[gates of the caucasus] russians go it alone for now

Click pic

There is a chicken and egg situation with Russia. The west doesn’t like it because of this, among other things:

“Russia has always been the most faithful, reliable and consistent defender of the interests of the Islamic world. Russia has always been the best and most reliable partner and ally. By destroying Russia, these people (terrorists) destroy one of the main pillars of the Islamic world in the struggle for rights (of Islamic states) in the international arena, the struggle for their legitimate rights,” Putin was quoted by Itar —Tass as saying, drawing applause from Chechen parliamentarians.

… and this:

Of course Russia is the friend of the Moslems. And will be as long as they sell them reasonably modern weapons at cut-rate prices. The question is do the Moslems agree? Excuse me if I have some rather large doubts.

The problem for Russia is that it has to support governments America finds distasteful because:

1. Such states are well within range and it remembers the Mongol hordes very well;

2. Such states are fomenting Islamic unrest, e.g. the Taliban and their Chechyan confederates:

As a correspondent in Afghanistan, I started hearing about Chechens in November of 2001, as the Afghan cities fell to the Northern Alliance. Retreating Taliban commanders talked about their Arab and Chechen rear guards who never made it out. Slowly a pattern started to emerge. Far from being the panicked routes described by Pentagon spokesmen, these withdrawals were disciplined, good-order retreats. To preserve the core of the Taliban’s army, the foreign volunteers, mostly Arabs and Chechens, held the line at any cost. It’s estimated that a total of 8000 Chechens fought in Afghanistan and most of them died at their posts covering the retreats from Bagram, Mazar-i-Sharif and other cities.

3. Countries like Britain are harbouring criminals like Berezovsky, with friends Litvinenko and Politkovskaya knowing where a safe haven is, these people either tacitly or covertly having supported the murderous Basayev with his Beslan atrocity, except that Russia sent the boys in with the polonium.

Beslan occurred despite the Russian policy of appeasement of murderous regimes and though it’s kept them largely terrorist free, if it’s suited the book of the nutters, then an atrocity is still made to order.

They’re between a rock and a hard place:

Russia, a country with a total population of approximately 144 million, has 23 million Muslim residents representing 38 peoples, according to the Council of Muftis of Russia.

The country has never come to terms with its Muslims who permeate the population, especially by interbreeding with non-Muslim Russians. It’s never stumbled upon a satisfactory policy of containment or been able to find the incentive for them to curb their murderous side and thus occasionally it loses its temper and rolls into a nation of publicity seeking warlords who already have the western press onside, especially in Britain itself. Every atrocity on the Russian side is reported and syndicated round the world and every atrocity by the Chechnyans gets a column inch on the back page.

I think Brits are basically fair minded but when we get a constant diet of one side presented in a certain way and the other presented another way and when a country like Russia has done some quite spiteful and dangerous things, when it had a nutter for a leader in Stalin and an evil system, then it’s easy to understand the average Brit taking a jaundiced view. I don’t think anyone “condones” something like Beslan but the significance of it is not as pronounced, say, as the attacks on the protesters in Iran.

Now, yesterday, there have been seven women slaughtered by radical Muslims in Dagestan and what does this represent? It represents yet another example of Russia not knowing how to deal with the problem, reverting to its traditional big stick approach, while the western press wait with bated breath to report the first Russian atrocity in retaliation.

1683

Does the west recognize that the Caucasus is one of the main portals for radical islamicization of the Al Quaeda variety, not only into Russia but into western Europe too? Not a bit of it. Because the Russian bogeyman is so heinous in western eyes, Russia feels threatened and isolated and therefore feels it has no choice but to appease Muslim nations, which, in turn, sit back and observe how their age old push into Europe is going.

It’s going well.

Divide and conquer is the name of the game and Sharia Law is the prize at the end. How did the islamicization of Europe manage to get such a foothold in the modern era? Not by their own efforts alone but helped by this sort of thing:

Eurabia’s driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members – from all major European political parties – active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.

A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe – and especially France, the project’s prime mover – with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organization functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.

On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to “The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture.” It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU’s “government,” and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.

Not a lot different, of course, to the PC rewriting of European history books to eliminate references to the way the western hegemony actually did develop over the centuries and replacing it with a non-nationalistic, all embracing, multiculturally, all-tolerant pseudo-history.

This is closer to the realpolitik of Europe:

Bernard Lewis, now in his nineties, remains our pre-eminent scholar on issues related to the West and the Arab world. In addition, he is one of those rare academics who combines a complete knowledge of a subject with an ability to state simple truths forthrightly. Two years ago, Richard Neuhaus recounted one of Lewis’ such blunt responses to the German media. The great scholar’s words sent tremors throughout Europe:

In an interview with Die Welt, [Lewis] was asked whether the European Union (EU) could be a counterforce to the hegemony of the United States. He answered with a simple ‘No.’ Pressed on the point, he observed that only three countries pose a potential challenge to the U.S.: China, India, and a restored Russia. By the end of the century, if not before, he said, ‘Europe will be part of the Arabic West, of the Maghreb.’

Lewis’ comments encouraged European politicians to speak out about the challenges they face:

For instance, Frits Bolkestein of the Netherlands, a former EU commissioner, has said, ‘Current trends allow only one conclusion: the U.S. will remain the only superpower; China is becoming an economic giant; Europe is being Islamicized.’ If Lewis is right, said Bokestein, ‘the liberation of Vienna in 1683 will have been in vain.’

In 1683, it will be recalled, the West, led by Polish forces, turned back the Turks at the gates of Vienna. Absent that victory, Europe might very well have become an Islamic culture. In view of the birth dearth among Europeans and the swelling number of unassimilated and vigorously reproductive Muslim immigrants, the reconquest of Europe by Islam may well be underway.

The atrocity in Dagestan where the seven women were murdered is but one tiny target in the crosshairs of the radical Muslim sights. This is an ongoing thing until Europe either adopts Sharia Law, along with the consequent oppression of the population or else the EU falls, individual nations take back their sovereignty and then it might not be such a good time to be a Muslim in Europe.

The process might start in Britain, the taking back of the west but methinks it will not be along the Judaeo-Christian lines of yore but rather constitute a much nastier form of the dark ages again.

Peace itself does not seem to be part of anyone’s scenario in the next few decades.

Let’s get our heads together and nut out a way of preventing this coming here