The lynchpin which deters a third jihad - Muslim invasion of Europe - Mark Langfan

Global-affairs analyst, Mark Langfan, explains Muslim petro-political motivations using 3 geometric elements- a line, a triangle, and a rectangle.



Attorney Langfan explains how US Sec'y of State Kerry's pressuring Israel to cede land control for a Palestinian state will facilitate Islamism's crusade into reconquering Europe via Greece- which NATO is obliged to go to war to defend.

Swiss Parliamentarian dares to preserve western civilization, humanity, and freedom from domination by Islamism

Many on the Left disparage America's response to 9/11 by attempting to condemn American military involvement in the Middle East. But they do it to evade the point of combating global Islamism entirely, especially the branch of that movement which thrives under our noses- and seeks to undermine our principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.



Swiss member of Parliament, Oskar Freysinger, gave a speech in Berlin, that no politician in Washington (save Rep. Allen West) is yet ready to speak from the floor of Congress. In order for us to beat back the Islamists, we need some key leaders in Washington to make a similar speech and lead the nation against the Islamist threat head-on.

There's something rotten in Sweden - legislating to boost cultural Jihad over Swedish culture

"Scandalous constitution passed in Sweden" by Cavatus

The new Swedish constitution was passed in the Swedish parliament last week.  A conclusion of the three most important items is:

Membership in the EU is from now constitutional. A withdrawal will imply yet another change of the constitution, which is more complicated and takes longer time (one voting before and one voting after a general election).

The multiculturalism is from now constitutional. It is now imperative to financially support ethnic, cultural and religious groups with the taxpayers’ money. A disastrous policy is cemented.

The significance of the Swedish citizenship is undermined when foreigners are broadly placed on an equal footing with Swedish citizens and thus enjoy the same rights. On top of this there will no longer be any insistence on Swedish citizenship for positions of sensible nature, which implies that foreigners are allowed to have the positions that are structurally important for the society.

Western Civilization activist Pat Condell observes how Swedish liberals have legislated away their national identity to accommodate misogynistic, anti-Semitic, thuggery from Muslims.

"The mild-mannered British desire for the annihilation of Israel," by Melanie Phillips

By distancing itself from the Jewish state, Europe seeks to deflect the anger of its Muslim population. (Courtesy Pajamas Media).

In Europe’s Estrangement from Israel, the British sociologist Frank Furedi reports what he has heard from Britain’s educated classes since the Gaza crisis began:

I am standing in a queue waiting to buy a train ticket from London to Canterbury. A well-dressed lady standing behind me informs her friend that she ‘can’t wait till Israel disappears off the face of the earth.’ What struck me was not her intense hostility to Israel but the mild-mannered, matter-of-fact tone with which she announced her wish for the annihilation of a nation. It seems that it is okay to condemn and demonize Israel. All of a sudden Israel has become an all-purpose target for a variety of disparate and confused causes. When I ask a group of Pakistani waiters sitting around a table in their restaurant why they ‘hate’ Israel, they casually tell me that it is because Jews are their ‘religion’s enemy.’ Those who are highly educated have their own pet prejudice. One of my young colleagues who teaches media studies in a London-based university was taken aback during a seminar discussion when some of her students insisted that since all the banks are owned by Jews, Israel was responsible for the current global financial crisis.

This shocking anti-Jewish bigotry and violence – according to the Community Security Trust, Anglo-Jewry is in the middle of the worst outbreak of Jew-hatred since records began a quarter of a century ago, with more than 150 incidents across the country recorded since the beginning of the Gaza war -- has erupted in Britain as a direct result of the British media and political class giving the impression that the Israelis are deliberate child-killers. Both politicians and journalists have accepted at face value the Hamas claim that the dead in Gaza were mainly civilians, whereas the Israelis maintain that the vast majority were terrorist operatives. The British elites have accepted all claims of Israeli atrocities as well-founded, even though as far as I can see there is not a shred of evidence for any of them. They have also treated the word of the UN as objective holy writ, even though there are serious grounds for suspecting that the UN are the patsies of Hamas. For example, the UN has been screaming that Israel committed a ‘war crime’ when it shelled its Gaza HQ last Thursday; few in Britain know that Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert, no less, told UN Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon that the IDF returned fire after terrorists inside the compound fired anti-tank weapons and machine guns during the humanitarian daily pause:

‘We don't want this event to happen again,’ he told Ban, ‘and I don't know if you know, but Hamas attacked from within the UNRWA compound during the humanitarian cease-fire.’

What is so terribly shocking is that in the face of this unprecedented wave of hatred and bigotry, Britain’s senior politicians have been all but silent. They have a duty not merely to condemn the anti-Jewish violence but also to condemn the blood libels about Israel that have been inciting it. Instead, ministers such as International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander have breathed upon the flames by condemning Israel’s behaviour as ‘disproportionate’ and regurgitating as fact the distorted propaganda of Hamas and its patsy, the UN, about the number of civilian casualties.

Repeatedly, Gordon Brown has said, as here, that ‘too many innocent people’ have died in Gaza without acknowledging these crucial points: that while all deaths of innocents in war are to be much regretted, the vast majority of those killed have been Hamas operatives; that Hamas deliberately falsify these figures by classifying terrorists as civilians; and most crucial of all, that Israel has gone to extreme lengths to avoid killing innocent civilians – lengths to which the British and Americans most certainly are not going in Afghanistan. For Brown to avoid stating any of this, and instead to lend credence to the libellous claims about Israel’s behaviour which have incited this wave of anti-Jewish bigotry and violence makes the British Prime Minister effectively an accessory to that bigotry and violence.

Let us not hear any more pieties from PM Gordon Brown about his great love of Israel and the Jewish people. The hypocrisy is simply nauseating.

"The Monster Among Us" - documents the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in Europe

The Monster Among Us, is Media Projects’ latest film about the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. The film includes excerpts from almost 200 hours of footage shot in Germany, Hungary, France, England, Holland and Belgium. (NJ Jewish News)View trailer:

Anti-Semitism has surfaced on university campuses, in the media, on the streets, on the Internet, at political demonstrations and in seemingly innocent social situations.

The Monster Among Us examines this wave of anti-Semitism against European Jews and their institutions, mainly from the point of view of those who have directly experienced the violence or live every day with the threat.

In recent conversations with American Jews as well as non-Jews, it’s surprising by how many are un-informed about the problem. Some have heard about the violence in France, but most are totally unaware of what’s happening in the rest of Europe.

2008-2009 Scheduled Screenings:

October 30th: Jewish Community Center, Dallas, TX

November 12th: The European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium

November 16th: Boca Raton Synagogue, Boca Raton, FL

November 23rd: Congregation Beth Israel Corpus Christi, TX

December 7th: Jewish Community Center, Tucson, AZ

February 12th: University of Memphis, Memphis, TN

March 14th-23rd: Hartford Jewish Film Festival, Hartford, CT

The Real World Order

Russia rewrites the rules against NATO; US against Iran

Moscow’s blitzkrieg in Georgia is more than a military campaign. It is designed to empower Russia’s diplomatic strategy, which seeks to make the European Union (EU) the West’s chief representative in future negotiations with Russia. Quite naturally the Kremlin wants to escape the logic of U.S. and NATO policy, which is to contain Russia within her national borders. Meanwhile, the European Union is an entirely different animal: toothless, utopian and ready to please.   

In Russia's Concept for Dominating Europe, J.R. Nyquist writes:

The real purpose of this operation, the Russian president hinted, was to highlight the dangerous obsolescence of NATO and Europe’s unrealistic expectations with regard to Russia. The old treaties will not keep the peace, he said, because they are unfair. Russia is a great power and deserves greater influence.

Today the European Union confronts Russia in the same way Neville Chamberlain confronted Hitler in 1938; being outwitted and tricked in the ceasefire negotiations, there is no possible outcome other than appeasement. The Russians insist that their troops be accepted as peacekeepers in Georgia. The French mediators allow this. And so, the stipulated withdrawal of combatants therefore does not apply to the Russian troops. Under this ceasefire agreement Moscow can claim – in a strictly legal sense – that Russian troops can stay in Georgia indefinitely. President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are laughing at the French while observing international law. Meanwhile, occupied Georgia is looted and burned; Georgian ships are sunk and the Georgian capital is strangled.

NATO has done nothing, even though NATO has promised to make Georgia a member of the alliance. NATO defers to the European Union. Bush also defers and sends his Secretary of State to Paris instead of Moscow. While all of Europe demanded a negotiated solution, only Poland and the Baltic States (along with Sweden and Denmark) denounced Russian military aggression. All of Europe should have denounced Russia with one voice. All of Europe should have eschewed “negotiations.” All of Europe should have demanded an immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia. All of Europe should have begun to mobilize troops and combat aircraft for the defense of Georgia. In that event, Russia would have retreated.

But the Kremlin knew, in advance, this wouldn’t happen. There is no “military confrontation” in Georgia. As President Medvedev said, “I am convinced that with the end of the Cold war … bloc discipline simply disappeared.”

Think-tank, Stratfor elaborates:  The post-Cold War world, the New World Order, ended with authority on Aug. 8, 2008, when Russia and Georgia went to war. Certainly, this war was not in itself of major significance, and a very good case can be made that the New World Order actually started coming apart on Sept. 11, 2001. But it was on Aug. 8 that a nation-state, Russia, attacked another nation-state, Georgia, out of fear of the intentions of a third nation-state, the United States. This causes us to begin thinking about the Real World Order.

The Russians have now proven two things. First, contrary to the reality of the 1990s, they can execute a competent military operation. Second, contrary to regional perception, the United States cannot intervene. The Russian message was directed against Ukraine most of all, but the Baltics, Central Asia and Belarus are all listening. The Russians will not act precipitously. They expect all of these countries to adjust their foreign policies away from the United States and toward Russia. They are looking to see if the lesson is absorbed. At first, there will be mighty speeches and resistance. But the reality on the ground is the reality on the ground.

Will Americans now consider a Presidential candidate able to win in the hardball game that the big boys play?

"Anti-Semitism on the Rise in Europe" Video Hits YouTube

CBN News' Dale Hurd follows-up his "European anti-Americanism" series with a new video news report on "European anti-Semitism."

"Even though many European governments have condemned the new rise in anti-Semitism, there is a clear perception among many Jews that Europe's terrible history is somehow coming back to life."

"Jewish communities around the world are under more pressure now than at any time since 1945," says Prof. Robert Wistrich of Hebrew University in Israel. Wistrich is the son of Polish Jews who fled the Holocaust. "Here we are 60 years after that and what lessons have been learned? Not enough."

Distorted Media Coverage

Throughout Europe, distorted and one-sided news coverage has created an Israel that is aggressive and evil.

"It's a demonization based on a radical detextualization, de-legitimization that's been going on," Melanie Phillips, a British conservative, says. "And if you're the averagely ignorant Brit, watching your TV, listening to your radio, you believe it. That's your world view."

In France, a court is deciding whether a government TV channel, France2, showed faked footage of the supposed death of a Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Durah, during the second intifada in 2000, to make it look like he was killed by Israeli solders. When the judge ordered France2 to turn over all of its footage of the incident, it also showed the boy moving his arms and peering through his fingers after he was supposed to be dead.

But Muslim rage at the original France2 news story led to countless reprisals against Jews around the world. It was even mentioned by terrorists as a reason for the beheading Daniel Pearl.

DemocracyBroadcastingNews.com says the France2 story "globally defames the Jewish nation, Israel, with a fabricated icon of hypocritical brutality and immorality; and criminalizes Jews and their State to justify pariah-punishment."

The EU says Muslims are responsible for half of all attacks on Jews in Europe. In France, Muslims outnumber Jews 10 to 1. Nidra Poller, an American writer and commentator in Paris, says the government and media are afraid of the Muslims.

"The French are using the Muslims, allowing the Muslims, to express this vicious and violent, murderous Jews hatred, and they get a free ride on their old fashioned anti-Semitism," Poller said. "The whole Lebanon war was shown from the Hezbollah point of view. Israel was the villain. And Hezbollah were the innocents who were suffering. So all the Muslims in France got another dose of Jew hatred."

And when Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, anti-Semitic violence in Europe surged.

Surpising, But Not Unique

Anti-Semitism is by no means just a European phenomenon. But it is in Europe, the place of the Holocaust, where the return of anti-semitism is so surprising.

As a boy in the Netherlands, Manfred Gerstenfeld hid from the Nazis in an upstairs apartment. He may have never believed it could happen again. But he now believes Europe is re-living the 1930s.

"A senior Dutch politician told me a few months ago, 'Look, the Jews have to understand that in the Netherlands, they have no future,' he said.

In large part because Israel lost the media war in Europe long ago, and the Jews are still paying for it."

Read full transcript.

CBN News' 'The 700 Club' report, "Anti-Semitism on the Rise in Europe," quotes DemoCast

Anti-Semitism on the Rise in Europe by Dale Hurd, CBN News Senior Reporter, broadcast on The 700 Club, Thursday, 6 March 2008 - and streams on CBN News. DemoCast was credited in this TV news report (see below).

"In France, a court is deciding whether a government TV channel, France2, showed faked footage of the supposed death of a Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Durah, during the second intifada in 2000, to make it look like he was killed by Israeli soldiers.

When the judge ordered France2 to turn over all of its footage of the incident, it also showed the boy moving his arms and peering through his fingers after he was supposed to be dead.

But Muslim rage at the original France2 news story led to countless reprisals against Jews around the world. It was even mentioned by terrorists as a reason for the beheading Daniel Pearl.

Scott Jacobs, Editor at DemocracyBroadcastingNews.com, says the France2 story "globally defames the Jewish nation, Israel, with a fabricated icon of hypocritical brutality and immorality; and criminalizes Jews and their State to justify pariah / punishment."

Full article and/or video from ABC Family Channel's "The 700 Club" here.

Prof. Richard Landes, chronicler of the Al Dura Affaire via The Second Draft, is the academic authority on the problem and the ramifications:

"Israelis repeatedly express astonishment at why Jews from the diaspora care about setting this record straight when they just wish it would go away. When they realize how powerful the impact not only on Israel, but on Jews around the world, they express surprise.

As Karsenty later explained to the judges, “The day after al Durah, one of my employees came into the office and challenged me, ‘Look at what your army has done, murdering an innocent child!’” In Brussels, a rabbi was attacked the next day on the way to New Year’s services, never having seen the footage.

That’s the core of the blood libel: a Jew deliberately murders an innocent child, and all Jews everywhere are held responsible. Five days later crowds of immigrant Muslims and European leftists would hold a huge banner aloft in Place de la République with a "Star of David = Swastika = picture of the al Durahs behind the barrel," shouting “Death to Israel! Death to the Jews!”

In related news, 'Ron Hogan on Media Bistro writes a review of philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy who appeared at NY's 92nd Street Y. He weighed in on the ways that anti-semitism has reconfigured itself for the 21st century.

"I am a few months younger than Israel," Lévy quipped at the start of his speech, but he cannot remember any moment in his lifetime when the nation seemed "as lonely, as vulnernable, and as threatened" as it is now, particularly as the anti-semitism that he sees at the root of much anti-Zionist rhetoric has become more openly expressed. "The dikes are broken," he warned, citing the UN conference at Durban and the boycotts being mounted against book fairs in Paris and Turin which have chosen to honor Israel's contributions to world literature.

So what can Jews do against this pernicious worldview?

"Respond blast for blast," Lévy urged, and dismantle this new anti-semitic rhetoric before it coalesces into a political movement with real power. (As he noted, the new anti-semites are openly looking to acquire nuclear weapons, and if they get them, they plan to use them.) He also called upon Jews to strengthen their alliances with other persecuted groups, and to work whatever influence they could muster to ensure that moderate Muslims prevail in that religion's internal struggle with fundamentalism. (He even suggested that the Koran might benefit
from the application of Talmudic reading.) And, he noted, "the morale of Israel is at its best," and ready to deal with this threat. "The best defense is attack," he said, citing Clausewitz, "and the best attack is confrontation."

Why Sharia Law Isn't Simply 'Kosher' for the West

"Britain is Being Islamised by Stealth," claims Melanie Phillips, being interviewed by CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck. British political commentator, Melanie Phillips, condemned the Archbishop of Canterbury's endorsement of authorizing enforcement of non-standardized, decentralized Sharia in Britain. Watch her video:



Christopher Hitchens used Archbishop Rowan Williams sanctioning of Sharia as justifying his ouster. From Slate:

"In the midst of this dismal verbiage and euphemism, the plain statement—"There's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said"—still stands out like a diamond in a dunghill. It stands out precisely because it is said simply, and because its essential grandeur is intelligible to everybody. Its principles ought to be just as intelligible and accessible to those who don't yet speak English, in just the same way as the great Lord Mansfield once ruled that, wherever someone might have been born, and whatever he had been through, he could not be subject to slavery once he had set foot on English soil. Simple enough?"

Sharia Law is not equivalent to Jewish or Hindu law in the West
Hugh Fitzgerald elucidates in Jihad Watch:

The difference between the imposition of any part of the Shari'a and whatever a very limited role is allotted to Jewish (or possibly Hindu) family law, is that there is no real challenge, by the latter, to the supremacy of English law. There is no long-term program to use whatever small place has been allowed for there to be some kind of use of Jewish (or Hindu?) family law, in very limited ways, and ONLY when those ways do not contradict English law, to undercut the supremacy of the law of the English state. There is no program to undo the legal and political institutions of the English state.

The situation is quite different from Islam. The pretense, that the uninformed and terminally naive Archbishop of Canterbury has fallen for, that Muslims "only" want this little concession, should be seen in light of the steady and inevitable Muslim desire to remove everything that stands in the way of the spread of Islam. Shari'a imposed on Muslims -- many of whom do not want it (see the example of Canada, where female Muslims led the fight against it) because their legal position under the Shari'a-supplied family law is far inferior to what it would be under the laws of any Infidel land -- in the supposedly limited area of family law may, and indeed does, contradict the law of the land in Great Britain. That is quite another matter. And so too is the fact that this is not a final demand, but merely an opening one. If granted, it will lead to more and more such demands -- demands that swell with each new victory, as a sense of triumphalism is at the heart of the matter. That sense must never be encouraged. It must always be discouraged and disappointed.

Christopher Hitchens elaborates on the importance of resisting Islamist imperialism in this essay published six months ago, "God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?"

... Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

Should America accomodate Europeans fleeing anti-Semitism? Isn't that what Israel's for?

Benjamin Sarlin writes in the N.Y. Sun: Following a recent fact-finding trip to Europe, a Democrat who represents Brooklyn in the NY State Assembly, Dov Hikind, said yesterday he is convinced that anti-Semitism has made life intolerable for Jews in England, France, Germany, and Belgium.

At a dinner tonight organized by the New York Association for New Americans, he said he plans to call on President Bush to accord special refugee status to Western European Jews.

While Western European Jews would likely fail to qualify as persecuted refugees under State Department standards, America has made rare exceptions for certain groups in the past, including Jews and other religious minorities in the former Soviet Union who qualified as refugees under the 1989 Lautenberg Amendment. Mr. Hikind wants this treatment extended to Western European Jews.

Mayor Ron Nachman of the city of Ariel, Israel gave DemoCast News his thoughts on this news during his visit to Los Angeles.

He pondered, " The home of the Jewish people is Israel. Why move them to America now when they'll only have to move to Israel eventually, anyway?"

Why Europeans Hate America and Love Islamism

Prof. Andrei Markovitz of Univ of Michigan, author of "Uncouth Nation- Why Europe Dislikes America" in TV interview with CBN News' Dale Hurd:
'It's not an issue of an American policy ..., but that objectionable policy (e.g., the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal) is linked to a characterological trait - that it is inherent, the essence of Americans - then that to me is anti-Americanism.'


CNAM Productions has produced (for Corp for Public Bcasting and SBS-TV Australia, via ChrisACD on YouTube) this documentary exploring current European Anti-Americanism (in 5 of 6 parts):

CPB documentary on European Anti-Americanism:
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why NOT!"

Prof. David Selbourne of Oxford, England- from the London Times (truncated):

1. The extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot.

2. The strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”... It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements...

3. The low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States.

4. The contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam.

5. The confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance- misunderstand(ing) the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

6. The vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.

7. The moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not.

8. The skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen.

9. The West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries.

10. The West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam.

David Selbourne is the author of "The Losing Battle with Islam"