Defeating Eurabia: An Update
by Baron Bodissey
This is a late revision to the first installment of Fjordman’s book Defeating Eurabia. It arrived on my desk after I had already posted the earlier version, and replaces the section entitled “The Eurabia Code — 2008 Updates” in Part 1. If you are republishing these installments, you may want to replace the appropriate text with the revised version. The version posted here will be included in the pdf version of Fjordman’s book when it is released.
For those who wish to republish his work, please read his conditions.
This essay was published at The Brussels Journal in October 2008. It is republished here with some additions from late October.
My essay The Eurabia Code was published in 2006, inspired by Bat Ye’or’s groundbreaking book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis . I have chosen to reproduce The Eurabia Code almost unchanged above but will include some updates here. The rest of this book was completed during the first half of October 2008. I decided to add some information to this chapter on October 25 because during just two weeks in mid-October, a series of disturbing news about the rapid progress of Eurabia were published. Much of this information has, as usual, been little mentioned in the mainstream press, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a complete secret. One of the news websites dedicated to following the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is ANSAmed ( www.ansamed.info ). Here is a quote from ANSAmed from October 13 2008:
“The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA) has asked the foreign ministers of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) for more powers as well as the legal basis to sanction its role as their political arm. At a special meeting of the EMPA in Amman, representatives of the parliaments from both sides of the Mediterranean have approved a document to submit to the Euro-Med foreign ministers, who will meet in Marseille on 3 and 4 November: ‘we will ask ministers to make EMPA an integral part of the UfM, in terms of its parliamentary dimension’. The ministers of the UpM must provide the deputies of EMPA — led by the President of the EU Parliament, Hans Gert Poettering — with ‘a legal basis, setting the nature and the timescale of meetings between the two institutions’. EMPA intends to carry out ‘the role of consultant’, which is not binding, but obliges the ministers and heads of state of the UfM to take note of their resolutions and recommendations on the agenda of their meetings.”
The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA), which is mentioned in The Eurabia Code from 2006, includes politicians from Arab countries in addition to European ones. This institution will now gradually be granted more powers, presumably including some legislative powers. At the same time as the EU is diminishing the legislative powers of elected parliaments in European nation states, it is working to grant legislative powers to Arab countries, which means that Jordan, Egypt and Algeria will soon be in a position to directly influence legislation in Hungary, Ireland, Austria and Sweden. Here is another quote from ANSAmed, also from October 13 2008:
“The two shores of the Mediterranean are even closer, thanks to a political step taken today by the European Union which granted an ‘advanced association status’ to Morocco, a recognition from Brussels for the reforms carried out in the past years by the north-African kingdom. The agreement, the first special association status granted by the EU to a third country, was ratified today by the EU Foreign Affairs Council of Ministers, with the presence of French Foreign Minister Bernerd Kouchner, and the Moroccan plenipotentiary, Taieb Fassi Fihri.” Moreover, “Morocco will be admitted to participate in some of the meetings of EU institutions (for example, the EU Foreign Affairs Council of Ministers) and various European agencies: Europol, Eurojust, the European agency for air safety and the observatory on drugs and drug addicts. From the EU’s perspective, it will be able to increase its economic aid to Rabat, which is already the top beneficiary of European funds for neighbouring countries with 657 million euro in the period of 2007-2010.”
Morocco, as the first but not the last Arab country, is gradually being welcomed into the EU. What has happened since 2006 is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam. This hasn’t been totally secret previously. For instance, in 2002 Louis Michel, the then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and later a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East.
- – - - – - – - -
Why go public with this now? My theory is that EU leaders consider their people to be defeated. We are serfs. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored. They have held us in contempt for years and no longer care to hide this. We are sheep and constitute no threat while they must continue appeasing the Muslims.
Open plans for a “ Mediterranean Union “ or “Union for the Mediterranean,” which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, was launched in mid-2008, under some concern among Arabs that this might normalize their relationship with Israel. This came with plans for the creation of a “north-south co-presidency” and a permanent secretariat as well as the definition of a ‘‘short-list’’ of priority projects for the region. The European Commission proposes the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a Mediterranean (Muslim) country, chosen for a two-year term. Brussels is currently drawing the institutional profile of what will be called “Barcelona Process — A Union for the Mediterranean.” Notice how they tie this to the Eurabian Barcelona Process launched in the 1990s and described by Bat Ye’or.
Despite this, even after the Mediterranean Union was proclaimed, I still heard claims that any talk of Eurabia was a “dangerous Islamophobic conspiracy theory.” As of late 2008, it is simply no longer possible to claim this. Eurabia is out in the open and Bat Ye’or has been proven right: Western European leaders are now implementing agreements with Arabs that were made many years ago, perhaps decades ago. Native Europeans have not been asked whether they want their countries to be flooded with Muslims. “Democracy” is totally irrelevant here; it may even generate passivity among the natives because it maintains the illusion that they still have a say regarding their future. In reality, agreements about opening the continent to Muslims were made a long time ago. Voting for another national leader may at best slow down the pace of implementation, but not stop it, as long as the EU exists. The real decisions are made behind closed doors by EU organs that are above democratic control, and later forced down people’s throats.
As journalist Nick Fagge stated in British newspaper the Daily Express in October 2008, more than 50 million African workers are to be invited to Europe in a far-reaching migration deal. The aim is to promote “free movement of people in Africa and the EU.” Since the few remaining Europeans in Africa face increasing harassment and it is unlikely that many Europeans will want to settle in Mali, this “free movement” will actually mean “free movement of Africans from countries with unsustainable population growth to Europe.” EU officials are inviting other peoples to colonize their countries and overwhelm the natives. This happens at a time when there are plans to build hundreds of large mosques throughout Europe.
The multilingual EU-focused magazine Café Babel in October 2008 posted an interview with Jacques Barrot, the vice president of the European Commission. Barrot belongs to the same party as the current French President Sarkozy and was a supporter of former President Jacques Chirac. According to Barrot, “The demographic situation of Europe means a need for focused migration. Europe’s vocation is also to facilitate exchanges between countries. Immigration is both an economic and moral obligation.”
Notice how Europeans “have to” accept mass immigration of tens of millions of people from Africa and the Middle East. Does he see any problem with Islam? No, he does not: “This way of seeing Islam as antagonist to European values is totally partial and erroneous. Islam is a monotheistic religion that appears to me to be compatible with our secular principles. What it isn’t, is all the fundamentalists, not only Islamic, who want to segregate and exclude other religions. Once pluralism is accepted by Islam, in Europe at least, Islam is welcome.”
Mr. Barrot fails to explain exactly where Muslims have ever accepted pluralism, or whether this is even theoretically possible according to Islamic doctrines. In my view, it clearly isn’t.
In mid-October, President Nicolas Sarkozy called Arabic the “language of the future, of science and of modernity. We must invest in the Arabic language (because) teaching it symbolizes a moment of exchange, of openness and of tolerance, (and it) brings with it one of the oldest and most prestigious civilizations of the world.” “France is a friend of Arabic countries. We are not seeking a clash between the East and West,” he affirmed, emphasizing the strong presence of Arab leaders at the founding summit of the Mediterranean Union in July 2008. Mr. Sarkozy had earlier cultivated an image as a “tough guy” who would stand up to the violence and harassment by immigrants against native Frenchmen. As soon as he was elected President, he turned out to be just another passionate Eurabian.
In a letter appearing in the respected Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, former Italian President Francesco Cossiga in 2008 revealed that the government of Italy in the 1970s agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks. The government of the late PM Aldo Moro reached a “secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups.” According to the former president, it was Moro himself who designed the terms of the agreement with the Arab terrorists. “The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services.” As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that he learned PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. “The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country.”
This was the formal birth of Eurabia, when Western European governments, giving in to pressure from Arab terrorists and oil-producing states, abandoned their traditional pro-Israeli position and gradually aligned themselves with the Arab-Islamic world. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Italians were the only ones to make such “deals.” In addition to cultural and political cooperation, European governments have agreed to pay Arabs, Palestinians in particular, large sums in “protection money” to reduce the terrorist threat. This can only be seen as jizya, and the practice has later spread to the entire European Union, which pays the Palestinians tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Euros annually.
The MEDA programme, the principal financial instrument for the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, during 2000-2006 spent €5,350 million on its various programs, according to the EU’s official website. During the period 1995-1999, some 86% of the resources allocated to MEDA were channelled to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority.
From 2007, MEDA was replaced by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, which over the period 2007 to 2013 is projected to spend €11 billion on, among other things, promoting cooperation between European and Arab countries in the sectors of energy and transport; in higher education and mobility of teachers, researchers and students; Multicultural dialogue through people-to-people contacts, including links with communities of immigrants living in EU countries as well as cooperation between civil societies, cultural institutions and exchanges of young people. The European Commission, the EU’s powerful government with extensive legislative powers, shall coordinate cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, churches, religious associations and the media in matters related to this project; all according to documents available on the Internet, yet almost unknown to the general public since the mainstream media rarely mention them.
I got some critical comments to my original Eurabia Code, among them a claim that The Algiers Declaration for a Shared Vision of the Future from 2006, which I mentioned, is not signed by any official EU body. However, the Anna Lind Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the dialogue between cultures which organized this is linked to from the official EU website as a part of the EU’s external relations programs and the Euro — Mediterranean Partnership. Some of the organizations that participate in this may technically be independent organizations, but there is no doubt that the European Commission constitutes the driving force behind these networks. Moreover, if you read these documents closely, you will find that they mention “harmonization of the education systems” between Europe and the Arab world. This requires the involvement of the authorities at the highest level, not just NGOs.
The declaration states that “It is essential to create a Euro-Mediterranean entity founded on Universal Values.” The phrase “universal values” may sound innocent, but who decides which values are universal? I have heard the “moderate” Muslim Tariq Ramadan, who has served as an adviser to various EU organs, state that the only universal values are Islamic values. This sentiment is generally shared by Muslims. Arabs participating in the Euro-Arab Dialogue will interpret this statement from the Algiers Declaration and similar documents as an admission that the EU agrees to create a European-Arab entity based on Islam.
In September 2008, a brief statement in a few media outlets in Denmark (I’ve seen remarkably little mention of this far-reaching proposal in the mainstream media in most European countries) said that Muslims living in the EU will in future be able to divorce according to sharia law. This is the belief of the EU Commission, which recommends that a couple should be able to choose which country’s law they will follow — as long as they have some connection to the country they choose. Danish People’s Party spokesman Morten Messerschmidt was greatly concerned about the proposal: “It’s a completely lamebrain idea, the possibility that the Commission will use inhumane sharia laws in the EU,” he said.
What most people don’t understand is that this is part of long-term deals that have already been agreed upon by EU leaders. Virtually all Western European leaders have surrendered. There is no longer a question of whether or not sharia will be officially accepted as law (as it has been for Muslims living in Britain); it is only a question of how to implement this.
Meanwhile, a European Arrest Warrant lists a number of serious crimes, including terrorism, armed robbery, rape, and racism and xenophobia, which are punishable throughout the EU. The European Arrest Warrant requires that anyone who is charged by a member state under the listed group of offenses (which could cover just about anything) may be arrested by the authorities of the issuing state within any interference of the other member state. The accused must then be transited for trial to the issuing state within ten days, without any interference, judicial or otherwise, by the executing state.
Racism includes “ Islamophobia,” according to EU documents, which means that “Islamophobia” could soon be treated as a serious crime across the European continent. At the same time, EU leaders are busy enlarging the EU to include North Africa and the Middle East, thus flooding Europe with tens of millions of additional Muslims. Not far into the future, we can imagine a situation where the authorities can arrest a person in, say, Denmark or Italy, who has published a cartoon that could be considered offensive to Islam. He or she could then be handed over to the authorities in Algeria, Egypt or Jordan.
Remember that blasphemy against Islam carries the death penalty according to sharia. Multiculturalism in Europe is about to reach its openly totalitarian phase. Those who think this is a joke can look at the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Neckshot who was arrested in 2008 for cartoons that “insulted” Muslims. Several documents that are publicly available (but little known to the general public because they are never referred to by the mainstream media) state that the EU should “harmonize” the education and legal systems with the Arab “partner countries” within the coming decade. This is being negotiated as we speak, behind our backs.
European Commission president José Manuel Barroso earlier expressed unease with the prospect of a second Dutch Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution referendum. “Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable,” he said, asking “every member state” considering a referendum to “think twice.” Mr Barroso in his previous job as Portuguese Prime Minister in 2004 backed a referendum on the EU constitution in his own country — but since then his thinking has changed. “I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU more difficult. If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?”
According to The Sunday Times from October 18 2008, plans to isolate Ireland and force the country to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty by March 2009 were discussed at an EU meeting. Key French politicians and other MEPs said that Ireland should be put in an “untenable position” by pressing Poland and the Czech Republic to ratify the treaty by December. The meeting heard how Ireland’s “intellectual mediocrity and lack of political courage” led to the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty and included discussions of how to “cuddle and pamper” the Irish voter ahead of a new vote while at the same time “making pressures on them.”
French politicians want to tell the Irish people how the other 495 million Europeans “will be really angry” if the answer is no again. Never mind that most Europeans were never allowed a chance to vote on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, which had earlier been rejected by French and Dutch voters. Jacques Delors, the powerful former European Commission president, warned that Europe (which is Eurocrat speak for the European Union; “Europe” and the EU are always used as synonyms) should be wary of conceding to Ireland on Lisbon.
According to the Irish Election blog from October 19 2008, Brussels’ view of Ireland after the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was rather hostile:
“Ireland, they said, signed off on this as a government and failed to deliver. True the Irish people were asked but nearly all of the EU people we spoke to lamented the Yes campaign for being incompetent and half hearted. The views ranged from disappointment that the Irish government ran such a pathetic campaign, to near contempt for the Irish government’s incompetence, to one outright claim that [Irish PM] Brian Cowen should have resigned after failing to convince the Irish people on the deal which he was instrumental in brokering. And yes, when questioned about the French No, the speaker said [former French President] Chirac should have gone too.”
In the EU capital, national leaders are no longer supposed to follow the will of their people. The Irish Prime Minister, for instance, is viewed as a low-level bureaucrat of the EU system who should follow orders from his superiors in Brussels, not from his own electorate. These are the same people who champion mass immigration of Muslims to Europe. Through the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution they can remove the final obstacles to the implementation of their Eurabian policies. In a sane world, these individuals would stand trial for crimes against their people instead of having well-paid jobs for subverting their interests.
Let’s sum up our findings: The EU has accepted that the Union should gradually be enlarged to include the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. The EU has accepted that tens of millions of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries in northern Africa should be allowed to settle in Europe in the years ahead. This is supposedly “good for the economy.” It is planning to implement sharia laws for the millions of Muslims it is inviting to settle in Europe. It has passed stronger anti-racism laws while making clear that “Islamophobia” constitutes a form of racism and is cooperating with Islamic countries on rewriting school textbooks to provide a “positive” image of Islam to European children. Finally, the EU is developing an Arrest Warrant which stipulates that those charged with serious crimes, for instance racism, can be arrested without undue interference of the nation state they happen to live in. In essence, the European Union is formally surrendering an entire continent to Islam while destroying established national cultures, and is prepared to harass those who disagree with these policies. This constitutes the greatest organized betrayal in Western history, perhaps in human history, yet it is hailed as a victory for “tolerance.”
José Manuel Barroso, the leader of the unaccountable government for half a billion people, has stated that the EU is an empire. Maybe we think it’s ridiculous to see the EU as an empire, but his statement shows that some people in leading positions do think like this. It would make sense to remember that all empires have been created through war. If the EU is an empire, this means that a war is being waged against somebody. And it is: A cultural and demographic war waged against native Europeans. Whereas empires are normally created by waging a war against other peoples, the EU is the first empire in history created by leaders allowing other peoples to wage a war against their own people. Mass immigration is used to crush all nation states simultaneously so that the natives have no place to flee to and no country can come to the aid of others against the advancing Islamization. I suspect that the ideologies of Globalism, Multiculturalism and Eurabianism, which are imposed from above, will in the future be viewed as pure evil, and I fear that they could plunge the European continent into war, just like Nazism did.
The European Union — or the Eurabian Empire — is a power grab by the elites intended to dismantle the nations they are supposed to serve. Instead of being mere servants of the people in smaller countries, they aspire to become members of an unaccountable elite ruling a vast empire. This is why they continue to promote mass immigration as if nothing has happened even as native Europeans get blown up, raped, mugged and murdered in their own cities. They are generals on a warpath. Ordinary citizens are just cannon fodder, pawns to be sacrificed in a giant game of political chess in their quest for more personal power, a recreation of the Roman Empire designed to make up for the declining international influence of European nation states. Alternatively, some of them truly believe their own lies about creating a new, enlightened and peaceful world order, or they are blackmailed and/or bribed by Arab Muslims. The truth is most likely a combination of several explanations, but their motivation is anyway of secondary importance. The crucial thing is to realize that leaders in the Western half of Europe, and increasingly in the Eastern half as well, are dedicated to dismantling their own nations.
Finally, we should remember one thing: All of this started with the appeasement of Arab bullies in the 1970s who used oil and terrorism as weapons. Europeans should work to get rid of the culture of betrayal, but we also need to get rid of the culture of appeasement that brought us in this mess. No money for the Palestinians; not one cent. If they need money, they can ask Saudi Arabia. And no more appeasement of Islamic terrorists. It was “dialogue,” the Euro-Arab Dialogue, that created this situation in the first place. Dialogue is thus the cause of our problems, not the solution to them. No more “dialogue” with the Jihadist enemy. The only way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose and make him back down, and the only way to do that is to have credible military forces and the will to use them. Relying on diplomacy alone doesn’t give you “soft power,” it only makes you soft and invites external aggression.