"Wouldn't it be Better to Support the Peaceful Muslims (than to Criticize the Violent Ones)?"

EVEN IF the number of Muslims who believe in the basic political objective of Islam and are willing to vote in that direction (and take other actions) are as small a minority as people hope they are — this small minority is, by definition, more politically active and more committed than the "peaceful majority of Muslims." If the majority is largely silent and politically-inactive, then it doesn't really matter what they think. They are having no influence on the public sphere. In other words, the idea of stopping the Islamization of the West by strengthening, encouraging, and supporting politically-apathetic Muslims is a fool's errand. This approach will do nothing. It will not stop the politically-active Muslims, and it will have very little impact on the apathetic Muslims, since they don't really care much about politics or religion anyway, and they just want to live a normal life in peace. As a matter of fact, supporting politically-apathetic Muslims may even strengthen the recruiting efforts of the jihadists because they will correctly see it as "attacking Islam," since Islam strictly forbids apathy and commands active political participation from every Muslim. It seems very encouraging when people say, "The vast majority of Muslims are not fanatics about their religion's political goals." But I think the author of Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant made a persuasive point when he wrote that totalitarian ideologies do not need a majority to take over, and they never have. A small number of committed fanatics can easily dominate a larger number of people who just want to go about their lives in peace. So let's try to answer this question: Which approach would work better? Option number one: Educating non-Muslims about Islam's prime directive so enough of us have enough knowledge to vote for policies that will stop the Islamization of the West? Or, option number two: Focus on supporting the peaceful Muslims. How would we even "support the peaceful Muslims," anyway? Give them more of a voice in newspapers, radio, and on television? That may actually make our situation worse, because almost no peaceful Muslims are publicly honest (or they are ignorant) about Islam's doctrine. So if they spoke their minds more freely in the media, even more people would think Islam really is peaceful and loving, and they'd be even more likely to be fooled by the politically active orthodox Muslims, and thus more likely to continue to yield to Islam's relentless encroachment, giving away concessions to these "peace-loving" people. No, supporting the peaceful Muslims will not solve the problem. The answer is to educate non-Muslims about Islam, so they know what's going on, so they stop being duped and deluded, and so they will help stop orthodox Islam's destruction of the free world.

Read more...

Educate the Public With Leaflets

We received the following email and thought the idea could be effectively used by many of you. In the sidebar of Citizen Warrior, we have several PDF files you can print out as leaflets, and we'll add the one below to the sidebar. We think this innovative and enterprising citizen warrior came up with a great idea, and the content of his leaflet is excellent as well (links to the leaflet are at the end of this article). Here's his email:

Thanks for the great work you’re doing. Please have a look at the attached leaflet. I print copies of this leaflet regularly and leave them on the train when I commute to work. I have tried to give people an idea of Islam’s essential character and how this is the inevitable product of Muhammad’s character. I’ve tried to illustrate his character with examples and also show how Islamic teachings and practices are based on them.

The actual details of the leaflet are not really my main concern in this message. I’m perfectly happy for someone to produce a better leaflet. The PDFs that you have on your site are very good. I do think though that they are pitched a bit high for many of the people that I come across and they would be more expensive to print in the numbers that I use. My leaflet has the advantage of being two-sided. I print 10 copies, flip the paper over and put it back in the printer and print 10 times again. I then cut the sheets in half and I have 20 copies of a 2 sided leaflet. This all helps to keep down the cost. Being half-size sheets, they are easier to put down on seats inconspicuously and carry around in my rucksack.

You give some excellent advice about talking to people on these matters. However, there many times when we simply don’t get the opportunity to talk to people but we still need to do something. I think there are probably many people who would feel able to distribute some leaflets in the way that I do.

There are plenty of other places where they could be left (eg. Waiting rooms, airports, stations, buses). They are a good way of getting the information into the public domain and presenting it to people who would not go looking for the information on the Internet. The leaflets can prompt people to look up the sites on the Internet and learn more.

The Internet is fantastic for disseminating information when people request it but if people don’t think to request it you can’t be heard in cyberspace. So leafleting and the Internet can work in partnership.

By putting the leaflets on a site like yours and enabling people to download, print and distribute a ready-made leaflet we’re removing an obstacle to progress. By putting the source of the leaflet on the leaflet itself we can complete the circle and enable new people to download, print and distribute. We thus establish a virtuous circle that is self-reinforcing.

It is interesting to think of a few numbers here. If I distribute 50 leaflets and 2 people respond by printing another 50 each, 150 leaflets have been distributed. If 4 people respond to their 100 leaflets and distribute 50 copies each, that’s 200 more. If each time the cycle is repeated 2 out of each 50 respond by distributing 50 each, we soon get some very large numbers. We are increasing the number of leaflets by powers of 2. Thus by the time the cycle has been repeated 20 times, that’s 2 the power of 20 which is 1048576. After 25 cycles, it’s 33,554,432. The assumptions about response rates may be optimistic but you can see the potential.

Read the content of the leaflet here:
Some Things You Probably Do Not Know About Islam

Here is a printable PDF versions of the leaflet:
PDF of Some Things You Probably Do Not Know About Islam

__________________________________

Update: The author of the above leaflet has created another one, and it's just as good, entitled "Six Suicidal Assumptions About Islam" (read the content of the flyer here). Download his new one as a PDF document here: Suicidal Assumptions About Islam.

Update 2: He has created a third leaflet: You Must Accept My Religion. I think it's his best one yet. It never even mentions Islam or Mohammad!

Update 3: We've now got a collection of pamphlets and leaflets. Click here to check them out.

Read more...

Some Things You Probably Do Not Know About Islam

The following is the content of the leaflet referred to in this article. You can download the PDF file for the leaflet here: Letter size or A4. This is what the leaflet says:

1. When Muhammad was in his fifties he married a girl (Aisha) who was just six years old. The marriage was consummated when she was nine. This is one of the reasons why child brides are still common in the Muslim world. On coming to power in Iran in 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini reduced the age at which a girl could be married to 9 years, thus following the example of Muhammad.

2. Muhammad participated in the massacre of 800 Jewish men who had surrendered themselves following a famous battle. Trenches were dug and they were all beheaded and their bodies thrown into the trenches. The women and children were distributed among the victorious Muslims as slaves.

3. When a woman came to Muhammad confessing that she had conceived a child out of wedlock, he said that she should wean the child and then be stoned to death. This sentence was duly carried out. In 1994, a Sharia court in Nigeria passed the same judgement against Amina Lawal thus following Muhammad’s example exactly. Because Muhammad’s behaviour is seen by Muslims as sacrosanct these kinds of laws will be almost impossible to change.

4. Muhammad supported the use of slavery. He gave away slaves as gifts. He owned all kinds of slaves including males, females and Black slaves. He passed around slaves for the purpose of sexual pleasure for his companions — men who were his chief lieutenants. He stood by and prayed while others beat slaves. He shared the pleasure of forced sex with female slaves after conquest. He captured slaves and sold them to raise money for warfare.

5. Muhammad told his followers to raid caravans in order to boost the economy of his fledgling state in Medina. Bandits and pirates need look no further for justification.

6. Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a prophet, kill him”; this is one of the reasons why Muslims are so intolerant of anyone mocking Muhammad…and why anyone doing so is liable to get killed. It is also the reason why Islamic law requires the execution of anyone insulting Muhammad or Islam. A Christian woman in Pakistan is currently facing execution for “insulting Muhammad”.

7. Muhammad said, “Whoever leaves Islam, kill him”; this why it is so difficult for Muslims to leave Islam. Abdul Rahman was flown to safety in Italy from Afghanistan in 2004 because he was threatened with execution for converting to Christianity. Many others are less lucky. Islamic law requires that those leaving Islam be executed. Islamic countries are now campaigning to get criticism of Islam outlawed worldwide. They are pursuing this via the United Nations (and making good progress!).

8. Under Islamic law, the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. That means that under Islamic law a woman is half as believable as a man.

9. At the end of his life, Muhammad boasted that he had been “made victorious through terror”. Is it any wonder that many Muslims are engaged in terrorism?

10. He also declared that he had been ordered to make war on non-believers until the whole world was dominated by Islam.

11. It is stated 91 times in the Koran that Muslims must follow the example of Muhammad in every detail. Just ponder the implications of that.

These are a small sample of facts about Islam. It should be enough to show you that the founder of Islam was a brutal warlord and that his words and deeds have given Islam its brutal and intolerant character. It is difficult to see what good can come from the teachings of a man like Muhammad. Take a look at the world and you will see that many of the most oppressive, brutal and backward societies are strongholds of Islam. They have become like this by following the teachings of Muhammad.

Islam now has a foothold in your country and we are seeing increasing pressure to make our society more Islamic. Do you want to live in such a society?

If the answer is “no”, it is important that you find out more about these issues. You can do so at:

www.politicalislam.com
www.jihadwatch.org
www.thereligionofpeace.com

(You can download, print and distribute this leaflet at www.citizenwarrior.com)

“Speak the truth, even if bitter.” - Muhammad

See this translated into Spanish here.

Read more...

What's Missing From Their World View?

Many non-Muslims instinctively defend Islam because they see Muslims as weak. They see Islam as the underdog, and out of their kindness, they don't want to anybody to pick on a weak underdog. But is Islam weak?

What do these people not know about Islam that leads them to think Islam is the 98-pound weakling and the West is the big, mean bully?

What do they need to know to see the situation clearly? For example, they need to know that Islam is an ideology that consumes and subverts other cultures until eventually nothing is left of the previous culture. And they need to know that the process is underway in all Western democracies today. Islam is by nature and design a dominating, usurping, continually spreading ideology that now has the largest voting block in the UN.

If these facts, and many more, were understood, more people would see Islam as worthy of criticism. A major barrier to the criticism (the automatic defense of 98-pound weaklings) would have been removed.

So what's your answer? What do people not understand about Islam that makes them see Muslims as disadvantaged, vanquished, helpless victims bullied by omnipotent, intimidating, domineering non-Muslims?

Please post your answers here. Or email them to us and we'll post them for you (anonymously, unless you say otherwise). We'll be posting the strongest answers in a future article, so give it your best shot!

Read more...

Geert Wilders' March 25th Speech in Rome

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture. Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization — the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known. As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem. It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture. I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal, it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst. It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.” My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots. Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land. The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values because your norms and values are just as good — perhaps even better — than ours. It is indeed appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning. Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago. In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival. Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border. At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians crossed the river, flooded the Empire, and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked. The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event, and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book, The River War, Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote — I quote — “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it. This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant. Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.

• The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said — I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. • Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said — I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.” • Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that — I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.” • Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said — I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.

• In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said — I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” • Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.”

Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci. However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture. Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were, as Oriana Fallaci wrote — I quote — a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again. Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of Islamization. Europe is Islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large Islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqas, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating Islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new Shariah bank, for every new Islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties. Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned. In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to — I quote — “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain. Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.” Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or Islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures — it is plain common sense. Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands. Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate. My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity, drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said. Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth. Politicians such as Merkel, Sarkozy, and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood — namely, that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years. Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible. This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and others. The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality — the reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology. Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom. Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom. I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off. Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a caliphate in Libya. Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of — I quote — “in particular [the] States of the region.” Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities. And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at places like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us. Before I continue, I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Islam strives for world domination. The Koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose Shariah law. Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs — namely, that all cultures are equal and that they are all good. The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam. It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam. While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations. “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.” For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so. The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind. Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society. While today — at last — our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization. There are a few things which we can do in this regard. One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be traveling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe. Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says — I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.” A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it. National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture. I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and — what an ironic coincidence — on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.” Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who, by undermining national sovereignty, destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future. The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future. On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare. The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved. Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty. In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must — I quote — “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” — end of quote. In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it with the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that — I quote — “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” — end of quote. This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies. The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them with new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making. We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against: those who want to deracinate us, against those who want to cut us from our roots so that our culture withers away and dies. My friends, twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally — better late than never — come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today to preserve tomorrow.” That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake. Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity. Third, we will have to stop Islamization because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.

Let me end with a final — and a positive — remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall. The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe. I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We — Europe’s patriots — will not allow it. Thank you very much. [Editor's note: I'm posting this speech simultaneously on Inquiry Into Islam in case you would like to share the speech with friends of yours who as yet do not understand Islam's prime directive. Here is the Inquiry Into Islam version: Geert Wilders Speaks to Rome.]

Read more...