A Few Words About Paris

Jussi Halla-aho is a Finnish writer and an MEP for the Finns Party who has been publicly demonized, tried, and convicted of “hate speech” for his opposition to mass immigration into Finland. For the full background on the persecution against him, see the Jussi Halla-aho archives.

The following essay about the Charlie Hebdo massacre was published yesterday on Jussi Halla-aho’s website. Many thanks to Heikki Polojärvi for the translation

A few words about Paris
by Jussi Halla-aho

Three Islamists, offended for mockery directed at their prophet Muhammad, attacked the editorial office of a French magazine and killed, with assault rifles, twelve people, including two police officers, the head editor and several cartoonists. One of the perpetrators surrendered to the police and, as I’m writing this, two more are being hunted.

As always, when an Islamist shoots, blows up or beheads innocents, the most interesting thing is to observe the reactions of the media, politicians and ordinary citizens. What is characteristic of these reactions is the closing of their eyes to the phenomenon. Each and every case is an isolated and singular event; none are in any way linked to each other. This regardless of declaration of jihad by the perpetrators themselves, the common denominator with their Allahu akhbars. Especially these deeds are not admitted to be in any way linked with Islam, but rather social exclusion, racism or the perpetrators’ psychological problems. However, the perpetrators themselves do not declare that they are avenging racism or social exclusion. They are defending the honor of the prophet Muhammad.

Of course it’s clear that a person who shoots, blows up or beheads innocent people does not give the impression of being mentally balanced. However, explaining all violent acts committed in the name of Islam is about the same as, for example, explaining away Nazi Germany and the Holocaust as Germans’ psychological problems. We all probably agree that it is not a healthy sign to gas innocent men, women and children at death camps.

Most Germans who participated in the Holocaust were perfectly normal people. Their actions were logical and normal activity from the point of view of the prevalent national socialist ideology, and in exactly the same way the activities of Islamic throat-cutters are normal and logical activities, as seen from their (in his case, religious) point of view.

It is also interesting to compare these reactions with the discussion that took place in 2011 in the aftermath of the massacre in Norway. In those times riding with corpses, milking them for political advantage, and using Breivik to brand his entire “reference group” — that is, anti-Islamists, nationalists, and immigration critics — was downright mainstream. “Not a stone must be left unturned,” commented the Helsingin Sanomat [major newspaper and MSM outlet], drawing lines from Breivik to the Finns Party, and to the author. This regardless of Breivik’s having acted, from beginning to the end, alone, and his having had hardly any sympathies from any group whatsoever.

At the time, social democrat and leftist groups in Finland demanded immediate action against “hate speech” spreading on Finnish internet sites, as well as the resignations of the leaders of the Finns Party, “riding on anti-immigrationism”. Editors insisted that Breivik’s deeds “should not be seen as one lunatic’s actions”; the foreign minister wanted zero tolerance for the Finns’ hate speech. Hufvudstadsbladet [Finnish Swedish-language newspaper] guessed, and hoped, that the events in Norway would reduce support for the Finns. The Greens minister urged Timo Soini [then the leader of the Finns] to put his extreme nationalists in order. Et cetera, et cetera.

Islamists’ actions are seen in a very different manner. Today Finnish party leaders have declared that no-one should try to gain any political advantage from the events in France.

It’s a rather interesting thought that the negative consequences of immigration could not be used as an argument when discussing immigration policies. It seems that the limits of good taste have moved somewhat during these past three and a half years.

I don’t make these comparisons to gripe about unfair treatment towards the Finns Party. I really think the special role Islam and Muslims, and the construction of a “tolerant” identity, have in the Western mindset is very interesting indeed, as well as what kind of a knot a critic is willing to twist himself into to be able to explain away, or at least to interpret in the best possible way, anything negative that happens in the name of Islam.

A YLE [Finnish version of the BBC] correspondent writes: “Among journalists, thinkers, activists and cartoonists in the Near East there is a deep consensus that the murders at Charlie Hebdo were repulsive, deserve condemnation, and represent only the perpetrators’ own twisted point of view.”

Undoubtedly the culprits’ world view is twisted, but is it really their own? For example, the Madrid and London bombers, the Toulouse shooter, the Brussels shooter, the murderer of Theo van Gogh, the Sydney cafeteria jihadist, or the persons who just before Christmas rammed a car to a crowd in France and stabbed three police officers, screaming Allahu akhbar, or those who have tried to murder Swedish and Danish cartoonists, or firebombed newspaper editorial offices — they all probably have a similar worldview. In many Islamic countries, also in those where governments are democratically elected, blasphemy is punishable by death.

The Paris shooters punished the staff of a satirical newspaper by death, for lampooning their holy values. In what way is their world view more twisted than the prevalent one in the Muslim countries? This is what I mean by saying, that in their own culture, and religious frame of reference their deed is not deranged but logical.

The Indian party leader and state politician Yakub Qureshi promises a reward to the Paris shooters, and says: “Those who dare to insult the prophet Muhammad deserve death without a trial,” and adds: “The prophet spread the message of peace and love.”

Are Qureshi and all his voters isolated, deranged people, who have nothing at all to do with each other or with Islam?

In Britain the extreme Islamist Anjem Choudary, who recently visited Finland too, rushed to defend the Paris attack: “Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the prophet Muhammad”

Are Choudary — and all his audience in Finland, and in Britain — isolated, deranged people who have nothing to do with each other or with Islam?

After Breivik’s deed no-one was concerned over whether or not the incident would increase prejudice and fears toward nationalists. When Islamists kill, the greatest concern of researchers is whether the incident increases negative attitudes towards Islam. Undoubtedly it does but, in my opinion, Islam, as it is, giving inspiration to so many people to commit massacres, is a much greater concern than whatever others are thinking about Islam.

There are many kinds of Muslims; there’s no arguing that. However, the interpretation of Islam that can be characterized as a fascistic death cult, that, according to its own words, aims for world conquest and the destruction of Western, secular, free society, and whose means are in accordance, enjoys considerable support, both in Muslim-majority countries and also in Europe. Most Muslims surely would not take part in violent acts, or directly approve of them, but the pitch-black stagnation and intolerance that the Islamist violence stems from is not a marginal phenomenon. According to a poll conducted last year, 16% of French Muslims are favorably disposed towards ISIS, and among those aged 18-22, 27% sympatised with it. German research in 2013 pointed out that half of Muslims in Europe can be called fundamentalists.

The evil world is not far from us either; that can be seen in the fact that persons like Choudary are being invited to Finland to preach their teachings. In proportion to the population, more people have left Finland for Iraq and Syria than from most countries in the western Europe. In Sweden which has the largest (proportional to population) or (after France) the largest and most swiftly growing Muslim minority, Islamists have, in their closed forums, gloated about the attack: “Now the pigs will think twice before offending Allah and his prophet.”

Islamism is an ideology enjoying wide popularity or at least passive acceptance, internally coherent and well-networked. Because the incentives are religious, and the rewards in the hereafter, they hardly can be negotiated, or compromised with. Guns and bombs will bang, throats will be cut in the future, because no society can continuously maintain such surveillance that every attack can be tracked and prevented.

After the Paris attack it has been declared, as usual, that the Western society is strong, and the pen is the mightiest of weapons. On this one can hold two opinions. The cartoonist, with his pen, does not stop a man with an assault rifle. Instead, the man with the assault rifle stops the cartoonist. Because no-one is eager to die, fear of terrorism forces society into deeper and deeper self-censorship. This is practical Islamisation: dancing to the Islamists’ tune. For that they need no majority.

However, if there’s no readiness for other actions, we can always march against Islamophobia, and denounce the Finns Party’s tweets.

19 thoughts on “A Few Words About Paris

  1. I am always amazed at how the MSM in America refers to Mohammed as “Islam’s prophet.” But doesn’t admitting that there is a prophet admit there is a God? Can someone please help me with this? You never see the MSM refer to Jesus as “The Son of God.”

    • Prophet is just another word taken from the Christian world’s terminology, as well as Martyr, for that matter, and given new meanings which are worlds and centuries apart.

      A Martyr dies in persecution for his – Christian – faith

      A Prophet, you cannot even start to define it, because the explanation will immediately be hijacked by mohammedans, which we see all the way. Unfortunately, this wolf in sheep’s clothes, has worked, and still does, for the uninformed masses.

      A Prophet is NOT a warlord, so the MSM should stop using this term when referring to a warlord!

  2. Very well argued. I like the point that after Brevik, nobody fretted about a backlash against nationalists (counter-jihadophobia?). The Islamic supremacists are a sort of protected class among the self-styled intelligentsia. Since they hate the West, they appeal to anti-Western leftists who seem to welcome the destruction of their own societies, proving that they are as stupid as dinosaurs heading into a tar pit.
    By the way, I wonder if Finland has recognized “Palestine”? That’s always a sign of terminal dhimmitude.

  3. If they think about it at all, to the MSM references to Mohammed as “Islam’s prophet” are about the same as any other religious title – i.e., the Dalai Lama, Pope Francis, etc.

    I don’t think they want to mention “Allah” as that is too much detail and could bring down the wrath of Muslims on them. They step carefully and no doubt have extensive Muslim Brotherhood advice on what to say and how to say it.

    Jussi Halla-aho refers alternately to Islam as a religion and as an ideology. It would be a step forward if politicians who realize the dangers Islam represents would carefully delink “Islam” from the word “religion”. His use of ideology is accurate.

    The main problem is that most European politicians are not themselves practicing Christians or observant Jews. They are secular; after the long periods of fierce religious wars in Europe, they feel comfortable in their hard-won humanism.

    The MSM keeps afloat the lie that Islam is a religion because none of them understand or experience religion for themselves. Islam gets a break from their usual derision because it’s so cool to be cool about Islam. Just ask them.

  4. Steyn on Danish Cartoons and Princess Dianified candlelit vigils:

    It makes me sick to see all these ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’ cartoons that have appeared in newspapers all over the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, everywhere, from other cartoonists, again expressing solidarity with these very brave men, but not doing what they did. …(B)ack in 2005, these Danish cartoons were published in an obscure Jutland newspaper, and a bunch of fanatics went bananas and started killing people over them. So a couple of publications on the planet, including mine in Canada, and Charlie Hebdo in Paris, published these cartoons… and nobody else did. And as a result, these fellows in Charlie Hebdo became the focus of murderous rage. If we’d all just published them on the front page and said if you want to kill us, you go to hell, you can’t just kill a couple of obscure Danes, you’re going to have to kill us all, we wouldn’t have this problem. But because nobody did that, these Parisian guys are dead. They’re dead.

    These men were exceptionally brave. Most of the people expressing solidarity with them are not that brave. I’m not that brave. But when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing, I fought back, and I pushed back, and I got a law changed in the Canadian Parliament, because that’s how important I think freedom of speech is. But I wasn’t asked to die for it like these guys were. And to be honest, it makes me vomit to see people holding these Princess Dianified candlelit vigils, and using the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, I am Charlie, and in effect appropriating these guys’ sacrifice for this bogus solidarity.


    • There’s a (bogus) solidarity march planned for Paris in the next day or two – to be attended of course by the Traitor Class from throughout Europe.

  5. Outrageous that the Media promote Bill Donohue’s vile spew:



    Bill should be living with the Jihadists instead of drinking himself silly on the Catholic League’s dime, preaching “Self Censorship“.


    “The cartoonists, and all those associated with Charlie Hebdo, are no champions of freedom. Quite the opposite: their obscene portrayal of religious figures—so shocking that not a single TV station or mainstream newspaper would show them—represents an abuse of freedom.”

    The Media’s Cowardice implicates Charlie Hebdo!


  6. “A YLE [Finnish version of the BBC] correspondent writes: “Among journalists, thinkers, activists and cartoonists in the Near East there is a deep consensus that the murders at Charlie Hebdo were repulsive, deserve condemnation, and represent only the perpetrators’ own twisted point of view.” ”

    Can he be more specific, and maybe provide examples? How did he come to this conclusion? And is this taking into account only the English or Arabic-language media?

    Whenever someone makes a budget film about Mohammed, or draws some cartoons, in some distant corner of the world, in the “Near East” there are angry large crowds on the streets calling for boycotts or the death of the “perpetrators”. Yet after these attacks, I’ve still not heard of any #jesuischarlie vigils in that region, or any sizeable reaction against the killings. Not even in Tunisia, a supposedly “moderate” country, many of whose citizens speak French and have family in France.

    Has there been such a reaction, or is this yet another of the customary “the vast majority condemn these attacks” type of statement, without any evidence for it whatsoever?

    • Well, I was wrong. In Tunis there was a vigil, with around 50 candles being lit… whether this was because of Tunisia being the birthplace of one of the cartoonists, or because of some wider pro free-speech sentiment in the Islamic world, I can’t be sure…

      Many more vigils can be seen here.

  7. “Today Finnish party leaders have declared that no-one should try to gain any political advantage from the events in France.”

    Wondered how they’d try to weasel out of this… Now we have the answer. Luckily in the case of Finland, we have the statement in the wake of Breivik, which was also mentioned:

    “Not a stone must be left unturned,” commented the Helsingin Sanomat [major newspaper and MSM outlet], drawing lines from Breivik to the Finns Party, and to the author.”

    Why not make an image comparing “Reaction after Breivik’s attacks” to “reaction after Paris attacks” with the quotes in Finnish highlighted, drawing attention to the Finnish establishment’s idea of “fairness”? And then post, tweet, share and retweet ad nauseam?

    We may not have many friends in parliaments or in the MSM, but we do have our Facebook and/or twitter accounts. Now is the time to make use of them.

  8. Excellent article. Thanks.
    Some observations on “What the majority thinks”.
    It is a favoured and almost natural line of enquiry in Western democratic discussion to ascertain what the majority thinks, or in what direction they are favourably disposed. This makes for some interesting discussion, but it does not alter or affect what Islam is, what it consists of.

    Islam is not defined by what the majority thinks, nor, for that matter, are Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism. If, through some giant Ebola-type outbreak all the knowledgeable muslims were to die, no difference would be made to what Islam is. This “ideological political movement”, as Anjem Choudary describes it, is defined by its core texts, the Koran, the Hadith, and the teachings of Mohammed. Waffle about “interpretation” is a classic Islamic deception (“taqiyya”) distraction . Kill means kill, stone means stone, cut off means cut off, what-your-right-hands-possess means slaves.

  9. The violent riots of the muslim world are instructed in the mosques. The Islamic world lacks the freedoms of speech and assembly that we are accustomed to in the West. We need not attribute to them the kind of spontaneity that we are familiar with.
    It is too easy to telescope together the separate components of causation. The violent riots are caused by mullahs instructing muslims: they are not caused by teddy bears, or burnt books, or low-budget videos. Those are merely the pretexts exploited by the mullahs exercising their all-important “Control”, the main feature of “Submission”, namely Islam.

    “Cartoons were, indeed, the pretext of the demonstration at which the war booty shout was recorded. It was a demonstration dishonestly orchestrated by imams: they are, after all, authorised to lie. Forged cartoons were added that had never appeared in the Western press, and one imam toured the Muslim world to drum up support for a show of force. Whipped up by their imams in the mosques the Soldiers of Allah dutifully carried out their orders. All this was some four months after the publication, not spontaneous in the slightest.”

    • And thanks for your trouble, Heikki; this one of the best-reasoned and most balanced articles I’ve seen on GoV. I saw J H-a interviewed on TV a couple of years ago, and he goes up even further in my estimation.

Comments are closed.