14. marts 2009

The straightforward arithmetic of jihad


Right On: The straightforward arithmetic of


Jan. 30, 2007

It’s time we open our eyes and confront reality. Ever since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the media has sought to reassure us that only a tiny minority of Muslims actually support the use of violence against Israel and the West.

It’s just a small fringe, a marginal few at best, they tell us, so don’t worry about it all too much. One percent or three percent – who cares? Just sit back, enjoy your morning eggs and coffee and have a nice day.

But a look at the numbers tells a very different story. The extent of support for global jihad is frightening in its proportions, and the numbers are anything but insignificant.

Consider, for example, the following statistics regarding support for suicide bombings and other types of terror attacks.

In a poll conducted five months ago, and broadcast on Britain’s Channel 4 TV, nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London, which killed 52 innocent commuters, were justified. Another 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England’s democratic system.

Now, one in four justifying terror may not be a majority, but it certainly isn’t a “small fringe” either.

In other countries, the figures are no less unsettling. A survey published in December found that 44% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombing attacks are “often” or “sometimes” acceptable. Only 28% said they were never justified.

According to the annual Pew Global Attitudes Survey, released in July 2006, “roughly one-in-seven Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam.” The report also found that less than half of Jordan’s Muslims believe terror attacks are never justified. In Egypt, only 45% of Muslims say terror is never justified.

STILL THINK only a “tiny minority” are in favor of violence? In Israel, the percentages are even more alarming. After Cpl. Gilad Shalit was abducted by Hamas terrorists last summer, a poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center revealed that 77.2% of Palestinians supported the kidnapping, while 66.8% said they would back additional such attacks.

More than six out of 10 Palestinians also said they were in favor of firing Kassam rockets at Israeli towns and cities.

And lest you think that war fever lay behind the results, consider this: four additional polls published in September, nearly a month after the Lebanese conflict had ended, all found large majorities of Palestinians backing terror attacks against the Jewish state.

Indeed, in various countries around the world, support for Muslim fundamentalist terror groups appears to be widespread.

On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a survey conducted by Al-Jazeera asked respondents, “Do you support Osama Bin-Laden?” A whopping 49.9% answered: yes.

And the July 2006 global Pew survey found that among Muslims, a quarter of Jordanians, a third of Indonesians, 38% of Pakistanis and 61% of Nigerians all expressed confidence in the mass murderer who founded al-Qaida.

In Lebanon six months ago, the Beirut Center for Research and Information found that over 80% of the Lebanese population said they supported Hizbullah.

And do I need also to mention that a majority of Palestinians backed Hamas in parliamentary elections last year? Sure, there are also places where support for violent jihad is not as high. As Reuters reported on October 15, just 10 percent of Indonesian Muslims said they backed jihad and supported bomb attacks on the island of Bali aimed at foreign tourists.

But Indonesia is home to more than 200 million Muslims, so while 10 percent may sound like a small number percentage-wise, it is actually quite large in absolute terms. It means there are some 20 million Muslims in Indonesia alone who are willing to say out loud that they support the use of violence and terror against innocent human beings.

Since when is that a “marginal few”? The question of whether a “tiny” or “sizable” minority backs the global jihad is far more than just one of semantics. It goes to the very nature of the struggle that Israel and the West now find ourselves in.

The figures above, taken from a variety of nations, continents and contexts, all point in one very ominous direction. They demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the global jihadist movement enjoys a wide and broad base of support that extends far beyond just a minuscule number of supporters.

POLITICIANS and journalists might wish to believe, as we all do, that the backers of violent jihad are few and far between, and that they do not represent large numbers of people with like-minded extremist views. But that is simply not the case.

The arithmetic of jihad is quite straight-forward, and it is time we stopped looking the other way and pretending otherwise.

The threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism to Israel and the West can, and must, be met. With determination and a sense of purpose, victory is not out of reach.

But the longer we continue to underestimate the extent of the problem, the more difficult it will be to defeat it.

So let’s put aside all that wishful thinking, and roll up our collective sleeves and get to work. Like it or not, the war on terror still faces a long road ahead.

Enjoy The Third Jihad

Mest for de helt unge


Predictability and responsibility, ruthless optimism and blind self-sacrifice


Predictability and responsibility,

ruthless optimism and blind self-


J.  L. – 2.12. 2008

Dansk version

Let us add some own reflections about this ‘baby boom’ phenomenon, by some naivists seen as a welcome and beneficial rise in the ‘European fertility’, by others as the ominous first stage of an accelerating replacement of the British population by another one, i.e., mainly by Muslims and other Third Worlds immigrants.

To make own calculations we must understand that, if the ‘maintenance’ fertility of a population at 2.1 means that the population remains roughly constant, then a fertility of 1.05 (the lowest fertility within the EU is near to 1.1, the average at 1.4-1.5 1)) means that within a human lifetime (about 3 generations) the population will shrink to 50 %, which not necessarily is a bad thing in one of the world’s most densely populated region. But it is fatal, if at the same time and in the same place an Oriental fertility of 4.2, which means a doubling to 200 % instead, takes over. It is fatal for the European culture, for its wealth, for its freedom – it is just the often warned-for way into dhimmitude.

The situation of a rapidly shrinking population means in principle that the normal ‘pyramid’ of a rapidly growing population, 2 parents, 4 children and 8 grandchildren, is turned around: 4 grandparents have 2 children which have 1 grandchild. Western Europe’s endogenous population is today half-ways into this situation and has to be cautious to stay in control of its own fate. Instead, it is embezzling its demographic achievement (of peacefully coping with its own overpopulation) by importing the Third World’s potential for marching straight into the ‘overpopulation trap’, which for underdeveloped populations seems to be unavoidable, when only voluntary means are applied (see the significant difference between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh on the one hand and China on the other).

If Muslim fertility is threefold the fertility of non-Muslims (as it is in Britain), this population exchange will pro­ceed surprisingly fast, faster than in many other countries. You may study the curve for France, calculated for actual reproduction (= fertility) rates of 1.4 vs. 3.8 in the chapter about France (page xxx): The same process in Great Britain could be even faster. The ‘break even point’ for France is about 2087 (or earlier) – the one for Great Britain could come around the same time. The prediction by Bernhard Lewis that Europe will be Islamized at the end of this century (2100), which is doubted bay many naivists, could turn out to be still optimistic. What world do we, by deliberately importing Muslim fertility into our own countries, hand over to our grand­children? A giant Gaza North Bank, a British Waziristan – or just a giant European Libanon? Is is possible that the World will see both ‘The Balkanization of the West’ (Stjepan Mestrović), ‘The Disuniting of Europa’ (Arthur Schlesinger jr), ’The Clash of Civilizations’ (Samuel P Huntington) and ‘Eurabia’ (Bat Ye’or) come true, and all four processes happening on the same European ground. The resulting deluge of exilants and refugees will be appalling. The prospects that America, at that point of time, still is a safe heaven for Europeans are bleak. Maybe the waves of fugitives will seek their way to the Eastern countries of the former Soviet block, so long protected by a ‘blessing in disguise’: their long-standing lack of economical and political attractivity, inflicted by the short­comings of communism and its totalitarian ruthlessness. Which we can study in Chechnya, boostered by events like the Dubrovka theatre siege 2002 (at least 170 deaths and 700 injured) and the Beslan school massacre 2004 (at least 385 deaths and 783 injured).

In Dutch Utrecht, lately, the prevalence of immigrants was around 30 %, of children in school around 50 % and of newborn 70 %, which is among the highest in Western Europe. You need not study mathematics or statistics to conclude that this some day in the near future will be the proportion of adults in Utrecht. Their newborn rate will then exceed 90 %. (That was – exactly! – the fate of the Egyptian Copts and of many other religious min­orities throughout the Middle East and many other Islamic realms.) For the liberal modern countries in Europe with open arms for the sufferings, the conflicts, and the misery of the developing World, time is of the issue. Indeed, it’s already running out. The laws of nature work merciless.

One option is surely disastrous: If we will remain passive and allow the problem to culminate as it has done in some 30 countries around the world, today torn by civil wars and terror, we will never be able to find a good ex­cuse. Those who cause, permit or – even worse – facilitate this crucial demographic and even social, cultural, political and developmental shift, shoulder a tremendous responsibility. Especially, because by doing so they ignore their own highly concerned peoples’ explicit will. This is shown by poll after poll all over the Western world. Therefore the people self will not be asked any longer and to respect their opinion will be denounced as ‘populism’ (a remarkable critic, as ‘populus’ in Latin means the same as ‘demos’ in Greek.).

I suppose there is no other way for the concerned European countries, threatened by the loss of their sovereignty and their freedom, to stop this detrimental process than speak out their will louder and louder and be free, resp­onsible and courageous citizens, impossible to overrun by their own governments, blinded by goodwill, seduced by illusions, corrupted by their own ruthless optimism and suffocated by their ill-considered, unlimited and self-sacrificing social pathos.


The British population account must be corrected

1) According to EUROSTAT the total fertility in the 15 EU old countries and in all the 25 EU countries was respectively 1,46 and 1,49 i 2004. This implies that the ethnic European fertilities range from 1,0 to 1,1. This implicates further that the development runs about 40-50% quicker than described in this article.

Complement on fertility in Danish: https://danmark.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/antal-boern-og-fremmedandel-der-lyves-groft-herom/

Complements on fertility in English:


2. lilliput-information, knowledge of and solutions to problems within the subjects…
Assume for a moment that the increase in fertility from 1.14 to … immigrant-group and continue the fertility-pattern of this group for … 1.14 is the fertility among the ethnic Danes

3. lilliput-information, Information of Denmark, immigrants in Denmark,fag
Provisional comments to newest investigation of fertility among immigrants in … demografic parameter of fertilityamong foreign women immigrated to Denmark. Fertility is the average

4. lilliput-information, knowledge of and solutions to problems within the subjects…
English comments to the investigation of fertility among immigrants in … demografic parameter of fertility among foreign women immigrated to Denmark. Fertility is the average

5. information of Denmark, engsamm.html
The fertility is the number of children … that lead to the small fertility-number 1.2-1.4 … of foreigners, and later on the fertility has most likely fallen further. International

6. lilliput-information, Information om Danmark, fremmede i Danmark, fertt.html
com/italy/life_and_customs/persistent_drop_in_ fertility_res.htm : “. In no … 1.67 if the fertility of women born abroad … in order of Total Fertility Rate (children): Rank Country

7. lilliput-information, knowledge of and solutions to problems within the subjects…
estimating the demografic parameter of fertility among foreign women … calculated by U.N. Fertility is the average number … assume the idea that fertility among the foreigners adjust

8. lilliput-information, knowledge of and solutions to problems within the subjects…
pageid=1089,47613132&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&mo=containsall&ms=fertility&saa=&p_action=SUBMIT &l=dk&co=equal&ci=,&po=equalπ=,) , estimeret til 1,28 hos CIA for 2005 (http://

9. lilliput-information, Information om Danmark, fremmede i Danmark, forch.html
Total fertility in Denmark (a very small country of 5,447,084 inhabitants all in all) is officially reported to be 1.75 child per women. When the most foreign immigrants give

10. lilliput-information, knowledge of and solutions to problems within the subjects…
international competition, the low western fertility, therefore the ageing of the populations, the weight of the welfare system compared with GNP, and the still increasing state-

Bolig- og energirenovering er ny forrykt byfornyelse og gavebod


Boligpakke sendt til timeout

Uenigheder mellem regeringen og Dansk Folkeparti på den ene side og Liberal Alliance på den anden har standset forhandlingerne om boligrenoveringspakken.

Boligrenoveringspakken skulle sendes til knockout. Vi må simpelthen håbe at deltagerne i dette projekt snart vil blive meget til grin og foragt. Først sender man huspriserne til skyerne uden voldsom forbrugerprisinflation i øvrigt ved at øge gældsætningen med mere end 50 procent i boligerne og tilmed gøre dem til rene spilleobjekter oveni. Så kommer finanskrisen som en utvetydig og direkte villet følge af dette sidste fællesvestlige kollaps-initiativ. Så var der enkelte der havde forlånt sig og spillet for meget fandango med boliglånene. Så et lille prisfald på boligerne i et enkelt halvår, efter de ellers var blevet fordoblet på 5 år og endnu mere over 10. Men som kronen på værket skal boligejerne nu tildeles 1,5 mia. kr., hvis de vil have nyt energirenoveret badeværelse, et energirenoveret moderne køkken, en ekstra hulmursisolering, en energirenoveret skorsten til den superforurenende afgiftfrie mellemklasse-brændeovn til afgiftsfrit brændsel per sankekort, eller hvad man nu kan tænke sig af energiforkvaklede kunster.

Menneskeskabt CO2 som argument er bevist at være rent psykopatisk sludder i denne forbindelse.

Sig det dog: Vi nødt til at få håndværkerne igang, ellers stemmer de galt eller rødt. Vi er godt klar over det hele så bliver meget værre bagefter, men det er vi nødt til at blæse på, for vi aner ikke vore levende råd med alt det gylle vi og andre har udledt og ladet tårne sig op. Det bliver den næste regering, der skal tage skraldet. Det gør’et al’så.

Økonomi- og Erhvervsminister Lene Espersen (K) overvejer ny finanspakke der skal hjælpe boligejerne. Der kommer en rentestigning via rentespændet til eurozonen som følge af bl.a. eurokoblingen og kronesvagheden – skabt af forbrugsøkonomien herunder i særdeleshed boligboblen selv – og den vil måske nu ramme boligejere – måske især dem, der har spillet fandango med lånene – 1/2 procentpoint højere rente på boliglånet. Men så skal ministeren også nok være der med en ekstrapakke mere.

Udskriv bare det valg – Vi stemmer ikke, vi peger på vanviddet uanset regeringernes ultralet skiftende chokoladebrune farve.

Fløde, let bitter, half and half, half and half ….med eller uden Hardenuss.



An excerpt from:

A ‘dhimmi’ view of Europe


Ruthie Blum, The Jerusalem Post – 9.7. 2008

http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330916349&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

She is the author of eight books, including The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (1985); The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (1996); Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2001); and – the one which captured international attention and catapulted her into the center of controversy – Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (2005). Saying that Europe is basically finished, due to its kissing up to the Arabs, will do that.

In an hour-long interview on the terrace of her Mishkenot Sha’ananim digs overlooking the Old City of Jerus­alem, Bat Ye’or expounds on her bleak prognosis in an articulate tirade, raising her voice now and then for em­phasis, pausing occasionally to laugh. What she has to say about the state of the world, however, is more likely to make one cry.

RB: “Why do you use a pseudonym?”

For many reasons. First of all, when I left Egypt and started living in Europe, I found that I had changed – that I was no longer the person I had been before.

Secondly, I have always preferred to keep my personal and professional lives separate. I have always wanted my social standing to be distinct from my being the wife of my husband, the daughter of my parents and the mother of my children. It is a matter of independence.

RB: “Why did your family leave Egypt?”

We left as part of the big exodus of Jews from Arab-Muslim countries. Jews suffered from severe anti-Semitism, especially in Egypt. There was a powerful Nazi community, established by then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. There were many anti-Jewish laws. There was a general feeling of insecurity. There was open hatred expressed by the Muslim Brotherhood, especially in relation to the Palestine issue. As early as World War II – particularly after the November 1945 pogroms in Egypt – Jews began leaving the country. Many went to Israel. At that time there was a Zionist underground. Zionism was made a criminal offense for which you could be jailed or even tortured. So, many young people left. For the old people, of course, it was difficult, be­cause many were members of the bourgeoisie, and it was forbidden for Jews to take any money or assets out of the country when they left. My parents’ assets were confiscated, for example, which created economic problems for our family.

RB: “Are you saying that as World War II ended, and in Europe Nazism became taboo, it was gaining strength in the Arab world?”

Yes, but even before and throughout the war, both Nazism and fascism were strong in the Arab world. Hitler and Mussolini were heroes. The whole Middle East was in turmoil because the Arab-Muslim popul­ations were all favorable to Nazism and anti-Semitic policies.

RB: “How much of what was going on in the death camps in Europe were you and other Jews in Egypt aware of at the time?”

We knew everything. I remember my parents listening very carefully to the radio. And it was also in the news­paper. But also, my mother’s family was in France, and they were forced to wear the yellow star. So we knew.

RB: “When you heard about the peace treaty that Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin signed with Egyptian pres­ident Anwar Sadat in 1979, how did you feel?”

I wasn’t following it that carefully, due to family problems. Nor was I familiar with Israeli politics at the time. But I trusted Begin to do the best thing for Israel. So, I did have hope. Still, what you have to understand is that the problem is much larger than Egypt. The whole Muslim world is becoming more and more radicalized – more rooted in Shari’a, and less open to anything outside the religion. This is due to the policies of the Organiz­ation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), with 57 Islamic member states and a permanent delegation to the UN. At its last summit in December 2005, it decided upon a 10-year plan, one of whose resolutions was to root the Islamic ummah – the world Muslim community – in the Koran and the [oral tradition of the] Hadith, which, of course, means Wahabbism. They also resolved to make the Palestinian issue the central issue of international politics. This is why we see relentless pressure on Israel from different countries. Because the OIC is an extremely powerful body, demographically, politically and economically.

RB: “The OIC is an Islamic body. How has it managed to turn the Palestinian issue into a Western focus? And to what do you attribute the political and cultural success of its ideology in Europe and the US?”

First of all, a distinction has to be made here between Europe and America, which have chosen opposite paths in relation to the Middle East. As for OIC influence on Europe: It is visible in immigration policy toward Mus­lims, and in the Muslims’ refusal to integrate into European societies.

The OIC considers nationalist-European movements, European history, European culture, European religions and European languages as Islamophobic. Why? Because Europeans have begun to feel that they are losing their own identity, due to their efforts to welcome immigrants who don’t want to integrate. As a result, they have adopted measures to stop illegal immigration, to control legal immigration and to curb terrorism. Europeans fear losing their historical and cultural assets – particularly those of democracy and human rights – to Shari’a law. They want one law for everybody – and it’s not Shari’a, which involves things like honor killings. It is thus that in all international forums, the OIC attacks Europe and demands that it apply multiculturalism.

Now, Europeans do not want multiculturalism. But this is a problem, because European governments – and especially the European Union – do not want to fight the OIC, and so they collaborate with it. Therefore, what we have inside Europe is a clash of interests between the European citizens and their governments.

RB: “A similar claim is often made about Muslim-Arab citizens and their governments – that a majority of the former is moderate, while the latter is extremist. Do you agree with this assessment?”

No, I don’t agree with it at all. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the Arab world, it is the governments – as we see so well in Egypt – that are at the mercy of the radicalized, Islamized, anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israel masses who are in a dynamic of jihad. Certainly the majority of Muslims follow the ideology of con­quest; it is in the Koran and the Hadith. And every time they go to the mosque, they hear it. I mean, the first surah, that is recited five times a day, is anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. So they cannot escape from it.

Unfortunately, the Muslims who are against this trend don’t have the courage to make the effort to change it. And those who do have the courage are threatened with losing their jobs and having harm done to them and their families. So Islamism is the natural culture of the Arab-Muslim world. Even in Turkey an Islamist government has taken over. So, how can we deny the reality? And anyway, if the moderates were in the major­ity, they would be making protests and issuing manifestos against Osama bin Laden, instead of against America and Israel.

The environment is one of jihad on the one hand and of dhimmitude [the state of being a non-Muslim subject living in a country governed by Shari’a law] on the other. European countries are becoming dhimmi countries, and people don’t realize it, because they don’t know what jihad and dhimmitude are, so they don’t recognize what condition they’re in. When you have an illness, but are unfamiliar with its symptoms, you don’t know that you are sick. You feel sick, but you don’t know what you’ve got. You therefore can’t make a diagnosis or embark upon a method of treatment to cure yourself. This is the current condition of Western civilization right now.

RB: “How, then, do you explain the electoral victories of France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and London’s replacement of mayor Ken Livingstone by Boris Johnson? Wouldn’t you consider this phenomenon as indicative that Europeans are making a diagnosis of and seeking a cure to the ill­ness you say they suffer from?”

Oh yes, they are extremely important developments which prove what I am saying about European citizens hav­ing had enough of this attempt to merge – culturally, religiously and demographically – the Arab and European sides of the Mediterranean. But the pressure exerted by the OIC on European governments is very strong. In ad­dition, there is the pressure of terrorism inside and out of Europe, and that of the oil. So the task of these new governments you refer to will not be easy, to say the least. I don’t doubt their good intentions. But I don’t know if they will succeed in bringing about the change their citizens want.

Furthermore, unlike President Bush – who recognizes that Israel has a legitimate right to exist as a normal nation in its homeland – the Europeans think that Israel’s legitimacy should be granted by the Palestinians and the Arab states. In other words, Europe is putting Israel into a position of dhimmitude, whereby it will be recognized by Muslims if it abides by certain rules and duties.

This is in keeping with its own mentality. When the European community, in December 1973, published its document on European identity in the Copenhagen Declaration, they themselves were adopting a dhimmi mentality toward the Arab League countries. After World War II, Europeans decided that they didn’t want any more wars. Then, when they suffered aggression, such as the oil boycott and Palestinian terrorism that emerged in Europe in the late 1960s, instead of fighting, they joined their aggressors. This was their concept of multi­lateralism – thinking that by joining those who attacked them, they would be protected. This is when a trem­endous Muslim immigration into Europe began.

RB: “You keep referring to immigration. Isn’t childbirth also a demographic factor, particularly since Muslims tend to have many children, while some European countries suffer from zero or minus population growth? Is it poss­ible that by virtue of their numbers, Muslims in Europe are influencing policy – and that it is not just due to the power of the OIC?”

Yes, but you have to understand that those who plan policy are Europeans. In other words, Muslim politics are conducted in Europe by Europeans themselves, based on the interests of Muslim lobbyists.

RB: “Isn’t Eastern Europe different from Western Europe in this respect?”

Yes, and Eastern Europe is more pro-American than Western Europe – which is what the Muslims want. It is easier to take over the West as a whole when it’s divided.

RB: “How has this affected European academia?”

European universities, like those in America – are indirectly and unknowingly – controlled by the Arab-Islamic lobby and the European appeasement, as are the schools. A teacher who attempts to teach according to the trad­itional European view of history is thrown out. Indeed, the freedom of expression and thought that has been so crucial for European democracy has disappeared.

RB: “Many Israeli academics bemoan a similar situation in Israel. Do you see the mind frame you’re describing infiltrating the Jewish state?”

Yes, because the EU is spending a lot of money on Israeli NGOs in order to promote policies which will lead to the destruction of Israel. The EU considers Israel to be an accident of history that has to disappear. It thinks that if Israel disappears, relations between Europe and the Arab world will be much better. Now, the EU doesn’t come out and actually say this, but all its policies, statements and actions are indicative of its aims. These aims could be developed in Israel and in America – especially when there is a new president.

RB: “Speaking of which, there is a concern among many Jews and Israelis that if Barack Obama becomes president, he will lean toward the kind of alliance with the Arab world that the EU promotes.”

Yes, because he has a kind of “Third Worldism” – you know, the view that we all have to get together and app­ease the enemy. I’m no specialist on Obama. But I think that Bush has been a great politician, and that history will show he was right. Aside from everything else, he has woken up Europe to the calamity of global terrorism – and this is what brought about the coming to power of Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlusconi. And Europe can no longer be as anti-American.

RB: “That’s ironic, isn’t it, considering that most Americans now hate Bush?”

That’s because they don’t understand what is really going on.

RB: “Given your bleak view of Europe, how is it that you didn’t end up living in Israel or the US?”

I love Europe. It is part of my family history and my culture. I can criticize it because I love it and want to help it. Look what Europe has given to the world: democracy and human rights, the love of peace. Look at its achiev­ements in the field of literature, music, law, architecture. There is a tremendous richness. But we have to fight for all those values and accomplishments. Otherwise, we will be living as dhimmis in barbarity.

RB: “Finally, how do you envision Western civilization 10 years from now?

The Mishna says: “You are not required to finish the task, but neither are you free to desist from it.” Well, I feel that though I may not have done enough, I have tried the best I could. As for the future, it is difficult to say, but we must have hope. We have to educate the European, American and Israeli youth to recover their culture and values, since it is they who will have to continue the efforts to preserve freedom and democracy – and they who will have to fight to defend them.



Lige nu forsøger FN at fjerne ytringsfriheden i Vesten, men USA og Danmark deltager ikke: