Give the Nobel Peace Prize to Ayaan Hirsi Ali

 

Today, Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, represented by Dr. R.K. Pachauri, will receive the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 in Oslo, Norway. The Peace Prize has been viewed by many as something of a joke after it was awarded to the Jihadist Yasser Arafat and to appeasers of Jihad like Jimmy Carter. However, it still generates a lot of media attention. If the Nobel Committee wants to stay relevant they need to do some changes. The greatest challenge to world peace right now is not global warming, it's global Jihad. I therefore suggest that the next Peace Prize should be awarded to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

 

I have had a few minor disagreements with Hirsi Ali in the past, mainly because she has on some occasions compared Islam to other religions like Christianity and Judaism, which I believe is wrong. However, her views on this have matured considerably, and because of her background she has made criticism of Islam acceptable to people who would otherwise find it difficult to digest the arguments she presents, even though they are perfectly correct. She is no doubt an extremely courageous person. In spite of death threats she has never hesitated in pointing out that many of the problems in the Islamic world are caused by Islam itself. She is an invaluable asset to the fight against global Jihad and as worthy of the Prize as any other living person.

 

In my view, the Norwegian Nobel Committee will soon have to make a choice: If they want the Nobel Peace Prize to be a Global Celebrity Award for Outstanding Achievements in Political Correctness, they can give the next one to Bono of rock group U2. Or, they can do something meaningful, something that will actually advance the cause of peace and human liberty around the world, and award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2008 to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

 

Since members of national assemblies and parliaments can nominate candidates for the Prize, I hereby challenge MPs from the Progress Party in my country, or MPs from any infidel nation, to nominate Hirsi Ali. Other alternatives can be mentioned, too. Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and Wafa Sultan are all worthy recipients of the Prize for their work and for championing the rights of one of the most abused and oppressed groups of people on the planet: Former Muslims who defy the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam.

 

Or, if the members of the Committee want somebody with a non-Muslim background, what about Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has remained steadfast in opposing Islamisation despite the murders of his countrymen Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn and the exile of Hirsi Ali? Author Robert Spencer, director of the website Jihad Watch, who patiently monitors the spread of Jihad terrorism across the world, is another excellent choice, as is Bat Ye'or, whose unique work on the plight of non-Muslims under Islamic rule has contributed immensely to our understanding of both the past and the present.

 

Being Norwegian myself, I would also like to make a suggestion to Norwegian authorities: Norway is, or at least was the last time I checked, the planet's third largest exporter of oil, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. If Saudi Arabia, the world's largest exporter of oil, spends money on promoting Jihad and sharia, is it not fair that Norway, the world's third largest exporter of oil, should spend a little on combating the same? The Norwegian Petroleum Fund amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. Norwegian authorities could easily create a fund of a billion dollars or more earmarked for the defence of persons threatened for criticising Islam. That's the least we can do in return for being blessed with wealth we did very little to earn.

 

This fund could be called the Theo van Gogh Memorial Fund, the Asma bint Marwan Memorial Fund after the poetess who was killed by Muhammad's followers 1400 years ago for mocking Islam, or perhaps the Charles Martel Foundation for Intercultural Understanding. Most citizens in my country wouldn't even notice if we spent a billion dollars on this, but such a fund, whatever we choose to call it, could have a big impact on the lives of people struggling to get their message across or simply to stay alive in the face of death threats.

 

It is true that smaller nations cannot win major ideological wars on their own, but that is no excuse for not doing our share. Israel is also a small nation, yet it has managed to hold the line against Jihad for decades, and Denmark, the only Scandinavian country with some spine left, has left its mark, too, in recent years.

 

We can make a difference. Norway was the fourth-largest shipping nation in the world at the outbreak of WW2 and was of major importance to the allied convoys in the Atlantic which kept the war efforts alive. A British publication stated that the Norwegian Merchant Fleet then was "worth as much to the allied cause as a million soldiers." We are currently faced with a world war of a different nature, and if we can make contributions that matter for the outcome of this great struggle for freedom then we should do so. It's time to make a stand. I would like my country to be remembered for something other than awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat or for sponsoring the Palestinian government and their terrorist cronies.

 

 

Source:

 

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2755

 

 

2.71 Nobel Peace Prize Awarded for Appeasement of Jihad… again

 

By Fjordman

 

Granting this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Finnish diplomat Martti Ahtisaari[1], known for his role in establishing a Jihadist state in Kosovo, makes the Peace Prize even more of a joke than it already was. Those who want an alternative view on the situation in the Balkans can read the essays of Serge Trifkovic and his book Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won — in Spite of Ourselves.

As Chief United Nations negotiator for Kosovo, Ahtisaari caused anger in Serbia when he stated that “Serbs are guilty as a people,” implying that they would have to pay for it, possibly by losing Kosovo. It is one thing to criticise the Milosevic regime. It is quite another thing to claim that “Serbs are guilty as a people.” If anybody in the Balkans can be called guilty as a people, it is the Turks, not the Serbs. The Turks have left a trail of blood across much of Europe, Asia Minor, and the Mediterranean for centuries, culminating in the Armenian genocide in the 20th century, which Turkey still refuses to acknowledge, let alone apologise for.

As I’ve indicated before, if the Peace Prize is supposed to serve any real purpose, it needs to be awarded to persons who confront Jihad, not appease it like Martti Ahtisaari and Jimmy Carter, or promote it like Yasser Arafat:

As I have written previously in “Give the Nobel Peace Prize to Ayaan Hirsi Ali[2]”:

 

In my view, the Norwegian Nobel Committee will soon have to make a choice: If they want the Nobel Peace Prize to be a Global Celebrity Award for Outstanding Achievements in Political Correctness, they can give the next one to Bono of rock group U2. Or, they can do something meaningful, something that will actually advance the cause of peace and human liberty around the world, and award the Nobel Peace Prize to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Since members of national assemblies and parliaments can nominate candidates for the Prize, I hereby challenge MPs from the Progress Party in my country, or MPs from any infidel nation, to nominate Hirsi Ali. Other alternatives can be mentioned, too. Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and Wafa Sultan are all worthy recipients of the Prize for their work and for championing the rights of one of the most abused and oppressed groups of people on the planet: Former Muslims who defy the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam.

Or, if the members of the Committee want somebody with a non-Muslim background, what about Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has remained steadfast in opposing Islamisation despite the murders of his countrymen Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn and the exile of Hirsi Ali? Author Robert Spencer, director of the website Jihad Watch, who patiently monitors the spread of Jihad terrorism across the world, is another excellent choice, as is Bat Ye’or, whose unique work on the plight of non-Muslims under Islamic rule has contributed immensely to our understanding of both the past and the present.

 

Being Norwegian myself, I would also like to make a suggestion to Norwegian authorities: Norway is, or at least was the last time I checked, the planet’s third largest exporter of oil, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. If Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter of oil, spends money on promoting Jihad and sharia, is it not fair that Norway, the world’s third largest exporter of oil, should spend a little on combating the same? The Norwegian Petroleum Fund amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. Norwegian authorities could easily create a fund of a billion dollars or more earmarked for the defence of persons threatened for criticising Islam. That’s the least we can do in return for being blessed with wealth we did very little to earn.

This fund could be called the Theo van Gogh Memorial Fund, the Asma bint Marwan Memorial Fund after the poetess who was killed by Muhammad’s followers 1400 years ago for mocking Islam, or perhaps the Charles Martel Foundation for Intercultural Understanding. Most citizens in my country wouldn’t even notice if we spent a billion dollars on this, but such a fund, whatever we choose to call it, could have a big impact on the lives of people struggling to get their message across or simply to stay alive in the face of death threats.

 

 

Source:

 

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/10/nobel-peace-prize-awarded-for.html

 

1. http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=3.0.2568763782

2. http://www.globalpolitician.com/23884-islamism

 

 

2.72 Green is the new Red - Stop Enviro-Communism!

 

You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, eco-Marxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world. They hope to accomplish this through the distribution of misinformation (propaganda) which they hope will lead to increased taxation of already excessively taxed Europeans and US citizens.

 

The neo-communist agenda uses politicised science to propagate the global warming scam in order to implement their true agenda; global Marxism. Marxism’s ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth from successful nations to failed nations, instead of actually trying to fix these broken nations. Politicised science is being used by the cultural Marxist hegemony to manipulate the unsuspecting masses. They are using our trust and faith in science to spread lies and hysteria that will allow Marxists to implement socialist “solutions” to a problem that never actually existed.

 

To quote one of these UN eco-Marxist elites:

 

 

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn’t it part of our responsibility to bring that about?”

 

 

This quote was from the opening statement of Maurice Strong in the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro. Strong is the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

 

 

Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB agent and expert on ideological subversion.

 

“A person who is demoralised is unable to assess true information”

 

 

Here are a few more sources indicating the true agenda of the eco-Marxists:

 

 

"Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion "as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity," according to a paper written in 2007 to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog."[1]

 

 

Watch how nations are demoralised for ideological subversion:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_xdBnFPqOI&feature=related

That's exactly what is happening with the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam; too many people are too demoralised to assess true information about Socialism, Communism, and climate change to allow its use for other agendas on the hands of the useful idiots “the leftists” as former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov calls them.

Enviro-communism is a new twisted idea of redistribution of wealth through “environmental” policies and the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009 is the perfect manifestation of it. Environmental Justice is the new Social Justice; Climate Debt is the new Redistribution of Wealth, Anthropogenic Global Warming scam is the Communism.

Under current Copenhagen draft treaty, developed countries are expected to fund clean energy in developing countries, which could result in an annual transfer of almost? 100 billion per year by 2020.[2]

Please see Lord Christopher Monckton's speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40&feature=player_embedded

PLEASE read the SHOCKING Communist Goals (1963) that already started being implemented and will be discussed next December in the Copenhagen Climate Change treaty drafts 2009:

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

 

Barak Obama received the Nobel Peace prize for exactly the same reason Al Gore did. The prize is given by Thorbjørn Jagland, Chair of the Nobel Committee who was also the Vice President of Socialist International. One can think they are pushing a global agenda of Enviro-Communism or Eco-Marxism that will force Europe and the US to cater for the global Eco-Marxist agenda. Their end goal is to “punish” European countries (US included) for capitalism and success.

The Marxist agenda of the Climate Change Conference 2009 was to discuss the totalitarian idea of World Government, transfer of wealth from Western countries to 3rd world countries under what they call “Climate debt”, because allegedly western countries have been burning CO2 and 3rd world countries haven’t!

Have you tried breathing in a third world country lately?

It is a fact that developed countries are by far less polluted than developing countries, where people are actually dying form pollution. “Transferring wealth” to 3rd world countries under an unelected world government, to countries that are mostly governed by autocratic rulers will only help the sustainability of dictatorship, pollution and fascism, and more plights to the citizens living under these regimes by supporting their dictators financially to sustain regimes that would otherwise collapse by their own demeanor. The aim of this Conspiracy is to help the sustainability of 3rd world Communism, Socialism and dictatorship to save the fanatic leftist forms of government while weakening Capitalism by what they call “climate debt”.

You can give Communism all the new colours you want, fascism will always have the same ugly face.