Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has just returned to Austria after an extended visit to the United States, where she was invited to speak by various anti-Islamization groups in different cities.

On April 21 Elisabeth spoke in Dallas, Texas at an event sponsored by the Dallas chapter of ACT! For America. She was introduced at the event by Lt. Col. (ret.) Allen West. Below is the prepared text for her speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak to ACT! for America here in Dallas, Texas. These are perilous times we are living in. Advocates for freedom on both sides of the Atlantic need to stand together!

For the past nine months Austria and the rest of Western Europe have undergone a profound transformation, one that will inevitably change the face of Europe permanently. I refer, of course, to the migration crisis, which began in earnest last summer, and is continuing as I speak to you. As the weather warms up and spring gives way to summer, we may expect the crisis to intensify even further. More than a million immigrants arrived in Austria and Germany via the “Balkan route” last year, and at least as many are expected to come this year — probably significantly more.

These migrants are generally referred to by our political leaders and the media as “refugees”, but this is hardly the case. Not only are most of them from countries where there is no war to flee from, but they are also overwhelmingly young Muslim men, of fighting age. In other words, the current crisis is actually an instance of Islamic hijra, or migration into infidel lands to advance the cause of Islam. The hijra goes hand in hand with jihad — once enough Muslim migrants have settled in the target country, violent jihad can begin.

It should be quite clear by now that the jihad phase has already begun in Western Europe. The most recent instances were the massacres in Paris and Brussels, which were acts of jihad carried out by Muslims. Some of the terrorists were in fact “refugees” who had pretended to be “Syrian” and came in with the migrant wave.

And all of them were fighting jihad in the way of Allah, as instructed by the Koran.

I could take up my entire time slot tonight talking about the European migration crisis, and never do more than scratch the surface. However, I’d like to discuss one aspect of the crisis that is very important: the manipulation by the mainstream media of the news about the migrants.

A single example from a beach in Turkey will help give you an idea of what is going on. The image that sparked Western interest in the crisis was the widely-publicized photograph of the dead toddler on the beach in Turkey. That photo is an example of media manipulation. Not about the fact of the baby’s death, but what was done with his little body once he was dead. There is now ample evidence that the body was moved and arranged in place so that the most heart-wrenching photo could be taken. Furthermore, the father of the child was not a poor helpless refugee trying to escape to freedom, but an accomplice of the people smugglers who piloted the boat, who irresponsibly brought his family with him.

For journalists working for Der Spiegel or Le Figaro or The Guardian or CNN, the media narrative is more important than the truth. And the media narrative was (and is) that poor innocent refugees are drowning because they are left to die by evil Europeans.

Those facts about the incident never made it into public consciousness. Not like the image of the pitiful corpse at the edge of the waves — that’s the kind of story that the Western media love to dish out, especially when it promotes the media narrative. It’s also the kind of story that Western audiences love to lap up — it’s what Gates of Vienna, the website I’m associated with, calls “Dead Baby Porn”.

Dead Baby Porn tugs the heartstrings of well-meaning Westerners. It reinforces all their presuppositions about current events. It gives them a vicarious frisson about the poor, suffering child. And, in their response, it makes them feel morally superior when they join the clamor to open their country’s borders to the unfortunate “refugees”.

The media feed the public a steady stream of photos and videos that feature pitiful migrant women and children. We see them looking through the razor wire towards “freedom”, weeping, cooking their food over a campfire, and being pushed back by border guards. Yet these images are so misleading that they constitute disinformation.

The ugly fact is that the overwhelming majority of the “refugees” are healthy young men who either have no wives and children, or left them behind to seize the opportunity for hijra into Europe. They come from Afghanistan, Morocco, Eritrea, and Pakistan, but they acquire forged or stolen Syrian passports so that they become “Syrian”, and thus qualify for VIP status in the flood of refugees.

We are being deliberately manipulated. The Western public is being manipulated into supporting the migration of fighting-age Muslim men into Europe. They are being manipulated into joining the crowd of starry-eyed people holding up “Welcome Refugees” signs in European train stations. And they are being manipulated into paying for all of it through their donations to various NGOs whose mission is to aid the “refugees”.

Yet their donations do not cover the entire cost. It’s a very expensive proposition to send refugees from Anatolia to the Greek islands, and then through Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria to Germany. It’s not just the payment to the people-smugglers who take them across a few miles of the Aegean and dump them just off the beach on Lesbos, although that is expensive enough. From there they are carried by ferry to the mainland, housed, clothed, and fed. When they continue their journey, they ride on buses and trains almost the entire distance — they walk only a few hundred yards to cross each border, getting out of a bus in one country and boarding another one in the next.

This is yet another way in which you, the Western public, are being manipulated by the media. All those photos and videos of endless columns of refugees walking along dusty roads carrying their children and pathetic belongings — those are not representative of the migrants’ journey. A typical shot would show hundreds of young men sitting on buses with air conditioning and upholstered seats. But you don’t see many of those, do you?

Someone is paying the costs of all this. Public donations cover only a small portion of the billions of dollars paid out to transport migrants. The governments of the countries involved pay some of the cost. And the European Union pays some of it. And there are multiple indications that George Soros and his Open Society Foundations are bankrolling a lot of the process, including the printing of maps and helpful instructions for the “refugees” in multiple languages.

Make what you will of all of this. No matter what their motives are, the internationalists who push for global governance and a borderless world are expending vast amounts of money to fool the European public and move millions of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe. Europe will become more “diverse”, whether it likes it or not.

And if, as a consequence, terror attacks have to kill hundreds or thousands of people, and women have to be gang-raped, why, those are just unfortunate side-effects.

You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, you know. Especially white European eggs.

The migrant crisis is just the beginning of what might be called the “kinetic phase” of the deconstruction of European nation-states. Last summer’s events were not a new crisis. They were simply a continuation of an ongoing long-term process.

The constant flow of migrants across the Mediterranean into Europe has been going on for at least a decade. It picked up speed after the “Arab Spring” began in 2011, and especially after Moammar Qaddafi was murdered. Then the flow of migrants accelerated greatly last summer because President Erdogan of Turkey stopped interfering with the boats of the people-smugglers.

And now the European Union has paid an enormous amount of protection money to Mr. Erdogan in return for his promise to do what he used to do for free — stop the traffickers’ boats from crossing the Aegean to Greece.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the flow of migrants into Europe is an intentional process on the part of EU leaders. Many of them —especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel — are on record saying how important it is to invite all this “diversity” into Europe. The recent tsunami has obviously taken them by surprise, but it is exactly what they wanted — just not this fast.

They didn’t want the immigrants entering this quickly because the indigenous people of Europe might become alarmed by the influx and take action to throw their leaders out of office. This would not do. Those leaders want native Europeans to remain asleep so that the process of population replacement can be completed before they realize it.

No, it wasn’t supposed to happen this way. But now the European people are waking up, and change is in the air. It may be too little, too late — but awareness is finally dawning.

Population replacement is only one of the strategies employed by those who want to deconstruct the nation-states of Europe. In order to complete the process without a hitch, the native populace must be kept under control. Existing cultural institutions such as the Church and patriotic organizations must be discredited and weakened so that people are unable to form networks and organize against what is being done to them. Ideally, they would be unaware that such organizing is even possible. They must remain atomized, divided from one another, and under the full control of the state — the EU superstate, that is.

As the situation has worsened for the last decade or so, the European Union and its member states have cracked down on free speech. Bringing in so many migrants has accelerated the Islamization of Europe, which tends to be unpopular. Increased crime, more rape and harassment of women, the insistence that schools must serve halal foods and male students receiving permission to refrain from shaking their female teacher’s hand — these are all things that citizens dislike. But from the point of view of EU leaders, there is no going back — the migration must proceed; it’s a necessary part of the plan. Therefore, people must not be allowed to discuss these things nor urge their leaders to make changes. Instead, the criticism of Islam and Islamization must be forbidden. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations call it “defamation of religion”, and it has now been criminalized all across Europe. The EU is for all practical purposes enforcing sharia law on its indigenous residents.

Ten years ago, when I first began this work, the number of political prosecutions for “hate speech” in Europe was very small — the cases could be counted on the fingers of one hand. But that number has been increasing steadily ever since, and is now rising exponentially. There are now hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases every year in which people are prosecuted for racism, incitement, and discrimination simply for criticizing Islam or mass immigration. Unfortunately, many of those prosecuted are being convicted and fined. And, horribly enough, some are being sent to prison.

There are many, many cases of people being prosecuted for speaking the truth about Islam. Far too many for me to tell you about them all. I’ll discuss my own case in a few minutes, but first I’d like to say a few words about two friends of mine.

The first case is that of Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom — the PVV — the most popular political party in the Netherlands. If an election were held today, the PVV would win at least twice as many seats in parliament as any other party. After the current government falls, Geert may very well become the next prime minister.

Yet the government is prosecuting him for what he said about Moroccan immigrants. His first court appearance was last month, but the trial was postponed until next fall.

He is being charged with “discrimination” for asking his supporters at a rally whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands”. The charges against him were brought after thousands of complaints had been filed with the police — on pre-printed forms that police themselves had handed out in Muslim neighborhoods, and that imams had distributed to their illiterate congregants, many of whom had no idea what they were signing.

In other words, Geert Wilders was set up. His outspoken opinions about Islam, immigration, and the EU are considered unacceptable by the Powers That Be, and he must be stopped at any cost and by any means. His trial is a travesty, a farrago of justice. To call it a “kangaroo court” would be an insult to the world’s marsupials. A more fitting term would be “show trial”, just like those ordered by Stalin in the 1930s against his political enemies.

This is not the first political trial that Geert Wilders has had to endure, nor is it the second. This is the third time that the Dutch state has prosecuted him for “hate speech”. The first ended in a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. In the second he was acquitted. But the establishment will not be satisfied until it has convicted him and ended his political career, so it is putting him on trial again.

Another friend who is being persecuted by the state is Tommy Robinson, who was one of the founders of the English Defence League and was its leader for five years. Tommy has been brought to court by the British government numerous times. All of those prosecutions — the “hate speech” charges and all the others — were trumped-up affairs carried out for political purposes.

Tommy’s most recent conviction was for “mortgage fraud”, a minor crime for which no one else has done jail time. In fact, members of parliament have done exactly the same thing, but were never even charged. Tommy, on the other hand, was sentenced to eighteen months in prison.

While Tommy was inside, he was locked up with hardened Muslim criminals who wanted to kill him. He was repeatedly attacked and beaten up, and ended up in the prison hospital more than once.

On one occasion he was locked in a cell with several Muslim prisoners. Tommy had learned beforehand that one of them was planning to throw a mixture of boiling water and sugar in his face. This nasty brew is called “napalm” by the criminals who use it, and it can cause horrible burns, much worse than those caused by simple boiling water. Tommy acted pre-emptively and beat up the man who intended to throw it on him.

It is this incident for which he was recently charged. Thanks to the efforts of a group of women who through crowd-funding raised more than enough money, Tommy was for the first time able to retain a top-notch lawyer. He was acquitted and is now a free man.

The real issue behind all these arrests is that Tommy speaks the truth about the danger to the British people posed by Islam. But he is no longer being prosecuted for “hate speech” offenses — the state does not want the substance of what he says to aired in an open courtroom and discussed in the national media. Therefore other types of infractions must be found and other charges brought. The current case against him is simply the latest example of the repressive tactics being employed by the totalitarian British state.

So here’s the plan: Lock up the most charismatic leader the British Counterjihad has. Put him in with his most dangerous enemies — Muslim criminals who have promised to kill him. Make sure that the guards are absent or looking the other way when the trouble starts. Then, as far as the sharia-compliant British state is concerned, the problem has been solved.

The UK, like all the other enlightened governments of Western Europe, has abolished the death penalty. But there’s more than one way to kill a political nuisance — you don’t have to march him up the steps to the gibbet, put the noose around his neck, and open the trapdoor under him.

What is happening to Tommy Robinson is capital punishment by alternative means.

And now for my own case.

In early 2008 I began a series of seminars in Vienna, under the auspices of the FPÖ — the Austrian Freedom Party — explaining to members and other interested parties what Islam, the Qur’an and the hadith really teach, along with basic tenets of Islamic law. In my presentations I discussed the consequences for democracy, freedom and human rights today.

For the next year and a half the interest in my seminars grew, and attendance increased. The success of my lectures drew the attention of Austrian leftists, who are determined to discredit and destroy the work of those who criticize the tenets of Islamic doctrine. To them we are “racists”, “fascists”, and “Islamophobes”. Unbeknownst to me, the left-wing magazine NEWS sent a reporter to one of my seminars to make a surreptitious recording of it.

As a result, in late November, 2009, a criminal complaint was filed against me for “hate speech” . From an Austrian left-wing point of view, my offense was compounded by the fact that my seminars were held under the auspices of the FPÖ. Despite its popularity with Austrian voters, the FPÖ is reviled as a “xenophobic” party by leftist media and politicians.

The complaint against me was not filed by the state, but rather by NEWS magazine, the publication whose reporter had infiltrated the seminar. For the next ten months the possibility of a formal charge was left hanging over my head, but I received no official word about what might happen to me. All I could do was retain legal counsel and wait.

In April 2010 I gave a deposition to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Prevention of Terrorism. After that there was nothing from the prosecutor’s office. Finally, on September 15, I learned that a formal charge would be filed against me. A few days later I received official notice from the court: my trial date would be November 23, 2010.

During my trial the issue of pedophilia came up, in light of Muhammad’s status as the perfect example for Muslims, as stated in Quran 33:21. I explained what the hadith collections are, and that they constitute an indispensable part of Islamic scripture. I emphasized that I had made up none of what I said, but simply quoted canonical Islamic scripture concerning Muhammad’s conduct, including his marriage to a little girl named Aisha.

The trial was then adjourned until the following January. At the second hearing, excerpts from the seminar recordings were played back, demonstrating that the original charge of “incitement to hatred” was unjustified.

The judge then discussed my statement that the conduct of Muhammad is exemplary for Muslims, and took particular issue with the statement “What would this behavior be called today, if not pedophilia?” — which was a reference to the prophet’s marriage to a six-year-old girl.

Evidently aware that the charge of “incitement to hatred” was never going to fly, the judge, at her own discretion, eventually announced a new charge: “Denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” My defense was unprepared for this, and requested that the trial be adjourned.

When court reconvened in February, events moved swiftly to a close. The judge decided that the language used in my seminars did not incite hatred, but the utterances regarding Muhammad and pedophilia were punishable. In particular, the judge found that the use of “pedophilia” was factually incorrect, as this is a sexual preference solely or mainly directed towards children. The judge stated that this cannot apply to Muhammad, who was still married to Aisha when she attained the age of 18. Thus, I was found not guilty on the count of “incitement to hatred”, but guilty on the charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”, to be punished with a €480 fine or 60 days in prison.

The charge on which I was convicted was ludicrous on the face of it. Not only did I never say that Muhammad’s actions constituted “pedophilia”, but Muhammad’s actions — which were undisputed by the court — included having sex with a nine-year-old girl. If I had said what I was accused of, it would have been nothing more than the simple truth, and unremarkable to any normal, sane person.

I appealed my conviction to a higher court. In December, 2011, the verdict was upheld. Later the case was considered by the Austrian Supreme Court, which upheld the verdict in December, 2013.

I have exhausted my options for justice in Austria, so the case was put before the European Court of Human Rights. It was accepted, and has been pending now for several years.

Whichever way the court decides, the verdict will have implications for citizens throughout Europe, and not just for Austrians. If my conviction is overturned, it will set an important precedent for the freedom to criticize religions and religiously-sanctioned conduct.

If, on the other hand, my conviction is upheld, the situation will be dire indeed. To quote the words of British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, spoken on August 3, 1914: “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.”

When taken together, the events I’ve described tonight paint a picture of a Europe that is careening over the multicultural cliff. The traditional cultures and nations of Europe are being deliberately deconstructed so that a borderless society with no national identities can be constructed on top of the ruins.

And a borderless Europe is simply a precursor to a borderless global society. This future entity is commonly referred to as the “New World Order” or “global governance”, and it is intended to be an unaccountable worldwide system of management and control modeled on the United Nations. A totalitarian behemoth — to paraphrase what George Orwell said: “If you want a vision of the globalist future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

However, recent reactions to the European migration crisis indicate that events may not in fact be unfolding as planned. The response of most of the member states of the European Union has been to tighten up their borders and reinstitute border controls. Just last week Austria began fortifying its border crossing with Italy on the Brenner Pass, in anticipation of a new surge of 300,000 immigrants that is expected to arrive in Italy this year. Immigrants don’t want to stay in Italy or Greece — they want to move north to Austria, Germany, Britain, and Sweden, where the welfare benefits are the most generous. The Austrian government is well aware of the northward trajectory of the migrants, and is acting to forestall it, just as it did last winter when it closed the “Balkan route”.

The successive closure of European borders is widely seen as the death-knell of the Schengen Agreement, under which all but two EU countries (plus four non-EU countries) had been effectively borderless for internal travel purposes. When EU political leaders meet to discuss the crisis, it is often with the stated intention of “saving Schengen”. But Schengen is already dead — they just don’t realize it.

Paradoxically, even as they close their borders to more immigrants, European countries are cracking down harder on domestic dissent on the topic of immigration and Islam. In Germany and Britain people are being arrested for posting messages that criticize immigrants or Islam on social media. Police in Berlin recently raided ten residences after their occupants had voiced anti-migrant sentiments on Facebook. A man in Belgium spoke negatively about Muslims who celebrated the Brussels massacre, and was immediately visited at his home by three policemen, who requested that he refrain from such criticism in future.

If European countries are now determined to keep out future migrants, why are they cracking down on citizens who criticize immigration?

The short answer is: there are millions of immigrants already here. Hence they must be placated. If criticizing them makes them angry and causes them to take to the streets in violent demonstrations, then criticism of them must be outlawed.

I don’t need to tell you that most of these millions of immigrants are Muslims. That’s why criticism of Islam must be vigorously suppressed. Notwithstanding the much-trumpeted status of Islam as a “religion of peace”, Muslims in Europe are notoriously prone to violence, and are always ready to take to the streets at a moment’s notice. They may begin with loud chanting and signs that say “behead those who insult the prophet”, but they more than likely will escalate rapidly to throwing rocks, assaulting the police, burning cars, vandalizing property, and other forms of general mayhem.

No, it’s better (and easier) to silence the critics of Islam, in the hope that mob violence may be postponed for a just little while longer.

Exceptions to the general repression may be found in EU member states of the former East Bloc. It seems that people who survived decades under communism are less susceptible to the tyranny of political correctness. An alliance known as the Visegrád Group was formed in Central Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain and is currently led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary, President Miloš Zeman of the Czech Republic, and Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia. Not only do these countries allow dissent on the issue of Islam, their political leaders are among the foremost Islam-critics — what they say into the microphones in their state broadcasting studios is the same thing that prompted the prosecution of Geert Wilders, Tommy Robinson, and myself.

Nowadays those former communist dictatorships host the freest speech in Europe.

And the Visegrád Group is also resisting the mandatory quotas of refugees that the European Union is trying to impose. Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland have all declined to take in any of Mrs. Merkel’s “refugees”. President Zeman and Prime Ministers Orbán and Fico have gone so far as to state that they specifically do not want any Muslim immigrants — that Islam is incompatible with a free democratic society.

In the most recent example of former East Bloc resistance, on Sunday April 10 Romanian citizens took to the streets to protest a mega-mosque planned for Bucharest. “We fought the Ottomans for eight hundred years — we don’t want any mosques!” — such were the chants of the demonstrators on the streets of Bucharest.

The future of Europe may depend on these stalwart patriots behind what used to be the Iron Curtain. They are leading the way — showing the cowardly political leaders of Western Europe how these things could and should be done.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

You may be asking yourselves, “Why should I care about what’s happening in Europe? These things are thousands of miles and an ocean away from here — let the Europeans sort it out for themselves.”

There are two practical reasons why what happens in Europe should be of concern to Americans. The first is that an Islamic ascendancy in Europe poses a security threat to the United States. Not only does Western Europe offer a springboard for the Great Jihad to jump the Atlantic, but there are also stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other advanced armaments in Europe. There are already far too many Muslims in the ranks of the military in France and Britain. What will happen when the tipping point is finally reached, and the sleeper cells are activated?

The second reason is that your own government is attempting to replicate the European model right here in the United States. Under the so-called “Refugee Resettlement Program”, thousands of Syrian “refugees” are being settled all across America. This is being done quietly, whenever possible without consulting local authorities. The U.S. government has acknowledged that it is impossible to vet these migrants properly. Based on what has been happening in Europe, a significant number of those resettled here will be Islamic State terrorists using forged identity documents.

Do you know whether any of these “Syrians” are being resettled near you?

Does your congressional representative have any idea what’s going on? Better ask him!

Europe’s present is America’s future. The massacres in Paris and Brussels are coming here as soon as enough jihad sleeper cells are in place. The first dark cloud of the coming storm appeared last December over San Bernardino, California. When it breaks fully, it will be fierce indeed.

Those who plan a borderless world are just as intent on overwhelming the United States with third-world immigrants as they are France, Germany, and Britain. Undermining national sovereignty is the name of the game, throughout the entire Western world.

Your migration wave includes more Latin Americans than Muslims, but thousands of Muslims are indeed arriving. And an undetermined number of “Latin” migrants who walk across your southern border are in fact Muslims from the Middle East, who have acquired forged papers and learned a little bit of Spanish so that they can pass for Mexicans when they arrive in Laredo or San Diego.

Yes, the Great Jihad will arrive here all too soon.

I urge you to exercise your fundamental constitutional rights while you still can. Speak up and speak out against what is happening at every opportunity. And thank God for your First Amendment! We don’t have that in Europe, and I wish we did — thanks to the Bill of Rights, prosecuting dissenters is much more difficult here in the USA.

And thank God for the Second Amendment! Most Europeans have no ready access to legal firearms. When the “refugees” assault them, invade their homes, and rape their women and children, they cannot defend themselves. The only thing they can do is to call the police — and, as you all know, “when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.”

So I implore you, as American citizens and patriots: Hang on to your hard-won rights! The Constitution is being taken away from you, bit by bit — take action while you still can. You are fortunate to live in the United States, but large forces are arrayed against you. Your enemies — many of whom are right here in America — make no bones about what they intend. They want to eradicate American exceptionalism and make the USA just like Europe — a subjugated state.

As for myself, I will continue to speak the truth, no matter what. I owe as much to my daughter, and her children and children’s children. No matter the final outcome, I want her to be able to say: “My mother did everything she possibly could.”

Europeans and Americans share a common heritage. We must hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

I urge you to stand with me!

NO SURRENDER!

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.