Muslims Inadvertently Call for Ban on Islam

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, April 19, 2018:

The very same logic that Muslims cite in their ongoing efforts to criminalize anti-Islamic speech in Western nations would require the criminalization of Islam itself.

Secretary-General of the Muslim World League Mohammed al-Issa argues that “Europe must do more to … criminalize religious hate speech.” In an April 9 interview with Reuters, this prominent Saudi said: “We believe that European countries, where there is much debate now, and other countries around the world … need to … criminalize hatred and contempt for adherents of religions because this threatens the safety of the community.”

The “hatred and contempt for adherents of religions” that Muslims complain of is ecumenical code for “Islamophobia.” Thus, on April 5 Ömer Serdar, a senior official from Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, announced that he and a “group of Turkish lawmakers will travel to the heart of Europe,” where they will “investigate whether authorities take measures against the hostility of Islamophobic discrimination in Muslims’ daily lives.” Afterwards, “they will hold meetings with state authorities during their visits to Germany, France, and Belgium” and “discuss the issue of marginalization.”

All of this is in line with policies of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the “collective voice of the Muslim World” and second-largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations. For years — especially after a Muslim massacred a dozen people at France’s Charlie Hebdo offices for publishing satirical caricatures of Muhammad — the OIC has called on the United Nations to criminalize the “defamation of religions,” meaning criticism of Islam.

Everyone — especially Muslims — seems to miss the grand irony. If international laws would ban speech, cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame religions, those laws would ban the entire religion of Islam itself.

Islam is the only religion whose core texts actively, unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.

Consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation,” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” But in Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC and others cynically maintain that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts — beginning with the Koran itself?

The Koran repeatedly slanders, denigrates, and blackens the reputation of other specific religions. Consider these passages about Christianity:

— Koran 5:73: “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity.

— Koran 5:72: “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary.”

— Koran 9:30: “[T]he Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”

The word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms. What if a core Christian text — or even a Western cartoon — declared: “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God — may God’s curse be upon them”?

If Muslims consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard, it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.

Consider how the Christian Cross, venerated by billions, is defamed in Islam. According to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses. Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.”

Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.

What if Christian books or Western movies specifically named the sacred symbols of Islam — perhaps the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba — as “idolatry” that Muhammad himself will return and destroy? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.

Here is perhaps the most particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment: According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad will be married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary in paradise.

Imagine if anything — from a core Christian text to a cartoon — portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife Aisha, the “Mother of Believers,” as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven.

If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Such defamation of Christianity is hardly limited to Islam’s core scriptures. In fact, modern-day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree: it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.

The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about — and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world — revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves. On the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns — in a word, “defames” — all other religions.

And we haven’t even mentioned the specific calls for violence against Christians, Jews, and adherents of all other religions (e.g., Koran 9:29).

It is this issue — Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy — that the international community should address.

And the right to freely discuss and criticize Islam’s penchant to defame and destroy is what the international community must protect.

Center for Security Policy Panel Discussion: “Free Speech Under Fire”

This is an excellent discussion on perhaps the most important issue of our time. As we witness Western Democracies creeping towards totalitarianism, it is imperative that we wake up to the steady erosion of our last line of defense – Freedom of Speech.

Center for Security Policy, Nov. 30, 2017:

Free speech in the West is under fire.

It seems that every day, from every direction, the enemies of freedom encroach more upon what our Founders rightly described as a God-given and inalienable right.

We see “snowflakes” on college campuses shouting down or even attacking speakers with whom they disagree.

We see the politically correct mainstream media exploding in outrage over every utterance of President Donald J. Trump that does not conform to their standards.

We see politicians too mealy-mouthed to tell the truth – especially when it comes to the brutal, totalitarian Islamic ideology known as Sharia – lest they be subjected to charges of the wholly made up and phony syndrome dubbed “Islamophobia.”

We see social media giants stamping out the speech of those with whom they disagree, while they allow the speech of jihadis to flourish.

We see international organizations, from the United Nations to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to the little-known Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), each working in its own, insidious way to strangle expression.

And from all these quarters, we hear warnings about the ostensibly burgeoning danger of “hate speech.”

But what is hate speech, exactly?

More and more, it appears it is simply shorthand for depicting – and curbing – whatever expression the radical Left and Sharia-supremacists may find objectionable. Anything with which they disagree is dubbed “hate” and must be terminated.

In short, this “Red-Green Axis” – i.e., the collusion between neo-Marxist and Islamist forces against America and the West – works systematically to punish speech to which such partisans take offense, a category that seemingly expands with each passing day.

This Occasional Paper is the latest in a series of products addressing such subjects to be published by the Center for Security Policy Press, including:

  1. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech, which addressed the part the OIC in particular plays in the Red-Green Axis’ attempt to stifle the truth about Islam’s supremacist Sharia doctrine.[1]
  2. The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, which explored how the Left and its Islamist allies join force to maximize the influx of immigrants from Sharia-adherent countries who are, altogher too often inadequately vetted.[2]
  3. TEAM JIHAD: How Sharia-Supremacists Collaborate with Leftists to Destroy the United States, an analysis of the specific links between Leftist and Islamist organizations, including funding from one to the other to help both better defeat us.[3]

Free Speech Under Fire provides a further examination of the unrestricted warfare now being mounted in forums like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that is inexorably garrotting free peoples’ ability to speak. It includes:

  • An essay by Austrian dissident Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, telling the story of how in 2011 the Austrian state convicted her of “denigration of religious beliefs” – without regard to whether those beliefs, notably regarding pedophilia, deserve to be criticized;
  • A piece on the OSCE’s missteps in its dealings with Jihad and Islamism by renowned expert on Islamic history and doctrine Robert Spencer, who recently recovered from being poisoned by a Leftist radical who disagreed with his extraordinarily well-researched;
  • An article by Deborah Weiss, Esq., a gifted attorney, 9/11 survivor and Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow, on how the OIC and other international organizations, as well as national and even local governments, are clamping down on free speech;
  • Two “interventions” made during plenary sessions of the OSCE’s fall 2017 meeting in Warsaw by Center for Security Policy Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez; and
  • An article by Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D., CSP’s Executive Vice President, who also attended the most recent OSCE meeting devoted to shutting down speech critical of Sharia supremacism, while catering to the speech of Islamists.

Taken together, these essays validate the proposition that the Red-Green Axis’ dark machinations amount to “unrestricted warfare” against free expression. That term was featured by two colonels in the People’s Liberation Army in their 1999 book, Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America. Translated from original PLA documents, this volume describes how “American military doctrine is typically led by technology; a new class of weapon or vehicle is developed, which allows or encourages an adjustment in strategy.”[4]

The authors, Chinese military strategists Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui “argue that this dynamic is a crucial weakness in the American military, and that this blind spot with regard to alternative forms of warfare could be effectively exploited by enemies” – a point not lost on the West’s alt-Left and its Islamic infiltrators as well.

Unrestricted Warfare teaches that the front lines can be almost anywhere.

It has become increasingly obvious that the front lines of the unrestricted war on free speech are on university campuses, where enemy-planted radical thought and rhetorical excess thrive.

The front lines are in newsrooms, long populated by not only totalitarians’ useful idiots, but active agents as well.

The front lines are on Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter as they crack down on conservative and counter-jihad speech, while allowing not only Russian influence operations, but jihadist propaganda and incitement, as well.

And the front lines are certainly at multilateral forums like the OSCE, where Sharia-supremacists work hand-in-hand with globalists to advance their common aim of centralizing and exercising control over both the means and the content of communications.

American policymakers and citizens alike must stand firm in the face of the relentless assault currently being mounted on the foundational freedom of speech that is described in the pages that follow.

It’s time to challenge the Left’s selective indignation about “hate speech” that gives a pass to Black Lives Matter, Antifa and many jihadists’ incitement of violence.

It’s time to take on the Sharia-supremacists who condemn as “Islamophobia” what, in reality, is simply truthful renderings of their anti-freedom political, military and legal system really means knowing too much about Sharia, and saying it aloud.

And it’s past time we reined in international organizations including by refusing to submit to their boa-like constriction of free speech.

We at the Center for Security Policy hope that you will stand with us – and stand up for free speech.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President and CEO

 

[1] See Deborah Weiss, Esq., The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech (Washington, D.C.: Center for Security Policy), 2015, https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf accessed November 28, 2017.

[2] See James Simpson, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America (Washington, D.C.: Center for Security Policy), 2015, https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Red-Green-Axis-10-05-15.pdf, accessed November 28, 2017.

[3] See Matthew Vadum, TEAM JIHAD: How Sharia-Supremacists Collaborate with Leftists to Destroy the United States (Washington, D.C.: Center for Security Policy), 2017, https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2017/06/26/book-launch-team-jihad-how-sharia-supremacists-collaborate-with-leftists-to-destroy-the-united-states/ accessed November 28, 2017.

[4] See Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America  (

Download the study here: Free Speech Under Fire: The Red-Green Axis’ Unrestricted Wafare in OSCE and Beyond

Watch the panel discussion:

***

These are clips from the above full panel:

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

***

Clare Lopez

***

Deborah Weiss

***

1st Amendment “not the right to NOT be offended”

***

Free speech is under attack across the Western world

***

Sharia: It can happen here

**

“Islamophobia” is “knowing the truth about Islam”

***

Freedom of speech is the battleground where all freedoms are won or lost

***

Why the OSCE is important to Americans

***

Hate Speech is Free Speech

***

OIC’s interpretation of speech is in line with Islamic blasphemy laws

We’re Not the Thought Police

That being said, what are you thinking?

Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Bawer, April 9, 2018:

To read Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch website regularly is to get an unsettling daily dose of real-life Islam-related horrors. But on April 4, Robert posted a half-hour audio that was even more disturbing than the bulk of his usual offerings. The audio records the visit by a couple of British police officers to the home of a British subject who had apparently been reported to the authorities for posting anti-Islam comments on social media. The householder in question greeted the cops with surprising – perhaps nervous? – cheeriness, and for a half hour he earnestly, willingly, and good-humoredly answered their indefensibly intrusive and insulting questions about his opinions. Among them: What were his political beliefs? What did he think of Islam? Did he hate Muslims? Was he a racist? Was he a Nazi?

It quickly became clear that this man – whose name we never learn, unless I missed something – is anything but a racist or Nazi or hater of any kind. On the contrary, he is a thoughtful citizen who, after considerable study, has come to some sensible conclusions about Islam. He made it clear that, unlike his visitors, he had read the Koran, had acquainted himself with the major specifics of the life of Muhammed, and knew the basics of Islamic theology. He was, it emerged, a strong opponent of Islam for precisely the right reasons, including (as he mentioned) the fact that it commands believers to do harm to infidels, Jews, and gays.

Yet even as he spelled out these indisputable truths about Islam, the police officers responded as if he was imagining it all. They suggested that he might want to sit down for a conversation with an Islamic scholar, who could clear up what they seemed determined to view as his misunderstandings. They insisted, moreover, that they were not the Thought Police – even though there is no other word for police officers who show up at the home of an innocent citizen to interrogate him about his personal opinions.

A couple of reader comments on the Jihad Watch audio suggested it was fake, on the grounds that police officers in a free country would surely never do such a thing. Wrong. For me, the audio brought back vivid memories – for I’ve had my own very similar encounter with European policemen. My experience was slightly different in that instead of being visited at home, I was summoned to a local police station in Norway, where I live. But the encounter itself, which took place in January 2014, was strikingly similar to the one recorded on the Jihad Watch audio. My interrogators even assured me, as their British colleagues assured the fellow in the audio, that they were not the Thought Police. When I heard that statement on the audio, I couldn’t help wondering: are cops around Europe, even in different countries, working off of the same script?

Immediately after returning home from my visit to the police station back in January 2014, I sat down and typed up everything I could remember about the exchange I’d had with my new uniformed friends. The conversation had been in Norwegian, and I wrote it out in Norwegian. I sent copies to a few friends of mine, including Hans Rustad, editor of the vitally important Norwegian website document.no, who, in response, told me that he had heard similar, and equally disturbing, accounts from other people living in Norway. He actually took a copy of my testimony with him to a meeting at the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, where he confronted officials with this example of thoroughly inappropriate police conduct.

My Norwegian-language account of my exchange with the police officers later appeared in print (but not online) in a document.no publication, but has never appeared in English. After hearing the audio at Jihad Watch, however, I decided that it might be worthwhile to translate my account into English so that any doubters might understand that, yes indeed, this how at least some police officers in Europe conduct themselves in this era of Islamization.

So here it is, without further ado, but with newly added comments and explanatory information in brackets:

On January 9, I received a phone call from a policeman in Skien [the county seat of Telemark, where I live]. He said he wanted to meet me because he thought my knowledge of Islam could help the police in the fight against Islamic terrorism. He explained that someone at PST [the Norwegian Police Security Service, Norway’s equivalent of the NSA or MI5] had recommended that he speak with me. I said I would be glad to be of help. We agreed to speak again a few days later to agree on a time and place.

During the days that followed I spent a good deal of time preparing for what I imagined would be a crash course in Islam. When we spoke by telephone for the second time, I thought I detected a subtle change in his tone and immediately suspected that his objective was, in fact, not to draw on my expertise but to interrogate me. This suspicion was reinforced when he said, at the end of the conversation, that he himself was a PST officer.

This was precisely the same thing that had happened to me during the [mass murderer Anders Behring] Breivik trial [in 2012], when Geir Lippestad [Breivik’s lawyer] summoned me as an “expert witness.” His real intention at that time was not to make use of my “expertise” but rather to expose me to scorn and derision as one of several writers who had supposedly “influenced” the killer and who thus shared in the blame for his crimes.

On January 15, I met the PST officer and a colleague of his, also from PST, at a police station near my home. Indeed, it turned out that they had no interest in learning anything about Islam from me. They wanted to know about other things. How, for example, had I come to be so critical of Islam? Which other members of the anti-Islam community was I acquainted with? Which far-right websites was I in the habit of reading? Had I experienced discomfort in encounters with Muslims? Did I know Hans Rustad, editor of document.no, which publishes critical aticles about Islam and European immigration policy? Had I ever posted comments on his website?

At first I played along – too much. I told them about the time my partner had been assaulted by a Muslim with a knife at a bus stop at St. Hanshaugen in Oslo, and about the time a Muslim yelled “faggot” at him and kicked him on the tram. I mentioned the doctor I knew who had been killed at his office by a Muslim asylum seeker. As for Hans Rustad, I said, “Yes, I know him. He’s a terrific guy and he has a terrific website. But no, I’ve never commented on articles there.”

They asked about Fjordman [counterjihadist writer Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen]. Had I ever met him? Yes, we had gotten together for beers 3-4 times in Oslo several years ago. We had also both attended a conference in The Hague sometime around 2006. Oh yes? Which conference? The Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference. Who arranged that? I don’t know. Who else took part? Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, several others. They seemed to be interested in these details. They asked me what I thought about Fjordman. I answered the question rather exhaustively.

Then they came to Breivik. How had I felt when I learned that Breivik had read some of my books and articles? They emphasized that they were fully aware of the dangers of Islamic terrorism, but they were also worried that a writer like me could help “create a new Breivik” or several of them. It was at about this point that I began to fire back a bit. I said that Breivik was a maniac, and that if he hadn’t happened to get hooked on Islam as an object of hate, he would have gotten hooked on something else to hate. They didn’t seem to be willing to accept the possibility that Breivik was just a crazy man, an isolated case. I got the impression that they were working from the premise that Breivik was a cold-blooded counterjihadist who had been created by other counterjihadists.

In a slightly irritated tone, one of the two men reminded me that during the first hours after the government buildings in Oslo were bombed, that is before Breivik was identified and before his motives were known, many people in Oslo had assumed that the city was under attack by Muslim terrorists, and that this had resulted in people assaulting Muslims in the streets. [Note: I have never seen any documentation of this claim.] One of PST’s concerns, he said, was that if a Norwegian Muslim committed a murder like the horrible killing of Lee Rigby in London, there would be a violent anti-Muslim reaction. [They always worry more about the anti-Muslim “backlash” that virtually never happens than about the actual Islam-motivated atrocity.]

My interlocutors had read Breivik’s “manifesto.” They talked about his patchwork of plagiarized historical essays and information about weapons in a way that suggested that, in their eyes, it was a key document for the understanding of the counterjihad movement.

“Have you read the Koran?” I asked.

“No,” both of them said. They were not at all embarrassed about it.

“Well, you should,” I said. “If you want to understand the mentality that underlies Islamic terrorism, you’ll find its origin there.”

One of them answered quickly. “We know that radical Muslims have misinterpreted the Koran.”

“It’s not a question of interpretation,” I replied. “The passages in question are very clear.” I emphasized that while none of the writers they were trying to link to Breivik had called for killing, the Koran calls for killing infidels again and again.

They paid no heed to this. In fact they seemed to find it distasteful to talk about the Koran in this way.

They wanted to know what I thought about the “Eurabia conspiracy theory.”

“What do you mean by that term?” I asked.

“Haven’t you heard it before?”

“Of course, but I hope you understand that this is an expression one almost never hears outside of Norway. It’s a concept that has been invented by the Norwegian left. What does it mean to you?”

“It’s about Muslims wanting to take over Europe.”

“That’s not a conspiracy theory. Jihad is a reality, it’s a core Islamic idea. Do you know how Islam divides the world?”

They shook their heads.

“The world consists of the House of Islam, where Islamic law prevails, and the House of War, which is the part of the world where Islamic law does not yet prevail. According to the Koran, there will not be peace in the world until the House of War is totally conquered by Islam.”

They weren’t interested in hearing about this, either. One of them explained what they meant by the “Eurabia conspiracy theory”: “What we’re referring to is the idea that, for example, Stoltenberg [Jens Stoltenberg, Labor Party politician and Prime Minister from 2000-1 and 2005-13] is secretly conspiring with Muslims with the goal of transforming Norway into an Islamic state.”

What struck me about this was that they talked about Stoltenberg as if he were still Prime Minister. [Just as America’s Deep State is Democratic, Norway’s is Labor.]

At one point, they asked a question that led me to say something very critical about the attempt, after July 22 [the date, in 2011, of Breivik’s atrocities], to limit freedom of expression in Norway. One of them asked me, do you think that there is greater freedom of expression in the U.S. than in Norway? I replied that there’s much more freedom of expression in the U.S. than in all of Western Europe. I mentioned Lars Hedegaard, Geert Wilders, and others who had been put on trial in various Western European countries because of things they had said or written about Islam.

“Where is the limit, then?” asked one of the PST guys, his tone rather sharp.

“There shouldn’t be any limit, unless you call for violence,” I said. They seemed to react to this. I had the impression that they felt I had crossed a line.

During the conversation they reassured me at least three times that this was not an interrogation – but that’s exactly what it was. A couple of times they said that they had no plans to arrest me – which, of course, served as a reminder that they had the power to do so. They also insisted a couple of times that they were not “Thought Police” [tankepoliti]. At one point, one of them mentioned that they can’t do everything the NSA can do, because the law doesn’t allow it, but that they do absolutely everything they can within the framework of Norwegian law.

The entire conversation lasted about an hour and a half. It was intense. They fired questions at me almost without a break. Several times they returned to questions I had already answered. When the whole thing was over, they informed me that they might be contacting me again.

Afterwards, I regretted that I hadn’t just stood up and walked out when I realized that I had been summoned there under false premises. In these times, when certain critical voices and opinions are considered illegal, I would never knowingly have put myself in such a situation with the police. But this was a trap, and they were clearly betting that I would stay there and answer their questions because it would have seemed both uncomfortable and rude to do anything else.

They were right: I stayed there because I didn’t want to make a scene. But while I’m sorry I answered some of their questions so dutifully, I’m glad I took advantage of the opportunity to put up at least something of a challenge. In any event, what emerges from the audio at Jihad Watch is that those bobbies in Britain (apparently Lancashire), like my PST buddies in Norway, have been trained to view Islam as essentially benign and criticism of Islam as a danger. Both sets of cops manifestly consider it part of their job to hunt down critics of Islam and try to intimidate them into silence. And none of them have the slightest regard whatsoever for freedom of speech. They don’t even seem to grasp the concept.

They’ve also apparently been taught – and this is the creepiest part – to emphasize that they’re not Thought Police. This is obviously a result of training, because it would never occur independently to such people – who have plainly never read a word of Orwell – to make such a declaration in the first place. This, then, is what we are up against in today’s western Europe: police departments that are producing Thought Police – and, as part of that production process, are instructing them to reassure the proles that, no, of course they’re not Thought Police.

Sure. And war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

Bruce Bawer is the author of “While Europe Slept,” “Surrender,” and “The Victims’ Revolution.” His novel “The Alhambra” has just been published.

CJR: And if you think it isn’t happening in the US, read this:

Christopher Hull: Who is Breaking Europe?

Sovereign Nations, by James Manning, March 12, 2018:

The Center for Security Policy’s interim Executive Vice President, Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D, speaks at the Sovereign Nations Conference, which took place at the Trump International Hotel.

The conference confronted the issues, debated the consequences and explored the causes of things that are destroying our liberty in the United States.  Specifically, it explored the foundation of, on one hand, George Soros‘ view of the world, in which all individuals and freedoms are ultimately subordinate to and guaranteed by government, and on the other hand, Donald Trump’s view as articulated in his Warsaw speech, with independent sovereign nations acting within constitutional constraints to guarantee rights granted by God to free citizens.

Dr. Hull’s presentation, ‘Who Is Breaking Europe?’ can be found in the video above.  In it, he argues that the answer is threefold:

  1. The European illegal immigration crisis, driven at least in part by Islamic holy war, or Jihad;
  2. Politically correct EU leaders and globalist elites like Soros, driven at least in part by cultural Marxism; and
  3. Vladimir Putin’s Russia, driven at least in part by a simple desire to weaken its adversaries by exploiting the divisions among and between them.

***

For more on cultural Marxism see Jordan B. Peterson: Identity Politics & The Marxist Lie of White Privilege

The Jordan Peterson Phenomenon

(Image via Wikipedia, CC by 2.0)

PJ Media, by by David Solway, Feb. 5, 2018:

When we had lunch together one afternoon a few months back, Canadian psychologist and university professor Jordan Peterson, who has risen to meteoric prominence for his courageous stand against political correctness and legally compelled speech, looked distressingly frail and was on a restricted diet prescribed by his physician. The ordeal the press and the University of Toronto’s administration, which had threatened to discipline him for his refusal to accede to legislation forcing the use of invented pronouns, had obviously taken its toll. (Note: Peterson was willing to address individuals by their chosen pronouns, but was not willing to be forced to do so by law.)

Our conversation ranged over the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, C.G. Jung and Fyodor Dostoevsky, Peterson’s chief secular resources, as well as the Book of Genesis, the Prophetic literature and the Gospel of John, Peterson’s biblical lynchpins. His meditations on these texts have obviously struck a chord with his audience. From Nietzsche’s complex web of ideas, he focuses on the notion of critical strength to combat cultural weakness and the primacy of the individual over the group. From Jung comes the theory of the hero archetype, the feral “shadow” component of the psyche which must be both acknowledged and mastered, and the “animus dominated” feminist on a quest for societal control. He elaborates on the political wisdom of Dostoevsky’s novels The Devils and The Brothers Karamazov, and expands on a favorite quote from Notes from Underground, “You can say anything about world history. … Except one thing. … It cannot be said that world history is reasonable.”

From the biblical wellspring he develops the idea of creative vitality transforming darkness into light, reflects on the Prophetic summons to integrity, righteousness and the Kingdom of God  — for Peterson the ground of the higher good and the divinity of the soul — and stresses the concept of the Logos, the principle that imposes order on chaos and seeks to make the unreasonable rational, which he identifies with the spirit of masculinity.

Peterson is clearly filling a gaping spiritual vacuum experienced by a vast community, primarily young men, who have been deprived of agency, self-confidence and life-meaning. And he is doing so by representing the insights of his sources to readers and viewers unfamiliar with these magisterial texts and cultural giants — a privation owing in large measure to poor upbringing and an anorexic education. Pajama Boys living in their parents’ basement drinking hot chocolate rather than the Castalian water of knowledge, and men young and old who have been infected and oppressed by the feminist preaching of toxic masculinity, are in desperate need of moral revitalization and intellectual supervision.

The Peterson phenomenon, then, testifies to the deep sense of spiritual emptiness in our culture. Confronting the abyss, he argues that nobility is possible despite the recognition that life inescapably involves suffering, evil and death, and contends that male vigor, fortitude and resilience are essential to cultural survival. In a culture obsessed with group rights, Peterson points out that absent its necessary counterpart, individual responsibility, social collapse is inevitable.

Peterson’s message is not new to anyone who has read and pondered his sources; yet it is new in the sense that he has performed an act of synthesis for a largely illiterate, politically indoctrinated and under-educated generation. As John Dale Dunn writes in American Thinker, Peterson’s “great accomplishment is teaching, counseling, and coaching people to urge them to live the good life, the virtuous life. … The only way he might be ambushed is [by being targeted] by the destroyers of the left with their name calling and politics of personal destruction,” deploying tactics straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Read more

CJR: Jordan Peterson is an important voice in defense of free speech, individualism and the need for spiritual renewal. Follow him on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Frank Gaffney: President Trump May Be ‘Undermined by His Own Subordinates’ After Strong UN Speech

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept. 20, 2017:

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily to review President Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly.

Kassam asked if Trump’s strong words against Iran during the speech presaged the end of the Iran nuclear deal.

“This is the question,” Gaffney replied. “Action is not so much what one needs to wonder about. I think there will be action. The question is, is it action consistent with what the president said yesterday?”

“This has been what’s so frustrating, I know, to all of us listening to this program and part of the Make America Great Again movement, is the president is being repeatedly and in fact serially undermined by his own subordinates,” he explained.

“He makes these speeches, or he makes these pronouncements, or he tweets the sorts of things that are redolent of the campaign, and what he stood for, and what he promised – only to have H.R. McMaster, or Jim Mattis, or particularly Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, almost immediately sallying forth and saying, ‘Well, what the president really meant to say was exactly the opposite,’” Gaffney lamented.

“In this case, of course, we have Rex Tillerson sitting down with the so-called ‘Perm 5 Plus One,’ which is U.N.-speak for the gang that put together this Iran deal – I call it the ‘Obama bomb deal’ – plus the Iranian foreign minister. Obviously, the pressure is going to be intense, not just from the Iranians but from the Europeans, to walk back from what the president said,” he warned.

“I pray that Rex Tillerson won’t do it because I think the president got it exactly right. This is a defective deal. It is an embarrassment to the United States that Barack Obama perpetrated it – and, by the way, that Republicans in Congress enabled him to get away with imposing it upon the rest of us. We need to get out from that thing right away. I think John Bolton had that exactly right, and I commend everyone his alternative approach. I hope that’s what Rex Tillerson will be promoting, but I don’t hold my breath on it,” said Gaffney.

Kassam mentioned the argument advanced by French President Emmanuel Macron that the North Korean crisis makes the case for keeping the Iran deal alive because Iran’s nuclear ambitions are now held in check by the kind of oversight North Korea has never received.

“Rubbish,” Gaffney snorted. “This is forgetting the actual lessons of all of this, of course, which are that indeed we made a deal with the North Koreans that was supposed to prevent them from getting the bomb, not unlike we’ve done with the Iranians, and it did not work out.”

“To the contrary, we’ve now got them with not only atomic weapons and missiles with which to deliver them, but now it appears a hydrogen bomb,” he argued. “The so-called ‘strategic patience’ of the Obama administration, unfortunately, followed on the heels of incompetence and malfeasance under both the Clinton administration that made that deal with the North Koreans, and the George W. Bush administration, so there’s a bipartisan fault here. This is not a model to be extolled or held up as the way to deal with Iran.”

Kassam found President Trump’s strong condemnation of socialism to be the most remarkable and encouraging moment of his speech, especially given that a majority of the nations in the UN General Assembly consider themselves socialist to some degree.

“It was tough love, without probably the love,” Gaffney quipped. “The president was laying out the hard truth, and it was incredibly important that he did so – and that he did so to the socialists in that place.”

“Not only are there large numbers of socialists, or communists for that matter, in the UN I mean, it basically is a socialist enterprise. It’s all about redistribution of wealth and power under the auspices of successive socialists, including the guy who is currently running it – the Secretary-General is an old socialist from Portugal. These are people who, I believe, actually think this is the way of the future, so it was very important,” he said.

“But again, it has to be backed up. Let me just say, I think in addition to not having his subordinates undermine him – which they do again, and again, and again, without any consequences – we also have to take actions, Raheem,” he told Kassam.

“I mean, it’s one thing to be telling the North Koreans and ‘Rocket Man’ that you’re toast if you think about pursuing with those hydrogen bombs threats to us. It’s another to actually put into place the capabilities to assure that everybody understands that that’s not an empty threat,” he stressed.

“The rhetoric has been more or less good,” Gaffney judged. “I think you’re absolutely right that the MAGA movement was heard, and brought back ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ That’s a twofer. One, it’s important in its own right to be calling the enemy what it is, and also that it demonstrates how important the base is. We need to make sure the president is hearing us all the time. I know that he does through your channel, but we need it more elsewhere. In this case in particular, we have got to make sure that we are backing up with credible military capabilities the rhetoric that the president is using.”

Kassam turned to Gaffney’s recent blog post, “Freedom’s Friends Must Denounce, Not Dignify, the SPLC and CAIR.”

“We’ve been talking a lot, and rightly so, about what’s being done to freedom of speech – arguably sort of the foundational freedom in our Constitution and for our republic,” Gaffney said.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood sharia supremacist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, have been making – I’m sorry to say even under this administration, under a Republican-controlled Congress – great strides to try to impose the kind of restrictions you’re very familiar with, of course, on your side of the pond,” he said, referring to speech codes in the United Kingdom, where Kassam resides.

Gaffney said these speech restrictions “are designed to basically promote sharia blasphemy restrictions: you must not give offense, particularly to Muslims.”

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has been central to that agenda. They have been working assiduously to defame people who speak the truth about these sorts of issues,” he charged.

“Rod Rosenstein, amazingly, went to what was billed as a civil rights conference in Birmingham last week and gave a speech,” Gaffney said, referring to the Deputy Attorney General. “It was mostly about civil rights, but by his presence, he dignified an event that was holding up both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American Islamic Relations. They had speakers, they were participants in this program, they were considered to be just great champions of civil rights – when, in fact, they are trying to take away that key civil right of freedom of expression. It’s scandalous.”

Of the recent revelations that President Trump appears to have been correct about the Obama Justice Department wiretapping Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign, Gaffney said, “I think what we’re seeing dribbling out slowly, inexorably, is evidence that the Obama administration was engaged in political warfare.”

“I mean, ‘dirty tricks’ doesn’t begin to describe it,” he said, describing the Obama administration’s conduct as “political warfare that makes Nixon’s plumbers in Watergate look like pikers.”

“These were people that were using the instruments of the State, the Deep State if you will – the intelligence community, the law-enforcement community, and of course the National Security Council, Ben Rhodes and his whole disinformation operation and political warfare capabilities – to destroy those like Donald Trump and his campaign that they feared might actually prevent them from having a third term,” Gaffney charged.

“This is why it’s so important to get to the bottom of this, and not be distracted by these deflections, and misinformation, and special prosecutors who are off on a red tear to get us away from the reality that Barack Obama and his minions are Watergate on steroids,” he said. “We need to know the full truth of it.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern

LISTEN:

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 2017

Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, Sept. 12, 2017:

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization. Its mandate includes issues such as arms control, promotion of human rights, freedom of the press, and fair elections.

The OSCE is concerned with early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation. Created during the Cold War era as an East–West forum, Its 57 participating states are located in Europe, northern and central Asia, and North America.

Over the past decade, the OSCE has become an important battlespace in the war of ideas regarding freedom of speech, civilization jihad and the spread of sharia law into large swaths of Europe. Governmental and nongovernmental bodies from member nations may send representatives to take part in working sessions and side events where matters of international security are discussed.

This year, Executive Vice President Christopher Hull and Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez will represent the Center for Security Policy at the 2017 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, Poland.