Back to Basics

Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:00 AM

Aside from its bizarre beers, its tennis star Justine Henin, the writer Georges Simenon, and the flamboyant Rexist leader Leon Degrelle, I know very little about Belgium. No matter. I am puzzled by a passing remark by Professor Paul Gottfried on this site last Thursday ("Marcus’s Mistake"). In his response to Marcus Epstein’s informative article about current politics in Belgium, Gottfried refers to the delivering of “a secularized, PC Europe to Muslim invaders.”

In the hyped conflict with Radical Islam, generally known as “the war on terror” which we are being forced to endure, I have noticed that negative results from a rotten immigration policy are often conflated or confused with the self-destructive consequences from a disastrous foreign policy. Professor Gottfried may have provided an example. Immigration and foreign policy are separate issues, albeit related. Naturally I am looking at the situation from a perspective favoring the health and survival of the West.

With respect to immigration, the Muslims, as such, are not invading Europe. Everybody and his grandmother in the Third World are trying to get into Europe or America if they can. The last time I checked, by the way, the term “Muslim” refers to a religion, not to a nation or an ethnic group. There are Muslims who are entirely of European stock, like those in the Balkans. It is pointless to criticize or downgrade another man’s religion. (For starters, he could be right and you could be wrong.) Under normal circumstances, whatever that means, Islam should pose no threat to the West. Why not just advocate Europe for the Europeans? That I can understand.

With respect to foreign policy, Radical Islam is a phenomenon galvanized in response to U.S. foreign policy. The “clash of civilizations” is self-fulfilling, made so by its creators in Washington and New York. When I say, “U.S. Foreign policy” I am referring to American foreign policy as hijacked by the “neocons” and the Israel Lobby. Their ultimate concern is their obsession to advance Pax Israeliana. It is this long-standing, private-agenda policy which created Bin Laden and is radicalizing the Arabs, all to the detriment of humanity at large, not just the Arabs, and to America and Europe in particular. It has brought us the unnecessary war in Iraq, among other extravagant happenings. Such observations may appear simplistic, but even oversimplifications can be useful and valid.

We have become more confused than required when contemplating the various neocon-driven enterprises launched by the Cheney-Bush White House. These ruinous escapades have been undertaken in response to domestic political pressures peculiar to the United States, primarily to divert and distract attention away from the military occupation of Palestine. The open question of Palestine is at the root of Middle East instability. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, the deliberate destabilization of Lebanon and Syria by Tel Aviv and Washington, and now the ongoing hysteria in Washington over Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons, are all part and parcel of what I call The Grand Diversion--a topic which deserves to be fully addressed in a future article.

For now, as a straw in the wind, please note that during the American presidential debates to date, none of the contenders insofar as I am aware has been directly questioned about “the peace process in the Middle East”, which is a code-phrase for the now ninety year dispute between the Zionists and the Palestinians. That whole topic, the centerpiece of rage throughout the Middle East and in the Islamic world beyond, has all but vanished from the American radar screen. It has been replaced by Iraq and by Washington’s wider adventures, foremost of which is the phony crisis with Iran. The Grand Diversion.

The Likud-Zionists and the “neocons” and their fellow travelers do not want to address what has been happening in Palestine over many decades, say, since the date of the Balfour Declaration, November 2nd, 1917. No wonder. What has happened there, to both Muslim and Christian Arabs, would be perceived by any sane, outside observer as an outrage and as a travesty of justice, if focused upon. So it must be ignored and our attention diverted to purported enemies in other exotic places like Syria and Iran. President Jimmy Carter, being safely retired, over the hill and out of office, has touched upon the Palestinian tragedy in his recent book and in interviews. What he has pointed out is nothing extraordinary, only the realities; yet he has been denounced by the usual attack dogs. Carter is not alone in articulating concern, but he is unique in being a U.S. President who is willing to stand up and deliver something other than pap.

But to return to the immigration issue. Dr. Gottfried consistently denounces the “neocons” and describes himself as a “Europeanist”. Yet he appears in this instance to have borrowed the terminology and mindset of the “neocons” when he refers to the “Muslim invaders” of Europe. What he is objecting to, I believe, is the large, uncontrolled influx of non-Europeans into Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War. Certainly this is a legitimate concern. It is the direct result of milquetoast European leaders encouraging a lax immigration policy for sentimental and short-term, self-serving economic reasons.

Al Qaida and “neocon” theoreticians notwithstanding, Muslims did not come to Europe and England as part of a design to take over Europe and England on behalf of Radical Islam and to establish a Caliphate--any more than Mexicans are coming across the border as part of a plan to reestablish Mexican claims to the southwest United States. In both cases, they were essentially invited in. Afterwards, the situation got completely out of control.

Simply put, Europeans have looked around and noticed that a large number of non-Europeans are living inside Europe, many of them Muslims. This begs the question, how did they get there in the first place? On top of that, these immigrants in recent years have been antagonized by the U.S. and EU policies toward Palestine and the Middle East. Understandable. Some have become radicalized. A handful have turned to Jihadist thinking. It’s a nightmare.

Whose fault is it? Can you guess? Look in the mirror. It is your fault, my fellow Europeanists and Americans, for allowing an overplus of immigrants to enter.

Two suggestions. First, the borders of Europe and the U.S.A. should be protected and taken seriously in the manner of a private club, like the Swiss do in Switzerland. Second, neutralize the hijackers of American and EU foreign policy. Change that policy to reflect honesty and justice and the ideals of the American founding fathers--or just plain common sense. Get back to basics. Stop fighting fire with gasoline.

--Copyright 2007 Patrick Foy--