Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The Lisbon Treason Continues As Eurocrats Moves Towards Totalitarian Supranationalism Fascist Style

We are writing 2008 not helping noticing some chilling analogues of 1938, Sudetenland and Kosovo, political correctness made it difficult to criticize the Nazi Government as it does with today's 21rst century Nazism the Leftist-Islamist Axis.
The EU can best be described as a 'coup d'etat' in slow-motion where the 'masses' are chloroformed with political correctness necessary in order to accept a perverse social engineering experiment worthy of Joseph Stalin.

From: Der Spiegel

By Dirk Kurbjuweit

Last week's summit in Brussels failed to resolve the EU crisis caused by the Irish "no" to the Lisbon Treaty. But Europe's politicians are determined to avoid asking the people their opinion. And they are right to do so.

This must be the biggest collection of scoundrels in the world. There are 27 of them. No, more: It's not just the heads of state and government who are here, but also the foreign ministers. Sitting there at their enormous table, they seem to be chatting amiably, but it's far less innocent than that. They're plotting something, once again, searching for a way to put one over -- and a really big one, this time -- on the people they represent. They've been working on it for a long time, picking up where their predecessors left off. Again and again, they trick their populations into accepting the European Union.

It's been going on for 50 years: politicians making policy against the people. The only time anyone ever notices is when the people -- one people, in this case -- are asked for their opinion. It happened in Ireland recently, when the Irish made it clear that they refuse to accept the politics of scoundrels. They voted against the Lisbon Treaty (more...), and in doing so they plunged the EU into yet another of its many crises.

It was the big topic at the meeting of the European Council (more...) last Thursday and Friday, when the heads of state and government got together, hoping to devise a way out of their current impasse, a way that would enable them to continue making policy against the people without the people noticing what they are up to.

What they were in fact discussing was a handful of tricks, tricks involving lawyers, tricks that would enable them to palm the Lisbon Treaty off on the Irish after all.

Of course, they would never admit it. It sounds awful, and it certainly doesn't sound democratic. But what if these smooth-operating politicians, and not the general public with their supposed wisdom, were right after all?

For now, it looks as though Brussels has no choice but to agree with the Irish. It is 4:20 p.m. on Thursday, and the current president of the European Council, Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, and his State Secretary for European Affairs Janez Lenarcic, are waiting to meet with their colleagues. They wait and wait, but no one shows up. After a while, the prime minister and his state secretary begin fidgeting awkwardly. Aren't Europe's politicians interested in Europe's future any more, they wonder?

One man, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, eventually appears, and soon the rest trickle in, one by one. It takes a full hour before this contingent of European politicians has managed to shake hands. By the time they have all flooded into the conference room, the scene resembles a "Where's Waldo?" of European politics, a bustling, confusing mass of politicians and their aides.

The doors close. Everyone knows that what is about to happen -- supposedly a "debate" -- is nothing but a series of casual two-and-a-half-minute speeches at the microphone. Everyone has to step up and put forward the position of his or her respective country.

And this is something we are supposed to applaud? Something we should trust and support?

Paradoxically enough, the Lisbon Treaty would in fact make European structures more efficient and democratic. It would make the position of council president last for two-and-a-half years. It would allow the European Commission to shrink, and it would give more rights to the representatives of individual countries and the European Parliament. The Irish have rejected a treaty that would have made Europe a slightly better place. And because a unanimous "yes" vote is required to make the treaty a reality, the Irish vote stands in the way of progress for all.

Until now, the EU has often behaved like a boa constrictor in the process of digesting a calf -- shapeless and motionless, but threatening nonetheless. Everything takes eons. It has been tweaking its own structures for seven years now. The Turks have been waiting to get in for at least two decades. Symbolically enough, waiting is the principal pastime for all observers at the Brussels summit -- waiting for a press conference, waiting for a briefing with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, waiting for the conference to end.

Europe, where everything takes longer than expected, has become too cumbersome for every schedule. And in Brussels, the metaphorical stomach of the snake, the place where its prey is leisurely digested, the slow passage of time is nothing short of excruciating.

The worst of it is that often the wait isn't even worth it. Europe, unlike a nation, provides no moments of beauty or enthusiasm. National politics offers little reason to rejoice, but at least nations experience the occasional glimmers of reconciliation, rare hours when they become what the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once called communities of excitement.

Last Thursday, Germany was the lucky beneficiary of just such a moment of pure elation, when its national team was pitted against Portugal in the quarter-final of the European Championship soccer tournament. Six minutes before the match was due to end, Chancellor Merkel left a dinner she was attending with other European leaders to watch it on television, and she even remained glued to the TV for a full three minutes after the final whistle to savor Germany's victory. Then she returned to her dinner to discuss Ireland over dessert.

It was the kind of moment -- when most Germans are thrilled to be Germans -- that the European Union in its current form cannot have. The EU is nothing without politics. It would be a different story if Europe had a national football team, for example -- with a lineup that included Ronaldo, Ballack and Sneijder -- and it happened to trounce China 5:0. But that too is impossible, because the key ingredient, shared emotion, is missing. Emotions stem from a common history, and it has only been 60 years since Europe's history ceased to be a history of conflicts ending in major wars.

The attempt to act in concert is never as spectacular as confrontation, be it in the wars of the past or the football matches of the present. But that sense of the spectacular is absent in the conference room in Brussels, where men and women touch each other on the arm and embrace, and where today's principal recipient of these hearty caresses is Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen, the man who in fact botched his homework. In Europe, however, this doesn't make a leader a pariah, but at worst the victim of excessive compassion.

Europe presents itself to the rest of the world with the same air of congeniality and nonviolence, which explains why it is occasionally disparaged as a female continent, as a Venus among the major players in world politics. But for the peaceable, this is precisely one of the reasons to be very satisfied with this European Union.

Of course, what takes place behind closed doors in Brussels is a poor excuse for debate. Nevertheless, at least we can comfort ourselves with the notion that the leaders of 27 nations, home to roughly half a billion people, are at least willing to make the effort. On Thursday afternoon, they discussed critical issues like the rising cost of energy and commodities -- the problems of exploding globalization, as Angela Merkel once put it. And when it comes time to face off against China, Russia or the United States, is going it alone in Germany's, Lithuania's or Ireland's best interest?

There are reasons to put our trust in these politicians. The only problem is that the way they behave in Brussels makes it all the more difficult for us to feel consistently good about Europe.

European moments are almost always the same. Even before they have finished deliberating, the heads of state and government send out Hans-Gert Pöttering (more...), the president of the European Parliament, to sell their collective position to the assembled journalists. But Pöttering is a man who can talk a room into a persistent vegetative state within the space of 10 minutes. By that time, anyone who still has the energy to ask a question is served up what amounts to a congenial non-answer. Journalists learn nothing about what is going on and have, as a result, nothing to report. Pöttering has the unique ability to make Europe disappear.

It appears to be part of the plan. The following statement appears at the beginning of the summit's draft conclusions: "The European Council took note of the preparatory work carried out in line with its December 2007 conclusions." Only the staunchest of believers in a united Europe are likely to continue reading.

But despite everything, there was one emotional moment during those two days in Brussels. Writing about it is strictly forbidden, because it happened in a closed-door meeting with the German chancellor, late at night, as she was coming from a dinner with her counterparts. It was a rare burst of enthusiasm, coming from Merkel, an almost fiery appeal on behalf of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union and representative democracy. She even mentioned the word passion.

Journalists never applaud, not even in a football stadium after their national team has scored a goal. But when this speech ended a few journalists clapped their hands, briefly, before realizing that applause was completely inappropriate.

The trouble is, no one is supposed to find out about the chancellor's passionate little outburst. Otherwise someone could hit upon the idea that she is in fact wholeheartedly behind a strengthening of the European Union, perhaps even knowingly against the wishes of German citizens.

Merkel had cooled down by the time the closing press conference rolled around on Friday afternoon. Looking tired, she told journalists that the summit had "reached conclusions that I believe are constructive." There it was again, that Brussels boredom, that sense of slow, deliberate digestion, especially now that it was clear that Merkel had no concrete results to discuss. Instead of reaching agreement, the leaders at the summit agreed to disagree, reached face-saving compromises and dispensed the one thing that Europe seems to have in spades: time.

They are giving the Irish time to figure out what to do next. And they are giving the future president of the Council, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and the European Commission time to develop a strategy to fight rising energy and food prices. Indeed, about the only sound Europe is likely to make in the coming months is that of a ticking clock. But perhaps this is intentional.

Perhaps the EU's secret strategy is called "strategic boredom" -- attract no attention and make no waves, but continue to plod along, quietly and stubbornly, ignoring the murmurs of concern from all around.

The scoundrels in Brussels have sold the European people a lot of things: a single market, the euro, the lifting of many border controls and, most recently, a binding global climate policy. These have all been good things, and they have helped make Europe an eminently livable continent. Despite the many dull moments and emotions that have been negative at best, the end result has been laudable.

Most of these improvements would have been held up, if not outright prevented, by referendums. Democracy doesn't mean having unlimited confidence in citizens. Sometimes the big picture is in better hands when politicians are running it, and a big picture takes time.

It's just like with the boa constrictor. When its protracted digestive process is over, the snake is once again an active, powerful and beautiful creature.

Leftist-Islamist Fascist Axis: Promoting Crimes Against Humanity and Combatting Freedom of Speech at the United Nations

The United Nations Human Rights Council, HRC, has become an Orwellian nightmare promoting crimes against humanity and aiding a jihad against Freedom of Speech - Freedom is Slavery - War is Peace - Human Rights are Human Sufferings.
The United Nations Leftist-Islamist Fascist Axis makes it no longer possible criticizing sharia laws, no more individual rights, no more Human rights in the sense of Humanism, dignity, enlightenment,,, The mere name 'HRC' will provoke the same recoil as was it Nazism, Fascism or Stalinism.


From: Counter Terrorism Blog

The United Nations' Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has no problem with its members suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" perpetrated by the United States on itself. The human rights of America's 9/11 victims are not a priority for UNHRC's Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, who engages in 9/11 conspiracy propaganda, while working for an organization headquartered in New York City funded by U.S. tax dollars. This is Richard Falk's protected freedom of speech.

Denying the role of Jihadists in the 9/11 attacks is apparently perfectly acceptable freedom of speech for the UNHRC, but criticizing Sharia law is another story.

On June 16, 2008, UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea announced that criticism of Sharia law will not be tolerated by the UNHRC, based on the complaints and pressure by Islamist delegates to the UNHRC. In effect, the Islamist nations represented at the UNHRC have effected a Jihad against freedom of speech at the United Nations when it comes to criticizing Sharia or Islamic supremacist (aka Islamist) theocratic ideologies that threaten the freedom and lives of innocents around the world. This again demonstrates the key imperative of control for Islamists - in this case in terms of controlling ideas, thoughts, and words of an international organization intended to promote human rights. Outgoing UNHRC Commissioner Louise Arbour subsequently raised concerns about debates on Sharia becoming "taboo" within the United Nations group, stating that it "should be, among other things, the guardian of freedom of expression."

The UNHRC ban on debate regarding Sharia came as a result of a three minute joint statement by the Association for World Education with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) to the Human Rights Council on women's rights and the impact of Sharia law. These NGOs sought to address international issues of violence against women, specifically, the stoning of women, "honor killings" of women, and female genital mutilation, as a result of Sharia law.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Arab Republic of Egypt vehemently criticized this attempted NGO message, interrupting it via "16 points of order", for an hour and twenty-five minutes per the IEHU. Jihad Watch provides a full transcript of the debate. The Egyptian UNHRC delegate claimed that silencing these NGOs was necessary to ensure "that Islam will not be crucified in this Council," but the fact is that Islamist forces seek to silence any debate on Sharia at all - anywhere, any time.

Ongoing Efforts to Silence Debate on Sharia

This is not the first time that efforts have been made by such pro-Islamist Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) member nations to influence the United Nations. In my article "Jihad, Islamism, and the United Nations," I addressed the efforts of OIC member nations to reword a UNHRC resolution on religious freedom so that it would not respect the right of individuals to change their religion, as this would be in conflict with Sharia law. The OIC continues global efforts to influence the United Nations and worldwide organization to silence any debate on Sharia by painting such debate as "Islamophobia."

In the war of ideas, the debate over Sharia's influence on Jihad (or "Islamist terrorism" per the 9/11 Commission Report), continues to remain under the radar for many analysts. Yet in the ongoing battles by the Taliban in Pakistan, a primary stated objective of the Taliban is enforcing Sharia law throughout the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a sentiment that nearly 75 percent of Pakistanis agree with. (I address this issue in my article "Pakistan and the Growing Threat of a Sharia Mini-State.")

Two days after this silencing of debate on Sharia at the UNHRC, a man was sentenced to death for "blasphemy" in Pakistan by a Sharia court. This is the same Pakistan, whose government seeks to export the death penalty for "blasphemy" against Islam on a global basis, that now has successfully achieved the silencing of debate on Sharia in the United Nations. Moreover, when the Danish Embassy was attacked by terrorists in Pakistan recently, the Pakistan ambassador suggested that this was deserved due to the "blasphemous" cartoons published in Danish newspapers -- the Pakistan ambassador to Norway further stated to the press that "blasphemous" cartoons are "an act of terrorism."

The challenge of Sharia's impact on Jihad is so completely beyond the thought processes of counterterrorism analysts that Sharia is not even mentioned in the latest "terror lexicon" publications by the DHS and NCTC warning government officials not to use terms like "jihad," "Islamist," "caliphate," "mujahedeen." Yet Sharia is a fundamental component of what western political scientists call "Islamism" or "political Islam." The 9/11 Commission Report specifically states that "Islamist terrorism" is based on "Islamism."

Nevertheless, as the U.S. and the United Kingdom governments seek to end dialogue on jihad, Islamism, etc., the United Nations now seeks to end debate on Sharia. The war of ideas seems to be ending before it is even begun.

News media publications cannot be relied upon to address this vacuum in ideological debate either. Most refuse to address Islamic supremacist ideologies, including the impact of Sharia law on human rights and freedoms. The Wall Street Journal even employs specialists on Sharia law to help promote Sharia-based financial instruments.


Silence on Supremacist Ideologies Not Consistent With History or Democracy

The gross illogical nature of such an approach is seen by looking at another form of supremacist political ideology that the United States government, the United Nations, and other nations have aggressively debated and have enforced change in their governments and their people to remove.

If the issue was a racial supremacist ideology, would such objections exist?

Can one imagine the United Nations refusing to debate "white supremacism" due to fears of insulting "whites," or refusing to debate "apartheid"?

Can one imagine the U.S. government refusing to use terms such as "white supremacism" in dealing with fighting the Ku Klux Klan, or in refusing to consider the influences of white supremacist ideology when guaranteeing civil rights for all of its citizens, and in creating laws to effectively ban white supremacist influences in schools, businesses, and public places?

Most of all, in fighting white supremacist terror groups as the Ku Klux Klan, would the FBI have consulted "non-violent" white supremacists for ideological guidance? Would the FBI and the federal government have stated that it could not be involved in the "war of ideas" against white supremacism?

With the context of history, such questions are obviously absurd. That is precisely the point regarding the unwillingness to address the challenges of Islamic supremacist ideologies.

History shows that, in fact, none of this happened, and that the United Nations, the U.S government, and federal U.S. law enforcement all took action against such supremacist ideologies and publicly, aggressively, debated these in a war of ideas that would change the world and the nation. For the United States, the history of such federal action against such supremacist ideologies goes back nearly 140 years.

Therefore, such deliberate silence and denial regarding Sharia and Islamic supremacist ideologies is completely inconsistent with the history of such organizations and with America's democratic values. I will be addressing this in more detail in a future article to be entitled "Jihad and Supremacist Ideologies."

UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea silenced debate on Sharia due to his fears of pursuing a "slippery slope" in such discussions.

Yet it is precisely such a "slippery slope" of denial on Islamic supremacist ideologies that the world is facing in the debate over Jihad, or in the words of Osama Bin Laden "the greater state of Islam from the ocean to the ocean, Allah permitting."

On a national and global level, the combination of denial and refusal to address the impact of Sharia and Islamic supremacist ideologies in providing an ideological basis for global Jihadist activity is truly a "slippery slope" for the safety of the entire world.


Sources and Related Documents:

June 19, 2008 - FOX News: Critics Demand Resignation of U.N. Official Who Wants Probe of 9/11 'Inside Job' Theories

June 19, 2008 - Pakistan Daily Times: Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

June 19, 2008 - JihadWatch: UN Human Rights Council: Any mention of the word "sharia" is now taboo

June 18, 2008 - AFP: UN Rts Head Concerned At Council "Taboos" After Sharia Row

June 18, 2008 - Reuters: UN's Arbour opposes "taboos" in human rights body

June 17, 2008 - International Humanist and Ethical Union: Human Rights Council President: "We are on a slippery slope"

June 18, 2008 - AP: Muslim man in Pakistan sentenced to death for blasphemy

February 29, 2008 - OIC Statement on Islamophobia

February 1, 2008 - Jihad, Islamism, and the United Nations - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm

February 29, 2008 - Jihad, Islamism, and U.S. Envoy to OIC - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm

November 14, 2007 - Dow Jones, Wall Street Journal, and Islamist Financing - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm

June 10, 2008 - Pakistan and the Growing Threat of a Sharia Mini-State - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm


UN Watch Blog

UN Watch Home Page

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

A World Gone Mad: Multicultural Fascism In Full Bloom

It is obscene - The Socialist-Islamo Axis is clearly the twenty first century's Nazism.

From: Saberpoint


The free world is clearly quite sick and getting sicker.
Due to the internationalism of the Left, national sovereignty is being eroded throughout the West. The laws of individual nations and the rights of their citizens are being subordinated to international norms and laws, even when the latter are less democratic and free.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who created the film "Fitna," has been charged with a crime in the Muslim nation of Jordan. It seems it's illegal there to tell the truth about the violence, hatred and intolerance known as Islam. So Jordan will seek to extradite Wilders through Interpol should he set foot in any western or other nations subject to its jurisdiction. Conceivably, Wilders could be extradited to Jordan, tried and convicted of "blasphemy," then beheaded. Jordan's Islamic tyranny will thus become international law, applicable to the formerly free citizens of Western civilization.

Europeans can't depend on their governments to protect them from this new international tyranny. Many of those governments are entirely sympathetic. Bloggers and cartoonists are being investigated and arrested at an increasing pace, merely for expressing opinions. Being anti-Islam is equated with being racist or "fostering hate," when the idea is to expose Islamic bigotry and hate. The U.N. banned "criticism of religion" in December 2007. Laws and traditions designed to protect the innocent against intolerance are being subverted to enforce intolerance. Free speech is repressed with a grim determination in Holland, Britain and France. Political correctness and multiculturalism are laws of the land, enforced by the police. Fines or even imprisonment are the penalties.

One has to wonder when the formerly free people of Europe will wake up and overthrow their new multicultural Fascist governments.

OIC moves to combat freedom of speech in western nations with high priority

Curbing our freedom of expression - Already the UN is useless, corrupt, incompetent, ineffective, worthless and should be abolished - Having dictatorships and chronic human rights offenders making decisions and criticizing civilized countries is deplorable.
To name and claim political opposition a phobia which is a mental disorder is idiotic and absurd reminding us of the Nazis and the Communists silencing their dissidents often by locking them up in camps or mental institutions - Imagine under the political correctness in the 1930's where it was ill seen to criticize Nazi Germany they invented the term 'Naziphobia' or under the Cold War the Socialists and Communists invented the term Communistphobia or Soclialistphobia - What is really reason for concern are the useful idiots and the traitorous policy and law makers taking such an absurd abomination serious, worse still, including that into our laws - By goodness one can hope one day that there will be a Nuremberg trial for those traitors.

Phobia: An unreasonable sort of fear that can cause avoidance and panic. Phobias are a relatively common type of anxiety disorder.

For example, extreme fear of spiders is called arachnophobia, and fear of being outside is known as agoraphobia. Phobias can be treated with cognitive behavioral therapy using exposure and fear reduction techniques. In many cases, anti-anxiety or anti-depressant medication proves helpful, especially during the early stages of therapy.

The word "phobia" is from the Greek "phobos" (fear).

From: JihadWatch

In face of the adverse and mounting phenomenon of Islamophobia in the West, we placed this issue at the top of our priorities and preoccupations, while conducting a large-scale world-wide effort to confront it at four levels:

First: The official level of countries and governments of the West, where this phenomenon is rampant and wide-spread. We have exhorted the officials in these countries to assume their inherent legal responsibilities in order to stem this illegal trend in conformity with international and domestic laws which prohibit discrimination based on incitement to hatred towards individuals or groups because of their religion, race, or other grounds.

Second: The level of major international organizations, such as the United Nations General Assembly in New York or the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as well as organisations concerned with Dialogue among Civilizations, or inter-religious and interfaith dialogue.

Third: Renowned academic institutions, intellectual and research centers, and think-tank circles.

Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner.

Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Islam in America's public schools: Education or indoctrination?

Rewriting history and school books for appeasement purposes is in my eyes a crime to the point of child abuse.

From: SFGate

With fatal terrorist attacks on the decline worldwide and al Qaeda apparently in disarray, it would seem a time for optimism in the global war on terrorism. But the war has simply shifted to a different arena. Islamists, or those who believe that Islam is a political and religious system that must dominate all others, are focusing less on the military and more on the ideological. It turns out that Western liberal democracies can be subverted without firing a shot.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the educational realm. Islamists have taken what's come to be known as the "soft jihad" into America's classrooms and children in K-12 are the first casualties. Whether it is textbooks, curriculum, classroom exercises, film screenings, speakers or teacher training, public education in America is under assault.

Capitalizing on the post-9/11 demand for Arabic instruction, some public, charter and voucher-funded private schools are inappropriately using taxpayer dollars to implement a religious curriculum. They are also bringing in outside speakers with Islamist ties or sympathies. As a result, not only are children receiving a biased education, but possible violations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause abound. Consider the following cases:

  • Last month, students at Friendswood Junior High in Houston were required to attend an "Islamic Awareness" presentation during class time allotted for physical education. The presentation involved two representatives from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization with a record of Islamist statements and terrorism convictions. According to students, they were taught that "there is one God, his name is Allah" and that "Adam, Noah and Jesus are prophets." Students were also taught about the Five Pillars of Islam and how to pray five times a day and wear Islamic religious garb. Parents were not notified about the presentation and it wasn't until a number of complaints arose that school officials responded with an apologetic e-mail.
  • Earlier this year at Lake Brantley High School in Seminole County, Fla., speakers from the Academy for Learning Islam gave a presentation to students about "cultural diversity" that extended to a detailed discussion of the Quran and Islam. The school neither screened the ALI speakers nor notified parents. After a number of complaints, local media coverage and a subsequent investigation, the school district apologized for the inappropriate presentation, admitting that it violated the law. Subsequently, ALI was removed from the Seminole County school system's Dividends and Speaker's Bureau.
  • As reported by the Cabinet Press, a school project last year at Amherst Middle School transformed "the quaint colonial town of Amherst, N.H., into a Saudi Arabian Bedouin tent community." Male and female students were segregated, with the girls hosting "hijab and veil stations" and handing out the oppressive head-to-toe black garment known as the abaya to female guests. Meanwhile, the boys hosted food and Arabic dancing stations because, as explained in the article, "the traditions of Saudi Arabia at this time prevent women from participating in these public roles." An "Islamic religion station" offered up a prayer rug, verses from the Quran, prayer items and a compass pointed towards Mecca. The fact that female subjugation was presented as a benign cultural practice and Islamic religious rituals were promoted with public funds is cause for concern.
  • Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, a charter school in Inver Grove Heights, Minn., came under recent scrutiny after Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten brought to light concerns about public funding for its overtly religious curriculum. The school is housed in the Muslim American Society's (the American branch of the Egyptian Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood) Minnesota building, alongside a mosque, and the daily routine includes prayer, ritual washing, halal food preparation and an after-school "Islamic studies" program. Kersten's columns prompted the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union to issue a press release expressing its own reservations about potential First Amendment violations. An investigation initiated by the Minnesota Department of Education verified several of Kersten's allegations and the school has since promised to make the appropriate changes. In a bizarre twist, when a local television news crew tried to report on the findings from school grounds, school officials confronted them and wrestled a camera away from one of its photographers, injuring him in the process.
  • The controversy surrounding the founding of New York City's Arabic language public school, Khalil Gibran International Academy, last year continues. Former principal Dhabah "Debbie" Almontaser was asked to step down after publicly defending T-shirts produced by Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media, an organization with whom she shared office space, emblazoned with "Intifada NYC." But KGIA has other troublesome associations. Its advisory board includes three imams, one of whom, New York University Imam Khalid Latif, sent a threatening letter to the university's president regarding a planned display of the Danish cartoons. Another, Shamsi Ali, runs the Jamaica Muslim Center Quranic Memorization School in Queens, a replica of the type of Pakistani madrassa (or school) counter-terrorism officials have been warning about since 9/11. Accordingly, several parents founded Stop the Madrassa: A Community Coalition to voice their contention that KGIA is an inappropriate candidate for taxpayer funding.

Equally problematic are the textbooks used in American public schools to teach Islam or Islamic history. Organizations such as Southern California's Council on Islamic Education and Arabic World and Islamic Resources are tasked with screening and editing these textbooks for public school districts, but questions have been raised about the groups' scholarship and ideological agenda. The American Textbook Council, an organization that reviews history and social studies textbooks used in American schools, and its director, Gilbert T. Sewall, have produced a series of articles and reports on Islam textbooks and the findings are damning. They include textbooks that are factually inaccurate, misrepresent and in some cases, glorify Islam, or are hostile to other religions. While teaching students about Islam within a religious studies context may be appropriate, the purpose becomes suspect when the texts involved are compromised in this manner.

Such are the complaints about "History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond," a textbook published by the Teachers' Curriculum Institute, to the point where parents in the Scottsdale, Ariz., school district succeeded in having it removed from the curriculum in 2005. TCI is based in Mountain View, and the textbook is now being used in the state's public schools, where similar concerns have arisen. A Marin County mother whose son has been assigned "History Alive!" has been trying to mount an effort to call school officials' attention to the problem. Similarly, a San Luis Obispo mother filed an official complaint several years ago with her son's school authorities over the use of Houghton Mifflin's middle school text, "Across the Centuries," which has been widely criticized for whitewashing Islamic history and glorifying Islam. Its inclusion in the Montgomery County, Md. public school curriculum among other districts across the country, could lead to further objections.

But the forces in opposition are powerful and plenty. They include public education bureaucrats and teachers mired in naivete and political correctness, biased textbook publishers, politicized professors and other experts tasked with helping states approve textbooks, and at the top of the heap, billions of dollars in Saudi funding. These funds are pouring into the coffers of various organs that design K-12 curricula. The resultant material, not coincidentally, turns out to be inaccurate, biased and, considering the Wahhabist strain of Islam promulgated by Saudi Arabia, dangerous. And again, taxpayer dollars are involved. National Review Online contributing editor Stanley Kurtz explains :

"The United States government gives money — and a federal seal of approval — to a university Middle East Studies center. That center offers a government-approved K-12 Middle East studies curriculum to America's teachers. But in fact, that curriculum has been bought and paid for by the Saudis, who may even have trained the personnel who operate the university's outreach program. Meanwhile, the American government is asleep at the wheel — paying scant attention to how its federally mandated public outreach programs actually work. So without ever realizing it, America's taxpayers end up subsidizing — and providing official federal approval for — K-12 educational materials on the Middle East that have been created under Saudi auspices. Game, set, match: Saudis."

Along with funding textbooks and curricula, the Saudis are also involved in funding and designing training for public school teachers. The Saudi funded Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University now offers professional development workshops for K-12 teachers. The workshops take place at the hosting institution and provide teachers with classroom material. They are free of charge and ACMCU throws in lunch to boot.

But this generosity likely comes with a catch, for the center is known for producing scholars and material with a decidedly apologist bent, both toward the Saudi Royal Family and Islamic radicalism. It's no accident that ACMCU education consultant Susan Douglass, according to her bio, has been "an affiliated scholar" with the Council on Islamic Education "for over a decade." Douglass also taught social studies at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax, Va., where her husband still teaches. ISA has come under investigation for Saudi-provided textbooks and curriculum that some have alleged promotes hatred and intolerance towards non-Muslims. That someone with Douglass' problematic associations would be in charge of training public school teachers hardly inspires confidence in the system.

While groups such as People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the ACLU express outrage at any semblance of Christianity in America's public schools, very little clamor has met the emergence of Islam in the same arena. An occasional press release, such as the one put out by the Minnesota chapter of the ACLU regarding TIZA, will surface, but by and large, the arbiters of separation of church and state or in this case, mosque and state, have gone silent. The same can largely be said for the federal government and, in particular, the State Department. No doubt, Saudi dollars and influence are part of the problem.

Probably the single greatest weapon in the arsenal of those trying to fight the misuse of America's public schools is community involvement. As noted previously, a number of parental coalitions have sprung up across the country in an effort to protect their own children from indoctrination. The Stop the Madrassa Coalition has expanded its efforts beyond New York City by working on policy ideas for legislation and meeting privately with members of Congress. Also providing hope are Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), whose 10-point "Wake Up America" agenda includes a call to reform Saudi-provided textbooks, and the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus she co-chairs. Its focus on "jihadist ideology" demonstrates an all-too-rare governmental understanding of the nature of the current conflict.

The power to educate the next generation is an inestimable one and a free society cedes control at its peril. The days of the "silent majority" are no longer tenable in the face of a determined and clever enemy. The battle of ideas must be joined.

Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com. She also writes for the blog at campus-watch.org.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Preamble of Kosovos constitution:

"We, the people of Kosovo, Determined to build a future of Kosovo as a free, democratic and peace-loving country that will be a homeland to all of its citizens; Committed to the creation of a state of free citizens that will guarantee the rights of every citizen, civil freedoms and equality of all citizens before the law; Committed to the state of Kosovo as a state of economic wellbeing and social prosperity; Convinced that the state of Kosovo will contribute to the stability of the region and entire Europe by creating relations of good neighborliness and cooperation with all neighboring countries; Convinced that the state of Kosovo will be a dignified member of the family of peace-loving states in the world; With the intention of having the state of Kosovo fully participating in the processes of Euro-Atlantic integration; In a solemn manner, we approve the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo."

Well, then are they breaking away with their religious beliefs? And I guess they do have plenty of reason to be thankful to the EU, no doubt about that...

You can see the constitution here and check for yourself how far they seem to be from the religion their majority claims to follow:

http://www.kosovoconstitution.info/repository/docs/Constitution.of.the.Republic.of.Kosovo.pdf

That is of course, if they are just writing that because it sounds good.

Well, as with anything else, time will tell.

Just remember, if they ever do something that goes against democratical principles as freedom of speech and the right to change religion and to draw cartoons, and all that jazz, they broke their own constitution, or what they claim to be based upon.

I just believe that spliting up Yugoslavia was as suicidal for europe as the waging of the cruzade against Constantinople by the Venetians (real reason why it fell to the turks), again, done in the name of "the best interests".

But that of course, is just my personal view.

Yugoslavia was a good country. There are things I will never understand in Europe I guess.

I just find it opdd that their majority is muhamedan and yet, they claim principles that muhamedans have stated clear they are against. Must be a new faction.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Ireland Saved Europe - NO TO THE LISBON TREASON!

Ich Bin Ein Irelander!

Democracy wins over totalitarianism!

The EU slowmotion coup d'etat has been slowed down but well knowing the semi fascist supranationalism the traitors will find new ways to snuff out democracy in Europe.

Long Live The Irish!

Long Live Freedom!

Long Live Democracy!

And put the traitors on trial for treason!

Sunday, June 8, 2008

What We All Knew And Despised - The US State Dep Finally Takes Notice, The UNHRC Is Worthless

60% of all resolutions are passed against Israel - Like a hole in the head we need an absurd abomination such as the UNHRC pulling another set of Nuremberg laws on our nations - Abolish the UN - A total waste of resources.
From: Gates of Vienna

The Light Dawns

by Baron Bodissey

The UNCCPThe UN Human Rights Council (successor to the Human Rights Commission) has become such an object of loathing that even the State Department has taken notice.

Anyone with any intelligence long ago reached the conclusion that the UNHRC is ludicrous, as well as being inimical to the interests of the United States. However, it took the autochthons of Foggy Bottom just a little bit longer than the rest of us to grasp the obvious:

According to Reuters:

The United States has quietly informed Western allies of its intention to walk away from the U.N. Human Rights Council, diplomatic sources said on Friday.

The U.S. delegation has observer status, with the right to speak, in the 47-member state forum, which meets in Geneva, and has never stood for election to the Council since it was set up two years ago.

Diplomatic sources and rights activists said that U.S. officials had informed the European Union on Friday morning of its intention to halt its involvement in the Council.

“They said they were going to disengage totally,” said one representative of a rights watchdog group.

In a Council debate on Friday on the situation in Myanmar, the United States failed to take the floor on a topic on which until now it has always been vocal, a possible sign that it had little further interest in the body. The Council replaced the widely discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

But it is seen by critics as having fallen under control of a bloc of Islamic and African countries, which have a majority when backed by their frequent allies Russia, China and Cuba.

Russia… China… Cuba… Libya… Zimbabwe… Sudan… Even the State Department eventually noticed that human rights aren’t exactly held in high esteem by these countries.

Voice of America has a slightly different take on the story:
The United States has confirmed plans to scale back its participation in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

A State Department spokesman Sean McCormack says U.S. representatives will be much more selective in dealing with the Geneva-based council. He said the United States will engage the U.N. body only when matters of American national interest are involved.

The U.S. delegation is not a council member but has observer status on the 47-nation body.

The State Department spokesman noted growing U.S. skepticism about council activities noting that it focused on criticizing Israel instead of dealing with other human rights issues. [emphasis added]

The American national interest will never be involved as long as we refuse to acknowledge the
legitmacy and authority of the UNHCR. When the UN announces that is sending a delegation to investigate the United States for practicing racism against Barack Obama, the proper response is to laugh uproariously, hoist a tankard to salute the TV screen, and then return to whatever it was we were doing before.

The UN Human Rights Council is a joke. It’s of no consequence.

Unless we take it seriously, that is.

The European Union, A Prison Of Nations

From: Chronicles Magazine
By Serge Trifkovic

Various multiethnic states (imperial Russia, the Habsburg Monarchy, pre-World War II Kingdom of Yugoslavia) have been labeled—often unfairly—as “prisons of nations.” That designation will apply more aptly to the European Union when the Lisbon Treaty, signed by all 27 EU heads of states or governments last December, takes effect next year. Under the “European Arrest Warrant,” which is to be implemented under the terms of the Treaty, every citizen or visitor of a member country the European Union will be liable to arrest and extradition at the behest of a judge in any other EU member-country, under one of 32 vaguely defined categories of “crime.”

This is a momentous development, and not one in a hundred EU citizens, let alone non-EU visitors to Europe, are fully aware of its implications.

Those 32 offenses, according to the drafters of the Treaty, “if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant.”

The list of 32 offenses includes criminal conspiracy, terrorism, human trafficking, child pornography, smuggling of drugs, weapons and explosives, fraud and money laundering, murder, kidnapping, forgery, etc. It also includes “racism and xenophobia,” as well as “computer crime” and “crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.” The local police will be obliged to arrest the indicted person and have him transferred to the issuing judge’s court for trial—and they will have to act regardless of their country’s judicial system or penal code.

Once the person is at the local court, he will be at the mercy of the local laws. The involvement of the ICC implies possible further extradition to non-EU countries. The Warrant is already in force in eight EU countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). An initial hearing takes place before a judge within 48 hours merely to establish the identity of the arrested (habeus corpus) and whether the arrest warrant has been filled in correctly. Additional information from the state that issued the arrest warrant may be requested. The major difference between extradition and EAW procedures is that the “hearing” in the latter process does not consider the allegations against the defendant or examine evidence. Instead, the hearing is merely meant to satisfy the court that no “legal bars to surrender” apply.

The European Arrest Warrant was one of the main topics at the recent Counter-Jihad Summit in Vienna, where the former Austrian Ambassador Edgar K. Selzer gave a detailed talk on the implications of this new weapon against freedom of speech in the EU. Dr. Selzer pointed out that the inclusion of “racism and xenophobia” brings “an emotion, a sentiment” into the category of major crimes, such as murder, arson etc, which is a legal and logical absurdity.

The European Arrest Warrant does not define “racism and xenophobia” as such, but its drafters have relied on the European Commission’s “Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia” which criminalizes “belief in race colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining aversion to individuals.” The Decision mandates that “racist and xenophobic behaviour must constitute an offence in all Member States and be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.” This framework decision will apply to all “offences” committed within the territory of the European Union, or “for the benefit of a legal person established in a Member State.”

The implications of all this are significant, for the future of civil liberties in the Western world no less than for me personally.

On May 11, I gave a speech at the Counter-Jihad Summit in Vienna. As our readers are well aware, “racism and xenophobia” in the EU-speak have long included the nebulous thought-crime of “Islamophobia”—and my speech could be construed as paradigmatically “Islamophobic” by the drafters of the EU Framework Decision, and accordingly acted upon by the future users of the European Arrest Warrant.

I am not an EU citizen, but that is immaterial if the “offence” was committed in an EU member-country. Once the European Arrest Warrant is in force, a Muslim-friendly judge in, say, Leicester or Birmingham could issue a warrant for my arrest in Greece—where I often go during the summer— for the “offence” committed by giving that speech in Austria last May, and the authorities in Thessaloniki or Athens would have to comply, no questions asked.

Furthermore, the speech was given at a gathering of 60 like-minded persons, most of them EU citizens. This constitutes a criminal conspiracy, a separate offense among those 32 crimes covered by the Warrant, since the Framework Decision defines a “racist or xenophobic group” as “a structured organisation consisting of at least two persons established for a specific period.” The speech was given to the Karl Martell Society, i.e. “for the benefit of a legal person established in a Member State.”

Last but not least, the said speech is widely available on the Internet, in both German and English, which potentially falls under the separate and as yet undefined offence of “computer crime.” Such EAWs have been issued already by British judges to Dutch authorities demanding the surrender of a Danish citizen in a case involving pornography.

Interestingly, under the Framework Decision, anything that is said at a John Randolph Club conference here in the United States may be deemed illegal and actionable under the European Arrest Warrant, if the offending speech or statement is posted on a website (such as www.chroniclesmagazine.org) that is downloadable within the EU, or if some supposedly “racist and xenophobic” material written by one of our editors or contributors is distributed by mailing Chronicles to a subscriber or an institution in the EU. This would be actionable under the Framework Decision as “public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia,” potentially subjecting the author to arrest in any EU country on a warrant issued by a judge in any other EU country.

Orwell was prescient but his date was wrong, a quarter-century premature.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

The Good Spirit

The Good Spirit

Friday, June 6, 2008

Olmert Hints U.S. Action on Iran Nukes is Near

More good news and looking forward to August when the air strikes presumable will take place - Mad mullahs with Nukes anyone? Anyone...?
No, except for mad mullahs.
The Iranians themselves however are understandable fed up with islamic shia fascism, see: Iranians Would Welcome Airstrikes, Sources Say and Good news: Bush 'Plans Iran air strike by August'.

From: Israel National news

(IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted after his meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush Wednesday that U.S. action against Iran is imminent. While he avoided saying anything clear and specific on the matter, Olmert did mention a "timetable" and said action would take place before Bush leaves the White House.

"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat," Olmert said after the meeting. "I left with a lot less question marks [than I had entered with] regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and America's resoluteness to deal with the problem."

"George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House," Olmert reportedly said after his 90 minute long one-on-one meeting with the American Commander in Chief.

'It is not good to publicize everything'
"With every day that goes by we get closer to stopping the Iranian nuclear plan," Olmert said. He said that meaningful steps were being taken to handle Iran "more effectively" and told reporters: "The Iranian problem requires urgent attention, and I see no reason to delay this just because there will be a new President in the White House seven and a half months from now."

"The U.S. is a leading element in dealing with Iran," Olmert said. "These are serious matters; I am not just saying this… It is not good to publicize everything."

Olmert reportedly told Bush: "From a personal point of view, I must say that I admire the patience and the strong emotion that you show the State of Israel as a person of your stature. Israel loves you very much, and your wife Laura."

Ahead of the meeting between the two leaders, Bush said he was waiting to "hear Olmert's views" regarding the recent contacts between Israel and Syria. The talks with Syria have reportedly aroused the ire of the U.S., which sees Syria as a leading member of the Axis of Evil. Olmert told reporters: "I hope that the contacts with Damascus will take Syria out of the Axis of Evil."


'Operational subjects'
American National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley dodged reporters' questions Wednesday on whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert directly urged American President George W. Bush to take military action against Iran. He said the United States is using a diplomatic strategy but added: "All options are on the table."

Olmert, in a speech earlier this week to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy forum, said that the Iranian threat "must be stopped by all possible means." He said sanctions are "only an initial step" and that there is "no doubt as to the urgent need for more drastic and robust measures."

Olmert also met with Vide President Dick Cheney at Cheney's residence. The two reportedly discussed "operational subjects" which included the finalization of the purchase of F-35 fighters by Israel, and the possibility of purchasing F-22 "Raptors" as well.

McConnell meets Dagan
Meanwhile the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell, is in Israel on a rare visit. McConnell is meeting security officials in Israel, who are trying to convince him that the U.S. needs to change its position regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities.

McConnell is the man who presented the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in 2007, which said that Iran had stopped its military nuclear project. He is in Israel as the guest of Meir Dagan, head of the Mossad – Israel's foreign intelligence arm – and will meet Defense Minister Ehud Barak Thursday morning.

Dagan is reportedly trying to persuade McConnell that Iran has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons and is en route to doing so.

"This is a person who briefs U.S. President Bush every morning about the security-related reality, based upon information collected by the intelligence network, and hence his importance [for Israel]," a security source told NRG. "He is one of the people with the most influence on U.S. foreign policy."

The Israeli security source added that "[Israel's] Minister of Defense has already told the [Knesset's] Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran continues to develop its nuclear ability, but he will have to prove this to McConnell by showing him intelligence information." According to a profile in the Israeli men's magazine Blazer, the hawkish Dagan favors quiet diplomatic contacts regarding Iran, accompanied by accelerated operational readiness.

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Defending The West In Vienna

An excellent account from Serge Trifkovic from Chronicles magazine.

From: Chronicles Magazine.

A select few who see the peril to which their neighbors are oblivious and who proceed to save their community against overwhelming odds, is a familiar literary and cinematic concept. Earlier this month (May 11-12) I had the pleasure of addressing one such real-life group in the capital of Austria, where some sixty activists from 16 European countries and the United States attended a symposium with the self-explanatory title, Counter-Jihad Vienna 2008: Defending Civil Liberties in Europe.

The event, sponsored by Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell and predictably ignored by the media, was part conference—with papers presented and discussed—and part hands-on workshop. Its immediate impact may seem limited, but the same could be said of the early days of each and every major political movement in history.

My keynote speech on the first day focused on debunking the new-fangled Thought Crime of “Islamophobia,” diagnosing the sources of current Western weakness, and recommending some practical remedies. (The address is also available in an elegant German translation.)

The second day of the conference focused on a series of reports—some frightening, others almost surreal—on the erosion of free speech in Europe. The forthcoming implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon (the failed EU Constitution under another name) opens countless possibilities for political repression. The European Commission’s “Framework Decision” provides an idea of what the new regime will be like for member states:

As a follow-up to Joint Action 98/443/JHA, this proposal provides for the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States regarding offences involving racism and xenophobia. Racist and xenophobic behaviour must constitute an offence in all Member States and be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.

This framework decision will apply to all offenses committed within the territory of the EU and by any national of a Member State or for the benefit of a legal person established in a Member State. The definition of “racism and xenophobia” is constantly expanding, and increasingly includes practically all forms of criticism of Islam. The looming horror of the Lisbon Treaty notwithstanding, the repression of free speech and other civil liberties is already a fact in many European countries, as illustrated by the conference participants from those countries.

Denmark has more freedom of speech than any other country in Europe, yet the former leader of the Fremskridspartiet, Mogens Glistrup, was jailed for 20 days for saying, “Muslims multiply like rats, and when they are plentiful enough, they will kill us.”

In Finland, a blogger known as Tomashot, who operated an anti-immigration website, was fined 825 euros ($1,300) and ordered to close down the site. The country’s criminal code (section 11, # 8) states that a person “who spreads statements . . . where a certain race, national, ethnic or religious group is threatened, defamed or insulted, shall be sentenced for ethnic agitation to a fine or to imprisonment of up to two years.” The authorities are currently working to increase the power of the “Anti-Discrimination Board” (Syrjintälautakunta) and to establish a “Super Ombudsman” to oversee all discrimination cases; he would also be able to penalize alleged offenders without a trial. In addition, the authorities intend to make the internet service providers responsible for the “racist” content posted by their clients. But as a Finnish participant explained,

No legal repression is needed when talking about certain things in a certain way is just not done. The guardians of the public sphere take care of that, even if someone is naive enough to try. In the academia, write a research plan about studying “the challenges to democracy posed by changes in the cultural landscape due to the rise of fundamentalism and extremism”—and you won’t get any funding from the state monopoly institutions. Ask for help to study “our prejudices against the so-called terrorists” or “the implicitly racist aspects of the gender equality discourse in the Third World”—and your funding is guaranteed. This happens everywhere, but Finland is specific because we don’t have second or third options. So what remains to the not-PC-enough folks is the blogosphere—and that’s worrying the guardians, and they are trying to do something about it.

Reports from Germany and Switzerland (the latter half-way through the “Year of Intercultural Dialogue”) included the unbelievable case of a senior state persecutor in Berlin who was fired because of criticizing Islam. Roman Reusch, a determined prosecutor of crimes often committed by Muslim youngsters, was fired after a vilification campaign by Muslim activists and left wing politicians. His cardinal sin was to state some facts about the crimes committed by young immigrants in media interviews. At the same time, at the Frankfurt district court a German judge rejected the “hardship divorce application” of a woman regularly beaten by her husband because both partners came from the “Moroccan cultural background.”

In Sweden the rapporteur opened by noting the “overwhelming social consensus which inhibits the airing of dissident opinions: ostracism, loss of employment, and other unofficial sanctions against unorthodox views act as substitutes for judicial action.” Extra-governmental groups such as Antifa (Antifascistisk Aktion) act as enforcers of that consensus by threatening and committing violence against prominent individuals who fail to comply with the politically correct consensus. The anti-immigrant party Sverigedemokraterna, thus faces persistent harassment. The Swedish post office refused to deliver its newspaper in Svedala near Malmö. The country’s trade union representatives have demanded that all known members of the party should be denied trade union membership—which in Sweden is tantamount to virtual impossibility of obtaining employment in the public sector and most skilled trades.

There are also growing examples of legal repression. Dahn Pettersson, an activist of the Alliance Party, was convicted last year of “incitement/agitation against an ethnic group” and sentenced to pay dagsböter, “fines in proportion to his daily income,” totaling $2,600. He was indicted for writing a petition to the municipal council in which he argued that the arrival of large numbers of Kosovo Albanian immigrants to Sweden had led to an increase of heroin smuggling.

The suppression of free speech appears to have gone further in Great Britain than in any other EU country, however. As Paul Weston (one of the participants comfortable with having his name made public) reported, the problem can be traced back to 1984, when Ray Honeyford, a headmaster, wrote an article for The Salisbury Review in which he questioned the values of multiculturalism. Honeyford argued that minority children were being badly let down educationally, and that their future life chances were being sacrificed for Leftist political gain. He was duly chased from his job amid accusations of racism, in an orchestrated campaign that allied the Left with various ethnic-minority spokesmen. Soon thereafter came the Public Order Act 1986, Section 17 of which clarified racial hatred as being “hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.” Section 18 clarified racist behaviour as “the use of words or behaviour or display of written material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.” The maximum penalty under this act was two years’ imprisonment.

In 1999 Sir William Macpherson published the seminal Macpherson Report which, in addition to labelling the police as “institutionally racist,” gave birth to eighteen words which have been used by the British authorities to clamp down on any speech critical of any minority group. The exact wording is as follows: “A racial incident is one that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”

In 1998 the Crime And Disorder Act 1998 extended the maximum jail sentence over and above normal sentence times if racial aggravation was used in crimes up to and including murder. In 2006 the Racial And Religious Hatred Act 2006 was passed which classified religious hatred along the same lines as racial hatred and extended the jail sentence for transgression to seven years. That same year also saw the introduction of the Equality Act 2006, which replaced the Commission For Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission with a single entity, the Commission For Equality And Human Rights or CEHR. In 2007 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill was passed, with an amendment that bought “homophobic” hate crime in line with the definition of racial or religious hatred, including a maximum jail sentence of seven years. In addition to the above legislation, Britain has also seen the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, both of which have been used to suppress freedom of speech in the UK.

Paul Weston pointed out that “Ray Honeyford was fortunate that none of the above legislation was in place when he transgressed the racial thought police in 1984”—but other Britons have not been so lucky.

  • Robin Page, a television presenter, was arrested in 2002 for inciting racial hatred when he stated that people living in the countryside who supported fox hunting should be granted the same rights as blacks, gays and lesbians.
  • Fourteen-year-old schoolgirl Codie Stott was arrested over a “racial incident” in 2006, after she asked her teacher to be moved to a different discussion group where her fellow pupils actually spoke English. She was released without charge but only after spending several hours in the cells where her DNA was taken.
  • One of Britain’s top lawyers Robert Kilroy-Silk was not prosecuted for inciting racial hatred after he referred to Muslims as suicide bombers and limb amputators in a 2004 Independent newspaper article, but he did lose his job as a television show host.
  • The blogger Lionheart has been arrested and bailed on charges of inciting racial/religious hatred for detailing the activities of Muslim criminals in the Luton area.
  • A retired couple, Joe and Helen Roberts were warned by Lancashire police in 2005 that their request to display Christian literature alongside homosexual rights pamphlets at their local council offices was discriminatory and homophobic. (Lancashire police would have to wait a couple of years for the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 to be enacted in order to prosecute them.)
  • The use of anti-terrorism legislation has now spread to parents who lie about their post code in order to obtain a place at a desirable school for their children.
  • Anti-terrorism laws were invoked when Walter Wolfgang was detained by police in 2005. His crime: attempted re-entry to the Labour Party Conference, from which he had been physically ejected for heckling a speaker over the war in Iraq.

“This is the culture war in all its glory,” concludes Paul Weston. The myriad laws passed in recent years are simply there in order to stifle discussion, let alone dissent, in the ongoing war against indigenous European, Christian, heterosexual families. All animals are equal, says he,

but some are more equal than others. Nowhere is this maxim more apparent than the approach by the police to areas where Islam is at fault and the indigenous European innocent. No imams exposed in Channel 4’s Undercover Mosques program have been prosecuted under any of the legislation outlined above. In fact, the West-Midlands police force attempted to prosecute Channel 4 themselves for inciting racial-religious hatred by dint of their sheer temerity in broadcasting footage of Muslims calling for the overthrow of the West and the murder of homosexuals and the infidel kuffir.

Before the Lisbon Treaty is ratified early next year, the Europeans would be well advised to ponder a quote from Terry Davis, Secretary general of the Council of Europe, in the aftermath of the crackdown against the Vlaams Belang in Brussels last September:

It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.

As I said at the end of my Vienna address, this is insane—and it is up to the millions of normal Europeans and their American cousins to stop such madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity, and to make room for the post-human, monistic Utopia spearheaded by the jihadist fifth column. This crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the Euro-traitor class is guilty.

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam: Part 2

The second analysis of exceptional insight and quality which is equally clear, lucid and concise - Bill Warner's An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam.
An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam: Part 1

The Origin of the Politics of Islam

Mohammed preached for 13 years in Mecca and only acquired about 150 followers. Following the death of his protector and uncle, the wealthy class of Mecca ran him out of town. He left with his followers and went to Medina, a town located less than a hundred miles from Mecca in what is now Saudi Arabia. There he preached for another year and obtained a hundred or so more followers.
In order to support himself and his followers, he sent men out to rob caravans from Mecca and generously distributed among them the wealth they brought back, keeping a portion for himself. Part of the wealth obtained from these raids were captives which Mohammed also distributed among his men as slaves and in some cases as wives. Slaves who agreed to convert to Islam were freed. Mohammed was never motivated by money as much as by power. He considered money a tool that could be used to fund jihad and to support his followers.

At the same time, Mohammed moved from the strictly religious or spiritual practice of Islam into a profoundly political mode. Suddenly the new Islam became popular. It was not simply a religion that would assure the poorest of the poor a place of honor in a gilded paradise, but a political system that could provide them with wealth, sex and power, all to be had for the taking from the kafir.
The word of Allah, as received and reported by Mohammed, is divided into two records. The Koran of Mecca was based on religious precepts. The Koran of Medina, however, became clearly political in scope and direction.

The belief that only Muslims are protected by Allah meant that kafirs were not afforded the usual considerations of morality, such as equality, honesty and compassion. Examples we see from Mohammed's life show that kafirs can be mocked, raped, cursed, threatened, tortured, killed, robbed or enslaved to advance the cause of Islam.

This dual system of ethics paved the way to jihad: a holy war undertaken as a Muslim duty and are reflected in the Islamic world view:

dar al Islam, land of submission
dar al harb, land of war

In contrast, the prevailing kafir world view is that all people at some fundamental level are equal, although they are not necessarily the same. Not all people are of the same ability, although all deserve to be treated fairly, compassionately and honestly. The ultimate ethical statement is referred to as The Golden Rule: "Treat others as you wish to be treated." In this view "others" and "self" are equal and all of humanity is to be accorded the same consideration. This is the ideal. We frequently fail to live up to the ideal, but is the ideal nevertheless.

The dual ethics of Islam are not as simple as separate set of ethics for the kafir. What makes political Islam so effective is that it has two stages of ethics for the kafir. It has the ethics of the Meccan Koran (written early and religious), and the ethics of the Medinan Koran (written later and political). Islam can treat the kafir well, but as an inferior (Koran of Mecca), or treat him as an enemy of Allah (Koran of Medina). Both actions are sanctioned as sacred in the Koran. Islamic apologists always refer to the Meccan ethics.

The Two Civilizations


Ethics are of primary importance. Ethics determine how you treat someone else. The ethic of unity is the basis of democracy, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

It was the Golden Rule that lead to the end of slavery. All civil rights was based upon the Golden Rule. Notice this is about politics, not religion. The Golden Rule goes beyond religion.

There are only two types of ethics-unity and dualistic. And so there are two civilizations-those based upon ethics of unity and those based upon dualistic ethics.

This is the crux of the matter. Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and most atheists subscribe to the Golden Rule. A Hindu has the same ethics as a Christian. Both are workers, hold family in high regard and don't lie, cheat or steal. Of course, some do, but they can be judged, shamed and condemned on the basis of the Golden Rule ethical system.

A Muslim is not subject to the Golden Rule, and so does not feel shame at the suffering of the kafirs. Take slavery, for instance. Christians can be shamed over slavery. Islam has a 1400-year history of slavery, including running the slave trade that sold the Africans to the Christians. There are no Islamic books that recall the slave trade in any detail and express any regret.

There has never been a book written where a Muslim recalls the historic suffering of jihad and has remorse or shame. Every history of jihad is glorious. Mohammed killed and enslaved the kafirs and established the ideal pattern for all Muslims. Mohammed never felt remorse or shame, so a Muslim feels no remorse or shame over any suffering caused by jihad.

This lack of regret or sorrow is what should be expected of a dualistic ethical civilization.

The kafirs cannot unite on the basis of religion, but we are already united on the basis of an ethics of unity. We just need to understand our common ethical ground. If we understand that we are all members of a unitary ethical civilization, we can also unite to defend ourselves against the attack by the dualistic ethical system of Islam.

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.