A decade or so ago the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was still a champion of civil liberties and free expression.
The OSCE was formed during the Cold War (as the CSCE) to challenge the Soviet Union to engage in truth-telling. It could rightly claim a share of the credit for prompting the push towards glasnost that eventually dissolved the U.S.S.R. With its headquarters in Warsaw, where memories of Soviet repression remained fresh, the OSCE managed to hold onto its mission for more than a decade after the Iron Curtain disappeared from Europe.
But not anymore.
An alliance of globalists and Muslims gradually has infiltrated and subverted virtually all the institutional components of the OSCE. To achieve their disparate ends, both subversive groups have been using the same weapon: Politically Correct Multiculturalism, a.k.a. Cultural Marxism. PC/MC is an effective tool for sapping the civic will among well-meaning Westerners to maintain a commitment to free speech. With its goal of eliminating “racism”, “xenophobia”, and “intolerance”, an illiberal political culture has formed at the OSCE that is diametrically opposed to the principles of those who founded it.
“Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) is simply the latest component of the Cultural Marxist Narrative. It was concocted by an alliance between Islam and the Globalist Left as a means to suppress dissent and block any criticism of Islam. Pushed by the OIC at the UN, it has trickled down into other transnational institutions such as the EU and the OSCE. Under the Obama administration, CVE was adopted wholeheartedly by the U.S. government, and became official American policy (it remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will dismantle CVE in any significant way).
CVE tells us that by focusing on Islamic terrorism we are engaging in several doubleplus ungood forms of behavior:
| 1. | We are discriminating against Muslims by only paying attention to Islamic terrorism, and ignoring other forms of violent extremism; | |
| 2. | Also, since the U.N. has ruled that “Islamophobia” is a form of racism, we are being racist in our discrimination against Muslims; | |
| 3. | To prove that we are tolerant and inclusive, we must spend equal amounts of time, money, and energy in the struggle against other types of violent extremists, including (but not limited to), nationalist extremists, Christian extremists, neo-fascists, neo-Nazis, and anti-immigration activists; and | |
| 4. | If we can’t find any examples of #3 to hand, we must ignore Islam while we continue searching for fascists and Nazis and Christian terrorists, and not give up until we find some. |
When you scrape off all the globalist PC gobbledygook, the above, in a nutshell, is the essence of CVE.
The net effect is to rule all discussion of Islam off the table. This removes the tether that attaches “extremism” to any concrete ideology, and makes it into a free-floating constellation of behaviors that just appear out of nowhere and somehow inexplicably “radicalize” people, causing them to engage in violence for no discernible reason.
I’ll offer some practical suggestions for strategies to counter CVE, but first let’s look at how the doctrine of CVE has infested the OSCE.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has dedicated an entire section of its website to “OSCE United in Countering Violent Extremism”. To show how hip it is, it even has a hashtag: #UnitedCVE
Its mission statement:
We must all rise to the challenge of responding to the corrosive appeal of violent extremism by promoting tolerance, mutual respect, pluralism, inclusion, and cohesion.
Notice how vague and squishy those positive characteristics are. We don’t know exactly what they are, but it sure makes us feel virtuous to promote them!
The negative characteristics are at least as ill-defined, especially “hate”. Take a look at this official OSCE video, “Say NO! to Hate Speech”:
There are a number of other videos (example: “Comics For Positive Change”) to help the neophyte understand the nature and importance of CVE.
Here’s the official description of the #UnitedCVE campaign:
Terrorism is a crime that has no justification, and it should not be associated with any race, ethnicity, nationality or religion. No state can counter violent extremism and radicalization that lead to terrorism alone: we must co-operate at all levels.
To underscore that we at the OSCE stand together as one in countering violent extremism that leads to terrorism, the OSCE Secretary General and the OSCE Serbian Chairmanship have launched the “OSCE United in Countering Violent Extremism (#UnitedCVE)” campaign.
We must all rise to the challenge of responding to the corrosive appeal of violent extremism by promoting tolerance, mutual respect, pluralism, inclusion, and cohesion.
The OSCE’s 57 participating States and 11 Partners for Co-operation are determined to prevent and combat terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, while upholding human rights and the rule of law. But we need everyone on board to make it happen. Let’s speak up together loud and clear for peace and security!
I could spend weeks fisking these four paragraphs of slippery propaganda, but I’ll confine myself to part of a single sentence for now: “Terrorism… should not be associated with any… religion.”
But what if it is?
What do you do if, despite those bland assurances, terrorism does happen to be associated with a religion?
What if terrorism is associated with one particular religion to such an extent that violence by any other religion is dwarfed into insignificance by comparison?
What if all the data available point inexorably to the conclusion that more than 99% of violent acts committed in the name of a religion by adherents of that religion are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam?
Well… According to the diktat embraced by the OSCE, you must not talk about the massive incidence of Islamic terrorism.
The topic simply may not be discussed. It has been ruled off the turf. Anyone who refers to it is prima facie guilty of “hate speech”, and may be subject to disapproval, shunning, professional sanctions, and possibly even prosecution.
That’s what CVE is all about.
It might as well stand for “Compulsory Vitiation of Evidence”.
How to Counter “Countering Violent Extremism”
The issue with CVE is similar to the issue of the word “Islamophobia”: a lack of officially and legally recognized definitions of the words used.
Four years ago the Counterjihad Collective tackled the growing use of the word “Islamophobia” at OSCE events and in OSCE materials. In the plenary at the Warsaw conference that year we demonstrated that the word was completely undefined, and therefore had no business being used in official documents, especially not when those documents were being used to justify the curtailment of freedom of speech. Our efforts eventually bore fruit — “Islamophobia” has not completely disappeared from the discussions and papers, but its usage has been reduced, and it is rarely emphasized when calling for official action.
The same process might be initiated for Countering Violent Extremism. The only well-defined words (in a legal sense) being used in these descriptions are “violent” and “violence”.
What, for example, is “extremism”? The word “extreme” is not a stand-alone concept; it is an intensifier used to modify nouns or other adjectives, similar to “very”. The word “verism” doesn’t make any sense. Why should we consider “extremism” to be any more meaningful?
“Extreme” and “extremism” have no utility unless they accompany meaningful substantives. For example, the phrases “extreme nationalist” or “nationalist extremist” have meaning, and it might be possible to define them in a useful way.
The real issue, of course, is the phrase “Islamic extremism”, which has been ruled off the turf. We are obliged to eliminate the word “Islamic”, leaving “extremism” to stand all by itself. Which is absurd — without a substantive companion, it has no meaning whatsoever.
And what about “hate”?
Hatred is a feeling, a passion held in the heart. It is not visible, audible, or tangible, and has no observable characteristics unless it is expressed by the person who holds it.
This makes the phrase “hate speech” a nebulous concept, one that is easily manipulated to serve an ideological purpose for the dominant political agenda. If I am in a position of power, and I don’t like your opinion, I can construe it as “hateful”, thereby causing you to be ostracized, fired from your job, and/or prosecuted.
These are just two examples of ill-defined terms that are employed indiscriminately for pernicious political purposes. Undefined or ill-defined terms should especially be avoided when the use of those words is intended to deprive people of their civil liberties — which is exactly the opposite of the purpose for which the OSCE was founded.
We’ll be reporting more on these and similar topics in the months ahead as the time for the annual OSCE HDIM conference in Warsaw approaches.
For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.
I am deeply hopeful that the Counterjihad team (which will be attending what has heretofore been a rubber-stamping of the current Marxist mindmeld between the obvious elements bent on silencing dissent of any kind) meets with the same kind of success you were able to carry off before – i.e., getting that atrocity “Islamaphobia” taken out of circulation at places like the UN.
Trump needs to turn over a few tables to get this obscenity – “violent extremism” – thrown out. It is an unacceptable, Orwellian phrase meant to sanitize the reality of unending massacres. He needs to lead here, to remove this and many other language grotesqueries that Petraeus used to vitiate the rules of operation for our military, leaving them vulnerable to attack.
Petraeues was/is an ambitious, immoral toady who led the cowardly decline on our side. Trump needs to cleanse the mess, beginning with the risible “CVE”.
Our readers are a creative bunch: what replacement words would you employ for those three words? “Evil” is obvious for the last word, but it needs to refer back to the Criminals who already employ mortal violence as their means to an end, i.e., world domination.
I think we should be attacking the term ‘hate speech’ first, that PC term has made inroads into just about very establishment known to Man, and is having the same effect as that old worn out word, racist.
All extremism eventually leads to violence, especially from those on the totalitarian Left. I can’t think of any suitable ‘terms’ with which to throw back at the PC imposition of CVE, but those who use it should be called out on their own extremist viewpoints and where such viewpoints will eventually lead.
I’m not sure that all extremism leads to violence. How about the Quakers? I consider them pretty extreme.
Or the Jains. Their non-violence extends even to the minutest forms of animal life. The extremists among them do not eat or drink between nightfall and dawn, in case they should ingest a tiny insect without realizing.
Compared to most everyone, I’d be rated an “Extreme Pacifist” by now. I want Islamic State crushed, strong border defense, and a complete crackdown on Islamist orgs in the West. Those are essential elements for getting peace back!
Maybe I should have stated ‘political extremism’?
I agree with you, not all ‘extremists’ turn out to be ‘violent extremists.’ It is only the Left that chooses to label those they wish to target as such while ignoring their own ideological tendency toward violent extremism in order to get their way.
” known to Man”
You sexist. Patriarchal no doubt. Therefore right-wing. therefore extreme by definition.
I’ll just call you a Nazi then right off the bat.
On a serious note, this is how the enemy works.
Lucky they haven’t read the Koran lately.
Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, that will work.
What a bunch of idiots.
“An alliance of globalists and Muslims gradually has infiltrated and subverted virtually all the institutional components of the OSCE. ”
No doubt there’s useful infidel idiots among them but also a deliberate and concerted effort to impose global Sharia blasphemy, using political correctness and liberal laws as Trojan horses.
Proposed Islamophobia laws would all but outlaw anything negative about Islam, such as those based on the Runnymede report.
They read like an Islamist wishlist of what they do not want the kuffar discussing.
Devious, deceitful, malignant, opportunist even but stupid?, no, they’re playing chess while their counterparts are singing kumbiya.
And we had some success in discrediting the Runnymede material, thanks to the brilliant efforts of Maj. Stephen Coughlin. Listen to the audio of our well-informed dissent.
Agreed: these people are not stupid. But as the last dust-up re “Islamaphobia” proved, they can be stopped. No doubt the Turks who plan on attending the next meet-up have been practicing their murderous glares for some months. I hope someone gets pictures.
Whenever you hear “like-minded,” that is a red flag.
These views need to be brought to the attention of President Trump. They are close to what he was saying during his election campaign. He should be reminded of that.
Could you provide an example of what you mean?
You can overthink these things.
Why are they so concerned about protecting the reputations of murderers and rapists?
Why should such people be immune from being criticised? Why should the motives for their crimes be supported by the banning of legitimate criticism by the banning of anything other than drivel that is so general it lacks all meaning.
Such people actively supporting terrorism by protecting the motives of those who murder and rape from being articulated properly so that something practical can be done in the real world.
Such people are apologists for murderers.
They ensure that no concrete criticism can be made of Islamic terrorists, so that terror attacks are not impeded in future, by any practical measure, such as closing the borders. Seven Paris attackers just walked right in and nothing would be done about it if these idiots had their way. After all did the Bataclan have anything to do with Islam? What about the children at Nice? Do they care about them? Not even sufficiently to speak out about it. They are not just idiots, they are cowards.
As to the propositions above, here is my 2 cents:
1. Will you let me discriminate against the Muslim rapists at Rotherham, and the murders at the Bataclan. The Muslims who don’t support these actions don’t count and I don’t care about them. The ones that support these actions do count and I want them punished. How can we make the prospective victims (non Muslims) safer? For that to happen steps may have to be taken that affects all Muslims. Too bad if feelings are hurt. the victims of these crimes are far more important.
2. What the UN rules is not a law in Germany unless it is adopted. Islamic terrorists can be white Brown Yellow or Black. Should they be protected from arrest or even criticism because of the colour of their skin? If so which colour? Any colour? We are not being racist if we point out that the 14000 children molested at Rotherham wele molested by Muslim Rape Gangs that were Pakistani and Brown or the Sydney Rapes were committed by Lebanese who were white. It is an irrelevancy invented to stop the criticism and punishment of Islamic criminals so they can murder and rape Kaffir females again with impunity.
3. Why should we tolerate rapists and murderers. there are problems with Muslim rape Gangs not Buddhist or Sikh ones. Time should not be wasted inventing classes of criminals that either do not exist or are not important, thus minimising resources that could be used effectively. The only reason one would not do this is if you couldn’t care less about the victims of Muslim violence.
4. You only ignore the Muslim terrorists if you want to protect them. So you don’t care less about the splattered children at Nice or the sex crimes at Rotherham or Cologne if you don’t want any action taken. If you don’t want any action taken you are encouraging other attacks. I wonder how Stockholm and London happened. Who could have known? Only a gutless coward would take no action in the face of children being killed by Islamic criminals.
The whole discussion reminds me of the co-dependency movement (or counter co-dependency to be exact). Co-dependency was more-or-less defined as an excessive focus on someone else for your identity and self-esteem, rather than focusing on yourself. Co-dependents are unable to express their own needs, and often manipulate other people (enablers) by emphasizing their own helplessness.
In this case, we emphasize the helplessness of Muslims, Jews, atheists, or anyone else,who are pictured as immediately melting into a puddle of warm, green goo if they should hear any criticism or opinion counter to the beliefs they have or the identity they carry. The enablers are the politically-correct speech police, who relentlessly track down any phraseology that might trigger the fainting reflexes of the co-dependents.
Of course, there is more to the situation than simply the psychological holes in the personalities of the protagonists. The fainting co-dependents (and the enablers) in fact have a political (or religious or nationalist) agenda that they wish to advance. But then again, it’s well within the co-dependency framework to use your own weakness as a tool for manipulating others.
In fact, once you get onto the game, it’s kind of fun to see the wanna-be manipulators go through their paces. One of the high points of my entertainment life was the image of Keith Ellison emulating tears at the very mention that Islam could be associated with terror.
And all the emphasis on violent extremism downplays the threat of non-violent extremism, where masses of voters come in who vote on ethnic identity or Islamic advancement. My own opinion is that the Muslim Brotherhood would far prefer for US Muslims to be non-violent for the next 10 years or so, while they continue their infiltration march through US institutions and political parties.
How do they define hate speech? Of any truthful and honest criticism about Islam or the violence of some Muslims is hate speech to the lunatic Marxist Left. Of course, it’s also hate speech to the Muslim apologist who is brainwashed and believes Mohammed was the perfect man and Islam is innocent of all evil. It’s all the Kafir’s fault. To the left and the Islamist Gates of Vienna blogspot is a progenitor of so-called hate speech. I seen the attacks on this blog by loon watch or SPLC. The goal of OSCE is obvious – shut show all politically incorrect opinions about Islam. No matter what they can shut us all down.
Dear Baron,
It’s hard to believe this great short is 8 years old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s
And if anything the simplistic tactic it exposes — that has been used on you amongst many from both Left and the so-called Right — is now more widespread than ever.
In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if you posted it yourself way back when.
May I suggest you consider attaching it as an addendum to items such as this one on fighting CVE as a reminder both of what you are relentlessly up against and Klavan’s closing line.
If one is proud of his culture, he wants the world know of its good works, and is honest in expressing those works.
If one is ashamed or embarrassed of his culture, he will use every artifice, trickery and deception to hide its true nature.
Therefore, the Muslims know that their culture is despicable, wrong.
This is auspicious for the rest of us because it tells us that there is a vast sea of folks out there who are filled with doubt and are unsure of the ethics and principles of their cause.
RonaldB, while I kind-sorta believe what you said, it still sounds pretty yucky (sorry for that last word but my brain is tired).
What I don’t understand is why we and other countries keep letting them in. Angela Merkel is demented so I understand why she’s been doing it so long (I am kind of surprised she hasn’t been overthrown as yet). But other so-called leaders? It is not the religion of peace, it is the religion of pieces. Having said that, I apologize to all rational and thinking muslims.
While I, as a nominal Christian, try not to discriminate against anyone — the religion of pieces discriminates against anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It’s odd that this is the only religion I know of (and I don’t know much in this field) that still hates people who are not of their faith. It is the only religion I know of that has not progressed one inch from the middle ages.
And yet, I remember reading, years ago, about how they had advanced but something happened that caused their mullahs and imams to drive them backward to another age and for the average muslim that must be a sad thing. Unfortunately, I don’t know what caused that.
And of course, you can’t cure stupid.
P.S. To me, there is no such thing as hate speech. There is only free speech, which is an inalienable right in the United States of America, although people seem to be forgetting that these days.