Dispatch-International Free Speech lars Hedegaard



This is an article from Dispatch International. Don’t have a subscription yet? Get one here.

(Picture taken by TT in Brussels, July 9, 2012)

The second occupation

Wed, 12/09/2012 – 22:00 — Webmaster
Author:  Lars Hedegaard

Strategic reflections on 9/11 – eleven years on

NEW YORK. On this eleventh anniversary of the Muslim terror attack against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, let us pause for a moment and reflect on the current strategic situation.

I’m using the word ”strategic” advisedly and in full recognition of its military implications.

Montgomery in Copenhagen, 1945Those who planned and executed 9/11 were eminently aware that the attack was yet another strike in the war between Islam and the rest of the world that has been going on for 1400 years, and we – the intended victims of Islam’s war of aggression – had better wise up to this fact.

Our leaders refuse to do so but we and our friends around the world shouldn’t follow leaders that are trying to lead us into the abyss.

We have no right to follow such leaders. We owe it to our fellow men and to our children to go on the counteroffensive against the forces of darkness with all our might.

A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of dining with that eminent authority on Islamic history, professor Bernard Lewis, in Princeton. I asked him who he thought would win the 1400-year war between Islam and non-Islam.

He answered: ”It is hard to win a war if you refuse to acknowledge that you are under attack.”

That is precisely what our Western governments, our mainstream press, our so-called academic experts and, sadly, many of our church leaders have steadfastly refused to acknowledge for the past decades since Islam’s modern incursion into the West took off about thirty years ago.

Not only are these blind people trying to lead the blind. They are using every instrument at their disposal to silence those who have faced reality and tried to speak out about it.

It made me think what would have happened in 1940 when my country, Denmark, was invaded by Nazi Germany if the likes of our current elites had been in power.

I’m sure they would have said that they had received a number of reports on German speakers in unusual attire walking the streets of Danish cities including Copenhagen. They would further have impressed on the Danish population that the foreign visitors be respected in accordance with the human rights laid down in at least 118 international conventions. And that in order to facilitate the foreigners’ integration into Danish society, the government would ask parliament to pass package to the tune of billions of kroner, including the provision of housing, health benefits and welfare payments for our honored guests.

And had violence broken out, the UN or the EU or both would have started a peace process and appointed a mediator.

There is one important difference between the Nazi invasion of 1940 and the Islamic invasion of today. The Nazis declared that they had no hostile intentions. They didn’t impose a Nazi government on the Danes; they permitted our democratic institutions to function and even allowed democratic elections to take place. In fact, they claimed that they had come to our country with the sole purpose of protecting us from the threat of a British invasion and thus spare Denmark from the ravages of war.

After a few years, the vast majority of the Danes proved in action that they didn’t believe in our occupiers’ good intentions, and a resistance movement, that according to Viscount Montgomery was ”second to none”, went on the counteroffensive against the Wehrmacht.

The leaders of the present-day Islamic onslaught on Denmark and the West make no bones about their intention to eventually impose sharia law on the infidel population and thus reduce Denmark’s indigenous population to a state of dhimmitude, i.e. slaves in their own country.

They don’t hide the fact that they want to abolish our democratic constitution, the rule of law, equality before the law and freedom of speech and impose their theocratic totalitarianism.

All this they openly declare, and our elites refuse to believe them or – even worse – they pretend not to believe.

Not only that, our elites – politicians, academic experts, the church leaders and the mainstream press – do their utmost to harass, malign, persecute and prosecute anyone who dares to tell the truth about what is happening to our countries.

I myself have just been through a two-year long court battle that went all the way to the Danish Supreme Court, where I was eventually acquitted of racism and hate speech. I was acquitted by a unanimous Supreme Court led by Denmark’s’ Chief Justice.

Of course, the public prosecutor knew that he had no case well before pressing charges, but that is not the point. The point was to demonstrate to anyone daring to challenge Islam and the leaders of the Muslim ummah that they had better be prepared for a lengthy and costly court battle, if they were to insist on their right to speak out.

So there is no doubt that the adherents of freedom are up against a wall.

We, who are gathered here today, do, however, have two strategic advantages over the aiders and abettors of the Islamic ascendancy.

First of all, after years of study and observation, we know not only what their final objectives are but also how and by what means they aim to achieve them.

We know that whoever invented Mohammad, the warlord, was the most gifted military strategist the world has known – far surpassing the likes of Sun Tsu and Clausewitz.

The Islamic way of warfare is more diversified, all encompassing and subtle than anything conceived by the military theoreticians that are usually studied at our military academies. Open violence is only a part of it and if need be, Islamic war can be waged by non-violent means but with effects as decisive and irreversible as those obtained at Stalingrad and in Normandy.

We know that and our enemies know that we know. So that is only a limited strategic advantage.

Our decisive advantage is that we have truth on our side, whereas our opponents are masters of lies and deceit as mandated by the doctrine of taqiyya.

Over the long haul, lies can only hold sway by means of coercion. Otherwise they are bound to wither when exposed to occurrences in the real world.

This is already happening. More and more people distrust what journalists are telling them. In Sweden only 24 pct. of the public trust journalists and for good reason.

Next in line will be the politicians who have attempted to market the joys of multiculturalism, cultural relativism and the blessings of the religion of peace.

Our task is obvious: It is to continue telling the truth no matter what the consequences. If it means expulsion from our jobs, loss of friends, destitution or even jail, that is a price we must be prepared to pay.

Fortunately, we now have many more channels of communication than just a few years ago: websites such as Atlas Shrugs, Jihadwatch, Sappho.dk in Denmark and many others. It is from sources such as these that smart people get the real news.

Soon we shall also have a new international weekly newspaper, Dispatch International, whose test issue came out on August 30 and which will start regular publication in several languages in January next year.
The war we are engaged in is between good and evil, between the truth and deceit.

If we stick to the truth, we shall be victorious. Should we ever succumb to fear, we shall have lost.

The article is the text of Lars Hedegaard’s speech to the Freedom Congress on September 11, 2012 in New York City.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.