| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
I have just received this email from Wim Van Osselaer, who works in the Flemish parliament for the Vlaams Belang party, concerning my post here about the Vlaams Belang and the British National Party, and in the interests of fairness am posting it here:
I can confirm to you that the BNP was NOT present at the meeting and press conference of Cities Against Islamisation. Our party doesn't have any contacts with the BNP.I send you hereby the English text of the charter that was presented to the press by the participating parties. The BNP didn't join and wasn't present, simply because the party wasn't invited.
I send you also the URL of the weblog of Pieter Van Boxtel: http://groups.msn.com/pietervanboxel. Pieter is chairman of the Vlaams Belang group in the municipal council of Malle (look at http://www.malle.be/bestuur/gemeenteraad/samenstelling.aspx). Pieter is Flemish and ... of Indonesian descent.
Here is the Cities Against Islamisation Charter:
Charter for “Cities against islamization”By means of this charter the participating organizations lay the foundations of the connection of cities named “Cities against islamization.”
Conclusions
“Cities against islamization” concludes that since the renaissance the West in general and Europe in particular have renounced all religious dogma’s and replaced the standards resulting from them by standards and legal rules that are based on a multitude of sources like ancient classics, the Jewish-Christian values, humanism, the ideas of Enlightenment, nationalism, liberalism etc.
As a result of this evolution our civilization is now characterized by a respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms. Our civilization is moreover based on values like the separation of church and state, democracy, freedom of speech, equality of men and women etc.
On the other hand at the beginning of the 21st century West-European cities are confronted with substantial Islamic minorities, which are not in the least assimilated and which concentrate in constantly expanding ghettos. This is the result of a too lax immigration policy conducted by different authorities.
“Cities against islamization” concludes that the Islam is more of a social order rather than a religion. This social order is based on the Sharia (the Islamic religious laws, based on Koran and Hadith) and the Uma (the Islamic religious community), which is at odds with the entirety of values and standards, which are part of our European society.
“Cities against islamization” also concludes that at least a part of these Muslims prefers the Islamic divine laws to our civil laws. Within the Muslim population there is moreover an inclination towards radicalization which is expressed in a growing hostility to our western civilization and the values underlying it.
Mosques function like catalysts for the islamization of entire neighbourhoods, since they, as central authorities, emphasize a strict observance of Islam. In doing so they restrain the further integration of Muslim minorities.
Starting points
“Cities against Islamization” resists the multicultural ideology which results in the fact that West-European Muslims publicly live in accordance with their own values. That leads to the institutionalisation of this religion.
“Cities against islamization” resists the institutionalisation of Islam, the official recognition of Islam, the subsidizing of Islamic associations, Koran schools, imams etc. The institutionalisation of Islam will lead to the creation of an Islamic socio-political group which will slow down the integration of the Muslim community.
“Cities against Islamization” is opposed to concessions of the policy makers towards Islam which has for result that the Western values and standards are more and more suppressed in favour of Islamic customs, traditions and values, frequently not being compatible with our Western standards and way of life.
“Cities against Islamization” believes that the individual freedom of religion must be assured at all times - also when Islam is concerned. However freedom of religion cannot be an alibi for generalising or introducing undemocratic or discriminating customs or acts. “Cities Against Islamization” resists the introduction of Sharia law as a replacement for the European rules of law.
Initiatives
Islamization is not a local problem. It’s s a phenomenon taking place in almost all Western European countries and cities. The fast demographic increase of the Islamic population in the West threatens to result in an Islamic majority in a lot of Western European cities within a few decades.
The participating organisations engage themselves to coordinate their initiatives in the fight against the islamization, to organise demonstrations together and to mutually exchange information, with fighting the islamization of the Western European cities in a coordinated and better informed manner as a goal.
Posted by Robert at January 23, 2008 10:37 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Do they have a U.S. chapter?
Posted by: Lori B.![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 23, 2008 10:51 AM
Cities against islamization” resists the institutionalisation of Islam, the official recognition of Islam...
This doesn't go far enough. We must quash de facto recognition of Islam in addition to de jure recognition.
We must resist recognition of Islam as a religion, per se, by non-governmental organizations, by educational institutions, by churches, and of course by all individual non-Moslem persons.
Then maybe we have a fighting chance.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 23, 2008 10:51 AM
Islam is an anti-Constitutional, anti-Universal Declaration of Human Rights subversive movement working for a theocratic tyranny.
-The World Against Islamisation Charter (complete).
Posted by: profitsbeard at January 23, 2008 11:05 AM
Only if something like this could take hold, the EU countries might possibly have a fighting chance.
The charter makes absolute and abvious sense after all that has been recognised to be occurring under their and our collective noses.
The charter clearly demonstrates in a breath of fresh air that there are plenty of non kool aid drinkers in the UK, Etc.
Posted by: Mackie at January 23, 2008 11:06 AM
The jihad never sleeps:
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/23/the-jihad-never-sleeps/
at January 23, 2008 11:12 AM
Can a Muslim be a Muslim in Western societies such as the UK?
Can a devout Muslim be an American, or British patriot and a loyal citizen?
"Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of Western Societies and America, the great Satan.
Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to marry and beat, and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the British or American Laws since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names."
at January 23, 2008 11:44 AM
From article: Mosques function like catalysts for the islamization of entire neighbourhoods, since they, as central authorities, emphasize a strict observance of Islam. In doing so they restrain the further integration of Muslim minorities...
Yep, more of that, 'If you build it they will come'.
Stop all new construction of mosques, and retard Islamic expansion...
at January 23, 2008 11:46 AM
"Stop all new construction of mosques, and retard Islamic expansion...
Posted by: duh_swami "
...do it now....
at January 23, 2008 11:57 AM
Mackie said
>Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the British or American Laws since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Neither British nor American laws are based on biblical principles.
What you mean is
Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the British or American Laws since they are not based on sharia.
Posted by: zoltix at January 23, 2008 12:04 PM
zoltix
Of course British, and American laws are based on Judao/Christian principles.
I would assume you expressing an oxymoron, or same difference?
Posted by: Mackie at January 23, 2008 12:13 PM
Just a few multicultural accomodating stories------as these fools rush in to destroy their cultures
Muslims win toy pigs ban
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article102182.ece
Amsterdam School Scraps Nature Course As Pigs Enrage Muslim Pupils
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/270407_1.htm
And even the Chinese can be Multiculturalists in the year of the pig.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7480083
And this one is from 10 years ago in Leicester-- be careful whay you put on you window sill
http://www.dispatch.co.za/1998/05/26/foreign/PIG.HTM
at January 23, 2008 12:15 PM
Well, atleast they have stated some (more or less tangible) goals for the/their movement, which is more than can be said for everyone else. I can't say for sure, as I haven't read Mr. Spencers books and haven't been following this website since it's inception, but I sincerely doubt that even Mr. Spencer(and ofcourse Charles Johnson) has formulated any goals for "the counter-jihad movement". I'd love to know what he(and ofcourse Charles Johnson) believes the goals should be, though.
Posted by: DanishDynamite at January 23, 2008 12:21 PM
From the Belmont Club post
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/01/your-typical-suicide-bomber.html
linked to elsewhere:
"Perhaps one reason why the West has proved so helpless in the face of threats like al-Qaeda is that it is culturally unable to resist, or even to condemn, extremist Islamic agitation in its pre-militant phase. By fighting only those who have crossed the sharp legal border between religious hate-mongering (which is tolerated as a multicultural right) and actual belligerency it is permanently restricted to chipping away at the tip of the iceberg, while nine-tenths of it is allowed to grow unchecked beneath the surface." (Emphasis mine.)
Posted by: Papa Whiskey at January 23, 2008 12:25 PM
Sorry on posting above--my last post was meant for the 3 pigs story on Dhimmiwatch.
Mackie
Posted by: Mackie at January 23, 2008 12:27 PM
We need to "arm" ourselves to fight the multiculuralists too.
Posted by: Ruebacca at January 23, 2008 12:30 PM
DanishDynamite posted...
Well, atleast they have stated some (more or less tangible) goals for the/their movement, which is more than can be said for everyone else. I can't say for sure, as I haven't read Mr. Spencers books and haven't been following this website since it's inception, but I sincerely doubt that even Mr. Spencer(and ofcourse Charles Johnson) has formulated any goals for "the counter-jihad movement". I'd love to know what he(and ofcourse Charles Johnson) believes the goals should be, though.
Well, that solves that problem. Idiot. So what? Let's assume for the moment that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Johnson have NO plan on how to combat Islamization.
So, that means it's alright for those who DO have a plan to rally themselves behind known and proven white nationalist.
Yep, that makes a lot of sense. You have set up a straw man ("but I sincerely doubt that even Mr. Spencer(and ofcourse Charles Johnson) has formulated any goals for "the counter-jihad movement") that has NOTHING to do with supporting or not supporting groups with questionable motives.
Why don't you address the issues That Mr. Spencer and Mr. Johnson have inform us about?
Walter in Golden, Co.
at January 23, 2008 12:42 PM
Question to JW community:
Can I overwhelmingly support this charter and the courageous purpose of its content or do I have to do background checks into the creators of such a document in order to assure that it meets the "standards" of the cause of anti-Islamisation?
Can I be proud that the Flemish ancestral blood that runs through my body could be related culturally and ideologically to the creators of this charter? Or is this being "racist"?
Posted by: Briars at January 23, 2008 1:03 PM
Mackie:
Rather than attack zoltix's statement, "Neither British nor American laws are based on biblical principles", with your claim "Of course British and American laws are based on Judao/Christian principles", how about studying a little history. As a start, check out the quotations at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/jefferson.htm where you'll find the following written by Thomas Jefferson:
"... the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists...
www.zenofzero.net
Posted by: nick222 at January 23, 2008 1:07 PM
Briars posted...
"Can I overwhelmingly support this charter and the courageous purpose of its content or do I have to do background checks into the creators of such a document in order to assure that it meets the "standards" of the cause of anti-Islamisation?"
Hmmm... do you normally "overwhelmingly" support something that you agree with, or are you ever interested in the "authors" of the cause.
Hitler certainly made some good points about the German economy and other proposals that would help restore the German nation after WWI.
Your question really sounds like you are saying " I will overwhelmingly support this charter and the courageous purpose of its content because I don't want to waste my time doing a little research into backgrounds of it's creators. And if I found out the truth it may conflict with the cause of anti-Islamisation?"
Yep, Hitler certainly didn't let the Jews get in the way of his cause.
Walter in Golden, Co.
Posted by: Walter in Denvar at January 23, 2008 1:19 PM
While it's impossible to prove outright, I still believe that most European, American & international law is based on Christian principles and philosophy, including the Universal Human Rights.
Unfortunately, the Islamic countries have a massive opt-out on the Universal Human Rights, permitting instead the application of Sharia to Muslims anywhere. That became part of the UN declaration in 1997 - and implictly pushes the 'Universal' human rights in the direction of being 'Christian' human rights instead.
Quite a setback, I'd say.
Posted by: Henrik at January 23, 2008 1:19 PM
nick222:
No Nick I've gone down this trail for years and over the various arguments, and every angle for years. I have read numerous quotes, and letters from our founding fathers and I'm not buying the argument that there was a disengagement from Judao/Christina Principals in the formation of our Declaration of independence and our US Constitution.
For me the evidence is contrary to yours even though they Called for a separation of church and state, supportive evidence can be found and seen everywhere in our Government institutions.
Posted by: Mackie at January 23, 2008 1:26 PM
Mackie,
They never called for a seperation of church and state, just that the government cant establish a church.
Posted by: Elric66 at January 23, 2008 1:31 PM
before a immigrant is sworn in as a new citizen if the United States, he must renounce any allegence to any other government, and any titles conferred on him by any foreign government.
So why would it be unreasonable to include in the citizenship oath a renunciation of any religion, or reiigious, doctrine that is hostile to secular democratic government, the constitution, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or any other freedom we cherish in this society?
Why shouldn't we force newcomers to make a choice? It's our country, and it won't be theirs until they choose our way of life.
Posted by: rational
at January 23, 2008 1:46 PM
No comment on Gert Wilder Walt?
Posted by: Elric66 at January 23, 2008 3:07 PM
Walter in Golden, Co.
Really? Thus it is ok to express that blacks are inferior to whites, as Jefferson did on several occasions, unless you are a white nationalist?
http://www.historytools.org/sources/Jefferson-Race.pdf
For the record, I don't accept the term race as a scientific term. There is no difference between somebody with dark skin vs. somebody light skin in terms of intelligence.
Jefferson was wrong of course on this issue, but that does not mean the Declaration of Independence is wrong.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 23, 2008 3:18 PM
Islam poses a far greater threat to western civilisation then Fascism, communism or even Nazism. The last three, though totalitarian, are to some degree rational in their purpose. Islam OTH, a 7th century blood thirsty desert cult, is motivated by world domination. Its texts are immutable and are not amenable to change or even rational analysis.
Fascism, though bad, would not be totally alien to our culture, as in many matters, it would not infringe on many aspects of Western civilisation, for it takes it for granted as part of the West. Islam OTH is totally alien. It would ban the education of women, reducing them to the role of baby producers. Islam would be against all forms of music, and any literature that did not give prime importance to the Koran. Moreover, over a period of time, it will extinguish all signs of a Christian civilisation ever being in the West. Look what is happening in Muslim countries that were once Hindu, Christian or Zoroastrian.
Islam is so alien to Western civilisation that it can be regarded as virtually out of this planet as far as we are concerned.
I understand the need to use Fascism and equate it to Islam for illustrative purposes, but one must bear in mind that Islam poses a civilisational threat, and if it ever came into dominance in the West, there is no turning back. Fascism or even communism OTH, poses no such gravest of grave threats. It is for this reason, that measures that would be deemed unacceptable in dealing with totalitarian threats such communism or fascism, must be considered as options against Islam.
Posted by: DP111 at January 23, 2008 3:24 PM
"The last three, though totalitarian, are to some degree rational in their purpose."
Actually, I disagree somewhat here. Fascism and Communism had philosophy, goals and structure, they were both (concieved as) genuine experiments to create a new, progressive society (see also Progressivism). Nazism, on the other hand, is
evil. Racist, too.
I learn a lot from reading Liberal Fascism, which deals extensively with this. Great ammo for conservatives :))
Posted by: Henrik at January 23, 2008 3:30 PM
A hopeful sign.
I hope
at January 23, 2008 3:33 PM
Dont forget several characteristics about Communism and Facism.
Women COULD have jobs as factory employees, PILOTS, scientists, engineers, university professors, authors, politicians, and other items.
Do any of you think this would ever be tolerated in the muslim world?
In islamic nations, a woman can not even drive or leave the house without a male escort.
I would live in any of those nations rather than a Wahabist or Sunni society.
Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at January 23, 2008 3:36 PM
In Islam, once a nation goes Muslim, it never goes back. Well, Spain did but it took expelling the Muslim population to do so. Back then was harsher times and I doubt any Western nation would have the fortitude to do so today.
Posted by: Elric66 at January 23, 2008 3:40 PM
Elric66 ..just shut off immigration and HAVE KIDS
Posted by: epaminondas at January 23, 2008 3:41 PM
"if it [Islam] ever came into dominance in the West, there is no turning back."
Islam conquered most of the Iberian peninsula (Spain) in the early 8th century, and held it for 750 years. The Spanish with the help of some Europeans re-conquered Spain (definitively by 1492).
IMO, Islam will not be able to "come into dominance" in the West, because the West surpasses Islam in too many ways, and by too far a margin. What Islam will likely manage to do is mass-murder a few million Westerners over the coming few decades, with a few lucky attacks using WMDs of various flavors, and also inflict a few gaping holes in our infrastructure.
These attacks will not enable Islam to conquer the West. In fact, what they will do is finally rally the West to do what it should have done already:
1) Define Islam as an Enemy Army because it is structured by an Ideology of Supremacist Military (and/or Paramilitary) Conquest of the World.
2) Define all Muslims as either actual Soldiers in the Army that is Islam; potential Soldiers; or non-Combatant Enablers (like the milliions of otherwise innocent Germans, Italians and Japanese we had, tragically, to incinerate during WW2).
3) Take rational measures in light of 1 + 2.
at January 23, 2008 3:42 PM
This battle is a conflict between weaklings. Less than 30% of Americans - and its worse in the Euro-dhimmi suicide entities - distrust muslims, the carriers of the worst deceit ever concocted by a self-appointed "prophet."
Robert Spencer: admit that the anti-jihadi movement is a collosal failure. You are marginalized, and Bush's "islam is peace" vomit is regurgitated by most targets of muslim subversion.
During the Cold War, objective reports on communist goals and practises were produced by US government agencies. When the UN troops crossed into North Korea in the early fifties, deals were not made with communist sectarians for local armistices, and there were no plans to concoct sham Iraq nation-building style legitimation of communism, through managed elections, like those that made the US a client state to Iranian string-pullers of the current Iraqi islamofascist entity. In the name of fighting terror, the Bush regime has been subsidizing proto-terror regimes.
No? Try to let this attack to your fact-rejecting brain: on September 11, 2001 there were 19,000 jihadis in Egyptian prisons; as I write, under Bush's "Mideast Partnership Initiative," less than 2000 of these animals are behind bars. Egypt is one election away from Bush "freedom" (read: islamofascist subsidy). Every poll of muslims reveals clear support for constitutionalizing islamofascism.
Does the oil-patch junta support free exercise of conscience? Bush ordered the nation-building monstrosity - Coalition Provisional Authority - to ban "Baathism" (read: secularism) as its first order of business. Consequence: political power in Iraq went to islamofascists. Bush killed secularism in Iraq, as would he murder it everywhere. Were occupied Germans free to chose Nazism in nation-building elections in 1945? The National Socialist Party was outlawed, as was use of their symbols. Secularism is unconscionable to the White House dhimmi.
I have several Cold War documents, including "Facts on Communism" which was published for the House Un-American Activities Committee. Few Americans trusted Communism because there was an open agenda to keep the public informed about the enemy. In stark contrast, there is almost no reportage on the nature of islamofascism. When muslims broadcast broad support for enemy combatants, the message is either distorted or not received. Hence, the 70% trust for the worst deception ever imposed on humanity. Muslims are worse than the Egyptian pyramid builders. Our relations with all of them should be summed up as follows: enemy to enemy.
Check out this survey of Cold War documents; none claim that "communism is peace."
http://library.usu.edu/govdocs/c_war2.html
Charles Johnson et al should admit to being pathological and abject failures, and deal with it. You can trust Bush as far as you can spit against a hurricane.
Posted by: supercargo at January 23, 2008 3:42 PM
"These attacks will not enable Islam to conquer the West. In fact, what they will do is finally rally the West to do what it should have done already:"
Its the demographic bomb you have to worry about. As epaminondas state, in order to perserve the West, you do have to shut off immigration and have kids.
Posted by: Elric66 at January 23, 2008 3:46 PM
"Less than 30% of Americans - and its worse in the Euro-dhimmi suicide entities - distrust muslims"
?
Here in Denmark, a recent poll says that closer cooperation with Islamic countries is percieved as threatening by a whopping 79 % of us. Of course, the PC press is trying to explain us how terrible this is...
Blog debates in Danish media, even the left-leaning, Islam usually gets a servere beating for incompatibility with democracy, having a paedophile warrior prophet, repressing women, using terror as a political tool, etc. etc.
The groundswell is here, and it's been built by Spencer and the other couragious pioneers who published important stuff years ago.
Posted by: Henrik at January 23, 2008 3:47 PM
Henrik,
Wait till Gert Wilder's film is out, the distrust will go way up.
Posted by: Elric66 at January 23, 2008 3:49 PM
Posted by: Elric66
Maybe not long. Its an echo chamber there, who will they badger?
I spy with my little eye something beginning with e and finishing with s has just crept in.
Just seen this at Sheiks site,that right the self same Sheik that got banned from the Court of the Green Lizards,(Nazi watch) at that so epaminondas
National Coordinator for Anti-terrorism Tjibbe Joustra has advised politician Geert Wilders that it might be a good idea for him to leave the Netherlands temporarily after the release of his film on the Koran.
This emerged from an opinion piece that the PVV (Freedom Party) leader published in the Volkskrant on Wednesday.
Wilders wonders whether he would have provoked this kind of reaction if he had made a film on the “fascist character of the Bible” rather than one about the Koran.
“Would the National Coordinator for Anti-terrorism in that case too have said to me on Thursday that it would not be ruled out that I should go abroad for some time after the film is shown?” he writes.
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/23/the-jihad-never-sleeps/
at January 23, 2008 3:54 PM
shiva,
It isnt the "neo-Nazis' forcing Wilder to concider leaving.
I hate to see Gert leave but then I dont want him knifed by some ROP'er either.
Posted by: Elric66 at January 23, 2008 3:57 PM
This anti-European attack has got to STOP. Just because we want to protect the European identities and society DOES NOT MEAN we are RACISTS who want to commit attrocities against nonwhites! It just means we understand the importance of those values and underpinnings that created our countries! DUH!
Do we want to destroy the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? No! Because those are the writings that stem from Western European philosophies created by people like David Hume & John Locke. Yet everyone thinks we can just eliminate our values, thoughts, beliefs, constructs, you name it - and we can keep things rolling as they were. Well, you know what??? We DESTROY OUR SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT, YOU DUMMIES!
And that's what our Multiculturalist "Friends" and Islamists really want...
So why are we fighting each other over words that are intentionally misconstrued by the Socialist Mainstream Media?
HUH????
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at January 23, 2008 4:04 PM
So many are all to willing to throw essential rights away for some grossly over exaggerated Islamic threat. These types are more of a threat than Islam could ever hope to be, they will take all your rights away under the pretense of “we are saying you from Islam” and or “if we don’t do this NOW, we are all doomed”. We do not need to re-write our laws to make Islamic discrimination seem legal or attempt to deport American Muslims who have broken no laws, just because we really don’t like them or we think they may do this or that. That is precisely why we have the laws we do, to keep that kind of crap from occurring, but these BNP and VB threads sure have more than there fair share of these advocates, and they wonder why LGF banned them and most here quickly dismiss them.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 23, 2008 4:06 PM
"grossly over exaggerated Islamic threat."
You serious?
at January 23, 2008 4:07 PM
Posted by: Elric66
It isn't the "neo-Nazis' forcing Wilder to consider leaving.
And if it come to the crunch it will be the "neo-Nazis'who will take to the streets,while the government backed anti fascists (UAL and Antifada) will side the Islamofascists
This is the reality that Robert has sadly overlooked, and the lizard kings totally ignores
Good night
Posted by: shiva at January 23, 2008 4:16 PM
Whether or not this charter is supported by racist', or some other boogy men, is entirely beside the point. It is a good charter, and says what has to be said.
If one feels that the character of the men who drafted the charter taints its contents, consider the character of the screwball that brought Islam into the world.
Posted by: rational
at January 23, 2008 4:24 PM
Walter:
"Hitler certainly made some good points about the German economy and other proposals that would help restore the German nation after WWI."
Well, that's debatable. The economy in Germany was recovering already before he took over - and dictatorial states tend, by their very nature, to be less efficient than democracies.
I think it was mostly a propaganda victory.
Posted by: Henrik at January 23, 2008 4:33 PM
Elric66
Yes, I am serious.
My comment was directed at those who advocate deporting all Moslems for just being a Moslem, and if your read those posts, they are grossly over exaggerating the Islamic threat to fit their crazy agendas.
I see Israel is still standing after some 60 years of constant Islamic jihad, so I think America is pretty safe, that’s not to say we wont be attacked again, but history will show that these small scale terror attacks do not bring countries down.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 23, 2008 4:46 PM
Burger Boy
Why do you waste time even visiting this site?
"So many are all to willing to throw essential rights away for some grossly over exaggerated Islamic threat."
This site is about that threat. Each and every post and article is about that threat.
Please try to email Robert and Hugh because they spend considerable effort showing us how most people in the world believe this threat has been UNDER exaggerated. If you are correct, they are wasting their time. The least you can do is let them know. I think they were planning to report on these over exagerrattions a while longer. It is a shame to see such talent wasted on grossly exaggerated threats.
Maybe you can hook them up with a gig a Burger King with you in their transition to find another real threat to address.
Methinks you've digested one too many whoppers.
at January 23, 2008 4:51 PM
Really? How is the threat of Islam grossly exagerated?
No, small attacks wont bring a country down, but an exploding Muslim population in the West will bring it down. You are allready seeing the effects in Europe with no go areas, Sharia law being practiced and of course the car-B-ques.
Want to take a bet on the reaction of Gert Wilder's film will be?
at January 23, 2008 4:52 PM
Burger Boy
Why do you waste time even visiting this site?
"So many are all to willing to throw essential rights away for some grossly over exaggerated Islamic threat."
This site is about that threat. Each and every post and article is about that threat.
Please try to email Robert and Hugh because they spend considerable effort showing us how most people in the world believe this threat has been UNDER exaggerated. If you are correct, they are wasting their time. The least you can do is let them know. I think they were planning to report on these over exaggerations a while longer. It is a shame to see such talent wasted on grossly exaggerated threats.
Maybe you can hook them up with a gig a Burger King with you in their transition to find another real threat to address.
Methinks you've digested one too many whoppers.
at January 23, 2008 4:52 PM
"Methinks you've digested one too many whoppers."
LOL
Posted by: Elric66 at January 23, 2008 4:57 PM
BB says:
"My comment was directed at those who advocate deporting all Moslems for just being a Moslem"
Please point out where anyone on this site has advocated deportation of muslims for just being muslims.
at January 23, 2008 4:59 PM
My "agenda" is to survive along with America until the end of time Mr. Ostrich.
There has been a severe UNDERestimation of the islamic threat to the world and sites as this here help to open eyes of citizens.
What is your agenda?
You need to read sites as www.westernresistance.com and the popular www.thereligionofpeace.com for a true picture of what your friends are doing worldwide.
Muslims are not guilty for being muslims, but for following blind every command of the koran and all their hadiths.
That is the problem along with 134 verses in the koran to kill, kidnap, extort, enslave, and lie their way to power and domination of all non-muslims.
Regarding Israel and nearly 11,000 dead due to islamic attacks calling their existance less than threatened is truly ignorant and irresponsible.
What you call "small scale attacks" are just part of the islamic plan that will inititate more grandoise agendas worldwide in concert with other jihadist groups working in tandem.
Using your "philosophy", I guess the Persians, Byzantine Empire, Egypt, India, Carthage, Spain, Serbia, France, Portugal, Italy, and Hungary,the 700 year occupation of Western Europe, also all happened to "grossly over exaggerate" the non-existent threat of muslims and islam.
Take your lies-nonsense elsewhere.
Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at January 23, 2008 5:00 PM
Am I wrong or are about 12 comments now missing?
Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at January 23, 2008 5:04 PM
BurgerBoy
The treat is the muslim demographic invasion, due to the fact that the political leaders have been paid off with oil money. They then use PC/MC methods to silence those that critize this threat. For you to say this is not a threat is silly. The Soviets in their wildest dreams could not have imagined such an infiltration of our highest political offices.
It is also clear, you fail to see any major danger having large numbers of muslims living in the west. Need I remind you that the majority of Germans did not belong to the Nazi party, yet the majority of Germans did defend the Nazi cause. The same could be said about the majority of white southerners, who did not own slaves, but defended that institution during the civil war. The majority muslims will defend Islam, or least the major points of Islam and the culture it created. Some of those very "major points" cannot be accepted in the West. Someone will have to give..and it will not be us.
No one wants to deport muslims, but it is high time that we limit muslim immigration until we can integrate (convert to the modern world) the ones already here.
at January 23, 2008 5:10 PM
BB states: ".....they are grossly over exaggerating the Islamic threat to fit their crazy agendas."
Crazy agendas?
What a refreshing point of view: that those who oppose Islamic threats are the ones with the "crazy agenda". That's a new one, sounds like a double-whopper to me.
Posted by: champ at January 23, 2008 5:11 PM
DanishDynamite said
but I sincerely doubt that even Mr. Spencer ... has formulated any goals for "the counter-jihad movement"
A simple perusal of the JW archives (on the left panel of the main page) will prove your doubts unfounded. Robert and Hugh have posted often on the subject.
Posted by: special_guest at January 23, 2008 5:14 PM
Burger Boy said
I see Israel is still standing after some 60 years of constant Islamic jihad, so I think America is pretty safe, that’s not to say we wont be attacked again, but history will show that these small scale terror attacks do not bring countries down.
How do you think Islam spread as the major religion to Persia/Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia, India, and even on the Arabian Peninsula itself? Islam does not bring countries down? Are you serious? That's all it does.
Posted by: special_guest at January 23, 2008 5:20 PM
I see nothing in Wim Van Osselaer's letter that speaks of racism or supremacy. Their charter sounds sensible.
If the Vlaams Belang party is open to working with Indian Hindus, Israeli Jews, Greek Orthodox Catholics, African Animists, and American atheists to protect ourselves from the common threat of Islamic violence, then I would have no problem working with them.
Posted by: special_guest at January 23, 2008 5:34 PM
Hungarian Crusader said
Am I wrong or are about 12 comments now missing?
Half the comments from this thread could be missing, and it would be an improvement. Herpetotomy is not a particularly interesting field of study, for me at least.
Posted by: special_guest at January 23, 2008 5:43 PM
Yes, the charter does sound sensible.
Awhile ago, there was something of a fashion for this or that town or city council to declare their patch a 'nuclear free zone'.
Perhaps 'Cities Against Islamisation' could take a leaf out of that book.
How about participating cities, villages and shires (or the European equivalent of shires - districts?) declare themselves "Sharia-Free Zones". Any ideas for a suitable sign with logo?
The flip side should be a loud, clear and positive affirmation of 'Infidel' values. Participants could publicly declare themselves a "Jew-Friendly Zone", "Woman-Friendly Zone" (logos adapting famous paintings such as Botticelli's 'birth of venus' or Raphael's 'Coronation of the Virgin'?), "Dog (or Pig)-Friendly Zone", "Wine/ Beer Friendly Zone", "Free Speech Zone", or put up signs saying "Universal Human Rights Respected Here", "Apostates From Islam Welcome Here". Of course, it would require thought and courage, to be prepared to back up those declarations, if challenged.
And so on ad libitum.
They should look at everything good they already have, or do, that would be destroyed by Islam. Things as simple as this: men and women holding hands and kissing in public; unveiled women; visible crosses on church buildings or in graveyards; churches ringing their bells, or the Orthodox Christians or the Hindus holding a religious procession; courts of law in which all testimony has equal weight (unlike under sharia, where a woman's word is worth less than a man's, and an Infidel's word is always trumped by a Muslim's). Orchestras, ballet, opera, and art galleries. Pet dogs! Wine and beer, cognac and champagne. Delicious traditional pork dishes.
Use it or lose it. Support the restaurants, opera houses, orchestras, wine growers, pig farmers. Hold fashion parades - lots of elegant, unveiled women. Dog owners - there should be no street you cannot walk down with your suitably groomed and leashed and well-trained companion.
Let there be no street where a woman cannot walk alone, in daylight, unveiled, or where a man and woman, married or lovers, cannot walk hand in hand. In all places where mohammedan colonies have created de facto 'no go for Infidels' zones, those areas will have to be re-taken, resolutely, by no-nonsense police action involving overwhelming force.
Ring the church bells - but do not let the mosques broadcast their muezzins. If there's a Chinese community, let them hold their dragon dances. In Britain, hold the ancient ceremony of 'beating the bounds' of the parishes; burn an effigy of Mohammed or Bin Laden right next to the Guy on Guy Fawkes Day.
Hold public concerts. Support free speech - show 'Submission' and other such films critical of Islam, in the cinemas (be prepared to enforce security against Muslim attack). Sponsor a theatre production of Voltaire's "Mahomet". Invite Taslima Nasreen or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or other prominent intellectual defectors from the Empire of Islam, to speak at a literary festival - or make them 'visiting scholar' at a university - or invite them to a Town Hall banquet as guest of honour.
Tell the local newspapers to go ahead and publish the 'Mohammed Cartoons' - and be prepared to squash any Muslim attack on the paper, its editor or journalists.
Take pride in your court-house; encourage the police and magistrates in the performance of their duty and let them know they'll have public support if they have to get tough on Muslim rioters or Muslim whingers.
I'm just 'brain storming' here. But it seems to me that the resistance to the imposition of sharia law, rejecting the 'institutionalisation of Islam', necessarily involves at the same time a conscious, active and public identification, and affirmation, of all those 'western values and standards', those British and European civil laws, those 'western standards and way of life', which are being threatened by sharia.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 23, 2008 5:44 PM
Your question really sounds like you are saying " I will overwhelmingly support this charter and the courageous purpose of its content because I don't want to waste my time doing a little research into backgrounds of it's creators. And if I found out the truth it may conflict with the cause of anti-Islamisation?"
-Walter in Denvar
No, Walter, that's not what I'm saying.
First of all I have enough confidence in myself to recognize tyranny and deal with it when I find it. That's why I'm on this site. I've never met anyone in the VB or the BNP because I live in America. But I see nothing wrong with their perspective on Islam and their solutions as the one proposed here. If I find that these Islamic perceptions are merely a window dressing in order to trap me into accepting a Nazi like rule, then I will deal with it then. In the meantime, I do not expect everyone who wishes to join the alliance or present solutions to Islamization to be the perfect human being (like Muhammad) or agreeing 100% with everything that I believe.
at January 23, 2008 6:17 PM
UsorThem
I never said Mr Spencer or Mr Fitzgerald over exaggerated the Mohammadanism threat, my comment was directed at those certain posters.
Hungarian Crusader
Mr Spencer does not advocate "deporting all Moslems" as you do, perhaps you should take some time and read what he says at the top of this site, which goes completely against what you advocate. Equal protection under the law, we don't have special laws that apply to Moslems only.
Champ
Don’t put words in my mouth.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 23, 2008 6:24 PM
Champ
Don’t put words in my mouth.
Posted by: BurgerBoy
I didn't, I merely repeated a statment that YOU in fact made, BB.
Please explain what the "crazy agenda" is, so I'm not putting words in your mouth. What is is?
Posted by: champ at January 23, 2008 6:33 PM
What is IT?
Posted by: champ at January 23, 2008 6:33 PM
They forgot this clause: And will immediately forcibly deport all Muslims to Saudi Arabia, regardless if Saudi Arabia wants them or not.
And this one: Since Islam does not recognize civil authority, it is incompatible with it and is in violation of it. Therefore Islam is immediately and permanently outlawed.
This one too: Anyone practicing the uncivil, demonic murderous, death-cult of Islam in this city will be subject to immediate capital punishment.
Sorry, but there is no other way to win the war that Islam has declared on the west than to fight to win.
Posted by: angryeagle at January 23, 2008 6:36 PM
I know where you're coming from, Burger Boy. Sharpen your arguments and stick to your guns. Differences of emphasis and approach are inevitable; we can't all be alike and we can't be right all the time. If groupthink enforced a standard orthodoxy here (though lunacy needs limits), these sites would be worthless. Don't let anyone stare you down, BB.
Posted by: John C at January 23, 2008 6:36 PM
..."We can't [all] be right all the time."
Posted by: John C at January 23, 2008 6:39 PM
Champ
The crazy agenda referred to those who advocate changing our current laws so somehow we are protected from Islam, like but not limited to: re-writing the first amendment, deporting American citizens who happen to be Moslem, ect...
Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 23, 2008 6:41 PM
John C
Thanks, perhaps if my writing skills was more better, I could get my freaking point across.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 23, 2008 6:54 PM
Walter in denvar wrote:
"Well, that solves that problem. Idiot. So what? Let's assume for the moment that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Johnson have NO plan on how to combat Islamization."
So what? Without goals, you don't know here you're headed. Without goals, noone else knows where you're headed. Having no goals means you are free to be ambiguous, because you can't be held accountable to your goals, i.e. claiming to support the inalienable human rights of muslims on the one hand, yet supporting banning the burqa in schools, like Charles just did, or support the fight against construction of (mega) mosques, or support the fight against allowing the muslim call to prayer etc. etc. So yes, goals is actually very important.
Walter in denvar wrote:
"So, that means it's alright for those who DO have a plan to rally themselves behind known and proven white nationalist."
Who are these known and proven white nationalists? The BNP? They weren't there. VB? Well, I've read much of the "evidence" of both sides, and I don't believe the case has been made that VB is white nationalist or fascist.
But no, ofcourse you shouldn't ally with whoever, just because they have a plan(I haven't seen a plan from "Cities against islamisation" though, just some more or less tangible goals, which is more than I can say for everyone else). However, without goals and without a strategy, you don't have a (sensible) clue about what to do and who you can do it with.
Walter in denvar wrote:
"Yep, that makes a lot of sense. You have set up a straw man ("but I sincerely doubt that even Mr. Spencer(and ofcourse Charles Johnson) has formulated any goals for "the counter-jihad movement") that has NOTHING to do with supporting or not supporting groups with questionable motives."
That's true. But without goals you're just gonne be stumbling around in the dark, and that won't really accomplish much.
Oh, by the way, the reason my comment has "NOTHING to do with supporting or not supporting groups with questionable motives", is because I don't believe that to be the most important issue. You can p*** and moan all you like about who to support or not, but at the end of the day, the one with goals are more likely to succeed than those without. So why not start formulating some goals instead?
Walter in denvar wrote:
"Why don't you address the issues That Mr. Spencer and Mr. Johnson have inform us about?"
And what issue would that be? The BNP in this group? Well I've read a few press-releases, this and other posts as well as the article in the Australian. It's interesting that the only one claming the BNP was present is the Australian, don't you think?
special_guest wrote:
"A simple perusal of the JW archives (on the left panel of the main page) will prove your doubts unfounded. Robert and Hugh have posted often on the subject."
If it's that simple, would you mind linking to a/some post(s)? I don't remember ever reading about any goals of the counter-jihad movement, and I didn't find any doing a quick, short search of the website for "goals"...
It might interest people to know the World Economic Forum released a report not long ago(a few days I believe). According to the report ~5% of the population in Europe is presently muslim. In as little as 17 years they expect that figure to increase to as much as 15%(I believe the estimate was 10-15%). That's up to three times the size in only 17 years... That's fast, and that's worrisome.
at January 23, 2008 6:57 PM
Bravo for Wim Van Osselaer. The charter sounds sensible, especially for those who see Islam as the political movement it is.
Slightly off-topic, are there organized conversion efforts aimed at the Islamic communities there?
I know that that's a risky proposition, but far less riskier than in the Islamic world proper.
at January 23, 2008 6:58 PM
superchamp said:
"Robert Spencer: admit that the anti-jihadi movement is a collosal failure. You are marginalized, and Bush's "islam is peace" vomit is regurgitated by most targets of muslim subversion."
Oh, can it. So Spencer and the anti-jihad movement are marginalized? Boo hoo. The educational and media establishments were in the crapper well before 9/11, so this shouldn't be a shocker. You expect the equivalent of being transported from despotism to liberty in a featherbed, or something?
He's marginalized, it is marginalized, and yet lo and behold the best thing is to keep trying. So he still fails? At least he did the right thing. You'd rather he give up? At any rate he has a far better chance of eventually breaking through the cracks if he sticks to it.
Same goes for the rest of the people in the movement. Even if they fail, they did the right thing for having fought. You can never tell the future, but you can do the right thing.
I'm with you 110% on Bush and Charles Johnson. It's a bad, messed up situation. But I am NOT with you on deriding Robert, who's one of the few who has his head on straight about these issues. We need him. And Hugh. They're good stuff.
Posted by: hope_and_justice at January 23, 2008 7:16 PM
Islam not just brings civilisations down, but it erases them as well. It has expanded by the sword and now has found a new method of expansion - immigration and the gullibility of the West.
Islam also strives over a period of time to erase the collective memory of the conquered people of their history. It has been extremely succesful in this- V S Naipaul points this out in his writings. This is one of the saddest things to have happened to those conquered by Islamic invasions and converted. This will happen here as well if Islamisation is not just stopped but reversed.
Islamic demographic growth just from within, even without considering further immigration, will lead to the Islamisation of the West. Even Daniel Pipes admits to this. All Muslims have to do now is to become very peaceful, mouth all the right PC stuff, and let nature takes its course.
It is pointless to enter into a "baby race" with Muslims, as they will always out produce us. How do we convince free women to have a dozen children? In trying to do so we will destroy the West. Besides, it will never stop, and we will be eventually left with overpopulated and poverty stricken nations.
Posted by: DP111 at January 23, 2008 7:20 PM
John Wesley had this to say of Islam
Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind.
The Doctrine of Original Sin, Works (1841), ix. 205.
at January 23, 2008 7:22 PM
HERE ARE THEIR GOALS
FROM THE FRONT OF THE WEBSITE.
DUH.
:
"Why Jihad Watch?
"Because non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies and bring them forcibly into the Islamic world -- and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.
"Jihad (in Arabic, "struggle") is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Many passages of the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.
"Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. We hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict."
HINT: "is dedicated to" is a way of indicating goals.
Now, their goals are limited to bringing stuff to public attention. That's because of this handy thing called 'specialization', which lets Robert and Hugh spend all their time studying and writing and analyzing in depth, and then YOU THE VIEWER can go out an develop goals about organizing politically, or specializing in some other piece of anti-jihad efforts.
Geez it is like in open source where, because one are making something for free, every random Tom Dick and Harry who uses it thinks they can expect the maker to custom fit it for them personally.
Posted by: hope_and_justice at January 23, 2008 7:24 PM
superchamp said:
"Robert Spencer: admit that the anti-jihadi movement is a collosal failure. You are marginalized, and Bush's "islam is peace" vomit is regurgitated by most targets of muslim subversion."
Indeed it must be depressing. But what Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald continue to do, is to state the truth. And that is good enough.
at January 23, 2008 7:30 PM
"There we have it, gang. Our Great Leader himself asks us to venture a guess. Anyone's guess? Posted by: John C"
I dearly hope it's the Hurricane. But something tells me, ALAS, it's not.
Posted by: cantor at January 23, 2008 8:12 PM
First - Sorry about the name confusion champ. Blame Supertramp :)
Second, I'm reposting my reasons for supporting JihadWatch's position against allying with the BNP. I posted it on the related thread after that thread all but died.
And then I'm outta here for the evening!
---------------------------------------------
Pelayo said: "Dammit, now is not the time to be so picky about who may help us save our civilization"
PMK said: "At some point we have to accept that we ourselves are not sufficient. We need help. We can live to see our principles and Western civilization survive or we can die for them.
History is written by the victors. Our principles and our beliefs in the good of humanity will be lost in our defeat.
Must everyone be an angel before we side with them? There aren't enough angels in the universe."
And others have said similarly.
The problem with this, from an American perspective, is that in your rush to partner up with the BNP crowd, you entirely cut off the potential to win over HUGE numbers of moderates, and you will lose big, in the big picture, for doing so.
This is not like WWII. This is like, imagine in WWII there was not only Russia, but also a place, lets call it Madeupistan, that was WAY WAY WAY bigger and more powerful than Russia. Pretend that by befriending Russia, you made mortal and permanent enemies of Madeupistan, whereas by shunning Russia, you'd have a very realistic potential of winning over Madeupistan, and thus having the position to win the war relatively easily.
What would Winston do then?
That's to start.
There's a twist to this, which is that I'm talking about the US public, not Euro necessarily. The majority of the US, or at least a politically very significant portion, has a realistic chance to eventually be won over to anti-jihad efforts, in my opinion.
This might not be true of Europe. However, if in Europe anti-jihad is conflated with white racial pride or white separatism or whatever you want to call it, that WILL heavily impact the perception of anti-jihad in the US, and the majority in the US WILL reject the views of jihad put forth on this site, and Western civ WILL lose a group it absolutely requires to survive in any recognizable form.
So, I think the best bet is for anti-jihad Europeans to start their own thing, and attempt to "convert" racial pride sorts of people to cultural pride sorts of people. Point out the Hindus that have managed to adapt so well to British culture, point out that the Anglo Saxons and even the Celts came over at some point (the base is related to the Basques). Focus on core values of Western civ. This sort of stuff.
This might not win as many numbers in the short term, but in the long term, there are two major benefits. One, your defense from ideological attacks from Islamists and the relativist left is stronger. You thus have bigger growth potential in the longer term. Two, you refrain from devastating the position and prospects of anti-jihad Americans.
And there's a third one, mentioned in some of the comments above. You refrain from alienating extremely useful allies who are willing to fight for Western civ and its values, but who don't have the "right" genetic makeup to be full members of groups like the BNP.
Hirsi Ali isn't white; far from it. Spencer's ancestors are Turkic if I remember correctly. Also there are many many Jewish people who are talented, hard-working, and of goodwill, who could be your allies but won't be if you go the racialist route.
Posted by: hope_and_justice at January 23, 2008 8:23 PM
John C, Neither one. I shall remain as cryptic as RS about the identity.
Posted by: cantor at January 23, 2008 8:38 PM
Henrik
Nazism and Fascism had their roots in socialism, the very doctrine that you note "progressive". All three of them relied on force for their acceptance. In human tragedy terms, one has to accept that International socialism was far more evil then National socialism.
And yet I'm mindful that Islam poses a threat altogether different, and an order of magnitude greater then the fatal "isms" of the last century.
Posted by: DP111 at January 23, 2008 8:57 PM
cantor,
In this case, I'm not good at reading people's minds, let alone deductive reasoning. I haven't a clue.
Posted by: John C at January 23, 2008 8:58 PM
Burger Boy, sounds like you prefer yours halal.
My view is, that if only ONE muslim kills based on the teachings of his 'religion', then you can't over estimate the threat.
Posted by: savitch at January 23, 2008 9:34 PM
nick222 , YOU are the revisionist,
I am old enough to remember when history books SAID that the USA was built on Christian principles.
Thomas Jefferson is not the USA. He was not the only framer.
Do some research on John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
"Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers,
and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest,
of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
at January 23, 2008 10:26 PM
Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 23, 2008 10:26 PM
Nicely done.
Posted by: awake at January 23, 2008 11:20 PM
DP111:
"Nazism and Fascism had their roots in socialism, the very doctrine that you note "progressive"."
Heh - I picked the term 'Progressive' deliberately, as an implicit reference to Woodrow Wilson and his 'War Socialism', which drews its inspiration from the same sources as Mussolini. That looks like a bad time in US history, with basic constituational rights suspended and all. Fortunately it passed. The kinship between American Progressives and fascism is something the Liberals today would probably prefer to wipe under the carpet...
I stick to my assertion that Nazism has different ideological roots than fascism and Soviet communism. I'm reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg these days, and he goes quite a bit into detail about this. Fascism was, just as Soviet communism, rooted in the pre-WW1 socialist intellectual community in Schwitzerland, where both Mussolini and Lenin aquired their philosophical background - Marx and other then-contemporary philosophers.
Hitler, on the other hand, was not part of that crowd. He was more inspired by obscure legends, but since he moved to author is own rant (Mein Kampf), that became the primary source of Nazi 'ideology'. Quotes because that book is such a poorly structured rant that it constitutes an insult to its reader, not a proper ideological foundation. It did, however, provide a useful foundation for a completely arbitrary rule for the 12 years it lasted, as the only systematic principle of the book was "Blame the Jews", which was carried out under the fog of war before the world had a chance to really comprehend what was happening.
For those who may suspect that some neo-Nazi revival could happen in Europe, I have some really good news: Ain't going to. There's no need to propagate such rumours, they're false. Personally, I have a cldar pro-Israel record, including posting much pro-Israel material at , penning many pro-Israel letters like this one in IHT:
Hezbollah is coming out of its battle with an unexpected and undeserved victory. That an organization with genocide as its primary objective, and a regard for human life at the level of Stalin, gets implicit recognition by the United Nations, is a shameful violation of the founding principles of the United Nations. I hope that the next secretary general will be much more true to the basic purpose of the organization.
Membership of pro-Israeli groups and mailing lists, attending pro-Israel rallies etc. are part of my free time, too. My friends at Gates of Vienna etc. have the same fundamental attitude - or they wouldn't be my friends, pure and simple.
I agree that Communism, when including Mao, has a higher total causalty count than Nazism. However, the deliberate genocidal ambitions of Nazism, along with singling out the highly creative and productive Jews in particular, makes Nazism the worst of evils in this contest, in my opinion. It's not only body count that matters, it's also the impact these totalitarian ideologies left for future generations.
Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 1:54 AM
Up until now there has been a lot mentioned about The Counter Jihad Movement
Well folks where is this so called Movement?
Show me an alternative to VB, ETC
What I see just now is numerous blogs and a mass of mutter mutter, including my own blog.
Jihad watch is not a movement is an excellent source of information, and LGF is not far far being a sick joke
The closest I see to any form of an organized movement is the BNP and VB the Swedish SD and the Danish DPP
Now for some hard talk,
How of the people who are so fast to throw criticism at VB and BNP including Robert Spencer or Charles Johnson would be prepared to go to same venues in places such Luton, Bradford and Kiegley and criticize Islam.
The leaders of VB and BNP are taking the message directly to the people most affected by Islam, not just doing nicely paid gigs in Universities and places where the man on the street never goes.
You have today BNP members on the streets in muslim areas handing out leaflets concerning islam They are being be beaten up by people of the Antifada,UAF and the Searchlight thugs.
Robert and Charles Johnson are both very fast to tell us about BNP,VB etc etc,yet remain silent about Antifada,UAF and the Searchlight, who are supporting the muslims.
Also I would like to point out that Johnson is getting most of his info from the above mentioned groups.
Now the burning question is, how many here who decry VB and BNP are prepared leave their keyboards nad start to hand out leaflets on the streets which are infected with moslems.
BNP where passing out posters and leaflets more than two years before Jihad Watch even existed, so how can they be accused of jumping on the band wagon
How can they be accused of hijacking the The Counter Jihad Movement when the only movement is in our heads
Sorry to be frank, but I dont see a movement.
What I do see are several political parties who facing up to the reality. Okay I agree the have murky pasts, but I judge them on their stand against Islam, not on what they where doing 10,20,50 yeras ago.
And any who thinks that there is a risk of todays right wing groups sending jews or anybody else to be converted to lampshades must be totally of their rocker.
So Robert in all fairness tell us about Antifada, UAF and Searchlight because in the last thread you where rather critical about people who claimed it was okay to do because they do it. Robert, check this groups out and you will see how they are in many cases doing the moslems dirty work.Check them out and see how it is these groups that are attacking the Israeli embassies, and carrying the Palestinian banner.
The
The Red Fascists are not only in the UK but all over Europe on the beck and call of their moslem master
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/03/red-facists-glorifying-piece-of-shit.html
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/03/red-facists-glorifying-piece-of-shit.html
at January 24, 2008 2:57 AM
"Also I would like to point out that Johnson is getting most of his info from the above mentioned groups."
Not to mention the Swedish neo-fascist group EXPO, which tries to vilify every anti-Jihad effort in sight.
They recently compiled a list of anti-Jihad web sites. My good friend at Uriasposten, Kim Møller, was furios. They had neglegted to list his site. He immediately emailed them, demanding to be listed at least on equal footing with the other 'Islamophobic' sites. He even included a cute, new bomb-in-turban Motoon to document his Islamophobic credentials.
I'm somewhat dissatisfied with the term "Red fascist". Fascism has been a left-wing movement right from the outset. It was Stalin (himself a first-rate fascist) who started the meme that fascism is a right-wing ideology. But then, it might be apt in some situations to expose that the left wingers are behaving in classic fascist ways, like the extensive street riots we had last year in Copenhagen.
I would certainly be cautious about people who take their 'documentation' from groups like EXPO, AFA and the like.
Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 3:14 AM
"The KLA are THE racists in Europe."
They're pretty rough. Were taken off the terrorist list as late as 1999 so that we could officially side with them and bomb the Serbs. Thus, we sanctioned and supported ethnic cleansing against the Serbian population there.
Cute, ain't it?
Now, we (well, some are resisting) are rewarding them with their own statelet, which would give them protection to run the main drug mafia in Europe without 'undue interference' from real police.
Allegation that Ahtassari had taken € 40 million of heroin money - there's supposedly a report from the German intelligence service Bundesnachrichtendienst - as a 'reward' for desiging a mafiafriendly division were dismissed by US officials as 'spurious'.
Charles and others would be wise to read relevant books, like The Coming Balkan Caliphate, before passing judgement on Balkanese matters.
BTW, I botched a link above. It should have been to my blog EuropeNews.
Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 4:43 AM
Henrik
May-be you can help me out on this to question
#1 Who was the Danish minister some in the eighties who caused a stink when he suggested sending the waste from Danish slaughter-houses to some african state, was it Uffe Ullerman. If you know of any links in English,can you let me know.
#2 Not many people out side of Demark know about The Blekinge Street Gang
I am trying to find a link in English about how some of the money turn up in Paris and traced back to the robberies in denmark when a palistinian was arrested for smuggling.
All I know is the danish government tried to get this money back, But the dhimmi french releasedthe guy, and he was able to walk, taking the cash with him
If you know of any links in English,can you let me know
You may want to know how I know about these incidents.
Well in the early 80,s I was part of the BZer pack and spent a lot of time at the Nutana squat, I quit in 1989 because we where have a demo in support of Christiana, And I was put off because most of the Christianites where to busy selling hashish
One of main past times was looking for and clearing out Green-Jackets(skinheads and right-wingers)from Norrebro and Vesterbro. Ironic isnt it that these areas are now moslem dominated and almost no go areas.
How I remember the times after a night of Psyko-Disco at Mechanical Music Museum or Ungdomshuset we would prowl the street looking for skinheads, or take over to Malmo to bank the Svensk "flintskullade" and get quite a good beating from the Malmo Police
Also Malmo is a no go zone,
We also used to take down to Hafenstrasse for antifascist demos
What is even more ironical is that these groups are the back-bone of the danish anti-fascist groups and are not shy from resorting to violence,and they are extremely pro-Palestine
When out on demo,s the Israeli and ET-Al where often targets, also supermarkets that stocked Jaffa oranges and other Israeli goods, yet when marching along Isteradege or VesterbroGade we where very care not to disrupt the Turkish vegetable stands.
It feels a bit bitter you have played a patr in clearing the streets of one evil virus only to have it replaced by some thing far more evil
No wonder the mullahs are laughing their arse,s off at us
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/03/black-square-den-sorte-firkant.html
Posted by: shiva at January 24, 2008 4:58 AM
Henrik:"They recently compiled a list of anti-Jihad web sites. My good friend at Uriasposten, Kim Møller, was furios. They had neglegted to list his site. He immediately emailed them, demanding to be listed at least on equal footing with the other 'Islamophobic' sites. He even included a cute, new bomb-in-turban Motoon to document his Islamophobic credentials."
That's funny.
Posted by: ewha1 at January 24, 2008 4:59 AM
Allegation that Ahtassari had taken € 40 million of heroin money - there's supposedly a report from the German intelligence service Bundesnachrichtendienst - as a 'reward' for desiging a mafiafriendly division were dismissed by US officials as 'spurious'.
And how much has this heroin money has filtered back you Clinton
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/01/every-whore-has-price.html
Posted by: shiva at January 24, 2008 5:13 AM
That's funny.
Better yet, it's profound. When you downright demand being put on the scapegoating list, the effect evaporates, which protects everyone else. Uriasposten is the oldest, largest and best of the Danish 'Islamophobic' blogs and most certainly deserved a listing.
The people at EXPO gave him a half-baked apology for not having included him. They sure have their hands full, scapegoating doesn't work too well when you try it against a large crowd.
Curiosly, EXPO also had included the conservative magazine Nomos on their list of despicable Islamophobes, even though that magazine hardly concerns itself with immigration or Islam issues. But this fits a pattern: The original fascists were also wildly anti-conservative, as are the new ones.
Using EXPO as a guide to who's good and who's bad usually produces a very distorted world view...
Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 5:24 AM
Clinton quoted for:
"They sought power through genocide."
If one knows the details of the Yugoslavian wars, this becomes one of the most outragious blood libels in modern history. Yes, the massacre was a war crime. But the background is another war crime, namely the attacks by commander Oric and his Jihad warriors on the civilian Serbs around the city. An estimated 3,500 Serbs were killed over two years due to attacks from the supposedly "Demilitarized safe zone".
The fundamental failure here lies with the UN, who had given their pledge to disarm the city. The Serbs waited two years for that to happen before they lost their patience.
Anti-American sentiment is strong in the Balkans. I can figure out why. Helping the Kosovo mafia get a state won't exactly improve on this. Many take the whole Yugoslavia thing as an example that US interference is unhelpful and destructive, no matter how many times they get the opportunity to see Clinton.
Shiva, I can't really help with links about Blekingegadebanden. The closest I get is that one of our illustrators was nearly blown up when their weapon cache detonated, and that one of my friends, who is on the PLFP hit list, was beaten up twice for taking a public stand for Israel.
These so-called 'anti-fascist' groups are causing us quite a bit of trouble, in classical Squadristi (Mussolini thugs) style. EXPO, AFA, Enhedslisten (radical left-wing political party) the 'Autonomous' etc. are aligned with these and tacidly approve of what goes on.
Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 6:12 AM
Henrik:"Better yet, it's profound.The people at EXPO gave him a half-baked apology for not having included him. They sure have their hands full, scapegoating doesn't work too well when you try it against a large crowd. "
Good point. When people stop being scared, the witchunt/scapegoating reveals itself for what it is. Playground bullying.
Henrik:"Curiosly, EXPO also had included the conservative magazine Nomos on their list of despicable Islamophobes, even though that magazine hardly concerns itself with immigration or Islam issues. But this fits a pattern: The original fascists were also wildly anti-conservative, as are the new ones."
That's very true.
About the Vlaam Bejang/LGF controversy
It must be remembered that the LGF chappies and chappettes are people who will only condemn someone if they have strong powerful evidence. Evidence that compels. Namely, Mr X knows Mr. Y who once had a chat with Mr Z and Mr Z is less than wholesome so let's not to do business with Mr X.
It's damning evidence, for sure. Powerful, powerful stuff that rings as true as a bell.
And Lizardoids take it a step further for they practice what they preach.
Big time
This is why they never but never talk approvingly about the Founding Fathers who, as it was noted above, were slave owners. They also never but never eulgise Churchill who had some pretty disgusting views on race. And why, in the Balkans, they don't support an independent Kosovo because the KLA are made up of NEO NAZIs who venerate the 21st Skanderbeg Division and erect monuments in honour of the Fascist WW2 collaborators.
Yup, famed lizardoids practice what they preach, that's for sure. You've got to hand it to them
Posted by: ewha1 at January 24, 2008 6:40 AM
I can't speak for other European countries but there is no hope whatsoever that the three main UK political parties - aka the LibLabCon trick - could in any way associate themselves with this charter.
It would need such heavy editing as to render it toothless before they would even give it the time of day.
The LibLabCon trick are not concerned about creeping Islamisation. The question is why? Perhaps they don't see Islam as being any different to other minority religions - which I doubt as it is quite obviously different even to the dhimmi fools in power - or perhaps they recognise that although it is a special case they still regard it as benign, and that in any case the Muslim bloc vote is a vast untapped reservoir of support.
Perhaps it is simply the case that modern politicians are only interested in power and money; being opposed to Islam would rapidly lose them both.
The LibLabCon trick are heavily into diversity and multiculturalism, so any perceived victimisation of a particular minority - Muslims in this case - would be contrary to their core principles. Political correctness is too deeply engrained in society. We even have non-Muslim politicians publicly being pro-Islamic. Step forward Ken Livingstone.
People might vehemently disagree in private with the tenets of multiculturalism and political correctness, and might privately express disbelief at the insanity of Islam, but most would not dare to do so in public for fear of losing their jobs or getting arrested.
In the present environment there cannot be a socially acceptable movement which opposes Islamisation. No socially acceptable public figure could be seen supporting such a movement. No socially acceptable politican could support it.
I agree with Shiva. There is no actual anti-Islamisation movement. The SIOE campaign is too small because there are too few people willing to venture out from behind the protection of their computer screens. I and my colleagues have sold politically incorrect, anti-multiculturalism, anti-Islam newspapers in the street. How many people do that? We got hassled by the police, of course. I have canvassed door to door on the same themes.
I wrote to my local MP shortly after the disgraceful scenes at the SIOE demo in Brussels last September. I'm still waiting for a reply.
There might be plenty of anti-Islamisation blogs but keyboard warriors only win cyber battles. We can express outrage all we like in cyberspace but that generally won't stop the local church being turned into a mosque, or the local school serving only Halal meat.
Cities Against Islamisation is admirable, but how many people will dare to endorse it?
Posted by: watling at January 24, 2008 7:37 AM
Watling, rather than complaining about the difficulty of the task at hand, I propose asking "What can be done now?"
Over here in Denmark, knowledge about Islam has reached such a critical mass that public debates on newspapers blogs etc. very often turn into Islam-bashing flamefests, supported by plentiful documentation. People have read books, quite a few of them, and are speaking up against the PC media at the grassroots level. We've come a long way by now.
Keep knocking, keep digging, keep posting and we'll make this giant oak fall over, too. Always "What can be done now?", and do it.
Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 7:48 AM
hope_and_justice
"Now, their goals are limited to bringing stuff to public attention. That's because of this handy thing called 'specialization', which lets Robert and Hugh spend all their time studying and writing and analyzing in depth, and then YOU THE VIEWER can go out an develop goals about organizing politically, or specializing in some other piece of anti-jihad efforts.
Geez it is like in open source where, because one are making something for free, every random Tom Dick and Harry who uses it thinks they can expect the maker to custom fit it for them personally."
I don't know if your comment is aimed at me, but I'm gonna answer it anyway.
I'm well aware of the stated goals of JihadWatch. As you yourself point out though, those goals have nothing to do with the "movement".
The goals of JihadWatch, Robert Spencer et al., may simply be to inform. On the other hand, Robert Spencer is passing judgement on who to ally with. That goes beyond simply informing, and that tells me that he's also thought about what the goals (and the strategy) of the "movement" should be, even if just in passing.
Personally I wouldn't mind hearing his thoughts on this issue, because then I'm in a better position to judge and understand his position. Is it based on ideals or something more realistic? Should I view him simply as a source of information or a possible "shaper"(Ofcourse, I still face that choice today, but more information makes for a better decision)?
I'm not asking Mr. Spencer to be the "father" of the counter-jihad "movement", everyone is free to define their own goals and strategy, but to understand Mr. Spencers position, it would help to know where he's coming from.
There's nothing wrong with simply informing, in fact it's imperative. Information can't stand alone, though...
at January 24, 2008 7:50 AM
Henrik,
That is some encouraging news. I pray this spreads to other parts of Europe, especially the UK who seems hell bent on becoming an Islamic state.
at January 24, 2008 7:59 AM
"I'm not asking Mr. Spencer to be the "father" of the counter-jihad "movement""
I think, by any measure, it is better not to have one at all. We need a lot of people to do little things, and we need enough experts that any questions can be answered quickly and enough conferences can be held.
Having one man assume the role of 'top dog' is dangerous, too, in so many way I'll refrain from listing them. As single-man-states have shown, the pitfalls are endless.
Yes, the groundswell of knowledge here is remarkable. I wish I had time to translate it. A couple of good ideas is to always mention some of the books you're read - that gives you credibility and inspires others - and to politely humiliate those who post out of ignorance. That inspires more people to read more, and the wave goes on. I don't need to recommend any author in particular, of course, but the ads on JW do provide very useful suggestions :)
Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 9:15 AM
shiva asks where the counter-jihad movement is.
It is building. Henrik had a post on another thread that I really liked, that speaks to this question; I'm reposting it here:
"We have our Churchills. They are named, in no particular order, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Serge Trifkovic, Andrew Bostom, Bat Ye'or, David Littman, Flemming Rose, Sam Solomon etc.
"These are the people who have read the relevant books in time, have spoken out against the looming danger for years, and who - just like Churchill - are largely being ignored by the ruling elites. Who seem to be more interested in appeasement and reelection than in defending our liberties.
"Fortunately, speaking out against the danger, out of compassion, not hate, accumulates a significant amount of 'moral high ground' when the conflict deepens, which it most certainly will in the coming years. Knowing who can be relied in for real knowledge and analysis will be increasingly important over the coming years."
When things get worse -- and they will -- then, if Spencer et al. have cred (and through time he especially is building it), the counter-jihad will become prominent.
If they align with racialist groups, that will not happen. Things will get worse, and then we'll fracture, with a handful more going to racialist groups than are now ready for it (but in the US, not more than a handful), and the rest aliging in desperation with post-Marxist or Islamic groups, or syncretizations of the two of one sort or another, and maybe a few tiny and too-late-started non-racialist anti-jihad groups (probably most with a highly Christian religious bent, if it happens in the heat of the moment, alienating other religions, and atheists and other secularists).
That would be bad. There would be no coalition of people in favor of individual human rights and liberty.
And I want to point out why in a previous post I said the *US* moderates in particular are important: Demographics, oceans, and military.
We've got replacement rate demographics, a fertility rate last I checked of 2.1. (Yes this is disproportionally hispanic, but even if you assume hispanics in the US aren't *yet* sufficiently assimilated to count as full bearers of Western culture, the white non-hispanic fertility rate is 1.9: just a hair off of replacement, probably the highest in the West if not the entire developed world, and high enough to keep open the very realistic possibility of assimilation of hispanics -- who are at any rate mostly Catholic and not Muslim). We've got oceans between us and Dar al-Islam. We have a giant and well-funded military. And I should also point out that we have a more conservative-leaning populace than the rest of the West, with a better change of eventually pringing the counter-jihad to the political arena in a significant way. There are problems (yes money problems with Social Security and China and Saudis buying infrastructure), but look at our strengths.
It isn't worth giving up the fight for our moderates for the sake of the BNP, and that is what ties between the counter-jihad and the BNP would mean.
at January 24, 2008 10:59 AM
DanishDynamite,
My comment wasn't directed to you that I remember. It spurred by the combination of supercargo's comments deriding Spencer for not having much major influence (yet), plus lack of understanding, in some of the discussion above, of Spencer's main goal with the site and with his life's work.
I'll grant that Spencer's taking a position on whom to align with is beyond his primary and prominently stated goal of this website.
However, he has a perfect right to endorse the strategies he wants to endorse, and condemn those he thinks harmful, on his own website, especially if he gives his reasons for doing so, which he has.
It isn't his focus, but he's a credible and informed guy, and if he wants to stake a position, he's earned the right--with his work specializing in the scholarly aspects of the movement--to have the kind of influence his statements have.
There does seem to be an implicit goal with the site of grassroots organizing a non-racilist individual-oriented and human-rights oriented counter-jihad on this site. MarisolJW mentioned it on the earlier thread on this topic.
Aside, also on that thread was the mention of the UK Independence party, which I assume is a more libertarian party? Why not reach out to and ally them instead of the BNP? There's a good chance they encapsulate core Western values better, IMO, and have more of a chance to go mainstream.
at January 24, 2008 11:15 AM
It was probably me mentioning UKIP. I met one of their MP's, who's now going to run for mayor of London, and he's a really good bloke with great activities.
Instead of quarreling over BNP, it might be better to work with UKIP, regardless of their somewhat lacklustre performance in the polls.
Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 11:37 AM
I have been following this debate with interest as my partner, a UKIP member, is a political obsessive and an anti-Jihadist.
I have just visited the BNP site and took a look around and also visited the lee barnes site and though I do not vote BNP or support the BNP the points he makes here are very valid ;
http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2008/01/flaw-in-theory-of-mainstream-anti.html
One point he misses out on though is the fact that no mainstream anti-Jihad movement will ever happen in the UK because as soon as it does the leaders of the movement and activists of the movement will become public targets for violence by the left, the liberals and the Islamists themselves.
Anyone that becomes an enemy of the Sharia Socialist Front between Islam and Socialism becomes a target for violence by the far left.
Any anti-Jihadist movement will be simply smashed off the streets by the reds.
Once a few of the intellectuals that organise the anti-jihadist campgains have been shot, petrol bombs thrown through their windows, hounded out of their jobs and their lives threatened by Islamists and far left terrorists then the movement will implode.
Sorry but any talk of a mainstream movement ever happening is unlikely to happen.
UKIP will never be any part of this movement as they will be afraid of being labelled 'Islamaphobic' by the media and the press.
One brick through the window of a UKIP politician that talks about anti-Jihadism in public will frighten off all the rest.
Americans have no idea how organised, violent and determined the far left thugs are in the UK and also how the media unions such as the National Union of Journalists controls and censors what journalists are allowed to say and support without threatening them with the sack.
Listen to Shiva as she knows just how violent the far left are and how they will use that violence against anyone that disrupts their Sharia Socialist Front.
Posted by: Spear Of Odin
at January 24, 2008 12:30 PM
Henrik
Number count of the dead and disfigured, both physically and mentally, just cannot be ignored. The International socialists(IS) win on both counts over National socialism. As for longevity and reach, marxism/communism again wins over the Nazis. Even the lasting effects of the IS is far greater and longer then that of the Nazis. Witness Cambodia, Ethiopia, and even now Burma. The Nazis targetted Jews, gypsies and Slavs. The International socialists were equal opportunity offenders. The communists were also more totalitarian in their reach, interfering in every aspect of a person's life.
It is a moot point which is worse, and thus body count, and overall reach and longevity, decides. The fact that the communists had supposedly good intentions, is neither here not there when the body count reaches the hundred million, for long before that figure was reached, they should have stopped. But they did'nt.
Posted by: DP111 at January 24, 2008 6:50 PM
Henrik: I can't find the exact report to the UN Representative from the 'Pullach-Polizei' but this link might be of use to you, and others -
http://balkanforum.org/print.php?threadid=1148&page=1&sid=d75bd6b2a561a26141e19e202ac8d532
(Scroll down a little when you get there.)
Posted by: OliverPCamford at January 24, 2008 10:53 PM
According to the June 21 article by the Banja Luka daily Fokus, titled “Albanian Mafia Bought Ahtisaari,” German Federal Intelligence Service BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) has recently sent a report to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon revealing that Albanian separatists and terrorists in Serbian Kosovo-Metohija province have literally purchased Ahtisaari’s plan which suggests independence for the Serbian province and its severing from Serbia.
Yup, this is the one I'm referring to. US government representatives dismissed this, but without assserting innosence on part of Ahtissari.
That just erodes my confidence. Bad.
Byzantine Sacred Arts Blog have been running several articles on this. Better edited and laid out, too.
Posted by: Henrik at January 25, 2008 4:01 AM
Good post, Henrik. It's all but impossible to over play the extent to which organised crime dominates Kosovo, since NATO/KLA took over the running.
In an astounding case of conflict of interests, the UNMIK boss married the former girlfriend of KLA leader, Thaqi.
MSM, NATO, the UN, etc thought nothing untoward at this of course.
Michael Steiner married Bukurije Balaja who was Thaci's ex girlfriend.
After quitting the UNMIK in August 2003, Mike "Michael" Steiner married Mr Thaci's ex later the same year. He'd been dating her for almost the entire period of his 2 year stay as UNMIK boss in Kosovo.
The UNMIK is expected to be unbiased and fair to all ethnicities. Of course, under UNMIK control, many 1,000s of ethnic Serbs and loyalist Albanians, Rom, etc have been murdered and raped by Albanians, often under the very eyes of the officials in charge.
Also remember that Mr Steiner also freed Thaci who'd been under an interpol indictment for war crimes.
at January 25, 2008 5:34 AM
watling
you wrote:" We can express outrage all we like in cyberspace but that generally won't stop the local church being turned into a mosque, or the local school serving only Halal meat".
Of course, the chief way to prevent the local church - or synagogue, or temple, or whatever - from being turned into a mosque, is for more people to show up at services/ ceremonies and functions.
That won't work if you're an atheist, of course - in which case, find a different local civil-society type group you can identify and join? - but perhaps even agnostics could see their way to at least support their parish fete, or drop in on a service occasionally, just to boost the warm-body count (and spread the dread about the Jihad...). Even a non-believer could front up at their parish church to join the bellringing team (ringing church bells is a direct challenge to sharia law).
Make friends with your local synagogue, if there is one, and inquire whether they've been copping antisemitism - if so, they may be able to tell you how you can help. I have suggested, here and in other places, that during Hanukkah 2008 (long way off at the moment, of course) Gentiles who oppose the Jihad against Israel, should ask their local Jewish community whether they may exhibit the Hanukkah lights in a show of solidarity. If there's a Shoah memorial event, go along. Wear a Star of David.
(Likewise - you're English - if you have Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist neighbours, try to get to know them and find out whether they, too, have been harassed, and find out what is being done about it, if anything).
Numbers, numbers - bike group, walking club, dog owners walking their pets together - make it bigger, then you can 'take back the streets', the parks, whatever.
If you belong to an outdoorsy group (scouts, hiking, orienteering, hunting, fishing, birdwatching) that group, once properly informed, can also, as it wanders through the landscape, keep a weather eye out for any would-be jihadis sneaking through the bushes.
If you're involved with church or other community groups, then you can always revive the ancient English practice of 'beating the bounds' of the parish. When I googled it, it looked like it might have potential for a large-ish, well-organised group of Christian and non-Christian guys, with their parish priest and/or bishop, to visibly 'reclaim' territory.
I'm much better with words and ideas, than with making things happen, practically - I see my role as primarily an 'encourager/ informer'.
But, since I'm a Christian, every Sunday I am down at my local church actively practising my faith, exercising and enjoying freedom of religion (and doing what I can to dispel the 'fog' of disinformation about the Religion of 'Peace' - there are at least three or four others in the congregation, who are on the same page as me).
I have a Jewish friend who is also a priest in the Anglican Church here (true!) - she is not a self-hater, she is supports Israel's right to exist and to self-defence, which means she has encountered some nasty antizionism/ antisemitism. I have at least been able to make her feel somewhat less alone; it's much easier to hold an unpopular though truthful position, if there is more than one of you.
As a parent of two primary age kids, one high-schooler, and one just-starting-university, it will be my business this year to attend P & C (= PTA) meetings and try to run interference if I detect Muslim propagandising.
So - stopping halal meat from appearing in schools (or other insidious accommodations of Islam) is the responsibility of the non-Muslim parents, and interested/ concerned non-Muslim citizens.
My brother, who volunteers in the State Emergency Services, is receiving "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades", together with a set of carefully selected relevant articles from this website; I know he will share them with my dad, who is active in the RSL (Returned Servicemen's League).
These are all small, grassroots sorts of things. But that's where the counter-jihad has to start. Find the base - the multiple informal and semiformal networks that hold our non-Muslim society together - re-energise them, and get information flowing. I don't believe it's too late to try.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 25, 2008 5:35 AM
I have been reading the posts for a while now and have a few questions. A few things I cannot understand in relation to the post above where it talks about ingratiating ourselves with the Jewish, Hindu, Sikh communities etc ;
1) Isn't the fact that those communities exist and posess communal identities and, in the case of Jews, Hindus and Sikhs, all have ethnic identities as components of their communal identities, and each work for the benefit of their communities, what is also defined as 'racist' as per the definition of racism as used by various anti-VB / BNP posters on this board when applied to European political parties ?
2) Why is Israel allowed to be an ethno-state with a strong Jewish communal and ethnic identity but European nations are called racist for trying to do the same as Israel on this board ?
3) Instead of involving ourselves with the Jewish community in the UK, who have the Community Security Trust to protect them, then why not instead go down to your local CHRISTIAN CHURCH and see what you can do to help them with the Islamist violence that is burning down Churches in places such as Oldham etc
4) Why is the emphasis of this site on linking anti-Islamism with support for Israel - as a UK citizen whose nation is fighting the Jihadist threat here and in Iraq / Afghanistan and who was using the tube trains on 7/7 when are WE going to be regarded as on the frontline of the struggle against Islam and our community and national interests promoted as vigorously as Israels on the board ?
5) Why is the emphasis always on anti-semitism by Islamists and not on all manifestations of hatred against all communities by Islamists including Christian communities in nations such as in Egypt, Lebanon etc ?
6) Surely the anti-Jihadist movement should not be isolated to supporting just one community suffering from Islamist aggression but also be supporting all communities suffering Islamist aggression - such as the Arab and Palestinian Christians in Israel who face attack not just by the Islamists but also racial and religious discrimination by the Israeli state. Being against Islamism should not mean we are silent about the human rights abuses Israel inflicts against Christians.
7) What has attending a Shoah memorial and wearing a Star of David have to do with anti-Jihadism ? As far as I know the Nazis were Christians / Pagans / Atheists not Islamists and wearing the Star of David has nothing to with anti-Jihadism in any way. This obsession with Israel and the jewish experience of Jihadism ignores the reality that the real frontline of the global jihad is not in Israel now but in Europe and specifically in Britain. When are you going to respect our experience of Islamist violence and see that we are new front line.
8) What about flying the Stars and Stripes or the Union Jack as a sign of support for British and US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who are now fighting the Islamists - why exhibit the Hanukkah lights in a show of solidarity with Israel when British people and troops are being slaughtered at a faster rate than Jews in Israel by Islamists. The Jihad is in the streets of Brittanistan and Londonistan and on the streets of Iraq and in the hills of Afghanistan and it is killing our British troops right now. As far as I am aware there are NO Israeli troops in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting the Jihadist threat in those nations.
The Jihad is not in Israel anymore, which has its security wall protecting it from Islamists attacks, as more British troops have been killed in the last year both in Iraq and Afghanistan than Israelis.
Fly the Union Jack if you want to support those on the front line of the Jihad.
at January 25, 2008 7:03 AM
Fly the Union Jack if you want to support those on the front line of the Jihad.
This is so important. I can't phrase it any better.
Is even more important here in Europe than using Stars & Stripes in the US is important for Americans.
Posted by: Henrik at January 25, 2008 7:12 AM
Well, where is Robert Spencer's apology to VB for slandering them with his rhetorical, McCarthyesque question to them expecting them to prove that they stopped beating their wife, so to speak?
Posted by: cantor at January 25, 2008 11:31 PM
Shiva, sorry to say you were a seriously useful idiot back in those days. Good luck in your attempts to make up some bad karma. Are you still in touch with your old "comrades-in-arms" from those days, and do some of them see the light as well? Perhaps you could do some good with your experience.
at January 25, 2008 11:57 PM
I think I'll agree with @cantor:
"Well, where is Robert Spencer's apology to VB.."
Ok, perhaps not an apology, but at least I'd like to know from Robert Spencer why he so hastily wrote his article on the basis (it seems) of just one unsubstantiated rumour in an Australian newspaper about the counter-jihadist bedfellows of a Flemish political party?
Moreover, now that several sources have exposed the Aussie rumour for what it is, why does Mr. Spencer still hold on to the slanderous title of the January 20 article?:
"Vlaams Belang allies with British National Party".
I really appreciate all the things Mr. Spencer does and has already done to inform the general public about jihadism and orthodox islam, but I fail to see how "inquisitive" articles like the above-mentioned would do himself and his valuable work any justice.
regs. from Amsterdam,
Sag.
at January 27, 2008 3:45 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)