New Italian Political Party: “We Are Against the Forced Islamization of Europe”

The following video provides a brief introduction to a new Italian political party that was formed to oppose Islamization.

Many thanks to FouseSquawk and Giusy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:08   In Islam it is written clearly that Islam, the word of God, is superior to the law
00:14   and… it is this that in a democratic state is not possible — unacceptable.
00:23   I do not support the word, “tolerance”.
00:26   I tolerate a callus on the bottom of my foot. I don’t tolerate other things.
00:29   I want equality. Equality is reciprocal. Tolerance means that I am superior to you —
00:32   you are inferior, and I tolerate you — No.
00:35   I say we are equal. I respect you and you respect me.
00:38   This is what we want.— These are the principles of liberalism.
00:45   We are not do-gooders. We are good. We want to defend the liberal constitution
00:49   that up to now has protected our rights. We are certainly not against Islam, but
00:52   we are against the forced Islamization of Europe.

23 thoughts on “New Italian Political Party: “We Are Against the Forced Islamization of Europe”

  1. For Europeans to have to survive they need to reject all their current leaders. Why Merkel is still in power or Macron, even PM May beggars belief. They have gone out of their way to war against their own electorate and aid the jihadis. The young seem to have finally discovered politics at last but make the wrong choices by voting for crypto Communists. What hope is there for such turkeys?

    L:ike a bird roasting in a Christmas oven asking “Don’t I smell nice and appetising? I can’t wait for dinner” Yum!” Europe is finished. From “kiddy fiddling” to importation of millions of unassailable Africans and growing lawlessness- nobody cares. “I’m alright Jack!” the traditional warcry of 1960s Britain. In short we are finished.

  2. There’s no way that Europe, neither the native people nor their culture, will survive. Their birth rate is a fraction of what it used to be, and most comments on this pertain to the anticipated inability to maintain their social programs as the populations age and thereby they will have no younger generation to tax in order to continue the Ponzi scheme. That’s a problem, but it isn’t as big as the dilution of their population by the mass immigration and the birth rate of Muslims. This “immigration” is wrongly labeled. Those people will never assimilate. This influx of migrants is an invasion. There’s little need for it to become violent. Islam will conquer Europe through reproduction alone. But that won’t prevent the upcoming bloodshed. And those who emerge in attempts to protect their native way of life will be slandered and libeled as bigots and racists, just like this new Italian party, Geert Wilders, PEGIDA, LePin, when in fact, they are the only hope, albeit futile.

    • Perhaps these overtaken European countries should “call their native sons & daughters home” like Israel has done, to replenish their population and rebuild their nation thru reproduction and works. (If President Trump does not prevail and the Globalist Elites win out in America, changing its face & culture into Islam, I for one might bring my family back to its origination!)

      • Not I. Ireland is a cesspit of pc rot. First place I ever heard of public Islamic bathrooms was in the hospital system in Ireland. The Irish fems are screechers and much of the country is leftist and angry – if that’s not a redundancy.

    • A reduced birthrate wouldn’t be a problem if governments simply accepted that a smaller population could be a good thing, given all the automation and unemployment we have these days.

    • It may be that privately these people believe Islam to be inseparable from Islamization but freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Italian constitution. So, in my understanding, although it would be possible to form anti-Islamization, anti-sharia or anti-Islamism parties it would not be possible to form an anti-Islam party (assuming the purpose was to proscribe Islam).

      It would be the same in the US wouldn’t it?

      • No, you could form the party here. But you couldn’t cause Islam to be banned, not without a Constitutional amendment.

      • Islam should be redefined as an aggressive totalitarian ideology of supremacism with distinct terrorist objectives to overthrow democratic nations rather than a benign spiritual religion. Then the western nations can set about defeating it.

    • It is a regrettable political necessity for the leader of a party that is avowedly “against the forced Islamization of the West” to qualify that statement with “We are not against Islam”.

      Daniel Pipes, for over two decades, has been a leading counter-jihadist and Islam-is-a-major-problem-for-the-West messenger. Yet he still publicly maintains that there are moderate Muslims and, impliedly, that there is potential for Muslims to practice their faith in the West without it being destructive of the host countries. I believe he is being politically tactical (and personally dishonest) in this.

      It is deeply unsettling for any person to grasp that Islam per se is the problem, not Islamism, political Islam or radical Islam (or any other variant expression which avoids acknowledging the harsh reality). It is even more unsettling to then fully appreciate the ramifications for countries with significant (ie over 1%) Muslim minorities and for the world generally.

      Personally, I’m glad I’ll be dead within 20 years so I won’t be around to witness and/or experience the inevitable. In the meantime, I’m doing my best to ensure that my children can obtain US citizenship. By 2037 I expect that Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands and France will have already succumbed to Islam in more or less the way Michel Houellebecq depicts as the scenario for France in 2022 in his 2015 novel “Submission”. For GoV readers the novel is a must read: Houellebecq implies that opportunism and fear will cause many to notionally convert to Islam not just for career advancement, but to have an easier life.

      • I don’t know specifically about Daniel Pipes’ organization (which is MEF, if I remember correctly), but some of the other think tanks that believe in the “Moderate Muslim” receive their major funding from organizations whose funding in turn relies on Gulf petrodollars. It takes some work to trace the money flow upstream to the source, but it can be done — the connections are there in the public record.

        ACT! For America recently discovered the virtues of the Moderate Muslim, which was a reversal of course for Brigitte Gabriel. It made me wonder if ACT had acquired a major new donor with a whiff of petroleum about him…

        The purpose of funding these Counterjihad believers in “Moderate Muslims” is subtle and strategic. Many well-educated, well-meaning people in the West are desperate to believe that a form of Islam exists with which the West can co-exist peacefully. Daniel Pipes and Maajid Nawaz et al. offer them a straw that they can grasp. The ghastly, bloody alternative — which I consider the only alternative — is simply more than they can bear to contemplate.

        The existence of these “Moderate” groups sucks energy away from the hardcore Counterjihad (which is where I reside). Money, time, and energy are spent searching for the elusive unicorn of Moderate Islam, reducing the resources available for the real civilizational struggle that lies ahead. Chasing the “Moderate Muslim” may delay our resistance to Islam long enough so that the “demographic jihad” will be able to realize the World Ummah before all the misguided optimists shake off their golden dreams and realize their error.

        If Gates of Vienna ever starts promoting the virtues of the “Moderate Muslim”, you’ll know that some of those petrodollars have dropped into our basket. At that point you may assume we have sold out, and from then on would be well-advised to discount anything we say.

        • That is so disappointing about Brigitte Gabriel. After she did that wonderful rhetoric describing the almost complete irrelevance of the “Moderate Muslim” as well!

          • It is a crushing disappointment. And Ms Gabriel’s case for the irrelevance of the “Moderate Muslim” – spoken unscripted – was magisterial. I can see and hear it now from memory: her analogy of Germany with its small minority of radical Nazis eventually taking power was perfect.

        • Do you regard it as a more or less proven fact that no form of Islam can or ever could submit itself to secular law in the way that Christianity largely does now?

          • Let’s just say that no form of Islam ever has done that, not where Muslims are in the majority.

            It reminds me of die-hard Marxists who, when confronted with the sanguinary realities of 20th-century communism, say: “True communism has never been tried.” Yes, that’s true, and there’s a reason for it: true communism is a phantasm, a chimera, an illusion, a hallucination. It cannot exist because in order for its theory to become praxis, human nature would have to be abolished. Even Stalin couldn’t manage that.

            In a similar vein, for “Moderate Islam” to exist, Islam itself would have to be abolished — about 80% of the Koran, and possibly even a larger percentage of the hadith, would have to be wiped out. What would be left of Islamic scripture after that could be printed on the back of a cereal box without even using a small font.

          • Islam’s holy text is believed to be the literal word of God. That which the Koran prescribes and proscribes is the immutable divine law and cannot be even infringed upon by “man-made” laws. It follows that no form of Islam could ever submit – interesting, paradoxical, choice of word – itself to secular law.

            That the Koran is regarded as THE word of God, whereas the Christian and Jewish core texts don’t make that claim, makes the former unalterable and the latter two susceptible to interpretation and therefore making their religions capable of adjusting with societal evolution. That is why Jews haven’t been stoning people to death for blasphemy or adultery for two millenia and Christianity has evolved to accept the separation of church and state.

            In Islam there can never be any separation of “church” and state because it is a fundamental, unalterable, precept of the religion that the two things are indivisible. Because the Koran is believed to be the literal word of God there can be no Islamic “Reformation”.

  3. “We are certainly not against islam….” Well then your party is a failure from the word ‘go’.

  4. Why is it that no muslim country wants these refugees, but Europe and America has to take them. Loyalty oaths have been around a ling time, but are NO good when these refugees believe sharia law is best. EU reproduction rates are so low that Islam will be predominant in 10 years. Good luck!

    As for liberals, and rich libs in particular, crying to let muslim refugees in, maybe they should take in these refugees next to them before pushing them into areas which don’t want them!

  5. Re loyalty oaths. At a citizenship ceremony in a council chanber in west London the 50 new citizens of whom 44 were clearly muslim swore to defend democracy & the Queen & her descendants.

    Nice but naive I thought.

    • They will say whatever it takes to gain citizenship, whilst lying through their teeth. Believers will smile at non believers whilst cursing them in their hearts. The west needs to reclassify Islam as no longer a spiritual religion but an aggressive totalitarian ideology of supremacism with distinct terrorist objectives to overthrow democratic nations and subjugate their peoples under the yoke of Sharia. The west must delcare war against Islam, as Christendom did in the middle ages when faced with Islamic expansionist aggression.

Comments are closed.