Someone posted this on a Telegraph blog this morning. It's a bit long, but I'll let you decide which bits are relevant.
“We Will Hold You to Account” Update: Paul Weston in German at Europe News . Below is the speech given at today’s demonstration at Generatorstraat in Amsterdam by the British author and former Parliamentary candidate Paul Weston. Hello. My name is Paul Weston, and I represent the International Free Press Society. And I am standing here today because our liberal elites have betrayed our countries to Islam. Forty-two years ago the British politician Enoch Powell made his famous “Rivers of Blood” speech, in which he stated that “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.” Our politicians today do the exact opposite. They actively promote a preventable evil. But eighty years ago one man, Winston Churchill, was very clear about preventing a clear and present evil, Herr Hitler and the Nazis. But Churchill was a lone voice crying in the wind of appeasement, and the carnage that could have been avoided came with a vengeance. And today Europe finds itself in much the same position. Even as Islam grows demographically, territorially, and militantly, it is promoted as the “religion of peace” by the same type of cowardly, careerist politicians who once appeased Hitler. Islam was not the religion of peace to Winston Churchill. He described it as the religion of blood and war. Anyone with a knowledge of the foundations and history of Islamic expansion knows this to be the truth. Mohammed was a warlord. And a very good warlord indeed. By the time of his death he had militarily defeated and converted most of the pagan and Christian tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. After his death Islam rapidly expanded at the point of a sword, defeating ancient civilisations and overrunning continents as it did so. And today it is within Europe, it is within the West, and it is calling for what it has always called for: total Islamic domination. And if we wish to resist, then they will use terror against us. Yet still our treasonous politicians call it the “religion of peace”, and tell us that if we refuse to share such a fantastical and ridiculous notion, that if we choose to believe Winston Churchill’s argument that Islam is a religion of blood and war, then we will be sent to prison. Of course it is not a religion of peace. Its founder was a warrior, and the highest honour bestowed upon a Muslim is the promise of hordes of scented houris and an eternal leg-over in the after life, achievable not by being a good Samaritan, but by dying as a martyr in the physical battle to expand imperialist Islam. Islam literally means submission. What kind of a religion can possibly call itself submission? Islam divides the world into two spheres. The House of Islam (submission) and the House of War. What kind of religion defines itself by military conquest? Yet our leaders tell us we cannot criticise Islam because it is a religion, whilst the organisation of the Islamic conference, in cahoots with the united nations is striving to make any criticism of Islam illegal. But Islam is so much more than just a religion. It is a political, social, legal and structural blueprint which totally dominates a devout Muslim’s life, and wishes coincidentally to dominate all devout non-Muslims’ lives as well. It is profoundly illiberal and it is profoundly undemocratic. It does not believe in the man-made laws of democracy, preferring instead to adhere to the absolute word of Allah, as interpreted by an illiterate 7th-century desert dweller. And our politicians have imported this illiberal and undemocratic ideology into the liberal democracies than make up the West, and then they dare to criminalise us when we object to this! But how can we not criticise Islam? Can our politicians really protect it as a religion and therefore place it out of legal reach? When homosexuals are hung from cranes, is this political Islam in action or religious Islam? When adulterous women are buried up to their shoulders in sand and stoned to death, is this political Islam or religious Islam? When Muslims who wish to leave Islam are issued with death sentences, is this political Islam, or is this religious Islam? When wives and daughters are slaughtered to protect their families’ honour by husbands fathers and uncles, is this political Islam or religious Islam? If it is political, then it must be denounced as evil and barbaric. If it religious, how can it possibly not be denounced as the same? What is evil is evil and what is barbaric is barbaric and cannot be exempted from criticism because it is sheltered by the word “religion”. In criminalising free speech, our socialist leaders reveal their dictatorial ambition. The mark of a free society is freedom of speech. To take this away is a totalitarian act, made all the worse because freedom of speech is our only defence in the peaceful opposition against the foreign totalitarian ideology of Islam. And I hope this irony is not lost on you. In order to protect and advance a foreign totalitarian ideology, our own rulers are prepared to adopt native totalitarian means to stop us defending our democracy and our freedom. The West lives in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Islam does not. They signed up instead to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. But they have a very important caveat: when sharia law collides with human rights law, guess which law prevails? Quite so. Sharia is the top trumps when it comes to human rights. This is like a signatory to the Geneva convention murdering and torturing prisoners of war, and being given a pass at a war trial because it was “part of their religion.” And when our politicians today excuse Islam as a religion of peace and allow them to set the rules both at home, at the European Union, and at the United Nations, then our politicians are betraying their countries and they are betraying their people. They are committing treason. “Can one commit treason in a time of peace?” people may ask. But are we really at peace? We may not consider ourselves at war with Islam, but Islam considers itself at war with us. And it is a war we are losing. Territorially, demographically, politically, and democratically. In fact, it is a war of aggression on two fronts. Radical Islam on the one, and left-wing treason on the other. Our children are told to celebrate multiculturalism and Islam, without being told the real history of violent expansionist Islam. Instead, they are told that their own history, their religion, their culture, their traditions, their very being, is just a litany of imperialism, racism, murder and slavery. This is a proven psychological technique designed to render an enemy helpless, or to quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “in order to destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.” Any government that does this to its own people, to its own children, is a government that deserves, manifestly deserves, to be overthrown. Can anyone really argue that a government that praises the foreign invader whilst psychologically and legally stripping away the defences of its people is a government that is not guilty of treason? Now here we come to a more uplifting part of this depressing monologue, because in this part of the battle we are advancing. Slowly, admittedly, but relentlessly, and I think we are now unstoppable. Geert Wilders here in the Netherlands, René Stadtkewitz in Germany, whose immediate popularity caused Angela Merkel to make an abrupt U-turn and denounce Multiculturalism. The Sweden Democrats, Heinz-Christian Strache in Austria, the Swiss People’s Party, and in England we await a political movement to pick up the baton from the rapidly growing English Defence League. And that growth can only accelerate. As more and more people become aware of Islam and become aware of the depth of treason perpetrated by their liberal rulers, and most importantly, as people lose their fear of being labelled a racist — which was a label specifically designed to strip us of resistance against a racially designated invader who uses race as a weapon. In fact, let us deal with this “racist” label right now. It is not racist to defend your country against an obvious and growing threat. It is not racist to defend your culture, your heritage, and your traditions. It is not racist to work to ensure a democratic future for your children and grandchildren. If you choose not to defend your country, your culture and the democratic future of your children, then you may well pat yourselves on the back in your non-racist champagne socialist cocktail bars in Islington; you may well love other people’s anti-racist credentials almost as much as you love your own; but there is no getting away from the label I have for you. You are a traitor and a betrayer of your country, a betrayer of your culture, and a betrayer of our yet unborn children. And you are a racist, indeed a genocidal racist. Young native Europeans will become a demographic ethnic minority within their own homelands if immigration rates and birth rates stay the way they are for just one more generation. This can politely be called population replacement. More crudely, it is bloodless genocide. The United Nations is very clear on this. Their definition of genocide is as follows. Quote. Article 2. In the present convention genocide means any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group. We have been betrayed. And one of the saddest aspects of this betrayal is the effect it has had on those old ex-warriors who fought for their countries in recent living memory. Ex-Spitfire pilot Alex Henshaw died three years ago. He was acutely aware of the political betrayal of his country. He said: “I feel extreme emotional sadness for the young men I knew that gave their lives willingly for a cause in which we all believed. And I often say to myself that if those young boys would come down now and walk through the villages, through the towns and through the cities and look around and see what is happening to us, they would say somewhere along the line we have been betrayed.” Yes, Mr. Henshaw, I am afraid you have, and all of you socialist/liberal/left-wing people need to know what you have done. You need to take a walk around your cities, towns and villages, take a look at the hundreds of thousand of graves standing as testament to the ultimate sacrifice made by our young men in order that you may live in a liberal democracy today. You need to understand that this a not just betrayal, but a triple betrayal: The betrayal of all our old soldiers whose sacrifice granted us freedom, The betrayal of my generation who you threaten to imprison if we defend our inherited freedom, and The betrayal of our yet unborn, who, unless we stop it seem set to inherit a country racked with tribal and religious hatred, which must inevitably lead to a continental scale multicultural war that will make the break-up of Yugoslavia look like a bun-fight. And, of course, it is also the betrayal of freedom and democracy. Because freedom and democracy did not just magically appear. They evolved over two and a half thousand years, rooted in Greco-Roman Judeo-Christian ancestry. And were fought for and defended with much blood and sacrifice. Democracy and freedom are not the personal possessions of socialist politicians to be handed away, without our agreement, to the descendants of a 7th century desert warlord, who view our attachment to democracy as just a weakness to be used against us. I do not blame Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims are just doing what it says in the book. But I do blame our politicians. There are two sides in this civilisational stand-off, and our politicians have sided with the enemy. So I say to them:You may well hold the levers of power at the moment, but we are on the rise and we are unstoppable. Do you seriously think you can do what you have done to your own people without repercussion? You could stop this now if you chose to, by the simple expedient of putting the interests of your own people before the interests of Islam. But you won’t do that will you? So you put us in an almost impossible position. If we do nothing we must accept our children and grandchildren will one day live under sharia law. And if we do something, then it must by definition be revolutionary. But we did not start this. You did. Most of us would have been quite happy to mow the lawn, hold down a mundane job, and pay our taxes.You have made us revolutionaries. And whilst your behaviour suggests you fear Islam more than you fear us, let me tell you something, you lying, betraying, treacherous, socialist careerists: We might not hold power today, but given another decade, we will, and then we will hold you to account. You will appear before a Nuremberg-style court, and you will be tried for treason, and you will be tried for crimes against humanity, and for the first time in a very long time you will be answerable to us! |
Originally Posted by ScoobyWon't
(Post 10966755)
Someone posted this on a Telegraph blog this morning. It's a bit long, but I'll let you decide which bits are relevant.
|
ScoobyWon't, that's a bit of a rant, reminds me of Citizen Smith.
For me the reference to Alex Henshaw was most poignant. But i also know, that with each passing generation, with each new baby born, the resistance against the Islamification of Europe, not just the UK, weakens. It's hard, very hard, to see it happen before your very eyes if you have seen not just the future, but the past as well. |
Originally Posted by JTaylor
(Post 10966514)
Were you put on the Nizari path when you were brought in to the World? No angle, just interested.
|
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 10966863)
ScoobyWon't, that's a bit of a rant, reminds me of Citizen Smith.
For me the reference to Alex Henshaw was most poignant. But i also know, that with each passing generation, with each new baby born, the resistance against the Islamification of Europe, not just the UK, weakens. It's hard, very hard, to see it happen before your very eyes if you have seen not just the future, but the past as well. |
Originally Posted by Luan Pra bang
(Post 10966912)
Yes.
|
JT, what's your ethnicity?
|
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 10967141)
JT, what's your ethnicity?
|
Cool. Do you have a Muslim friend whose knowledge and opinions you project on threads like this? Or do you have a reason to have insight into some of the more esoteric aspects of Islam?
|
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 10967627)
Cool. Do you have a Muslim friend whose knowledge and opinions you project on threads like this?
Or do you have a reason to have insight into some of the more esoteric aspects of Islam? What's your ethnicity, Tel? |
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 10967627)
Cool. Do you have a Muslim friend whose knowledge and opinions you project on threads like this? Or do you have a reason to have insight into some of the more esoteric aspects of Islam?
|
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 10967695)
i think it is fair to assume Jtaylors internet search history is probably logged at GCHQ
Originally Posted by JTaylor
(Post 10960000)
In lieu of sound argument you become a libeller.
|
Originally Posted by JTaylor
(Post 10967686)
No. Strange question.
You've couched your inquiry in vague either/or terms; I'm happy to answer, but we'll need to unpack this a bit more. To kick off, each of the Abrahamic traditions have esoteric and exoteric "aspects" and my journey has led me to study both sides of all three, as best one is able to study the infinite in a finite period of time. What's your ethnicity, Tel? |
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 10967754)
Anglo Saxon, if it's relevant. But you'd be naive if you denied that your knowledge of Islam goes way beyond that of the normal Caucasian Christian. I'm just wondering why you've gone into it to such an extent.
|
You're reading far too much into this. It's just "odd" for a Christian to use Arabic(?) words and phrases when discussing Islam. Almost as if it's being discussed with a Muslim in the real world and then transposed here. If you don't see my point, forget it, i'm not looking for a forensic dissection. I guess you just think it helps in some way, dunno.
|
Originally Posted by JTaylor
(Post 10967752)
As I said...
are 2 sides of the same coin maybe that is what Telboy is struggling to understand and the logging of your internet activity was no joke - i bet it is |
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 10967882)
You're reading far too much into this. It's just "odd" for a Christian to use Arabic(?) words and phrases when discussing Islam. Almost as if it's being discussed with a Muslim in the real world and then transposed here. If you don't see my point, forget it, i'm not looking for a forensic dissection. I guess you just think it helps in some way, dunno.
|
:)
|
Originally Posted by Einstein RA
(Post 10968008)
I find James' tenacity and borderline obsessiveness a little strange. I'm not suggesting some sort of mid life crisis or inferiority complex but it is certainly a symptom of something deeper. I may have the wrong end of the stick here, hopefully James can clarify.
Perhaps you can enlighten us further Jtaylor ? |
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 10967141)
JT, what's your ethnicity?
|
I have to admit, I'm weary of reading JTaylor's responses on this thread. Rather than discussing the points raised directly he prefers to tie up every interaction in tedious and arrogant red tape. Luan has his number perfectly.
|
I've just spent a hilarious few minutes googling some of JTaylor's choice phrases :lol1:
The copy and paste King. What a WANKER!! :D :D |
Originally Posted by Bubba po
(Post 10968698)
I've just spent a hilarious few minutes googling some of JTaylor's choice phrases :lol1:
The copy and paste King. What a WANKER!! :D :D |
Originally Posted by Luan Pra bang
(Post 10968703)
I was starting to wonder.
|
Originally Posted by Bubba po
(Post 10968705)
Check for yourself, don't take my word for it.
|
Originally Posted by Luan Pra bang
(Post 10968678)
Its some strange choice of words I don't get, he used the word Nizari when no one really does, Ismaili is usual or sometimes some would call Ismailies aga kahnies as a bit of a joke but never Nizari.
When he asked me about dhimma it struck me as odd seeing as I had just effectively talked about that but not by name. I am beginning to think that Jtaylor is just on a big wind up and using a quick wiki search to throw some relevant words about? You've not addressed the issue of dhimma within the constitution |
Originally Posted by JTaylor
(Post 10968874)
Inspite of it appearing on today's BBC news page in the stories about Algeria, Mali, Egypt and Syria, and its use across the news channels (including al-Jazeera) and throughout academia and amongst public intellectuals and even as part of the vocabulary of militant Muslims, you've objected to the use of the word Islamism. Ok, I'll accomodate. Additionally, you implied in posts 34 and 40 that my capacity to understand the source texts are severely hampered by my limited command of Arabic. Well, ok. You now claim "strange" my use of the textually accurate 'Nizari'. I suspect that if I had said Ismaili you'd have been upset because you're an atheist and if I'd written atheist you'd have objected that it didn't sufficiently acknowledge your cultural inheritance and I imagine that if I'd called you an "Aga Khanie" there would have been cries of outrage on the charge of over familiarity.
You are well aware what mine and others objection to the word Islamism is, to some its an equivalent of trying to name Paedophilia Catholicism. We have Buddhism. Catholicism, Sikhism, as general terms yet Islamism is now a synonymous with violence but its is interesting that you want to sidetrack the discussion again. More interesting is that once again you have typed a reply with a few fancy words but have yet to demonstrate any understanding . Your use of the word Nizari IS strange as you could have said 'were you born an Ismaili', or 'are your family Ismaili' or anything else but using Nizari kind of supports the idea that you are doing quick wiki searches and do not have any real understanding or experience of what you are talking about. You have again tried to evade the main points raised accusing me of being sensitive when all I have done is object to one specific word, and you defensive attitude, trying to make you choice of words justifiable should be embarrassing for you. Explaining your failure to use the joke phrase aga kahnie like you had ever heard it before is comedy. In simple terms if you want to debate Islam and the meanings of the Quran then please actually provide quotes or evidence rather than just do a 1 second google search. |
Originally Posted by JTaylor
(Post 10968874)
In hindsight I ought to have placed emphasis upon the word 'issue'. The issue being the Jizya. . I am starting to wonder if you had even read the link you posted earlier about the origins of the word Islamism, you should read it, it is actually a very good read as far as academic essays go. |
Originally Posted by Luan Pra bang
(Post 10969048)
TO respond to this the Jizya in the constitution was the extra tax non-muslims paid in exchange for not having to take part in wars.
As al-Razi states in The Great Commentary in relation to 9:29: The intention of taking the Jizya is not to approve the disbelief of non-Muslims in Islam, but rather to spare their lives and to give them some time; in hope that during it; they might stop to reflect on the virtues of Islam and its compelling arguments, and consequently converting from disbelief to belief. That's why it's important to pay the jizya with humiliation and servility, because naturally, any sensible person can not stand humiliation and servility. So if the disbeliever is given some time watching the pride of Islam and hearing evidences of its authenticity, then apparently this might carry him to convert to Islam, and that's the main rationale behind the enactment of the jizya. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands