Lord Chief Justice Philips, “the most senior judge in England and Wales” has said that there is no reason not to introduce islamic sharia law into some parts of the UK’s justice system. Earlier reports however, for instance in The Times Online, have shown that sharia courts are in fact already in practise throughout Britain (and no doubt the rest of the Western world). 

Although Lord Philips added that “severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable”, opening up Western justice to islamic influences sets a dangerous precedent.  

The West has very little control over these courts, which practise foreign law in our own backyards, and it is a matter of time before the sharia courts will move from dealing only with marital and contractual issues to imposing fullblown islamic law on Western ground. Although even the islamic way of dealing with marriage and legal contracts is often very anti-Western in nature, once we surrender the rest of our judicial system, the West will be truly lost.

According to the first (unofficial) results, the Irish have rejected the notorious Lisbon treaty, which was drafted to replace the EU-constitution, which in its turn had been rejected in referendum by the Dutch and the French in 2005.

It is a great victory for Ireland that its population has chosen to defend their country’s sovereignty, and indeed the rest of the EU should thank the Irish, as this rejection means the Lisbon treaty will not come into force at all.

Ireland was the only country that allowed its people a vote on the EU reform treaty. All other member states have upheld the longstanding European tradition of not involving the population at all. Even the Dutch and the French, who rejected the EU constitution three years ago, have not been asked their opinion on ratifying what is essentially the same treaty under a new name.

Unjust as it is not to involve the people affected by these decisions, The Netherlands and France take the cake by allowing for a vote in 2005 and surpassing the population now because the outcome did not suit them.

EU-residents should embrace every chance they get to reject the EU’s plans for further expanding their power over the national parliaments (after all, those chances will be few and far between). The Irish have done just that, showing once again that the EU is still first and foremost a plaything for the political elite that holds nothing for the people but more taxes and less power.

I am never shy in my criticisms of the United States, and think it is on the same downward spiral as the rest of the Western world. American patriots should be grateful, however, that they now stand all-but alone as a nation in which politically-incorrect citizens still enjoy a right to free speech, thanks to the First Amendment. For a look at where we’d be without this constitutional right, one needs only to glance across our border.

A couple of years ago, Maclean’s (a Canadian magazine) published an article by Mark Steyn that explained why demographic trends portend an ominous future for the West. His main thesis is as simple as it is obvious: Muslims in the West, thanks to high birthrates and immigration, as well as their decidedly non-Western value systems, are a potential threat to Western democracies. For saying so, Steyn and Maclean’s are in hot water over their violation of “hate speech” laws:

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean’s magazine, the nation’s leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self respect.”

That’s right, hurting a minority group’s “feelings” is a crime. What’s most disturbing is that Canada is not an aberration in the West, the United States is. That may be changing. As is obvious from the tone of the article, many American “progressives” are embarrassed by their nation’s status as the last bastion of free speech. The article favorably quotes a “legal philosopher” who is apparently tired of letting those scurrilous, unenlightened souls speak their minds:

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.

But even Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to, and be likely to, produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article - or any publication - aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not.

First of all: what the f*** is he talking about? The author simply takes it for granted that Steyn engages in “hate speech” and “stirring up racial hatred.” He doesn’t. Second, why is there apparently no mention of the fact that these rules apply exclusively to non-Muslim white citizens of these Western countries? Muslims are free to carry signs through the streets of Western cities calling for the beheading of infidels, and leftists can do nothing but praise the glories of “multiculturalism.” The dishonesty is truly staggering. What terrorist act has Steyn inspired? If we are banning books that inspire terrorism, why not ban the Koran?

In other Canadian news, it is now unclear whether the government has the right to take children from their home if their parents are suspected of being “racist.” Again, one wonders if the state will consider taking children away from their parents if they support anti-Western jihad.

Actually, I take that back. I don’t wonder about that at all.

An initiative to make it harder for foreigners to become Swiss citizens was decisively defeated by Swiss voters — much to the multiculturalist left’s delight.

Compared to many other European countries, Switzerland has strong immigration and naturalization laws, and Switzerland still treats blood as a crucial aspect of nationality. More importantly, the Swiss do not seem to have yet embraced the suicidal self-loathing that characterizes other Western Europeans. Perhaps that is changing.

In Jean Raspail’s masterpiece, The Camp of the Saints — a dystopian novel about the West falling to hordes of Third-World immigrants simply because it is too spineless and guilt-ridden to turn them away –, Switzerland is the final European country to give into the “stinking mob.” Eventually, however, even the Swiss give in.

If even brave, independent Switzerland has lost confidence in its own people and culture, we can trust that Raspail’s worst nightmares are not far away. The Swiss have a long way to go before they reach that point, but this is a disheartening first step on their path to national suicide.

The EU’s political elite is looking to silence the voice of euroscepticism in the European Parliament. Plans have been launched to restructure the grouping of Euro-MP’s, in a way that effectively eliminates the ‘Independence / Democracy’ (I/D) group.

Under the guise of preventing “single issue politicians from being given undue support from the public purse,” a group of Euro-MP’s, lead by Richard Corbett (from the UK’s Labour party) seeks to decrease the number of political groups in Parliament.  

The measures actually seem to be aimed directly at dissolving the eurosceptical ‘Independence / Democracy’ grouping. Besides which, according to The Telegraph the rule change means that ”the largest and most pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament’s political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.” 

By dividing up their opponents, the European political elite are trying to muffle the political voice of Euroscepticism. Nigel Farage from the UK Independence Party and one of the leaders of I/D replies: 

”Welcome to your future. This shows an EU mindset that is arrogant, anti-democratic and frankly scary. (…) These people are so scared of public opinion they are willing to set in stone the right to ignore it. Freedom requires the governing elite to be held to account. They must be getting very worried if they are enacting such dictatorial powers for themselves.”

Brussels (Belgium) has seen a night of heavy riots between supporters of the city’s soccer club and Northern African immigrants (in Dutch). The tension had been building up since a clash between the two groups last Sunday, and after the immigrants circulated a call to attack the Belgian soccer fans, mass race riots ensued Friday evening. 

193 rioters were arrested, most of them Algerian and Moroccan immigrants, and 14 police officers were injured, 2 of whom are in serious condition (in Dutch). 

This latest outburst of multicultural violence shows once again how deeply rooted the tensions between the European population and non-Western immigrants are. Europe has turned itself into a powder keg and the fuse is burning dangerously close to its end. 

It is interesting to note that race riots have now taken place in the capital of the European Union. As a plaything for leftist politicians on their way to retirement, the EU praises ‘cultural diversity’ and consistently calls for more immigration. These ideals have already often been proven false, but having it take place under the noses of the European political elite must be especially painful for the left. Not that we should expect them to learn anything from this, as they have never seem to have done so in the past.

In their battle against Western civilization, leftists have for decades now been using World War II as a shield to hide behind. By a priori disqualifying right-wing ideology, liberals have killed off debates about ’sensitive’ issues like immigration and national identity, before they were even started. We have all seen it in action, we all know how it works.

But the effects of the WWII-incrimination are now starting to wear off. There are several reasons for this: not only is the war disappearing into the past, people are also starting to see through the leftist scare tactics and, most of all, reality has simply caught up with multicultural ideology and ever more people are aware of the urgency of debates on these issues that have long been tabooed. 

The leftist Dutch government has now found a new way to (mis)use WWII in their favor: by emphasizing the role immigrants played in the liberation of Holland (in Dutch), it hopes to close the culture gap between the Dutch and (mainly non-Western) newcomers. Experts however, agree that immigrants hardly played any role at all (in Dutch), so the government apparently intends to rewrite history to better fit its own leftist ideals. 

World War II has for decades now been a handy tool for the left. Now, in the true spirit of political correctness, the Dutch government even betrays the sacrifices of the Dutch resistance, minimizing its role in favor of almost non-existent immigrant efforts.

For my final in Public Speaking, I attempted to demonstrate - within a mere 12 minutes - how multiculturalism was hardly multicultural, why diversity was far from diverse, and where tolerance becomes radically intolerant. Suffice it to say that it was a task better suited for a 30-minute lecture, but my thumbnail sketch seemed to do just fine.

Among many of my claims, one seemed to stand out like a three-legged ballerina. The claim that caused jaws to drop was that multiculturalism, if it wishes to continue on as it currently stands, requires some degree of racial, ethnic, and religious segregation. This, above all else, will be what the audience will take away from my 12-minute pontification.

After all was said and done, hands immediately went into the air. “Are you saying that you support segregation?,” asked one student. Those questions that followed followed a similar line of thought. Interestingly, part of my presentation included a picture of my Korean wife and our racially mixed children. This isn’t to say that there is some intellectually confused fellow who supports segregation while also marrying outside of his race; it is simply to say that asking me that question was rather strange.

In hope of further clarifying myself - beyond the overwhelming amount of explanation given during the speech - I explained it as follows:

Multiculturalism wishes to celebrate the unique differences among the world’s various cultures. Its staunchest advocates wish to educate others - particularly white people - as to the precious cultural heritage of those from all non-white tribes, nations, and tongues. Whites get to learn about their traditions, their holidays, and the men and women held in high esteem by their people - or at least those in academia who get to pick who is celebrated.

This leaves the multiculturalist with a problem: multiculturalism only remains “multi” in so far as it remains separate. The more a culture or race interacts with an alien culture, the more that culture begins to adopt practices once foreign to it. Some may convert to another religion. Some may start wearing clothing once nonexistent in their culture, assigning their former dress to holidays or special occasions. Many may even begin to intermarry, adopting many of the cultural habits of their partner. Furthermore, mass immigration - an idea cherished by multiculturalists - wreaks havoc on cultures being left behind. Cultural identity ends up being little more than your name and where you may go to church on Sunday. In short, more interaction among cultures, races, and religions is a sure recipe for taking the “multi” out of multiculturalism.

While Leftists may wish to scrap the melting pot in exchange for a toss salad, they have found that their ideas have become their own worst enemies. They want multiculturalism, but they gnash their teeth at the notion of segregation. They want religious and epistemological pluralism, but they with for others to adopt their worldview. This, my friends, would place them among the intellectually schizophrenic.

How will this end? Not sure. My guess is that multiculturalism will continue as it is today, all the while the Left never acknowledging this gross hypocrisy. But it won’t continue because of the diversity among Americans, for they are far too prone to integration. No, it will be due to those races residing in foreign countries who strongly believe that the preservation of their customs and culture relies heavily upon some degree of segregation.

The EU has reached an agreement on having its member states actively return illegal immigrants from outside of the EU to their home countries. Although it seems a step in the right direction, it is far too soon to say this is a victory for the anti-immigration lobby.

First of all, no real details about the agreement are known yet. Will there be guidelines for all member states as to which immigrants are to be rejected and deported and which are to be allowed in? Will there be no more mass ‘pardons’ for illegals, such as the one in Spain in 2005 and the one in The Netherlands in 2007 (to name but a few)?

Second of all, returning illegal immigrants to their home countries does not necessarily mean reducing (let alone stopping completely) the influx of new immigrants to the EU. While leftist action groups cry out against the ‘locking down’ of ‘Fortress Europe’, it remains to be seen if the EU will reduce third world immigration at all.

Then there is the question of free migration of EU-residents within the EU member states. Western Europe is being overrun by Eastern European immigrants, and Eastern Europe is faced with a diminishing work force as its young labourers are seeking fortune in the West. The open internal borders are inherent to the EU in its current form, but to the Western European countries, even closing the extern EU-borders completely would only solve part of the immigration problem.

Finally, we need to remember that leftists have their own little ideals, which they value far above democracy. Their feeling of moral superiority is so strong that they have already in the past cast aside the will of the people in pursuit of their own agenda. In 2006 in The Netherlands, many cities refused to cooperate in apprehending illegal immigrants (in Dutch) which were then, by democratic decision of the Dutch government, supposed to be deported. Because of the delay caused by these cities, the new Dutch government in 2007 was able to stop the deportation of all illegals in question completely and grant them mass amnesty, as mentioned above.

Taking into account that it has taken the EU three years to come to this agreement, which is still vague and not yet final, and remembering Europe’s track record in dealing with the immigration issue, I would not trust the EU’s main political parties with the future of our civilization. Major reforms are still needed, and this new plan just is not going to cut it.

Well, it is no surprise that The Economist is again cheerleading for fewer immigration restrictions for the United States. Their new argument, however, is truly remarkable in its dishonesty. According to The Economist the United States will turn into Mike Judge’s Idiocracy unless it … opens its doors to more Third-World immigrants!

ONE of the most unjustly neglected films of the past few years is Mike Judge’s “Idiocracy”. Mr Judge is the genius behind Beavis and Butt-Head, two of the most disgusting creatures on television, and Hank Hill, one of the wisest. In “Idiocracy” he turns his talents to futurology—and to the troubling question of the long-term impact of dysgenic breeding, junk food and grunge culture on America’s collective IQ.

The premise is simple. Two typical citizens—the army’s “most average” soldier and a street prostitute—find themselves transported 500 years into the future. They soon discover that they are towering geniuses compared with the knuckle-draggers who inhabit the America of 2505. The country’s best university is run by Costco. People are named after brands such as Frito and Mountain Dew. Starbucks has become a chain of brothels. The president is a former porn star and wrestling champion.

One might imagine that America’s politicians would do all that they could to prevent Mr Judge’s dystopia from materialising. But when it comes to immigration they are doing exactly the opposite—trying their best to keep the world’s best and brightest from darkening America’s doors.

The ancestors of today’s Americans were responsible for truly remarkable scientific and political advances. Our genes are just fine, thank you — how are Mexico’s, as long as we’re on the subject? If The Economist was honestly concerned about the consequences of “dysgenic breeding” on “America’s collective IQ,” it would demand that the United States immediately stop the flow of fecund, low IQ immigrants from the world’s most dysfunctional countries. They will never, **NEVER** do so. It’s time to recognize that our opponents are driven by a poisonous ideology, and we are now far beyond the point of rational discussion.

The open-borders lobby has now officially resorted to every possible argument — including arguments that directly contradict previous arguments. I suppose we should expect nothing less from fanatics.