As the interview continues, you’ll hear him recount the series of events that led to his having armed police bodyguards accompany him whenever he ventures out of his apartment.
The following video is the first in a series taken from an interview that Vlad Tepes conducted with Rasmus Paludan in Canada earlier this month.
Regular readers will remember Mr. Paludan as the anti-immigration activist who was catapulted to fame in Denmark for treating the Koran in a fashion that “Danish” Muslims considered blasphemous. During the course of the interview you’ll hear him describe the sequence of events that resulted in his coming within a hair’s breadth of winning a seat in the Danish Parliament.
You’ll also see me in these videos, but I’m just kibitzing.
Alice Weidel is the co-leader (with Alexander Gauland) of the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany).
The following video shows a speech given by Ms. Weidel on the floor of the Bundestag. In it she addresses the manifold failures of the policies of the current German government (a coalition between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats) under the chancellorship of Angela Merkel.
Ms. Weidel is blisteringly effective in her presentation, as evidenced by the other parties’ attempts to shout her down. It’s encouraging to hear the list of issues she covers, which extend far beyond the topic of immigration, which is usually the primary focus of the AfD. These policy proposals indicate that the AfD has matured to the point where it has the competence to govern the country, if it is ever given the chance.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Dutch authorities, both Islamic and secular, are shocked — SHOCKED, I tell you! — to learn that violent extremism is being taught in Salafist mosque schools in the Netherlands.
Great concern in the Tweede Kamer [Parliament] After investigation into Salafist mosque schools
Children in Salafist mosque schools learn that people with another religious belief or lifestyle deserve the death penalty. They also learn to turn away from Dutch society and the principles of equality and freedom.
In various mosque schools, instructors teach that Muslim youths must leave this infidel land and settle in an Islamic land. That is the conclusion of an investigation by Nieuwsuur and NRC Handelsblad regarding Salafist institutions that fall outside of regular education.
Both in political circles and within the Islamic community there is a shocked response. Gert-Jan Segers of Christian Union and VVD leader Klaas Dijkhoff want to have the law amended so that after information has been received, the education inspectorate can also intervene in informal education, whereas it can now only inspect regular schools.
The Moroccan-Dutch Society also reacted in shock. A sheikh, an imam and an Islamic teacher, active in traditional Moroccan mosques, call the Salafist lessons “horrible”.
Nieuwsuur and NRC conducted an investigation into dozens of education centers, which are Salafist or influenced by Salafism, and studied the teaching material for different age groups. Teachers throughout the country glorify a system where sharia punishment — the Islamic law — applies.
Death by sword
From lessons and from the textbooks, children learn which groups and sorts of people are “enemies” or “unbelievers”, and prescribes the death penalty that adulterers, homosexuals, apostates, and so-called “wizards”, among others, deserve. Children get fill-in exercises and multiple choice questions. They must, for example, choose the correct punishment: (a) lashing, (b) stoning, (c) death by sword.
Within informal Islamic education, Salafism, a fundamental movement within Islam is becoming increasingly influential. Nieuwsuur and NRC identified at least 50 educational establishments that are Salafist or becoming strongly influenced by it. In those locations more than a 1,000 children take Islamic lessons on evenings or weekends.
Many thanks to JLH for translating this essay by Matthias Matussek from Henryk Broder’s website Die Achse des Guten:
Why I Am a Nazi
by Matthias Matussek
August 31, 2019
I am a Nazi. God knows I am not proud of it, especially since it would be a grim, indeed the grimmest, hubris to claim that. Yes, I know what the Nazis did. They marched out in columns or hordes and attacked political opponents. They took a gloating pleasure in denunciation. They betrayed friendships and made sure that their friends were loaded onto trucks and taken to camps and murdered.
They bent over articles and books, not for the joy of reading, but to find “evidence” which could bring the authors into conflict with competitors, deprive them of office and make them objects of scorn. Their writings would be burned, because they did not adhere to the prescribed political line.
I have never denounced a human being because he celebrated his birthday with dubious fellows I didn’t know. “Better to turn someone in to the authorities than end up on the wrong side of things” has never been my way.
Nonetheless, I am a Nazi. Henryk Broder advised me to write that. We were at the Zurich summer WorldWeek festival where there were a lot of other Nazis, for instance our colleague, Alex Bauer, who had been beaten by Antifa and put in the hospital. And where there are Antifa, there are Nazis — you know, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
We Nazis are multiplying to stay abreast of things, so those who are eager to extinguish us multiply like a brush fire. You could almost surmise that they start fires themselves, just to have something to do.
It was difficult, learning to be a Nazi. I was recognized as a Nazi for the first time by a young lady with blue hair and multiple piercings. It was when I went to a campaign event held by Mr. Gauland of the AfD, whom I had known until then only from television.
I did not have a clue that he was the chair of a, well… of the Nazi party, which as Messiah Schulz shouted out in the Bundestag, belonged “on the ash heap of history.” He got that formulation from Trotsky, who had dealt harshly with counterrevolutionaries.
“Piss off, you Nazi”
I was making my way to Gauland’s campaign appearance through a cordon of bushwhacking, spitting and swearing Antifa partisans, when a girl pressed a note into my hand. I thought it was one of these messages from a Chinese fortune cookie. Maybe her telephone number.
But no. It said: “Piss off, you Nazi.”
I gave it back and said, “Sorry, I’m not a Nazi.” She looked at me bewildered, as I did her.
The next time, I was standing around among Hamburg citizens on the Jungfernstieg, an upscale shopping avenue on [the banks of] the Alster, to take part in a “Merkel has to go” demonstration. The Hamburg Morgenpost-Online — yes, the one with the ads for call girls — announced that where we were standing, neo-Nazis had gathered while hundreds of peaceful counter-demonstrators were marching.
The videos below are not Counterjihad-related; however, they do concern cultural enrichment in a broader sense. They feature a Turkish-Dutch “entrepreneur” who exploits a loophole in the peculiar Dutch laws about the distribution of drugs in order to peddle laughing gas (nitrous oxide, N2O) on the streets of Amsterdam.
He’s an obvious rogue, this gas-dealer, but an engaging one. I can’t help but enjoy his repartee, despite his sordid trade and the decadent environment in which he works.
The Netherlands is well-known for its tolerant attitude towards vice, whether it involves substance abuse, sexual license, or other deviant behaviors. It seems strange that the Dutch Powers That Be should be fastidious about nitrous oxide. Yes, it’s toxic, especially in the quantities you see this dealer inhaling, but hardly more toxic than some of the other recreational highs enjoyed on the streets of Amsterdam.
I’m an old prude, so the unabashed hedonism (on the part of both native Dutch and culture-enrichers) on display in these videos seems creepy to me.
The translator includes these notes about the protagonist in the videos:
Deniz Üresin is a Turkish-Dutch rapper turned “entrepreneur”. A hustler playing the system to deal drugs (laughing gas) on the streets of Amsterdam without legal repercussions. He gets high on his own supply, walks around in camouflage, with a “security” patch on his arm, says he maintains law and order on the street.
Halfway through the first video he says he should be King of the Netherlands. Watch the little speech at the end, where he says he’s the future mayor.
Many thanks to C for the translations, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling.
Video 1 (Deniz on the street with his “business):
Video 2 (Deniz appears on a TV talk show):
Video 3 (Deniz in conflict with the city council):
Video 4 (Deniz in a one-man demo; note that he apparently has had a mild stroke, possibly neural damage he sustained from his own supply):
Video transcript #1:
A couple of days ago I posted the latest news from the Netherlands about the show trial of Geert Wilders. Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends this summary of the larger context of the case, and the political significance of the railroading of Geert Wilders.
The dilemma of the Wilders trial
by H. Numan
The Baron just beat me to it: I was planning to write about the Wilders trial. Well, I guess he doesn’t need me anymore… (just kidding). There are a few angles you really need to know about concerning the Wilders trial. The elites are digging their graves deeper and deeper.
First of all — and most important — are the legal consequences of that guilty verdict, the jurisprudence. Imagine you have a very large bookshelf, from wall to wall. Only one shelf contains all the books of law, with plenty of space left over. The remainder of that entire bookshelf is filled with jurisprudence. And that actually is the real law.
Lawmakers (parliament) create the law. They set the minimum and maximum requirements. The courts interpret it. Each and every verdict explains how the law should be understood and applied. Verdicts of lower courts can be overruled by higher courts, which creates new jurisprudence.
Wilders is the de facto the leader of the opposition. His important position is the reason for the court’s verdict. Yes, they dearly wanted to sentence him to the maximum possible, and then some more. But they can’t. Geert Wilders is far too important. Supposing they were to have sent him to jail, that would make him immediately a martyr. He would happily go to jail, knowing full well he won’t be staying long and upon release becomes the next prime minister.
So doing jail time was out. Next best option was a fine. The prosecution asked for a fine of €5,000. I wish I had that kind of money, but Wilders makes at least four times that in a month. This would also create an outcry among the electorate. Wilders would pay the fine with a smile, knowing that the cost of this kind of advertising is invaluable. It would be a free advertising campaign worth millions for just €5,000. Again, not a good idea. What was left over?
Guilty without punishment. That’s the court equivalent of take two paracetamol and call me in the morning. Or so it seems. In real life it’s a slow-working deadly poison, especially in this case. Wilders would go free, but only him. Anyone else can be convicted based on that flimsy jurisprudence. What’s more, they will be convicted. And for a lot more than €5,000. Because there is a precedent. The fact that Wilders is convicted will be a precedent. His conviction can and will be used against anyone else. Including the asked for, but not enforced, fine of €5,000. For Wilders that’s a nice investment, well worth it. For you and me it would be financially crippling.
This is a well-tried tactic of letting a big fish swim in order to catch a lot of small fry. As the precedent is there, the big fish will eventually be caught anyway. When I say ‘well-tried’, I mean it literally. The Romans used it a lot, especially during the later part of the Republic. Among others, that is how the inquisition got started. You didn’t think they popped out of nothing did you? ‘Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition’ is a Monty Python sketch. Not real life.
That’s the legal side of the Wilders trial’s dilemma. However, there is more, that being the political side of it. We haven’t got the trias politica for nothing. The separation of power is a cornerstone of democracy. It’s becoming more and more clear that this really is a political show trial, with the outcome not being reached by judges, but by civil servants and Wilders’ political enemies working together before the trial even began.
It appears that Sweden, like Belgium will soon have its very own Islamic political party.
Many thanks to LN for translating this article from Fria Tider:
Pro-Islamic party wants to recruit controversial Muslims
September 12, 2019
The newly-formed Nyans Party, which wants to promote Muslim interests in Sweden, will invest both locally and in the Riksdag [parliament] ahead of the next elections in 2022.
Its founder Mikail Yüksel believes the party will join the council in Växjö, he says in Lokaltidningen. The municipality is already 25% immigrant.
It was in August that the Nyans Party, “the party for the country’s suburbs”, was launched via an article in the Aftonbladet Debate.
Behind the party stands the former Center Party politician Mikail Yüksel, who was excluded from the party last year due to contacts with the Turkish Gray Wolves, which has been called “a security threat to Sweden” and is designated as an Islamist group, where Islam is seen as the “cure” of humanity.
Among other things, the party wants to make Islamophobia a crime classification all its own in Sweden, and ensure that Muslims are enrolled in the Constitution as a special group like Jews and Saamis [Lapps] with minority status.
In a new interview with Lokaltidningen in Växjö, Yüksel explains that the party aims, among other things, to get onto the Växjö City Council. There people already work for the party, and as many as 25% of the municipality’s residents are immigrants. Entering would require only 1,200 votes.
Local chapters will also be started in Gothenburg, Malmö, Stockholm and Örebro. But the main goal is to get into parliament in 2022.
However, Mikail Yüksel does not want to be a party leader himself. In that regard, he would like to see the former housing minister and MP politician Mehmet Kaplan, who in 2016 had to resign after it emerged that he had been at a dinner with the Gray Wolves.
“Mehmet Kaplan is as cut/scissors and cut/knife for the assignment as party leader for Party Nyans. He has experience working in government and parliament,” says Mikail Yüksel to Lokaltidningen.
Yüksel also wants to “attract” another controversial Muslim, Yasri Khan. Khan also resigned from the Environment Party in 2016 after refusing to shake hands with a TV4 reporter because she was a woman.
Regular readers will remember Jose Atento of the Brazilian blog Lei Islâmica em Ação, who has been translating material and sending reports for the past few years. Last weekend in Quebec I was interviewed by Mr. Atento, and he has translated my remarks into Portuguese for a Brazilian audience. He also translated his Portuguese introduction into English.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the recording and subtitling:
Dr. Gottfried Curio is a member of the Bundestag for AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany). In the following speech on the floor of the Bundestag, Dr. Curio addresses the catastrophic consequences of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “welcome refugees” policies.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
As H. Numan reported earlier this month, there have been new developments in the show trial against Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands.
Since then there have been additional reports in the media about the improper involvement of the Minister of Justice in the case. The following material has been translated from RTL Nieuws:
Senior government officials demanded a hard approach in the trial against ‘malicious’ Wilders
Top officials of the Justice Department have been involved in the content of the criminal case against Geert Wilders. They urged the Public Prosecution Service (OM) to tackle Wilders as firmly as possible in the case of ‘fewer Moroccans’ statements.
The interference is very sensitive because it is a criminal case against an opposition leader. Until recently, the Justice department and the OM denied any form of substantive consultation and coordination on the Wilders case. The PVV leader reacts with astonishment to the new revelations and calls it ‘outrageous’.
The documents now show that officials fed the OM with arguments against Wilders, who was an opponent of the then-minister, VVD member Ivo Opstelten. They call his statements “malicious” and “racist.” When these officials read a very confidential official message from the Board of Procurators General to Minister Opstelten of 10 September 2014, one of them wondered: “Is the OM convinced of the desirability and feasibility of prosecution?”
No reason for criminal case
They advise the Public Prosecution Service to go into it legally. The reason for this is the discussion within the OM about the case. The Public Prosecutor in The Hague even wanted to dismiss the criminal case concerning the first ‘fewer Moroccans’ ruling on 12 March 2014, as it turned out last week, more than five years later. And the public prosecutor’s own experts, from the National Discrimination Expertise Center, also saw no good reason for a criminal case in the statements on the election evening of 19 March 2014. They found the statements ‘not unnecessarily offensive’.
The top officials thought that Wilders should not only be prosecuted for the election evening statements, but also had to be tackled for the first statement, because otherwise the whole ‘legally substantive’ case would not be sustainable.
“I would leave this to the judge and put as few restrictions as possible in what you submit to the judge.” The officials also provide a series of legal advice, including on how the Public Prosecutor should deal with the likely arguments of the defense. Literally: “I have already discussed a number of points with the colleague of the Pag [public prosecutor, the Public Prosecution Service, ed.] Today.” And: “I will pass on the points that you mention to the colleague of the OM.”
Wilders announces that he and his lawyer Geert-Jan Knoops will again ask the Court to stop the trial. The appeal will be served again on Tuesday. Wilders: “It is inconceivable that the Ministry of Justice has dealt with my case in detail. It’s a disgrace, a political reckoning by the VVD minister and his department.”
The PVV writes:
The following video is a longer version of one posted here two days ago. It was recorded in Saarland on September 5 at the SPD regional conference, which served as a town hall meeting for SPD members.
Ralf Stegner is speaking. He is the leader of the SPD (Social Democrats) in Schleswig-Holstein, and also a candidate for the national leadership of the SPD. The woman sitting next to him is Gesine Schwann of the SPD.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Rasmus Paludan is a Danish activist who was relatively unknown until his sacrilegious treatment of a Koran got him into a spot of bother in Nørrebro back in April. The incident propelled him into political prominence, so that his party (Stram Kurs, “Hard Line”) gained 1.8% of the vote in June’s parliamentary elections.
In the following video recorded at last weekend’s retreat in Quebec, Ms. Price and Mr. Paludan discuss the current political situation in Canada, with a particular focus on next month’s elections. Despite his being the center of a series of scandals, Justin “Baby Doc” Trudeau is expected to win re-election. However, Maxime Bernier and his party, the People’s Party of Canada, are showing surprising strength in the latest polls.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for recording and uploading this video:
Dymphna and I have been posting these 9-11 anniversary essays once a year, beginning in 2005, so this makes the fifteenth. I’m on my own now, and I must admit to a certain discouragement: in the eighteen years since the Twin Towers fell, our ability to identify and deal with the danger of Islamization has markedly deteriorated.
Readers who are old enough to recall the fall of 2001 may remember the robust public discussions about Islam that took place during the months after September 11, even in the MSM. Even on NPR! I remember listening to the op-eds during “All Things Considered” in the car on my way home from work. Yes, the general conclusion — led by the pronouncements of President George W. “Religion of Peace” Bush — was that the perpetrators of 9-11 were “extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion”. But Islam was mentioned, and it was even possible to publicly dissent from the “extremist-vs.-moderate” party line without being hounded from one’s job and driven into hiding.
Not any more.
Over the intervening years, the patient infiltration and indoctrination by the Muslim Brotherhood has borne fruit. The word “Islam” is rarely used in any public commemorations of 9-11. In fact, the public remembrances themselves are becoming more and more frowned upon and stigmatized as “racist”, “white supremacist”, etc., etc.
In the Long War, Ilhan Omar is winning, and we traditional Americans are losing.
Mark Steyn says it much better than I ever could in “The Language of Losing”. Some excerpts:
The eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 was marked by the Administration inviting the Taliban to Camp David, and by the resignation and/or firing of John Bolton as National Security Advisor — which two events may not be unconnected. Because really, when the Taliban are running around Camp David, who needs national security?
We run around fighting for worthless bits of barren sod like Helmand province in Afghanistan, while surrendering day by day some of the most valuable real estate on the planet, such as France and Sweden.
In any war, you have to be able to prioritize: You can’t win everything, so where would you rather win? Raqqa or Rotterdam? Kandahar or Cannes? Yet, whenever some guy goes Allahu Akbar on the streets of a western city, the telly pundits generally fall into one of two groups: The left say it’s no big deal, and the right say this is why we need more boots on the ground in Syria or Afghanistan. Yesterday President Trump said he was committed to ensuring that terrorists “never again have a safe haven to launch attacks against our country”.
By that he means “safe havens” in Afghanistan. But the reason the west’s enemies are able to pile up a continuous corpse count in Paris, Nice, Berlin, Brussels, London, Manchester, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Orlando, San Bernadino, Ottawa, Sydney, Barcelona, [Your Town Here] is because they have “safe havens” in France, Germany, Britain, Scandinavia, North America, etc. Which “safe havens” are likely to prove more consequential for the developed world in the years ahead?