Last week’s rally in Paris resulted in a manifesto of purpose crafted by the alliance of groups that took part in the event. The document has been published in several languages at Riposte Laïque. The English version is below.
The Appeal of Paris — December 18th, 2010
December 23 2010
The ‘Islamization’ of Europe Conference, which took place in Paris, on the 18th December 2010, is a founding act. For the first time, orators coming from the whole of Europe shared one same platform to denounce the Islamic conquest at work on our continent. At the end of the Conference, the thirty-two parties, organizations, associations, websites and news blogs which supported this initiative agreed, beyond their different political orientations, on a common manifesto:
We rise up against the aggressive proselytism of Islam, against the occupation of public space by muslim prayers, against the financing of mosques with public funds, against the development of the halal food market, against the fate reserved by Islam to women, as opposed to our principle of equality between women and men and, in general, against any advance of Islam on the soil of Europe,
Faced with the ‘Islamization’ of Europe, we reaffirm our unfailing attachment to our multimillenial civilization, its values and traditions,
We invite all the peoples of Europe and the world to preserve the future of our children and grand-children, by rising up against any attempt to replace the laws of their countries — a legacy of their history and a guarantee of social balance — by rules imported from abroad and incompatible with them,
We invite them to defend the European citizens’ freedom of speech, the free debate and free vote on this subject matter,
We invite them to pursue their political or editorial actions to oppose the increasing demands of Islam as they would oppose any kind of totalitarianism,
We invite them to reject any sectarianism or jealous claiming in the fight against ‘Islamization’, for any dissension would be detrimental to the people and the country,
We invite everyone to join an association or party that leads this fight, in accordance with one’s own political sensitivity and to bond with individuals, groups and countries in order to set up strong network. That’s the only way to resist the sexist, homophobic, Islamic totalitarianism, which aims, by using demographic dynamics and intimidation, to suppress a humanist civilization. We reject obscurantism, superstition and blind submission of Man to morbid and disgraceful principles.
In this day and age, we have founded a free association of independent organizations. We are a team. We have a fight. In this day and age, we launch a European movement of resistance, based upon the defence of our civilization faced with a new totalitarianism.
Hat tip: Jano.
21 comments:
mind you, if muslims want to colonize our countries, rape our women, destroy our welfare states through their irredeemable parasitism, and plunge us into tribal civil war WITHOUT praying in our streets, we're just fine with it. what do you think we are, waycists?
immigration, crime, parasitism - ban sharia and you're still left with all that. alluding darkly to demographic dynamics won't cut it, i'm afraid. i hope they're just getting warmed up, because this is pretty feeble stuff in and of itself.
El you are right, things are just getting started, but the fact that the Europeans are organizing is a good sign, it means the Moslems and leftists won't win without a fight. Personally I think that as long as the West fights it can't lose, but way too many people seem to be taking the attitude that the war is already over and are refusing to fight.
"immigration, crime, parasitism - ban sharia and you're still left with all that."
I agree (at least in general terms) with "El". This manifesto repeats a refrain I have seen in many places in the (still inchoate) Anti-Islam Movemen: a refrain that seems to strangely disconnect Muslim culture, Islamic sharia, from the violence it intrinsically entails -- a violence that is not only criminal, however (as "El" seems to delimit it) but is terroristic, supremacist, expansionist, paramilitary only by necessity as Muslims are too weak to be frontally military in this regard; and as added frosting, is often grotesquely ghoulish and brutal.
If Muslims pursued their sharia within the West without violence, I would have no problem with it. But of course, they don't, and they can't. To formulate a platform where one does have a problem with it without, however, adverting explicitly to the violence connection (with the appropriately literate description of the violence involved, as noted above), is not merely odd: it sends confusing signals to the majority PC MC population around us; and it would seem to divert our attention away from the primary problem, the increasing danger of unpredictable, and likely horrific, terror attacks anywhere, anytime.
The violence aspect of Muslims is their means to make sharia dominant. They will never succeed in their goal. But they will succeed in mass-murdering millions of us, and in causing enormous dislocations and mayhem merely in their attempt to realize their goal -- if we don't begin to address the main form of that problem: the physical presence of millions of Muslims within the West, with those millions only exponentially increasing through a population explosion aided by continuing immigration and reproduction. The only measure that makes sense is not to continue trying to manage those millions while we fatalistically accept their presence as a fact of Western life -- but to work on total deportation.
Meanwhile, we need to focus our eye on that ball, and reverse the current orientation whereby what is peripheral (sharia) is turned upside-down and made primary, while what is in fact the primary danger (violence) is relegated to the background, or is strangely disconnected from the problem. In this spirit, we would rationally heighten our suspicion of Muslims to a blanket suspicion that prejudicially assumes all Muslims to be equally dangerous.
Once we are on the road to this re-orientation of the problem, it will logically lead to total deportation. And at least, on the way there, we will be more rationally suspicious and thus save more lives.
The Hesperado
richard, i agree with you that the conference is a very positive development. i'm sure that all sorts of useless contacts are being made and all sorts of useful ideas being batted about. a conference of this sort and this size would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, so i'm very happy to see it.
i just think the statement feels like it was written by committee so as to say a lot of good stuff that doesn't mean all that much and that is as inoffensive as possible. i would have liked something with a little more oomph. i mean, what are these guys planning on DOING? can you tell? me neither.
anyway, it is still a very positive development and i am very encouraged by it. i'm just scared that some people think we can 'stand up for our way of life' and that everything will then be OK. that's magical thinking.
useful contacts, not useless ones!
We are going through the same thing here in the States, except it hasn't got quite the Muslim face on it yet. But it is the same 'destabilization' etc. I lived in Britain for many years and now am in LA. It is the same madness here as it is there. Don't leave us out of the fight. We need to stick together.
www.losangelescitycollege.blogspot.com
Hundreds of thousands of muslims have fled from islam controlled countries to the West to get a better life. Then followed Saudi-sponsored jihadists, who prey on the uneducated young muslim men and offer them a new identity of pure heroism by becoming suicide bombers.
See for example this interview with
Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
We cannot solve the problem by deporting muslims. The muslims who already fled from islam are our allies in the struggle against any islam oppression. We should help the muslims in the West by offering them better ideas. And we already have Christianity which is much better than islam.
Case by case we have to defend the principles of liberty that we hold dear.
For example we have to insist that the freedom of expression must be non-violent. If someone feels hurt or angered for any reason, they are very welcome to express their dissatisfaction or anger in peaceful ways. But violence or threats - namely death threats - are not included in the freedom of expression.
Erik wrote:
"We cannot solve the problem by deporting muslims. The muslims who already fled from islam are our allies in the struggle against any islam oppression."
On what basis does Erik make this sweeping claim?
Dear Hesperado
I write: ”We cannot solve the problem by deporting muslims. The muslims who already fled from islam are our allies in the struggle against any islam oppression.”
This is my position. We should inspire the muslims in the West to join us in the struggle against jihadism. They most likely have an interest in getting rid of forced submission to islam. They may not have discovered it yet, but it would also give them the better life, that they must have sought by fleeing to the West. We have something so much better to offer them than the jihadist ideology. Therefore we should not push them over on the jihadist side by claiming that they are our enemies. Don’t you agree?
Erik: This is my position.
I regret to inform you that your "position" fails the "So what?" test rather miserably.
You have been asked by Hesperado to please provide the basis for your position and thereupon replied with what can only be generously described as an opinion totally unaccompanied by any supporting facts whatsoever.
Please identify one Western country where a substantial portion of Muslim immigrants are proving to be worthwhile allies in the fight against global jihad.
To date, even the most persecuted Muslim populations continue, upon arrival in the West, to set up parallel societies wherever they go and agitate with increasing violence for shari'a law whenever the chance arises.
This is not the description of "allies in the struggle against any islam oppression". Not by a country mile.
Before being muslims, muslims are humans. All humans can make choices. Therefore they theoretically have the possibility of choosing something better than islam. We have a much better way of thinking and living to offer them. But if we tell them that we think that they are our enemies, then we push them away from us, over on the side of the jihadists. And that would be a failure - both for ourselves and for us helping them. Now at Christmas we are reminded that the best help we can offer anyone is to help them to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.
Erik: Before being muslims, muslims are humans.
That does not mean Muslims actually respect the human rights of non-Muslims. Qur'anic doctrine specifically instructs Muslims to withold the rights they are accorded by Islam from all non-Muslims.
Consequently, Islam makes it exceedingly dangerous to automatically extend human rights to Muslims or to suppose that they will treat non-Muslims in any sort of humane manner. To do so is in direct violation of their belief system.
All humans can make choices.
Compared with most other belief systems, Muslims typically have far fewer choices available to them as per Qur'anic doctrine. It is exceptionally mistaken to think that Muslims are inclined or even capable of making the same choices as non-Muslims.
Therefore they theoretically have the possibility of choosing something better than islam.
Only on penalty of DEATH for apostasy. Mind you, it is a completely and religiously sanctioned death sentence, not just some vague threat.
We have a much better way of thinking and living to offer them.
Here you indulge in, not just totally unjustified projection, but sheer fantasy. Many Muslims regard Western life as decadent, immoral and worthy only of being despised. To them, all we have to offer is our lands and wealth for them to take from us, both of which they are doing in great numbers.
But if we tell them that we think that they are our enemies, then we push them away from us, over on the side of the jihadists.
Again, you neglect to consider that the Qur'an instructs Muslims to regard all non-Muslims as their eternal enemies who are to be subdued and brought under the rule of shari'a law at all costs, even that of their very lives (for which they will be rewarded with paradise).
The default condition for Muslims is to be JIHADISTS with only the weak or infirm excused from that duty, otherwise on penalty of DEATH.
And that would be a failure - both for ourselves and for us helping them.
Unless they do not want to be helped and regard sincere offers of help as a humiliation that must be retaliated against with violence. Which, incidentally, many do.
Now at Christmas we are reminded that the best help we can offer anyone is to help them to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.
In the vast majority of Islamic countries, attempting to bring Muslims to Christ is punishable by DEATH.
You really should consider studying Islam in much greater depth if you wish to avoid the appearance of being a totally naive and unlettered person with respect to the ongoing global jihad.
Erik - Zenster is generally right. When someone calls themselves a Muslim, it means they subscribe to the Quran as the verbatim word of Allah, to Mohammed as the highest example to aspire to, and so on. If they reject this (they find Mohammed to be embarassing or feel the Quran isn't directly recited from a tablet authored by Allah), then they are no longer Muslim, just as someone who rejects the Resurrection of Christ cannot call themselves a Christian (as the Resurrection is the pivital event that allows our salvation).
However, Zenster, Erik does also have a point. Drawing Muslims away from Islam and into other faiths will be difficult, but it is by no means impossible. A Counter Dawa of some kind has been churning away in the back of my mind for some time now, and it may be something that the New Year brings to full fire. Some who flee from Islamic countries do want to be free of Islam. Take Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a prime example. However, many of them don't know where to go, or what support networks there are for them.
And that would be where the Counter-Dawa would come in - to provide information (e.g. locations of churches, temples, shrines, etc) and support (letters of introduction, and even just a sympathetic ear), as well as evangelisation (spreading the Word of Christ, or explaining Buddhism. Hell, the Baha'is would have a real advantage over the rest of us!).
It's a course I feel is worth pursuing, in spite of its difficulty. After all, dawa is part of jihad. Surely the counter-jihad should have its counter-dawa too.
LAW Wells: After all, dawa is part of jihad. Surely the counter-jihad should have its counter-dawa too.
Absolutely, even if we must − for the nonce − disregard whatever deadly consequences that await both Muslims and Infidels who seek to make conversions away from Islam.
That said, do tell how you or anyone else not equipped with a fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), system will be able to weed out the taqiyya spewing terrorist maggots who will surely seek to penetrate yours and any other group's attempt at converting Muslims away from Islam.
Remember, even fMRI is not a proof positive assurance of total confidence.
This remains one of the central and most difficult to overcome differences between Christianity and Islam.
To its immense credit, modern manifestations of Christianity rely almost exclusively upon charismatic persuasion. Nothing of the sort applies to Islam.
It would be gratifying in the extreme to have verifiable numbers concerning recent and much-rumored mass abandonments of Islam by Muslims. Again, nothing of the sort exists.
There is simply no competition worth mentioning − no matter how noble − with respect to Christian "dawa" and that of Islam. For simple flat-out conversion rates, Islam will typically beat Christianity to the wire. This is no fault of the Christian religion but, merely, a manifestation of the coercive and compulsive nature of Islam.
Therefore, to say that "the counter-jihad should have its counter-dawa too", sounds all well and fine but who and whom shall impose any sort of equal yet opposite force of conversion when such forcefulness absolutely betrays every good thing that Christianity stands for?
This is no small question as the ability to lure Muslims away from their supremely abusive Islam relies almost utterly upon such a strategy as you suggest. Yet, once again, what is there to provide anywhere near the degree of attraction for Christianity that Islam achieves through its brutal and corrupt coercion?
Erik did not adequately address this issue and, despite providing some sort of functional outline, neither have you. Until this matter is adequately resolved, Islam will continue to make the most converts to its irredeemably malignant and perverted doctrine.
Zenster, we do only have the option of charismatic conversion. But I think you might underestimate its power, even against the drive of Islam's apostasy rulings.
However, most of this is a vague idea. I'll have time to sort it out over the New Year. You may hear more on the matter then (and believe me when I say I appreciate your input - poking holes in something is better happening among allies rather than enemies).
LAW Wells: I'll have time to sort it out over the New Year. You may hear more on the matter then (and believe me when I say I appreciate your input - poking holes in something is better happening among allies rather than enemies).
Thank you for the kind reply. I now realize my tone may have come across as dismissive when that was not intended. It can be traced back to the immense degree of cynicism that Islam evokes whenever there is any parsing of it required.
I look forward to seeing more about your idea of Christian "dawa". In light of Islam's global assault upon Christianity, some sort of self-defense strategy and effective outreach formulation is badly needed and without delay.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to imagine anything save a highly aggressive counter-dawa, not to mention straight out physical or kinetic response, as being part of such an operation. Too many Christians, and non-Muslims in general, are dying right now and putting a halt to that ongoing slaughter is more important that rescuing Muslims from their self-imposed death trap.
A recent meme under discussion centers upon Muslims being the first victims of Islam. That would seem to apply only if you already are a Muslim and willing to confront Islam's manifold shortcomings. That act, in and of itself, could be construed as making such a person a MINO (Muslim In Name Only) on the spot. In that manner, Islam mandates victim status for all Muslims be they of dishonorable or decent character.
The more important point remains that there will not be any hope for Muslims to escape Islam if outside forces allow themselves to be extinguished by jihad. For that reason, the first and foremost victims of Islam are the kufr who remain one of the only viable hopes that decent Muslims can have of escaping their abusive creed.
This is not hairsplitting or, even, a chicken-and-egg sort of argument. The prospect of Islam rehabilitating itself is so minuscule that outside forces have a far greater chance of success at resolving this jihad nonsense; Even if that success is merely to so thoroughly decimate Islam such that it no longer poses such a threat to the global weal.
The non-Islamic world is the best and last hope for humanity to remain on a path towards true enlightenment and productivity. The retrogression promised by Islam's global caliphate is so pronounced and injurious to all involved, kufr and Muslim alike, that rescuing Islam from itself can never be a foremost priority.
In a like manner, any Christian "dawa" may well need to be couched in a clearly uncompromising format that never allows for it to be misperceived as tolerant of Islam's genuinely misbegotten practices. Ergo, said Christian "dawa" may well need to be self-protective to a greater degree than it is proselytizing.
This is a serious conundrum and one that does not lend itself to easy or simple resolution. It is not due to any defect in Christianity but a direct reflection of how malignant and deceitful Islam's core character continues to be.
Thanks to Zenster and LAW Wells for doing the heavy lifting. I don't know what it is, but when I encounter the Eriks (or the Adam Kellers) of the world, a wave of fatigue, enervation and nausea overcomes me and I find it difficult to muster a response pertinent to the complex mush these Eriks and Adam Kellers propose as obviations.
While Erik is not as verbose as Adam Keller and (so far) has not used the particular tactic of obfuscation-through-complex-prolixity, Erik, by the sheer dint of his glob of unverified and sweeping assumptions, coupled with his unwillingness to back them up with anything tangible, arouses in the scrupulous reader the need to marshall whole mountains of evidence in the hopes of penetrating an evidently thick skull reinforced with the cement of politically correct platitudes and axioms.
It's not even a matter of marshalling those whole mountains of data. They are standing there, stark, tall and crystalline clear, all around this uncomprehending naif, Erik. An entire fucking mountain range of data. Thus we become encumbered with the ridiculous duty of marshalling what is already under his nose (to mix metaphors).
But at this late stage of the game, I find myself often too damn tired to marshall mountains of evidence; and I am additionally angry that otherwise seemingly intelligent individuals like Erik haven't apparently lifted a little finger to access -- and use their noodle to reflect upon -- those mountains of data available to anyone and everyone by now. Mountains of data from all over the globe, documenting the mass fanaticism of Muslims in myriad ways; documenting the grotesque intolerance, hatred and violence of their culture, in myriad ways. I thus am inclined to give up hope about the Eriks of the world (who admittedly do not strike one as hopeless as the Adam Kellers).
The Hesperado
It is true that the Quran contains some very severe and shocking and hateful statements against people of other beliefs.
For example, more than a year ago, someone showed me the following quotes from Is Allah of Islam the God of Abraham:
Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (Surah 48:29)
Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. (Surah 9:123)
Believers do not make friends with any but your own people. (3:118) (See also 3:28, 4:139, and 5:51)
Of course we must counter those kinds of evil words.
But those are dead words in contrast to muslims, who are living human beings.
And with this kind of thinking the muslims will never be able to create a world of peace, which they often claim. Apparently muslims even see other muslims as unbelievers when they blow up each other in their mosques or in their own cities.
Sometimes I asked muslims, I have met, about the abovementioned quotes. And they did not know them or didn’t see them as important. Hopefully that may be true for the majority of muslims in the West.
I think we should liberate the muslims from islam and the violent teachings of the Quran. Therefore we need to present them to a better idea, a better way of thinking, by doing missionary work (LAW Wells calls it dawa) among muslims in the West.
Although it is islam teaching that apostasy is punishable by death, still each muslim is a human being with a mind. When presented with the better choice, he/she may grab the chance.
Christianity is fundamentally different from for example islam. In the Christian view on life each person is responsible for his/her own actions. As a Christian, if I commit a sin, then I succumbed to temptation. Christianity holds me to the fact, that I am a person, not a robot. As an individual I cannot control the temptations or the circumstances that I meet. But if I am tempted and succumb to temptation, then that is my own fault. This makes Christianity different.
We could compare it to the parents’ relationship to their children. When a child sometimes does something bad, we know that the child may have been lured by friends and couldn’t resist. But we still correct the child, because we want to hold it to the fact that he/she is a person. And a person has to be able to say “no” at the right places. We hold the child to its responsibility - big or small, according to its age. And we do this, not to pester the child, but because of our love and respect for the child. We are actually showing our respect and even esteem for the child by demanding a responsible attitude - also that it should admit to not having resisted temptation and having “gone along with the crowd”. If we would have said “don’t worry about it” then we could just as well say: “Do as you will. We don’t care”.
In Christianity we learn that God, more than being almighty, also is a God of love, grace and forgiveness. In addition to preaching forgiveness for our mistakes, the Gospel also demands us to love God and each other, and thereby it shows God’s esteem for us. To an all-powerful God, we, as the created, would be nothing. But by expecting everything of us, we are given our value as humans.
The muslims in the West sometimes express that they don’t feel that we respect them. And in many cases they sense correctly, namely when the society exempts them from fundamental human responsibilities. If we would hold them to the same standards as we hold each other, then they would sense equal treatment. And then they would be less likely to listen to the lies of the jihadists, who try to keep them separated from us.
(This is a corrected version of the deleted post 19)
Hesperado, you may have to get used to discuss topics without your “opponents” having to or being able to prove their position. Questions of good and evil are not part of science or something that is for experts only. It is rather a matter of attitude. We are all equally qualified and responsible here.
Besides, Christianity is a faith, which cannot be proven - thus it is faith.
Already more than 150 years ago Søren Kierkegaard enlightened us through his theoretical considerations and edifying discourses. He showed the reader that being human and being Christian are two sides of the same matter.
Post a Comment