Back ] Home ] Next ]

Coming Soon. A Fascist European Superpower





We are only now beginning to see glimpses of it as left and right anti-Americanism merge into a new European philosophy. Currently liberals hold sway within the EU. The day will come when fascists will gain control of the EU and turn its immense wealth and technology against America.


I recommend reading:

The paper from the liberal-internationalist-capitalist Bildergberger group promoting an anti-Communist - capitalist US of Europe - is a must read.

Also an article on Nazi plans for their version of a US of Europe - how they planned a Fourth Reich - I have written about this previously over the years. The current EU's social, immigration, economic and military policies are completely at odds to what the Nazis wanted. Nevertheless, it is an interesting read.

NB: there have been many people advocating a US of Europe of some sort. For example:

- Napoleon who called Europe an 'old whore'

- the Marxist Lenin who wanted a Communist Europe

- the Nazi version which was based on an oppressive racial hierarchy

- various European royalty and what is left of the aristocracy advocating a union that was more-or-less the heritage of the Holy Roman Empire

- Winston Churchill who wanted only an economic US of Europe to try and tie down Germany as he said. He was very much against Britain being in such a union and spoke out against political or military union

- liberals who want to unite Europe and impose very liberal social and immigration policies. These are very much in control at the moment. Some day, some way, they will be dislodged and a rightwing neo-Fascist/RCC combine will take over - initially to protect the Caucasian race from extinction and to restore Europe's 'Christian heritage.' Currently the conservatives and 'Christians' are struggling for survival but will triumph over the liberals in the near future.

So, from the above, we can see that there are various rival and radically different ideas about a US of Europe. Some want a complete union; some a federation (which it is slowly becoming); and some want a loose confederation (like it is now).

We know from the prophecies that the future US of Europe will be fascistic, militaristic and very anti-Anglo-Saxon. Initially it will have Russia as its ally. And so the story goes ...


The videos below (in Windows Media format) throw further light on this coming European superpower - especially the first one.

Click here for more videos. These additional videos are not in Windows Media format. To view most of them you will need to download and install this little program

For articles explaining just what the Ezekiel Message is click here and also here for a sequel article. Further information on this subject is available here. And here for an article on how this coming fascist juggernaut will make war with the Anglo-Saxon-Keltic peoples - and win this time!

Check out our other website


What El Ingles is predicting is what the Church of God has said all along for decades: there will come a fascistic backlash to immigration into Europe. A German-led US of Europe will strike back at the Islamics with incredible technology and tremendous military force.

Note: Europeans often use 'Islam' as a euphemism for all non-White immigration. They blame the USA, UK and a small leftist-clique within the EU for pushing Europe into a One Race-One World scenario - and they are sick to death of it.
When the backlash finally comes from a militaristic National European Social Empire, it will be dreadful. See the extracts from the article by Ingles below.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Surrender, Genocide… or What?

by Baron Bodissey

Regular readers will remember our guest-essayist El Inglés, who has contributed several thoughtful pieces to Gates of Vienna in the past.

The essay below presents a stark view of the West’s most likely future. It’s difficult to read such a pessimistic scenario, but El Inglés’ analysis rewards close scrutiny.

Remember: the article below is descriptive, not normative.

Surrender, Genocide… or What?
by El Inglés


A few months ago, I wrote
“The Danish Civil War”, a fictional scenario which served to structure a consideration of various issues relating to the rise of Islam in Europe and the likely consequences thereof. The essay finished with the conclusion that Islam constituted an existential threat to the survival of European civilization, and that Islam’s influence on Europe therefore needed to be eliminated. It further concluded that, logically speaking, the various ways of achieving this goal could be broadly subdivided into three categories:
1)   inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will,
2)   mass deportations, and
3)   genocide.

(Hereinafter referred to as options one, two and three, respectively)

Anyone masochistic to enough re-read my earlier 10,000-word essay will find ample explanation of why I believe that accommodation of, indeed coexistence with, Islam is impossible, and I do not propose to revisit those arguments here. Instead, I will claim that the pathetic and dispiriting abandonment of pride and principle in the face of Islam described so far has attained a momentum that renders it impossible to reverse by any gradual process.
This leaves only the question of deportations. I am aware of no examples of large-scale deportations being carried out by aircraft, which they would have to be in this case. Apart from the faintly surreal notion of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis being flown out of the UK and being served hundreds of thousands of halal meal options while fiddling around with hundreds of thousands of aggravating airline headsets on the way back to the homeland, it must be observed that air travel is the most infrastructurally fragile of all modes of transportation, and completely reliant on the goodwill and cooperation of people at the destination. A functioning government might be able to organize and carry out mass deportations via airline, but would surely be forced to preemptively intern the target population, and the notion that such populations in Europe would allow themselves to be peacefully interned strains credulity to breaking point and beyond. If this is true now, how much truer would it be in five or ten years time? Even the merest suggestion of implementing such a plan would surely collapse an electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity for reasons already discussed. It is on the basis of this reasoning that I argue that deportations and mass expulsions, though the most difficult types of violence to read in this context, will not play a key role in post-discontinuity violence apart from perhaps being used to repatriate the survivors once the conflict has been won.

It is worth noting that the notion that some sort of Nazi-style genocide is in the cards for Europe’s Muslims would seem to be missing the point for related reasons. The Holocaust, like the Armenian Genocide that provided the inspiration for it, was conducted with as much deception and misdirection as was possible given the vast numbers of people involved. Both genocides were heavily reliant on the relocation of vast numbers of victims to sparsely-inhabited areas to be dispatched, whether in recently conquered territories as in the case of Germany, or the wilder reaches of empire, as in the case of the Ottoman Empire. There is no conceivable way that this would be viable in any European case, especially given the massive qualitative gulf between communication and surveillance technologies of the early/middle 20th-century and the first decades of the 21st. Whatever type of violence we end up seeing between Muslims and their host societies (and I do believe it will be appropriately described by the word genocidal), the Holocaust will not be much of a reference point. I suspect that the recent conflicts in the Balkans are much more likely to overlap structurally with what we will see in Europe in the near future.

Go to for the whole article.


Blogger The Pundit said...
El Ingles provides a stark, almost apocalyptic view of Europe following a complete breakdown in the untenable system of ‘order’ imposed by spineless Eurocrats. But despite its chilling and seemingly extreme message, El Ingles’ essay mirrors to a great extent recent history and gives a factor of probability, rather than possibility, to events occurring as El Ingles hypothesizes.

It is all-too-easy to get mired in the depressing realisation that Europe has fallen prey to a stifling, intractable system of multicultural lunacy and self-destructive behaviour. But a similar condition prevailed not that long ago in post-WWI Germany.

Germany was defeated and bankrupted, its resources and territories plundered, its military emasculated and its political system was seen to be under the control of ineffectual appeasers. From this seemingly hopeless situation Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party arose, and within a generation turned Germany into a force that came uncomfortably close to world domination.

Unfortunately what Hitler ultimately stood for was abhorrent, but how he turned Germany’s fortunes around was nothing but remarkable - something modern Europeans need to keep firmly in mind when contemplating the seeming fait-accompli of the Islamic question.

Hitler employed a devilishly simple stratagem in his rise to power; His political philosophy tapped into the core elements of societal dissatisfaction with life in post-war Germany. He surrounded himself with cadres of hard-core thugs who effectively became a private protective service at a time when Hitler’s personal safety was far from assured. He went on to take his philosophy to the people, rather than preach from afar. He said what people had only dared to think privately.

Again, let me make it clear that ultimately that what Adolf Hitler stood for and what he did, were abhorrent. However it is the method that he employed in gaining a foothold on the ladder to power that is of importance here and now.


My scenario is perhaps a simplistic one, but then again so was Hitler’s. A way can be found to break out of the death grip on political and social expression currently experienced by people living in the Western democracies. In many respects that way is already being facilitated by the very political systems that seek to stifle and eliminate voices that oppose Islamification – they are re-creating some of the core elements of societal dissatisfaction that faced ordinary Germans following WWI.

Europe or Eurabia?

by Daniel Pipes
April 15, 2008

The future of Europe is in play. Will it turn into "Eurabia," a part of the Muslim world? Will it remain the distinct cultural unit it has been over the last millennium? Or might there be some creative synthesis of the two civilizations?

The answer has vast importance. Europe may constitute a mere 7 percent of the world's landmass but for five hundred years, 1450-1950, for good and ill, it was the global engine of change. How it develops in the future will affect all humanity, and especially daughter countries such as Australia which still retain close and important ties to the old continent.

I foresee potentially one of three paths for Europe: Muslims dominating, Muslims rejected, or harmonious integration.


(2) But the first path is not inevitable. Indigenous Europeans could resist it and as they make up 95 percent of the continent's population, they can at any time reassert control, should they see Muslims posing a threat to a valued way of life.

This impulse can already be seen at work in the French anti-hijab legislation or in Geert Wilders' film, Fitna. Anti-immigrant parties gain in strength; a potential nativist movement is taking shape across Europe, as political parties opposed to immigration focus increasingly on Islam and Muslims. These parties include the British National Party, Belgium's Vlaamse Belang, France's Front National, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the Danish People's Party, and the Swedish Democrats.

They will likely continue to grow as immigration surges ever higher, with mainstream parties paying and expropriating their anti-Islamic message.
Should nationalist parties gain power, they will likely seek to reject multiculturalism, cut back on immigration, encourage repatriation of immigrants, support Christian institutions, increase indigenous European birthrates, and broadly attempt to re-establish traditional ways.

Muslim alarm will likely follow. American author Ralph Peters sketches a scenario in which "U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims." Peters concludes that because of European's "ineradicable viciousness," its Muslims "are living on borrowed time" As Europeans have "perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing," Muslims, he predicts, "will be lucky just to be deported," rather than killed. Indeed, Muslims worry about just such a fate; since the 1980s, they have spoken overtly about Muslims being sent to gas chambers.

Violence by indigenous Europeans cannot be precluded but nationalist efforts will more likely take place less violently; if any one is likely to initiate violence, it is the Muslims. They have already engaged in many acts of violence and seem to be spoiling for more. Surveys indicate, for instance, that about 5 percent of British Muslims endorse the 7/7 transport bombings.
In brief, a European reassertion will likely lead to on-going civil strife, perhaps a more lethal version of the fall 2005 riots in France.


The unprecedented nature of Europe's situation also renders a forecast exceedingly difficult. Never in history has a major civilization peaceably dissolved, nor has a people ever risen to reclaim its patrimony. Europe's unique circumstances make them difficult to comprehend, tempting to overlook, and virtually impossible to predict. With Europe, we all enter into terra incognita.

For the rest of the article go to

Rising Euro-Muslim Tensions
By Tony Blankley


Forty years ago last weekend, British classicist and politician Enoch Powell warned that if immigrants bringing alien values and customs into Britain are allowed to continue their immigration, a sense of alarm and resentment would develop in the indigenous British population. He was ejected from British politics for giving that warning.

But this week, the BBC published a poll taken precisely to measure public attitudes 40 years after Powell's famous warning (and after 40 years of the British ruling class ignoring the growing danger). Seventy percent think there is high tension between the races; 63 percent expect those tensions to result in violence between the races in Britain; and 60 percent think there are too many "immigrants" in Britain.

In a similar poll taken for the Davos World Economic Forum, stunning numbers of Europeans fear a "threat" from Muslims with whom they "interact": 79 percent of Danes, 67 percent of Italians, 68 percent of Spaniards, 65 percent of Swedes and 59 percent of Belgians.

In my book "The West's Last Chance," published in 2005, I warned that the European people would not be passive in the face of their culture being undercut. Unlike others who wrote on the subject, I did not think Europeans would fail to defend their nations and their cultures. I warned that broad European street violence could be avoided only if their governments took the threat seriously.

These disturbing polls from BBC and Davos should constitute another undeniable warning to the gutless, defeatist European leaders. Take action to protect your people and their cherished Western values, or the people will take matters into their own hands. And for us in America, impending European unrest should be seen as a cautionary tale.

See the entire article at 

The Politics of the Improbable


April 23, 2008

By Peter Zeihan

Fear is a powerful motivator, even getting results when the threat is exceedingly remote. It makes us cross at crosswalks even when traffic is thin, pay more over time for fire insurance than our homes are worth, and shy away from snakes even when signs clearly inform us they are not poisonous. Humans instinctively take steps to prevent negative outcomes, oftentimes regardless of how likely — or more to the point, unlikely — those unpleasant outcomes are.


Worrying about continental European countries sublimating their national differences, uniting into a federated superstate and invading the United Kingdom may seem to flirt with lunacy, but within that lingering concern lies the root of the Anglo-American alliance. Similarly, worrying about China using the archipelagos of Southeast Asia as a staging point for an invasion of Australia may seem ludicrous, but that fear dominates military planning in Canberra.


The entire article is available at


One could similarly could ask: "will Britain colourisation?" or "will America resist Hispanicisation?"

Seems unlikely as the Left control all our institutions and believe in the inter-breeding of the races.

While the Left control much of the EU and other institutions, there is a huge groundswell against colourisation that will burst through one of these days in Europe. The signs are there and many of their politicians are awake to the Left (especially in eastern Europe) and their aweful plans for Europe. This will lead to a Fascistic backlash in Europe (Daniel 11:40-45) ...

See the article below.

Will Europe Resist Islamization?

by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
April 3, 2008

Some analysts of Islam in Western Europe argue that the continent cannot escape its Eurabian fate; that the trend lines of the past half-century will continue until Muslims become a majority population and Islamic law (the
Shari‘a) reigns.

I disagree, arguing that there is another route the continent might take, one of resistance to Islamification and a reassertion of traditional ways.
Indigenous Europeans – who make up 95 percent of the population – can insist on their historic customs and mores. Were they to do so, nothing would be in their way and no one could stop them.

Indeed, Europeans are visibly showing signs of impatience with creeping Shari‘a. The legislation in France that prohibits hijabs from public school classrooms signals the reluctance to accept Islamic ways, as are related efforts to ban burqas, mosques, and minarets. Throughout Western Europe, anti-immigrant parties are generally increasing in popularity.

That resistance took a new turn last week, with two dramatic events. First, on March 22, Pope Benedict XVI himself baptized, confirmed, and gave the Eucharist to Magdi Allam, 56, a prominent Egyptian-born Muslim long living in Italy, where he is a top editor at the Corriere della Sera newspaper and a well-known author. Allam took the middle name Cristiano. The ceremony converting him to the Catholic religion could not have been higher profile, occurring at a nighttime service at St. Peter's Basilica on the eve of Easter Sunday, with exhaustive coverage from the Vatican and many other television stations.

Allam followed up his conversion with a stinging statement in which he argued that beyond "the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive." In other words, the problem is not just Islamism but Islam itself. One commentator, "Spengler" of Asia Times, goes so far as to say that Allam "presents an existential threat to Muslim life" because he "agrees with his former co-religionists in repudiating the degraded culture of the modern West, and offers them something quite different: a religion founded upon love."

Second, on March 27, Geert Wilders, 44, released his long-awaited, 15-minute film, Fitna, which consists of some of the most bellicose verses of the Koran, followed by actions in accord with those verses carried out by Islamists in recent years. The obvious implication is that Islamists are simply acting in accord with their scriptures. In Allam's words, Wilders also argues that "the root of evil is inherent" in Islam.

Unlike Allam and Wilders, I do distinguish between Islam and Islamism, but I believe it imperative that their ideas get a fair hearing, without vituperation or punishment. An honest debate over Islam must take place.

If Allam's conversion was a surprise and Wilders' film had a three-month run-up, in both cases, the aggressive, violent reactions that met prior criticisms of Islam did not take place. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Dutch police contacted imams to gauge reactions at the city's mosques and found, according to police spokesman Arnold Aben, "it's quieter than usual here today. Sort of like a holiday." In Pakistan, a rally against the film attracted only some dozens of protestors.

This relatively constrained reaction points to the fact that Muslim threats sufficed to enforce censorship. Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende denounced Fitna and, after 3.6 million visitors had viewed it on the British website, the company announced that "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, … Liveleak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers." (Two days later, however, LiveLeak again posted the film.)

Three similarities bear noting: both Allam (author of a book titled Viva Israele) and Wilders (whose film emphasizes Muslim violence against Jews) stand up for Israel and the Jews; Muslim threats against their lives have forced both for years to live under state-provided round-the-clock police protection; and, more profoundly, the two share a passion for European civilization.

Indeed, Allam and Wilders may represent the vanguard of a Christian/liberal reassertion of European values. It is too soon to predict, but these staunch individuals could provide a crucial boost for those intent on maintaining the continent's historic identity.

How Europe is starting to set global rules
by Adam Daniel Rotfeld

With its Reform Treaty, the European Union becomes a new animal, more than an organisation but less than a state, says Adam Daniel Rotfeld, a former foreign minister of Poland. He argues that its soft power strategy has helped to make Europe secure and prosperous, but asks how it should develop.


But it is an open question whether the values shared by NATO and the EU, along with the concept of soft power, are compatible with the ambitions of the United States. In his book The European Dream, American author Jeremy Rifkin praises Europe for offering "diversity, quality of life … sustainability, universal human rights, the rights of nature, and peace on Earth." He concluded, "We Americans used to say that the American Dream is worth dying for. The new European Dream is worth living for"."

See the following for the complete article