Poor Mr. Wilders speaks these words as he hides, in his own Nation, with around the clock police protection ! The Dutch have a chance, small though it may be, to save themselves yet.

The subject of the conversion of Europe into an armed camp forced to protect itself from its large, growing and hostile Islamic immigrant population is an utter shame for the majority of people who do not want this period. The Europeans seem to be more willing and receptive than America, to confront the awful truth, albeit reluctantly and slowly.

Their obligations to the Arab League countries have locked them into a disastrous and insane, business relationship that is seriously affecting most European capitols. But there seems to be an awaking however late it may be, that they’d better address this situation now while there is still time to do so and try to reverse as much as possible the undeniable fact that their culture and civilization is under direct assault.

Bernard Lewis seems convinced that Europe will be Islamic by the end of this century, it seems that many Europeans are slowly waking up to this nightmarish possibility.

God bless Mr. Wilders and how unfortunate that he is now a marked man for standing up for his country by, lets be frank here, Moslem’s (sorry to say)invited into the Netherlands as honored guests. What a stab in the back for all the European countries especially France which has seemingly accepted its Islamic future with great enthusiasm minor opposition

I think we should contact Mr. Wilders and express our support. Does anyone know his email?

Mr. Girin,

Mr. Wilders email is below: [Note from LA: A minimum of 100 characters is needed before a hyperlink in a comment to avoid collapsing the right column of the main page to the bottom.]

http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?id=mail

OOPs! Forgot the 100 characters minimum after a URL to prevent the right side page problem…sorry.

In my view, the main problem in Europe is not the moslem “invasion” or the “obligations with the Arab League”. If there were not Moslems we, the Europeans, should have had to ask others to come. The true problem is that the genuine European population is just shrinking to the limit after several decades of birth rates below the population replacement level in many countries. Moslems, and many others, did not start to come to Europe on their own, they were asked to come by a European economic system that needed workers and couldn’t find them locally.

On the other hand, for both companies and governments the cheapest and most profitable way of having cheap labor is importing it. Having children and educating them for 20 years is far more expensive than simply calling aliens from anywhere whenever required. An economic system that is based on short-term profit must necessarily do this.

The true matters of concern are, first why, in a continent that two centuries ago had been able to populate America and Australia with its excess population, not enough children are being born anymore, and second why the economy is so important that anything else, say the civilization, the race, the own country, … should be sacrificed to its success. But that’s a different story, probably the most interesting one.

Mr. /Mrs. Rovira,

You can not completely separate the two problems as they are related. Certainly Europeans are having far fewer babies than their Third World Moslem newcomers. But to completely dismiss the demographic trend which saw the European Moslem population double from 10 to 20 million in the last decade, along with their insistence on duplicating their homelands on European soil, shows a lack of awareness of the severity of the problem.

I got this email back from the site that Andrew gave me. Unfortunately, I don’t speak Dutch, maybe someone can translate it? I would really appreciate that.

Hartelijk bedankt voor uw bericht.
Uw bericht is succesvol doorgestuurd aan Geert Wilders
(G.Wilders@Tweedekamer.nl)

Ondanks het feit dat Geert alle berichten persoonlijk leest is het op dit
moment,
door de enorme hoeveelheid die hij dagelijks ontvangt, onmogelijk om iedereen
persoonlijk te bedanken.

Hopelijk heeft u begrip voor deze situatie.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Webmaster Groep Wilders

Mrs./Ms. Rovira has a point. But it is worth noting that in the past Europe has suffered depopulation at times — think of the Black Death — but the Europeans did not react by letting outsiders overrun them. The Japanese have the same problem as the Europeans and are not committing the same suicidal mistakes.

Mr. Girin,

It says roughly,

“Thanks warmly for your message. It has been forwarded successfully to Geert Wilders, In spite of the fact that Geert reads all bulletins personally it is at this moment, due to the enormous quantity that he daily receives, impossible to thank everyone personally.

Kindest regards, web master group Wilders”

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Thanks Andrew.

Mr Alan Levine wrote:

“Rovira has a point. But it is worth noting that in the past Europe has suffered depopulation at times — think of the Black Death — but the Europeans did not react by letting outsiders overrun them. The Japanese have the same problem as the Europeans and are not committing the same suicidal mistakes.”

R. Rovira has a point, such as it is, only if one believes that supply and demand do not apply to the labor market. I wonder though, if there is such shortage of labor, why unemployment rate in most Euro countries is so much higher than in 1960-1975.

If one is a Marxist/Socialist/San Francisco Democrat, at least one is consistent, wrong, but consistent in his beliefs. An illustrious group of hypocrits, naive fools and cheap labor profiteers believe that supply/demand applies everywhere EXCEPT labor market.

Rovira is in distiguished company. GWBush, JFKerry, Bill Clinton, Wall Street Journal, NYT, Bill Gates, LaRaza and virtually entire US political, media and industrial elites don’t believe that principles of free market apply to the labor market.

Bogusness of Roven point can be easily seen from the fact that Euro countries had options open to them BEFORE resorting to injecting human poison into their national bloodstreams:

1. Euros could have done nothing and let markets to sort it out. Price of labor would have shoot up, labor intensive, low added-value industries would have relocated, freed human resources with proper retraining would have become available to stabilize price of labor. (Swiss chose this options and prosper).

2. Govs could have changed tax laws to motivate people to have more children and for women to stay home to take care of them.

3. Govs could have changed immigration laws to attract people with historic connections to their contries (somewhat ala Israel): 30-40 million Irish Americans, millions Italian and Scandinavian Americans, etc provide a large pool for these policies. Not to forget millions of Spaniards, Portugese, Germans in Latin America.

4. Poland, Ukraine and Russia itself provide huge pools of well educated, somewhat civilized labor with historic connections to Christianity and Western Civilization.

Fact is Euro govs have done almost nothing along these lines. That tells me that whole thing was a traitorous comprimise between cheap labor profiteers and Multi-cultural suicidal leftist political elites.

They Sow the Wind, and Reap the Whirlwind. I would be enjoying the destruction of Multi-cultural religion, but the home of our civilization if being destroyed with it. How sad and unnecessary.

Mr. Rovina,

“Importing cheap labour?”

This is a misleading claim and I wonder on what statistics are you’re basing this fantastic assertion. First of all workers’ wages are defined by the government-union agreement. The religion, ethnicity, or gender of a worker has nothing to do with his/her wages. I live in Denmark, but this is true for the rest of the Western Europe; a “native” European, an immigrant Pole,(like myself), Arab, or Pakistani gets the same wages for doing the same job and, let me add, it would be unthinkable otherwise. So much for the situation of those immigrants who do work.
The immigrants who are unemployed get exactly the same unemployment benefits as their Danish counterparts. Until now these benefits have been high enough to represent quite considerable option for those who are not terribly interested in working. The choice depends very much on person’s cultural background and identification with the society and country. No wonder that in relation to their total number the Moslem immigrants are massively overrepresented as recipients of the national welfare and constitute the bulk of the prison population. The only other place where the Moslems are overrepresented is in maternity wards.

So, with all respect, what exactly is cheap about this “cheap labour” Mr. Rovina?

Anyone with an elementary acquaintance with the European reality knows that the costs involved in integration of the (Moslem) immigrants are exorbitant and increasing and must in the, not so long, run destroy the welfare system. Considering the fact that the Moslems are increasingly unintegratable this “cheap labour” you are talking about is enormously expensive, indeed, unaffordable by any society.

While it is true that about three decades ago the unprecedented economical boom in the Western Europe created a need for labourers, the situation lasted for a very short time. Besides, the need was never critical and the, mostly Turkish, workers were never even considered as possible applicants for immigrant status. They were referred to as “guest workers” and expected to go home after the lapse of the period defined in the contract.

And this would have been the normal uncontested situation if not that Europe, or the Western Civilization, had been already under relentless assault by the Left.

The Left had always known that the idea (and reality) of National is the most formidable obstacle to the realization of Left’s Utopia. (That’s why, without Soviet bayonnets, the Communism in Eastern Europe collapsed in a matter of minutes)

The left directly recognized the tremendous opportunity offered by the immigration. Not _any_ immigration, mind you, but Moslem one. It was precisely Islam’s (historically demonstrated) incompatibility with the Christian West which made it, if not perfect then at least, most useful candidate for destabilization of the West.

It was on this ground that multitude of myths were spawned and repeated endlessly to finally become uncontested truths.

One of them is the myth of “cheap labour” and the other is the drivel that without “immigration” (which is an euphemism for Moslem colonization) Europe’s dwindling populations won’t be able to support themselves materially.

The first myth is factually inaccurate (to say the least) and is serving the purpose of sowing in collective guilt-feeling for the “past exploitations” of the non-Europeans. The guilt which can only be redeemed through opening the borders for just about everyone culturally, or ethnically related to the people we have sinned against.
The other myth is even more nonsensical when we witness the native population reeling under the increasing yoke of taxation to finance the exponentially growing burden caused directly by importation of a hostile to it human element. An element which, as it quickly grows, makes no bones about its goal to take the land from the natives and driving them into the Dhimmitude.

In the above posting I wrote: ” …workers’ wages are defined by the government-union agreement”. It should have been “…workers’ wages are defined through agreement between the government and the trade unions”.

Mr. Hanski confuses mechanics of labor wage negotiation ie via agreement between goverment and the unions and supply and demand situation of the labor market.

Mass immigration increases supply of available labor (assuming some of immigrants want to work and have some marketable skills). Demand for labor due to immigration may or may not increase proportinally. If demand did not increase sufficiently, as virtually always the case, supply/demand equilibrium shifts to the detriment of labor. With more workers available, unions will be constrained in their wage demands and resulting wage agreement will have lower wages than would be otherwise without immigration. Ergo, cheap labor pimps accomplished their goal, price of labor went down or didn’t increase as much.

Of course Mr. Hanski is absolutely right that total cost of immigrants to society always exceed benefits of cheaper wages. But it is society at large that will pay the price while benefits will be pocketed by the cheap labor pimps.

Socialize costs and privatize profits - the failproof strategy of crony capitalists. Just ask George W. Bush.

It looks that Mr. Mik read my mind more than my message, and I can only agree 100% with his explanations about the two main topics: the high cost of immigration, and the effect of the immigration on the degradation of wages.

Even though I would like to add some more info about other issues that were raised by our Danish correspondant.
1) Various European countries have intended to strengthen public support to families. These family support policies may vary quite a lot depending on each specific country: they are near to nothing in Spain and Portugal, but in France a woman who has three or more children receives government support that is worth a full average salary. This has not helped at all to expand the white population in the country, but, ironically, it has helped much more to expand the moslem population. There seems to be something more than economic considerations in this issue.
2) What I meant, was not that Europe would not be able to support itself materially. I agree that this is not true. What I meant is that the European elites (the corporations) needed more workforce in order to participate in the neoliberal race for the conquest of the world. If the objective were only to have a pleasant life for all of us, this additional workforce had not been required at all.
3) No one denies the influence of the Left not only in the immigration process, but also in other paral.lel processes, all intended to “change the world”. But, in my opinion, the role of the Left in these processes is the same of that of those “useful idiots” that actively or pasively supported the USRR during the long years of the Cold War. The true driving force of the process is the neoliberal ideology and practice, whose first objective is to maximize profits, and the homogeneization of the entire world as the best way to reach this objective.
4) I can only agree that “… whole thing was a traitorous compromise between cheap labor profiteers and Multi-cultural suicidal leftist political elites.”
5) The influence of the European welfare state in the need for cheap labor is also something that should be carefully looked at, although impossible to fix because it would mean the political death (perhaps not only political) of any politician who dares to put his hands in it. It is very common in Spain that the immigration is abundant even in those provinces where the unemployement is the highest in the country. Many people do not work simply because the payments of the welfare system allow them to live quite comfortably, and then immigrants (illegal) are required. On the other hand, companies who want to invest in factories in these provinces do not do it because salaries are artificially high because of the welfare. Sooner or later this will blow up, and it will be good news.
Finally, Mr. Hanski, please have my congratulations for the welfare state you enjoy in Denmark. Subsidies are much lower in Spain, and immigrants, the illegal ones, are not elegible for many of them. If you do allow me to, I will tell all the moslem immigrants in Spain how nice life could be for them in Denmark. They may find the Danish choice more attractive than the Spanish one, even with the snowy wether (I am obviously joking)

Whether, or not I, as Mr. Mik suggests, confuse between “mechanics of labor wage negotiation ie via agreement between goverment and the unions and supply and demand situation…”, (and I don’t think I do), is hardly the issue here.

My main, if not the only, point is that the Moslem immigration to western Europe has long ago ceased to be driven by the demand-supply mechanisms of the work market, or any other economical considerations. Neither have the falling birthrates of European nations anything to do with it.

By now the dynamics behind it is almost purely ideologically propelled. The ideology is Multiculturalism and it has crept into mainstream media, culture and institutions.
Its authority and verdicts trumps every other considerations - including national interest and democracy. This quasi-religions’ claim of its vision’s moral superiority, realistic necessity and historical inevitability is almost impossible to contest due to its grip on the media, academia and educational sector.

The Multicultural has developed methods of nasty intimidation of the dissenters and, especially Sweden, Norway, Belgium have become truly totalitarian societies within practically one generation. Denmark, Germany, Holland, even the UK are well on its way toward the demise of the National.

I fully agree with Mr.Rovira’s opinion that “the role of the Left in these processes is the same of that of those “useful idiots” that actively or pasively supported the USRR during the long years of the Cold War.”
However, I need to comment his following observation;“The true driving force of the process is the neoliberal ideology and practice, whose first objective is to maximize profits, and the homogeneization of the entire world as the best way to reach this objective”.
If by “neoliberal” Mr. Rovira means the usherers of Multiculturalism then I must disagree that “its first objective is to maximize profits…”
I think that “the profits” as envisioned and pursued by the Left are “not of this world”, so to speak. They are to be pursued for their inherent “justice”, or “spiritual”, or moral values. I think that “follow the money” approach is as inapplicable here as it would have been vis a vis the Bolsheviks in Russia.

About Spain and Portugal; I must admit I don’t know very much about the conditions there and I believe Mr. Rovira is much better informed than I about situation of welfare recipients. Besides, I think, this is not the central point of our exchange.

And while I thank Mr. Rovira for his time with me I am not too enthusiastic about his suggestion of redirecting Moslems stranded in Spain toward Denmark. There are more than enough of them here and I still remember how nice the life has been before their flooding the country.

But of course, should Mr. Rovira himself visit Denmark one day, I would be most happy to welcome him here. And, obviously, the same goes for Mr.Mik.

Mik and Tadeusz Hanski seem dead on target, but why does Mik consider “socializing costs and privatizing profits” — a wonderful description of how these creeps think — a “failproof” strategy? It could be so only from an incredibly short-sighted, not just selfish point of view. Where do the Bushites and such think the taxes to subsidize their “cheap” labor will come from? And why do they imagine the peons they are importing will remain politically passive?

Mssrs. Rovira, Hanski, and Levine:

The phenomenom we are all witnessing in the Western world is the ruling elites’ embrace of the leftist view of “morality.” Antonio Gramsci must be cheering from his dark corner of hell now, for in Europe certainly, his ideals have taken root and borne their poisonous fruit.

Crony capitalism, or Corporatism, is really a form of Gramscian leftist utopianism. In European societies, it is already in place. It is well advanced here in the US as well, but there is still some resistance. The borders were opened to destroy nations, and any remaining national loyalties. Add to this the noxious doctrines of multiculturalism, ant-racism, feminism, and homosexualism with the opiate of welfare. A guaranteed method to eradicate the foundations of entire nations - a plan for world rule. The fatal flaw of the Gramscians lies in their importation of Muslims, who are taking full advantage of the degenerate system to colonize Europe and establish the Caliphate.

Perhaps the ruling elites are looking forward to becming the Court “Christians” of the coming Caliphate, but I doubt it. The Gramscians’ great hope was that the Muslims would rapidly succumb to the degenerate, Godless culture they created - to serve as a docile class of servants - intoxicated by the culture of drugs and promiscuity exemplified by Holland. This is how the Christians and nationalists were reduced to such a negligible force, after all. Thanks to all of the poisons mentioned above, the native birthrate has plummeted to below replacement level. It hasn’t turned out as the ruling elite hoped, however. Rather than cheering an apostle of nihilism like Theo Van Gogh, the newcomers sliced his head off.

The bottom line is that they are doomed. If the Caliphate arises, the Godless Gramscians will soon appear before the Sharia courts - a fate they absolutely deserve. The alternative is to drive out the Muslims. That can only be accomplished by repenting of all liberalism, and an embrace of God and nationhood. Either way, the Gramscian idea is finished.

Mr. Levine,

Short-term is the only term crony capitalists consider. In short term their strategy of imposing costs on society while pocketing profits is failproof from their point of view.

For longer term they can easily talk themselves into believing that everything somehow will turn allright. And liberal philosophy stands by to grant them absolution as do-gooders who spread multi-culti and lift-up downtrodden.

It is amazing that the same people who would not invest money in Microsoft as too risky, will gamble without blinking with future of the nation.

Mr. Carl,
Leaving aside the applicability of the word “Gramscian” for denoting todays Europe’s ruling elites I doubt that these elites ever schemed to convert Moslems, or anyone else, to a ”docile class of servants”.
Mainly because people who are “intoxicated by the culture of drugs and promiscuity” make rather poor, often unpredictable, servants. Moreover, what exactly is the nature of the service the elites expected to receive from these newly-debauched ex-Moslem servants?

Mr. Carl thinks that gramscians’ scheme of corrupting Moslems must fail and the recent murder of the “apostle of nihilism” is the beginning of the development which “if the Caliphate arises” will result in Sharia Courts before which “the Godless Gramscians will soon appear …. - a fate they absolutely deserve.”

Well, Theo V. Gogh wasn’t murdered for being an “apostle of nihilism”, but for blasphemy against Islam. If fanatic Moslems in Europe targeted morally corrupted people who flaunt their vices there would be hundreds such murders every day. It seems that if the “Godless Gramscians” will meet their ruin it will be in other quarters than before Sharia.

The other thing is that Sharia can not appear independently of the the Caliphate. And the Caliphate in Europe is highly improbable. Also, today, Sharia functions only in the most backward, primitive corners of the Islam world.

Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco haven’t yet coalesced into the Caliphate, or use Sharia despite being 97% Moslem.

It is estimated that it will take at least three more generations for Moslems to become majority in Europe _if_ the Moslem immigration and their “local” birth rate remains unchanged. It is quite reasonable to expect gradual “softening” of Islam during that time, and not necessarily only along the lines Mr. Carl thinks the “Gramscians” had in mind. There are many factors, especially education, which imperceptibly, but continuously contribute to this “softening” process. Of course, by “softening” I don’t mean deep changes in the nature of Islam, but the kind of Islam we see in Bosnia.

Bosnia has been Moslem for many hundred years, yet it never ceased being European. Installing Sharia laws there failed despite great efforts of the Arab Wahabi missionaries. No, I really don’t believe there is a chance for Sharia in the western Europe.

Nevertheless, having said all that I am rather afraid that the days of Christian Europe are numbered - even though it won’t happen through _forcible_ Islamic conquest. Over the past few decades Europeans became cultural and religious cosmopolitans and although we imagine we enjoy the freedom _to_ savour the whole cultural assortment, in truth we enjoy the freedom _from_ commitment to our own. There is no obligation to bind us down anymore and we become “weightless” like a balloon. A pushover for Islam.

Mr. Carl says “The alternative is to drive out the Muslims. That can only be accomplished by repenting of all liberalism, and an embrace of God and nationhood”.

The question is not how realistic would it be to drive them out. The question is what would make Christians choose the serious labour of “repenting of all liberalism, and an embrace of God and nationhood” and forgo the comfort, ease and irresponsibility of “weightlessness”.

Algeria is still in the midst of a civil war. Turkey, whose founder destroyed the last Caliphate, is now ruled by an Islamist party, which is destroying its seperation of Mosque and State.
Egypt and Jordan are both but bullet away from an Islamist coup. Wahabbists terrorists are killing non-Muslims and trying to impose Sharia on various islands. Malaysia is secure only until the next recession. Morocco is in the best position to prevent an Islamist coup. It’s ruler is a decentant of Mohammed and rules in a traditional monarchy, while modernizing the country. The Hashemites of Jordan have similar ancestry, but are a foreign dynasty.

I believe that much of the Sunni world would coalece behind a charismatic leader, where he intelligent enough to survive. Fortunately, Bin Laden is a man of bluster, not power politics.