-Cold War world still supposed a meritocratic social contract under which those at the top at least cared about, and acted in the interests of, those below, the recession destroyed what faith remained in that social contract. The elites – political, social and economic – not only acted in their own venal interest (both in bringing about the crisis and then in bailing themselves out at everyone else’s expense), but they also demonstrated that, when it came to running the world, they didn’t know what they were doing.

Those on the outer fringes of these developments see that the elites and their institutions – political, economic, cultural – are decreasingly responsive to their needs. Democratic participation has been falling, along with faith in government, the media, educational institutions, science, and even the idea of truth itself.

The reaction came quickly: people seek refuge in strong states, territorial bulwarks, traditional values, ethnic demarcations, and even extractive (place-specific, non-virtual, low-cognitive) industries. Vladimir Putin’s kleptocracy, an increasingly statist China, and the resurgent theocracy of Daesh have all been held out over the past decade as competitive alternatives, even by many in the West. Authoritarian leaders and parties, riding the wave of working class anger, have seized power and entered government around the world.

Serious contradictions abound in this rising global reaction, however. The contending alternatives to the emergent power structures of the twenty-first century all reflect the “new world order” they ostensibly oppose.

The rebellion against globalism is, in fact, global; the counter-revolution against connectedness is connected. The worldview and underlying economic realities of angry young jihadists, aspiring neo-Soviets, Euroskeptics, and militant alt-right extremists are not only all similar, they are also all quite aware of that. Indeed, they are slowly joining in common cause. The contest thus is hardly between the globally-connected and the parochial, it is between two emerging global parties.

*

While only a quarter century ago, Francis Fukuyama proclaimed “the end of History,” with “history” defined as an age-old struggle between repression and freedom, now, it seems history is back. The forces of authoritarianism, state-backed economic extraction, and violent intolerance are riding high across the globe. But the seeds of this seemingly overnight reversal actually were sown well in advance, and the same, interrelated changes in technology, economics and ideologies mean that the age-old struggle continues. The relevant battles, however, will no longer be those between the public and private sectors, or between one nation-state and another: they will be a contest between the virtual or territorial, consensual or coercive, and connected or chaotic. Welcome to the “history” of the future.

 

oooOOOooo

 

[1] Aurel Constantin Popovici (1863-1917) was an ethnic Romanian Austro-Hungarian lawyer and politician, one of the leaders of the National Romanian Party. In 1892 he signed the Transylvania Memorandum, a document pleading for equal rights with Hungarians in Transylvania. In 1906, he proposed the federalization of Austro-Hungarian monarchy into the so-called United States of Greater Austria.

[2] The term was employed by American historian, writer, and commentator Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, and publisher of its Middle East Quarterly journal, see The rise of Western civilisationism, 14.04.2018, in The Australian, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/the-rise-of-western-civilisationism/news-story/f19d38498c23910233238bbf0ee2f42b

Both comments and pings are currently closed.