Saturday, November 27, 2010

The Time That is Given Us

The International Free Press Society sponsored a conference today in Copenhagen. Below is the speech that was given during the event by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (photo © Snaphanen).

ESW Copenhagen Nov. 2010

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I stand here before you in the city of Copenhagen in the year 2010. This is widely considered to be an enlightened country in the heart of an enlightened continent.

Our basic freedoms have long been guaranteed — first by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as passed by the United Nations in 1948, and then buttressed by the Council of Europe in 1950 through the European Convention of Human Rights, which was later affirmed by the European Union. Our individual countries have additionally codified the same basic rights in their own constitutions.

These rights include the freedom of individual conscience, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to practice our religion freely, or to have no religion at all. And, perhaps most importantly of all, they include the right to voice our opinions freely and to publish them without hindrance.

Yet freedom of speech is under attack today here in Denmark, as it is in my own country Austria, and indeed all across Europe. Today, in 21st century Western Europe, our right to free speech is being shut down quietly and systematically with an effectiveness that the commissars in the old Soviet Union could only dream of.

A milestone in this ominous totalitarian trend will be reached tomorrow, 28 November 2010, when the member states of the European Union are required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, or, more fully, the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” According to the final article of the Framework Decision, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.”

Why does this matter to the cause of free speech in Europe?

If you read the full text of the Framework Decision (which may be found in the legislative section of the EU’s website), you will learn that “Each Member State shall take the measures necessary… to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable.” Such “intentional conduct” includes “conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”

Based on what has recently happened to Geert Wilders and me — and earlier to Gregorius Nekschot, Jussi Halla-aho, and numerous others — we can all guess who will be punished under this provision of the Framework Decision: those who criticize Islam.

Even worse, a complaint made by a member state does not have to be “dependent on a report or an accusation made by a victim of the conduct”, nor does the alleged offender have to be “physically present in its territory”.

In other words, if the dhimmi Austrian government objects to a cartoon published by Kurt Westergaard here in Denmark, Mr. Westergaard may be extradited by the Austrian Ministry of Justice to answer to hate speech charges in Austria. The European Arrest Warrant guarantees that the Danish government cannot legally interfere with such an extradition, and the 800-strong “European Gendarmerie Force” would be available to fetch Mr. Westergaard out of his bed and bring him to Vienna — with impunity.

As of tomorrow, the above scenario becomes a real possibility. It is not a paranoid fantasy. These legal provisions are detailed in the EU’s public documents, and they will enjoy the full force of law in all EU member states as of midnight tonight.

The death throes of free speech in Europe begin tomorrow morning.

As most of you already know, nearly a year ago I was made aware that “hate speech” charges might be filed against me — I had “denigrated religious teachings” by giving one of my public lectures on Islam.

The possibility of my prosecution was not communicated to me directly, but through articles in the press.

It was not until last month that a court date was set for my case. Once again, I had to discover this fact in the press — in NEWS, the same left-wing newspaper that brought the original complaint against me. I was not officially notified of my hearing date until several days later.

The evidence used against me this past week was a transcript of a tape of my lecture, provided to the court by the same socialist newspaper. It included words that were not spoken by me, and words that were not spoken in public, which therefore were not a violation of the law.

But my case is not really about the law. It is a political trial, and like the trials of Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho, it is intended to silence someone who speaks out against the barbaric nature of sharia law.

Above all else, it is intended to discourage anyone who might consider following in my footsteps. The oligarchs who rule Europe are determined to prevent any frank discussion among their citizens of Islam and its legal doctrines.

These are the methods of a totalitarian state.

They are more successful than those of the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists because they are accomplished quietly and peacefully, with no need for concentration camps or gulags or mass graves or the shot in the back of the neck in the middle of the night.

They are surgical strikes executed via our legal systems, and they are quite effective. Between the summary punishment carried out against Theo Van Gogh and the Framework Decision applied though our courts, there is no room left for us to maneuver.

We are systematically being silenced.

I admire the provisions of the First Amendment that all Americans enjoy as their birthright. Its free speech provisions will make the imposition of sharia that much more difficult in the United States.

But here in Europe we are not so well-protected. Our constitutions and the rules imposed upon us by the EU allow certain exceptions to the right to speak freely, and those little rips in the fabric of our rights are enough to tear the entire structure to pieces.

We desperately need our own version of the First Amendment. We need leaders who are wise and courageous enough to compose and implement legal instruments that affirm the same fundamental rights that are guaranteed to all citizens by the United States Constitution.

We do not yet have any leaders of this caliber. But they are beginning to appear on the scene, and one day they will be the real leaders of our individual European nations, replacing the internationalist totalitarian usurpers who oppress us today.

Our nations will be governed by their own people, by those who truly represent them. Their leaders will be true patriots, people like Jimmie Åkesson and Kent Ekeroth in Sweden, or Oskar Freysinger in Switzerland, or Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma in the Netherlands, or Filip Dewinter and Frank Vanhecke in Flanders.

We are going to reclaim our continent and our nations. We will take our countries back from those thieves who sneaked them away from us while were lulled into somnolence by our wealth and our pleasant diversions.

This will not be an easy task. Our path will be strewn with obstacles and great dangers. But we must travel it nonetheless, because if we do not, European civilization — the heart of Western Civilization — will be destroyed.

What were formerly our nations will become regions with indistinct boundaries, populated mainly by people of foreign cultures and administered by corrupt totalitarian bureaucrats. The natives — the original inhabitants, our children, the descendants of those who created the greatest civilization the world has ever known — will be reduced to curators and costumed actors in a quaint theme park.

Call it “Euro World”. Authentic cuisine, ethnic dancers, and fireworks at ten o’clock.

This is what we will face if we give up our cherished freedoms. If lose our freedom of speech, then we are lost forever.

I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.

I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat.

This is our time. This cup will not pass from us.

I am reminded of a passage in J.R.R. Tolkien’s famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.

It is an exchange between Frodo the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard, and it concerns the perilous quest on which Frodo and his friends have been sent.

Frodo says: “I wish it need not have happened in my time.”

Gandalf responds: “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

It is time for us to decide what to do with the time that is given us.

If I were to speak these same words tomorrow morning, I might be subject to arrest. I could be charged under the provisions of the Framework Decision, and extradited to the country that charged me using a European Arrest Warrant, escorted by the European Gendarmerie.

This is not an imaginary scenario; it is a very real possibility.

It is true that only a few people are likely to undergo such an ordeal. But it only takes a few people.

How many people have to endure what Mr. Wilders and I are enduring before everyone else gets the message?

How many examples have to be set before the rest of the European population understands the new rules, and is cowed into submission?

And we must remember to whom they will be submitting in the end. They will be submitting to our successors in Europe. They will be submitting to our replacements.

We must remember that the word for submission in Arabic is Islam.

When there are enough Muslims living in Europe — and it doesn’t have to be a majority of the population, just somewhere around fifteen or twenty percent — we will be living under Islamic law, and not the laws that presently govern us.

We will no longer enjoy what constitutional rights remain to us now. Our rights will be completely prescribed and delimited by sharia. Women will become the virtual chattel of men. Christians and Jews will be driven out or forced to convert to Islam. Atheists and homosexuals will be killed.

The European Union would consider these words to be “hate speech”. Under the Framework Decision, they would be classified as “racism and xenophobia”, and I could be prosecuted for saying them.

But they are in fact the simple truth.

Anyone can verify them by studying history. Anyone who chooses can read the Koran and the hadith and the Sunna of the Prophet.

Widely available official treatises on Islamic law confirm that my description is not “hate speech”, but a plain and accurate reading of the tenets of Islamic law.

It has become obvious that to tell the truth about Islam is now considered “incitement to religious hatred”.

It is now clear that non-Muslims who reveal the tenets of sharia law to the public are “denigrating religious teachings”.

If we meekly accept these rules, then we are acquiescing in the imposition of sharia law in our own nations. And I, for one, will not sit silently while this happens.

I don’t want my daughter to live under sharia.

Our time is short. If you and I do not envision an Islamic future for ourselves, then we must speak out now.

If we wish to preserve the right to speak and publish freely, then we must exercise it now.

I wish this need not have happened in my time. But it has.

We must make full use of the time that remains to us.

Thank you.


Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

2009 Dec 5 Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
    11 Heckling the Counterjihad
    14 Whose Law?
    17 Defaming the Muslims of Pinkafeld
2010 Mar 11 A Mother and an Activist
    20 An Austrian “Hate School”
    22 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at the Freedom Defense Initiative
    29 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and the Wiener Akademikerbund
  Sep 9 “Islam is a Political Ideology Disguised as a Religion”
    16 “Justice Must Not Be Made the Handmaiden of Sharia”
    17 The Truth Does Not Matter
  Oct 11 Interview With Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    16 Is the Truth Illegal in Austria?
    20 A Court Date for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    21 BPE Press Release on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    22 Elisabeth’s Voice: An Appeal
    23 Elisabeth’s Voice: A Follow-Up
    24 Raising Our Voices
    25 Elisabeth’s Voice is Growing
    27 Elisabeth’s Voice: More Information
    27 A Bit More Media Attention?
    28 We Are Elisabeth’s Voice
    30 Elisabeth’s Voice in Amsterdam
    31 Mark Steyn Joins Elisabeth’s Voice
  Nov 2 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Target of Western Shariah
    6 Anatomy of a Discussion with a Leftist Journalist
    8 ESW in the WSJ
    10 “The Left is Very Much the New Far Right”
    11 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Versus the State of Denial
    17 Elisabeth’s Voice: An Update
    15 The New English Review Interviews Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    20 Live-Blogging the Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    20 The ESW Defense File
    23 The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 1

34 comments:

Zenster said...

An outstanding speech by my favorite Austrian and a very becoming photo of Elisabeth to boot.

Make no mistake, the "Framework Decision" is a final nail in the coffin for whatever free speech there might have been previous to enacting this totalitarian bit of rubbish.

The preferential treatment accorded Muslims throughout Europe is, quite simply, criminal and unequal application of the law. Europe needs a death sentence in order to properly deal with this abortion of justice.

rickl said...

Good thing the EU (or at least the euro) is teetering on the brink of collapse. It can't come a moment too soon.

rebelliousvanilla said...

And why should we care about the values in the UN declaration? I reject that nonsensical document. And really, I want an answer to this quesiton. Why should any European care about what the future non-European majority of Europe cares about in terms of cultural beliefs? Why would it matter to me if they will believe in idiotic concepts like universalism from the Enlightenment or not?

You New said...

Yeah, RV, the underlying problem has to be faced. No one should care about the UN declaration but who is not indoctrinated? It may be that soon your criticism of the UN will be hate speech too.

But please,let's strongly support Elisabeth and Geert because, though they may not know the cause of the disease, they certainly have the courage to point finger at the tumor.

The underlying problem is that the scientific approach has been abandoned and we are now in a dark, anti-scientific Age of Nonsense. The bloom, that Fjordman so often and eloquently describes, is prematurely off the flower.

Science itself has turned away from it's own fundamentals, resources are instead used to support addictive social fantasies, bureaucratism and technologism. Examples: global warming, the appearance of monolithic complex uncontrollable governments, space programs with no space exploration..

The scientific method is out of fashion unless it is used to support The Big and Happy Social Fantasy.

Early Light said...

The First Amendment means only that which the people allow the judicial to tell us it means. That is, without an informed citizenry, capable of defending its rights by armed force against encroachment by government, the First Amendment, like the others, means nothing.

rickl said...

In other words, free speech is wholly dependent on the Second Amendment, not the First.

Dymphna said...

Then on what depends the Fourth Amendment, which is daily being abrograted by the thuggish TSA?

The Constitution being interpreted as a "living document" used to give conservatives intellectual indigestion. Thus the progressives said, "let's get rid of the whole mess"...and so they did.

You can only fight for your individual applications of the Constitution if you're wealthy and lawyered-up. There are not enough pro-bono legal foundations to stick enough fingers in the cracking wallsl that hold back the deluge.

Benjamin Franklin said we'd have a republic if we could hold onto it. Turned out it proved too slippery to grasp properly, especially after the grease job applied by the socialists whose aim is destruction of that document.

Richard said...

You have that right ricki, the Second Amendment was written so we the people could protect our rights in the other Amendments. That is why the big government types want to destroy the Second Amendment and disarm the law abiding people. I believe it is Federalist Paper number 69 that talks about the Second Amendment, I know it is in that region. It was written by George Mason the man who wrote the Second Amendment.

Two of my favorite SF authors said that (H. Beam Piper) A disarmed citizenry are slaves waiting for the chains to be slapped on. (Not a direct quote, it was from Space Viking) Robert Heinlein said that an armed man is a free man (I don't remember which book) and also said that you can't enslave a freeman, the worst you can do is kill him. (I think that was in the Notebooks of Lazarus Long)

LAW Wells said...

I recalled the words of Theoden at the Battle of Pellenor Fields at Mass this morning, and it seems appropriate to bring them up again.

Ride now! Ride now! Ride! Ride to ruin, and the world's ending!

Let them come. By their words and acts they shall be known, and their true treason shall reveal itself.

History shall be a harsh mistress, for we are the ones who shall write it.

Dag Reidar Bye said...

"If I were to speak these same words tomorrow morning, I might be subject to arrest. I could be charged under the provisions of the Framework Decision, and extradited to the country that charged me using a European Arrest Warrant, escorted by the European Gendarmerie.

This is not an imaginary scenario; it is a very real possibility."

What you can do is to make a 90 min. movie, with a five min. introduction which describes the seriousness of all those awful anti-Islam hate speeches which recently has taken place, also in previous years, in all parts of the western societies. The viewer are told that you will now be able to see what those hate speeches really is, how destructive it is, how strong it is, how hurtful it is, in how many forms it can take place, and last but not least, how important it is to completely remove it from all parts of society. The viewer is told that what you know will hear, and what you know will see, is now the past. It is now on the scrapyard of history, never again to raise it's ugly head, and if you try to involve yourself in this kind of speaking, THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE SEVERE !!!

Then, in about 85 min, you will get all kinds of hate speeches, and severe criticizing of Islam, where the most serious aspects of Islam and islamisation is exposed for all to see. All this can happen along with a narrator who sometimes come in with incredibly silly comments, where he tries to undermine what's just being spoken, comments which is abnormally political correct and clearly shows no contact with reality.


The point is: You can do a lot of criticising through ambiguity, and no juridical system, or thinking, can cope with it. They have to focus on what is clearly evident, what can be proved, what is measurable, in other word, the letter, not the spiritual content of the letter.

In the case above, you can not be charged for anything, because what you have actually made IS a propaganda against hate speech, but perhaps not a very good one.

It must also be clear that the different hate speeches, all the criticising, is only reproductions based on earlier publications, now forbidden to publish, and all the spoken material is expressed through actors, where all of them are in disguise.

With those EU laws we receive today, it really becomes fun to criticise Islam. The EU elite also reveal what kind of persons they really are, and what kind of fake external authority they really has. Very soon, when they try to look themselves in the mirror, most of them will not see them selves. They will only see a clown, with no belief in anything at all, and totally empty inside, and they will have to play that role for the rest of their life.

rebelliousvanilla said...

You New, I don't say we should let Wilders or Elisabeth fail. They are the ones that will destroy the ideas that they hold dear for us.

I will put it in another way. Why should an European man fight for his side? The way I see it, he'd fight to defend a feministic society, which is against his interest. These are the reasons why we are losing. And because we are moved by ideas, instead of our own people.

And as long as I don't get hit with a EU arrest warrant, the government of my country is too incompetent to do anything. Soon it might be safer for me to discuss these things in public in my country than online where foreign governments can have acess to what I say. This is quite ironic.

John Mark said...

Elisabeth said that we must speak up against Islam in spite of this EU directive.

Then I began to think: How would sharia be difficult for me? I am not homosexual; I rarely drink alcohol in public; I do not/have not committed adultery; I don't speak out in public; I am not religious; and I practise my Christian faith in private at home.

If I was to speak up about Islam, who would I be speaking for? Those with whom I rarely associate, I presume. Those who are atheistic, secular, religious, fornicatory, homosexual, adulterers, thieves for examples would be the people with something to fear from sharia.

So, I said to myself, Let them speak up for themselves and defend for themselves those liberties they wish to preserve.

The future does look like sharia unless World War III brings about a complete religio-political change in the world before that 15% Muslim electorate is reached.

7of3 said...

To John Mark

I take it, you're not a woman either. So all is well?

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: And why should we care about the values in the UN declaration? I reject that nonsensical document.

Ah, yes. The old argument that, “In order to save the system, we must first crash the system.” I suggest you first try it on a much smaller scale with, let’s say, your computer. See how well it reboots after a solid system crash.

What part of “possession is nine tenths of the law”, do you not understand? Unlike the Religion of Peace™ which has not been “hijacked by a small minority of extremists”, the United Nations has been commandeered by a group with a limitless hatred for Western culture and its unparalleled successes.

Does their hatred of the West and subsequent subversion of that global forum nullify any import the UNDHR (United Nations Declaration of Human Rights) might have? Why not ask Abdul Rahman whether or not Afghanistan’s ostensible inking of the UNDHR had any meaning for him.

Just because Islamic countries like Afghanistan make a mockery of human rights does not justify abandoning all efforts to establish a baseline of what human rights actually are. At the risk of sounding clichéd, if you trash the entire concept of human rights, “the terrorists have won”.

We’ve had this exact same discussion about crimes against humanity and, to date, you’ve yet to put anything on the table that is remotely functional by comparison to the, albeit, misappropriated tools currently being used by the OIC and others to bludgeon all free people.

Go ahead and crash the system, rebelliousvanilla, then see what you get. You, as a relatively attractive young woman, would probably end up in some warlord’s harem. Whether it is a Muslim or Hell’s Angel warlord would be about the only thing in question.

I continue to be amazed at how many people avidly anticipate the collapse of Western civilization as the end-all and be-all for eliminating that perversion known as Socialism, and the EU in particular. The term, “fight from within” still has every ounce of meaning it did back when Muslims first started taking that exact same maxim to heart and began their own campaign of eroding human rights throughout the entire world.

Crashing Western civilization will leave it vulnerable to Islam and Communist China, neither of whom have the least compunction about violating every single human right known to mankind. Do not count on some Charlemagne or Napoleon to rise from West’s ashes and somehow galvanize its haggard population. The damage done may well have been too much and the uphill climb thereafter too steep.

Quite simply, we have an enemy that needs killing. In order to achieve that, we need to elect leadership that understands the importance of that task, realizes the priorities involved and has the courage to set about doing it. The same banana republics and tinpot dictatorships that have hijacked the United Nations can all be made to undergo regime change exactly as the West traditionally did in the past.

Getting the fingers of multinational corporations out of that process and sidelining the United Nations as the West sets about cleaning house in these numerous backwaters and cesspits would be a good start. The alternative is another World War along with the usual genocides and ethnic cleansings that will make recent history look like a walk in the park.

EscapeVelocity said...

Both the Left(ists) and Islam(Muslims) want to make Dhimmis of Christians.

rebelliousvanilla said...

John Mark makes my point. I won't fight for feminism, universal citizenship, propositional nationality and all this. If I want those things, I can emigrate and live a lot better somewhere else outside of Europe.

7of3, I'm a woman. And I won't take a stand for what Europe meant in the 20th century. And besides, it's not like European women are that nice to European men, so why should they care? It's ridiculous to expect a Swedish man to care about a Swedish woman, considering the things that Swedish women support. They'd actually have it much better under Sharia law with their women.

Zenster, each time my PC has problems, I perform a hard drive format and reinstall everything. It runs far better than if I simply fix it. So your analogy is pretty much an epic failure.

What you don't understand is that I completely reject universal values, for example. Those are in the original UN documents, including the declaration of human rights. I will not move a finger to defend universalism. Universalism is part of the problem to begin with. I hardly care about what will happen to Europe - I care what will happen to Europeans. If we are to be irrelevant politically because we are a minority or whatnot is irrelevant to me. And I don't see how Germany will implement a German descent only citizenship system without a collapse. It is actually against the very things you support - universal egalitarianism. But again, as an American, I'm not surprised that you don't understand me. Also, I'd like to point out that America is a far bigger problem to Europe than China is. If anything, China will invade Africa, not Europe, in order to take resources. Why would they invade Sweden for? To take blonde women? lol.

I don't see how working inside a system that values universalism, in order to support universalism, can help getting to where I want - the rejection of universalism. So if I was to work within the system, I'd do the same thing that Muslims want to do, but for European people. I won't fight for ideas like equality or universalism.

Oh, and don't worry about me, there are far easier women to get for harems than ones like me who have a boyfriend in the military. I also don't live in Malmo, which helps me quite a bit.

And to sum it up, my rejection of the Nuremberg trials, which is where the other conversation started, and crimes against humanity comes from the fact that I actually value European history and culture. You know, the Roman law tradition. I reject the idea of crimes imposed by the victors on the defeated from which the victors are exempt, especially if those crimes are imposed in an ex post facto fashion.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: I won't fight for feminism, universal citizenship, propositional nationality and all this.

I didn't ask you to.

And I won't take a stand for what Europe meant in the 20th century.

Yet, there you are, living in what continues to be much of 20th century Europe but whingeing nonetheless. Evidently, you have no problem accepting all of the benefits while simultaneously sneering at admittedly conspicuous flaws that have evolved on the Continent. How curious.

… each time my PC has problems, I perform a hard drive format and reinstall everything. It runs far better than if I simply fix it. So your analogy is pretty much an epic failure.

So what? Reformatting is not an appropriate analogy to what you advocate. The term is "crash" and you have yet to demonstrate how total collapse of the entire European governmental system is going to produce more useful results than civil disobedience and electoral pressure on those who are acting against the best interests of indigenous Europeans.

What are you going to "fix" about Europe with your crash? Or, perhaps you are using that term in its veterinary meaning, which makes a lot more sense out of what you put forth.

What you don't understand is that I completely reject universal values, for example.

And what you don't understand is that so do I. Basic human rights need not embrace transnational universalism and all of the moral rot it implies.

Universalism is part of the problem to begin with.

Thank you for that BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious).

I hardly care about what will happen to Europe - I care what will happen to Europeans.

Okay, so now it's time for the hairsplitting. I happen to care about BOTH because I believe that indigenous Europeans are entitled to the cultural backdrop that generations of them shed blood, sweat and tears to build and defend.

If we are to be irrelevant politically because we are a minority or whatnot is irrelevant to me.

YJCMTSU. Islam wants you to become "irrelevant" and abetting a systemic crash in Europe will most certainly speed your way towards that irrelevance.

And I don't see how Germany will implement a German descent only citizenship system without a collapse.

Nice straw man argument. What a terrible thing if it just fluttered to the ground without anyone caring.

It is actually against the very things you support - universal egalitarianism.

Please cite, with appropriate links, exactly where I have ever even mentioned "universal egalitarianism" much less given any "support" for it.

Zenster said...

But again, as an American, I'm not surprised that you don't understand me.

Nice sideswipe but ad hominem attacks don't really stand for much hereabouts. Nationality does not seem to be responsible for the difficulty some people have in understanding you.

If anything, China will invade Africa, not Europe, in order to take resources. Why would they invade Sweden for? To take blonde women? lol.

More straw men, sigh. In case you hadn't noticed, China is economically invading nearly every single industrialized country on this planet and undermining the domestic manufacturing capacity of those same nations.

I don't see how working inside a system that values universalism, in order to support universalism, can help getting to where I want - the rejection of universalism.

The “universalism” that you cite is an artificially embedded legislative substrate inserted by the Cultural Marxists that have usurped power in Europe, much as they have in America. The Swiss people recently demonstrated that they could give a fig for “universalism” and it is more than a little likely that many Europeans − given a chance by their repressive governments − might give vent to similar opinions as well.

So if I was to work within the system, I'd do the same thing that Muslims want to do, but for European people.

Which was my entire point but who’s counting?

Oh, and don't worry about me, there are far easier women to get for harems than ones like me who have a boyfriend in the military.

I promise to refrain from being overly concerned but continue to wonder at how your lone boyfriend will manage to compensate for all those emasculated European males that you whinge about so constantly.

I also don't live in Malmo, which helps me quite a bit.

Only until the rest of Europe cheerfully embraces the same Liberal-Totalitarian rubbish that the Swedish government is ramming down the throats of their populace.

And to sum it up, my rejection of the Nuremberg trials, which is where the other conversation started, and crimes against humanity comes from the fact that I actually value European history and culture.

It’s a little difficult to detect that “value” amid all the sneering.

I reject the idea of crimes imposed by the victors on the defeated from which the victors are exempt, especially if those crimes are imposed in an ex post facto fashion.

Yet one more straw man argument. The “crimes” I suggest that some European traitors be charged with are ones already on the books; like malfeasance of office and treason.

I would also suggest that you get over that bit about “imposed by the victors on the defeated” as it is a fairly standard feature of world history for many hundreds, if not, thousands of years. Additionally, I sincerely doubt that the mobs surrounding Mussolini and Ceauşescu gave a rat’s patootie for “ex post facto” definitions; something Europe’s Traitor Elite™ had best begin giving some serious thought to real soon.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Zenster, I didn't choose to be born here. I would have prefered being born in Hong Kong or Japan(so that it's not a case of economic brilliancy like Hong Kong is). I actually consider moving out of Europe after I finish my education.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not sure what benefits being European actually gives me. Retarded economic policies, a flawed cultural system that has been on this path since the 18th century and the like. I'm also not German, Swedish or whatnot. I was born in the midst of a civil war and grew up without a washing machine. So spare me the privilege idiocy, especially considering that I have close relatives who were tortured and jailed for their political beliefs. I hardly see the benefits of being born here. Did I mention that we will inherit a huge debt made by the foolish parents that we have?

And if I want you to reformat your computer, I will hope your PC will crash. It's the same thing, actually. Absent of a crash, we will do the same thing we did so far. Also, a crash is inevitable to begin with. It's not like the immigrants will act nicely and go home or not want welfare anymore and whatnot. When you act like a weakling and we did so for a century now, threats and fear doesn't really work. So any immigrant with two living braincells would riot, protest and burn cars, wanting Europeans to cave in. I'd also like to point out that we would need to have huge percentages in elections in order to be able to change constitutions and the like, with everyone else against us. In the same time, we would be demonized by the media and put on trial by the justice system. You are insane if you think you can do more than half measures like Wilders wants to do and get away with it easily. Heck, look at what happens to Wilders and what he wants to do is far from enough.

I'm unsure on how you reject universalism when you say things like the unequal application of the law being criminal or when you appeal to the 'universal' declaration of human rights. You know, they are called universal for a reason, right?

Oh, and Europeans are entitled only to what we can defend. There's no fundamental right to soil or culture. I also never said that Islam isn't a problem, but it's a problem only insofar as we are willing to make them a problem. The real problem are the values that people have and by people I mean Europeans and by these values, I include quite a large part of the Enlightenment values that Wilders and Elisabeth support.

rebelliousvanilla said...

I hardly see how the Germany thing is a straw man. Considering that I reject civic citizenship this means that Germany will have to strip the citizenship from all non-Germans. I'm waiting for your masterplan on how to do that without a collapse of the current system based on universal beliefs.

And the American statement isn't really an ad hominem. The reason why I said it is because the way you define American is universal to begin with and Americanism is based on universal values. So not supporting universalism is being un-American and this includes both the right and the left there. I hardly see anybody who thinks that citizenship there should be exclusive or wanting an exclusive definition of who is American.

I also don't see how the China statement is a straw man. I think you don't know the definition of it. You said that somehow China is a danger to Europe. I don't see how that is considering that China would get no benefit from invading Europe and they never bombed us to begin with, unlike Americans who did it on quite a bit of occassions in the last 100 years alone.

The reason why China undermines the manufacturing capacity of other nations is because the Chinese treat capital and businesses better. It's a sad thing to admit, but they're just more efficient due to their government being better. They do what the UK did in the 19th century and what the US did in the last century.

And the universalism that I cite isn't a cultural Marxist creation. It's a belief that you can find in the US Constitution too. Or Marxists wrote that one? Was Kant a Marxist too? And I don't see anything about the Swiss rejecting universalism. You honestly think that if you had a referendum in all European countries, most would adopt ethnic definitions of citizenship? You must be deluding yourself.

And my boyfriend can make up for it fairly well. The people who will be prayed upon are the bleeding hearts.

Related to the crimes against humanity, actually, you don't support their conviction for treason. This is a point I made - that they should be put on trial for treason, which is a legitimate thing, unlike the idiotic concept of crimes against humanity(ha, yet another universal idiocy). And hey, if you think that Ceausescu was a representative of what being European means, knock yourself out. I don't. It's amusing to me that by your own admission, you like the judicial system of a dictator(since you want us to act like him). I also have no problem with the victors imposing things on the vanquished. But unlike the Allies, they never pretended that they were doing justice.

hailtoyou said...

Zenster and RV are shouting past each other.

RV wrote: Why should any European care about what the future non-European majority of Europe cares about in terms of cultural beliefs?

Zenster, see here: The point (from RV) is ethnocultural-continuity for European Mankind. Otherwise, there is no "Western Civilization", no "Europe". European-Mankind is not and cannot be a set of ideas. So many people are arguing it is, often as not out of cowardice. If all Europeans were replaced tomorrow with Australian-Aboriginies inculcated with "European values", the implied-idea goes, "everything would be the same". That is just a laughable proposition.

hailtoyou said...

From the speech by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

___________________________________
What were formerly our nations will become regions with indistinct boundaries, populated mainly by people of foreign cultures and administered by corrupt totalitarian bureaucrats. The natives — the original inhabitants, our children, the descendants of those who created the greatest civilization the world has ever known — will be reduced to curators and costumed actors in a quaint theme park.

Call it “Euro World”. Authentic cuisine, ethnic dancers, and fireworks at ten o’clock.

This is what we will face if we give up our cherished freedoms. If lose our freedom of speech, then we are lost forever. [End quote]
___________________________________


She is rock-solid 90% of the way, but fails to recommend an actual plan of salvation. Instead she appeals to "freedoms".

@ "Freedom of Speech" advocates: The USA has pretty open freedom of speech, with no opinions that I know of being criminalized, as in the EU. Yet the USA is in arguably worse shape than much of Europe. Why?

Egghead said...

"If anything, China will invade Africa, not Europe, in order to take resources. Why would they invade Sweden for? To take blonde women? lol."

rebelliousvanilla: It has been SERIOUSLY speculated that China will become a militant invader of other countries eventually because the one-child rule, preference for males, voluntary abortions of female babies, and community forced abortions (enforcing the one-child rule) will cause there to be many more men than women in China. The greatest resource is indeed WOMEN - proved by the fact that female slaves ALWAYS fetch a higher price than male slaves. In addition, as Japan would testify, China has a nasty habit of putting foreign women in brothels to serve the sexual needs of the Chinese military. I doubt that your military boyfriend will be able to fight the entire Chinese army. LOL.

gsw said...

So many claiming that shari'ah is better for men than the current feminism. So many unwilling to fight for freedom and independent responsibility!

A thought experiment:

Let us image a wall around the world - on one side 21st. century western civilisation (minus the TSA) and the other side islamic shari'ah theologies.

- On the democratic side (where I shall be) colour, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and age are irrelevant. ALL are committed to individual responsibility and self expression, hard work and a secular (non-theocratic) education.

- On the other side, pure islam -segregation of the sexes, capital punishment for all religious crime and beatings and/or mutilation for all other crimes.

Just ask yourself:

ON WHICH SIDE OF THE WALL DO YOU WISH TO LIVE? AND WHY AREN'T YOU LIVING THERE?

rebelliousvanilla said...

Egghead, you are a poor scholar of history and you are clueless about geopolitics. But thanks for making me laugh. I'd like to point out that the Chinese are fairly ethnocentric and I'm not Chinese or Asian. In the same time, Taiwan, Korea and so on are really close to them. Also, if I was a Chinese leader, I'd have the excess men die in acquisitioning new territory with resources. This makes sense in quite a lot of ways, unlike your proposition. I'm always baffled by how Americans demonize Russia and China, despite them being closer to what Europeans should do.

Zenster, hailtoyou gets to the issue that I'm talking about. Even if you could preserve Western civilization with the non-European transplants, why should Europeans, who would be displaced nonetheless care?

Zenster said...

hailtoyou: If all Europeans were replaced tomorrow with Australian-Aboriginies inculcated with "European values", the implied-idea goes, "everything would be the same". That is just a laughable proposition.

How you, or anyone else manages to extract such a ridiculous concept from my insistence that there exists a baseline of human rights is beyond me and preposterous in the extreme. That sort of cultural relativism is repugnant beyond words.

RV's routine incivility and repeated abuse of forensic proceedure has convinced me regarding the futility of trying to engage her in any useful exchange. You may do as you wish.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Zenster, if there are human rights that everyone has, that's an universal proposition. I'm not sure why it is so hard about getting it.

Chechar said...

"THAT THE BEAUTY OF THE WHITE ARYAN WOMAN WILL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH"

Rebelliousvanilla,

I see that, by now, you not only have a fair grasp of Con Swede’s views, but you have developed an intelligence of your own along those lines of thought. Perhaps sooner or later you will take the final leap forward. As any reader of my “blog”—actually a sort of edited book by many authors—can see, it’s people like you—yes: cf. the sacrosanct fourteen words above!—what moves me to post in the blogosphere even if I’ll never met them personally.

@ “And to sum it up, my rejection of the Nuremberg trials, which is where the other conversation started”

Link please?

@ “I'm waiting for your [Zenster’s] masterplan on how to do that without a collapse of the current system based on universal beliefs.”

You know, there’s a masterplan. And if you’re seriously planning to move overseas I would recommend you and your boyfriend the American Northwest.

Yes: recently I read about 2,000 pages. Not in the net but on printed, old-fashioned books: a slim pamphlet by Michael O’Meara (see my very brief review here) and Harold Covington’s huge Northwest Quartet (review here).

Recently a commenter who in the past has commented here at GoV emailed me confessing that Covington’s writing is really a major job, a FAQ collection as to how to save his (and your) ethnic group from extinction.

I hope that before moving out in the future you will take a close look at Uncle Harold’s stuff. (If you or anybody else is interested but cannot afford the first book of the quartet I can send it in PDF format.)

rebelliousvanilla said...

Chechar, just because I think that the Nuremberg trials have been an unmitigated idiocy and a bunch of farcical kangoroo trials passed as justice and that the whole concept of crimes against humanity was flawed from its early beginning and just an agitation of the ancestors of present day progressives, it doesn't mean I defend Nazi Germany, Nazism or Hitler. Just like I would have prefered them winning the war, not because of some intrinsic quality that they have, but because they were so absurd that they would have failed in keeping Europe. They would have been defeated due to being overstretched and so on. Obviously, I would have much rather preferred for WW2 to have never existed, which means WW1 ending with a different outcome. Because the causes of WW2 are in how WW1 ended.

So I won't really care about the Jews that much. I see obsessing about them an unhealthy chore when we are the ones with the problem. Sure, they are multiculturalism, leftist pushers, but we enabled them to be like that. Any group that is willing to allow outsiders to express normative ideas about what the group should do will get where we are. Also, the biggest cure for the way Jews are is Zionism. It's common sensical to me.

And I don't plan to move to America. I hardly see how moving to a place who defines its identity universally and is the enforcer of progressivism around the world(combined with a horrid financial situation) would benefit me. The further away I go, the better it is for me. The last thing in the world I'd want to be is an American. You linked to your review about the importance of mythology for a nation - why should I move to America, where their patron saint is MLK, where I'd have to take an oath on the equal protection clause to become a citizen and all that? I mean, really. Their common mythology reeks with everything I dislike most about the present situation.

Related to your other link, I find German National Socialism an abysmal failure and I don't understand anybody who is moved by the symbolism of it. First of all, socialism is an economic idiocy and an ideology based on envy. I also am not fond as much of the idea that everybody on a piece of land must be white for me to have peace in my soul. The real issue is having a proper citizenship system and so on - you know, acting like Europeans did before the 20th century. It's relatively sad that failure movements like the IRA, Hezbollah or Hamas are considered an inspiration for anyone. These movements are prevented from destruction by the enlightened idiots on the left. Any ruthless ruler would get the world rid of them fairly easy.

The debate was here. Oh, and I mind being called Aryan. I'm of European descent. Aryan, properly used, includes a lot ofo ther people. And the Nazi race theory was completely wrong and a wrong thing to base your ideas on.

Chechar said...

@ “It's relatively sad that failure movements like the IRA, Hezbollah or Hamas are considered an inspiration for anyone.”

You must not have read Johnson’s book-review carefully (Zenster pointed out above how you are fond to resort to straw-man arguments). Sometimes right-wing nationalists use the paradigm of, say, Lenin and the Bolsheviks; or what the leftist activist Saul Alinski did in America more recently, to figure out how to overthrow the present anti-West, soft-totalitarian regime.

Also, in Johnson’s long review there is... no single mention of the Jews! I don’t know why did you bring about the subject. I for one agree with Swede’s view that our main problem is that what we are witnessing is the agony of Christendom, like a giant dying red star: liberalism as the later, secular stage of Christianity with all of its deranged altruism. I also told you at Mangan’s that that means I am not obsessed with the Jews. (Yes: I did mention the Jews in those Mangan’s threads because, in the last months, like me Dennis Mangan changed his mind on the Jewish Question.)

As to “Aryan”, at Mangan’s I also told you that in the 19th century, a century that incidentally Covington is in love, the term didn’t have those Nazi connotations. Remember what the Baron told you in your very blog, that you never concede a point? In Uncle Harold’s scenario, besides the national socialists of his quartet there were real Christians—I mean the traditional ones, not the traitor liberals—, New Agers and atheists: the heroes of his novels.

As to the fictional white nation per se, your concept of citizenship would still have worked in, say, America in 1950. Alas, with a hundred million of non-whites today in that country only secession can prevent Anglo-Saxons from extinction.

Anyway, have a good one in China, Japan or whichever non-white nation you will choose after your complete your education. (I’ve lived in non-white nations most of my life and that’s why I’ve become a WN.)

_____________

A suggestion to other GoVers:

Take a good look to the two blogsites I linked above. They provide a complementary, refreshingly different POV to what you usually read in counter-jihad.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Chechar, I think neither you, nor Zenster actually know what a straw man argument is. I didn't misinterpret the position in the books review - or you're trying to tell me that in the review it's not written that the NVA got inspiration from those movements?

And I brought up the subject due to WW2 symbolism and use of silly concepts from that age.

By the way, my concept of citizenship still works. Numbers are inconsequential, power isn't. And Anglo-Saxons are pretty much extinct already, unless you use the term for any white person in America. I also wouldn't move to a failed state with crappy nonwhites. To me things are simple, I will trade a better life for myself for one for the common good when people will have my view of what the common good is or things will develop towards that. Until then...

Zenster said...

RebelliousVanilla: …I think that the Nuremberg trials have been an unmitigated idiocy and a bunch of farcical kangoroo trials passed as justice and that the whole concept of crimes against humanity was flawed from its early beginning…

But − even when those historic events are conceded to be flawed − refuse to debate the actual point of modern crimes against humanity or defend your position, even when given repeated opportunities to do so with various other contributors of excellent repute here at Gates of Vienna.

Yet you feel entitled to disparage other people's comments with discourteous labels such as "idiocy", launch ad hominem attacks, pose straw man arguments, make unfounded assertions for which you neglet to provide citations − even when challenged − and other sorts of rubbish all the while pretending that just because you hold a position it must be true.

Please feel free to continue doing so but I hope you will not expect any replies to that sort of twaddle.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Zenster, I was debating you. Just because your defense of idiotic concepts like crimes against humanity or the Nuremberg trials sucks, it doesn't mean I have to debate other people. I told you that I will do so provided you do the hassle of copy pasting my arguments wherever you want me to debate other people. You didn't do that. What, you expect me to do all the work because you're awful at making a point?

And spare me the use of logic when you are clueless about it. My argument isn't that you're an idiot and hence nobody should listen to you. Saying that someon's view on policy is irrelevant because he doesn't have a job is an ad hominem. That's an ad hominem argument. And I can quote you where you said what I claimed that you said, so the straw man thing is simply stupid. But again, you just show that you're talking about stuff about which you're clueless.

Chechar said...

RV: You say to Zenster that “the straw man thing is simply stupid” but you still fail to see that lots of the issues you pick up against others are constructed upon straws. I believed that after our long dispute at Mangan’s a couple of months ago I’d finally made you see that you were indeed picking at straws and then “refuting” what I said. But let’s forget the Mangan’s straws and respond to a couple of points here.

@ By the way, my concept of citizenship still works. Numbers are inconsequential

The whole point of an American ethno-state is that, with a hundred million of non-whites already in the U.S., even with a revolution of the concept of citizenship whites would still be heading toward extinction. They’d continue to mix and mix and misceginate and misceginate until most whites turn brownish and Neanderthalesque: what happened to the Spaniards’ gene pool in Mexico, where I unfortunately live.

@ I also wouldn't move to a failed state with crappy nonwhites.

You missed my point but this time I concede that it was partly my fault: my point was hidden in my book-review. I didn’t advise you to move to the current “States” and become a regular citizen. Hell no. In my mind I was playing with the idea that the Northwest will become a white ethno-state later in this century, as in Covington’s novel: a haven for Romanians and other Caucasian Europeans.

_____________

And once again... I shall address other GoV-ers.

The concept of an ethno-state within the United States boggled my mind when I first read about it in August 2009 (O’Meara’s article is still available here). It’s now the first article of the first book ever published by Counter-Currents.