By Theodore Shoebat
Euthanasia in the Netherlands is becoming disturbingly popular, so much so it is terrifying. As a recent report reveals:
An advertisement taken out in a major newspaper in the Netherlands by more than 200 Dutch doctors begins, “[Assisted suicide] for someone who cannot confirm he wants to die? No, we will not do that. Our moral reluctance to end the life of a defenseless man is too great. ”
The doctors, many of whom currently serve as assisted-suicide providers, are objecting to the unchecked growth of euthanasia in their country, where people who have reduced mental capacity due to dementia are being euthanised.
Current law allows doctors to euthanize without verbal consent if a written declaration of will has been provided in advance. In addition, a doctor has to also first determine that the patient is undergoing unbearable suffering. But with reduced mental capacity, patients are often unable to confirm that their former request to be euthanized — executed perhaps years earlier — is still valid.
A turning point
Alarm bells began to sound for these doctors a few years ago when an elderly woman was euthanized against her will.
The 80-year-old suffered from dementia. She had allegedly earlier requested to be euthanized when “the time was right” but in her last days expressed her desire to continue living.
Despite changing her mind about ending her life, her doctor put a sedative in the her coffee. When that wasn’t enough, the doctor enlisted the help of family members to hold down the struggling, objecting patient so that she could administer the lethal injection.
“Doesn’t someone have a right to change their mind?” asked Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. He told LifeSiteNewsearlier this year, “They sell it as choice and autonomy, but here’s a woman who’s saying, ‘no, I don’t want it,’ and they stick it in her coffee, they hold her down and lethally inject her.”
“It’s false compassion,” Schadenberg continued. “It’s killing people basically out of a false ideology” that treats euthanasia as somehow good when “it’s the exact opposite of what it actually is.”
In 2016, the Dutch doctor was cleared of wrongdoing by a euthanasia oversight panel. The chairman of that panel expressed hope that the case will go to court – not so the doctor can be prosecuted but so a court can set a precedent on how far doctors may go in such cases.
Troubling new legislation
That case remains fresh in the minds of the Dutch as ‘groundbreaking’ new legislation is being floated by the country’s lawmakers.
Legislators in the Netherlands have now proposed the ‘Completed Life Bill’ that would allow anybody age 75 or older to be euthanized even if they are healthy. If the legislation passes, it would be a big step toward the ultimate goal of making euthanasia available to any adult who wants it.
Alexander Pechtold, leader of the Dutch political party D66, said, “It’s my personal opinion that in our civilization dying is an individual consideration. You didn’t ask to be brought into the world.” He went on to explain that this new legislation would be one more step toward the universal availability of euthanasia, part of a process of steady incremental gains over the last few decades.
Belgium’s culture of death seeping into the Netherlands
Schadenberg quoted Belgian ethicist Freddy Mortier from an Associated Press article:
“Mortier was not happy, however, that the ‘hastening of death without explicit request from patients,’ which can happen when a patient slumbers into unconsciousness or has lost the capacity for rational judgment, stood at 1.7 percent of cases in 2013. In the Netherlands, that figure was 0.2 percent.”
The Netherlands appears to be going the way of nearby Belgium, with that 0.2 percent statistic climbing rapidly. In 2009, 12 patients with dementia were euthanized. In 2016, there 141 cases reported. And for those with psychiatric illness, there were no cases in 2009 but 60 in 2016.
Boudewijn Chabot, a psychogeriatrician and prominent euthanasia supporter, said in June that things are “getting out of hand.” He continued, “[L]ook at the rapid increase … The financial gutting of the healthcare sector has particularly harmed the quality of life of these types of patients. It’s logical to conclude that euthanasia is going to skyrocket.”
In North America, Alex Schadenberg warns, “People need to recognize that euthanasia or assisted-suicide laws will be abused. Will assisted death be your choice or will it be imposed on you?”
When we insist that neo-fascism will soon sweep throughout Europe and it will be ‘rightwing,’ many conservatives scorn at us. If you think that everything is hunky-dory perhaps its time to administer some serious shock-therapy of what is hiding beneath the hidden suits and smiles; plans for some serious killing fields, the slaughter of children that is akin to the horrors of the Third Reich and the Canaanites slaughtering children to Molech.
With the Dutch elections, for example, what most read in the headlines is that Mark Rutte of the People’s Party for Democracy and Freedom taking first place, and Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom taking second. Rutte’s party won 33 seats while Wilders won 20 seats. The mistake is that people listen to the analysts who are saying that this is a win for moderate politics over a far-right idealist. This is far from reality; the fascists have won this election in the Netherlands, a nation ran by nazis in suits.
Regardless of their titles, be they “center right” or “far right,” it would not be far-fetched that these two forces will one day unite. All of the news reports that I have perused have made it clear that they believe that Mark Rutte’s party will never make a coalition with Geert Wilders, because the former has said that they are eschewing such a unity. But look at whats happening in Sweden. In this Scandinavian country, the center-right Moderate Party, which is the second largest party in the Swedish parliament, numerous times has said that they would never join the far-right Sweden Democrats party. Now look at whats happening. In January of this year, the Moderates began talks about partnering with the Sweden Democrats, in a strategic decision to make the right-wing parties dominate the left in the parliament.
The far-right anti-immigration party, the Sweden Democrats, are the third largest party in Sweden, holding 49 out of the 349 seats in the Swedish parliament. The second largest party in Sweden is the center-right Moderate Party, which has 84 of the 349 seats in the Swedish parliament. The leader of the Moderates, Anna Kinberg Batra, recently invited the Sweden Democrats to join forces. There are other parties that are with the Moderates (in a coalition called the Alliance): the Christian Democrats, which currently holds 16 out of the 349 seats, the Centre Party (22/349 seats), and the Liberals (19/349 seats). If these parties make an alliance with the Sweden Democrats, they will defeat the currently ruling coalition of the Swedish parliament: The Social Democrats (113/349 seats) and the Green Party (25/394 seats). One Swedish reports states:
“Breaking a longstanding taboo, Sweden’s conservative Moderate Party last week opened the door for a cooperation with the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, causing a deep rift within the stunned four-party centre-right opposition Alliance.”
“It hasn’t worked to pretend that such a large party in parliament doesn’t exist,” Kinberg Batra told public broadcaster SVT. Kinberg Batra made her statements after calling on her Alliance partners to submit a joint budget to parliament and accept the far-right’s votes — indirect support which would,as a result, prevail over the minority left-wing government of the Social Democrats and the Greens. The same could be seen for the Netherlands. It will be unreasonable that the second largest party in the country would be ignored by the top party.
So, if the center-right in Sweden is showing a strong sign of willingness to work with the far-right Sweden Democrats — the third largest party in Sweden — then it shouldn’t surprise us if we one day see the center-right in the Netherlands working with Wilders’ party, now the second largest party in the Dutch parliament. Under the incentive of dominating the parliament, it would be efficient strategy for the center-right to join forces with Wilders. And at this point, what would prevent them from doing so?
And just to prove my case, that these people can unite: in 2012, the liberal Dutch Labor Party became the second largest party in the Netherlands, and Mark Rutte and his party made a coalition with them. Why? Because it was advantageous. In the 2017 election, the Labor Party watched as its number of seats plummeted from once having 38 seats to a pathetic nine seats. Now Geert Wilders is in the same position that the Labor Party was once in.
An observation comes to mind: In the 2012 Dutch election, the Labor Party won second place, while Wilders took third. But instead of progressing in the last election, the Labor Party collapsed miserably, while Wilders gained seats and made it to second. This obviously signifies that Wilders continues to rise, and by this it would be expedient for the center-right to join forces with Wilders. There was a March 17th report published on the Telegraph, that affirmed that Wilders’ party will have a substantial influence and that a coalition is almost inevitable:
“Geert Wilders and his far-Right Party for Freedom (PVV) have surged in popularity in recent years, and this has led to fears that the Netherlands could be the next western country to see an anti-establishment movement overturn the status quo. The Netherlands holds a General Election on March 15, with several parties expected to gain more than 10 seats – out of a total of 150. It means that coalition is a near-certainty, and with polls suggesting that Wilders’ party is likely to emerge as one of the largest parties, the far-Right is poised to have a big influence on negotiations.”
It would not be a shock to see Wilders making some sort of deal with Rutte.
In politics, there are not friends nor enemies, only the pursuit of power. Never pay attention to the common jargon that these people are enemies, they all know each other, and would not hesitate to make alliances.
As soon as the elections were done, many headlines popped up exclaiming that Geert Wilders lost and that Rutte was victorious. This is an easy statement to make at the surface level, but the reality is that Wilders, from being the third largest party, is now the second largest. That is not a loss, that is progress. It brings more political leverage for Geert’s party, more influence and preponderance. Be it Rutte or Wilders, both believe in darwinist ideas, such as euthanasia and infanticide. So truly, the victory for Rutte is a victory for fascism.
In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia. An overwhelming majority of Dutch parliamentarians voted in favor for euthanasia. The upper house voted by 46 to 28 to introduce the law, and over 90% of the Dutch population supported the bill. A Catholic Dutchman, named Oskar, protested in the senate courtyard the day the ruling was made, declaring:
“It was a propaganda war and they won. It was like Goebbels and the Nazis and that’s how they brainwashed the population. …Thou shalt not kill is an essential commandment for every society. There are so many old people in this country and they want to get rid of them. I worry about it a lot.”
In this particular State decree, it was established that euthanasia could only be conducted on people who are in “continuous, unbearable and incurable suffering.” The person who wants to die must be of a “sound mind” before requesting to be murdered by a suicide specialist. Like any other evil policy, such a measure escalates in increments; it extends, from having a smaller and seemingly harmless application, into giving the State and the elites more power to kill who they want.
In late 2016, it was reported that now the Dutch government wants to extend the euthanasia decree from just being limited to people suffering under continuously unbearable pain, to also being applied to healthy people who just want to kill themselves because they feel that they have “completed life.” Who supported this extension? Mark Rutte and his party. Edith Schippers, who is the health minister for the Netherlands, a member of the Dutch parliament and of Rutte’s party, read a letter to the Dutch Parliament in defense for this extension of the euthanasia edict. Edith said that the measure is necessary for “older people who do not have the possibility to continue life in a meaningful way, who are struggling with the loss of independence and reduced mobility, and who have a sense of loneliness, partly because of the loss of loved ones, and who are burdened by general fatigue, deterioration and loss of personal dignity.”
She also made it clear that the government of Mark Rutte hopes to have the measure drafted by the end of 2017. Edith Schippers is an interesting case. She is a member of Rutte’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), and at the same time, her mentor was Geert Wilders himself. As we read in one Dutch report:
“Schippers came with Geert Wilders as a mentor, in June 2003 in the House. She knew the ropes in parliament. In the early nineties, she was a member of the VVD. In 1997 she moved to the VNO-NCW, where she was engaged in health care, labor and land.”
In 2015, she expressed interest, as a member of Rutte’s party, to work with Geert Wilder’s Freedom Party (PVV):
“I myself think I should sit at the table with everyone. I do not see why I should rule out the PVV… . I work with everyone. Also with the PVV. “
Edith Schippers has an infanticidal ideology. In May of 2016, it was reported that she designated 400,000 euros to be spent on a study on the legitimacy of euthanizing children from under 1 year of age to 12 years of age. According to one report:
“The Dutch Health Minister, Edith Schippers, has earmarked almost 400,000 Euros for a study of whether to expand eligibility for euthanasia to children between 1 and 12. At the moment, children under 1 may be killed with the consent of their parents following criteria set out in the Groningen Protocols. Children older than 12 are already eligible.
After neighbouring Belgium passed legislation in 2014 enabling child euthanasia, doctors and activists in the Netherlands are keen to catch up.”
As we said at the beginning of this article, fascism is taking over the Netherlands. And if the Nazis gassed those they deemed as “undesirable,” the Dutch fascists are already making the steps towards that genocidal hegemony. Technically, child euthanasia for children under the age of twelve is illegal in the Netherlands. But, if a doctor euthanizes a child under twelve, he will not be prosecuted as long as the killing was done under the “Groningen Protocol,” which is a set of requirements needed in order for infanticidal act to be considered legal:
“The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering
The consent of the parents to termination of life
Medical consultation having taken place
Careful execution of the termination”
But if Rutte and his party get his way, these guidelines will not be necessary as it would become legal to euthanize very young children without the specified protocol. And we know how this will be twisted later on to keep expanding euthanasia, from being voluntary to being done with the force of the State. Schippers also wants the Dutch government to provide abortion pills that kill unborn children. According to one 2016 report:
“Public Health Minister Edith Schippers wants Dutch general practitioners to be able to prescribe a pill that would terminate a pregnancy in its early stages, she wrote in a letter to parliament on Monday, NU.nl reports.
According to Schippers, a study done by the Dutch GP society NHG shows that this so-called abortion pill can be safely and effectively prescribed by a house doctor up to six weeks and two days into a pregnancy. Only after that does the chance of complications increase.
Currently women need to go to an abortion clinic or hospital to terminate pregnancy with a drug treatment. Schippers argues that women feel safer discussing such a step with their house doctor. And allowing GP’s to prescribe the pill can also help in after-care and prevent repeated abortions.
Schippers wants the abortion pill to be available from GP’s from next year, provided that the legislative amendment gets sufficient support in the Senate. Whether or not this will be achieved remains to be seen. Christian parties in particular are against easing the abortion law.”
Schippers is a fanatic eugenist, who, just like Nazism, believes in the extermination of all children with down syndrome. Schippers wants a test called NIPT (Non Invasive Prenatal Testing), which can detect if an unborn child has down syndrome, to be available to all women in the Netherlands. In Iceland this test has been made available, and because of this from 2008 onward, according to the advocacy group Down Pride’s appeal to the United Nations, all unborn children pre-natally diagnosed with Down syndrome have been murdered at the womb in the country.
Edith Schippers, a major member of Mark Rutte’s party who was brought up to the upper echelons of power in the Netherlands by Geert Wilders, wants a world without children with down syndrome. When she was asked whether or not she wants in the Netherlands what is happening in Iceland with children with down syndrome, Schippers said:
“If freedom of choice results in a situation that nearly no children with Down syndrome are being born, society should accept that.”
In other words, Schippers wants genocide on children with down syndrome. This is reflective of the ideology of Rutte’s party, and indicates that Rutte’s victory is not a triumph against fascism, but an advancement of Nazism’s eugenics.
In late 2015, members of the Dutch Association of Pediatrics pushed for legislation in favor for parents having “doctors” killing their infant children. Edith Schippers has been in favor for this infanticidal and hitlerian measure. According to one Dutch report:
“If a child is incompetent, parents should be able to consult with the doctor to decide on euthanasia, doctors found. The House of Representatives and Minister Edith Schippers of Public Health (VVD) have been waiting for over a year on this vision. If it is adopted, an amendment is required.”
Notice the words used, “If a child is incompetent” — that is, if a human being is deemed useless to the hitlerian utopia, he should be exterminated. People should learn how to read between the lines. This is exactly what a Nazi mentality is, and from this we know that it is returning. It is no wonder that, just last month, Schippers received the “Paul Weathered Award” from the “Dutch Association for a Voluntary End of Life.”
In 2016, the official website for the Dutch House of Representatives published a statement on the guidelines for killing newborn babies, with which Schippers is in full agreement:
“Sometimes a child is suffering, during pregnancy or shortly after birth, from conditions so serious that medical treatment is useless. In such a case parents can decide, in consultation with the medical practitioner, to end the pregnancy or the life of the newborn child. This is of course a very difficult decision, which has to be carried out very carefully. That is why a set of rules has been set up. Medical practitioners have to comply with these rules. …Termination of life of a newborn child or late-term abortion (after 24 weeks) are punishable offenses in the Netherlands, but a medical practitioner who fulfills the requirements of due care will not be prosecuted.”
In one Dutch article on this situation it reads: “In the Netherlands it is not allowed to commit euthanasia on children aged one to twelve years. The Dutch Association of Pediatrics (NVK) proposes to take the mental competence of the child as a benchmark rather than the calendar age of twelve.” The nazis of Rutte’s party want to allow for the killing of newborn children, and we all know what this will lead to: an unborn child has no say so in his killing, and so if the State can mandate the murder of a human being against his will at such a young age, then it will simply continue to increase the age, from under one year of age, to a more older person. They begin to legislate euthanasia as voluntary suicide, and then when they want to readjust it to non-voluntary death (murder), they must at first do it to infants, since they have no voice, and then gradually they will move up to older children, and then to adults.
On October of 2016, Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) opposed an age limit for euthanasia. In one Dutch report it explicitly states: “The VVD is opposed to such an age limit.” VVD member, Arno Rutte, opposing the age limit on euthanasia, said: ‘It would be good if it were possible for people who consider their lives to be completed to have a way to end their lives in a dignified manner”.
All of these facts show that the largest party in the Netherlands, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), is not some force of moderation, but a eugenist party the ideology of which is closer to that of the Nazis than any sort of temperate body of politicians. The VVD is not too far apart ideologically from Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV). Both believe in euthanasia, in infanticide, and other darwinistic evils. In a 2013 report on the PVV, written by Marlene Spoerri, it says:
“Nor has the PVV advocated for a return to traditional family values. To the contrary, the party is a vocal supporter of women and gay rights, the legality of euthanasia, embryo selection and abortion – rights it believes are under siege throughout Europe.”
Homosexuality and eugenics, the perfect combination for any despotic organization. Why do you think he believes in “embryo selection”? Because in such an evil practice, one unborn child is chosen over the rest because of its genetic traits. The promotion for “embryo selection” is nothing but a nascent stage for outright genocide on humans already born. Look to the Holocaust: those who could work, lived; those who couldn’t, died. Those who fit a certain image, lived; those who did not, were killed. This is the ultimate goal of the promoters of “embryo selection”.
The PVV is using the threat of Islamic terrorism to bolster their Darwinist ideology. Geert Wilders is but an agent for the advancement of hitlerian and eugenist religion, and perversity. There is a reason why Wilders spoke last year for the “gays for Trump” conference, in which he talked in front of pederastic images, alongside the advocate for pedophilia and sodomite supremacist, Milo Yiannopoulos, and the counterjihad loon, Pamela Geller. Behold, the man who the mob praises as a savior of “Western civilization”:
The Counterjihad movement is what paved the way for the Alt-Right; Counterjihad is the precursor to the Alt-Right and Identitarian movements in the West. As I have said in numerous of my videos, the Counterjihad movement begins with 9/11; the September 11th attacks were the transition point between nationalist movements being nobodies to being influential organizations. In 2007, just six years after 9/11, the Counterjihad summit was conducted in the Brussels parliament building, launching Counterjihad as an official movement. The summit was organized by an EU parliamentarian named Filippe DeWinter of the Vlaams Belang Party. This summit had speakers from all over the West, including Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, UKIP politician and EU parliamentarian Gerard Batten, German eugenist Stefan Herre, Ted Ekeroth of the Sweden Democrats, and the Danish Marxist, Lars Hedegaard. Why are “counterjijadists” working with a marxist? The fact alone evinces the pernicious nature of the whole movement.
A Counterjihad blogger who calls himself “Conservative Swede” made an interesting statement in a 2007 post about the rise of Counterjihad and how the creation of the movement was all thanks to 9/11:
“With the 9/11 attacks and the far-going Islamization of Europe as background, European nationalism is no longer a fringe issue. Now there is real substance to it, and a real critical mass of popular support has emerged, and the good example of the Danish People’s Party has shown the way. In this process we see new parties emerging, the original nationalist parties transforming, and old traditional parties joining. In the last decade we’ve seen the creation of the UK Independence Party, Philippe de Villiers’ Mouvement pour la France, and the Danish People’s Party, to name a few. Nationalist parties, such as the Sweden Democrats, have been transformed (more about that later). Traditional parties such as the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) have joined.”
The Counterjihad begins at 9/11. From 9/11, came the invasion of Iraq (under the justification of 9/11); with the invasion of Iraq, came ISIS (the great alibi); with ISIS, came the migration crises. With the migration crises, came the highest point of energy that the Counterjihad has ever received, and this enthusiasm was for the spawn of the Counterjihad: the eugenists of our times, some of whom label themselves as the “Alt-Right.” Much of the Counterjihad today share the same eugenist views of the Alt-Right (read our full in-depth investigation on this by clicking here), so the two, to a great extent, are inseparable. The observation that the migration crises, caused by the wars in Iraq and Syria, has bolstered the position of the Alt-right type organizations in Europe, was made by Foreign Policy:
“Europe also is coping with the consequences of the Middle East’s civil wars in the form of massive refugee flows and terrorist attacks. The fear these consequences have generated has strengthened far-right political parties with anti-immigrant, law-and-order messages, contributing to the Brexit victory in Britain and threatening ultimately to undermine the European Union as a whole.”
The Counterjihad was first launched in 2007 when the EU parliamentarian, Filip DeWinter, the leader of the Vlaams Balang (previously known as Vlaams Blok) party of Flanders, organized the Counterjihad summit in Brussels, to which many leading figures of the movement — such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Lars Hedegaard,— were invited. When studying DeWinter, one will find his Nazi roots. DeWinter is an admirer of Staf De Clercq, the co-founder and leader of the Vlaamsch National Verbond (Flemish National League) who collaborated with the Nazis and happily welcomed them when they occupied Belgium; he also supported the Nazis’ rounding up and deportation of Jews. De Clercq once declared: “We are faithful to Adolf Hitler. The Flemish are Germans … That is why we will be racist, anglo-phobe and anti-Jewish.” (See Roni Stauber, Collaboration with the Nazis, ch.6 p. 93) A journalist once told DeWinter:
“Gustave ‘Staf’ de Clercq, the Flemish nationalist leader during the war, openly collaborated with the Nazis. After the deportation of Jews began, he was said to have remarked: ‘Now we can breathe easier.’ Nevertheless, many members of your party revere his memory and participate in ceremonies to mark the anniversary of his death.”
To this, DeWinter responded:
“He is one of the historic leaders of the party. This is part of the history of the Flemish nationalist movement and it is impossible to deny this. We are the descendants of this movement. Some of the members of the party attend these events because they want to honor the heritage of the Flemish movement. This does not mean that they agree with Nazism. Not at all. I understand that this is hard to understand as a Jew. I respect very much that Jews have a problem with this. But Jews must also understand that this is not as simple as it seems. Not all of the [Nazi] collaborators wanted to kill the Jews in Europe. Most of the collaborators had other motives. I think that if they were living today, most of them would be ashamed of what happened to the Jews. The only thing I can do today is to say that I respect very much the suffering of the Jewish people, to express my sympathy and condolences about what happened and to try to move far away from this. But the Jewish people must understand that not every collaborator was necessarily anti-Semitic.”
This statement is what I would call “Right-Wing taquiyya,” in which a person strings together statements that seem to be ones of reconciliation, alongside statements that will not turn away from the dangerous beliefs that the person in question is advancing. While he says, “I respect very much the suffering of the Jewish people,” he defends his comrades by saying , “Some of the members of the party attend these events because they want to honor the heritage of the Flemish movement. This does not mean that they agree with Nazism.” He says this, knowing full well that the persons that they are ‘honoring’ were those of Nazi ideology and sympathies. Believing DeWinter would be to ignore his own previous actions. One can give DeWinter the benefit of the doubt, but it would not be of merit once put against the fact that he works with Jared Taylor, the leader and founder of the eugenist cult, American Renaissance (Amren).
In 2016, Filip DeWinter spoke at the official Amren conference. The fact that he was invited by Amren to speak for the group, indicates that there was prior collaboration and discourse between DeWinter and Taylor. This is further evinced by the fact that Taylor shared a platform with DeWinter in the 2012 “Nationality, Citizenship, Identity” conference in Paris. When introducing DeWinter to the podium at the Amren conference, Taylor said: “I first met our next speaker, Filip DeWinter, eight years ago. He was part of a delegation from the Vlaams Belang to the United States.”
The two met eight years prior to the 2016 meeting, which had to have been in 2008, not too long after DeWinter organized the October 19th, 2007 Counterjihad Brussels conference, the event which established the Counterjihad movement of people like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Lars Hedegaard. According to a report published by the New York Times, the Counterjihad summit in Brussels “threw her [Pamela Geller] — and Mr. Spencer of Jihad Watch — together with anti-Islamic Europeans whom even some allies considered too extreme, like Filip Dewinter of Vlaams Belang, an offshoot of a Belgian party that was banned for racism and was allegedly founded by Nazi sympathizers.”
The Counterjihad, especially its acolytes in America, provided tremendous amounts of support and energy for the Nazi parties in Europe. A good example of this is the relationship between one of the leading figures of the Counterjihad, Robert Spencer, and the Nazi founded Sweden Democrats party. In 2010, Robert Spencer wrote: “I spoke in Sweden at the invitation of the Sweden Democrats last July; you can see the videos here and here.” The videos are no longer there. But, the fact remains that Spencer spoke for the Sweden Democrats and has continuously supported them on his website, using his audience and the hysteria of the right-wing to bolster their position as being amongst the saviors of Europe. Let us see some information on the Sweden Democrats, in order to show their Nazi sympathies and connections.
Within the Sweden Democrats there are politicians who use a calculative strategy to subtly and elusively introduce Nazi sympathies. For example, one member of the Sweden Democrats, Stellan Bojerud, once wrote:
“I admire the efforts that a number of SS officers and frontiersmen did in honest battle between nations and I condemn as hard as I can the abuse that not only SS but also other Nazi organizations did to achieve the Holocaust.”
While he praises the SS — who carried out extermination orders — he condemns the Holocaust. By condemning the Holocaust, he attempts to cancel out expected criticism, while at the same time praising the Nazi SS. This is paralleled to the strategy that was put together by Nazi identitarians after the Second World War; the strategy was to belittle Nazi atrocities while praising the resistance that was done against the Third Reich. By downplaying Nazi atrocities and praising anti-Nazi resistance, they could change the national consensus — by breaking the taboos of using Nazi themes — in favor towards fascism, while at the same time not appearing as Nazis. All of these strategies are done in a very calculated and sophistical way for the purpose of mass manipulation to reintroduce fascism. Brendan Peter Simms, a Professor of the History of International Relations in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Cambridge, wrote about this strategy:
“Historians played down the Nazi genocide and exalted ‘German’ resistance to Hitler—it was part of a national survival strategy. … Using private correspondence, diaries and published materials, [historian] Mr. [Nicholas] Berg exposes a concerted strategy within the West German historical profession to play down the Nazi genocide and exalt German resistance to Hitler.”
The Sweden Democrats was founded by an ex-member of the Waffen SS named Ulf Ranshede, in 1988. Gustav Ekstrom was another member of the Sweden Democrats; he was also a member of the Waffen-SS for which he worked as a Nazi propagandist, disseminating and advertising articles for them for the purpose of recruitment. He also served as a propagandist for the SS-Hauptamt, working in a building that was once a Jewish retirement center that was stolen by the Nazis. In 1933 he helped form the Swedish Socialist Coalition, and in 1936 he became the national secretary for the Nordic Youth, and then in 1941 he joined the Waffen-SS. At the age of 88, he was elected into the Sweden Democrats.
In 1994, a man named Jimmie Akkesson — who is now the current leader of the party — joined the Sweden Democrats while it was still under Nazi leadership. Akkeson, in a 1994 letter, wrote:
“The first contact with SD [Sweden Democrats], we had some time in December the same year (1994, editor’s note), and during a meeting on New Year’s Eve, we decided to start working politically, and that a local SDU [Sweden Democrats Youth] department would eventually be formed”
Although Akkesson denies holding any Nazi sentiments, the fact that he joined the Sweden Democrats when it was under Nazi leadership, indicates otherwise. When Akkesson joined the party, it was under the leadership of Anders Klarström , who was convicted of possessing illegal firearms, and also of sending a death threat to a Jewish theater director named Hagge Geigert. Geigert was very outspoken against racism and Klarstrom, upset about this, told him that he was a “Jew pig” and that he would burn him alive. Klarstrom was also a member of the neo-Nazi Nordic Reich Party.
Klarstrom was also a musician who performed for a band called Commit Suiside. Another member of this band was a man named Ulf Ekberg, who once wrote these lyrics for the band:
“Men in white hoods march down the road, we enjoy ourselves when we’re sawing off niggers’ heads/ Immigrant, we hate you! Out, out, out, out! Nordic people, wake up now! Shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot!”
Jimmie Akesson began working in the party in 1994, when Klarstrom was still the leader of the Sweden Democrats. Apparently Klarstrom’s Nazi ideology did not bother him. People will argue that in 1995 Klarstrom resigned from the Sweden Democrats, thus proving that the party was purging itself from Nazi influence. But, in 1999, the Sweden Democrats worked with an official SS member, named Franz Schonhuber. Franz was a member of the Waffen-SS and the founder of the German far-right party, the “Republicans.” As we read in one report: “the old Waffen-SS soldier Franz Schönhuber is a guest at an SD election meeting along with Yvan Blot, one of Front National’s chief ideologues. Schönhuber visited Sweden before, back in the day when Anders Klarströms was SD leader.” So Franz was active with the Sweden Democrats when the neo-Nazi Klarstrom was the leader, and he continued to be active with them after he resigned, proving that the party still had Nazi sympathies after its claimed purge.
The other figure mentioned as being in the meeting with the SS member, Franz Schonhuber, was Yvon Blot. Blot was the major ideologue for the Front National Party in France and was close to Jean-Marie Le Pen. Blot was elected into the European Parliament as a member of the Front National in 1989. In 1974, he established a significant organization for the French New Right, called the Club de L’horloge (the Clock Club).
Blot saw the New Right as a cultural revolution, oriented towards ethnocentric ideology, specifically reverence for the Indo-European race. Blot wrote: “The Revolution and its values, hitherto associated with the left, were relocated in a lineage which saw 1789 as the reassertion of the pure origins of Indo-Europeanism”. (Wolfreys 1993:419, in Douglas R. Holmes, Integral Europe, p. 83)
In other words, the French Revolution of 1789 — with all of its beheadings of Catholics, its cannibalism and sadism — was the manifestation of the superiority of the Indo-European race. The ideologue who taught this, Yvon Blot, is a close ally with the Sweden Democrats.
The French New Right was really the archetype for the Identitarian and Alt-Right movements in the West today. Yvon Blot was one of the pioneers of the New Right, he has worked with the Sweden Democrats, and the Sweden Democrats are in deep with the Counterjihad movement, as can be seen in their association with figures like Robert Spencer. There is indeed an interconnection between the Alt-Right and Counterjihad; the latter provided the informational leverage (flooding the internet with stories on terrorism and the migration crises) by which the New Right (or Alt-Right) could provide justification for itself, and gain popularity by making itself out to be a savior type against a perceived invasion by immigrants.
The Prime Minister of Sweden, Stefan Lofven, declared that when the current leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Akkesson, joined the party, Swastikas began to be used in the political organization’s meetings. The Sweden Democrats, of coursed, denied the claim.
These populist political parties, fueled by the information machine of the Counterjihad movement, are gaining leverage solely because of the recent and current migration crises. These parties were nobodies until the migration crises; this has been the cause, for the most part, for parties like AfD (Alternative Party for Deutschland), Front National, and the Sweden Democrats. This rise in political influence and leverage for these parties, springs from the mass migration of Muslims, and as long as the crises continues, what will increase is the popularity for these parties. Elias Groll, writing for Foreign Policy, made this interesting observation back in 2014:
“Sweden has failed to integrate its massive immigrant population — a problem that will continue benefitting the Sweden Democrats.”
In a 2015 report by The Economist, it also agrees with this observation:
“As refugees poured into Europe this year, right-wing populists switched back to denouncing immigration. Television footage of chaos at the border served as perfect campaign propaganda.”
Jimmie Akesson, the leader of the Sweden Democrats, himself admitted that he and his party are using the migration situation to boost up their position. “We now have a platform for our ideology, and that is very important because we know that we have a big opportunity to get even more supporters,” said Akesson back in 2010.
Islamic terrorism and mass Islamic migration was used by the nazis of our time to give birth to a new form of hitlerian ideology. As the Nazis of the past used the threat of Communism to empower their position, the Nazis of today are doing the same with the threat of Islam, and many conservatives are falling for it as they did in the past. It was this very strategy that was being utilized when Filip DeWinter organized the Counterjihad movement, and the masses jumped on this boat without a care about his Nazi roots.
There is a video of Filip Winter in which he is screaming out: “Yes, Vlaams Blok will put our own people first and yes, Vlaams Blok will have a Flemish Flanders and YES, the Vlaams Blok will have a white Europe! “.
In order to create a “white Europe,” one would have to conduct a policy of ethnic cleansing, a violent policy of eugenics. It is no wonder that DeWinter works with Amren, an organization that openly calls for eugenist tyranny and society, a world more akin to Brave New World than an actual civilization based on Christian ethics. In the official website of Amren, there is an interview, conducted by the organization, with eugenist Richard Lynn, in which he says:
“I conclude by predicting the inevitability of a future eugenic world in which couples will select genetically desirable embryos for implantation and there will be huge improvements in the genetic quality of the populations of economically developed countries where these technologies are adopted.”
“Desirable embryos,” that is selecting the unborn you want, and murdering the rest. The destruction of human life as an unborn child, will always lead to the systematic genocide of people already born. The same cult makes their eugenist utopian vision quite obvious: “Eugenics is the obvious solution, but it is notoriously difficult to accomplish.”
The racism of the Vlaams Belang (formerly known as the Vlaams Blok), does not only apply to non-whites, but is against French speakers as well. According to one documentary on the political organization:
“The leaders of the Vlaams Blok, so to speak, want an 1830 revolution, but upside down. The Dutch would kick the French-speakers out of Brussels and the former capital of Belgium and Europe would become an important city in a territory where only Dutch would be spoken.”
In 1988, Filip DeWinter, joined a demonstration of a hundred or so Nazi sympathizers (himself included). The plan of these neo-Nazis was to enter the Lommel German war cemetery where 40,000 Nazi German Wehrmacht soldiers were buried, and put flowers on their graves. Here is an image of DeWinter in the neo-Nazi demonstration:
With Filip DeWinter was the Nazi, Bert Eriksson. Eriksson was a member of the Hitler Youth during the Second World War, and a Nazi fanatic who received media attention in 1978 when he travelled to Austria and dug up the remains of the Nazi collaborator, Cyriel Verschaeve, and brought them back to Alveringem.
In 1968, Eriksson opened a cafe called “Den Odal,” as a central meeting place for neo-Nazis. One of the cafe’s allies was a homosexual German neo-Nazi leader named Michael Kühnen (See Witte and Bjorgo, Racist Violence in Europe, p. 88), who would later die from HIV in 1991.
Bert Eriksson was one of the fathers of the Vlaams Belang party, and here was Filip DeWinter, who is now an EU parliamentarian, with him in a demonstration to honor the Nazis at their gravesite. What can one conclude from this? The Counterjihad movement was founded by a Nazi within the EU, who wants to break down the EU. The EU is already breaking down, and with it being reduced, could the rise of militarism in Central Europe, and the fragmentation of the European Union, lead to a Central European Union with Germany being its head? It would not surprise me in the least.
Donald Trump recently said regarding the EU, “I don’t really care whether it’s separate or together.” Just a few days ago, Trump said that “Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!” With Trump’s apathy towards the EU, and his explicit push for Germany to pay more money to the US, Germany is using this attitude of the American president to justify its own return to militarism.
Trump’s shift towards Americanism and protectionism is giving Germany and Japan the pretext by which to build stronger ties under a sense of Japanese-European cooperation in the midst of American indifferentism. The perspective used is: America does not care about us, so then we must defend ourselves. Angela Merkel and Shinzo Abe just called for stronger economic partnership between Japan and Germany. “Internationally, we are seeing a tendency toward protectionism and navel-gazing,” Abe said regarding Trump’s protectionist policy, alongside Merkel in a news conference at the CeBit tech show in Hanover, Germany, on Monday. “What we need is trade that’s both fair and free.”
The talk of Germany, that the US is becoming cold towards European security, sounds eerily similar to the type of discourse that was heard in Germany in the twenties. In 1923, the leading coal and steel baron of the Ruhr (which was the center of German industry), Hugh Stines, was lobbying in Berlin to have the government merge all of the steel interests in the Ruhr in order to form it to be the economic basis for a “new state structure” that would establish a “mediating role between France and Germany.” Stinnes concluded that there was no “significant help” was to be “expected from America or England”. Stinnes told the German ambassador in Washington of how he envisioned a “continental block” that would be headquartered in Germany and that would resist “Anglo-Saxon” hegemony. (See Tooze, The Deluge, ch. 24, p. 452)
With the EU fragmenting, with the EU deliberately wanting terrorism to use as an excuse for militarism (of which I have written on here), with EU politicians like Filip DeWinter starting the Counterjihad as an anti-EU movement, one can suspect a very interesting observation: the European Union helped start the war in Syria to commence the migration crises with the deliberate intention to spark populism, anti-immigrant sentiment (under the guise of various titles such as “counterjihad”) and to fragment the EU, in order to justify the bolstering of a German revival of militarism, within the realm of a newly formed bloc, a union led by a militarized Germany, full of fanatics, charged by the ideology of a diabolical science, the envisioning of a war against humanity itself.