This article was originally published in Danish on June 7, 2015.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris is just one in a long line of Islamic attacks on Europe – and it will certainly not be the last. Denmark will also be hit. It is only a matter of time. It is the logical consequence of the introduction of the multicultural society and the presence of Muslims in Europe. When the Danish People’s Party and all the other mainstream politicians refuse to speculate on the cause of the crime, it’s because they are well aware of it, they are just being dishonest and cowardly as usual. This is normal for traitors to their country. It is a fact that there is terror and trouble in virtually every country with Muslim minorities, or in countries with rival Muslim factions. In other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, there may be relative calm, but that’s only due to the absolute medieval darkness of the country combined with police and draconian punishments for blasphemy, for women driving, for alcohol – in short, for anything that doesn’t suit the ruling Islamic clergy. It can’t get any darker – the Islamic State has no business here.
Even otherwise relatively peaceful Thailand has to defend itself against Muslim terror centered in the south of the country where the blessings of Islam have penetrated from Malaysia, in the Philippines several islands are outright dangerous to visit, in Muslim Indonesia non-Muslims live in constant danger of their lives (cf. the bombings in Bali, where the bulk of the population is Hindu). In Malaysia, the non-Muslim population is increasingly deprived of its rights, India is plagued by bombs, Pakistan is an absolute disaster on a par with Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and a rapidly increasing number of African states, with Nigeria as a good current example, are on the bloody road to Muslim barbarism. The list is long and can be continued ad infinitum. In Europe, the killing of Europeans by Muslims is the order of the day. Not just the high-profile cases of Charlie Hebdo, Theo van Gogh and the like – every day, nameless and unknown Europeans are killed by Muslims because of the perpetrators’ hatred of their hosts. The terror in the US and Canada is well documented. Even Australia enjoys the blessings of multiculturalism. But the opinion makers and political upper class see no connection – they don’t want to see a connection. Their answer is to increase policing, which will also and especially be used to monitor the national opposition. This will cost a lot of money, on top of the staggering amounts that the politicians’ generous hospitality to the world at the expense of Danish taxpayers already costs.
It is of course true that there are many Muslims who just want to live in peace and quiet at the Danes’ expense, and who do not think that violence and murder serve their interests. And intellectuals naturally want to see Islam as a religion of peace that is “abused” by fundamentalists. But Islam is a religion of war that divides the world into the house of peace and the house of war, where the house of peace is the Islamized world and the house of war the rest. The goal is for the house of peace to fill the entire globe – and the spread of Islam has always been through violence and murder. There is nothing new in that. Of course, brainless Danish “Islam experts” will dispute this and claim that Christianity does not differ significantly from Islam in this respect. Christianity also has the Great Commission[1], and the Christianization of Europe and South America certainly did not take place with only the Bible in hand. However, that was a long time ago. Christianity has – for better or worse – lost its fighting spirit and its Christian identity. But Islam has fully retained its will to win not only the hearts and minds of people, but also the power to rule the world. Muslims migrating to Europe have a duty to bring their religion with them and spread it – and that is exactly what we are witnessing today. Immigrant Muslims in the West are the vanguard of the Muslim faith, and the absolute takeover of cultural and political power in society by Islam is pre-programmed and inevitable if the tables are not turned very soon. If Muslims were truly against the violence and terror, they would have to leave Islam. Scarf-clad women on the front page of newspapers distancing themselves oh so strongly from the events in Paris is not very convincing. However, it is typical that the newspapers have been flooded with “positive” reports from Danish Islamistan after the murders in Paris. It has been sickening. In general, the Danish press is just another tool used in the ongoing endeavor to exterminate the Danish people. And neither the press nor academia is controlled by Muslims – it is controlled by Jews.
Of course, it is claimed that fundamentalism is to be fought through integration and better social conditions – bread and circuses. So far, there is no evidence that this will succeed, quite the opposite. Muslims don’t want any integration on their part – only the Danes’ integration into Islam. Muslims have a strong culture – and a strong religion – and they are also backed by a strong family pattern with strong values. All of which we also had right up until the sixties, but which has been systematically destroyed by the very same forces that are now stuffing immigration down our throats, while praising the very same values in immigrant communities that we have been purposefully deprived of in the name of progress – the forces whose goal is the extinction of the European and everything he has created, nothing less. Muslims despise us – and with good reason. A Muslim simply does not understand how we can give away our country to people who had no part in building it. With good reason, they consider us to be fools who deserve no respect, a people who know neither honor nor shame. What do we have to offer them? What is it that we want to integrate them into? The nothingness, the worthlessness, the lack of culture! A society where people murder their unborn children without hesitation, where young people regularly drink themselves into a stupor, where 12-year-old girls are happy to sell their bodies in a gateway for a burger – and where they suffer from eating disorders, cut themselves, commit suicide or seek psychiatric treatment when they realize the meaninglessness of the life they lead – an undisciplined society in total disarray and without any real identity. It has little appeal to people who are still rooted in a culture and whose value systems are largely intact – and that goes for Muslims and other newcomers alike. They reach out and take what these despicable Danes can give them in the form of material goods, but they wisely decline “integration” – and send their children to be re-educated in their home countries to shake the brainwashing of red Danish “educators” out of their heads. We have nothing to offer Muslims. All they have to do is wait a few decades and they will have won and can establish their Muslim reign of terror in Europe without a single battle. A society without music and without visual arts, a society where the clergy will enforce narrow limits to all human expressions, preventing spiritual and technological development, limiting all intellectual activity to the interpretation of the words of the Quran. From a Western point of view, there is nothing as empty as a Muslim life.
Islam is incompatible with Western culture and under no circumstances can the two live in the same space. Our thought, our art, our satire, our music, our eating habits, and our way of life (even in the least decadent form) are foreign to them – and theirs to us. Their dress offends us, as do their prayers and their disregard for our hygiene rules in places like swimming pools, their loud voices, their refusal to eat our food, their sharia and what we understand as bad behavior. It offends us to be seen as infidels, creatures without human dignity to be put down like dogs, by the doctors and social workers who are supposed to take care of us when we get sick and old. Our ideals of beauty are different, our relationship to lies and truth diverge. They feel offended by our images, our worldliness, our lack of respect for an old book of uncertain origin to determine the smallest details of daily life. And then there is “human rights” (this un-word must be uttered with an unctuous voice because you must really taste the self-righteousness). For most Muslims (and other foreigners) it will be impossible for cultural, religious, and natural reasons to meet the demands of Western industrialized societies (for example, the average IQ in Syria is 83, in Eritrea, where more than half the population is Sunni Muslim, it is 68, in Denmark 98 – before immigration started, it was 100. Anyone with an IQ below 70 is considered mentally retarded in Denmark). These groups will always be outsiders, an unwanted underclass – even if within the next 50 years they will become the majority. The material and cultural level of society will fall, as there is a close correlation between IQ and GDP, and the cost of supporting the unproductive elements will skyrocket. At best, we will have Brazilian-style social conditions. This will promote fundamentalism, which is currently on the rise in Muslim countries, where large groups of the population feel excluded from economic progress. But even in Turkey, where economic growth is palpable, it is the fundamentalists who are in power and are using their position to Islamize Kemal Atatürk’s secular state – with great success, one might say.
In this context, it is characteristic that Turkey’s Foreign Minister – naturally – distanced himself from the events in Paris (he could do nothing else), but in the same breath added that Europe had to get rid of “xenophobia” and “racism”. Well, it’s the Europeans’ own fault – they have to Islamize Europe, then this won’t happen. And this is coming from a man who represents one of the worst terrorist regimes in the region, which denies the most basic rights to the large Kurdish population in Eastern Turkey. Turkey is on the threshold of the EU, where it will very quickly become the most populous state. Morten Messerschmidt of the Danish People’s Party won a major victory in the European Parliament elections, partly because of his opposition to Turkey’s membership of the EU. Immediately after the election, he abandoned his former group in the Parliament, which then fell apart, forming the European Freedom and Direct Democracy Group with the United Kingdom Independence Party, whose spokesman, Pakistani Muslim Amjad Bashir, who is also one of the leading members of Ukip, is naturally very much in favor of Turkey’s membership. Politicians are unique – their livelihood is deception!
This also applies to their ‘defense of freedom of expression’. National Europeans do not notice much about freedom of expression on a daily basis – and it is precisely France, together with Germany, that is at the forefront of the repression of this fundamental right in a so-called democracy. It should not be forgotten that Jean-Marie le Pen was convicted for saying that the Holocaust was just a footnote in the history of the Second World War – which, whatever else you may think about the Holocaust, is a fact. In any case, statements about politics and history should not be the business of the courts – or other opinion terrorists. Turkey took part in the march in Paris for freedom of expression – and a few days later blocked Charlie Hebdo’s cover image on the internet. In France, charges are being brought against people who allegedly express sympathy for terrorism, including a dead drunk driver who, in his drunken stupor, wished that more police officers would be shot (4 years in prison!) and comedian Dieudonné, who, disgusted by the hypocrisy of free speech, wrote on social media that he “felt like Charlie Coulibaly” (Charlie refers to the magazine, Coulibaly was one of the Muslim perpetrators). How this should be understood remains to be seen, but it is a stretch of the imagination to call it sympathy for terrorism. Dieudonné is also one of those who have been convicted time and time again – precisely for his statements. Charlie Hebdo is provocative (in a very intelligent way) and that’s fine, but it’s not fine when Dieudonné is. This is hypocrisy of the worst kind and has nothing to do with freedom of expression. However, Charlie Hebdo is left-wing, Dieudonné is right-wing. Therein lies the difference. Dieudonné (meaning “gift of God”), by the way, is himself a 50 % Negro, not the typical “neo-Nazi”.
The huge demonstrations that brought together all the warped political minds of Europe who flocked to Paris to be seen are impressive, but futile and ridiculous given the situation. The gateway to Europe is wide open and once the Muslim thugs get in, they are free to spread across the continent. There will be more terror. Our streets will be turned into “rivers of blood”. We will have to move under constant surveillance by machine-gun armed military and police. We will have to be searched at every metro station, train station and shop – and yet no one will be able to prevent a continued flow of terrorist acts. This is simply the price of living in a multicultural society – look at history and look at the world map. The fact that we have been spared the major upheavals in recent history is precisely due to the homogeneity of Danish society. Even though we may disagree on this, that, or the other, we had our Danishness in common. We had a common frame of reference shared by several generations, and we knew each other. We knew what to expect from each other. Society was characterized by courtesy and consideration for each other – because we were a community that largely shared our fundamental ideals and values. We didn’t have to consider exotic peoples in our speech, because it was immaterial to them what we did or said. They knew nothing about it and didn’t care.
As we all know, Jyllands-Posten has had its experiences with Islam in the past – and by Islam we mean Islam and not Islamic fundamentalists, as Danish Islamistan massively contributed to spreading the crisis surrounding Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons of the Prophet throughout the Islamic world. One almost got the impression that every Muslim around the world picks up a copy of Jyllands-Posten from the local newsstand on the nearest street corner every morning to diligently study the contents so that he can feel offended and get duly agitated against the infidels. So Jyllands-Posten got cold feet and, out of consideration for the magazine’s employees, refrained from publishing cartoons of Muhammad and anything else that could offend any devout Muslim. Well, you can think what you like about this, but perhaps the editors should write something like the following above the colophon: “This newspaper voluntarily submits to Islamic censorship”. Then you know what you’re getting. Incidentally, it is thought-provoking that they are concerned about the well-being of their employees, while writers of letters to the editor, who are sometimes quite critical of Islam, have their home address printed in the newspaper as a matter of principle. Their safety is of no concern to the editors. Never mind about them.
However, Jyllands-Posten is right when it says that it is hypocritical to claim that violence does not influence anything – because it does. The sword is mightier than the pen. The editors are right about that. Violence does change something – it’s the only thing that really changes anything. Speeches, articles, and demonstrations change nothing, they just make their authors and organizers feel good, feel that they are doing something. This is true of this article as well.
Therefore, after the bloody events, one might have expected that all of France’s mosques would have been on fire as a result of the Charlie Hebdo attack – and there have been some few attacks that caused no further damage. French nationals are not inherently violent – or maybe they are just amateurs, unlike the combat-trained and militarily equipped Muslim storm troopers. However, it is worth remembering that the foreigners are only here because our politicians, without asking the Europeans, have let them in and opened our wallets to them. We cannot really blame the migrants for taking this chance and for trying to make the most of it is. We would do the same were we in their shoes. The real criminals in this game are not the Muslims – not even the most violent fundamentalists. We don’t really have a problem with Muslims and we have no reason to hate them – we just don’t want to live with them. We want to be ourselves and be able to say whatever we want about foreign peoples without offending them, and we want to be able to laugh at whatever we want. By definition, a multicultural society is made up of a myriad of ethnicities with vastly different reaction patterns and cultural and religious beliefs. If we have to take all of these into account in what we say, we will eventually be able to say very little. It is also characteristic that no consideration is given to the Danes themselves. They and their nation can be mocked, degraded, and insulted ad libitum. The same goes for Christians, who have to endure even the most perfidious and pornographic insults to their faith. It is only foreign peoples and foreign religions that enjoy protection. Significantly, the people who denounce Charlie Hebdo’s depiction of the Prophet would not raise an eyebrow at the most degrading depiction of Jesus. They are hypocrites – and their purpose is treason.
No, it is not the foreigners who are the villains. It’s not the Muslims we should hate, but our politicians and opinion makers who have betrayed their Danishness and put themselves outside the national community. They no longer belong to the Danish people, and it is to be hoped that they will not escape punishment for what they have done. They have stolen our money and given it to foreigners, so that Danish patients and pensioners have to do without the help that society owes them. Home care is a thing of the past, and while the uninvited guests can afford to make a fuss about the food, old Mrs. Jensen has to eat a 14-day-old vacuum-packed substance that not even an animal will eat. Our hospitals are closed, our emergency services have been cut back, public transportation disappears, education deteriorates, taxes rise – but there is always money for the foreigners and all the indirect costs they cause – and it is certainly at least as much as the direct costs. However, this is the least of the traitors’ crimes. No it is far worse that they have destroyed the Danish national homeland, they have destroyed our security and created terrorism in the Western world, wrecked our culture and put our survival as a proud and independent people in extreme danger. This is what they must pay for – and it can’t come soon enough! This time, the reckoning must hit the top and not just the bottom! The strangers? They just need to leave in good order – it will come naturally when the boxes are slammed shut. Then the task is to rebuild the Danish people, Danish culture and common morality and decency, and to rebuild all the systems that have been broken down. It will be a huge task – and it is growing day by day as the Danes are losing their identity and foreigners are crossing our blurred borders. Planning for this task should begin today!
In the wake of the Paris massacre, various right-wing writers and groups have criticized the “mocking” of the Prophet and insulting Muslims, even going so far as to claim that the entire action in Paris was organized by Mossad or the US to discredit Islam. When people who claim to be nationalists demand special protection for primitive foreign superstition and all the beliefs associated with it, it is not obvious that these groups and individuals have not understood anything. Where are the limits of what we should show respect for just because it calls itself a religion? Does that include the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? They seem to apply the premise: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend!” However, because you oppose everything the United States stands for and dislike Israel, Islam is by no means your friend and natural ally – and you should not expect any tangible reciprocation, as revisionism’s brief courtship of Iran has made abundantly clear. Nor should you embrace Israel and the Jews because you don’t like Islam – and they don’t like Islam in Palestine. It is important to keep a clear head in these matters.
It is, of course, true that it was the United States that started the war between Islam and the Western world. It was the US crusade against Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War and the subsequent senseless blockade of Iraq, which, in addition to the destruction and low-level radioactive pollution of the entire country, cost the lives of 200,000 children, to which the Jewish US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked if it was worth it, answered unequivocally: “Yes, it was worth it!” She did not elaborate on what the US and the West had actually gained from it. Saddam Hussein was no threat to Europe or the US – and while Saddam Hussein may have been a hard nut, the society he had created was far freer and more civilized than, say, Saudi Arabia and many other US allies – and above all, it was stable. Anyone who claims today that conditions in Iraq are better than under Saddam Hussein should be forced to live there on local people’s terms. What right did the US have to interfere in Saddam Hussein’s relationship with Kuwait – and what right did it have to carry out a regime change in the country later? The first Gulf War led to 9/11, which led to the invasion of Afghanistan and – for reasons that are incomprehensible – the second Gulf War and so on. And the US continues to interfere. Egypt, Libya, Syria – everywhere US policy leaves behind broken societies, failed states and – understandably – angry Muslims. There is no power on earth as destructive and negative as the US, Israel’s extended arm. Chaos in the Arab world is good for Israel – but the US has not been able to control that chaos, and in the long run, that is very bad news for Israel – and for all of us.
This is indisputable, but the fact remains that it would not have been possible for Islamic fighters to wage war in the West if the West had not opened its borders to immigration. Just 35 years ago, Arab Muslims would have caused quite a stir on the streets, indeed, they simply would not have been allowed in. Without foreigners living here, the problem would not exist. For the sake of public safety alone, non-Western foreigners must leave the country without exception. Imagine what this would save us in security costs and how much time and column space in the media could be used for far more relevant problems of interest to Danes.
Another issue that has cropped up in this connection is the very nature of freedom of expression. It has been emphasized here time and again that, according to the Constitution, the exercise of this right is under the responsibility of the courts. This is a very unfortunate formulation in the Constitution – because it contains no safeguards whatsoever for freedom of expression. As it is currently interpreted, the Danish Parliament is free to adopt any restriction on the freedom of expression as long as it is not censorship, i.e. prior approval, or if the expression is protected by other provisions of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion. Censorship is actually preferable – then you know what you have to abide by. An expression that has been struck down by the censor must be omitted or reworded. Here you can experiment without any immediate consequences. A system where you can publish whatever you want and then be dragged before a court of law is far worse. The administration of justice is capricious and costly. That’s why most people choose the path of self-censorship – and it’s the worst kind of censorship there is. It restricts speech more than it would necessarily be with prior censorship. However, the provision was not originally included in the Constitution to restrict political and cultural debate, but solely to prevent people from freely smearing named individuals with libel and slander. Naturally, this cannot be tolerated. If you call your neighbor a thief, you’d better have hard evidence to back it up – otherwise you’re rightly subject to punishment. Similarly, of course, it allows for the punishment of incitement to violence or other illegalities – no society can allow that. However, this is quite different from what was introduced with section 266b of the Penal Code. This is a real restriction on freedom of speech, as it is no longer about speech directed at individuals who have to take legal action to clear themselves of blatant accusations or untruths, or about incitement to illegality. It now protects “a group of persons” who feel “threatened, insulted or degraded because of their race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation etc.”. In this context, it is a particularly aggravating circumstance if your speech can be construed as “propaganda activity”. In all these cases, it is the state that prosecutes and the threshold for prosecution under section 266b has become significantly lower than before – although the law has not changed, apart from the addition of paragraph 2 on “propaganda activity” and the inclusion of woke type fringe groups and misfits, all of which is particularly open to interpretation and is specifically aimed at free political discussion. The decisive factor here is whether people “feel” “threatened, insulted or degraded”, and there is always someone who does. As previously mentioned, Danes and Christians are apparently exempt from protection. Section 266b is practically only a protection of foreigners and an obstacle to the political work of those who want to preserve “the Denmark we know” – which is clearly a different Denmark than Helle Thorning Schmidt’s. We are thus approaching the point where legal political resistance work is no longer possible and freedom fighters are forced into illegality against their will. The public prosecutor has charged the leader of the Party of the Danes, Daniel Carlsen, for quoting the UN table of intelligence quotients in different countries, which, as we have seen, may not be flattering for everyone (even though an average is a statistic that says nothing about an individual’s intelligence). The accusation was not that Carlsen had misquoted, but that some might feel offended. Well, sometimes the truth is not pleasant, but if the truth has to give way to political correctness, we have long since abandoned the rule of law. This has been the case in Germany for a long time. There, the courts have ruled that proof of truth does not exempt from criminal liability. Here, Carlsen was acquitted, but with so many reservations and explanations that it is only a matter of time before someone is convicted, even if they prove the truth of their statements.
Freedom of expression is also claimed to be guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10(1) of which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to give and receive messages or ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. It contains the basic exceptions regarding state security, prevention of crime, etc. According to Article 14, the freedoms of the Convention must be guaranteed “without distinction as to sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” It is interesting that the Convention explicitly mentions political opinion. Such beliefs enjoy no special protection in Danish law. However, Article 17 of the Convention again erases all rights for political dissidents: “Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as implying any right for any State, group or person to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is authorized by this Convention.” Anyone who is not a member of the community protected by the Convention has no rights. This reservation is open to interpretation. This is the reason why a large number of countries are free to ban speech, political organizations, etc. even though they may not actually have any fundamental objections to the 1950 Convention. So here, too, there is no real guarantee of freedom of expression. It is like the GDR, where, on paper, anyone could travel wherever they wanted and where freedom of expression was guaranteed in the constitution along with all the other known freedoms and more. Practice, as we know, was different.
If you think there should be limits to freedom of expression, the line must be drawn where you sully your own nest, where you destroy the common foundation on which you stand and without which you would be nothing, as man could not exist outside of a community. Where you deny Denmark’s right to exist as a country of Danes. Where you burn the flag, where you think Danish is the ugliest word in the language. That’s where the treason begins! There you insult the Danes, you insult deceased generations who have fought for this country – and you insult unborn generations whose heritage you destroy. It will not always be easy to draw the line, but there it must be.
Rise and resist – while you still can! Revolution is the only solution!
Povl H. Riis-Knudsen
Translated by means of artificial intelligence.
[1] Matthew 28:18-20: “18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying: All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (King James’ Version)
Danmarks Frihedsraad 