Austria is a Democratic Dictatorship

The following essay by Christian Zeitz was published as a guest-post at Andreas Unterberger’s website. Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Austria is a Democratic Dictatorship. Its Law Flows From Subjective Justice and Authoritarian Caprice

by Christian Zeitz[1]

1. November 17, 2017 was literally a Black Friday.

Reinhard Fellner, a card-carrying Social Democrat as well as chief of “Initiative Social Austria,” was sentenced in provincial court to three months (three years on probation) for denigration of Islam (§ 283 StGb). Any ever-so-small criticism of Islam in the next three years will lead to the completion of the sentence. This is so much more shocking, since he made a very mild criticism, which is far below the level of criticism which would be possible and necessary in a free and open society, to call attention to the dangers endemic to Islam. He simply began to investigate to what extent (terrorist) acts of violence as well as sexual abuse of women, children and animals are connected to Islam. Fellner’s conviction is so much worse because he undertook this attempt in the course of participating in the assessment of a bill published on the Parliament’s homepage. So he was legally convicted for performing the honorable task of an active citizen, participating in the process of parliamentary lawmaking.

The proceeding against Fellner can certainly be called a scandalous trial. The court did not examine several expert assessments by experts on Islam offered by the accused as proof of the truth of his statements. Likewise, witnesses named by the defense were not allowed to testify. Although the document gives no indication of a complainant, the state prosecutor suddenly claimed that the charge had been brought by the IGGiÖ (Islamic Faith Community in Austria) which “had felt insulted” by Fellner. The defendant was also confronted with a newspaper article which had not been in the document before the trial began. To Fellner’s indication that Ayatollah Khomeini, the most significant Shi’ite of the 20th century, had given approval to sexual intercourse with animals, the judge responded that this was not significant and had nothing to do with Islam, since Khomeini was already dead. Altogether, there was no serious effort by the judge or the state prosecutor[2] to formally align the evidence of Fellner’s criminal activity with the charge. Instead, the judge and the state prosecutor voiced the opinion that hate speech would apply even if the defendant’s claims were true.

The verdict does not concern just a number of oddballs who have chosen Islam-criticism as their strange hobby. It is an expression of the continued pushing of a blatantly political and subjective system of justice being established to enable the unresisted installation of a multicultural dictatorship, population replacement and Islamization. And it is a landmark in the transformation process which is morphing our disappearing democracy into an autocratic rule by mob.

This arbitrary judicial act is the inglorious apex of the years-long persecution of political undesirables using religiously- and subjectively-based punishment. The trail of devastation of the right to free expression extends over several prominent victims of political justice: from Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Pro Vita head Dr. Alfons Adam to the former Muslim convert Laila Mirzo, whose trial for “denigration of religious teachings” (§ 188 StGb) was adjourned, to be sure, but who was afterwards — because of her Islam-critical stance — denied her right be designated a journalist and Islam expert (February 5 of this year) by Kurier editor Karl Oberacher. An ultimate in judicial partisanship and scurrility is the recent verdict of an Innsbruck court of a €480 fine against a former district head of the “Ring of Free Youth” (RFJ, the Freedom Party’s youth movement), whose Facebook entry celebrated a “piglet barbecue” for Ramadan. (Der Standard of November 15, 2017)

For years, justice has applied subjective and religious law selectively and one-sidedly. While the Christian faith, its God, its commandments and its symbols may be besmirched and denigrated at will without a single prosecution in three decades, let alone a conviction, critics of Islam are habitually legally persecuted, even if their conclusions can be meticulously documented with reference to high religious sources.

2. The purposeful dismissal of freedom of opinion, convictions and scholarship through a selectively and arbitrarily applied religious system of criminal justice is not the only instrument which gives our society progressively more totalitarian characteristics. Relevant mechanisms can also be found in the judicial and administrative realms.

On June 17, 2017, the traditional “March of the Family” took place. While, on the Ring, decorated tractor-trailers growled along holding thousands of strident figures from every earthly and unearthly realm and hellish rubbish heap, displaying their painted genitals and writhing to a never-changing techno-rhythm — on Albertinaplatz, dedicated custodians of life and representatives of a Christian picture of marriage and family were having a peaceful demonstration. Nearby, lesbians with spiky, pink hair and hollow-cheeked stoner faces were chanting “If Mary had aborted, we would have been spared.” As the representatives of the culture of life formed up to march toward the Schottentor, hooded leftists blocked the passage to Josefsplatz and threw themselves at police who had arrived to protect the supporters of family. Shortly thereafter, the leader of the police detachment informed those in charge of the demonstration that violent and armed anarchists were waiting at the Freyung and in Schottengasse. He had been given too few personnel to control the situation. Serious injuries were not out of the question. He would urgently recommend halting the march and pulling back to Albertinaplatz. If not, the sponsors of the march would bear the responsibility for the consequences. The director of the demonstration sadly decided to turn around — very sadly, since the main purpose of the march had been to strike up conversations with passersby in the lively areas of the Freyung[3] and Schottengasse, and pass out flyers. What other purpose could there be in a public demonstration than to come into contact with the people and influence opinions?

Already, at the annual preliminary discussions with authorities, the organizers of the “March of the Family” found that the officials were limiting their operational space as much as they could, to hinder and/or corral them.

This example demonstrates that the full right of demonstration exists only for leftist and radical leftist groups. The announced demonstrations of all organizations and groups advocating for protection of life, preservation of cultural identity and self-determination of peoples, or opposing population replacement, Islamization and global cultural socialism are obstructed by the leftist mob, with the indulgence of authorities. Apparently because the ruling elites feel they are being impeded in the unfolding and execution of their ideological agenda. Radical leftists do the dirty work, while police and other authorities curtail, shorten or even dissolve announced, peaceful demonstrations — always, of course, citing the security requirements of the public. Besides the “March for the Family,” the experience has been similar for “Young People for Life,” the “Identitarians” and “Pegida Austria.”

3. Even these repressive measures do not exhaust the arsenal of illegal pressure and force within the supposedly constitutional structures of the Republic of Austria. This encompasses the deliberately selective use of public resources to accomplish ideologically motivated grand plans, which are in no sense democratically legitimized.

On June 2, 2017, the philosopher and cultural scholar Dr. Astrid Meyer-Schubert received a message from two colleagues (names known to me) — both being fellow members of the board of the organization IGPPM (Interest Group for Pre- and Peri-natal Psychology and Medicine). They gave her an ultimatum to give up her membership on the board and leave the organization within three days. They said they had been contacted by a member of the Ministry of Science and Technology and put under pressure. The organization was under consideration for financial support for its scientific studies. The ministry representative declared that further cooperative work was impossible “since the member in question has a negative effect on the reputation of public endeavor.” Meyer-Schubert’s two colleagues informed her that she had unacceptable political views and must therefore be purged from the organization. Meyer-Schubert, who comes originally from the women’s emancipation movement, had been critical of mass immigration and the sapping of Europe’s cultural identity. Her new book, “Ahead of its Time. On the Revitalization of Europe’s Christian Identity,” had just appeared. Meyer-Schubert paid the ultimatum no mind. Thereupon, the other members of the board called a general meeting to dissolve the organization and re-constitute it without Meyer-Schubert. And did just that. That is how the ministry’s support was paid for.

Criticism of mass immigration or the “immigration jihad” is no longer tolerated at the political level. Enforcement officers and official apparatus that have nothing to do with the specialized material of a field are put in service to damage undesirables in their careers and personal advancement, and/or damage them existentially, in order to accomplish the transformational agenda of the EU and its like-minded states. Use of material marginalization of oppositional forces is an established method of all autocracies to remove “disturbances” by critics of the system and dissidents. The creation and use of economic dependencies has been established in 21st century Austria as one of the most potent weapons of elite dominance. This is a successful way of creating as many courtiers and system lackeys as possible.

4. These three examples and their evaluation may suffice to demonstrate how the constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, academic freedom and freedom to demonstrate have been systematically hollowed out and are now only used selectively. It can be definitively shown that for years the same groups have been deliberately deprived of the use of these rights and consequently of a participation in the democratic decision-making process. Both in their philosophical positions and in their social/class membership, these groups show considerable breadth, but may be characterized by the following common attitudes and/or characteristics:

1.   They identify with the European culture — considered to be superior — which is essentially based on and determined by Christianity.
2.   They reject a drastic transformation of the population substrata of European states through mass immigration and uncontrolled refugee presence.
3.   They are essentially Islam-critical and oppose the Islamization of European countries.
4.   They are critical of the EU and/or every development in recent years in the direction of centralization and the superstate.
5.   They are critical of a dominant position for the structure of supranational facilities and against the recognizable tendency of a dominance-oriented globalism and the concomitant one-world ideology.
6.   They reject the concept of cultural socialism and the related social reform (from gender insanity to homo-hedonism and the dissolution of sexual identities).
7.   They want an economic system built on personal dedication and accomplishment, and not on politically motivated redistribution and syndicate-like creation of money on credit.
8.   They reject the existing system of money-on-credit as a mechanism for expropriation of the productive energies of the society which have proven themselves as the material booster rockets of national and international neo-socialism.
9.   They build on the traditional concept of the family as an exclusive manifestation of the marriage of man and woman, and wish to protect the human being from conception to natural death.
10.   By and large, they are not institutionally organized or at least not politically unanimous. Consequently, they fundamentally oppose the ruling class of the self-designated elites.

In contrast to their politically manipulated marginalization and denigrating assessment in “public opinion,” we may presume that most of the mentioned activist groups and their issues actually reflect the values of the majority of the population. On the other hand, the great projects of the elites in recent decades were never secured and taken on by way of the will of the people, i.e., through a democratic majority. This is true of organized mass immigration, of the taboo on speaking of Islam and the effectuation of its influence, of the brain drain in favor of the EU. It also applies to the accompanying complete change in the federal constitution as well as the “anthropological revolution” of preferential treatment for genderless androids who can be manipulated as desired and brought in line by the system media, with the help of meta-political indoctrination.

The immigration tsunami of 2015 was the long-awaited, hotly desired by the elites, probably purposely “engineered” servo-mechanism for the overcoming of the democratic constitutional order. In the spring of 2015, the catchwords “no border” and “refugees and Muslims welcome” reflected the opinion of a percentage of Austrian society. The shock pictures of threatening armies of “refugees” at abandoned border posts and on deserted portions of highway broke the indigenous population’s will to fight. The media drumbeat of ever-similar photos of children at “brutal” barbed wire and of the overfilled trafficker boats did the rest. And if entire governments seemed to let these events pass over them as mere observers, how very natural was the people’s reaction to comprehend this “submission to the inevitable” (the literal translation of “Islam”) with paralyzed dismay.

There is not a hint of democratic legitimization for this land grab and the following partial expropriation of the indigenous population. But with the generation of quasi-nomological violence, literally physical realities have been created which can no longer be suspended.

Europe today is a different continent. Austria is a different country than before the “refugee” immigration. Even before now, the rotted-out foundations of multi-party democracies had been undermined and the superstructure of national identities delegitimized by EU centrism. The events associated with the “refugee” crisis and its results have caused a genuine systemic change. In a formal sense, the institutions of state remain the same, but decision-making has come under the hammer of the anti-democratic grand projects of an unchained global fascism.

The ruling class knows they are not democratically representative. So they must clandestinely immunize the systems they control, in order to protect an irreversible social transformation project from condemnation by the public and potential opposition to the system. This is accomplished through use of the judiciary, of administrative enforcement and of security forces as well as ideologically motivated use of public resources for the purposes of hindering, suppressing and threatening opposition and its advocates. All of this occurs deliberately, but appearing to be under its own power and uncontrolled. We should not underestimate the fact that this process is backed up and supplemented efficiently by the state system of informers and surveillance, which has in recent years been expanded with the help of the “Police State Protection Law” (2015).

5. This blog has shown authoritatively several times in the last year that the dictatorship over expression of opinion is intended to be and is being expanded (Wilfried Grießler on June 20, 2017: New Administrative Policy against “discriminatory statements”; Andreas Unterberger on July 1, 2017: Worst Censorship Law in the Last 70 Years in Germany).

In May of this year, the German Minister of Justice, Heiko Maas, gave indications of where this will all lead. At first, he overshot the goal — even for the taste of several of his colleagues in the party and in the government — with the draft of a so-called “Network Enforcement Law.” After modification, this legal project was passed on June 30th. The main objective is to fight “hate comments and false reporting.” With the legal acceptance of the concept of “hate” and the usurpation of authority over what may be seen as true or false, we have reached a new level of despotism.

It is terrifying to realize that the previous Austrian Minister of Justice and vice chancellor of the ÖVP, Wolfgang Brandstetter, also sees himself as a pioneer in the “battle against hate and false reporting in the net,” which he wishes to lead in close harmony with “European partners.” And the intensification he pushed of the “Incitement Paragraphs” — according to which one may not “incite” against foreigners, but may against Austrians (January 1, 2016) is not enough for him. He has also clearly distinguished himself with his favorite project in numerous foreign speeches. Even though he continuously publicly mitigates this intention by swearing that it is not about the creation of new criminal offenses, that is exactly his goal: “Whoever sows hate will reap prison.” (See for example Der Standard of January 1, 2016). “We are taking deliberate steps…against the pugnacity and coarsening of the language.” It is a question of viewing statements that “could lead to violence” from a criminal justice standpoint. (press release of the Ministry of Justice of September 30, 2016). It should be noted that this year’s ÖVP election campaign party program approve an intensification of the law on expression of opinion.

The enforcement of “hate legislation” instigates a judicial dam breach. “Hate” is, of course, not a juridical concept and does not belong in the legal system. It describes an emotional condition whose presence can only be determined with certainty by the acting subject. In everyday life, even when we feel introspectively justified in suspecting that another person’s disposition to act is hatred, and it can be reasoned as the motive for an already committed crime, it is completely unsuited to be seen as an independent crime. Its application as a standard of criminal prosecution will surely lead to draconian arbitrariness and resultant political abuse. If a legal basis for prosecution of “hate speech crimes” is established, it opens an absolutely unlimited space for legal uncertainty, which will put the law-abiding citizen in a situation of systemic non-freedom. If, beyond that, “false reporting” and “fake news” are criminalized, we have reached the final stage of establishing a state “Ministry of Truth.”

6. So many a reader of these lines will find the title overdone or garish. This reaction would certainly not be incomprehensible. But in view of the drama and dynamics of what is happening, it is absolutely necessary to comprehend the scope of the “Road to Serfdom” (F.A. Hayek) our country has been embarked on for long time, and to see it clearly. Control of opinion, administrative arbitrariness and criminal prosecution of Islam-critics is only the tip of the iceberg. This latter is definitive in the despotism of a highly developed elite and the permanent disposal of freedom.

In a society of free people, the right to truth is the basis for all other rights and freedoms. But the truth is not the property of the authorities. The truth is the common property of the citizens. This truth cannot be transferred to the political caste. To be preserved, it must be continually contended for, eked out in the competition of positions. Elements in this competition to discover the truth are doubt, criticism, questioning, impudence, even insult and mockery. In this competition, no position can be immunized by sacred references, or be set upon the pedestal of a new collective morality, in order to gain power over other positions. To be sure, religion has a right to absoluteness — that is true even in a secular and pluralist society. But this absoluteness must not be accomplished through the means of the state, because God can defend himself.

Hindrance of freedom of expression and criticism has been practiced in this country for a long time, as the motor of an unopposed execution of an irreversible cultural and social transformation process. Land seizure, cultural expropriation and theft of the indigenous population’s wealth of traditions are the result. We cannot stop these processes by hoping for the capabilities of a benevolent government. The government can only combat aberrations if the citizens can and are allowed to identify, name and designate them as bad.

A not inconsiderable number of people regard the present coalition negotiations[4] as one of the last chances to revise our path into the abyss. Such change will not be possible without saving freedom, especially freedom of expression.

In this area, there is the inalienable necessity for the federal government to demand the enacting of the following measures:

  • the cancelation without replacement of §§ 188 (denigration of religious teachings) and 283 (incitement) in the Austrian criminal code
  • the expansion of people’s advocacy to an effective instrument against official caprice and (ideologically determined) abuse of public resources.
  • a clear and principled rejection of all attempts to establish “hate speech” legislation as well as a condemnation of the idea of criminal prosecution of “fake news.”
  • a seriously done disclosure of the fundamentals of faith of the Islamic community, in order to establish legal certainty for citizens and authorities in dealing with Islam. This can only be made possible by revising the completely off-target Islam Law of 2015.
  • a renewal of the right to assembly and demonstration, with the peaceful operators protected from and privileged over violent and potentially violent attackers (including hindrance as a form of violence), as well as
  • immediately held, binding plebiscites on the great, basic, socially and culturally relevant decisions (halting immigration, halting naturalization, gender-based terrorism, lead culture, family model, etc.).

From the first day of its existence, the government should be judged on the implementation of these projects. There is no freedom if it cannot be gained every day.


1.   Wiener Akademikerbund Official for Islamic Affairs and Scientific Director of the Institute for Applied Political Economics
2.   For what it’s worth, gender endings indicate: that both the judge and the state’s attorney are women.
3.   Also one of several areas in Vienna known for its Christkindlmarkt.
4.   Currently, there are coalition talks between the two right-of center parties (Conservative Party [ÖVP] and Freedom Party [FPÖ]) underway in Austria following general elections in October 2017.

27 thoughts on “Austria is a Democratic Dictatorship

  1. Figure out how to learn the Russian language and Alphabet; then ask to be an immigrant in the most Christian Nation on earth. Less then 30 years after the collapse of the Athiests who ruled Russia….a resurgent Christian country has emerged . The Hungarians and Poles as well as a few other central and eastern european countries “still” have leaders with functioning brain stems. Look to the East…and the Orthodox Christian Churches as well. Bergoglio is a wrecker…not { in my opinion } a holy man.

  2. This is still nice and beautiful. In east Europe, the introduction to communism after 1946 was made with guns and public executions. After few hundred thousands executed, there will not be so many willing to comment or talk against. This is the path to mental shut down.
    Wait…and see… I tell you…be happy… it is still nice in Europe. A new set of Stalins will come in power across Europe. In not so many years, you will learn how to be subversive. How to select who can be trusted, how to listen news with the volume at minimum, how to unplug the phone, how to read forbidden news (like Gates of Vienna) only when alone and after burn the paper…You will see… it is still nice these days in Europe.

    • Agree 100% .The western people will listen in the future to “The free Christian network radio” broadcasting from the east…hehe like we did in communist times ..
      If you would have told me that in 89 I would have said you drank too much tuica
      How is this possible to indoctrinate free people at this extent ?

      • This is happening also in east Europe for 20 years. Only that in east there are still people who lived under communist regimes. Brainwashing is going slower.

  3. Nobel effort to counter the continuing march of Islam in the western world. Odd that Islam started its attack where it was defeated in 1683 — Vienna. Probably not odd, but intentional. Unfortunately, the over verbalization typical of Germanic discourse tends to confuse English readers. The intent of the writer could have been much more clear if his statements had been more succinct. It is a start toward rescuing the West.

    • Lol.

      I fully agree with you on the verbosity of German writers. They seem to take a view and expand on it in great length, drawing out many consequences, but being rather short on actual chains of logic.

      For example, the writer, Christian Zeitz, a very courageous and intelligent commentator, nevertheless confounded the idea of allowing free expression by individuals, with a government-mandated statement of the true nature of Islam.

      a seriously done disclosure of the fundamentals of faith of the Islamic community, in order to establish legal certainty for citizens and authorities in dealing with Islam. This can only be made possible by revising the completely off-target Islam Law of 2015.

      But, the import is obvious enough for any reader: the government security apparatus is going full-tilt to persecute and prosecute anyone speaking against the government program of wealth appropriation, culture dissolution and population replacement.

      I have a few of my own observations:

      1) The massive importation of low-quality, low-skill, low-IQ immigrants hastens a process which would take place anyway: the deterioration of the genetic quality of the native population and its impoverishment and displacement by the bureaucratic totalitarianism of the megastate. The welfare state and just the comforts of modern technology allow the most dysfunctional genetic traits to not only exist, but to procreate.

      2) It’s quite obvious the population needs weapons to protect itself from the quasi-official agencies of government totalitarianism, such as Antifa. It’s insane to talk of fighting the military with household weapons, but quite practical to neutralize the actions of street-gangs which the government does not want to be seen as overtly supporting.

      3) The most intelligent direction for nationalism is not to try to get the government to support the correct ideas, but to institute a concrete requirement for freedom: freedom of speech, as in the 1st amendment, right to bear arms, as in the 2nd amendment, and the absolute right to freedom of association, which unfortunately is seriously deteriorating in the US.

      4) The breakup of European mega-regions into smaller, autonomous areas to protect a degree of cultural homogeneity, but also to allow a government actually accountable to its polity. Autonomous regions limit the effects of populations that collude in their own extinction. I suspect Sweden does not have a collective will for its own survival, but doing away with the EU and certainly the Schengen agreement will isolate the negative effects of the Swedish deterioration.

      5) There is a tendency for Europeans to have socialism in their blood and thus to want to use government to support their own opinions, rather than to decide individually. You do not want the government to officially teach anything about Islamic doctrine, good or bad, although it is certainly acceptable to bar Muslims as Muslims from immigration. Why? Because truth is often complex and cannot be confirmed by a governmental policy, even if the policy is, for the moment, consistent with your views.

      • I agree with your idea to borrow the first and second amendments from the USA Constitution. However the right to associate… We must build in an exception for known and proven totalitarian political ideologies, to not freely associate, because that’s what bringing the US down. Nazism, Communism and Islam must by banished from civilization and made sure none of those or any flavor of them can return. How would you do that?

        • Correct. The present crew if traitors do exactly this by proscribing what is normal, rational, or traditional. In short, the center has not held and the very ideas that WE should proscribe are in control. The controlling elites enforce their own versions of heresy and subversion. Christian morality is banished from all public institutions in France. With a vengeance . . . but French officials would be repelled by the accusation that they enforce their own idea of heresy. (The U.S. rushes to the same goal.)

          Yet I believe strongly in Jefferson’s view that the remedy for bad speech is more speech so how can I reconcile this view with thinking there has to be a limit on what can be advocated or said in public? That the Hollywood Ten should have suffered complete rejection? Needless to say, THAT idea will induce instant apoplexy in certain quarters.

          Who decides who or what wins in the public square? This is an immense topic I cannot hope to address here. It used to be that a wag said something like you should refrain from only such public conduct that scares the horses. Too, Ann Landers said, wisely I think, that what consenting adults do in private is their business. But here we are at a point that much public conduct would scare horses and in Sweden school children are able to see sex actually demonstrated in the gymnasium. IKYN.

          The terms of political debate in the entire Western world are so debased and distorted that rational discourse has not been possible since the Bolsheviks and socialist Gutenmenschen went to work with a vengeance to undermine and becloud life.

          Not for nothing did the French aristocrat in the movie “The Sorrow and the Pity” say that democracy in the 1930s was discredited.

          The political elites for over a century have turned against their own kind and their ancestors and thrived under the protection of Enlightenment liberalism so that the issue is beyond consideration of the value or acceptability of certain ideas. It is instead “Where did the soul of Western people go?” Apparently, after the slaughter of two major European civil wars, it soaked into the mud or drifted up into the clouds. Ardent political imaginings are petty compared to this larger issue. Despite Solzhenitsyn’s warning the fabric of our lives is sodden with lies. Which brings to mind the question, “Who is the father of lies?”

          • So I’m not the only one here to have seen Marcel Ophuls’ 1969 documentary, “The Sorrow and the Pity”, about the behaviour of some of the French under occupation. It’s a long (over four hours) and depressing slog, and some of the detail of the abuse of French Jews by the Vichy authorities is pretty horrendous.

            Slightly off topic, but Marcel’s father Max made some wonderful films: Letter from an Unknown Woman, Lola Montes, but especially La Ronde (1950), a masterpiece of film technique, though the subject of the Arthur Schnitzler play on which it’s based (the spread of venereal disease) is bypassed. Anyone who claims to be a film buff should see it!

          • Mark H, TSATP is a film that dropped off the radar for some reason. I recently bought the DVD and look forward to watching it again.

            Alec Guiness’s “All at Sea” is another film that I’ve not ever seen since I first ran across it. I’m probably a Netflix or Hulu schlub who’s not done a simple search. I’ll try. It was a droll comedy.

            Thanks for the other tips.

        • As I said, CrossWare, I always enjoy your comments. In this case, they were indeed thought-provoking. They bring up the question of how can you have freedom of speech and association, and yet prevent the activities of groups which are considered subversive, such as Communists and Islamists, who are without question subversive.

          What’s the impelling reason for freedom of association (FOA)? FOA allows people of similar culture and values to live together, protect and instruct their children, and comfortably give each other support. In the workplace, it increases efficiency, not to mention comfort and security, by providing a homogeneous workplace.

          It is instructive that the Obama administration placed a high priority on breaking up working-class suburban neighborhoods by requiring the close proximity of public housing.

          We know the systematic, and very successful, efforts of Muslim groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi royal family, to infiltrate public institutions and government agencies.

          So, what is a strength of a relatively homogeneous nation and culture, freedom of speech and personal freedom, becomes a strategic weakness in the face of diversity, especially a group with an active agenda of change and co-option.

          Perhaps one solution is to differentiate political rights from personal freedoms. There is no conflict in explicitly keeping Muslims, or any other group, from immigrating into the country. The bill of rights does not extend to non-citizens, although it would be immoral to cause them actual harm.

          Similarly, it may be necessary to prevent some groups from engaging politically. The Lebanese actually had an agreement where Christians were awarded the majority representation in the government, even when the number of Muslims was greater than the number of Christians. They screwed it up by allowing in the Palestinian Muslims, who were violent and didn’t recognize or honor the agreements.

          But, it is extremely dangerous to give a government any sort of veto over speech or expression, as this article so well illustrates. Alt-right nationalists are routinely labeled as Nazis, and nationalists are routinely labeled as alt-right. You can see the Marxists setting us up to censor any discussion of racial identity or resistance to Islamic encroachment. Incidentally, Muslims are the most salient danger, but by no means the only danger to a wealthy, bloated, overly-complacent country.

  4. Isn’t Democratic Dictatorship an oxymoron? How do people dictate themselves, or is the dictatorial leadership carried out by those who are more equal than the rest? Shades of animal farm, or a latter-day zoo.

    • It is not an oxymoron. Democratic dictatorship is two wolfs and a sheep voting what’s for dinner.

      King Solomon did a similar thing, when he listened to his wifes and overtaxed Israel. It wasn’t the king – it was the king’s will to listen and make decrees according to the wants of his subjects, that led to dividing Israel in two irreconcilable camps. Aparently he listened to only one part of his kingdom.

      The same goes for Austria. I know Austria very well, as I live right on the border. Austria has a huge aging hippie population who are all about free love and happiness for everybody, yet they kind of overlook that somebody has to work to make it happen. And the workers are so preoccupied with working they don’t watch and guard against the aging hippies in the socialist power structures… It is always a slopy situation.

  5. It’s high time that NATO was dissolved. We should not be defending those European states that are not willing to defend their own culture and do not allow the freedoms we consider essential, like the freedom of speech.
    We can partner with the Visegrad countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic that share our values, as well as Greece, Cyprus and Israel, and any of the saner Muslim countries that feel threatened by Islamism.

    • Defend the European countries against who? NATO is an outmoded and downright dangerous concept. Turkey is a valued NATO member, and is a prime danger to the integrity of Europe.

      My own opinion is that the US should not be involved in “partnering” with other countries, even the Visegrad countries. The whole point of “America First” is that the US cannot manipulate foreign events and expect to have a beneficial outcome. It’s much better to allow other countries to solve their own problems. Muslim countries are pretty much able to solve their own Islamist problem, although the methods necessary trigger human rights protests here. This is another reason to not take responsibility for what other countries do.

      • The Dutch had their colonial rule handed to them in the 1950s. We obviously thought that we were different. We were, we took longer to fail in Vietnam than the Dutch did in Indonesia, we were also much more spectacular in our failure.
        You would have thought that we would have learned our lesson about minding other people’s business, especially when we did not have a mandate to do so (who deputized the US to be the world’s policeman and who is paying for the police services? Ask that question during the late 1960s and you are sent to the principal’s office). We were a creditor nation before we tried to manage the world. We are a debtor nation now. Rome learned the hard way but for the fool it will always be different this time (yeah it will, it’ll be worse).

        • Franklin said that experience keeps a dear school but a fool will learn in no other.

          I agree with most of your comment but I wish to make my usual point that the U.S. failure in Vietnam was not a military one. The N. Vietnamese were on the verge of surrender even after years if idiotic rules of engagement that hindered our military. Frank Snepp’s book is fascinating on this point.

      • “Partnering” is not the same as manipulation, Ronald. Supporting those countries in their decision to limit – or stop altogether – muslim immigration is not manipulation.

        muslim countries cannot solve their own “islamist” problems, when being muslim _is_ the problem. As Erdogan has stated many times, there is no “moderate” islam, there is no “radical” islam, there is only islam.

        Saudi Arabia is no friend of America – or Western Civilization, for that matter. Its wahhabist cult(ure) is the cause of more muslim terrorism than any other muslim country in the world, via its funding of mosques and incendiary speech by its imams throughout the West, including America, as well as through the Internet. Saudi Arabia will certainly not solve the problem.

        Nobody but you is speaking of taking responsibility for what other countries do. That is a strawman, and a waste of time responding to.
        Helping other countries defend themselves – which is what NATO originally was created to do – may still have value if the dhimmi EU decides to try to militarily force Hungary, the Czech Republic, and/or Poland to take in unwanted muslim immigrants, no matter what country they are coming from.

        Supporting those countries, economically – or even militarily, if necessary – might make us, the US, the defender at the new “Gates of Vienna” – the Gates of Warsaw, perhaps, coming to the aid of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, stopping the advance of islam through Eastern Europe at least, since it appears that Western Europe has already fallen.

        • I speak of Muslim countries solving their own fundamentalist Muslim problems. I don’t advocate allowing either fundamentalist or moderate Muslims inside our country. When I speak of solving their own problems, I refer to Saddam Hussein who simply killed any opposition horribly, or the Saudis, who either bought out or beheaded their own opposition. Many Muslim countries with dictatorships were safe for Christians or even Jews. Iran today is very safe and comfortable for religious Iranian Jews who stay out of politics.

          But, I never said the US should allow Muslims in, or depend on Muslim countries.

          NATO is allied with the EU, which is a primary danger to the integrity and physical existence of the Visegrad countries. NATO is currently building missile bases around Russia, causing a hair-trigger situation. Turkey, the original aggressor at the Gates of Vienna, is a major and influential member of NATO.

          It’s far better for all if the US stays out of the picture and forces the countries to defend themselves, including making agreements that all of them can live with.

  6. It’s a pity people don’t read history much these days. If they did, they would realize that all this has happened before and it took the (historical and real) Gates of Vienna to prevent the muslim hordes from over-running Europe at that time. This is basically no different, just dressed up in modern clothes and more lethal weapons.

    May God have mercy on us all.

Comments are closed.