Fjordman: What is Wrong With Western Elites?

Monday, October 31, 2011

What is Wrong With Western Elites?

Below is Fjordman’s latest essay. For a complete archive of his writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

Libya’s autocratic ruler Muammar Qaddafi was brutally tortured and killed on 20 October 2011 after France, Britain, the USA and NATO had actively given military support to rebel troops that were known to include groups with ties to terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.

As writer Diana West said, “Qaddafi was not killed in retaliation for his attacks on American servicemen in Berlin in 1986, or the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1989. He was not killed for his central role in the USSR’s terror networks going back to the 1960s and 1970s. He was killed after coming over to our side of George Bush’s ‘war on terror’ in the final phase of a civil war in Libya in which his regime fought al Qaeda affiliates. Horrific as it sounds, Qaddafi was killed because we and our NATO allies joined the other side.”

In February 2011, a day before he quit as Egypt’s president after popular uprisings, Hosni Mubarak had harsh words for his former allies in the United States and their misguided quest for democracy in the Middle East. “They may be talking about democracy but they don’t know what they’re talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam.”

Mubarak during his three decades in power kept stability in Egypt, peace with its neighbors including Israel and promoted decent economic progress in his country without being cruel. Despite this, the USA quickly turned its back on him when protests began. The Muslim Brotherhood has since gained in strength, and attacks on Coptic Christians have escalated.

Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was with his writings among the inspirations for the Jihadists terrorists from al-Qaeda who killed three thousand Americans on September 11th 2001. A decade later, President Obama and his Administration are actively aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere to gain more influence.

Many ordinary citizens, when witnessing our so-called leaders supporting our enemies, wonder whether Western political elites have lost their grip on reality. What are they trying to achieve with such stupid and suicidal policies? Why do they want to export democracy to Islamic countries, even if this brings radical organizations with hostile agendas to power, at the same time as the democratic system is being de facto abolished in Europe by the European Union?

My personal view is that the cultural, economic and especially immigration policies currently promoted by the ruling elites throughout virtually the entire Western world are harmful to the long-term interests of the European peoples who created this civilization. One fundamental question that has been hotly debated on the Internet by dissident writers is whether this trend is entirely accidental, and exclusively reflects the purely impersonal forces of technological globalization, or whether there is also a purpose and a plan behind some of these changes.

I believe that there is also an intentional plan of breaking down Western nation-states behind this trend. This is demonstrated by the statements of some key actors, by the all-pervasive (in the Western world at least) indoctrination with non-European “diversity” as well as by the systematic demonization and ridicule of all traditional practices, cultural symbols and national flags. The arguments, or rather lies, presented in favor of continued mass immigration and Multiculturalism are remarkably similar in all Western countries, too similar to be entirely coincidental.

The question is: Why? And what do those promoting such policies hope to achieve?

It is important to realize that this does not necessarily rule out other possible explanations, which may supplement rather than contradict the previous claim. It is undoubtedly true that modern Western technology has created a far more integrated world than existed in the past.

One could also successfully argue that there are deep underlying structures and ideas in Western culture and mentality at work here, too, for instance the concept of “universal egalitarianism” that could be found already in Greco-Roman Antiquity, and especially in Christianity. This was secularized after the Enlightenment in the form of human rights. Present-day Globalists, regardless of whether they come in a Socialist or a capitalist shape, can exploit these ideals.

Finally, there is no doubt that many people vote for open-border Globalists of their own free will. For example, I have been severely critical of the British government of Tony Blair, but we should remember that Blair with his Labour Party won no less than three elections in a row. Some of this can be attributed to media censorship and decades of indoctrination plus the mass importation of a new electorate in the form of immigrants who tend to vote for Socialist parties which give them access to more welfare payments. Some of it, maybe, but not all of it.

No matter how we twist this, the fact remains that tens of millions of Westerners have more or less freely voted for parties that insult and dispossess them and rob them of their heritage. We have become decadent, indifferent consumers who live only for the here and now, cut off from our historical roots and with little regard for the future of our nation. Far too often, we care little for what will happen 50-100 years from now as long as we can still personally enjoy a steady supply of material comforts and new electronic toys plus football and sex on TV.

My good friend Ohmyrus, an Asian essayist, has convincingly argued that one of the factors behind the booming budget deficits we can now observe in many Western countries plus Japan may be the short-term focus inherent to the democratic system, where people prefer short-term gain now at the price of long-term pain later and vote themselves into possession of other people’s money. Not enough of them think longer than a couple of election cycles — maybe ten years — ahead. History-conscious peoples who come from non-democratic cultures, for instance the Chinese, seem to find it easier to plan in terms of generations and centuries.

On top of this, the good components that a democracy may contain have ironically also been undermined by hollowing out this system from above through international organizations, which in many cases promote harmful policies even when the majority does not want this.

In 2009 it was revealed that the ruling Labour Party had purposefully flooded Britain with millions of immigrants without consulting its citizens, in order to socially engineer a “truly Multicultural” country. The huge increases in migrants over the previous twelve years were due in part to a politically motivated attempt to radically change the country and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” if you believe Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said that mass immigration was the result of a deliberate plan, but ministers were reluctant to discuss this openly for fear of alienating the party’s “core working class vote.”

Lord Glasman — a personal friend of the Labour Party leader — in 2011 stated that “Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration… and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.” He admitted that the Labour Party had sometimes been actively hostile to the white natives. In particular, they tended to view white working-class voters as “an obstacle to progress.”

To my knowledge, these shocking revelations of a government launching a full-front attack on its own people — in what could be seen as a policy of ethnic cleansing of a specific national group — did not cause a single word of protest from the political leaders or mass media in any other Western country back then. I have since come to suspect that the reason for this shameful silence is that the authorities in many other Western countries themselves follow roughly similar policies and therefore see nothing wrong in what the British government did.

In 2009, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton stated publicly that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s rapidly changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that before 2050 the USA will no longer have a majority of people of mainly European descent and claimed that “this is a very positive thing.” This was just a few years after a group of Arab Muslim terrorists had staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens.

Bill Clinton is himself of European extraction. I have never heard representatives of, say, the Chinese Communist Party brag about the fact that they support displacing their own ethnic group from their own country. Only leaders from the supposedly democratic West do this.

The English philosopher Roger Scruton notes that “buying and selling of citizenship, often to people who think of it purely as a right and never as a duty, is common throughout Europe. The political élite sees nothing wrong in people collecting passports as they might collect memberships of clubs.” He thinks that the Western élite are immune to xenophobia, or fear of foreigners, but instead suffer from a severe case of what he terms oikophobia, the repudiation of home, the urge to denigrate the customs and culture of your own people. “The oikophobe is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism.”

Ibn Khaldun is somewhat overrated compared to other non-European historiographers such as Sima Qian, but the most useful aspect of his writings is the concept of asabiyya, which could be translated as group consciousness. Judged by the above cited examples of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton (numerous others might unfortunately be mentioned here), the ongoing decline of Western civilization can partly be explained as a decline of asabiyya among Western elites, who no longer feel attached to their own peoples but see them as obstacles to be overcome, or silenced through widespread anti-racism campaigns and doctrinal guilt imposed from above.

This does not mean that there is no grassroots support at all for Multiculturalism. Yet support for mass immigration is lukewarm at best among the population as a whole, whereas the ruling elites in politics, media and academia promote it enthusiastically. If anything, this pan-Western disconnect and deficit of trust between rulers and the ruled is growing larger. If unchecked, this widening political chasm threatens to seriously undermine stability in the Western world.
In June 2007, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with Chancellor (and PM-in-waiting) Gordon Brown and Conservative Party leader (also future PM) David Cameron, met Muslim leaders at a conference organized by the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme. Blair opened by defending Islam as a religion of “moderation and modernity,” announced a government fund to aid teaching of Islam and to train imams and designated Islamic studies as “strategically important” to the British national interest. Timothy Winter, a lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge, said that “The question facing British society, and society as a whole, is not how we encourage minorities to engage with western countries, but how those countries define themselves as a collage of different religious cultures.”

In other words: Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Spain and other Western countries with white majorities are no longer nations with a distinct heritage, only random spaces on the map just waiting to be filled with a “collage of different cultures.”

I could add that North American authorities and mass media are little better than European ones, and sometimes worse. The USA was the first Western country, in 1965, to open its borders to mass immigration from the entire world as a matter of ideological principle. US authorities have been promoting similar policies elsewhere in the Western world ever since.

The concepts of “white privilege” and hostile “Whiteness Studies” were also developed in and spread from the USA. In conflicts between native Europeans and non-native colonizers, US authorities have repeatedly demonstrated that they will go against the interests of the natives.

Former PM Tony Blair showed no regrets when he stated in the fall of 2011 that it is “right” that the country should made up of different cultures and faiths mixed together. That is not to say you don’t encounter problems at certain points, but these “are to be overcome.” Blair added that the anti-immigration debate was now a thing of the past. Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch responded that: “This is completely shameless from the Prime Minister who brought more than three million immigrants into Britain in the teeth of public opposition.”

In The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature, Byron M. Roth, a Professor Emeritus of Psychology from the USA, argues that the debate over immigration policy in the Western world is critically uninformed by the sciences of evolutionary biology and psychology. A primary thesis of his book is that societies are mainly the product of the genetic nature of the human beings who make them up, not geography, as Jared Diamond claims. He mentions that rising crime has become a serious problem, often committed by ethnic minorities. Low IQ correlates highly with rates of criminality and antisocial behavior.

What consequences will the mass importation of low-IQ peoples to the West have? Is a certain minimum average IQ necessary to maintain a complex society? Roth speculates whether what may emerge from these demographic patterns is that the USA will move in the direction of countries like Mexico, corrupt and dysfunctional states with oligarchic politics.

Do some Western elites actively desire such a result? Do they hope to turn the Western world into a giant version of Mexico with a weak middle class incapable of challenging a tiny ruling elite (themselves) entrenched virtually as a caste? Perhaps the authoritarian key to crushing the white man’s traditional desire for self-determination is to paralyze it by flooding his lands with alien ethnic groups who themselves often come from repressive and authoritarian cultures. In parts of Europe, Christianity was in medieval times used to consolidate the embryos of nation-states. Perhaps those who seek to break down these nation-states today view a different and more repressive religion, Islam, as a useful tool for achieving this goal.

The phrase “Political Correctness” first came into use under Communism and meant that all ideas had to conform to and support the agenda of the Marxist movement. History and philosophy were the first to be forced into line, but as is clear from the career of Trofim Lysenko, science was made to conform, too. Those who dissented from the official doctrine were judged to be psychologically imbalanced or evil. Today the ruling ideology is an absolute egalitarianism that if you analyze it closely actually amounts to saying that all cultures have an equal right to exist, except the European one which is evil. As Roth says:

Whether Western elites really believe these things is less important than the benefit they gain from its promulgation. The primary benefit is that it paralyzes the popular preferences for national preservation by characterizing opposition to elite doctrines as immoral, indecent, and inhumane. It allows unelected elites to aggrandize their own power by obliterating national sovereignty and nullifying democratic accountability. Many are, without exaggeration, true totalitarians that have no regard for the well-being of those they control, since the only way they can consolidate their dystopian plans is through brute state power. While there is no doubt that many well-meaning individuals join their efforts, they are the sort of ‘useful idiots’ who excused and covered up Communist atrocities during most of the 20th century.

 

The Norway Massacre and Europe’s War on Free Speech

by Soeren Kern
July 28, 2011

Media outlets in Europe and the United States are accusing Western critics of Islam and multiculturalism of complicity in the mass killing of more than 70 people in Norway. The attempt to exploit this crime for political gain is not just a case of malicious opportunism. It also represents the latest and most unsavoury salvo in the long-running war on free speech in Europe.

Anders Behring Breivik, a deranged Norwegian accused of bombing government buildings in Oslo and then killing scores of young people during a 90-minute shooting rampage on a nearby camping island called Utoya, published a 1,500-page manifesto in which he vents his anger at the direction in which mostly leftwing elites in Norway and elsewhere in Europe are leading his country and the continent as a whole.

As it turns out, parts of the manifesto include cut-and-pasted blog posts from European and American analysts and writers who for years have been educating the general public about the destructive effects of multiculturalism and runaway Muslim immigration. By dint of duplicitous logic, these analysts and writers are now the victims of a smear campaign: multiculturalists are accusing them of inciting Breivik to murder.

These same analysts have, of course, been a constant bane on an unaccountable European elite determined to foist its post-modern, post-nationalist and post-Christian multicultural agenda on a sceptical European citizenry.

Unwilling to countenance opposition, these self-appointed guardians of European political correctness have laboured to silence public discussion about issues such as the rise of Islam in Europe and/or the failure of millions of Muslim immigrants to integrate into European society.

The primary weapon in this war on free speech has been lawfare: the malicious use of European courts to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Prosecutions of so-called anti-Islam hate speech are now commonplace in Europe. Some of the more well-known efforts to silence debate about Islam in Europe have involved high-profile individuals like Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician, and Brigitte Bardot, a French animal rights activist.

Other recent assaults on free speech in Europe include the show trials of: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a housewife in Austria, Susanne Winter, a politician in Austria, Lars Hedegaard, a journalist in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a politician in Denmark, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician in Finland, Michel Houellebecq, a novelist in France, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a cartoonist in the Netherlands, and the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author in Italy.

In other cases, physical violence has been the preferred method of silencing contrary views of Islam in Europe. In 2002, for example, Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated for his views on Muslim immigration, and in 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death for producing a movie that criticized Islam. In 2010, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard narrowly escaped being assassinated by an axe-wielding Muslim extremist in Aarhus, Denmark’s second-largest city.

Many theories attempt to explain the rise of multiculturalism in Europe. Among these is the idea that European elites, determined to prevent a repeat of the carnage of the Second World War, embraced multiculturalism as a tool to try to dilute or even eliminate the national ethnic, religious and or/cultural identities that contributed to centuries of violence in Europe.

But in recent years, the secular purveyors of European multiculturalism have moved far beyond their initial objective of creating an American-style “melting pot.” European socialists now view multiculturalism as a means to eliminate the entire Judeo-Christian worldview. This is certainly the case in Spain, where socialists have joined arms with Islam in a “Red-Green Alliance” to confront a common enemy, Christianity, as represented, in this case, by the Roman Catholic Church.

To be sure, decades of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration have already transformed Europe in ways unimaginable only a few decades ago. In Britain, for example, Muslims currently are campaigning to turn twelve British cities — including what they call “Londonistan” — into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence. More than 80 Sharia courts are already operating in the country. At the same time, Mohammed is now the most common name for baby boys.

In France, large swaths of Muslim neighbourhoods are now considered “no-go” zones by French police. At last count, there are 751 Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS), as they are euphemistically called. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the ZUS, parts of France over which the French state has lost control.

In Germany, anti-Semitism (which is often disguised as anti-Zionism), has reached levels not seen since the Second World War. An April 2011 report, for example, found that 47.7% of Germans believe “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians,” and nearly 50% of Germans believe “Jews try to take advantage of having been victims of the Nazi era.”

In Norway, large sections of Oslo are being turned into Muslim enclaves subject to Sharia law and to the dictates of local imams. The citizens of Oslo are also struggling to cope with an epidemic of rapes. According to recent statistics, 100% of aggravated sexual assaults which resulted in rapes over the past three years were carried out by Muslim immigrants. Norwegians are now trying to deal with the large-scale torching of automobiles, which, as in France, is being attributed to Muslim youth.

In a Wall Street Journal essay titled “Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer,” Bruce Bawer, an American analyst who lives in Oslo, writes: “Norway, like the rest of Europe, is in serious trouble. Millions of European Muslims live in rigidly patriarchal families in rapidly growing enclaves where women are second-class citizens, and where non-Muslims dare not venture. Surveys show that an unsettling percentage of Muslims in Europe reject Western values, despise the countries they live in, support the execution of homosexuals, and want to replace democracy with Sharia law. (According to a poll conducted by the Telegraph, 40% of British Muslims want Sharia implemented in predominantly Muslim parts of the United Kingdom.)”

Bawer describes Norway as a country that stands out for its refusal to confront any of the real dangers posed by Islamic radicalism. He also says the failure of mainstream political leaders to responsibly address the challenges posed by Muslim immigration has contributed to the emergence of extremists like Breivik. Pressure cookers without a safety valve eventually will explode.

Bawer writes: “In bombing those government buildings and hunting down those campers, Breivik was not taking out people randomly. He considered the Labour Party, Norway’s dominant party since World War II, responsible for policies that are leading to the Islamization of Europe — and thus guilty of treason. The Oslo bombing was intended to be an execution of the party’s current leaders. The massacre at the camp — where young would-be politicians gathered to hear speeches by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland — was meant to destroy its next generation of leaders.”

The question remains: in the aftermath of the attack, will the Norwegian left rethink its non-interventionist approach to Islam and Muslim immigration? In a number of other European countries, governments on the center-right have been doing an about-face on multiculturalism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have all declared in recent months that multiculturalism has failed. In June, the Dutch government announced it would abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands. In Spain, the conservative Popular Party, which is widely expected to win the next general election, has promised to enact new measures that will require all immigrants to learn the Spanish language to obtain residency permits.

Some analysts say these measures are too little too late. But one thing seems clear: European multiculturalists are feeling some unfamiliar political heat. After decades of high-handed stifling of debate, the gradual unravelling of multiculturalism in Europe explains the obsessive zeal with which many are exploiting the Norwegian tragedy.

By falsely accusing conservatives of complicity in a crime in which they had no part, multiculturalists are seeking to delegitimize and silence criticism of their social re-engineering scheme. But they are unlikely to succeed as the consequences of their worldview are becoming clear for all to see.

Hudson NY

Pat Condell: Violence is not the answer

‘No porn or prostitution’: Islamic extremists set up Sharia law controlled zones in British cities

This has nothing to do with Islam, right?

 

From Daily Mail

Rebecca Cramer, July 28, 2011

Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up.

Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’

The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term’.

In the past week, dozens of streets in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham have been targeted, raising fears that local residents may be intimidated or threatened for flouting ‘Islamic rules’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-British-cities.html#ixzz1TOGvC6LE

DIE FREIHEIT: Rede von Oskar Freysinger in München

Auf dem Landesverbands-Gründungsparteitag in Bayern hielt der Schweizer Politiker Oskar Freysinger (SVP) ein flammendes Plädoyer für die direkte Demokratie. Hier der Wortlaut, oder aber schön als Video:

---

Liebe Freunde,

vor zwei Jahren, am 23. November 2009, hatte ich das Schlüsselerlebnis meines Lebens. Ich war weder unter der Dusche noch auf der Toilette, wo einem meist die durchschlagendsten Erkenntnisse offenbart werden. Nein, an diesem denkwürdigen Tag stand ich in Socken inmitten einer Moschee. Was hatte ich ungläubiger Hund dort zu suchen?

Nun, das Westschweizer Fernsehen hatte an diesem Abstimmungssonntag die durchschlagende Idee, die Kommentare zur programmierten Niederlage der Minarett-Initiative in einer Moschee zu filmen.

Stellen Sie sich das konkret vor:

Unter Schalmeienklängen ertönt die Durchsage vom Sieg der progressiven Kräfte über die SVP-Dunkelmänner. „Alla uh akhbar!“ Der Vorgang geht auf und lässt den Blick auf die Fernseh-Reality-Show frei. Vorne ein niedergeschlagener Fremdenhasser und Rassist namens Freysinger und hinter ihm frohlockende muslimische Heerscharen. Vorne ein Hinterwäldler, hinter ihm progressive Langbärte im Einsatz für Religionsfreiheit, Frauen-, Schwulen- und Menschenrechte. Vorne Ausgrenzung, hinten Integration … des demokratischen Rechtsstaates in die Scharia.

So etwas lässt doch jedes politisch korrekte Herz höher schlagen. Das haut, Wüste hin oder her, jeden Kameltreiber von den Höckern seiner Montur. Mir selber blieb die Spucke weg. Aber nicht aus demselben Grund.

Liebe Freunde, wenn einer umgeben von hundertfünfzig Bärtigen und in Socken mitten in einer Moschee steht und gleichzeitig bekanntgegeben wird, dass 58% des Schweizer Stimmvolkes sich gegen den Bau von Minaretten ausgesprochen hat, dann nennt sich das, was besagter Sockenträger miterlebt … ein kollektiver Koitus Interruptus.

Nichts gegen Socken. Moscheen haben eine durchaus heilsame Wirkung auf die Füße, wenn man den richtigen Riecher dafür besitzt. Was die Köpfe angeht ist das nicht so sicher, denn die sind dort meist verbunden.

Wie dem auch sei, kaum war das Resultat bekanntgegeben worden, als der Imam, ein würdiger Vertreter des Friedens und der Liebe, auch schon ein Loblied auf die Demokratie anzustimmen begann. Da er, wie in Arabien üblich, ein völlig unverständliches Schwäbisch sprach, konnte ich den Inhalt seiner zweifellos mir bestimmten Liebesbotschaft nur seiner grimmigen Miene und sich vor Wut überschlagenden Stimme entnehmen.

Angesichts der Wucht dieser Liebebezeugung drängte es mich unverzüglich zum Ausgang. Dort wollte mir ein geistiger Sohn des Propheten die Toleranz mit einem Fausthieb auf die Nase verständlich machen. Er wurde von zwei Religionswächtern davon abgehalten. Nicht aus Nächstenliebe zu meiner Nase, nein, sondern lediglich, weil das Fernsehen dabei stand und filmte. Schade. Für einmal hätte das Schweizer Staatsfernsehen etwas anderes bringen können als das Evangelium nach Karl Marx.

Aber lassen wir das.

Nach dieser einmaligen Teilnahme an der misslungenen Jubelfeier des befreiten Fußvolks dachte ich, die Dinge würden sich beruhigen und wollte frisch und fröhlich zur Tagesordnung übergehen. Denkste!

Die Sache war noch lange nicht ausgestanden. Im Gegenteil: Ein Sturm der Entrüstung brach über meinen Kopf herein. Dabei ging es überhaupt nicht mehr um Islam und Minarette. Nein, was nun im Visier der beleidigten Leberwürste stand, war die direkte Demokratie! Direkte Demokratie sei undemokratisch, wurde posaunt. Demokratie sei nur dann gewährleistet, wenn das Volk ausschliesslich die Wahl habe, keine Wahl zu haben. Wo führe das hin, bemängelte der Chor der Entrüstung, wenn das Volk durch die eigene freie Meinung irregeführt werde und die Überzeugungsarbeit der ach so teuren PR-Manager der Regierung durch Nichtbefolgung abstrafe.

Demokratie, ja, aber bitte unter Befolgung der politisch korrekten Gebrauchsanleitung. Freie Wahl, ja, aber bitte nicht wahllos. Freiheit, bitte sehr, aber doch nicht im freien Raum. An diesem Tag stellte ich fest, dass gerade jene, die ständig von Demokratie schwätzen, dieselbe im Grunde genommen abgrundtief hassen.

Auf diese Weise entpuppte sich die Minarettinitiative im Nachhinein als Entlarver der Scheindemokraten. Eine neue Debatte entstand, in der die Teilnahme der freien Bürger am politischen Entscheidungsprozess in Frage gestellt wurde. Einem Volk, das keine Minarette wolle, dürfe man fortan nur mehr die richtigen Fragen stellen, verkündeten besorgte Juristen. Richtige Fragen seien solche, auf die es nur eine mögliche Antwort gebe.

Zum Beispiel: Sind Sie für den Bau von Minaretten oder gegen deren Nichtbau? Machen Sie ein Kreuz hinter das für Sie Zutreffende.

So werde zugleich die freie demokratische Entscheidung und die Rechtskonformität der Antwort gewährleistet. Bei falscher Fragestellung, wie zum Beispiel: „Sind Sie für oder gegen den Bau von Minaretten, ja oder nein?“ riskiere man eine verfassungswidrige und dem internationalen Recht widersprechende Antwort, nämlich ein NEIN. Minarette könne man aber keinesfalls nicht wollen können. Sonst sei man der Intoleranz gegenüber selber intolerant, also nicht besser als jene, die man aufgrund ihrer Intoleranz nicht tolerieren wolle.

Ich weiß, es ist etwas komplex. Ein anderes Bild, vielleicht: Stellen Sie sich einen Duellanten vor, der den anderen schießen lässt, ohne selber zu schießen, weil ihm ein intolerantes Weiterleben unerträglicher scheint als ein tolerantes Leichendasein. Eigentlich hat er Recht: Es gibt in der Tat nichts Toleranteres als eine Leiche. Mir jedenfalls hat noch keine widersprochen. Die meisten Leichen wurmt das zwar schon, aber aus einem ganz anderen Grund.

Aber Spaß beiseite. Die frustrierte Polit-Elite beklagte sich jämmerlich über die Intoleranz und Unreife des Schweizer Volks. Auch im Ausland wurde nasenrümpfend über das kuriose Völklein berichtet, das da zu beschließen wagte, was der elementarste Anstand jedem wohl umerzogenen EU-Bürger verbietet.

Störend erwies sich der Umstand, dass in den zahlreichen Umfragen, die daraufhin in der ganzen EU gemacht wurden, die Ablehnung der Minarette noch höher ausfiel als in der Schweiz. Ein Graben öffnete sich auch dort zwischen dem Willen der Mächtigen und dem Wunsch der Machtlosen. Da kriegten es die EU-Eliten mit der Angst zu tun. Ihr Machtmonopol war in Gefahr, sollte das Schweizer Beispiel Schule machen.

Denn schon wurden sich viele EU-Bürger mit Erstaunen bewusst, dass im Herzen Europas ein kleines Ländle existierte, in dem man nicht nur so tat, als ob man demokratisch wäre, sondern es auch wirklich war. Allgemeine Verwunderung machte sich breit. Maßloser Neid der bevormundeten EU-Bürger. Die hätten auch gerne mal mitbestimmt. Angesichts der sich anbahnenden Gefahr reagierten die Polit-Eliten des EU-Imperiums schnell und erbarmungslos. Der Druck auf das hässliche Schweizer Entelein nahm augenblicklich zu und Brüssel drängte zum Beitritt des widerspenstigen Landes zum Klub der gegängelten und ruinierten Staatswesen.

Die meisten Schweizer reagierten verständnislos auf dieses Machtgehabe. Es leuchtete ihnen vorerst nicht ein, wieso die winzige Schweiz eine Gefahr für die riesige EU sein sollte. Warum die Angst der EU-Eliten? fragten sie sich. Warum die ungehobelten Versuche, das kleine Ländchen mit Druck in die EU zu zwingen und das „staatsrechtliche Unding“, wie ein äußerst respektvoller Germane es bezeichnete, auszulöschen ?

Die Antwort liegt auf der Hand: Weil die Schweiz gar kein Land ist. Dem ist wirklich so. Die Schweiz ist kein Land. Die Schweiz ist eine Idee. Nichts anderes. Eine einmalige, zeitlose, mythische Idee. Ein Land kann bekämpft und besiegt werden. Eine Idee nicht! Eine Idee entwickelt sich im Unsichtbaren und entgeht jeder Kontrolle, jeder Macht. Und wenn sie einmal Wirklichkeit geworden ist, ist es zu spät, um sie aufzuhalten.

Drum gibt es die Eidgenossen immer noch, nach mehr als siebenhundertjähriger Geschichte. Die Eidgenossenschaft ist zwar räumlich gesehen klein. Gross ist jedoch die Freiheit in diesem kleinen Raum. Was nützt einem eine Riesenfläche, wenn man darin gefangen ist. Dann ist diese Riesenfläche kein Freiraum mehr, sondern einfach nur ein Riesengefängnis. Freiheit hängt nicht von der Größe eines Raumes ab, sondern von dessen Qualität.

Die Schweiz ist also eine Idee. Eine Idee von Unabhängigkeit, Selbstverantwortung und direkter Demokratie. Und da wir Schweizer besonders praktische Menschen sind, haben wir um diese Idee eine Grenze gezogen. Eine Grenze ist nicht nur darum wichtig, weil sie schützt, was sie umfasst, sondern weil sie erlaubt, eine Identität zu definieren.

Und diese Identität erlaubt uns, über die Grenze hinweg, mit dem anders Gearteten, Fremden, sich von uns Unterscheidenden in Kontakt zu treten, uns an seiner eigenen spezifischen Identität menschlich und geistig zu bereichern. Denn die Grenze ist Absperrung und Übergang zugleich. Der menschliche Körper ist auch durch eine Haut geschützt, die Zerstörerisches fern hält, aber trotzdem durchlässig ist und atmet. Gäbe es keine Grenzen, dann wären wir alle ähnlich, wenn nicht gar identisch, und könnten uns gegenseitig überhaupt nicht mehr bereichern. Dann gäbe es auch keine Toleranz mehr, denn dem eigenen Spiegelbild gegenüber Toleranz zu markieren ist beileibe kein Kunststück.

Narziss war seiner Spiegelung im Teiche gegenüber sogar so tolerant, dass er darin versank. Und genau das ist das Kreuz mit dem Multi-Kulturalismus: Er fördert keineswegs die Vielfalt. Er zerstört sie. Er vermengt alles, bis es kompatibel und austauschbar ist. Multikulti zerstört die Seele der Menschen, Dinge, Bräuche und Völker. Multikulti schafft ein heilloses, undefinierbares Durcheinander, ein Chaos, das im Grunde genommen völlig leer ist. In dieser Leere ist alles gleich, alles egal, alles genauso wahr wie sein Gegenteil, alles absurd. Und im Absurden herrscht bekanntlich das Nichts.

Die Vielfalt der Formen kann nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass die Inhalte verloren gegangen sind. Ein schöner Einband um eine leere Schachtel füllt diese nicht mit Pralinen. Barocker Firlefanz mit vergoldeten Schnörkeln macht noch keinen Glauben aus. Die Idee aber, die durch das Schweizer Staatssystem verkörpert wird, ist alles andere als leer. Dahinter steht eine lange Geschichte. Die Träume unserer Vorväter  leben unter unseren Augenlidern weiter. Ein göttlicher Geist schwebt hinter der materiellen Realität unseres Staatswesens. Darum macht die Schweiz der großen EU Angst. Hier wird das Erhabene noch hoch gehalten.

Die EU hingegen hat den Geist Schillers und Beethovens, wie er in ihrer Hymne, der Ode an die Freude zum Ausdruck kommt, verraten, indem sie jeden Bezug zum Geistigen, Göttlichen, aus der Präambel ihrer Verfassung gestrichen hat. Die Mächtigen der Erde fürchten das Geistige, denn das Geistige lässt sich nicht kontrollieren, bewirtschaften oder verkaufen. Es entgeht jeder Machtballung, entwickelt ungeahnte Kräfte, strömt über Umwege durch das kollektive Unbewusste.

Das Geistige ist ein leuchtender Strom, der den Schatten unseres Daseins überhaupt ihren Umriss gibt. Das Geistige ist nicht von dieser Erde und baut keine Mauern in der Wirklichkeit auf. Die Macht schon.

Darum haben sich die Schweizer schon immer vor der Macht gehütet und Machtballungen zu verhindern gewusst. Darum haben sie die Macht so spärlich wie möglich an höhere Instanzen delegiert. Darum haben sie immer frei über ihr eigenes Schicksal entscheiden wollen. Um dies zu verwirklichen, haben sie ein ausgeklügeltes System entwickelt, in dem keine Kraft die Überhand gewinnen kann und sich letztendlich immer alles einpendelt. Keine Erschütterung vermag dieses System aus den Angeln zu heben, jeder Druck verstärkt geradezu die im Gleichgewicht stehenden Energien.

Die Menschen kommen und gehen. Das System bleibt. Keiner kann es beherrschen.

Die Schweizer Bundesräte kommen und gehen, ob gut oder schlecht, meistens sind es graue Mäuse, doch das Perpetuum mobile der Schweizer Demokratie dreht sich wie die Mühlen Gottes ungehindert und ewig weiter. Es ist sogar so stark, dieses System, dass ihm der unfähigste Bundesrat keinen dauerhaften Schaden zufügen kann. Ich wage selbst zu behaupten, dass es in der Schweiz keinem auffallen würde, wenn die Regierung ein Jahr lang eine Weltumsegelung unternehmen würde. Denn das System ist selbsttragend.

Es steht völlig im Dienste der Menschen, holt seine Substanz aus ihrem Alltag und gibt einen Mehrwert an sie zurück, ohne dass es einen starken Arm bräuchte, der es ankurbelt. Denn das Problem mit dem starken Arm ist, dass er eines guten Tages erlahmt. Das Schweizer Staatssystem erlahmt nie, denn es hat unzählige Arme zur Verfügung: die Arme all jener, die ihre Ärmel hochkrempeln und es jeden Tag, über Generationen hinweg, mittragen.

„Der Staat bin ich“, verkündete Ludwig der XIV. In der Schweiz ist jeder Bürger Ludwig der XIV. Jeder ist der Staat.

Doch wie funktioniert dieses System konkret? Wir Schweizer kennen nicht nur die übliche, allen parlamentarischen Demokratien eigene horizontale Gewaltentrennung in Legislative, Judikative und Exekutive, wir haben ebenfalls eine starke vertikale Gewaltentrennung zwischen dem Bund, den Kantonen und den Gemeinden. Das nennt sich Föderalismus und funktioniert auf der Basis des Subsidiaritätsprinzips. Das heißt, dass in der Schweiz die Entscheidungen auf jener Stufe getroffen werden, die dafür am geeignetsten ist. Ein wundervoller Gedanke, der jede zentralistische Bürokratie im Brüsseler Stil verunmöglicht. Damit nicht genug.

Die Schweizer haben es auch so eingerichtet, dass alle maßgebenden politischen Kräfte gleichzeitig in der Regierung vertreten sind und sich gegenseitig kontrollieren. Das ergibt zwar ein bewegtes Zusammenleben, aber dem Volk kann’s nur Recht sein, ist doch die Macht dadurch weitgehend neutralisiert.

Um aber ganz sicher zu sein, die Kontrolle über die Politik nicht zu verlieren, wurde dem Staatsgebilde als Sockel die direkte Demokratie unterlegt, die es dem Volk viermal pro Jahr erlaubt, zu allen massgebenden Geschäften die Oppositionsrolle auszuüben. Ja, liebe Zuhörer, in der Schweiz ist das Volk die politische Opposition zu den Regierungsparteien. Und da es darüber hinaus auch noch der Souverän ist, hat es immer das letzte Wort.

Dieses einmalige Modell, obwohl es sehr alt ist und sich in jahrhundertealter Entwicklung herausgebildet hat, ist heute genauso revolutionär wie zu seinen Gründungszeiten. Es ist der Ausdruck einer täglichen, demokratischen, menschlichen und kontrollierten Revolution. Es ist der Ausdruck der Selbstverantwortung, der Ausdruck der einzig glaubwürdigen Revolution, jener die ständig in den Köpfen und Herzen der Menschen stattfindet.

Diese Revolution ist ein interner Prozess, eine langsame Entwicklung, ein inneres Wachstum des Menschen. Die üblichen Revolutionen der Menschheitsgeschichte waren ebenso brutal wie kurzlebig. Eine tiefgreifende Verwandlung des Bewusstseins aber erfordert eine lange, geduldige Entwicklung. Dafür schafft sie auch etwas ungeheuer Starkes, Dauerhaftes und Würdiges, das den Stürmen der Geschichte standzuhalten vermag.

So ist denn die Schweiz das einzige Land der Welt geworden, das den Namen Volksdemokratie wirklich verdient, weil die Bürger dort wirklich frei über die Verwaltung ihres Staatswesens mitentscheiden können.

Dies ist den Befürwortern der Globalisierung ein Dorn im Auge, da das Schweizer Erfolgsmodell ihrem Drang nach Machtkonzentration und Zentralisierung Hohn spricht. Am liebsten möchten diese Kreise das Modell der direkten Demokratie ausrotten, denn sie fürchten, dass der gefährliche Gedanke der Selbstverwaltung und der Staatssouveränität auf andere Länder übergreifen und das Modell der monumentalen Staatskonglomerate gefährden könnte. Diese Leute betrachten den Bürger als unmündiges Herdenschaf, das von „weisen“ Eliten geführt werden muss.

Der Schweizer Bauernstaat hingegen ist aus der Überzeugung heraus gewachsen, dass das, was einer selber entscheidet bei weitem mehr wiegt als alles, was über seinen Kopf hinweg entschieden wird. 1291 wurden am Morgarten die „weisen Habsburger Eliten“ zum ersten Mal flach gelegt und von da an musste die Schweiz immer wieder gegen die Machtgelüste seiner Nachbarn ankämpfen, bis 1648 im westfälischen Frieden ihre Souveränität vollumfänglich anerkannt wurde.

Sie sehen, das ging nicht von einem Tag auf den anderen vor sich. Später kam dann noch die immerwährende bewaffnete Neutralität hinzu, der es hauptsächlich zu verdanken ist, wenn die Schweiz unbeschadet zwei Weltkriege überstand. Die Kräfte, die dieses einzigartige Modell, diese demokratische Alternative zerstören wollen, haben in den letzten Jahren erkennen müssen, dass der Weg der Selbstauflösung durch einen EU-Beitritt nicht mehr realisierbar ist.

Würde morgen über einen solchen Beitritt abgestimmt, dann würden (nach neusten Umfragen) an die 80% der Schweizer Bürger dagegen stimmen. Das Hauptproblem der Euro-Turbos ist halt eben, dass eine solche Entscheidung in der Schweiz ohne Volksabstimmung nicht möglich ist. Und das Volk denkt nun mal nicht wie der grösste Teil seiner „weisen“ Eliten.

Nun frage ich Sie: In welchem Land Europas hat das Volk über den EU-Beitritt abstimmen können? In Deutschland jedenfalls nicht. Und in den meisten anderen Ländern auch nicht. Und da wundert man sich, dass das EU-Modell von der breiten Basis nicht mitgetragen wird!

Aber zurück zu den Feinden der direkten Demokratie: Da diese einsehen müssen, dass ein sofortiger Beitritt in weite Ferne gerückt ist, greifen sie zu anderen Mitteln: Schritt für Schritt werden über internationale Verträge, internationale Gerichtshöfe und zahlreiche Konventionen vollendete Tatsachen geschaffen. Der Beitritt findet in Scheiben statt.

Eines Tages wird es dann heißen, die Schweiz sei de jure ja schon Mitglied der EU, also sei es logisch, dass sie es auch de facto werde. Die größte Gefahr sehe ich in den gegenwärtig zur Diskussion stehenden „bilateralen Verträgen III“, in denen der automatische Nachvollzug des EU-Rechts vorgesehen ist. Das wäre in der Tat ein tödlicher Schlag für die Souveränität der Schweiz.

Dass gewisse Schweizer Parlamentarier und die Mehrheit der Regierung dieses Spiel mitspielen wollen, ist beschämend. Doch auch hier werden sie am unbezwingbaren Bollwerk der direkten Demokratie scheitern, denn das Schweizer Volk wird sich nie damit abfinden, seine Schlächter selber zu wählen.

Liebe Zuhörerinnen und Zuhörer, was haben die EU-Bürokraten den Völkern Europas nicht alles versprochen: Die Personenfreizügigkeit werde Wohlstand bringen, Arbeitsplätze sichern und die Sozialversicherungen festigen. Und was ist geschehen? Warum wandern jedes Jahr 200 000 junge Deutsche aus dem früheren Einwanderungsland Deutschland aus? Und wie steht es mit den Arbeitslosenzahlen? Wie mit der Staatsverschuldung? Was heute über den Köpfen der Leute angestrebt wird, ist der allmähliche Bankrott der EU-Staaten, die man in die Schuldenfalle gelockt hat.

Mit Island, Griechenland und Irland fing es an. Weiter ging es mit Portugal und bald wird Spanien mit seinen jetzigen 22% Arbeitslosen an der Reihe sein. Schritt für Schritt wird der internationale Währungsfonds seine Rolle als finanzieller Weltpolizist ausbauen und den ruinierten Staaten seinen Willen aufzwingen. So wurde nach der Kolonisierung mit der dritten Welt verfahren.

Nun sind erstmals europäische Staaten dran. Und falls sich die Völker dagegen auflehnen wollen, wie in Griechenland oder Spanien, dann bleiben ihnen nur Massendemonstrationen übrig, denn es fehlen die institutionellen Mittel, um sich zu wehren, vor allem fehlt die direkte Demokratie. Ein anderes Versprechen der EU war grenzenlose Sicherheit dank der Verträge von Schengen und Dublin?

Und wo stehen wir nun? Die Einwanderungspolitik ist zur Farce verkommen, Dänemark möchte am liebsten die Grenzen dicht machen und Frankreich und Italien schieben sich den schwarzen Peter zu. Die Kriminalität steigt, weil die Verbrecherbanden in einem riesigen Territorium grenzenlos tätig werden können und sich ungehindert ihrer Mobilität erfreuen.

Daneben entstehen unsichtbare Grenzen, Parallelgesellschaften, Mikrokonflikte überall, und der Staat wird allmählich, als Reaktion auf die selbstverschuldete Unsicherheit, zum Überwachungs- und Polizeistaat. Nun, das hatten wir schon mal. Und es ist uns nicht wohl bekommen. Sicher ist, dass unsere Freiheit bei einer solchen Entwicklung im Grab unserer Hoffnungen verwesen wird.

Liebe Zuhörer und Zuhörerinnen, das Modell des souveränen und demokratischen Rechtsstaates, der durch eine klare und glaubwürdige Grenze geschützt wird, ist und bleibt ein Modell für die Zukunft. Weil das Konzept des Vaterlandes ein Konstrukt menschlichen Ausmaßes darstellt und sich der Bürger damit identifizieren kann. Die großflächigen Imperien der Geschichte gaben nie Gewähr für Menschenwürde und friedliches Zusammenleben. Ein Imperium muss immer wachsen, seinen Machthunger durch Eroberungen stillen.

Nicht so der Nationalstaat demokratischer Prägung. Nun kann  man einwenden, Frankreich, Deutschland und England hätten in der Vergangenheit zahlreiche Kriege geführt. Das stimmt, aber England hieß damals „britisches Imperium“, das napoleonische Frankreich war ein Kaiserreich wie auch das wilhelminische  Deutschland und vom großdeutschen Reich des 2. Weltkriegs wollen wir gar nicht erst reden.

Fakt ist, Kriege zwischen zwei demokratischen Nationalstaaten hat es nie gegeben. Immer waren Monarchie, Autoritarismus, Diktatur, Totalitarismus oder Theokratie der Auslöser für Kriege. Zentralistisch regierte, bürokratische Modelle waren immer mit Gewalt verbunden und sind mit der Zeit vor lauter Arroganz untergegangen. Der Nationalstaat hingegen hat eine kulturelle Basis, ist im Volk verwurzelt und kann die Entscheidungszentren in der Nähe seiner Bürger belassen, weil ein gegenseitiges Vertrauensverhältnis heranwächst, wenn man sich nur die Zeit dazu lässt.

Wir müssen uns heute schon die Frage stellen, was nach der EU kommen wird. Was soll aus unserem Kontinent werden, wenn dieses Marode System zusammen krachen wird. Ich plädiere für ein Europa der freien Nationen, ein Europa der Vaterländer! Ich plädiere für ein föderalistisches System Schweizer Prägung! Ich plädiere für die Selbstbestimmung der Völker durch die direkte Demokratie.

Seit 2009 reise ich kreuz und quer durch Europa und überbringe den Leuten eine Idee. Eine einmalige Idee, die in einem kleinen Alpenland zur Wirklichkeit wurde. Überall hören die Leute mit offenen Ohren und Mündern zu und beneiden das Schweizer Volk um seine Rechte und Pflichten. Der Traum von der großen EU hat sich als Luftschloss erwiesen, ist zerplatzt wie eine Blase.

Doch es ist ein neuer Traum entstanden, es ist ein bescheidener Traum nur, alles andere als eine grandiose Chimäre von Glanz und Gloria. Es ist der Traum einfacher, mit dem Land ihrer Väter verbundener Menschen. In diesem Traum verlagert sich die Eroberung vom Materiellen ins Geistige. Es gilt nicht mehr Macht anzuhäufen und in den Händen weniger zu belassen, um andere Länder und Kontinente wirtschaftlich oder militärisch zu stürmen.

Nein, es gilt, die Macht aufzuteilen auf alle Mitbürger, es gilt wieder Herr im eigenen Hause zu sein, es gilt nicht mehr den Krieg nach Außen, sondern den Frieden nach innen zu gewinnen. Es gilt, Würde und Respekt wieder herzustellen, und Menschlichkeit. Es gilt Schluss zu machen mit Heuchelei, Selbstverleugnung und Selbstkasteiung.

Wir haben ein Recht, das zu sein, was wir sind, und auch das Recht, darauf stolz zu sein. Wer diese Idee mitträgt, woher er auch komme, ist uns willkommen. Wer nicht, der entferne weinend sich aus unserem Rund. Der Einsatz ist nicht so sehr ein geographisches, klar abgegrenztes Gebiet, sondern eine Seelenlandschaft. Rette das Land Deiner Väter und Du rettest Deine Seele. Verankere Dich in der Geschichte Deines Volkes und Du rettest die Zukunft Deiner Kinder. Sei stolz auf Deine Wurzeln, dann wächst Dein Lebensbaum in den Himmel hinein. Dies wünsche ich Ihnen und mir, dies wünsche ich Deutschland, der Schweiz und Europa.

Es lebe die Freiheit!

Ich danke für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit

Geert Wilders Comes to Nashville

h/t Tundra Tabloids

A Warning to America

Speech Geert Wilders, Cornerstone Church , Nashville , 12 May 2011

Dear friends from Tennessee. I am very happy to be in your midst today. I am happy and proud to be in this impressive church.

My friends, I am here to speak words of truth and freedom.

Do you know why America is in a better state than Europe? Because you enjoy more freedom than Europeans.

And do you know why Americans enjoy more freedom than Europeans? Because you are still allowed to tell the truth.

In Europe and Canada people are dragged to court for telling the truth about islam.

I, too, have been dragged to court. I am an elected member of the house of representatives in the Netherlands. I am currently standing in court like a common criminal for saying that islam is a dangerous totalitarian ideology rather than a religion.

The court case is still pending, but I risk a jail sentence of 16 months.

Last week, my friend Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, was fined because in a private conservation, which was recorded without his knowing, he had criticised the way women are treated in islamic societies.

Recently, another friend, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a human rights activist from Austria, was fined because she had criticised islam’s founder Muhammad. She had said that Muhammad was a pedophile because he had married a 6-year old girl and raped her when she was 9.

Unfortunately, there are many similar cases.

I am especially happy to be in your midst because here I can say what I want to say without having to fear that I will be dragged to court upon leaving this church.

My dear American friends, you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment. The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called “hate speech crimes” which is only used to punish people who are critical of islam, that day America will have lost its freedom.

My friends, let us hope that this never happens.

Last week, we celebrated Liberation Day in the Netherlands. We celebrated the liberation from the Nazi occupation in 1945. Many American soldiers, including many young Tennesseans, played a decisive role in the liberation of the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. We are immensely grateful for that. Young Americans gave their lives so that the Dutch might be free. I assure you: The Dutch people will never forget this.

Unfortunately, however, the Europe which your fathers and grandfathers fought and died for is not the Europe we are living in today.

I travel the world to tell people what Europe has become. I wish I could take you all on a visit to my country and show you what Europe has become. It has changed beyond recognition as a result of mass immigration. And not just any mass immigration, but mass immigration driven by the dangerous force of islam.

My friends, I am sorry. I am here today with an unpleasant message. I am here with a warning. I am here with a battle cry: “Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate.” Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow islam to gain a foothold here.

Islam is dangerous. Islam wants to establish a state on earth, ruled by islamic sharia law. Islam aims for the submission, whether by persuasion, intimidation or violence, of all non-Muslims, including Christians.

The results can be seen in Europe.

Islam is an ideology of conquest. It uses two methods to achieve this goal: the first method is the sword. Do you know what figures on the flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country where Christian churches are banned and Christians are not even allowed to wear a tiny crucifix? There is a huge sword on that flag, just below the Islamic creed. The message is clear. Without the sword islam would not have been able to spread its creed.

The second method is immigration. Islam’s founder Muhammad himself taught his followers how to conquer through immigration when they moved from Mecca to Medina. This phenomenon of conquest through immigration is called al-Hijra. My learned friend Sam Solomon has written a perfect book about it.

I had a copy of Sam’s book sent to all the members of the Dutch Parliament. But most of them are worse than Saint-Thomas in the Bible. Thomas did not believe what he had not seen. Most politicians refuse to believe the things they see before their very eyes.

In Europe we have been experiencing al-Hijra for over 30 years now. Many of our cities have changed beyond recognition. “In each one of our cities” wrote the well-known Italian author Oriana Fallaci shortly before her death in 2006, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – end of quote.

How did the Europeans get into this situation? It is partly our own fault because we have foolishly adopted the concept of cultural relativism, which manifests itself in the ideology of multiculturalism.

Cultural relativism advocates that all cultures are equal. However, cultures wither away and die if people no longer believe that its values are better than those of another culture.

Islam is spreading like wildfire wherever people lack the guts to say that their values are better than the Islamic values.

Islam is spreading like wildfire because the Koran explicitly tells Muslims that they are “the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” and that non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures.”

Islam is spreading like wildfire everywhere in the West where political, academic, cultural and media elites lack the guts to proudly proclaim, as I believe we all should proclaim:

Our Judeo-Christian Western culture is far better and far superior to the islamic culture. We must be proud to say so!

Multiculturalism is a disaster. Almost everyone acknowledges this today, but few dare say why. Let me tell you why: Multiculturalism made us tolerate the intolerant, and now intolerance is annihilating tolerance.

We should, in the name of tolerance, claim the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Let us no longer be afraid and politically correct, let us be brave and bold. Let us tell the truth about islam.

Before I continue I want to make clear that I do not have a problem with people. I always make a distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and islam.

Indeed, I have no problems with Muslims, but I do have a problem with the totalitarian Islamic ideology of hate and violence. The fact that there are many so-called moderate Muslims, does not imply that there exists a moderate islam. A moderate islam doen not exist and will never exist.

And because there is no such thing as a moderate islam, the islamization of our free Western societies is an enormous danger.

Only two weeks ago, the British press revealed how the so-called “London Taliban” is threatening to kill women who do not wear veils in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

In some neighbourhoods Islamic regulations are already being enforced, also on non-Muslims. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings where men murder their wives, daughters or sisters because they do not behave in accordance with Islamic rules.

Polls show that the influence of those Muslims who live according to islam’s aggressive requirements is growing, especially among young people.

Among 15-year-old German Muslims, 40 percent consider islam more important than democracy.

Among Muslim university students in Britain, 40 percent support sharia. One in three of those students considers it legitimate to kill in the name of islam.

Christians are asked to follow the example of Jesus. Muslims are ordered to follow the example of Muhammad. That is why islam is dangerous. While Christianity preaches love, islam preached hatred and practizes violence. Hatred and violence for everyone who is not a Muslim.

Muhammad personally participated in the ethnic cleansing of Medina, where half the population once was Jewish. Muhammad helped to chop off their heads. On his deathbed, he ordered his followers to cleanse Arabia of all Jews and Christians.

To this very day, Christian symbols are prohibited in Saudi-Arabia. If you wear a cross in Saudi Arabia, they sent you to jail.

And now, Europe is beginning to look like Arabia.

Just today, a poll revealed that in Brussels, the capital of the European Union, half the islamic youths are anti-semitic. It is dangerous for Jews to walk the streets in Brussels.

If you wear a cross or a kippah in certain urban areas in Europe today, you risk being beaten up. In the capital of my own country, Amsterdam, a tram driver was forced to remove his crucifix from sight, while his Muslim colleagues are allowed to wear the veil.

In June 2008, the Christian church authorities in the Danish town of Arhus decided to pay so-called “protection money” to islamic so-called “security guards” who assure that church goers are not harassed by islamic youths.

On March 31^st, 2010, Muslims entered the Roman Catholic cathedral of Cordoba, Spain, and attacked the guards with knives. They claimed the cathedral was theirs.

Last month, the bishops of Sweden sent out a letter to priests advising them to avoid converting asylum seekers from islamic countries to Christianity, because the converts would risk losing their lives.

In the Netherlands, the city authorities in Amsterdam register polygamous marriages. The authorities in Rotterdam serve only halal meals in municipal cafeterias. Theaters provide separate seats for women who are not allowed to sit next to men. Municipal swimming pools have separate swimming hours for men and women, Muslim lawyers do not have to stand when the judges enter court rooms.

Meanwhile Jews are no longer safe on our streets. In Amsterdam, the city of Anne Frank, Jews are again being harassed in the streets. Even political leaders acknowledged that life has become unsafe for Jews in Holland. Do you know what they said? They advised Jews to emigrate. Jews are already running for Israel. But I say: Jews must not leave, violent Muslims must leave!

What is needed, my friends, is a spirit of resistance.

I repeat: What we need is a spirit of resistance.

Why? Because resistance to evil is our moral duty. This resistance begins with expressing our solidarity to Christians, Jews, indeed, to all people worldwide, who are the victims of islam. There are millions of them.

We can see what islam has in store for us if we watch the fate of the Christians in the islamic world, such as the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians elsewhere.

Almost every day, churches are arsoned and Christians are assassinated in islamic countries.

In a report on the persecution of Christians in the world, Archbishop Twal of Jerusalem, wrote recently– I quote: “In the Middle East to be Christian means accepting that you must make a great sacrifice. All too often and in many places, Christians suffer various threats. On some occasions, their homes and churches are burnt, and people are killed. How many atrocities must we endure before somebody somewhere comes to our aid?” – end of quote.

Indeed, how many atrocities before we come to their aid?

Rivers of tears are flowing from the Middle East, where there is only one safe haven for Christians. You know where that is. The only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe is Israel.

That is why Israel deserves our support. Israel is a safe haven for everyone, whatever their belief and opinions. Israel is a beacon of light in a region of total darkness. Israel is fighting our fight.

The jihad against Israel is a jihad against all of us. If Israel falls, we, too, will feel the consequences. If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Rome, Amsterdam and Nashville will fall. Therefore, we all are Israel. We should always support Israel!

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. The Arab peoples long for freedom. However, the ideology and culture of islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible as long as islam remains dominant.

A recent poll in post-revolution Egypt found that 85 percent of Egyptians are convinced that islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates. The press refers to the events in the Arab world today as the Arab spring. I call it the Arab winter.

Islam and freedom, islam and democracy are not compatible.

The death of Osama bin Laden last week was a victory for the free world, but we will be confronted with Islamic terrorism as long as islam exists, because islam’s founder Muhammad himself was a terrorist, worse than Bin Laden.

And here is another truth: The rise of islam means the rise of sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe we already have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. Britain even has sharia courts.

In my own country, the Netherlands, sharia is being applied by the courts in cases relating to divorce, child custody, inheritance, and property ownership. Women are always the victims of this because sharia discriminates women.

This is a disgrace. This is not the way we should treat women.

My friends, I told you that we have just remembered Liberation Day to commemorate the young Americans and all the heroes who offered their lives to free the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. It would be an insult to them if we Europeans would give up that precious freedom for another totalitarian ideology called Islam.

That is the goal for which my party and I work day after day. And we are having success.

In the Netherlands, we are successfully starting to roll back islam. The current Dutch government is a minority government which can only survive with the backing of my party, the Party for Freedom.

We have 24 seats of the 150 seats in parliament and we support the government, in return for measures to prohibit certain aspects of sharia law.

We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the burka and the niqaab.

We will also restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years. We are not going to allow islam to steal our country from us. It was the land of our fathers, it is our land now, our values are based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism and we will pass this on to our children with all the freedoms that the previous generations have fought for.

Let those who want to rob us from our freedoms, stay in their own countries. We do not need them. If you want to wear a burqa, stay in Saudi-Arabia. If you want four wives, stay in Iran. If you want to live in a country where the islamic ideology is dominant, stay in Pakistan, if you don’t want to assimilate in our society, stay in Somalia. But don’t come over here.

We are also going to strip criminals who have a double nationality – for instance Dutch and Moroccan, and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality. We will send them packing, back to their homeland.

My friends, what the Party for Freedom has achieved, shows that it can be done. We can fight the islamization of our societies.

Dear friends, here is my warning. Make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. In fact, it is already here. America is facing a stealth jihad, the islamic attempt to introduce sharia law bit by bit. Last March, a judge in Tampa, Florida, ruled that a lawsuit against a mosque and involving the control of 2.4 million dollars, should proceed under Islamic law.

My friends, be aware that this is only the beginning. This is also how it started in Europe. If things continue like this, you will soon have the same problems as we are currently facing.

Leaders who talk about immigration without mentioning islam are blind. They ignore the most important problem Europe and America are facing. I have a message for them: it’s islam stupid!

My friends, fortunately, not all politicians are irresponsible. Here, in Tennessee, brave politicians want to pass legislation which gives the state the power to declare organisations as terrorist groups and allowing material supporters of terrorism to be prosecuted. I applaud them for that. They are true heroes.

Yesterday and today, I met some of those brave legislators. They told me that Tennessee in particular is a target of islam. Help them win their battle.

They need your support.

While Tennessee is in the frontline, similar legislative initiatives are also being taken in the states of Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana. It is encouraging to see that so many politicians are willing to resist islam.

This gives us hope and courage. I am not a pessimist. We can still turn the tide – even in Europe – if we act today.

There are five things which we must do.

First, we must defend freedom of speech.

Freedom is the source of human creativity and development. People and nations wither away without the freedom to question what is presented to them as the truth.

Without freedom of speech we risk becoming slaves. Frederick Douglass, the 19^th century black American politician, the son of a slave, said – I quote – “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

I have already told you about my court case. This legal charade will not, however, prevent me from saying the truth. Never. I will speak out, even if they drag me before 500 courts and threaten to jail me for a thousand years.

The fact that we are being treated as criminals for telling the truth must not deter us. We are doomed if we remain silent or let ourselves be silenced. Let us not forget, this is our first and most important obligation: defend the right to speak the truth.

Second, we must end cultural relativism and political correctness. We must repeat it over and over again, especially to our children: Our Western culture based on Christianity and Judaism is superior to the islamic culture. Our laws are superior to sharia. Our judeo-christian values are better than islam’s totalitarian rules.

And because they are superior and better, we must defend them. We must fight for our own identity, or else we will lose it. We need to be warriors for the good, because the good is worth fighting for. Neutrality in the face of evil is evil.

Third, we must stop the islamization of our countries. More islam means less freedom. There is enough islam in the West already. We must stop immigration from non-Western countries, which are mostly islamic countries. We must expel criminal immigrants. We must forbid the construction of new hate palaces called mosques.

We must also close down all islamic schools because educating children in a spirit of hate is one of the worst things imaginable. We must introduce anti-sharia legislation everywhere in the free world. Enough is enough.

Fourth, we must take pride in our nations again. We must cherish and preserve the culture and identity of our country. Preserving our own culture and identity is the best antidote against islamization.

And fifth, last but certainly not least, we must elect wise and courageous leaders who are brave enough to address the problems which are facing us, including the threat of islam.

Politicians who have the courage to speak the truth about islam.

Politicians who dare to denounce the devastating results of the multicultural society.

Politicians who – without political correctness – say: enough is enough.

You and I, Americans and Europeans, we belong to a common Western culture. We share the ideas and ideals of our common Judeo-Christian heritage. In order to pass this heritage on to our children and grandchildren, we must stand together, side by side, in our struggle against Islamic barbarism.

That, my friends, is why I am here. I am here to forge an alliance. Our international freedom alliance. We must stand together for the Judeo-Christian West.

We will not allow islam to overrun Israel and Europe, the cradle of the judeo-Christian civilization.

My friends, we will stand together.

We will stand firm.

We will not submit. Never. Not in Israel, not in Europe, not in America. Nowhere.

We will survive.

We will stop islam.

We will defend our freedoms.

We will remain free.

Thank you.

Geert Wilders in Ottawa

Thank you to Vlad Tepes for recording this speech.

The Myth Behind Multiculturalism

From: Family Security Matters

Multiculturalism, although theoretically a great utopian idea is proving to be a recipe doomed for failure like mixing vinegar and oil. The world can no longer tolerate the increase of violence such as suicide bombings, roadside bombs and along with injustices felt to be foreign to their cultures, imposed on us. With these uprisings there is increasing efforts and more countries around the world are beginning to say “no” to multiculturalism, including saying “no” to the veil.

Presidents, prime ministers, public servants, private citizens and others are irritated and tired of having to adapt to immigrants rather than immigrants adapting to their new countries and western culture. It’s become a “take it or leave it” situation, no longer worrying about whether we in the West are offending others, individuals, their communities or their cultures.

As psychoanalysts and observers we introduce the concept of adaptation, based on the works of the famous psychoanalyst Heinz Hartmann who claimed that the healthy baby, child or person learns to adapt to their environment, whereas the unhealthy ones insist on the environment adapting to them. Hartmann focused on how the realistic part of the psyche known as the ego has its own destiny in the ability to adapt to new environments. In applying Hartmann’s concept to multiculturalism we believe it is fair to say that immigrants have a civic responsibility to adapt as long as the environment is acceptable.

Hartmann was himself an immigrant from Nazi Germany and knew of what he spoke and wrote. (We hasten to add that both of us are immigrants as well.) He was one of the first to move away from the intrapsychic world to the importance of the environment. The problem we see in accepting multiculturalism is it does not take adaptation into account. Instead for the most part, most Muslims feel it is up to their adopted country to adapt to them under the guise of being “misunderstood” with the accusation that westerners lack empathy and sympathy toward their “cause.”

Anthony Pagden, author of Worlds at War presents another issue that is the clash of civilizations where East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet. This is precisely the problem for adaptation, which becomes far more complex because for over 1,000 years, the majority of Muslims have basically not had to adapt nor have they had to incorporate western ways of life, and the ones who have, have put their own lives at risk.

Even the alleged golden age of Spain and its convivencia tended toward more parallel communities living under the domination of Islam while being categorized as dhimmis, the “protected” (lege patronized) class of Christians and Jews in particular who were, by the way, basically treated at devalued females.

Let us now say a few words about multiculturalism and how under the guise of religious freedom one can act out their most destructive fantasies. Basically, multiculturalism as critiqued by social scientists and politicians shows the inability to adapt and the setting up of parallel enclaves within a larger society in a social benefits-oriented dependency. German Chancellor Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy along with British Prime Minister David Cameron have noted the failure of this once trendy academic ideology, spear headed by the likes of the now dead Edward Said whose multiculturalism was and has been an attack on Israel in particular. Our effort is not to trace out the origins of multiculturalism, but to look at it from a psychological point of view in order to enhance an understanding of why it is doomed to fail. From our point of view it is inextricably linked to the concept of adaptation.  Submission, compliance, control and domination obviously do not mix with adaptation. These are elements engrained in a cult-like environment where the group bands together and under the rubric of saving face, support honor killings and suicide bombing as average normative behavior.

One cannot discuss multiculturalism without making reference to the veil and the symbolic covert message it conveys. Those who want to live under Sharia law in the West want to impose it. However, western women do not want the veil imposed on them or for that matter on any other woman as it represents the repression of women’s rights and the dark shadow behind creeping Sharia. One former Muslim, Al Fadi, recently expressed the irony he finds in all of this, that it is

“ . . .appalling that some Muslims always like to impose Islamic rules and traditions on others everywhere they go or live. It is frustrating to read or hear of such complaints by Muslims directed against others, when in fact Muslims tend to deny others the very same rights who live in Islamic countries under Islamic law.”

Westerners no longer see the veil as an exotic accoutrement but rather as a symbol of potential violence, hostility and vengeance but most especially the suppression of women as compliant and obedient. We believe that a significant majority of western women “get it” that these women who don the burka and any of its forms have been mentally if not physically beaten into submission though many would deny it. This is so, as we speculate, that they are highly dissociated due to being chronically terrorized and that they have formed an identification with their aggressors. Ironically, the veil has such poor fit since many western women want to shop until they drop in short skirts and low cut dresses without shame.

To conclude: the West has always embraced people of various cultures and has extensively tried to help them integrate, welcoming immigrants with open arms. Our hospitality has gone too far and it is now ego-dystonic to suddenly have immigrants take over and impose their laws and values as found in Sharia law. We must not be blinded with benevolent myopia to note how the rise of terrorism and the endless threats to the West are causing more people to see beyond the myth of this vision to a fantasy called multiculturalism. We now need to look beyond the veil to see multiculturalism for what it really is — how it does not lead to more freedom of expression but rather it has lead to an insidious political correctness, more violence and threats of more terrorism.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Dr. Nancy Kobrin, a psychoanalyst with a Ph.D. in romance and semitic languages, specializes in Aljamía and Old Spanish in Arabic script. She is an expert on the Minnesota Somali diaspora and a graduate of the Human Terrain System program at Leavenworth Kansas. Her new book is The Banality of Suicide Terrorism: The Naked Truth About the Psychology of Islamic Suicide Bombing. 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Dr. Joanie Jutta Lachkar is a licensed Marriage and Family therapist in private practice in Brentwood and Tarzana, California, who teaches psychoanalysis and is the author of The Narcissistic/Borderline Couple: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Marital Treatment (1992, The Many Faces of Abuse: Treating the Emotional Abuse of High -Functioning Women (1998), The V-Spot, How to Talk to a Narcissist, How to Talk to a Borderline and a recent  paper, “The Psychopathology of Terrorism”  presented at the Rand Corporation and  the International Psychohistorical Association. She is also an affiliate member for the New Center for Psychoanalysis.

Geert Wilders: How to Turn the Tide

Thank you to Gates of Vienna for posting this

Below is the speech given by Geert Wilders last night (March 25) at the Annual Lecture of the Magna Carta Foundation in Rome.

The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide

Speech by Geert Wilders, Rome, 25 March 2011

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization — the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”

My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.

Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.

The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.

It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.

Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.

In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.

Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.

At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.

The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote — I quote — “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.

Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.

This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.

• The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said — I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.
• Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said — I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”
• Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that — I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”
• Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said — I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.

• In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said — I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.
• Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.

Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.

However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.

Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote — I quote — a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.

Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.

Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” — End of quote.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned

In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to — I quote — “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.

Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.”

Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures — it is plain common sense.

Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands.

Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate.

My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said.

Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” — End of quote.

Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” — End of quote.

In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth.

Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years.

Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible.

This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.

The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology.

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom.

Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom.

I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off.

Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya.

Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of — I quote — “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities.

And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us.

Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law.

Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good.

The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam.

It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam.

While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.”

For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so.

The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind.

Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society.

While today — at last — our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization.

There are a few things which we can do in this regard.

One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be travelling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe.

Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says — I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”

A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it.

National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture.

I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and — what an ironic coincidence — on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.”

Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future.

The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future.

On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare.

The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved.

Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty.

In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must — I quote — “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” — end of quote.

In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that — I quote — “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” — end of quote.

This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.

The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making.

We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies.

My friends,

Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally — better late than never — come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.

Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.

Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.

Let me end with a final — and a positive — remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.

The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.

I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.

Thank you very much.