Sunday, November 17, 2013

The Ongoing Erasure of Europe

In "The Regulator's Cucumber Syndrome" I discussed how the EU is obsessed with controlling the European's material existence. In this column the subject is how the EU is planning to control his spiritual existence.

The Gates of Vienna published a startling, translated column by German attorney Michael Schneider about an Organization of Islamic Conferences-approved (OIC) "framework" sponsored by the European Parliament, "which seems likely to be implemented across the EU. The proposed law would devise a draconian new form of politically correct 'tolerance' and impose it on European citizens and institutions by establishing bureaucratic bodies with the authority to enforce it."

 The irony in the title of the proposed legislation was obviously lost on its authors, "A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance," for it is nothing but a blueprint for imposing across-the-board "intolerance."

Schneider opens his essay with:

Anyone who speaks and writes about the abrogation of freedom in Europe is accused of being a pathological conspiracy theorist. So it is advisable to be a little more specific, and name names.

The abrogation of freedom in Europe is not occurring naturally, but according to the planning of educated elites, who have been trained to replace civic freedoms — especially those of expression, of the press and of the airwaves — with ideological coercion, and thus smash civil society into microscopic shards, like valuable, defenseless porcelain.

Schneider writes that one of the chief culprits behind this legislation is a Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum, professor emeritus and one of the directors of the Max Planck Institute on foreign public law and international law in Heidelberg.

This honorable person is also in a dubious think tank, “The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation” about which one may find relevant information on the homepage of the president of “The European Jewish Congress” (EJC), Viacheslav Moshe Kantor. Among other things are those documents which describe the political intentions of the think tank.

The subject document closes with a reference to that think tank:

This text was prepared – under the aegis of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation – by a Group of Experts composed of Yoram Dinstein (Chair), Ugo Genesio, Rein Mȕllerson, Daniel Thȕrer and Rȕdiger Wolfrum.

The Three Expert Horsemen of the European Apocalypse? Surely. Throughout his essay, Schneider repeatedly refers to Wolfrum as "Wolfrum in Sheep's Clothing." And when you read the European Framework (in English) yourself, you will see that his sardonic contempt for the man is fully justified.

Of particular interest are paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) under Section 1: Definitions:

(a) "Group" means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linquisitc links, gender identity or sexual orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature.

(c) "Hate crimes" means: any criminal act however defined, whether committed against persons or property, where the victims or targets are selected because of their real or perceived connection with – or support or membership of – a group as defined in paragraph (a).

(d) "Tolerance" means: respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group as defined in paragraph (a). The definition is without prejudice to the principle of coexistence of diverse groups within a single society.

Muslims, of course, would not be expected to abide by these rules. They can behead a British soldier in broad daylight in London and cite chapter and verse from the Koran, attack Jews in Malmo, rape as many Norwegian women as they like, and invade an auditorium and shout down any speaker who criticizes Islam, yet one may not take umbrage at their "religious affiliation" or ethnicity  without risking the charge of having committed a "hate crime" and being "intolerant."

Muslims, however, can froth at the mouth in hatred and commit atrocious crimes, yet not be charged with "hate crimes." They can publicly demonstrate carrying signs that read "Freedom of Speech Go to Hell," "Islam Will Dominate," and "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" with impunity, yet anyone who appeared in public carrying a sign that read "Sharia Go to Hell" or "Islam is Barbarism" would soon be handcuffed by the police and led away to be charged with a "hate crime" and with "inciting violence."

Muslims are permitted to hate and express their intolerance. You, the non-Muslim, are not. "Respect, tolerate, and accept" the conundrum.

Schneider parses prominent sections of the European Framework law and explicates their meanings vis-à-vis EU-Speak. For example:

The basic consideration[s] of the document as read are attractive and allow no suspicion to arise – that is if you do not know what EU political-speak means – for instance, "human diversity" standing for the systematic destruction of the autochthonic population and its traditional canon of values. Whereas respect for human dignity is based on recognition of human diversity and the inherent right of every person to be different, etc. [Emphasis in bold is Schneider's]

All possible groups are supposed to be protected by this concept of tolerance — just not the majority population. With this policy, minorities are purposefully advanced at the cost of majority cohesion. This splits the society, thereby controlling it better and leading to the final goal. This becomes visible in the typical, EU-wide concept of the protected minority, which is inherently aimed at splitting the society — divide et impera:

In short – and because the chief beneficiary of this legislation will be Muslims – this means that the Muslim minority will be raised in status to that of the dominant Western culture. By effectively divorcing Muslims from secular Western society, and giving them a special, protected status, all the Dark Age practices inherent in Islam, including Sharia law, will be bestowed the same legal and moral status as the culture of the majority of non-Muslim Westerners.

However, the secular majority, in the name of "diversity," may not impose its values and ethics on the Muslim "minority"  (that would be viewed as "oppression"), but the Muslim "minority" may chip away at the values and ethics of the majority in the name of "tolerance," until they disappear like the Titanic and slip beneath the waves of history.

The goals of Islamic "cultural" jihad have been iterated repeatedly, among which are the dissolution of Western civilization. The Muslim Brotherhood's strategy is clearly stated in an American court document that outlines how Islam will conquer the U.S. (and presumably Canada). That strategy can be seen at work in Europe, as well.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

Greece has gotten a head-start on the process. Atlas Shrugs reports that the Greek Supreme Court has held Sharia law superior to Greek secular or civil law.

The last will and testament of a Muslim man, which was prepared according to Greek civil law, has been annulled in the Greek Supreme Court because it is not compliant with sharia law.

Demeter Simeonidou, who was Muslim and lived in Thrace, wanted to leave all his assets to his wife. He prepared his will with this in mind under Greek law. But the will was challenged by Mr Simoenidou's sister who claimed that under Islamic law of succession, a Muslim does not have the right to make a public will and his assets must be distributed in accordance with sharia.

Simoenidou's sister is "different" because she believes in Sharia law. Her belief must be "respected," and to not respect it would be an insult and a denial of her "difference" and to rob her of her "diverse" status. To honor her late brother's will would by implication mean a derogation and defaming of Islamic law.

Schneider next turns to the notion of "group libel" (Section D, Definitions, [b]):

…defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, insulting the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

Schneider remarks:

Under such a totalitarian regime as planned here, Mohammed cartoons are just as unthinkable as are objective, scientific observations on any group having to do with its intelligence, its other genetic endowments, its behavior (unless it is described unreservedly positively) for instance, cumulatively occurring deviant or criminal behavior, etc. Even someone who reports that a group of sixty took part in the attack on a German police officer, and none of them was an ethnic German, can thus become a serious criminal. Warning: the persecution of the police officer is not the crime, but the politically incorrect report on it.

Sixty Muslims attacking the (presumably non-Muslim) German police officer would not be deemed a crime under the compromised German criminal code – that's just a "minority" protesting their victimhood by the "system" – but identifying the attackers as Muslim would be deemed a crime. Six Muslims gang-raping a non-Muslim woman or girl would not be judged a crime – that's just Muslims observing their religion, whose tenets may not be judged or held up in measure with secular law – but identifying the rapists as Muslim would be a crime.

Six ethnic Germans gang-raping an ethnic German woman or girl, however, is a crime that would fall under German secular law. But guess who would get the harshest sentencing under this schizophrenic code, and who would be left off with a slap on the wrist, even should a court dare such a rebuke?

Muslims may commit violence – Mohammad orders them to, it's in the Koran, that's something that can't be evaluated or judged – but a reporter who flouts the law of political correctness and identifies criminals as Muslims, would be found guilty of "inciting" violence or hatred or of intolerance or of insulting or defaming Islam and Muslims by having simply reported facts. But I don’t think very many German or European reporters would face such a charge, once a nation adopted the European Framework legislation, because no newspaper or broadcast organization would ever hire them. The ones who might have would have been given pink slips.

In a spurt of thoroughness, lest anyone think he could critique the actions of Muslims in the past without risk of recrimination, there is this explanatory note:

It must be understood that the "group libel" may appear to be aimed at members of the group in a different time (another historical era) or place (beyond the borders of the State).

Scholarly books on the pitfalls of Islam? Out of the question! TV specials on the bloody history of Islam from the 7th century on? Forget it! The history of Islamic slavery over the centuries, covering the deaths of millions of African blacks at the hands of Muslim slave traders to the kidnapping of approximately 1.5 million Europeans to die in servitude in North Africa or populate Muslim harems? Not a chance! Try and find a publisher. So what if the raiders of European coastal towns as far north as Iceland were pirates? They were Muslims, and their reputations are protected against "group libel." Recounting their actions would reflect "negatively" on the existing group, and that will not be allowed.

Next, Schneider highlights the consequences of creating a culture that is no longer Western but which has multiple personalities.

To appease the critics, the unavoidable effect of the plan — splitting and ultimately destroying societies through the disproportionate demands of minorities who are impossible or difficult or unwilling to integrate — is concealed in an implausible formula: Promote tolerance within society without weakening the common bonds tying together a single society.

Meaning that, hypothetically, German culture would simply be one of many "cultures" inhabiting the same nation, in the way of a placid mosaic, abiding peaceably with Islamic and other "cultures." Either Wolfrum and his colleagues are either ignorant of the fact, or choose not to mention it, but Islam "isn't in" Germany or any other European nation or in the U.S. to exist peacefully with non-Muslims, but to dominate, and that is what we have been witnessing in Europe for at least the last two decades. Muslims have been stating that intention from the beginning of their mass immigrations.

Schneider is certain that Wolfrum especially knows what he is doing.

As a proven legal thinker, he is not doing this by mistake but with malice aforethought and out of deepest conviction.

Schneider discusses how national and local governments would be expected to establish their own "special administrative units" that would police speech. He quotes from "Section 4: Limitations (f)":

Freedom must not be used to defame other groups.

Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other members of their own group.

Absent in this incredible document is any mention of individuals or individual right, except incidentally in the preface. All rights, privileges and protections are calibrated to groups, to collectives. The string of "Whereas's" in the beginning of the European Framework contains the basic premises of everything that follows and telegraphs the Framework's goals. For example,

 Whereas the concept of tolerance is the opposite of any form of unlawful discrimination….

Who is to decide what is "unlawful discrimination"? A special administrative unit.

Whereas tolerance has a vital role in enabling successful coexistence of diverse groups within a single national society….[s]uch coexistence enriches and strengthens the fabric of the national society [and] should not affect the basic identity of that society or its shared values, history, aspirations and goals.

Good luck with that, because there is a catch.

Whereas integration within a single national society does not mean assimilation….

Whereas coexistence and cooperation within a democratic society require that individuals and groups make mutual concessions to each other….

Meaning that assimilation by Muslims into the larger Western society would not be imperative and wouldn't be a concession, but accommodation verging on assimilation by Westerners into Islamic culture would be imperative as a suicidal gesture of "tolerance" and "coexistence," which would be short-lived.

All in all, the whole European Framework document is deliberately calculated to produce a race reminiscent of the “pod people” from the film The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, with particular emphasis on transforming indigenous Europeans into obedient, unquestioning clones of each other, “tolerant” to the point of self-extinction and complicit in the destruction of European culture – that is, of the culture that once promoted freedom, freedom of speech, and their identities as Westerners.

After reading the entirety of this heinous document, I couldn't help but picture Wolfrum the co-author as the face on the screen of the classic Apple ad of 1984 that debuted the personal computer age, a disembodied face commanding adherence to a "garden of pure ideology…free from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts."

But where is the European athlete who will champion freedom of speech and hurl a hammer at the screen? Are Europeans nothing but "Ewes in Wolf's Clothing"? Well, no. There's Geert Wilders, Michael Stürzenberger, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and Lars Hedegaard, to name but a handful of Europeans ready to stake their all for freedom of speech and sound the alarm about the Islamic takeover of their continent.  Their thoughts state the truth, yet they have been persecuted, prosecuted, and thrown to the wolves of Islam.

The same may be said about Michael Schneider, who also warns that that the alliance of the EU and Islam, if not exposed and stopped, will lead to the ultimate erasure of Europe by the hands of believers and the likes of Rüdiger Wolfrum and their dhimmified ilk.

Is America on the same path?


Neil Parille said...

Excellent piece, Ed.

This is very scary:

Establish a National
Tolerance Monitoring Commission
as an independent body composed of eminent persons from outside
the civil service vested with the authority to promote tolerance.

I see that denying the holocaust should be forbidden, but no mention of denying the (much larger) Ukranian famine created by Stalin. All holocausts aren't created equal. Denying the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Moslems isn't a crime either.

Unfortunately most Objectivists won't discuss this because it conflicts with their pet doctrine of "open immigration."

Neil Parille said...

This is open immigration Objectivist Craig Biddle

The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of respect for and protection of individual rights. Fortunately for those who love and want to preserve American culture, the principle of individual rights is the basic principle of that culture; respect for that principle is an essential characteristic of a true American; and foreigners who immigrate to America, for the most part, embody that characteristic.

The “We have a right to our culture” argument against immigration is at worst unspeakably evil and at best an argument for open immigration.

For someone like Biddle, the desire of a native Dane or an Israeli Jew to prevent his country from becoming Islamic is more or less equivalent to Nazism.

Barbara Nelson said...

The very first paragraph in the Mr Parille's citation reads: "The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of respect for and protection of individual rights." I do not see how Mr Parille is equating that with Nazism.

Edward Cline said...

Barbara: A British contact noted to me that the whole European Framework document is an example of the "Primacy of Consciousness" in action. Indeed, it is.

Neil Parille said...


Read the last sentence. Keeping ones culture is to Biddle evil.

Biddle wants the destruction of the nation state and is willing to accept a moslem europe.

revereridesagain said...

"Open immigration" becomes an argument based on floating abstractions when its proponents ignore the fact that admitting "individuals" whose stated aim -- as expressed by the Muslim Brotherhood -- is to take over the country and substitute religion-based totalitarianism for our constitutional republic. Even more than preserving a "culture", citizens have a right to oppose the occupation of their nation by a hostile force seeking to negate their rights. Such is the case with any Muslim immigrants who refuse to renounce the goals of jihad.

Tim C said...

"Such is the case with any Muslim immigrants who refuse to renounce the goals of jihad." - which they will utterly lie about anyway.