The Successful Subversion of the OSCE

For the past nine years the Counterjihad Collective has been participating in and reporting on the gradual Islamization of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). It’s been a long, tedious, and exhausting process, but now the subversion of the OSCE is all but complete. For readers who are interested in the details, see the OSCE Archives.

As with other trans-national institutions, the Islamization of the OSCE was accomplished via an alliance between Muslims (in this case, primarily Turkey) and the progressive Left. This year, for the first time, the OSCE has officially established a framework to silence critics of Islam and sharia. For an organization that was founded to promote free speech, that’s quite an accomplishment.

I’ve already posted material from the 2018 ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) meeting of the OSCE in Warsaw, and will be posting more. For future reference, rather than repeatedly quoting it, here is the directive from OSCE headquarters mandating tolerance, inclusion, non-discrimination, etc blah yak. The relevant section is excerpted below, but the entire document may be downloaded (Word format) from the official OSCE website.

Under “§ 3. Other provisions”, the OSCE Code of Conduct states:

1.   Participants shall refrain from presenting or shouting any slogans that might be:

a.   provoking or urging to disturb order and safety,
b.   likely to give rise to violence,
c.   discriminating other persons on the basis of their race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (Maastricht 2003, Ljubljana 2005),
d.   condoning terrorism or the use of violence.

ODIHR reserves the right to instruct HDIM moderators to interrupt any Participant who speaks in violation of these principles. In case of repeated non-compliance ODIHR reserves the right to void the Participant of the right to speak at the session, or as a last resort of the right to further participate at HDIM.

See also the op-ed about the OSCE by Chris Hull of the Center for Security Policy.

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

5 thoughts on “The Successful Subversion of the OSCE

  1. ” For an organization that was founded to promote free speech, that’s quite an accomplishment.”

    I know you and our freedom-loving friends such as Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Stephen Coughlin have put a lot of time into the OSCE interventions. Unfortunately, in spite of all your work and brilliance, it degenerated into a safe-space mentality that is a cover for suppressing any resistance to ongoing jihad.

    Ultimately, free speech and totalitarian socialist governments, even soft totalitarian governments, are not compatible. When people have their surplus resources taxed away, they cannot develop alternative means of communicating information and opinions. The government offers, in exchange for a monopoly on most resources, the guarantee, easily broken, of individual freedoms. It is a simple matter to contrapose the “right” to not have your religion insulted, with the right to say what you want, and voila…you have the freedom to speak approved speech.

    The whole EU was started by socialists pursuing the philosophy that national differences and interests had to take a back seat to global planning and elimination of differences between peoples. It was sold to the Europeans by downplaying the loss of national identity, and emphasizing the pipe dream they would be able to vastly increase their personal wealth. Actually, the EU has been a huge drag on economic development, which I would guess occurred in spite of, rather than because of, the EU. So, as the EU developments become increasingly catastrophic, the natural instinct of the planners is to suppress honest discussion.

    In this case, the Muslims and the leftists are the cutting edge of the censorship. Yes, the Muslims will liquidate the leftists as soon as decisive victory is won, and yes, the leftists realize this. But they are like the scorpion biting the animal saving him from drowning: that’s simply what scorpions (leftists) do.

    • Yes, we knew when we signed on for OSCE duty that we were fighting a rearguard battle in what was basically a losing battle. Dissident NGOs alone are not enough to stop the multicultural juggernaut in an outfit like the OSCE. It would have taken a vigorous resistance by an official governmental delegation for a major participating state — meaning Britain, France, Germany, or the USA — to have forced a change of direction. And that, of course, didn’t happen. Western governments are in general fully on board with the program.

      If Trump had been elected in 2012 rather than 2016, there might have been a slim chance of victory. But the OSCE is done now; you can stick a fork in it.

      We fought the good fight, and we lost.

  2. “discriminating other persons on the basis of their …national or social origin”

    Merkel has claimed that Germans can never be forgiven for what happened under the Nazis.
    The mayor of Madrid recently stated that foreigners were superior to Spaniards.

    There are many more examples of influential people making racist and bigoted remarks towards native Europeans, white people, and men which to my knowledge have never triggered any of these clauses in OSCE policies.

    One is left to conclude that these policies are nothing more than muzzles to prevent people speaking out against genocide of the native peoples of Europe. Hence too the rhetoric over recent years along the lines of there is no native Swedish people, Germany is a nation of immigrants, UK population is not descended from the megalith builders or if they are they were black and on it goes.

    Taken in small doses this stuff sounds meaningless, taking in the broad strokes and there is a pattern of behaviour that is alarming in its consistency at undermining the bonds of western society from the family unit through to national identity and even meta civilisational identity.

    • Cultural Marxism, the driving philosophy behind the non-Muslim aspects of the destruction of European and American culture and society, is a legitimate offspring of Marxism. By “legitimate”, I mean that it is fully consistent with Marxist principles and, more important to the “romantic” Marxists, consistent with the feeling and emotions of Marxism.

      The cultural Marxists teach that the resistance of successful Western society to the “natural” evolution to Marxism, is so great, that for progress to be made, Western society must be dissolved and all cultural norms of the west must be destroyed. Only then will the roadblock to historical destiny be removed.

      The determination of cultural Marxists to destroy Western society is a mirror image of the strategy of sophisticated Islamic, jihadist planners to dissolve the social norms and self-confidence of a target, non-Muslim society in preparation for the installation of sharia law and Islamic predominance in that society. The strategy is described in detail in Malik’s “The Quoranic Concept of War”.

      The cultural Marxists are pervasive in educational institutions and likely in government bureaucracies, as the tax-supported organizations fit very well with the highly-verbal, but underachieving non-entities who seek power and wealth through co-opting power rather than through providing value or services to willing buyers or employers.

      In my opinion, most cultural Marxists will not recant, even when the Muslims succeed in taking over the government and begin liquidating leftists. The passionate leftist responds to emotion rather than evidence. It’s irritating to them to have to pretend to be interested in reasoning, when challenged in a public forum. So, it’s more comfortable to them to set up conditions the neutralizes any rational discussion of the issues. For example, it’s literally impossible to discuss the future of Western, or even non-Western societies without discussing Muslims, race, sexual differences, and IQ.

      So, instead of intelligent discussion, the entire debate revolves around whether someone is “racist”. “sexist” or “homophobic”. These are red herrings, not for leftists who are not interested in rational discussion anyway, but for moral people who are sensitive to the possibility someone may be treated unfairly. A real education will provide some insight into the impossibility of eliminating injustices from any system, but public education now simply reinforces the impulse to obstruct reasoning with emotional responses.

    • One is left to conclude that these policies are nothing more than muzzles to prevent people speaking out against genocide of the native peoples of Europe

      They are muzzles designed to be implemented by the UN since the OSCE has no teeth of its own. IIRC, the OSCE proposal to make “islamophobia” a thing – one which could be criminalized – failed to make it to the UN because of Western efforts to keep it out of the UN…

Comments are closed.