As I reported last week, on August 25 our Austrian correspondent Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was one of the podium speakers at a panel discussion organized under the auspices of Heinz-Christian Strache, the leader of the FPÖ (Austrian Freedom Party). The topic of discussion was “Europe is changing: Are there possibilities for a consensus with Islam(ism) or will there be a decline of our society and values?”
A video of Elisabeth’s concluding remarks is below, followed by a transcript. Many thanks to Kitman for subtitling and uploading this video:
Transcript:
I will keep my final statement short by giving you a short statement about the term “Islamophobia”, which was brought to our attention right at the end, and then I will give you three very short final statements
without any comments.
With regard to Islamophobia: The term was introduced with the Islamic Revolution in Iran at the end of the 1970s as a fighting word with respect to sharia. It says in the sharia that Islam, the prophet, and Allah may not be denigrated. I have condensed this, but all of this can be found in the “Reliance of the Traveller”, the manual for sharia law. If you come to my seminar, you will learn all of this.
It says very clearly in this book that anyone, whether Muslim or non-Muslim denigrates the name of Allah or his prophet, however one may interpret this, is an Islamophobe and deserves death.
What should really worry us here is that this term has been put on an equal level, both in the UN, in which the Islamic countries are the leading [voting] bloc, simply because they have the highest number of countries, and the EU and the European Council have followed suit, that Islamophobia is equal to racism.
This a very worrying situation, and I especially believe in this context that Austrian politicians, but not just the Austrian politicians, also European politicians, are joining in this [equating Islamophobia with racism], for whatever reason.
This means: the term Islamophobia must be repudiated right away. Even if we say rationally that Islamophobia, a phobia is an irrational fear of something, I cannot have an irrational fear of Islam because I am studying the teachings of Islam, and the I know what is going on. And from this “fear” I can do something.
I hope I wasn’t talking in circles too much.
In any case, Islamophobia is to be rejected from our side we should not even use the term, because then we are on the side of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. This about Islamophobia. If you come to my seminar, you will learn a lot more about Islamophobia, and will learn about its dangers.
Now to my final statement. I promised to read to you three sentences, with which I completely identify myself.
The first statement: My criticism concerns an ideology and not the people. This is very important. And because words are put in my mouth, I repeat: My criticism concerns an ideology And not any human being.
The second statement: Every form of criticism of Islam, patriotism, and national awareness is labeled across the board with the term right-wing populism, and one is confronted with terms like hatred, xenophobia and extremism. This is what I ask you to consider and think about.
And my final thoughts are very dear to my heart. The statement reads as follows: Is it “right-wing” to stand for women’s rights? Is it “right-wing” to criticize a religion, or any other religion? Is it “right-wing” to defend the right of the individual over that of the ideology?
I say to you: if that is the case, then yes I say to you, Yes, I hereby present right-wing political views.
Thank you for coming tonight.
For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.
The term “phobia” denotes an “irrational fear”, maybe we should start debate from that premise.
This could afford those that use critical thinking methods to offer their arguement for the sake of discernment in regards to rationality.
No, that would probably be racsist..
Islamisation is just one of the tools used by the left to destroy the (western) society from within in order to impose the marxist rule.
The marxists will shed any pretense of standing for women or gays or whoever, when they will deem it necessary.
All of this positions were just temporary masks, to fool enough people, to advance their agenda.
Think of marxism as the AIDS virus, invading our cells, starting with the cells who protect the body.
Once the immune system is compromised, secondary diseases can then kill the body.
The analogy works like this: once the common sense is destroyed by the on-slaughter of propaganda: whites are “raaacists”, republicans are anti-islam, or anti-gay or anti-fill in the blanks, anything can go.
The funding fathers are now racists, the constitution is just an old document out of step with the times and we would need a second bill of rights.
So, the final push of marxism is at hand, ready to finish us.
The idea of defusing the term “Islamaphobia” by calling ourselves Islamophobes has been foolish. Stop doing that, folks.
We are Critics of Islam.
We are Critical of Islam.
We are Islamorealists
Really, we can’t keep joking about this. These people don’t have a good enough sense of irony for us to joke around with that word.
Calling someone “phobic” is the same as saying the person is psychologically sick or neurotic. This is lawsuit material.
Conservative leaders should fiercely attack people for using the term, so let’s tell them to do their job. It should have happened long ago and the word wouldn’t have caught on. Tell your conservative leaders to push back on this false amateur public psychological diagnosis.
We’re on the cusp of a ‘Brave New World’… one of conformity in which everyone is made the same in an effort to dictate equality, which can only occur at the expense of individuality and freedom of choice. Much like what Hitler tried to do in Europe, just a much nicer version of it…
… anyway, how does the Islamic Jihad fit in with the socialization of Europe? From my perspective it appears the socialist secular left is using the Islamic cultural assault to further their own secular agendas against what is left of Christian Europe.
Not so much a religious issue, but a breaking down of nations built on religious precepts so as to rebuild them as secular constructs.
By removing religion, the governments then have more authority and control of the populace thereby allowing the appropriate social engineering to take place… and then experiment next Brave New Utopia ideologies.
This is a most dangerous game for the left to try and use one religious agenda against another. They may end up creating a monster they can’t control. Paving the path to Islamic take over and finding themselves subject to dictatorial polices not of t heir liking.
Most people I know from the secular socialist left don’t understand the power of religion and the risks they are taking. They don’t believe a god exists, so to them there is no real harm or danger in playing around with people’s beliefs.
And with Islam, the one thing they most often over-look is that while they view Islam as an ally in many respects, Islam views the secular as a greater enemy than Jews or Christians. If Islam wins, they will not be kind to their secular allies, Islam will turn on them and seek to subjugate the secular right along with everyone else.
In this, Christians end up being the secular socialist’s greatest allies.
Translation into Russian is here.
http://tay-kuma.livejournal.com/741635.html
Lawrence: The finer point here is that secularists fail to believe that SATAN exists – and fail to understand that they along with Muslims are actively furthering SATANIC goals.
As bad as secularism is, it does not cut the clitorises off of the vast majority of its girls – and it does not rape or molest most little boys (deemed Islamic pearls) and girls (called wives in polygamous marriages and temporary marriages that equal Islamic-sanctioned child prostitution).
@Egghead-
It is also the case that not all those who profess some form of religious belief also believe in evil as an entity with a name — Satan, Lucifer, etc.
Some refuse to define it that way, seeing evil as a flaw arising out of the inherently flawed human condition. I don’t mean ‘flaw’ as evil but rather in the Thomistic sense of an absence of good. IOW, he saw it as a nothingness, a kind of black hole.
Some philosophies of mind see the problem as arising out of the fact that humans are born too soon: they cannot speak or coherently communicate their needs for a crucially long time. Parents and caregivers, even under optimum condtitions, are left to guess at the needs of a screaming baby. Thus, out of this preverbal but pervasive and deeply felt frustration arise the chasms in which our flawed character originates.
Some name it evil — and can designate as a actual force while others see it as an absolute absence. Others personify it with a name. In a manner of speaking, they thus tame it by making it more ‘human’.
I always found it interesting that Saul Alinsky, who believed in nothing transcendent, nonetheless dedicated his book to Lucifer.