The Planned Islamization of Europe
“Europe is not occupied by any external force, but in spite of this fact the continent finds itself in the throes of one of the greatest demographic upheavals in its history…”
The following analysis of the Islamization of Europe was written by Michael Mannheimer in 2009 and originally published in German at the Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa website.
The translation below was adapted from a pdf document. Since the original has both footnotes and endnotes, I have taken the footnotes and converted them into endnotes with a different sequence, based on lower-case letters enclosed in square brackets (example: [a])
Eurabia: The Planned Islamization of Europe
by Michael Mannheimer
“Thanks to your democratic laws, we will overtake you; thanks to your religious laws, we will rule over you. — Imam from Izmir1
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 Shari’a alone, the law of Islam, will rule.
This series of documents brings important information to light with regard to this issue with the hope that the expansionist desires of the Muslims and their supporters in the Western Elite will be met with much-needed resistance.
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 1990s, the representative from 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 today 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[a]. I believe that there are even more things that a person can stand for to this day…”2In 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.”3
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[b]. That was the same Communist justification for decades-long oppression of their citizens through a radical, arrogant, and above all decidedly left-wing/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 hands of the conservative parties in Europe. However, the leadership of opinion of which Trittin speaks, and the power that arises therefrom, 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 The long-time chief of his party and served previously as the German Foreign Minister. In his youth he was a militant enemy of his country, a police-fighter, RAF-sympathiser [RAF = Rote Armee Fraktion, “Red Army Fraction”, communist revolutionaries] and a hater of the Western system[c]. 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 from without, and within she must be heterogenized by influx (of foreigners) or quasi “thinned out.”4
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 pre-determined result. In 1960 only 600,000 Muslims lived in all of Europe, today, however, 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” from their Islamic countries where human rights are trodden underfoot. Ever and again they receive residency rights, more and 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[d] 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[e] (German-Turkish SPD-Representative), whetherBoumediennes[f] (former Algerian head of state), whether Izbetbegovic[g] (Bosnian ex-president), whether Erbakan[g] (former Turkish prime minister), or whether it be Ibrahim El-Zayat[h], (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 naïvely 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”5This 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).”6Even 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.7
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 from 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.”8Also, 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 imminent coming of Islamic world dominance.9 At the end of 2008, the Islamic scholar of Indian origin, T.K. Abdullah declared in an open presentation in Qatar the coming takeover of the world by Islam after Communism and Capitalism have finally failed.10
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.”11Muslims 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.12 Eskandari-Grünberg, was 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 meantime. Remember Gerhard Schröder’s reelection bid (Audio Schröder:“Yes, I am a Marxist!”), which he barely won with a razor thin majority of votes. With the possible threat of a loss before his eyes, Schröder put his bets on 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 approximately 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 Schröder, the SPD and Greenpeace parties were able to garner a noteworthy mandate majority, an advantage of a mere 6,027 votes was just enough to get him reelected to the Chancellorship.13 This, however, was achieved against the will of the German people (which fact 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 half a 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 left-wing power cartel, which calls for the “thinning out” of the native Europeans proportion of the electorate. 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 was no longer 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 from Tibet: This giant, autonomous region of 1.2 million square kilometers (Germany area by comparison is only 350,000 square kilometers) came under Chinese occupation in the 1950s. Since then China has seen to it that millions of Chinese have moved 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 the 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 ownpoliticians 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. In many places Europeans have become foreigners in their own lands, and from the beginning they have not wanted this large influx. This immigration policy carries with it all the signs of a totalitarian concept of rule from the political elite of Europe, and harkens back to the giant population shifts in the Soviet Union and Communist China under Stalin and Mao. These shifts were decided within the circle of a small political group, and were carried out without one single referendum by the indigenous people involved.
The plain and short: with regard to Europe, the left-wing/green power complex has been behaving for quite some time in certain essential political core areas (i.e. migration, EU expansion, citizenship) in a way that resembles an external occupation 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 cause the occupation of their own lands by millions of people with a foreign language, culture, and religion. Their intention, in the meantime, 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 from within the indigenous population; this ruling minority will meanwhile and eventually in the long term exchange the current population for those who promise a stronger support of their policies.
The left-wing/green master plan is already producing the 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 that 76% the population will 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 from 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.
Part 2: Facts about the Islamization of Denmark
For decades Denmark has been one of the few worldwide examples of a truly peaceful community with a nearly perfectly functioning state social system. For Europe and for others, this little country has been the example to follow, for it has a strong environmental conscience, one of the best education systems, and a low crime rate. For decades this was the cornerstone of the liberal policies carried out by the Danish Social Democrats.
However, in the ’90s disenchantment began to settle in, in parallel with the sudden explosion of immigrants from Islamic countries. The Danes came to a shocking conclusion as to how many Muslims already were living in the most important cities, and just how little if any desire they really had to integrate into Danish society. On the contrary, it became more and more clear that the leaders of the Muslims were beginning to attack the lifestyle of the Danes, using ever sharper language to express their contempt for so-called “Western decadence.”
Only gradually and much too slowly did the Danes begin to comprehend that, with the Muslims, they had taken in a group that not only could not accept the core values of the Danes (belief in the freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, equality for women, tolerance for other ethnic groups) but also would attack those values with ever-increasing force. In the place of “Western decadence,” they would set up the archaic societal model of Islam, which they would institute over time in Denmark as the future and only model of faith and justice to be desired.
Also, in Denmark as in other “lands of war”[j], Islam is working on a massive infiltration of the country with the goal in the meantime of making Denmark into an Islamic state. TheIslamic Party of Denmark is already declaring an imminent takeover of power in Denmark. The central and single assignment of the party is eventually to make Denmark an Islamic state through the occupation of important positions by Muslims. Moreover, they have threatened that a “wrong” treatment of Muslim children will be met with the unleashing of unrest on the part of Muslims living there.
Like many other Western lands, the Danes are having problems with riots fomented by the Muslim immigrants. And this has not been just since the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons in theJyllands-Posten in September 2005. Already in November 1999, several dozen youths in the heavily Muslim district of Nørrebrorioted while police looked on and did nothing. The Muslims smashed about 100 picture windows, set automobiles on fire, and threw stones at the police. According to the police report, the riot took place because of a judgment that was handed down for the deportation of a Danish criminal of Turkish origin. Ercan Cicek was to be returned to Turkey after serving a 3-year sentence.14 We should remember the recent Muslim tumults in France that were similarly tied to Muslim criminals and in which thousands of automobiles were burned and destroyed, as well as public buses having fire bombs thrown at them, and police being shot up with shrapnel weapons. The message the Muslims sent, not only in Denmark and France, but to others was this: “We are the future rulers of this country!”
In the course of the week-long raging protests by the Muslims after the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten (the result of the uprisings: 140 dead and over 800 injured worldwide), Denmark was also criticized by other Western governments. Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the US State Department, as well as the British Foreign Minister Jack Straw characterized the cartoons as “injurious”. To every democracy belongs
“in addition to freedom of opinion, aspects such as the fostering of understanding and respect for minority rights.”15McCormack meant by his critique that the Muslim minority in Denmark had allegedly been oppressed by the Danes. Since time immemorial, the Muslims have boasted of their ostensible tolerance of religious minorities. Murat Hofmann, a German Islam convert, educated jurist, former diplomat, and author of numerous books, describes Islamic minority rights as
“the most liberal statute for other faiths that the world to this day has ever seen or used as a standard,”16one of the many myths about Islam that doesn’t hold up when scrutinized more closely. Let’s look at an example from Denmark as to just how Islam really deals with non-Muslim minorities.
Because of Racist Muslims, Original Danish Natives Have to be Relocated17
The island of Greenland belongs to the little country Denmark. However, for years now, the native inhabitants of Greenland, the Kalaalit, do not have the confidence to go out into their streets anymore. The reason for this: the Muslims will throw rocks at them, or they regularly attack them in some other way. The reason for this is incomprehensible and at the same time surreal: many adherents to this “religion of peace” see the Greenland natives as “infidels” and even as wild beasts that have no human rights at all. And even though the Danish government has attempted by many means to improve the situation between the Kalaalit and the Muslims, no improvement has been achieved, and in may cases the situation has worsened. Among the actions taken by the Danish government was the creation of an Internet site in the Arabic language in which they attempted to show that in dealing with the Kalaalit, the Muslim were dealing not with beasts but really with people. Already in 2007, the yearly traditional festival of the Kalaalit in Aarhus (every June 21st) could only take place under the purview of police protection. And in 2008, the festival didn’t even happen, the result the increasing Muslim violence against the Greenland natives.18
This Danish Internet campaign in the Arabic language did not help the Kalaalit — even more Muslims are attacking them.19
Also, the natives have had to forego even their beloved football games, for the Muslims would throw rocks at them if the natives were caught practicing alone. The attacks have taken on such a great ferocity that the Kalaalit now barricade their windows in order to keep the Muslims from breaking into their flats. This problem has for some time already been known by the authorities, and they react just as any authorities in countries run by decent, unassuming people would react: instead of attacking the evil at the root, instead of arresting the perpetrators and putting them in jail, and instead of deporting them, the city council of Aarhus is financing the transfer to the Danish mainland for any Kalaalit who wishes to leave their homeland due to fear of the Muslims, and they are also subsidizing their search for flats outside of the large cities where the Muslim immigrants themselves have taken up residence. A step that the Muslims have already had in their sights, considering the exploding number of Muslims already in Denmark. Johanne Christiansen, one of the women from the Kalaalit group who gladly accepted the state assistance, says:
“I could not bear anymore being the constant target of their attacks.”They have been exclusively attacked by Somalis and Arabs. “They simply have no respect for us.” Moslems tell the Kalaalits that they should “completely urinate upon themselves because Denmark is their country.”20
With the exception of one or two insignificant Danish local newspapers, the mainline European media have to this day remained silent regarding this issue. Much the opposite is happening, however; the Süddeutsche Zeitung, a leader in the suppression and denial of the “allegedly threatening Islamization” of Europe21, signifies on a regular basis that the few who are warning of the Islamization of Europe are in error, or are kooks or haters of foreigners, and they accuse them of mockery and malice.
And even the countless human rights organizations that would otherwise expose the slightest error committed by Western governments at worldwide information and protest campaigns have remained unusually quiet, and to this day they have not said one word in protest against these activities in Denmark. As with most Western journalists, artists, and intellectual individuals, the boldness of Western freedom and human rights activists consistently ends exactly where Islam begins. And this boldness mutates in the face of the dark determination of that theocratic totalitarianism, which threatens its critics and opponents with murder in order to get them to shrink away in cowardice and dishonesty, a totalitarianism that encourages its adherents not to shy away from committing murder to accomplish its goals.
In any case, a democratically elected administration that has been totally unable to protect its own native people from attacks by immigrants does not deserve to have the name “government.” The policy of relocating the Kalaalit is interpreted on the part of the Danish Muslims as exactly this: a further act of the successive subjugation of Denmark to the Islamic claims of lordship over that country — and as an indirect encouragement to the Muslims to continue their practice of terror that, so far, has been quite successful against the West.
The previously mentioned international criticism against Denmark because of their allegedly lacking respect for its Muslim minority is a farce, considering how much hate and lack of respect the Danish Muslims have demonstrated against their Danish native counterparts. This is scandalous when, in hindsight, we recognize how the rights of minorities in Islamic countries are actually implemented (or are actually notimplemented)[k]. Moreover, this shines a light on the lack of knowledge or complete ignorance within the highest political ranks about the true character of Islam, which in practically all of its countries simply heaps the rights of minorities into a pile of dirt, especially when those rights have to do with “infidels.” Of a truth, there is no other religion that is nearly as antagonistic towards minorities in this fashion as Islam is. SPIEGEL (one of the few publications that even dares to attempt some criticism regarding Islam, even though it does believe that a moderate Islam is not evil) reports:“Violence, terror and a growing influx of Islamists threaten oriental Christendom. In some countries the unloved minority already struggles for survival — or seeks salvation in flight”22
Detailed Set of Facts
In the following section a few reports from Denmark will be presented with respect to the subject of Muslim immigrants.
1. High Social Expenditures for Muslims in Denmark
2. the Extremely High Rate of Crime Among Muslims in Denmark
3. Persecution of Christians and Jews in Denmark
5. Terrorist Assaults and Support of Terrorism From the Muslims
6. And in Denmark the Muslims Want the Power
Part 3: The First Summary Regarding the Islamization of Denmark
Muslims want to rule Europe
The list of facts in connection with the Islamization of Denmark can be arranged in virtually any order. However, they mainly show three things:
First, when evaluating all immigrants coming into Denmark, it can be concluded that where criminal activity is connected toreligion, the Muslim immigrants stand out the most.
Second, Muslim immigrants are in unrelenting pursuit of the takeover of power in Denmark. This will not be a normal transfer of government, as in normal democracies, but rather a complete transformation of this Christian Democratic country into an Islamic country under the laws of Shari’a — a Muslim Denmark. Muslims in all other European countries are pursuing this same goal where they now live as immigrants.[m]
Third, it appears that Denmark’s Muslim problem is not limited to Denmark. Every Western country in which a notable Islamic diaspora lives has to battle with similar or identical problems. For Islam is no religion — and especially not a “religion of peace” — but rather totalitarianism with an unconditional claim to world dominance. All of this has been going on successfully for the past 1400 years under the disguise of “religion.”
What makes this so difficult to understand, among other things, is the giant vacuum of knowledge that non-Muslims have about Islam. Another problem is that a trusting and well-intentioned[n]global citizen has difficulty accepting the idea that Islam could be such an exaggerated exception among the major world religions. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Taoism may more or less have their problems, but at their heart they are mostly tolerant and peace-loving. Without exception they teach their believers that the good things they do in this life equip them for the next.
Indoctrination in Islam is Indoctrination into cadaver duty and the ruthless killing of “infidels”
Islam represents the exception: the capture of world dominance is the ultimate goal; all other goals must be subordinate. The Islamic ban of killing counts only for Muslims, not for “infidels.” Islamic peace will be achieved only by the fulfillment of Muslim world dominance; so the motto goes: When the whole world thinks and believes the according to the will of Islam, only then will peace reign in this world. Communism assumed an unrealistic image of man (in which they put forth the doctrine that all persons are equal) and failed as a result of this flawed perception. Moreover, Islam has an unrealistic image of man because it assumes that every person will eventually believe in one God — the Islamic God — and this image does not fit into to the infinite psychological, intellectual and creative diversity that is characteristic of every human being. The species called “man” is far more diverse, sophisticated, intelligent, creative, chaotic, and ultimately unpredictable than the archaic image of man given by the analphabetic[o]-founded Islam. The “dar-al-Islam,” the Islamic concept of a future world, one in which all inhabitants are Muslim, is nothing more than an unrealistic — and even surrealist — Utopia that will never happen.[p] However, as long as the Muslims strive for such a world and artificially divide our planet into “believers” and “infidels”, as long as they have this sense of a god-like charge for an eternal Jihad against the world of “infidels,” for this long the name Islam will be associated with war, terror and violence.
This continual war against non-Muslims — jihad — is declared by Islam as a religious and holy duty for every single Muslim. Audio from Khomeini:
“The Christians and Jews say, ‘you shall not kill’! But we say, that killing achieves the same value as a prayer when it is necessary!”
There’s more yet: Islam lures its contract killers with the alleged entry into Paradise where numerous dozens of virgins await the “jihadists,” and with whom they will enjoy sexual pleasures forever. And should a Muslim have problems with his conscience about the killing of an “infidel,” there is help and religious support directly from the Quran. In this passage they can read the redeeming words of their god, either before or after their act of murder:
“You are not the one who has slain them, rather Allah slew them. And you are not the one who has fired the shot, but rather Allah fired the shot, in order that He might show great grace from Himself.” Surah 8:17
To make it clear: their Islamic God, the “all-merciful”, not only expects his believers to kill off the “infidels,” but also he caringly provides the necessary therapy to deal directly with the situation. Their god has also seen to it that the sufferings of his hired killers will be kept in check by freeing them from all personal responsibility for their murders, and by taking that responsibility upon himself personally. One can observe this scenario from well-known mass murders in recent times (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot), where the State said: “You are not the one that did the killing; I, your State, am the killer. You are merely my instrument. When authority commands it (especially a god-like authority), it is seems easier to commit murder.
No other world religion has such a perfidious form of murder-culture; no other world religion schools their followers so systematically in how to kill innocent people of a different faith; no other world religion accepts such an outright devilish invention of general immunity for their believers so that they are free from the guilt of murder — and this is written in their “holy scriptures.” Getting to the point, if there really is a Satan, then the name of his religion is Islam, and his prophet is Muhammad.
Islam is therefore precisely the religious “worst case scenario” which normal citizens of the world can neither imagine nor acknowledge. Islam is the only world religion that educates its adherents from youngest childhood on up in the systematic and ruthless killing of non-Muslims. In 206 places (!) the Quran alone gives challenges for rape and murder against the infidels as well as the violent propagation of the faith. This fact alone regarding this “holy book” is what fundamentally distinguishes it from the holy books of the other remaining world religions. In 1800 further passages, their prophet Muhammad himself charges each Muslim to refer to the texts from Sunna and Hadith.
Conclusion: there are evil persons in every religion. But it takes a religion like Islam to make an evil person out of a good person.
The following fact cannot be repeated often enough: Europe has virtually no notable problems with Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian immigrants. The name of the European immigration problem is ‘Islam.’ In spite of this long indisputable fact, Muslim agents have a clever method for presenting the immigrant problem that they are causing: classify it as a “general problem with foreigners.” The facts however demonstrate very clearly: remove the Muslim statistics from the Danish crime statistics (and for that matter the other European countries’ statistics), and the immigration problem presents itself more amicably.
The notion of religious freedom is once again in great need of reconsideration. If the religious texts of a given religion, its internal foundations and/or the declarations of its prophets can so blatantly violate the unalienable human rights declaration of the UN, as is the case with Islam, then the status of “religion” must be removed by the highest courts. Otherwise any imaginable human injustice would be allowable and legitimized by law when it is committed in the name of “recognized religion,” and it would therefore be classified under the protection of “religious freedom.” Since this change of status isn’t happening, it is now high time for enlightenment to begin by means of international consensus (excluding, of course, Islamic countries).
It cannot and should not be permitted any longer for Islam to remove historically developed legal systems from power over the countries where they are already established, such as has been happening for a while now in most Western countries. Moreover, religious law must not be allowed to break constitutional law. In the future, it should be called this way:
Constitutional law breaks religious law!
No ifs, ands or buts.
Part 4: The Western Enablers of Denmark’s Islamization
Without the active support of Western intellectuals, pastors, politicians, artists, media personnel, authors and journalists, the Islamization of Europe would never be successful. The following chapter will show in particular what this support looks like.
Politicians as Enablers of Islamization
Copenhagen’s Integration Commissioner, Jacob Hougaard, called in all earnest to increase the visibility of Islam in all Danish schools and in places of employment, and to make the Islamic religion a solid component of public life in Denmark. Audio Hougaard:
“Islam must become a component of public life.”50
He refined his challenge by effectively demanding general school vacation days occur on Islamic holidays, calling for separate bathrooms/washrooms for Muslims, and for a general honoring of the daily Islamic prayer times by private employers, and access to “halal”-slaughtered meat.51
Also, the previous Danish Foreign Minister and a liberal, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, belongs to the party of appeasers. Ellemann-Jensen sharply criticized the publishing of the cartoons, and on 7 February 2006, he even called for the resignation of the chief editor of the Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste.
When the Polish Rzeczpospolita reprinted the Muhammad cartoons, they were promptly criticized by the Polish administration. Even more: Poland’s Foreign Minister Stefan Meller bent the knee unbidden and officially apologized for the reprint by an independent newspaper, in quick and early obedience to all Muslims in this world. Things like this always please the Muslims of the world because they expect nothing else from the non-Islamic part of the world but their collective subjugation under the Islam’s authoritative claims. After this, the chief editor of the monthly newspaper Wiez, Zbigniew Nosowski, followed up with this criticism of Poland’s government:
“This publication was a provocation that has been amplified by the additional media coverage. Journalistic provocations can be essentially useful when an uncomfortable truth cannot be disclosed by any other means. The only new information that came from the cartoons was … the level of ignorance concerning things religion.”
Here we see a typical Western Journalist who has arrogantly set himself up to speak eloquently of “provocation” and “ignorance in things Religion”, and in this he has proven that he has absolutely no understanding of the essence of Islam himself. You can’t just outdo his commentary; it bristles of ignorance, stupidity and arrogance.
It is a given that Turkish prime minister Erdogan would sharply criticize the cartoon publication. However what he didn’t indicate in his harsh criticism was that this was only a drop in the bucket compared to what he demanded from his party in 1997. As coauthor of his party’s manifest, he called for no less than the total annihilation of the Jews. That is the correct thing to do within the context of the Quran’s anti-Jewish contents, and Islamically correct according to the declarations of Muhammad. These things are not and will never be criticized by any Islamic association or leading Islamic theologian.
Western “quality” media have kept Erdogan’s declaration silent to this day — a declaration that is not inferior to those of Hitler and Ahmadinejad. Coincidence? Not on your life. If the editors had been able to unearth such declarations by an American or Israeli president from their archives, then they would certainly have dominated the headlines of the world for weeks to come!
Erdogan’s monstrous call for genocide of the Jews of this World seems not to be worth a single headline for most of the media, but for Erdogan it also seems to pose no moral problem as well. On the other hand, exercise any criticism of his prophet Muhammad who challenged his followers many times to wipe out the Jews, and who himself had countless Jews killed, and this causes no small stir. It is well known that the murder of non-Muslims is allowed in Islam. However, the one who exposes this Islamic license to kill, the one who calls it by name and criticizes it, the same is regarded by Islam as an unforgivable offense to the prophets and the religion. That is the hierarchy and hypocrisy of the moral principles of this “religion of peace.”
I accuse the majority of the media of nothing less than complicity with the totalitarianism of Islam and with its most important political and spiritual leaders, whether intentional or unintentional. The reasons for this (often unintentional) complicity has three names:
These, as well as total ignorance about the tenets and goals of Islam, are the essential portals between Islam and the greater portion of left-leaning Western intellectuals, whether they serve as publicists, media personnel, artists, or politicians.[q]
Journalists as Enablers of Islamization
The Western press normally recognizes no taboo: whether the subject is Christendom, the pope, Western or non-Western politicians, artists, countries, scientists, ideologies or ideologues, religions or sects. Everything can be analyzed, criticized, caricatured — and the freedom to do so is right.
However, the Speaker of the German Journalist Association (Deutscher Journalistenverband — DJV), Hendrik Zörner, of all people, vehemently criticized the reprinting of the Danish cartoons in German newspapers making a reference to the “Code of the Press.” According to the Code, “publication in Word and Picture that in Form and Content can be possibly injurious to the religious sensibilities of a people group violates the stipulations agreed upon in the Code” (numeral 10 of the German Press Code).52
The question is, whether Zörner will forego any publication of Hitler or Stalin cartoons in the future with respect to the sensibilities of the ever present and internationally recognized standards of the numerous fellowships of neo-Nazis and Old Stalinists? Perhaps he should even call for a cessation of George W. Bush cartoons because the millions who voted for him might have their sensibilities offended as well. No, one can conclude that he wouldn’t do that. But neither personal audacity nor journalistic ethics were the guidebook here: rather the confidence that no danger would threaten him from any corner. Apparently Zörner is not versed in Islam, nor in the ethics of his career and the personal duty of his journalistic guild. These all command the journalist to write with unwavering clarity and with boldness, to write down the truth, even when it is not politically correct to do so, as well as to fight against any form of totalitarian exercise of power — even, and especially when, this exercise of power cloaks itself in theological clothing.
In France, the Nouvel Obs prints an interview with the philosopher Regis Debray who has aligned himself with the international scenario for subjugation to Islam, and who has done no less than called for a voluntary self-control of expression of opinion with respect to Islam. Debray says:
“We cannot transfer our thought categories and our systems to another culture that has a history and where it has played a structural role like it was with us 300 years ago.”53
The Values-Relativist Debray may be a philosopher, but he understands very little: little of his own history, little of the French Enlightenment, little of the most destructive consequences of an appeasement philosophy — and even less of Islam who, in the above citation from Debray, “today would be the “peaceful religion” in power in France,” but tomorrow might burn even its non-Muslim supporters.[r]
Numerous newspapers and periodicals in the USA have also refused to reprint the Muhammad cartoons. The critical US historian and columnist, Anne Appelbaum, writes about this in theWashington Post:
“Hypocrisy among the cultural left. Dozens of American newspapers, the Post included, have declared that they will not print the cartoons, but that they would rather — in the words of a self-righteous editorial — ‘cease from superfluous attacks against religious symbols’”54
Appelbaum and the German sociologist Wolfgang Sofsky were a couple of the few voices who could correctly classify the religious and political background of the conflict regarding the cartoons and properly conclude that Islam’s aggressive nature was the real cause of that conflict. Sofsky writes in the Welt:
“The crowd is by no means is looking out for democratic freedoms … the impulse that drives them is much older. The righteous multitude desires to have control of their arch enemies; they desire to slay and burn them. In general, they have the West in their sights. The only freedom they are not finished with is the freedom to kill.”55
Authors as Enablers of Islamization
Already back in 1919, the German author Kurt Tucholsky had formulated an answer to the question where the limits should be set for enlightening writings, and especially those that are packed with satirical criticism. His answer became famous:
“What is allowed in satire? Everything!”56
Only a short century later, the German Literature Nobel Peace Prize winner, Günter Grass made the statement about the publishing of the Muhammad cartoons, that it was
“a conscious and planned provocation by a rightwing Danish newspaper.”57
Mr. Grass had already reached an “understanding” about the terror attacks on the New York twin towers and had admitted to a certain sympathy for the Islamic terrorists.
And here he is again: the automatic left-wing reflex of casting each and every criticism of Islam immediately and unchecked upon the right-wing political camp. In an interview with the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), he utters not a single word about the worldwide agitation of Islam against the “infidels,” not one word concerning the threats of murder against the Danish cartoonists and countless publishers, writers and journalists in the whole world who were bold enough to criticize Islam. Not one word was issued about Muhammad who committed numerous misdeeds against children, the thousands of objectors he had slain, who declared women to be second-class persons, who had a whole Jewish clan beheaded because that clan would not convert to Islam, and who for a long time (though dead) has waged a war, the 1400-year Jihad, in order to increase his borders to his own benefit. And now, today, he is in the middle of Europe, standing ready to take over this continent.
Now, these and similar themes make up the elements of the cartoons that Grass declares to be drawn by the “right-wingers.” However, in contrast to Grass’ opinion, this “Danish paper” puts its fingers into the gaping wounds (caused by Islam) and depicts some of the gravest grievances against Islam. Grass, however, goes so far indeed in his friendship with Islamofascism as to seriously propose on the occasion of Lübeck’s candidacy for being the “cultural capital of Europe” that a Lübeck church be rechristened as a mosque.58 Whatever is preached there doesn’t seem to interest him anymore. Let’s bring to mind the nature the Quran texts[s] that are preached in mosques throughout the world:
“And if you meet the infidel, then off with the head until you wreak massacre among them; and then fasten the bonds!” Sura 47:4
“And strike them (the infidels) dead wherever you encounter them.” Sura 2:191
“And if they turn away (from Islam and give no ear to your challenge to believe), then seize them and kill them where(ever) you find them…” Sura 4:89
“Oh believers, take neither Jew nor Christian as friends.” Sura 5:54
“Oh you who believe, battle against that one of the infidels that is neighbor to you.” Sura 9:123
Etc., etc., etc.
There are only two possible reasons behind Grass engaging himself in this theofascism. First, Grass has no concept of Islam. Second, Grass does know Islam. In the first case, he is an ignoramus. In the second case, he is a friend of a fascist religion.
We could possibly excuse his membership in the Waffen-SS — a confession that came much too late — as the expression of inexperienced youth. However, in his great age, where one should be able to ascribe wisdom and worldly understanding to him, to be a champion for a murderous, people-disdaining, child-raping prophet, and for that religion, is inexcusable. In his blind enthusiasm and criticism-free advocacy for that “religion of peace,” Grass himself has become a danger to the freedom that he believes he has fought for his whole life.
Psychoanalysts as Enablers of Islamization
One other icon of the 1968 Movement, caller of the shots and leading figure of the Peace Movement, is the German psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter. Like Grass, Richter also sees the fault for the cartoon conflict as primarily belonging to the West. Audio of Richter:
“The West should desist from all provocations and call forth feelings of humility and humbleness. We need to esteem the cultural identity of Islamic countries more highly.”59
This sentence needs to be analyzed. Richter is an icon of the left wing and the Greens, a leading figure practically worshipped by a whole generation of peace-driven deniers of reality and Easter marchers. He exercises no criticism against the cutting off of hands, flogging for no reason, or the stoning of women who have committed no crime other than that they wanted to be free from their husbands. He exercises no criticism against the fact that in Islamic lands today critics of “the religion of peace” have their eyes put out without anaesthetic, that girls at just two years of age are forced to marry dirty old men, that women according to Islamic law (Shari’a) are condemned to be second-class people.
He exercises no criticism against the highest courts who give their blessing to the worst of all forms of paedophilia: sex with nursing infants.60
Does he not know all of that? Now, perhaps twenty years ago we could have let Richterget away with this because of his ignorance regarding things Islam. Today, though, after 11 September, after Bali, after Madrid, after London, after the inexpressible activities of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, after the mass killings of homosexuals in Iran (and now recently in Iraq), and now the historically unmatched persecution of Christians that is currently playing out before us in practically every Islam-ruled country, Richter has no excuse. He cannot and will not be allowed to escape the dishonor and disgrace due him, in the face of screaming anti-Western and pro-Islam misanalyses, and in the face of his cowardly and hurried kowtowing to fascistic Islam. Richter, himself a psychoanalyst and psychotherapist for decades, not only in Germany, but well-known in all of the West, passes up no opportunity to ascribe as many aggressions as possible to the West. Indeed he seeks to discredit Western systems by describing them as “power-possessed devils”61 and accuse them as beingphobicly and paranoidally disturbed.62However, in the case of the worldwide Muslim uprisings that followed the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, this judge of the system and of capitalism makes an astonishing mutation from a rigorous accuser to a loving grandpa-like figure:
“We know about such temper outbreaks in these countries. We should not heap the rioters and the vandalism of furious masses in with the basic form of the majority…”63
Not one word about the 140 casualties from the uprisings, not one word about the murdered priests and nuns, not a single word about the destruction of dozens of churches, nothing about the killing of the innocent, while Richter, through his description “temper outbreak” trivialized the worldwide persecution of Christianity by Islam. How selective this distortion of perception is. It borders on paranoia, and it comes from one of the “most influential” psychoanalysts in postwar Germany. To think that such incomparable ignorance would come from Richter, “the one who understands Islam,” who on one hand makes out “man” to be an “inhumane being,” and on the other hand engages himself for Islam — expressly for the most inhumane, most murderous, most morbid variety of masculomania on the globe!
Just like most of his scientific colleagues, Richter addresses the problem of Islam primarily through communications theory. He addresses the issue of a so-called Western deficit of dialog and understanding, a so-to-speak mechanical dialog that occurs because there has been no effort or only a rudimentary attempt to deal with the issues of Islam. For the family therapist and experts in communication deficit, the whole world relies consistently on familiar processes such as the conflict between children, parents and adult-id and therefore it is reduced to treating narcissistic illnesses. For Richter, this is practical because he believes, as a degreed psychotherapist, that he has the correct answers for the political and religious conflicts of the world. This is how an individual psychologist mutates directly into a psychological world philosopher without having to grapple with the issues of politics and religion. But there is a certain point of ignorance about issues where even the best generalist, when lacking the knowledge of facts, starts to mutate into nothing more than a dilettante, an amateur. Richter shows these symptoms in his approach to Islam in his essay that is characteristically titled, “Islamophobia — a symptom of the ‘psychological illness of unrest (lack of peace)’.” In this writing, he poses the rhetorically targeted question:
“Is Islamophobia a symptom of psychopathological restlessness (lack of peace)?”64
Correct diagnosis — but incorrect patient. For Richter exchanges cause with effect. The critic of Islam is not the one that is “psychopathologically without peace,” as Richter would have it, rather the “religion” of Islam. In order to make it clear and without question, one of the most well-known and respected psychotherapists in Germany, one who fights against masculomania and totalitarianism (as Richter says of himself), analyzes the criticism against theofascism and the male-religion Islam as illnesses — ex cathedra, so to say. The killer phrase “Islamophobia” can have no other meaning.
Given such a grave misdiagnosis by an expert, we must be allowed to ask one question. The question is this: If Richter had lived three-quarters of a century earlier, would he have come upon the same diagnosis for critics of national socialism and titled it “Naziphobia”? Or for critics of communist totalitarianism as being “Stalinphobia”? Or perhaps “Maophobia” for critics of Chinese communism? Beside the point? Absolutely not! Many of his colleagues in communist countries have made this very diagnosis and have had critics of communism committed to Middle-Ages-class psychiatric care units only to disappear forever.
And like Grass, Richter may be just as famous. But he writes, like many of his colleagues, about things of which he has no understanding. This may be a form of megalomania, even a sign of self-glory that can be observed of many old 1968ers to this day. In any case, Richter makes so many unqualified comments to an especially successful accomplice of the “psychopathologically peaceless” Islam, and there are still hundreds of thousands of young Peace Movement individuals that believe every word that comes out of his pen.
The Left as Enablers of Islamization
The burden of critical discussion about the theme of Islam that is led by a vast number of persons and parties — that the left-wing opinion makers usually blame on the right-wing camp — can really be blamed on the left-wing-Green-self-righteous crowd. Since the left wing refuses to have open debate about totalitarian, inhumane Islam to this day, they have abandoned the political field of “criticism of Islam” to others by which they doubly refuse through demonizing this criticism as “hostile to foreigners.”
However, this strategy of demonizing the right as employed by the left has developed into an ideological boomerang, because in the long run the steadfast and constant assignment of the term “hostile to foreigners” to “criticism of Islam” makes it nearly impossible in the spectrum of the left, even in the most valid and obvious cases, to become actively critical of Islam. In this case, this accusation of “hostility to foreigners” may fall back on to them with full force, a substantive and argumentative vicious circle for which the left-wing do-gooders will have no escape, and in the end, Islam will be the real winner.
Danish Converts to Islam as Enablers of Islamization
In Denmark, a trend toward conversion to the “religion of peace” can also be seen. As in Germany and other Western countries, a large portion of the almost 4,000 Danish converts to Islam have settled into the leftwing and Green spectrum of politics. This fact is clearly seen in a study at the University of Copenhagen.65According to this study, the subjects being dealt with were converts to Islam and open opponents of the Western model of democracy and who want Islam to be the form of rule in their country. This internal about-face of values of an erstwhile leftwing Islam convert is astonishing:
This is only a small piece of cloth from this new religious coat those Western converts have slipped on over their previously leftist scene when they decided expressly to become Muslim. One wonders, if at their conversion into the “religion of peace,” somebody told them that there is no return to their pre-Islamic life, and in the case of turning away from Islam they would be killed according to Muhammad’s personal challenge:
“Kill every one that leaves the religion (of Islam)!”66
Conclusion: After Failing With Hitler, the Western Appeasement[t] Crowd Does So Again
With its “politically correct” reaction to minority hatred by its Muslim immigrants, Denmark now lies within the general mainstream of the political reactions by practically all Western governments. Apparently, these countries have not learned their lesson from the devastating appeasement policy that the Allies had exercised as a response to Hitler’s expansionist plans. Just as it was then with the National Socialists (Nazis), even so now they feed the Islamic “crocodile” (Churchill) hoping that they will be last ones consumed by it.[u] The “never again war” mentality that Western countries have summarily taken from the Second World War is as wrong as it is absurd.
Appeasement is wrong because societies dedicated to this maxim present themselves as an easy prize, and, as we see in the current case of this massive Islamization of Europe, they will surrender due to lack of defenses.67
Appeasement is absurd because historical experience shows that almost without exception the rogue regimes of this world have had to be overcome by violence. It was this way with Hitler, it was the same way with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and it was so with the cannibalistic regime of Idi Amin in Uganda, who in the end had converted to Islam.
Auschwitz, Sobibor, and Treblinka were not liberated by self-righteous peace demonstrations in London, Paris or New York, despite what one might think. They were liberated at the price of hundreds of thousands of civilian and military victims of the tanks of the Allied War Forces and Red Army. Pol Pot was not overthrown by peace vigils of concerned do-gooders in the West. It was by means of massive military insertion by the troops of Vietnam, in this case at the cost of 1,000 dead. Those who have chosen freedom for nothing have already chosen oppression.
No, the only correct conclusion from the Second World War must exclaim:
“Never again toleration of intolerance!”
If this sentence would have been included in the preambles of the constitutions of free countries, then such an intolerant and totalitarian system like Islam would not have been able to nestle itself in among the countries of the free world and be validated because of the guarantee of religious freedom provided by these constitutions, but this has happened without exception. If this sentence had been a part of the constitutional conventions in Western lands, then a religion like Islam would have been quickly recognized as an acute danger to freedom and would have been forbidden by the highest constitutional courts. Instead of the policy of chumming up to Islam by means of clergy, intellectuals, politicians, jurists and artists, and instead of the flood of mosques being built in the West, the Muslims would have been confronted by a value system that is well advanced and — with respect to science, culture and human rights — that is decidedly superior.
But the Western elite to this day cowers away from such forms of confrontation against this theocratic barbarism. Maybe it is because they have forgotten that freedom must be defended and recaptured anew every day. Maybe it is because they have a private or open hatred of their Western system. Perhaps either they do not realize the existential threat emanating from Islam, or, since the rapid and unexpected end of communism, they deep down secretly wish to collaborate with Islam in its ancient endeavor, and with Islam’s help, overthrow the Western system. However, let it be said to all appeasers and all foes of Western freedom: the Islamic crocodile will consume you first!
The Collective Failure of the Western Elite
To be qualified to speak on this and other truths about the unique essence of the “religion of peace” as a journalist, politician or author requires intense activity concerning Islam. It is precisely for this reason, time and content, that most Western journalists and intellectuals have cowered away from this subject. And because of this retreat from the issue they have failed in their main task: the commitment to advocate for freedom and the relentless enlightenment of their readers.
Politicians and jurists are guilty in another area: they have opened their borders, practically without limit, to a historically unmatched mass immigration by Muslims. Every year about one million new Muslims stream into the various countries of the European Union, while at the same time in their original Islamic countries, non-Muslims are mercilessly persecuted, thrown into prisons, tortured, and killed. These politicians, judges and attorneys hold the prime executive responsibility for the establishment of parallel Islamic societies in every European country. These societies are not only unwilling to integrate in Europe, but on the contrary and by every implication, they are working to remove the liberal European constitutional laws and eventually replace them with an Islamo-European Caliphate (“Eurabia”). Where realization and defense are concerned, not only have jurists and politicians miserably failed, but even worse: by their inaction regarding the fatal Islamic threat against their countries they have broken the oath of the office imposed upon them by the constitution that they are to defend their people from harm.
A complete and historically developed value system — that of the Western enlightenment, of human rights, of freedom of thought and of the freedom of the individual — has collapsed in the face of an international scenario because of cartoons that:
|1.||were legitimate in content|
|2.||were formally legitimate because of the freedom of criticism or debate, even if they might not have been correct in content,|
|3.||were a blot on the face of Islam, especially when considering the humiliation and scorn of Christianity, Jewry, and of the West that are the daily way of life in Islamic countries. Anyone who has at least once seen the hate-filled genocidal cartoons drawn up by the media in the Islamic world knows that the agitation regarding the Muhammad cartoons was lop-sided, reactionary, and hypocritical.|
Islam pays such fussy attention to not being criticized — but by the same token, it is limitless in its constant and destructive criticism against the non-Islamic world. Muslims in the whole world believe that they are allowed to burn, shred and spit upon the “holy” symbols of non-Muslims and go unpunished. One seldom sees a Muslim demonstration in which the flags of Western countries are not shredded, set on fire or trampled underfoot. Muslims know no limitation when they seek to agitate the West with their verbal attacks. And they hold no limits when they follow up these verbal attacks with their cowardly and malicious terror attacks in the world — mostly against innocent civilians, men, women as well as children. This call by Islam for the ban of criticism against them is the greatest and potentially the most dangerous single attack against the Western-Enlightened world, and in the face of the daily hate and war rhetoric coming from the “religion of peace” against all non-Islamic countries, the ban of criticism against Islam shows itself to be a farce and ultimate hypocrisy.
The cartoon conflict has demonstrated that there can be no compromise between the following: the demands of Islam for criticism-free recognition and subjugation to all of its values on the one hand, and on the other the tradition of Western Enlightenment, according to which no theme is allowed to escape critical evaluation (religions included).
It’s either the one or the other. There is either only thought control, as in Islam, or there is complete freedom of thought, as dictated by Western Enlightenment.
However, because Islam, since its early existence, explicitly threatens each criticism and each critical inquiry and scrutiny of its matters and persons (Muhammad), there can be no permanent political and societal coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims. A look at the history of Islam as well as at the current political situation demonstrates this fact. Islam accepts only one single form of such a coexistence: the absolute predominance of Islam over all other religions — the subjugation of all other religions to its authority to the end that the only choice is to convert to Islam — or be killed.
The belief in a peaceful coexistence as accepted by most Western multicultural adherents, and that governs most intellectuals and politicians, is born out of factual ignorance of the total character of Islam, and in the end it will turn out to be a fatal illusion. As long as Europe stays on this course of ideological and political paralysis, at the end of this “peaceful coexistence” the only winner, as is already established, will be the “religion of peace.” The Muslims themselves know best that Islam means “war” — and by no means “peace”.
“Every one of mine who preaches and declares that Islam does not have the slogan ‘war, war, all the way to victory,’ and that this slogan isn’t in the Quran are right. The Quran demands much more, it demands ‘war, war, all the way to total annihilation of their corruption.’” Ruhollah Khomeini68
The one desiring to stop Eurabia from happening can no longer rely on politics or justice. The one who wishes to stop Eurabia must himself become active (in the following):
|1.||Cast no more votes for pro-Islamic politicians. Cancel subscriptions to pro-Islamic newspapers and periodicals.|
|2.||Readers need to send letters en masse answering articles and commentaries that categorize critics of Islam as being rightwing extremist and/or articles and commentaries that deny that the Islamization of Europe is really happening.|
|3.||Send E-mail chain letters to radio and TV editors who put on Islamophilic (Islam-friendly or Islam-loving) shows.|
|4.||Mass advertisements are in order for judges and attorneys that bend German/European law who aren’t actively involved in immigration criminal law.|
|5.||Cast no more votes for mayors and parties that have actively engaged themselves in the support of building mosques, and widely publish the names of those who do so.|
|6.||Send protest letters en masse to town halls, mayoral offices, party offices.|
|7.||Organize sit-ins and both small and large demonstrations where possible.|
|8.||Inform friends and acquaintances regarding Islam — for example, the forwarding of articles exposing the true nature of the issue and other information by E-mail|
|9.||Share knowledge about Islam with friends, partners and acquaintances|
|10.||When voting (whether local, state, federal, or European, vote only for those parties that recognize the danger of Islam and stand against it.|
|11.||Encourage those politicians, journalists, intellectuals, artists and other citizens that are bold enough to exercise criticism about Islam and to accept the stigma of “radical right” that the left and Islamic associations will attach to them.|
Everything is now laid out on the table. But one truth now stands firm: “Whoever does not fight has already lost the battle.”