This really is good. Its worth seeing again even if you saw it already. Imagine if she said this today, or in Australia, Canada or New Zealand. We would have to send her a cake with a file in it.
Category Archives: Austria
Martin Sellner updates us on his situation
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.
Austrian women are afraid
H/T Amy Mek
Stunning clip by Austrian Secretary of State on migrants murdering local girls
Austria seems to have taken the Red Pill.
Thank you MissPiggy for this stunning and much needed clip.
Think of her as Trudeau’s antiparticle.
Austrian official, Gerald Grosz, on loss of rights due to political correctness
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.
Viktor Orbán Interview: ‘We are now the Bad Boys
Translated from German by MissPiggy with much thanks
From this German language news source:
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.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff discusses her case, and the selective enforcement for islam
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.
First rate, top shelf, ‘ma’am could you open the case please’ bullls**t
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:
From Breitbart:
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.
The story behind the European ‘human rights court’ sharia compliant decision
Austrian interior minister, Herbert Kickl, discusses the UN migration pact
Polish MP Slams Vienna Govt for Rejecting Statue of Polish King Who Rescued City from Turkish Siege
BBUK:
Polish MP Dominik Tarczy?ski has slammed the left-wing government of Vienna after they cancelled the erection of a statue to commemorate the Polish King who saved the city, claiming the statue might offend Turks.
Mr Tarczy?ski, who made headlines in July after a combative interview with Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman, spoke with Breitbart London following reports that the leftist coalition running the Austrian capital had cancelled the proposed statue of Polish king Jan III Sobieski, who broke the Turkish Siege of Vienna in 1683, claiming it may offend Turkish residents.
“What King Sobieski did was an act of defence; if not for Sobieski all Europe would be speaking Arabic — and if the Viennese want to speak in Arabic now, they are very welcome, but it’s not going to change history. So please wake up, Austria, because history will not be changed,” Tarczy?ski said.
Lets compare the Viennese government with the current American:
That is the first official photo of newly elected President Trump who quite deliberately sat down for the photo under a painting of King Jan Sobieski the III.
H/T Wrath of Khan
Austria leaps to Rule of Law, finds Gen Ident, NOT GUILTY
After a long month of court dates, the verdict for the Austrian Generation Identity trial is finally in:
NOT guilty of hate speech.
NOT guilty of being a criminal organization.
The boys are FREE!#ÖsterreichIstFrei #Vindicated pic.twitter.com/19lgpG1ft3— Brittany Pettibone (@BrittPettibone) July 26, 2018
Will the Austrian presidency protect European women from migrant-violence? -asks Hungarian MEP
New Border Police at Bavarian and Austrian border
(Thank you M., Xanthippa, Richard and all who sent in materials today)
It is official, its an invasion. Yet we ignore the FACTS
In the story below, we see a man tried and convicted in one day from Tunisia, who murdered an Austrian couple, inside Austria, because he “hated Austrian society and especially those who oppose the mass migration party, FPO”.
So a person who was already inside Austria, and was safe from whatever he claimed he was escaping, and enjoyed all the benefits of Austrian society, probably far more than most such as welfare and state sponsored dental care, if Austria has that, threw it all away on what was a horrifying yet symbolic gesture of murdering two strangers because they opposed the full on invasion of their country by muslims from anywhere and everywhere.
He went from a safe comfortable life presumably, to life in prison for a symbolic act of murder because it prevented people unknown to him, but to whom he felt far more kinship than the Austrians, from entering Austria for those same benefits illegally.
This is a lot of meaning and points to a general rule that we insist on ignoring, even making illegal to point out, as the more you oppose a truth the more force is required to suppress it. And we ignore that truth at great peril.
Tunisian migrant Mohamed H. was sentenced to life in a Linz court Monday after being found guilty of murdering an elderly Austrian couple because they supported the populist, anti-mass migration Freedom Party (FPÖ).
The prosecutor in the case put forward that Mohamed H.’s motive for the crime after he admitted to committing the two murders, was a hate for Austrian society and specifically the fact that the elderly couple supported the anti-mass migration FPÖ.
The Tunisian, who had been living in Austria since 1989, has previously been arrested for animal cruelty following a complaint from a local FPÖ politician in 2012 and had allegedly blamed the populist party for all of the things going wrong in his life from that point on.
The man knew the elderly couple as he worked as a delivery driver and delivered groceries to them. In late June of last year during his regular deliveries, he hid a knife, a jerrycan, and a stick and approached the home of the couple.
[…]
The case also had an Islamic extremist element to it as the court heard that the Tunisian had praised Islamic State and endorsed terror attacks carried out by the group. The 55-year-old even praised terror leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in court.
Despite his praise for Islamic State, he was found not guilty of affiliation with a terror group.
If one reads the whole article at source, there also appears to be a personal motive. But even if we accept that it appears that the personal motive is derived from the collective one. The one where the Ummah and its interests are upstream from action.