This is a singularly important video.
Martin Sellner, the most visible leader of Generation Identitaire has been persecuted AND prosecuted by the Austrian state for many months now, including, but limited to, the confiscation of his property and his wife’s property.
A high court in Austria determined that the state persecution of Martin Sellner was out of bias, and was in fact illegal.
This is a very important determination and must be known by all of us so that we have a precedent to point to, when we, or someone we know, also become targets of political persecution by leftist components of the deep state.
Please do share this one. It is an important victory not just for Martin, but for rule of law.
Special thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and also to everyone who helped us find this video.
Just to add to the anti-Israel and antisemitic hysteria that is hitting new heights in the modern world, Sputnik came out with an article claiming that Israel’s Mossad was somehow behind the despicable and ultra-slimy setup of Austria’s best hope for a classical nation’s restoration, Heinz-Christian Strache.
We asked MissPIggy, our German translator, if she could find any articles on this which might give a hint as to where all this came from.
What follows is her translation of what she found:
Spiegel writes about Rudolf Adam’s article in Cicero:
The former vice president of the BND, Rudolf Adam, falls right into the anti-Semitic house through the door. “Was it the Mossad?” stands above the article in which he whispers exactly this question. And this without the slightest hint, but solely on the grounds that the “Mossad would be capable of it.” In social media, “Mossad” is identical in meaning to “Jewish world conspiracy,” and it is precisely with this intention that the article by the former BND vice-president is shared by FPÖ fans.
In a bizarre circular conclusion, Adam claims that the anti-Semitism of the FPÖ could have been the driving force behind the Mossad. In Austria, as in Germany, right-wing anti-Semitism is virulent, but there it is exploited in a more politically offensive way. Three years ago, in the context of an SPÖ affair involving a Jewish advisor named Tal Silberstein, “Mossad rumours” extended into the editorial media. By the way, Sebastian Kurz’s having something to do with Silberstein can also be read as an anti-Semitic starting point in the state crisis speech.
The former head of the BND, August Hanning, argues that video recording is a “very costly operation, as we actually only know it from intelligence services”. Hanning’s video clip is shared on Facebook as a supplement to Adam’s article. Hanning explains the motivation: “Obviously there are attempts to manipulate elections.” Then he goes on an absurd offensive: “Even serious crimes don’t justify residential surveillance,” he says, and worries a lot about “political culture. A secret service man whose most important task should be to prevent treason and who has had thousands and thousands of people intercepted — suddenly worries about residential surveillance? Exactly when, according to ex-BND vice-president Adam, it’s about behaviour that seems “half-Mafia, half-treacherous”?
[MissPiggy has discovered more as well on this honey-trap variation, and it shall be posted as it becomes available. -Editor]
Martin’s home was raided by police and his name has been viciously slandered internationally by major news organizations because the Christchurch mosque attacker donated some money to his organization, Generation Identitaire, over a year ago.
Imagine if the media treated the Clintons like that. The Clinton Foundation contributions alone would put the Clintons behind bars till their great great grandchildren where collecting social security. And that would be just for the ones that were already criminals. In Martin’s case, the contribution came a year before the person had committed any misdeeds.
This is a critical point that is simply not made enough.
Why should I lose my freedom of speech, of movement, of privacy so that we can pretend muslims are not the problem destroying civil society?
And this is on Austrian TV.
Austria is clearly a newly minted red pill nation. The next post will make that even clearer. Many thanks to MissPiggy for this excellent clip.
Translated from German by MissPiggy with much thanks
Orbán: The Austrian position and the Hungarian position are similar: we need to bring aid to Africa and not bring the problems to Europe. Some say that the solution is to get migrants to Europe because they think it will be good for their country. The Hungarian position is that we do not want that. There is an ideological difference. That is neither a solution for Africa nor for Europe.
In this case, our culture, which we have been cultivating here in Europe for 2000 years, would perish. We say that we want to help the Africans like the Austrians do: we are happy to support the development of Africa. So that Africa can provide its own population with a decent life. For example, Hungary provides 900 scholarships for African students from state funds.
AUSTRIA: Austria, like Hungary, has left the migration pact …
Orbán: Some international documents reach the decision makers just before signing. When I heard that the U.S. had dropped out of the negotiations, I read it myself, noting that this document could cause major problems, particularly concerning national security. I consulted with our government and we decided to leave immediately. After that, many countries dropped out. So too Austria. We’re the bad boys again … now the bad boys of global politics.
AUSTRIA: You were the first to oppose the “welcome culture” in 2015. How do you look back on this time today?
Orbán: Since there was no borders between Hungary and Serbia, we could not prevent the migrants from coming to Hungary illegally. It was like an invasion. The migrants occupied the Budapest East Station. They did not want to go to refugee shelters where they would get food and meals; they also did not allow us to take them there.
Instead, they demanded to be allowed to move on because they are “expected in Germany”. I ordered that no one would be permitted to leave the country. Hungary is a member of the Schengen Agreement and wanted to comply with these rules.
AUSTRIA: That caused a great amount of criticism …
Orbán: Hungary adheres to its constitution and international agreements and treaties. You can not enter Hungary without a passport check which also means you can not travel from Hungary to Austria. Hungary’s trustworthiness and respect for the rule of law were at stake here. We wanted to show our Western allies that we can protect the border.
The crowd got bigger, the situation more difficult, but I held my position by not allowing anyone to cross the border. I understand those whose first reaction was to appear “good”. Our reaction was responsibility. One must not allow something to occur that is irreversible. Even if that seemed to be humane at the time. It’s not “Good people” that are needed in order to defend a country, but responsible people. Believe me, I do not have a heart of stone, but you can not protect borders with teddy bears and little flowers.
On the other hand, the migrants stormed the border, threw objects at the border guard and attacked the police. You have to fight back. Of course, this is not a feel-good job, but it is necessary for the security of the country. Anyone who wants to lead a country, must make difficult decisions. I want to be a person whose decisions support and respect the Hungarians. If I happen to be a good person while doing that, then that’s fine, but first and foremost I’m responsible for Hungary.
AUSTRIA: During that time did you talk to the then Austrian Federal Chancellor?
Orbán: Yes, because we had received information that human rights activists wanted to illegally transport migrants across the borders to Austria. I told him, that’s human smuggling. If that happens in Hungary, then we will arrest and convict the perpetrators. Then he asked me to open the border to Austria to allow the migrants to enter. The next day Chancellor Merkel called me, I said: We have everything under control and we will only let the migrants in as long as Austria expressly wishes. In the meantime, we had already built the border fence.
I thought it was a very fortunate circumstance that Sebastian Kurz was then Foreign Minister, because he also understood immediately that there is only one way to solve this crisis: Through the closure of the Balkan route. We always supported each other. At the border, we set up a Visegrad 4 border guard so that we can clearly show that our decision is final: that’s how we jointly protected Europe. I think that was a nice moment for us and for Central Europe.
AUSTRIA: Your campaign against Soros in Hungary has often been criticized. There’s even an accusation of anti-Semitism.
Orbán: In our opinion, Soros György is Hungarian and a talented compatriot. He and I have no good opinion of each other (laughs), but we belong to the same nation and we in Hungary do not discriminate against anyone because of their religion.
Hungary is a free country. By the way: unlike other Western European capitals, every Jew in Budapest with Kippa on the road is absolutely safe. One may speak freely and one may also criticize the government and demonstrate against it. Soros has a big network. He finances many NGOs. The EU also finances several Soros organizations. These NGOs are involved in political arena and that is fine too.
Politically, however, Soros must understand two points as well as everyone who lives in Hungary. First, we want transparency. Like every country, we want to know who these people are and where the money comes from. Second, there are limits when it comes to national security. Migration is a national security issue. We had peaceful discussions with Soros to the point where his organizations started to fund the migrants, encouraging them to illegally cross the Hungarian border.
This is not acceptable in Hungary. We have created laws accordingly in which such behavior is deemed an endangerment to national security. Our conflict is: He wants to get the migrants to Hungary and Europe and I will not let that happen.
This clip is excellent. Both women make their cases splendidly.
But IMO they are both missing the key strategy.
Selective enforcement of the ‘hate speech’ laws, rules and regulations against those who speak truth of Islam, coupled with insistence on free speech rights for and only for, muslims and leftists, is the core problem. As usual, selective enforcement is the key weapon of the enemies of freedom. And we allow it.
And to stop its successes, all we have to do is not allow it and speak our truths and pay the price for doing so. It wouldn’t take that many of us.
And frankly, when you speak openly and confidently and in a relaxed manner about the truth of islam and back it up with their own scripture and history, the reaction is sometimes very satisfying.
Here is a stunning display of unmitigated subterfuge. Notice the use of language to justify the total transformation of Christmas, perhaps the most defining aspect of Western culture, into pure Islam:
Austrian Chapel to Broadcast Call to Prayer Throughout December to Show Islam ‘Is Religion of Peace’
A chapel in Linz, Austria, is set to blast out the Muslim call to prayer each day throughout the Christmas period as part of an “art installation” aimed at emphasising “that Islam is a religion of peace.”
At certain times each day between December 2nd and 23rd, people strolling through the centre of Linz will be treated to “a special kind of audiovisual experience,” when recordings of muezzin calls, which were taped in Algeria, Mozambique, Istanbul, and Singapore, are played from the chapel of the Upper Austrian Cultural Quarter’s Ursuline Church.
The organisers behind ‘ADHINA’ say the installation “succeeds in linking the aesthetics of different realms of reality,” when visitors hear “the muezzin call as an Islamic ritual” melding together with “the everyday sounds of a secular-urban world,”, as they walk past the “Christian sacral architecture” at the site, where the baroque buildings were founded as a monastery.
The farce runs deep in this explanation. If there was even a grain of truth in any of it, they would do this at any other time but Christmas.
The last paragraph is an especially classic example of postmodern gibbery-joo.
I sincerely hope the Austrian public will recognize this gesture for what it actually is. A Casus Belli. Also someone who speaks Arabic may want to actually record what is broadcast and translate and publish it with a proper sense of the meaning of it. Because generally speaking what is let loose from these devices would be stopped and jailed as hate speech were it from anyone or anywhere else.