The People’s Resistance

Part 10 of a Series

Mike Scruggs

For The Tribune Papers


The European Union (EU), in collaboration with the Arab League, has made enormous, generously funded, and well organized efforts to convince the European public that Islam is a “religion of peace and tolerance” and that massive Arab-Muslim immigration into their countries is an economic and cultural blessing. In addition, they have made considerable “progress” in either dominating or intimidating the educational, media, and commercial spheres of influence in Europe in order to bend the minds of ordinary Europeans to a proper multicultural and politically correct worldview. Local and state governments and even small countries have been bullied into towing the EU line. Large segments of both Protestant and Catholic clergy have been seduced into making ethnic, religious, and even moral diversity a holy cause.


Despite this relentless and well orchestrated struggle to remake Europe into Eurabia in the cause of Utopian global greed, the EU has run into a formidable obstacle.

The EU fantasy version of Islam does not match reality. Ordinary Europeans are waking up to the effects of massive immigration and are not buying into multicultural diversity. In May of last year, the Allensbach Institute conducted a poll of German voters for the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper. The poll indicated increasing German concerns about the country’s over 3.5 million (predominantly Turkish) Muslim immigrants and about Islam itself.  A whopping 91 percent of Germans associate Islam with oppression of women, up from 85 percent in 2004. The belief that Islam is dominated by fanaticism has risen from 75 percent to 83 percent. A total of 71 percent view Islam as intolerant, up from 66 percent two years ago. Only 39 percent believe that Christianity and Islam can co-exist peacefully. Forty percent believe that strict limits should be put on the practice of Islam in Germany. About 56 percent indicated discomfort with more mosques being built in Germany. Finally, the survey indicated that 56 percent of Germans believe that a “clash of civilizations” has already begun, up ten points from the previous survey.


Last year, former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt proclaimed that bringing millions of Turkish guest-workers into Germany was a mistake and that multiculturalism can only work under authoritarian regimes. Schmidt told Hamburger Abendblatt reporters that:


“The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society.”


Indeed, multiculturalism was conceived and developed as a Marxist strategy for overthrowing free governments. The former Soviet Union used massive immigration and deportation to dilute the ethnic, cultural, and political cohesion of the peoples of the Baltic states with the objective of making them more compliant and compatible with Soviet rule. Hundreds of thousands of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians were deported to Siberia, and hundreds of thousands of Russians were moved in to take their places.


Lebanon and Kosovo are good examples of what happens, when Muslim immigration and higher Muslim birthrates tip the demographic balance in former majority Christian regions: escalating violence and terrorism, assassinations, and civil war. Most Serbian Christians in Kosovo were forced to flee.


In the European Union, massive immigration has become a tool to reduce the political power of ethnic, religious, or political majorities that might resist the new imperial order.   Besides providing cheap labor, massive immigration has become an instrument for political change and control. More immigration makes resistance to the European Union increasingly difficult. This will be true of the North American Union as well.


Political resistance to the European Union is growing within its twenty-seven member countries. Belgium, established by French revolutionaries in 1830, is an artificial construct dominated by the French-speaking southern region of the country and has been one of the most liberal driving forces in building and governing the EU. Its capitol, Brussels, is both the capitol of the EU and NATO headquarters. Belgium has been dominated by a liberal-socialist coalition since 1999. Yet political resistance in Belgium to the tsunami of Muslim immigration ranks among the strongest in Europe. This resistance is concentrated in Flanders, the more conservative Dutch-speaking northern half of Belgium, with about 59 percent of the population. But because of an uncorrected misallocation of parliamentary seats, the more liberal and socialistic French-speaking minority in the southern half of Belgium continues to dominate the Belgian Parliament. Hence there has always been a movement for Flemish independence.


There are many political parties in Belgium, but the most prominent political party advocating Flemish independence, capitalism, and restrictionist immigration policies is called Vlaams Blok (Flemish Block) or more recently Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest). Vlaams Blok was established in 1977, but its popularity has surged in recent years owing to its restrictionist immigration policies and strong positions on free enterprise and traditional morality, rising from a 10 percent showing in 1991 to 18 percent in 2003. In the regional elections of 2004, Vlaams Blok garnered over 24 percent of the vote in Flanders and became Belgium’s largest party with nearly a million voters, winning 32 of 124 seats in the Flemish Parliament, three more than the liberal-accommodating Christian Democrats. 


Vlaams Blok success was, however, quickly met with totalitarian suppression by the ruling Socialist Party coalition called Cordon Sanitaire. The ruling Socialists had been harassing Vlaams Blok for several years with threats of criminalizing them under Belgium’s 1999 constitutional changes that severely limit freedom of expression on racial, religious, ethnic, or cultural issues.  Under these laws the accused now bear the burden of proof of their innocence. Neither does truth matter. For example, citing accurate crime statistics that distinguish Muslims from the native population can result in fines and imprisonment.


 In 2000, the Socialist dominated Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR), an agency appointed by and reporting directly to the Belgian Prime Minister, brought charges against Vlaams Blok for racist statements. One of those racist statements was a presentation of accurate crime statistics on Muslim immigrants.

The most incendiary violation was that Vlaams Blok’s political platform called for Muslim immigrants to either assimilate or leave. The rest were merely statements advocating the preservation of Flemish identity.


A Flemish judge in Brussels refused to issue a verdict in the case, arguing that it is up to the voters to decide the fate of political parties. This ruling was upheld by the Flemish section of the Appeals Court in Brussels. The Belgian Supreme Court, however, referred the case back to a liberal-socialist dominated appeals court in Ghent. Knowing that a jury trial (required by the Constitution for charges against political parties) would never bring a conviction, by also charging three associated non-profit organizations, a Ghent panel of appointed judges heard the case and ruled that Vlaams Blok was a racist and criminal organization that must be outlawed. In 2004, the Belgian Supreme Court upheld the Ghent Court verdict outlawing Vlaams Blok.


Thus Belgium set a European political precedent by banning its largest political party. The very middle class and socially conservative (also predominantly pro-life) Vlaams Blok, whose political rallies were mainly wine and cheese events, was branded racist and criminal. This not only cut off all political and campaign funds (allocated by the government in Belgium) but also banned the party from participation in elections and subjected its membership and anyone or any organization that collaborated with it to fine or imprisonment if they continued with any related activity.


Vlaams Blok was forced to disband but quickly reorganized as Vlaams Belang. Meanwhile, the party is enjoying the status of a corruption-fighting underdog and is rising in the polls, but the CEOOR will doubtlessly bring more charges of racism, xenophobia, Eurocentrism, and insufficient diversity.


The Socialists have since played another totalitarian card. In order to insure their political dominance, they have passed a law allowing non-citizens who have been residents of Belgium for two or three years, to vote in local elections. This was the so-called “Quick Citizenship Bill.”  In the October 2006 elections, the Socialists became the largest party in Antwerp, increasing their vote from 20 percent to 35 percent and gaining ten municipal council seats. Seven of these were won by Muslim immigrants. Vlaams Belang managed to increase its absolute vote but was held to its former 33 percent of the now larger vote totals in Antwerp. The Christian-Democrats managed to survive with 11 percent of the votes. The progress of Vlaams Belang has been blocked in the larger cities by enfranchising non-citizens, but it is gaining in the countryside. Many Belgians who can afford it are now fleeing Belgium’s larger cities and moving to more rural areas.


In Denmark, the immigration restrictionist Danish People’s Party has replaced the former pro-immigration administration and is actually making progress in reducing immigration. The party’s popularity has also soared since the Muslim protests against a Danish newspaper’s publication of cartoon characterizations of Muhammad. The election of the Christian Democratic Union’s Angela Merkel as Chancellor of Germany is at least a step in the right direction. Her position as German Chancellor also makes her the President of the European Union’s Council of Ministers this year. Hopefully, she may be a moderating influence, although the real power in the EU rests with the EU Commission.


In a September 2006 meeting of EU Ministers in Finland, the Spanish minister requested financial aid to cope with the large influx of immigrants from North Africa. He was blasted by the Austrian minister, who criticized Spain’s decision to grant amnesty to 500 thousand undocumented immigrants in 2005. He was also upbraided by Germany’s Minister of the Interior for calling on other people’s money to solve a problem Spain had brought on itself by such an amnesty.


On the other hand, the EU has bullied Finland into taking several thousand Somali and Sudanese “refugees,” and crime is now soaring in the effected areas. Yet it is taboo to make any protest. Like Belgium, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and even Ireland are now allowing non-citizens to vote. Policy makers in France, Italy, and Germany are debating the issue.


The clash of civilizations and the battle for Europe has begun.  Despite the resistance of the peoples of Europe, will their elite classes be able to strangle dissent and freedom? Will the European Union by its appeasement of Muslim terror and its foolish multiculturalism become a viciously totalitarian Eurabia?  Mark Steyn, author of the recent best seller, America Alone, believes that Europe will fall. I have the hope that the peoples of Europe will muster the courage of Flanders and Denmark and by an electoral revolution utterly rout their multiculturalist masters.


But the outcome is in doubt, not only in Europe, but in the United States.  How far are we from succumbing to the same moral sicknesses, multiculturalist foolishness, political cowardice, and arrogant judicial despotism that pervade so much of Europe?


All rights reserved