(Tip from: Gegen den Strom)

» contact: hans-gert.poettering@europarl.europa.eu

1. JTF is a legal organization in the United States and Israel. JTF has a popular television program in the U.S., which broadcasts four times a week. JTF has web sites in English and in Hebrew, and JTF has forums in English and in Hebrew. JTF has produced hundreds of videos which have hundreds of thousands of viewers.

2. Niggemeier falsely accuses JTF of being a terrorist group. In fact, JTF is an anti-terrorist organization which exposes the dangers of Islamic terrorism. It is Niggemeier who supports terrorism by attacking anyone who dares to tell the truth about Muslim terror.

3. Niggemeier falsely accuses JTF of racism. JTF is the ultimate anti-racist organization, fighting against the most notorious racism in history, which is anti-Semitism. Isn’t it, on the other hand, Jew-hating racism to support the Muslim Nazis - like Niggemeier does - that seek to exterminate little Israel and commit a holocaust against 5 million Israeli Jews? The Muslim Nazis are the heirs to the legacy of the Third Reich. Anyone who defends the Muslim Nazis is promoting a new holocaust against the Jewish people. The anti-Semitism of the modern Leftists is the ugliest form of racism known to humanity.

4. Niggemeier attacks me personally for leading a campaign to liberate Soviet Jewry. In the 1980s, I damaged Soviet diplomatic property to bring worldwide attention to the fact that Soviet Jews were being held hostage behind the Iron Curtain of oppression and injustice. No one was killed or injured in any of my actions, and there was no intention to kill or injure. I spent five and a half years in prison for damaging Soviet property. Niggemeier calls what I did “terrorism”, but he will not condemn the Muslim PLO and Fatah who brutally murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children, and who continue to commit acts of mass murder to this day. Niggemeier’s hypocrisy and double standard further prove that he is a Jew-hating defender of Muslim terrorism.

But the real issue in the dispute between Niggemeier and PI is Europe’s future:

- If you believe that tens of millions of Muslims should be permitted to flood into Europe, then you should support Niggemeier. But if you recognize that this policy is suicidal, then you should support and
join PI.

- If you are concerned about the fact that the Muslims have the highest birth rate in the world, and that Europeans have the lowest birth rate in the world, then you should support and join PI.

- If you are concerned about the fact that hundreds of thousands of European youth are converting to Islam, then you should support and join PI.

- If you are concerned about the fact that Western nations are sending trillions of dollars to Muslim terrorist regimes because of the West’s addiction to oil, then you should support and join PI.

PI is a weblog that has the courage to say publicly what most Europeans privately think. Every sane European should salute the PI-authors for the vital work that they are doing to save Europe and the world from a catastrophe.

(Statement by Chaim ben Pesach, JTF National Chairman, picture above)

1) German and Swiss cases of oppression (including intimidation, lawsuits, arrests, or threats of arrest) involving Islam or “racism” in some way,

* The Racists-Hunter from Switzerland

At the end of February a message from a PI reader reached us from an Internet cafe. The woman writing us just had a visit from the state prosecutor’s office and her computer had just been confiscated.

The PI reader wrote:

Dear PI team

Also in Switzerland the “Year of Intercultural Dialogue” is already fully under way. Our Foreign Minister Mrs Calmy-Rey has expressed her confidence on the integration of Muslims. (NZZ 22.2.08)

I should hope too. Early this morning, two gentlemen of the public prosecutor’s office stood in front of my door and told me they would have to take me with them. They also seized my PC. That’s why here I sit in the Internet cafe look back on the free speech in Switzerland.

What happened? After a series of charges for violations of the anti-racism law from Berne, of which one led to a high fine for a fireplace joke where another to procedure, because of a sentence in which the Quran was described as a manual of terror. I had also recommended the high-censor of the be-afraid-culture in Switzerland to explore the hate speech of the Quran. This lawyer had charged me now. A Mr. K. from Burgdorf. I had mentioned about him - a man with an enormous moustache he wore in the face - after the action from Seldwyla in the SVP forum, whether this was a Stalin or Muslim moustache and had written, “the moustache with the full moustache would be indeed an ajatoll (aja-perfect) guardian of the State of God.” And so we could be tense, what “Allah’s enlightened well-paid-dog chain, who claims (literally) having a ‘basic understanding of human dignity’, would sniff out on human rights in the Quran”. And “I particularly recommend that honourable man to identify the women’s role in Islam.”

Even a diligent collector of material against the Islam-critics in the forum, who figured there under the name Ahmad had already announced openly that he would evaluate (!) everything at the time given. I mentioned after this initial charges wave as follows:

“While the plashing and babbling blithely continues, Ahmed performs his hard mental working of scrupulous collecting of materials in the Islamic Center of freedom of expression. He can present them to the chain-dog and lawyer of Allah in Burgdorf ever with the right Quranic interpretation. I would love to see Kettiger (pbuh) ‘in legal proceedings’ once too.”

(With the latter one of the religious police had threatened us in the forum. ‘Wait until you stand in the court’) pbuh

“And now sniffle, Ketti (Chaniy), as long as the law still exists that feeds you here,” I wrote. “True, friends, who calls Allah’s chain-dog a ‘denouncer’ calls will be displayed.”

So far the Corpus Delictum. It’s not the point yet.

The question at the state attorney is whether the word game with the name of (Kettinger) “chain-dog” was a criminal abuse. I would like to remember you to a cartoon which once was published in a Swiss daily newspaper and showed the assembled Swiss Federal Council with Councillor Couchepin holding George Kreis, chief guardian of the Swiss public opinion supervision as a small doggy on a leash. The well known historian Georg Kreis is president of the Swiss Federal Commission against Racism. Federal Councillor Couchepin is the man who, despite the unfortunate role Kreis plays in the Swiss be-afraid-culture confirmed his job for further action against the resistance.

This time the accusation is not for “racial discrimination”, but for “insulting”. Caricatures and word satires are no longer tolerated. The Free Speech bears muzzle.

(…)

Best greetings
xxx

In each of the cases persecuted by the racist-hunter the user data of the accused writers had to been handed out. When asked who was drawing the chains (Ketten) behind Kettiger he replied:

“I follow the activities of the Islam critics on a representational basis.”

Who could this be? Muslims or non-Muslims, that is the question.

* Berlin senior state persecutor fired because of Islam criticism

Roman Reusch who had a hard line persecuting youth criminality, often committed by Muslim youngsters, was mobbed out of his job and forced into a ne position by left wing politicians. He had mentioned facts about crimes of young foreigners in interviews and was forced to remain silent.

* Hitler greeting on anti-Islamic book cause for sentence

In good old Germany clocks tick differently, everyone is extremely sensitive in dealing with right-wing symbols. Their use is partially banned in because they are against the constitution and it does not matter why they were used. This has led to a grotesque situation in which a man has been charged for the possession of flyers showing the cover picture of a free-for-sale anti-Islam and anti-fascism book. The cover showed Islamists doing the Hitler greeting.

The accused David Goldner has later been declared innocent: http://www.pi-news.net/2007/05/freispruch-fuer-david-goldner/

* Youtube Results on Stefan Herre

Countless defaming video clips are on YouTube about PI-founder Stefan Herre, some of them asking for his death, sometimes, with, name address, phone number, Google map picture of the house and pictures of his whole family. An example.

2) The laws, civil or criminal, that were used to oppress

* Anti-racism laws in Germany and Switzerland

* Judge put the Quran over German national rights

The Sharia Caliphate is set up in Germany: At the Frankfurt district court a German judge imposes the Quran on the criminal and family law. The judge refused the hardship divorce request of a woman beaten by her husband, because both partners came from the Moroccan cultural background.

3) Cases in which there was a protest or other action, and no one was arrested or convicted - that is, people got away with criticism without being oppressed.

* Six Months in Prison for criticizing Ulfkotte

A German blogger who had accused the Islam critic Udo Ulfkotte on several occasions for crimes like “right-wing extremism, “racism “and” incitement against Muslims “and who had called him only because of his criticism against Islam as a” Nazi “has been sentenced to six months in prison.

Work base for Counter Jihad Conference in Vienna, May 2008.

“Europe today is a powder keg,” Otto von Bismarck remarked , “and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal.”

I am not going to waste your time tonight with yet another treatise on why Islam is not the Religion of Peace, Tolerance, Compassion, etc, etc. We are beyond that. Had America agonized, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, whether Shinto was actually OK but only Bushido was bad, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere would be going strong to this day. Among reasonable people, unblinkered by the dicta of political correctitude, the real score on Muhammad and his followers is well known. It has been known for centuries. That score, however, no matter how calmly stated and comprehensively supported, invariably elicits the howls of “Islamophobia” from the neoliberal elite class.

AN EMINENTLY POSTMODERN LITTLE PHOBIA

In the way of an introduction, let us therefore look at the formal, legally tested definition of that word, the latest addition to the arsenal of postmodern “phobias.” It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based here in Vienna. (”Orwellian” is a worn-out adjective, but it simply has to be used in connection with this particular institution.) The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

2. Islam is seen as separate and “Other.”

3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.

4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.

5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.

6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

7. Discriminatory practices and Muslims’ exclusion from mainstream society are advocated.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. As it happens,

1. That Islam is static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an internal, orthodox critique of jihad, sharia, jizya, etc. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, “Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action.” A century later his diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are “distorting” Islam; the would-be reformers are.

2. That Islam is separate from our Western, Christian, European culture and civilization, and “other” than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if Europe eventually succumbs to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.

3. Whether Islam is “inferior to the West” is a matter of opinion, of course. That Islam cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative, and attractive human society is not. Whether Islam is “barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist” is at least debatable; but that many of its tangible fruits are so, is all too painfully visible.

4. Islam is seen by so many as “violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism” not because of some irrational “phobia” in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because (a) of the clear mandate of its scripture; (b) of the record of its 14 centuries of historical practice; and above all (c) of the timeless example of its founder.

5. “Islam is seen as a political ideology,” and it should be seen as one, because its key trait is a political program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready and eager to spill blood. This makes Islam closer to Bolshevism and to National Socialism than to any other religion. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by “the Other,” i.e. non-Muslim societies and cultures, is implacable hostility and violence, or violent intent.

6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand; they should be understood. Its chief “criticism” of the West-and of every other non-Islamic culture or tradition-is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.

7. A priori hostility towards Islam should not be “used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims.” Quite the contrary, an education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting - not because it is an intolerant “religion,” but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the values of the West.

8. And finally, while anti-Muslim hostility is not a priori “natural or normal,” the desire of non-Muslims to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is “natural and normal”; but the elite class is actively trying to neutralize it.

As the demand for Sharia-based communal self-rule is made with increasing frequency in the banlieus of Paris and the grim West Midlands council estates, Europe’s elite class is ready to throw in the towel. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner-a Christian Democrat!-sees the demand as perfectly legitimate and argues that sharia could be introduced “by democratic means.” Muslims have a right to follow the commands of their religion, even if that included some “dissenting rules of behavior”: “Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed’! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy…”

GUILT-RIDDEN FELLOW-TRAVELLERS

Such inanities are light years away from Winston Churchill’s warning, over a century ago, that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam:

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Even Churchill’s prescience could not envisage the possibility that the invader would find his fellow-travellers at No. 10, Downing Street, at the European Union headquarters in Brussels, and in dozens of chancelleries and palaces across the Old Continent. Their joint efforts are helping change the face of Europe. The cumulative effect is not in doubt: by 2050, Muslims will account for over one-third of “Old Europe’s” young residents. Millions of them already live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host country, toward which they have a disdainful and hostile attitude.

The elite class responds to such hostility with calls for ever-greater inclusiveness. Giuseppe Pisanu, Berlusconi’s former minister of the interior, responsible for controlling the country’s borders, thus declared five years ago that the high fatality rate of North African illegals on the high seas en route to Sicily was “a dreadful tragedy that weighs on the conscience of Europe.” His view was paradigmatic of the utopian liberal mind-set. If “Europe” should feel shame and guilt that people who have no right to come to its shores are risking their lives while trying to do so illegally, then only the establishment of a free passenger-ferry service between Tripoli and Palermo-with no passport or customs formalities required upon arrival, and a free shuttle to Rome or Milan-would offer some relief to that burdened conscience. And Sr Pisanu is supposedly a man of the “Right”!

The tangible results of the leaders’ moral decrepitude are devastating. A century ago, Sr. Pisanu and his class shared social commonalities that could be observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, Biaritz or Paris, depending on the season. Englishmen, Russians, and Austrians shared the same outlook and sense of propriety, they all spoke French, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their national traditions, the permanent vessels in which Weltanschauung could be translated into Kultur. Today’s “United Europe,” by contrast, does not create social and civilizational commonalities except on the basis of wholesale denial of old mores, disdain for inherited values, and an overt rejection of “traditional” culture. It creates the dreary sameness of “antidiscriminationism” and “tolerance.”

Such weakness breeds contempt and haughty arrogance on the other side. Take Tariq Ramadan, who calmly insists that Muslims in the West should conduct themselves as though they were already living in a Muslim-majority society and were exempt on that account from having to make concessions to the faith of the host-society. Muslims in Europe should feel entitled to live on their own terms, Ramadan says, while, “under the terms of Western liberal tolerance,” society as a whole should be “obliged to respect that choice.”

If such “respect” continues to be extended by the elite class, by the end of this century there will be no “Europeans” as members of ethnic groups that share the same language, culture, history, and ancestors, and inhabit lands associated with their names. The shrinking native populations will be indoctrinated into believing-or else simply forced into accepting-that the demographic shift in favor of unassimilable and hostile aliens is actually a blessing that enriches their culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies. The “liberal tolerance” and the accompanying “societal obligation” that Tariq Ramadan invokes thus become the tools of Western suicide. “No other race subscribes to these moral principles,” Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, “because they are weapons of self-annihilation.” The weapons need to be discarded, and the upholders of those deadly “principles” removed from all positions of power and influence, if Europe is to survive.

THE PATHOLOGY OF THE ELITE CLASS

It is in the inability and unwillingness of the neoliberal elite class to confront the grave threat to our civilization that Western Europe and North America most tellingly certify that they share the same cultural chromosomes. In 1938 Hilaire Belloc wondered, “Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world which will shake the dominion of Europeans-still nominally Christian-and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?”

Seven decades later, the same traits of decrepitude are present in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States, including both the primary cause, which is the loss of religious faith, and several secondary ones. Topping the list is elite hostility to all forms of solidarity of the majority population based on shared historical memories, ancestors, and common culture; the consequences are predictable:

* the loss of a sense of place and history among Europeans and North Americans;

* rapid demographic decline, especially in Europe, unparalleled in history;

* rampant Third World (and in Europe, overwhelmingly Muslim) immigration;

* collapse of private and public manners, morals, and traditional commonalities;

* imposition of “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” “sensitivity”; and

* demonization and criminalization of any opposition to any of the above.

The end-result is the Westerners’ loss of the sense of propriety over their lands. Before 1914, both the West and the Muslim world could define themselves against each other in a cultural sense. The neoliberal elite insists on casting aside any idea of a specifically “Western” geographic and cultural space that should be protected from those who do not belong to it and have no rightful claim to it. The elite insists that our countries belong to the whole world.

We face an elite consensus that de facto open immigration, multiculturalism, and the existence of a large Muslim diaspora within the Western world are to be treated as a fixed and immutable fact that must not be scrutinized. That consensus, I contend, is ideological in nature, flawed in logic, dogmatic in application, and disastrous in its results. It needs to be tested against evidence, and not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.

In addition, a depraved mass culture and multiculturalist indoctrination in state schools and the mainstream media have already largely neutralized the sense of historical and cultural continuity among young West Europeans and North Americans. By contrast, the blend of soft porn and consumerism that targets every denizen of the Western world has not had the same effect on the Muslim diaspora in the West. The roll-call of Western-born and educated young Muslims supportive of terrorism confirms that failure.

The loss of a sense of place and history experienced by millions of Westerners follows the emergence of two sides of the same coin: a neoliberal post-national hyper-state in Europe and the neoconservative “benevolent global hegemony” in the U.S. epitomized by the demand for an ever-growing NATO. These two mindsets, seemingly at odds, are but two aspects of the same emerging globalized universe, two sides of the same coin. The neoliberals advocate multilateralism in the form of an emerging “international community” framed by the United Nations and adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with the EU acting as an interim medium for transferring sovereign prerogatives to a supra-national body; the neocons prefer to be the only cop in town. Both share the same distaste for traditional, naturally evolving societies and cultures.

The revolutionary character of the multiculturalist project is revealed in the endless mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality, the formula now elevated to the status of the post-modern Philosopher’s Stone, the force that moves the linear historical process forward, towards the grand Gleichschaltung of nations, races, and cultures that will mark the end of history. Race, Gender and Sexuality have replaced the Proletariat as both the oppressed underclass (hence the cult of the non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual victimhood), and as the historically preordained agent of revolutionary change.

Classical Marxist political economy found the dynamics of revolution in the inevitable conflict between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat that has nothing to sell but its labor and nothing to lose but its chains. Latter-day Marxist revolutionaries go beyond dialectical materialism, however, by introducing a wholly metaphysical concept of victimhood and an array of associated special-rights claims that have worked such wonders for Islam all over the Western world. Majority populations of “old” Europe and America, in this insane but all-pervasive paradigm, are guilty of “oppression” by their very existence, and therefore must not protest the migratory deluge, let alone try to oppose it: that is “racism.”.

The fruits are with us already. Gibbon could have had today’s Antwerp or Malmo in mind, or Marseilles, or Huddersfield, when he wrote of Rome in decline, its masses morphing “into a vile and wretched populace.” On present form, within a century the native Western majorities will melt away: “child-free” is a legitimate yuppie lifestyle term, on par with “fat-free” and “drug-free.” But whereas the threat of extinction of an exotic tribal group in Borneo or Amazonia - let alone a species of spotted owl or sperm whale - would cause alarm and prompt activism among neoliberal elites, it is deemed inherently racist to mention the fact that Europeans and their trans-Atlantic cousins are, literally, endangered species.

There will be no grand synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization, between the West and Islam. Even the ultra-tolerant Dutch are beginning to see the light, pace Geert Wilders, but they are hamstrung by guilt-ridden self-haters and appeasers, whose hold on the political power, the media, and the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, and obscene. If Europe is to survive they need to be unmasked for what they are: traitors to their nations and their culture. They must be replaced by people ready and willing to subject the issues of immigration and identity to the test of democracy, unhindered by administrative or judicial fiat.

If the coming war against jihad is to be won, the first task is to start talking frankly about the identity and character of the enemy and the nature of the threat. The obligation to do so is dictated by morality no less than by the need for self-preservation. “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles,” says Sun Tzu. Well, we know the enemy. We know his core beliefs, his role models, his track-record, his mindset, his modus operandi, and his intentions. We also know his weaknesses, which are many, above all his inability to develop a prosperous economy or a functional, harmonious society.

The main problem is with ourselves; or, to be precise, with those among us who have the power to make policy and shape opinions, and who will reject and condemn our diagnosis. Having absorbed postmodernist relativism, certain only of uncertainty, devoid of any faith except the faith in their own infallibility, members of the Western neoliberal elite class treat the jihadist mindset as a problem that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself. The result is a plethora of proposed “cures” that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from terrorism as snake oil is likely to cure leukemia.

Abroad, we are told, we need to address political and economic grievances of the Muslim impoverished masses, we need to spread democracy and free markets in the Muslim world, we need to invest more in public diplomacy. At home we need more tolerance, greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the minorities that feel marginalized. The predictable failure of such cures leads to ever more pathological self-scrutiny and to ever more morbid self-doubt. This vicious circle must be broken.

BREAKING THE DEADLOCK

The deadlock on the Somme in 1916, or at Verdun a year later, could not be broken with the ideas and modus operandi of Messrs. Haig, Foch, Cadrona or Hindenburg. It could have been unlocked, however, had Lidell-Hart, de Gaulle, or Guderian held the old guard’s ranks and positions. Winning a war demands “knowing the enemy and knowing oneself,” of course, but it also demands “thinking outside the box.” This cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.

Let us therefore start our specific policy recommendations with the complex and emotionally charged issue of “human rights” versus national security.

DEFINING ISLAMIC ACTIVISM - Instead of seeking a ban on all Muslim immigration right away, which is not a realistic goal at this moment, Western anti-jihadist activists should campaign for changes in immigration legislation of their home countries to include clauses that would exclude Islamic activists before they come, and have them deported if they are already infiltrated into the country.

This demand needs to be made acceptable and attractive to a wide cross-section of the electorate regardless of political and ideological preferences. Therefore it should be focused on the Islamic activists’ threat to the neoliberal values themselves:

* Discrimination against other religions (with special emphasis on the rising European phenomenon of Islamic anti-Semitism), outlooks (inc. atheism) and lifestyles;

* Discrimination and violence against women (esp. wives and “disobedient” daughters);

* Discrimination and violence against homosexuals;

* Threats of violence in any form and for whatever alleged “offense” or “insult” (e.g. drawing cartoons, making documentaries, writing books);

* Apology or justification for all of the above.

It is essential to focus on the despicable acts themselves, and then drawing the direct line to the commands of Islam’s scripture and its founder, rather than doing it in reverse, as some well-meaning but politically less astute anti-jihadist activists do.

This definition of Islamic activism would be a major step in the direction of denying actual or potential jihadists a foothold in Europe and the rest of the West. In the U.S. the broad model is provided by the old 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, the McCarran-Walter Act), mandating the exclusion or deportation of any alien who engaged or had purpose to engage in activities prejudicial to the public interest or subversive to national security. “Ideological” grounds for deportation were on the US statute books until 1990, when they were repealed by Congress. After the Russian revolution foreign communists were singled out for deportation. One night alone in January of 1920, more than 2,500 “alien radicals” were seized in thirty-three cities across the country and deported to their countries of origin.

DENYING CITIZENSHIP TO ISLAMIC ACTIVISTS — I submit to you that all Western countries need laws that will treat any naturalized citizen’s or legally resident alien’s known adherence to an Islamist world outlook as excludable - on political, rather than “religious” grounds. It is politically feasible to articulate the demand that citizenship of a democratic Western country should be denied to all Islamic activists.

In the United States a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath, “that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” A declaration of this kind, of not a solemn oath of allegiance, is expected from naturalized citizens in most European countries.

For a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts an “infidel,” i.e. non-Muslim document or law as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of apostasy par excellence, punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the “secular” legal code with which it coexists; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will - and for as long as they remain infidel, both Europe and America are illegitimate. So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith? Because he is practicing taqiyya, the art of elaborate lying that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of Jihad. (Or else because he is not devout enough and confused, but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point he will rediscover his roots.)

AUXILLIARY MEASURES - Those who preach or promote jihad and advocate the introduction of sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner that adherents of other totalitarian ideologies had been treated in the free world during the Cold War. It will be a long and hard struggle to open the eyes of legislators and legal regulators that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to Western values and institutions, but it can be done. Other necessary measures would then follow, but to that end anti-jihadists should start articulating and advocating them now:

1. Seek zero porosity of the borders. Preventing illegal immigration is a desirable objective per se; in the context of stopping terrorists it is mandatory. No anti-jihadist strategy is possible without complete physical control of borders. This is an issue on which a majority of the electorate of each and every Western country will agree - much to the chagrin of the liberal elites. Anti-jihadists should insist that all illegal immigration is a major security threat and that it can and should be subject to the letter of the law, and not to the suicidal dictates of the “human rights” lobby.

2. Demand mandatory cooperation of state agencies at all levels in identifying, registering and apprehending illegal immigrants and in assisting in their deportation - starting with those from nations and groups at risk for terrorism. It is a curious phenomenon in most Western countries that at various levels of state administration (e.g. welfare officers and social workers) and law enforcement (e.g. police forces in major cities) we encounter varying levels of tolerance, and even encouragement, of illegal immigrants’ continued presence in the community. Again, this demand for simple compliance with the law by tax-funded public officers would be politically popular.

3. Discard the irrational ban on “profiling.” Not all Muslims are terrorists, of course, but all transnational terrorist networks that threaten Western countries’ national security and way of life are composed of Muslims. It is time to accept that “profiling” based on a person’s appearance, origin, and apparent or suspected beliefs is an essential tool of trade of law enforcement and war on terrorism. Just ask the Israelis!

4. Subject the work of Islamic centers to legal limitations and security supervision. All over the Western world, Islamic centers have provided platforms for exhortations to the faithful to support causes and to engage in acts that are morally reprehensible, legally punishable, and detrimental to the host country’s national security. They have provided shelter to the outlaws, and offered recruitment to the leaders.

5. Treat affiliation with Islamic activism as grounds for denial or revoking of any level of security clearance. Such affiliation is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government (e.g. immigration control, airport security). Presence of practicing Muslims in any of these institutions would present an inherent risk to its integrity and would undermine morale.

Acceptance of these proposals would represent a new start in devising long-term defense. The proposed measures recognize that we are in a war of ideas and religion, whether we want that or not and however much we hate the fact. They reflect the seriousness of the struggle. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep condition that the West is on its last legs. The success of its demographic onslaught on Europe enhances the image of “a candy store with the busted lock,” and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for self-perpetuation is indeed in peril.

CAN THE CANDY STORE WITH A BUSTED LOCK BE SAVED?

The above proposals are not only pragmatic, they are morally just. They will elicit the accusation of “discrimination” from the self-hating segments of the elite class, even though no such label is applicable. Targeting people for screening, supervision and exclusion on the basis of their genes would be discriminatory indeed, but doing so because of their beliefs, ideas, actions, and intentions is justified and necessary. Orthodox Islamic beliefs, ideas and intentions as such pose a threat to the European civilization, culture, and way of life.

The elite class rejects this diagnosis, of course, but among reasonable, well-informed citizens the debate must be conducted on terms liberated from the shackles of the elite class. Geert Wilders certainly shows the way. We should act accordingly, and never, ever be afraid of causing controversy. That means being subjected to the threat of legal proceedings by the neoliberal state - or to the threat of death, by those whom the neoliberal state continues to protect to the detriment of its own citizens.

Western leaders did not agonize over communism’s “true” nature during the Berlin air lift in 1949, or in Korea in 1950, but acted effectively to contain it by whatever means necessary. Yes, back then we had a legion of Moscow’s apologists, character witnesses, moles and fellow-travelers, assuring us that the Comrades want nothing but social justice at home and peaceful coexistence abroad. They held tenured chairs at prestigious universities and dominated all smart salons, from London and Paris to New York. They explained away and justified the inconsistencies and horrifyingly violent implications of the source texts of Marx and Lenin. They explained away and justified the appalling fruits: the bloodbath of the Revolution, the genocidal great famine, the show trials and purges, the killing of millions of innocents in the Gulag, the pact with Hitler, the works.

Today their spiritual heirs in politics, the academy and the media establishment act as Islam’s apologists, character witnesses and fellow travelers. They flatly deny or else explain away, with identical scholastic sophistry and moral depravity, the dark and violent implications of the source texts, the Kuran and the Hadith, the deeply unnerving career of Muhammad, and centuries of conquests, wars, slaughters, subjugation, decline without fall, spiritual and material misery, and murderous fanaticism.

NIL DESPERANDUM!

Some eighty years ago Julien Benda published his tirade against the intellectual corruption of his times, The treason of the intellectuals. For generations prior to the 20th century, Benda wrote, members of the Western intellectual elite ensured that “humanity did evil, but honored good.” The “Treason” of the title occurred when they gave up promoting lasting civilizational values in favor of short-term political preferences. Benda wrote at a time when fascism, nazism and bolshevism dominated Europe’s scene. Today the “treason” of the elite class takes a different form. It upholds the allegedly universal values of multiculturalism, inclusiveness and antidiscriminationism to the detriment of the particular value of our civilization and all its fruits. The propensity of the elite class to the betrayal of our culture remains the same, however.

The fact that normal people don’t realize the magnitude of the problem works to the advantage of the people like Solana, Soros, Blair, Prodi, or Hillary Clinton. Their ideas, which but two generations ago would have been deemed eccentric or insane, now rule the Euro-American mainstream. Only a society inured to the concept of open borders can be unblinkingly told that Islam is good and tolerant, that “we” (the West) have been nasty and unkind to it over the centuries - remember the Crusades! - and that “terrorism” needs to be understood, and cured, by social therapy that is independent of Islam’s teaching and practice.

At the root of the domestic malaise is the notion that countries do not belong to the people who have inhabited them for generations, but to whoever happens to be within their boundaries at any given moment in time - regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions. The resulting random melange of mutually disconnected multitudes is supposed to be a blessing that enriches an otherwise arid and monotonous society.

A further pernicious fallacy is the dictum that we should not feel a special bond for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but transfer our preferences on the whole world, “the Humanity,” equally. Such notions have been internalized by the elite class in America and Western Europe to the point where they actively help Islamic terrorism. In America the process has been under way for decades. By 1999 then-Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott felt ready to declare that the United States may not exist “in its current form” in the 21st century, because the very concept of nationhood - here and throughout the world - will have been rendered obsolete.

A generation earlier such uttering from a senior government official would have caused a scandal. By the end of the 20th century such declarations bothered only the unsophisticates who persist in assuming that the purpose of what Dr. Talbott was doing at the Department of State was to ensure the survival, security and prosperity of the United States within the international system, rather than its eventual absorption by the system. But his was an exultant prophecy, not an impartial assessment. The ideological foundation for Talbott’s beliefs was stated bluntly: “All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary.” To the members of his class, all countries are but transient, virtual-reality entities. Owing emotional allegiance to any one of them is irrational, and risking one’s life for its sake is absurd.

The refusal of theWestern elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history. It is rooted in the mindset that breeds the claim that “force is not an answer” to terrorism, that profiling is bad and open borders are good, that “true” Islam is peaceful and the West is wicked. The upholders of such claims belong to the culture that has lost its bond with nature, history, and the supporting community. In the meantime, thanks to them, the quiet onslaught continues unabated, across the Straits of Gibraltar, through JFK and O’Hare, Heathrow and Schiphol. Far from enhancing diversity, it threatens to impose a numbing sameness and eradicate the identity of target-populations, to demolish their special character and uniqueness.

That supporting community, the real nation, is still out there, in North America and Europe alike, working and paying taxes and grinning and bearing it. When it is told of Islam’s “peace and tolerance,” it grumbles about someone’s stupidity or ineptitude, but it still does not suspect outright betrayal. The betrayers, meanwhile, promote an ideology of universal human values, of a common culture for the whole world. They may not even realize why they abet Islam. For all the outward differences, they share with the mullahs and sheikhs and imams the desire for a monistic One World. They both long for Talbot’s Single Global Authority, post-national and seamlessly standardized, an Ummah under a fancy secular name.

Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands and nations more than any others, and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil. They are our enemies and jihad’s indispensable objective allies.

The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.

It is up to the millions of normal Europeans and their American cousins to stop the 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 traitor class is guilty.

» This text and further information you find also at Gates of Vienna.

» More texts and work bases can be found here.

» Civil liberties and oppression in Europe - Examples.

By the end of this year, Austria’s biggest state-controlled oil company, OMV AG, plans to enter into a 22 Billion Euro Agreement with Iran. This agreement will irrevocably turn Austria and Europe into strategic partners and accomplices of the Iranian political regime; a regime that supports international terrorism and violently represses its own population: The Iranian determination to develop nuclear weapons which could directly affect Europe’s security, is posing the greatest threat to world peace. The systematic persecution of Kurds, religious minorities such as the Bahai, and the executions of homosexuals as well as the ongoing repression of women who don’t submit to the Islamic moral code, are essential elements of this regime, as are the continuous threats of annihilation towards Israel and the denial of the Shoah.

The mullahs’ self-delusional fantasies of sacrifice and martyrdom, which are actively put into practice, tie in with the Nazis’ delusions of extermination by new religious and political means, including the willingness to sacrifice their own population for the apocalyptic goals of the regime. As a result, the mullahs will be in possession of nuclear weapons, and this will render political deterrence useless. Those who are interested in doing business or entering into negotiations with the representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran are driven into an appeasement position, which is comparable with the reluctant and hesitant attitude towards the Nazi threat, which not only encouraged but resulted in the largest war of extermination in Europe’s history.

The OMV would grant an economic and political as well as a propagandistic aide to the regime of Ahmadinejad and murderous Jihad-ism. The OMV oil deal helps to further the aspirations of the mullahs towards a worldwide establishment of a global Islamic Ummah.
In order to avoid this, it is necessary to stop the Iranian nuclear program before it is too late. This is the only opportunity for peace both here and in the Middle East.

Iran has to be placed under consistent economic and political pressure in order to avert any threat to Israel. This means to fight the danger of Europe taking part in this programme of extinction – while at the same time being target of nuclear missiles herself. We therefore call – particularly upon the Austrian government – for ceasing “critical negotiations” with the mullahs and demand instead to take the following measures:

* Immediate discontinuation of the negotiations between the OMV and the Iranian mullahs on the basis of unilateral sanctions
* Cessation of any credit support provided by the Austrian Control Bank for transactions with Iran
* Imposition of effective and comprehensive UN and EU sanctions in order to isolate the Iranian regime politically and economically
* Support of those Iranian opposition groups which continue to fight for a secular, liberal and democratic Iran and provide for a genuine alternative to the current regime

Sign here.

On Petitiononline an open letter has been published by which you get the possibility to protest against this “art project” . Read here the text from Petitiononline:

Earlier this year, the Council of the Berlin Borough of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg gave its approval to the exhibition “Wall on Wall” at the East Side Gallery by the river Spree. The Gallery is the longest remaining part of the former Berlin Wall, the most visible expression of the former German Democratic Republic’s dictatorial one-party system.

However, the final decision on the open-air exhibition has time and again been postponed; the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg is now expected to reach a conclusive decision on April 23, 2008. The Borough’s Cultural Committee will first discuss the project on April 16. So far the German Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Left Party’s federal working group “Shalom Berlin der Linksjugend [`solid]” as well as a number of Members of the German Parliament have disassociated themselves from the project in public.

Of course, criticism - of isolation, of walls (particularly inside people’s heads), of racism as well as of the refusal to offer protection to those in need - is an elementary part of any democracy. Especially since the 1990s, many groups, organizations, politicians and committed people from all walks of all life in the Federal Republic of German have actively worked with refugees and against anti-racism, this in view of the fact that since the 1990s attacks on refugees and migrants and their killings by neo-Nazis have increased to an unprecedented extent. More than 100 people defined as ›un-German‹ by neo-Nazis were killed since.

What though is the point of the “Wall on Wall” project that is under discussion? For a few weeks pictures taken by the photographer Kai Wiedenhöfer are to be shown on the East Side Gallery’s walls. Wiedenhöfer himself initiated the project. In 2007 he published a book of illustrations showing photographs of Israel’s anti-terror wall between Israel and the Palestinian Autonomous Territories.

Between September 29, 2000 and December 1, 2004 a total of 919 Israelis were killed in Israel by Palestinian terrorists. 6,123 Israelis were injured. During this period 20,416 terrorist attacks took place.

The purpose of the wall, which is actually in large parts a fence, is to prevent and protect people from terrorist attacks which have been occurring on a daily basis. Like the recent attack on the fuel depot Nahal Oz where two Jewish people were killed. One of them leaves behind his ex-wife as well as a daughter in Germany.

Wiedenhöfer’s photo book shows 50 double-paged panorama style pictures of the anti-terror protection wall in Israel. The photographs were taken between 2003 and 2006 and display different perspectives on the wall. Harmless horses, small children and Arabic women with headscarves are shown standing opposite Israeli soldiers, facing this fence or wall. For Wiedenhöfer the Jews are the perpetrators, Palestinians are displayed as victims. There is not a single photograph of a Jew blown to pieces by an Islamic-Arabic suicide bomber. Not a single fanatic Jihad fighter set against the Jews by the terrorist organisation Hamas or by preachers in West Bank mosques is to be seen. For years they have been using their own civilian population as shields or as smugglers of bombs. The fence is directed against these terrorists. Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East. Over one million of its citizens are Arabs. The Israeli Minister of Sciences and Sport is Arab. These Arabs prefer to live in Israel rather than under an undemocratic, Islamic-Arabic regime.

Whoever compares the Berlin Wall – a symbol of dictatorship, a rejection of a Western liberal attitude – to the Israeli fence that is directed against attacks by Palestinian and other anti-Semitic terrorists, acts irresponsibly and with an anti-Semitic attitude. It is a feature of modern anti-Semitism to compare or equate Israel to dictatorships. This is exemplified by Wiedenhöfer’s photo book which was published last year. On pages 92/93 it shows a photo of the protective wall smeared by anti-Semites as follows: »Warsaw 1943«, flanked by swastikas and the Star of David, next to it »American Money – Israeli Apartheid«. Equating the Warsaw Ghettoes with the situation Palestinians in the Palestinian Autonomous Territories are finding themselves in today is a typical and particularly disgraceful case of anti-Semitism. Jews are likened to their murderers, i.e. German Nazis. The European Union’s working definition of anti-Semitism as well as international research on anti-Semitism have analyzed this as being judeophobia.

It is intended to expand the exhibition to include depictions of border installations in the U.S./Mexico, in south-western Europe or in Northern Ireland, yet this does not affect the basic spirit in which this scandalous exhibition was conceived.

We are finding it hard to believe that members of the Green Party, the largest party in the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, intend to support such an exhibition, since some of its members used to represent the former “Bündnis 90”, an opposition movement in the former German Democratic Republic. One would not expect them to favour a grotesque playing down of the Berlin Wall.

Whoever turns against the anti-terror fence - built as a mere protection for Israel - closes his or her eyes to the fact that without the fence every day people in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem would feel scared to death on any bus on their way to work.

Should the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg decide in favour of the anti-Semitic exhibition “Wall on Wall”, we will see this as a sign that nothing has been learnt from history. We will understand that the Borough supports anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism as well as a playing down of the GDR’s Berlin Wall, so hostile to human beings.

We demand from the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg in Berlin:

No space for the anti-Israeli exhibition „Wall on Wall“ by the Berlin Wall

No playing down of the dictatorship of the state party in the former GDR nor of the prison that the GDR meant to its people

No equating of democracies such as Israel, Europe, Northern Ireland and the U.S. with a dictatorship (GDR)

We furthermore demand from the Borough Assembly of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg:

No space for the plotting of anti-Semitic world conspiracy theories such as they are part of the exhibition organized by Kai Wiedenhöfer (Israel – Nazis - U.S. - money - Israel’s »Apartheid«)

The creation of a partnership with the Israeli town of Sderot which is under daily threat by rockets from the Gaza Strip, analogous to the twinning of the Borough of Tempelhof-Schöneberg with the Israeli town of Nahariya

Solidarity with the State of Israel and a telegram congratulating on its 60th anniversary.

» Previous signatures

Lecture by David G. Littman (picture) held at the 3rd International Congress: World Church Meeting in Augsburg (Germany) of KIRCHE IN NOT (CHURCH IN DISTRESS) at the Congress Hall, Sunday 13th of April 2008.

To present an exact record, the official video recording has been used, including moments of applause from the audience and the two interruptions by the moderator, including brief comments. See also note (*)

[The passages that were actually pronounced in full are in bold type. Those that could not be stated as a result of the interruptions – manifestly against the will of the vast majority of the audience – are in normal type. Passages in square brackets and reduced type are those which the speaker did not intend to say, but were put in his edited text for documentation, and eventual publication. It was only prepared the day before, adapted from a text he delivered on 13 March 2008 at the European University in Rome: (Title: “Impact of Shariah-based Human Rights at the United Nations” in a Conference held on: Identity Crisis: Can European Civilization Survive); and for the Association for World Education at the Seventh Session of the UN Human Rights Council at the Palais des Nations, Geneva on 26 March 2008.]

The United Nations versus Human Rights is my subject today.

“Will 2008 be the year when the United Nations celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and simultaneously destroys its own principles? There is, indeed, cause for great concern because the institution has lost its own way in recent years, becoming a caricature of itself?”

I am quoting from a statement by the Paris-based LICRA, the International League against Racism and Antisemitism, signed by thousands [including many eminent personalities such as Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel] that was published in the world press last month in Le Monde [Paris] and Le Temps [Geneva], and elsewhere.
—————————————————————-
General applause from an audience of about 700 persons in the Congress Hall
—————————————————————-
Let me provide two recent examples of shameful attempts to stifle freedom of expression by ludicrous challenges at last month’s 7th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, in Geneva – which is in Europe.

On 25 March there were 20 interventions by the Chinese delegate to disrupt any criticism about Tibet by Western States and NGOs (non-governmental organizations). This farce was backed by the usual dictatorial regimes on the Council, including Pakistan, speaking on behalf of 57 Muslim countries, all members of the OIC – the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The next day I took the floor for the Association for World Education under item 9 – covering Racism and related forms of intolerance. There were five attempts to stop me delivering my three minutes NGO statement: three times by Egypt, once by the Palestinian delegate, and once by Iran – who complained that I was “focusing on Islam and some Islamic countries by insulting them.” Allow me to read those opening comments which I made on the 26th March that were considered so insulting:

“Regarding the Report [A/HRC/7/19] of the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Doudou Diène, and his comments on defamation of religion, we note that once again he has failed to mention the greatest of all defamations of religion – when chapter and verse of holy texts are cited to justify calls to kill in the name of God or Allah. On 9 August 2007, we made an Appeal to the UN Secretary-General and the High Commissioner – and later to the Council [in a joint written statement to the 6th Session, A/HRC/6/NGO/5: Appeal to Condemn Calls to Kill in the name of God. We concluded: “In face of this cult of hate, death and destruction against ‘the other’, we are appealing to you]
“to condemn all calls to kill in the name of God or religion – any religion.”
—————————————————————-
Sustained applause that grew even louder after the translation into German
—————————————————————-

“This taboo subject is consistently ignored within the UN system, despite the fact that a policy of silence on the part of the international community, of Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and the Arab League, is tantamount to condoning this great evil. Calls to kill in the name of Allah should be unequivocally condemned by senior Muslim theologians as a “defamation of Islam.”
—————————————————————-

[More sustained applause, which became much louder and longer after the German translation]
—————————————————————-

[Yet these calls have been justified by Al-Azhar Grand Sheik Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, and by many others, including Osama bin Laden. The Special Rapporteur makes no clear reference to this global plague of our time, [other than by a side reference to: “the stereotyped association of Islam with violence and terrorism – an association which is bolstered by intellectual constructs, used by political rhetoric and exaggerated in the media…” (§57)]

I also pointed out that “the Special Rapporteur refers to‘the writing and teaching of history’ and ‘the importance of fostering education in multiculturalism in schools, in the media and in the home’ Yet Judeophobia / Antisemitism – under the guise of ‘anti-Zionism’ – is now widely recognised as endemic in the Muslim world, being nourished by a general ‘culture of hate’ that is creeping into “Eurabia” and beyond. Clearly, many of the States [, the 47 countries of the OIC, ] that, since 1999, have sponsored the resolution combating ‘defamation of religions’ – adopted on 18 December 2007 by the UN General Assembly – do not believe it applies to them!”

[A recognised expert on racism, Director of Research at the CNRS, Pierre-André Taguieff has described all this in detail in two recent books – La Nouvelle Judéophobia (Paris, 2002) and a 1000 page volume, Prêcheurs de haine: Traversée de la judéophobie planétaire (Paris, 2004].

In 2005 we analysed in 3 NGO written statements to the United Nations what is being taught to Arab schoolchildren in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the same hatred is also being taught in Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian schools and elsewhere.

[E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 2005/NGO/2: The culture of ‘Jihad & Martyrdom’ in Egyptian school textbooks; E/CN.4/Sub.2 /2005/NGO/3: The culture of hate in Saudi Arabian textbooks and growing Arab reactions; and E/CN.4/Sub.2 /2005/ NGO/4: Arab Criticism of Muslim Extremist Activities in the West; also: “A Culture of Hate Based ‘Jihad and Martyrdom’: Saudi and Egyptian Schoolbooks Today” (Midstream, March-April 2005). In his conclusion: “The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Council draw the attention of member States to the importance of developing an intellectual front against racism and, consequently combating – through education, scientific research and information – ideas, concepts and images likely to incite or legitimize racism, racial discrimination or xenophobia.” This should be heeded by all.]

Nothing of this outrageous Judeophobia [being taught to children in the Arab/Muslim world, especially in what is to be a future Palestinian State] has been covered in the Reports of the Special Rapporteur on Racism or by any UN bodies or UNESCO, yet the proof of this endemic hate-mongering is easily available in original texts & translations by consulting the websites of MEMRI [Middle East Media Research Institute], PMW [Palestinian Media Watch] and CMIP [Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace].
—————————————————————-
THE SPEAKER WAS STOPPED HERE BY THE MODERATOR WHO STATED, INTER ALIA,
“I am sorry to interrupt, but we must close soon.” (English & German). He replied that he could not just end there. This ‘cut’ occurred exactly here, only 12½ minutes after he had begun, although the moderator was informed the evening before that 10 minutes had been agreed for his text in English, and as much or more for the German translation. He therefore continued to read his text – unstopped.
—————————————————————-

I concluded with a simple appeal: “Is this Human Rights Council now ready to condemn calls to kill in the name of God, and the preaching of hate, or will it remain silent on such major issues for humanity?”

Needless to say, the Council remained silent, as it did on so many occasions, such as the genocide in Southern Sudan against Christians and animists – where Christian Solidarity International freed over 80,000 slaves – and for the last four years in Darfur, on which I spoke regularly for CSI and other NGOs. Even now as I speak to you, African Muslims are being killed and ethnically cleansed from their homeland – Darfur – in a genocide by the Arab-Islamist NIF regime of Khartoum.

Four months ago, on 10 December 2007 – “Human Rights Day” – Pakistan Ambassador Massoud Khan addressed the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on behalf of the 57 countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. While speaking glowingly of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the positive contribution to its creation by many Muslim countries, he declared that the 1990 Cairo Declaration [on Human Rights in Islam]:
“is not an alternative, competing worldview on human rights. It complements the Universal Declaration as it addresses religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries”.
————————————————————–
THE SPEAKER WAS STOPPED AGAIN BY THE MODERATOR DESPITE CALLS AND MUCH APPLAUSE FROM THE AUDIENCE FOR HIM TO CONTINUE
This 2nd call to stop came after 4 minutes (total: 16½ minutes, with two minutes for interruptions). The moderator stated that she had controlled her watch carefully, but the speaker insisted he be allowed the 10 minutes granted – as at the United Nations. As this was not accepted – despite a vibrant appeal by a man going up to the podium – he was forced to conclude. (see bold below).
————————————————————–

Yet, the Cairo Declaration cannot be, in any sense, considered complementary to the Universal Declaration, as it makes no reference to it – while its Art. 24 and 25 explicitly state the contrary:
“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah” and “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.” Many clauses in this Islamic Declaration limit the rights contained in the Universal Declaration, with references to Sharia’h, especially Articles 2, 7, 12, 16, 19, 22, 23. As is well-known, under Shari’ah law Muslim women and non-Muslims are not accorded equal treatment with Muslim men. The Shari’ah, therefore, fails to honour the right to equality guaranteed under the Universal Declaration the international covenants, and thus denies the full enjoyment of their human rights to those living in States which follow Shari’ah law. By limiting rights to those permitted by the Shari’ah, the Cairo Declaration – rather than complementing the Universal Declaration undermines many of the rights they are supposed to guarantee.

When it comes to freedom of expression, the Cairo Declaration makes this freedom subject to the Shari’ah. Under its Article 22, a person may only express their opinion in a manner “as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shariah”, and freedom of expression may not be used to “weaken faith”. A resolution, “Combating Defamation of Religions” was adopted at the General Assembly on 18 December by 108 votes to 51 with 25 abstentions. Similar resolutions have been adopted automatically since 1999 at the Commission on Human Rights and by the new Human Rights Council, but this was the first time that such a resolution had been passed by the UN General Assembly. The resolution expresses once again “deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief”. But the only religion mentioned by name is Islam. The resolution emphasizes that while everyone has the right to freedom of expression, this should be exercised with responsibility – and may therefore be subject to limitations, inter alia, “for respect for religions and beliefs”.

The implications of all such UN resolutions against freedom to criticise religious laws and practices are obvious. Armed with UN approval for their actions, States may now legislate against any show of disrespect for religion – however they may choose to define this “disrespect”. Islamic States see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms, and by sheer weight of numbers, or of oil, this view is becoming dominant within the system, but there are signs of resistance. On the same occasion on 10 December 2007, four months ago, German Ambassador Gunter Nooke expressed his regrets at:
“the tendency within some parts of the international community to roll back the principle of universality in order to make the enjoyment of fundamental rights dependent on factors such as tradition, culture, religion or the level of development.”

Yet, it is a sign of the times that the OIC’s ‘rules of the game’are slowly being accepted. The implications for the universality of human rights are ominous. The OIC is attempting to limit religious freedom by consistently promoting the Shari’ah-based Cairo Declaration, and also by rejecting wording in the Council resolution on the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief that would permit individuals, including Muslims, to change their religion.

Creeping dhimmitude at the Council and other UN bodies should be denounced for what it is. Both States and human rights defenders worldwide should remain vigilant and actively resist any attempt by the OIC to give equal status to the Cairo Declaration or to any future Islamic Charter on Human Rights that limits the Rights enshrined since 1948 in the Universal Declaration.

I shall conclude by quoting from the renowned Jewish-born philosopher, Sir Karl Popper [best known for his philosophy of critical rationalism and his emphasis on the way in which we learn through the making and correcting of mistakes]. In his analysis of Plato’s criticism of democracy, he refers to a so-called “paradox of freedom” and “a paradox of tolerance”. His words shall be my conclusion today at the KIRCHE IN NOT Conference, in Augsburg:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them … We should therefore claim in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade.” [David Miller (ed.), A Pocket Popper (Fontana Paperbacks, GB, 1983), chapter 25: The Paradoxes of Sovereignty (1945), pp. 319-325; pp. 445-46 (note 4, Plato, Republic, 564 A (Popper: “Less well known is the paradox of tolerance. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of .…”)]

Let us meditate the words of Sir Karl Popper – NOW before it is too late! And I do regret that I was unable to explain to you the reasons – the very profound reasons – for that conclusion.
—————————————————————–
Sustained applause expressing approval for the speaker and disagreement with his being silenced

TOTAL TIME: 19 MINUTES (LESS INTERRUPTIONS = ABOUT 17 MINUTES). THE WHOLE TEXT COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED (WITH GERMAN TRANSLATION) IN AGREED 21 MINUTES

(*) I feel that the public has a right to know exactly what took place – and not rely on hearsay – and am thus providing the necessary ‘facts’ that cannot be contested by anyone who was present then.

The organizers sincerely regretted this unusual incident, which caused general consternation toward the end of the Congress,. This was especially so, as I was the only speaker (from the twenty panels) to be abruptly interrupted, whereas many speakers had exceeded their time without such a drastic reaction from the moderator.
—————————————————————

David G. Littman is a historian, who published Arab Theologians under Jews and Israel in 1971 (Geneva, Editions de l’Avenir) under the pen-name: D.F. Green (with Yehoshafat Harkabi). He has published several articles on Jews and Christians (dhimmis) under Islam, mainly in the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1986 he has been a human rights defender for several NGOs at the United Nations in Geneva, and a representative for the last 10 years of the Association for World Education and since 2001 for the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), for whom he was main representative from 1986-1991. Nearly 100 of his earlier oral and written statements to the Commission and Sub-Commission on Human Rights were published in “Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the United Nation” (WUPJ, 1986-1991, N° 1 to N°11). He has edited articles on comparative and current human rights themes, which were published with more recent oral and written NGO statements – in “Human Rights and Human Wrongs at the United Nations,” Part 5 (pp. 305-472), edited by Robert Spencer, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (New York: Prometheus Books, 2005, p.593).

Written by Bat Ye’or. Lecture held at the 3th International Church-Congress (Kirche in Not), April 11 2008 in Augsburg, Germany

It is not the first time that I speak to a Christian audience. As a daughter of Israel who studied step by step the anguish, agony and death of the greatest Christian empire destroyed by the Arab-Muslim invasion, I realized very soon the nature of the modern, yet ancient threat. My book, The Decline of Eastern Christianity, published in a German edition also, was a long painful voyage that I undertook in the company of ghosts, taking me to destroyed cities, emptied villages and towns in the path of a millenary jihad. And I was wondering: What kept the faith, the resistance of the Christians?

I read very carefully the old testimonies of Christians. Along the roads of deportations, while walking on the edge of an abyss of evil, they recited Job, they internalized the words of the prophet Isaiah. They advanced in the steps of the Children of Israel. The description of the 8th century cleric, Pseudo-Denys of Tell-Marhe, a village in Iraq, of the utter destruction, enslavement and pillage of the native Christian and Jewish population by Arab-Muslim invaders, is interwoven with biblical lamentations, connecting Christian ordeals with Israel sufferings more than a millennium before. The tribulations of Christians in Islamic lands went with Jewish tribulations throughout the centuries. In the 17th century an Armenian cleric, Arakel of Tabriz describes the martyrdom endured by Jews under Shah Abbas II. This report follows his narration of the terrible mass deportation of the Armenians under Shah Abbas 1st where he evoked the march of the Israelites guided by Moses. The Bible was the rock and the solace in time of despair. Hebrew prophets were the companions of Christians persecuted by Islam.

I have tried to explain to Europeans the theological and legal context of the persecutions of Christians today in Muslim lands. I called this context – which is the same for Jews – dhimmitude. I did this at the request of Eastern Christians who told me: Because you are Jewish, the Christians will listen to you. From them I learned how deep and profound are our bonds. The Bible is as precious in their heart as their life. When I was fed up with the animosity against me, I would remember their trust in me.

I know that many in the Church have chosen another path. But the Church is saved through the Jewish Jesus, not through Isa, the Muslim Jesus who is the channel to Islamize the Church. Many saw the Palestinian Muslim Jesus as an opening toward the Muslim world, a wonderful occasion for a definitive separation from Israel. But it has only chained the Church to dhimmitude.

We are now living in a time of global jihad and of dhimmitude. Jihad is the religious effort to expand the domination of Islam all over the world. Military jihad covers several fields: wars, terrorism, abduction, ransom, enslavement, and armistice conditions. The soft-jihad encompasses the spiritual jihad waged peacefully: propaganda and proselytism (da’wa); subversion of Western culture and societies by multiculturalism, and the insertion of shari’a values and laws in Europe; the corruption of influential infidels in high position to facilitates Islam’s expansion and conquest. Jihad is as old as Islam – it is an ideology, a doctrine, a legislation based on religious texts; it has a global strategy, a world vision, and today it expands through a worldwide network. It has been waged for thirteen centuries against non-Muslims, mainly Christians. Jihad is a religious obligation for the Muslim community which has a divine mandate to impose Islam all over the world.

According to the jihad doctrine, the non-Muslim population is given a choice: conversion to Islam or submission to the Muslim authority and payment of a security ransom, the jizya. If they refuse both they are confronted with a war which entails massacres, destruction and enslavement.

When a non-Muslim population accepts to submit to Islam, it is obliged to pay a tribute for its own security. It becomes a dhimmi or a protected people. You may ask: Protected from what? They are protected from the jihad onslaught. Because Muslims recognize only two types of relationship with non-Muslims: either war or submission – what I call dhimmitude. Native Jews and Christians in their Islamized countries, are protected as long as they pay the poll-tax, several other tributes, and submit to very oppressive and discriminatory shari’a regulations. Jihad and dhimmitude are the two forces that have decimated the indigenous non-Muslim populations in their Islamized homelands. Today, jihad is displayed in all its traditional manifestations: military and economic warfare, terror, abductions, corruption of Western politicians and media in order to control the media, the universities and public opinion.

Islamic law covers the rights and obligations of the dhimmis in great details. This has been the subject of my research over the years. I call dhimmitude the Islamic system of governing the non-Muslim peoples. This system is linked to jihad and like jihad it is a theological, political and legal institution. Dhimmitude is, in fact, the peaceful continuation of jihad because it is dhimmitude that has destroyed the massive non-Muslim majorities, mainly Christians, that were conquered and subdued.

Wars are fought on several levels but the spiritual one is probably the most important. The theological divergences that we, Jews and Christians, have with Islam have been obfuscated, yet we must know them in order to solve them. We must know that the Koran mentions biblical names like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, others and Jesus: all of them are considered to have been Muslim prophets who preached Islam. But in fact these Koranic figures are very different from those in the Bible. For Muslims, Jesus is a Muslim prophet called Isa, endowed in the Koran with a different life. He is believed to have brought, like Mohammed, a revealed book, the Gospel in which he preached Islam.

So, then, we have a Jesus named Isa who is a Muslim prophet, competing with the Jewish Jesus, “born in Bethlehem of Judea” (Matthew 2:1). According to several hadiths – Muslim sacred texts – Isa has a mission: at the end of time he will return to destroy Christianity and to impose Islam as the sole religion over the whole world. These hadiths, often quoted in sermons, speak of him killing the pig, breaking the cross – which means in Islamic language: destroying Christianity – and the hadiths continue: he will suppress the jizya or poll-tax imposed on all non-Muslims and the booty will be boundless. (Sahih Muslim, vl.1, p.287; Sunan Abu Dawud, Book of Battles 37:4310.) The suppression of the jizya refers to the suppressions of all religions except Islam. So it means that when Jesus/Isa will come back he will suppress Christianity and all other religions and Islam will be the sole religion for humanity.

So in the Islamic optic, what is Christianity? Christianity is a falsification of Islam and of the true message of Isa, which is the same as that revealed to Muhammad. It follows that a good Christian is a Muslim. A good Christian must go back to his former religion, which is Islam. True Christianity is therefore Islam.

In short: Jews and Christians are left with what? The true Bible is the Koran, the Holy Scriptures of Jews and Christians are just falsifications, and all the biblical figures are Muslim prophets who preached Islam. In practice, what are the consequences?

1) Biblical narrative in the Holy Land is Muslim history, and Jews and Christians had no history there since they came after Islam. Their sacred scriptures are in the Koran, not in the Bible. This motivates Muslim opposition to the legitimacy of the State of Israel, because the Bible is considered a travesty of Muslim history.

2) Because Judaism and Christianity originate from one unique trunk, which is Islam, Muslims say that these two religions are unrelated. They deny that Christianity unfolded from Judaism. This is why the Islamized Churches in the Muslim world have developed a kind of Marcionism, abandoning the Jewish Jesus in order to link Christianity to the Muslim Isa who is not even mentioned as a Palestinian Arab in the Koran, since no towns or place from the Holy Land, not even Jerusalem, are ever mentioned in the Koran. The Koran does not mention where Isa was born, nor where he lived. But Muslims say that he is the real Jesus. Some Palestinian and Arab Churches (particularly in the Sabeel Centre in Jerusalem) tried to come closer to Islam by destroying the Jewish roots of Christianity. This current is growing in Europe, supported by the antisemitic/anti-Zionist movement created by Palestinianism.

Palestinianism is the best tool to destroy Christianity. In the Islamic context, Palestinians incarnate the jihadist ideology against infidels and also the Muslim replacement theology. The Palestinian war against Israel is based on the Koranic teaching that all the biblical prophets and kings and Jesus are Muslim prophets and that the biblical story is in fact a Muslim story whose truth is in the Koran, not the Bible.

Under the pressure of Palestinian terrorism in the late 1960s and the oil boycott (October 1973), Europe supported the Palestinian jihad against Israel. Since 1973, the Palestinian jihad has become a joint Euro-Arab policy and culture: this is Eurabia. By justifying the Palestinian jihad against Israel, Europe went into a suicidal dynamic that legitimize its own destruction and that of Christianity. The whole policy of Eurabia focuses on uniting Europe with the Muslim-Arab world, while suppressing its links with Israel, its spiritual roots.

The cultural and media war in Europe to delegitimize Israel accredits the Muslim belief that Jews and, therefore, Christians have no historical roots in the Holy Land. If Jews have no legitimacy in the Holy Land, it is the same for Christians, because Jesus is the Muslim Jesus – Isa. Another consequence of Muslim replacement theology is that when we speak of Judeo-Christian values we are, in fact, referring to Muslim values, because there are no Judeo-Christian values, since both Christianity and Judaism developed from a false interpretation of Islam. And when we refer to biblical narratives and figures, or to their iconography, we offend Muslims because they do not fit into the koranic model.

It is my opinion that we are now living in a period of reactivated jihad and dhimmitude. Those of you who have worked in South Sudan and Darfur and who have seen the atrocities there will recognize these legal tactics of jihad described in my books or in any Muslim texts on jihad from the 8-9 century onward. What happens in Sudan, Darfur, Iraq and other places evoke events described in Mesopotamia by Christian clerics, by Armenian chronicles, by Jews in the Holy Land, by Copts describing Muslim internal feuds and atrocities in Egypt – and with the passing centuries we see this same pattern of endless wars and persecution of Jews and Christians in the chronicle of the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, Michael the Syrian, that covers a period till the end of the 12 century. We have numerous accounts on the devastation by the Arabs and Turks in Anatolia, in the Balkanic regions and all along the European Mediterranean coasts and on the European islands. Throughout the centuries we see this same war, the same tactics of jihad repeated against Jews and Christians in different places of the world. Abduction of Christians and Jews to obtain a ransom – like what happened recently in Iraq to Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of Mossul – was a common practice in all the lands of Islam. Historical testimonies on such cases were endless. In the Vatican there is a huge amount of letters from Christian families asking for money to pay the ransom of millions of European Christians, men, women and children that were abducted and reduced to slavery, and this went on for centuries. Jewish and Christian communities in the Muslim lands were ruined by such demands. Now in Egypt, young Coptic women are abducted to force them to convert.

The reactivation of the jihad spirit inherent to Islam has reinforced dhimmitude against non Muslims – mainly Christians – in most Muslim countries. Shari’a laws – or laws inspired by shari’a – discriminate against Christians, since almost all Jews fled or were expelled. So now it is the Christians – in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere – who are leaving because in Islam, anti-Jewish hate is always connected to anti-Christian hate and vice-versa as it grows from the same religious source.

For decades, Europeans have been conditioned by the denial of the history of jihad and dhimmitude. Such policy led Europe into a suicidal dynamic. The repudiation of Israel’s historical legitimacy in its own land, supports its replacement by a jihadist world-order with its Islamic conception of justice that seeks to debase or suppress all non-Muslim religions. This same doctrine denies Europe’s own sovereignty and legitimacy and justifies the jihad against Europe – against Christianity. This Western adhesion to the jihad waged against Israel has perverted its own values and precludes Europe to understand now the dangers that challenge its own survival.

For Christians, Israel is central in this context, because jihad is waged in the name of Islamic replacement theology against Jews and Christians, so that Isa replaces Jesus, and the Koran replaces the Gospel. Christians are linked to the Jews by the Bible. If Christians want to break from this bond, they will have to forego the First Testament, including the Ten Commandments, the Prophets, and the Psalms and somehow find a way to link the Gospel to the Palestinian Muslim Isa of the Koran. This is the aim of the Palestinian Liberation Theology. The challenge that Christians are facing now is not only a military jihad, but also a spiritual/cultural jihad, which is the Islamization of the roots of Christian theology. And this is the spiritual meaning of Israel for Christians now: either Christians will resist or they will convert and Europe will become one more Islamized Christian territory. The jihad against Israel is also a war against the Christian world

Having devoted more than 30 years of my life studying the system of dhimmitude applied to Christians, I am now of the opinion that Europe has become the new land of dhimmitude and I will explain why. I have described in Eurabia, my last book, the causes that have triggered the dhimmitude of Europe. I will explain why politically and intellectually we have been conditioned to become dhimmis, without even knowing it because we do not recognize its signs, as this history has been denied.

1) Muslims consider that there is no Judeo-Christian civilisation so our European leaders have decided to agree that Europe has no Judeo-Christian roots, in order to integrate the Muslim immigrant population.

2) Muslim law forbids non-Muslims, under pain of death, to criticize Islam and shari’a. Hence the European Union, fearing to irritate Muslims, has complied to this rule and has obfuscated the regime of terror and discrimination against Christians in most Muslim lands.

3) The EU leaders are suppressing any critics of jihad for the same reason. We are supposed to respect the Muslim view that jihad is always just because it implements the law of Allah and humiliates unbelief. From our perspective jihad has been and still is a genocidal war. Yet we are supposed to praise it. When the Pope, in his Regensburg lecture, quoted a 15th century Byzantine emperor stating that Islam developed by the sword, Muslims protested, accusing him of Islamophobia, and saying that Islam developed peacefully. We are supposed to admire and avoid criticizing jihad, although it was jihad that destroyed and Islamized the Christian world. We see that the spiritual war directed against the Judeo-Christian values wants to condition our mind so that we will praise what will destroy us.

4) For Muslims, unbelief is always the source of evil on the planet, and therefore it is the West, America, Israel that are always blamed for the terrorism and crimes done by Muslims. It is written in a hadith: “There would come people amongst Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians” (Muslim, vol. 4, chap. 1149, 6668). There are many such hadiths stating that guilt will be taken from Muslims’ shoulders and transferred upon Christians and Jews. The strange thing is that Christians accept this reasoning and instead of seeing the supremacist doctrine of jihad as the real source of war and terror, they accuse the existence of Israel and its self-defence policy. Christians have even unconsciously internalized upon themselves the Muslim transfer of guilt. They have adopted the jihadist view that the resistance of the victim of jihad is an aggression and Islamophobic.

We consider that dhimmitude is a dehumanizing system, but for Muslims it is a generous tolerance offered to non-Muslims. So now, in order to accommodate the Muslims and their integration in Europe, our leaders have promoted in Europe the Islamic view of history. For this reason, Europeans ignore totally what is jihad and what is dhimmitude. So what are we going to teach in schools and universities in Europe – the Islamic version of Islamic superiority and Western guilt or the Western one based on historical facts and documents?

We are currently living a period of global jihad, which tomorrow can develop into a nuclear jihad and we don’t know it, nor do we know how to defend ourselves. We are living a period of dhimmitude, we are conditioned by dhimmitude to accept the Muslim version of our history and we do not realize it because the historical framework of the past, of jihad and dhimmitude, has been obfuscated.

Let me conclude: There has been several interfaith dialogues for decades but with poor results. Europe has paid tens of billions to Muslim countries worldwide, buying its security, but the culture of jihad is blossoming in Europe and in the Arab countries in spite of Europe’s appeasement policy. Palestinianism which is a replacement theology was the tool that led to Europe’s Islamization and dhimmitude. By joining the Muslim jihad against Israel, Europe has obfuscated its own history and, now faced with a global jihad, it is unable to assess correctly the situation and defend itself. But a continent that bases its survival on appeasement, tributes, and self-denial is already a dead continent.

Israel represents the liberation of man from the slavery of dhimmitude, whereas Palestinianism represents the jihad and dhimmitude ideology based on replacement theology. Europe, enslaved by Palestinianism, has chosen servitude instead of freedom.

If we want peace to prevail, the Muslim world must abandon the jihadist ideology and must recognise Jews and Christians as different and not see them as apostate Muslims, who have to return to Islam. And this must start with Muslim recognition of the legitimacy of Israel, because jihad started against the Jews and it can only end with the rehabilitation of the Jews and Israel, and this will bring the rehabilitation of Christians and of all non-Muslims. We can achieve it if we speak the truth, if we teach about jihad and dhimmitude. Then, masses of peaceful Muslims, liberated from the jihadist ideology of hate, which many oppose or ignore, will join us willingly, to build together peace. But we cannot help the peaceful Muslims if we cannot even help ourselves – if we are swamped in dhimmitude. Now if you have patience for one more minute, I will say that the future of Europe is your responsibility – it is for you to act and to save what Christianity has built and the values that are yours, but if you are passive, you will not succeed, because the time is already very late. It is not your fault, if you don’t know, but it is your duty to know, to instruct others and also to learn – it is your duty to learn and instruct others who cannot learn – it is your responsibility.

by David G. Littman, NGO Representative in Geneva of the Association for World Education (AWE) & World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) (on picture together with apostolic nuntius in Germany Jean-Claude Perisset and Ingrid Seigis CSI)

On March 13, Roy W. Brown, speaking on behalf of the International Humanist and Ethical Union and the Association for World Education on threats to “freedom of expression’, was stopped several times by member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on ‘points of order’. You can read his report here: www.iheu.org/node/3115 or at: www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020399.php

On March 25, the subject of Tibet was in the news, but every mention of Tibet during the general debate was challenged by China - on the spurious grounds that country situations were irrelevant to item 8, then being debated. The Association for World Education had accredited Mme, Claude B. Levenson, a world expert who had just published a book on Tibet, to speak on that ongoing tragedy. But the President of the HRC finally had no alternative, after almost 20 interruptions by China and other States, to ask all representatives - particularly NGOs - to keep off the subject of Tibet. The moment Mme Levenson mentioned the word “Tibet” the President stopped her and gave the floor to the next Speaker.

After the plenary meeting, the President of the Council, Romanian Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea, called a meeting with NGOs (6:00-7:00pm) to explain these Problems. There were many questions and warnings by very concerned key NGOs. Just before the dose, we asked the President twice to be our ‘watchman’ (as in the Book of Ezechiel, eh. 33), and blow the trumpet loud and clear, so that such debilitating tactics would not become a precedent the next day, under item 9 (racism), when we would be speaking on taboo subjects. The President then made it very clear that he would do everything to protect the inherent ‘freedom of expression’ of all NGOs.

The next morning I spoke on behalf of the Association for World Education, under item 9: Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Forms of Intolerance. The attempts to muzzle me by the Egyptian, Palestinian and Iranian delegates were hilarious and the whole 12 minutes has been reproduced below, with each ‘point of order’ reproduced as spoken in broken English. This farce can be viewed on the UN video. See: rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/seventh/hrc080326am-eng.rm?start=01:16:448 end=01:28:32. As can be seen and read, President Costea kept his promise to protect the rights of all NGOs.

An hour later I spoke again for the World Union for Progressive Judaism on a similar theme under item 9. On that occasion, there were no interruptions from any Council member, using a ‘point of order’. See: rtsp://webcast.un.org/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/seventh/hrc080326am-eng.rm?start=01:57:338end= 02:01:14.

Statement to Human Rights Council for the Association for World Education bv David G. Littman (March 26)

Subjects: The Council should condemn calls to kill in the name of God or religion - any religion
Preaching and teaching of hate and of Judeophobia / Antisemitism - endemic in Muslim countries.

[Reduced passages in brackets were not pronounced in the 3 minutes, but were left for documentation]

[The five interruptions 011 a 'point of order' are indicated with an asterisk in brackets]

David G. Littman: Sir, regarding the Report [A/HRC/7/19] of the Special Rapporteur on Racism [Mr. Doudou Diène] and his comments on defamation of religion, we note that once again he has failed to mention the greatest of all defamations of religion - when chapter and verse of holy texts are cited to justify calls to kill in the name of God or of Allah. On the 9th August 2007, we made an Appeal to the UN Secretary-General and the High Commissioner - and later to the Council “to condemn all calls to kill in the name of God or religion - any religion.” [Joint mitten Statement to Sixth Session (by AWE, IHEU, AWC): A/HRC/6/NGO/5: Appeal to Condemn Calls to Kill in the name of Godi: (*) (**) (***)

President: We have a 'point of order' requested by the delegation of Egypt. You have the floor, Sir.

Egypt (improvisation in English): Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry for interrupting the meeting, but I just want to make sure - since I was not here in January 24 — if the Speaker is ... just being given the floor is the same Speaker who said... replying to the president... who said: That there is ... "'something is rooten in the State of this Council." [in reading the quotation from our Statement, Egypt's delegate pronounced the word ''rooten", instead of "rotten." No one could understand this subtlety.] So, if he would just please check if this is the same Speaker who insulted the Council and its president… who was just given the floor. Thank you.

The reference was to the 24 January 2008 oral Statement (titled: The Gaza Strip: in the grip of a criminal Hamas regime with its racist. genocidal. jihadist Charter), de livered on behalf of
the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) to the HRC 6tU Special Session - on Gaza.
The President interrupted after our 1sl paragraph: “Sir, in order to understand the Palestinian self-inflicted tragedy in the Gaza Strip, there is an urgent need to reconsider the basic implications of the binding, genocidal HAMAS Charter, concerning which we have been warning Human Rights bodies, High Commissioners and Special Rapporteurs for 20 years - all to no effect. We first warned of the HAMAS menace at the 45” Session of the Commission on Human Rights on 31 January 1989.” A 2nd time came after the request: “May this Human Rights Council and all UN bodies utterly condemn Hamas and its evil Charter? Abridging the Statement, we then concluded with the final line - the president had a copy of the Statement - “Sir, there is a general malaise in the air, a feeling that: “Something is rotten in the State of this Council. ” [Hamlet metaphor: "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark."]

President: I notice that the distinguished representative of Palestine has asked for the floor.

Palestine (improvisation in English): Yes, thank you Mr. President. My delegation would like to fully endorse what has been said by Egypt and again we would like to express our shock to the permission given to a distinguished representative of an NGO again to address this respectful place. Thank you.

President: Any other demands for the floor. It doesn’t seem to be the case. Let me recall that the NGO that we are talking about does have a consultative Status. It [AWE] is in full observance of the rules of accreditation. Consequently, it [AWE] has the right to take the floor as per our rules of procedure. You may continue, Sir.

David G. Littman: Thank you very much….

President: Excuse me. A point