Monday, November 16, 2015 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Juncker et al. apparently want to exterminate the European nations

Some people have actively or passively supported the European open-door policy towards the migrants from Syria and the rest of the Middle East because of their naivite. They were not necessarily evil or stupid people; they just thought that millions of people may be happier and it costs "almost nothing".

The Friday 13th attacks – which have killed at least 132 people plus 7 animals so far – have changed these people's understanding of the issue. Slovak PM Fico said:

We have been saying that there are enormous security risks linked to migration. Hopefully, some people will open their eyes now.
I totally agree with that – and I am already seeing this effect in my conversations. Many people who have been ambiguous about the immigration policies have realized that our warnings weren't just some demagogic fearmongering. There are enormous risks to the security and the economy associated with the mass immigration.

Just some basic numbers. Among the 500+ million Europeans, there are some 40 million Muslims. About 1 million Muslims have arrived to the continent in 2015. Because there were 8 Muslims directly involved in the mass murders, we could say that if each Muslim in Europe had the same probability to commit a similar act, you would expect about 8/40 = 1/5 Muslims to participate on the Friday 13th events. The actual number was much higher. At least one but quite possibly, more than 50% of those 8 people.

Ahmed Almuhamed was 25 years old. He entered as a refugee with a Syrian passport – which was found next to the dead body – through Leros, a Greek island, on October 3rd. The Greek authorities decided that he was just OK and not even "suspicious".

At least one of the attackers is said to be a French citizen; at least one of them was born in Brussels (which makes this city brutally overrepresented in the terror against the Europeans – and it's not the only terror created in Brussels). On the other hand, there are reports that at least 2 of them were holders of Syrian passports and at least 1 of them was an Egyptian. The precise identities and nationalities of the attackers aren't widely known yet. But the current incomplete list is:
  • Abdelhamid Abaaoud (Molenbeek troubled suburb, Brussels, Belgium, born in Morocco, fought as ISIS in Syria, mastermind, famous already in early 2015),
  • Bilal Hadfi (French citizen in Belgium, fought for ISIS in Syria, a harmless stadium blast suicide),
  • Ahmed Almuhamed (Syria, refugee from Greece, reregistered in Serbia on October 7th, gate D stadium blast),
  • identity unknown (a harmless explosive stadium suicide),
  • Abbdulakbak B. (Syria, theater horror, they came with VW Polo),
  • Omar Ismaël Mostefai (France, Algerian ancestry, spent 2013-14 in Syria, Turkey warned France about him in June, theater horror),
  • identity unknown (theater horror, maybe the same as Abbdulakbak),
  • Samy Amimour (France, was in Syria 2 years ago, theater horror),
  • Ibrahim Abdeslam (Belgium, Comptoir Voltaire café blast, rented Seat Leon).
Among the relatives who were probably not directly active on Friday but were involved, Ibrahim's brother Salah Abdeslam remains at large but the third brother, Mohammed Abdeslam, was said to be have been killed in Belgium. However, on Monday 13:39, Mohammed was said to be released as innocent.

And even when we know all the details (the Egyptian guy is probably missing on the list above), it's clear that the statistics in such a group is noisy and you shouldn't overinterpret the precise composition too much.

However, I think that you will agree that we may say that the newcomers (Middle East nationals) are at least "comparable" among the attackers to the Muslims who have lived in Europe for many years – also because even the French and Belgian nationals have recently spent lots of time in Syria. And Abbdulakbak B. of Syria who was "active" in the theater could have very well shot dead most of the victims of the whole Friday 13th attacks. An estimate follows: the probability that a newcomer commits a crime like that exceeds the probability for the old European Muslims by an order of magnitude or so. 4 million new Muslims could cause the same amount of crime as the 40 million Muslims who already live in Europe and believe me, this number isn't small. So to adopt 4 million new Muslims could mean to double the Muslims' crime rate in Europe.

In France, 70% of the prison mates are Muslims. If you double the Muslims' crime rate by adding the "refugees", 140% of the mates in French prisons will be Muslims. ;-) OK, this was a mathematical joke on proportionality but you can surely calculate a more sensible result ((7+7)/(10+7)=82%). The total prison population will increase by 70%.

(Also, only 25% of the French or Swiss Muslims are employed. It's totally plausible that this percentage would be much lower for the newcomers, perhaps as low as 2.5%. The newcomers are simply much closer to violence and dysfunctional political systems and habits than the Muslims who have lived in Europe for many years – and even those display very bad statistics.)

None of these numbers are accurate calculations. It is not really possible to perform any accurate calculation. If I could do it, I would do it. But some people aren't thinking about these matters quantitatively at all. If they were thinking, they couldn't say breathtakingly stupid things they are saying.

More than a month ago, Poland "betrayed" the Visegrád Group (Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia) and at the end, the Poles supported the proposed "fixed" EU "refugee" quotas. A wave of anti-Polish sentiment spread in my country, Slovakia, and Hungary. I was warning against such overreactions and excessive generalizations. We shouldn't visualize a whole nation as "traitors" just because a government has surrendered to the pressure from Brussels – which may have been stronger than the pressure against other Visegrád member states.

Also, I predicted that by November, Poland could very well become the leader of the Visegrád when it comes to the opposition to this uncontrolled mass migration. Ladies and Gentlemen, my predictions have become a reality. Poland has a new socially conservative, Euroskeptic government and it has announced that it won't accept any Muslim migrants, despite the previous government's votes and promises to the contrary. Hungarian and Slovak top politicians may have looked like the staunchest opposition of this mass immigration and the Czech authorities sometimes won the gold medal in related disciplines; but it's plausible that the leadership will often go to Poland in the near future. We may already observe some new creativity. For example, the Polish minister of foreign affairs proposed to transform the migrants to an army that will be sent to Syria to beat Daesh.

People in our countries have different opinions on whether the governments are doing enough etc. Maybe a majority claims that it's not enough. But almost everyone agrees with the basic thesis – shared by the governments – that the mass immigration is a very problematic process and we simply can't allow it to proceed in the similarly unregulated way that we experienced in recent months. Whoever disagrees with this basic thesis is surely considered a lunatic or a dangerous enemy by most of my countrymates including your humble correspondent.

Lumo French playlist

Hours before the attacks, Angela Merkel defended her "fight" for the open-door policy. Almost all of us think that with the hindsight, her "fight" looked like some parody. But she seems to continue to support this pathological policy even after the attacks! And some people such as the self-appointed "European Commission" chieftain Mr Juncker seem to be even nuttier.

At a news conference in Turkey, Juncker said:
We should not mix the different categories of people coming to Europe.
Wow, what an unbelievable moron. The problem is that we are not mixing them. They mix themselves. And they do so almost perfectly. What we're getting are already masses of people who are perfectly mixed and homogenized. The attacker with the Syrian passport didn't look any special from the viewpoint of the Greek or European authorities. For all purposes, almost all of the 1 million people who have flown to Europe in 2015 are men who are physically indistinguishable from the Friday 13th attackers. In fact, some or all the Syrian passports found next to the attackers may be fake – and there may be many copies of the same ones. One more migrant with the "same passport" as one attacker has been found. Arabs are generally indistinguishable and fake Syrian passports increase their certainty of being embraced by Europe.

Almost all these people are Muslims. A strong majority of them considers the Sharia law and all the associated violations of the human rights to be correct. They've been educated like that and they're already too old to change their opinions about similar fundamental questions. A certain unknown but not negligible percentage of these people are men who are ready to shoot lots of "infidels" without displaying any emotions, or proudly detonate explosive belts attached to their bodies.

We are not mixing them. They are already mixed. We could try to unmix them but quite clearly, no one knows how to do such a thing. Also:
The one responsible for the attacks in Paris... he is a criminal and not a refugee and not an asylum seeker,
Juncker said, insisting that Europe should continue with its policy of the rapid Islamization. Apologies, Mr Apparatchik, but this sentence of yours is a downright lie. Ahmed Almuhamed was a criminal as well as as a refugee as well as an asylum seeker. All the paperwork unequivocally proves it. This murderer was the most canonical example of a "refugee" you can get.

But I want to discuss another sentence by Mr Juncker:
Those who organised these attacks and those that perpetrated them are exactly those that the refugees are fleeing and not the opposite.
This sentence is constructed to promote the thesis that most of the people who are coming to Europe dislike the Islamic State or are victims of the Islamic State or are threatened by the Islamic State – while you shouldn't imagine that there are any Daesh members or sympathizers in the masses of immigrants at all, and if there are some, they're just exceptions.

But this view is complete rubbish – especially because the main underlying would-be argument, namely that opponents of Daesh are the most threatened ones in Syria and Iraq, is completely wrong. What do I mean?

What I mean is that the members of the Islamic State are actually much more lethally and existentially threatened in Iraq and Syria than their opponents. Everyone fights against them! Russia bombs ISIS. America bombs ISIL. France bombs Daesh. Assad's official army and the Iraqi government fight against the Caliphate by all the available means. The Kurdish warriors fight against the Islamic State, too. The Syrian Free Army fights Daesh, too. Sometimes but not always, even al-Nusra fights Daesh, and so on. And the operations against ISIS are likely to strengthen in wake of the Friday attacks.
The members (and perhaps also sympathizers) of the Islamic State are the most existentially threatened men on the territory of Syria and Iraq!
If you declare these "war risks" to be a reason why someone should be considered a "refugee" and offered asylum in other countries, then the ISIS men are the first group of "refugees" you should think of. They are those who are saving their lives. And the same comment holds for their friends or families or whatever – whoever lives peacefully in "harmony" with the Caliphate. And be sure that there must be millions of people like that, otherwise 20,000 ISIS warriors wouldn't be capable of maintaining their control over their territory.

So the implicit claim that the refugees "do not normally" include the members of ISIS is just an extremely dangerous piece of demagogy. You may want to imagine that the opponents and sympathizers of ISIS are comparably represented among the "refugees". If someone is an economic immigrant who wants to suck lots of money from the generous Western European welfare systems, it's bad but it's still better than the actual "refugees".

After all, it makes perfect sense that you should think of champions and opponents of ISIS among the refugees on "equal footing". After all, it's a war in an exotic country and it's not quite obvious which side you should sympathize with. It's surely not obvious for the U.S. government who has actually supported the Islamic State, along with others, in their fight against Assad's regime. Even these days, America is officially "uncertain" which political group is worse: Assad or ISIS? I have always found this ambiguity shocking but it's a fact, anyway.

The civil war is such a polarizing ongoing event that almost everyone who is coming from those places has a very strong opinion which side deserves to win and which side deserves to lose. And because, as the maps show, the ISIS is comparably powerful as the groups that oppose ISIS, you should expect the parts of non-fighting populations that support and oppose ISIS to be of the same order, too.
Whether you like it or not, to accept "refugees" because they are escaping from a war means to accept a group of people with comparable percentages of sympathizers of both or all sides of the conflict.
ISIS sympathizers – and perhaps ISIS warriors, who are very hard to be distinguished just from the sympathizers – represent a totally important, in no way negligible, subgroup of the "refugees". To deny this fact is just a sheer lunacy and after the Friday 13th attacks, it should be obvious that this lunacy is a very dangerous one. ISIS warriors or even sympathizers may be bad from our viewpoint (and dangerous for us) but if you define "refugees" objectively as someone who escapes from a war or wants to save his life, it is extremely irresponsible to hide the fact that such "refugees" will unavoidably contain tons of ISIS warriors or at least sympathizers, too. It's simply not true that a "refugee" may be objectively defined in such a way that "refugees" will only be nice people whom you want to live with. In other words, "people whose lives are at risk" and "people who deserve our compassion and help" are two totally different categories and the term "refugee" is often used in order to demagogically blur the differences between these two categories.

Most of us were shocked on Friday. I watched the news up to 1:30 am on Saturday morning. But at the end, I don't think that this is an event that will "radically change our society". Attacks in London or Madrid haven't done such a thing, either. People sometimes love to emit big and pathetic words like that but if you look carefully and fairly, you will realize that these words are false. Even 9/11 failed to change the Western society in a profound way. It may have added some minutes you have to spend at the airport or some extra work for certain law enforcement forces and intelligence agencies but that's it. The West hasn't been transformed by 9/11 or the subsequent attacks in a profound way. And the same was true for the Charlie Hebdo attacks or the Friday 13th attacks.

But there is a potential that our societies could dramatically change in the future – and perhaps not so far future. The Charlie Hebdo attacks were stunning but in less than 1 year, "they" could realize new attacks with casualties that were higher by an order of magnitude. "They" have a potential for a similar exponential growth and an order of magnitude in less than a year is a very fast exponential increase, indeed. If they managed to steal or buy some powerful weapons, then in 2 years, we could see synchronized attacks with 100,000 casualties.

If that happened, I think that every sensible person – maybe not Juncker – would agree that we are already fighting a war that is comparable to the Second World War. We would feel that all of us are threatened, indeed. To protect our lives, we could be forced to adopt policies that would cripple our freedoms and our lifestyles in a similar way in which the Islamic terrorists want to cripple them.

My point is that those of us who ultimately realize the value of our civilization haven't lost any big war yet – but the evolution has advanced sufficiently far so that we should realize that we could lose such a big war in a few years. Certain changes to our societies could be profound and potentially irreversible. One million newcomers from countries where bigotry is the leading philosophy and violence is the default way to resolve any argument – that's already a significant problem that the societies won't be able to overlook. But to lose our control and allow many or tens of millions could be fatal for the European civilization as we knew it.

Some countries and governments realize all those things – they could phrase things differently than I did but the basic idea would be the same. In Czechia and other Visegrád countries, we won't allow any mass influx of Muslims. For quite some time, we may think that our countries will be well-protected even if some brutal transformations start to occur in Western Europe.

But at the end, we do care about the Western Europe, too. It's a wealthier part of the civilization into which we belong. Or at least, we think of ourselves as belonging to the same civilization. And if Germany managed to be overtaken by the violent Muslims in the future, we may be in existential trouble, anyway. We would probably beg Russia to help us with the new security threat but would it be enough? Could we deal with the millions of "Aryan German" ;-) immigrants that could arrive here? And so on.

We're not sure whether we can deal with all these potential big challenges in the future which is why we pursue policies that don't significantly increase the probability of such challenges. We have the indisputable right to say "No" to the Muslim immigrants to our countries. But frankly speaking, we think that even massive demographic changes in countries like Germany may be interpreted as preliminary acts of war. We don't live in the vacuum. Fast changes like this one are dangerous even if they take place in an adjacent country and Europe's largest economy.

This dynamics has to be not only stopped. It has to be reverted. The recent Muslim newcomers have to be found, identified, and reevaluated, and those who are at a substantial risk of being similar to the Friday 13th attackers have to be deported (or, if they already have done something bad, arrested). Folks like Juncker will keep on completely denying threats posed by their sick policies. It often seems like Juncker et al. deliberately want to destroy everything that we like about our civilization. But it's up to the sensible Europeans – who may be found everywhere – to defeat the likes of Juncker.

The first test will be a vote about the permanent "refugee" quotas. I want to believe that the opposition to this suicidal proposal will be much stronger than it was a month ago – because the quotas one month ago were not permanent; and because people didn't appreciate how bad a day Friday 13th may be when it's helped by a group of violent and superstitious "refugee" bigots. The quota proposals have to be defeated and this victory has to energize the opponents of the mindless open-door policies in Europe and we have to revoke many other sick things that were imposed on citizens of the European countries by Brussels in recent years, too.

Meanwhile, top Czech politicians such as billionaire Babiš insist on defending the external Schengen border. President Zeman calls for a "fortified Europe". It's clear that if the EU fails to defend its external border in a similar way that a country with the survival instinct would, individual countries or citizens will retake this responsibility from the confederation.

Czech PM Sobotka, the social democrat with the charisma of von Rumpuy if not a wet rag, became a big fan of the words "military liquidation of the Islamic State" which he used about 7 times on Saturday. I am not sure whether we will go beyond rhetoric and send soldiers to challenge Daesh. But it's true that the Czechs already have some experience with the War on Dash (and Slovak fans of it) which we fought 25 years ago. ;-) It was a tough war at many levels – we even disagreed about the name of the enemy (it was a dash for Czechs but a hyphen for Slovaks) – which ended with the dissolution of Czechoslovakia but thankfully, there were no casualties.

P.S.: My Muslim and Jewish readers will surely equally like the theme of the supermarket chain Lidl's week. We have a hog-killing week and I bought some squarks (cracklings of pork fat), tripe sausages, and when I am adding this update, I am eating a delicious hog-killing soup which is almost entirely made of piggies' blood. Arabs and Jews, when you feel in similar ways about my or our Czech tastes, can't you love each other, too? ;-)

P.P.S.: One more bomb-related news. Buildings of an ex-employer of mine, Harvard University, including the Science Center (picture above) and 3 buildings at Harvard Yard, were evacuated today after a bomb threat by e-mail (that FBI looked at soon after). The latest one, two years ago, was a student hoax. The culprit was found and charged. What about today? I pray it's similar.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');