Europe: The Demographic Conquest

Our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country … We kidded ourselves a while, we said: “They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone,” but this isn’t reality … And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other … has failed, utterly failed.

—Chancellor Angela Merkel1

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

—Prime Minister David Cameron2

My answer is clearly yes, [multiculturalism] is a failure. Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want a society where communities coexist side by side … If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France.

—President Nicolas Sarkozy

This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land. The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values because your norms and values are just as good—perhaps even better—than ours … This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.

—Geert Wilders3

Europe is no longer Europe, it is Eurabia, a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense.

—Journalist Oriana Fallaci4

We do not integrate into Christianity. We will ensure that one day you will integrate into the Sharia Islamic law.

—Anjem Choudary5

On July 22, 2011 a car bomb exploded near several government buildings in downtown Oslo, Norway. Eight people were killed. As police and emergency responders arrived on the scene, no one yet realized that the attack was only just beginning. The man responsible for the bombing, a young Norwegian named Anders Behring Breivik, was already on his way to the island of Utøya, where a Workers Youth League camp run by Norway’s Labour Party was in session.

Breivik posed as a police officer on his way to Utøya. When he arrived, he opened fire on the unarmed adolescents. Using a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun, he walked across the island firing at everyone he could see. Once the would-be victims realized what was happening, some fled across the island while others ran into the sea to escape. By the time a SWAT unit arrived from Oslo to secure the island, Breivik had killed 69 more people— most of them teenagers.

When news of the event broke, the fear for many was that here was yet another terror attack by Islamists. After Breivik was captured, it was revealed that he had sent a large 1,500 page manifesto to dozens of people in which his planning of the attacks—and his reasons for carrying them out—were laid out in every detail:

More than 90 percent of the EU and national parliamentarians and more than 95 percent of journalists are supporters of European multiculturalism and therefore supporters of the ongoing Islamic colonization of Europe; yet they DO NOT have the permission of the European peoples to implement these doctrines.6

Breivik’s attack was monstrous in every way—no better than the Islamic terrorists we initially feared may have been responsible. But the cause of the attack, the thing that drove him to massacre his fellow citizens, is very real: the fear of Islamic conquest of Europe. Breivik’s attack was remarkable in that he did not target Muslims; he targeted European elites (the youth camp on Utøya was attended by children of Norway’s political elite) whom he blamed for the Muslim presence.

THE DEMOGRAPHIC INVASION OF EUROPE

Invasion and conquest have been part of human life from the beginning. Only the means have changed, as spears and arrows gave way to atomic bombs and bioengineered weaponry. But Europe today is not facing a modern threat involving weapons of mass destruction or complex planning. Instead, it’s the oldest form of invasion and conquest in the world—demographic. The invading army is armed with nothing more than young men and women and their offspring who hope to irritate, then stymie, and then obliterate their enemy. The invading army is Islam.

In Muhammad’s time, Islam’s preferred approach to dominion included military campaigns, forced conversions, and ethnic cleansing. In the 21st century, Islam no longer has the military power necessary to engage the world in such ways. Because of this, many people (particularly in the West) falsely believe the old process of subjugation is no longer taking place or that it is no longer practically feasible. In truth, the process is accelerating. Standing armies have been discarded in favor of the more devious and insidious weapon of demographic conquest. Others may have dreamed of world conquest, but Islam has the power to achieve it.

Public acts of terror are little more than a diversionary tactic in this war. The replacement of European populations by demographic invasion is the more serious and effective weapon. In a speech in 2006, former Libyan revolutionary leader Muhammar Gadhafi said, “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”7

Gadhafi was only exaggerating a little. As of 2010, Europe was inhabited by 44.1 million Muslims, compared to less than 30 million who lived there in 1990.8 Over that 20- year period, Muslims grew from under four percent to six percent of the total population of Europe. Millions more are already at the gates, waiting for any chance—legal or illegal—to pour into the continent.

The Islamic demographic invasion is being helped along by dramatically declining birth rates in the Western world. The European Union equivalent of the U.S. Census Bureau reported that live birth rates per woman (a statistic known as the fertility rate) had dropped to an average of 1.58 in the European Union in 2011.9 That’s well below the fertility rate of 2.1 commonly understood as necessary for stable population replacement. Today, the European Union relies on immigration for population growth.

The idea of an Islamic demographic threat to Europe has been gaining ground, despite limited media attention to the issue. In 2006, Canadian conservative Mark Steyn made it the theme of his book, America Alone. Steyn argues that selfish preoccupations with pleasure and lives lived without serious consequences have made European countries vulnerable to the raw numbers of Islamic believers. Some of Europe’s most strongly-held beliefs today contribute to its predicament, he says. “In their bizarre prioritization of ‘a woman’s right to choose’, feminists have helped ensure that European women will end their days in a culture that doesn’t accord women the right to choose anything.”10 Steyn believes demographics will destroy Europe and replace it with “Eurabia,” a term coined by Giselle Littman (also known as Bat Ye’Or) to refer to an Islamized Europe.

THE MULTICULTURAL FAÇADE

Large-scale Muslim immigration to Europe is shielded by an innocuous-sounding ideology called multiculturalism. As the Yale sociologist Jeffrey C. Alexander has explained, “In the early 1970s ‘multicultural’ connoted ‘compromise, interdependence, a relativizing universalism, and an expanding intercultural community.’”11 Instead, as the flow of immigrants from outside the West increased, Western countries were faced with increasing and persistent difficulties in integrating their new populations. These countries experienced a dramatic failure in their multicultural models. Yet mass immigration continues.

Meanwhile, the term ‘multiculturalism’ itself has undergone changes since its first inception. In its more extreme forms, the term now refers to an anti-Western ideology which promotes and protects the customs and perspectives of non-European ethnicities against the customs and perspectives of their hosts. According to Dwight Murphey, a former Professor at Wichita State University:

When expressed less stridently, [multiculturalism] praises “diversity” as a high value and supports the substitution of non-European customs for those that have heretofore prevailed in the West. This is a “diversity” that is advocated for Western nations, but is not at the same time pressed upon other cultures such as those of China, Japan or Latin America.12

Multiculturalism today promotes a large-scale societal shift by creating an environment in which non-European immigrants are comfortable without having to assimilate, while at the same time demonizing Europeans who dare to speak out against such an environment.

For years, many European Union countries based their immigration policies on the principle of multiculturalism. More recently, European leaders have begun to back away from these earlier policies, especially in regard to the Muslim immigrants who often compose the largest part of their immigrant populations. German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared: “The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart … Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots.”13 Her statement is particularly striking given that previous multicultural policies in Germany were aimed at protecting the substantial Turkish immigrant population. German experiences with the Turks, however, have prompted a reevaluation. One well-known German political journalist agreed with Merkel, adding, “If multiculturalism means that it’s okay for 30,000 Turks to live in a certain quarter of Berlin, and never leave, and live like they’re still in deepest Turkey, then the term is now discredited.”14

MUSLIM IMMIGRATION IN GREECE

The vast majority of illegal immigrants to Europe enter through Greece. Between 1991 and 2001, the immigrant population in Greece increased by well over 400 percent.15 Since 2001, estimates are more nebulous since many of the immigrants passing through Greece are illegal and therefore unregistered. In 2010 alone, over 130,000 people were arrested for staying in or entering Greece illegally.16 Whether fleeing war or seeking a land of milk and honey, illegal immigrants come to Greece using the porous Turkish border as a gateway to Europe. As of 2010, Greece accounted for roughly 90 percent of all illegal border crossings into EU territory (up from 75 percent in 2009).17

One popular method involves a short journey by sea. Immigrants in Turkey are supplied with boats and sharp knives. They’re instructed to use the knives to disable their boats as soon as they enter Greek waters. By doing so, they create a humanitarian disaster, compelling Greek authorities to help. The clandestine agents who support such methods live in Turkey, beyond the reach of Greek law. More brazen agents attempt similar humanitarian disaster cruises across the Mediterranean Sea. In one recent case in April 2015, hundreds of refugees being smuggled from Libya were drowned when their ship was wrecked in the Mediterranean. Experts estimate some 900 people had already died in 2015 in similar incidents prior to this event.18

The massive, uninvited incursion of immigrants into Greece has sparked an increase in crime. According to one research group, Greek prison populations are now 60.4% foreign, despite foreigners making up only about 10 percent of the total population.19 Police officials capture and deport thousands of criminal migrants each year, only to see many of them return with new names and passports.

MUSLIM IMMIGRATION IN FRANCE

Apart from Russia, France has Europe’s biggest Muslim population, totaling around five million.20 Illegal immigration of Muslims is also a major problem, and there has been a rapid rise in deportations of illegal immigrations from 9,320 in 2000 to 36,822 in 2012.21 Two million Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Socialist candidate Francois Hollande in the 2012 presidential election, support that helped him win victory over Nicolas Sarkozy, whose government had become so active in removing troublemaking Muslims.22 Furthermore, there are now more mosques being built in France than Roman Catholic churches.23

French society is based upon the concept of political unity, and French citizens are expected to conform to French culture. These expectations were tested in 2010 when a controversial law was passed outlawing the wearing of full-face covering veils in public. The law was supported by 80 percent of French voters and passed by an overwhelming 246 to 1 vote. The French Interior Ministry estimated that only about 2,000 of the five million or so Muslims in France wore veils covered by the law. Yet the law has provoked incidents across the country. In one of the most serious outbreaks, multiple police units had to be called in to subdue hundreds of rioting Muslims in a French suburb after an officer attempted to enforce the law.24

Muslim violence is a growing problem in France. In 2013, a 22-year-old Muslim convert confessed to a failed attempt to murder a French soldier in Paris after being inspired by religious teachers. The French Interior Minister described the case as part of a threat from “increasingly radicalized petty offenders with the potential to commit similar attacks.”25

The case of Mohammed Merah, a French citizen of Algerian origin, is a good example of the severity of the problem. Merah was a troubled teenager with a long record of petty crimes and a spell in prison at 19, where he is believed to have been converted to the cause of jihad. From there, he traveled to Egypt and Pakistan, where his radical journey continued. Upon returning from Afghanistan he prepared intensively for mass murder.26 Then, in March 2012, he went on a killing spree. His first victim was a French soldier who Merah shot in the head at close range, saying, “You kill my brothers, so I am killing you.”27 Four days later, Merah carried out an attack at a shopping center, killing two more soldiers and seriously injuring a third before fleeing.

Eight days after Merah’s initial attack, he assaulted the schoolyard of a Jewish middle school. He grabbed one of his victims, an eight-year-old girl, by the hair and shot her in the head at close range. Merah killed two more children and a Rabbi before escaping again. Police carried out the largest manhunt in French history to find Merah, and eventually killed him in a shootout. During the siege before the shootout, Merah spoke to a French editor by phone, telling her that (in her words), “These deaths were not only necessary … they were to uphold the honor of Islam.”28

MUSLIM IMMIGRATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

The United Kingdom is a popular destination for illegal immigrants because asylum and refugee status are easier to obtain there. In the popular imagination, the UK is thought of as a typical country of white Europeans, but demographically this is no longer the case. As of 2011, Asian (a category including Indians and Pakistanis), Black, and mixed populations made up about 15 percent of the total population of England, and five percent of the population identified as Muslim.29 Some towns in the London area have Muslim populations in excess of 50 percent, and large city centers typically are about 14 percent Muslim.30

With this postwar increase in the Muslim population and its increasingly hostile Islamic supremacy, violence has also come to British streets. In June 2013, six men were sentenced to prison for a failed attempt to bomb a political rally in 2012. Police uncovered the plot after one of the two cars planned for use in the bombing was stopped for lack of insurance. They discovered a bomb made from modified fireworks filled with nails and ball bearings and a message declaring, “We love death more than you love life. Where penalty for blasphemy of Allah and his Messenger Muhammad is death.”31

In May 2013, two Nigerian British converts to Islam killed a British soldier in the streets of London. They hit him with a car, and then attacked him with knives and a meat cleaver in an attempt to decapitate him before police could arrive. The men told witnesses they had killed the young soldier to avenge Muslims killed by British troops overseas. One of the attackers was filmed by a witness, declaring:

You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you and your children.32

For the most part, the British response to such plots and attacks has been to treat them as individual incidents rather than part of a pattern. This attitude is one reason why French officials in the mid-1990s coined the term “Londonistan” to describe Britain’s willingness to allow radical Islamists to stay in Britain so long as their terror activities were kept outside the country. This approach, which can only be called appeasement, clearly is no longer working as the number of terror attacks on British soil attests.33

One hotbed of Islamic radicalization in the United Kingdom is the prison system. Although Muslims are only 5 percent of the total population, they make up more than 13 percent of the prison population. Inmates are often bullied into conversion or end up converting in exchange for protection. One of Britain’s largest prisons is 42 percent Muslim and, according to the prison officers’ union, “is now effectively run by Muslims, many of whom are jihadis,” and is a prime recruiting ground for terror groups.34

A growing problem in England has been the prevalence of sexual abuse and pedophilia in its Muslim population. Events in the city of Bradford between the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013 illustrate the problem. In November 2012, a Member of Parliament (MP) representing part of Bradford set off an angry reaction by claiming that gangs of Muslim men were “going around and raping white kids.” But while people were reacting to his claims, the police were also investigating them—and over the next two months made 30 arrests in connection with child sex crimes.35 Then, seven months later, police uncovered what they believe to be the largest child sex ring ever found in the United Kingdom. 45 men, most of them Muslims, were arrested in the Bradford area on charges of abusing four British girls (the youngest only 13 years old). That Bradford MP was not spouting racism; he was describing a horrific reality.36 In Britain today, “the majority of convictions obtained against the child sex grooming gangs have been against men of Pakistani origin who have exploited, repeatedly gang-raped, and sexually tortured vulnerable young girls over long periods.”37

MUSLIM IMMIGRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS

In 2010, the Pew Research Center estimated Muslims in the Netherlands at about 5.5 percent of the total population.38 That percentage is expected to increase to 7.8 by 2030. Worldwide attention on the Netherlands increased when actor, writer, and film producer Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam. Van Gogh was a staunch anti-multiculturalist who produced a film called Submission (the literal English translation of the word ‘Islam’) portraying four abused Muslim women. Van Gogh wanted to draw attention to the abuse of women that took place under Islam. He didn’t take the inevitable death threats he received for the film seriously, and was stabbed and shot to death in public for his “insult” to Islam.39

While the overall numbers of Muslims in European countries like the Netherlands may appear small, this appearance is counteracted by their concentration in important cities and the aggressiveness with which they engage their host communities. For example, Muslims make up around 5.5 percent of the population in the Netherlands, but a quarter of the residents of the two largest cities (Amsterdam and Rotterdam) are Muslims.40 In addition, in January 2012 “Dutch authorities revealed that 65 percent of youths of Moroccan origin between twelve and twenty-three years old have been detained at least once by the police.”41 Apologists would respond that these high crime rates in Muslim communities are the result of racism and enforced separation. But as we have seen, this is actually a reversal of the truth. It is the Islamic culture of the Muslim immigrants that teaches them to despise and reject European cultures and turns many into enemies within. As has been noted, the Netherlands opened its arms in tolerant welcome to newcomers and yet, as Bruce Bawer reflects, “many Dutch Muslims kept that society at arm’s length, despising its freedoms and clinging to a range of undemocratic traditions and prejudices.”42

MUSLIMS IN EUROPE

While specific details may vary from country to country, the Muslim incursion into Europe follows a similar pattern. Radical Islam uses all Muslims as weapons in a struggle to impose Islam on completely alien soil. Even so-called moderate Muslims are useful tools in this fight. They do not object to Islam as such becoming dominant, and even the most moderate of them will often see one or more members of their large families who refuse to assimilate to European ways.

A key element in the pattern is the exploitation of the European welfare system. If demography is the preferred weapon of war, use of the host countries’ welfare systems is like heavy artillery directed against the European economy. According to a 2011 article, Muslims were four times more likely than non-Muslims to be on welfare in Germany; in Norway non-Westerners were ten times more likely than native Norwegians to be on welfare.43

France is attempting to stand firm. A series of high-profile cases of welfare fraud prompted legal changes to the country’s benefit system. In one case, a polygamist who had fathered 15 children by multiple wives was using the “extra” wives and children to fraudulently collect some 175,000 Euros worth of benefits. On top of that, he was housing illegal immigrants in his butcher shop, where he paid his workers less than minimum wage.44 He wasn’t alone. There are somewhere between 16,000 – 20,000 polygamous families in France as of 2013, despite the practice being forbidden.45 After years of this, the French government had enough, and in March 2013 immigrants receiving financial assistance began to see their benefits dramatically reduced. France’s Interior Minister justified the change by saying existing benefits programs were not working:

If this is not done, the costs for the maintenance of migrants now paid by the French Treasury will continue to devastate the economy of France that is already suffering from the crisis caused by international factors.46

If even a Socialist government is cutting benefits, the problem must be very grim indeed. Welfare fraud is an even more acute problem in the United Kingdom. A Pakistani- born member of the House of Lords addressed the problem in 2011 when she went public with the claim that Muslims were abusing the English welfare system. She described how, hypothetically, a Pakistani man could use polygamy in Muslim countries to rack up extra wives and children, then bring them back to England, where they would be counted as “single mothers” with dependents eligible for benefits. He could repeat the process for as

many wives as Pakistan would allow him.47
This hypothetical situation turned out to be not-so-hypothetical at all. It didn’t take

journalists long to turn up a couple of real-life examples. In one case, a Muslim taxi driver in Blackburn had five wives and “so many children that he struggles to remember their names.” The “extra” wives were considered single mothers by the state and received benefits accordingly. Another case involved a 27-year-old pizza delivery driver in Yorkshire with three wives—two of whom he kept in separate residences, collecting single mother benefits from the welfare system.48

Consider the case of the radical Islamist Anjem Choudary in the United Kingdom. His “day job” is striving to impose Islamic law on the West. Because he isn’t working, Choudary enjoys the equivalent of $40,000 (£25,000) in tax-free benefits each year. This cleric has been filmed publicly urging other Muslims to do the same thing and live off the state so they have more time to devote to holy war. Mocking the British name for unemployment insurance (the Job Seeker’s Allowance), Choudary calls this state-support a “Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”49 In this way, Choudary pillages his enemy’s treasury while the rest of his Islamic army does the same to the country in slow demographic conquest.

Among Pakistanis, first cousin marriage is not only allowed, it is considered a point of pride; proof that a family has high standing and is very desirable. Pakistani immigrants have brought the same practice with them to the United Kingdom, and as a result, “British Pakistanis accounted for 3.4 percent of all births but have 30 percent of all British children with ‘recessive disorders.’”50 The cost of caring for such children falls on the British taxpayers as well.

Muslims also exert a drain on taxpayers through the use of culturally “necessary” operations. For example, between 2005 and 2009, the British National Health Service performed over one hundred virginity operations—that is, operations to restore a woman’s hymen—at a cost to taxpayers of £400,000. Young Muslim women have the operation due to the expectation from their future husbands or male relatives that they will be virgins when they marry.51

A more grim issue is that of rape. Rape of non-Muslim women is often justified on the grounds that Western women are “immodest” in the eyes of Muslims or “infidels” deserving of no moral treatment. Here again the United Kingdom has been at the center of some of the most terrifying cases. After gang-rape cases involving Pakistani men came to light across the country, a UK House of Commons report into the matter concluded that “evidence presented to us suggests that there is a model of localized grooming of Pakistani- heritage men targeting young white girls.”52

One particularly heinous case involved a group of nine Muslim men called the “Rochdale gang.” This group preyed on young teenage girls from broken homes—the more vulnerable the better. The men took them in and groomed them to be sex slaves. Of course the whole thing was kept private since, as one of the defendants told the trial, the men didn’t want anyone in the Muslim community to see them with young white girls. In pronouncing the guilty verdict upon the group, the British judge declared, “All of you treated [the victims] as though they were worthless and beyond respect.”53

Less than a year later, another case in Britain demonstrated that Rochdale was no outlier. In Oxford, another sex ring run by Muslims prompted an outcry even from Britain’s Muslim community that the child exploitation was too much to bear. One victim of the seven-man gang told reporters after the trial that the members “exclusively wanted white girls to abuse.” The gang targeted underage girls living in care homes and fed them alcohol and drugs to make them more pliable to whatever sick demands the men might make. A Muslim writer who discussed the case with horror described how some Islamic preachers fed an attitude of contempt toward white girls and women:

They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent and sleazy—sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs [sic] or non-believers … According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished by being exploited and degraded.54

The end result, according to the same writer, is a situation where Muslims who would never dare target Muslim girls for sexual abuse out of fear of the consequences feel no shame or concern out of targeting vulnerable British girls for the same treatment. This will not change, he said, unless “we abandon the dangerous blinkers of political correctness and antiquated multiculturalism.”55

ISLAMIC TERROR ATTACKS IN EUROPE

The increasing Muslim presence in Europe has already led to a number of well-known terror attacks. One of the most devastating was the London suicide bombings—often referred to by the date of its occurrence, “7/7”—in 2005. This incident involved three separate suicide bombings perpetrated by home-grown Islamic terrorists in the London subway system, with a fourth bomb on a double-decker bus. 52 civilians were killed and more than 700 injured. The group that carried out the attack was not directed by al- Qaeda, but simply Muslims living in Britain.56

A similar attack took place in Madrid, Spain in 2004. This attack was planned to occur just a few days before Spain’s general election and intended to shift Spanish policy away from supporting the US-led war on terror. Bombers targeted commuter trains, killing 191 and injuring over 1,800. As with the London bombings, this attack was influenced but not directed by al-Qaeda.57

Even the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States had a European connection. The planning for the event was based in Hamburg, Germany. While the target may have been American, Europe provided the center of planning and the staging ground for the plotters.58

The reality of Islamic terrorism has provoked counter-responses from various groups in Europe. In Greece, the Golden Dawn political party rocketed from obscurity to gain support from more than 10 percent of voters on the strength of their opposition to immigration. Members of the party were connected with a number of violent anti-immigrant attacks, but many Greeks, fed up with the government’s inability or unwillingness to do anything about the itinerant populations, put up with it. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom is the fourth-largest political group in the country. The group is strongly anti-Islamic, with Wilders himself declaring, “Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture. I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people.”59 Backlash attacks and parties indicate the increasing enmity between Islam and the citizens of its host countries in the West.

SOME WHO SEE

Not all in the West are blind to the true nature of the Islamic war against Europe and the rest of the world. Many of those who see the truth are not radical extremists of the left or right, but observant and rational people with a clear view of the issues. They do not advocate campaigns of hate, but they are completely unsatisfied by the head in the sand approach dictated by political correctness or multiculturalism. One of the most outspoken of these was Oriana Fallaci, a distinguished novelist and journalist from Italy.

Fallaci came face-to-face with Islamic intentions toward Europe in 1972 when she interviewed a Palestinian extremist with a gun pointed at her head. The Palestinian explained that Islam was at war with the West:

[The Arabs will] advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the entire planet.60

Fallaci realized later that the extremist was referring to a broad cultural war that included multiple fronts. As she explained later, the man “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens.”61

Although Fallaci was an atheist, she came to see the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI as allies in her effort to rouse Europeans to the Islamic threat. For her trouble, she was put on trial in northern Italy on charges of defaming Islam in her 2004 book, The Strength of Reason. Fallaci died of breast cancer before she could defend herself in court, but she told the Wall Street Journal in one of her final interviews that she respected Pope Benedict for his recognition of the problems posed by “Eurabia.” “I am an atheist,” she said, “and if an atheist and a pope think the same things, there must be something true.”62

THE SUPREME IRONY

Muslims never stop demanding that Europeans actively respect their religious, political, and human rights in the West. European governments, on the other hand, hardly whisper a word about the lack of religious, political, and human freedoms in the Muslim world. They do not mention the despicable treatment of women or minorities in countries such as Saudi Arabia. European nations invite Muslims in and do not ask them to learn about or respect the greatness of Western civilization, yet European populations are expected—and even required—to kowtow to the glory of Islamic civilization.

In January 2011, Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard was taken to court for daring to speak out about Islam. Hedegaard was an eminent journalist, president of both the Danish Free Press Society and the International Free Press Society—by no means an extremist nut. His “hate” crime was stating in 2009 that domestic violence and child rape take place in Muslim families at disturbingly high levels. But truth is no defense under Denmark’s hate speech laws; the only relevant issue is whether someone felt offended.63 For pointing out a statistical fact, Hedegaard got himself in legal trouble, and in 2013 an angry Muslim attempted to assassinate him in his own home (he foiled the attempt).

In Austria, a housewife in Vienna named Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff faced up to three years in prison for “hate” activity. Her crime was conducting seminars explaining the perils of radical Islam in which she used direct quotations from the Qur’an. Unable to convict her of hate speech, prosecutors charged her instead with “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” She was found guilty and had a fine levied against her.64

One of the most ironic cases involves Dutch politician Geert Wilders. In 2009, Wilders was arrested for hate speech stemming from comments he had made in previous years about Islam. After a long public trial, Wilders was acquitted in 2011. Then in 2012, Wilders was described in public by a radical Islamist as a “dog of the Romans” who would have to be dealt with once the Netherlands became an Islamic state. The same speaker pointedly referred to “the case of Theo van Gogh” to illustrate what would have to become of men such as Wilders. No arrest was made under the same hate speech law that was applied to Wilders. Instead, when a passerby tried to challenge the man making such threats, he was himself arrested for his trouble.65

The best living example of the maddening absurdity of the “hate speech” situation in Europe is probably Anjem Choudary, the proud welfare claimant mentioned earlier. Choudary is a British-born Muslim of Pakistani descent who has made a name for himself in England as an outspoken supporter of the Islamization of the country. He has publicly voiced support for both the 9/11 attacks and the July 7, 2005 suicide bombings in London. Despite being born in England, he has made clear his belief that religion trumps national allegiance, calling his British passport “no more than a travel document.”66 Choudary advocates subjecting the UK to sharia law, and has made his rejection of the West clear:

As Muslims, we reject democracy, we reject secularism, and freedom, and human rights. We reject all of the things that you espouse as being ideals … There is nothing called a republic in Islam. When we talk about the shari’a, we are talking about only the shari’a.67

For all this, Choudary walks around freely and has experienced little more than mild social disapproval.

European countries seem willing to tolerate almost any level of “hate speech” from their Muslim communities, while any citizen who dares speak on the other side faces a criminal complaint. Further, the idea of criminalizing a description of facts simply because they may be painful for one group of people to hear is antithetical to the very idea of free speech or a free society. If multiculturalism means holding native citizens to a standard which is never applied to guests, it is a very confused ideology indeed.

THE EUROPEAN DEMOGRAPHIC WAR UNVEILED

The Islamic demographic war in Europe is first and foremost a war of numbers. These numbers include populations which have been in Europe long enough to become citizens and establish a political voice as well as waves of new immigrants—legal and illegal—who spread throughout the continent. Social scientists have found that if 10 percent of a given population holds a firm, unshakable belief, that belief will always become accepted by the majority in time.68 With six percent of the European population already Muslim, that 10 percent tipping point is frighteningly close.

It is already abundantly clear that the Islamic population has no intention of assimilating to its host countries. Instead, it has already established a separate society within those societies, apart from the native populations. One section of The Hague in the Netherlands is called the “Sharia Triangle,” a territory belonging to orthodox Muslims which is completely ignored by politicians, city officials, and even police. Within this area, Muslims dictate the customs and the laws. For non-Muslims the area is simply “no-go.”69

Similar conditions exist in almost every large city in Europe with a significant Muslim population. There are areas in London, Malmo, and the Paris suburbs, for example, where sharia law is already the de facto “law of the land.” European cities used to have quarters where Jewish populations lived apart, more or less according to their own rules. But Jews weren’t aiming to replace the native populations and make Talmudic law the governing law of the country.

The Islamic demographic war is also a war of attrition. By demanding and receiving extensive welfare benefits, creating fear and insecurity in native populations, and filling prisons in disproportionate amounts, Muslim populations exert a steady drain on the financial resources and stability of European countries. Compare this situation with countries with large (but non-Muslim) minority populations, such as Singapore. Minority populations in such countries keep their ethnic identity while still integrating into the economy, military, and society of the host country. But Islam seeks to conquer, not to integrate.

Western countries following a politically correct and multicultural ideology present themselves as playground weaklings with signs on their backs saying “kick me.” Among the general European population, however, growing numbers of people are refusing to go along quietly with demographic replacement. Nothing can justify the brutal killing spree of Anders Behring Breivik, but if European elites continue to ignore what is happening in their countries he will likely be only the tip of the iceberg. Hatred is not and never will be the answer, but if this existential conflict is allowed to continue it will become inevitable.