► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Denmark’

It’s A Hot Curvy Girl With Tatts On Stand-Up Bass Singing Lead Kind Of Sunday Night

by Bunk X ( 50 Comments › )
Filed under Art, Entertainment, Humor, Music, OOT, Open thread at May 6th, 2012 - 11:00 pm

Any band named HorrorPops gets my vote. There’s something inherently cool about a mashup between punk, psychobilly, hotrods and Denmark. Besides, they got a hot curvy girl with tatts on stand-up bass singing lead.

And speaking of hot curvy girls with tatts on stand-up bass singing lead, it’s time for a hot curvy stand-up edition of The Overnight Open Thread.

Erick Stakelbeck on Muslim Terror: August 2011

by 1389AD ( 69 Comments › )
Filed under Chechnya, Dhimmitude, Europe, Hamas, Hezballah, Islam, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinians, Russia, UK at August 12th, 2011 - 8:31 am

Excellent piece by Erick Stakelbeck on Islam in the USA and Denmark.

On this week’s edition of Stakelbeck on Terror: CBN News shows Islam’s advance in the West and beyond…

The video cannot be embedded on Blogmocracy. Please watch it here at the Dailymotion.

Stakelbeck on Terror: August 9, 2011 – CBN.com by cbnonline

Yes, there are some CBN commercial interruptions. But it’s worth watching to learn about the Muslim Brotherhood in Chicago and NYC, Muslim infiltration in Denmark, sell land to a Jew in Ramallah and lose your life, Muslims threatening to invade Russian churches, and much more.

The Westergaard Foundation and Free Speech Campaign

by 1389AD ( 5 Comments › )
Filed under Censorship, Europe, Free Speech, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Sharia (Islamic Law), Special Report at May 4th, 2011 - 5:00 pm

Originally posted at Gates of Vienna

Reprinted with permission.

Turban boom!The Danish artist Kurt Westergaard is best known for his iconic “Turban Bomb” cartoon, one of the twelve images of Mohammed which were first published back in 2005 in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Several months after the original publication, the twelve cartoons, augmented by additional images which were not part of the twelve (and at least one of which did not even depict Mohammed), were used as a pretext by Muslim provocateurs to incite mass riots abroad. Danish and Norwegian embassies in the Middle East were torched, and a number of people were killed.

The cartoonists were blamed for the violence, of course, rather than the crazed zealots who instigated and committed it. Those are the new rules of multicultural dhimmitude: when Muslims get mad at us and kill people, it’s our fault — even if all we do is draw cartoons.

In the years since, Kurt Westergaard has neither retired from the scene nor avoided further controversy, despite death threats and at least one attempt on his life. He has made the freedom of speech his driving cause, using his own experience as a warning about what everyone in the West will face if we continue to surrender to Islam and its politically correct allies.

Mr. Westergaard has recently formed a joint venture with Erik Guldager and Hans Erling Jensen to establish a new foundation for the purpose of promoting free speech. Hans Erling tells the story:

In connection with the establishment of The Westergaard Foundation we will launch the Free Press 2011 campaign.

It is all about the idea of Freedom of Expression, as expressed historically and administrated today. The intention is to create a discussion about the freedom of expression we in the West know today, and how we see it developing in the future under globalization and all the new challenges that this provides.

The concept

“Free Speech 2011” can be used as teaching material or as a framework for seminars, and for discussion forums in organizations, businesses, and institutions. During the development there will be established on-line help with direct contact to experts, where relevant questions are answered with elaboration on the topic.

The development team is happy to receive suggestions, reflections, and of course all kinds of adjustments. We are convinced that the debate about freedom of expression must necessarily be a living process that should never stop, lest we may lose it!

The initial funding will be raised by sales of signed prints of a new drawing by Mr. Westergaard, entitled “Free Speech”:

Kurt Westergaard — Free Speech (large)
(Click for a larger version)
Each drawing is signed by the artist and come with a certificate linking the buyer to the campaign Free Speech 2011.

Phyllis Chesler has a piece about the Westergaard Foundation at the NewsReal Blog. See Hans Erling’s site for more.

Look on our sidebar for the smaller version of the image with an accompanying PayPal icon to purchase your own signed copy.

The press release for Free Speech 2011 is below:

Kurt Westergaard establishes a fund!

The artist and cartoonist Kurt Westergaard is now establishing a fund to support free speech. The fund is based on the idea that freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy, crucial to a dynamic dialogue and development of society.

Kurt Westergaard, who has received numerous national and international awards for his position on free speech, now sells the personally signed print Free Speech for the purpose of financing the Fund — The Westergaard Foundation. A fund for artists and other creative people who are suffering from violence or persecution because of their expressions!

State leaders, Nobel laureates, artists, and especially ordinary people from many parts of the world have in recent years honored and supported Kurt Westergaard, and thus recognised the importance of his persistence and beliefs.

Kurt Westergaard has with the drawing Free Speech, in his usual straightforward manner in colors and symbols, expressed free speech under difficult conditions. The drawing gives rise to reflection and imagination. The kind of imagination where Kurt Westergaard sees it as “the indomitable defender of freedom of expression.”

Once a year, the Board and an Advisory Board nominate five candidates for the prize: the Westergaard Award — a winner will be announced around November / December and a subsequent award ceremony is to take place.

The nominees will all be people who have shown the courage to stand up agains oppression. People who for example through poems, movies, by painting, singing, in theatrical or other artistic creativity showed persistence to remain true to their beliefs notwithstanding violence, prosecution, death threats, etc.

The Free Speech drawing will be sold in most parts of the world for the token price of €100. (US $150) to support the creation of the Fund.

A vendors list can be found at: www.galleri-draupner.dk and: www.eticha.dk

In a short time more can be read at: www.westergaardfoundation.com

The fund consists of a Board and a national and international Advisory Board whose members search around the world for people in the artistic and creative field who by their work have come at odds with a regime, belief, dictatorship or any other form of power that exposes the nominee to assault or threats.

Initially the Board will be composed as follows:

Hans Erling Jensen — Advisory Board
Farshad Kholghi — Advisory Board
Henryk Broder — Advisory Board

Press conference:

A press conference will be held on Monday the 2nd. of May 2011, at 10:00

The venue:

Gallery Draupner
Låsbyvej 15 8660

Please be aware that, among others for security reasons, only those reporters, photographers and TV crews can be admitted who pre-registered in writing. (Press Card to be presented).

Written enrollment:

Erik Guldager
Låsbyvej 15 8660 Skanderborg

Questions? Contact Erik Guldager tel +45 2467 7030


This project has been discontinued. See this article on Gates of Vienna for the explanation.

The Retrial and Persecution of Counterjihadist Lars Hedegaard

by 1389AD ( 17 Comments › )
Filed under Censorship, Free Speech, Islamic Supremacism, Political Correctness at May 3rd, 2011 - 7:00 pm

Gates of Vienna: A Danish Show Trial, Yet Again

Reprinted with permission.

As regular readers know, the Danish journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard was acquitted of “hate speech” back in January. His crime had been to make remarks about the propensity of Muslim men for committing rape within their families — not all that remarkable an assertion in our circles, but a punishable offense in Modern Multicultural Denmark.

The district prosecutor has decided to have another go, and the second trial of Lars Hedegaard begins tomorrow in Copenhagen. Below is a piece written for the occasion by the editor of Sappho.dk.

The Danish Show Trial against Lars Hedegaard to Resume

By Katrine Winkel Holm, Chief Editor of Sappho.dk

Lars HedegaardOn April 26 my colleague, the Danish author and historian Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Press Society and The International Free Press Society, will be back in court accused of “racism” for comments he made during a conversation on the Islamic treatment of women.

Without his permission the entire conversation was electronically disseminated, which provided his detractors with the opportunity to denounce him to the police.

The district prosecutor for Copenhagen and Bornholm jumped at the chance to get this prominent free speech advocate convicted of “racism” under Denmark’s infamous “hate speech” article 266b of the penal code but suffered defeat when the case came before the lower court at Frederiksberg in January this year. The judge did not believe that Hedegaard’s comments had been made with the intent of public dissemination, which is what the prosecutor must prove in order to secure a conviction under article 266b.

Unhappy with this setback, the state prosecutor appealed to the Eastern Superior Court in Copenhagen, where the retrial is scheduled to start at 1 pm on April 26 before a panel of three judges.

The trial is expected to last no more than two hours, which would appear to leave little time to deal with the subject matter — the Islamic view on women and the treatment they have suffered throughout the ages.

However, truth has no place in cases brought under article 266b. All that matters is whether Hedegaard’s observations — or the observations he is claimed to have made — have caused Muslims to feel hurt. Consequently, the defendant is not allowed to present evidence or call witnesses who might confirm his contention that the Islamic treatment of women is incompatible with the norms of a civilised society.

Lars Hedegaard’s case is just one in a long line of similar heresy trials that have been conducted throughout Europe for decades. Among the most notorious are the prosecutions of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria and Geert Wilders in Holland but there have been scores of similar cases that have received less public attention.

The reason for this judicial tsunami against outspoken Islam critics is not hard to find. It has become uncomfortably clear to ever-wider sections of the public that the official policies of free Muslim immigration, multiculturalism and cultural relativism have failed utterly. The European states are now faced with problems which their rulers have no idea how to solve. So instead of admitting that they have failed, they choose to silence those who point out that there are problems.

As Lars Hedegaard is prevented from talking about the real issue in court, he has used the time since his initial acquittal to write a book. Its title is Muhammad’s Girls: Violence, Murder and Rape in the House of Islam and it will be published the very day he is to appear in Superior Court.

Sappho has obtained permission from the publisher, The Free Speech Library, to translate and reprint Lars Hedegaard’s Foreword.


On January 24, 2011 I had the experience — for the first time in my life — of sitting in the dock of a Danish courtroom. The State Prosecutor for Copenhagen and Bornholm had resolved that I had violated Article 266b of the penal code by publicly threatening, ridiculing and denigrating a group of people.

And a very large group of people at that. Somewhere between 1.2 and 1.6 billion Muslims — or at least the male half of them — who the State Prosecutor thought had reason to feel so aggrieved that I ought to be punished for it.

Global harmony was under pressure so the prosecutor had told the press that he had taken great pains in preparing the case.

His thorough preparations resulted in an indictment where the following words — which he attributed to me — were highlighted as criminal:

“When a Muslim man rapes a woman, it is his right to do so. When Swedish girls are raped, mass rape etc., etc., there is nothing wrong with it viewed from an Islamic perspective that is their right. They rape their own children. You hear that time and again. Girls in Muslim families are raped by their uncles, their cousins or their father. Women have no value, they are not human beings. Their function is to be wombs — they bear the warrior’s offspring and create new warriors but apart from that … well they may be used for sexual purposes but other than that they have no value.”

To which the State Prosecutor added: “and the like”.

As my attorney proved in court, these words were not mine but the State Prosecutor’s retelling of a much larger line of argument taken out of context.

On top of that the judge could find no evidence that my characterisation of the Islamic concept of women had been uttered with the intent of public dissemination — which is what Article 266b requires for something to be punishable. Consequently I was acquitted. At least initially as the prosecutor decided to appeal the verdict.

What remains it the prosecutor’s contention that all the words he had placed between his quotation marks were in fact denigrating and therefore punishable. So let us assume that I actually had spoken precisely as claimed by the prosecutor and done so publicly or had written it and disseminated it far and wide. Would I have been convicted? That is what many of those who have commented on the outcome of the trial believe, which is why they reject the contention that my acquittal may be seen as a victory for free speech.

For reasons I shall not dwell on in this context, I maintain that is was a victory, but I can well understand why others might view it differently.

I any event the case does pose a number of important questions: On what grounds does the State Prosecutor decide that somebody has a valid reason to feel hurt? Is it enough for somebody to call the police and claim to be offended on behalf of some group or other, whereupon the State Prosecutor presses charges? No, there are criteria, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, Joergen Steen Soerensen expressed in a letter from August 2010 to Sappho.dk’s Chief Editor, Katrine Winkel Holm:

“The core area of the provision [Article 266b] is statements to the effect that the group in question generally lacks value as human beings, liken them to animals in addition to gross and utterly non-factual [usaglige], generalised claims of serious criminality, negative personality traits and an immoral and offensive way of life.”

When one reads the Director of Public Prosecutions’ remark about “the group in question [that] generally lacks value as human beings”, it is easier to understand why he considers the words attributed to me in the indictment as offensive. He evidently believes that it is I who thinks that Islam’s “women have no value, they are not human beings” and that it is I who wants to deprive them of human value, place them on an equal footing with animals etc.

That would be a bold interpretation. I believe that women, as concerns rights, chances in life and claims to be respected, are or ought to be absolutely equal to men regardless of their religion or where in the world they were born.

So it is not my view on women that is reflected in the indictment but the view on women that I think can be derived from Islamic holy scripture, which has manifested itself throughout Islamic history and which is still being advocated by the most influential Islamic scholars.

It may also be that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the State Prosecutor for Copenhagen and Bornholm actually have understood that the indictment does not reflect my attitude towards Muslim women but Islam’s own. In that case, they must view this interpretation of Islam as “non-factual” and therefore criminal.

According to Nudansk Ordbog [Dictionary of Current Danish] “saglig” [factual] is something that is “primarily related to facts rather than feelings, intuition and personal judgement”. In that case it ought to be an easy task — but also absolutely necessary — for the prosecutor to disprove my interpretation of Islam’s canonical view on women. For the prosecutor to characterise my rendering as non-factual, he must be in possession of the right, factual and evidence-based interpretation.

As a responsible institution the public prosecutor therefore owes it to the citizens to explicate his state-authorised Islamic view on women and tell them what indisputable facts this state-guaranteed interpretation is based on. Otherwise the citizens run the risk of expressing themselves in a non-factual manner and be punished for it.

The first thing one must demand of a law is that it be clear so that everyone may understand what is permitted and what is forbidden. That much was stated in the preamble to the Law of Jutland from 1241. And now that the Director of Public Prosecutions has passed a law — albeit without the consent parliament — that non-factuality must be punished, it is incumbent on him to make this new law clear. In brief: He must unequivocally enlighten the citizens as to how one may talk about Islam. This book is intended as a help to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Most of the points of view below are not mine but opinions quoted from others. I start with the prophet Muhammad, whose view on women can hardly have failed to influence the behaviour of some Muslims.

It is far from certain that the public prosecutor will consider Muhammad’s and his followers’ interpretation of orthodox Islam factual, and under the new juridical regime it may not even be legal. But I urge him to accept that I mean well. Below he will find a compilation of everything that he evidently thinks Islam in not about. On this basis it will be easier for him to point to all the textual evidence, all the historical occurrences and all the statements that demonstrate that Islam is the religion of peace, tolerance and sexual equality.

Participate in the comments here.

Note: We will have a special Radio show on the killing of Bin Laden at 9:00 PM EST.

The Black Hoods of Antifa

by 1389AD ( 100 Comments › )
Filed under Crime, Europe, Fascism, France, Germany, Liberal Fascism, Socialism, Sweden at October 23rd, 2010 - 6:30 pm

Scroll down for the NCAA Football Thread, Week 8 thread below!

AFA at the dam

Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna writes:

I’ve written several times previously about Antifascist Action (a.k.a. AFA or Antifa, with name variants in several other European languages). It’s a loosely interconnected alliance of hard-left groups who use violence and intimidation against “racists” and “fascists”, i.e. anybody who opposes Leftist orthodoxy. In some countries the AFA brigades enjoy the tacit support of the police and local authorities in their actions.

Recent events in Cologne and Malmö have brought the “anti-fascists” into the limelight. El Inglés and our Flemish correspondent VH teamed up to do a little research into the black-hooded goons of Antifa. It El Inglés has gathered the results into a report, which is presented below.

The article below is reprinted in its entirety with permission from Baron Bodissey.

Antifa Blackhoods

The Blackhoods of Antifa

by El Inglés


As readers of this blog will all know by now, the recent anti-Islamization demonstration planned to take place in Cologne was disrupted by groups of blackhooded thugs. These thugs, whom I will refer to collectively as Antifa for the purposes of this brief preliminary discussion, are a force the size and strength of which it is extremely difficult to discern through casually scanning the news reports concerning the event. With the help of a great deal of valuable research done by VH, already a regular contributor at Gates of Vienna, I propose to start thinking slightly more rigorously about these far-left hoodlums in the hope that we might come up with some ideas as to what, if anything, should be done about them. This essay will not and cannot propose anything definite course of action or present any definite conclusions. It is no more than a speculative piece designed to foster and stimulate discussion amongst those who may be interested.

I will confess to a certain lack of interest in the taxonomy of the hard left. Communists, anarchists, revolutionary socialists, autonomer, ‘anti-fascists’: I neither know nor care what the exact differences may be between these various groups. Parsing this swarming bunch of criminals is an activity I will leave to those who both have the stomach for the task and consider it important to understand the ideological structure of, and fissures within, our self-elected street-level human rights enforcers.

Antifascistisk Aktion

Given that Antifa are clearly capable of putting aside their differences for long enough to engage in the occasional bout of civil unrest, for the duration of this piece I will treat them as the single group that they are sometimes able to form. However, for the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the occasional small-scale targeted action carried out by Antifa types, such as arson attacks on the homes of anti-immigration politicians or brutal assaults on anti-Islamization activists such as Anders Gravers, the head of SIAD. Though perpetrated by the same stripe of person, I think these criminal activities are sufficiently different from the mass action witnessed recently in Cologne to deserve an analysis of their own. Accordingly, I will concentrate on Antifa as a mass-action entity in this essay.

This discussion will be loosely structured around a series of key questions about Antifa that I will try provide some preliminary and speculative answers to below. They are as follows:

1) How many of them are there across Western Europe and where are they located? I define an Antifa member here as being a core member of Antifa activity, concealing their identity with masks and hoods, and prepared to engage in violence against ideological opponents and/or the police and whatever other criminal activity they deem appropriate to their interests. Normal demonstrators do not count, however closely allied they may be with Antifa.
2) What are their financial resources?
3) What is their recruitment process?
4) What are their strengths?
5) What are their weaknesses?

1) How Many and Where

AFA Pride

Despite initially reading that 40,000 people were expected to attend the counter-demonstration in Cologne in total, it seems, on the basis of what VH was so good as to unearth, that no more than five or six thousand people attended in total. VH has also estimated (I am entirely reliant on his work here) that there would not have been more than about 2,000 Antifa there. The significance of this number depends on certain factors. If the attempts to disrupt the Pro-Cologne demonstration were a major event on the Antifa calendar for 2008 and only 2,000 of them made it, we must either assume that the figure of 2,000 is roughly representative of their strength in Western Europe, or that there are is a significant number of additional cadres, but the financial and organizational resources required to get them there were lacking, or some combination of both possibilities.

VH informs me that there were probably not more than a few hundred non-German Antifa members at the demonstration, and that those came mainly from Belgium, the Netherlands, and perhaps parts of France. It seems reasonable to suggest that there are at most a few thousand serious Antifa members throughout the bulk of Western Europe. They may be complimented in any given situation by a significant number of normal protestors who they may instruct and direct to a certain extent, but these people are probably not much of an issue one way or another in their own right.

2) Financial Resources

As one might expect of a group of people who, despite their ideological differences, all reject the fundamental organizing principles of Western societies, Antifa members do not seem to be high earners. It is also hard to see how a group of this nature could generate any reliable flow of funding of any sort, or who it would be prepared to accept it from.


We would benefit by knowing more on this subject, but VH has sent me some fascinating information on the attempts by Antifa in the Netherlands to have “squatters’ rights” recognized by the government. As far as I can make out, the Netherlands has recognized a ‘right to squat’ since a court ruling in 1971, which Antifa have made great use of. The vexing question of how people who are presumably not engaged in productive labour of the sort rewarded in a modern economy can continue to lead their chosen lifestyles is thus partly answered, certainly for the Netherlands and perhaps for other countries as well to some extent. Availing themselves of the opportunities presented by the occasional building left vacant for more than a year, the single largest component in their, or anybody else’s, living expenses is reduced virtually to zero.

In September of this year, in response to a proposed bill to change the law and ban squatting, several hundred ‘activists’ from across the country held a demonstration in Utrecht to protest. With Antifa as with anyone else, threaten to withdraw the subsidization of their lifestyles with the wealth of others, and they squeal. The reliance of these people on living off other people without providing something of value in return is evident, and provides a great insight into how feeble their ability to fund themselves presumably is. I will discuss this important issue in more detail below.

3) Recruitment Process

I would imagine that many, if not most Antifa groups have some sort of web presence or are at least active enough on Indymedia and other similar sites to be able to provide a point of contact for those who are interested in getting involved. Face-to-face contacts and recruitment will be viable in areas with visible Antifa groups. However, the most interesting questions with respect to Antifa recruitment are those that pertain to screening and depth of access.

Anyone turning up to an action dressed in black with a hood and a mask will doubtless be allowed to participate to some degree, as Antifa requires large numbers of people if it is to achieve what it wants to achieve. It gets away with this because of the lack of any obvious operational security requirements, which is another point I will touch on below in a discussion of Antifa’s possible weaknesses.

4) Strengths

AFA Sweden

Though the organizational prowess of Antifa seems to be considerable in some regards, we would do well not to overstate it. Given that hardcore Antifa members presumably spend their lives waiting for the next bit of ‘action,’ their ability to buy a bus ticket to Cologne given two months’ advance warning is hardly overwhelming. The key strengths of the Antifa, for which we must give them their due, are their tactical and ideological coherence at street level. This conclusion is based on sketchy evidence and a few leaps of faith, but I believe it is likely to be valid, as I shall explain below.

Antifa seem to have a finely-honed awareness of what they can get away with, both politically and tactically. Given that this is not something that can be derived from first principles, but must be understood afresh each time on the basis of the country of operations, the relevant stances of the government in question, and perhaps other factors too, Antifa must have good intelligence in this regard if my reading of their tightrope-walking act is correct. This bespeaks contacts in government and a nuanced understanding of the politics of the country in question and the way they themselves are viewed in it.

According to VH’s research, some 500 Antifa were eventually arrested in Cologne. The number of these people charged with a crime is presumably zero. To what possible end would the German authorities, national, regional, or municipal, wish to clutter up their court and prison system with hundreds of well-organized young criminals whose comrades could create significant political fall-out and bad publicity?

No, the desire of the authorities in situations such as these is to do the bare minimum necessary to contain the situation, and ensure that ensuing problems are as minimal as possible. So if we assume that one in four of the Antifa members present in Cologne were arrested, all to be released in the next couple of days, we are forced to conclude that Antifa as a whole have a very clear idea of which lines they can cross and which they cannot in attempting to achieve their political objectives. The demonstration was cancelled, and the long-term damage to the Antifa was nil insofar as we can discern it at present. This was a good result for them, at least in the short term, and was not achieved by chance.

Cologne: photo by Aviel

To realize how impressive the performance of Antifa is in this regard, consider what is presumably involved in setting up an illegal blockade of the type that apparently featured in Cologne. Let us assume either that there are no police in the area in question or that the police who are present are keeping their distance. We have then a road or some other similar area of passage that Antifa wish to curtail passage along. My own experience of blockading roads is, sadly, rather limited, but a few minutes’ reflection will make it clear that the task the Antifa set themselves in doing this is far from trivial.

A group of Antifa deciding to block a road are putting themselves in a position where the probability of being involved in direct physical confrontation with others, up to and including heavily armed riot police, is high. Depending on the circumstances, the ability to predict the nature and scale of the likely violence may be rather limited. Though the recent Antifa activities in Cologne seem to have passed without significant challenge to said Antifa, despite the large number of arrests, this will not always be the case.

I submit that it is not possible for any group of people to do what Antifa do in blockading roads without having both a clear and well-communicated plan of action which takes into account different contingencies (police involvement, police charge, attack by opposing demonstrators, attack with bricks or water cannons, partial break in the blockade, injury to one of the Antifa members, etc.) and a high degree of confidence that fellow Antifa will back them up with fist and foot if need be.

Take away the first and they become a mob, the second a routed mob. Their ability to maintain tactical coherence and strong unit morale, which I take to be considerable, is impressive and a significant advantage in the face of less well-disciplined opponents. It presumably derives largely from distinct Antifa chapters acting in unison during Antifa actions, as it would be exceptionally difficult to maintain if members were dispersed at random throughout the Antifa contingent. As in an army, so in Antifa: small-unit cohesion will be an indispensable component in how they work.

Moving onto a slightly different strength, Antifa need some sort of reasonably well-established doctrine with respect to the degree of violence they can offer opposing demonstrators and the police. I have very little awareness, either in terms of background knowledge or specific information pertaining to recent events, of Antifa trying to kill people. Yet given their militant nature, ideological commitment, and the manifest hatred they have for their opponents, this would seem to require some explanation. I can only assume that Antifa know very well that they operate with, and only with, the consent of the state, be it in their home countries, or the country of any particular Antifa action.

Note that consent does not necessarily imply approval here. It only suggests that, at the very least, the authorities have conducted some sort of cost-benefit analysis on the crushing and dispersal of Antifa and decided that the costs outweigh the benefits. Whether approval exists or not would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Given the intrinsically criminal nature of what they do, Antifa are clearly vulnerable to large-scale prosecution should any particular government turn its mind to the project. They are also liable to being undermined financially (turfed out of their squats, for example), banned from staging counter-demonstrations, infiltrated by the police and security services, and damaged structurally and ideologically by the incarceration of key figures.

It is therefore in their interests to keep the irritation they cause governments below a certain threshold if they wish to continue their activities at all. But they must keep it close to this threshold in order to be effective as judged by their own standards. This requires a keen awareness of lines that must not be crossed and the political scenes in their countries of origin and action. In effect, they must conduct the same cost-benefit analysis as governments (as outlined above), and conduct it accurately enough to arrive at the same conclusions. This will require a combination of ‘empirical research’ and political savvy that would be non-trivial to acquire and update as necessary.

5) Weaknesses

At first glance, it seemed to me that the recent events in Cologne marked Antifa as being, potentially at least, a major force in street-level politics throughout Western Europe. However, after having peered through at least some of the murk surrounding those events and accumulated some reasonable amount of information on the concrete details of what happened in Germany, it seems to me that this conclusion was unwarranted. Indeed, I do not think that Antifa constitute a force that will be capable of significantly influencing events in the case of a breakdown of civil order of the type predicted in “Surrender, Genocide, or What?”.

As discussed above, there do not seem to have been more than 2,000 Antifa in Cologne. If we assume that, adding in Scandinavian Antifa and German, Belgian, French and Dutch Antifa who were not in Cologne, we would have a maximum of 5,000 spread throughout this part of Europe, we are still talking about a force that is small in any absolute sense and cannot assemble itself as a whole even for an event such as that that took place in Cologne. Even there, it successfully conducted its activities only because the authorities in Cologne were, by all accounts, happy to let it move freely around the city, sabotage transport infrastructure, and intimidate and assault people trying to peaceably take part in a legal demonstration.

It is hard to believe that Antifa had any more freedom of movement, literally or figuratively, than the German authorities allowed it. It is terrible news for Germany that its government is sanguine about the notion of large gangs of hard-left criminals dictating what can and cannot take place on its streets, but this is more indicative of the current state of German party politics than any intrinsic capabilities of Antifa.


Furthermore, it should go without saying that, without at least the tolerance of government, Antifa cannot even really exist, much less function.

  • It is not an insurgency.
  • It cannot create or maintain the pillars of a modern society.
  • It is not a government-in-the-making.
  • It has no moral authority.
  • It is not a mass movement, despite its ability to occasionally recruit a few thousand placard-wavers to swell the ranks of its blockades.
  • It has no military capabilities.
  • It cannot take or hold territory.

When government opposes it, it will crumple. Yet when government supports it, it will be irrelevant, swamped by the vastly superior resources of the state. It is probably only relevant at all in marginal cases in which society as a whole and government in particular are weak, divided, or ambivalent with respect to given political developments and lack either the resolve to act, leaving a vacuum within which Antifa can operate, or the courage to apply pressure to certain parties, in which case they can allow Antifa to do so for them, thereby maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. That this sorry state of affairs currently prevails in many European countries does not remove this fundamental weakness of Antifa.

Another striking weakness is the lack of any independent financial base. The above anecdote about the squatters laughably trying to protect their “right to squat” makes clear the financial weakness of Antifa in general, at least insofar as the anecdote is applicable to Antifa in general. If the Dutch government does indeed succeed in taking this most cherished of human “rights” away, many Antifa may find themselves in the hideous position of having to work for a living.

AFA Italy

More fundamentally, the financial weakness of Antifa will increase the attrition rate of recruits, pushing down the number of years the average recruit spends as a member and with it the mean competence of Antifa as a whole and the morale of remaining members. It also reduces their ability to engage in international actions, which would presumably explain why significant numbers of European Antifa members (using their numbers as estimated above) do not seem to have been in Cologne. It is, after all, hard to imagine that they had anything better to do with their time.

It was noted above that Antifa needs the tolerance of government to survive, but this is not only true in the sense that it can, as an intrinsically criminal entity, be shut down if the political will exists. Perhaps more importantly, it is true in the sense that the very livelihoods of Antifa members seem to be dependent on the existence of a strong welfare state, and I am particularly indebted to VH for explaining this point to me.

He tells me that most of the street-fighting militants are between the ages of 16 and 28 or so, and that they survive on welfare payments whilst living a noble savage-type existence in squats. Upon eventually graduating from the ‘tactical’ branch of Antifa, they drift in the direction of more ‘managerial’ roles while obtaining volunteer positions (and still receiving welfare), or employment at certain predictable types of organizations (‘anti-racism’ organizations, immigrant advocacy organizations, local government and so on, all of it funded by the taxpayer). What this means, if I have read the situation correctly, is that significant numbers of parasitical, seditious, hard-left types with overt criminal tendencies are subsidized by the state to try and undermine it and its laws. Leaving to one side the absurdity of this situation and what it says about modern Europe, it is clear that one of most obvious ways of trying to damage, if not destroy, Antifa would be to castrate it financially through ripping it, kicking and screaming, from the teat of the state.

The last obvious point that could, in principle, constitute a weakness is the open nature of the Antifa recruitment process. Given the large numbers of people Antifa must attract to be at all effective, and given further the lack of any obvious mechanism whereby an infiltrator could impair Antifa’s ability to achieve its goals, we must assume that virtually anyone who wants to join any of the subgroups that combine to form Antifa as a whole is welcome provided they display a minimum level of commitment. This suggests that finding a way of making infiltration hurt Antifa could radically reduce its recruitment capabilities while hurting morale at the same time.

Of course, if one were prepared to engage in illegal activities, it would not be hard to think of ways to use Antifa’s laxness in this regard to punish it and rot away at it from the inside. Doing so without crossing the line into illegality, however, would require detailed case-by-case knowledge of what sort of information could be gathered on individual Antifa members to convince the police to prosecute them, public authorities to withdraw their financial support, or employers to fire them. Whether or not any theoretical efforts made in this regard might not be made with greater effect in lobbying to reform the relevant parts of the welfare state or persuade the police and courts to more assiduously prosecute Antifa in the first place is, admittedly, an open question.

Antifa logos


Antifa, though impressive in its ability to occasionally motivate and organize reasonably large numbers of dysfunctional and unproductive youth, does not seem to be in possession of any of the characteristics that might award it some determinative influence on the trajectory any particular European state will take with respect to Islamization. Whether or not any given demonstration will take place is ultimately determined by the government of the country in question, though in hiding behind Antifa may to allow that government to shrug and attempt to avoid responsibility for making said demonstration impossible.

Note also that, given the small numbers of Antifa members, their feeble financial resources, and the amount of time required to organize any major action, the ability of Antifa to disrupt simultaneous or near-simultaneous events across Europe will be close to zero.

Nevertheless, Antifa is a serious enough political phenomenon to deserve serious consideration, especially given its tendency to target individuals with potentially lethal violence. Though I excluded this aspect of its ‘activism’ from this discussion, the destruction of Antifa as a whole would be justified on these grounds alone, insofar as such a loose-knit entity can ever be completely destroyed.

Furthermore, the willingness of what is presumably a small set of Antifa members to viciously attack specific individuals, be they politicians, judges, or political activists, is probably more of a problem for those who would oppose Islamization than the mass mobilization witnessed recently in Cologne. Identifying the individuals responsible for these attacks almost certainly constitutes a better reason to infiltrate Antifa than that outlined above, the costs of which could well outweigh the benefits.

Perhaps the single greatest structural weakness of Antifa is that its entire operational doctrine, at least with respect to mass action, is predicated on the existence of a powerful apparatus of state, which sets the constraints within which it must work. Should the breakdown of civil order that I and others have envisaged ever occur in any European country, Antifa will find that its baseball bats and steel toecaps do not represent the cutting edge of early 21st-century military technology. If that day comes, there may well be a belated discovery that walking into a gunfight without a gun is the most unforgiving of errors.

Posted by Baron Bodissey at 10/04/2008 01:32:00 PM

Scroll down for the NCAA Football Thread, Week 8 thread below!

Lars Hedegaard and Lars Vilks in Toronto: The Videos

by 1389AD ( 127 Comments › )
Filed under Canada, Censorship, Dhimmitude, Europe, Free Speech, Islamic hypocrisy, Sweden at October 6th, 2010 - 8:30 pm

As previously noted, the scheduled appearances of Mo-doggie artist Lars Vilks, and counterjihad spokesman Lars Hedegaard, in Ottawa and in Philadelphia were cancelled because local authorities took no responsibility for providing security, and it would have been far too expensive for the tour’s sponsors to pay for all of the security that would have been required.

Even worse, the US Department of Homeland Security further abdicated their responsibilities (not to mention their common sense) by declaring Lars Vilks – and not the jihadis who have been threatening his life – to be a security risk.

(More discussion of this took place here, here, here, here, and here.)

The Toronto event was captured on video; unfortunately, the audio quality of some portions is not the best.

Counterjihad Spokesman Lars Hedegaard in Toronto:

Hedegaard part 1

Hedegaard part 2

Michael Coren with Lars Vilks in Toronto

Coren part 1

Coren part 2

Coren part 3

Coren part 4

Coren part 5

Warning: Lars Vilks likes to pull everyone’s chain – so if you are easily offended by anything “politically incorrect,” feel free to skip this!

Learn more about the “roundabout dogs” and Lars Vilks’ worldwide art project that promotes freedom of expression.

Would YOU like to join the art project?

Lars Vilks' Mo-doggie free speech graphic

If you have a blog, a Facebook page, or a website, you can participate in the art project by visiting this site and putting the Mo-doggie graphic on your sidebar, wall, or web page:

Support Free Speech: Join Lars Vilks’ Art Project

update from savage… I stripped out the external embedding on those videos to free up processing speed. Hope this helps, took me 10 minutes to get anything to load up on my end.

LGF 1.0: Obama greater than Jesus

by snork ( 130 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Humor, LGF, Media, Open thread, Progressives at December 30th, 2009 - 9:00 pm

Ok, it wasn’t from the blog, it was from the link viewer, but this is pretty bizarre:

EDITORIAL: Obama greater than Jesus

This isn’t a spoof. This is completely straight-faced serious. From Denmark, this is an actual op-ed:

He is provocative in insisting on an outstretched hand, where others only see animosity.

His tangible results in the short time that he has been active – are few and far between. His greatest results have been created with words and speeches – words that remain in the consciousness of their audience and have long-term effects.

He comes from humble beginnings and defends the weak and vulnerable, because he can identify himself with their conditions.

And no we are not thinking of Jesus Christ, whose birthday has just been celebrated – – but rather the President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama.

Is pot legal there?

On the other hand, we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few. At the same time, we have the wonderful parables about his life and deeds that we know from the New Testament, but which have been interpreted so differently over the past 2000 years that it is impossible to give an unequivocal result of his work.

Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game. But it is probably more meaningful to insist that with today’s domestic triumph, that he has already assured himself a place in the history books – a space he has good chances of expanding considerably in coming years.

Aye aye aye aye aye…

And with that, It’s open thread time.

Israeli FM Lieberman: Islamists Use Democracy to Promote Hatred

by WrathofG-d ( 193 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-Jihad, Iran, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Middle East, Political Correctness, Politics, Religion, Terrorism, World at November 10th, 2009 - 8:20 am

Even before he became the Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman has been the whipping boy for the Left.  With a insatiable fervor, the MSM and other bastions of the International Left have taken every opportunity possible to slander him nearly constantly with every negative label possible, and otherwise use him to distance Israel from the International community.

I knew then, and I still believe now why that is:

He keeps telling them what they don’t want to hear: the truth!

(IsraelNN.com) Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told his hosts during an official visit to Denmark on Monday that Islamic fundamentalists in Europe are abusing European Union freedoms to promote Islamic supremacy and anti-Semitism.

Radical Islamic elements are misusing the democratic tools granted to them by the European countries in order to agitate, aggravate and radicalize relations within and among these countries, at the same time increasing and encouraging anti-Semitic phenomena,” Lieberman said during a meeting with the Danish Minister of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs Birthe Rønn Hornbech…

While in Denmark, Foreign Minister Lieberman took part in dedicating a new memorial in honor of the country’s Jews who were deported to the Thereisenstadt concentration camp. He laid a wreath in memory of the victims and delivered remarks on behalf of the State of Israel. Lieberman noted that the people of Denmark risked their lives to save Jews who were to be sent to their deaths at the hands of the Nazis. For the nation’s collective resistance to Nazi anti-Semitism, “Denmark will always hold a special place in the history and in the hearts of the Jewish people,” he said.

Turning from the past to the present, Lieberman continued, “We are today again facing elements who threaten to destroy the Jews, not only those living in Israel. The Iranian regime is funding terrorist activity throughout the world and particularly against Jews. The State of Israel is responsible for all Jewish communities in the world, and all Jewish communities are responsible for the State of Israel. This cooperation is essential in order to halt this threat.”

Yet the danger is not to the Jews alone, the Foreign Minister emphasized, “The struggle against the Iranian threat is the greatest challenge that the democratic world faces today.”

{The Rest of The Article}

Avigdor Lieberman is everything that threatens the International Left’s grip on world affairs.  He is an unapologetic, proud Jew and Zionist, who is unafraid to stick his own neck out to ensure the security of his Country.  Even when it is unpopular and non-politically correct, he will unabashedly state any uncomfortable truth whether it be about the Islamist threat to Democracy in general, or the rampant disloyalty of the Israeli-Arabs/Muslims.

For this the Left has tried to destroy him.

-Previously Re:  Avigdor Lieberman

The Arab-Israel Conflict According To Avigdor Lieberman