Michael Stürzenberger is a popular German Islam-critic and a dogged opponent of the Munich mega-mosque. According to Egri Nök, his supporters in Germany fondly call him “Stürzi”.
Last summer Mr. Stürzenberger was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison for posting a photo of a Nazi official and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on his Facebook page. Earlier this month his conviction was overturned by an appeals court.
And last Friday he had his day in court yet again, this time for referring to fake refugees as “asylum parasitics” in a speech in Duisburg. He was convicted and fined €2,400 for his “hate speech”. If I understand him correctly, he was also sentenced to nine months in jail, but suspended on condition that he cease his Islam-criticism.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for conducting this interview:
In our post about YouTube’s suppression of a video telling the truth about Poland’s Independence Day march, a commenter named “D J” left this note:
Dear Baron,
By linking to Bitchute I was able to watch this wonderful video.
I wonder if like me you had a sense of déjà vu? Reading your site feels like the old days in the 80s with my Hungarian wife and I would sit in cafés in Budapest. People would come in and quietly distribute home copied samizdat news telling us what was really happening in the world.
You are part of the modern samizdat for the EUSSR.
Thank you from a fellow dissident.
Yes, we are dissidents. And, yes, a lot of our European material is the digital equivalent of samizdat.
It’s relatively easy being a dissident in the USA. My views have no chance of being aired in the mainstream media, but I don’t have to worry about being hauled away by security police in the middle of the night for expressing them. It’s not that bad here — not yet.
But in Europe it’s a different story, especially in Britain and Germany. Michael Stürzenberger is relentlessly hounded by the legal system, simply for stating his opinions about Islam in a clear, forthright, public manner. And you can bet that the legacy media in Germany are not reporting fairly on what’s happening to him — if they even deign to report on him at all.
So the video interview above is indeed a form of samizdat. Please spread it by whatever method works for you — email, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Because otherwise the true story will never be told.
For links to previous posts about Michael Stürzenberger and Die Freiheit in Munich, see the Michael Stürzenberger Archives.
As always, the truth hurts.
‘Asylum parasitics’ is another very precise term for what the immivaders are and wish to accomplish in the West.
Fight for Germany Michael, it takes courage, but never give up fighting against Islam ,..
The gentleman’s real “crime” was that he placed the onus on the invading army instead of on the government “leaders” who engineered that army’s arrival. IMO.
I do so dislike it when even our bravest hearts fail to attack those most instrumental actors who are responsible at the decision-making level for the misery, rape, and murder they’ve knowingly showered, with cutting daggers, upon their own citizens.
But then, said real culprits could not have gained a foot-hold to impose their coup de grace if the populace had not already consumed the wine of moral equivalency and postmodern nihilism.
I hope the wake up call for the West will sound in tones too loud to dismiss — before it is too late.
Imo it would be good if our side tried not to use terms such as parasitics, cockroaches etc. We know the story, so not sure terms add much to our argument, but they certainly give our opponents a lot of ammo.
If Katie Hopkins had not done similar in England, she would probably have still been a Daily Mail columnist, and nowhere near as toxic as she’s now regarded to be.
Of course, in Sturzenberger’s case it’s just an excuse to slander him, and get him to stop drawing attention to the RoP, but just that one word makes it so much easier for our opponents to attack us, so do we really need to use these sorts of terms?
I wish my father were still around.
He was a refugee from the Austrian Nazis. Also, a thorough leftist. I’m sure he would have favored the continued importation of Muslims. But, the parallels of the current German government to totalitarian suppression of speech is so obvious, I’d love to know how it struck him, having lived through the original Nazi experience.
I agree with Green Infidel completely. As infuriatingly slow the process will be, to be effective, we must apply slow, gentle, steady pressure to the pendulum. Attempting to counter the inertia of the swinging weight through a one-time impulse is ineffective and damages the cause.
I was pleased that I was able to publish an op-ed piece regarding the virtues of nationalism in a major metropolitan newspaper a couple of weeks ago. This was possible because 1) I don’t have a reputation as a “racist” or “hater” and 2) I was very, very gentle in making my arguments so as to not trigger too much opposition.
I am very grateful to people like the Baron for his bold and undisguised discussions of the truth — but they are only effective in bolstering and reinforcing the choir to whom he is preaching. While the Baron’s unabashed dedication to undisguised truth is a great service to us, this blog would be unpalatable to most Americans (as it creates too much cognitive dissonance). Thus it is incumbent on the vast majority of the rest of us to effect a change in popular opinion, not by bold-yet-strident headline-grabbing commentary (by calling a parasite a parasite!), but through gentle, constant, nearly imperceptible pressure, line-upon-line, introducing people to truths as they are ready to accept them, as gentle as the dews falling from sky.
I believe that the vast majority of “the virtuous ones” in our society are in a state of cognitive dissonance already, and are suffocating from their own discomfort in what they know — at least on some level — to be an irrational position. They cannot help but see the corruption and decay introduced into our society by these “imvaders,” but their quest for their belief in their own virtue and goodness forces them to blind themselves. It is our job to lead them out of this uncomfortable position so they can eventually accept the truth of what is happening to our society. A frontal assault to their irrational position, paradoxically, reinforces their irrational position, not only triggering a reflexive retrenchment, but giving them means to discount rational argument by pointing to pejorative words like “parasite” to soothe themselves by generating a narrative that rejecting uncomfortable truths is merely rejecting “hatred” (a noble thing indeed!), rather than rejecting “rationality” itself.
The bottom line is that, in public venues, most of us must be very, very guarded in how we speak — not out of fear or lack of commitment to the cause, but out of rational strategy. The Baron and people like him fill an important mission, but for most of us the mission is of quite a different nature. Hence I agree with Green Infidel completely.
Absolutely right. I could not write what I do and get it published as an op-ed in any MSM outlet — it just wouldn’t happen. Heck, I can’t even be tolerated by Pajamas Media (or at least El Inglés couldn’t be).
But there’s an important nuance in my job of “preaching to the choir” — among other things, I’m preaching to the fringes of the choir. That is, I’m trying to reach those conservatives who are still in thrall to subliminal PC taboos. They wander in here, and they are repelled and attracted at the same time: they are drawn to what is discussed here, but they know it’s naughty and over the line and shunned by the right-thinking crowd at National Review.
I know whereof I speak, because I was among them when Dymphna and I started this blog. In order to understand my topic fully, I had to read a lot of material, and some of it was from — gulp! — WAYCIST sources. But the more I read, the more I understood that the conventional conservative wisdom on Islam was misguided. And the more I thought like that, the more I got myself in trouble — first with Charles Johnson, then PJM, then (after Breivik) just about everybody.
I could have done what a lot of people do, and repudiated my earlier words — repudiated the truth — in order to be readmitted into the Councils of the Wise. But I was constitutionally unable do it — I’m stubborn and contentious when pushed; it’s the Scot in me.
So here I am. My job is to change minds at the margin; that is, to reach people who are tending towards full dissent, but have not quite reached it yet. I want to tug them gently over into the Camp of the Islamophobes. Based on the emails I’ve received, I’ve enjoyed some modest success, here and there.
Hence my motto: “Changing the world, one mind at a time.”
The op-ed writers for the MSM are performing a necessary and thankless task, but their job (and their audience) is a different one from mine.
Exactly — so we will prepare the minds and push them in your direction, and then, after they are ready, you expose them to the full truth.
P.S. I should have said that my support for Michael Stürzenberger does not imply that I think his use of the word “parasitics” was well-advised. Not at all.
It means that I fully support his right to use that word without being prosecuted.
It’s important to support everyone’s freedom of speech, always and everywhere, no matter how odious the opinions expressed. For example, the politics of the writers and editors of Charlie Hebdo is largely repugnant to me, yet I champion them fully. They have a right to hold repugnant opinions, as do we all.
If we don’t support the repugnant speech of others, someday we’ll get the knock on the door at 3am and be driven off into the night to be punished for our own repugnancies. And there will be no one left to go our bail or champion our case, because all of the others will have preceded us into the basement of the Lubyanka.