Democracy: I would like to make it clear from the beginning that I wish to keep the CDU out of the issue here. This means that I stand here today as a concerned citizen just as you are concerned citizens, concerned because that there are certain developments in our country that cause the question of whether we still live in a total democracy to be raised! Or of whether, and to what degree, this form of government has already been withdrawn.

In the Europe of the 21st century, democracy is our birthright! We have fought for centuries and bled for it; we have stepped through dark ages; we have died for this idea of freedom and equality and independence. Right at 20 years ago, we saw this dream realized in the end of the Cold War. Many thought this would be the end of the history record, and that now we would finally set up our Paradise on Earth. The (punk band) Die Toten Hosen sang that, with the entry way to a new millennium, we were on a crusade to good look! And there were few to doubt it. But they were all disappointed. Disappointed because it appears yet again that the most elementary matters of course, such as democracy, still do not exist in their entirety.

Democracy. What does that really mean? The ability to vote is the answer I often get. One could also vote in the GDR. One can also vote in Iran. Therefore, voting alone is no criterion for a democracy! Now there are other things that can be listed, but democracy means fundamentally one thing: the rule of the people! The people are the sovereign of the State!

But what does this look like in the year 2010, twenty years after our dream? Where are the sovereign people, when every four years one can put an X next to a party that will do whatever it wishes after the election anyway, and the people have no recourse for broken election promises? Where are the sovereign people, when our widespread opinion is not mirrored in the media, but rather the opinion of a small clique at the top? What can we do? We can write letters to the editor. Will they be printed? No! We can write in the online comment area. What happens? They get deleted. And when there are too many comments that stray from the prescribed opinion, then the whole comment area is shut down. Please, I ask, where are the people sovereign in this?

For decades it has run just this way and produces more and more disappointed and disillusioned citizens that turn away from the wonderful concept of democracy and toward extremist parties like the NPD and the Left party, or they don’t even vote anymore! In the year 2005, the “Non-Voter Party” had 22.3% of the votes! In the year 2009, this number raced to the highest level since the founding of the Republic, namely a remarkable 29.2%!

We would have an interesting effect if the non-voters would be included as a party. The CDU would then be the strongest power at 24%, followed by the SPD with 16%, and the other three would end up at just over 5%. That would be a real incentive for practicing politics once again for the people! Now the cynics say that there would be a black-yellow-red-red-green mega-coalition before something like this would happen.

The European election of 2009 shows that it doesn’t matter to our politicians whether they get 30% of 60 million or 30% of 60 people because the portion of non-voters lies at a catastrophic 57%! If they would be calculated in, most of the parties in the European parliament would fall below the 5% hurdle, and the rest would lie at around 5-10%. How can one speak of democratic legitimization here? But yet, three-fourths of the laws that affect us come from Brussels! They are created by bureaucrats who know nobody and whom nobody elected!

What is the name of the American president? Obama. Everybody knows that. What is the name of the European president? Ask around in your circle of acquaintances. What is the name of the American secretary of state? Clinton, that’s clear. What is the name of the European one? To which party does she belong? What is her point of view? Yes, that’s what it really sounds like after broad approval from the people.

Ah yes, just a moment, we voted these people in when the Lisbon Agreement became effective. How did that work out in France, Holland and Ireland? That is, where actually only the people were polled? The agreement failed everywhere in those places. So, we simply have another vote. And another. Until the result is just what up top has asked for. And then one wondrously gives up voting. Does that sound like a genuine, honest democracy?

Since we’re on the subject of voting, let’s look at the minaret referendum in Switzerland. Prior to it, a great victory had been predicted in favor of the minaret advocates, but when the evil Swiss people voted differently than was expected from them, great was the outcry! The result was castigated and railed on from all over, the EU apparently would have had a repeat ballot, but here, the people, the sovereign, decided!

It would have been correct for politicians and media to get into self-critical mode and say to themselves: “Oh my goodness! I, the representative of the people, have truly not represented the position of my people! Only, how could I? I must pay better attention in the future so that I do my job correctly!” The media should have checked out why they were so far off on their prognosis and made certain that they would report accurately in the future!

Instead, politicians and other “elite” individuals see themselves as the peoples’ educators who must train the people as if they were a little child. If a mature person who is really sovereign indeed, and that sovereign is treated this way from the top, he will get irritated at these people. Unfortunately he doesn’t have the means against the problem. And right here is where the error lies in the system.

Democracy indeed comes from ancient Greece and was adopted as such in its principles. However, one important detail was forgotten, namely the “court of the shards” (ostracism). The citizen were allowed to scratch the name of a person on clay shards whom they would like to be rid of. The person whose name showed up most often was banned from the country.

Such an instrument of power is missing in our democracy. (It doesn’t have to be the same; even though I would like to see it, if Claudia Roth would begin a life-long vacation in her second homeland of East Anatolia).

There truly is a form of “court of shards” nowadays. Only it is in the hand of the government and is called “censure.” We really know censure primarily from dictatorships, indeed it is actually a necessary component for the survival of a dictatorship, for without censorship any dictatorship will disintegrate. A democratic rule of law, on the other hand, is engraved with the exact opposite, with freedom of speech.

Apart from a few understandable limitations (protection of youth, libel, unfair competition), one can legally say everything in Germany. But what does that do for me, if truly I don’t land in prison after my free expression of dissent, but rather, I lose my job over it and my reputation gets dragged through the mud in the mainstream media? Yes, and even be physically threatened! Does that sound like a free society?

And where is the boundary for censorship? Why is this constantly being pushed back? Is the FRG falling apart without censorship like a dictatorship? Is there need for the FRG or the also the EU or UN to act this way?

We are indeed at a demonstration not only freedom of speech, but also solidarity with Geert Wilders, is the cause, and therefore we will simply use that as an example.

Insult to Islam

Let me say one thing up front: this is not against Islam as a religion, or even against Muslims. I would plant myself here anytime and defend for Muslims their right to religious practice, just as I would for every Jew, Hindu or Christian. But religion is and remains a private matter and ends where the free space of the other begins. A Hindu cannot demand of our society that cows no longer be slaughtered, only because they might be a holy incarnation of his deity (and I say this as a vegetarian!). Just as little can a Muslim demand that caricatures of their prophet can no longer be drawn.

Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) once said, that the right to offend is higher than the right not to be offended. Good, now there is truly a protection against offenses, and as such that might be OK, but the meaning of these are what I call “direct offenses.” What are they?

If I say to somebody, “You are a stupid idiot,” then I have insulted him. Whether that should be put directly under penalty is another question. But that which must absolutely not be penalized is when I say (for example) to a Bavarian fan, “I find FC Bavaria Munich dumb”; then even though that person could become red with anger, I still haven’t offended him, and, bless it, I still have the right to express my opinion in this way! And the offense is just as minimal when addressing facts of the one affected by them: if I say to the “stupid fool” something else like, “I find your school grades to be bad,” have I insulted him? Have I insulted him if I would say “I find your work ethic to be lousy.”? Do we somehow wish to put penalize this?

In a free society, there is no protection against such “indirect insults,” and for good reason, for once we have started down this path, we put ourselves on a downward slide that ends with the complete demise of our freedom and a society that doesn’t have the remotest resemblance to our ideas of a modern, Western land.

We can indeed see what happens in China when free expression is limited in such a way. We see it in North Korea. We don’t even need to go too far back; we have experienced it just a breath away in the GDR! Do we really wish to go back down this backward path yet again? I say NO! We don’t want that! And that is precisely why we are standing here today!

And yet, in the Netherlands, insulting Islam is already officially forbidden. The set of problems caused by this becomes immediately clear: where does the law in not being insulted end? Is it an insult to Islam if the neighboring table is served no halal meat? Is it an insult if women wear a mini-skirt? Or perhaps if they go around without veils? Is it an insult to the Muslim faith if homosexual couples roam through the park hand-in-hand?

You laugh? Did you know that in some kindergartens and schools in the Christian world Father Christmas no longer comes because it is an insult to Muslim children? Did you know that Christmas has been renamed in some places to Winter Light Festival out of respect for the Muslim faith? Good, one closes the eye to Christmas money, but the Christian name or the baptized name is going too far.

If religions may no longer be insulted, what happens when other religions also lay claim to this right? Take for example Christendom, Pope bashing is once again in style – whether the Vatican will nominate a German again is truly doubtful; I mean, which nationality would be better suited to the firing? No, seriously, we’ll take Christendom and accept that every one of the Christian followers would claim this right in the case of a ban on insults against religions. Let’s start with the Quran. Ralph Giordano once counted and came upon over 200 appeals to murder, mostly against Jews and Christians. Now, when I imagine the masses of people demonstrating and demanding a ban against such appeals in the street, and the Muslim counter-demonstrators that see the Quran as the inalterable direct word of Allah, then I can imagine that the riots of May 1st by the left-wing fascists would simply be a puppet theatre. Now we still accept the Hindus and the cows with them, the Buddhists, the Confucianists, and don’t forget the atheists who were against all of that…

We couldn’t take another step without having to worry whether we haven’t already committed a crime! What happens when certain religious values clash against each other and one side is unavoidably insulted? Any person can see how this way leads to chaos and unrest. No, such a law against religious offense would be a powder keg, which has been pointed out that this wouldn’t be referred to as a religion anymore. As soon as another religion would come around, the fuse would be ignited.

If one can no longer offend other doctrines and ideals, then what is really up with our own ideals and doctrines? The right to free expression, equality of man and woman, our whole Constitution? What is to become of these values of ours? Is it not an offense against us when those things we solidly believe in are constantly undermined? When we see immigrants in our streets, in our own country, with signs that read “Freedom go to hell”? “Freedom is the cancer, Sharia is the answer”? “Death to those who insult Islam”? “Islam will dominate the world”? Isn’t that perhaps an offense?

A short while ago, a Jewish friend of mine was just uncareful enough in this Germany of the year 2010 to leave his house without a hat to cover his kippa to go perform his service in the synagogue 150 meters away. Four young Muslims saw him, pulled iron rods out of the ground of a construction site and stormed upon the 63-year-old man, apparently in order to perform service to THEIR god. And if the police hadn’t coincidentally come around the corner at the same, I would hate to imagine what would have happened.

Or let’s think about the Israeli flag that the police removed from the window of a private apartment because it had provoked the raging mob below. Is that not a great shame for Germany, who has ever and again emphasized its historical duty regarding Israel and the Jewish nation, when our Jewish compatriots can’t even go 150 meters to the synagogue without running the risk of being murdered? When police officers gain unallowed access to the apartment of a Jewish citizen in order to remove their flag from the window so that there will be no riots below? Is that not a shame for our country? Is that not a disgrace? Is that no offense to all that is dear and valuable to us? Is that not indignity?

Legitimate Criticism of Islam

And all of that which I just said assumes that a certain group here has been actively offended, offended in the sense of Section 185 of the Criminal Code. But that is definitely not the case! We are talking here about criticism, yes and gladly about negative criticism as well, which is perfectly legitimate and necessary! In reality, what is happening here is that the meaning of offensive criticism is in the process of being altered. It doesn’t have to do with one group offending another, but rather that the other group wipe away criticism.

Criticism is a completely normal and scientific method such that through criticism (that is inquiring into assertions) and through falsification (empirical exclusion of things) the truth can be approached. How can that be so repulsive?

If I would now present a certain statement of which I am 100% persuaded in its veracity, then I can rest with confidence on critical assessment of my statement; I mean, I know for certain that it is correct, and these critics can conclude nothing else about it — which on the other hand is naturally good for me that a statement can achieve true value and become fact only through absolute critical examination. Therefore, criticism is also good for the one being criticized! And if my statement is found to be false, then that is also good for me, for then I am wiser than before and don’t run around under mistaken assumptions. Criticism is therefore good and necessary in every case!

Except: My assertion is false. And I knew the errors were starting to show. So I am spreading a lie. Then, upon critical examination, the beads of sweat appear on my forehead. I would try anything to prevent the criticism from happening! What possibilities do I have for this? I could, first of all, discredit the critics. I could spread false statements about them, villainize them. When that isn’t enough, I could relativize their working points by bringing up vague, indefinable counterarguments. Or I strike back: I chop up his attacks in to little pieces by demanding that he make finer and finer differentiations, indeed to the point that the points of attack become a pile of dust specks. And when none of that will help, I simply appeal to the UN Human Rights Council and demand that every single criticism against my statement be penalized!

Does that sound familiar to you? “Islam is peace”? More than 15,000 terror attacks since 9/11 in the name of the religion of peace, with no end in sight! No light-chains from Ankara to Islamabad for the outlawing of abuse. Even among themselves, most mosques are destroyed by … Muslims.

But the Islamists indeed misunderstand the Quran. Let’s check it out a little:

Sura 2, Verse 191: “And slay them wherever ye catch them (the infidels), and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter…”

Sura 9, Verse 5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war].

Sura 8, Verse 39: “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.”

Sura 8, Verse 55: “For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.”

Sura 5, Verse 51: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.”

Sura 4, Verse 34: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more [strength] than the other [...]. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient [...]. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them.

How are these to be misunderstood?? How can the appeal to murder ever be “taken out of context”?? How can the dogma of treating women as second class individuals and the beating of them be wrongly translated?

But, ironically enough, it means that the one who is boldest and most consistent in criticizing all this, namely Geert Wilders, is the one committing the offense of “hate speech” or “hate crimes,” simply in that he criticizes the things just quoted.

I assert that quite the opposite is true: an ideology that causes people to fly airplanes into buildings is the one that commits the hate crime! An ideology that drives somebody to stone other individuals and torture them is a hate crime! An ideology that causes a father and his sons to murder the daughter because she hasn’t lived according to that ideology is hate crime! An ideology that calls out “to kill infidels, wherever you meet them” is hate crime! And those who criticize these perversions that are practiced daily are not criminals, rather they are heroes! Heroes who boldly withstand a superior power and put their career, and even their life, on the line so that freedom and democracy, achievements so bravely fought for, do not perish. And YOU are these heroes!

Dear Muslims and Do-Gooders! It is simply natural that such citations cause concern. Such concern is to be taken seriously and not written off as “Islamophobia.” A phobia is a mental illness that can be healed with medication and psychiatric help. On the contrary, I say to you: when somebody hears such declarations and can also keep up daily with their practical application on the TV, then accordingly sound the warning bell, that person is the exact opposite of mentally ill because they have a completely healthy and functioning sense of reason!

Dear Muslims and Do-Gooders! It is not our duty to suppress our concerns. It is the duty of the peace-loving followers of this ideology to ponder such concerns, and not with beautiful words, but with actions! With chains of light throughout the Muslim world after each terror attack in the name of Islam! With protests in the street against the abuse of Islam! With tons of books and interviews and TV shows in which the Jihadists are ostracized! Through Imams who appeal for peace in their sermons, for solidarity with the West, and that eject every Islamist in dishonor from the Umma! And it’s best with a fatwa as a thing of the past!

However… none of this is happening. Light chains in the Islamic world are at best made up of the burning flags of Western countries; there’s no such thing as outrage and mass protests after terror attacks in the name of Islam, but rather after caricatures in Denmark, and fatwas are issued only against Western authors and filmmakers. And never would a Jihadist ever be excluded from the Umma.

Dear Muslims and Do-Gooders! Of course most Muslims are peace-loving. But during the time of the Third Reich most Germans were also peace-loving. We saw that a small aggressive Elite and an ideology with problematic demands was enough to produce 50 million deaths.

Learn from our mistakes! Exercise solidarity with us, and we will give you the hand of welcome. Respect our culture, and we will respect yours! And if you want to live with us, then learn our language. Teach your children reading, writing and arithmetic; see to it that they are good in school and get an education, and integrate in the marketplace and not in the criminal statistics. Then you will notice that Germany is one of the least hostile countries on the planet to foreigners.

And please don’t make any further demands! And don’t be offended if you don’t get something thrown your way. All that your representatives like Kenan Kolat and his consorts achieve is that all of you come over here collectively more like offended children, even though that doesn’t apply to many. And everything is available that you would need for integration. Other nationalities have accomplished it with fewer helps.

The alternative leads to chaos. The Financial Times recently reported, and I quote:

“Brussels threatens to sink into criminality and anarchy. Gangsters of all kinds have brought large areas of the Belgian capital under their control. The police can only look on in some places. Thieves and robbers have now discovered a new stomping ground that was considered safe until now: the European quarter.”

One considers whether the European quarter couldn’t be walled up. That would be a fantastic action by our elite that walls would again be erected through their wise policies in Europe. Of course it would be for their own protection. But what about the people outside of the protective wall? Doesn’t matter, or does it?

The approximately 1,000 no-go areas in France, the horrendous numbers of rapes against Scandinavian women, the disproportional use of the social system, the appeal to dis-integration by European Imams, the criminal statistics, and much more still… all of that is justified grounds for concern. It is justified. And these matters must be allowed in discussion.

Conclusion

I welcome anyone to a discussion. Those who don’t agree with my viewpoint, I will debate with them about it, and I will respect their differing opinion, even if I don’t like it. How would it look, if I would villainize everyone who didn’t share my views and criticized them? Or if I would badger my critics with murder threats and with fanatics armed with hatchets around their throats? In what kind of light would my views show then?

I don’t need such things. We don’t need such things. For this is not an evenly matched struggle taking place here. There is no competition between opinions (ours against their opinion), by which way a debate takes place and the end is that one convinces the other or not. No, this is not a competition of opinions. This is a battle between truth and lie. Between those who express the truth and those who would sweep it under the table. In this respect, an overwhelming higher power exists in our favor.

And even the actions of our opponents declare this. One can argumentatively fight against a differing opinion. But not against truth! Truth can only be fought against with the repressive means just mentioned, but never in an openly balanced debate. And for this reason Geert Wilders stands trial.

If it is illegal, however, to express the truth, then the law is flawed, not the truth. And in a country where truth becomes taboo, something has gone seriously wrong.

60% of the people in the Netherlands recognize Islam as a threat to their national identity! And there are more every day! The ruling political class can continue to pass many more laws that destroy free speech more and more, and censor even more Internet sites, and bring ever more critics to court…but it won’t help them any, for dictatorial means of oppressing people have never worked long term. They exploit the good will of the citizens.

This ruling class forgets one thing: that in mankind’s entire history, the people have ALWAYS been sovereign, regardless of the form of the ruling government (dictatorship, monarchy, communism). They are the sleeping giant, the sleeping Titan that can squash the ruling class like a gnat on the wall. And they always awaken when they receive too many little stings.

Thank you.

You can see a video with excerpts here:

More pictures:

Translation by Anders Denken (Video: byzanz / Photos: RChandler)

Democracy: I would like to make it clear from the beginning that I wish to keep the CDU out of the issue here. This means that I stand here today as a concerned citizen just as you are concerned citizens, concerned because that there are certain developments in our country that cause the question ...

Guest, 06. May 2010 |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | post a comment    
Kategorie: Courage, Events, Germany, Islamisation of Europe;

 Loading ...

look up...