Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

  • ACT for America

    Photobucket
  • Support Ummat-al-Kuffar!

  • Participant at Counter Jihad Conferences

  • Counterjihad Brussels 2007

  • Counterjihad Vienna 2008

  • Counterjihad Copenhagen 2009

  • Photobucket
  • RSS International Civil Liberties Alliance

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Big Peace

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Geert Wilders

    Photobucket
  • International Free Press Society

    Photobucket
  • Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Counterjihad’ Category

Dishonoring the Tommies of the Past

Posted by paulipoldie on November 1, 2010

Gates of Vienna

Our British correspondent Gaia was in Amsterdam for the free speech rally yesterday. Below is her report, written while on the train on the way home to London.


My Farewell Message to Mayor Eberhard Van der Laan
by Gaia

My thoughts for Mayor Van der Laan as I wend my way back home by train from Amsterdam:

Sir, you should be ashamed of yourself! The disgraceful treatment meted out to our Tommy and his friends, who came in peace to Holland to speak out about the invasion of your country by people hostile to your culture and way of life brings to my mind their forefathers, the other Tommies. In the not so distant past, those Tommies came willingly to help their Dutch brothers liberate your country from the boot of fascism, many of them dying in the process.

You are a disgrace to their memory!

But rest assured, Mayor Van der Laan: this will not be forgotten! Your time is coming to an end. The tides are changing in Europe and its people will no longer tolerate living as second class citizens in their own lands. The day of reckoning for you and your (il)liberal ilk will surely follow.

My view from the window in the autumn sunshine is of a postage stamp-sized little country where every square centimetre is lovingly tended and orderly. It brings to mind the poignant, closing paragraphs of the excellent book While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, who expresses it so much more eloquently than I:

As we walked around Amsterdam that March weekend, I thought about those Dutchmen emigrating to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Unlike Muslims in Europe, they’d integrate quickly — they’d find work, contribute to society, fit in. They already spoke English. Yet what, years from now, would their children think? Their grandchildren? What, for that matter, would they themselves think when they lay in bed at night, far from home, their minds flooding with images of the small, loving tended land of their birth, with its meticulously laid-out roads and walks and bicycle lanes, its painstakingly preserved old houses, its elaborate, brilliantly designed systems of dikes and canals.

The irony was tragic: having protected themselves with nothing short of genius from the violence of the sea, having instituted a welfare system meant to safeguard every last one of them from so much as a moment’s financial insecurity, and having built up a culture of extraordinary freedom and tolerance that promised each of them a life of absolute dignity and perfect equality, post-war Dutch men and women had raised up their children into tall, strapping, healthy, multilingual young adults — veritable masters of the world for whom (they were confident) life would be safe, pleasant and abundant in its rewards. They seemed to have brought Western civilization to its utmost pinnacle in terms of freedom and the pursuit of happiness, and the road ahead seemed to stretch to the horizon, straight, flat, smooth, and with nary a bump.

And yet they’d turned a blind eye to the very peril that would destroy them.

Posted in Amsterdam 30.10.10, Counterjihad | Leave a Comment »

Fotobericht: Demo in Amsterdam

Posted by paulipoldie on November 1, 2010

Politically Incorrect

Ein engagierter Haufen von 100 bis 120 Aktivisten aus halb Europa hatte sich auf einem Areal nahe der Metrostation “Isolatorweg” eingefunden, um mit einer “Free Speech Rally” auf die Gefahr des neuen, diesmal importierten Faschismus unter dem Mantel des Islam aufmerksam zu machen.

(B. Sham über die Kundgebung in Amsterdam am 30.10.2010)

Das Gelände sei “das sicherste” hieß es von offizieller Seite und in der Tat war die holländische Polizei vorsichtshalber mit großem Aufgebot an Mensch und Material angerückt und hielt von Anfang an die aufmarschierten Antifa-Grüppchen konsequent in Schach.




Eröffnet wurde die Kundgebung von der EFI (Europäische Freiheitsinitiative) mit einer Rede des bekannten Islamkritikers Michael Mannheimer während sich die reichlich vertetene Presse auf jeden Redner, Teilnehmer oder Störer warf, um möglichst Sensationelles zu entdecken.


Im Publikum gab es Vertreter von vielen europäischen Gruppen und Gruppierungen, die die Bekämpfung der neuen faschistischen Bedrohung “Islamisierung” zum Ziel haben und auch mit ihren Symbolen präsent waren




Plötzlich kam Unruhe auf: Tommy Robinson, angereist mit seiner

EDL-Gruppe, wurde ans Mikrophon gedrängt und gab ein spontanes, bewegendes Statement ab, dass es “ein schwarzer Tag” für die Demokratie sei, dass die Polizei unter dem Vorwand die Sicherheit der anwesenden EDL-Gruppe nicht mehr garantieren zu können, diese von der Kundgebung verweisen wollte. Die EDL sei angereist um friedlich für Freiheit und Demokratie zu demonstrieren und hätte bereits auf Ihrer Anfahrt in ihrem Bus mit zerschlagenen Fensterscheiben das Recht auf Versmmlungsfreiheit bezahlt.



Leider ein weiterer Teilsieg der Feinde der Freiheit,



die in ihrer Verblendung teilweise gar nicht erahnen, mit wem sie da eigentlich paktieren und in welchen Abgrund ihre Reise Europa führen würde.

Weitere Sprecher (Alain Wagner, VVD Frankreich; Paul Weston, IFPS) setzten sich mit den Gefahren des Islam auseinander, wobei das unglaubliche Schicksal der von der österreichischen Justiz verfolgten Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff allen Teilnehmern noch einmal klarmachte, dass der Multikulturalismus um jeden Preis, auch um den von Unfreiheit und Meinungsdiktatur, durchgedrückt werden soll.





Zum Schluss dankte der Veranstalter ausdrücklich der anwesenden Polizei, aber verwies auch auf die vielen Steine, die den Organisatoren und Teilnehmern in den Weg gelegt wurden, so dass es diesmal “nicht 1500 Teilnehmer geworden seien”

Es habe dennoch gelohnt, sich hier auch europäisch zu vernetzen, sagte der Vertreter der EFI, bevor die Teilnehmer sich, von der Polizei gesichert,


auf den Heimweg machten und nur noch einzelne Spuren an die Versammlung und den riesigen Polizeieinsatz erinnerten.

Videos bei Politically Incorrect

Posted in Amsterdam 30.10.10, Counterjihad | Leave a Comment »

We Will Hold You to Account

Posted by paulipoldie on November 1, 2010

Gates of Vienna

by Baron Bodissey

Update: Paul Weston in German at Europe News .

Below is the speech given at today’s demonstration at Generatorstraat in Amsterdam by the British author and former Parliamentary candidate Paul Weston.


Paul WestonHello. My name is Paul Weston, and I represent the International Free Press Society.

And I am standing here today because our liberal elites have betrayed our countries to Islam.

Forty-two years ago the British politician Enoch Powell made his famous “Rivers of Blood” speech, in which he stated that “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”

Our politicians today do the exact opposite. They actively promote a preventable evil.

But eighty years ago one man, Winston Churchill, was very clear about preventing a clear and present evil, Herr Hitler and the Nazis. But Churchill was a lone voice crying in the wind of appeasement, and the carnage that could have been avoided came with a vengeance.

And today Europe finds itself in much the same position. Even as Islam grows demographically, territorially, and militantly, it is promoted as the “religion of peace” by the same type of cowardly, careerist politicians who once appeased Hitler.

Islam was not the religion of peace to Winston Churchill. He described it as the religion of blood and war.

Anyone with a knowledge of the foundations and history of Islamic expansion knows this to be the truth.

Mohammed was a warlord. And a very good warlord indeed. By the time of his death he had militarily defeated and converted most of the pagan and Christian tribes of the Arabian Peninsula.

After his death Islam rapidly expanded at the point of a sword, defeating ancient civilisations and overrunning continents as it did so.

And today it is within Europe, it is within the West, and it is calling for what it has always called for: total Islamic domination. And if we wish to resist, then they will use terror against us.

Yet still our treasonous politicians call it the “religion of peace”, and tell us that if we refuse to share such a fantastical and ridiculous notion, that if we choose to believe Winston Churchill’s argument that Islam is a religion of blood and war, then we will be sent to prison.

Of course it is not a religion of peace. Its founder was a warrior, and the highest honour bestowed upon a Muslim is the promise of hordes of scented houris and an eternal leg-over in the after life, achievable not by being a good Samaritan, but by dying as a martyr in the physical battle to expand imperialist Islam.

Islam literally means submission. What kind of a religion can possibly call itself submission?

Islam divides the world into two spheres. The House of Islam (submission) and the House of War. What kind of religion defines itself by military conquest?

Yet our leaders tell us we cannot criticise Islam because it is a religion, whilst the organisation of the Islamic conference, in cahoots with the united nations is striving to make any criticism of Islam illegal.

But Islam is so much more than just a religion. It is a political, social, legal and structural blueprint which totally dominates a devout Muslim’s life, and wishes coincidentally to dominate all devout non-Muslims’ lives as well.

It is profoundly illiberal and it is profoundly undemocratic. It does not believe in the man-made laws of democracy, preferring instead to adhere to the absolute word of Allah, as interpreted by an illiterate 7th-century desert dweller.

And our politicians have imported this illiberal and undemocratic ideology into the liberal democracies than make up the West, and then they dare to criminalise us when we object to this!

But how can we not criticise Islam? Can our politicians really protect it as a religion and therefore place it out of legal reach?

When homosexuals are hung from cranes, is this political Islam in action or religious Islam?

When adulterous women are buried up to their shoulders in sand and stoned to death, is this political Islam or religious Islam?

When Muslims who wish to leave Islam are issued with death sentences, is this political Islam, or is this religious Islam?

When wives and daughters are slaughtered to protect their families’ honour by husbands fathers and uncles, is this political Islam or religious Islam?

If it is political, then it must be denounced as evil and barbaric. If it religious, how can it possibly not be denounced as the same? What is evil is evil and what is barbaric is barbaric and cannot be exempted from criticism because it is sheltered by the word “religion”.

In criminalising free speech, our socialist leaders reveal their dictatorial ambition. The mark of a free society is freedom of speech. To take this away is a totalitarian act, made all the worse because freedom of speech is our only defence in the peaceful opposition against the foreign totalitarian ideology of Islam.

And I hope this irony is not lost on you. In order to protect and advance a foreign totalitarian ideology, our own rulers are prepared to adopt native totalitarian means to stop us defending our democracy and our freedom.

The West lives in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Islam does not. They signed up instead to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

But they have a very important caveat: when sharia law collides with human rights law, guess which law prevails?

Quite so. Sharia is the top trumps when it comes to human rights.

This is like a signatory to the Geneva convention murdering and torturing prisoners of war, and being given a pass at a war trial because it was “part of their religion.”

And when our politicians today excuse Islam as a religion of peace and allow them to set the rules both at home, at the European Union, and at the United Nations, then our politicians are betraying their countries and they are betraying their people. They are committing treason.

“Can one commit treason in a time of peace?” people may ask. But are we really at peace?

We may not consider ourselves at war with Islam, but Islam considers itself at war with us.

And it is a war we are losing. Territorially, demographically, politically, and democratically.

In fact, it is a war of aggression on two fronts. Radical Islam on the one, and left-wing treason on the other.

Our children are told to celebrate multiculturalism and Islam, without being told the real history of violent expansionist Islam.

Instead, they are told that their own history, their religion, their culture, their traditions, their very being, is just a litany of imperialism, racism, murder and slavery. This is a proven psychological technique designed to render an enemy helpless, or to quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “in order to destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.”

Any government that does this to its own people, to its own children, is a government that deserves, manifestly deserves, to be overthrown.

Can anyone really argue that a government that praises the foreign invader whilst psychologically and legally stripping away the defences of its people is a government that is not guilty of treason?

Now here we come to a more uplifting part of this depressing monologue, because in this part of the battle we are advancing. Slowly, admittedly, but relentlessly, and I think we are now unstoppable.

Geert Wilders here in the Netherlands, René Stadtkewitz in Germany, whose immediate popularity caused Angela Merkel to make an abrupt U-turn and denounce Multiculturalism.

The Sweden Democrats, Heinz-Christian Strache in Austria, the Swiss People’s Party, and in England we await a political movement to pick up the baton from the rapidly growing English Defence League.

And that growth can only accelerate. As more and more people become aware of Islam and become aware of the depth of treason perpetrated by their liberal rulers, and most importantly, as people lose their fear of being labelled a racist — which was a label specifically designed to strip us of resistance against a racially designated invader who uses race as a weapon.

In fact, let us deal with this “racist” label right now. It is not racist to defend your country against an obvious and growing threat. It is not racist to defend your culture, your heritage, and your traditions. It is not racist to work to ensure a democratic future for your children and grandchildren.

If you choose not to defend your country, your culture and the democratic future of your children, then you may well pat yourselves on the back in your non-racist champagne socialist cocktail bars in Islington; you may well love other people’s anti-racist credentials almost as much as you love your own; but there is no getting away from the label I have for you.

You are a traitor and a betrayer of your country, a betrayer of your culture, and a betrayer of our yet unborn children.

And you are a racist, indeed a genocidal racist. Young native Europeans will become a demographic ethnic minority within their own homelands if immigration rates and birth rates stay the way they are for just one more generation.

This can politely be called population replacement. More crudely, it is bloodless genocide.

The United Nations is very clear on this. Their definition of genocide is as follows. Quote.

Article 2.

In the present convention genocide means any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group.

We have been betrayed.

And one of the saddest aspects of this betrayal is the effect it has had on those old ex-warriors who fought for their countries in recent living memory.

Ex-Spitfire pilot Alex Henshaw died three years ago. He was acutely aware of the political betrayal of his country. He said:

“I feel extreme emotional sadness for the young men I knew that gave their lives willingly for a cause in which we all believed. And I often say to myself that if those young boys would come down now and walk through the villages, through the towns and through the cities and look around and see what is happening to us, they would say somewhere along the line we have been betrayed.”

Yes, Mr. Henshaw, I am afraid you have, and all of you socialist/liberal/left-wing people need to know what you have done.

You need to take a walk around your cities, towns and villages, take a look at the hundreds of thousand of graves standing as testament to the ultimate sacrifice made by our young men in order that you may live in a liberal democracy today.

You need to understand that this a not just betrayal, but a triple betrayal:

  • The betrayal of all our old soldiers whose sacrifice granted us freedom,
  • The betrayal of my generation who you threaten to imprison if we defend our inherited freedom, and
  • The betrayal of our yet unborn, who, unless we stop it seem set to inherit a country racked with tribal and religious hatred, which must inevitably lead to a continental scale multicultural war that will make the break-up of Yugoslavia look like a bun-fight.

And, of course, it is also the betrayal of freedom and democracy.

Because freedom and democracy did not just magically appear. They evolved over two and a half thousand years, rooted in Greco-Roman Judeo-Christian ancestry. And were fought for and defended with much blood and sacrifice.

Democracy and freedom are not the personal possessions of socialist politicians to be handed away, without our agreement, to the descendants of a 7th century desert warlord, who view our attachment to democracy as just a weakness to be used against us.

I do not blame Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims are just doing what it says in the book.

But I do blame our politicians. There are two sides in this civilisational stand-off, and our politicians have sided with the enemy.

So I say to them:

You may well hold the levers of power at the moment, but we are on the rise and we are unstoppable. Do you seriously think you can do what you have done to your own people without repercussion?

You could stop this now if you chose to, by the simple expedient of putting the interests of your own people before the interests of Islam.

But you won’t do that will you? So you put us in an almost impossible position. If we do nothing we must accept our children and grandchildren will one day live under sharia law.

And if we do something, then it must by definition be revolutionary. But we did not start this. You did. Most of us would have been quite happy to mow the lawn, hold down a mundane job, and pay our taxes.

You have made us revolutionaries. And whilst your behaviour suggests you fear Islam more than you fear us, let me tell you something, you lying, betraying, treacherous, socialist careerists:

We might not hold power today, but given another decade, we will, and then we will hold you to account. You will appear before a Nuremberg-style court, and you will be tried for treason, and you will be tried for crimes against humanity, and for the first time in a very long time you will be answerable to us!

Posted in Counterjihad, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization | 1 Comment »

What Are You Worried About?

Posted by paulipoldie on October 1, 2010

from Citizen Warrior

SOMEONE ASKED me this question the other day, and an answer didn’t come to mind immediately. So many things went through my head at one time, nothing actually came out of my mouth. So I decided this ought to be something we articulate. I will write out my answers here, and I hope you will add to this list in the comments below.

I’m committed to the counterjihad movement. Why? What is my motivation? What am I worried about? What do I think others ought to be worried about? Here are my top seven concerns:

1. Actual terrorism. On 9/11, I first became worried. But really I should have begun to worry long before this. Maybe in 1972 when Palestinian terrorists killed the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, or when Salman Rushdie was given the death penalty by the Ayatollah Khomeini, or maybe in 1993 when the World Trade Center was first bombed, or when the USS Cole was bombed in 2000.

I believe 9/11 could have been prevented if enough non-Muslims had known something about Islam. This kind of knowledge would lead to new kinds of precautions, which would save lives. And I believe horrific, unjust deaths can be prevented in the future if more non-Muslims learn about Islam.

How? How can understanding Islam prevent deaths? The Fort Hood shootings are a good example. Even in the military, so few people understand even the basics about Islam, and so many people were bending over backwards to give this Muslim the benefit of the doubt, they completely overlooked indications of his potential violence staring them in the face. The result: The lives of 13 innocent people were tragically and brutally cut short. Those people would still be alive today if more non-Muslims knew more about Islam.

They would have seen the signs, and would have been willing to speak up. Even the few who understand Islam don’t want to speak up because they will be ostracized, ridiculed, silenced, demoted, and even fired because nobody else knows about Islam, but think they know Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a few crazy extremists. This ignorance is so commonplace, it dominates the scene and silences or marginalized those who know better.

2. I’m worried about the Islamic indoctrination of young people in this country, and because of this indoctrination, I’m worried they will hand over their freedoms to the march of the relentless Islamic political aggression.

Muslim organizations have set themselves up as arbiters of what is written in school textbooks about Islam, and what these arbiters have inserted often goes way beyond merely hiding the horrors of Islamic history. They add a negative slant to non-Muslim history while they’re at it. The result is that many young people graduate from high school and college hating their own country and having sympathy for the “unfairly persecuted” Muslims of the world. This motivates them to become aiders and abettors of their own demise. They are who the Muslim Brotherhood refers to when they say, “by their hands” in their strategic goal:

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brothers) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

3. I’m worried about the same stealthy, biased influence the Muslim Brotherhood’s fronts have on mainstream media. Anytime Islam is mentioned in the media, the news organizations always repeat the same message: Islam is peaceful, the majority of Muslims are normal citizens who just want to live normal lives, and Muslims are unfairly criticized by prejudiced, bigoted, racist people. This message is repeated from so many different sources, it gives the message a great deal of apparent authority in non-Muslims’ heads, and this makes it very difficult for accurate information about Islam to get through to them.

There is a classic Zen story of someone who comes to a Zen priest to learn about Zen. The priest is pouring the visitor a cup of tea, but after he fills the visitor’s cup, he keeps pouring. The visitor says, “Stop! The cup is already full.”

The Zen master says, “Like this cup, your mind is already full and no more will go in.”

You can’t teach someone who “already knows.” The stealth jihadists understand this principle well and are exploiting it to the hilt. With their influence over mainstream media and textbooks, they have filled non-Muslims in Western democracies with “knowledge” about Islam, filling their minds to the brim. Then when you come along and try to tell them anything about Islam, even quotes from the Quran, they will immediately disregard it or find some way to disbelieve it because they “already know” about Islam, and what they “know” doesn’t match what you’re saying.

Right under the noses of the brainwashed non-Muslims, and often with their help, Muslims with a political agenda are working their way into government positions, getting hired in national security positions, wielding influence over law-enforcement officials, and even advising presidents, and almost all of us go along with it. They’ve done their job well. This is something to worry about. Worry isn’t even a strong enough word. For people who learn about the “infiltrating” network, panic seems much more appropriate.

4. Muslims following Islam’s prime directive are also wielding their influence over Hollywood movies. This may seem innocuous, but this greatly helps reinforce the indoctrination of the textbooks and news media.

So you will almost always see the Crusades depicted as an unwarranted aggression of the Western world over the innocent Islamic world, as it was depicted, for example, in the movie, Kingdom of Heaven. Even Russell Crowe’s latest version of Robin Hood gives this distinct impression as if it is a foregone conclusion, and in most viewers’ minds, it is.

When “terrorists” are depicted in movies, the Islamic groups try to get moviemakers to depict anything except Islamic terrorists, giving the subtle but unmistakable impression to millions of viewers that terrorism is just as common with other groups as it is with Muslims. Most people are surprised to discover that most of the world’s violence involves Muslims, who make up only 20 percent of the world’s population, demonstrating the truth of Samuel Huntington’s comment that “Islam has bloody borders.”

5. I’m worried about the Islamization of Europe. They have had unrelenting Muslim immigration for many years and the larger the Muslim population, the more they assert their supremacist political agenda, and the more they get away with (source). They are out-reproducing their fellow Europeans by a wide margin. They are marrying non-Muslims to make them Muslim. And they are bringing in as many of their fellow Muslims into Europe as they can.

There could very well be Muslim majorities in several European countries in ten or twenty years. This unchecked Muslim immigration isn’t being stopped. Why? Too few people know anything about Islam but think they do.

What will happen to the world if Europe becomes a union of Muslim countries?

6. I’m worried about the great numbers of non-Muslims in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the UK, Europeans countries, and India who are actually helping orthodox Muslims carry out their political plans, and fighting against those of us who know Islam’s prime directive and wish to curtail it. Our efforts are being undermined by great numbers of our own countrymen, vehemently and aggressively.

I thought at first it was only here in the United States that this was happening, but I have heard from people all over the world over the last nine years, and the exact same thing is happening in free countries everywhere, from India to Germany.

It is not just ignorance we are up against. That would be an easily-solvable problem. You could simply teach people about Islam. You could get everyone read the Quran, or teach its primary precepts in schools or on television. Problem solved.

Ignorance is a vacuum, and it can be filled. That’s not what we’re up against. There is no vacuum. The space is already filled. The category in everyone’s brain called “Islam” is already full of misleading and outright false information, deliberately planted there by orthodox Muslims who know full well what they’re doing, and who have not only sowed the information, but have carefully set up a memetic immune system of sorts to protect the indoctrination from being replaced by real information.

7. I’m worried that we won’t educate enough people before it’s too late. Right now, Muslims are a minority in the world and in free countries. They are far outnumbered by non-Muslims. If enough non-Muslims learn about Islam, Islam’s political expansion can be contained and even pushed back.

But Muslims are increasing their population much more rapidly than non-Muslims, and at some point, the game will be over. This is a race against time. Will we educate enough non-Muslims while we are still the majority of the world? Or will too few non-Muslims be educated by the time Islam has gained a numerically dominant proportion of the world’s population, at which point, any further education of non-Muslims about the true nature of Islam will be shut down permanently?

Is this paranoia? Is this some future dire, alarmist vision? It is already happening. Turkey was the shining example of a Muslim-majority country that was climbing out of its own Islamification. It is now being consumed and converted back to an orthodox Muslim country. Same with Egypt. Lebanon, in our lifetimes, has been converted from a primarily Christian country to a violent Islamic country. Malaysia is becoming Islamic. Indonesia has become a Muslim country. Islam is a ratchet. It apparently only goes one way.

And now Muslims are moving into free nations in droves, and agitating for exactly those accommodations that will help them achieve Islam’s political plan. The first step is to shut down freedom to speak about Islam. This will greatly impede resistance to the further Islamification of Western democracies, allowing greater immigration and allowing more and more accommodations and concessions to Islam, allowing more and more precedents to be set that makes the already-existing laws of the land to give way to Islamic law. At some point, there is no going back.

Only one country in the world has been Muslim and became non-Muslim again: Spain. And it was done from the outside. Not one country in the history of Islam has been able to get itself out of its own Islamification once it was achieved.

Even Afghanistan and Iraq — two countries which had the possibility of moving away from its own Islamification — has succumbed to Islam and is heading back toward fully Islamic countries. They both wrote into their constitutions the precedence of Islamic law over any other laws it might make. As soon as that was allowed, the end of freedom was inevitable.

The ratchet of Islam must be reversed. Its gears must be forcibly stripped. This can only be done by people who understand what Islam is and how it works. My biggest worry is that this understanding won’t become commonplace quickly enough, and then it will be too late.

More non-Muslims know about Islam than at any time in history. In the nine years since 9/11, nine percent of non-Muslims in America have become informed enough about Islam to dislike it, so the trend is going in the right direction. But Islam has also gained in many areas. The Muslim population has grown. Many countries have grown more Islamic and none have become less Islamic.

So it’s a race against time, and this is my biggest worry. You can help, of course. I’ll bet you are already helping (thank you very much). If you’d like to do more, go to WhatYouCanDoAboutIslam.com.

Posted in Counterjihad, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran

Posted by paulipoldie on September 12, 2010

One of the most frequently used arguments in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran. The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument suggests that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but the analogy is very popular since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. “See, Islam is like Christianity; Christians are just as violent as Muslims.” If this is true, then you don’t have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine.
However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on the in the marketplace of ideas.
Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Koran? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison, and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.
The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is what they do to the “other,” or political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note that regardless of whether a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions violent, neither constitutes violence against vegans or PETA members.
The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called “fighting in Allah’s cause,” or jihad.
We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira, and Hadith, or the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed’s biography. The Hadith are his traditions — what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.
The Koran is the smallest of the three books, also called the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text[1]. This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam’s sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed’s is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.
It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of ten new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of ten thousand per year. All the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad — world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual, and the Hadith is a tactical manual, of jihad.
Now let’s go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.
When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy[2] and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible[3]. The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.
The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is also the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts and that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics, and intellectuals. What artist, critic, or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats against and/or murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortune, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic, or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the responses to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruits from the two trees are as different as night and day.
It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.
– Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam


Posted in Brainwashing, Counterjihad, Dhimmitude, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization, Islamkritik | 1 Comment »

“You’re Taking the Verses of the Quran Out of Context”

Posted by paulipoldie on September 5, 2010

From Citizen Warrior

THIS IS ANOTHER in our series, Answers to Objections. On one of my articles, I received a comment I’ve heard many times:

I have been a Muslim all my life. Westerners in general love to take the verses of the Quran out of their historical context and just blindly accuse Islam and the Quran of violence. For your information, many of the “violent” verses were revealed to prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) when he was at state of war with the pagans of Makkah. So read the reason of revelation very carefully. Then you will understand what those verses were intended for.

I posted several responses, and I thought they might give you some good ideas of how to approach this objection. Here is part of my response:

I’m going to answer you in several ways, not because I believe I will change your mind, but because everyone who comes after you to read these comments may learn something from our interaction.

First of all, I have gotten many comments like yours. In fact, I’ve gotten so many that I wrote a “standard” answer which you can read here:

My more specific response to what you’re saying is this:

1. According to mainstream Islam since the time of Mohammad, the Quran is the perfect, unalterable, eternal word of Allah.

2. It says in the Quran 91 times a Muslim must follow the example of Mohammad.

3. Mohammad was intolerant and violent toward non-Muslims, repeatedly and consistently, as soon as he had the power to do so. He ordered the assassinations of those who insulted him or Islam. He ordered and personally oversaw the beheading of his political prisoners. He raided and plundered and conquered for the last ten years of his life. This is not history as told by his enemies, but history as told in the Sira and the Hadith, written by devout Muslim believers.

4. There are not many peaceful passages in the Quran, but what few exist have all been abrogated by more intolerant and even violent verses revealed to Mohammad later in his prophetic career. Read more about that here: Definition of Abrogation.

My next response quotes from an excellent article entitled, Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?:

“[Although] Islam’s original enemies were…historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians), the Qur’an rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—’until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled’ and to ‘slay the idolaters wherever you find them.’

“The two Arabic conjunctions ‘until’ (hata) and ‘wherever’ (haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these commandments: There are still “people of the book” who have yet to be ‘utterly humbled’ (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and ‘idolaters’ to be slain ‘wherever’ one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). In fact, the salient feature of almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature: ‘Fight them [non-Muslims] until there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely.’ Also, in a well-attested tradition that appears in the hadith collections, Muhammad proclaims:

“I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and that they establish prostration prayer, and pay the alms-tax [i.e., convert to Islam]. If they do so, their blood and property are protected.”

And my final response to the objection was this:

And finally, whether you believe the Quran commands you to be intolerant or violent towards non-Muslims, many Muslims do obviously believe it, and they are using the Quran to justify their violence against non-Muslims all over the world, and they have been doing so for 1400 years.

It has been such a consistent theme, a web site keeps track of all the violence committed in the name of Islam around the world, and has been doing so since 9/11. As of today, September 2nd, 2010, fifteen thousand, nine hundred and sixty-six attacks on non-Muslims have been committed since 9/11, and most of these attacks have killed and wounded many people.

Citizen Warrior is a web site devoted to helping non-Muslims understand where this perpetual hostility against them is coming from and figuring out what to do about it. If you’d like to start a web site for Muslims that would convince them of what you’re trying to convince me of, I would applaud your efforts.

But if you’re trying to convince me that because you don’t believe the Quran encourages violence against non-Muslims then none of the rest of the Muslims do either (or that the Quran really doesn’t encourage intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims), I think your task is hopeless. I have read the Quran cover to cover.

Posted in Counterjihad, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

What About the Good Verses in the Quran?

Posted by paulipoldie on September 4, 2010

From Citizen Warrior

YOU’VE probably heard someone quote “good” verses from the Quran. Bill Warner wanted to know exactly how many verses in the Quran are positive for non-Muslims, so he counted them. The answer is 245. That’s pretty good. That adds up to 4,018 words in the Quran, and comprises 2.6 percent of the total Quranic text.

But, says Warner, “in every case, the verse is followed by another verse that contradicts the ‘good’ verses.” Furthermore, except for seven verses, every “good verse” is abrogated later in the same chapter (known as a “sura”). Those seven exceptions are abrogated in later chapters.

In other words, every single one of the verses in the Quran with a positive message for non-Muslims is abrogated, leaving nothing positive for non-Muslims. Not one verse.

There’s more. Warner says, “The media emphasizes Islam’s positive verses about the People of the Book, the Jews and Christians. Even this turns out to be illusory. Christians and Jews receive the goodness of Islam only if they agree that their sacred texts are corrupt, the Koran is true, and that Mohammad is a prophet of the Christian and Jewish religion.” If they do that, they will get the blessings of Islam. Of course, if they do that, they are no longer Christians or Jews; they’re Muslims.

So there is nothing positive in the Quran for non-Muslims. Period. And there are 527 verses in the Quran that are intolerant to non-Muslims, 109 verses calling on Muslims to make war on non-Muslims.

When non-Muslims read the Quran and don’t like it, sometimes they’re accused of “having an unfavorable view of Islam” or being an Islamophobe. Or they may be simply accused of “hatred.”

But, really, what is there to like about any of this if you’re a non-Muslim?

Posted in Counterjihad, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | 1 Comment »

The New Voice of the International Counterjihad

Posted by paulipoldie on July 19, 2010

by Baron Bodissey

IFA logo
As I mentioned yesterday, Geert Wilders has launched a new initiative against Islamization called the “Geert Wilders International Freedom Alliance”. Below is an article from De Telegraaf about the launch of the new movement.

Many thanks to our Flemish correspondent VH for the translation of both the article the video, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Wilders is working on an international network

Geert Wilders is building an international umbrella organization for organizations and individuals who in his eyes “struggle for freedom and against Islam,” as does the PVV [Party for Freedom]. He strives to present the so-called International Freedom Alliance (IFA) at the end of this year, together with likeminded people in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France.

Wilders begins international movement

VIDEO exclusively for the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, Geert Wilders talks about his plans to launch a new international movement. The “Geert Wilders International Freedom Alliance”. [A full transcript is at the bottom of this post.]

This is what the PVV leader announced Thursday (July 15). Wilders says he will work together with prominent persons on the IFA, but does not want to provide their names yet.

– – – – – – – – –

The people who want to support the IFA do not necessarily need to be directly politically active. According to Wilders many countries lack a voice such as the PVV provides, yet there is a need for it. For example, he pointed at French and British politics, where in his eyes, right-wing voters have to choose between conservative or “not quite fresh” extreme right and racist parties.

Notwithstanding the fact that the leader of the Party for Freedom in Dutch Parliament is now working on an international network, he said that his post will remain in the Netherlands: “99 percent of my work is here.” The idea for the IFA however, emerged abroad. “I was asked there: why is that voice not represented in our country?” Geert Wilders’ aim is a follow up on that.

Not a PVV International

“It is also is not a PVV International”, Wilders emphasized. It must be an umbrella for the like-minded in the world, to support each other. The IFA can provide financial, organizational and ideological support to individuals and organizations worldwide to “set something in motion “ and exercise “influence on politics”.

The selection for the IFA however, according to Wilders, must be done carefully. People and organizations must be willing to change something. They must have “the guts” and “be kosher”. By incorporating the protection of Israel in the principles of the umbrella organization, “we will, as I hope, also keep the wrong-headed outside the door,” he said.

The intention is that with the presentation at the end of this year, an IFA web site will also be launched. On his website a clarification will be provided in Dutch, English, French, German, and perhaps also in Arabic.

Video transcript:

0:05 I want to announce today that we will start an international movement,
0:12 [Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf”]
0:16 the International Freedom Alliance,
0:18 “Geert Wilders International Freedom Alliance” it is has even been called,
0:20 is an international organization which focuses
0:24 — allow me to first say it in English — on two points:
0:28 Defend Freedom and Stop Islam.
0:31 The defense of our freedom and stopping Islam in the Western world.
0:36 This will be an international organization. We will focus first on five countries:
0:43 Canada, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France.
0:46 In each of the five countries during the next six months
0:49 I will also deliver an address there and announce this [initiative].
0:52 I hope it will become a huge success.
0:55 For it is not just a Dutch problem that our freedom is being curtailed and Islam is advancing,
1:01 it is a problem for the entire free West,
1:04 and it is a problem that people — whether in the Netherlands,
1:08 or in Denmark, or in France — can always see, but the forces are not getting together.
1:14 And if we succeed in bundling those forces, and are able to help people to proclaim this voice
1:18 and are also able to change the political and social [situation] in their countries,
1:22 then this would be something magnificent.
1:26 It thus is a new initiative, and I have great expectations for it.
1:30 My basic work and responsibility of course lies in the Netherlands;
1:33 here I will continue to do 99% of my work,
1:35 and here in the Netherlands, in parliament, I will fight for those 1.5 million voters,
1:38 but the people in the Netherlands also are aware
1:40 that this is not just a Dutch problem, but a problem for the entire free West.
1:44 And to dedicate some of my energy to this also is more than worth it.
1:49 Q: “With this news, it is quite likely you will get the entire Muslim world all over you.
1:51 Are you ready for that?”
1:59 Yes, I am ready for that. I realize that very well.
2:03 It is not my intention, however; my intention is never to get other people all over me,
2:08 but I think that I also have a responsibility
2:12 which stretches farther than just the Netherlands,
2:16 and I think that we, by stopping Islamization and struggling for this freedom
2:21 — for you, for me, for journalists, for women, for people who want to leave Islam,
2:24 for children, for anyone else —
2:27 that we should take this seriously, and I want to stick my neck out for that.
2:31 We are going to do this in a very professional manner.
2:34 Again, we will take this on in a variety of countries.
2:38 Q: “You will also enter the debate?” I will also enter the debate, I will also go there.
2:41 Q: “with the Muslim community?”
2:43 Certainly, but this must be dealt with more at an international level,
2:48 and in many countries it will not be applauded, but that must not be a reason not to do this.
2:57 Q: “Why is this the moment to come forward with this?”
3:01 Well, of course I want to indicate that we will be coming up with this,
3:04 and this may also result in support.
3:06 You mention people and countries who undoubtedly may become angry with the initiative
3:10 but there will also be quite a lot of people who consider this to be a wonderful initiative.
3:14 I think, right after my trial —which if all goes well will be completed in November —
3:18 we will come forward with this.
3:21 Q: “But why do you announce the news today,
3:25 while you are right in the middle of [government-formation] talks?”
3:28 Well, I could also have done this last week or next month, there is no —
3:33 Q: “Could you no wait till after a new government has been formed?”
3:36 This could have been. That has nothing to do with it.
3:38 Look, if I were to be in the government myself,
3:41 I would not — except for this organization carrying my name — interfere with it.
3:44 Thus I’d step back, and I do not interfere,
3:46 so that is not at all standing in the way. And if I were to be in the opposition
3:49 I’d be more active in it.
3:51 It therefore does not in any way infringe with participation in a government.
3:55 Q: “Your safety, that will be even more at stake after this news.”
3:59 Yes, I hope not, but that may very well be, it is as you say.
4:03 Q: “You have taken that into account?”
4:05 Well look here, considering that for the past six years I have had protection,
4:08 where, every time I say something or do something, I take my security into consideration,
4:12 then I might as well go home and lock myself up in the bedroom,
4:15 spend the day in bed and watch TV,
4:18 which may be fun for one day, but that’s not what I intend to do.
4:23 So you should not always — actually, always not — let that be a guideline;
4:29 you may take that into account,
4:31 but you should not leave things behind because you are afraid of your safety.
4:36

Posted in Counterjihad | Leave a Comment »

Meine Warnung an Amerika

Posted by paulipoldie on July 9, 2010

Gates of Vienna 9 Juli 2010
Von Baron Bodissey
Übersetzung: LIZ/EuropeNews

Die untenstehende Rede wurde von Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff auf der ACT! For America Konferenz in Alexandria, Virginia, am 28. Juni gehalten

Meine Warnung an Amerika

von Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at ACT! For America Lasse Sie mich damit beginnen, euch Brigitte, Guy [Rodgers] und Kelly [Cook] zu danken, dass ihr mir die Gelegenheit gegeben habt, hier heute Nachmittag sprechen zu dürfen. Ich bedanke mich auch bei der Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, Deutschlands bekanntester und erfolgreichster Menschenrechtsorganisation, die ich hier vertreten darf. Ohne deren finanzielle Unterstützung wäre ich nicht hier in diesem wunderbaren Land, um mit Ihnen zu sprechen und zu arbeiten.

Bevor ich anfange, lassen Sie mich kurz drei Geschichten erzählen:

Ich wuchs in Chikago auf, dort besuchte ich die Junior High School [A.d.Ü.: entspricht etwa der Mittelstufe eines Gymnasiums]. Um einen Abschluss machen zu können, musste ich die Verfassung studieren. Zu dieser Zeit verstand ich noch nicht, warum ich, als österreichische Staatsbürgerin, über eine Verfassung Bescheid wissen musste, die nicht meine eigene war. Trotzdem strengte ich mich an, um schließlich mit einem “C” zu bestehen.

Vor einigen Wochen sprach ich vor einem Publikum bestehend aus älteren College Studenten über meine Lebenserfahrungen, insbesondere die, die ich mit dem Islam gemacht habe und wie ich dazu kam, das zu tun, was ich heute mache. Ich war schockiert über die starke Indoktrinierung der Kinder, d.h. dass die Christen schlecht sind, wegen der Kreuzzüge, und dass wir Schuld an den Kriegen im Irak und in Afghanistan haben, und dass die Vereinigten Staaten böse seien. Ich sagte ihnen, dass sie aufhören müssten, sich selbst wegen historischer Anlässe schuldig zu fühlen. Die Antwort sollte stattdessen sein: wir müssen aus der Geschichte lernen und dürfen uns nicht selbst beschuldigen für etwas, das wir nicht ändern können.

Ein Student argumentierte kochend vor Wut, dass die Christen genauso schlecht und böse seien wie die Muslime, und er verließ den Raum, als ich über die Unvereinbarkeit von Scharia mit Verfassung, westlichen Werten und Gleichheit der Geschlechter sprach.

Zum Schluss komme ich zu Kitty Werthmann, einer 84-jährigen österreichischen Emigrantin, die jetzt in den Vereinigten Staaten lebt, und die kürzlich einen Augenzeugenbericht geschrieben hat, wie Österreich in den 30er Jahren Hitler erliegen konnte. Es gab damals eine hohe Arbeitslosenrate und viele Firmenpleiten in Österreich. Die politischen Parteien bekämpften sich gegenseitig in einem Bürgerkrieg. Als Ergebnis davon schauten sich die Österreicher ihren im Norden liegenden Nachbarn an und sahen, dass es dort kein Verbrechen gab, Vollbeschäftigung und einen hohen Lebensstandard. Hitler hatte Versprechungen gemacht und sie gehalten.

Als Hitlers Zeit in Österreich gekommen war, stimmte die Bevölkerung mit 98% für ihn. Das Land wurde an Deutschland angeschlossen und Hitler wurde mit der Regierung beauftragt.

Von da an erhielt Österreich: Recht und Gesetz; Vollbeschäftigung; eine Nationalisierung der Ausbildung ohne eine religiöse Erziehung; politische Indoktrinierung unter den Jugendlichen; eine Neuorganisation der Familie durch Tageshilfe. Aber, die Qualität der Gesundheitsversorgung litt, genau so wie kleinere Geschäfte. Hitler institutionalisierte den Verbraucherschutz, indem er den Verbrauchern sagte, was sie zu kaufen hatten und wie sie einkaufen sollten. Der industrielle Kapitalismus wurde lahm gelegt. Es entstanden mehr und mehr “Agenturen“, viele von ihnen sollten nur geschäftliche Unternehmungen überwachen.

Schließlich – das Wichtigeste – es gab keine Redefreiheit mehr. Jeder, der irgendetwas gegen die Regierung sagte, wurde verschleppt.

Frau Werthmann konnte beobachten, dass der Totalitarismus nicht plötzlich kam; es dauerte fünf Jahre, von 1938 bis 1943 [bis die voll enwickelte Diktatur sichtbar wurde, und bis die Menschen dies merkten]. Wenn es über Nacht geschehen wäre, so ist sie sich sicher, dann hätten ihre Landsleute auch gekämpft. Stattdessen gab es schleichende kleine Schritte [und der Staat bröckelte Stück für Stück und mit ihm seine Freiheiten].

Also, warum erzähle ich Ihnen diese Geschichte?

Frau Werthmann hätte auch die heutige Situation in Europa und insbesondere in Österreich beschreiben können. Wir erleben gerade die Wiederholung  der Geschichte.

Hohe Arbeitslosenquote?? Erledigt!

Bürgerkrieg unter den politischen Parteien? Sicherlich, in einem wörtlichen Sinne. Es gibt heutzutage ein wahrnehmbares Fehlen eines klassischen Diskurses. Melanie Phillips arbeitet dies brillant in ihrem Buch The World turned Upside Down [Die aus den Fugen geratene Welt] heraus, “Andersdenkende werden als pathologisch krank bezeichnet – Homophobie, Xenophobie, Islamophobie – Phobien oder irrationale Ängste werden als Synonym für Vorurteil benutzt. Es gibt sogar ganz unverblümte Anschuldigungen, krank zu sein, eine Waffe die sonst von totalitären Bewegungen benutzt wird […]. Jede Tatsache, die das Weltbild der Linken in Frage stellt wird ignoriert, verleugnet oder wegdiskutiert, denn wenn man zugeben würde, dass daran auch nur ein Fünkchen Wahrheit wäre, würde dies das gesamte utopische Kartenhaus zum Einsturz bringen […]. Jeder, der sich gegen die falschen Anschuldigungen der Linken wendet muss rechtsextrem und somit ein “Faschist“ sein. Auf diese Art und Weise wird die Wahrheit dämonisiert – und je größer der Wahrheitsgehalt ist, der erzählt wird, desto mehr wird der Erzähler dämonisiert.“ Erledigt!

Im Jahr 1994 stimmten sage und schreibe 66.6% der Österreicher für einen Beitritt Österreichs zur Europäischen Union, nachdem zuvor eine noch nie da gewesene Gehirnwäsche-Kampagne stattgefunden hatte, und die Bevölkerung Glauben gemacht wurde, dass es keine Alternative zur EU geben würde. Beispielsweise wurde den österreichischen Wählern gesagt, dass die EU eine große Anzahl Arbeitsplätze hervorbringen würde, d.h. Vollbeschäftigung. Es würde keine Diskriminierung mehr geben; der Multikulturalismus würde sicherstellen, dass jeder und alles gleich sein werde. Öffentliche Schulen müssten nicht mehr länger Religionsunterricht anbieten (außer jenen, die den muslimischen Glauben unterrichten). Die Pro-EU Indoktrination war und ist unheimlich erfolgreich, insbesondere unter den Jugendlichen und den Studenten an der Universität, denen beigebracht wird, dass die EU großartig sei, die Lösung für alle Probleme, und dass es ohne sie Unheil und Krieg geben würde. Politiker, wie der ehemalige italienische Präsident Giorgio Napolitano oder der ehemalige österreichische Parlamentspräsident Andreas Khol bezeichnen EU Kritiker sogar als “Terroristen”. Die EU ist auch ein Instrument um ein neues Familienkonzept zu installieren, inklusive eines neuen deutschen Begriffs des “Elternkonzepts”, das vorsieht, dass man nicht mehr zwischen Männern und Frauen unterscheidet.

Am wichtigsten ist aber, dass es keine Redefreiheit mehr gibt. Wenn jemand etwas gegen die Mehrheitsmeinung sagt, dann werden Karrieren und der Ruf mit Hilfe von Verleumdungen und der Anklage, dass man entweder ein Faschist oder Nationalsozialist sei, systematisch zerstört. Melanie Phillips erklärt dieses Phänomen in ihren Büchern, “J.L. Talmon erkannte im Jahr 1952 bereits [das Konzept der] ‚totalitären Demokratie’, die er als ‘Diktatur basierend auf der Ideologie und dem Enthusiasmus der Massen’ erkannte. “Zusätzlich, ” rottete ein mittelalterliches Christentum – wie der gegenwärtige Islam – jeglichen Widerspruch aus, oder tötete Andersdenkende oder zwang sie zur Konversion. Und die Großinquisitoren wurden in der intelligenten Oberschicht gefunden – in den Universitäten, den Medien, der Rechtssprechung, der Politik und den professionellen arbeitenden Klassen – die nicht nur systematisch die Grundfesten der westlichen Gesellschaft unterminiert haben, sondern auch heftig dabei sind zu versuchen jede Kritik und jeden Protest zu unterbinden.“ Und dann, “Es ist schwer, den Einfluss auf unsere Kultur zu bewerten, der von den Doktrinen des Anti-Imperialismus, Multikulturalismus, Feminismus, Umweltbewusstseins und ähnlichem ausgeht. Sie bilden die nicht in Frage zu stellende Orthodoxie innerhalb der Akademikerschaft, quasi das Basislager ihres „langen Marsches durch die Institutionen,’ den sie mit erstaunlichem Erfolg durchgesetzt haben. Das Zentrum der politischen Macht ist verschoben worden, so dass jeder der diese Werte nicht teilt als extrem definiert wird.“ Phillips fügt hinzu, dass “Im Falle der Freiheit, denjenigen die versuchen, anarchistisches Verhalten zu begrenzen, um Leid zu vermeiden, die Freiheit, dies zu tun, aberkannt wird.“

Wien ist keine Stadt der Knobelbecher und Swastika wie Herb London kürzlich aus erster Hand beobachten konnte. Es ist eine wohlhabende, friedliche und zivilisierte Stadt. Aber nur auf den ersten Blick. Es gibt noch ein anderes Wien, eines, das Orte umfasst, an denen eine muslimische Mehrheit lebt, mit Feindseligkeiten, die hohe Kriminalitätsraten hervorrufen und mit hoher Arbeitslosigkeit, die das Resultat aus der Unwilligkeit oder Unfähigkeit der jungen Muslime ist, die Regelschulzeit zu beenden.

Das Establishment zieht es vor, wegzusehen, und kritisiert andauernd diejenigen, die es wagen, die demokratischen Werte und Ideale aufrecht zu erhalten.

Ich bin eine von ihnen. Und ich bin abgestempelt worden als rechtsextreme Fanatikerin, weil ich mich gegen die muslimischen Praktiken ausspreche und gegen die Einführung der Scharia in Europa, beides ist mit den säkularen und liberalen Werten der westlichen Gesellschaft nicht kompatibel. Ich sehe mich einer möglichen Anklage wegen Volksverhetzung gegenüber, weil ich Menschen in Seminaren, die hinter verschlossenen Türen stattfinden, den Islam erkläre und dabei aus dem Koran zitiere. Ich wurde, um Herb Londons Worte zu gebrauchen, als Extremistin von den österreichischen Behörden an den Rand gedrängt.

Und hier schließt sich der Kreis:  ich beschwöre Sie, verteidigen Sie die Verfassung und ihre Prinzipien, insbesondere die Redefreiheit, die Trennung von Kirche und Staat, die Bill of Rights. Ich habe das damals, in den 80er Jahren noch nicht zu schätzen gewusst, aber ich tue es jetzt. Wir müssen unsere indoktrinierte Jugend deprogrammieren, wir müssen ihnen beibringen, sich selbst und ihre Geschichte zu respektieren, anstatt beschämt zu sein.

Und vergessen Sie niemals, was Frau Werthmann sagte, “Wegen seiner Verfassung ist Amerika (eines der) großartigsten Länder dieser Welt geworden.

Lassen Sie niemals diese Freiheit aus den Fingern gleiten.

Denn nach Amerika gibt es kein Land mehr, in das man gehen könnte!“

Posted in ACT! for America, Österreich, Berichte von Konferenzen, Counterjihad, Fight back!, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamisierung, Must Read | Leave a Comment »

Acting For America

Posted by paulipoldie on July 2, 2010

ACT for America logo

by Baron Bodissey

Over the past couple of years I’ve become a big admirer of ACT! For America. Brigitte Gabriel has created a well-organized anti-Islamization action group that operates at the grassroots level all over the United States and Canada. ACT has both a charitable arm and a lobbying arm, so they don’t just talk and fundraise and hold conferences — they have been instrumental in pushing important anti-Islamization legislation in various states. For example, ACT played an important part in the passage of Tennessee’s recent law forbidding the application of foreign law — including sharia — in the state.

It was a privilege to be invited up to D.C. on Monday and Tuesday to attend ACT! For America’s National Conference and Legislative Briefing in Alexandria and at the Capitol Visitors’ Center. It was especially gratifying to hear the presentation by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf, who is already well-known to Gates of Vienna readers. Elisabeth was there to help connect the American Counterjihad — of which ACT is the premier grassroots organization — with its counterparts in Europe.

I didn’t arrive until Monday afternoon, so I missed two of the keynoters, Andrew McCarthy (author of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America) and James Woolsey (former Director of the CIA). The afternoon session featured a how-to session from Guy Rodgers, the Executive Director of ACT! For America, followed by a presentation by Paul Sperry (author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington) on the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated our national institutions.

Elisabeth at ACTElisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was the last speaker of the afternoon, and gave a brief account of the accelerating Islamization of Austria and the rest of the EU, and why it matters to the United States. She struck a chord with the audience, and a lot of listeners approached her afterwards to ask questions and offer their assistance. One of my major goals is to help Americans understand why the European Counterjihad is important to the United States, and Elisabeth’s efforts are a valuable part of that process.

As a matter of interest, she has now been appointed the ACT! For America chapter head for Vienna — opening up a further line of co-operation and communication between anti-jihad activists in Europe and the United States.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
The gala banquet on Monday night was attened by a real mix of patriotic Americans — young and old, well-off and middle class, entrepreneurs and lawyers and working people and retired folks. What we all had in common was an absolute dedication to resisting the Islamization of America.

Some of the toughest people present were women — Rep. Sue Myrick was one of the after-dinner speakers. All of them are well-informed about the inroads that Islam has made in the United States, and all of them wre determined to stop it from proceeding any further.
– – – – – – – –
ACT! For America is organized locally, with hundreds of chapters nationwide, and over a hundred thousand members. One of the purposes of the banquet was to recognize and honor the various chapter heads who had made the long trip to D.C. for the national gathering. Full-time staff members were also introduced to the audience during the evening.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Brigitte GabrielThe functionality of non-profit organizations generally flows from the top down, so much of the credit for the success of ACT is due to Brigitte Gabriel herself. She is gracious and inspirational to rank-and-file members, giving them the credit they deserve and encouraging them in all their local initiatives. As a result she has assembled an effective national staff, both paid and volunteer, with a focus on legislative action that has generated real results.

Lisa Piraneo works full-time as a lobbyist for ACT! For America on Capitol Hill, so it fell to her to organize our trip to the Capitol on Tuesday morning. Despite the fact that there was a succession of floor votes throughout our session, Lisa managed to get seven congressional representatives to speak to our group and answer questions. The foolishness about Islam spouted by our elected representatives in Washington is often discouraging, so it was refreshing to realize that there are at least a few members of Congress who really get it. Regular readers of Gates of Vienna would have been pleased by what they heard in the auditorium that morning — every congressman who spoke used the same terminology and operated from the same knowledge base that we deal with here. Each of them is one of “us”.

First up was Sue Myrick of North Carolina, whose major focus was on border security. She spoke at length about the would-be terrorists who have been caught crossing our southern border. Their countries of origin include Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Yemen, and many of them have been taught Spanish in an attempt to pass as Latin Americans.

Lamar Smith of Texas — who recently went viral with a YouTube video of his questioning of Attorney General Eric Holder — was next up, and sounded a similar note about the dire circumstances on our southern border. He outlined what he called the “Rule of Five”: during the last five years, more than five hundred potential terrorists from five Muslim countries have entered the United States illegally.

And these are just the ones who have been caught — how many others are here? Where are they living? What are they planning?

Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas spoke about his work on behalf of several pieces of legislation, including the “No Welfare for Terrorists Act” (H.R. 2338) — which makes sure that the federal government doesn’t fund the “rehabilitation” of any Guantanamo inmates that it releases — and the “Keep Terrorists Out of America Act” (H.R. 2294) — which is designed to prevent Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his ilk from ever being tried in civilian courts in the United States.

Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee spoke about the danger to the United States from Islamic terrorism, and the importance of our military in the fight against terrorism abroad.

Congressman Peter King of New York talked about numerous issues concerning the dangers posed by Islam in the United States. His major topic was the Ground Zero Mosque, and the difficulties that face its opponents in their attempts to stop it. He suggested that the most effective way to prevent the mosque from being built is to expose the two-faced imam behind it, and make public his sympathies and connection with terrorism.

I had never heard Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann speak before, and was impressed with her energy, her spirit, and her thorough grasp of the facts about Islam. She spoke at length about the grave danger of Iran’s nuclear program, and pointed out that anyone who ignores what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is planning has not learned the lesson taught by Adolf Hitler, who exposed his intentions in detail in Mein Kampf. She also described the foolhardy behavior of the Obama administration, which is actually contributing to the funding of Hamas.

Our final speaker was Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, who talked about the effect that the current economic crisis is having on our ability to deal with the threat posed by radical Islam. Like Ms. Bachmann, he stressed the severe danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of the mad mullahs of Iran.

Brigitte Gabriel addressed the audience while some of the congressional representatives were on the floor voting. She pointed out that her organization is non-partisan, and does not endorse any party or individual candidates for office.

However, she noted that she had invited both Democrats and Republicans to address ACT! For America. Seven Republicans showed up, and there were several others who planned to attend, but were held up by floor votes in the house.

In contrast, not a single Democrat was willing to speak to us about the danger to the United States posed by radical Islam.

It tells you something about the current ideological bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.

Posted in Berichte von Konferenzen, Conference Reports, Counterjihad, Fight back!, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamkritik, Must Read | 2 Comments »