Eurodhimmis unite against Swiss minaret ban

I am picturing a Eurodhimmi, jabbing a knife in his eye over and over again, at a rapid pace.

Good going guys. How's that denial working for you?

Vengeance, boycotts, retaliation ... this clash with Islam could cost dearly."

Once again the petulant tantrums of islam are used as a bargaining chip.

Sulk away, we non-moslems will be taking notes.

I posted this on an earlier thread that most may have missed. Thought it was relevant here...

Hesperado and some others here believe that the more magnified the threat to the West, the more clarified and defiant will be our response. But there is an alternate scenario: That as our internal and external security becomes increasingly precarious, our instinct for self-preservation will inspire not defiance and civilizational self-defense, but rather ever-expanding levels of accommodation and dhimmitude.

Think of it folks, what happens to a man as he ages and begins to physically decay? Among other things, he develops feet of clay; he seeks to avoid a physical confrontation that he'll probably lose. Why should an aging society behave any differently?

This is why I believe the battle for the West will be decided in the coming decade. Without a dramatic change in immigration, security, and educational policies, critical mass will be achieved by the Muslims within the next ten years, certainly in Europe. An ever-growing and assertive minority will be having its way against the aging and fearful majority that has lost its own sense of identity and purpose.

We don't have 50 or even 25 years to win this thing; THE FUTURE IS NOW. And the one indispensable ingredient for success is the pedagogical destruction of Islam's sacred cows on a mass scale. We have to trumpet the truth so loudly and often, in our institutions and our national discourse, so that people around the world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, become privy to Muhammad's pronounced moral failings as manifest in the Hadith (i.e., pedophilia, solicitation of political murder, usurpation of his adopted son's wife, etc)...as well as the hatred, calls to violence, and sexism promulgated in the Quran.

I don't see it happening folks...I think the forces arrayed against us, particularly our own elite, will blunt our efforts at every turn. But in the end, that doesn't really matter....we understand something the Liberals don't, that some things are worth fighting and dying for. We may go down, but let's go down swinging.

Here's to the Swiss people, who defied THEIR elite.

"Swiss officials, media and business leaders voiced shame..."

Oh boy, they had to use the "s" word. Don't give Muslims any ideas. But this reminds me of another word: Vichy.

The vote was inspired by fear, fantasies and ignorance.

No, the editors of Le Temps are so inspired.

*** 5:33 ***

There should be a law that forces know-it-all ruling elites to crack a damned book and actually know what they are pontificating about, these feaful, fantastic and ignorant unelected leaders of ours.

"...and stain Switzerland's name in the Muslim world."

What, are you joking? WHO THE HELL CARES!

We care about what the Mohammedan Barbarians think? ARE YOU JOKING??

hurray for Switzerland!! The Swiss are showing some guts to stand up to the threat, it is a start. I spent three months in Lausanne and I hope they are waking up to the sickness of multi-culturalism.

It seems the Swiss voters followed democratic rules and principles as they were meant to be exercised. No other nation has any right condemning the democratic process. Especially the Swiss 'establishment', who were completely outvoted. The voters simply want Switzerland to remain... Switzerland!

In contrast, hard right leaders in France, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands hailed what they depicted as a triumph for the people against the elite.

Of course. Those who dare to push back against the islamification of their country are obviously members of the "hard right". Gotta love the unbiased reporting here.

/sarc off

It is not the "hard right" and not the "far-right" that caused 60% of Swiss voters to vote for the minaret ban. It is the behavior of Muslims, all over the world, supported by texts which some of those Muslims -- enough, apparently -- adduce as the reasons for their behavior. The surprising thing is not that nearly 60% voted for the ban on minarets , but why the vote was not 95% in favor. The vote is largely symbolic -- there are only a handful of mosques with minarets in Switzgerland. But that is the point: the symbolism is powerful. We are fed up with the symbols of Islam that are most part of its dominating, domineering, aggressive, violent, overpowering aspect. We are fed up, that is, with the essence of Islam, as expressed by minarets. The next step, of course, is for all other countries to do the same, and not stop at minarets. Muslims are taught, are inculcated from childhood, with the notion that there is one irreduciblwe and essential divide: that between Muslims and Infidels. And Muslims are taught, are inculcated rather, with the idea that they have a duty to make sure that the entire world, and not just part of the world, comes under the sway of Islam, and rule by Muslims. In some places, under certain conditions, non-Muslims of a certain type can be permitted to live, and even to practice their religion, in a cramped, degrading, and humiliating fashion, but certainly the phrase "second-class citizen" fails to adequately convey the fact that in a Muslim polity non-Muslims are simply outside, and for all time, the system. And finally, between Muslim and Infidel, between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, a state of permanent war must necessarily exist, though open warfare, if not to the benefit of Muslims, may not be advisable or necesary. There are other ways for Muslims to participate in the struggle, or Jihad, to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam.

It is taking long, far too long, for the non-Muslim indigenes of Europe, whose art, science, literature, political liberties, whose everything could not for one minute have been created, or exist, in a Muslim state, or in lands where Muslims rule, to begin to see clearly, beyond the comparatively trivial things which divide one non-Muslim from another, to recognize the permanent threat that Islam and its adherents pose to their own well-being. But they are beginning to do so, despite, and not because of, those who presume to instruct and to protect, and who have been used for too long to having everyone join in in making burnt offerings of themselves on the altars of the assorted Idols of the Age.

Why should an aging society behave any differently?

Good question.

*** 33:28 ***

A seldom noted fact, a very important fact, is the widespread use of birth control (the pill or abortion) in the West.

As we JudeoChristians have gone fallow, the ever eager Moslems have stepped up to the plate with their four-wives-none-on-birth-control demographic expansion program, a big bulging bat indeed.

*** Bukhari Vol 1 Bk 4 Nbr 163 ***

What ever happened to automation? Have we gotten so stupid that we substitute with heaving meat instead of deft machines?

Le Temps, Geneva's establishment newspaper, said: "The vote was inspired by fear, fantasies and ignorance."

What "ignorance" of Islam? What "fantasies" about Islam? Is this the same "ignorance" of Islam displayed by every single important Western student of Islam, in the century (1870-1970) when scholars were free to write and speak about Islam without fear of retaliation of one sort or another, in the Western world? Is it the "ignorance" about Islam displayed by C. Snouck Hurgronje? Joseph Schacht? David Margoliouth? Henri Lammens? Is it the "ignorance" and the "fantasies" that one finds in the work, today, of Bat Ye'or? Or by the French journalist who lived for years in Egypt and Algeria, the author of "Le radeau de Mahomet"? Or in the work of Anne-Marie Delcambre? Or that of Hans Jensen? Is it the "ignorance" displayed by those who had spent so much of their working life right in the middle of the world of Islam, living with PLO members, interviewing Arafat, Khaddafy, Khomeini, and others, as did Oriana Fallaci, and though a lifelong leftist, came away, finally, horrified by Islam and by minds on Islam, and horrified even more by the spectacle of islamization in Italy, in Tuscany itself?

Could Le Temps de Geneve tell us wherein the vote reflects "ignorance" of Islam and "fantasies" about Islam? Perhaps an hour or twelve spent watching what appears on television in the Muslim world -- go to www.MEMRITV.org and watch in amazement and horror -- would disabuse the baselessly self-assured editorial writer, on the shores of Lac Leman, of his naive notions. Perhaps.

So maybe the Catholics were onto something.

From wikipedia -

Dr. Zakir Naik, a prominent Islamic preacher from India has stated that "as far as the matters of religion are concerned we know for sure that only Islam is the true religion in the eyes of God. In 3:85 it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam. As far as the second question regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong? And when worship is also wrong? Thus we will surely not allow such wrong things in our (i.e. an Islamic) country."

So, I wonder what would happen if the Swiss non-Muslim majority took a similar stance, banning mosques and the very practice of Islam in their non-Islamic country?

There are many Islamic countries where proselytizing among Muslims is prohibited. Pakistan comes to mind. Next up for the Swiss - banning Muslim proselytizing? One can hope.

It is indeed perplexing that the Western press condones everything islamic. Terrorist atrocities are almost exclusively perpetrated worldwide by muslims. It is indeed perplexing that the Western press refuses to report this and will defame fellow citizens for raising a question about islam or islamic immigration. One has to ask why this is and what can be done about it?

I believe our press today has become the institutional equivalent to the censor in Ancient Rome. The press has usurped for itself the right to regulate public morals. We call it “political correctness,” but it is really a censorship by which our press claims the right to regimen morum a branch of the censors' duties, which caused their office to be one of the most dreaded in the Roman state. The censors were known as Castigatores ("chastisers").

In this manner, our press or our contemporary censors have gradually assumed at least nominal complete superintendence over the whole public and private life of every citizen. The press is not just the conservator of public morality; they have usurped for themselves the right to define and protect “progressive” ways.

What edicts concerning islam has our press censored? The censor will not allow islam itself to be defined as bad. The censor will not allow the description of infidel murders by muslims as “islamic” terrorism. The press refuses to castigate a group of a billion for their religious behavior or religious beliefs on the dictum that it is impermissible to castigate a group of a billion muslim adherents for the behavior or beliefs of several hundreds of millions.

In order to warn the infidel populace that jihad is out of the bottle, we must offer a new terminology to describe terrorist atrocities by muslims committed by muslims that will clear the censor. We need a new terminology in describing these terrorist atrocities commited by muslims that will escape censorship.

Let me propose that henceforth we refer to muslim atrocities against infidels as “MBB” or “MUSLIMS BEHAVING BADLY.” This should skirt censorship rules. Major Hassan is simply a muslim behaving badly. Najibullah Zazi indicted for plans to set off a bomb in New York a muslim behaving badly. Daniel Patrick Boyd and Hysen Sherifi charged with conspiring to murder U.S. military personnel at the Quantico, Va., military base simply muslims behaving badly.
Hosam Maher Husein Smadi the 19-year-old Jordanian arrested conspiracy to place explosives near a 60-story office tower in Dallas, a muslim behaving badly.

No implication here that other muslims are to blame or that their religion or practices have anything to do with the myriad of atrocities we see.

One excellent article (among several) on all this from 'Jihadwatch' in the recent past:

"Fjordman: The EU and the Islamization of Europe"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/02/fjordman-the-european-union-and-the-islamization-of-europe.html

When I first heard this news I was so unbelievably happy. I know that it's only a small matter, but for once, feminists actually did something and furthermore, it shows that not everyone is as stupid as I thought they were.

But yeah, overjoyed to hear this. It means that we do have a shot at winning.

This is a recent piece by Diana West about the nature of the Swiss opposition to the minarets:

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1059/Banned-Swiss-Peoples-Party-Poster-Opposing-Minaret-Construction-in-Switzerland.aspx

A little reminder of what happens to minds on Islam:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2274.htm.

It's interesting to watch:

1) The worst offending Islamic states condemning Westerners for "religious intolerance". What the ...?

2) "Europe unites to deplore minaret ban"...
Translation: Democracy-hating EU elites are so concerned about religious freedom that they'll have to cnsider overturning the referendum... "for our own good".

Overturning the will of the people (referenda) is beginning to become an addictive habit for our democracy-shy elitist politicians.

Bravo, Swiss people! You have shown real balls. If the muslims find it insulting, so be it. They need to be insulted and humiliated for following a 7th century death cult which has contribute NOTHING to humanity. muslim whining about freedom of religion is pure baloney. They should first practice freedom of religion in their islamic hell holes before painting themselves as victims.

"The Swiss and European establishment united today in deploring yesterday's decision by Swiss voters..."

I'll stand with the common sense of the Swiss voters over the Swiss and European establishment every time.

http://tagesschau.sf.tv/content/view/comments/2518330/#comment_2521861

B. Ajdari writes (on 30.11.2009 23:12):
"Für de Müngerli gute nacht
Wir sind da und ziel ist ihnen zu lernen das richtige Gottesglaube, sind wir willkommen oder nicht, und wer weis bis 2050 sind wir in der Schweiz fifty fifty dann bauen Sie für uns die Minaretten, hahaha"

My Translation:
"To the Müngerli [another commentator]: Good night.
We are here, and our goal is to teach you the right belief in god, whether we are welcome or not. And who knows, until 2050 we are fifty fifty in Switzerland,

and then you will build the minarets for us, hahaha."

From an article in the International Herald Tribune:

"Swiss newspapers quoted Ms. Widmer-Schlumpf as saying Swiss exports and tourism from the Middle East could suffer as a result of the vote Sunday."

What is more important --those primitive tourists, dangling their gold, and up to now, with their sneers of cold command (based on nothing more than oil revenues), treating all of Europe as their combination funfair, shopping mall, and brothel -- or the survival of Europe, which depends on a summoning of common sense to resist, and to act now, to against creeping islamization? What is more important -- making a few more dollars by selling goods and services to primitive peoples -- made primitive and kept primitive by Islam -- in awful countries, that produce no goods and no services whatsoever, or the survival of Europe, which depends on a summponing of common sense etc.

Isn't it clear that the intelliigent and aware people in Europe, those who refer to be buffaloed by their unacceptable current crop of mis-leaders, of Self-Satisfied Lords of Misrule, are all madly cheering for this vote,and wishing for similar votes, and then votes that go still farther, in their own countries? The dopes are on their way out.

Why is so little being said about the fact that in Muslim countries, I can't even put a cross on a church, or even build or repair a church, in most cases?

Or did I just answer my own question?

Still, I would like to see more articles about the abject hypocrisy of Islam whining about minarets in Switzerland, while prohibiting virtually everything in their own lands.

If we point it out, maybe it'll... umm...

yeah, guess not.

Perhaps in the same way the Islamic law says that no Christian steeple can be higher than any nearby minaret the West should pass a law that no minaret can be higher than any nearby church, night club or BBQ joint. Many other types of building could be added for symbolic purposes such as court house or police station.

Swiss officials, media and business leaders voiced shame over a vote that they say will stigmatise the country's 400,000 Muslims and stain Switzerland's name in the Muslim world. In contrast, hard right leaders in France, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands hailed what they depicted as a triumph for the people against the elite.

Interesting construction. Swiss officials, media and business leaders vs hard right leaders.

So are we to infer that the apologetic "leaders" are leaders of legitimate things, whereas the unapologetic "leaders" are leaders of nothing in particular other than the "hard right".

So many things are weird in that little paragraph.

The apologetic "leaders" are not described as left. But the unapologetic "leaders" are described as right.

What this half expressed distinction is supposed to communicate to us is unclear. What is the expressed word right supposed to tell us? Is it an indirect comparison to the - "right wing" - German Nazis?

Not just right but "hard right". One has to assume that the word hard is not being used in a positive sense as in a hard comittment or a hard promise -- but rather that it is intended to communicate some sort of irrationality or irrational emotionality.

Apparently Mr. Charles Bremner of the Times Online feels that he must tell us not merely what happened, but how to view the participants and how to feel about it.

I wouldn't mind if his material went out under the sub-head of "The View from the Left" or some such thing. But that aspect of things is never openly exposed -- at least not by the left, which arrogates to itself the prestige of being the ONLY reasonable point of view.

The event itself, in MY view, definitely was a "triumph for the people against the elite".

Which, when you think about it is pretty much what Mr. Charles Bremner inadvertently tells us himself, when he says that "Swiss officials, media and business leaders voiced shame", for who else is that except the elite?

Meanwhile, the UN commission on Human Rights, members include Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Pakistan etc ( the list is quite illuminating), is going to investigate if the Swiss vote is against the UN charter of Human rights. If so, I suppose the Swiss government will be ordered to ignore the vote. Maybe even punish the Swiss voter - that is the usual custom in many countries.

And this from another undemocratic institution, EU, that has seized power by stealth and deception.

"The decision, although an expression of popular opinion, is a source of serious concern," said Lluís Maria de Puig, president of the EU.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/World_s_pres​s_dissect_Swiss_minaret_​ban.html?siteSect=108&sid=11560694&cKey=1259611926000&ty=st

We know, we know - the EU has never liked the idea of popular opinion.

Swiss beware - if you join the EU, it will be the last time you will have the luxury of "popular opinion". You will though, have lots of unpopular opinions shoved down your throat.

Switzerland could now find itself threatened economically and otherwise by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Pressures on the leadership may become huge. We have to hope the Swiss will not be cowed, but will get more and more serious about crushing or at least containing the political and totalitarian aspects of the core of Islam.

Qur'an Chapter 8, Verse 12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

We need to press for the same kind of law in every Western country.

Bravo, Swiss people! You have shown real balls. If the muslims find it insulting, so be it. They need to be insulted and humiliated for following a 7th century death cult which has contribute NOTHING to humanity. muslim whining about freedom of religion is pure baloney. They should first practice freedom of religion in their islamic hell holes before painting themselves as victims.

We need to press for the same kind of law in every Western country.

Whenever the West fights back against Islam and all its malignancies this is the kind of reaction from the useful idiot portion of the West we can expect. Ignore the rubes and keep waging the good fight, as the Swiss have on this occasion.

What is needed is not necessarily suppression of minarets. Minarets would be okay if there were no totalitarian political aspect to them. What is needed is to do to Islam what the U.S. did to Shinto at the end of World War II: outlaw every political theocratic element of the religion. Any part of Islam that does not promote control of the State or violence against non-Muslims should be acceptable to non-Muslims. But any Muslim, and any part of Islam that promotes Islamic law or the rule of Islam over the State, should be outlawed asap.

The CBC has taken up this issue with fervor. Now it's asking "Would this happen here in Canada?" Here's a complaint I just lodged with the CBC Radio regarding a newscast I heard this afternoon:

----------------------
Your news item reporting on the Swiss referendum which resulted in a vote in favour of banning minarets on mosques saw fit to feature a comment from a woman in .... Lebanon. (Why CBC would interview a Lebanese about an internal Swiss issue is another matter -- would CBC interview a Swiss about an internal Lebanese issue?) This woman apparently thought the vote was discriminatory to Muslims, for she said Muslim mosques and Christian churches exist side-by-side peacefully in Lebanon (do Christian spires rise above Muslim minarets there?-- I think not.) -- so the implication was why could the Swiss not be as tolerant as the Lebanese. And, on that note, the newscast finished.

Leaving aside the question of just how "peaceful" the situation in Lebanon may or may not be, why did the CBC not balance this report with a comment from a Saudi Arabian, for example, and get their description of their tolerance, or lack thereof, of Christian churches, and Jewish synagogues, indeed of any religious symbol that is not Islamic? (What would happen to anyone who built a Christian church there, never mind erected a huge spire above it?) Are Switzerland and Saudi Arabia held to different standards by the CBC?

The CBC here created the impression that the Swiss are intolerant and the Muslims there are discriminated against without any real in-depth analysis of the issue. There are other factors here which should have been mentioned: the domineering height of the minarets, the fact that loudspeakers blare the call to prayer over the surrounding neighbourhoods, the symbolism of the minaret (bayonet? gun? as exemplified in Islamic poetry), etc.

The CBC did not give a balanced report here.
--------------------------------

Honestly, why ban the minaret?

Where ELSE are they going to put the roll of toilet paper?

Ham and Swiss on rye is my new favorite sandwich.

Make that ham and Emmentaler, so there's no doubt about where it came from.

I fully support the Minaret Ban (hurrah the MB!), but I'm not sure about the comments (correct as they are), comparing this ban to the ban on churches in various Muslim countries. We're in danger of a bit of tu quoque here. We don't really want to compare ourselves to the Saudis do we? we don't really want to start stoning adulterers, just because they do, do we?
Rather, shouldn't we -- the non-Muslim anti-Sharia world -- seek to build on the Minaret Ban, by doing something that is entirely valid in the diplomatic community: that is, demand reciprocity. A group of non-Muslim/anti-Sharia countries (the G20?, a group of democracies, as proposed by McCain in the campaign?), should demand strict reciprocity from their counterparts, the members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference: until each and every one had committed to the full and free permission for all faiths to practice in their countries in ways verifiable, there would be *no* permission for any new mosques (let alone minarets), or any proselytising of Islam in our countries. That would not be a petty "I'll do it cause you do it", action, but rather one based on a thoroughly reasonable, non-discriminatory principle of diplomacy: reciprocity

BTW: agree with various posters (eg DDA) that we should promote the purchase of Swiss products, and make known that we're doing so. I've written to various publications stating that I, and most of my friends, will be filling our Christmas stockings with Swiss chocolate, Swiss cheese, and Swiss watches. What better signal, than that standing up to brutish Islam will be good for your balance of payments!

This is a small step in the right direction and look at the reaction. Things are dire indeed if the Eurodhimmis react this way. Anybody care to think what is the next step? Will the Swiss vote to ban the construction of mosques next?

As for reciprocity.... I will not hold my breath. Will you?

Question_Everything:

Ok, so it's a looong stretch; it's unrealistic; it's naive... whatever. Point is, there's a huge vision on the side of Islam: to dominate the world. There needs to be at least some large visions on the side of anti-Islam, or anti-Sharia, and this --the concept of reciprocity -- could be one. If the idea is not raised, even in all its naivety, it can never hope to get any traction. In truth, I don't see why there shouldn't be some group which called for such reciprocity (though of course it can't be the G20, for a touch of research since I posted the above, reveals that the G20 includes Saudi, Turkey, Indonesia...)
Also: who would care if there were no reciprocity? In other words, if there were the reciprocity principle put out there, and they (the OIC) were unwilling/unable to do their side of it (as they would surely not), then in the meantime -- and it may be a loooong time -- there would be perfect justification for halting the building of more mosques, let alone minarets...
Anyway, as they say, just a thought. I don't think it's dumb, but you're free to....

Reciprocity? What are you guys talking about? Would you seek reciprocity with a rattlesnake?

We either believe in our system and our culture, or we don't. There was no peaceful coexistence with Communism and there can be none with Islam. Pushing them back to the stone age where they like to live and then eternal vigilance on our part is the order of the day. And actively supporting anyone, like Rifqa Bary, who wants out.

Le Temps, Geneva's establishment newspaper, said: "The vote was inspired by fear, fantasies and ignorance."

Perhaps Le Temps was referring to the 40% that voted against the ban. They WERE likely inspired by: Fear of violent Moslem reprisals; Fantasies about Islam being the ROP; and Ignorance of what Islam is really all about.

Or perhaps not.

Le Temps, Geneva's establishment newspaper, said: "The vote was inspired by fear, fantasies and ignorance."

Perhaps Le Temps was referring to the 40% that voted against the ban. They WERE likely inspired by: Fear of violent Moslem reprisals; Fantasies about Islam being the ROP; and Ignorance of what Islam is really all about.

Or perhaps not.

People

here's how the Jerusalem Post ran the first report of predictable Muslim Rage! at this small show of Resistance from the Swiss:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243043111&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Observe the headline - 'Muslim fume over Swiss minaret ban'.

Click on it, read and then hop down and visit the talkbacks - which contain (last I looked) a clear majority of intelligent Islamosavvy comments from people in a range of countries, in favour of the Swiss. The particularly gleeful talkbacks in favour by Israelis must be understood in the light of a story that ran in Jerusalem Post not so very long ago, about noise pollution and sleep disturbance [to Jews and other non-Muslims] that were being caused by extremely loud howlings of the adhan broadcast from loudspeakers attached to Mosque minarets within Israel.

A small correction to my posting above. The story headline in Jerusalem Post read "Muslims fume..." not 'Muslim fume'.

"It is indeed perplexing that the Western press refuses to report this and will defame fellow citizens for raising a question about islam or islamic immigration. One has to ask why this is and what can be done about it? "

Answer: BECAUSE MOST MUSLIMS ARE BROWN PEOPLE.

When will you people wake up, for Criminy's sake!?

"...conservative leaders warned that the referendum showed genuine fear over Islam on the continent." -- from the article.

No, it's not fear. It's outrage that THEY'RE BACK! After having spent something like a thousand years preventing these interlopers from overrunning Europe and pushing them back in many places, the Swiss suddenly perceive that they are faced with outbreak of this very old infestation that requires adopting a few mild measures of fumigation. It's a start, but sturdier measures will be required than merely banning mosques.

And I agree with the posters above that the MSM and Liberal leaders in Europe are to be condemned for so shamelessly painting true patriots in Switzerland with the label "far right" with its attendant implication of being sympathetic to National Socialism.

An excellent result - well done Switzerland ! Of course it is reported on the news that the SVP are "extreme right wing" . The idiots don't see that by making this sort of statement they are in fact saying that 57% of the Swiss are "extreme right wing" and a lot of the Swiss will take this as an insult. The other noteworthy fact is that the incumbent government said that this initiative would be rejected by 53% of the voters. How wrong can you be ! It also goes to show how out of touch the ruling elite in that country and many others are. Now we will have the backlash from the Mools. First claiming victimhood, Islamophobia etc etc. Then vieled threats, then marches all over Europe, backed by the Left. Then actual physical action. Then of course, boycotts of Swiss goods and services. On the other hand, if what I predicted comes to pass then this will confirm to a lot of the Europeans just what a threat Islum is. Sorry to spoil the party and I am as happy as anyone else on this site about this momentous event.

Ref DDA's above link to the Jerusalem Post article, note the comment #170. This reflects standard Muslim doctrine, of course, but it may surprise many Europeans, and this sort of comment should be spread, so that people can clearly see the supremacism and dominance that's clear and unequivocal in Islam:...

170. occupied land
Now that Muslims are in significant numbers in Switzerland and Europe you cant deny our rights there. Allah says it is Muslim land and Europeans occupy it from us. We will build as we wish and the infidels will learn the beauty of Islam. The racist Europeans deny our rights as Muslims. Switzerland will be an Islamic state like the rest of Europe within 20 years, so stop fighting it. Accept it and submit so you wont be infidel. Allah hu akbar
Salim Sayeed

From Muslims fume over Swiss minaret ban in the Jerusalem Post

Rdaio Free Europe Radio Liberty is reporting that both Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Pia Kjaersgaard in Denmark are calling for similar votes in their countries. Maybe the Swiss have started something.

How effective the ban on those tall towers will be is a matter of debate but I am so so so happy to hear some good news for a change!

Interesting. All those condemning the Swiss citizens for what they decide in a fair and free election are discreet branches of the informal world government that has been forming over the last decades.

Not kidding. Just watch how many government officials, like the recently elected President of the European Union, manage to tuck the term 'global governance' into their speeches. Now, the EU President has been elected by an exclusive club of 27, not by public vote, and I'll expect much more elitarian self-defense and dhimmitude from these people - their main ambition looks like job security, not democracy.

Oh. Democracy means 'rule by the people'.

I simply think it's a waste of time. Our government doesn't take us seriously, they don't back us up and consequently Muslims don't take us seriously. Who will do the demanding? You and I? The fools and morons are defending the other side of the issue. And if we did make these demands, how will we enforce them?

Reciprocity demands will fail unless you also play up the humanitarian racism of the left (h/t:  Gates of Vienna).  The "brown" people must be explicitly held to the same standard of humanitarian conduct, or the effort will founder on the reef of multi-cult orthodoxy.

On the bright side,in the long run, the apologists are on the losing side of this battle. Say what they want about racism and xenophobia, more and more average citizens will see through it. Thanks to Muslims themselves, who we can be sure will continue their acts of violence, denunciations of their host countries, and one sided hypocritical demonstrations of "outrage" over the slightest criticism of Islam, the increasingly convoluted excuses of the Dhimmis will ring increasingly hollow. I have noticed on many European news sites that the comments have gone from evenly divided to overwhelmingly ant-Muslim in the past few years. We are winning the battle for hearts and minds, not so much through our own actions (which do of course help), but as a result of the Muslims themselves. With the internet it is no longer possible for the apologists to hide the excesses of Islam, and the excesses will continue to be legion. With the next major, hideous 9/11 style attack the tipping point will be reached.

As usual, the fellow travelers of the Islamist goons are doing the greater part of damage and scaremongering.

Move over, useless idiots.

ahh yes...dhimmi logic. " don't oppose those who are trying to destroy us; you might upset the."