According to an article in the Independent, the English Defense League is taking a, shall we say, interesting approach to resisting Islamic colonization of the United Kingdom and the perceived encroachment of Sharia law. Some excerpts:

A white extremist organisation is forging links with Jewish, Sikh and gay communities to fuel prejudice and fear and hatred of the Muslim community, it was claimed today.

New branches of the League, such as the Jewish Division, could exploit the existing religious hostilities caused by territorial disputes in the Middle East, says Professor Copsey whose report was commissioned by the organisation Faith Matters.

It claims that these inter-faith tensions were brought into sharp focus last month when the senior US Jewish leader and Tea Party activist Rabbi Nachum Shifren denounced Islam at a EDL rally outside the Israeli Embassy in London. Israeli flags have also been spotted at several EDL demonstrations across the UK.

As well as aggravating religious tensions, the EDL has established a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Division to "defend" gay people from Sharia law. There are also specialist divisions for women, soldiers and disabled people. The report warns these communities to be vigilant against "selective racism" and the EDL’s attempts at manipulation.

Contributors to the EDL Facebook site confirm that the group wants to work with other minority organisations including those which promote women’s rights. One member writes: "After all, leftists have portrayed themselves for decades as the only ones really interested in promoting a progressive and inclusive agenda: homosexual rights, women’s equality, minority rights, reproductive rights, immigration, world peace, among others."

One member added: "Remember there is a difference between being anti-Muslim and anti-Islam. We are against the ideology not the people. Let’s not forget that many Muslim women and children are victims of their own religion."

On the surface at least, the EDL appears to be less concerned with developing a serious and reasonable defense of Western cultural heritage than in crude, philistine Islamophobia resembling that of American neocons, combined with the hoary leftist habit of denouncing everything to the right of Leon Trotsky as racist, fascist, sexist, and homophobic. Indeed, the Islamophobia of the neocons sometimes comes close to resembling the anti-Catholic tirades originating from American know-nothings of the mid-nineteenth century. It is possible to recognize Islam as one of the world’s great civilizations and religious traditions, and even find much that is admirable about Islamic culture and history, while also recognizing that uncontrolled mass immigration by Muslims into the West amounts to cultural and demographic suicide. It is even possible to at once favor the preservation of Western civilization and agree with thinkers like Michael Scheuer and Robert Pape that much of the problem with Islamic terrorism is indeed “blowback” generated by unnecessary Western, mostly American, interventions and interference in the Islamic nations, and that some kind of apocalyptic showdown between the West and Islam is neither necessary nor inevitable. As Pat Buchanan says, “They are over here because we are over there,” and there is no clear reason why we Westerners should not seek peaceful co-existence with Islam as much as possible. While we don’t want to surrender Western nations to Islamic colonization via mass immigration, there is no reason why Muslims cannot exercise sovereignty in their traditional homelands.

The English Defense League is an organization I admittedly know little about. Perhaps English readers can enlighten me. If the depiction conveyed in this article is accurate, it would appear that the EDL is less interested in defending the Western civilization of Aristotle, Seneca, Augustine, and Michelangelo than in defending the Western civilization of Theodor Herzl, Betty Friedan, Harvey Milk, and RuPaul. AlternativeRight.Com contributor Richard Hoste has in the past made the plausible argument that a Europeanized Islam might even be an improvement over much of what goes on in Europe at present: “I don’t know what a Swedish Islam would look like, but it probably wouldn’t be half as ugly as the feminist-communist dystopia that the country is today.  The culture of that Nordic state repulses me a lot more than that of, say, Turkey. “

I’m inclined on one hand to regard these activities on the part of the EDL as one of those “So this is how it ends?” moments. If the principal objection to conquest of the West by means of demographic aggression by hostile immigrant populations is that some of the immigrants aren’t PC enough, then why bother? Surely a civilization that has sunk to such levels would deserve to die. Still, political pragmatism and eclecticism have their place. The approach of the EDL resembles in some ways the Dutch left-nationalist movement of the late Pim Fortuyn, and even my own approach to certain questions (for instance, my blurring of the left/right distinction when attacking the managerial state) bears a casual resemblance on occasion. A commenter on my blog suggests that the EDL’s efforts are largely motivated by a desire to steer anti-Islamic or anti-immigration sentiment away from support for the British National Party. That would seem to be as good an explanation for this spectacle as any. However, the EDL may have the positive unintended consequence of providing an entry level gateway for participants in its activities, particularly young people inclined towards either the Left or neocon sympathies, to eventually develop a more serious critique of the threat posed by uncontrolled immigration and a more solid intellectual and political defense of their cultural heritage and civilization.

It is true, as some observers point out, that many people make stupid choices and more or less freely vote for parties that insult them and take away their freedom and dignity. This is a very real problem and exposes some of the flaws of mass democracy. I don’t question that. The issue is whether there is also something else at work in the modern West in addition to this, and my answer to that is “yes”. As Bat Ye’or has demonstrated in her pioneer work Eurabia and I have confirmed in my own book Defeating Eurabia, the leaders of the European Union have been promoting Third World mass immigration, including Muslim immigration, as a long-term policy for decades. Similar policies are no doubt at work in North America.

The harassment of the popular immigration critic Thilo Sarrazin in Germany and the hostile international reactions to the referendum against Islamic minarets in Switzerland clearly demonstrate that we are also dealing with a self-appointed transnational elite in power throughout the Western world who are consciously and deliberately trying to dismantle Western nation states using international law combined with massive propaganda campaigns, “anti-racist” brainwashing of people of European origins and above all mass immigration.

U.S. writer Lee Harris is the author of the recent book The Next American Civil War -- The Populist Revolt against the Liberal Elite and the previous title The Suicide of Reason, which I have discussed before. In his essay The Tea Party vs. the Intellectuals, Harris describes how the USA’s intellectual elite has become radically out of touch with the sensibility of a large chunk of their nation’s population. He notes the “mounting dissatisfaction at living in a society in which a small group has increasingly solidified its monopoly over the manufacture and distribution of opinion, deciding which ideas and policies should be looked upon favorably and which political candidates will be sympathetically reported.”

Muslims rule the streets; the police look on impotently; Anarcho-Tyranny in action.   

Warsaw has witnessed all variations of heroism and infamy through its seven centuries of existence. Yet it can now mark a new milestone, since the Polish capital just played official host to the 2010 EuroPride Parade, an annual ritual in celebration of homosexual practices, along with ever so desperately-needed “tolerance” and “equal rights”. Next year’s event will take place in Rome, as if to drive home just who runs the show in the Eternal City. Poles who suffered for their nation and faith in the fight against Communism should by now be having second thoughts on the regime established after its fall.

What may seem just another nauseating spectacle well-rehearsed throughout the West is nonetheless significant in its political and strategic context. The parade is the Polish state’s coming-out party as a constituent nation of the Brave New World. Only two weeks prior, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had visited Poland to affirm the strong alliance ties between Washington and Warsaw and praise the country “as a model of democratic and free market transformation”. And indeed it is, as showcased by Europride 2010- though it’s in sore need of more abortions and immigrants from wildly incompatible cultures like those of Pakistan or Morocco. Poland is still in the earlier stages of social chaos, insolvency and spiritual collapse that the liberal order brings, but the State Department, Brussels and supporting NGOs like Freedom House and the Open Society Institute have ready-made solutions to speed the journey to Progress.

I'm not going to respond directly to Srdja Trifkovic,  since he said that our correspondence was over (for the record: in a responspe to a comment where I told him the same thing first), but there is an argument used by him and other professional Muslim haters that I can't stand.  It's called the "True Islam theory."  It goes like this. 

Oh so you think we can exist on the same planet as Muslims?  Do you know that in 1453 the Grand Turk said that the Holy Roman Emperor looked like a homo?  That in 1652 there were Muslim tourists who spit on the Sistine Chapel?  That the Koran says a woman is worth three toenails of a man?  That the great Muslim theologian Kareem Abdul-Jabar wrote in 1068 that moving to Europe to live off the welfare state and rape blondes is part of jihad? Read up on the real Islam, and what the religion is really about.  Then you'll be ready to debate.

The problem is that it doesn't take any historical or theological knowledge to know that "True Islam" is a chimera.

I knew this from the first time I picked up the Bible as a child.  I saw a passage commanding that disobedient children be stoned to death.  Nobody I knew did this, so nobody I knew was a real Christian.  Jesus tells us that "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple," (Luke 14:26) while one of the commandments is to honor one's parents.  Other blatant contradictions can be found.  Not only would people who practiced some of the more bizarre edicts in the Old Testament be locked in mental institutions, but for there to be a true version of an ideology that contradicts itself is a logical impossibility.

Of course practicing Christians believe that there is a "True Christianity," usually the one they just happen to be born into.  For the rest of us, the faith where it is practiced is simply one of the many historical and sociological factors that blend in with a group's innate characteristics to produce what we call a "culture."

Both sides in the Civil War thought Christ was on their side, as did the most fanatical slaveholders and abolitionists.  John Calvin, Martin Luther King,  Jr., Jim Wallis, Jerry Falwell, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Phillip Berryman, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Herbert Armstrong, St. Augustine.  All and a thousand others claimed to be men of God and shared the same Savior and same Bible.  Arguing over which of these are the "True Christians" is a project fit for morons.

It is the same with Islam.  Followers of Muhammad are told both to slay the infidels and that there is no compulsion in religion.  Here's a website that lists Koranic contradictions. A simple Google search will find you several sites that similarly take apart the Bible.  Do Malaysians, Saudis or Bosnians practice the "True Islam"?  Each of these groups has filtered Islam and the Koran through their respective biological makeups and pre-Islamic cultures.  The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, with a population of 238 million.  The fact that its culture is not that of Pakistan is due to a large extent to genetic differences. (Someone should ask Trifkovic if he believes in evolution or racial differences.)

Looking across the world, it seems that Muslim ethnies tend to have more in common with biologically related groups than they do genetically distant coreligionists.  Is Indonesia more like Thailand or Afghanistan?  Are Albanians more like Serbs or Saudis?  I by no means underestimate the importance of culture.  Indonesia and Buddhist Thailand are very different but in the former case Islam has not made a pacific race into a nation of holy warriors. 

As for Christians who go on about Islam's bloody history, “why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"  The religion that gave us the rack, the Inquisitions, burning at the stake, witch hunts and the Crusades has little room to talk.  A body count comparing the two faiths wouldn't even be close.

But Christians and Jewish and Serbian activists would agree with none of this.  They take the worst practices from the worst cultures of a community that makes up a sixth of the world's population and tell us that this is the "True Islam."  I think the motivations of the Zionists have been rehashed plenty of times already, but as for those of the Christian Muslim haters, I think one commentator to Trifkovic's last thread put it well and is worth quoting at length.

Those conservatives itching to start another Crusades (this time, against a feckless, inbred, infighting foe) are either evangelicals or Jews. Both have strong psychological need for an absurd Dar al-Islam bogeyman that has little to do with love of Western civilization.

Starting with Christians: let's face it... it's very hard for someone well-educated to believe in Bronze-Age Abrahamic gibberish. But many people still do (people who for similar reasons tend to be political conservatives; they 're simply overwhelmed to unreason by the prospect of a metaphysically unknowable, cruelly material world). Seeing how much more devoted Muslims are to their God (how many Christians would leave their EZ-loungers and die for their God?) embarrasses them; it also braces them by suggesting relativism (all religions can't be right, but all can certainly be wrong), setting into stark relief the superstition of religious belief in general. Thus, they need to believe Allah is the very incarnate of Evil, a false diabolical temptation. (It also doesn't hurt to have a common enemy to build morale among those Christians embarrassed at the effeminacy of the modern church.)

Then, more importantly, don't be fooled: Christians cannot care first and foremost about the eugenic advancement of the European races. Christianity is, after all, universalist (the mother of universalism, really). Because they must believe their eternal salvation is more important than any worldly consideration, devout Christians like Trifkovic have an "Apres Christianity, le deluge!" mentality. For them, the answer to all our problems has to be a rebirth of Christianity. Hoste is free to consider the fascinating question of what a European Islam would be like (Nietzsche: "If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men"); Hoste is free to consider the possibility that, perhaps, Europe owes its greatness to the superiority of the European people, to eugenic breeding arrangements, and to classical values, not Christian values (which are obviously Jewish in origin, though certainly refined by Europeans over millennia); Hoste is free to wonder whether, in fact, these very Christian values that Trifovic wants to rehabilitate (especially when co-opted by Jewish Leftists) sunk the West into the pitiful state it's in today. Trifkovic, on the other hand, has no such freedom. He is forced to consider the spread of Islam the moral equivalent of European genocide.

I stand by my statement about Turks having a superior culture to that of the Swedes.  Men having to sit down to pee, toddlers finding examples of gender stereotyping in animal stories, large scale projects to get men to take maternity leave, men trying to breastfeed their babies, little boys being forced to wear dresses, a state Church that approves of "homosexual marriage," etc.  If you don't prefer Albania to this (and we can agree that a Swedish Islam would be no more misogynist than that of of Albania), one is not of the Alternative Right, but of the Neo-con or Christian Zionist variety.  The main problem with a mass conversion would be possibly seeing even more non-white immigration-exacerbating Europe's racial problems.  These, however, can only be solved by spatial separation, not through a Holy War of our own which brings out the aspects of the historical West we don't want to revive.

It is hard to take seriously “Richard Hoste”’s latest article. It is tempting to indulge in sarcasm and disparagement. I’ll refrain, not for the sake of the author, whose diatribe is undeserving of such consideration, but because the topic is too grave to be treated frivolously.

If my latest piece on Islam was written by somebody of Jewish descent, Hoste claims, “90 percent of the commentators would’ve been telling the author that he was being hyperbolic and to fight his own battles.”

The view of Islam as the existential foe of Europe and its civilization -- its outré-mer offspring included -- is based on Islam’s own teaching and 13 centuries of blood-soaked practice. It is based on Europe’s long and appalling experience of Islam in action. Mr. Hoste is advised to acquaint himself with the Old Continent’s history and culture, perhaps focusing on Spain and the Balkans, before judging my views “hyperbolic.”

He would have to apply the same verdict to a host of other, better known authorities, including Tocqueville, Renan, Gladstone, Churchill, Belloc, and Chesterton -- to mention but a few of those who would pass Mr. “Hoste’s” ethno-racial screening test. Bat Ye’or would not, however, which is a pity, because her splendid work on Eurabia and Dhimmitude would help Mr. Hoste understand the roots of his peculiar mindset, and perhaps help him overcome them.

I'm ambivalent about Widers; however, this sounds like an entirely positive development: 

An anti-Muslim populist in the Netherlands is forming an international alliance to spread his message across the west in an attempt to ban immigration from Islamic countries, among other goals.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom party, told the Associated Press that he would launch the movement late this year, initially in five countries: the US, Canada, Britain, France and Germany.

"The message, 'stop Islam, defend freedom', is a message that's not only important for the Netherlands but for the whole free Western world," Wilders said at the Dutch parliament.

Among the group's aims will be outlawing immigration from Islamic countries to the west and a ban on Islamic sharia law. Starting as a grassroots movement, he hopes it eventually will produce its own lawmakers or influence other legislators.

With all due respect to Mr. Trifkovic, if his latest piece on Islam was written by somebody of Jewish descent 90 percent of the commentators would’ve been telling the author that he was being hyperbolic and to fight his own battles.

I'm no fan of Muslim immigration. In fact, I think that best case scenario most European countries will have a significant Muslim minority hostile to their societies forever.

But here in this country -- and Trifkovic doesn’t seem to differentiate between the U.S. and Europe -- of a Muslim population of six million or so, there have been at most 50 arrests for terrorism in the last decade (most of which are probably fake). Considering U.S. support for Israel, the sanctions on Iraq and Iran and the bombings of Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Yemen, American Muslims have behaved with incredible restraint. For comparison’s sake, and to see what a real problem population looks like, know that one in three black males can expect to spend time behind bars over his lifetime as can six percent of whites.

As I’ve written elsewhere,

And those ringing the warning bells of a “creeping Sharia” are even more moronic. Of 535 members of the US Congress, there is one Muslim and he supports homosexual marriage.  There are no Muslim governors, no Senators, no major media personalities, not even (probably) any Muslim police chiefs or mayors!

So there is no Muslim threat in America, from the position of either terrorism or a building up of institutional power. This couldn’t have been predicted beforehand, of course, so Muslim immigration was a bad idea from the start.  But the West’s problem is non-whites and enforced diversity, not Islam qua Islam, as the case of North American Muslims shows.

Trifkovic actually goes as far as calling for a “ban” on Islam if it doesn’t reform itself to his standards.  In this, he should know that he’s more fanatical than Osama bin Laden, who would let Christians live and practice their religion in Muslim lands.  Would he like to ban the Islam of Muslims indigenous to Europe like that practiced by Albanians and Bosnians, too? Or perhaps have the EU or NATO supervise each mosque to see if it’s sufficiently progressive, as they determined at what point the Serbs were badly enough behaved to be bombed?

We get the ominous warning,

If that loss is not reversed, the game is over anyway -- proving yet again that where God retreats, Allah advances.

I’m sure a man as intelligent and as educated on religious and cultural matters as the distinguished author knows that Allah is the Arabic word for God, a name which Middle Eastern Christians have been ascribing to their deity before the faith became that of Europe.  Literally, what the above statement says is “where God retreats, God advances.” If he’s speaking metaphorically, then we can interpret this as a linguistic point: Trifkovic worries that Arabic will replace the native European languages. But then again not all Europeans speak English. It would’ve made more sense to say “when God/Dieu/Gott retreats, Allah advances.”  Whatever the case may be, language differences with the new migrants is the least of Europe’s troubles.

The author states

America gave whole-hearted support to the worst nation on earth: Saudi Arabia, a veritable hotbed of raw barbarity that makes Kim Jong Il look eminently clubable.

This could only have been written by somebody who either knows nothing about North Korea or thinks sexual promiscuity is the only true freedom, in which case the author would have much in common with Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the tyrants from Brave New World, and Larry Auster (when it’s convenient for his ethnic interests.)  In Saudi Arabia, there’s no death penalty for using cell phones, the economy is freer than most other places in the world (it is in 65 on the Index of Economic Freedom, just behind France, compared to 179th, or last for the Hermit Kingdom), foreign TV shows and the Internet aren’t banned (though censored), citizens can leave the country and come back and there are no concentration camps filled with families of government enemies. Even Christians are better off in Saudi Arabia. Once again, aside from the issue of sex it’s hard to see in what way the Saudi Kingdom is within the same universe of totalitarianism as North Korea.

In Trifkovic’s conclusion, that more Europeans may convert to Islam as time goes by and the religion gains power, I actually think he may be right.  But most of them would be converting from Secular Humanism, not anything that can be called Christianity.  It would be a mistake to believe that whites would be Muslims in the same way Pakistanis or Saudis are; the faith would be molded to conform with the biological characteristics of its adopters, or “Europeanized” as Christianity was in the first place.  I don’t know what a Swedish Islam would look like, but it probably wouldn’t be half as ugly as the feminist-communist dystopia that the country is today.  The culture of that Nordic state repulses me a lot more than that of, say, Turkey.  Not that I advocate a European mass conversion -- such an event would have unforeseen consequences beyond what any mortal could predict -- though I could imagine a situation where a Muslim Europe was the least of all evils.

One thing we may consider: from the perspective of white survival, Islam may be the best bet. What would be lost to miscegenation would be more than made up for in higher birthrates. Whether a European Islam would have higher or lower rates of immigration is harder to say. Whites may sympathize with their new Arab and North African cousins, or they may become like other Muslim countries, i.e. restrictionists. Once again, too many variables to make solid predictions. We must have a realistic picture of the Muslim people though and not turn the abstraction "Islam" into some sort of Satanic prototype we expect people to conform to. 

If we are going to reject this scenario, and stick it out with Christianity no matter how much it's failed or try for a revival of Paganism, we have to understand that the hostile minority in the heart of Europe is there to stay. The BNP used to favor repartition. Imagine how much money it would take to convince your average Pakistani or African immigrant (or one who was born in the West and doesn't even speak the language of his ancestors) to go back to his country of origin, multiply it by the number of non-whites and you would easily see that such schemes are impractical for all countries but those maintaining the largest white majorities (you think entitlement programs are expensive!). Genocide should be off the table; the same with regards to crazy ideas like banning Islam or the Koran which would lead to civil war and be incompatible with civilized society.  What options are left? I have no good answers, and neither does anyone else.

Like Communism, Islam relies on a domestic fifth column -- the Allah-worshiping Rosenbergs, Philbys, Blunts, and Hisses -- to subvert the civilized world. It also relies on an army of fellow-travelers, the latter-day Sartres and Shaws in the ivory towers, on “liberal academics and opinion-makers" -- as the late Sam Francis once put it -- who "sympathize with Islam partly because it is a leading historical rival of the Western civilization they hate” and partly because they long for a romanticized and sanitized Muslim past that substitutes for the authentic Western and Christian roots they have rejected.

Those roots must be defended, in the full knowledge that those who subscribe to Islam and its civilization are aliens, regardless of their clothes, their professions or their places of residence. They sense Western weakness and expect that if Islam supplies the only old religious tradition left standing 50 years hence, it may attract mass conversion. That would indeed be the end of the West, its final surrender to the spirit masterfully depicted by Jean Raspail in the preface to the 1985 French edition of his Camp of Saints:

The West is empty, even if it has not yet become really aware of it. An extraordinarily inventive civilization, surely the only one capable of meeting the challenges of the third millennium, the West has no soul left. At every level -- nations, race, cultures as well as individuals -- it is always the soul that wins the decisive battles.

The story that Raspail tells is rooted in a “onstrous cancer implanted in the Western conscience.” One word, "Srebrenica," embodies it perfectly. Its roots are in the loss of Faith, and in the arrogant doctrine -- rampant in “the West” for three past centuries now -- that man can solve the dilemma of his existence by his unaided intellect alone.

If that loss is not reversed, the game is over anyway -- proving yet again that where God retreats, Allah advances.

Before 1914, both the West and the Muslim world could define themselves against each other in a cultural sense. What secularism has done, since replacing Christianity as the guiding light of “the West,” is to cast aside any idea of a Christian social, geographic, and cultural space that should be protected. Islam, “extreme” or “moderate,” has not softened, however. The consequences will be very serious unless Muslims are either “westernized” -- that is to say, made as willing as Christians to see their religion first relativized, then mocked, and its commandments misrepresented or ignored -- or else Christianized, which of course cannot happen unless there is a belated, massive, and unexpected recovery of Western spiritual and moral strength.

As things stand now, the West faces two clear alternatives: defense, or submission and acceptance of sacred Arab places as its own. The latter is the visceral preference of the Western elite class, and "Srebrenica" is its totem.

Islam should not be blamed for being what it is, nor should its adherents be condemned for maintaining their traditions. We should not "hate" it, nor ban it, if it reforms itself to the standards of a civilized, that is, non-Muslim society. If it does not happen -- and miracles are always possible -- it should be banned, of course. The Kuran’s exhortations to the believers to annihilate the non-believers, to confiscate their land and property, to take their women and enslave their children are clear and unambiguous, and the fruits have been ghastly. In the present state of Western weakness, such Muslim firmness may appear attractive to the legions of cynical nihilists and lead further millions to the conclusion that we should all become Muslims, since our goose is cooked anyway, spiritually and demographically.

Those of us who do not cherish that prospect should at least demand that our rulers present that option fairly and squarely. To pretend, as the ruling elite does, that Islam is “a religion of peace,” rather like Episcopalianism, is stupid or deeply dishonest.

Islam might have been made much less threatening if the West had not conciliated or sponsored its most threatening exponents. Islam was exposed to a devastating collapse in credibility within the Arab world itself in the middle of the twentieth century. The forces of secularity were very strong indeed. But America opposed them at every turn because they were socialist or communist or simply not “in the national interest.” America gave whole-hearted support to the worst nation on earth: Saudi Arabia, a veritable hotbed of raw barbarity that makes Kim Jong Il look eminently clubable. As the economies of real states falter and haltr, the Saudi petrodollars are poured into establishing violent fanaticism as the big alternative.

“As a man thinketh, so is he.” The real problem of the Muslim world is not that of natural resources or political systems. Ernest Renan, who started his study of Islam by praising its ability to manifest “what was divine in human nature,” ended it -- a quarter of a century and three long tours of the Muslim world later -- by concluding that “Muslims are the first victims of Islam” and that, therefore, “to liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him.”

Islam is a collective psychosis seeking to become global, and any attempt to abet such madness is to become part of the madness oneself. The purveyors of "Srbrenica" are worse than criminal: they are mistaken.

That is exactly how the sponsors of the “Srebrenica Remembrance Day” -- currently before the Canadian House of Commons -- want it to be:

Whereas the Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide, was the killing in July of 1995 of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by Bosnian Serb forces;

Whereas the Srebrenica Massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II and the largest massacre carried out by Serb forces during the Bosnian war;

Whereas the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague, unanimously decided in the case of Prosecutor v. Krstić that the Srebrenica Massacre was genocide…

The trouble is that the event known to the bill’s sponsors as the “Srebernica genocide” was no such thing. The contention that as many as 8,000 Muslims were killed has no basis in available evidence; it is not an “estimate” but a political construct. The magnitude of casualties at Srebrenica and the context of events have been routinely misrepresented in official reports by the pro-Muslim governments, quasi-non-governmental institutions, and the media. 

As for The Hague Tribunal, an Orwellian institution with which I am well acquainted, its “unanimous decisions” are as drearily predictable as those in Moscow in 1936. It is not known to the public, however, that those “decisions” are now disputed by a host of senior Western military and civilian officials, NATO intelligence officers and independent intelligence analysts who dispute the official portrayal of the capture of Srebrenica as a unique atrocity in the Bosnian conflict.