The following smear job directed at Gates of Vienna appeared last Saturday in the Dutch newspaper Trouw. Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan has kindly translated it, and includes the following background information on the newspaper that carried it:
This name ‘Trouw’ means ‘Loyalty’. It started as a resistance newspaper in WW2, and after the war it continued as a major newspaper. The paper used to be left-wing/Protestant. It is the smallest of the national newspapers.
In the eighties and beyond this paper radicalized, and is now the most vocal voice for politically-correct media. Several times it crossed the boundaries of what a newspaper can do and remain unbiased.
For example, in 2008 Doekle Terpstra placed a (near) full page appeal for tolerance on the front page, free of charge. No newspaper places even a half-page advertisement on the front page. The editor fully approved of Mr. Terpstra’s actions, and gave him the full front page, free of charge.
This action was highly criticized when it happened. Not only that, it fell flat on its foolish face. Mr. Terpstra was — and still is — a prominent member of the CDA, but he had to leave politics, only to find himself currently in a massive scandal of bribery and incompetence.
Many people in The Netherlands no longer see Trouw as a reliable newspaper when it comes to unbiased reporting about ethnic problems.
The paper can even be seen as the modern version of Volk en Vaderland, the NSB newspaper of WW2. It is that biased.
Trouw, like Pajamas Media before it, was alarmed by the essay “Surrender, Genocide… or What?” by El Inglés, which appeared here in the spring of 2008. Before you read the hit piece below, read El Inglés’ original essay. You’ll notice that Trouw takes El Inglés’ arguments and distorts them, extends them, and wraps them around the most extreme interpretation — which is the conclusion the newspaper encourages the reader to reach.
Once again, many thanks to H. Numan for the translation:
Awaiting a new Breivik
Anders Breivik is deranged, concluded his psychiatrists. His manifesto should not be taken seriously. But a bit of surfing makes clear the Norwegian isn’t alone. “We have to make a choice: total capitulation to Islam, or genocide.” The book can be closed, so it seems. The Norwegian mass murderer acted according to his psychotic derangement, stated his psychiatrists. So he can be placed in the same category as the deranged killer in Alphen aan de Rijn; we don’t have to occupy ourselves with his ideas.
If only that were true. A bit of surfing on the Internet shows he doesn’t stand alone at all. At www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.com, for example, you can find from 2008 a lengthy essay from a certain ‘Inglés’ who claims genocide against Muslims is unavoidable. Inglés is not a visitor who wrote a few wild lines in anger. He is a welcome guest on this blogspot and posted several other very lengthy essays.
Gates of Vienna is not just a blogspot, but one with some prestige amongst Islamophobes. The name mentions to the gates of Vienna and refers to the siege of that city by the Ottoman Turks in 1683. Breivik titled his manifesto 2083. By that year, 400 years after the siege of Vienna, his revolution against multiculturalism should be finished.
Gates of Vienna doesn’t accept just anyone’s writings. It claims to moderate its posts seriously. Against this we can state that once something is published, it will remain there for years to come, such as the story of Inglés. It didn’t slip through by accident.
Inglés finds himself in well-known company, for the blogger Fjordman, quoted heavily in the works of Breivik, also publishes a lot here. Breivik didn’t include Inglés’ essays in his works; they would have fitted in nicely.
Reading Breivik, Fjordman or Inglés leaves a crushing impression. It shows how deeply the divide between the established media and anti-Islamic websites already is. Each accuses the other of unrealistic world views, and each has a different view of reality that hardly can be breached. The details of the report by Breivik’s psychiatrists are not known to the general public. However, if these doctors didn’t examine Islamophobic thinking, it’s understandable why they concluded Breivik is deranged.
Inglés is the nom de plume of a British national; he describes the situation in his country, though he also extrapolates to other countries as well, amongst them The Netherlands. He describes abuses in London, where according to him the police have the tendency to look the other way when radical Islam is involved, where vigilance would be more appropriate. He concludes the police are only fighting rearguard actions and have already handed the streets over to radical Islamic preachers.
According to Inglés the traditional elite will not confront the Islamic peril. That elite, he claims, caused the problems in the first place by a far too liberal immigration policy, and are blind to the ‘true character’ of Islam, which isn’t a religion, but a totalitarian political movement. They (the elite) are responsible for the sowing of this ‘cancer’ which Islam really is, according to Inglés. That elite is beginning to realize the problems, but will never admit their own failure. They placed the Islamic noose around our heads and will not do anything to take that noose away.
He named his article ‘Surrender, Genocide… or What?’. We have to make a choice: either total surrender to Islam, or resistance against it. In case of the latter, there are three options: to bully the Muslims away with nasty, irritating and humiliating measures, deportation or genocide.
It is already too late for bullying, there are too many Muslims for that to work. There remains deportation, which Inglés separates into organized deportation and ethnic cleansing. That is not possible in Europe, states Inglés. When France for example would extradite their Muslim population across the border with Spain, Spain would respond likewise by sending their Muslims to France.
However, an orderly deportation has its own problems. It won’t be easy to extradite 20 million Muslims by air. Who guarantees their native countries will allow them to return?
That means genocide is the only remaining option. That cannot, according to Inglés, be in the shape of the Holocaust. The Germans could hide for a long time what they were doing in the extermination camps. This is no longer possible with modern communication. Inglés fears it might take the shape of what happened on the Balkan in the 90’s. The violence will be extreme, he fears.
One reason is that Europeans are no longer used to war and force of arms, in contrast to the more tribal Muslims. Europeans will catch up quickly, but once they have, they will tend to overreact. Because they are not mentally trained to respond to violence in appropriate measure.
Genocide, in the shape of a wild massacre not far away in an extermination camp, but right in front of everybody’s eyes. Perhaps, rather than a Balkan scenario, a European Rwanda. Though Inglés does not make that comparison.
Does Inglés wants this to happen? No, he is quite firm in this. If he were in control for just a second, he could avoid the disaster taking shape. The measures he proposes are pretty drastic to say the least. All immigration from Muslim countries must be strictly forbidden. Every Muslim who argues for full or partial shariah law will be extradited immediately. Building of new mosques must be strictly forbidden. Unlicensed or illegal mosques will be torn down. Promoting or defending of whichever form of violent Islam will be punished with immediate deportation. Islam will earn the status of ‘perverted political ideology’, and practising Islam will earn a deportation sentence, also for children of migrants. British converts who openly profess their religion will be incarcerated.
However, writes Inglés, it is unthinkable that the present rules will allow this kind of measures. That is why the last option, genocide, will remain. At least, if we refuse to submit to the Muslims. An act of terror could begin the bloodbath, he makes clear in another ‘essay’, about a fictive civil war in Denmark.
Inglés presents his story as an analysis, but you can easily read it as a veiled call for violence. Since a war with Muslims is inevitable anyway, is the logical conclusion, you had better be prepared for it. Buy arms, train yourself in using them. The blogger Fjordman pleads for this.
No printed newspaper would allow these kinds of stories on the opinion page. But in the world of the Islamophobic Internet, Inglés is just one out of many. The same goes for the larger parts of Breivik’s manifesto. The conclusion of his psychiatrists doesn’t change anything.