Dar es-Salaam (Dar al-Islam)-Post WWII (Pt 3 of 3)

· History
Authors

Dar es-Salaam (Dar al-Islam)- Post WWII – (Part 3 of 3)

(6000 w0rds)

At the rate of the demographic increase of the Muslim population, if the trend continues unabated,Europe will be swamped with Muslims with their inflexible Islamic ideologies, replacing the Christian Culture altogether. Can this be reversed even at this very late stage. The only solution is a drastic one suggested below. Will it happen?
(edited: 28.01.11)


Hate Under the Burqa – London

The Consequences of the Atlantic Charter – Chaos


***Little did Franklin Delano Roosevelt realise that the Atlantic Charter that he rammed down the throats of the European nations would have such dramatic consequences. Would things have been different if Roosevelt lived and could stage manage the transition? No, the final results would have been the same. Roosevelt was a misconceived and misinformed man who was filled with prejudices and unschooled about religions outside of Christianity.

***Roosevelt felt deeply about his opposition to colonialism. Historian Warren Kimball insightfully noted that he (Roosevelt) held the “consistent position that colonialism, not communism, was the -ism that most threatened postwar peace and stability.”  This put him at significant odds with Winston Churchill as well as all European nations who had colonies. The two leaders most certainly “did not march to the same drumbeat” as Averell Harriman correctly recalled, for*** “Roosevelt enjoyed thinking aloud on the tremendous changes he saw ahead – the end of colonial empires and the rise of newly independent nations across the sweep of Africa and Asia,” a movement which he intended to promote.” [1]

***Little did Roosevelt realise that by de-colonising all nations suddenly would create the conditions not for peace in our time but for conditions that led to attacks on America such as 9/11 and 7/7 in London, and a continual warfare and loss of life in the Middle East including Iraq and Afghanistan and including loss of many American lives. It triggered the “Cold War” that cost billions in defence costs. Little did Roosevelt realise that he would let the Islamic genie out of the bottle that will never again return to it. Little did Roosevelt realise that total sudden freedom from colonialism meant that the Arabs
were suddenly  now  in a position to make any demands of any European nation and get it or have an Oil Embargo imposed or a terrorist act committed on their shores. Did the Atlantic Charter result in more insecurities and conflicts than it could ever have imagined? Little did Roosevelt envisage that his hobby horse of his would cause nothing but  a sudden alteration of the balance of world power and control that would introduce conflict and chaos instead of world peace. It has laid the foundations for the greatest conflict yet to come, a clash of civilisations.

***When Charles De Gaulle set out to regain France’s lost glory, and to be the European leader to challenge the supremacy of America in 1962, first by uniting Europe and next to shore up her strength by including the Arab world as partners, little did he realise he was laying the foundations for the Islamisation of Europe, and possibly for the demise of the European culture. France first step was to accomplished a rapprochement with her sworn enemy Germany in order to unite Europe, then she began to woo the Arab world. The final act that scuppered any doubters for the need to accept Arabs as an equal partner in Europe was decided in 1973 by the imposition of the Arab Oil Embargo.

France and Germany Request Official Dialogue with Arab Leaders-1973


***After “Europe capitulated” to Arab demands for not supporting Israel, resulting from the Oil Boycott of Europe, “the French and German governments requested Arab leaders to enter into an official dialogue with European leaders in order to cement a stronger understanding and  a solid relationship between them.” This was the “birth of the EAD,” the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and the introduction of Arabic/Islamic culture into every aspect of European political, economic and social life. It was now a philosophy of the “tail that wagged the dog.”



The Arabs agreed to this mutual relationship but it was “conditional” that the Europeans accepted a unified foreign policy “in synchrony with the interests of the Arab states.” With such an agreement, we can understand why Europe, time and time again, has toed the Arab line. The Arabs now could call the tune any time they liked. This is an important aspect, to be recognise when some of us wonder why France and Germany and the rest of the European Union appear so submissive to Arab antics and demands. The European Union had already conceded to the Arab’s most important demands, to accept Arabic culture and philosophy as part of and equal to the European culture, i.e., acceptance of the Islamisation of Europe in order to buy peace and cooperation. Was it a price worth paying?

Having established the institutions of an European-Arab Dialogue, “recognised and ratified by the European Union, the Arabs lost no time in ensuring that the interests of the Arabs were firmly established in Europe. The ensuing body, referred to as the “Euro-Arab Dialogue, EAB,” and the purpose was to bring together the two shores of the Mediterranean with the interests of the Arab world “fully appreciated and accepted in European society.” It was to be the start of a “fusion of an Arab-European culture,” acceptable on both sides of the Mediterranean. It was meant to homogenise the culture, politics, and policies between the two shores. It would no longer represent a European body politic culture, but a culture of Eurabia. But could it be as simple as that? Because it is difficult to see how the two cultures could be immiscible.

***Most Europeans, man-in-the-street, (that includes British as well as those inside and outside Europe) are still not aware of this movement for the inclusion of the Arab culture within the European culture and ratified by the European Union parliamentarians. The Arab hatred of Israel (and thereby Israel’s supporter, America)  was also imported into the European psyche through the EAD influence.  The influence of the EAD had been carefully planned and instituted into many sectors of European society, including all educational institutions of learning from the lowest to University levels, it controls the European media, political organisations, the publications of literature,  European foreign policy, and even the workings of NATO. Note that France did not participate in NATO operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

***Through the influence of the EAD, political correctness was observed throughout European politics and media so much so that it restricted the Freedom of Speech since nothing derogatory could be uttered against Islam. Jihadist values were tolerated and terrorism is never associated with Islam but with some obscure tiny minority of  fringe extremists, never with orthodox Islam. That is why no one, European or Arab politicians, have ever officially denounced Islamic Jihadism/terrorism. Any unrest or conflicts were always blamed on Israel or America, or Britain or justified by their brutality in Iraq and Afghanistan. Islam is never to blame but is always the victim of any conflict or aggression. Yet, European leaders continue to appease the Arabs and allowed such ridiculous declarations to go unchallenged for fear of upsetting their sensitivities.

Meanwhile, as part of creating a better understanding between peoples, as part of the friendship agreement it was necessary to allow the free flow of Arabs(Muslims) into the West and to allow the Arabs to exhibit their culture and their religion freely and to make provisions for it. This allowed millions of Arabs seeking better standards of living because of the generous social welfare benefits provided to these Arabs who had no such welfare in their native countries. This encouraged poor Arab families, especially those with large families to be able to raise, educate, and provide medical services to their families never before available to them before.  Most Arabs have been told that upon arrival in Europe they can expect and will be guaranteed such social welfare benefits immediately.  They had nothing to lose. Yet unknown to most native citizens, all this was surreptitiously willingly agreed upon by our own governments. ***The European Union permitted the immigrants to exploit our Social Welfare system despite their being non-contributors. Thus this silent and lucrative immigration for Arabs was too attractive to ignore, and it was all legitimate through the generosity of the EU. [2]

An Analysis: Fruits of the Euro-Arab Dialogue – Dar al Harb and Dar es-Salaam

London Demonstration Shows Hate not Peace


Having methodically traced the causes and the reasons for the EU to create the union (partnership) of Europe and the Arab nations we also observe the sudden influx of Arab/Muslim immigrants into Europe. The enormous peaceful and unopposed influx of immigrants into European nation states, as a result of the Euro-Arab Union agreements, has been unprecedented in history. The trickle of “guest workers” into France and Germany and other parts of the EU turned out to be an unstoppable tsunami. Unstoppable because the Arabs were accepted as equal partners in this frenzied obsession to counter the pre-imminence of America and to re-create a “greater France, or a greater Europe” to replace the French or German or British colonial empire that Franklin Delano Roosevelt stripped the European nations of. 


***This obsession to become The New European “World Power” equal to America and Russia, removed any sense of caution (of national security) in their rush to achieve these aims.France in particular, with her vast Arab/Muslim colonies should have been the first nation to realise whether she was taking on something that she could manage and control – the Jihadist Islamic resurgence – in the future.Unfortunately, most Western leaders (decision makers) were more concerned with political issues, financial issues, commercial issues, and only called upon such intellectuals to advice on such problems, but no one  ever considered the significance religion (Islam or Christianity) would play in international politics of the 20th- 21st centuries. Hence politicians never included religious dogmas and their political impact on their national policies. Religion was kicked into the long grass. This is where Western leaders, even today in the European Union, have made their biggest mistake. No one in Europe ever considered that the ideology of Islam that only accepts the One and Only god, Allah,(and vehemently rejects the God of Moses) would prove an indigestible and immiscible culture to absorb into the European way of life.

***This Islamic ideology believes that until all infidels have been converted to or submit totally to the Will of Allah there will be no Peace On Earth, i.e., and that it is the incumbent duty for all Muslims to converting and land that is Dar al Harb (Land of War)  into the land of Dar es-Salaam (Dar al Islam) (the land of Peace.This is a matter of indisputable piety and duty for all Muslims to bring Islam to all the world. (Similar in this respect to Lenin views about communism.) Apparently, Europeans do not seem to understand this aspect of Islam and sweep it under the carpet.(1) Never did any European Union Member Parliamentarians dream that a few thousand guest workers, could in a few years swell the Muslim population from a base of less than 1.0% to around 5% of their own population in a short period of  60 years ( about 2 generations,) and the numbers are continuing to increase. No European nation has every recorded a decrease in the Muslim population, but only an astronomical increase because of the fertility rate of Muslim women, especially when Muslim men are permitted to have 4 wives at any one time.(2) Never did the EU members appreciate that Muslims could not and would not be assimilated/integrate into the European culture but would bring with them an alien, domineering, and immiscible culture that Muslims expect the native population not only to accept and submit to but to convert to.(3) Little did the EU members realise the Islam would not integrate with the European culture because it was inherent in Islam that the only culture for all peoples was the Islamic culture and with time Muslims expect Europeans to appreciate and adopt it. Also it was not possible for any Muslim to leave Islam except on the penalty of death. So Muslims would never consider converting to Christian, or other non-Muslim values, for that would amount to apostasy in Islam.

All this was obvious even before the  start of the Euro-Arab Dialogue but Europeans could not or did not want to see this fact for it would have stood in the way of the partnership. So the Europeans adopted the attitude of “denial.” Essentially, this dilemma of the incompatibility and friction of the two immiscible cultures was air-brushed out of their thinking in their eagerness to build a “super-power” of Eurabia equal to that of America or India, or China. But the European Union had taken on an inflexible and uncompromising partner whose ultimate aim was to control and dominate the European Union. (In many respects it is quite apparent that European policies have deviated a long way from their Christian norms to accommodate Islamic expectations.)

***(4) All European leaders simply were in “denial” of the “supremacist ideology” of Islam and believed that they would be able to control their Arab guests workers when the time came like the way they handled their Muslim colonies of the past. A fallacy in their thinking. Because Islam has come of age backed up by an inexhaustible supply of wealth from oil.

The major European countries today already have an Muslim population  above 5% and this Muslim population is already making demands as though they consisted of 10% of the population (punching above their weight.)


In Britain, there were already 85 Sharia courts in 2009. The British government were also compliant to Muslim demands by banning the visit of the Dutch Parliamentarian (a EU ally), Geert Wilders who was going to address the House of Lords on his film “Fitna” because Lord Ahmed, threatened to call out 100,000 Muslims to march upon Parliament if Wilders  was permitted to do so. (It is really farcical that a Muslim appointee to the House of Lords threatens the government with open defiance and rebellion and still retains his post.) Now they have also banned the visit of the American pastor Terry Jones from entering Britain (20.01.11). These are shameful British Government’s acts of appeasement to Islamic threats of violence and a “open defeat to the Freedom of Expression.” 

Islam is a Religion, State and a Total way of Life

British Muslims in London-A Threat

While it is conceivable that Christian governments as well as some others, are able to separate Church and state, i.e., secularism, this same ideology is not applicable in Islam. Islam is all encompassing. It is a religion, it is State, and it is a way of life thus secularism has a totally different meaning in Islam. This quotation is from an Islamic source and illustrates the concept from an Islamic point of view:

“The West makes a natural mistake in their understanding of Islamic tradition, assuming that religion means the same for Muslims as it has meant for most other religious adherents ever since the industrial revolution, and for some societies, even before that; that is: a section of life reserved for certain matters, and separate from other sections of life.  This is not the Islamic world view.  It never has been in the past, and modern attempts of making it so are seen as an aberration.

Islam: A Total Way of Life

***Islam is a “total way of life.”  It has provided guidance in every sphere of life, from individual cleanliness, rules of trade, to the structure and politics of the society. Islam can never be separated from social, political, or economic life, since religion provides moral guidance for every action that a person takes.  The primary act of faith is to strive to implement God’s will in both private and public life.  Muslims see that they, themselves, as well as the world around them, must be in total submission to God and his Will.  Moreover, they know that this concept of His rule must be established on earth in order to create a just society.  Like Jews and Christians before them, Muslims have been called into a covenant relationship with God, making them a community of believers who must serve as an example to other nations by creating a moral social order.  God tells the Muslim global nation:

“You are the best community raised for mankind, enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong…” (Quran 3:110)

Throughout history, being a Muslim has meant not only belonging to a religious community of fellow believers but also living under the Islamic Law.  For Islamic Law is believed to be an extension of God’s absolute sovereignty.

Allah is the Only Sovereign

***Allah is the absolute sovereign in Islam, and is therefore the only Lord of heaven and earth.  Just as He is the Lord of the physical universe, to the true Muslim believers, God is the Lawgiver for every area of human life.  Just as He is the Master of the physical world, God is the Ruler of the affairs of men in Islamic doctrine.  Thus God is the supreme Lawgiver[1], the Absolute Judge, and the Legislator Who distinguishes right from wrong.  Just like the physical world inevitably submits to its Lord by following the ‘natural’ laws of the universe, human beings must submit to the moral and religious teaching of their Lord, the One Who sets right apart from wrong for them.  In other words, God alone has the authority to make laws, determine acts of worship, decide morals, and set standards of human interaction and behaviour.  This is because,

“His is the Creation and Command.” (Quran 7:54)

The Separation of Institutional Religion & the State

As we have mentioned, in Islam Allah is acknowledged the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority.  In Christendom, the distinction between the two authorities are said to be based upon records in the New Testament of Jesus, asking his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God what was His.  Therefore throughout Christian history until the present times, there have always been two authorities: ‘God and Caesar’, or ‘the church and state.’  Each had its own laws and jurisdictions, each its own structure and hierarchy.  In the pre-westernised Islamic world there were never two powers, and the question of separation never arose.  The distinction so deeply rooted in Christiandom between church and state but this has “never” existed in Islam.

The Vision of an Islamic State

***The vision of an Islamic state and the purpose of its political authority is to implement the divine law.  Thus, the ideal Islamic state is a community governed by the Law revealed by god (Allah). This does not entail that such a state is necessarily a theocracy under direct rule of the learned men of religion, nor is it an autocracy that vests absolute power in the ruler.  The function of the Islamic state is to provide security and order so that Muslims can carry out both their religious and worldly duties.  The Caliph  is the guardian of faith and the community.  His role is not so much checked by the ulama (religious scholars), but enhanced by them because they provide him religious and legal counsel.  He also appoints judges who resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Law.  There is a certain level of flexibility in regards to the system of governance and its establishment in Islam, however, religion must be implemented fully into state and society. [3]

For some inexplicable reason, the EU and Westerner(those with a Judeo-Christian culture) cannot seem to understand the concepts mentioned above. i,e., “the ideal Islamic state is a community governed by the Law revealed by God (Allah).”Here are some observations:

Bernard Lewis, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Near East Studies at Princeton University, in his 2003 book The Crisis of Islam, wrote:

“The dichotomy of regnum [state] and sacerdotium [church], so crucial in the history of Western Christendom, had no equivalent in Islam.”

Jaafar Sheikh Idris, PhD, Chairman of the Founding Council at the American Open University, in a Mar. 3, 2004 essay titled “Separation Of Church And State,” wrote:

“The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur’an is one hundred percent the word of God, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of God to the Prophet peace be upon him. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of God.” 

Jamil Hamami, a Hamas leader and lecturer at Al Quds University, in a May 29, 1999 seminar posted on the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) website titled “Political Islam in the Arab World,” wrote:

“Some people think that talking about political Islam implies that there is a separation between religion and state. An in-depth look at the way and spirit of Islam would show that this is not true. Islam is state, religion and a way of life — which includes all aspects of the daily life of the Muslim — combined.” [4]

Western Masochism: Has the West Designed Their Own Demise?The ambitions of the founders of the European Union were to build a United Europe, in partnership with the Southern Mediterranean Arab nations to equal the dominance of America, the Russians, and the Asian blocs. But Europeans, considered the options and realised that to become a Union worthy of an equal voice in world affairs they had to have reliable source of energy, oil. Not realising that the Arab countries that controlled most of the oil resources also had to have buyers in order to survive, and that the Arabs and Europe were mutually interdependent. Europe had a bigger bargaining chip than they realised. But the European wanted to have a direct influence in the oil assets so they agreed to accept the Arabs as equals and conceded to all demands made by the Arabs. This meant agreeing to accept the Arabic language and culture on par with European languages and cultures and to allow the intermingling and intertwining of their cultures and ideologies into one of interdependence. 

***The Arabs sensing a good bargain, were not hesitant in pressing for all their demands for acceptance of Arab culture, way of life, equality of treatment, and freedom of Arab/Muslim immigration, with full privileges of all social services, and freedom of worship as their own citizens enjoyed. The European Union accepted all such conditions without any conditions. All the trump cards were now in the hands of the Arabs.(In order to appreciate the extent to which the Arabs used their “trump cards,”   it becomes obvious from the many resolutions that were made and agreed upon by the Euro-Arab Dialogues referred to in part 2, and in The Brussels Journal [5])

Can The European Culture Survive this Invasion?

Islamic immigration into Europe swelled the Muslim population from 10.7 million (1.97%) in 1950 (before the foundation of the EAD) to 42 million (5.74%) in 2010 spread across the whole of most European states after the formation of the EAD.


Assuming that these numbers are made up of women, children, and cultural (non-religious) Muslims, surveys indicate alarming trends. 

Almost 25% of the British Muslims believe that the atrocities of “London’s Underground Bombings on 7/7” were justified. 

In addition another survey shows that 12% Muslims believe that Jihadist Martyrdom was justified. [6],[7].

32% British Muslims believe Jews are legitimate targets, and 30% British Muslims believe that Israel has no right to exist. 

7% British Muslims believe that suicide bombings in Britain are justified. [8]
Extrapolating this into Europe as a rough guide, there are10.5 Million Muslims  in Europe (25%) who feel that bombing the local citizens to support the Palestinian cause or the anti-Zionist cause is justified, and that 2.94 Million Muslims in Europe (7%) would support Islamic martyrdom.  These figures are frightening.Even at the height of the Ottoman Empire when they occupied most of the European Mediterranean nations, the total military force of the Ottomans were between 206,000 to 258,000 men in the years 1607 and 1609.

Today the militant Muslim Islamists (10.5 Million Muslims) are already more than 40 times as many Ottoman military in Europe at the height of their occupation. [9]

Can European Culture Survive the Onslaught of Islam


To reverse this internal threat from militant Jihadists to national security of European nation states would be a task that is beyond contemplation. But unless the West is prepared to concede the struggle, it is a problem that has to be resolved some day.

With the current trend in Muslim demography in Europe there will be not be a problem for Islam to conquer Europe in the next few years without even a fight. French Enlightenment (Illuminati), in the spirit of liberalism, relativism and secularism led Christian Europe to the self destruction of their faith, Christianity. Without this faith, Europe lost its cohesiveness and its missionary zeal and belief that Christians had to proselytise their faith and foster it and to ensure its supremacy. Instead, the Christian churches, and Bishops, and political leaders retreated into bastions of religious relativism. Thus leaving their nations vulnerable to the determined, Allah fearing, uncompromising doctrine of Islam. Is the Christian retreat now irreversible or could a miracle reverse this inevitable trend? Or will something stir in the loins of the Christians for them to want to reclaim their Christian heritage? If the will to retain their Christian culture cannot be revived, then Islam will become the dominant religion and culture in Europe in the near future. Because historical evidence has shown that:

Wherever Islam has put down roots, Nothing else can grow


European nostalgia of the glories and abundance of the colonial days seemed to be fading into the past after WWII. Europeans feared declining into a third world status with massive unemployment, and loss in the standards of living they had grown accustomed to. Europe was obsessed with “social security” that provided a safety net for all. But this created a rigid social and economic system resistant to change and depended on the prosperity of their nation. Europe feared economic, political and military decline, thus world influence, compared to America and the exponential economic expansion of colossus’s like Japan,  India and China. Europe on its own, Europeans realised,  could not rebuild herself into a world power again unless she had unhindered access to energy, Oil. It was inconceivable to tie up with Russia or Central Asian energy resources, so Europe decided to join hands with Frances’ old colonial Mediterranean African nations who held massive oil surpluses?

However, in order to establish a European-Arab coalition there had to be a trade-off. A total acceptance by the Parliament of the European Union was required to accept as equals the Arabs, their Arabic language, culture, customs, economic, scientific, and cultural ambitions as equal to that of Europeans, in exchange for supporting the ambitions of the European economic and political aims for a world standing. Europeans felt it was a small price to pay for assiduously omitting, from its various declarations and policies, the need for the preservation of Europe’s Christian roots or Christian culture, yet allowing the Arabs to ensure their Islamic culture was recognised and predominant. Nowhere in any of the declarations was there any mentioned of the rights of the Christian traditions or culture, only Arab traditions and culture had to be accepted and established in Europe. By taking this approach it avoided any conflicts or stand-off’s with the Arabs from the very beginning. But this spelt the dissipation/demise of European Christianity, all agreed upon by the European Union Parliament. This was the decision that has been gnawing at the soul of Europe and destroying it ever since. An act of self destruction.

Europe was deluded in believing that she could somehow be able to afford a generous welfare state, maintain a dynamic economy, and still afford the luxury of supporting masses of Muslim and other immigrants by sharing in their welfare benefits equally, and still allow a segregated multicultural community. Whether this was undertaken as a penance for their (subconscious) guilt for their exploitation of their colonies is wondered. Otherwise their motives for their extra ordinary generousity are inexplicable. It is plain for all to see that the cost of welfare benefits, the cost of rehabilitating each immigrant family in a new country, the cost of Home Land Securities to prevent acts of Jihadism/terrorism, the cost of keeping the legal departments to defend these Jihadists and the cost for their confinement, the additional cost of our Law enforcers handling Muslims with kid gloves, *****the cost of placating the Muslim population for their separate multicultural (immiscible) ghetto living, is bleeding national treasuries to bankruptcy. Multiculturalism is a myth. For a nation to support an alien culture that will never integrate and whose intention is to destroy and then take over the native government into the world of Dar es-Salaam, is indeed, depravity.

Multiculturalism is a moral intoxicant. It plays on the emotion of superior virtues and is blighted with misguided “good intentions.”
Multiculturalism is basically an ideology that is Anti-Western Civilisation.
If promoted and adopted will undermine the National Security of Western Nations. It must be terminated henceforth.


By demographic statistics alone, with time, Islam will overrun Christian Europe.[10]

Europe has surely, since 1951 with the Treaty of Paris, been committed to societal suicide. The 42 Million invited ‘guest (Muslim) alien workers’ in 2010 in Europe will, by nature of their doctrines, be forever immiscible with European cultural values and will forever cause serious problems until they dominate the European governments, i.e., convert Europe from Dar al Harb to Dar es-Salaam. And as long as Muslims remain in Europe they will always treat European nations as Dar al Harb until its surrender to Islam. With time, the European culture must decay and collapse under the constant pressures of the Islamic demands and their demography, as the Roman Empire did.

Can Europe Save her Culture?

*****In reality the point of “no return” has long been exceeded. The only way to be able to salvage European Culture, if that is what European’s want, is to fully understand Islam and to use the same psychology and techniques to preserve European culture as Islam has to establish her dominance. For once, Christian Europe must revert to strategies of the 7th century and be as cunning and ruthless as in the 7th century, i.e., the philosophy of ‘an eye for an eye’ must prevail in this fight for survival.

*****European nations must acknowledge that the Treaty of Paris, 1951, and all subsequent agreements with the Arab world were one sided, unfair, and untenable. These have to be annulled and rejected altogether and reversed. In other words, European nations have to rescind all Euro-Arab Dialogue agreements. And that is not all. It has to be reversed all unreasonable binding treaties that neuters the sovereignty of the nation state, wherever possible, i.e.,

(A) Nation states that have signed up to the noble but misguided cause, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” have to rescind it because it has placed a deathly strangle hold on all signatory states, placing the individual “above the laws of the land and the sovereignty of the state binding the states laws to ransom.” No where in the declaration has it taken into consideration the welfare of the ordinary citizens or the national security of the state. In fact the declaration subverts the integrity of the nation state to the total biased benefit of the criminals regardless of the culture or religion of the nation state. It is also one sided, and does not apply to the Islamic culture. It has to be rejected as it stands. [11]

In its place, individual “Civil Rights Acts” must replace the “Declaration of Human Rights,” so that national sovereignty and national security and the safeguards for the national culture for all her citizens are enshrined.

(B) The other major legislative body that has stripped nation states of their independence and sovereignty is membership in the European Union. The European Union, as has been illustrated in the above discussions, has made one of the worst blunders in the history of mankind by attempting to woo and manage Islam as an equal partner. Islam is immiscible with the Western culture and Islam is determined to dominate all other cultures. In this way, and with the demographic evidence, the Islamic culture will dominate Europe by default.

As the European Union has dragged all member states into this state of affairs and has no solution to offer, the European Union leaders have proved to be totally incompetent and total failures. Continued membership in such an organisation will only lead to the demise of all member states. If the European Union cannot find a solution to this disastrous state of affairs, then those member states who do not want to be dragged down with the sinking ship will have to dessert her. The new “Civil Rights Acts” must include clauses to make it legal for nation states to establish their own sovereignty. The nations states mush regain their own integrity and sovereignty in order to rule as as democratic nation.

Using this new “Civil Rights Act” is the only avenue left for this impasse. The act should also encompass laws that will permit the following action, similar to that taken in the Spanish Inquisition to save Christianity. [12]

(1) Rescind all European Arab Dialogue agreements and reverse it.
(2) Arab language and culture will no longer be accepted on par with European languages or culture.
(3) Judeo-Christian culture will be the only acceptable culture in Europe.
(4) The practice and proselytising of Islam in Europe is unacceptable.
(5) All Muslims will be repatriated to their country of origin regardless of citizenship or birth rights unless they accept the laws of European nations and are prepared to swear loyalty to the nations head of state before their own god.
(6) All Mosques and Islamic centres of learning are to be closed and destroyed.
(7) This will be carried out peacefully unless force is needed to counter resistance.

This is the only logical solution. Should a terrorist or bully enter your home and intimidates you, would you not exercise the above rights to regain control of your own home again? This is the only language the Jihadist understand because it is the language of the Quran. And with the help of God, may the European culture survive. [13]

(End: part 3 of 3)

References:

[1] Roosevelt to Truman by Wilson D. Miscamble,C.S.C.  Cambridge Press. (see page 43)
http://books.google.com/books?id=aULOu-zN6NYC&pg=RA1-PA42&lpg=RA1-PA43&ots=AG_IV4Tnos&dq=Roosevelt+seen+as+the+Saviour+of+Europe#v=onepage&q=&f=false
[2] The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973: http://knol.google.com/k/mbp-lee/dar-es-salam-dar-al-islam-post-wwii/1l23x9udotn1a/89#The_West_is_Blackmailed_by_Oil_Embargo_of_1973
[3] Islam a Total Way of Life: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/224/viewall/
[4] Islam cannot be secular: http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000603
[5]
The Eurabia Code, Part 1: The Brussels Journal (seen 10.01.11):    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1401
[6] One Quarter British Muslims believe 7/7 justified: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-399352/Almost-quarter-Muslims-believe-7-7-justified.html
[7] Twelve % British Muslims believe Jihadist Martyrdom justified:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article727952.ece
[8] 7% British Muslims say suicide bombing in Britain is legitimate:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/02/uk-poll-37-of-muslims-in-britain-think-british-jews-are-a-legitimate-target.html
[9] The Ottoman Military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#Modern_Period_.281826.E2.80.931922.29

Additional References:

1. Jihad justified: http://michellemalkin.com/2006/10/15/19-million-muslims-for-jihadand-thats-just-in-indonesia/
2. Cost of European Muslims: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/06/fjordman-what-does-muslim-immigration-cost-europe.html
3. Terrorism in Europe:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:FFCXeYjKrkoJ:www.hudson.org/files/pdf_upload/Zeyno%2520PDF.pdf+European+Muslims+support+Jihad&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShBBTykhCQ2bSi_OIVKsDhDy-vRZ6bFfZwUZojhA4aRaoWBLX_fd0iTszD8XWEHLf1FW1TKuJjgyQBgBkgAhqboQKHHLpBJADDHyblmZmMwIHBwuzRrqM_oJRKZ9KZ6cMzL9AEx&sig=AHIEtbRVrsxSnVs9JvVsx6x4Gp5PcF0pbAo
4. Will Britain be Islamic? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452815/Will-Britain-day-Muslim.html
5. Projection of British Muslims: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=3401

1 Comment

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: