Month: October 2010

“We Will Hold You to Account”

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.

Continue Reading →