Dispatch International: CounterJihad Publishes a Paper

6 September, 2012 Leave a comment

Article in loonwatch

Original Guest article

by Torbjörn Jerlerup

An international paper, published by counterjihad activists that believe that islam is “like the nazi ideology” and that muslims “are like nazis”?

A new paper, Dispatch International, was launched last month. The founders, and current editors, are Lars Hedegaard and Ingrid Carlqvist of the so called “Free Press Societies” of Denmark and Sweden. The founders plan to make it a regular weekly newspaper. They plan to publish the first regular issue in January next year, in several languages, including english.

The paper was presented at the “2012 International Conference for Free Speech and Human Rights in Brussels” (a european counterjihad conference where Fjordman, among others, participated) on July 9 this year:

We didn’t settle for running one Free Press Society each; since we both have a solid background as journalists we decided to start a newspaper. A good old, old-fashioned printed newspaper. We decided to call it Dispatch International because our vision is that this newspaper will become worldwide one day. But first we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin. Or rather – first we take Scandinavia and then we take the world! (…) We will let the facts talk, the facts that mainstream journalists hide from people.

What “facts” do they want to focus on? A closer look at the sample issue shows what they belive are “facts”: the claim that both multiculturalism and “muslims” threaten the world today.

As you can see on the frontpage, they have a picture of women dressed in Niqabs, and their kids, on it. Next to it is an article about Muslim demography. “Islam” is stronger than ever, it is claimed, and the number of “Muslims” are increasing more and more in Europe and outside Europe. Another article below the picture claims that their religion is based on a belief in a violent “warlord,” the prophet Mohammed.

If you open the paper and look at page 4, the slanders continue.

Lars Hedegaard writes about the “Truth”. The “Truth” according to Hedegaard is that Islam can be compared to Nazi ideology.

We consider Islam the most dangerous challenge to the Nordic countries and the entire West since the democracies succeeded in crushing Nazism and Fascism and beat back the third totalitarian ideology of the 20th Century, Communism.

That is why we will write a lot about Islam and Muslim immigration. Similarly, the politicians and authorities whose obligation it was to defend democracy and our Western civil liberties, but who chose to close their eyes to Islamization, are going to hear from us.

Dispatch International will be accused of hysteria and of being overly concerned with a problem that most journalists, politicians and experts consider trivial. During the 1930s the same accusation was leveled at the few newspapers that provided systematic coverage of Nazism and Nazi Germany’s aggressive plans. So we are in good company.

As if this was not enough there is an article by Paul Weston, of the nationalistic British Freedom Party, on the same page as the article by Hedegaard. In it he writes about “multiculturalism” and the “drawbacks of mass Islamic immigration.”

“Multiculturalism is a state-sanctioned tool used to encourage division to an extent that amounts to Apartheid; to destroy the Nation State; to politically and mentally disarm the native and indigenous populations and to ensure the total breakdown of civil society. Such an inevitable and anarchic situation could only then be countered by more and more rules and regulations, leading eventually to full totalitarian rule of a socialist bent – a slow-motion revolution as it were.

We can certainly expose multiculturalism as a totalitarian ideology of racial and cultural genocide. Only once this is accepted by the electoral majority can we reclaim Western Civilisation.”

The Muslims threaten the West with “racial and cultural genocide”…’Western Civilization is threatened’… That sounds like a seriuos paper, right? Or, not!

Lars Hedegaard and Ingrid Carlqvist

Who are Lars Hedegaard and Ingrid Carlqvist?

Hedegaard won international fame as an “expert” on islamization during the Danish Mohammed-cartoon affair. He created the “International Free Press Society” in 2009, modelled upon the Danish Free Press Society he founded back in 2004. It is an integrated part of the international counterjihad movement.

The irony is that the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who wants to ban the quran, is in the advisory board of the IFPS. So much for this “freedom” to publish anything. Freedom for all – except Muslims, it seems!

The other founder is Ingrid Carlqvist, a Swedish journalist.

Carlqvist and the political worldview of Breivik

Lets take a closer look at the worldview Carlqvist has. It is shows us what we can expect in the future from this new paper.

Carlqvist has a worldview which is typical of the counterjihad movement. It is a worldview similar to the view of the Norwegian terrorist Breivik, who murdered 77 people last year in Oslo and Utoya.

Breivik believes in the myth of “Eurabia,” the clam that Muslims are conspiring to occupy Western nations. According to him Europe is occupied by evil people that are “like the nazis,” that is the Muslims, and run by “Quislings” that cooperate with these new Nazis. (The term “quisling” was coined during WWII. Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian who collaborated with the Nazis.)

On his Facebook page Breivik described himself as the “Max Manus” of 2011. Max Manus was a famous resistance fighter during World War 2 who fought the Nazis and the Quislings, and murdered several Nazis during the war. Breivik compared himself to Max Manus and believed that the people he murdered were as evil as the Nazis and the Quislings in the ’40s.

The Leftist youth at Utöya were “quislings,” representatives of an occupying power, that had to be murdered, as he viewed it.

Breivik got this rhetoric from the counterjihad movement. Counterjihad likens the Muslims to the Nazis and Islam to Nazi ideology all the time.

Carlqvist shares this worldview. All of it, except perhaps, the belief in violence.

In a recent conversation with her on twitter I asked her what she meant by a tweet she made about the need to expose “dangerous ideologies.” “Do you mean that islam is a dangerous ideology?” I asked. “Yes, it is as dangerous as National Socialism, or more”, she answered.

In another exchange on facebook she stated:  In english this is: “Yes islam is dangerous, even if not all muslims are dangerous. Exactly like National Socialism is dangerous even if not all nazis are dangerous” (“Ja, islam är farlig även om inte alla muslimer är det. Precis som nazism är farligt även om inte alla nazister är det.”)

“Nazis” and “Quislings”

At a forum on Facebook called Free Press Forum, she has previously written similar things. She wrote a lot about Bruce Bawer, another European counterjihadist that Breivik admired.

Bruce published a book, The New Quislings: How the International Left Used the Oslo Massacre to Silence Debate About Islam, 2012, that Carlqvist recommended at the forum with the words: “Bruce Bawer compares the leftists with Vidkun Quisling, he is a brave man.”

She also compared Islam to Nazi ideology at the forum and the opponents were compared to quislings.

When confronted with the fact that Breivik too descibed the leftists that he murdered as “quislings”, she said: “you reason the way you do because you are one of the quislings…you are seeking to slander those of us who are critizising the islamization, by comparing us to Breivik”.

The threat, as she views it, is not only cultural, it is racial too. Europe is treathened by immigrants that have a lower IQ, she claims. Not surprisingly she believes that they are coming from MENA, that is, that they are Muslims.

Despite her frequent rants about Muslims and IQ, Carlqvist claims that she is not a racist and that Dispatch International is not racist because “the paper is critical to islam.”

/Torbjörn Jerlerup, researcher and blogger

Fake zionist quotes 2: Herzl: “The anti-Semites shall be our best friend”.

5 August, 2012 4 comments

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)

This quote has spread like a wildfire on the internet, among antisemites and uncritical haters of Israel, but it is fake. It is a falsification.

The problem is that this quote has been used by “respectable” scholars too. Like in my homecountry, Sweden the former diplomat Ingmar Karlsson.

Lets dissect the quote

Lets look at the original text.

The incomplete 1922 edition of the diaries in german can be found on the internet. If you look at it you will find that the quote has been heavy edited, compared to the german text. But antisemites usually claim that the german edition 1922 has been edited and is a falsification, so lets stick to an english edition instead.

I am using the 1960 edition of the diaries. ( The complete diaries of  Theodor Herzl. Vol. 1 / edited by Raphael Patai ; translated by Harry Zohn ). On page 83-84 you can find the quote.

It begins with visions and fantasies that Herzl has had about the struggel for the right of the Jews.

One of my dreams during the period of uncertainty was to force Alois Lichtenstein, Schönerer or Lueger to a duel.

If I had been shot, a letter left behind by me would have told the world that I fell a victim to to this most unjust movement. Thus my death might at least have improved the heads and hearts of men. But if I had shot my opponent, I wanted to make a magnificent speech before the assize court, first expressing my regrets at “the death of an honorable man,” like Mores who had stabbed Captain Mayer to death.

Then I would have gone into the Jewish Question, making a powerful, Lassalle- like speech which would have shaken and moved the jury and inspired respect from the court, leading to my acquittal. Thereupon the Jews would have offered to make me a member of parliament. But I would have been obliged to decline that, because I did not want to become a representative of the people over the dead body of a human being. — And now I find that the anti-Semites are fully within their rights.

It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property. To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not wish to bring about the impoverishment of the countries that we leave. At first they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise we shall spoil our instruments and make them despicable as “stooges  of the Jews.

Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have only Gentile officials in the countries from which we have emigrated. The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.

As you can see, the quote I first mentioned is clearly false.

Here are two photos of the book:

(Via google you can see that the photographies are not manipulated.)

As you can see there are great differences between the Herzl quote first mentioned and the real quote. The beginning is manipulated and the text “will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews” has been inserted.

The use of a falsification

CThe falsified quote circulates all over the world as an evidence of the “evil” of the early sionists. It is used as a “proof” that the jews are behind the antisemitic movement. It often accompanies another falsifications the “protocols of the elders of Sion”. The first source of this quote that I have been able to trace is the antisemite Andrew Carrington Hitchcock. who did exactly that.

Here is one example of the use of the quote by one of the antisemites: (Source: http://www.erichufschmid.net)

If you want to see how authors who are not antisemites treat the correct quote by Herzl, look at this book by Isaiah Friedman.

Categories: Fake zionist quotes

Fake zionist quotes 1: Ben Gurion and the german children (1938)

4 August, 2012 Leave a comment

The fundamental aim of the Zionists was not to save Jewish lives but to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Ben Gurion, Israel’s first head of State, declared outright to the “Labor” Zionists on December 7th 1938 : “If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.” (Source)

This quote is frequently used by anti-semites on the internet. You can see what the quote aims at. It wants to create the impression that the zionists in Palestine did not care about the victims of the Holocaust.

In this case the quote by Ben Gurion has already been exposed as false and Camera.org has written about it:


Ben Gurion and the Holocaust

• One of the particularly offensive canards long bandied about by so-called “post-Zionists” and anti-Zionist radicals is that  Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to promote immigration to Palestine against overall Jewish interests and the survival of European Jews. Citing Lenni Brenner’s Zionists in the Age of the Dictators — which has been thoroughly discredited as an unscholarly combination of fabrication, exaggeration and  quotations distorted through lack of context (Walter Laqueur, “The Anti-Zionism of Fools,” The New Republic, Nov. 1, 1987) — Ignatiev attempts to promote this disproved claim. He thus quotes Ben Gurion  to support his allegation that the Israeli leader “attach[ed] more importance to the establishment of Israel than to the survival of the Jews,” collaborating with the Nazis to achieve this goal.  The statement, as quoted by Ignatiev (via Brenner who, in turn, cites Yoav Gelber) is:

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half by transporting to Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel], then I would opt for the second alternative.  For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.

By cherry-picking a single comment, removing it from its context, and ignoring other comments made by Ben Gurion that directly contradict this interpretation, the author distorts history.

The Ben Gurion quote is taken from comments he made to Mapai’s central committee on December 7, 1938.  This followed Britain’s decision to deny entrance into Palestine of 10,000 German Jewish orphans in the wake of Kristallnacht,  instead offering them asylum within Great Britain. It was almost a year before the Nazis launched World War II and several years before the Final Solution (to annihilate the Jews) was methodically  implemented. While Ben Gurion believed that Germany’s anti-Jewish policies would necessitate creating a safe haven for numerous Jewish refugees that no other country was willing to accept,  he had no way of predicting the enormity of what was to follow.

The British offer to accept several thousand children appeared to be a gesture of conscience allowing Britain to close the doors of Palestine — not only  to those German orphans, but to future refugees as well.  Ben Gurion had recently witnessed the results of the international Evian conference, which had been convened in July 1938 to address the growing Jewish refugee problem, and knew that other countries were also unwilling to accept hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees. He believed that only a Jewish homeland would be able to properly absorb these Jews. Thus Ben Gurion stated that “our concern is not only the personal interest of these children, but the historic interest of the Jewish people” (translation from the stenographic records by Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion and the Holocaust, Harcourt Brace & Co. 1996, p. 47).

According to the records of the Mapai meeting, Yitzchak Ben Zvi immediately clarified Ben Gurion’s brusque remark, explaining “ten thousand children are a small part of Germany’s [Jewish] children…They [the British] don’t intend to save Germany’s Jews, and certainly not all of them. The moment the Jewish State Plan [the Peel plan] was shelved, the possibility of complete rescue of Germany’s Jews was shelved with it.” (ibid. p. 48)

There is ample evidence — ignored by Ignatiev — that Ben Gurion viewed the rescue of Jews as paramount. As early as 1936,  Ben Gurion told Palestine’s high commissioner, Sir Arthur Wauchope, that “had  there been the possiblity of bringing Poland’s Jews to the United States or Argentina, we would have done so regardless of our Zionist beliefs. But the world was closed to us. And had there also not been room for us in Palestine, our people would have had only one way out: to commit suicide” (Ben Gurion,Memoirs, p.3:105, cited in Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion and the Holocaust, pp xlix, 110). And in November 1941, Ben Gurion argued that “the supremely important thing now is salvage, and nation-building is incidental” (Teveth, ibid. p.xlviii).

It was only in November 1942 that the Yishuv became aware of the systematic slaughter of Jews. The Zionist leadership established a rescue committee and raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for the rescue mission. Ben Gurion made his priorities clear at a September 1943 fund-raising meeting of the Mobilization and Rescue Appeal in Jerusalem where he hailed the Allies’ invasion of Europe for “first of all, and foremost, the saving of Jews, then the saving of the Yishuv, and finally and thirdly the saving of Zionism” (cited in Teveth, p. 143). He emphasized the importance of funding the rescue mission, saying:

We must do whatever is humanly possible…to extend material aid to those working on rescue operations  in order to save [those who] can still be saved, to delay the calamity as far as it can be delayed. [And we must] do it immediately, to the best of our ability. I hesitate to say – since the matter is so serious – that we shall do our utmost; we are flesh and blood and cannot do the maximum, but we shall do what we can.  (quoted in Friling, Tuvia,  Arrows in the Dark, University of Wisconsin Press 2003)