A Boot of Tolerance Stamping on a Human Face — Forever

Those who follow European political affairs may already be familiar with “A Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance” (pdf available here), an OIC-approved framework proposal published by the European Parliament, which seems likely to be implemented across the EU. The proposed law would devise a draconian new form of politically correct “tolerance” and impose it on European citizens and institutions by establishing bureaucratic bodies with the authority to enforce it.

Below is a recent article from Politically Incorrect that examines the implications of this new, improved, totalitarian European Tolerance. Many thanks to JLH for translating this important piece from the German:

Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing
By Michael C. Schneider, Esq., Frankfurt am Main

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

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

Elites active in this endeavor have established themselves in all areas, including lead positions in science, for instance, the very renowned scholar, Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. Rüdiger Wolfrum, professor emeritus and one of the directors of the Max Planck Institute on foreign public law and international law in Heidelberg.

Born 1941, study of law in Bonn and Tübingen, doctorate in 1973, post-doctoral qualification (Habilitation) in 1980, professor since 1982, from 1990 on member for several years of the UN commission against racial discrimination, since 1993 director of the Max Planck Institute, showered with countless honors and memberships. This honorable person is also in a dubious think tank, “The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation” about which one may find relevant information on the homepage of the president of “The European Jewish Congress ” (EJC), Viacheslav Moshe Kantor. Among other things are those documents which describe the political intentions of the think tank.

A substantial find: A Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance is a political manifesto on the transformation of nations of the EU and beyond, compiled by, among others, Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing, under the aegis of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation.

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

All possible groups are supposed to be protected by this concept of tolerance — just not the majority population. With this policy, minorities are purposefully advanced at the cost of majority cohesion. This splits the society, thereby controlling it better and leading to the final goal. This becomes visible in the typical, EU-wide concept of the protected minority, which is inherently aimed at splitting the society — divide et impera: “Group” is a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linguistic links, sexual identity or orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature. This unlimited “definition” makes it possible to inflate “tolerance” for any social interest or ideological motif to a fighting phrase and deploy it as a universal weapon against possible dissidents.

Undesirable behavior, too, is defined so broadly that freedom of expression, the press, radio, television, art and science and any other communicative freedom can be flushed down the toilet with a loud whooshing sound. It shall be prohibited to make any possibly discriminatory comment against any group against which there may be discrimination — “Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) — or members thereof — with a view to inciting to violence, insulting the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges. Under such a totalitarian regime as planned here, Mohammed cartoons are just as unthinkable as are objective, scientific observations on any group having to do with its intelligence, its other genetic endowments, its behavior (unless it is described unreservedly positively) for instance, cumulatively occurring deviant or criminal behavior, etc. Even someone who reports that a group of sixty took part in the attack on a German police officer, and none of them was an ethnic German, can thus become a serious criminal. Warning: the persecution of the police officer is not the crime, but the politically incorrect report on it.

It seems almost a question of taste whether to call a regime like the one Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing is planning fascist, Stalinist or just plain totalitarian, but its essence is Orwellian. That is to say, what may be thought, and how, is decreed, and since the boundaries of my speech are the boundaries of my world (Wittgenstein), reality itself is thereby defined beyond reality, and regarding this reality as doublethink is strictly forbidden.

Wolfrum has good connections in the Islamic world. Wikipedia writes, “He is presently training the high judges in Afghanistan and Sudan.”

So if you do not want to be crucified by jihadist fanatics but only by the federal president with The Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, then your tolerance must take the form of latent Islamophilia.

More on the text: For dummies, the draft is accompanied by explanations intended to show its effect in examples — This definition covers “blood libels” and anti-Semitic slurs as well as allegations that, e.g., “gypsies are thieves” or “Moslems are terrorists.”

For Islam explicators in a free, enlightened and scientifically thinking civilization, it is clear that this is meant to impede a measured treatment of the problematics of Islam. And to do so in such a way that any well-founded generalization is branded as criminal stereotyping and will usher the participants in this discussion out of the auditorium and into the jail cell.

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

The nations addressed are expected to model future legislation on the goals of the paper, which are in no way inferior to the insipid, naive and unreflective sermons of the petit bourgeois Freemason lodges full of complacent business people, whose creeping dictatorship of tolerance has already taken such a toll on our free, uninhibited and liberal culture of discussion.

The nations of Europe are expected to take specific legislative steps to elevate the goals of the paper to valid law — Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.

Clarifications that dot the paper leave no doubt of its political thrust: religious intolerance is understood to cover Islamophobia.

The paper is directed not only at executive and legislative bodies or the administration but — as always with totalitarianism — at Everyman. Since the “party” is always right, it is unthinkable that anyone in any walk of life could flee its doctrinal claim of validity. It is important to stress that tolerance must be practised not only by Governmental bodies but equally by individuals, including members of one group vis-à-vis another. So the dissident is confronted not only by the law, but also by custom, morality and social ethos. He does not belong, because he is not “tolerant.”

Naturally, it is within the power of a director of a well-equipped Max Planck Institute to bring dissertations and habilitation papers by the dozen onto the path, and the obedient student authors to influential professorial chairs. And so the cheesy tolerance sermon becomes an obligatory citation in the appropriate quotation pantheon and in one or two decades is confirmed as the dominant opinion in jurisprudence. The highest legal judgment is decisively shaped by this, even if one or the other student is not tactically placed in a high judicial position, whence he can combat Islamophobia by declaring with legal force that it is hate speech and slander of religious beliefs. A Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing must not be underestimated. A believer in an ideology sitting at the crucial switch point of the legal system can alter the whole country according to his own thinking, by swimming along with the zeitgeist and honing its intention to an absurd point, so that everything fits together.

Constitutional law as the basis of horizontal legal relationships among citizens must also be made to fit — for instance the laws governing work and rental. If you believe you have the right to refuse employment or residence to a terrorist-sympathizing Salafist, you have another think coming — it is the obligation of the Government to ensure that intolerance is not practiced either in vertical or in horizontal relationships. Which means that you must continue to employ someone who is constantly rolling out his prayer rug instead of working, and you may not resist when the occupant of the space you rented out as a residence becomes a muezzin by legal attack on the rental restrictions, and the proprietor’s flexible tonality in the execution of his profession drives away the other 29 tenants of your 30-residence building so that you can no longer make payments on your loans. The expansion of tolerance in your house must be worth a little private bankruptcy.

The right to be a demographic bomb must also be expressly confirmed: right to acquire nationality based on birth or long-term residence.

The tolerant configuration of education avoids the threat of integration or assimilation, thus assuring social splintering: freedom of education in the language of the group, as well as in accordance with its religious and cultural traditions.

The liberal, bourgeois concept of freedom ends at the point where someone could feel discriminated against, in which case, protection against discrimination replaces the liberal, civil concept of freedom with the state compulsion of an anti-bourgeois, illiberal concept: freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.

The paper expressly confirms that all possible minorities — no more exactly defined — will be inflated to holders of special rights, so that the general principle of equality is destabilized and the state may favor certain groups as it pleases, thus logically disadvantaging the normal, autochthonic population — members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, in addition to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State.

The implementation of the universal obligation of tolerance toward everyone and anyone must accompany the creation of a pertinent authority — the building up and not the de-constructing of bureaucracy is, after all, the most important goal of the EU and comparable transnational entities: a special administrative unit in order to supervise the implementation of this Statute […] where no such body exists, it has to be set up. Ultimately, the state is not there for the person, but the person for the state, as totalitarians have always known in a specific Aristotelian interpretation (zoon politikon — the person as a “political organism”).

Of course, it is important that tolerance supervisory boards be above democratic monitoring, because they are on a quasi-equal footing with national administration and are composed of the same oxygen-deprived air as administrative, party, union, church, synagogue, mosque and other bodies representative of the establishment: a National Tolerance Monitoring Commission as an independent body — composed of eminent persons from outside the civil service — vested with the authority to promote tolerance […] external to the Government, acting independently (not unlike a special Ombudsman). The concept “civil service” is to be understood very broadly.

The paper is really gripping in section 7 about penological implementation of ideological guidelines — the following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes.

It shall be punishable to utter an accurate but undesirable comment about any group in the population, however defined — Group libel as defined in Section 1(b) — so, since practically everyone belongs to some group that can be defined as threatened, e.g., as a woman, a short-sighted person or a person with bad teeth and therefore handicapped, as a happy drunk and therefore as an alcoholic, as an adherent of any belief that is less than 50% of the population and is therefore a minority — which in fact is true of all faiths — then any comment about any person is potentially criminally liable.

All that is needed then is a mob of reporters demanding punishment, a politically correct prosecutor and a politically correct judge and “tolerance” will be intolerantly enforced.

That is how Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing is bringing Orwellian conditions down on us.

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

We should all hold compulsory membership in the lodge of universal tolerance, voluntary or unwilling, and without exception. Anyone who does not play along will be punished. Anyone who doubts is a criminal. Anyone who thinks is a criminal — a thought criminal.

It is important that even at the level of juvenile criminal law, future thought-criminals are targeted, in the best North Korean style, and put into a re-education camp: juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.

Of course. it must be established that such a political persecution is not aimed at “political” perpetrators, but completely ordinary criminals: crimes listed in paragraph (a) will not be considered political offences for purposes of extradition.

And it is understood that taxpayers must bear all costs which accrue to Salafists from defending themselves legally against the surging, despicable intolerance of society, for instance, police excesses which are standard because there had been individual incidents with forbidden objects: free legal aid will be offered to victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a), irrespective of qualification in terms of impecuniosity.

Naturally, the indoctrination of children in surroundings specifically created for the purpose cannot begin too soon: schools, from the primary level upwards, will introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity and promoting a climate of tolerance as regards the qualities and cultures of others […] it is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational programme […] up to and including universities. This applies to the gender agenda already at work all across Europe, according to which heterosexual men, homosexual (gay) men, bisexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual (lesbian) women, bisexual women, transsexual men with heterosexual tendency as New-Woman, etc. — infinite new sexual identities and orientations, like the much-discussed intersexuality — are lived and preached. The mathematical task for coming generations — if calculation to powers is still used — will consist of calculating the possible combinations (at the moment it could be at least 512), regardless of whether this negatively affects their power or makes them unstable in it. In the end, it is more difficult to find your way in this underbrush than simply to be a “boy” or a “girl.” These concepts, according to the agenda, will be criminal and will soon be forbidden. From kindergarten on, anyone who wishes to integrate politically correctly will have to be at the very least a “goy” or a “birl.”

Wolfram in Sheep’s Clothing and his stooges are convinced that the military and the police — breeding grounds of the worst machismo — must be ideologically fumigated — courses will be incorporated in the training of those serving in the military and law enforcement agencies.

That is not all. Your employer may soon invite you to some compulsory courses to learn not to say “Negro” any more, but “Afro-German,” no more “Gypsy” but “Sinto” or “Roma” (Rats! You don’t know the difference!), and no more “Mohammedan” but “True Believer” — training must be made available as part of continuing adult education. For this re-education to work consistently, effectively and efficiently, you will have to forgo 20 years’ worth of vacation and Christmas pay, and raises in salary you have been dreaming about in your youthful fantasies, because your boss will need every available penny to pay the imams and Roma kings a proper docent’s fee so that you can finally learn to act with tolerance.

And the primary goal of the re-education is the court itself. Judges, prosecutors administrative officers are not yet 100% in line — just 99 %. There is still that invisible Gallic village[1] of 1% of the jurists who have retained deep within them an impregnable fortress of common sense. This fortress must be ground down: it is especially important to ensure advanced professional training of lawyers (including judges and criminal justice personnel), administrators, police officers, doctors, etc.

A new job description is created. Now the master of every Freemason lodge[2] is a barren, anti-intellectual leisure-time apostle of tolerance, who instructs humanity to believe that everything is good, even the opposite. The apostle/evangelist of tolerance has a full-fledged professional position with a regulated professional track — instructors will be trained in a manner qualifying them to meet the needs.

And of course, the media, seduced by subsidies — possibly in the billions — will push the total tolerance agenda across Europe (with the possible exception of Hungary) — the production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes — promoting a climate of tolerance — will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.

If the carrot does not work, the stick will help. A media codex will so firmly fold up incorrect sheets like Junge Freiheit or Weltwoche that they will never open up again, in order to…ban the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a media complaints commission.

The mainstream media will be able officially to censor the smaller resistance publications, as guaranteed by the composition of the commission — it has to be set up by — and report to — the media themselves, rather than the Government.

The free internet will be gone in short order. That too will be assured by enacting the Wolfrum papers, because…initiatives to bring about a legal regulation of cyberspace are currently debated in a wider context…and we all can imagine what that means. Since some servers can also exist outside the slave-holding EU, an appropriate regulation will be pushed through the UN and the last free servers — like the one that hosts PI — will soon be turned off. Whatever reports you like from PI, download them now and print them out, so that you can remember them when the server is silenced and your guide to the future is purged of all evil content.

That is the brave new world that Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing dreams of nightly. No thank you, we don’t want to know where his hands are when he dreams. Are you dreaming along? On my last flight with Lufthansa, I swiped a lot of barf bags. They are on my nightstand, for when the nightmares of Wolfrum and his consorts come to me.


1.   Cf. the “resistance” exploits of the Gauls in the comic strips/books about Asterix and Obelix.
2.   I am not sure whence this antipathy for the Masons comes or the characterization as a club for Babbits. It would be entertaining to revive Lessing to a heated debate against Goethe and Mozart on the virtues and ills of that organization, but clearly this still means something to the author beyond my contemporary American perception of guys who learn esoteric rituals and march in parades.

38 thoughts on “A Boot of Tolerance Stamping on a Human Face — Forever

  1. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.—Voltaire

    • The tighter they squeeze with power over you, the easier it slips between their fingers. In their rush for out law any type of dissent, they make racism and nationalism the only alternative and well the rest will make the Balkans look tame by comparison. We are living in the most interesting of times.

  2. Theoretically making a public statement that you like Pepsi more than Coca-Cola could leave you open for prosecution. Any comment that could even be stretched to make it sound like you like one group or thing over another could get you sued, I guess. That’s what it sounds like. If taken to its logical, but extreme conclusions, this would make TV very boring. Even the news.

    Someone detonated an explosive device somewhere and hurt some people, now on to the weather.

  3. These people are bally nuts! This intent and activity is only fit for the psychiatrist’s couch or the padded cell and back-button Looney Lounge Suit ……Do these imbeciles want a European war that will make the last two seem mild? I talk to people in the street and they are fit to explode…..believe me-They have had enough!

    • War and civil unrest is coming, you can take that to the bank and the coming Balkans on steroids is going to make a Serb blush.

  4. We’ve already been there on this one. This totalitarian system was installed in
    Russia ninety years ago, same players, same effect, same end product. All it means is massive suffering for John and Jane Doe. But we still have the major
    problem of how to stop it, it may already be too late.

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

    Elites active in this endeavor have established themselves in all areas, including lead positions in science, for instance, the very renowned scholar, Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. Rüdiger Wolfrum, professor emeritus and one of the directors of the Max Planck Institute on foreign public law and international law in Heidelberg.”

    It is the managerial class whom Burnham described back in the 1940s. I doubt people are going to read Burnham’s book (or the follow-up “The Machiavellians”). Here’s a quote from George Orwell

    “If one examines the people who, having some idea of what the
    Russian regime is like, are strongly russophile, one finds that, on the
    whole, they belong to the “managerial” class of which Burnham writes.
    That is, they are not managers in the narrow sense, but scientists,
    technicians, teachers, journalists, broadcasters, bureaucrats,
    professional politicians: in general, middling people who feel themselves
    cramped by a system that is still partly aristocratic, and are hungry for
    more power and more prestige. These people look towards the USSR and see
    in it, or think they see, a system which eliminates the upper class,
    keeps the working class in its place, and hands unlimited power to people
    very similar to themselves. It was only AFTER the Soviet regime became
    unmistakably totalitarian that English intellectuals, in large numbers,
    began to show an interest in it. Burnham, although the English russophile
    intelligentsia would repudiate him, is really voicing their secret wish:
    the wish to destroy the old, equalitarian version of Socialism and usher
    in a hierarchical society where the intellectual can at last get his
    hands on the whip.”


    Burnham was predicting the future. I find it astonishing that his work has been buried so effectively.

    • Thank you Joe,

      I had not read about George Orwell’s views on the “managerial” class. These underachievers who could not run a business, but a compartment. How their working lives of processing information would be eased; if only everyone were streamlined into going back home for play, sex and rest – would then the world be more comfortable.

  6. Most of this multikulti nonsense is already on the statute books in the UK and has been for the last 30 years, curiously enacted by national governments not by EU directive.

    The article has maybe not recognised the post-multicultural era, the sociopolitical shift towards uniformity with sharia as the social control. An example of what the post-multicultural era with British sharia as the structural social control may look like can be found HERE –

    “In adittion, the local Pakistani community association is running ‘official’ warden patrols between 8pm and 10pm every weekday with the intention of ‘educating’ the Roma population about ‘how to behave in England’.”

    • “the sociopolitical shift towards uniformity with sharia as the social control”

      If the rot continues, especially if there is a breakdown in towns and cities following a severe economic crisis, people will welcome sharia.

      • ‘We want to claim our streets back. Tensions are building here. We need to do something or it will be too late,’ pronounced 34-year-old Kashmir Malik, a local restaurant owner from an immigrant family who grew up in Yorkshire and is a successful businessman.

        Coincidence that David Blunkett and Jack Straw crawl out of the woodwork at the same time and with the convenient prop story of Page Hall, looks more like part of a wider political strategy.

        Will Cameron and Farage side with the new defenders of English soil and sacrifice the Roma to the sharia mob in a fit of European loathing?

      • The Romanians and Bulgarians absolutely have no problem telling the muslim where to go, and will use extreme prejudice to get their point across, this is going to get really interesting to say the least.

  7. Excuse me, but the thought of the Ummah defining tolerance and dictating what it will be for the West should provoke loud, contemptuous laughter from every Westerner who sees such a proposal.

  8. Smash down this hateful eussr!

    Barroso, schultz, ashdown, this bunch of swine bags are just a few of the architects working overtime to get us all murdered, imprisoned, tortured, and ethinically cleansed by there muslim proxy new immigrant army of 3rd world camel jockeys!

    The eu, must at all costs, like the 3rd reich, be brought down, dismantled, and those traitors who are behind it, arrested and put on trial.

    The eussr is finnished, its already on its last legs, we just need [incitement redacted]!!!

    We gotta get these traitors asap, they are the new real nazis who are the architects and planners of the betrayal of western culture and civilisation….these eu [epithets] are planning to have us all wiped out and or murdered by islamic death cult [epithets].

    Dont co operate with any of these eu beauracrats and there orwellian rules.

    Refuse them, and lets all band together and overthrow them!!!

    Death to the eu, your time is over baroso, schultz, ashdowm, your time is over!!! Finito!!!

    Better u pack bags now while u still have time to get out and escape.



  9. Pingback: A Boot of Tolerance Stamping on a Human Face — Forever | Vlad Tepes

  10. IMHO the EU, dictatorship is the’Forth Reich’ run out of Brussels, the seat of the dictatorship. Local and national governments have been reduced to puppet status. National sovereignty is a thing of the past.

  11. To tolerate the intolerance of Islam. This is the final blow. The last nail in the coffin. Once Islam has the upper hand, it will not tolerate any insolence or any other form of disobedience from the dhimmi autochthonic population. How easily your elite “leadership” gives away your liberty and freedom..

    • Those so-called elites give away our liberty for three reasons. First, the elites do not regard themselves as in any way part of or related to the hoi poloi. Secondly,
      they are obsessed with controlling the whole World, and
      thirdly, they believe that they can easily survive in a World that may seem to be totally Islamic or is mainly populated and dominated by Moslems.

      • The Saudi Royal family live behind totally closed doors whilst inflicting Islam on the people through the ‘metawa’ the religious police.

        Behind those closed doors they live lives of opulence and total hedony.

        At about 4 p.m. when the King is driven home from his office, the main highway throughn Riyadh is closed to all traffic. It is chaotic….

      • Also, part of the “Christian Democrat” political elite would rather see *some* religion (ie islam) than none at all.

  12. We the native peoples of europe are alone!

    We have been abandoned and betrayed by the very people whos remit is to protect us, to protect their own peoplee, cultures and well being of there sovereign subjects.

    We must not anymore look to goverments and eu as institutions that have our well being at heart.

    They are the enemy!!!

    The marxist traitors who now today europe wide who have there greasy hands on the levers of power are the enemy! Wake up people, and start thinking for yourselfs, its time ti not co operate anymore with these criminals.

    Its time to get out, get away, get armed, get thinking, get active, we need a type of french resistance, to put fear into the traitors, fear that they shall be [incitement redacted].

    We need to to put real chrystal like fear into the mibds and rotten souls of people who work for uk goverment, and eu.


    Are you going to die in silence?
    Or make a stand in some way??
    Better to fight back than go quietly to the gulags and gas chambers, torture centers and grave yards that await us….

    We need the edl, we need 1000s more like sturzenberger -die freiheit, we need you all to regularly donate some money to counter jihad operatives and intellectuals, we need alsk a guerilla style urban response, to destabilise the whole islam goebels propaganda machine, and the liars like cameron, johnson, and evil doers like jack straw!!!

    These killers if britain shoukd not be allowed to sleep in piece, we need at least to [redacted].

    Islam = nazis


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

  14. One part of “tolerance” is designed to lower the birthrates of non-Muslims, i.e. the ban on anti-feminism and homophobia. But this is very much at odds with Muslim sexual morality, which intends to raise birthrates (oddly enough, Muslims attack “faggots” and “sluts”, that is, attack non-Muslims for engaging in non-reproductive sex). This will strain the oppression apparatus a lot.

  15. One does not tolerate intolerance.

    The use of the word by the “elites” is trite, truncated, and leads to a tyranny of timidity.

    Stopping [ to them] dangerous Critical Thinking… (“How dare they do an analysis of original texts!”, etc…) is what this anti-freedom-of-thought movement by the “progressives” lusts for.

    A mute, servile mass to be molded by the masters.

    I find that tyrannical nonsense to be intolerable.

    Screw tolerance if it means putting up with dogmatic despots.

    Islam is a death cult. Socialism a beehive delusion.

    Screw them both.

  16. Pingback: Gates of Vienna : ‘A Boot of Tolerance Stamping on a Human Face – Forever’ | Anti-Feminist Theory of Men's Rights, Male Sexuality, Feminism

    • I doubt it. Very much.
      I think, if the equation ever shifted back, that the Saudis and other Muslim powers could be compelled to understand
      1. that the West is tolerant,
      2. it will not tolerate Muslim dominance of its culture, religions, politics,
      3. nor will it honor Muslim claims upon its culture, religions and history, and
      4. there is nothing the Ummah can do to change that.
      We must compel Muslims to tolerate pluralism in the West, we must compel them to abandon any ideas of replacing Western institutions with their own.
      We can do nothing more or better to serve our interests.

  17. ‘The European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,’ was produced by The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation. This is a non-governmental organisation that has nothing to do with the European Union and doesn’t have any power to draft or introduce EU law.

    The document was simply presented to the Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee. However, this matter is NOT being discussed or considered by the European Parliament. This is NOT going to be European Union law.

    I hope a correction will be published.

    My blog about Europe: http://www.eu-rope.com

  18. Jon, the article doesn’t state that the document is under discussion in the European Parliament, merely that it has been published by the EP, which is technically correct. You may check the precise URL for verification.

    As is well known, the European Parliament does not have the authority to actually propose law. Initiating law is the exclusive perogative of the Commission, which may well take up this proposal and use it as a basis for new European law. The language of it sure suggests that it is intended to become law, sooner or later. The fact that the EP has considered it already does not lessen that possibility. The assertion in the article that it is ‘likely’ to become European law is the opinion of the editor here, and given that we already have dreadful EU law like the Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia, it does not come across as implausible that this proposal will go through, in one form or another. Possibly modified by the Parliament based on ground work by the Commission.

    I do not believe any correction of the article is needed. Your opinion stands in the comments as published, and as such constitutes a fine example of citizens discussion matters of importance to our future.

    As for you ‘guarantee’ that this will not become European law, I certainly would not bet the future of my children and grandchildren on it. For if the Union continues down the path it is threading, I may need to teach them how to be a good dissident rather than a loyal Union Citizen adhering to the mandatory tolerance prescribed.


  20. Pingback: The Ongoing Erasure of Europe | The Counter Jihad Report

  21. Pingback: The Prague-Edinburgh Axis | Gates of Vienna

  22. Pingback: Mosiek Podgląda Ciebie! - Gazeta Warszawska

Comments are closed.