About Me

My Photo
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Benjamin Franklin

Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Women are not equal to men.

As reported by the BBC today, we have it on good authority from the President of Turkey Tayyip Erdogen no less, that women are not equal to men.


He was speaking as a Muslim and reflecting the tenants of his faith.  You cannot put women and men on an equal footing," he told a meeting in Istanbul. "It is against nature."

So ladies there you have it.

In a related story in the Telegraph it seems the British Law society have grown uncomfortable with their recent guidelines for solicitors on how to compile “Sharia compliant” wills.  Apparently they encouraged discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Who could have foreseen that outcome?

Just how you retract those guidelines once they have been published is anyone’s guess.  However, this is only a temporary reversal as Britain is well on the way towards total Sharia compliance as anyone visiting their schools, hospitals, banks or subway stores can attest.

Who could have foreseen that outcome?

Monday, 24 November 2014

It ain’t the Baptists with the blades and bombs.

The UK DailyMail reports today that: “Britain is facing an ‘almost inevitable’ attack by fanatics who have been ‘militarized’ by the Islamic State, according to police and security officials.  Most of us knew that already, however that was not primary revelation contained in the article.  It goes on to state:


The Home Secretary Teresa May’s new Anti-Terrorism and Security Bill, to be presented to MPs tomorrow, also includes powers to:

Forcibly relocate terror suspects, or put them into internal exile; allow border guards to seize the passports of suspected jihadis;
        
Ban fanatics returning from Syria from entering the UK for up to two years;

Forbid airlines from landing in the UK if they do not provide advanced passenger lists.

It was the first item that caught my attention “Forcibly relocate terror suspects, or put them into ‘internal exile’”.

This is the kind of internment you have when you don’t call it internment.  This is exactly what America, Britain and other allies did during the WWII when they identified citizens of enemy nations living in there midst whom they believed represented a threat to civil order.

It’s important to note that these internments happen without the targeted individual necessarily having received a public trial or being charged with any offenses. 

This is perhaps one indication of just how serious Britain views the jihadist threat on their home soil.

If the bill is passed, this will be a serious degradation of civil liberties in Britain.  While we all understand at one level, the need to act to prevent Islamic jihadist attacks, it is also clear that an unscrupulous ruling political elite could use such laws to marginalize their political opponents.

This raises the question of how civilized societies can maintain their respect for the individual, and for the rule of law, when as a result of mass immigration, those who are uncivilized and barbaric increasingly populate our nation states?

It is not considered polite to discuss such things in civilized circles you understand, so we will continue to pretend that all cultures are equal, and that the risk to public safety is coming from just a handful of random criminals who are being brainwashed over the Internet.

Without an honest conversation about the context within which radicalization occurs we will never identify and begin to deal with the cause.  Instead the civilized will endure an ever enlarged surveillance state, with powers of internment without trial, all because of our government’s reluctance to face up to the truth. 

Sunday, 23 November 2014

Auckland gets a taste of Europe

The Jewish community of Auckland must be wondering if there is anywhere left in the world that is safe for them and their families.   The Herald today reported that a 4-year-old Jewish boy was attacked walking home from pre-school in what has been labelled a race hate crime.


The boy has been left traumatised after he was approached by a man who slapped him hard on the top of his head in front of his mother, brother and a friend in the Auckland suburb of Mt Eden last week.

New Zealand Jewish Council president Stephen Goodman said the man in his 20s, who was said to be of Middle Eastern appearance, laughed as he left the scene in a car with four other men. Goodman said the brazen attack appeared to be racially motivated as both the boy and his friend were wearing yarmulkes, or Jewish skullcaps, and are orthodox Jews.

Several other recent anti-Semitic incidents had targeted children, Goodman said. A young girl walking through the Britomart train station had had insults yelled at her in Arabic by young Middle Eastern men.  In October, men in a car had yelled "F****n' Jews" at a young boy walking in Remuera.  Goodman said there had been talk among the Jewish community of children not wearing their traditional clothes in public for fear of being abused.

……..

We don’t know anything about the motivation of the person responsible for the attack on this child until he is apprehended.  However, singling out a Jewish boy for physical abuse is a characteristic of a group belonging to a particular religious identity, if the experience in France and other European countries is anything to go by.

Anti-Semitism is not new.  To the great shame of the Christian community, there were many attacks on Jews in Europe during the Middle Ages by professing Christians.  Christians were also in the habit of killing each other at the time as well in much the same is as happening amongst Muslims in the Middle East today.

Thankfully, Christianity has gone through a process of reformation, where Christians have decided to make space for other believers who have embraced different theology, and thankfully also for the Jews.

I’m surprised that the president of the Jewish Council referred to this attack as a ‘race crime’, as Judaism is a religion embraced by people of all races and ethnicities.  This young boy was seemingly singled out for attack, not because of his race, but because of his religion.  As Europeans have discovered, the more immigrants they have from the Middle East, the greater the number of attacks against Jewish individuals, businesses and synagogues take place.  

Are we done yet with importing these historical hatreds, or are we going to continue with Immigration from the Middle East and compete with Europe to become the most anti-Semitic nation in the West?

Thursday, 20 November 2014

We need to remember that we might be the first civilisation attempting to maintain mutual civility without a near universal belief in God


I was struck by a phrase used by Wellington Lawyer and former Act MP Stephen Franks in his recent blog post this week when he said:

“We need to remember that we might be the first civilisation attempting to maintain mutual civility without a near universal belief that God, or angels, or gods, or other supernatural beings were monitoring and potentially holding us accountable for everything we’ve thought, let alone everything we do.”

This is so rendolent with meaning that we would do well to reflect upon it for more than a moment.

Not only have we abandoned the notion that ‘God is watching’ but we have also abandoned the institution of traditional marriage that has been at the foundational heart of western civilization for more than 1,000 years.

May I recommend to you this 6 minute talk by Lord Sacks, formally chief rabbi of England on the institution of marriage.  It is provocative, thoughtful, powerful and dare I say it… eternally true.





Wednesday, 19 November 2014

The religion of peace is not known for its tolerance of diverse religious expression once it becomes the ruling narrative.

I note that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Rev Welby is questioning the wisdom of providing asylum for the Christians of the Middle East in places like England and Europe.


His concerns are that this would ‘drain the Middle East of 2,000 year old communities’.  I suspect the Christians concerns are more basic than that.  Will we live or will we die at the hands of Muslim fanatics?

The Jews face the same problem, even in Israel where I note that four Rabbi’s were recently slaughtered by a Palestinian Muslim.

While this appears to be an academic question for the good Bishop, Christian families in the Middle East know that their time is over, and 2,000 years of history counts for nothing with their oppressors.  If surrounding Muslim nations will not make room for the Palestinian Muslims, how much room do you think they will make available for Jews and Christians?

The Reverend Welby has to join the reset of us in dealing with the world as it is, not how we think it should be.  What we are seeing is that there is no place for religious minorities in any majority Muslim nation, be it Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan - the list goes on.

The religion of peace is not known for its tolerance of diverse religious expression once it becomes the ruling narrative.

Most of us understand that now.

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

All of you are infidels, apostates, and idol worshipers destined for perdition. Have a nice day.

I have every sympathy with the parents of the most recent decapitation victim of the Islamic state, Peter Kassig.  They loved their son, and wanted to do everything possible to save his life as a humanitarian aid worker captive of the Islamic State.


The extent of their love showed no bounds.  They paid obsequies duty to Islam.  The mother donned the Muslim Hijab and went on national television showing her abasement. Both parents visited local Mosques and their son apparently converted to Islam while in captivity.

What further degradation was available to them as a family?

Sadly this humiliation and groveling was to no avail.  No abasement is sufficient for the rulers of the Islamic State.

Now listen up all of you secularists, liberal Islamophile embracing leftists. This is a metaphor for he West if anyone is listening.  Islam takes no prisoners except for young female sex slaves.

You can abase yourselves and apologize for being western colonialists all you want, it will make zero difference.  All of you are infidels, apostates, and idol worshipers destined for perdition.


Have a nice day.

All is quiet on the blogging front. Why?


I haven’t been blogging much lately.  I’m writing instead.  I’d like to write a novel one day as I believe that story telling is probably the best way to communicate ideas, culture, faith and hope for the future, and have the reader enjoy the journey at the same time.

I’ve started out with something more modest - an autobiography.  Yes, I could be accused of being introspective and self-centered, but the narrative is one that I know something about and it seemed an easy place to start. 

As I have been reflecting on my childhood and early adult years, the number of colourful individuals that I have been privileged to know during that time surprises me.  It seems that in the West today we do bland very well.  Back in the 1960’s and 70’s we did outrageous as a matter of course.

I doubt that I will be sharing much of my historical personal narrative on this blog. I mean who is really interested in my successful attempt as a five year old to stuff my uneaten crusts into my ‘neighbours’ desk just prior to the headmaster performing a desk inspection?

Or the eels that swam in our water race fed school pool, or who it was that visited us in our cabin on our standard six excursion to Wellington on the overnight ferry when I was 12 years old?

Or.. well ok, it is interesting for sure, but perhaps another time.

Friday, 14 November 2014

Faithless morality

I have always appreciated the insightful reflections of Lord Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of England, who has been one of the few religious leaders willing to discuss openly the challenges we face in the west from both atheistic secularism and radical Islam.  The advocates of both ‘religions’ seek to impose their own unique moral code, the former based upon the postmodern narrative of ‘equality and tolerance’, and the latter upon Islamic Sharia law.


What makes this all the more interesting is the fact that this battle is taking place in a culture that was once animated by the Christian faith and a view of justice crafted from a thousand years of Biblical morality, case law and jurisprudence.  Yes, we also owe a debt to the Greeks, the Romans and the Enlightenment, albeit the first two had a plurality of god’s while the Enlightenment, birthed from a Judeo / Christian context, sought to establish man rather than God as the preeminent being in the center of the universe.

Lord Sacks was recently interviewed by the Spectator Magazine and while reflecting upon the current state of Islam, he opined:

‘There is a huge attempt right now to find out if we can ground a morality in something other than religious faith. I think the question is on what can we ground a shared substantive ethic strong enough to inspire young people? No society that has no shared ideals on morality will survive for long. The current mania really — it’s a flood of works — is to try and base ethics on Darwinian biology. Some of this is very engaging. But you try and base morality on the mating habits of alpha-male chimpanzees and you are not going to get very far.’

Historically in the West we have relied upon an external standard expressed in the Biblical narrative to provide us with a moral framework for living in relationship with others.  In countries with an Islamic majority, they have relied to a greater or lesser extent upon Sharia Law. In particular those Islamic societies that are not governed by ‘strong men’ or the army, but have instead some form of democracy, or theocracy.

Both Christianized cultures and Islamic cultures have relied upon revelation either from the Bible, or the Koran and surrounding texts to proscribe how we might best live.

Today in the west, having largely rejected all forms of revelation in favour of reason, we are seeking a new narrative upon which morality can be based.  As Lord Sacks points out, looking to Darwin is one model, but few of us would seek to live in a nation whose moral ethos was based solely upon the survival of the fittest.

By rejecting revelation as a means of moral guidance, we are left with the raw material of the human condition as the only means available upon which to construct our new society.

This brings us back to the ‘core values’ of ‘equality and tolerance under the rule of law as outlined and promoted by British PM David Cameron.  These values are all very well, but they don’t contain answers to the question ‘why’?

Why should I respect your values? What makes them any better than mine?  Why should I care about the ‘common good’ particularly if it stands in the way of my personal gratification and self-interest?

If there is no God, then surely everything is permitted?

Ultimately what we believe matters as our beliefs shape our actions and our action or inaction, determines our destiny.  This is as true for nations as it is for individuals.

Having rejected faith-based morality, are we embracing the Darwinian? 

Saturday, 8 November 2014

When is a citizen no longer a citizen?

Is the ISIS supporting Muslim convert Aaron Tahuhu a threat to the safety of people living in Christchurch?  Probably not; at least not directly.  In an interview with a Stuff reporter Mr Tahuhu says that he knows about two dozen Muslims in Christchurch that share his views, presumably in relation to his support of ISIS.


Do any of those two dozen Muslims represent a threat to the people of Christchurch?  Possibly, if the Australian and Canadian experience is any guide.

However, we can be take some comfort in the knowledge that the authorities are aware of Aaron Tahuhu and will be ‘monitoring’ him.  Not the ankle bracelet form of monitoring you understand, more like the monitoring the Justice Department does of criminal suspects released on bail.  Only a handful go on to kill innocent victims while being monitored in this way.

What strange times we live in. 

We are presently involved in an ‘undeclared’ war with the Islamic State in Iraq in as much as we have ‘boots on the ground’ there supporting the Iraq army.  We have spent the best part of a decade in Afghanistan supporting the American initiative killing the Muslim Taliban.  Muslims like Aaron Tahuhu interpret this as New Zealand being at war against Muslims and against Islam.   To be fair to Aaron, he appears not to believe that we are at war yet, however with New Zealand military personnel in Iraq, our status must be highly questionable in the minds of many Muslims in New Zealand.

Should Aaron Tahuhu wish to travel to the Middle East to provide support to ISIS, his passport will be cancelled, and he will be prevented from leaving the country.  Such an action must only serve to further alienate him from any sense of identification as a New Zealander, and strengthen his identification with ISIS. 

Will he still have benign views towards the people of New Zealand at that time?  What about those Muslims here who already have their passports cancelled?

The Government appears unwilling to determinedly address the security threat represented by ISIS supporters here in New Zealand, preferring instead to kick the can down the road for now, hoping for the best.

It is questionable if Aaron Tahuhu and others like him are New Zealand citizens in the true sense of the word.  They have made it clear that their first allegiance is to Islam.  Their second allegiance is to the global Muslim community, best expressed by ISIS who are violently establishing the Caliphate, and restoring Islam to its former glory based upon military conquest.

We have a citizenship oath for new immigrants to New Zealand. Is it time to apply that same test to people living here who by their public statements demonstrate that they no longer appear to be New Zealand citizens?

Citizenship oath:

I, [full name], swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance
to Her (or His) Majesty [specify the name of the reigning Sovereign, as thus: Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand] Her (or His) heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen. So help me God.

Those who object to adding 'God' to the end of an oath may take the affirmation of allegiance instead:

I [name] solemnly and sincerely affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her (or His) Majesty [specify the name of the reigning Sovereign, as thus: Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand] Her (or His) heirs and successors according to the law and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen.

This would raise the question of what to do with those who refuse to re-affirm their citizenship oath.  I would suggest that those with dual passports should be deported.  During WWII western nations interned citizens of enemy countries whom they believed represented a risk to national security.

While it may be too soon to take such steps, it is not too soon to begin the conversation.  This is not a problem that is about to go away any time soon. 

Thursday, 6 November 2014

We need a little more King James and a little less political correctness

5 November 2014 may be remembered in New Zealand, not for the actions of Guy Fawkes in 1605 but because for the first time a New Zealand Prime Minister stated publically that there could be up to 80 potential ‘terrorists’ who supported the Islamic State in Iraq, living in our midst.  He confirmed that between 30 and 40 were presently under direct surveillance by our security services, and a further 30 to 40 were yet to be fully investigated.


Mr Key said he wanted to stress that none of the people causing concern in New Zealand were representative of the Muslim community as a whole. "The Muslim community is a peaceful one, which makes a valuable contribution to New Zealand. I know the vast majority of Muslim New Zealanders are as distressed by the actions of ISIL and its violent extremist message as anyone else."

It is somewhat ironic that Guy Fawkes’ terrorist activities were underpinned by his religious motivation.  He was a Catholic convert at war with Protestant England.  Killing parliamentarians in his mind was entirely justifiable in the service of his Catholic God.  Perhaps his actions were not too dissimilar to the recent Muslim convert in Canada who, following the killing of a soldier stationed at a war memorial, proceeded to the House of Representatives with the hope of killing any parliamentarian he could find before being gunned down.

Unsurprisingly upon Guy Fawkes’s capture, King James did not issue a statement in support of England’s Catholic community, nor did he remind everyone of the ‘valuable contribution’ they had made to England.  Instead he ordered Fawkes to be tortured, using the rack if necessary to obtain the names of his co-conspirators.  Eventually he gave up the required details and was sentenced as follows:

“Each of the condemned men who were found guilty of High Treason would be drawn backwards to his death, by a horse, his head near the ground. They were to be "put to death halfway between heaven and earth as unworthy of both". Their genitals would be cut off and burnt before their eyes, and their bowels and hearts removed. They would then be decapitated, and the dismembered parts of their bodies displayed so that they might become "prey for the fowls of the air.”

You will observe that there was no obvious fretting about a possible backlash against the Catholic community from either the King or the parliamentarians.

Meanwhile, back in the 21st century we find that airline pilots are now expressing renewed security concerns, obviously conscious that any one or more of the 40+ terrorists living in New Zealand could book a flight on a small aircraft from one of our minor airports, completely avoid security checks and create their own version of 9/11.

Before long we will be having to pass through scanners for every domestic flight, regardless of how minor, removing our shoes, belts and underpants because we prefer to be inconvenienced in this way than to profile members of the Muslim community who are the ones producing the present day terrorists.

How long are we going to put up with this stupidity when the entire world knows exactly who is responsible for the terror threats?  Why are we protecting the dignity of a community that is producing these terrorists, some of whom the Prime Minister tells us are planning to commit atrocities here in New Zealand?

King James would have been completely mystified.

As Peter Hitchens reflected today in his blog post:

“And if one day the Muslim call to prayer supersedes the music of [church] bells there [Oxford], it will partly be because so many in our civilization decided that Christianity was an embarrassing throwback, and that we could rely solely on wealth and technology to defend our culture and society against those who do not share our tastes, our customs, our politics - or our certainty that death is the end and the visible material universe all that there is.”

As we have seen in Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?) and as we will witness again in Iraq, wealth and technology is no match against an Islamic ideology that loves death as much as we love life.

For some time now I have sensed a resignation in Peter Hitchens writings with respect to the eventual triumph of Islam in Britain.  However there is no reason why we should follow in their foot steps.

It will however require that we channel a little more King James and a little less political correctness in our response to those who hate us, and all we represent. 

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Eventually a grim and determined response to Islam will become necessary in the west

The Prime Minister John Key is about to give a speech today outlining his Government’s response to the apparent global threat of the Islamic State in Iraq (ISIS), and more importantly, their supporters here in New Zealand.


It is reasonable to suggest that without American and allied intervention in the Middle East over the last decade, combined with the corresponding rise in militant Islam over the last thirty or forty years, his speech today would not have been necessary.  I have observed previously that the only form of Government that works in the predominantly Muslim Middle East is either rule by the strong man, or the army, or a Sharia law based theocracy.

Western leaders completely failed to understand that most Muslims and particularly those in the Middle East consider democracy to be incompatible with Islam.  They firmly believe that to be ruled by man made laws is inferior to being ruled by the laws of God.  Pragmatically they may consider it appropriate to use democracy to progress the Islamic cause such as happened recently in Egypt, but once it has served its purpose, it will be abandoned.

There are democratic majority Muslim nations like Iran, Indonesia, and Pakistan which held it’s first elections in 1970, but if you are a Christian or non-Muslim living in those nations, don’t expect to be treated equally, or with justice as we understand it in the West. 

All of these nations have implemented Sharia Law to a greater or lesser extent.

Even in relatively peaceful Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia there is no religious freedom, criminals have limbs amputated and are often beheaded, and women are treated as second class citizens before the law.

Western leaders will either not admit or refuse to grasp that theologically and politically, Islam is incompatible with the freedoms we enjoy in liberal democratic nations like the USA, Australia and New Zealand.  We are only now beginning to understand that Muslims living in the west fall broadly into one of two groups.  They are either ‘moderate’ in the sense that Islam does not animate their thinking or their daily lives to any extent, or alternatively they are hoping, praying and working towards a global caliphate where Islam rules the world.

Those in the second category are not always violent; they are for the most part peaceful, albeit some are violent, some are willing to fund global jihad and others simply provide the supporting moral, cultural and religious framework that allows the establishment of Islam as the dominant narrative to progress.

Frankly, why resort to violence if you can achieve your ends through diplomacy, victimhood, anger, intimidation, immigration and demographic change such as is taking place in Britain and much of Europe today?

Eventually a grim and determined response to Islam and the global aspirations of its followers will become necessary in the west.  Such has been the level of atrocity perpetrated by the Islamic State in Iraq that the even the mainstream media and our politicians have been unable to ignore it. Stuff.co.nz recently ran an article about a leading Maori Muslim who is publically supporting ISIS.  This negative coverage of Islam locally would have been unthinkable to our politically correct media just twelve months ago.

Even our politicians seem less willing to express the mantra ‘nothing to do with Islam’ over recent slayings in Canada and the attacks on police in NYC and Australia by home grown jihadists.

All of this is just the beginning of change.

Following John Keys speech today, we can expect anger from local Muslim leaders, complaints of being victimized and singled out for attention by our security agencies.  Warnings that such victimization creates a level of anger amongst Muslims that they cannot be responsible for. We can also expect further attacks by Muslims on citizens in the west.  Just as happened in Canada, these attacks will most likely come from those jihadists who have had their passports cancelled, but are still allowed to roam freely in our streets.

I expect John Key to take a strong stance against Islamic jihad abroad, but a timid response against jihadists at home.  This has been the pattern of western leadership to date.

Eventually, this too will change. 

Monday, 3 November 2014

and we cannot be sure about the weaponry.

A Muslim leader who was shot outside an Islamic prayer centre in Sydney's west was targeted as he locked up the building following a night observing the holy ritual of Ashura, one of the most important holidays for Shiite Muslims, according to a community member.


Witnesses claimed that a number of people had driven past the Islamic centre on Rosedale Avenue in Greenacre just hours before the shooting, chanting in Arabic that "ISIS [terrorist group Islamic State] is coming" and "ISIS will stay".

He is in hospital but expected to live.

Inspector David Firth, from the Bankstown Local Area Command, said detectives were investigating whether the shots were fired from a passing vehicle.

"At this point in time it does not appear that there is any type of motivation for the shooting and ... we're following further lines of inquiry and speaking to witnesses to establish a motive for the offence," he said.

Nope, no obvious motivation – nothing to see here; move right along please.


The only thing missing from this delightful scene that has been transported from Iraq and directly into Sydney’s heartland, is the captured American Humvee’s and the looted weaponry - and we cannot be sure about the weaponry.

The speech on terrorism that John Key will not give on Wednesday.

On Wednesday Prime Minister John Key is going to make a speech about the Islamic terrorist threat we face in New Zealand.  Of course it is highly improbable that he will use the word ‘Islamic’ in reference to terrorism in New Zealand, but we know what he means.

Here is the speech he should be making, but was made instead by Geert Wilders, who now leads the largest political party in the Netherlands.



Geert Wilders’ speech to the Danish Free Press Society Copenhagen, 11 November, 2014

Dear friends,

I am happy to be in Copenhagen again. It is always a pleasure to return to this wonderful city — the home of my good friend and fellow freedom fighter, the Danish hero Lars Hedegaard.

It is always a privilege to be in the capital of the brave Danish people.
And it is always an honor to be a guest of your great organization.
The Danish Free Press Society is a beacon of light. For Denmark, for Scandinavia, for the whole of Europe, and for the entire West. Your staunch defense of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, serves as an inspiration for many, including myself and my party.

On a moment like this, when the free world is in mortal danger, an organization such as the Danish Free Press Society is needed more than ever.
Exactly ten years ago, today, my fellow countryman Van Gogh fell as a martyr of free speech.

I remember that morning very well. The press came to my office to ask for a reaction, but hardly anyone could believe that what had happened was really true. We all realized that the Netherlands would never be the same again. Unfortunately few lessons have been learned since that horrible day in 2004.
Islam claims that Muhammad was a prophet. But Muhammad was not a prophet; Theo van Gogh was a prophet.

Van Gogh saw what was coming. He spoke out forcefully against the danger of Islamization. He had also just made a short movie, together with my then colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali, about the plight of women in Islamic society. The movie was called “Submission.”

That is why he was murdered. His assassination should have been an alarm bell.
Van Gogh warned us in a strong language, as clear as the colors that his great-granduncle Vincent used when painting his landscapes. He was a brave man. When he realized the danger of Islam, he did not run like a coward.

He would have hated to see how our freedom of speech has been restricted in the ten years since his death.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, the more Islam we get, the less free our societies become. Not only because of the Islamization but also because of the weak appeasers who call themselves politicians. We are no longer allowed to crack jokes or draw cartoons if Islam feels insulted by it. If you do so, your life is in danger, as Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks can testify. You might even get arrested, as happened a few years ago with the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot.

Sure, the charges against Nekschot were later dropped. But if you value your life and if you prefer to avoid trouble, it is better not to do anything that might remotely insult Islam.

We are no longer allowed to tell statistical truths, as Lars Hedegaard experienced, when he referred to rape figures in Islamic families.

A murderer came to Lars’s door and the state authorities persecuted him for so-called hate speech. Sure, the Supreme Court eventually acquitted Lars. But if you value your life and if you prefer to avoid trouble, it is better to keep quiet.
We are no longer allowed to refer to scientific and historical research, as my friend, the brave Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, experienced.

In a seminar on the historical figure of Muhammad, she mentioned that he had a crush on little girls and had sex with a 9-year old. That is the truth.
But Elisabeth was convicted, and her conviction was even upheld by the Appeals court. Once again, it is better to remain silent if you want to avoid trouble.

But Theo van Gogh did not remain silent. And neither did Kurt and Lars and Elisabeth and Robert and the Danish Free Press Society, and my party, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, and so many other freedom fighters in the West.
We speak out. We will never be silent. Because we love our country. Because we love our freedom. Because we refuse to live in slavery.

Because we believe that without liberty, life is not worth living.

Liberty and human dignity, that is what we stand for.

We are the torchbearers for freedom. We are the torchbearers for democracy.
We are the torchbearers for a civilization that is far superior than any other civilization on earth.

Last Summer, my home town, The Hague, witnessed scenes which brought back memories of the darkest period in our history, the Nazi era. Sympathizers of the Islamic State paraded in our streets. They carried swastikas, they carried the black flags of ISIS. They shouted “Death to the Jews.” Instead of rounding up these hatemongers, the authorities did nothing.

When we warn against Islam, the authorities call it hate speech and bring us to court. But when the grim forces of hatred march down our streets, the police look on and do not interfere. It is a disgrace. It is a scandal. It is intolerable.

Islam is waging a war against the free West.

Indeed, we are at war. Only fools can deny it. Islam has declared war on us.
America and its allies are currently bombing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
Excellent. My party supports this offensive. I am glad that Dutch and Danish F16s participate in it and that our two nations stand shoulder to shoulder in this endeavor. We should liquidate Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and the other criminals who are leading the Islamic State.

But we have to do more than that.

Far more important than fighting Islamic State abroad, is the fight to preserve our own security in our own countries, in the Netherlands, in Denmark, in all the other European and Western countries. It is our homes that we must defend. It is just to bomb the Islamic State in the Middle East. But our first priority must be to protect our own nations, our own freedoms, our own people, our own children, here, at home.

Recently, the Dutch authorities prevented some forty jihadis to leave our country, when they attempted to go to Syria to fight in the ranks of ISIS. Their passports were seized and they were sent home instead of jailed. These criminals now walk our streets and make them unsafe.

You may have heard that the jihadis who recently murdered soldiers in Canada were also people whom the authorities had previously prevented to leave for Syria and who were not arrested but allowed to go free on the street.

Blocking the exodus of those who want to wage Jihad elsewhere and not detain them is sheer stupidity. (note: are you listening John?)

Keeping them here as free people means that they will hit us here.

We must hasten their exit instead of preventing it. But we must never allow them to return. Therefore, we must reinstate national border controls. Nothing is more important than first protect our own countries from the Jihadis.

Let us restore our liberties, such as freedom of speech.

Let us defend our culture. Let us protect our people.

Let us make our nations free and safe again.

Let us be brave.

That is what we must do; that is our duty.

Let me ask you: Do our authorities actually do this?

Unfortunately not. They fail to do their duty.  They fail to act accordingly.
They even lie to us.

Everyday, we hear Western leaders repeat the sickening mantra that Islam is a religion of peace.

Whenever an atrocity is committed in the name of Islam, whenever someone is beheaded in Syria or Iraq, Barack Obama, David Cameron, my own Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and many of their colleagues rush to the television cameras to tell the world that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. How stupid can you be.

Fortunately, the eyes of ever more people are opening to this reality.

In my country, a poll last June, showed that 65% of the Dutch are convinced that the Islamic culture does not belong to the Netherlands. In France, 74% find Islam incompatible with French society. In Britain, fewer than one in four think that following Islam is compatible with a British way of life. In Germany, over two thirds of the population think negatively about Islam.

Even in the Czech Republic, a country with hardly any Islamic population, almost two-thirds consider Islam a threat to society and 90% are afraid of it. And in Denmark 92% of your citizens believe Muslim immigrants should adopt Danish customs.

With every new terrorist crime, with every new attack, with every new beheading, it becomes clear to ever more people what the true nature of Islam is.
With every Islamic assault on our values, more and more people realize that Islam wants to conquer the world, that it is prepared to kill or enslave anyone who refuses to submit. And that it is ready to commit the biggest atrocities to achieve this goal.

My friends, we are gathered here today, because we are neither prepared to collaborate with evil, nor to appease it. We say No to Islamic censorship. And No to the politicians who fail us.

During the past ten years, I have been living under constant police protection.
As you know, I am not the only one who has to live through this ordeal. Several people in this room are in the same situation. Our friends Lars and Kurt even came to stand eye to eye with fanatics who tried to slaughter them.

Of course — I repeat it wherever I go — of course, there are many moderate Muslims. I believe in moderate people, but I do not believe in a moderate Islam. There is only one Islam — the Islam of the Koran, the Hadith and the life of Muhammad, who was a terrorist and a warlord.

But even though there are many moderate Muslims, it is wrong to think that the moderates are a majority. They are not. A poll in the Netherlands gave shocking results. It is hard to believe, but almost three quarters of the Muslims in my country say that Dutch Muslims who go and fight in Syria are heroes. Can you believe it? Heroes!

And over two thirds of the Islamic population in the Netherlands consider the religious rules of Islam to be more important than our own democratic laws.
Equally terrifying was an article yesterday in the Dutch press stating that Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh, is still considered a hero today by hundreds of Dutch Muslims.

A few years ago, I called on Muslims to liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, to choose for freedom. I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. So, I told them “Free yourselves. Leave Islam.” I still stand by this appeal. But this does not blind me to the present reality.

You may have heard that I will probably be brought to court again soon.
Three years ago, I was taken to court on hate crime charges. The court case lasted almost two years. Fortunately, I was acquitted.

But now, the Dutch judiciary is going after me again because I asked Dutch voters whether they want more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.
Moroccans are the largest Islamic population group in the Netherlands. In The Netherlands the Moroccan problem is the problem of Islam.

I referred to Moroccans, not because I have anything against Moroccans but because they are overrepresented in the Dutch crime and welfare statistics. They also account for three quarters of all Dutch Muslims who leave for Syria to wage jihad. No-one in the Netherlands wants more Moroccans.

As I said, our leaders still refuse to defend our freedoms because they are either cowards or appeasers. This is why the task of defending freedom has now fallen on us. On you, on me, on ordinary citizens.

To this end, I have established the International Freedom Alliance IFA.
We want IFA to be the shield of all those who refuse to submit to Islamic tyranny.
The mission of IFA is to stop the Islamization of non-Islamic countries and to fight for the preservation of our freedom and democracy.

We want to stand firm. We want to preserve our civilization for our children and grandchildren. Because there is nothing more precious than liberty and freedom. But it has a price. And the price can be high. Sometimes a man must give all he can.
Our political leaders may fail us. But we, my friends, we will not fail.
There is a path we shall never choose, and that is the path of submission.
This is why we say: Yes to freedom! No to tyranny!

IFA aims to be a network of resistance fighters in all the countries threatened by Islam.

Friends, I have good news from the Netherlands.

Today, the popularity of my party, the Party for Freedom, is at a high. An opinion poll published this morning shows that we have by far become the largest party in the Netherlands, with almost 20 per cent of the vote. 1 out of 5 Dutchmen would vote PVV today.

The policies that we stand for are also getting more popular than ever.
We want to stop all immigration from Islamic countries.
We want to stimulate voluntary re-emigration to Islamic countries.
We want to expel all criminals with dual citizenship and deprive them of their Dutch nationality.

We want to de-Islamize our nation.

Dear Friends, there is a lot of work to do. We, the defenders of freedom and security, have an historic duty. Our generation has been entrusted with a huge task: To oppose Islam and keep the flame of liberty burning.

I say it without exaggeration: the future of human civilization depends on us. Now is a time when everyone in the West must do his duty. We are writing history here.

So, let us do our duty.

Let us stand with a happy heart and a strong spirit.

Let us go forth with courage and save freedom!


Thank you.