Position Title: Chargé de communication

Reports To: Directeur national UE
Location Of Job: à Reims au bureau IFAW France
 
Objet

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe on Wednesday dismissed the renewal of the European Union (EU) sanctions on his country as a futile attempt by the West to disrupt the country's developmental process.In his first public reaction after Tuesday's extension of the sanctions for another year, Mugabe said the sanctions were designed to curtail progress, but vowed these would not derail government efforts to revive the economy.

Gallup has studied human nature and behaviour for more than 70 years, employing many of the world's leading scientists in management, economics, psychology and sociology. The Gallup Poll has built its reputation on delivering relevant, timely and visionary research on what people around the world think and feel.
 

New research has updated a major report on the monetary value of biodiversity. The second EU-funded Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI II) report has expanded the existing valuation database to include more regions, more ecosystems and more information on the services they provide and their economic values.  

Establishing ecological networks across national boundaries is recognised as essential to supporting biodiversity. New research in Germany has indicated that these networks could be improved through greater exchange of knowledge and better links with land planning.  

Yet, its ideas were mostly thought up by Tony Blair’s New Labour party. Issues of importance are off the table:

- In his Spring conference speech on Feb. 28, Cameron failed to mention uncontrolled immigration even though the island nation (smaller then the state of Oregon) is on track to hit 70 million by 2030.

- There was no mention of the damage done to society by political correctness.

- No mention of the European Union, which makes 75-80 percent of laws enacted in Britain. 

- And the “bold” and “radical” Cameron did not address the issue of political Islam in Britain – an issue that is hardly out of the news these days.

Only the day before Cameron’s speech, the Telegraph published an article revealing the Islamic Forum of Europe’s infiltration into Britain’s governing Labour party, especially in the East London, Tower Hamlets council. Much of the information had been supplied by Jim Fitzpatrick, Britain’s Environment Minister. The “bold” and “radical” Conservative party has yet to seize on this golden opportunity to scoop up a huge number of votes, nor is it likely to.

There have been brief moments the last few years when Cameron has shone. Certainly his observation that far-Left London mayor, Ken Livingstone, had used ethnic minorities as “potential agents of revolutionary change,” was one of them. The statement might easily have been applied to the British Left almost in its entirety. It might well sum up the New Labour era. But it also now sums up the Cameron “revolution.” He too has decided to use minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, to irrevocably change his party. It is not that Cameron expects Muslim MPs to do anything differently, but that he recognizes that the liberal press will only regard the party as “modern” (cosmopolitan, anti-racist, and skeptical about war, the US, and Israel) if it includes a few prominent Muslim faces. He also believes that this will aid community cohesion, illustrating that there are no barriers for minorities in modern Britain.

“[I]f we win that general election,” Cameron said in his Spring Conference speech, “instead of 18 women MPs on the Conservative side, there will be more than 60 [as well as] black and minority ethnic candidates, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, right across our country. Not in Labour seats, not in marginal seats, but in safe Conservative seats.”

In private, Cameron’s assessment has a different accent. He credits the party’s Conservative Muslim Forum for aiding the process of modernization. The CMF, he told an audience at the organization’s 2009 Eid celebration [video], “has done great things for the Conservative party, helping us to reach out to people who had not been interested in the Conservative party before.” The CMF has been instrumental in its “opening up.”

For Cameron, as for the Left, Muslims in particular have been unfairly disadvantaged by Britain. An integrated society has to have more Muslims who are prominent in business, in the armed forces, [video] “and, of course, more Muslims in our parliament […] British Muslim all across government, in positions of leadership and authority.”

There is nothing wrong with having more Muslims in parliament, but the kind of social engineering articulated by Cameron, and the implicit idea that Muslims have been oppressed, rather than welcomed, by the nation, is precisely what made Labour so vulnerable to infiltration by Islamists. Will this new Leftwing “progressive Conservative” party prove any more resilient, or any more able to tell the moderate and reformist from the “radical” Muslim?

Until late 2008, the CMF linked its website to Ta-Ha publishing, the latter of which has published two books by former IFE president Muhammad Abdul Bari. Even if there are no IFE members in the Conservative party, ideas matter. Political correctness and political multiculturalism are gifts to the extremists, as Britain – excluding the majority of MPs – has learned to its cost. Ordinary British Muslims are the first victims of the extremists, as the Channel 4 Dispatches [video] program on IFE infiltration showed:  One woman, who had set up a Muslim dating agency, was threatened, as were Bengali Muslims for celebrating a cultural festival with music, dance, and the free mixing of men and women.

“Entryism” runs deep. Fitzpatrick’s revelations follow a recent report by the Tel-Aviv-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which found that “[f]or more than a decade, Britain (especially London) has been a focus for Hamas’ political, propaganda and even legal activities in Europe.” Islamist “entryists” are known to have  penetrated into Ken Livingstone’s mayoral office (with the aim of advancing Hamas’s agenda), and into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, among others.

The three major political parties all seems to have embraced Islamists, as have some of the smaller parties.

The Labour government has given the impression of almost being in league with the extremists -- financing dubious organizations in order to prevent extremism, and employing radicals as advisers.

The IFE helped to get George Galloway elected. And, in 2005, his (Leftist-Islamist) Respect party was financed by Dr Mohammed Naseem. Peculiarly, Naseem stood as a Respect candidate, even though he was then a board member of the little-known Islamic Party of Britain, which advocated the death penalty for “public acts of lewdness,” and whose leader, David Pidcock, promoted the notion of a worldwide “Zionist” plot against Islam.

Liberal Democrats MP Baroness Jenny Tonge, met with Hamas and other Palestinian parties last year, and, since then, has accused Israel of harvesting organs from Haiti.

From calling for executions for “lewdness” to blood libels, the more “modern” Britain becomes the more medieval it appears – although that is certainly “bold” and “radical.”

While the major parties are ignoring the issue of political Islam in Britain, however, the subject was thrust into the media spotlight in mid January, when the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) called for a ban on wearing the burka in public. The issue is far less controversial among the general public than it is among the major parties. According to one poll, 70 percent want to ban the burka in public, with nearly 80 percent wanting it banned at airports. Similar enthusiasm can be found among the public for curbing immigration – another election unmentionable.

A few weeks after the party announced its proposed burka ban, and in response to it, UKIP MEP Gerard Batten received two threatening emails from within the IFE-infiltrated Tower Hamlets council. In the emails, UKIP was accused of trying to “stoke a religious war on the streets of Britain,” and Batten was also told that “Islam is the dominant religion in the United Kingdom. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else.”

With the transformation of the Conservatives into a virtual carbon copy of the much-hated Labour party, there have been several defections, from the former, to UKIP, in recent months alone, although not apparently because of the issue of Islamism. One of the more noteworthy defections is James Pryor, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, who will run UKIP’s election campaign.

Political Islam is a new issue for UKIP, which has broadened its platform under Lord Pearson, who replaced Nigel Farage in late 2009. The party that has become synonymous with protesting against Islam, however, is the British National Party (BNP). It has campaigned as the party of the White working class (the party only voted to accept ethnic minorities as members in February, after it was threatened with a court injunction by the by the Equality and Human Rights Commission), and has succeeded in scooping up the disaffected Labour vote in particular. The BNP won its first two seats in the EU elections last year, while UKIP – which has traditionally campaigned to withdraw the UK from the EU – won 13 (up one).

These parties are each hoping to get at least a few seats in the UK parliament, with the upcoming election.  Although this would be a breakthrough for either party, the Labour and the Conservatives are concerned. Lord Tebbit even openly worried recently that traditionalist Conservative voters might “defect to UKIP in the same way a lot of old Labour voters defected to the BNP.”

Even though only a small number of seats are likely to fall to UKIP or the BNP, these parties are undoubtedly already looking to the following election, perhaps five years away, when, with even one or two seats in parliament, they would have far greater electoral credibility.

Talk of radicalism is cheap. With the Conservative party having now having fully embraced the same old political correctness, political multiculturalism, and “positive discrimination,” the electorate may well be as disillusioned and angry with it in a few years, as it is now with Labour -- and for similar reasons.

What kind of “radical” change might then occur?

Yet, its ideas were mostly thought up by Tony Blair’s New Labour party. Issues of importance are off the table:

- In his Spring conference speech on Feb. 28, Cameron failed to mention uncontrolled immigration even though the island nation (smaller then the state of Oregon) is on track to hit 70 million by 2030.

- There was no mention of the damage done to society by political correctness.

- No mention of the European Union, which makes 75-80 percent of laws enacted in Britain. 

- And the “bold” and “radical” Cameron did not address the issue of political Islam in Britain – an issue that is hardly out of the news these days.

Only the day before Cameron’s speech, the Telegraph published an article revealing the Islamic Forum of Europe’s infiltration into Britain’s governing Labour party, especially in the East London, Tower Hamlets council. Much of the information had been supplied by Jim Fitzpatrick, Britain’s Environment Minister. The “bold” and “radical” Conservative party has yet to seize on this golden opportunity to scoop up a huge number of votes, nor is it likely to.

There have been brief moments the last few years when Cameron has shone. Certainly his observation that far-Left London mayor, Ken Livingstone, had used ethnic minorities as “potential agents of revolutionary change,” was one of them. The statement might easily have been applied to the British Left almost in its entirety. It might well sum up the New Labour era. But it also now sums up the Cameron “revolution.” He too has decided to use minorities in general, and Muslims in particular, to irrevocably change his party. It is not that Cameron expects Muslim MPs to do anything differently, but that he recognizes that the liberal press will only regard the party as “modern” (cosmopolitan, anti-racist, and skeptical about war, the US, and Israel) if it includes a few prominent Muslim faces. He also believes that this will aid community cohesion, illustrating that there are no barriers for minorities in modern Britain.

“[I]f we win that general election,” Cameron said in his Spring Conference speech, “instead of 18 women MPs on the Conservative side, there will be more than 60 [as well as] black and minority ethnic candidates, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, right across our country. Not in Labour seats, not in marginal seats, but in safe Conservative seats.”

In private, Cameron’s assessment has a different accent. He credits the party’s Conservative Muslim Forum for aiding the process of modernization. The CMF, he told an audience at the organization’s 2009 Eid celebration [video], “has done great things for the Conservative party, helping us to reach out to people who had not been interested in the Conservative party before.” The CMF has been instrumental in its “opening up.”

For Cameron, as for the Left, Muslims in particular have been unfairly disadvantaged by Britain. An integrated society has to have more Muslims who are prominent in business, in the armed forces, [video] “and, of course, more Muslims in our parliament […] British Muslim all across government, in positions of leadership and authority.”

There is nothing wrong with having more Muslims in parliament, but the kind of social engineering articulated by Cameron, and the implicit idea that Muslims have been oppressed, rather than welcomed, by the nation, is precisely what made Labour so vulnerable to infiltration by Islamists. Will this new Leftwing “progressive Conservative” party prove any more resilient, or any more able to tell the moderate and reformist from the “radical” Muslim?

Until late 2008, the CMF linked its website to Ta-Ha publishing, the latter of which has published two books by former IFE president Muhammad Abdul Bari. Even if there are no IFE members in the Conservative party, ideas matter. Political correctness and political multiculturalism are gifts to the extremists, as Britain – excluding the majority of MPs – has learned to its cost. Ordinary British Muslims are the first victims of the extremists, as the Channel 4 Dispatches [video] program on IFE infiltration showed:  One woman, who had set up a Muslim dating agency, was threatened, as were Bengali Muslims for celebrating a cultural festival with music, dance, and the free mixing of men and women.

“Entryism” runs deep. Fitzpatrick’s revelations follow a recent report by the Tel-Aviv-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which found that “[f]or more than a decade, Britain (especially London) has been a focus for Hamas’ political, propaganda and even legal activities in Europe.” Islamist “entryists” are known to have  penetrated into Ken Livingstone’s mayoral office (with the aim of advancing Hamas’s agenda), and into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, among others.

The three major political parties all seems to have embraced Islamists, as have some of the smaller parties.

The Labour government has given the impression of almost being in league with the extremists -- financing dubious organizations in order to prevent extremism, and employing radicals as advisers.

The IFE helped to get George Galloway elected. And, in 2005, his (Leftist-Islamist) Respect party was financed by Dr Mohammed Naseem. Peculiarly, Naseem stood as a Respect candidate, even though he was then a board member of the little-known Islamic Party of Britain, which advocated the death penalty for “public acts of lewdness,” and whose leader, David Pidcock, promoted the notion of a worldwide “Zionist” plot against Islam.

Liberal Democrats MP Baroness Jenny Tonge, met with Hamas and other Palestinian parties last year, and, since then, has accused Israel of harvesting organs from Haiti.

From calling for executions for “lewdness” to blood libels, the more “modern” Britain becomes the more medieval it appears – although that is certainly “bold” and “radical.”

While the major parties are ignoring the issue of political Islam in Britain, however, the subject was thrust into the media spotlight in mid January, when the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) called for a ban on wearing the burka in public. The issue is far less controversial among the general public than it is among the major parties. According to one poll, 70 percent want to ban the burka in public, with nearly 80 percent wanting it banned at airports. Similar enthusiasm can be found among the public for curbing immigration – another election unmentionable.

A few weeks after the party announced its proposed burka ban, and in response to it, UKIP MEP Gerard Batten received two threatening emails from within the IFE-infiltrated Tower Hamlets council. In the emails, UKIP was accused of trying to “stoke a religious war on the streets of Britain,” and Batten was also told that “Islam is the dominant religion in the United Kingdom. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else.”

With the transformation of the Conservatives into a virtual carbon copy of the much-hated Labour party, there have been several defections, from the former, to UKIP, in recent months alone, although not apparently because of the issue of Islamism. One of the more noteworthy defections is James Pryor, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, who will run UKIP’s election campaign.

Political Islam is a new issue for UKIP, which has broadened its platform under Lord Pearson, who replaced Nigel Farage in late 2009. The party that has become synonymous with protesting against Islam, however, is the British National Party (BNP). It has campaigned as the party of the White working class (the party only voted to accept ethnic minorities as members in February, after it was threatened with a court injunction by the by the Equality and Human Rights Commission), and has succeeded in scooping up the disaffected Labour vote in particular. The BNP won its first two seats in the EU elections last year, while UKIP – which has traditionally campaigned to withdraw the UK from the EU – won 13 (up one).

These parties are each hoping to get at least a few seats in the UK parliament, with the upcoming election.  Although this would be a breakthrough for either party, the Labour and the Conservatives are concerned. Lord Tebbit even openly worried recently that traditionalist Conservative voters might “defect to UKIP in the same way a lot of old Labour voters defected to the BNP.”

Even though only a small number of seats are likely to fall to UKIP or the BNP, these parties are undoubtedly already looking to the following election, perhaps five years away, when, with even one or two seats in parliament, they would have far greater electoral credibility.

Talk of radicalism is cheap. With the Conservative party having now having fully embraced the same old political correctness, political multiculturalism, and “positive discrimination,” the electorate may well be as disillusioned and angry with it in a few years, as it is now with Labour -- and for similar reasons.

What kind of “radical” change might then occur?

1. Comrade Lumengo is, as one would expect, ready to help the troubled. In this case, not the victims of capitalism received assistance but individuals that thought that they do not know how to mark their ballots. (Voting by mail, therefore not in a controlled booth, is the rule in Switzerland.) Lumengo claims he was not aware of doing something wrong by being as helpful as a candidate can be. This is surprising. The man holds a law degree. In the past Lumengo has already fought a similar charge. Then the case was dismissed. Now Lumengo will have to face a judge. If everything would be “as usual”, the consequences would be the obvious. However, there is a complication. His own party will hardly insist on effective sanctions. Under the circumstances, other parties will also feel inhibited. Lumengo is from Angola. Regardless of the case, that exposes those that demand more than a symbolic reprimand to the charge of racism.

2. This writer has seen a stunning recording of the attempted speech of Israel’s ambassador at the UC’s Irvine campus. Pro-Palestinians – visibly mainly non-Americans – in the audience have attempted to prevent the speaker through their unruly behavior from presenting his case. What their opposition did not entail was to debate so as to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of whatever the diplomat wished to allege. What we got was clearly a preference for disputation by violence and not through reasoned arguments. Had it been the other way around, had a compact Jewish group been attending a speech with the obvious intention to sabotage a Palestinian, the outcry would have been loud. Obviously, in the light of not only unstated but also repressed expectations, the standards by which the parties to the Near Eastern controversy are being judged are chosen according to the dictate of convenience. Leniency correlates with the inclination to use violence to support positions that might be difficult to defend in a purely cerebral context.

Several points are provoked by the clip. 1) Those who tell Israel to make a compromise with the loudest representatives of the Palestinians should view this. The images and the soundtrack suggest that no imaginable concession – short of liquidating the Jewish state and its population – will appease people that are represented in this action.

2) Questions. How were these guests revolting against the “culture of discussion” of their host country admitted to a university? Are they recipients of scholarships? How could they get study visas? The selection criteria the consulates apply seem crucial because the presence of comparable persons in an advanced open society is unlikely to civilize them. All they do is to learn about the easy-to-abuse rules of the game of the host-country’s politics. Democratic give-and-take will be interpreted as a sign of exploitable weakness.

3) Revealingly, the disturbance was carefully filmed by the proud perpetrators. An instinct such as that of the Nazis who documented everything they did manifests itself in the action. These activists are proud of their comportment and regard such performances as a demonstration of strength. Advertised strength, as totalitarian marching songs suggest, is excellent propaganda. People happen to want to be on the winning side.

4) The political criminals filmed have failed to learn lessons from the system that supports their studies. They seem to be unable to comprehend that they will be condemned for their actions, which could become thereby, depending on the political development of their host, a liability.

3. It is popular to allege that to achieve real peace in the Near East it is essential that Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria. If this is serious, then the stabilization of Europe can be said to hinge upon the return of East Prussia to Germany, or to Poland, possibly Lithuania. Here a long list, enumerating other possibly analogous territorial transfers could have followed. Could the Golan’s fate be one of the PR-effective issues with which the reluctance to seek and accept makeable peace is justified?

4. After el Baradei’s departure, the IAEA, under “new management”, makes unexpected revelations.  According to the report, Iran is developing an advanced rocket capable to carry heavy weights. “Heavy”, such as in “nuclear payload”.  It would seem that the CIA’s earlier certification that Iran had ceased to pursue the weaponization of her nuclear capabilities has been at best an intentional and tactical exaggeration. Even more likely is the speculation that the clean bill of health which had already been questioned at the time of its issue, was politically motivated. Let us hope that the error indicated by recent developments, has been a purposeful lie to mislead Tehran regarding what is known about its projects. An interesting corollary appeared on March 1st. Iran now finds that the IAEA is western-dominated. This will be a reason to hinder the already curtailed activities of the organization.

5. Greece’s newly publicized economic troubles that are of old standing hide some unpleasant facts. One is that the true situation, hidden under the data created by creative bookkeeping has been, for some time, no secret to insiders. The bad news is that Greece is not the only country that manages to cover up reality through falsified data. It is alleged that Greece’s entrance in the EU has been known to be based on economic information created by wishful thinking. Therefore, the surprised reactions appear to be somewhat artificial exhibitions meant for public use. EU countries have knowingly allowed cosmetically improved presentations to stand. Regarding the revelations the future is likely to bring, we will find out that such manipulations were not only resorted to by Greece. Such unpleasant facts – and the fear of what could be known but was kept under cover – points at great problems embedded in the Euro as a currency. Not having a state to back it up, this artificial “money” invites manipulators. They are exploiting suckers that are unaware of any risk they take through their government’s preferred membership. Essentially the € exists because the Germans pay and the others get. What a retroactive wisdom this attests to those countries that had, and are still refusing, to join the € -Zone!

6. A stubborn holdout against EU membership and a real economic heavyweight with sustainable status is, regardless of its size, Switzerland. If you live here, the inclination to throw money at problems and to tolerate parasites seems striking. The more surprising is the news that, regardless of self-made and unavoidable inadequacies that prevent better results, the budget surplus exceeds the plan three times. 2.7 billion above projections had been achieved. Regardless of prunable expenditures, such a penetration of the black zone, and generated by seven million people, amounts to a respectable performance. Round this out by mentioning that, the public debt has been reduced. Since comparable economies are swimming in red, these numbers, if compared, have a lot to say about misgovernment. However, those who feel attacked by success and desire uniform failure can rejoice. Audaciously, since they think they are spending the funds of others, the Social Democrats have managed to suggest a pork-laden budget that has a 13 billion deficit.

7. A Europe based on voluntarism and committed to guarantee the democratic internal order and the independence of its constituents is a commendable idea. The writer must confess to a conditioned reflex here. When he did forced labor some of the adults liked to start sentences with “if only there would be a united Europe, then…” The practical problem with the attractive theory is that a bureaucracy has kidnapped Europe. It tries to replace a spontaneous sense for the community with administrative institutions. Thus for many Europe is not there to protect the independence of member states but to become a state itself. This overrides self-determination on all levels including those that reach down to the individual. The other man-made weakness is economic. After having gobbled up politically too diverse, and by virtue of their government praxis unfitting states, economically unprepared members were also admitted. Now doubts emerge whether the assumption behind the Euro that, the rich will pay, holds water and if it does, then for how long. Spain, Ireland and Greece are regarded as infected men camping in the sterile ward. It is only by courtesy that the publicized list of candidates is not longer. It remains to be seen whether the policy of overlooking infections will bring recovery.

1. Comrade Lumengo is, as one would expect, ready to help the troubled. In this case, not the victims of capitalism received assistance but individuals that thought that they do not know how to mark their ballots. (Voting by mail, therefore not in a controlled booth, is the rule in Switzerland.) Lumengo claims he was not aware of doing something wrong by being as helpful as a candidate can be. This is surprising. The man holds a law degree. In the past Lumengo has already fought a similar charge. Then the case was dismissed. Now Lumengo will have to face a judge. If everything would be “as usual”, the consequences would be the obvious. However, there is a complication. His own party will hardly insist on effective sanctions. Under the circumstances, other parties will also feel inhibited. Lumengo is from Angola. Regardless of the case, that exposes those that demand more than a symbolic reprimand to the charge of racism.

2. This writer has seen a stunning recording of the attempted speech of Israel’s ambassador at the UC’s Irvine campus. Pro-Palestinians – visibly mainly non-Americans – in the audience have attempted to prevent the speaker through their unruly behavior from presenting his case. What their opposition did not entail was to debate so as to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of whatever the diplomat wished to allege. What we got was clearly a preference for disputation by violence and not through reasoned arguments. Had it been the other way around, had a compact Jewish group been attending a speech with the obvious intention to sabotage a Palestinian, the outcry would have been loud. Obviously, in the light of not only unstated but also repressed expectations, the standards by which the parties to the Near Eastern controversy are being judged are chosen according to the dictate of convenience. Leniency correlates with the inclination to use violence to support positions that might be difficult to defend in a purely cerebral context.

Several points are provoked by the clip. 1) Those who tell Israel to make a compromise with the loudest representatives of the Palestinians should view this. The images and the soundtrack suggest that no imaginable concession – short of liquidating the Jewish state and its population – will appease people that are represented in this action.

2) Questions. How were these guests revolting against the “culture of discussion” of their host country admitted to a university? Are they recipients of scholarships? How could they get study visas? The selection criteria the consulates apply seem crucial because the presence of comparable persons in an advanced open society is unlikely to civilize them. All they do is to learn about the easy-to-abuse rules of the game of the host-country’s politics. Democratic give-and-take will be interpreted as a sign of exploitable weakness.

3) Revealingly, the disturbance was carefully filmed by the proud perpetrators. An instinct such as that of the Nazis who documented everything they did manifests itself in the action. These activists are proud of their comportment and regard such performances as a demonstration of strength. Advertised strength, as totalitarian marching songs suggest, is excellent propaganda. People happen to want to be on the winning side.

4) The political criminals filmed have failed to learn lessons from the system that supports their studies. They seem to be unable to comprehend that they will be condemned for their actions, which could become thereby, depending on the political development of their host, a liability.

3. It is popular to allege that to achieve real peace in the Near East it is essential that Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria. If this is serious, then the stabilization of Europe can be said to hinge upon the return of East Prussia to Germany, or to Poland, possibly Lithuania. Here a long list, enumerating other possibly analogous territorial transfers could have followed. Could the Golan’s fate be one of the PR-effective issues with which the reluctance to seek and accept makeable peace is justified?

4. After el Baradei’s departure, the IAEA, under “new management”, makes unexpected revelations.  According to the report, Iran is developing an advanced rocket capable to carry heavy weights. “Heavy”, such as in “nuclear payload”.  It would seem that the CIA’s earlier certification that Iran had ceased to pursue the weaponization of her nuclear capabilities has been at best an intentional and tactical exaggeration. Even more likely is the speculation that the clean bill of health which had already been questioned at the time of its issue, was politically motivated. Let us hope that the error indicated by recent developments, has been a purposeful lie to mislead Tehran regarding what is known about its projects. An interesting corollary appeared on March 1st. Iran now finds that the IAEA is western-dominated. This will be a reason to hinder the already curtailed activities of the organization.

5. Greece’s newly publicized economic troubles that are of old standing hide some unpleasant facts. One is that the true situation, hidden under the data created by creative bookkeeping has been, for some time, no secret to insiders. The bad news is that Greece is not the only country that manages to cover up reality through falsified data. It is alleged that Greece’s entrance in the EU has been known to be based on economic information created by wishful thinking. Therefore, the surprised reactions appear to be somewhat artificial exhibitions meant for public use. EU countries have knowingly allowed cosmetically improved presentations to stand. Regarding the revelations the future is likely to bring, we will find out that such manipulations were not only resorted to by Greece. Such unpleasant facts – and the fear of what could be known but was kept under cover – points at great problems embedded in the Euro as a currency. Not having a state to back it up, this artificial “money” invites manipulators. They are exploiting suckers that are unaware of any risk they take through their government’s preferred membership. Essentially the € exists because the Germans pay and the others get. What a retroactive wisdom this attests to those countries that had, and are still refusing, to join the € -Zone!

6. A stubborn holdout against EU membership and a real economic heavyweight with sustainable status is, regardless of its size, Switzerland. If you live here, the inclination to throw money at problems and to tolerate parasites seems striking. The more surprising is the news that, regardless of self-made and unavoidable inadequacies that prevent better results, the budget surplus exceeds the plan three times. 2.7 billion above projections had been achieved. Regardless of prunable expenditures, such a penetration of the black zone, and generated by seven million people, amounts to a respectable performance. Round this out by mentioning that, the public debt has been reduced. Since comparable economies are swimming in red, these numbers, if compared, have a lot to say about misgovernment. However, those who feel attacked by success and desire uniform failure can rejoice. Audaciously, since they think they are spending the funds of others, the Social Democrats have managed to suggest a pork-laden budget that has a 13 billion deficit.

7. A Europe based on voluntarism and committed to guarantee the democratic internal order and the independence of its constituents is a commendable idea. The writer must confess to a conditioned reflex here. When he did forced labor some of the adults liked to start sentences with “if only there would be a united Europe, then…” The practical problem with the attractive theory is that a bureaucracy has kidnapped Europe. It tries to replace a spontaneous sense for the community with administrative institutions. Thus for many Europe is not there to protect the independence of member states but to become a state itself. This overrides self-determination on all levels including those that reach down to the individual. The other man-made weakness is economic. After having gobbled up politically too diverse, and by virtue of their government praxis unfitting states, economically unprepared members were also admitted. Now doubts emerge whether the assumption behind the Euro that, the rich will pay, holds water and if it does, then for how long. Spain, Ireland and Greece are regarded as infected men camping in the sterile ward. It is only by courtesy that the publicized list of candidates is not longer. It remains to be seen whether the policy of overlooking infections will bring recovery.

Wilders' ban would apply to "headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions (that) receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality." He continued: "And for all clarity: This (ban) is not meant for crosses or yarmulkes because those are symbols of religions that belong to our own culture and are not – as is the case with headscarves – a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology."

Here, Wilders is distinguishing between the religions of Christianity and Judaism, and the religio-political ideology of Islam, noting not only the near-indigenous nature of the former, but also the encroaching totalitarianism of the latter. This is the crucial cultural argument to make if a cultural Reconquista of Europe from Islamization is to be successful.

Certainly, we have seen glimmers. Last year, Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang party of Belgium led a winning campaign to ban the hijab – what he calls "the propaganda weapon of choice for the establishment of Islamic society in Europe" – in the Flemish schools of his country, making the same vital judgment call that Wilders did.

"(He) who defends the headscarf out of reasons of tolerance and pluralism has little or no understanding of Islam," Dewinter said. "The hidden agenda behind the veil leads to segregation," a veritable apartheid-regime, he explained, with which Islam seeks to control and dominate the West. Equating the Muslim head scarf with the Christian cross or the Jewish yamulke is "therefore incorrect," Dewinter continued, identifying the headscarf as "the flag of a political ideology" in which it is not the individual religious experience that is central, but rather "the realization of a theocratic society based on sharia, or Islamic law."

Maybe that's a lot for Americans to take in, but they haven't lived through the Islamization Decades that their European cousins have. As Europe's neighborhoods, banlieues and cities have repeatedly seen, headscarf-friendly zones yield to other Muslim demands, from single-sex recreation and medicine, to a refusal to tolerate certain Western texts or foods, to the institution of Islamic banking, to the acceptance of jihadist treason in the mosques, to the entrenchment of Islamic marriage (forced and polygamous), to the ultimate recognition of Islamic courtrooms run according to sharia.

But take the French approach. After determining that the Muslim headscarf inserted religion into state-run secular schools, the French government in 2003 banned the headscarf in the public schools along with the Star of David, the yamulke, "large" crucifixes and the turban of the Sikhs. This decision made it appear as though the hijab hadn't been singled out as a symbol of a specifically Muslim way of life that seeks to extend sharia. Thus, in the name of tolerance, all religious symbols were deemed provocative. In the name of inclusion, all were banned. This is precisely how the traditional (pre-Islamic) society dismantles itself, symbol by symbol, law by law.

And this is precisely why acknowledging and affirming the differences -- "discriminating" -- between Western religions and Islamic religio-political ideology is so important. Alas, it is also unthinkable for the average post-modern, multicultural Westerner. Rather than reject the symbols of imperial Islam, he capitulates, further stripping his civilization of its own identity, further enabling the Islamization process.

Now, the French government seeks to ban the full veil, or burka, in public buildings, a measure, as a recent Harris Poll tells us, that garners support from a whopping 70 percent of French respondents. Large majorities also support a ban in Italy (65 percent), Spain (63 percent), and the United Kingdom (57 percent). (A burka ban draws 33 percent support in the United States.)

Notably, that support plummets when other religious symbols are included in the burka ban. French support drops to 22 percent. Italian (10 percent), Spanish (9 percent) and British (4 percent) support follows. (American support drops to about 1 percent.)

Defiance of the multicultural orthodoxy is more popular in Europe than anyone imagined.