Science aims to destroy rational fear of Islamic invasion by drugging Europeans

Vlad Tepes Blog, by Eeyore, Sept. 17, 2017:

From the Daily Mail:

Giving people oxytocin alongside positive social pressure increases kindness toward refugees, even in those with a fear of foreigners, new research has found.

The hormone is released naturally by humans during social and sexual behaviour, and research has shown it breeds trust and generosity in others. 

Oxytocin, known as the love or ‘cuddle hormone’, together with being surrounded by charitable peers was found to boost people’s willingness to donate money to refugees in, even in those with a sceptical attitude toward migrants.

Yes, European authorities have combined George Orwell’s 1984 with Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange and are now working on drugging, not the dangerous thugs into becoming good citizens, but the good citizens into submitting to the dangerous thugs.

Lessons from Europe’s Immigrant Wave: Douglas Murray Cautions America

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
July 24, 2017

Douglas Murray has long voiced his concern about the growing influence of Muslim culture on the West. The associate editor of Britain’s Spectator, a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, and the founder of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a think tank on radical Islam, he has built an international reputation for his opposition to the demographic changes of the West and the threats to its traditions. In his latest book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam(Bloomsbury, 2017), he attacks all of these subjects as they relate to the current crisis of migration from the Middle East.

It is a controversial book, particularly for Americans and Jews, but one which also makes important arguments against the multiculturalist ideal. That ideal, which once led much of domestic policy across Europe and the United States, has proven not only a failure, but a threat to the values and national security of Western civilization.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism recently spoke with Murray about his book and the concerns that drove him to write it.

Abigail R. Esman: As an American, a Jew, and an immigrant myself to the Netherlands, there are aspects of your arguments against immigration and asylum that are troublesome to me. I come from a country where we are all immigrants, or our parents or grandparents were likely immigrants. You talk for instance of families where “neither parent speaks English as a first language,” yet my husband is Australian and I am American and neither of us speaks Dutch as a first language. So naturally, I come at these arguments with some concern. Are you saying, basically, close the borders?

Douglas K . Murray: It’s only for me to diagnose what’s happening – to see the truth about what is going on. Policy makers will make their own decisions. I have obviously broad views on it, which is that I think you can’t continue at the rate we have now, and I think you have to be choosy about the people you bring in. But you are right, and there are two groups of people who have had trouble with some of the basic things in this book: one is people of Jewish background, and others who come from nations of immigrants, like America. But Britain isn’t a nation of immigrants – we have been a static society with all the benefits and ills that this brings. And I think it is dishonest to say it is the same thing. I realize people who are predominantly Jewish have a particular sensitivity to it, but I think that that’s a particular issue. And why do we say one migration is just like the other It’s like saying because two vehicles went down the same road they are the same vehicle.

ARE: How is it different?

DKM: In the UK, when Jewish migration happened more than a century ago, the main thing was integration, integration into the society, wanting desperately to be part of British society. Why do synagogues in the UK have a portrait of the Queen? And after services, they often sing the British national anthem. It’s very moving. It’s an effort to demonstrate this is what we are and this is what we want to be. You’d be hard pressed to find a mosque with a picture of the queen who sing the anthem.

ARE: That element of integration is crucial, I agree. In America, in fact, immigrants in the past and often even today are eager to give their children Anglicized names: “Michael,” not “Moishe,” “Henry,” not “Heinrich.” Yet you do not see the name changes in Muslims these days. Why do you think that is?

DKM: Because there is less of a feeling to integrate. They want to stay with the country they’ve left but not deal with its economics. Some people find it flattering – that people want to move to your country – they say well, it shows what a wonderful place we are. No, it shows that your economics work better.

ARE: You also write about Muslim enclaves in Europe where “the women all wear some form of head covering and life goes on much as it would if the people were in Turkey or Morocco.” How is that different than, say, Chinatowns, or Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in America and say, Belgium, where women wear wigs and men have peyas, or sidelocks?

DKM: The example of Chinatown-like places is a good comparison. These are places that are mini-Chinas, they are enjoyed and liked by people because they are a different place. Well, if people want to have a mini-Bangladesh, that’s one vision of a society. It’s not the vision we were sold in Europe. It was not meant to be the case that portions of our cities were meant to become totally different places. In the 1950s the British and other European authorities said we have to bring people into our countries and we will get a benefit in labor. But if they had said that the downside is that large portions of the area would be unrecognizable to their inhabitants, there would have been an outcry.

And the issue of them being different from Hasidic communities – you’re right, they are similar. You can go to Stamford Hill in North London and see most of the men in hats and so on and that’s because that’s an enclave that wants to keep to itself. That raises questions: one, people don’t mind that, for several reasons – one is the recognition that Orthodox men don’t cause troubles. We don’t have cases of Orthodox men going out and cutting off people’s heads. If four Jewish men from Stamford Hill had blown up buses some years back there would be concern about these enclaves.

And also those enclaves are not growing. If it was the case that these enclaves were becoming areas where all the city was hat-wearing Orthodox Jews, then people would say wait, what is that? You can applaud that or abhor it, but it’s important to mention.it.

ARE: In the Netherlands, which has some of the toughest immigration policies in the world, people from certain countries are required to take “citizenship” courses before they can even enter Dutch borders. They have to learn the language, they have to learn about Dutch values, and that no, you can’t throw stones at Jews and gay people and that gay marriage is legal and women wear short dresses. Would you recommend other countries take on the Dutch policy of citizenship courses?

DKM: I make this point in the book. You say we could have done more and better, but the fundamental thing is that none of it was ever expected in the first place. No one ever thought that we would be in the situation we are now in. We didn’t expect them to stay. That’s a very big misunderstanding. Why wouldyou ask people to become Dutch citizens if you expect them to go home in five years? Why if you only expect them to stay in Britain for only 10 years? But then we realized they would stay and then we said, “we have to let them practice their own culture.” But for us to have acted as you suggest we would have had to know [at the time].

So yes, I think it’s a bare minimum for Europe to have the Dutch policy, even at this very late stage. I’m of the inclination that this is too little too late, but I wish everyone luck with it.

ARE: What about Yazidi women, Syrian Christians?

DKM: Again, it comes down to the Jewish question – because people think that every refugee is like a Jew from Nazi Germany. But if you were to think of a group that was facing an attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth then yes, you’d have the Yazidis. But there are people on all sides of the Syrian civil war, which are a minority of people coming to Europe – these are people fleeing sectarian conflict, but none of them are fleeing an effort to wipe them out as a people. So the lazy view, and it is quite often pushed by Jewish groups which I think is a mistake – is to suggest that it is similar to Nazi Germany. And I wish more care were taken in this.

ARE: Is this in your mind a way of stopping radical Islam? Because so many of the radicalized Muslims are actually converts. How would it help?

DKM: We know that people who convert to anything tend to be fundamentalist. But the important thing is, if you were pliable to be converted, available to be converted, then it raises the question of what kind of Islam do we have in these countries? If it were people finding Sufism, rather than hardcore Salafism, maybe it would be different. I have a friend who is a Muslim who was on a trip some years ago who told me the story of introducing a Muslim woman to one of the senior clerics at Al-Azhar and she wouldn’t shake his hand. He asked her why not. She said, “Because I’m Muslim.” So he asked her how long she’d been a Muslim, and she said “Six years.” He said, “I’ve been a Muslim for eight decades.” And then he turned and said to his friend in Arabic, “What kind of Muslims are you making in Britain?”

ARE: One thing the American Muslim community seems to have over its European brethren is its successful integration into society. Yet at the same time, some of the worst of the radicals are in fact American-born. We have people like Linda Sarsour, who wears the mantle of feminism, but who is really a Trojan horse for the Islamists. She has said things like “Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community. It is not to assimilate and lease any other people in authority.” What are the dangers of that kind of message?

DKM: I once spent an evening with Linda Sarsour. She is a very unpleasant, very radical girl. Filled with hate. I was the one having to defend America to Americans in an American audience against an American opponent. What she told that night was all lies, which you would tell either because you are dumb, which she isn’t, or because you want to spread propaganda, which she does.

I just think she is of a type. There are various sides to the issue that are important. There’s an “us” question and a “them” question. The “them” question is, what do people like that believe, what are they doing and how vile are they? But in a way, the “us” question is bigger. Why do we let them do this? What is wrong with America at this time in its history that an obvious demagogue like her can end up leading a feminist march [the 2017 Women’s March]? That’s an illness of America. She’s just a symptom of that.

ARE: And similarly, the Rushdie affair was effective in quashing further expression and criticism related to Islam. And Charlie Hebdo took that to an extreme. We haven’t had anything that severe, but there were the South Park threats and the attempted attack on the Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland. You blame European politicians and media for failing to recognize that those who were shouting “fire” were in fact the arsonists. This seems to be a global challenge – that any criticism or critique of Islam gets shouted down as inherently bigoted. In the U.S., the Southern Poverty Law Center places Maajid Nawaz on a list of “anti-Muslim extremists” for criticizing some tenets of the faith and advocating modernization and reform. In Europe the facts are very pessimism-causing. At the same time, though, there was certainly support for Charlie Hebdo, though you seem to deny it in your book, after the shootings. What’s the proper response to that form of a heckler’s veto?

DKM: I agree with the point. The only ways to reject the assassin’s veto is for civil society to be stronger on the question, for governments to ensure that people deemed to have ‘blasphemed’ are protected (as in the case of Rushdie) and that those who incite violence against them (such as Cat Stevens during the Rushdie affair) are the ones who find themselves on the receiving end of prosecutions. That and – obviously – ensuring that blasphemy laws aren’t allowed in through the back door via new ‘hate speech’ laws and the like.

ARE: In the chapter on multiculturalism, you describe interest groups which “were thrown up that claimed to represent and speak for all manner of identity groups.” These self-appointed voices then become the go-to groups for government. To keep the money flowing, they make the problems facing their community appear worse than they really are.” Is that a universal behavior for interest groups? We certainly see that in the U.S. with CAIR and ISNA.

DKM: Every group is vulnerable to that. With every human rights achievement, there are always some people left on the barricades. And the ones who linger on the barricades linger on without any home to go to. And you get these people who are stranded after it’s over and they have to hustle as if everything was as bad as it once was. Sometimes they are telling the truth; sometimes they wave a warning flag, but for the moment it seems particularly in America every group is claiming that this is basically 1938. It’s a tendency of every commune or group that wants awareness raised.

But it’s true, it’s especially prevalent of Muslim groups because if you keep claiming that you are the victim, then you never have to sort out your own house. And the groups that come to Europe and America, they never have to get their house in order if they spend all their time claiming they are victims of genocide and persecution and so on. And this is a familiar story.

ARE: So what would be your lesson, then, for America, especially in a book which clearly is about Europe?

DKM: Well, it is about Europe, certainly, but it’s connected to the debate America is now beginning to have. The first is to be careful with immigration. We’ve all had the same misunderstanding, the same thought that our societies are vast, immovable, unchanging things to which you could keep bringing people of every imaginable stripe and the results will always be the same. And I think that is just not the case, depending on the people who are in them. So we must take care with what kind of immigration we encourage, and at what pace, and that is something America should be thinking of, as everyone else should.

But America will have a harder time with this, because everyone in America has this vulnerability we don’t have in Europe, which is that we are all migrants. And you have the sense of ‘who am I to keep anyone out?’

ARE: I don’t think that’s the American view. I think it’s more that we all became part of this fabric, and we expect that the new immigrants will, too. But not all of them do.

DM: The whole thing actually seems to be unraveling, more than in Europe. In Europe, we don’t like to think in terms of racial terms. But all anyone in America talks about is race.

ARE: I don’t think so….

DKM: Maybe; but your vision of original sin in America seems to have become all so overwhelming. Your leading cultural figures, like Ta-Nehisi Coates, have this image of America born in terrible sin. The Atlantic’s front cover recently was all about slavery. You would get the impression that slavery only ended about 12 months ago. You are going over and over this in America – this endless sense of original sin. You are discussing reparations for slavery in 2017. You’d be hard-pressed to find publications in the UK calling for reparations to our past. Find me a mainstream publication that runs such a thing in Europe, even of WWII reparations.

So it’s symptomatic of something badly wrong at the structure of the public discussion.

ARE: Which suggests that we should do what?

DKM: What you have to listen out for is very straightforward: are the people raising such issues raising them because they want America to improve, or because they want America to end? I think this is a very central issue. Are you speaking as a critic, or as an enemy of the society in question? If you think the society can do no good, then you are speaking as an enemy. If you think there are things that have been done, that are wrong, that should be righted, campaign for them, speak out for them. Sometimes if you’re lucky you can get a posthumous rectification. But it sounds to me like a lot of this talk is from people who hate America. They don’t want to improve it. They want to end it.

So the lesson is – be careful about immigration. Be choosy. And another is a pretty straightforward one which is to work on the people who are there not to fall into the victim narratives of their special interest groups. And to focus on the “we.” I’ve always felt more optimistic for America in this regard, for the same reason I feel more optimistic than others do about France: because I think there is a very specific identity there, which it is possible to become a part of. I think it’s something other Western European countries, have not accomplished in the same way. So basically to strengthen their own identity.

ARE: Do you consider yourself a pessimist?

DKM: I think in Europe the facts are very pessimism-causing. I think it would be a strange person who would look at 12,000 people landing in Lampedusa, all young men, all without jobs, all without futures, and think, ‘That’s going to go really well. These are going to be just like the Jews of Vienna. These are going to be the receptacles of our culture.’ I don’t see it happening.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands. Follow her at @radicalstates

Improving Muslim Integration: Sending in the Clowns

The surreal world of Sweden’s new migration policy.

Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Bawer, July 19, 2017:

If some of the things that are being done in Sweden today weren’t demonstrably true, they’d be unbelievable. If they weren’t so idiotically tragic, they’d be brilliantly funny.

What follows is not a joke. Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and his crew have come up with a great new way to improve integration.

One word: clowns.

A quick reminder: thanks to the astronomical cost of feeding, housing, and clothing immigrants who prefer not to support themselves, and the equally formidable expense of policing those multiculturally enriched, high-crime areas that the authorities haven’t already given up on policing, Sweden is bleeding cash – big time. Among the results: major cutbacks in outlays for schooling, health care, and benefits for the elderly.

Nonetheless, the Swedish Migration Board has managed to find an unspecified number of kronor – apparently in the millions – to spend on the services of an organization called Clowner utan Gränser. Translation: Clowns without Borders (hereafter CWB). According to an article in the invaluable Friatider website, CWB plans to “’play’ its way to better integration.”

The Migration Board specifies that the clowns will be used to integrate non-EU immigrants – which in Sweden, of course, mostly means Muslims.

After reading Friatider’s story, I naturally went straight to CWB’s website. Front and center is detailed information about how to contribute money to this thing: “Become a donor and spread laughter every month!”

Click on “about us” and you’ll find out that CWB was founded in 1996 and operates in a dozen countries, sending clowns into refugee camps and youth prisons. CWB’s declared mission is “to meet children in pleasure, play, and joy.” It seeks to create “hope, humanity, and the will to live.” Its vision is “a world filled with play, laughter, and dreams, where all people have the opportunity to develop, express themselves freely, and feel hope even in vulnerable situations.” All its work “is done in our belief that it creates a better world.”

Of course it would be terribly cynical to call B.S. on all this. I’m sure it’s totally on the level and every bit as wondrous and magical as it sounds – and worth every kronor.

Just speaking for myself, however, the last thing I can imagine wanting to see if I were a little kid in a Third World refugee camp or youth prison would be a bunch of guys in clown outfits climbing out of a tiny car, juggling bowling pins, riding unicycles, making balloon animals, and sweeping up spotlights. Not to put too fine a point on it, but is any child ever really entertained by the antics of clowns? I’ve always had my doubts. All I know is that for as long as I can remember, clowns struck me me as witless, depressing, and vaguely creepy. Their costumes look as if they must be sweaty and smelly. A painted-on smile seems the very opposite of cheery. But hey, maybe that’s just me.

Also, the whole premise reminds me of the notorious Jerry Lewis movie The Day the Clown Cried (1972)about a clown who entertains Jewish children on a train to Auschwitz and then on their way into the gas chambers. It was never released because it was considered to be in outrageously bad taste. Just sayin’.

I did react to one detail on CWB’s site. It informs us that the group “is based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.” What is that supposed to mean? As it happens, the convention in question is one of those ridiculous international agreements that are at best meaningless and at worst menacing, but that diplomats from countries like Sweden are crazy about. The U.S. is the only nation on earth to have refused to ratify it, one reason being that it can be interpreted as denying basic parental rights. (In the recent case of the critically ill baby Charlie Gard in the U.K., it was reported that the court’s refusal to let the parents seek extraordinary treatment for their son was founded, at least in part, on the UN convention.) Needless to say, the fact that the convention has been ratified by every government on earth other than America’s mean that it’s gotten the stamp of approval from places where children are openly enslaved, prostituted, and put to work in factories. So CWB’s pious mention of this hollow document – this empty, worthless specimen of pure technocratic sanctimony – is, for this reader, for what it’s worth, something of a red flag.

But the main point here, obviously, is that the eagerness of the Swedish Migration Board to bring “play, laughter, and dreams” to Muslim children makes one thing perfectly clear: namely, that – even after all these years, all these immigrants, and all these failed efforts at integration – Swedish authorities still don’t know the first damned thing about Islam. Have none of them ever come across the Ayatollah Khomeini’s famous pronouncement on the subject of play and laughter? “Allah,” declared Khomeini, “did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.”

To reread Khomeini’s ukase is to experience, shall we say, an increased curiosity as to the potential results of the Swedish Migration Board’s inspired new initiative. What can happen? One imagines a troupe of these clowns dancing and frolicking their way into some no-go zone in Malmö and ending up in a decapitation video. One pictures some burka-clad version of Kathy Griffin posing for the camera, holding up a clown’s real head by its fake red hair. Now that’s one image that likely would bring a few laughs to some of the humor-deprived denizens of Rosengård or Rinkeby.

Soros-Sponsored Immigration Network Exposed In Italy

Zero Hedge, by Tyler Durden, July 17, 2017:

Via GEFIRA.org,

The following article is based on Francesca Totolo’s research published on lucadonadel.it.

Open Borders, Media Censorship

Why is there a migrant crisis in the Mediterranean? Why are NGOs involved? Because there is an extensive network of open borders activists and organizations behind it; many of them are directly funded by or cooperated with George Soros’ Open Society. Is it illegal? Not really. Political activism is an essential part of democratic societies. However, sometimes it goes too far, or the promoted causes prove to be either unrealistic or unsustainable.

The network of the “immigration lobby’’ in Italy is made up of International NGOs financed by the Open Society Foundation (green), Italian NGOs financed by OSF (blue), and organizations with shared projects with OSF (purple).

1. Open Society Foundations and Associazione Carta di Roma

Associazione Carta di Roma was founded in December 2011 to put into execution a moral code for correct information on immigration. Since February 2016 the “Glossary’’ of the Charter of Rome (Carta di Roma) is an integral part of the “Unified charter of duties of the journalist’’. Permanent invited members are the UN High Council for Refugees, the International Organization for Migrations and the National Office against Racial Discrimination.

The glossary of the Charter of Rome been revised and corrected by the editors to guarantee political correctness, limiting the use of words that are deemed not adequate when the subject of a piece of news is without citizenship and in a foreign country. The accepted terms are: -asylum seeker, refugee, person protected by subsidiary protection, beneficiary of humanitarian protection, victim of smuggling, irregular migrant (previously commonly defined as clandestine), mixed migratory influx. The term “clandestine’’ is now punished with fines, and warnings from the Order of Journalists.

In the majority of cases the Charter of Rome considers redundant mentioning the nationality of those who commit crime on Italian territory.

Sponsors of the Charter are Open Society Foundations, the UNHCR and the Valdese Church.

Associazione Carta di Roma lists the following “reliable’’ sources, many of which are Italian or international NGOs directly funded by the Open Society Foundation: Amnesty International, ASGI, COSPE, 21 Luglio, Fortress Europe, A Buon Diritto, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Save The Children, currently involved in the migrant traffic in the Mediterranean and finally UNAR, recently involved in a scandal of gay prostitution.

2. Open Society and COSPE ONLUS

Cospe Onlus is a non-profit, private organization founded in 1983. It operates in 30 countries with 150 projects “to favour equal and sustainable development, respect of human rights, peace and justice for people’’, supporting the right to international mobility. Its goal is a world where “diversity is considered a value, a world with many voices, where the meeting of different people results in mutual enrichment and where social justice goes through equal rights and opportunities’’.

Cospe and NGOs in the Mediterranean

Cospe is among the original founders and promoters of SOS Mediterranee Italia, an NGO that works in the Mediterranean cooperating with Médecins Sans Frontières on the ship Acquarius

Cospe’s partners, include the already mentioned Associazione Carta di Roma, which shares Cospe’s platform on “correct communication’’ on the immigration question; they organized seminaries for journalists on the topics of immigration and racial discrimination. Carta di Lampedusa (Charter of Lampedusa) is a free association of individuals born in 2014 to work against laws limiting immigration and for the abolition of all European laws that limit freedom of movement.

Cospe Budget

The last budget published is from 2015. Cospe gathered funding of approximately €9.5 million, of which €7.5 million was from public subjects, the most relevant of which are the European Union (66%) and the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs (27%).

3. Open Society and ASGI (Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration)

ASGI’s task is to disseminate ideas on immigration laws among lawyers, jurists and academics; it has contributed to the creation of national and EU laws on immigration, asylum and citizenship, promoting political dialogue and protection of foreigners. ASGI was founded by the Open Society Foundation and is directly funded by it.

ASGI projects

ASGI focuses heavily on the current situation in Hungary. The UNHCR requested a temporary suspension of asylum requests to Hungary, according to the rules of the Dublin Treaty: ‘“Given the worsening conditions of asylum seekers in Hungary, we ask to suspend the transfer of any asylum seeker to this country, until the policies of the Hungarian government are not in line with European and international law’’.

Anti-discrimination service: ASGI provides juridical support against ethnic, racial and religious discrimination in Italy, with an operative centre in Milan and a number of secondary centres in Turin, Florence, Naples, Rome and Verona, a network of professionals that collaborate in monitoring discrimination matters. It is funded by Charlemagne Onlus, Tavola Valdese and the Open Society Foundations.12)

ASGI’s Manifesto

According to ASGI, the reasons for migration to Europe are: wars, repressive regimes and dictatorships, consequences of colonialism, exploitation of natural resources of the African continent, demographic growth, climate change.

In terms of immigration, asylum and citizenship reform, ASGI proposes:

–channels for free access to a country for job seeking purposes;
-ways to make temporary visas permanent;
-easier family reunion processes;
–voluntary repatriation or alternative measures as opposed to forced repatriation;
–right to vote in administrative elections for non-EU foreigners, on the same conditions as for EU nationals and easier acquisition of citizenship;
-on asylum the EU should: desist from hostile policies adopted in the last years such as the EU-Turkey agreement of March 2016, and collaboration with dictatorships such as those in Libya, Sudan, and Niger; create an obligatory redistribution plan for refugees, adjust the current Dublin regulation with the possibility of requesting asylum in the country chosen by the asylum seeker.

ASGI’s network

Migregroup: it participates in the project Boats4people, and supports the online platform WatchTheMed, that maps deaths and violations of migrant rights at the external frontiers of the EU.

WatchTheMed was founded by NGO Habeshia run by father Mussie Zerai, (self-proclaimed father Moses for his ability to make migrants arrive in Europe). The organization has a list for ‘’the good migrant’’, where interested people can find information on how to arrive in Europe through the Mediterranean. ONG Sea-Watch, currently present in the Mediterranean transporting migrants to Europe, is a part of the platform of WatchTheMed.

ASGI collaborates with Associazione 21 Luglio, Senza Confine (No Borders), Doctors for Human Rights, SIMM (Italian society for medicine of migrations).

4. Open Society and CILD (Italian coalition for freedoms and civil rights)

Created in 2014, CILD is a network of organizations to promote rights and freedoms for everyone, with advocacy campaigns, public and legal actions. CILD supports easier access for migrants in face of “mixed influxes’’. After a recent change in the law to welcome unaccompanied minors in Italy, it pushed for a change in citizenship laws, currently materialized in the attempt to switch from Ius Sanguinis to Ius Soli.

Its manifesto includes a change of vision on immigration, as a system of asylum, not criminal, based on welcoming duties and enlargement of citizenship.

CILD activities include, the project Open Migration, which focuses on a fact-checking of news on immigration; its articles cover criticism of the investigation of NGOs in the Mediterranean, a claim that refugee appeals are not overburdening the judicial system, and another claim that immigrants are overrepresentated in the jail system due to preventive custody, ignoring the data showing that migrants commit crimes in Italy at 6 times the rate of natives.

CILD’s network

It includes, among others:

A Buon Diritto: an advocacy group on the immigration issue. Funded by the Open Society;
ANSI (National Association Intercultural Press): promoted and constituted by foreign journalists, supported by Cospe and Open Society;
Antigone: organization for the rights and warranties of the penal system, funded by the Open Society;
ARCI: large popular movement to promote emancipation, with over a million subscribers, supported by Open Society;
ASGI: detailed above;
Associazione 21 Luglio: focuses on the Roma minority. Funded by the Open Society;
CIR (Italian Council for Refugees): funded by Open Society;
Cittadini del Mondo (Citizens of the world): open borders promoter, funded by Open Society;
Cospe Onlus: referred above
Fondazione Leone Moressa: think thank with a focus on immigration, funded by the Open Society;
Lunaria: non-profit with a focus on globalization and migration, regularly collaborates with the Open Society;
NAGA: migrant rights with a focus on Roma, funded by the Open Society;
PARSEC: social studies research institute with a focus on immigration, created the project “parlare civile’’ (civil talking) that focuses on politically correct wording, supported by the Open Society;

5. Open Society and A Buon Diritto

A Buon Diritto (For good law) is an advocacy group focused on immigration, its website is full of the contributions from the Open Society. Its president is Luigi Manconi, also known as Simone Dessì, a former activist of Lotta Continua (Contiued Fight), a communist party. Its publications include “Accogliamoli Tutti’’ (Let’s welcome all of them), a book that claims that “the only efficient immigration policy is welcoming everyone’’, citing replacement migration, the replacement of elderly, dying Italians with young immigrants as the core element of its thesis. It claims that this approach is based on “common sense and a pragmatic approach to govern immigration, not passively receive it’’. The foreword is by former Ministry of Integration of Italy Cécile Kyenge.

Another publication is “Abolire il Carcere’’ (Abolish jail), a “reasonable proposal of reform for the safety of citizens’’.

Its initiatives include:

-‘’Navigare a vista’’ (Navigate in sight), a “tale of the search and rescue activities by NGOs in the Mediterranean’’.
-‘’The great lie of taxi-ships: NGOs and rescue in the sea’’, a conference attended by Luigi Manconi, Emma Bonino, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and representatives of the NGOs Proactiva Open Arms, MSF and Save the Children, all currently active in the Mediterranean.

Conclusions

The network, as exemplified by CILDI, is extensive and intricate. It ranges from former ministers, Kyenge (Immigration) and Bonino (foreign affairs), both directly responsible for the large influx of migrants being forcefully accepted into Italy, to support groups promoting press censorship, but also providing juridical support, advocacy and publications.

Only in few cases one can inspect their budgets, not exactly a trait suggesting transparency and openness.

The main theme of the Open Society network is to use anti-discrimination laws to promote unlimited migrationvia the abolition of borders. The idea is clearly stated in the manifesto of many organizations. Most organizations promote their extreme views as “fact based’’ or “common sense’’ to give themselves an aura of scientific approach, while providing subjective and ideological interpretation of data and omitting inconvenient information. That is also why they omit the nationality of the criminal. It’s equivalent to admitting there is a problem but it should not be talked about. This is typical of totalitarian regimes, not democratic and certainly not “open’’ societies. The stated goal of “correct information on the theme of immigration’’ is certainly not achieved this way.

Finally, the no-borders strategy is being implemented with the widespread action of the immigration lobby in favour of NGOs operating in the Mediterranean. Whether through its funding or publications covering the topic, conferences, research or information channels for migrants, the network effectively provides support for migrants, regardless of whether they are legal or illegal.

The Terrifying Way Sweden Is Killing Itself

(Shutterstock)

PJ Media, by Bruce Bawer, July 10, 2017:

I could be writing every week about Sweden. Every day. Every hour. For reasons that will be analyzed by historians for a long, long time – provided the Western world doesn’t become so thoroughly Islamized that the possibility of objective historical scrutiny is utterly obliterated – the Swedes have chosen a path of cultural and societal suicide that puts all other countries in the shade.

For anyone curious about self-destructive psychopathologies, it is a grimly fascinating phenomenon. Why, of all places, Sweden? How can a Swedish woman raped by an illegal Muslim immigrant be so bursting with racial guilt that she hesitates to report the crime to the police for fear that her report might lead to her rapist’s punishment or deportation? Or, more generally, because news of the offense might result in an increase in “Islamophobia?”

This is the kind of madness that’s going on in Sweden now. More than any other country in Europe, it has a government and a media that are in denial about the truth, a legal system that punishes those who dare to tell the truth, and a people who have been brainwashed for decades with the vile lie that they have a moral obligation to hand their country over to hostile, despotic strangers from far away.

No, Sweden isn’t North Korea. The ugly news does get out, one way or another. Some of it, anyway. It’s just that, with extremely rare exceptions, the important facts about the nation’s disastrous Islamization don’t find their way into the country’s own mainstream media. On the contrary, Sweden’s major TV, radio, and print outlets are notorious for the fidelity with which they parrot the government line and omit or whitewash uncomfortable news developments.

No, if you’re looking for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about most of the nasty stuff going on in Sweden these days, you’re better off checking out Swedish websites such as Avpixlat and Fria Tider, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Postenand two Norwegian sites: document.no and rights.no, the latter being the site of the organization Human Rights Service.

I’ve previously quoted a March 11 Jyllands-Posten editorial that spelled out the Swedish situation quite frankly: what should “most worry Sweden’s neighbors,” the Danish editors wrote, is the Swedes’ “unwillingness to openly and honestly discuss the government-approved multicultural idyll. … In the long run, the mendacity that characterizes the Swedish debate cannot be maintained. The discrepancy between the official, idealized version of Sweden, ‘the people’s home,’ and the brutal reality that everyone can see has simply become too great.”

Indeed. This is a country where rapes by Muslim men are systematically ignored by the authorities or responded to with minimal punishment. Routinely, Swedish courts refuse to return these monsters – some of whom have repeatedly subjected small boys and girls to violent sexual abuse – to their home countries for fear that they’ll be put in danger. In other words, Swedish judges care more about the safety of foreign rapists than that of Swedish children.

(No wonder U.S. News and World Report has just named Sweden the best country in the world to be an immigrant. Yet another cockeyed ranking. The proper question isn’t which country is best for immigrants, but which country has the most sensible immigration policy.)

It’s a country where even prominent Swedish feminists – fanatical boosters of multiculturalism – are now moving out of Muslim-heavy neighborhoods not only because of the Muslim rapists but because of the Muslim “morality police,” who are less concerned with monitoring rapists than with controlling women’s conduct. (One such feminist organized “coffee shop meetings” with Muslim male community leaders in an attempt to resolve the situation, but gave up.)

It’s a country where the government rolls out the red carpet for returning ISIS members, giving them special benefits, in hopes that they’ll see the light and put down their weapons.

It’s a country where, while Muslim rapists and terrorists are forgiven, critics of immigrant conduct are punished. In May, a 70-year-old woman in Dalarna, Sweden, was arrested for writing on Facebook in 2015 about immigrants who “set cars on fire and urinate and defecate in the streets.” (She faces up to four years in prison.)

No surprise, then, that on July 7, Jyllands-Posten reported that the Swedish government plans to alter the nation’s Constitution in such a way as to give itself the power to limit online free speech about precisely these ticklish matters. Among other things, wrote Jyllands-Posten, it will become illegal “for certain websites to publicize information about private persons’ ethnicity or conviction of crimes.”

Of course: the best way to address the ever-rising tide of Muslim criminality is to close down every last media outlet that reports honestly about it. The mainstream Swedish media are already playing ball; it’s just a few recalcitrant websites that need to be scrubbed clean. Presumably the next step will be to block access in Sweden to Jyllands-Posten and other foreign news sources that tell Swedes the truth about what’s going on within their own borders.

Then everything will be just perfect, no? And what are the chances that no matter how much Sweden tightens its already alarming (if currently tacit) limits on freedom of speech, Reporters without Borders will keep Sweden at its ridiculous #2 spot on the World Press Freedom Index?

Also see:

Former Gitmo inmate to receive $10 million and apology from Canadian government

Omar Khadr smiles as he answers questions during a news conference after being released on bail in Edmonton, Alberta, May 7, 2015. Khadr, a Canadian, was once the youngest prisoner held on terror charges at Guantanamo Bay. REUTERS/Todd Korol

American Thinker, by Rick Moran, July 5, 2017:

A former inmate of the Guantanamo prison camp, returned to Canada in 2015 and then released, will get $10 million from the Canadian government and an apology.

Omar Khadr, the son of a known al-Qaeda terrorist leader, was captured after a firefight in Afghanistan where he threw a grenade killing a US medic and wounding others. These facts are not in dispute. Khadr pleaded guilty to the charges but claimed he was a “child soldier” forced to fight by his father.

Khadr’s lawyer says his client was tortured by the US while he was at Guantanamo, suffering from sleep deprivation and psychological stress. The lawyer also claims that his client was not given adequate medical care.

Globe and Mail:

Mr. Khadr was captured in Afghanistan at the age of 15 in 2002, following a shootout with U.S. troops where he was badly wounded – blinded by shrapnel in one eye and with fist-sized exit wounds in his shoulder and chest.

He was accused of throwing a grenade that killed U.S. army medic Christopher Speer in the firefight and was sent to the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Khadr, now 30, spent more than 10 years in U.S. and Canadian custody, much of that time in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. Once the youngest detainee in Guantanamo, he was transferred to Canada in 2012 after accepting a plea deal.

Mr. Edney has said his client was treated abysmally even though he was a child soldier and his body shattered from wounds. U.S. interrogators subjected him to sleep deprivation and solitary confinement.

Mr. Edney said Mr. Khadr was coerced into fighting by his father, Ahmed Said Khadr – a top al-Qaeda operative until he was killed in a gunfight with Pakistani troops in 2003.

In March, Mr. Khadr underwent a 19-hour operation in an Edmonton hospital to repair his shoulder, which was severely damaged during the firefight with U.S soldiers.

“Nobody advocated for his health whatsoever. Even when he came back to Canada, I raised all those issues with the Correctional Services and of course [former prime minister Stephen] Harper was not interested in hearing anything like that,” Mr. Edney said in an interview last March.

Mr. Khadr was freed on bail in May, 2015, and released under the supervision of Mr. Edney.

He said he would “prove to [Canadians] that I’m a good person.”

From the battlefield to the hospital at Guantanamo, the US military saved this young man’s life. The idea that “nobody advocated for his health” is beyond insult. It is an outright lie.

As for torture, sleep deprivation is defined as torture in the UN convention, but the idea that a 15 year old son of a terrorist was a “child soldier” is ludicrous. The lawyers for Guantanamo inmates are notorious for lying and exaggerating about their clients’ treatment. Everything he says should be checked and double checked for accuracy.

Meanwhile, the widow of the US medic murdered by Khadr as well as a wounded soldier are looking to block the $10 million payment to Khadr.

Daily Caller:

Tabitha Speer, widow of Sgt. Christopher Speer, and Layne Morris are expected to ask the Ontario Superior Court on Wednesday to honor a 2015 Utah civil court order that demanded Khadr pay them $134 million.

“They are trying to get an emergency injunction in a Canadian court to have their award in the United States enforced in Canada,” The Globe and Mail is reporting an unnamed source as saying. “Their desire is to have U.S. courts enforced in Canada, which would mean that any money that goes to Mr. Khadr would go to them.”

Because of the cross-border jurisdictions, it is unlikely that Khadr’s victims will ever see any of the money.

Khadr’s lawyer, Dennis Edney, told the Globe and Mail that he could make no comment on the issue because “that is the arrangement with the government.”

The former Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a hard line on Khadr, refusing to recognize him as a “child soldier” as much of the Canadian media now describes the man who pled guilty to murder.

Harper’s successor, Conservative opposition leader Andrew Scheer, has condemned the potential pay-out to Khadr. He took to Twitter on Tuesday to say, “Canadians know this is wrong. If Omar Khadr is truly sorry for what he did, he’ll give every cent to Tabitha Speer and her two children.” Scheer did not respond to requests from The Daily Caller for further comment.

Rewarding a terrorist for killing Americans hardly sets a good precedent. But the liberal government wants to send a message about Guantanamo regardless of the feelings and sensibilities of a widow with two children and a blinded soldier.

Trudeau and his goverment should be ashamed of themselves – if they were even capable of such emotion.

***

***

Ramadan Red Pill

The Rebel, by Faith Goldy, June 6, 2017:

In the first ten days of Ramadan, Islamic terrorists killed shy of 600 innocents, in 55 attacks, across 17 countries.

We’ve tried things the diversity-is-our-strength-open-borders-cultural-enrichment way. In order to reverse the European Caliphate, the region is going to have to change its approach– radically

What Europe needs in order to solve it’s jihad problem is a multi-pronged plan that’s both preventative and adaptive (for the Muslim populations already within their borders).

I propose the following 5 actions:

1. A Trump-style travel ban in the skies;
2. NATO troops along the Mediterranean to turn away migrant boats;
3. Intern every migrant who is on a terror watch-list;
4. Close Europe’s sharia courts and radical mosques; and
5. Heavily regulate or close European madrasas.

Islam is a religion of submission through force– it’s a language Muslim migrants understand. And the state is the only body in a position to legitimately and surgically execute such plans.

Because, God knows, if the politicians and military don’t take matters into their hands– the people will.

Also see: