Hamburg: 1000+ Moslems Demand a 'Caliphate', Threatening Germans

The chicken are coming home to roost, again, proving the WEF's 'prediction' correct

And now this happened in Hamburg, Germany: according to police, some 1,100 Moslems—mostly, if not exclusively so, young men—took to the streets. This was so patently absurd, it didn’t escape ‘even’ Elon Musk’s notice who, upon seeing footage of the event, asked:

Surely demanding overthrow of the government in Germany is illegal?

So, here’s what happened, according to alt-news outlet Nius.de (here and below, translation and emphases mine):

At the Islamist demonstration in Hamburg on Saturday, a statement was made that once again emphasised the danger of Islamism. A speaker on stage announced that when ‘the cards are reshuffled’ and the ‘sleeping giant awakens’, politicians and the media will be ‘held accountable’.

Politicians and the media should think carefully about their stance on Islam and Allah, as they will have to answer for their actions and words after an unclear announcement.

‘In all clarity, so that the whole world can hear it: Germany, politics and the media—you should all position yourselves carefully towards Moslems, towards Islam, and towards Allah. Because when the cards are reshuffled and the sleeping giant awakens again, you will you be held accountable…’

The news portal Apollo asked the Hamburg police whether an investigation had been launched following the Islamist demonstration. ‘They refused to respond to this enquiry, even after repeated telephone enquiries’, said Apollo.

Here is a link to footage, courtesy of The Free Press Journal:

This is neither the first nor an occurrence unique to Germany. Yes, I’m convinced that the current uptick in violence in the Middle East is fuelling these events, yet we must also acknowledge its core distinctive feature:

Above all, I’d argue, these scenes show both the disillusionment of many Moslems in ‘the West’ and, if combined with low-and-falling birth rates, a clear and present danger to the continued survival of Western societies at-large.

Official Germany Reacts

The below lines come to us via the Tagesspiegel whose editors obtained reactions from the Federal Gov’t:

Following a demonstration organised by Islamists in Hamburg, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) has called for ‘tough intervention’ by the state at such events and praised the work of the police. ‘Seeing such an Islamist demonstration on our streets is hard to bear. It is good that the Hamburg police counteracted criminal offences with a large contingent’, Faeser said…

‘Our red lines must be very clear: no terrorist propaganda in favour of Hamas, no hate speech against Jews, no violence.’ If such offences occur, ‘there must be immediate, harsh intervention at demonstrations’, said the SPD politician: ‘That is the red line where the far-reaching protection of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression ends.’

Security authorities [orig. Sicherheitsbehörden] continue to monitor the Islamist scene , said Faeser. She pointed out that she had banned the terrorist organisation Hamas and the Samidoun group in Germany in November 2023. ‘This means that any activity is prohibited and a criminal offence, including propaganda speeches’, said Faeser.

‘The security authorities are keeping a very close eye on compliance with the bans. Our security authorities are also focusing on other groups that want to emotionalise, radicalise, and recruit new Islamists’, said the Interior Minister, adding: ‘This also applies to the group that is suspected of being the main force behind the demonstration in Hamburg.’

And this is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.

Talk is Cheap, and Action is Long Overdue

For decades, Islam has been considered ‘part of Germany’ (substitute other countries here), and I would bet the farm on the majority of these ‘protestors’ being—German citizens, either naturalised or second/third-generation immigrants.

In a series of pieces earlier this year, we’ve discussed what I call ‘Stupid Watergate’, an attempt to entrap a sizeable segment of potential ‘right-wing’ leaders and smear them. This has failed, for now, but the result are ever-more anti-German sentiments. There is no ‘patriotism’, such as having the German flag—that early nineteenth-century banner adopted in the (late) Romantic era—at ‘anti-hate’ rallies.

German Gov't-Ordered Protests 'Against the Right' Reveal 'True' Colours

Do not be fooled by the gov’t’s words, for the core issue has been carefully left unaddressed: there is a sizeable contingent of foreigners dwelling amidst Westerners whose contempt for whatever ‘values’ of ‘ours’ is palpable.

Separation of church and state—a ‘caliphate’ is demanded, by which the melding of secular and spiritual (sic) authority is mean, albeit without any of the toleration for non-believers displayed and practiced for centuries by, e.g., the defunct Ottoman Empire.

Freedom and Liberty, constitutional governance (such as it were), and the possibility of difference, do not exist in Islamic countries to the same degree as they (still) exist in ‘the West’.

‘We’ have been warned, by none other than the leaders of some Islamic countries, such as the UAE’s Foreign Minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan who, in 2017 (!) said the following (source):

There will come a day when we see far more radicals, extremists, and terrorists coming out of Europe because of a lack of decision-making, trying to be politically correct, or assuming that they know the Middle East or Islam far better than we do.

Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan spoke these words seven years ago, yet they ring eerily prescient.

We shall not mince words here, either.

There are limits to the amount of foreigners any society may take in, and there is but a fraction of these who can be successfully assimilated.

None of this is new, and if in doubt, I highly recommend reading E.A. Ross’ The Old World in the New (1914).

Whence Does ‘European Islamophobia’ Cometh From?

That said, many of the associated, or derivative, issues are, while largely true, something like a smoke-screen, hence we may take another dive into a quite different rabbit-hole.

Take, e.g., the quite detailed exposé by David Hearst that appeared little over a year ago in The Middle East Eye (7 April 2023). Here, we may read the following details:

There is one powerful foreign agenda at play, which has a completely different motive for stoking Islamophobia in Europe and the US. This campaign has been running for a decade and was launched in response to the Arab Spring…

This campaign is funded by a government with bottomless pockets. And what’s worse, the brains behind it is a Muslim. He is now the president of United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed.

Oh, look, the very same Mr. bin Zayed who, in 2017, ‘warned’ the governments and peoples of ‘the West’. Isn’t this…interesting?

I shall quote from Mr. Hearst’s piece extensively, and I highly recommend reading that MEE piece in full, for it will provide—in my opinion—crucial details that permit a fuller understanding of what transpired in Germany on the weekend.

The piece begins in Scotland, which recently saw its first Moslem head of government, Humza Yousef, take office. Mr. Hearst then sets the stage by telling the story of how the UAE first blamed, and subsequently engaged in, a massive propaganda-cum-intelligence operation to eliminate other Moslem organisations, primarily in ‘the West’:

On the day of Yousaf’s election as first minister, The New Yorker revealed how the UAE paid a private intelligence firm based in Geneva, Alp Services, to smear Britain’s largest Muslim charity, Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), by seeking to link its officials with the Muslim Brotherhood and violent extremists.

And then, about a third into the article, the truly mind-boggling part commences (again, emphases mine):

In 2014, at the very start of this campaign, the UAE published a list of 86 ‘terror groups’, which included the Council on American-Islamic Relations. It alleged IRW was a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a charge the organisation fulsomely rebuts.

IRW is by no means alone. Alp is the brainchild of Mario Brero, a Swiss investigator who has had brushes with the law in San Francisco and in Switzerland. He has described his speciality as ‘offensive viral communication campaigns’. [here is a link to Mr. Brero’s Wikipedia profile]

Like the Israeli NSO company, which developed its Pegasus software to tap mobile phones, Brero thought he was selling a service powerful enough to attract heads of state. On 12 May 2017 [what a coincidence, eh?], he boasted to the UAE that ‘several Head of States’ and other ‘high-net-worth individuals’ had made use of Alp’s ‘capacity to enhance or degrade reputations on the Internet’. 

Brero was on a roll. According to The New Yorker, the UAE put him on a retainer of 200,000 euros a month to locate and attack targets across Europe, with additional fees for one-off projects. One of his first moves was to contact an Italian academic who had made a name for himself hunting down the Muslim Brotherhood and linking them to extremist groups.

Lorenzo Vidino directs the Program on Extremism at George Washington University (GWU), styling himself as ‘an expert on Islamism in Europe and North America’ whose research has focused on the ‘mobilisation dynamics of jihadist networks in the West; governmental counter-radicalisation policies; and the activities of Muslim Brotherhood-inspired organisations in the West’…

Vidino admits it would be a ‘grave analytical mistake’ to lump the Brotherhood’s ideology in with Salafist and jihadist milieus. But in reality, he does just that. In a pamphlet on the Muslim Brotherhood in Austria [what he says here also applies, largely, to Germany], published in 2017, he stated that the organisation ‘promotes a narrative that, through its use of victimhood and justification of violence, creates a fertile environment for radicalisation’. 

Western groups that he vaguely describes as ‘Brotherhood entities’ have, according to Vidino, purposely exaggerated anti-Muslim incidents and attitudes—which he admits unquestionably exist—to foster a ‘siege mentality’ within local Muslim communities, particularly in Austria.

Anti-Islamic sentiment has a long tradition in post-1945 Austria; back in the 1990s, the Freedom Party under Jörg Haider ran on an openly Islamophobic platform, using slurs, such as ‘Third Siege of Vienna’ (there were two Ottoman sieges in 1529 and 1683, respectively, with ‘mass immigration’ of Moslems the third iteration).

Vidino goes on to foster the myth that the Brotherhood creates problems of social cohesion in Europe and—the killer phrase—is ‘at odds with European values’. 

These words have been copied and pasted into government policies in the UK, Germany, Austria and France. Two years before his pamphlet on the Muslim Brotherhood in Austria, Vidino denied a report in The Telegraph that he had been involved in a review of the Brotherhood conducted by Sir John Jenkins…

Vidino told MEE at the time: ‘I was simply commissioned to do a paper and brief the people conducting the review—as many academics have been asked [read: paid] to do.’

In the same year [2017, again] as the Austria paper, Vidino was quickly picked up by the Emirati government. Leaked emails sent by the UAE ambassador to the US, Yousef al-Otaiba, revealed that he forwarded Vidino’s work to the Emirati foreign minister, describing it as ‘a paper on empowering the moderate voice of Islam in the US in order to balance and eventually defeat the voices of Islamism’.

[UAE ambassador to the US] Otaiba then arranged a meeting between Vidino and his co-author and his boss Abdullah bin Zaid [oh, look, more coincidences].

The piece then briefly describes a 2020 terrorist attack in Vienna, Austria, when attackers identified as having sympathies with the Islamic State group killed four people.

But the roundup crumbled, lacking any legal basis, a fact confirmed by the Graz Higher Regional Court after several defendants launched objections. 

‘While the prosecution accused some of those targeted in the raids of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, the court pointed out that the Brotherhood is not considered a terrorist organisation in Austria’, Hafez wrote in MEE. After an operation lasting more than a year and half, with more than 21,000 hours of phone tapping and more than one million photographs, no charges were laid.

Criminalising Muslims

But this did not stop the Austrian state’s campaign to criminalise Muslim society. This strategy served two purposes: to cover up for the failure of Austrian intelligence over the attacks themselves, and to build a climate of fear around political Islam, with measures such as the hijab ban and the closure of mosques.

In 2021, the Austrian government launched a ‘National Map of Islam’ showing the locations of 620 mosques and Muslim associations across the country.

‘Imagine if we had a Judaism map or a Christianity map in Austria’, Tarafa Baghajati, chairman of the Initiative of Muslim Austrians, told [state] broadcaster ORF.

Austria even created its own road signs, with an image of a menacing Muslim and a warning: ‘Beware! Political Islam nearby.’ Needless to say, this was too much even for the Council of Europe, which demanded the withdrawal of the map.

Sounds…bad, isn’t it? It gets worse quickly:

Vidino confirmed to the New Yorker that he had worked for Alp, saying: ‘It’s the same research I do no matter what, so it does not really matter who the final client is. I am a one-trick pony. I have been researching the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe for almost 25 years’…

In France alone, Hafez has calculated that ‘as many as 24,887 Muslim organizations and businesses were placed on a secret blacklist and under strict monitoring, and 718 Muslim-owned organizations and businesses including at least four schools, 37 mosques, 210 businesses, and two organizations were closed. About €46 million [$50m] were confiscated by the French government.’…

Racist attacks against Muslims surged in Austria after the appearance of the Islam map. Germany recorded a spike in attacks on mosques last year [2022], leaving 10 injured and several mosques damaged. In 2020, attacks increased in France by 53 percent, with 235 incidents recorded. In the UK in the year ending March 2022, the Home Office recorded that 42 percent of religious hate crimes targeted Muslims—a total of 3,459 offences.

This all sounds…strange, isn’t it? Not mincing words, David Hearst finally returns to the ‘conundrum’ of UAE sponsorship of ‘research’ in Islam in Europe.

Mohammed bin Zayed has been forced—by failure—to change his foreign policy. He has lifted the siege on neighbouring Qatar. He now invests heavily in Turkey. At least on the surface, he is making peace with his regional rivals. 

And yet, the funding for this pernicious campaign continues. Why? What is to be gained by the UAE from spreading fear, smearing innocent Muslims, wrecking reputations and businesses, spurring white racist attacks on mosques, and ruining the lives of thousands?

What is to be gained from feeding the far right? What is to be gained from ruining effective western counterintelligence by stigmatising whole communities?

It beggars belief that European governments make themselves the willing stooges of an autocrat, who is doing all this for completely different motives than the ones being sold in the UK, Germany, France and Austria. He cares not one jot for the ‘good Muslim’ he claims he is trying to create. He does this for self-preservation, exactly as Russian President Vladimir Putin does.

The piece by Hearst concludes by invoking, once more, Austria, former mayor of Vienna Karl Lueger (in office 1897-1910), and, of course, Adolf Hitler.

Bottom Lines

What to make of all of this?

As regards Hearst’s bio, MEE notes the following:

David Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was the Guardian's foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.

The Guardian isn’t exactly free from intelligence/gov’t influence, hence buyer beware.

Still, the essence of the MEE piece is heavy involvement of Western security services in the curating—grooming—of radical Moslem sentiment in ‘the West’.

Austrian intel-security services are mentioned explicitly, and while this alone raises concerns, we must note its implications: there is nothing Austrian state security services are doing that isn’t known, aided and abetted by, and/or contrived in cahoots with other ‘Western’ intel-security services, most notably the German Bundesnachrichtendienst.

Moreover, given the many, massive, and extensive entanglements of Austrian intel-security services with all its ‘Western’—read: esp. US and NATO—‘partners’, which also include, on many additional levels, everything and everyone under the umbrella of the EU, its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Europol/Interpol, and the like. In short: there is nothing that happens within the intel-security services of one European country that other, foreign actors aren’t aware of and/or contributing to.

To me, this all seems that ‘the West’, or at least certain elements within the gov’t-security ‘BORG’, are stoking Islamophobia to entrap certain segments of the populace.

The problems created by mass immigration are real, as are the sentiments of many ‘Westerners’—and integrated Moslems—about this. But the involvement of intel-security services in the more rabid Islamic scene should raise many an eyebrow as it intimates that the intel-security services are paying ‘both sides’ to incite…what exactly?

It looks like the intel-security services are laying the groundwork for ‘new’ laws ‘needed’ to ‘combat’ extremism. After 9/11, Europeans didn’t pass anything like the USA PATRIOT Act, and it seems that, with the ‘Covid’ measures being discredited to such a degree, that ‘emergency legislation’, pre-authored and in many drawers across the continent, will appear soon to ‘counter’ extremism.

Of course, these laws, once on the books, will be used against anyone and everyone.

Collateral damages will include the remnants of what once was called the rule of law, constitutional governance, and national sovereignty.

P.S.: While I retain my wariness about Elon Musk and his roles (among others he’s a contractor for the US gov’t), he is clearly in a position to know about the above shenanigans, yet he, too, stokes the anti-immigrant fears. And while he may be ‘right’ about these shenanigans, his failure to point to these—in my opinion telling and highly relevant—connections suggests either ignorance or malice.