PM: Slovakia is Christian, No to Muslims and Mosques

"Since Slovakia is a Christian country, we cannot tolerate an influx of 300,000-400,000 Muslim immigrants who would like to start building mosques all over our land and trying to change the nature, culture and values ​​of the state," said Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.

Slovakia is the country that had its commemorative Euro coin depicting two Christian saints, Cyril and Methodius, at first rejected by the European Commission, which told Bratislava it would need to re-design the coins and remove Christian symbols, including halos and a cross-adorned stole. Eventually the Slovakia Euro was issued with halos and crosses.

This is the umpteenth demonstration of an obvious historical and contemporary fact: the stronger a country's attachment to its Christian heritage, the more robust, intelligent and informed its fight against Islam, as Mr Fico's strategy well exemplifies.

The PM noted that some countries are passing special laws to combat Islamic terrorism that give more leeway to the police. But, he said, "the best way to deal with that threat would be to have different rules for 'certain groups' when it comes to privacy, phones or bank accounts."

"When it comes to fighting Islamic terrorism, countries should pass laws that allow the police to do surveillance on people who are considered a potential threat to the country."

It's unnecessary to restrict the freedom of citizens by taking potshots at everyone, we should restrict only that of a small group at risk that threatens us: Muslims. Difficult to deny that the Slovak Prime Minister's is a logical and more effective strategy.

"Most of the people in these groups are foreign-born" he continued, "but there may also be people who are citizens of our country acting in such a way as to raise suspicions that in the future they could do something harmful to the country, as we have seen in Western Europe, and we must be prepared."

Fico agree swith Miroslav Lajčák, the Slovak Foreign Minister, that "the project of multiculturalism has failed."

Muslims Attack Christian School over Charlie Hebdo

Where has all the Christian-Muslim interfaith dialogue gone? Or maybe it has just been a monologue, with only the Christians doing the talking and no-one on the other side listening?

That this is the case has been dramatically brought home by yesterday's events in Pakistan, where, amid countrywide protests and demonstrations, hundreds of Muslim students protesting against Charlie Hebdo's cartoons stormed a Christian high school for boys in the city of Bannu, in the country's northwest, and demanded its closure.

Four students were injured. According to witnesses, the protesters opened its gates, entered the school and vandalised it, destroying objects and windows. Some of them were carrying guns.

Last month 150 people, mostly students, were killed when Taliban gunmen attacked an army-run school in the provincial capital Peshawar. Charlie Hebdo caricatures have triggered massive protests in Pakistan. On January 16, at least three people were injured when protesters and police clashed at an anti-Charlie Hebdo stir outside the French consulate in Karachi.

No More Mosques in Lombardy Region, Italy, from Today

Victory! Something is changing.

Some positive effects of the Charlie Hebdo atrocities are felt in Italy, with crackdown on the cult of Islam.

First Massimo Bitonci, the mayor of the city of Padua, in the region of Venice (Veneto), Northern Italy, simply and clearly said: "No more mosques in Padua. The city council will not grant any more public space for the building of mosques and Islamic places of worship."

Padua's councillor Marina Buffoni sent the city's police to Muslim meeting places, to confiscate posters and images of women in burqa. She said: "These posters showed women completely covered by a burqa, you could only see their eyes. It's unacceptable for an organisation to display such images, in defiance of principles of true integration, especially regarding the status of women. True integration doesn't just mean respect of Italian law, but also of the customs of our tradition. The burqa is a symbol of slavery and subjugation of women and will never be welcome in the city of Padua."

And now, the Lombardy Region, Italy's richest and most populated, whose main city is Milan, has today approved an "anti-mosque law".

The restrictive amendments to the Law N. 12, Urban Planning for Places of Religious Worship, received 43 votes in favour (among which those of the Northern League) and 26 against (from the Left and Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement).

The new buildings must blend in with the local landscape architecturally and in size: therefore, no minarets.

Other requirements include the installation of CCTVs directly linked with the police, the presence of appropriate link roads and primary urban infrastructure, parking areas at least twice the size of the floor area of the worship building and, above all, "appropriate distances from other, existing places of worship". Given the vast presence of churches in Italy, the proliferation of mosques will be difficult.

Two Years in Jail for Comparing Muhammad to a Pig

A Danish man living in Vienna was sentenced to two years in prison for having compared Islam's prophet Muhammad to a pig on Facebook posts. The 32 year-old, according to a report by the Austrian Press Agency (APA), was sentenced by Judge George Olschak, who called it "a deeply offensive insult to Islam" and "illegal incitement to religious hatred."

The even stricter state prosecutor, Stefanie Schön, said that the sentence "is too lenient" and she would appeal "for a longer period of detention."


The trial is the result of investigations by a fanatic self-described "anti-fascist", Uwe Seiler, who is busy reporting what he considers far-Right propaganda and neo-Nazi rhetoric on the Internet to the police.

The Danish man, who in spite of everything hasn't lost his sense of humor, pointed out that he wrote most of the online messages in his own language, saying: "If I wanted to talk to an Austrian public, I would write in Turkish. Of course, in the past I would have used German."

BBC Is Mad To Refuse Calling Terrorists the Paris Killers

The BBC was called "mad" after one of its top executives, the head of BBC Arabic Tarik Kafala, said that the Charlie Hebdo killers should not be described as "terrorists".

Mr Kafala, whose BBC Arabic television, radio and online news services - the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services - reach a weekly audience of 36 million people, explained: “We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’. That’s enough, we know what that means and what it is.”

The BBC, whose own guidance also states that the word "terrorist" is considered "a barrier", backed his comments but faced a storm of criticism from peers and MPs over its "outrageous" decision to not use the term.

In line with its editorial guidelines, the BBC coverage of the Paris attacks in which 17 people were murdered, as well as that of last month's Taliban school massacre in Peshawar, Pakistan, carefully avoided using the expression "terrorist", except when quoting other people's words.

BBC TV, radio and online reports described the murderers as "militants" or "gunmen" instead.

Mr Kafala added: “Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to. We know what political violence is, we know what murder, bombings and shootings are and we describe them. That’s much more revealing, we believe, than using a word like 'terrorist' which people will see as value-laden.”

And for Mr Kafala, I suppose, if "terrorist" should be avoided for being too little revealing, "Muslim" must be avoided for being too revealing.

Have We Carefully Thought of the Consequences of Absolute Free Speech?

This article was published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


One “thought experiment” in the recent – but not yet concluded - debate on freedom of speech surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre particularly impressed me:

Here is a thought experiment: Suppose that while the demonstrators stood solemnly at Place de la Republique the other night,… a man stepped out in front… carrying a placard with a cartoon depicting the editor of the magazine lying in a pool of blood, saying, “Well I’ll be a son of a gun!” or “You’ve really blown me away!” or some such witticism. How would the crowd have reacted? Would they have laughed?... He would have been lucky to get away with his life.

Masses of people have turned the victims of a horrific assassination… into heroes of France and free speech. The point of the thought experiment is not to show that such people are hypocrites. Rather, it is to suggest that they don’t know their own minds. They see themselves as committed to the proposition that there are no limits to freedom of expression... But they too have their limits. They just don’t know it.

Perhaps because he’s a philosopher and by profession he's obliged to analyse the logical consistency and theoretical validity of statements, Brian Klug here encapsulates the problem with the default mainstream "Je Suis Charlie" position.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.

Even those who sincerely believe that they uphold this principle often don't realise they wouldn’t be prepared to accept any word expressed in any circumstance.

Similarly, philosophers like Karl Popper maintain that in any debate you cannot question everything. The debaters must share some common assumptions, including the use of the same language and basic definitions of at least some of the main concepts relevant to the discussion.

This corresponds to relativity in the physical world. To establish if and at what speed a train is moving, you need something still to compare it with.

Questioning everything results in chaos, which ultimately means questioning nothing.

This is one of the fallacies often propounded by the so-called "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins: question everything.

The prevailing ideology of relativism, wedded to the policy of multiculturalism, does something similar to questioning everything, by denying the idea that some doctrines are better than others and rejecting a shared set of belief as a sine qua non for a society.

By believing in everything we believe in nothing. Hence the current confusion about freedom of speech and in particular the failure to recognise exactly when this good is paid for too dearly at the expense of society.

Therefore the discussion shouldn’t be around yes or no to free speech but about what should limit free speech and why.

The best way to do that is to establish the principles and goals to guide our decision about what expressions shouldn’t be permitted by law as their effects are so deleterious that they outweigh the benefits of free speech.

The most cited examples of such expressions are falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded place and incitements to commit crime.

But, beyond obvious cases like these, we can immediately see that we cannot reach a consensus, since people in our fractured society have widely-different goals and principles.

Much of this diversity in the West is produced by the influx of large masses of people from countries with worldviews, religious doctrines, ways of life profoundly diverging from ours.

The Hebdo attack tragically revealed one such irreducible conflict of ideas that makes it impossible for Westerners and devout Muslims to agree on when free expression should be limited.

Not even Charlie Hebdo (henceforth CH), the much-trumpeted supreme paragon and defender to the death of free speech, believed in absolute freedom of speech, as demonstrated by its sacking of the cartoonist Siné for a column considered anti-Jewish but, compared to the rag's ordinary fare, too mild for words. Later Siné won a 40,000-euro court judgment against CH for wrongful termination.

CH wasn’t the paper of free speech, but of double standards.

Recently the rag’s long-standing lawyer Richard Malka made evident his opinion that people can be too free in their speech when he chastised Nouvel Obs magazine for publishing a criticism of CH’s slain editor “Charb” by its co-founder Henri Roussel.

I don’t consider Charb et al martyrs. You can be a martyr to a cause, but when your cause is nothing (that’s what nihilism, in the end, is), you can’t be one.

Neither is their paper “satirical”: satire must express something more than the mere immature desire to attack and destroy.

According to encyclopaedias and dictionaries, satire has the intention to shame into improvement; its purpose is constructive social criticism, ridiculing stupidity or vices, showing the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.

There is no attempt at improving anything in CH’s crude depiction of sodomy among the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, no constructive social criticism in its celebration of Christmas with a cartoon of Baby Jesus thrown in a public squat toilet between a loo-paper roll (Mary) and a toilet brush (Joseph). No stupidity or vices are exposed – as opposed to demonstrated - by the drawing of the Virgin Mary making the vulgar “umbrella gesture” to fleeing Iraqi Christians while shouting the same words uttered during the massacre in which its drawer, Riss, was wounded, in an eerie coincidence: "Allahu Akbar". No weaknesses or bad qualities are shown by the sketch of a dishevelled, desperate Madonna who, dripping liquid, says she was raped by the three Wise Men.

“Are we all supposed to march in solidarity with that?” asks Patrick Buchanan.

CH’s crass, adolescent humour revolving around sex (preferably of the homosexual variety) and excrements is unfunny and sad. It reminds me of a song by 1960s-70s Italian singer-songwriter Fabrizio De Andre’, about Charles Martel returning from the Battle of Poitiers after having defeated the Moors. The supposed humour concerns his long abstinence from sex imposed by the war, ending in his encounter with a prostitute.

De Andre’, like CH, was a product of the ’68 culture with its visceral hatred for anything Christian. Neither is satire: no intelligent message is put across, it’s turpitude and vile defamation just for the sake of it. In a word: destructive. Which is what the counterculture is all about.

Here we get to answer the question regarding the core principles and goals that must be protected from attacks, the line that freedom of speech must not cross. Charles Martel is a symbol of a Europe united by the same belief in Christianity and prepared to defend that belief on which its civilisation was founded and without which, as it is under everyone’s eyes now, is sinking.

Christianity must be protected from its enemies, then as now. It’s not a question of preferential taste or personal desire: it’s the collective cohesion that is at stake, without which there is no Western society. Critically, given the decline of Christianity as a unifying force among Europeans, statements about the legitimacy of the interests of White Europeans in retaining their territories and their culture must be protected rather than marginalised or made illegal as “hate speech.”

It’s, at this point, a question of survival. Freedom of speech is not a suicide pact, as Alexander Boot put it.

That our heroes and the symbol of our fight for freedom must be the demented pornographers of CH shows what sorry state our civilisation has reached.

That revolting excuse of a rag has been a procession of covers offending Christianity, at a moment when like never before we need something to believe in and to rally around.

It's because of people like CH and De Andre’ and their successful propagation of desecrations of what had kept us together and strong for centuries, that we have been left with absolutely nothing to fight Islam with.

By disarming us, the CH journalists victims of the recent attacks have indeed invited their own death - in a deeper sense than is commonly thought.

Israel Is Not Quite What the Propaganda Machine Says It Is

The debate currently taking place in Israel on a controversial bill for a Basic Law declaring Israel to be a "Jewish state", which is seen as compromising equality by differentiating between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens and considered as one of the most divisive laws in the country's 67-year history, makes it particularly important to take a position on the issue of this unique nation.

I have to say that my opinion of the Arab–Israeli conflict has oscillated a few times over the years. It is a complex situation, or rather it may appear so due to the difficulty of finding non-partisan accounts.

When I joined the counterjihad movement a few years ago, my views became heavily influenced by the pro-Israel element that dominates it.

But my doubts have never completely gone away, and now things are much clearer to me.

I am in good company. Among those who, like me, over time shifted their opinions about Zionism and eventually took a negative view of Israel is one of the world's most famoust and respected Jews: Albert Einstein, “the world’s first international media star”.

In his book Einstein on Israel and Zionism (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) , Fred Jerome shows the Nobel-prize-winning physicist's "eventual dismay that Israel had become the “captive of narrow nationalism” that he had feared."

The book collects Einstein’s letters, essays, interviews, speeches and thoughts about Zionism and Israel from 1919 until his death in 1955, and includes this testimony to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine in January 1946:

Judge Hutcheson: It has been told to our committee by the Zionists that the passionate heart of every Jew will never be satisfied until they have a Jewish state in Palestine. It is contended, I suppose, that they must have a majority over the Arabs. It has been told to us by the Arab representatives that the Arabs are not going to permit such condition as that, they they will not permit having themselves converted from a majority to a minority.

Dr. Einstein: Yes. [Emphases added]

This is what we, as Europeans and more generally whites, don't want either: to have a minority immigrating to our countries who wants to replace us as a majority and take over.

With what consistency, then, can we take the side of the Jews doing the same thing to Christian and Muslim Palestinians? Being anti-Islam shouldn't blind us to injustice just because it's done to Muslims (and not even only to them in this case).

The testimony goes on:

Judge Hutcheson: I have asked these various persons if it is essential to the right or the privilege of the Jews to go to Palestine, if it is essential to real Zionism that a setup be fixed so that the Jews have a Jewish state and a Jewish majority without regard to the Arab view. Do you share that point of view, or do you think the matter can be handled on any other basis?

Dr. Einstein: Yes, absolutely. The state idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with many difficulties and a narrow-mindedness. I believe it is bad.

Judge Hutcheson: Isn’t it spiritual and ethical – I do not mean this particular Zionist movement, I do not mean the idea of insisting that a Jewish state must be created – isn’t it anachronistic?

Dr. Einstein: In my opinion, yes. I am against it . . .

Adam Horowitz on Mondoweiss explains that Einstein opposed partition and supported a bi-national state that would ensure equal rights for Palestinians and Jews.

Many in the Jewish community responded to Einstein with letters of protest and anguish, including expressions of "a certain horror and sincere doubt as to your mental processes.”

Horowitz maintains that there has never been consensus within the Jewish community on Zionism or Israel, but an intense debate.

The best evidence that the intention to dispossess and displace Palestinians has been there all along from the beginning is in the words of Zionist and Israeli leaders:

Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote: “We shall have to spirit the penniless population (the Arabs) across the border … while denying it any employment in our own country.”

Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, said: “Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.”

David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, wrote: “I favor partition because when we become a strong power we will abolish partition and spread throughout Palestine.”

He also said: “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … we are the aggressors and they defend themselves”; and wrote this: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural, we have taken their country.”

Also, in a letter to his son: “We will expel the Arabs and take their place.”

Moshe Sharett, Israel’s first foreign minister and second prime minister, is quoted in “Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict” as saying: “We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it.”

Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff and later defense minister, was a straight talker: “There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

Richman and Grossman tell us that in 1967, “the Arab world threatened Israel with destruction.” Here’s what then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin said in 1982: “In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentration in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

The Arabs did not initiate the war, Israel did.

The interpretation of the Middle East conflict as caused by Muslim supremacism doesn't seem to hold water.

The main events of the origin of Israel, as described for example by J.M. Roberts' The History of the World (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) and other sources, are these. At the time of the British government's Balfour Declaration (2 November 1917, named after the British Foreign Secretary A.J. Balfour), 600,000 Arabs and 60,000-80,000 Jews lived in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration, enshrined in a League of Nations mandate in 1920, said that a "national home for the Jewish people" would be founded in Palestine, while respecting and preserving "the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

Neither Britain, which then had a Mandate for Palestine, nor anyone else later could reconcile the conflicting principles.

The situation was precipitated when, soon after the end of World War II in 1945, the World Zionist Congress demanded that one million Jews be admitted to Palestine at once.

The United States had a major role by turning pro-Zionist, a necessity dictated by the 1946 mid-term congressional elections in which Jewish votes were important.

The British decided to withdraw and, on the very day they did, 14 May 1948, the state of Israel was proclaimed.

The justification for this act of dispossession was and is in the predominant historiography of the Holocaust. This is the reason why doubting the latter's orthodox account is in many countries an imprisonable offence. The first instigators of "hate crimes" and "hate laws" in Western societies have not been the Muslims, but the Jews.