How Soros Money Is Corrupting Politics in This Small European Nation

In the economy of world politics, George Soros has billions at stake, and they extend even to remote places like the Republic of Macedonia.

In fact, the tiny Balkan state is becoming emblematic of a battle royale taking place in Europe between conservative parties that support traditional values and national sovereignty, and those — often funded by the liberal billionaire — with an ambitious agenda that includes liberal drug and sexual orientation policies as well as trans-nationalism.

Making things even more complicated are the Kremlin’s routine strategic interferences. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s vast propaganda network often intrudes into these disputes, whether invited in or not, by ostensibly taking up the traditionalists’ cause and going to war with his arch-nemesis, Soros.

In some places, such as Macedonia itself, there is one added variable: Obama-era embeds.

The Obama-appointed U.S. ambassador in Skopje, Jess Baily, has come under congressional scrutiny over accusations that he has shown a political bias against the Macedonian conservative party, VMRO, and that he facilitated coalition negotiations between the main leftist party and ethnic Albanian parties.

In a letter sent to Baily on Jan. 17, Republican members of the House and the Senate also asked him to explain reports that his embassy had selected Soros’ Open Society Foundations as the main implementer of U.S. Agency for International Development projects in Macedonia.

The State Department’s Feb. 6 response, which I had the chance to read, was thin on details regarding funding for Soros’ foundation and groups it controls.

Grants to them were awarded through a “competitive procurement process,” the letter said. The aid, it added, was to “strengthen the rule of law, increase economic growth, support regional security,” and pursue other nebulous goals.

But in fact, a Feb. 27 USAID announcement of a $2.54 million contract with the foundation revealed that the project included paying for training in “civic activism,” “mobilization,” and “civic engagement.”

Far from strengthening the rule of law or regional security, these are activities associated with the redefinition of civics as 1960s-style progressive political activism. They are all strategies straight out of Saul Alinsky’s subversion manual, “Rules for Radicals,” whose translation into Macedonian, incidentally, was funded by Soros’ foundation in 2014.

One of the world’s richest men, Soros has a long history of intervening politically around the globe in the pursuit of his dream of open borders, global governance, and the erosion of regional particularism — what he calls the “open society.”

Because the State Department’s letter was “vague and failed to answer the questions we posed,” the same six Republican members of the House who wrote him — plus a new one, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. — last week asked the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office to open an investigation and audit of the State Department and USAID regarding Macedonia and Soros’ foundation.

The legal watchdog Judicial Watch, for its part, has filed Freedom of Information Act requests asking that the State Department and USAID produce documents related to any grants, contracts, communications, assessments, etc. made by the department to the Foundation Open Society-Macedonia and its subsidiaries.

Whatever comes from these efforts, the political parties that the U.S. ambassador was helping negotiate — the leftist Social Democratic Union and three ethnic Albanian-based parties, the Democratic Union for Integration, Besa, and the Alliance of Albanians — did on Sunday reach an agreement to form a government.

But Macedonia’s president, Gjorge Ivanov, on Wednesday refused to give the Social Democratic Union a mandate to form a government because its leader, Zoran Zaev, acquiesced to the Albanian parties’ demand that Albanian become an official language throughout Macedonia.

The parties worked out the language deal next door in Tirana, Albania — one of the reasons Ivanov cited for withholding the mandate.

Albania is another country where the activities of Soros and his foundation are also under scrutiny for supporting the government of Prime Minister Edi Rama — a socialist who personally brokered the “Tirana Platform.” And in Albania, too, we find an Obama-era ambassador, Donald Lu, who backs the Soros-supported parties.

Rama, who is so close to Soros he attended his 2013 wedding, last week issued an impassioned plea for the U.S. not to abandon the Balkans to Russia, whose influence, he told The Telegraph, “is stronger than ever before.” “Russia,” he added, “has been interested in spreading its influence and there’s a lot of it in the region.”

Putin’s Kremlin routinely and opportunistically tries to maneuver itself into the politics of Europe. Senior Whitehall sources say it plotted to assassinate Montenegro’s prime minister last year.

In Macedonia, too, it has tried to portray itself as being on the side of the conservative VMRO, which leads the present government and won the most votes in the Dec. 11 elections. Even an article I wrote last month was quoted at length by Russia’s Sputnik International.

Reuters reported that on Thursday, March 2, Russia accused Albania, NATO, and the European Union of trying to impose a pro-Albanian government on Macedonia.

Far from backing pro-Putin policies, however, VMRO has long been a staunchly pro-U.S., pro-NATO party.

But our embassies’ notorious support for Soros and his progressive policies does irritate traditional-minded people in Macedonia and elsewhere.

“Some of my conservative friends in Macedonia are now telling me, ‘I hate America,’” Jason Miko, an American businessman who has been visiting the Balkan country for over two decades, told me. “They don’t really hate America. They hate what the Obama administration has done.”

“If Soros wants to spend his own money, then let him, but when he starts using taxpayer money it’s something else,” said Miko, Macedonia’s honorary consul in Arizona. (For more from the author of “How Soros Money Is Corrupting Politics in This Small European Nation” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


In Europe and the US, Elites Who Live by Lies Despise the Little People Who Don’t

Kevin Crehan is dead at 35. He perished as an enemy of the British state, the victim of de facto judicial murder. Crehan was in prison for a tasteless prank: offended perhaps by the aggressive demands of immigrant Muslims in Britain for the imposition of sharia law, Crehan left a bacon sandwich on the front steps of a mosque. For that he was sentenced to one year in a prison full of violent Muslim criminals who knew about his prank, with no protective custody. (The cause of his death is still unclear.)

In a bitter twist, Julian Lambert, the judge who sentenced Crehan for his crime, in 2015 gave a sentence of only two years to a member of a Muslim rape gang that preyed on toddlers and a baby. So in 2017, that immigrant baby rapist will be a free man, while Kevin Crehan, Englishman, sleeps in the English earth.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn didn’t live to see this travesty, but a close reading of his works would have allowed you to predict it. The Gulag Archipelago, a masterful work of memory, exposed a vast empire of falsehood, injustice, and cruelty — all carefully masked by puffed-up rationalizations and defended by Western intellectuals who lived comfortably far from its labor camps and psychiatric prisons.

Solzhenitsyn’s book with a deft stroke exposed the messianic cult of Marxism, and doomed the Soviet system. Shortly before Solzhenitsyn was expelled from his native country, he begged his fellow citizens to engage in a simple, prophetic act of resistance: to “live not by lies.”

By contrast, the de facto leader of the European Union, Germany’s Angela Merkel, took to the airwaves for New Year’s to deliver the opposite message, to repeat the governing lie which guides EU elites, and demand that Germans live by it. The woman who single-handedly delivered the continent of Europe to the tender mercies of rape mobs, who flooded its cities with unemployable foreigners who flock to extremist mosques and are infiltrated by ISIS, addressed her bewildered citizens. As Breitbart reports:

In the federal chancellor’s New Year address to Germany, Merkel asserted that the terror attacks committed by Islamist migrants in Würzburg, Ansbach, and recently at a Christmas market in Berlin were not attacks on Western civilisation but an attack on ‘refugees’ and Germany’s willkommenskultur (‘welcome culture’).

She stated terrorists “mock [the willingness of Germany to help] with their deeds [acts of terrorism], like they mock those who really need and deserve our protection.”

Adding that it is “particularly bitter and repulsive” when terrorist attacks are committed by migrants, Merkel pushed back against criticism of her unwavering commitment to mass migration, saying that Germany will fight the “hatred” of terrorism with “humanity” and “unity.”

“With the images of bombed-out Aleppo in Syria, it is important to remember once again how important and correct it was that our country has helped in the past year those who need our protection,” she said.

Acknowledging that Islamic terrorism is the biggest test for Germany, Merkel hinted at new security measures for the year ahead – but not at changes to her open-door mass migration policies.

Over one million unvetted migrants from the Middle East and Africa entered Germany alone at Merkel’s invitation, including potentially hundreds of Islamic State fighters and bringing with them the risk of the terror organisation weaponising migrants already in the country.

Asserting that “[the] state is doing everything to ensure its citizens’ security in freedom,” the chancellor said that in the midst of mourning for the dead and injured in these “difficult days,” Germans should seek “consolation” in each other.

Merkel closed her speech, which will be broadcast Saturday, by asserting that Germans need “openness” and “an open view of the world.” She stated she had “confidence” for 2017 – this New Year confidence an extension of her “Wir schaffen das” (“we can do this”) mantra.

The Captive Mind of the Ideologue

Nothing can penetrate the mind of an ideologue. It’s a hypobaric chamber — hermetically sealed, locked off by a thousand logical fallacies and willful refusals of reason. Soviet leaders knew perfectly well for decades that their people were battered and crushed, toiling miserably in pursuit of a hopeless utopia. But they kept on droning out speeches which promised a glorious future, which “proved” from the crabbed arithmetic of Marx’s fatuous arguments that socialism could dissolve human selfishness in the acid bath of coercion.

None of the violence and intimidation of women that’s afflicting Europe’s cities, none of the terrorist attacks conducted by “refugees” or barely foiled by harried security services, none of the strutting demands for sharia by imams scamming European welfare payments, can make the slightest dent in Merkel’s iron pate. Her politics are as delusional as those of the poor mental patient who rocks back and forth in a corner, convinced he’s the queen of Portugal. But unlike him, Merkel is culpable. She knows what she is doing. She must know.

Merkel and the EU elites, and the bishops and pastors, academics and bureaucrats who back that mad agenda, are united by a powerful governing vision, strong enough to insulate them from any argument or data. Like Marxism, that vision projects a shiny kaleidoscope of colorful, idealist fantasies. But its beating heart is hatred. As Marxists despise and scheme to destroy the thrifty farmer, the hard-working shop owner, and the friar who serves the poor, so globalists hate, from the depths of their bones, the bulk of their countrymen:

Patriotic veterans who cling to their nation’s sovereignty, remembering how the Germans (for instance) once marched in and terrorized them.

Women who expect to dress and act as they see fit, regardless of the jeers and threats of the mobs of welfare-dependent Salafists who now haunt the street of their cities.

Overworked taxpayers who wonder why half their paychecks are confiscated, while foreigners lounge around on public assistance.

Christian refugees from the Middle East, who escaped Muslim persecution in their native lands, only to fear such attacks now in Sweden or Belgium.

Ordinary people who expect that the mores and culture, songs and creeds and customs, of their home country can prevail without constant vituperation and periodic terror attacks by angry, aggressive aliens.

The Government has Dissolved the People and Chosen a New One

The current rulers of Europe detest the Kevin Crehans whom they are governing, with all the white-knuckled fury that Hillary Clinton felt for “deplorable” U.S. voters. So those rulers have chosen to dissolve the people, and import a new one. Elaborate schemes will protect those countries’ policies from “populist” resistance, and shield the haughty governors from the benighted hordes whom they govern. The secret police in Germany will monitor social media to crack down on “hate speech”— defined as speech that diverges from official government policy. (See this couple sentenced to prison and fines in Bavaria for opposing the influx of refugees — and this German policeman threatened with a fine of three months’ wages for calling Merkel’s policies “insane” at a public political rally.)

In the U.S., Trump’s win slowed, if only a little, the crackdown by America’s Angela Merkels against our Kevin Crehans. They will go on suppressing the free speech of conservatives on campus, and trying to ruin the livelihoods of those who attend evangelical churches or run Christian businesses. But perhaps, for the next four years at least, the full power of the U.S. federal government will not be turned against ordinary people for believing common-sense things. We must make the most of that time, an unbought grace God granted us, to steel ourselves and our families to the task that lies before us: To live not by lies. (For more from the author of “In Europe and the US, Elites Who Live by Lies Despise the Little People Who Don’t” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Death With Dignity? European Countries Are Now Euthanizing Mentally Ill

In his weekend editorial, Chris Lane of The Washington Post outlined how the once truly unthinkable has now become reality: The mentally ill are now being regularly euthanized in the developed countries of Belgium and the Netherlands in Europe.

Writes Lane, on a recent report from Belgium’s Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia:

In the 2014-2015 period, the report says, 124 of the 3,950 euthanasia cases in Belgium involved persons diagnosed with a “mental and behavioral disorder,” four more than in the previous two years. Tiny Belgium’s population is 11.4 million; 124 euthanasias over two years there is the equivalent of about 3,500 in the United States.

The figure represents 3.1 percent of all 2014-2015 euthanasia cases — and a remarkable 20.8 percent of the (also remarkable) 594 non-terminal patients to whom Belgian doctors administered lethal injections in that period.

Belgium, of course, became the first country in the world to do away with age restrictions for euthanasia and passed the so-called “right to die” for patients suffering “unbearably” from “untreatable” conditions, regardless of whether or not the condition is terminal. In 2014, there were a reported 1,800 cases of euthanasia in Belgium.

This includes mental conditions like autism, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dementia, and even depression. Meanwhile, The Netherlands (the first country to legalize euthanasia) are trying to further relax its euthanasia policies.

Of course, similar trends are already starting in the United States, upending the popular narrative of assisted suicide that Brittany Maynard tried to craft in 2014, when she became the new face of America’s “right to die” and “death with dignity” movement.

In 2008, Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old cancer patient in Oregon, was denied coverage of her lung cancer medication by her insurance company. Rather, Oregon Health Plan (the state’s Medicaid program) offered to pay for the $50 drugs necessary in a doctor-prescribed death.

More recently, Stephanie Packer, a 33-year-old terminally-ill mother of four in California received similar news. Rather than cover the inconvenient expenses of chemotherapy treatment, her insurance company determined that she was more cost-effective to them dead. So, instead, they offered to provide drugs that would end her life, as the End of Life Option Act made it a legal option in the Golden State in June .

The effect on support groups has been particularly notable. “[P]eople constantly are talking about, ‘We should be doing this [dying],’” Packer stated, via the New York Post.

It was only after threatening to go public with the story that Packer — a devout Roman Catholic who “wanted no part of” physician-assisted suicide — had her treatment approved.

And while many in the culture of death like to dismiss protests to the contrary, dismissing all “slippery slope” warnings as wholly irrational and unfound fears, the trajectory of history’s “necessary evils” show that they often become positive goods with far worse unintended consequences.

We in America are more familiar with this kind of slippery slope at the beginning of life, rather than the end. It’s the kind of slope that transforms the taking of unborn life from an illegal, hushed affair to a necessary evil, to something that public figures can now openly joke about applying post-birth as well.

Over the weekend, Newsbusters’ Jack Coleman reported that at Vanity Fair’s third annual “New Establishment Summit,” the publication’s contributing editor Fran Lebowitz brazenly called for “retroactive abortions” against pro-life advocates like Mike Pence, referring to the VP nominee and other pro-lifers as “perfect advertisements” for having a child murdered.

Lebowitz may very well be joking about having her political enemies murdered in utero, such a joke could only exist in a truly despairing social climate. Despite the fact that the percentage of pro-choice Americans is on the rise, the arguments of many in the pro-abortion crowd have long since left the realm of “necessary evil” in their efforts to make the grisly mundane. After all, in the era of “shouting your abortion,” abortion parties, and celebrating the procedure with tacos and beer, the appearance of a joke like Lebowitz’s in a national outlet is just par for the course.

The problem with permitting “necessary evils” in a society on utilitarian grounds is that they rarely seem to stay that way. Such was the case with slavery in our early republic, and such is proving to be the case with utilitarian euthanasia in Europe and some jurisdictions in the U.S.

We currently have before us the whole pattern of events from across the Atlantic, and what is now occurring in our very own courthouses and hospitals. They show us that when the “right to die” becomes a duty to die (it always does), the implications fall hardest on the most vulnerable — the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and yes, the mentally ill.

The fact that this is even occurring ought to give voters in both the District of Columbia and the State of Colorado (both of which are currently considering assisted suicide bills) pause regarding the frightening euphemisms/promises of “death with dignity.”

Perhaps describing these trends as “slippery slopes” is insufficient to their nature, as they more closely resemble a grim and merciless riptide. (For more from the author of “Death With Dignity? European Countries Are Now Euthanizing Mentally Ill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.



Sixteen years ago, when Dutch commentator Paul Scheffer published his “Multicultural Drama” declaring that multiculturalism in the Netherlands had failed, the response was swift and angry. Critics across Europe called him racist, bigoted, nationalistic. Others dismissed his views as mere rants and ramblings of a Leftist in search of a cause.

Not anymore.

With over 275 people killed in 10 Islamic terrorist attacks since January 2015, Europeans harbor no more illusions about the multiculturalist vision: where immigrants from Muslim countries are concerned, that idealist vision has more than just failed. It has produced a culture of hatred, fear, and unrelenting danger. Now, with European Muslim youth radicalizing at an unprecedented rate and the threat of new terrorist attacks, Europe is reassessing its handling of Muslim communities and its counterterrorism strategies and laws.

Among the changes being considered are a reversal of laws that allow radical Muslims to receive handouts from the very governments they seek to destroy; restricting foreign funding of mosques; and stronger surveillance on private citizens.

Chief among the new counterterrorism approaches is a program to coordinate intelligence data among European Union countries – a tactic that has not been pursued with any regularity or such depth before now. But following the November attacks in Paris, the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD initiated weekly meetings among intel agencies from all EU countries, Switzerland, and Norway, with the objective of sharing information, exchanging new clues, insights, and suspect alerts, and discussing improvements to a Europe-wide system of counterterrorism and intelligence.

Through these meetings and the improved shared database, it is now possible for each country to contextualize its intelligence and understand links between individuals and various groups from one city to another – and so, between radicals and radical groups as they pass through a borderless EU.

Concurrently, EU members are now beginning to share information about web sites and even details about private citizens where needed. Most countries had been reluctant to make such exchanges, citing both privacy concerns and the need to protect their sources. Other cooperative efforts include an EU initiative begun in February 2015 to counteract Islamic extremist propaganda. The project received a major €400 million boost in June, indicating the high priority Europe now places on fighting recruitment.

Earlier this month, Europol began a new effort to screen refugees still awaiting placement in Greek asylum centers. According to a report from Europa Nu, an initiative between the European parliament and the University of Leiden, Europol agents “specifically trained to unmask and dismantle terrorists and terror networks” will be dispatched to the camps to try to prevent terrorists from infiltrating the flood of refugees to Europe.

Some EU measures, however, have been based more in politics than counterterrorism, including efforts to crack down on the ability of radical Muslims to benefit from welfare programs. British citizens, for instance, reacted with outrage when it was discovered that the family of “Jihadi John” had received over £400,000 in taxpayer support over the course of 20 years. In Belgium, Salah Abdeslam, the terrorist accused of participating in the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, pulled in nearly €19,000 in welfare benefits from January 2014 and October 2015, according to Elsevier. And Gatestone reports that more than 30 Danish jihadists received a total of €51,000 in unemployment benefits all while battling alongside the Islamic State in Syria.

Such concerns have also spread to the United States. Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin, R-Maine, introduced the “No Welfare For Terrorists Act.”

“Terrorist victims and their families should never be forced to fund those who harmed them,” he said in a statement. “This bill guarantees this will never happen.”

But not all of Europe’s new approaches to the terror threat are being coordinated out of Brussels. Many more, in fact, are country-specific, such as England’s decision to follow an example set earlier by the Netherlands and Spain, separating jailed terrorists and terror suspects from other prisoners. The measures follow others the country adopted after the July 7, 2005 bombings of a London underground and buses, to criminalize “those who glorify terrorism, those involved in acts preparatory to terrorism, and those who advocate it without being directly involved,” the New York Times reported.

In fact, prisons worldwide, including in the U.S., have long been viewed as warm breeding grounds for radicals and potential terrorists. Ahmed Coulibaly, the gunman at the Porte de Vincennes siege in January 2015, was serving time for a bank robbery, for instance, when he met Cherif Koauachi, one of the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Both converted to Islam there. It was in that same prison that the two encountered Djamel Beghal, an al-Qaida operative who attempted to blow up the American Embassy in Paris in 2001.

Hence many experts now argue in favor of isolating those held on terrorism-related charges as a way to stop them from radicalizing their fellow inmates.

Yet British officials have until now resisted creating separate wings for terror suspects, arguing that doing so gives them “credibility” and makes it harder to rehabilitate them. But a recent government report on Islamist extremism in British prisons forced a change in thinking, in part by noting that “other prisoners – both Muslim and non-Muslim – serving sentences for crimes unrelated to terrorism are nonetheless vulnerable to radicalization by Islamist Extremists [sic].”

Similarly, France, the site of the worst attacks of the past two years, also balked at first at the idea of separating terrorists from other prisoners, arguing that doing so “forms a terrorist cell within a prison.” But the Charlie Hebdo attacks of January 2015 changed all that. Now, officials are even going further, looking at other potential sources of radicalization: the mosques.

Shortly after the Bastille Day attack in Nice, Prime Minister Manuel Valls announced plans to ban foreign financing for French mosques as part of an effort to establish a “French Islam,” led by imams trained only in France. France hosts dozens of foreign-financed mosques – many sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Morocco – which preach Salafism, an extreme version of Islam practiced in the Saudi Kingdom and the root of much radical Islamist ideology. And according to a new report on counter-radicalization, about 300 imams come from outside France.

That same report also calls for “regular surveys” of France’s 4-5 million Muslims, according to France 24, in order “to acquire a better understanding of this population in a country where statistics based on religious, ethnic, or racial criteria are banned.”

Both proposed measures have been met with resistance. The “surveys,” as even the report itself notes, are a means of circumventing laws against gathering information on the basis of religious criteria – and so, go against democratic principles. And many French officials also oppose the ban on foreign funding for mosques, arguing that French government intervention in places of worship contradicts separation between church and state. Besides, they claim, radicalization doesn’t take place there anyway.

But Dutch authorities and counter-extremism experts are not so sure. The announcement earlier this month that Qatar would finance an Islamic center in Rotterdam, for instance, set off alarms even among Muslim moderates, including Rotterdam’s Moroccan-born mayor Ahmed Marcouch. There are good reasons for this. The Salafist Eid Charity, which sponsors the project, has been on Israel’s terror list since 2008, according to Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad. Moreover, in 2013 the U.S. Treasury Department accused the charity’s founder, Abd al-Rahman al-Nu’aymi, of providing funding for al-Qaida and its affiliates, and named him a “specially designated global terrorist.”

Plans for the center sound much like those of the now-abandoned plans for New York’s “Ground Zero mosque,” with sports facilities, prayer space, tutoring for students, Islamic child care, and, reports Dutch newspaper Volkskrant, imam training.

Yet the center’s prospective director, Arnoud van Doorn, a convert to Islam and former member of the far-right, anti-Islam political party PVV, insists that any fears about the project are unfounded. “Our organization has nothing to do with extremism,” he told the NRC. “We want only to provide a positive contribution to Dutch society.”

Notably, though, France’s proposal to ban foreign mosque funding and the Qatari backing of the Rotterdam center point to some of the deepest roots of Europe’s radical Islam problem, and, despite all the new initiatives now underway, the greatest challenges to ending it. When Muslim immigrants came to Europe in the 1970s, they carved prayer spaces wherever they could: the backs of community grocery stores, in restaurants and tea rooms. But these soon became too small to handle the growing Muslim population. Mosques – real mosques – would have to be built.

But by whom? The Muslim communities themselves were too poor. Western governments, wedded to the separation of church and state, could not subsidize them with taxpayer funds. And so the door was opened to foreign – mostly Saudi – investment, and the placement of Saudi-trained and Saudi-backed imams in European mosques. Europe had, in essence, rolled out the welcome mat for Salafism.

Now they want to roll it in again. But is it too late? Even as Western intelligence is now uniting to fight radical Islam, Islamic countries are pooling together in Europe to expand it. The result, as Manuel Valls told French daily Le Monde, is that, “What’s at stake is the republic. And our shield is democracy.”

Hence as the number attacks against Western targets increase, many Europeans are coming to understand that preserving the core of that democracy may mean disrupting some of the tenets on which it’s built, like certain elements of privacy, for instance, and religious principles that violate the freedom that we stand for . It is, as it were, a matter of destroying even healthy trees to save the forest. But in this tug-of-war between the Islamic world’s efforts to shape the West, and Western efforts to save itself, only our commitment to the very heart of our ideals will define who wins this fight. (For more from the author of “AS THE TERROR THREAT RISES: Europe Changes Course” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Coming European Islamic Super-State

The following essay by Matthew Bracken was prompted by a cell-phone video from Germany of a culture-enricher assaulting a German teenaged boy. I won’t embed the video; I find it almost too unbearable to watch. To see a young man so unable to defend himself, so unwilling to stand up and be a man, is disheartening and dismaying.

This is heartbreaking to see, but very important.

This is how a dhimmi is created in a gun-free country, where armed self-defense is an alien concept. This is prison yard rules, and the young German is just fresh meat. This German kid will probably convert to Islam just to stop the pain and “gain the respect” of his new masters.

Note how the bully threatens to beat him every day just to harden him up and make him a man. A similar psychological process occurs in military boot camp with new recruits. He doesn’t know it yet, but his mother and sisters are now Moslem chattel property. He won’t lift a finger to defend German women; he is a dhimmi at best. Most likely he will just convert as a matter of bare survival, but he will always be a “second-class Muslim”, even if he submits. These IslamoNazi bullies will have him reciting the Shahada in less than a month, and after that, his sister is toast. Just fresh meat for the hijra jihadis.

This is how Islam has spread for 1,400 years: brute force, threats, intimidation, and using terror as an example of how far they are willing to go to force the spread.

Smug Americans who own firearms might laugh at the current plight of the Europeans, but they should not. The Europeans have been brainwashed by the “multi-kulti-uber-alles” Left to simply submit when the planned hijra invasion happened, which is happening now. The ordinary Euros were betrayed by Quisling traitors in high offices. From the Muslim point of view, the hijra invasion is moving from the dawah (preaching) phase to the jihad phase, using violence and threats of even greater violence to force a complete Muslim takeover. That German boy now understands who are the alpha males, and who are not: The Moslems are, and he isn’t.

But there is the long-term danger in this process even to America. If Islam wins in Europe, a well-known social/genetic dynamic will kick in. All of the German girls and women (even the man-hating radical feminists and lesbians) will be raped, enslaved, or “married” by force, but one way or the other, there will be a rising generation of Muslims in Europe who are half-German.

People should understand a genetic process called “hybrid vigor.” There is a reason the Ottoman Turks collected European boys to be raised as Janissaries. The Arab desert Muslims have terrible DNA after 1,400 years of first-cousin inbreeding, but when they impregnate their German conquest victims they will create generations of 100% full Muslims who are half German. Of course, this will happen in every European country, not only Germany.

Americans should not be smug about the collapse and Muslim conquest of Europe. Half-German “Super Muslims” will be a tough adversary. Remember the Ottoman Janissaries from history. They were fearsome fanatics, but also big, strong and smart.

Another crop of “Super Muslims” were the Berbers of Morocco, who provided most of the brains and muscle used for the invasion of Spain in 711 AD. The “desert Arabs” were a scrawny and pitiful bunch. Man for man, they were weaklings compared to the hearty Berber mountain folk. But the Berbers were divided, tribe against tribe, from one Atlas Mountains valley to another. The invading Arab armies picked off one tribe at a time, and forced them all to convert. These newly united Berber Super Muslims were imbued with ”convert zeal,” and ready to invade new worlds to spread the banner of Islam.

United for the first time in history, the Muslim Berbers of Morocco (under mostly Arab leadership) turned their natural war-lust against the Christians of Spain. Like the pre-Muslim Berber tribes had been before them, each Spanish Christian principality was divided from the others across the mountains of Spain. The united and newly converted Muslim Berber armies swept over the separate Spanish fiefdoms one after the other.

The point is that Muslim invasions have often succeeded against divided foes who were, man for man, much stronger and even smarter. A generation later, this invigorated hybrid population can be very dangerous, because after the consolidation phase where the invaded region is brought under united Islamic control, they will be straining to burst their borders and conquer new worlds, like the Super Muslim Berbers did in Spain. Think also of Iran in this context. United Arab Muslim armies conquered Persia, creating another brand of hybridized “Super Muslims.”

I shudder to think of what German Super Muslims will be capable of in thirty years, if Islam is triumphant in Europe. They would make the Earth shake.


Matthew Bracken was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1957, and attended the University of Virginia, where he received a BA in Russian Studies and was commissioned as a naval officer in 1979. Later in that year he graduated from Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, and in 1983 he led a Naval Special Warfare detachment to Beirut, Lebanon. Since then he’s been a welder, boat builder, charter captain, ocean sailor, essayist and novelist. He lives in Florida. Links to his short stories and essays may be found at For his previous essays, see the Matthew Bracken Archives. (For more from the author of “The Coming European Islamic Super-State” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


European Ministers Lay out Explicit Plan to Create United States of Europe

pAAUsLlkMzcGe9MPu7eqJdWhmB71ky6eEuropean ministers have explicitly laid out their intentions to create a federal Unites States of Europe, directly contradicting the British Prime Minister, David Cameron’s claims that Britain will not be sucked into a European superstate should the people of Britain vote to remain within the European Union (EU).

Presenting his renegotiated deal on EU membership in February, Mr Cameron insisted: “Britain will be permanently out of ever closer union, never part of a European super-state.”

But the emergence of a declaration signed in Rome by European ministers five months previously to Mr Cameron’s announcement reveals that the intention on the continent is to press ahead with the creation of a federal Europe.

Not content with merely monetary union and free movement, the declaration, signed by the speakers of the national parliaments in Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg states that they want to integrate a broad spectrum of policies. “It should include all matters pertaining to the European ideal — social and cultural affairs as well as foreign, security and defence policy,” the declaration states.

It adds: “We are convinced that new impetus must be given to European integration. We believe that more, not less, Europe is needed to respond to the challenges we face. (Read more from “European Ministers Lay out Explicit Plan to Create United States of Europe” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Parents Rage After Government Announces Migrant Camp in Grounds of School

Hundreds of parents and local residents packed-out a government meeting on Thursday night to oppose a migrant “barracks” being built on a school field.

The local municipality called the meeting to discuss plans to build a so-called “barracks” for unaccompanied refugee children in the grounds of the school, taking advantage of the municipality-owned playing field and access to water, drainage, and electricity to get the project completed quickly.

Fearing a repeat of the migrant sex attacks on children that have been recorded all over Europe in past months in their own neighbourhood, over 500 concerned citizens in the Swedish town of Haninge attended the meeting in the school hall. As more and more locals piled in, the organisers called in the police to monitor the meeting and handle the crowds, with two van loads of officers appearing as parents and residents spilled over from the school to the car-park outside.

Only residents with properties directly bordering the school field and parents of children at the school had been alerted to the plans at all, prompting a resistance committee to print up fliers for distribution to the wider community. Far from the discussion those attending the meeting were expecting the officials of the municipality announced they had already made the decision to go ahead with construction on Monday, prompting boos and shouts from the audience.

The new migrant buildings would be just meters away from the school, which provides education for 7-15 year olds, and special provision for children with Autism and Down’s Syndrome. (Read more from “Parents Rage After Government Announces Migrant Camp in Grounds of School” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Arabic Gang-Rape ‘Taharrush’ Phenomenon

Police fear a gang-rape phenomenon known as ‘taharrush gamea’ in the Arab world and seen in attacks on women across German cities at the New Year has now spread to Europe.

The name of the practice translates to ‘collective harassment’ and is carried out by large groups of men who sexually assault lone women, either by groping, or in some instances, raping them.

The men first surround their victim in circles. Some then sexually assault her, while others not directly involved watch or divert outsiders’ attention to what is occurring.

Sometimes the terrified victim – in a state of shock and unable to respond – is also robbed during the ordeal.

And the attack usually goes unpunished because the large number of perpetrators and chaos of the attack means authorities are unable to identify those involved. (Read more from “The Arabic Gang-Rape ‘Taharrush’ Phenomenon” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The True Cost of Europe’s Muslim Enrichment

The word “refugee” is a legal term, one defined by several international treaties. These documents brought the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) into existence, and sustain the relevance of the United Nations agency responsible for refugees to this day.

The contents of these treaties, however, sit oddly with how the UNHCR has comprehensively sought to hoodwink the European public about the predominant status of the demographic influx into their continent this year.

None of these documents — the 1951 Refugee Convention; the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, or the EU’s own Dublin Regulations — grants the right of refugee status to those traversing several safe countries, and illegally crossing multiple borders, to shop for the best welfare state.

Even a legitimate refugee from Syria now living, for example, in Turkey or Lebanon, loses his refugee status by paying a people-smuggler to travel to Europe. According to international law, that refugee then becomes an “asylum seeker.” Only when his asylum claim has been investigated and judged to be valid by a requisite domestic agency, is he once again a “refugee.”

So far, the world’s media has dutifully followed the false narrative established by the UNHCR. Those concerned by an unchecked and unlimited flood of Muslims into Europe — concerns grimly validated by Friday’s jihadist atrocities in Paris — have mostly been accused of heartlessness towards alleged refugees. (Read more from “The True Cost of Europe’s Muslim Enrichment” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: The Anti-Migrant Video Going Viral Across Europe

By Oliver Lane. ‘With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations’, a slick, hard-hitting film about the European migrant crisis is going viral in Europe, already watched [over two million times].

Although the 19-minute film may feel like a dispatch from the future, it is cut entirely from recent news reports, police camera footage, and interviews. Kicking off with scenes of a modern car ferry disgorging thousands of illegals into Greece, the film then cuts to dozens of aerial shots of columns of migrants marching north into Europe.

The film then changed to the harrowing testimony of one young Greek woman who was unable to hide her horror and despair at the scale of the migrant crisis sweeping over her home island of Lesbos. Just six miles from the Turkish coast, the island was subjected to migrant riots in September as newcomers turned on their hosts for not moving them to mainland Europe fast enough.

As Breitbart London reported at the time, the tearful woman tells a news crew: “We are in danger, every day, every minute. We need someone to protect us. They come into our houses. I want to go to work, but I can’t. Our children want to go to school, but they can’t. They have stolen our lives!”.

Also featured is American presidential hopeful Donald Trump, who gives his opinion on the migrant crisis: “I’ve been watching this migration, and I’ve seen the people. (Read more from “Watch: The Anti-Migrant Video Going Viral Across Europe” HERE)


More Than Half the Nation’s Governors Say Syrian Refugees Not Welcome

By Ashley Fantz and Ben Brumfield. More than half the nation’s governors — 27 states — say they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states, although the final say on this contentious immigration issue will fall to the federal government.

States protesting the admission of refugees range from Alabama and Georgia, to Texas and Arizona, to Michigan and Illinois, to Maine and New Hampshire. Among these 27 states, all but one have Republican governors.

The announcements came after authorities revealed that at least one of the suspects believed to be involved in the Paris terrorist attacks entered Europe among the current wave of Syrian refugees. He had falsely identified himself as a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad and was allowed to enter Greece in early October.

Some leaders say they either oppose taking in any Syrian refugees being relocated as part of a national program or asked that they be particularly scrutinized as potential security threats.

Only 1,500 Syrian refugees have been accepted into the United States since 2011, but the Obama administration announced in September that 10,000 Syrians will be allowed entry next year. (Read more from “More Than Half the Nation’s Governors Say Syrian Refugees Not Welcome” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.