SIOE statement giving the facts

SIOE intends to make one comment only about the ongoing situation regarding SIOE Germany (Deutschland) and how things have developed as Anders Gravers and Stephen Gash see matters.

This is because we are too busy actually doing something to Stop Islamisation Of Europe, the first thing being the imminent demonstration against the huge mosque in Marseilles on 8th December.

Secondly, many people have become supporters of SIOE since the the inaugural Stop Islamisation Of Europe demonstration in Brussels on 11th September.  These people are generally too concerned about how Europe is being islamised to want to go over old ground regarding past matters before they even joined our support.

Anders and Stephen want to do the same, but because of the way things have developed and because of comments made about us, we feel compelled to put our side of the case.

We do this with some sadness because we, like many SIOE supporters, want to get on with the job of stopping the islamisation of Europe.

So we apologise to our new board members and our supporters for publishing this article, but we feel we have no choice.

We do not intend getting into a blog war about this, because we believe this is what our enemies (some masquerading as allies) want us to do, instead of being the action group SIOE is.

We will waste no more time on this and will leave it to readers to decide who the injured parties are.

SIOE Germany (Deutschland)

Anders and Stephen have always entered into partnerships with people in good faith and tried to entrust people with responsibility.  The worst we can truly be accused of, with any accuracy, is maybe being slightly naive in believing that when people make an agreement they stick to it.

With this attitude we entrusted people to organise national SIOE branches and to become members of a provisional board of directors, provided they agreed to stay within the aims and spirit of SIOE.

One of the persons we entrusted goes under the keyboard burkha of ‘Multikultur’ who we entrusted to start the SIOE Deutschland blog on WordPress.

At an online board conference it was agreed that all membership subscriptions and donations to SIOE would be made through a single PayPal gateway on the SIOE International site.  All national blogs would direct people to this one PayPal button.

It was also agreed that this situation would be reviewed regularly to see if payment arrangements could be altered to suit individual countries at a later date.

‘Multikultur’ redirected the PayPal button on the blog he was responsible for to another bank account without consulting the board.  On discovering this Anders contacted ‘Multikultur’ demanding he either take the button off or restore the payment gateway to SIOE International.  On being presented with an argument Anders quite correctly pointed out there could be no discussion about it.  Obviously, any changes to board decisions would have to be made with the board’s approval, not via a telephone conversation between two people.

Multikultur considered this to be “dictatorial.” He failed to appear on the next online conference so was expelled from SIOE altogether.

SIOE does not take the situation of other peoples’ money lightly which is why we arrived at a board decision.

Ask yourself, would you trust your money to a person like ‘Multikultur’? Only you can answer. 

We trusted ‘Multikultur’ and he betrayed that trust.

Alleged threats made to ‘Multikultur’

‘Mulikultur’ persistently failed to respond to emails and other means of contact.

However, he has posted emails from Stephen on his blog which obviously exposes the fact he has received them. 

He has also made posts which we consider to be contrary to SIOE’s policies.  We consider some of his posts to present problems to SIOE and to possibly be intended to harm SIOE.

We consider ‘Multikultur’s ’ failure to respond to our emails directly to be sheer cowardice.  Maybe you also think refusal to reply directly to emails while making sneering remarks on a blog behind a pseudonym are the actions of a coward. We let you decide.

Stephen has made it clear that ‘Multikultur’s ’ details may be published on the internet unless he responds and/or stops publishing in SIOE’s name. 

This is not a threat it is just an act of self-defence.  Anders, Stephen and other board members should not have to accept their names being associated (via the name SIOE) with articles over which they have no control. The person responsible for writing those articles should take the responsibility. 

The reference to “appearing on your doorstep” merely meant Stephen might discuss it face-to-face on ‘Multikultur’s ’ doorstep because of his cowardly failure to respond.  Stephen has never threatened to use violence.

We stated that ‘Multikultur’ had links to neo-Nazis.  He responded by saying he had links to the “left,” which is exactly what we expected him to say.

Suggesting he had neo-Nazi connections naturally manoeuvred him into admitting his “leftish” credentials, as if being “left” is something to be proud of.  ‘Multikultur’s ‘ arrogant mocking of others while being so easily led himself makes him a figure of contempt.

SIOE has repeatedly said it does not recognise “left wing” and “right wing” as legitimate political terms.  To us they are one and the same.  They are both bullying, lying, cheating totalitarian philosophies and we reject them both. 

The real SIOE

Be clear about this.  There is only one Stop Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE). We are the original SIOE, the only truly united pan-European movement actively combating the Islamisation of Europe.

‘Multikultur’ has stated that SIOE Deutschland is “independent” which reveals his true motives to split SIOE, in our opinion.  We believe ‘Multikultur’ wishes to harm SIOE and his actions to show this.  As he is too cowardly to respond, preferring to hide behind his keyboard burkha, in order to make sneering and sarcastic remarks, we must continue to believe this.

We anticipate that other similar so-called “independent” sites will spring up, maybe due to ‘Multikultur’ and his contacts.  We shall see.

These “independent” SIOE sites are/will be bogus.

If ‘Multikultur’ wants to have an anti-Islamist organisation and website, then he should have the decency to start his own, not to hijack SIOE’s name.  If ‘Multikultur’ did this he would have our blessing, even now, because we support anti-Islamism and appreciate people have different methods.

We demand that people respect our aims and principles in return, if they wish to do things in SIOE’s name.

Starting another group would at least be an honest approach, worthy of some respect, but the way things are ‘Multikultur’ deserves no respect in this matter.

German people, and others for that matter, have to decide whether they want to belong to a united organisation led by people who use their real names and willingly have put their details on the internet and given them to the media, or to follow a ragtag bunch of bloggers who hide behind keyboard burkhas, who refuse to act as a team and do not abide by decisions they agreed to.

Another agreement that ‘Multikultur’ reneged on was the sioe.eu domain.  It was agreed that he would purchase it and SIOE would pay him and the domain would belong to SIOE.

This has not happened.

Far from being dictatorial, SIOE placed too much trust in ‘Multikultur’.
 

Udo Ulfkotte (again)

(What appears below is how Anders and Stephen see matters.  Much of it is based on conversations and recollections, but Anders and Stephen consider the circumstantial evidence points to Anders’s and Stephen’s version being correct.

We do not intend to make any further comment about Udo Ulfkotte and would prefer his correspondence to be directed directly to us by phone or email, rather than to be made on the internet.

We have written this because of recent comments made by Udo Ulfkotte on ‘Multikultur’s‘ blog (screenshots taken).

If Udo Ulfkotte believes anything written here to be inaccurate he may talk to Anders Gravers and Stephen Gash directly, as has always been the case.  Should we agree with Udo Ulfkotte that anything we have published here is factually incorrect we will retract inaccuracies from this article and say so.

Otherwise we will move on from this waste of time and get on with stopping the islamisation of Europe.

We do not intend to get into a fruitless blog war)

Udo Ulfkotte has suddenly appeared again, making remarks about Anders and Stephen on ‘Multikultur’s bogus SIOE blog.  We were hoping that this particular Rip Van Winkle character would remain asleep, as we regard him as a bit of a loose canon banging around the anti-islamism ship when he is awake.

However, this does make us wonder who is actually behind ‘Multikultur’.  We are not sure if ‘Multikultur’ is a member of Pax Europa, or if he is an ex-member, and if the latter, when he left Pax Europa.  Perhaps Ulfkotte and ‘Multikultur’ could let us know.

We do not really want to go over old ground again, but we will just restate our position.

Anders and Stephen started SIOE and had the initiative for the Brussels demo, not Udo Ulfkotte.

Anders and Stephen made the rules for the demo, not Udo Ulfkotte.

Udo Ulfkotte was invited by Anders to join in with our efforts for Brussels.

From the first week Stephen voiced his reservations to Anders about Ulfkotte because he felt Ulfkotte was not a team player.

Ulfkotte regularly failed to show up for online conferences to discuss the demo.

Both Anders and Stephen were intimately involved with organising Brussels 9/11 and went to the meeting with the Brussels authorities. Ulfkotte was there which was the only time Stephen ever met him.

Ulfkotte was never actually a part of SIOE, preferring to be Pax Europa’s representative. We understand that the Akte-Islam/Pax Europa website made this clear when it referred to SIOE being a “sister organisation”, but if we are informed, with evidence, that this is not so, we accept it.

Although we discussed merchandise, Ulfkotte unilaterally went ahead with “Brussels 9/11 gang” products which were advertised on the Akte-Islam/Pax Europa site. Neither Anders or Stephen liked or agreed with this merchandise, and both considered this unilateral action to be typical of Ulfkotte.

When the demo was banned by Mayor Thielemans both Anders and Stephen said “the march goes on anyway”.

Pax Europa could have left at any time.

When the first court case appealing against the ban was proposed Anders’s exact words were “I don’t give a s*it about any court case”. Stephen suggested that it might be better to look at the legal route, but both Stephen and Anders said that neither would pay for any lawyers because the demo would go ahead anyway.

Therefore, before the first court case it was made clear to all concerned that Anders and Stephen would not be paying any money for it, for any reason.

This was why the paperwork for the court case was only signed by Udo Ulfkotte, because Anders and Stephen refused to sign anything.

Stephen has never met or spoken to the lawyer concerned, Hugo Corveliers, to his knowledge, and certainly never discussed the court case with him, at any time.

Stephen Gash would never pay for a lawyer to represent him, he has never even spoken to.

Neither Anders or Stephen are wealthy people and neither attended the court hearing because we both considered the plane fair expensive, for a court case neither was really bothered about.

If either Stephen and Anders were prepared to pay thousands of Euros for lawyers to present an appeal on our behalf, then take it from both Anders and Stephen we would have paid a comparatively small airfare to Brussels for the court case. Neither man would have left it to Udo Ulfkotte to handle matters alone.  This is particularly true for Stephen Gash, who as stated earlier, never trusted Ulfkotte from very early on in his association with SIOE.

The understanding that Anders and Stephen would not pay any fees for the second civil court case was again made clear.  Again this is why Anders or Stephen signed nothing.

Even before the civil court case had concluded Anders and Stephen learned from other sources that Ulfkotte was planning a demonstration in Cologne on 11th September.

Ulfkotte never told Anders or Stephen about this demo.

This was the last straw for Stephen who sent an email to Ulfkotte and Anders on 4th September in reply to earlier emails. Stephen has all (certainly most) of his email correspondence with Udo Ulfkotte.  This is basically because Stephen never trusted the man.

Here is the text of that email:-

“I know nothing about Cologne and any arrangements for a demo there. Nor do I care about it, other than I think arranging one was a disaster, and now I am being proved correct.
 
The first principle in a battle is, don’t split your forces.
 
Brussels was always intended to be one issue demo and no party banners. And that is how it is and that it is how it will remain.
 
I only care about having a successful demo in Brussels with the single aim of stopping Islamisation of Europe.
 
Steve”

Ulfkotte phoned Stephen shortly after (his phone bill will reveal exactly when) saying that the Cologne demo was intended for after the Brussels demo, later in the evening. He told Stephen that he, Ulfkotte, would definitely be at the Brussels demo.

He also agreed with Stephen that him, Ulfkotte, making arrangements without informing Anders or Stephen could be damaging because if the media contacted either person they would be unable to answer questions about such arrangements.

He assured Stephen that such a thing would not happen again.

Shortly after that conversation, Ulfkotte made his now infamous announcement on television that he had cancelled the Brussels demo.

Again neither Anders or Stephen were forwarned about this announcement.

Stephen Gash, at least, regards this to be entirely in keeping with Ulfkotte’s method of working with SIOE.

Of course, both Anders and Stephen considered Ulfkotte’s announcement about cancelling the march to be a disgraceful act of betrayal, particularly after the reassurances made to Stephen by Ulfkotte, in what was their last vocal conversation.

Also, it must be said that even if Anders Gravers and Stephen Gash had entered into an agreement with Udo Ulfkotte about splitting the court fees, which both Anders Gravers and Stephen Gash strenuously deny, then neither man would have paid for the court case because both consider that Udo Ulfkotte’s unilateral announcement that he had cancelled the Brussels demo irreparably damaged the appeal against the Brussels Mayor’s ban.  In other words the appeal would have no chance of succeeding after Ulfkotte’s announcement, in the opinion of Anders and Stephen.

Let us remember, Ulfkotte cancelled the Cologne demo.