Upon the reaction by the journalist that 99.9 percent of Muslims are peace loving people and that Islam is a religion “like any other Religion,” Yousef counters:

The problem of the world is not a problem with Muslims. The majority of the Muslims are good-hearted individuals. … There are Muslims that are better than many Christians, but it is not for us to compare individuals. It has to do with comparing ideologies. The most criminal Muslim terrorist has even more conscience, feeling of responsibility and logic than his god. If you would read the Quran, you would find out for yourself. Just take a look at Quran Sura 9:5, and you’ll see what the Muslim is supposed to do — kill the infidels.

Plain language about the Religion of Peace:

(La Valette regarding the PI Series “Reasoning with Muslims — but how” / Translation: Anders Denken)

In my political persuasion, I would present myself as libertarian, and as such I am a relentless defender of freedom. However, nobody can make claims on freedom so as to limit the freedoms of fellow humans. Whoever desires, for example, to abolish the equality of women under the guise of religious freedom confuses religious freedom with freedom of foolishness, and we should make this unmistakably clear in our discussions with that individual.

Whether certain Quran citations are mistranslated or taken out of context is secondary. First and foremost, we must make it clear to the Muslims, that we will not budge one iota from the rights of freedom that the constitutions of all Western countries guarantee, and that we we will take action so that the rights and freedoms of every individual, regardless of race, sex and religion will be protected in our territory, also and even from those who believe their religion justifies their trampling of those rights underfoot.

We must have the determination to insist in our discussions that these rights are non-negotiable for us, in Islam conferences or anywhere else. We are not hostile to foreigners, for we want to protect girls from genital mutilation, forced marriages, and murders of shame, just the same as we would our own “native-born” women and girls. Those cowards who, in the name of “multi-culti,” would tolerate such barbaric monstrosities here are the true racists, not we. And, really, what else is that muzzle of Nazism, but the unacknowledged surrender of our arguments?

Appearing so far:

» Comparisons with Jews Lack Basic Principles

BILD reports:

She will never forget the moment her husband called, “Ines is in Tunisia; you won’t ever see her again!” Danuta K. (35) from Nürnberg worried for three months about her daughter. Her husband Mohammed K. (29) had kidnapped the 2-year-old and taken her to his homeland.

The Drama: In November 2009, the chemical laboratory technician separated from her husband. Shortly thereafter, he asked if he could take their daughter to the Tunisian capital, Tunis, for a few days. Danuta K. said, “I didn’t think anything of it.”

A week later, Mohammed returned to Germany — without their daughter. The girl had remained with the husband’s family. The mother said, “Never before in my life have I suffered so much. I filed a complaint right away.” Mohammed was arrested, but there was no trace of the daughter.

The despairing mother became acquainted with a Tunisian on the Internet — he offered her help. Together they crafted a clever plan: The mother flew to North Africa with gifts for Mohammed’s family — “perfume, clothes, money. All in all, 1,700 Euros worth.” The gifts placated the family. Danuta could take a walk with her daughter.

THE CHANCE FOR FLIGHT!

The mother and daughter drove with the Tunisian helper to Monastir. There, acquaintances smuggled the child through the passport check. For without the agreement of the father, Ines would never be allowed to leave Tunisia again!

Ines landed in Nürnberg in good shape. The mother said, “I can’t say at all, just how lucky I was at the time.”

(Contributor: Günther / Translation: Anders Denken)

(Text by Ursula, regarding the PI series “Reasoning with Muslims — but how?” / Translation: Anders Denken)

If they start with the Crusades: The Crusades took place hundreds of years ago, and nobody has the right to legitimize injustice, violence, and murder, especially since most of the Muslim lands were completely untouched by them, and absolutely nobody has anything more to do with them nowadays — especially since they happened so long ago. In this context, the Muslim should be asked what he really knows about the Crusades, and whether he’s only knocking around words he has picked up from idle chatter.

In the past few years, untold comparisons have linked the lot of the Jews during Nazi times with that of the Muslims — and they have been seized upon for use by do-gooders and “I can do better than you” individuals. These comparisons lack any principles and criminalize a complete nationality, because our own people demonstrably don’t even have that many rights, privileges, and advantages. Moreover, these things serve to incite the masses because it is unspeakable that the million times worse suffering of the Jews 70 years ago could ever be compared to the lot of the Muslims.

Which brings us to the next subject: Honor Killings. In previous times, it has been demonstrated that even German men also beat their wives and murder them — often out of jealousy. Whereas that is forbidden among us, it is indeed encouraged in Islam. It can be read in the Quran. Not to mention the question of whether it happens more often among us or in the circles of Islamic culture.

As to the Quran: I don’t even need to address this subject here right now, but Muslims and do-gooders will gladly tell us that we have a mistranslation, that we infidels have misunderstood (what clearly can be understood from the contents), or that we’re wresting the Suras out of context. The reply to this is, if the Quran has been mistranslated, then why do you still act according to its content, and not provide a “correct” translation for you and us, and then explain the beauty and peacefulness of Islam again? Then you also misunderstand the Quran, so how can you tell us that we misunderstand it, when you yourselves are doing what the Quran says? If we’re taking it out of context, then explain the context to us.

A young Christian woman was raped in Pakistan, and then her body, still alive, was burned. The perpetrator is supposedly the son of her employer whom she served as a housemaid. Kiran George suffered so many burn injuries that she died after two days of mortal agony. The serious incident happened in the Pakistani city of Punjub. This incident exhibits parallels with the fate of 12-year-old Christian Shazia Bashir who was raped by an influential Muslim attorney from Lahore and then murdered. The crime remains unresolved to this day.

Kiran George worked for a Muslim family in Sheikhupura in Punjub. The girl, who succumbed to her injuries in the Mayp Hospital Thursday a week ago indicated as rapist the son of the family.

Mohammad Ahmada Raza allegedly raped the girl. After that, the girl confided only in her friends about what happened out of fear that she would lose her job. When she told her rapist that she would file a complaint with the police, he locked her up in the house with the help of his sister, poured gasoline on her, and then ignited her. The employer didn’t bring the seriously injured yet living girl to the hospital, rather he informed her parents indicating that the clothes of the girl had caught fire while she was working in the kitchen. Kiran George wrestled with life for two days. Before her death she was still able to describe both acts of rape.

The local police initiated investigations. However, the Christians in the area are afraid that the investigations into the case of young Shazia Bashir will end up lost in the sand.

Likewise, in Punjub a Muslim crowd fell upon the apartment house of a Christian family and set it on fire. The attack happened on March 10th in Narang Mandi, as usual, in the region of Sheikpura. Numerous Bibles were also burned in the attack.

Islam is Peace™!

(Contributor: Christiane H. / Translation: Anders Denken)

We are interested in the experiences our readers have had, what strategies and arguments are best. Yohttp://www.pi-news.org/wp/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=1385&message=10ur contributions (to: pi-team@pi-news.net – English postings are welcome) will be checked over by the PI editorial team, and the best ones published on PI. Contribution deadline for this is March 31, 2010.

In order to make things a little clearer about the direction we’re headed here, we present the following examples from practical experience:

Half, False or Distorted Citations from the Bible

(Copyright Note from the Translator: Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.)

For Example: “The body of the woman belongs to her husband.” Muslims speculate in this that we don’t know our Bible. The remedy for that is simply to read it! The correct citation is actually “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7:3-4)

Direct Lies

Muhammad didn’t head up any wars. If that one gets rebutted, then comes the second argument that he was only defending himself. That one is easily rebutted with the Islamic scriptures in hand (Quran, Sira — “biography of the prophet”). After Muhammad left his hometown Mecca, he led an array of wars and campaigns against them and fell upon caravans that were en route to Mecca to harm the city. He also killed or had those killed who were completly uninvolved.

The Old Testament Deception

Muslims love to use proofs from Old Testament passages that fit well into their way of thinking. For example, in connection with the punishment for homosexuality: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13) In fact, that is in there, and 3,000 years ago was very well an account for legal practice. In present-day Judaism, this passage is irrelevant. What God’s will is, and how the Jews are to live had been debated and established in post-biblical writings. Homosexuals, of course, are not punished in Israel. There is even a Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem if, yes if, the Islamic Arab residents do not to hinder it with their threats of attack.

The Monstrous Punishments

How they were utilized against the thieves of Muhammad’s camels (hand’s cut off, feet chopped off, eyes burned out, let die of thirst). Islamic argument: Back then, those were valid laws. Absolutely right. But who made these laws? Muhammad himself, naturally.

The Use of Unclear Language to Cloud the Truth

They assert that “Islam” means “Peace” or “Allahu akbar” is “God be praised.” Taking a look in a dictionary debunks this deception. “Islam” means, in a precise word, “subjugation” (to the will of Allah) and “akbar” is the superlative form of “great,” therefore meaning “the greatest.” Therefore, “Allahu akbar” means “Allah is the greatest” (of all deities).

The West and Christendom Have Committed Evil Things As Well

Totally right. But when was that? Earlier, in part, much earlier. That is a small, but very decisive — THE decisive — difference; it is the difference of the past and the present. Between that which was a long time ago, and that which is today.

» PI: Video of Discussions with Muslims

(Translation of German PI-article: Anders Denken / English contributions to our series are welcome)

The Example of Denmark

The Islamization of Europe is in full swing. The majority of Europeans are helpless against this development. They are informed neither about the true essence of Islam, nor about the background of Islamic politics on European soil. The Muslims have not come to integrate into European societies. Their goal is the transformation of Europe into an Islamic realm where only Shari’a, the law of Islam, will rule.

(An Essay by Michael Mannheimer, Second Revision, Germany, German original published in August 2009 (see also PI-PDF). The PDF-version of the English translation by Anders Denken, you find here. Contact: M.Mannheimer@gmx.net)

This series of documents brings important information to light with regard to this issue with the hope that the expanionist desires of the Muslims and their supporters in the Western Elite will be met with much needed resistance.

Translation Notes

Representation of Arabic names in English vary. The following names are listed so that the reader will recognize these “familiar” terms according to how they have learned them.

Quran = Koran
Muhammad = Mohammed

The German term O-Ton refers to an original recording or saying, according to German Wikipedia.

Part 1: The Political, Ideological and Religious Background Behind the Islamization of Europe

The Plan of the Left for Islamization — and its persistent realization to this day At the beginning of the 90s, the representative of Bündnis90/Die Grünen (Coalition90/Greenpeace) for German-French Europe and one of the leading leftwing politicians, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, announced accordingly the following:

“We, the Greens (Green Party), must strive to this end that as many foreigners as possible be brought to Germany. If they are in Germany, we must fight for their right to vote. Once we have achieved this, then we have the segment of voters we need to change this republic.”

Jürgen Trittin, Federal Minister for Environment, Natural Protection and Reactor Security under the chancellorship of Schröder (1998-2005), and then after October 2005 the Federal Minister for Consumer Protection, Nutrition and Agriculture has preserved his 1968 Peace Movement spirit [68er spirit] to this present day. Even to this day he is beholden to his prior membership in the Maoist “Communist Federation” (Kommunistischen Bund [KB]) (Their motto being: “Never again Germany!”). Regarding this, he says:

“This is no sin of the youth . I believe that there are even more things that a person can stand for to this day…”

In the context of this declaration is Trittin’s interesting opinion regarding the concept of democratic elections. They have not so much to do with the organization of parliamentarian majorities, but much more the attaining for oneself the power of “dominant minorities and the leadership of opinion”.

This is nothing short of post-Communist propagation of the Leninist Doctrine of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat on the part of a prominent German politician . That was the same Communist justification for decades-long oppression of their citizens through a radical, arrogant and above all decidedly leftwing-Fascist minority. With that same strategy of opinion control that has been successful until now, Trittin has sketched out a much more penetrating plan regarding the real relationships of power among western European countries. Even the political scientists have not been able to achieve this with their long-winded analyses. It is true that parliamentary power lies mostly in the conservative parties in Europe. However, the leadership of opinion of which Tritten speaks, and the power that arises there has been overwhelmingly in the hands of highly organized, primarily left-oriented minorities (Keyword: leftwing [fascist] opinion cartel) who still find themselves to be unchallenged regarding what is politically correct and what isn’t. We will come to speak more often of this.

Jilted politicians seek for themselves another people How a political satire eventually becomes reality Let us come to alpha-beast of the Greens (Greenpeace), the German Joschka Fischer, who was long-time chief of his party and served as the previous German Minister of the Exterior. In his youth he was a militant enemy of his country, a police-fighter, RAF-sympathiser and a hater of the western system. He blew the same horn as his party-friend and fighting companion Cohn-Bendit. Fischer (“I discover more and more how much I have remained a Marxist.”) reveals the political intentions behind massive immigration in his book with the revealing title “Germany – The Risk” (1994). The content of this book was summed up in the “WELT” newspaper as follows: “Germany must be hemmed in without, and within she must be heterogenized by influx (of foreigners) or quasi “thinned out.” (Miriam Lau: “Risiko Deutschland (Risk Germany)” — Joschka Fischer in Bedrängnis. In: Welt-Online, 7 February 2005)

In plain language, the idea of a voter fraud of historical proportions was crafted, the result being a stealthily and carefully executed plan with a determined result. In 1960 only 600,000 Muslims lived in all of Europe, however today there are already over 30 million, and the greatest mass immigration in the history of man continues unabated. Each year 1 million new Muslim immigrants stream into Europe. This is done legally through the reunification of families, the process of asylum, or they come as “political fugitives” of their Islamic countries where human rights are trodden underfoot. Ever and again they receive residency rights, ever more receiving European citizenship without having to accede to rudimentary skills of culture, education or employment necessary to cope with the requirements of high-tech European society.

But they haven’t come here to integrate into Western society. This is forbidden by their faith as well as their religious leaders who are highly organized and have long since held the real leadership over European muslims. Their primary political goal is to complete what their religion, what Allah has commanded: the rule over all “infidels” in this world. This is what it says in the Koran; this is what their prophet (Muhammad) also commands. And this is what every representative of Muslims strives for in every European country, regardless of what party they belong to.

World Domination is the principal goal of Islam

Whether it be Vural Öger (German-Turkish SPD-Representative), whether Boumediennes (former Algerian head of state), whether Izbetbegovic†† (Bosnian expresident), whether Erbakan (former Turkish prime minister), or whether it be Ibrahim El-Zayat, (President of the Islamic Fellowship in Germany): every one of them knows well the mandate for world conquest, and every one of them is applying every bit of power they have to accomplish this end.

Only Western Do-Gooders and the Leftist Elite insistently refuse to acknowledge the Islamic push for world dominance, for they naively follow the motto of do-gooders and good-willers who think that that which is not allowed to exist simply cannot exist. But let it be said to all who refuse to accept reality: the Muslim doesn’t care one iota what the non-Muslim thinks of him. What Islam entails, what it really means, every Muslim understands perfectly. To express it coarsely, Western ideals of morality or other values are considered rubbish. Khomeini, among others, formulated this idea unambiguously when he said “The rule over the world is the end goal of Islam”.

This statement is confirmed by all who know Islam. The German-Syrian orientalist and Islamic scientist, Bassam Tibi, says in addition:

Everywhere, in that place where Muslims live, Islam claims for itself the sole owner of validity (dissenting ideas are invalid).”

Even the Chief of Police in Cologne – bound to the requirements of his office not to take positions – concluded soberly as a result of unhindered border openings and the high birth rate of Islamic people that the German State will be overtaken in 2030. Since Islam is striving for world dominance, it could come to a bloody civil war in Germany and Europe.

His colleague in Vienna, Alfred Ellinger, President of the Association of Austrian Criminologists (Vereinigung österreichischer Kriminalisten), sees it the same way. In a comment regarding the state of Europe in connection with Islam, he writes:

“A Moslem has the duty to defend his territory against attacks of infidels and at the same time to destroy the world of the infidels to the end that Islam will rule the whole globe. Jihad comes to an end only when all people have either accepted the Islamic faith or have bowed to its authority. “The border of Islam is the border of the world.”

Also, the Turk Metin Kaplan who is smiled upon as the “Caliph of Cologne,” founder of the militant Muslim organization “Caliph-State,” Hater of Jews and Israel, and a recognized fugitive (Asylbewerber), proclaimed in countless sermons the creation of an “Islamic Theocracy Germany” and prophesied the soon coming of Islamic world dominance (Hakki Akduman: “Der “Kalif von Köln (The Caliph of Cologne)”, Metin Kaplan”, AP). At the end of 2008, the Islamic scholar of Indian origin, T.K. Abdullah declared in an open presentation in Qatar the soon takeover of the world by Islam after Communism and Capitalism have finally failed (The Peninsular, 15 November 2008).

Adolf Hitler himself had only a marginal understanding of Islam, but he collaborated with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in order to build a death camp for the Jews living in Palestine. Nevertheless, he was able to grasp the Islamic charge of world dominance better than most modern educated Europeans can. “If we had become Mohammedans, we would have owned the world today.” (Adolf Hitler, cited in “Von Allah zum Terror? (Allah to Terror)” by Hans-Peter Raddatz, Herbig, Munich 2002, 2nd Printing, ISBN 377662289X)

Muslims everywhere are working toward the takeover of power, and neither an ostensible leftwing opinion or a Green opinion can hold them back. Muslim Coalition90/Grünen (Bündnis90/Greenpeace) politician Nargess Eskandari-Grünberg expressed this fact in an Education and Integration Caucus when a Frankfurt citizen complained about the overwhelming contingent of foreigners in his part of the city. “Migration is a fact in Frankfurt. If that makes you uncomfortable, then you need to move somewhere else,” she said (CANAN TOPÇU: “Wie eine Gebetsmühle (Like a Prayer Mill)”, in: Frankfurter Rundschau on 13 November 2007).

Eskandari-Grünberg, born in 1965 in Tehran, and in 1985 she fled Iran as a political fugitive and was granted Asylum in Germany. How European Politicians are executing Policies against their Constituents with the help of Muslim Voter Policy The influence of Muslims in European daily politics and their political power have become overwhelming in the mean time. Be reminded of Gerhard Schröder’s reelection bid (O-Ton Schröder: “Yes, I am a Marxist!”), just how he won with a razor thin majority of votes. With the possible threat of a loss before his eyes, Schröder put his bets into the Turkish vote and promised that, under his watch, the way would be irrevocably cleared for the EU-membership of Islamic Turkey. This message was geared to the approx. 600,000 naturalized Islamic immigrants, the majority being of Turkish origin and on whom Schröder had placed his hopes. His approach was successful. Thanks to the Turkish-German voters who gave the majority of their votes to Schöder, the SPD and Greenpeace parties were able to garner a noteworthy mandate majority, an advantage of a whole 6,027 votes was just enough to get him reelected to the Chancellorship (SPIEGEL 27/2008, page 18). This, however, was achieved against the will of the German people (which thing was kept silent), for without the votes of the naturalized Turkish-German immigrants Schröder would have lost this election to the opposition by a margin of over 1/2 million votes. Imagine this: politicians practicing politics against their own people. This is the very thing that Cohn-Bendit called for, and it is the implementation of the same plan all over Europe by the leftwing power cartel that is calling for the “thinning out” of the voter proportion that native Europeans have. And now, the fruit of this endeavor is starting to show.

The shifting around of population groups is by no means a novel invention. As a means of “non-military” final solution, this shift has been accomplished in foreign areas that were already occupied, or perhaps the conquered people had their original populations replaced over time by means of “gentler” methods of crowding out until the original population would no longer be there. A fine example in recent history is North Cyprus. Occupied since 1974 by Turkey, hundreds of thousands of Anatolian mainland Turks have been placed there. The result today is that the relationship between Greek and Turkish Cypriots has shifted dramatically in favor of the erstwhile Turkish minority.

An example is Tibet: This giant, autonomous region of 1.2 million square kilometers (Germany’s area by comparison covers only 350,000 square kilometers) became a Chinese occupation in the 1950s. Since then, China has seen to it that millions of Chinese move to Tibet, so that in the meantime Tibetans have become the minority in their own land. In both of these cases the thing that holds true is that the redistribution of population groups was guided by the authority of the occupying power, and indeed the result was logically to the advantage of the ethnic group of that occupying power.

Europe, on the other hand, is not occupied by any external force, but in spite of this fact, this continent finds itself in the throes of one of the greatest demographic upheavals in its history by means of new and mostly Muslim ethnic groups that are successfully replacing indigenous Europeans. This upheaval has been steered by Europe’s OWN politicians and was programmed long ago to stand against the interests and needs of native Europeans. Those politicians have neither asked their constituents for permission regarding this issue, nor do they react to the growing unrest of the European people because such a mass immigration has led to the fact that Europe, as the Europeans have known it, is becoming less recognizable, that in many places Europeans have become foreigners in their own land, and at the beginning they have not wanted this large influx. This immigration policy carries with it all the signs of a totalitarian concept of rule by the political elite of Europe and harks back to the giant population shifts in the Soviet Union and communist China under Stalin and Mao. These shifts were decided in the circle of a small political group and were carried out without one single referendum to the indigenous people involved.

The plain and short: with regard to Europe, the leftwing/green power complex has been behaving for a while now in certain essential political core areas (i.e. migration, EU expansion, citizenship) in a way that shows like an external occupational force. Since those who have been responsible for this mass immigration have been unable to win over their home-grown European voters to this political work, they have set out to occupy their own lands by millions of people with a foreign language, culture and religion.mTheir intention, in the mean time, is to “thin out” the European portion of the population, and eventually to disempower them altogether.

This is nothing short of a new form of “ethnic cleansing.” Moreover, there are certain perverse warning signs: No controlling external occupying force, but rather a small and determined minority inside the indigenous population; this ruling minority will meanwhile and eventually in the long term exchange the current population with those who promise a stronger support of their policies. The leftwing/Green master plan is already showing its desired results. As an example, in Brussels, Milan and Oslo, the name “Mohammed” is now the most common name given to newborns. In England the traditionally most common name was “Jack.” However, in the meantime “Mohammed” has taken the lead. In 2004 in Holland, 56% of all the children and youth in the large cities were foreigners, most of them Muslim.

In Switzerland, the statistics for 2040 show a 76% portion of the population to be Muslim, assuming the policies of this Alpine country do not change. According to an Austrian study, in 2051, every third Austrian pupil will be a Muslim. A study by the Islamic Archive in Soest (2006) regarding developments of the German population predicts that in 2045, the German population will stand at 51.72 million Muslims in contrast to only 45 million native Germans. A fact that has already been carefully calculated by the leading Muslim authorities for accomplishing the takeover of power in that most important country in Europe.

» Read more here.

(From Andreas F. for German PI /Translation: Anders Denken)

Even more noticeable is that the WELT messes up another result with the same numbers. So de Hond posed the question like this. Given, that Job Cohen would become the head of the PvdA (Labor Party – Netherlands): How would the probability change of you voting for the PvdA? 73 percent of those surveyed (!) answered that they wouldn’t have considered voting for the PvdA, and that they wouldn’t do so now.

In the other reference source, an examination of the magazine “Een Vandaag”, 25% voted for Cohen, 17% for Balkenende and 15% for Wilders. A caveat certainly needs to be mentioned here: The “opinion panel” used as the basis has 40,000 members, and in respect to its members’ needs is representative of six variables. However, of the 40,000 members belonging to this foum, only 16,000 participated, and of them only 3,500 (about 20%) voted in the last Parliamentary election for the PvdA. Therefore, inasfar as this survey is representative remains unclear, especially as to who (or who didn’t) cast a vote, and for what reason.

One thing is clear, however, that the WELT very strongly presents itself as shortsighted, and that it draws conclusions that the material doesn’t provide wherever possible. Apparently the questions that aren’t so clearly separated the the WELT asks are, one one side, about the favorite for the office of Prime Minister, and on the other, about the favored Party.

By the way, the comment function for the WELT article has been deactivated.

One of the main criteria for good journalism is objectivity. A good journalist informs. The evaluation of information is left to the mature reader. Next to the unknown as well as the undesired opinion of the journalist, there is conscious and willful manipulation. The WELT article “Right-wing populist fails in polls” is a further example of this bad, but consciously, manipulating journalism

(Written by kai1000 for German PI / Translation: Anders Denken)

In this article are found a complete array of techniques used to steer the opinion of the reader in a certain direction:

Belonging to one of the most basic techniques is the process of stigmatization by the use of such disparaging terms as “right-wing populist.” A populist avails himself of demagoguery; he fuels the fears he wishes to use to his advantage. His actions aren’t marked by conviction but by opportunism. The first time an individual gets branded “populist,” the devaluation of his position has been achieved. Like the liar, when he attempts to give the truth, it’s useless. Any substantial discussion about his statements is subsequently prevented.

The term “hostility to Islam” implies an action stemming of a position of aggression. The opposite is actually the case. Wilders — as well as the collective movement of PI — is acting defensively, as a reaction to the threats against our free, secular and pluralistic society. The defense of freedom and human rights have been converted into an unreflected enmity. This term also causes Wilders’ position to be weakened.

Another concept that enjoys constant use (however, not in this WELT article), is Islamophobia. Factual and, above all, supportable criticism about Islam gets raised to the level of irrational fear in the pathological sense. A phobia, or a pathological fear, that belongs to the realm of medical treatment. In this way, Islam criticism gets put on a level with fear of spiders, fear of flying or fear of open places (arachnephobia, aviatophobia, or agoraphobia).

Besides verbal manipulation, manipulation through the use of pictures is a more effective technique. The choice of the motif is determined by the feeling that is to be transferred through the image, and therefore in the article. A comparison of two WELT articles demonstrates the effectiveness of this technique.

Example 1 (WELT article published on March 12, 2010)

The photographer here takes up a position below that of US President Barack Obama. The perspective forces the observer to look up, he is being automatically forced into an inferior position. The view of Obama is directed to somewhere far away, implying a broad-ranging activity. The raised hand creates a goodwill bond with the public, making him a part of the same. The smile transfers sympathy and friendliness. In summation, the image effects a heroization of Obama, he is staged as a shining figure.

The staging of Geert Wilders is quite different.

Example 2

Geert Wilders is not smiling, he looks threatening. In addition, his lighting is below. His facial features receive an almost diabolical look by the lighting; an “evil look” is created by use of the shadows off his eyebrows. Moreover, Geert Wilders is surrounded by darkness. The subconscious association that gets provoked is that of thieves and criminals who dare to appear only under protection of the night. The image works toward making Wilders into a devilish figure.

To make it totally clear, the press plays the key role in a free society by controlling the three national forces and their institutions. Therefore, a journalist should scrutinize the positions of politicians — even those of Geert Wilders. But when the boundaries of objective criticism have been transgressed into public defamation, that is a clear misuse of journalistic privileges.

Journalists who are no longer conscious of their responsibility as opinion shapers, and who misuse freedom of the press for their own selfish goals, are only dismantling one of the foundational pillars of our democracy — and misuse is always the precursor to destruction.

During the slaughter of Badr, the self-proclaimed prophet gave his followers the promise that “each one of them that would be slain in the battle would enter into Paradise according to Allah’s will. One of his warriors, Umayr bin al-Human, cried out, “So there is nothing that stands in the way between me and my entrance into Paradise, except for my death by these men?” Right then he was eating a couple of dates, threw them aside, rushed into battle and fought until he was killed. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the chance to address Elfiky about this story because we were gracefully passed up on the discussion.

I had the opportunity, though, to catch Elfiky in a lie. After all, he asserted most earnestly that the self-proclaimed prophet had gotten along well with Jews. I then pointed out that he must have had an especially good understanding with the 600 – 800 imprisoned Jews that he beheaded partly by his own hand in Yathrib. We Jews were the first victims of the Muhammedins, and to this day we are still being persecuted by them. Look at the pictures of the Hezbollah warriors for yourself at how they salute each other with the Hitler greeting. Take a gander at the sales numbers for “Mein Kampf” in Arab countries, especially in Turkey up to 2005. Read the Hamas Charter through, where the prophet Muhammad is cited as saying:

The Last Judgment will not come so long as the Muslims do not fight and kill the Jews. But then, the Jews will hide themselves behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will call out: ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hidden behind me, come and kill him.’ (Article 7)

In regards to this, I am very happy with the affinity that PI has with Israel. Eckhardt Kiwitt believes that Islam is no religion, but much rather a “political ideology similar to national socialism (Nazism).” By virtue of this, he finds himself in good company. The French philosopher Michel Onfray comes to the conclusion in his book “Traité d’athéologie” (“Treatise on the study of atheism” not in English yet, or the German title “We need no God“) that the epoch of fascism in the 20th century had the greatest variety of colors. There was the brown, the red and the black fascism. They all drowned in the current; only one has saved itself in the 21st century, and there is no end in sight for it: the well-anchored green fascism of the self-proclaimed prophet following the Ayatollah Khomeini’s seizure of power in Iran. And these fascists believe on the word of their god Allah that has been unalterably stated for for all time in the Quran. This god points out the Jews many times as “apes and pigs” (Sura 2, verse 65 / Sura 5, verse 60 / Sura 7, verse 166).

Mr. Boie, it doesn’t matter if you are a Christian, an atheist, or any other “infidel,” you will by no means escape the tirades of hate by this vengeful god. For Allah was apparently pretty sour about the fact that most of those on the Arab peninsula who believed otherwise viewed the new philosophy of his prophet as deception and counterfeit. The same is true today. It is about these facts that you, we, and those of other faiths in the Western world must debate. To look away, to trivialize and whitewash them over is exceedingly dangerous, if not to say careless and irresponsible. Read the Quran; you will comprehend what kind of monstrous danger we are being exposed to.

As to the comment area on PI, I partly agree with you. Some comments truly are hostile to foreigners and end up deleted anyway. You must not forget that there are many enemies of PI that, like unseen “submarines,” put together comments and even create screenshots so that they can use them to blackball PI. For me personally, hostility to foreigners is most profoundly strange. I believe I have more foreign friends than native. But also among my conservative compatriots – I am rather to be classified in the left spectrum – they can’t produce hostility to foreigners. For us, it has to do with an the ideology against which we are battling using all the legal means available to us.

Like Henryk M. Broder, it makes us want to throw up when we must sit in the same room with NPD individuals as well. Willi Schwend, from the BPE committee, made that unmistakably clear in our last meeting at the guild house. We have no room for right-wing or left-wing radicals. The NPD, by the way, is right friendly with Muhammadins, at least when it has to do with Israel. That should cause you to think a little. In my view, converts to Islam are the worst kind anyway. That is where terrorism has been preprogrammed, as we see in Germany with the “Sauerland terrorists,” and very recently in America with “Jihad Jane.” Deep down inside, the one who converts to Islam is a Nazi.

Our Munich PI group is presently one of the most active in Germany. We see ourselves as forerunners and wish to animate all the others to follow our example. I am always glad for each commentator who says “People, this is how we also do it.” At one time, Munich was the capital for a very unhealthy movement, however, this time it will be the capital for the countermovement against green Nazism. April 8, 2010 is just about here, and we are inviting all to the guild house to a presentation by Michael Mannheimer about “Eurabia, the Islamization of Europe.” You, of course, are also cordially invited to this event, and naturally for the sake of SZ’s press coverage, but please stick to the truth. Otherwise you will be argumentatively dissected, that’s something I can guarantee you.

With friendly greetings,
Monika Kaufmann
(Munich PI Group)

» PI: “Anti-Islamic Battle Troops”

(Article for German PI translated by Anders Denken)

Unfortunately, Johannes Boie doesn’t really apply himself very well to this one-hour conversation but that he is bent on dancing around the subject of PI’s comment area, where sometimes there are articles that even those of us in the Munich PI group don’t like, but also for which neither we nor the admins from PI, but rather the comment makers themselves are responsible. The result was in the printed SZ and can be found online. It starts with the description of a typical meeting that is slanted in favor of Islam in which our presence there gave cultural/critical enrichment:

Now, it had been quiet long enough. Eckhard Kiwitt, a 54-year-old employee of a publisher in Freising, had listened 25 minutes long about Paradise in Islam. Andre Elfiky, a Muslim, had spoken at the St. Korbinian Parish Church on Valleystraße in Munich about the Quran and Muhammad, who at the “end of his life was be caught up into Paradise.” A couple of older listeners had meanwhile fallen asleep. Eckhard Kiwitt, however, was wide awake. He raised his hand, once, twice, then finally he was called upon. “You said that one can interpret the Quran,” he asked the speaker. “But how are the terms ‘kill’ and ‘be killed’ to be interpreted?” Pink-colored balloons hung on the wall in the form of a heart. But it was over with the pleasant atmosphere in the parish house.

Now, pink-colored balloons on the wall fit OK with the stories from 1001 Nights that Mr. Elfiky was telling us. The details of how this memorable evening passed can be read here yet again. However, the SZ had another way of putting it:

Kiwitt and his co-conspirators came to cause a stink. Of the 23 total listeners present this evening, seven of them belong to the ranks of the Islam critics. Unrecognizable to the speaker and the other guests is that they form a unit. The group split up inconspicuously throughout the room. The other visitors of the meeting at the St. Korbinian Church were outraged at the questions from the group because the evening’s theme hand nothing to do with their forced debate over terrorism. The church’s personnel attempted to turn the debate around, but the group would not be stopped. Not one of them argued with knowledge about the Quran, like Kiwitt for example. One said that he had been in love with an Iraqi woman who left him. “What kind of Paradise on earth as promised by Muhammad is that?” he asked. Another told how often the word “kill” occurs in the Quran.

Six of the seven Islam critics that Boie counted sat at one — and therefore full — table. The seventh had to practically lay on the table in order not “to split up inconspicuously in the room.” And since Islam does promise Paradise for the slaying of infidels (see Sura 9 verse 111), our question would most definitely have something to do with the theme of the evening. This issue apparently had escaped the SZ editor. But in his head, it was OK enough to spit out that violence has nothing to do with Islam. Ultimately, that’s what has been pounded into the heads of do-gooders for years by Muslim functionaries.

As to the story of the Iraqi woman, our coworker told us that shortly after he met her, her brother and father cut off any contact with her. Therefore nothing can be said of “leaving.” It was determined “inner-family.” But that of course, like honor killing, could have nothing to do with Islam as well. Or, how was that once again with “Take no infidel for friends” in Sura 5 verse 51?

And further with the SZ Text:

Eckhard Kiwitt believes that Islam is no religion, but rather a “political ideology similar to National Socialism (Nazism)” that is bringing hate and terror into the world. The Freising citizen is not alone, rather part of a movement with thousands of adherents in Germany. They form together on the Internet at the website “Politically Incorrect,” which is clicked on more than 30,000 times daily. And the readers of the pages are increasing taking to the streets and plazas of German cities.

And the “southland” newspaper has hardly published an article about us but that we haven’t had more than 40,000 and even peaked at 70,000. Thanks SZ. Also a nice observation otherwise. And we haven’t just taken to the streets and plazas:

Lastly, he held an informational event with the Islam critic group “Pax Europa” on the theme of Islam at the Munich guild house. Right at 200 people came and listened peacefully. The Munich enemies of Islam also started a petition initiative together against the mosque that was planned in Sendling. Right at 1300 signatures were gotten together, and the delivery to the city of Munich town hall was documented publically. Thanks for the work of the Munich “opposition cell” was given on the PI website. And also for the initiative at St. Korbinian Parish Church.

Of course, PI has to be politically correctly brought into connection with “resentments that are hostile to foreigners.” As if Islam didn’t already produce enough for criticism:

There are various ones, mostly anonymous, that are belligerent against Islam, Muslims and against the supposed too lax policy on integration. There is also the campaign for a closer bond between Germany, Israel and the United States. Therefore, according to the protection of the Constitution, the website isn’t classified as radical Right – although, resentments against foreigners above all are published daily in the Internet site’s comment area. The website was founded by Cologne teacher Stefan Herre. It is a successful model for hundreds of smaller websites with similar content.

We’re not belligerent, but we do argue. And not all-inclusively against Muslims but rather against Islam that, according to the statement from Bekir Alboga from the Turkish-Islamic religious authority DITIB, is a “comprehensive” and totalitarian ideology. The editor of SZ can count for sure, but apparently only to 38. Or the count must have been made a while ago, for in the meantime there are already 42 groups.

The readers of the website have already founded 38 action groups in Germany – from the Ruhr to Dresden, from Karlsruhe to Hamburg. Several hundred people have been allowed to form the hard core of the rapidly growing scene. They have varying motivations for criticizing Islam: an occasionally distinctive love for Israel, or the feeling that Christian values are being lost in German. Others are afraid of Islam or have been shaken up over the production of reports about “honor murders.” “We are defending the fundamental free/democratic order against totalitarian ideology,” Kiwitt says. He’s serious about that; he’s active in the Munich group, which was founded three years ago. We know each other by pseudonyms. That reduces the danger that their employers would catch wind of their Islam-hostile activities. And it strengthens the feeling of being a member of a conspiratorial and militant troop.

That’s exactly right. We know each other only under pseudonyms. And when we visit each other, every one has to put on blinders and ride for hours through Munich in the trunk of a car before it comes home. We also use no telephones but rather flash mail. And whoever breaks the Omertà (code of honor) will drown in the Isar, or as an option must evaluate the SZ for 14 days.

By the way, the reading of Islamic primary sources was enough for us to have an extremely well-grounded concern for developing the subject of Islam. Johannes Boie still has not understood that we are not criticizing a “religion,” but an ideology:

Criticism of the religion of a minority and hostility against a minority lie tightly together. On one side the young movement is often captured by the Right and misused for selfish purposes, like their great model also, publicist Henryk Broder. Only a few days ago, a Chemitz city councilwoman from the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany) wanted to reach out to the Islam critical author and congratulated him on his battle against “over foreignization.” Broder answered, “The imagination of being in the same room with you makes me want to throw up.” Such clear positions are lacking on PI; it’s not possible to confine oneself on the Right. The quality of comments is rather dubious, more on the level of the discussion at the pub than that of a political essay. Editors and politicians that are taken to task on the website receive insults and threats by E-mail. However most of the readers and activists can’t be right-wing radicals. Kiwitt votes conservatively, now and then for the FDP (Free Democratic Party). “I would never put my mark to the right of the CSU (Christian Social Union party) – and never to the left of the SPD (Socialist Party of Germany) who I still call the SED (Socialist Union Party of East Germany).”

After all, according to the SZ, we apparently aren’t right-wing radicals. We’ve been lucky once again that the muzzle called ‘Nazism’ has narrowly managed to swing past us this time.

(Text for German PI: byzanz / Photos: RChandler – Munich PI Group / Translation: Anders Denken)

The man privately murdered the child out of pure concern. Of course the act had nothing to do with honor or Islam:

The District Court for the Bavarian city of Schweinfurt recognizes the proof that Mehmet Ö stabbed his daughter Büsra last June with a butcher’s knife. The judge sentenced the Dönner (gyros) vendor to life imprisonment on the basis of murder.

“It is by this horrible tragedy that the 15-year-old Büsra lost her life,” said the presiding judge, Elisabeth Ott, on Wednesday. “A family has been destroyed.”

The defendant accepted the judgment of murder nearly without emotion, the face down and hands folded. He had stabbed his sleeping daughter Büsra to death on the night of June 24, 2009, in the family home at the edge of downtown Schweinfurt — with 68 jabs of the knife.

“This has nothing at all to do with a classical ‘honor killing’,” Ott said in the basis of sentencing. It is much more that the 46-year-old killed the young girl “because he could not bear that Büsra had entered a relationship with a young man.” The Western-oriented girl didn’t bow to the wishes of her father, actually she opposed them. The Turk perceived this as a deep sickness, its consequences being rage and anger, the president of the chamber elucidated.

Büsra’s frendship with the 17-year-old young man was a harmless relationship — nothing more than holding hands. For the father, however, this was already too much. “He was afraid that she, in his eyes, would go the wrong way,” Ott said. “He feared being abandoned by her. In his eyes, Büsra was no longer controllable.”

Mehmet Ö, who has lived since 1991 in Germany, had described his relationship to his daughter at the begging of the trial as increasingly difficult. She was disrespectful, impatient and obstinate; young men were constantly appearing in front of the family home. He also monitored her cell phone.

At the beginning of the trial, Ö admitted to the act but presented it as accidental. He figured that there was an intruder in the house on the night of the crime, so he then stormed into the kitchen, grabbed the knife and went to stabbing.

In his closing statement, the defendant said, “I killed her in order to protect her.” He feared that Büsra would be kidnapped, or something else might happen to her.
(…)
Mehmet Ö, who has lived since 1991 in Germany, had described his relationship to his daughter at the begging of the trial as increasingly difficult. She was disrespectful, impatient and obstinate; young men were constantly appearing in front of the family home. He also monitored her cell phone.

So, really noble motives… Perhaps that’s why there were no other “special charges of guilt” established, for a private act surely can’t be murder.

(Translation of German PI-article by Anders Denken)

Hampe places the blame that Christians are becoming ever more victims upon the murdered ones themselves in connection with the Western culture and its colonialism.

According to Hampe, persecution of Christianity has various faces. In other cases as well, one is not to speak of Christian persecution. For example, nobody was persecuted when Muslim shepherds sent Christian nurses to their death because they were religious, and because the persecutors themselves were religious. It’s much more so that varying “religious-social” spaces have bumped into each other. Hampe makes no connection with the murdering of three Christians that occurred in Yemen in June, two of which were care helpers. To this day, there is still no trace of the family of five from Sachsen and a British engineer who were brought along with them.

Most of the cases of “Christian persecution,” according to Hampe, are fueled by social and cultural conflicts: “Christians belong to the majority of victims because the centuries’ old injustices of colonialism and the destructive economic and moral picture of the Western lifestyle are equated with Christianity.” Therefore, the message of the Christians needs to be that of bringing love and respect to those of other faiths.

The next time you are threatened by a devout believer, you can rest on the fact that he has nothing against you personally. It’s simply that varying “religious-social spaces” have bumped into each other. In case he injures or kills you, be sure to return love and respect to him because our Western civilization and colonialism has driven him to this act. Otherwise R.I.P.

» Contact: k.hampe@elm-mission.net

(Contributor: Peter H., translation of German pi-article: Anders Denken)

The subsequently leveled the village to the ground.

(Translation of German PI article by Anders Denken)

(Text und Photos: Nockerl – also known as “Fritz” / Munich PI Action Group for German PI. Translation: Anders Denken)

Now, British society saw itself put in the place of, or much more, being forced also into discussing with the European politician that has the most offensive and clearest view of Islam about the film and Islam’s violence-practicing totalitarianism as shown by it. The most visible sign of this discussion was a demonstration supporting Geert Wilders and an counter-protest initiative aimed precisely at this demonstration in front of the House of Lords on March 5th. (Note: Those interested exclusively in the demonstration’s course of events can read beginning with “The Counter-Demonstration”)

This counterinitiative apparently views a connection between the EDL and BNP. The latter was required only a short while ago under the guise of equal rights in Great Britain to accept non-white members. The first member to be accepted by this forced opening is a Sikh and a long-time supporter of the BNP. The EDL, in contrast, has ever been open to anyone and has members of every imaginable origin. It is naturally the endeavor of the Left and also the MSM to demonstrate or prove this connection. For some reason, this is practically their only way of having a discussion with the EDL. Behind this, possibly, is having to deal with Islam criticism where there is no desire of devoting time to presenting a clear opinion. Otherwise, one or another surprise might be just too much for the pure heart of the multi-culti followers.

The EDL

For starters, the appearance of the EDL makes it easy for their opponents to assert this connection as as granted. In the way thye came across, the demonstrators had a battling sound about them, whereby several members, masks notwithstanding, wore short hair (in some cases were bald). The critics intentionally overlooked the fact that the masks of some seemed to be a reasonable idea, especially when one pits themselves against an ideology bent on killing its critics.

The not so few colorful members present their opponents a problem that the opponents themselves trying to fight because they describe them as “Uncle Tom,” as was the case of the EDL speaker, who himself is a Sikh. A classification of individuals that attests to breathtaking racism. Using such classifications of individuals as a weapon against the alleged racism of the EDL can be explained by the fact that the Left has declared itself fundamentally free of racism; ultimately only “the others” are ever considered racist by these means.

The EDL has its roots in the football (soccer) fan scene. In the British — as in nearly any other — European football scene, there reigns a strong fundamental attitude that is patriotically shaped. Passion and enthusiasm have almost a battle-like effect here. English media studies — up until the recent past — show that whoever is upfield in a German-English football match clearly knows what patriotic groundswell the football on the mound belongs to. One can gather the impression that, up to the game or at the latest when England once again loses against the “Krauts,” the pilots of the bomber Harris are headed for Hamburg, while in the other direction, the Luftwaffe is preparing to lay Covent Garden again in scraps and ashes. But ultimately all of this is just coarse entertainment arising of the pride of having overcome “the bloody Germans” in the war against fascism.

This fundamental patriotic attitude was especially called out in Luton football fans when, in March 2009, the soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiments returned home to Luton out of Iraq and were given a “reception” by Muslim demonstrators. On occasion of the parade, Luton Muslims showed their hostility (PI reported).

As a result, Luton football fans made connections with fans of other football clubs. They wanted to work together against this unpatriotic conduct and hostility against their country. These untoward actions had been undertaken by a greater number of Muslims whose parents, or they themselves, had fled the conditions (understandably!!) in Muslim countries. Hadn’t the Muslims shown how much they rejected their society, and therewith themselves? That was the cause for the emergence of the EDL, which in nature is essentially indistinguishable of that in the football stands. Whoever stands against this has to explain whether he considers the battle of opinion as permissible only in the framework of aesthetic debate. Let it be mentioned only in the margin that among the Left — at least in Germany — are those who lay whole blocks in Berlin and Hamburg in scraps and ashes all year long, and this conduct doesn’t get nearly so much critical attention. The connection isn’t even made between the oppressive system of Communism and the mass murders committed by this movement.

Much room in the debate with the EDL is taken up by the conduct of certain members. So, there is also much arguing about whether some use the Hitler salute. There is also an overzealous quest to link some members with the BNP. The impression remains that this is pursued above all else in order to press for a truly substantial debate about Islam’s totalitarian ideology of violence that the EDL criticizes. Ultimately there is no need of devoting energy to arguments about alleged Nazis, since the arguments, besides functioning as a muzzle, also sensibly and practically serve as Nazi billyclubs. “Nazi scum off the street” is always easier to master intellectually than grappling with the issues and obvious consequences of Islam.

However it is also correct that the behavior of some individuals can be an indication for the spirit of a whole group. Why this should apply only to such movements as the EDL and not for Islam may well remain the eternal secret of the Islam apologists, considering that since September 11, 2001, 14,944 fatal attacks (as of March 7, 2010) and countless attempts can be traced back to their fundamental teachings. Even oppression of women, stonings, cutting off of hands, kidnapping an drape of non-Muslim women, as well as forced conversion, murder of so-called apostates, and much more, apparently allow no conclusions to be drawn about the issues of Islam, or the spirit that rules this religion.

The Counterprotest and Its Backgrounds

A few hundred Islam apologists had assembled and marched under the sign “unite against fascism” in order to shout “Nazi scum off the street” against the EDL — of course, this is a much more elegant way than the cultured style of discourse by the EDL. The campaign material for this group is also sponsored by the teachers’ union among others. This organization also works together with the Muslim Council of Britain. In addition, many representatives in Parliament belong to the supporters of the UAF.

The right of demonstration is generally understood to serve as a means for citizens to exercise criticism on the various state institutions. Apparently these representatives don’t sense it as a contradiction to support an organization that pits itself against such protest. The desire having the support of the representatives of shutting down the protest of citizens practicing their legal right to criticize Parliament and its respective representatives regarding their actions related to Islam attests to a remarkable understanding of democracy.

It isn’t surprising that the campaign material in the battle against an undesired opinion looks considerably more professionally produced than the material of the representatives of this very opinion, when one considers their large and financially strong circle of supporters. If the sponsors perhaps want to spring for another warm meal or one or another keg of beer, let them find more than the roughly 200 ingrates who are ready to carry other nicely crafted “protest” signs through London’s streets. Here is a possible opening to a marketing branch that could be signed under the Internet website rent-yourself-a-demonstration.uk. It could be subsidized with the right reintegration programs supported by the British Labor Ministry when legislators, executives or judiciaries would like to have an undesired opinion thundered down. There should be enough to do in the coming years among the policies of the various European governments and in the EU itself. Mr. Putin will most certainly stand alongside in word and deed; he finally had the so-called Kremlin-Youth Nashi set up as a Russian acclamation organization. Labour especially should stand by the older persuasion that they can learn much of Moscow.

The Counter-Demonstration

However, on occasion of the Fitna film showing, the democratic walk-ons supported by parts of the Parliament had to demonstrate their sincere anger, without the aid of food and drink, before the cameras of the BBC. The power fighters, with permission by and upon the wish of various parliamentarians, indicated that Fitna was anti-Muslim and racist. Unfortunately, in the framework of these statements, it couldn’t be pointed out as to which race the Islam ideology actually belonged. Otherwise, given such opportunities, there is the push at least to the assertion that any agitation against a group of people (also on the basis of their religion – or here: ideology) is racism. But this begs the following question: whether agitation against infidels, Dhimmis and Harbis don’t also fall under this completely arbitrary “definition”, and if so, then it is being answered by surprising aggression and not, for the most part, with proper silence. However, the answer to this complex issue was possibly not spelled out in the sponsor’s contract or in inserted into the exceptions for authorization by the legislators. Perhaps the question had been covered while the union’s scheduled furlough was at hand.

As an official reason, a sponsoree declared that she did not recognize the agenda (!) of the questioner. Unfortunately, the answer that a “good” argument should be able to persuade others without the use of the opponent’s “agenda” couldn’t move her to give any further answer. Fortunately, the MSM had a lot better luck with their conversational partners. But alas, these conversations – as far as they could be followed – resulted in no answer for the above-mentioned question as well.

The counter-demonstration then moved to the marching route according to contract plan. This had been planned for the same stretch as that of the EDL’s demonstration, only it was earlier and headed in the opposite direction (perhaps more than just a metaphor). Their march halted on this route, though, and those who were tired out by the lack of State-provided food supply sat down on the road. The malicious-minded police however took over for the weak, so as to block the EDL protest parade. The mob, supported by third parties and representatives, that was wishing to limit others civil rights on the basis of an assumed motive for whatever reason, was helped by the police away the place. In doing this, the offer of a free automobile ride was was taken advantage of by many who were fatigued. Finally the police were able to help the tired demonstrators to the feet so that the road could be freed up for a self-financed demonstration march by the EDL.

The EDL Demonstration

The Demonstration was to begin at one o’clock in front of Tate Britain. Just a short while before, this place had been crowded exclusively by police and media with whom some of the demonstrators were chatting. Most of them came in a large group. Only after they had chanted diverse slogans (“Muslim bombers off the street!!”) for a while, and held banners, flags and signs in front of the camera, this group then entered a nearby pub for a (self-financed) drink.

About two o’clock the demonstrators returned invigorated and ready to chant again, whereby mostly “E-E-EDL” was repeated. The invitation went out of the speeches to everyone, including Muslims, to join in the battle for the defense of Western values. A moment of silence was then invoked. It was for the British victims of the last two weeks in the Afghanistan campaign and two Sikhs who were beheaded in Pakistan the week before for their refusal to convert to Islam.

During the second speech, an incident arose in which the speaker (photo left) let himself get carried away by somebody shouting to call the counter-demonstrators jerk-offs. That led to immediate intervention by the police who pulled the microphone away of the speaker, which in turn led to cries of protest and unrest. The first speaker grabbed the microphone, took up speaking, and calmed the situation down rather quickly. The second speaker was visually embarrassed and constantly excused himself before all present. He begged pardon for allowing this mistake to happen and letting himself get caught up in the incident.

After that, the EDL broke out in the march. This was accompanied only here and there by a few small skirmishes and engaged calls of counter-demonstrators (“Nazi scum off the street!). The counter-demonstrators had positioned themselves in small groups or as individuals along the marching route. The greater part of the unarrested counter-demonstrators stood before the Parliament building, which also happened to be the tentative ending point for the EDL demonstration march.

When they arrived, the EDL demonstrators were “greeted” with loud “nazi” and “fascists” calls. One of the EDL members called out: “Yeah, I’m a fascist!” A “journalist” who eagerly scribbled something down in her notebook turned around to the author of these lines and expressed: “Did you hear that, he said he was a fascist!”

Her question was answered that the impression could have been given that he was speaking sarcastically. Of course, she didn’t want to accept that and expressed in a very condescending tone: “Sarcastic? They’re all nuts.”

One of the EDL demonstrators put his arm around the shoulders of a dark-skinned co-demonstrator and called out that one can see just how fascist they are. That led to furious protest calls to some extent, and at the end any semblance of reason was loudly canceled.

Now here’s the place where the the counter-demonstrator’s (left) state of mind should be dealt with. He is so eagerly and openly enthusiastic about waving a red flag with hammer and sickle. For lack of questioning, the assumption truly has to persist that he is celebrating the murder of 60 million people by the communist regime in Europe. However, it might also be that he was a late-comer to the Maoist campaign against the sparrows, in which the birds were scared off by the waving of cloths for so long that they were forced to fly until they finally fell out of the sky dead. In opposition to the socialist plan’s expectations, the insects that were now not being consumed by the sparrows in increasing destroyed the already bad crop situation caused by the managed economy. Whatever it might have been, our young friend pointed out in any case that one may feel morally superior when invoking the cause of mass murderers — at least if they had the fundamental convictions of the Left or, as a substitute, could base the mass murder on God’s command. In this view, the freedom of opinion is also unaffected (which is also correct!).

The female portion among the Islam apologists was astonishingly large, which however could also have had to do with the auto transfers that previously took place. The EDL called out to the female apologists who were present that they might want to prepare themselves for wearing the burka. In one instance, an EDL demonstrator told one of them that the burka would certainly not be a bad idea in her case.

Such conversations kept things busy for a while while press representatives were still conducting interviews with one or another. A few individual journalists were fair and appeared to be truly interested in listening to the opinions of the EDL people. For others, it appeared that they would rather spread their own opinions with their own premises interspersed throughout the questioning, and verbalize their own viewpoint among the interviewees. There was also an “interview” style that seemed to be more like an accusation or, as the case may be, a trial.

Apart of two little incidents, there were no more special events to report. Both times, one of the EDL members got over the barrier and attempted to go to the opposing side. This was prevented each time, and the second one led to an arrest. Soon after that, the EDL demonstration was accompanied to the next subway station (Westminster) and to the trains there, and with that the demonstration came to an end.

Conclusion

The EDL demonstration has a functions differently than other demonstrations. Especially in comparison to the one of the followers of Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (for example, on the occasion of the trial’s beginning in Amsterdam), it has a rougher0 effect and is also a touch aggressive. But the freedom of expression is not limited by any certain institutional rules. And if one takes into fair consideration that there are football fans expressing their political opinion here, and doing so by use of the normal conduct befitting the game, then one wouldn’t make a bad conclusion about their unusual way of protesting. The author of these lines gathered in the demonstrators he observed, spoke with and listened to, that they are doing this for their land, nation, home, and for their and others’ freedom. Admittedly, previous demonstrations of the EDL may have been a little more undisciplined. If the EDL would like to be taken more seriously about the content of their opinions, a little discipline wouldn’t hurt. But how the heck could I possibly know, how to walk through London’s streets like anyone else? I’m just a damned Kraut!

» Videos and further photos of the counter-demonstration in London

I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: “Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (…) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book ‘The River War’ from 1899.

Churchill was right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. End of quote.

Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “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. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ “the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message”. As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book ‘The Second World War’, a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill’s comparison of the Quran and ‘Mein Kampf’ is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being destroyed. Burqa’s, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don’t get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine – Elsevier – calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

I don’t know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was, and I quote, to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists 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.

Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn’t in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.

Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

I’m being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to ‘Mein Kampf’. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial… Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book ‘The Rage and the Pride’. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing ‘legal jihad’. This is Islamic ‘lawfare’. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.

I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can’t wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don’t be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let’s elect real leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words ‘This is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon.

What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be “This is London”? Or will it be “This is Londonistan”? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.

(Source: Gates of Vienna)

Blick writes:

The Federal Assembly has determined to determine no Burka ban. The foundation for this non-determination is as follows: First, there are at most 100 women who wear full-body covering; second, without their covering, these women would be “cloistered in their homes.”

As to point one: In the eyes of the Assembly, the legal setting is dependent upon the number of those affected by a law.

By this reasoning, laws don’t arise from a matter at hand, but rather from how frequently the matter occurs. Each year, Switzerland counts only 60 premeditated murders in accordance with Article 111 of the Criminal Law Book. Is this particular law necessary then?

As to point two: The Assembly goes on the premise that some Muslim women without their burkas will be closed up in their own homes, thereby robbing them of their freedom. And that Muslim men commit the offense of robbing them of freedom, if the Swiss law is not set up according to the will of their religious demands of ruling over their women.

The Assembly, however, is willing for them — and in hasty obedience have decided to do without a ban on burkas.

Robbery of freedom is an official offence. That means the state has to pursue infractions against the law officially, even without complainants. The same applies to marital rape. The Swiss State of Freedom and Justice also has laws that reach into the private sphere, and even the intimate sphere, that can affect relationships and family. Apparently they don’t apply to the Islamic oppression of women. These offenses are covered under the cloak of cultural tolerance. That means that the legal protection of the woman applies only to non-Muslim women.

Other countries — other customs — it is with this multi-culti claptrap that the Federal Assembly has switched off one of the most meaningful values of our free civilization: the equality of women. The customs of other countries can be lived out among us, contrary to justice and law!

Total body covering is the mobile prison for Islamic women, even when they aren’t locked up at home. As their husbands — their lords — understand it, these women belong to them, they are bondslaves.

Bondslavery in Switzerland, the Federal Assembly condones it.

(Contributor: Willi, Translation: Anders Denken)

Befitting their stupdity was an attempt with an obscure Bible passage that some editorial intern must have dredged up to cause Geert Wilders to stumble or stir him up enough to hop in the sack with the likes of BNP, Le Pen, or Jörg Haider. Whoever would be so hare-brained would most certainly not attain to becoming one of the most successful politicians in Europe, perhaps at best they might become a local German official.

So, what did journalist Emily Maitlis do wrong? Very simple: she violated one of the ground rules of modern journalism in the Battle against the Right. It is allowed to, no, it’s a requirement to spread lies about your political opponents. But one shouldn’t begin to believe those lies themselves. Otherwise, it might happen that, instead of a hollow-cheeked right-wing extremist, a well-educated and intelligent civil-minded liberal might appear and turn the guns on you. Or as it used to be said: “He who digs a pit for another will fall in it himself.” (or “What goes around, comes around.”

(Thanks to all contributors. Translation: Anders Denken)

(Translation of German PI-Article by Anders Denken)

(From Marianne Brückl for German PI. Translation: Anders Denken)

Also, in Egypt there was a Coptic Christian killed again on February 9th. Rumors stirred up at the government side about alleged acts of violence by Christians have made the rounds. And the Western world is closing its eyes, exercising tolerance toward the Muslims, and seeking dialog with the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Nobody has the desire to see that intolerance against Christians everywhere is constantly increasing. Where help is needed, it is targeted for the Muslim immigrants; the persecuted Christians are overlooked. How far then will this Western principle of humanitarianism go?

Many German citizens only see their own problems in their own country. What plays out in other countries is filed under “happened far away, doesn’t affect me.” In this, they simply overlook that what is happening today in Islam-ruled countries is slowly being brought into the European world, and in the future it will generate more problems than they want to accept. The insidious Islamization of Germany is hardly being recognized.

Warning statements by Islam critics are being ignored as much as possible; the signs heralding the beginning of the Islamization of the Western world are being dismissed as “figments of imagination” by islamophobic alarmists. Demographic developments are played down and only get the reaction that the Muslims should be seen as a part of the European population, in spite of the serious differences between us. People themselves who have converted to Chrisitanity and express their experiences and fears, as well as the methods of torture used by their Muslim persecutors – even in their own family – are classified by the non-credible by the masses.

But the kind of peace we are dealing with here is being intentionally trivialized. Do-gooders with rosy glasses see everything in the same color, favor multi-culti insanity, and glorify the Muslim ideology.

The traffic light for Muslim integration has long since been on red, if it ever was yellow or green before.

The perilous virus of “Islam” that is being brought into the country as a serious flu and can multiply itself because of being diagnosed as a harmless cold shows its effects only when it’s too late. It is recognized as the sickness it truly is only when it is no longer possible to cure it. There is no more medication at all that can affect it because the virus has pushed itself into every cell.

Such is the case with the infiltration of the European body of thought by Islamic constructs, rites, and customs that have been played down on the side of the Church and State, and encouraged to the point that nobody knows or cares to know their effects. Their influence has been allowed for so long that there is now no more escaping them. One feels safe enough in Germany and the rest of Europe that the medicine has become watered down and ineffective anymore.

And all of those who would rather deal with their own problems must now recognize that it was their their own egotism speaking against the voices of warning.

Extremist masterminds like Ibrahim el-Zayad in the year 1996 (Islamic Youth Magazine TNT, Edition 1/96) recognized this German mentality, and with the use of sugar-coated rhetoric were able to penetrate like wolves in sheep’s clothing into the European world. Just as Odysseus followed the sirens in the Greek fable, so the Europeans are numbly following their slayers. The people appear to forget that Christians or atheists are lifetime infidels and will remain that way to the Muslims. Unless, of course, they convert to Islam and obey the rules of the Quran. And then which Muslim will still recognize Western culture and democracy, should the West finally be in the hand of the Islamic way of thought? It borders on naïveté or stupidity to believe that anyone who can recite the Quran by heart and can identify with the rules contained in it would ever be of a mind to subject themselves to a democracy. The goal to be achieved is the seizure of world power in the name of Allah. The signs have presented themselves clearly already, for everything immoral and evil that comes out of the Western world simply affirms the Muslim quest of achieving more and more influence in the “immoral” world.

Through the events that have become known lately in the “Institution” called the Catholic Church, as well as the fall of the Evangelical regional bishop Käßmann, fuel has simply been added to the already smoldering fire by our Islamic “faith brethren” to justify their behavior of yoking Europe step by step under the Islamic lifestyle.

That these same crimes happen in the Islamic world and are justified by their beliefs in spite of it holds absolutely no weight, namely such things as forced marriages of children and young girls, rape, mutilation, forced Islamization, and the murder of infidels. Only those few individuals, who not only see the constricted horizon of their home country but also have a view outward, are occupying themselves with these facts.

Every act of this kind is detestable and should be punished. But the greater part of the German population has its sights on only what happens inside German borders and gets worked up about only those things.

It is long overdue that every individual get involved in putting a stop to these crimes against humanity in the world regardless of what country or which cultural circle is involved, and not hand themselves over to advocates of a two-class religion, such as Islam.