Part 4: The Western Enablers of Denmark’s Islamization
Without the active support of Western intellectuals, pastors, politicians, artists, media personnel, authors and journalists, the Islamization of Europe would never be successful. The following chapter will show in particular what this support looks like.
Politicians as Enablers of Islamization
Copenhagen’s Integration Commissioner, Jacob Hougaard, called in all earnest to increase the visibility of Islam in all Danish schools and in places of employment, and to make the Islamic religion a solid component of public life in Denmark. Audio Hougaard:
“Islam must become a component of public life.”50
He refined his challenge by effectively demanding general school vacation days occur on Islamic holidays, calling for separate bathrooms/washrooms for Muslims, and for a general honoring of the daily Islamic prayer times by private employers, and access to “halal”-slaughtered meat.51
Also, the previous Danish Foreign Minister and a liberal, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, belongs to the party of appeasers. Ellemann-Jensen sharply criticized the publishing of the cartoons, and on 7 February 2006, he even called for the resignation of the chief editor of the Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste.
When the Polish Rzeczpospolita reprinted theMuhammad cartoons, they were promptly criticized by the Polish administration. Even more: Poland’s Foreign Minister Stefan Meller bent the knee unbidden and officially apologized for the reprint by an independent newspaper, in quick and early obedience to all Muslims in this world. Things like this always please the Muslims of the world because they expect nothing else from the non-Islamic part of the world but their collective subjugation under the Islam’s authoritative claims. After this, the chief editor of the monthly newspaper Wiez, Zbigniew Nosowski, followed up with this criticism of Poland’s government:
“This publication was a provocation that has been amplified by the additional media coverage. Journalistic provocations can be essentially useful when an uncomfortable truth cannot be disclosed by any other means. The only new information that came from the cartoons was … the level of ignorance concerning things religion.”
Here we see a typical Western Journalist who has arrogantly set himself up to speak eloquently of “provocation” and “ignorance in things Religion”, and in this he has proven that he has absolutely no understanding of the essence of Islam himself. You can’t just outdo his commentary; it bristles of ignorance, stupidity and arrogance.
It is a given that Turkish prime minister Erdogan would sharply criticize the cartoon publication. However what he didn’t indicate in his harsh criticism was that this was only a drop in the bucket compared to what he demanded from his party in 1997. As coauthor of his party’s manifest, he called for no less than the total annihilation of the Jews. That is the correct thing to do within the context of the Quran’s anti-Jewish contents, and Islamically correct according to the declarations of Muhammad. These things are not and will never be criticized by any Islamic association or leading Islamic theologian.
Western “quality” media have kept Erdogan’s declaration silent to this day — a declaration that is not inferior to those of Hitler and Ahmadinejad. Coincidence? Not on your life. If the editors had been able to unearth such declarations by an American or Israeli president from their archives, then they would certainly have dominated the headlines of the world for weeks to come!
Erdogan’s monstrous call for genocide of the Jews of this World seems not to be worth a single headline for most of the media, but for Erdogan it also seems to pose no moral problem as well. On the other hand, exercise any criticism of his prophet Muhammad who challenged his followers many times to wipe out the Jews, and who himself had countless Jews killed, and this causes no small stir. It is well known that the murder of non-Muslims is allowed in Islam. However, the one who exposes this Islamic license to kill, the one who calls it by name and criticizes it, the same is regarded by Islam as an unforgivable offense to the prophets and the religion. That is the hierarchy and hypocrisy of the moral principles of this “religion of peace.”
I accuse the majority of the media of nothing less than complicity with the totalitarianism of Islam and with its most important political and spiritual leaders, whether intentional or unintentional. The reasons for this (often unintentional) complicity has three names:
- Hate against the society of Western citizens
These, as well as total ignorance about the tenets and goals of Islam, are the essential portals between Islam and the greater portion of left-leaning Western intellectuals, whether they serve as publicists, media personnel, artists, or politicians.[q]
<I whole – heartedly agree with that! >
Journalists as Enablers of Islamization
The Western press normally recognizes no taboo: whether the subject is Christendom, the pope, Western or non-Western politicians, artists, countries, scientists, ideologies or ideologues, religions or sects. Everything can be analyzed, criticized, caricatured — and the freedom to do so is right.
However, the Speaker of the German Journalist Association (Deutscher Journalistenverband — DJV), Hendrik Zörner, of all people, vehemently criticized the reprinting of the Danish cartoons in German newspapers making a reference to the “Code of the Press.” According to the Code, “publication in Word and Picture that in Form and Content can be possibly injurious to the religious sensibilities of a people group violates the stipulations agreed upon in the Code” (numeral 10 of the German Press Code).52
The question is, whether Zörner will forego any publication of Hitler or Stalin cartoons in the future with respect to the sensibilities of the ever present and internationally recognized standards of the numerous fellowships of neo-Nazis and Old Stalinists? Perhaps he should even call for a cessation of George W. Bush cartoons because the millions who voted for him might have their sensibilities offended as well. No, one can conclude that he wouldn’t do that. But neither personal audacity nor journalistic ethics were the guidebook here: rather the confidence that no danger would threaten him from any corner. Apparently Zörner is not versed in Islam, nor in the ethics of his career and the personal duty of his journalistic guild. These all command the journalist to write with unwavering clarity and with boldness, to write down the truth, even when it is not politically correct to do so, as well as to fight against any form of totalitarian exercise of power — even, and especially when, this exercise of power cloaks itself in theological clothing.
In France, the Nouvel Obs prints an interview with the philosopher Regis Debraywho has aligned himself with the international scenario for subjugation to Islam, and who has done no less than called for a voluntary self-control of expression of opinion with respect to Islam. Debray says:
“We cannot transfer our thought categories and our systems to another culture that has a history and where it has played a structural role like it was with us 300 years ago.”53
The Values-Relativist Debray may be a philosopher, but he understands very little: little of his own history, little of the French Enlightenment, little of the most destructive consequences of an appeasement philosophy — and even less of Islam who, in the above citation from Debray, “today would be the “peaceful religion” in power in France,” but tomorrow might burn even its non-Muslim supporters.[r]
Numerous newspapers and periodicals in the USA have also refused to reprint the Muhammad cartoons. The critical US historian and columnist, Anne Appelbaum, writes about this in the Washington Post:
“Hypocrisy among the cultural left. Dozens of American newspapers, the Post included, have declared that they will not print the cartoons, but that they would rather — in the words of a self-righteous editorial — ‘cease from superfluous attacks against religious symbols’”54
Appelbaum and the German sociologist Wolfgang Sofsky were a couple of the few voices who could correctly classify the religious and political background of the conflict regarding the cartoons and properly conclude that Islam’s aggressive nature was the real cause of that conflict. Sofsky writes in the Welt:
“The crowd is by no means is looking out for democratic freedoms … the impulse that drives them is much older. The righteous multitude desires to have control of their arch enemies; they desire to slay and burn them. In general, they have the West in their sights. The only freedom they are not finished with is the freedom to kill.”55
Authors as Enablers of Islamization
Already back in 1919, the German author Kurt Tucholsky had formulated an answer to the question where the limits should be set for enlightening writings, and especially those that are packed with satirical criticism. His answer became famous:
“What is allowed in satire? Everything!”56
Only a short century later, the German Literature Nobel Peace Prize winner, Günter Grass made the statement about the publishing of the Muhammad cartoons, that it was
“a conscious and planned provocation by a rightwing Danish newspaper.”57
Mr. Grass had already reached an “understanding” about the terror attacks on the New York twin towers and had admitted to a certain sympathy for the Islamic terrorists.
And here he is again: the automatic left-wing reflex of casting each and every criticism of Islam immediately and unchecked upon the right-wing political camp. In an interview with the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), he utters not a single word about the worldwide agitation of Islam against the “infidels,” not one word concerning the threats of murder against the Danish cartoonists and countless publishers, writers and journalists in the whole world who were bold enough to criticize Islam. Not one word was issued about Muhammad who committed numerous misdeeds against children, the thousands of objectors he had slain, who declared women to be second-class persons, who had a whole Jewish clan beheaded because that clan would not convert to Islam, and who for a long time (though dead) has waged a war, the 1400-year Jihad, in order to increase his borders to his own benefit. And now, today, he is in the middle of Europe, standing ready to take over this continent.
Now, these and similar themes make up the elements of the cartoons that Grass declares to be drawn by the “right-wingers.” However, in contrast to Grass’ opinion, this “Danish paper” puts its fingers into the gaping wounds (caused by Islam) and depicts some of the gravest grievances against Islam. Grass, however, goes so far indeed in his friendship with Islamofascism as to seriously propose on the occasion of Lübeck’s candidacy for being the “cultural capital of Europe” that a Lübeck church be rechristened as a mosque.58 Whatever is preached there doesn’t seem to interest him anymore. Let’s bring to mind the nature the Quran texts[s]that are preached in mosques throughout the world:
“And if you meet the infidel, then off with the head until you wreak massacre among them; and then fasten the bonds!” Sura 47:4
“And strike them (the infidels) dead wherever you encounter them.” Sura 2:191
“And if they turn away (from Islam and give no ear to your challenge to believe), then seize them and kill them where(ever) you find them…” Sura 4:89
“Oh believers, take neither Jew nor Christian as friends.” Sura 5:54
“Oh you who believe, battle against that one of the infidels that is neighbor to you.” Sura 9:123
Etc., etc., etc.
There are only two possible reasons behind Grass engaging himself in this theofascism. First, Grass has no concept of Islam. Second, Grass does know Islam. In the first case, he is an ignoramus. In the second case, he is a friend of a fascist religion.
We could possibly excuse his membership in the Waffen-SS — a confession that came much too late — as the expression of inexperienced youth. However, in his great age, where one should be able to ascribe wisdom and worldly understanding to him, to be a champion for a murderous, people-disdaining, child-raping prophet, and for that religion, is inexcusable. In his blind enthusiasm and criticism-free advocacy for that “religion of peace,” Grass himself has become a danger to the freedom that he believes he has fought for his whole life.
Psychoanalysts as Enablers of Islamization
One other icon of the 1968 Movement, caller of the shots and leading figure of the Peace Movement, is the German psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter. Like Grass, Richter also sees the fault for the cartoon conflict as primarily belonging to the West. Audio of Richter:
“The West should desist from all provocations and call forth feelings of humility and humbleness. We need to esteem the cultural identity of Islamic countries more highly.”59
This sentence needs to be analyzed. Richter is an icon of the left wing and theGreens, a leading figure practically worshipped by a whole generation of peace-driven deniers of reality and Easter marchers. He exercises no criticism against the cutting off of hands, flogging for no reason, or the stoning of women who have committed no crime other than that they wanted to be free from their husbands. He exercises no criticism against the fact that in Islamic lands today critics of “the religion of peace” have their eyes put out without anaesthetic, that girls at just twoyears of age are forced to marry dirty old men, that women according to Islamic law (Shari’a) are condemned to be second-class people.
He exercises no criticism against the highest courts who give their blessing to the worst of all forms of paedophilia: sex with nursing infants.60
Does he not know all of that? Now, perhaps twenty years ago we could have letRichter get away with this because of his ignorance regarding things Islam. Today, though, after 11 September, after Bali, after Madrid, after London, after the inexpressible activities of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, after the mass killings of homosexuals in Iran (and now recently in Iraq), and now the historically unmatched persecution of Christians that is currently playing out before us in practically every Islam-ruled country, Richter has no excuse. He cannot and will not be allowed to escape the dishonor and disgrace due him, in the face of screaming anti-Western and pro-Islam misanalyses, and in the face of his cowardly and hurried kowtowing to fascistic Islam. Richter, himself a psychoanalyst and psychotherapist for decades, not only in Germany, but well-known in all of the West, passes up no opportunity to ascribe as many aggressions as possible to the West. Indeed he seeks to discredit Western systems by describing them as “power-possessed devils”61 and accuse them as being phobicly and paranoidally disturbed.62 However, in the case of the worldwide Muslim uprisings that followed the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, this judge of the system and of capitalism makes an astonishing mutation from a rigorous accuser to a loving grandpa-like figure:
“We know about such temper outbreaks in these countries. We should not heap the rioters and the vandalism of furious masses in with the basic form of the majority…”63
Not one word about the 140 casualties from the uprisings, not one word about the murdered priests and nuns, not a single word about the destruction of dozens of churches, nothing about the killing of the innocent, while Richter, through his description “temper outbreak” trivialized the worldwide persecution of Christianity by Islam. How selective this distortion of perception is. It borders on paranoia, and it comes from one of the “most influential” psychoanalysts in postwar Germany. To think that such incomparable ignorance would come fromRichter, “the one who understands Islam,” who on one hand makes out “man” to be an “inhumane being,” and on the other hand engages himself for Islam — expressly for the most inhumane, most murderous, most morbid variety of masculomania on the globe!
Just like most of his scientific colleagues, Richter addresses the problem of Islam primarily through communications theory. He addresses the issue of a so-called Western deficit of dialog and understanding, a so-to-speak mechanical dialog that occurs because there has been no effort or only a rudimentary attempt to deal with the issues of Islam. For the family therapist and experts in communication deficit, the whole world relies consistently on familiar processes such as the conflict between children, parents and adult-id and therefore it is reduced to treating narcissistic illnesses. For Richter, this is practical because he believes, as a degreed psychotherapist, that he has the correct answers for the political and religious conflicts of the world. This is how an individual psychologist mutates directly into a psychological world philosopher without having to grapple with the issues of politics and religion. But there is a certain point of ignorance about issues where even the best generalist, when lacking the knowledge of facts, starts to mutate into nothing more than a dilettante, an amateur. Richter shows these symptoms in his approach to Islam in his essay that is characteristically titled, “Islamophobia — a symptom of the ‘psychological illness of unrest (lack of peace)’.” In this writing, he poses the rhetorically targeted question:
“Is Islamophobia a symptom of psychopathological restlessness (lack of peace)?”64
Correct diagnosis — but incorrect patient. For Richter exchanges cause with effect. The critic of Islam is not the one that is “psychopathologically without peace,” as Richter would have it, rather the “religion” of Islam. In order to make it clear and without question, one of the most well-known and respected psychotherapists in Germany, one who fights against masculomania and totalitarianism (as Richter says of himself), analyzes the criticism against theofascism and the male-religion Islam as illnesses — ex cathedra, so to say. The killer phrase “Islamophobia” can have no other meaning.
Given such a grave misdiagnosis by an expert, we must be allowed to ask one question. The question is this: If Richter had lived three-quarters of a century earlier, would he have come upon the same diagnosis for critics of national socialism and titled it “Naziphobia”? Or for critics of communist totalitarianism as being “Stalinphobia”? Or perhaps “Maophobia” for critics of Chinese communism? Beside the point? Absolutely not! Many of his colleagues in communist countries have made this very diagnosis and have had critics of communism committed to Middle-Ages-class psychiatric care units only to disappear forever.
And like Grass, Richter may be just as famous. But he writes, like many of his colleagues, about things of which he has no understanding. This may be a form of megalomania, even a sign of self-glory that can be observed of many old 1968ers to this day. In any case, Richter makes so many unqualified comments to an especially successful accomplice of the “psychopathologically peaceless” Islam, and there are still hundreds of thousands of young Peace Movement individuals that believe every word that comes out of his pen.
The Left as Enablers of Islamization
The burden of critical discussion about the theme of Islam that is led by a vast number of persons and parties — that the left-wing opinion makers usually blame on the right-wing camp — can really be blamed on the left-wing-Green-self-righteous crowd. Since the left wing refuses to have open debate about totalitarian, inhumane Islam to this day, they have abandoned the political field of “criticism of Islam” to others by which they doubly refuse through demonizing this criticism as “hostile to foreigners.”
However, this strategy of demonizing the right as employed by the left has developed into an ideological boomerang, because in the long run the steadfast and constant assignment of the term “hostile to foreigners” to “criticism of Islam” makes it nearly impossible in the spectrum of the left, even in the most valid and obvious cases, to become actively critical of Islam. In this case, this accusation of “hostility to foreigners” may fall back on to them with full force, a substantive and argumentative vicious circle for which the left-wing do-gooders will have no escape, and in the end, Islam will be the real winner.
Danish Converts to Islam as Enablers of Islamization
In Denmark, a trend toward conversion to the “religion of peace” can also be seen. As in Germany and other Western countries, a large portion of the almost 4,000 Danish converts to Islam have settled into the leftwing and Green spectrum of politics.This fact is clearly seen in a study at the University of Copenhagen.65According to this study, the subjects being dealt with were converts to Islam and open opponents of the Western model of democracy and who want Islam to be the form of rule in their country. This internal about-face of values of an erstwhile leftwing Islam convert is astonishing:
<I don’t think it’s astonishing at all. Power – no matter how ill gotten, is more attractive than to be made mince meat.>
- away from communist-correct atheism and straight to a religion where any doubt about its god and his prophet is punishable by death, and to a religion that desires to force the whole world under Allah’s banner.
- away from the demand of equality between man and woman — to a religion of gender apartheid, where according to the law and religious manuscripts (Sunna and Quran) the subjugation and position of the woman with almost no rights is sealed for all time
- away from equality for all people to the equality of all like-minded individuals, the Muslims. In contrast, all other people, according to the Quran, according to Muhammad and according to the agents of the “religion of peace” can be killed with confidence.
<When natural LAW is undermined, through the fema-nazi’s of Code Pink and the like. The opposite of what is status quo becomes more attractive. The Jedao – Christian model compliments natural Law. When it is removed there is a VOID. And we all know, that nature abhors a void. When culture is overly feminized, the opposite, comes to the fro. >
This is only a small piece of cloth from this new religious coat those Western converts have slipped on over their previously leftist scene when they decided expressly to become Muslim. One wonders, if at their conversion into the “religion of peace,” somebody told them that there is no return to their pre-Islamic life, and in the case of turning away from Islam they would be killed according to Muhammad’s personal challenge:
“Kill every one that leaves the religion (of Islam)!”66
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Conclusion: After Failing With Hitler, the Western Appeasement[t]Crowd Does So Again
With its “politically correct” reaction to minority hatred by its Muslim immigrants, Denmark now lies within the general mainstream of the political reactions by practically all Western governments. Apparently, these countries have not learned their lesson from the devastating appeasement policy that the Allies had exercised as a response to Hitler’s expansionist plans. Just as it was then with the National Socialists (Nazis), even so now they feed the Islamic “crocodile” (Churchill) hoping that they will be last ones consumed by it.[u] The “never again war” mentality that Western countries have summarily taken from the Second World War is as wrong as it is absurd.
Appeasement is wrong because societies dedicated to this maxim present themselves as an easy prize, and, as we see in the current case of this massive Islamization of Europe, they will surrender due to lack of defenses.67
Appeasement is absurd because historical experience shows that almost without exception the rogue regimes of this world have had to be overcome by violence. It was this way with Hitler, it was the same way with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and it was so with the cannibalistic regime of Idi Amin in Uganda, who in the end had converted to Islam.
Auschwitz, Sobibor, and Treblinka were not liberated by self-righteous peace demonstrations in London, Paris or New York, despite what one might think. They were liberated at the price of hundreds of thousands of civilian and military victims of the tanks of the Allied War Forces and Red Army. Pol Pot was not overthrown by peace vigils of concerned do-gooders in the West. It was by means of massive military insertion by the troops of Vietnam, in this case at the cost of 1,000 dead. Those who have chosen freedom for nothing have already chosen oppression.
No, the only correct conclusion from the Second World War must exclaim:
“Never again toleration of intolerance!”
If this sentence would have been included in the preambles of the constitutions of free countries, then such an intolerant and totalitarian system like Islam would not have been able to nestle itself in among the countries of the free world and be validated because of the guarantee of religious freedom provided by these constitutions, but this has happened without exception. If this sentence had been a part of the constitutional conventions in Western lands, then a religion like Islam would have been quickly recognized as an acute danger to freedom and would have been forbidden by the highest constitutional courts. Instead of the policy of chumming up to Islam by means of clergy, intellectuals, politicians, jurists and artists, and instead of the flood of mosques being built in the West, the Muslims would have been confronted by a value system that is well advanced and — with respect to science, culture and human rights — that is decidedly superior.
But the Western elite to this day cowers away from such forms of confrontation against this theocratic barbarism. Maybe it is because they have forgotten that freedom must be defended and recaptured anew every day. Maybe it is because they have a private or open hatred of their Western system. Perhaps either they do not realize the existential threat emanating from Islam, or, since the rapid and unexpected end of communism, they deep down secretly wish to collaborate with Islam in its ancient endeavor, and with Islam’s help, overthrow the Western system. However, let it be said to all appeasers and all foes of Western freedom: the Islamic crocodile will consume you first!
The Collective Failure of the Western Elite
To be qualified to speak on this and other truths about the unique essence of the “religion of peace” as a journalist, politician or author requires intense activity concerning Islam. It is precisely for this reason, time and content, that most Western journalists and intellectuals have cowered away from this subject. And because of this retreat from the issue they have failed in their main task: the commitment to advocate for freedom and the relentless enlightenment of their readers.
Politicians and jurists are guilty in another area: they have opened their borders, practically without limit, to a historically unmatched mass immigration by Muslims. Every year about one million new Muslims stream into the various countries of the European Union, while at the same time in their original Islamic countries, non-Muslims are mercilessly persecuted, thrown into prisons, tortured, and killed. These politicians, judges and attorneys hold the prime executive responsibility for the establishment of parallel Islamic societies in every European country. These societies are not only unwilling to integrate in Europe, but on the contrary and by every implication, they are working to remove the liberal European constitutional laws and eventually replace them with an Islamo-European Caliphate (“Eurabia”). Where realization and defense are concerned, not only have jurists and politicians miserably failed, but even worse: by their inaction regarding the fatal Islamic threat against their countries they have broken the oath of the office imposed upon them by the constitution that they are to defend their people from harm.
A complete and historically developed value system — that of the Western enlightenment, of human rights, of freedom of thought and of the freedom of the individual — has collapsed in the face of an international scenario because of cartoons that:
|1.||were legitimate in content|
|2.||were formally legitimate because of the freedom of criticism or debate, even if they might not have been correct in content,|
|3.||were a blot on the face of Islam, especially when considering the humiliation and scorn of Christianity, Jewry, and of the West that are the daily way of life in Islamic countries. Anyone who has at least once seen the hate-filled genocidal cartoons drawn up by the media in the Islamic world knows that the agitation regarding the Muhammad cartoons was lop-sided, reactionary, and hypocritical.|
Islam pays such fussy attention to not being criticized — but by the same token, it is limitless in its constant and destructive criticism against the non-Islamic world. Muslims in the whole world believe that they are allowed to burn, shred and spit upon the “holy” symbols of non-Muslims and go unpunished. One seldom sees a Muslim demonstration in which the flags of Western countries are not shredded, set on fire or trampled underfoot. Muslims know no limitation when they seek to agitate the West with their verbal attacks. And they hold no limits when they follow up these verbal attacks with their cowardly and malicious terror attacks in the world — mostly against innocent civilians, men, women as well as children. This call by Islam for the ban of criticism against them is the greatest and potentially the most dangerous single attack against the Western-Enlightened world, and in the face of the daily hate and war rhetoric coming from the “religion of peace” against all non-Islamic countries, the ban of criticism against Islam shows itself to be a farce and ultimate hypocrisy.
The cartoon conflict has demonstrated that there can be no compromise between the following: the demands of Islam for criticism-free recognition and subjugation to all of its values on the one hand, and on the other the tradition of Western Enlightenment, according to which no theme is allowed to escape critical evaluation (religions included).
It’s either the one or the other. There is either only thought control, as in Islam, or there is complete freedom of thought, as dictated by Western Enlightenment.
However, because Islam, since its early existence, explicitly threatens each criticism and each critical inquiry and scrutiny of its matters and persons (Muhammad), there can be no permanent political and societal coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims. A look at the history of Islam as well as at the current political situation demonstrates this fact. Islam accepts only one single form of such a coexistence: the absolute predominance of Islam over all other religions — the subjugation of all other religions to its authority to the end that the only choice is to convert to Islam — or be killed.
The belief in a peaceful coexistence as accepted by most Western multicultural adherents, and that governs most intellectuals and politicians, is born out of factual ignorance of the total character of Islam, and in the end it will turn out to be a fatal illusion. As long as Europe stays on this course of ideological and political paralysis, at the end of this “peaceful coexistence” the only winner, as is already established, will be the “religion of peace.” The Muslims themselves know best that Islam means “war” — and by no means “peace”.
“Every one of mine who preaches and declares that Islam does not have the slogan ‘war, war, all the way to victory,’ and that this slogan isn’t in the Quran are right. The Quran demands much more, it demands ‘war, war, all the way to total annihilation of their corruption.’” Ruhollah Khomeini68
The one desiring to stop Eurabia from happening can no longer rely on politics or justice. The one who wishes to stop Eurabia must himself become active (in the following):
|1.||Cast no more votes for pro-Islamic politicians. Cancel subscriptions to pro-Islamic newspapers and periodicals.|
|2.||Readers need to send letters en masse answering articles and commentaries that categorize critics of Islam as being rightwing extremist and/or articles and commentaries that deny that the Islamization of Europe is really happening.|
|3.||Send E-mail chain letters to radio and TV editors who put on Islamophilic (Islam-friendly or Islam-loving) shows.|
|4.||Mass advertisements are in order for judges and attorneys that bend German/European law who aren’t actively involved in immigration criminal law.|
|5.||Cast no more votes for mayors and parties that have actively engaged themselves in the support of building mosques, and widely publish the names of those who do so.|
|6.||Send protest letters en masse to town halls, mayoral offices, party offices.|
|7.||Organize sit-ins and both small and large demonstrations where possible.|
|8.||Inform friends and acquaintances regarding Islam — for example, the forwarding of articles exposing the true nature of the issue and other information by E-mail|
|9.||Share knowledge about Islam with friends, partners and acquaintances|
|10.||When voting (whether local, state, federal, or European, vote only for those parties that recognize the danger of Islam and stand against it.|
|11.||Encourage those politicians, journalists, intellectuals, artists and other citizens that are bold enough to exercise criticism about Islam and to accept the stigma of “radical right” that the left and Islamic associations will attach to them.|
Everything is now laid out on the table. But one truth now stands firm: “Whoever does not fight has already lost the battle.”
— Michael Mannheimer