The End of Democracy?

Truthteller Fjordman writes an extraordinary piece in Brussels Journal. America this is our wake up call;

At the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama pronounced that we had arrived at “The End of History”, and that capitalism and liberal democracy would now be the only global system left. But when I look at Europe today, I see democracies under threat because of an elaborate Eurabian bureaucracy and Islamic fanaticism. I see countries unwilling or unable to defend themselves against massive immigration/colonization.

Has democracy become too soft to function? Have we arrived at “the End of Democracy” rather than “the End of History?” What are the strengths and weaknesses of democracy? Are there other challenges to it in

the 21st century than there were in the 20th century, and if so, what are they? immigration/colonization.

What are the necessary conditions for a democratic society to work? These are massive questions. I cannot do more than scratch the surface of them here, but I’d still like to make an attempt.

In the UK, before Labour came to power, the number of people leaving Britain roughly balanced the number arriving. Then Tony Blair’s government “embarked on immigration/colonization.

a policy that will totally change the nature of many of the communities in which we live without consulting any of us.” “ [..]

Even in the USA, the most astonishing aspect of the immigration debate is that the élites “think they can override the clear and huge resistance of the American people.” As columnist Tony Blankley wrote, the Senate was prepared to “legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public.” Eight out of ten Americans wanted the borders closed to millions of illegal immigrants, yet immigration/colonization.

nothing substantial has been done. There has to be a reason for this.

In the Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark – [and also in Belgium] foreign citizens, though not illegals, are allowed to vote in local elections. As Roger Scruton points out, Western civilization depends on an idea of citizenship that is not global at all, but rooted in territorial jurisdiction and national loyalty. A nation that refuses to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens cannot survive.

It is more than a little ironic that people calling for restrictions of immigration are denounced as “anti-democratic forces” when it is the other way around. The most fundamental democratic right of all must be to decide who should be allowed to move into your home. Freedom of speech and immigration control should not be outsourced to faceless bureaucrats in Brussels or the UN. The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country.

UN bureaucrats from Islamic countries are influencing how we should manage our immigration policies, even our freedom of speech. This comes on top of the maze of non-governmental organizations and self-appointed human rights groups at home and abroad, always interfering in anything we do to maintain our own borders. Put together, this means that Westerners are no longer allowed to decide who should settle in their countries.

Muslim immigrants want to first infiltrate established political parties, to ensure VIP treatment of Muslims and to keep the floodgates open to new Muslims arriving, and later to establish parties of their own. So far, this strategy has shown some success. They have also been rather successful at spreading terror in the West and instilling “fear into the hearts of the enemies of Allah,” just as the Koran commands. As Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and other former Muslims have warned against, there is more evidence of an Islamization of democracy in the West than of any spread of democracy in the Islamic world.

I have warned against the development of a pragmatic alliance between Western Leftists and Muslims. Third World immigrants in general, and Muslims in particular, vote overwhelmingly for Leftist parties. This means that by simply opening the gates for massive immigration, Socialists can be certain of a net gain in future elections. This is a critical flaw in our societies, one that could destroy the entire democratic system unless fixed.

[...]

How could a few, selected people decide in back rooms to launch a huge project of the transformation of an entire continent, without being stopped or even have this Project acknowledged in public? Is democracy just a sham, an act where the general public is allowed to make minor decisions while powerful people move behind the scenes to make the most important decisions? Or is it the very set-up of such massive, transnational organizations such as the EU that moves power away from the people and into back rooms and the corridors of power? Is the creation of Eurabia an indication of democracy’s flaws, or an argument in favor of revitalizing it?

What happened to the ideal of investigative journalism, being of the side of the people and exposing abuse of power? There are people in the media who are criticizing the EU. Ironically, many of them are Socialists who think there is “too much capitalism” in the inner market. Leftists will, however, never criticize the worst aspects of it, the promotion of Multiculturalism, Muslim immigration and demonization of Israel and the United States, since these things fit their own, ideological agenda. European media are brimming with anti-Israeli and anti-American articles, yet hardly any of the mainstream journalists are writing about Eurabia or even mentioning the term. What happened to the free press? Was it merely an illusion, or did it get lost somewhere?

There is so much more. You must read it all.

We need a slogan: “Political Correctness is mental AIDS. Wear an intellectual condom. Use the blogosphere.”

Comments

[backhoe]

Atlas, I have been beating on these themes for years- for what little good it's done. Sometimes, I think it's like trying to bail out the sea:

-Thunder on the Border--

-Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...--

[Cousin Dave]

The end of democracy? I don't think so. From my view, democracy is alive and well in the countries where the citizens live it and appreciate it. Continental Western Europe's problem with democracy is that its citizens by and large have never really trusted it, and consequently, few of these countries have ever really had it. Oh, there's elections and ballots and all, but the only people who can get on the ballots are those who have worked their way through the social structure and gained the approval of the elite classes. Consequently, elections are a choice between, as another blogger (I've unfortunately forgotten how) put it, "Tweedle-Left and Tweedle-Right". In other words, they are basically all socialists; they only vary in degree. And they have succeeded in popularizing the notion that European citizens exist to serve the government (as contrasted to the American/Anglosphere ideal that government serves at the pleasure of the people). Seen from this perspective, all the EU government has really done is eliminate the ritual.

One asks the question, "Why do the leaders of these countries push for the importation of a population that will destroy their country?" I've wondered this for a while myself, and I think I have the answer: they seek to replace the existing population with one that they believe will be more symphatic to their cause / easier to buy off. They see Muslims as a sort of Soviet ideal: younger, more energentic, and more able / willing to perform hard labor, yet poessessing the passive/aggressive nature and willingness to worship authority that they regard as being the essential European nature. In baseball terms, hey're "dumping salary"; getting rid of the high-price veterans and bringing up the cheap kids from the farm team.