Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein — a Jordanian of the Hashemite tribe (which traces itself back to Muhammed) — has just called various right-wing Western politicians “demagogues and political fantasists”. Mr. Hussein did so while addressing a security conference in The Hague.
Here’s a few words on the Prince himself.
Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He’s the son of Prince Ra’ad bin Zeid, the former Lord Chamberlain of Jordan. Hussein himself was once Jordan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
A Jordanian as a UN human rights chief? That’s the same Jordan that doesn’t allow a single Jew to become a citizen and which is a specialist administrator of torture. (Jordan does allow Israelis and Jewish tourists.) This also squares well with all those Saudis at the United Nations who preach to the rest of the world about interfaith, terrorism and, believe it or not, human rights.
“ — limitations on the right of citizens to change their government peacefully;
— cases of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, poor prison conditions, impunity, arbitrary arrest and denial of due process through administrative detention, and prolonged detention;
— breaches of fair trial standards and external interference in judicial decisions;
— infringements on privacy rights;
— limited freedoms of speech and press, and government interference in the media and threats of fines and detention that encourage self-censorship;
— restricted freedoms of assembly and association…
— legal and societal discrimination and harassment of religious minorities and converts from Islam are a concern…
— legal and societal discrimination and harassment of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community;
— loss of Jordanian nationality by some citizens of Palestinian origin;
— restricted labor rights; and
— cases of abuse of foreign domestic workers.”
Prince al-Hussein included Geert Wilders, Donald Trump, and Nigel Farage in his broad generalisations. However, he singled out the Dutch leader, Geert Wilders, as an especially bad “bigot”.
Then Trump and Farage came in for an attack. Apparently they use the same tactics as the Islamic State. Yes, you read that correctly.
Well, if Geert Wilders is a “demagogue and political fantasist”, so too are very many people in the Netherlands, because opinion polls have just told us that Wilders’ party — the Freedom Party (PVV) — is leading the polls in that part of the world.
Wilders, like Nigel Farage, has also recently addressed the American people. More precisely, Wilders addressed the U.S. Republican Party National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, last month.
Prince al-Hussein went into more detail when he spoke at the inauguration of the Peace, Justice and Security Foundation.
Firstly, he said that he was speaking directly to Geert Wilders and his “acolytes”. Indeed, he was speaking to all the populists, demagogues, and political fantasists who inhabit Europe and America.
Prince Hussein continued:
“I am a Muslim, who is, confusingly to racists, also white-skinned; whose mother is European and father, Arab. And I am angry, too, because of Mr. Wilders’ lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear.”
Isn’t it strange when European political/economic elites and Arab princes (in this case) cast disparaging remarks about “populists” and populism? It’s as if populism is as culpable as racism is nowadays. It’s also interesting to hear Hussein say that because he’s white, this ends up being “confusing to racists”. Really? But, Prince Hussein, Islam is not a race and neither do Muslims constitute a single race. So why should patriots and counterjihadists be confused by Hussein’s whiteness? Is he mixing-up patriots and counterjihadists with those very many Leftists who see everything in terms of race? Or, instead, is he confusing them with the very many Muslims who use the “race card” to quell all criticisms of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims)?
Prince Hussein returned to his themes of populism and Mr. Wilders. His said that the PVV’s (Wilders’ party) manifesto is “grotesque” and that Wilders has much in common with Donald Trump, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen, and UKip’s Nigel Farage. Moreover, he called for decisive political action to be taken against populism and patriotism. (Whatever could he mean by that?)
In one news piece I read, Prince Hussein talked about “half-truths” and “oversimplification” when it comes to Islam. In detail, he said:
“But in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Daesh uses tactics similar to those of the populists.”
That’s strange really because Hussein, at least here, seems not to have given any examples of such “half-truths” or “oversimplifications”. However, since Hussein pretends to believe that all the critics of Islam think that there can be no such thing as a white or a yellow Muslim, perhaps he’s mistaking Islam’s critics for other people.
I said earlier that International Socialists (i.e., Leftists) see everything in terms of race (as National Socialists also do), and that Muslims use the charge of racism to help them install sharia blasphemy law, so here’s Hussein elaborating on this. He said that “humiliating racial and religious prejudice fanned by the likes of Mr Wilders” had become official policy in some countries.
Mr. Hussein also warned that such racism and populism could easily and quickly descend into “colossal violence”. The only places in which there is colossal violence nowadays are Muslim countries. These Muslims, however, aren’t the victims of white racism or populism: they are victims of Muslim-on-Muslim “hate”. As for Europe and the United States, it will almost a certainty be the case that most of the violence which happens in the future in these countries will be the responsibility of Muslims. And Prince Hussein himself will bear some of the responsibility for that.
Prince al-Hussein finished off his speech with the following words:
“Are we going to continue to stand by and watch this banalisation of bigotry, until it reaches its logical conclusion?”
Sorry, Mr. Hussein, I see much more bigotry and violence coming from the Muslim quarter than I do from anywhere else in the world. And, in a certain sense, such violence is partly a result of what Hussein and his United Nations are attempting to bring about in European and American — i.e., sharia blasphemy law.
Leader of Netherlands’ most popular party Geert Wilders has proposed a closure of all Mosques in the country and a total ban on the Koran ahead of the 2017 general election.
Leader of the populist Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders has proposed the most radical anti-Islamisation platform for any party in European politics. Wilders, whose PVV are currently top of all major polls in the Netherlands, has declared that the new platform for the party ahead of the general elections in 2017 will include the plan to close all Mosques in the country and place a ban on the Islamic holy book, the Koran. Wilders claims that the move is to counter the Islamisation he sees ongoing in the country reports Belgian paper Demorgen.
The PVV platform for the 2017 election was released by Wilders first via his Twitter account and carried the theme of “de-Islamisation.” The PVV states that it would like to see not only a closure of all the mosques in the country and a ban on the Koran but also a ban on the Islamic headscarf for women in any public setting. Asylum seekers were also mentioned by the document which wants to repeal all temporary residency permits for all asylum seekers and close all asylum centres in the country.
Like many countries in Europe the Netherlands has had an issue with it’s citizens who have gone off to fight for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq returning home. The PVV is clear on its position regarding these current or former Islamic State fighters saying that any ISIS members will not be allowed to return to the Netherlands.
The new platform makes a sharp increase in pressure from the party against Islamisation. During the last parliamentary campaign the PVV proposed to allow up to a thousand asylum seekers into the country per year. The ongoing migrant crisis and multiple acts of terror in European cities over the past few months has influenced the opinion of Wilders and the party who are known as one of the toughest on Islamism in Europe.
Wilders himself says he is, “incredibly proud of the draft,” of the party platform and reaffirmed his commitment to follow the United Kingdom out of the European Union. Wilders has long been an advocate of getting the Netherlands out of the political bloc who he claims stifle any meaningful asylum of immigration policy passed by the Dutch parliament.
Earlier this year writing exclusively for Breitbart London Wilders called for a “Patriot Spring” across Europe and North America. As Austrian Freedom Party presidential candidate Norbert Hofer leads in polls ahead of the October 2nd Austrian Presidential election, the German Alternative for Germany have become the 3rd largest party in Germany and Wilders PVV are projected to win at least ten seats more than the current ruling party, the patriot spring may have begun.
Look at every country where Islam is dominant and you will see a total lack of freedom and democracy. Islam and freedom are absolutely incompatible. And yet, we are importing it into our western societies, thereby endangering our own freedoms. It is time to stop this foolishness.
Take Turkey, for example. Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has never made a secret of his aim to strengthen the powers of Islam. Contrary to what some want us to believe, Turkey does not prove that Islam and democracy are compatible.
For Erdogan, democracy is merely a tool. He once compared it to a tram: “You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.”
Today, Mr Erdogan is stepping off.
The repercussions are felt not only in Turkey, but also in European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, where large Turkish immigrant communities act as the fifth column of intolerance.
Indeed, the Turkish President not only oppresses free speech at home. He has embarked on a crusade to oppress it in Europe as well. And the large groups of Turkish immigrants in Western European countries are his henchmen.
Last month, the Turkish President demanded criminal prosecution of German comedian Jan Böhmermann. The latter had ridiculed Erdogan with a critical poem on German television.
German Turks began to threaten Böhmermann to such degree that he had to request police protection and go into hiding. At the same time, the German authorities started criminal proceedings against the comedian, based on a 19th century German penal law which forbids insulting the representatives of foreign states.
The criminal proceedings were started with the explicit consent of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who, according to Böhmermann, has “served me for tea to a despot.”
Meanwhile, Erdogan’s appetite is far from over. This week, he demanded a German court to stop Mathias Döpfner, the CEO of the Springer publishing company, from defending the comedian.
Fear of violent Turkish immigrants also forced a hamburger restaurant in Cologne to shut down. Its owner, Jörg Tiemann, had put a burger with goat cheese on the menu, calling it “the Erdogan burger.” Erdogan supporters immediately responded with threats against owner and staff, forcing the restaurant to close its doors.
Then, there is the case of Ebru Umar, a Dutch journalist of Turkish descent. Four weeks ago, she wrote a column criticizing the Turkish Consulate in Rotterdam. Following the Böhmermann incident, the Consulate had called on Dutch Turks to report incidents of “insults” against Erdogan in The Netherlands.
One week later, while on holiday in the Turkish seaside resort Kusadasi, Umar was arrested and only released on condition that she not leave Turkey. On Facebook and Twitter, hundreds of Dutch Turks openly rejoiced in her arrest.
Her home in Amsterdam was broken into and vandalized.When walking the streets of Kusadasi, Umar was threatened on several occasions by Dutch Turks who had gone looking for her. “We will know where to find you when you return to the Netherlands,” they said. “You will get what you deserve.”
Last Tuesday, after three weeks, the Erdogan regime finally allowed Umar to return to the Netherlands.
Many of those threatening people in the West are third or even fourth generation immigrants to our countries. This proves that – barring a few exceptions – the integration and assimilation of Islamic immigrants into our Western society has failed.
Many of the Islamic newcomers are simply incapable of adopting our values. Indeed, they are a danger to these values.
We must protect these values. And one of the first things to do is to sever our links with regimes promoting Islam. These regimes cannot be our friends; they are dangerous.
It is an outrage that Turkey is still a member of NATO. The sooner we get rid of this Trojan Horse within our Western alliance, the better. We should dump Turkey.
Instead of doing this, however, our current Western leaders are welcoming Turkey.
There is little doubt that if Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the next President of the United States, she will be a cheerleader for Turkey.
Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), which is currently by far the biggest party in the Dutch polls. He is the author of “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me” (Regnery)
Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician and the founder and leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom. Wilders is an anti-Islamist leader in Europe. Since 2004 he received permanent personal security for speaking out against Islamic fundamentalism.
Geert will be in Cleveland.
The Trump campaign plans on “juicing up” this year’s convention.
Bloomberg spoke with Trump senior advisor Barry Bennett on Friday.
“Our team will be headed out [to Cleveland] next week or the week after to get our first kind of update of what’s going on. But I think when it comes to the program a lot of us feel that we could juice up the format just a little,” Bennett told Masters in Politics. “More entertaining, more interesting. I don’t know why the candidate only speaks on acceptance night, why shouldn’t he speak every night from a different city? How come we are not doing broadcasts on Facebook or Google, why are we just relying on 45 minutes of network television time.”
♦ Freedom of speech is the ultimate liberal value — and it is the first value that people who wish to control us would take away.
♦ If a court in a Western society decides to censor or punish Geert Wilders or others for non-violent speech, the court not only attacks the very humanistic values and liberal society we claim to hold dear; it brings us a step closer to totalitarianism. Even the idea of having an “acceptable” range of views is inherently totalitarian.
♦ But what does one do if immigrants prefer not to assimilate? Europeans may be faced with a painful choice: What do they want more, the humanistic values of individual freedom or an Islamized Europe?
♦ Censorship is not a path we should wish to take. While we may rightly fear those on the political right, we would do well to fear even more the autocratic thought-police and censorship on the political left.
You are not truly a proponent of free speech unless you defend speech you dislike as fervently as speech you like.
There are many issues concerning the views of the Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, head of rapidly growing political party, the Freedom Party (Partij voor de Vrijheid, or PVV). Dutch prosecutors have charged Wilders with insulting deliberately a group of people because of their race and inciting hatred. Wilders’s trial focuses on a speech he gave, in which he asked a crowd of supports whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. In another instance, Wilders is reported to have stated that The Hague should be “a city with fewer burdens and if possible fewer Moroccans.” Wilders admits to having made the remarks.
Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, where he asked “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)
The remarks Wilders made about Moroccans, as they target only one nationality rather than immigration in general, may sound ill-judged or distasteful to some. But do Wilders’s comments, that there should be fewer Moroccans, actually incite hatred or violence? His remarks do not suggest that people attack Moroccans or that people should hate Moroccans; they simply suggest that there should be lower levels of immigration from Morocco.
While Wilder’s comments could certainly be convincingly portrayed as preying on people’s anti-immigration sentiment, does that actually make them an insult to Moroccans, or is he simply supporting policies he thinks would benefit his country? As Wilders himself said in court last week, “What if someone had said, ‘Fewer Syrians?'”
As a society, individuals are responsible for their actions, so if someone acts upon a distortion of Wilders’s words, or is violent because of them, Wilders should not be held responsible for their actions, even if he might choose his words more carefully in the future. A line is dangerous to draw: if we start criminalizing people who have anti-immigration views, poorly expressed or not, then where do we stop?
Is it also possible that because Wilders is labelled as politically “far right,” people on the political “left,” instead of proposing counterarguments, would like to shut him up by branding him a “racist”?
Here are several more statements, none from Wilders; no one who said them has been prosecuted:
“We also have s*** Moroccans over here.” Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
“We must humiliate Moroccans.” Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
“Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making.” Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.
One can see that these statements by politicians of the Labour Party, which is one of the current governing parties of the Netherlands, are more inciting, condemnable statements against Moroccans than anything Wilders has said. Yet no prosecution has been initiated against these individuals.
Would it not be better to discuss a nuanced immigration policy openly, like adults, and thereby eliminate prejudice through rational argument?
Prosecuting Wilders has only emboldened the anti-immigrationists, making them less responsive to reason and discussion. Ironically, this trial has moved many left-liberals, who might be criticizing his views, instead to defend his fundamental rights.
On limiting immigration in general, some critics consider that calling for a moratorium on immigration is illiberal — often other groups such as Christians and Yazidis might be fleeing from ISIS or other extremist Islamic organizations. Basing immigration on nationality might also bring back memories of Nazi Germany, when restrictions often were based on crude religious, ethnic and national caricatures. Other critics seem uncomfortable with calls for the dominance of “Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions” within Dutch culture. How, they ask, can one effectively police a “culture” without seemingly authoritarian restrictions on those who might not fit into it?
Still other critics argue that prohibiting the construction of new mosques restricts religious freedom, and could cause further tension with members of the Islamic community, instead of working with them to solve their conflicts with the West.
But what does one do if immigrants prefer not to assimilate?
That, for example, is not an anti-immigration argument; it is a legitimate question that needs to be answered. There are also many questions that pertain to what a society might look like if there is a tectonic demographic shift, along with a tectonic shift in culture that might accompany it.
As one commentator explained, if you have an apple pie with a few cranberries, it is still an apple pie; but if you keep adding more and more cranberries, at some point it is no longer an apple pie, it is a cranberry pie. That is what the Aztecs faced when the Spaniards arrived in South America. That is what Christianity faced in Turkey when the Muslim Turks arrived. Today, in much of the Middle East, Judaism and Christianity have virtually ceased to exist.
Hard as it might be to contemplate, Europeans might at some point be faced with a painful choice: Which do they want more, the humanistic values of individual freedom or an Islamized Europe?
Whether or not one agrees, especially with the tone, this is the dilemma Wilders has chosen to face — before a transformation becomes so fundamental that it cannot be reversed.
Although he has come down on the side of liberal values, this is seen by critics as violating other liberal values, such as not to judge one culture superior to another.
But what should one tolerate, if the other culture advocates stoning women to death for adultery? Or, without four male witnesses attesting to the contrary, regarding rape as adultery? Or executing people for having a different sexual preference, or religion, or for leaving the religion? Or beating one’s wife? Or condoning slavery? Or officially regarding women as worth half a man? Is it a humanistic, liberal value to stay silent — to condemn at least half the population to that?
What if before the Civil War in the United States people had said, “Slavery? But that is their culture!” The British in India outlawed suttee — a ritual in which widows are thrown live onto their husband’s funeral pyre. Is it humanistic say “but that is their culture”?
These are values over which wars have been fought.
So even if many of the policies of Wilders might drastically differ even from those of this author, in a truly liberal, humanistic society, it is one’s duty defend Wilders’s right to express his views without fear of retribution.
If we fail to do that, what we end up with is an authoritarian state in which government agencies decide which views are acceptable and which are not. We have lived through that before with the Soviet Union, and we are now living through it again with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran. A happy picture, they are not.
As history shows, as in the French or Russian or Cuban Revolutions, when one person’s views are suppressed, eventually everyone’s views are suppressed. Who decides on the deciders?
If a court in a Western society decides to censor or punish Geert Wilders or others for non-violent speech, the court not only attacks the very humanistic values and liberal society we claim to hold dear; it brings us a step closer to totalitarianism. Even the idea of having an “acceptable” range of views is inherently totalitarian.
“Acceptable” thoughts, by definition, do not need protecting. It is the “unacceptable” thoughts that do. The reason the right to freedom of speech exists is to protect the minority from the majority — so we can openly, freely exchange opinions and have discussions.
If we wish to have any kind of democracy in more than just name, people need to able openly to challenge ideas that are considered unquestionable, even sacred, as well as people who are considered sacred.
Only open discussion can have a beneficial influence by highlighting problems and shaping policy. In discussing even outlandish views, we are reaffirming our right to say them, justifying why liberal values of freedom are paramount. Freedom of speech is the ultimate liberal value — and it is the first freedom that people who wish to control us would take away. As the historian Clare Spark wrote, “Most of European history, with the exception of England, repressed speech that was anti-authoritarian. One might think of Plato, the Spanish Inquisition, and the career of Spinoza for just a few examples.”
Therefore, no proponent of democracy, humanism or liberal values should call for Wilders to be punished or censored for his remarks, even if they might be thought questionably expressed. When you defend the fundamental right of another to express his view, it does not mean that you agree with the view. It does not mean that you would refrain from attacking that view if it seemed based on flawed premises — or even if it did not. Freedom of speech means opposing someone with counterarguments, not trying to silence him.
If Wilders’ views are thought to be anti-humanistic, criminalizing his right to speak freely is even more so. Criminalizing speech only harks back to Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for “blasphemy,” for saying there were a plurality of worlds; or to the trial of Galileo Galilei for claiming that the earth moves around the sun; or the Scopes trial, which attempted to criminalize Darwin’s theory of evolution.
It is restrictions on free speech that are producing many of the worst mockeries of justice today, in countries such as China, North Korea, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, and Iran.
Repressing speech only dangerously hinders the liberal cause. Groups that, in an authoritarian manner, call for censorship and the suppression of debate are being allowed to thrive. We are seeing this now in America on campuses and in the authoritarian attempts to prevent voters from hearing presidential candidates by disrupting speeches. When one fails to answer difficult questions or tries to silence their proponents, instead of solving the problem of prejudice, you are in reality feeding their prejudices and allowing them to grow unchallenged.
We urgently need be concerned about laws that would make “being insulted,” a criminal offense. Where does an “insult” start or stop? In addition, people who claim to be offended might just be using the law to try to silence others with whom they disagree. The culpatory aspect of these laws should probably be reconsidered, and possibly revised by the Dutch government, the United Nations in its UNHRC Resolution 16/18, and others trying to restrict free speech.
Finally, criminalizing views such as those of Wilders does not extinguish them. Yes, people might feel intimidated from raising ideas for fear of reprisals, but the suppressed ideas will continue to fester, often with an even stronger force.
It is completely understandable why many are not quick to come to the aid of Wilders because they deem him an opponent. However, if there is one rallying call to those who are in doubt of whether to support Wilders, it is this: authoritarianism is our enemy, whether it comes from Islamism, or laws restricting speech. We may not like that we have to defend people we may even regard as racists or xenophobes, but if we do not defend the rights of all, then who will be next among us to have his rights eroded?
Censorship is not a path we should wish to take. While we may rightly fear those on the political right, we would do well to fear even more the autocratic thought-police and censorship on the political left.
Wilders should not be standing trial for what he has said. Could there be a question of the case against Wilders being political? It sure looks like that.
The Netherlands’ best-selling newspaper has presented damning testimony that the criminal trial against anti-Islamification campaigner Geert Wilders is flawed, with many complainant declarations “fake”.
Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders’ trial for supposed hate speech started this morning, but the quality of the government prosecutor’s case has been called into question. Earlier this week De Telegraafpublished a leaked report suggesting many of the 6,400 plaintiffs in the case were not Dutch speakers and hadn’t even been aware they were signing statements.
The report from the weekend edition stated: “The charges [against Wilders] were often pressed by ignorant, non-Dutch speaking and sometimes even illiterate elderly immigrants who had no idea what they were doing”. In total the Dutch government received some 15,000 complaints of discrimination.
The actual reasons behind the majority of the 6,400 complainants may never be known, as the judge presiding over Wilders’ case refused the defence the opportunity to investigate the plaintiffs. It was only after “much pleading” he was finally given access to just 15 of the 6,400.
Getty
One complainant told Mr. Wilder’s defence lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops that outsiders had come to his mosque with papers, claiming they were ballot papers. Doing what he was told, the man duly “voted” for Mr. Wilders, or so he thought. When pressed by the defence lawyer, the Muslim was shocked to hear Mr. Wilders was to go to court because of the paper he had signed, he had no idea what it was or who Mr. Wilders is.
One of the other witnesses spoken to by the defence lawyer was also given already filled-out papers at his mosque. He said he saw other people doing the same, and believed that at just one mosque as many as 1,200 people complained against Mr. Wilders.
Another witness said he had been walking through the market and a group of men pressed a complaint paper into his hand and told him he had to sign it. He agreed because he didn’t want a fight but explained he didn’t know what he was signing — the man professed to being illiterate.
When pressed by the lawyer, the man said far from feeling discriminated against he felt Mr. Wilders had the right to say what he wanted, as long as that right was also extended to others.
On my way to court in police escort. No one will silence me. No terrorist, no prime minister and no court either.
These questionable practices extend well beyond Dutch mosques. One complainant spoken to by lawyer Mr. Knoops reported when he went to a police station to make a complaint, the officers there said they also felt “uncomfortable” about Mr. Wilders’ words. The officers filled out the complaint forms out on behalf of the men, which they couldn’t read as an interpreter was not present. The man remarked “I was told to sign the document”.
While the way in which the prosecution was brought may cause concern, ultimately it may not interrupt the prosecution of Mr. Wilders, as the court may judge his call for “less Moroccans” to be a criminal offence in any case.
The case now underway relates to comments Mr. Wilders made in March 2014 at an electoral rally where he asked supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the country. As they chanted “fewer, fewer” in response, Mr. Wilders replied: “We’ll organise that”. The case is now being seen as a major test on the limits of freedom of speech in the Netherlands.
Mr. Wilders has previously been acquitted on making anti-Islam statements, but he is now being charged with “insulting a group” and inciting hatred and discrimination. He has called the present trial “politically motivated”, a point of view apparently supported by a Turkey-based Dutch-Moroccan Al-Jazeera journalist who today boasted about her role in brining Mr. Wilders to court:
Protest Signs in Cologne Germany on New Year’s Eve Sexual Assaults Source: AP
Reports of sexual assaults and robberies of women gathered for celebrations in Cologne, Germany on New Year’s Eve have created a firestorm of concern in Germany, but also in neighboring Holland. Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) raised questions in the Hague Parliament of the ruling coalition cabinet members on January 5th. Today, Wilders sent a letter to Prime Minister Rutte leader of the VVD party ruling coalition requesting preventive actions to foil such possible attacks by migrants and refugees in Dutch reception centers and communities.
Reports of 90 incidents by women victims in Cologne of such sexual attacks and robberies indicated that the perpetrators were “Arabic or North Africa looking” males. It heightened concerns in this most culturally and ethnically diverse German city and among opposition political leaders who have questioned the wisdom of allowing in more than 1 million predominately Muslim migrants and refugees from the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. That prompted Chancellor Merkel ,who has welcomed the mass immigration wave of Muslims, as a means of dealing with Germany’s acute labor shortage to have the ruling CD government Justice Minister investigate these charges and determine if any arrests can be made by local law enforcement. However, reports of riots at reception centers by migrants and refugees have aroused protests in a number of German communities.
A spate of alleged sexual assaults and robberies at New Year’s Eve festivities in the German city of Cologne has fueled a political firestorm over immigration in Germany.
Ninety criminal incidents, a quarter of which were sexual assaults, were reported following New Year’s Eve celebrations in the city, Cologne police told CNN.
Police said victims described the perpetrators as gangs of Arab or North African men. Many of the assaults were likely intended to distract, allowing attackers to steal mobile phones and other devices, police said.
Authorities said the crimes, including a rape, occurred around the train station, next to the western German city’s landmark cathedral.
Video footage of the celebrations in the area show riotous scenes, with revelers shooting fireworks into crowds.
In a phone call with Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker Tuesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed outrage over the attacks, labeling them “disgusting” and calling for the culprits to be identified and punished as soon as possible, CNN affiliate ARD reported.
Cologne police Chief Wolfgang Albers said at a press conference Monday that the incidents were “intolerable,” describing them as “crimes of a totally new dimension.”
The episode raised questions about the viability of Cologne’s famous Carnival next month when hundreds of thousands are expected to join celebrations on city streets, he said.
A smaller number of similar assaults also were reported in the German city of Hamburg on New Year’s Eve, Hamburg police told CNN.
The women involved in the Cologne sexual attacks gave evidence of what occurred:
One of the Cologne victims said she was too scared to go out alone following the ordeal.
“The men surrounded us and started to grab our behinds and touch our crotches,” she said.
“They touched us everywhere. I wanted to take my friend and leave. I turned around and in that moment someone grabbed my bag.”
She said she feared she could be killed or raped by the attackers.
“Nobody noticed and nobody helped us. I just wanted to get out.”
Another victim said she had unsuccessfully tried to fight off her assailant.
“But there were so many people around me that there was no control. There was no way out. There was no way to protect yourself,” she said.
“We ran to the police. But we saw the police were so understaffed. They couldn’t take care of us and we as women suffered the price.”
Watch this UK Telegraph video of protests in Cologne against these sexual attacks and robberies of young women allegedly by Arab/North African young men:
In view of these attacks by Arab attackers in several German cities lead by Cologne, Geert Wilders and fellow PVV MP Sietse Fritsma, presented the Dutch Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Security and Justice in the Hague parliament on January 5, 2016 the following questions:
1.) Are you aware of reports that on New Year’s Eve groups of mostly Arab men assaulted, robbed and raped dozens of young women in several German cities?
2.) Are you also aware also of the statements by female victims who said “They surrounded us and began to grope us? Their hands were everywhere. I had fingers in every bodily orifice”?
3.) Do you agree with Wolfgang Albers, the Cologne Police Chief that we are dealing here with “a whole new dimension of violence”? If not, why not?
4.)Do you agree with us that this new dimension of violence is the result of the import of migrants with a violent, Islamic culture that often regards women and young girls as inferior? If not, why not?
5.)Are you still of the opinion that the word testosterone bomb is a terrible word, as you told the first signatory of these questions during the parliamentary debate on September 17th last year, or do you now finally realize that allowing tens of thousands of Arab men in Netherlands jeopardizes the safety of our citizens?
6.)Do you remember the parliamentary debate on asylum seekers of October 14th, 2015, during which the first signatory of these questions read several reports of women who had been harassed by asylum seekers in the Netherlands? If so, why do you continue to endanger Dutch women by allowing the massive admission of asylum seekers?
7.) Do you realize that, if you continue to leave our borders wide open, it is only a matter of time before mass robberies and assaults such as those in Germany, will also happen on the same large scale in the Netherlands? Do you want to have this on your conscience or are you finally ready to close the Dutch borders to Islamic testosterone bombs?
If we continue to allow asylum-seekers and immigrants from Islamic countries to settle in our country en masse, then what has happened on New Year’s Eve in Germany will soon happen on the same large scale in the Netherlands, too. The first signs are already there.
During the parliamentary debate on October 14, 2015, I quoted from emails of ordinary Dutch citizens suffering from the behavior of asylum seekers and immigrants. These mails referred to young girls being “immorally touched”, daughters being “harassed,” women who are told “I want to f___k you.”
The events in Cologne are the signs of a future which lies before us if the government and the majority of the parliamentarians refuse to face the truth.
Cologne is nearby. Our wives and daughters must be protected. The government needs to wake up. Mark Rutte must do his duty. Our borders must be closed. We must de-Islamize the Netherlands.
Today, Wilders issued a follow up letter to Dutch PM Rutte saying:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
Yesterday and today, I received hundreds of emails. Hundreds of emails full of fear and indignation. About the horrific events on New Year’s Eve in Cologne.
I have not heard you about those events. I find that very strange. After Paris last November, we now have Cologne. After the Islamic terror, the sexual jihad. But we do not hear you. Hello, Mr. Prime Minister? Are you still there?
What happened in Cologne is repulsive. Fear reigns in Germany, but also in the Netherlands. Don’t you notice it? Thousands of Dutch women worry about their safety. Thousands of Dutch men fear for the safety of their wives. And thousands of Dutch parents are afraid of what might happen to their daughters.
All these people realize that it will not be long before large group attacks on women will also take place in the Netherlands. Testosterone bombs I have called them, but it is far worse. This is sexual terrorism, this is sexual jihad.
On a smaller scale, it is already happening in the Netherlands today. Ever more women are being harassed. Yesterday, the media reported about a girl in the province of Zeeland which had been assaulted by an Arab man. For years already, there is a plague of assault rapes by non-Western men in Sweden and Norway. It is coming our way.
You do not like to hear this, Mr. Rutte. And that is undoubtedly the reason why you are so quiet now. But you are responsible for this situation. Because, despite all the warnings, you have opened our country’s borders to tens of thousands of people – mostly young men – from an Islamic culture.
I hope that your eyes will finally open and that you will close our borders at once and start to de-Islamize the Netherlands. So that our country may once again be the safe country the Dutch people are entitled to.
Geert Wilders
Geert Wilders MP is leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands
The plague of sexual assaults, robberies and rapes of young women by Muslim migrant young men in Sweden has made it what some allege has become the rape capital of Europe. Then we have the sexual grooming practices of young British girls by South Asia Muslim émigrés in the UK. With a million Muslim refugees and migrants who broke the borderless Schengen system, they are seeking more than sanctuary and possible economic employment, opportunities. Rather it may result in establishing virtual no go areas emboldened by sexual terrorism ruled under Sharia Islamic law condoned by EU countries under the guise of myopic politically correct multi-culturalism policies. What they do not comprehend to their undoing is that the great wave of Muslim immigration is a furtherance of the Dar al Hijrah immigration strategy to spread Islamization to Europe and the West. That is what concerns Wilders and others in the broken borders of the EU with thousands of refugees arriving daily from conflicts in the Muslim Ummah exemplified by the Jihad of the self-declared Caliphate, the Islamic State.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
The recent focus, to the extent that there has been one, has been on Islamist terrorists. Terrorists kill people; fortunately, they themselves often die in the process.
The cancer of Islamisation brings terrorists to western countries. Worse, it also destroys host civilizations from within. Terrorism is not a necessary component of that process and merely keeping terrorists out will not halt it. European supporters of the tumor have caused it to metastasize and thereby to weaken their civilizations. They are working hard to finish the job; if the process is not stopped, it will eventually kill those civilizations.
How about America? Will Europe show the way?
In this short Clarion Project video, a Sunni Muslim woman relates the levels of Muslim support for terror and for changing western law and culture to conform to Islamic (Sharia) law. Many Americans will find the numbers of Muslims involved to be surprisingly high. It’s very well worth watching.
In multiple Muslim nations, overwhelming majorities of Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy. Collectively, this means that hundreds of millions of men and women support capital punishment for the exercise of the basic human rights of freedom of expression and free exercise of religion:
Terrorism vs. the Islamisation Cancer
Few terrorists are needed to kill many people and to frighten more. Preventing the entry of additional Muslims into America would diminish the threat of terror but would not eliminate it: Muslim terrorists are often second or later generation citizens and the Muslim fertility rate is quite high.
Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman – well above replacement level (2.1), the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population. Christians are second, at 2.7 children per woman. Hindu fertility (2.4) is similar to the global average (2.5). Worldwide, Jewish fertility (2.3 children per woman) also is above replacement level.
To the extent that Muslim males impregnate multiple women, the male Muslim fertility rate is doubtless higher than for females. If each of three wives, made pregnant by the same husband, has three children that’s nine for that one man. Of course, not all Muslim men have three wives and some Muslim wives may use effective methods of birth control.
Compared to much of Europe, the Muslim population of the United States as a whole remains small and Islamisation has only begun. Preventing the entry of additional Muslims can significantly reduce the likelihood that our civilization will succumb to the cancer of Islamisation, but only if the threats are understood and acted upon. Otherwise, the cancer will metastasize, the pace will accelerate and a painful death will ensue.
Europe’s welcome to Muslims
Germany
It has been estimated that Germany’s Muslim population will quadruple within the next five years, rising to approximately twenty million. That estimate presumably takes into account the high Muslim fertility rate. The current population of Germany has been estimated at 82,544,395.
Here’s a video of a Green Party legislator who looks forward to the day when Germans will be a minority in their own cities.
And here are some happy new arrivals, responding to the kindness Europe has shown them.
Germany is already experiencing significant problems brought by its increasing Muslim population. Here are a few examples taken from the linked articles.
Asylum seekers are driving a surge in violent crime in cities and towns across Germany. German authorities, however, are downplaying the lawlessness, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiment. [Emphasis added.]
A confidential police report leaked to a German newspaper reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 a day — is only the tip of the iceberg, as many crimes are either not resolved or not reported.
The current spike in crime — including rapes, sexual and physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and drug trafficking — comes amid a record-breaking influx of refugees from Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Western Balkans.
According to a classified document obtained by the German newspaper, Bild, the government now estimates that Germany will receive as many as 1.5 million asylum seekers in 2015, including 920,000 in the last quarter of 2015 alone. This figure is nearly double the previous estimate, from August, which was 800,000 for all of 2015. By comparison, Germany received 202,000 asylum seekers in all of 2014.
The document warns that with family reunifications, the actual number of asylum seekers could swell to more than seven million, based on the assumption that individuals whose applications are approved will bring between four and eight additional family members to Germany.
A growing number of women and young girls housed in refugee shelters in Germany are being raped, sexually assaulted and even forced into prostitution by male asylum seekers, according to German social work organizations with first-hand knowledge of the situation.
Many of the rapes are occurring in mixed-gender shelters, where, due to a lack of space, German authorities are forcing thousands of male and female migrants to share the same sleeping areas and restroom facilities.
Conditions for women and girls at some shelters are so perilous that females are being described as “wild game” fighting off Muslim male predators. But many victims, fearing reprisals, are keeping silent, social workers say.
At the same time, growing numbers of German women in towns and cities across the country are being raped by asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Many of the crimes are being downplayed by German authorities and the national media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments. [Emphasis added.]
On August 18, a coalition of four social work organizations and women’s rights groups sent a two-page letter to the leaders of the political parties in the regional parliament in Hesse, a state in west-central Germany, warning them of the worsening situation for women and children in the refugee shelters.
[Please see a copy of the letter at the link]
After several blogs (here, here and here) drew attention to the letter, the LandesFrauenRat (LFR) Hessen, a women’s lobbying group that originally uploaded the politically incorrect document to its website, abruptly removed it on September 14, without explanation.
. . . .
Meanwhile, the raping of German women by asylum seekers is becoming commonplace. Following are a few select cases just from 2015:
[Please see the fifteen “select cases” at the link.]
. . . .
Meanwhile, parents are being warned to look after their daughters. Police in the Bavarian town of Mering, where a 16-year-old-girl was raped on September 11, have issued a warning to parents not to allow their children to go outside unaccompanied. They have also advised women not to walk to or from the train station alone because of its proximity to a refugee shelter.
In the Bavarian town of Pocking, administrators of the Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium have warned parents not to let their daughters wear revealing clothing in order to avoid “misunderstandings” with the 200 Muslim refugees housed in emergency accommodations in a building next to the school.
Aside from the letter which removed, where are the feminists? Have they no concerns or are they too self-centered or too afraid of being called “racists” or “Islamophobes” to speak?
As Muslim migration is being set to change German, and possibly European, demographics forever, Germany is gearing up for the new challenge — not by integrating and assimilating young Muslims in a free and democratic Western society, but by handing over the religious education of the next generation of German Muslims to Islamist radicals. [Emphasis added.]
Worse yet, German authorities see no problem in doing that. [Emphasis added.]
With Germany predicted to receive 800,000 migrants — mostly Muslims — this year alone, and millions more waiting to cross Europe’s unguarded borders, the Muslim population in Germany is seeing a historic rise from the current figure of nearly 6 million. Several German states including Bavaria, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia have introduced Islamic Studies in their public schools. The state of Hesse has become the first in Germany to offer Islamic education in public schools, with religious instruction starting as early as the first grade.
Giving young children religious and moral instruction might sound like a good idea, if not for the content of the newly written Islamic curriculum and the influence of Islamist elements over the recruitment of teachers. [Emphasis added.]
The writing of textbooks is being overseen by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB). In an agreement reached between the State of Hesse and DITIB, the organization will play a key role in setting the curriculum, selecting the teachers and monitoring the Islamic religious instruction. The organization is apparently assuming a similar role in several other key German states.
DITIB is the largest Muslim organization in Germany and controls several prominent mosques. The group depends heavily on the Turkish government for its funding, and maintains close ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist party, the AKP. [Emphasis added.]
The newly compiled Islamic curriculum for public schools in Hesse has come under great scrutiny. An independent report conducted by Abdel-Hakim Ourghi, who heads of the Faculty for Islamic Theology and Religious Studiesat the Freiburg University of Education, has sharply criticized the curriculum.
According to an article in Die Welt, Ourghi, a prominent Muslim scholar, has been raising concern about the activities of DITIB and other conservative Muslim organizations operating in Germany. “No one knows exactly what actually happens in Islamic classes in German primary schools,” he says. In his assessment, conservative Islam, the one dominant in Germany, is incapable of thinking critically about its past. [Emphasis added.]
According to Ourghi’s report, the textbooks fail to “confront the problematic verses of Koran.” The report also says that the curriculum fails in its most important purpose — integrating Muslims into the German society — as it fails to reconcile the “Islamic faith of the students with the reality of the western society” they are living in. [Emphasis added.]
Confronted with the damning report, Hesse’s Minister of Education and Culture, Alexander Lorz, dismissed the allegations and called the Hesse’s Islamic education a “success.”
The number of radical Salafists in Germany has more than doubled over the past five years, according to a new estimate by German intelligence officials. [Emphasis added.]
Salafists disguised as aid workers are also canvassing German refugee shelters in search of new recruits from among the nearly one million asylum seekers who have arrived in Germany this year from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
. . . .
Salafists — who follow what they say was the original Islam practiced in the 7th and 8th centuries — openly state that they want to replace democracy in Germany (and the rest of the world) with an Islamic government based on Sharia law. [Emphasis added]
Muslim radicals have begun enforcing Islamic Sharia law on the streets of Wuppertal, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, the state with the largest Muslim population in Germany. [Emphasis added.]
In what government officials say is a blatant challenge to the rule of law and the democratic order in Germany, groups of young bearded Islamists — some wearing orange traffic safety vests emblazoned with the words “Sharia Police” — have declared parts of downtown Wuppertal to be a “Sharia Controlled Zone.”
The self-appointed guardians of public morals have been distributing yellow leaflets that explain the Islamist code of conduct in the city’s Sharia zones. They have urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to listen to Salafist sermons and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, listening to music, pornography or prostitution.
A seven-minute propaganda video in German, entitled “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City,” shows a group of men led by a German convert to Islam, Sven Lau, roaming the streets of Wuppertal at night and pressing wayward youth to embrace radical Islam. In some instances, the men physically attempted to prevent young people from entering bars, casinos and discotheques; those who resisted were pursued and intimidated.
The influx of more than one million asylum seekers from Africa,Asia and the Middle East is placing unprecedented strain on Germany’s healthcare system.
Hospitals, clinics and emergency rooms across Germany are being filled to capacity with migrants suffering maladies of all kinds, and medical personnel, including thousands of volunteers, are increasingly complaining of burnout.
Diseases are also reappearing that have not been seen in Germany for years. German public health officials are now on the lookout for Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever, diphtheria, Ebola, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, malaria, measles, meningitis, mumps, polio, scabies, tetanus, tuberculosis, typhus and whooping cough. As refugee shelters fill to overflowing, doctors are also on high alert for mass outbreaks of influenza and Norovirus.
Compounding the challenge, tens of thousands of migrants arriving in Germany — particularly migrant children — have not been immunized, and German doctors are finding that needed vaccines are not readily available due to a lack of supply. Some German parents are panicking that there are not enough vaccines to immunize their own children.
Many migrants are also suffering from a host of traumas and mental illnesses. According to the Chamber of German Psychotherapists (Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer), at least half of all migrants arriving in Germany have psychological problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, and roughly 40% have contemplated suicide.
German hospitals are also being forced to hire a virtual army of interpreters so that doctors can communicate with asylum seekers, who speak dozens of languages, dialects and variants.
At the same time, German hospitals are increasing security to protect doctors and nurses from violent attacks by migrants who are unhappy with the medical treatment they are receiving. [Emphasis added.]
Muslim asylum seekers are enforcing Islamic Sharia law in German refugee shelters, according to police, who warn that Christians, Kurds and Yazidis in the shelters are being attacked by Muslims with increasing frequency and ferocity. [Emphasis added.]
Muslim migrants from different sects, clans, ethnicities and nationalities are also attacking each other. Violent brawls — sometimes involving hundreds of migrants — are now a daily occurrence.
Police say the shelters, where thousands of migrants are housed together in cramped spaces for months at a time, are seething cauldrons ready to explode. The police are urgently calling for migrants of different faiths to be housed in separate facilities.
Some politicians counter that such segregation would go against Germany’s multicultural values, while others say that separating hundreds of thousands of migrants by religion and nationality would be a logistical impossibility. [Enphasis added.]
As the consequences of unrestrained migration become apparent, the tide of public opinion is turning against the government’s open-door policy. Observers say that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the so-called most powerful woman in the world, may have met her Waterloo.
Christian migrants in German asylum centres are living under persistent threat, with many fearing for their lives as the hardline Sunni majority within the migrant population attempts to enforce Sharia law in their new host nation. The situation is so bad that Christians claim they live like “prisoners” in Germany, and some have even returned to Middle East. [Emphasis added.]
In the German state of Thuringia, Prime Minister Bodo Ramelow, one of the multiculturalists driving and celebrating the migrant crisis, has been forced to initiate a policy of separating and segregating different cultures as soon as they arrive in Europe.
“In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards have arrested my brother in a house church. I fled the Iranian intelligence, because I thought in Germany I can finally live freely according to my religion,” says Said, a Christian who fled persecution in his native country.
“But I can not openly admit that I am a Christian in my home for asylum seekers. I will be threatened,” he told Germany language paper Die Welt.
This year Germany prepares to absorb a million people in just twelve months – one per cent of its entire population – from numerous, diverse and alien cultures.
“We must rid ourselves of the illusion that all those who arrive here are human rights activists,” says Max Klingberg of the International Society for Human Rights (ISHR), who has worked with refugees for 15 years. “Among the new arrivals is not a small amount of religious intensity, it is at least at the level of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.
Said is living in an asylum centre in southern Brandenburg, near the border with Saxony. “They wake me before dawn during Ramadan and say I should eat before the sun comes up. If I refuse, they say I’m a kuffar, an unbeliever. They spit at me… They treat me like an animal. And threaten to kill me.”
“… They are also all Muslims,” he adds.
But be of good cheer. Frau Merkel, a principal architect of Germany’s new wave of multiculturalism, was recently honored by Time Magazine as its person of the year.
In late summer, Merkel’s government threw open Germany’s doors to a pressing throng of refugees and migrants; a total of 1 million asylum seekers are expected in the country by the end of December. It was an audacious act that, in a single motion, threatened both to redeem Europe and endanger it, testing the resilience of an alliance formed to avoid repeating the kind of violence tearing asunder the Middle East by working together. That arrangement had worked well enough that it raised an existential question of its own, now being asked by the richest country in Europe: What does it mean to live well?
Merkel had her answer: “In many regions war and terror prevail. States disintegrate. For many years we have read about this. We have heard about it. We have seen it on TV. But we had not yet sufficiently understood that what happens in Aleppo and Mosul can affect Essen or Stuttgart. We have to face that now.” For her, the refugee decision was a galvanizing moment in a career that was until then defined by caution and avoidance of anything resembling drama. Analysts called it a jarring departure from form. But it may also have been inevitable, given how Angela Merkel feels about walls.
What was not inevitable but merely astounding was that the most generous, openhearted gesture of recent history blossomed from Germany, the country that within living memory (and beyond, as long as there’s a History Channel) blew apart the European continent, and then the world, by taking to gruesome extremes all the forces its Chancellor strives to hold in check: nationalism, nativism, self-righteousness, reversion to arms. No one in Europe has held office longer—or to greater effect—in a world defined by steadily receding barriers. That, after all, is the story of the E.U. and the story of globalization, both terms as colorless as the corridor of a Brussels office building. The worlds Merkel has mastered carry not a hint of the forces that have shaped Europe’s history, the primal sort a child senses, listening to a story, safe in bed. [Emphasis added.]
Once upon a time, there was a safe welfare state called Sweden, where people rarely locked their doors.
Now, this country is a night-watchman state — each man is on his own. When the Minister of Justice, Morgan Johansson, encourages breaking the law, it means opening the gates to anarchy. Mr. and Mrs. Swede have every reason to be worried, with the influx of 190,000 unskilled and unemployed migrants expected this year — equivalent to 2% of Sweden’s current population. The number is as if 6.4 million penniless migrants who did not speak English arrived in U.S. in one year, or 1.3 million in Britain.
And the Swedes are preparing: demand for firearms licenses is increasing; more and more Swedes are joining shooting clubs and starting vigilante groups. After a slight dip in 2014, the number of new gun permits has gone up significantly again this year. According to police statistics, there are 1,901,325 licensed guns, owned by 567,733 people, in Sweden. Add to this an unknown number of illegal weapons. To get a gun permit in Sweden, you need to be at least 18 years old; law-abiding; well-behaved, and have a hunting license or be a member of an approved shooting club. In 2014, 11,000 people got a hunting license: 10% more than the year before. One out of five was a woman.
. . . .
Even before the massive influx of migrants in the fall of 2015, Swedes felt a need to protect themselves — and with good reason. Since the Parliament decided in 1975 that Sweden should be multicultural and not Swedish, crime has exploded. Violent crime has increased by more than 300%, and rapes have increased by an unbelievable 1,472%. [Emphasis added.]
The politicians, however, ignore the people’s fear completely. It is never discussed. Instead, the people who express concern about what kind of country Sweden has become are accused of xenophobia and racism. Most likely, that is the reason more and more people are taking matters into their own hands, and protecting themselves and their families to the best of their ability. [Emphasis added.]
Sweden is fast approaching a complete collapse. More and more municipalities are raising the alarm that if the migrants keep coming at this pace, the government can no longer guarantee normal service to its citizens. In addition, ominous statements from government officials have left Swedes in fear of what tomorrow may bring. If the migrant wave keeps coming, in 10-15 years, Swedes will be a minority in their own country.
The Muslim population of Britain reached 3.4 million in 2014 to become around 5.3% of the overall population of 64 million, according to figures extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France and Germany. [Emphasis added.]
Islam and Islam-related issues were omnipresent in Britain during 2014, and can be categorized into four broad themes: 1) Islamic extremism and the security implications of British jihadists in Syria; 2) the continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in Britain; 3) the sexual exploitation of British children by Muslim gangs; and 4) Muslim integration into British society.
The article linked above next provides “a chronological review of some of the main stories involving the rise of Islam in Britain during 2014.”
Will Obama’s America be next? That would make Obama’s friends in Iran very happy.
In an article titled Paradigms lost: the U.S. Bruce Thornton remarks that the Europeanization of America must be reversed. We have the tools, but that is not enough. We need to use them.
We have to reject the failed paradigm of Brussels and restore the still vibrant paradigm of Philadelphia. Battered by a century of progressive assaults, the Constitution still gives us the means for turning back the erosion of [its] commitment to ordered liberty and citizen autonomy. The Bill of Rights, a federalism comprising sovereign state governments, a structure of divided and balanced government, and most important the regular federal elections in which we the people have the opportunity to hold our leaders and party accountable––all provide the mechanisms for changing course and initiate a revolution in the original sense of the word, a “rolling back” to the most consequential “paradigm shift” in political history––the Constitution. [Emphasis added.]
Finally, Geert Wilders’ November 15, 2014 address at the Heritage Foundation’s Restoration Weekend – a powerful close to this article.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments