Waiting for Churchill or Godot?

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg is a cultural Marxist controlled political entity

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg is an international judicial body established in 1950 to monitor respect of human rights by states.

This court has however to a larger degree developed into an unrecognizable beast whose main task is to deconstruct European traditions, culture and identity because it is considered offensive towards all non-Europeans and especially Muslims. Since we still want to preserve our culture and heritage I see no other alternative than to reform (limiting the current mandate considerably, or replace the cultural Marxist judges with cultural conservative ones) or completely eliminate the court altogether. Until this is done it should not apply in any way or form. The court rulings and principles are very often “ordered” by cultural Marxists to either be used against cultural conservatives directly or to systematically and gradually destroy European culture, traditions, our identities and to limit the sovereignty of nation states.

One example is the crucifix case in Italy in 2009. They ordered all crosses to be removed from all public class rooms because the ECtHR had concluded that the cross was an offensive symbol. But suddenly they meet resistance. An overwhelming majority in Italy opposed this ruling. Instead, many leaders ordered more crosses to be distributed and placed on government offices. Not because they had suddenly become more religious but because the cross is the most important cultural and historical symbol. The cross is Europe.

What this case and similar cases show is that the ECtHR have become an institution designed to protect and serve the foundations of European political correctness/cultural Marxism/multiculturalism. The ECtHR in Strasbourg is therefore a racist and genocidal political entity that only serves to create and offer ideological justification to given multicultural doctrines under camouflage of being “humanistic”. It is no more than a tool, an ideological sledge hammer used by cultural Marxists.

As of now the ECtHR in Strasbourg propagates multiculturalism and the deconstruction of European cultures and identities. It is therefore an anti-European political hate-entity that seeks to undermine the very people who created it. The ECtHR in Strasbourg must be reformed. Until it is, it should be considered as a hostile political entity propagating cultural Marxism.

By Fjordman

I once had the pleasure of watching the absurdist theatre play called " Waiting for Godot," by Samuel Beckett. Two men called Vladimir and Estragon sit around waiting for a man named Godot. Mr. Godot never shows up, of course. It is years ago now, but for some reason, I remembered it recently when watching the political situation in Europe.

During the height of the Muhammad cartoons crisis, Fjordman was among the minority who thought this was good news for Europe and the West. Although it may sound absurd to Americans, those rather innocent cartoons may have done more to open the eyes of Europeans to the Islamic threat than the terror attacks of 9/11, the London and Madrid bombings combined. People who can burn down embassies because of something so silly quite simply don't have anything at all in common with us, and cannot function in our democratic societies. Muslims may have pushed too far, too early, and thus jolted some life back into even the near-comatose continent of Europe. I see some signs that this interpretation may have been correct, and that the tide is indeed changing. Recent opinion polls indicate that there is now a critical mass of ordinary Europeans who no longer buy the brainwashing about Islam being a peaceful religion.

In Germany, according to a study [1] commissioned by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, 56 percent of Germans said they believed a "clash of cultures" already existed. 71 percent said they believed Islam to be "intolerant," some 91 per cent said they associated Islam with oppression of women. Asked if there should be a ban on the building of mosques in Germany as long as the building of churches in some Islamic states is forbidden, 56 per cent agreed. There was even considerable backing for ending Germany's constitutional right of freedom of religion with regard to Islam. Asked if strict limits should be imposed on the practice of Islam in Germany to protect the country, 40 per cent said they would support such moves. In the Netherlands [2], 63 per cent of respondents thought Islam was incompatible with modern European life. Even in Sweden, the purgatory of Political Correctness, opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes [3] doubt whether Islam can be combined with [4] Swedish society. Recently, I have also for the first time seen visible cracks in the wall of censorship on public debate in Sweden. Change is in the air, all over Europe.

Europeans now gradually start to awaken from the spell of multiculturalism, Political Correctness and Muslim immigration, but they still don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes. Most of them still haven't heard of Eurabia, or the fact that the European Union, including many of their own, entrusted representatives, have actively encouraged massive Muslim immigration to the continent. Until they do this, it will be more difficult to bring down the EU, and that is absolutely necessary in my view for Europe to prevail from this [5]. No, the EU isn't the only problem Europe has, but it is by far the worst, and we don't have even a theoretical chance of fixing our other problems as long as the EU is in charge. It needs to be removed completely. The hour is late. Is it too late? Even if it's not too late, whatever can be done needs to be done soon.

So, what to do next? What are we waiting for? For some decent leader to step forward, perhaps? Well, where is he, or she? During the appeasement of the late 1930s, Churchill was already there, ready to step in when called for. The problem is, I just can't see anyone of his stature now. Tony Blair? Apart from the Iraq war, absolutely everything he has done related to Islam, both in the UK and abroad, has been wrong. In some ways, he is a worse appeaser than Chamberlain ever was. I doubt Gordon Brown will be better. Chirac is a corrupt crook, de Villepain is a pompous, Eurabian clown with a Napoleon complex, Sarkozy isn't too bad, but not good enough, and France is in too much trouble of her own to do anything for the rest of Europe. Besides, it was France who created Eurabia in the first place. Count them out. Spain has forgotten everything of her past and has Zapatero, an appeasing Socialist weasel, as PM, brought to power by al-Qaeda. Italy recently ousted their right-wing government in favor of a Leftist, super-Eurocrat, Romano Prodi, as PM, and Communist ministers who want open doors for Muslims from North Africa to enter. Which actually leaves Germany's Angela Merkel as the least bad leader among the larger nations. But Ms. Merkel is no Thatcher, and certainly not a Churchill. Her support for the awful EU Constitution should be enough to discount her as a potential leader of a de-Eurabisation of Europe. The only Western European leader in power with something resembling a spine is Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Denmark, but Denmark is too small to lead this. I hope we are waiting for a Churchill to step forward, but I sometimes fear we are waiting for Godot.

We complain about weak leaders, but maybe we keep producing weak leaders because we, as a people, are weak? And if we finally find a Churchill, will the press rip him apart for whatever flaw they can find? Could the real Churchill have been elected today, or would the media eat him alive because of his heavy drinking and replace him with a slick boy scout? And if a strong leader steps forward, will he have a democratic mindset or will he have a darker agenda? Churchill certainly understood Islam. In his book "The River War," written as long ago as 1899, he wrote this about the followers of Muhammad:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Churchill's speeches were a great inspiration to the British during WW2, but also promised that "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat." Before the Battle of Britain, he delivered the immortal line, "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." How would today's decadent and pleasure-loving Westerners react to a similar speech? I think Winston would have to re-write it to something along these lines: "We shall defend our continent, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the ice cream trucks, we shall fight on the cable TV cars, we shall fight in the Jacuzzis and the spas, we shall fight in the nail salons; we shall never surrender."

In addition to just plain decadence, there is a widespread ideological feeling in Europe that nothing is worth fighting for, certainly not through armed struggle. There are no Great Truths, everything is equal. If we want to understand where the notion of the futility of war in any situation entered the European mind, we should read the poems of Wilfred Owen, another Briton with a way of words. Maybe Europe's faith in itself died in Auschwitz, but it was severely wounded some decades before, in the trenches of the First World War. It was WW1 that radicalised Europe, triggered the Russian Revolution and the rise of Soviet Communism, and it was WW1 that filled Germany, including a young corporal named Adolf Hitler, with a desire for vengeance and much of the ammunition they needed for their rise to power in the 1930s.

Wilfred Owen was a second lieutenant that participated in the Battle of the Somme and was later sent to treatment for shell shock. His horrific poems about gas warfare and life in the trenches have earned him the status as the leading poet of WW1. Wilfred Owen was killed in action on 4th November 1918, only a week before the end of the war. One of his most famous poems is " Anthem for Doomed Youth [6]:"

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
-Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,-
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.
What candles may be held to speed them all?
Not in the hands of boys but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of good-byes.
The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.

I can understand why Wilfred Owen felt that war was futile, rotting away in the trenches for some cause he didn't even understand. But it isn't true that war is worse than everything. Sharia is worse than war. I have heard claims that European civilisation will not survive the century. A century is a very long time, remember that. Would anybody (except Churchill) in 1906, when Europe really was strong and powerful, have predicted that Europe would now be in the process of being overpowered by Algerians and Pakistanis? Things change. They can change for the worse, but they can also change for the better. If we do get another world war, which appears increasingly likely, this could finish off what remains of European civilisation for good. But it could also, theoretically, have the opposite effect, where the shock waves could create a different kind of Europe from the decadent, nihilistic Europe we see now. A Christian revitalisation, for instance. Yes, this could happen. Stranger things have happened before. Our ancestors, better men and women than us, held the line against Islam for more than one thousand years, sacrificing their blood for the continent. By doing so, they not only preserved the European heartland and thus Western civilisation itself, but quite possibly the world in general from unchallenged Islamic dominance. The stakes involved now are not less than they were then, probably greater.

Some people claim that Europe isn't worth fighting for, and that too many people here deserve what's coming. Yes, a significant number of them do. Yes, people such as EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, with their Swiss bank accounts and their good relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Arab League, not to mention Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and his awful EU Constitution that will destroy democracy for half a billion people, deserve everything we can heap upon them. The problem is that the people who deserve most to be punished for this are the ones least likely to pay the price. The creators of Eurabia will be the first to flee the continent when the going gets tough, leaving those who have hardly heard of Eurabia and never approved of its creation to fight.

Edmund Burke thought that if a society can be seen as a contract, we must recognise that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. I like that idea, which means that when you fight for a country, you don't just fight for the ones that are there now, but for those who lived there before and for those who will live there in the future. If we don't want to fight for what Europe is today then let us fight for what it once was, and maybe, just maybe, for what it may become once more. There was real greatness in this continent once. It seems a long time ago now, but maybe we can get there again. European Parliament member Hannu Takkula [7] of Finland has said that never before had the fate of Israel and Europe been so inter-connected. "The same forces that hate Israel, also hate Europe," he said, adding that Europe must remain true to its Judeo-Christian roots by supporting Israel. The heritage of the Europe "was founded on three cities - Athens, Rome and Jerusalem" - said Takkula. Muslims are openly bragging about how they will soon conquer Rome, just as the did with Constantinople, the Eastern Rome, they are putting Jerusalem under siege and they are hijacking the cultural heritage of Athens by claiming that they "preserved it" and "passed it on" to the West. It's time for us to reclaim our past and thus reclaim our future.

Fjordman has been accused of being a pessimist. I'm not sure whether I am more pessimistic than others. There are many people who think Europe is already lost. I happen to be among the ones who have stated that this is only one of several possible outcomes. Europe is now at one of those famous crossroads where the course of history could go either way. Given the weakness of Europe and the rapid expansion of Islam, it would be foolish to discount the possibility that Muslims could win this. However, I happen to think that another possibility is that Islam not only will lose the battle for Europe, but could become destroyed as a global force during this century. Maybe in some strange way, Europe needs to go through a period of colonisation and de-colonisation herself, to get rid of her post-colonial guilt complex?

This war by Islam against Europe, the West and indeed mankind has been going on for more than 1300 years. This is the third major Jihad, the third Islamic attempt to subdue the heartland of the West. Although I cannot prove this, I have a very strong feeling that this will also be the last attempt. There will be no fourth Jihad. Either Muslims will win this time, or Islam itself will be handed a defeat and a blow so powerful that it may never recover from it. This is perhaps the longest, continuous war in human history. And it's about to be decided within the coming decades. I'm not sure how all of this will play out. What I do know is that it could all be decided on my watch, and I don't want to be the weak link in something my ancestors kept intact for 1300 years.

To quote Churchill: "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Let us hope someone of his stature will soon appear. He will be needed.

Source:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8B99760A-E931-4EE8-8AC7-EB047E8A67B8

1. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20665&only

2. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12143

3. http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman60527.htm

4. http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051028/SAMFUND/510270362

5. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-eu-needs-to-be-destroyed-and-soon.html

6. http://www.hcu.ox.ac.uk/jtap/warpoems.htm#7

7. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961320675&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Дата добавления: 2015-05-31