Category Archives: OIC

The OIC’s Long March Through American Institutions

Posted on by

The following report by our D.C. correspondent Frontinus concerns the use of foreign money by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to buy American public opinion and change government policy. There’s no secret about what the OIC is doing — they planned it at their annual conference last December, and posted a policy paper (PDF) with the details. It’s a blatant, in-your-face operation.

Frontinus’ report is designed as a game plan for grassroots organizations and think tanks to use to expose and counter the subversion of American journalists and our public officials

The OIC’s Long March Through Western Institutions

by Frontinus

The Tactic:

In late December 2016, the OIC announced plans to pay American and European journalists and influential political leaders in order to change government policies based on OIC instructions and coordination.

This isn’t against the law in the United States, but anyone taking the OIC funds — a journalist or an influential person — should register as a foreign agent under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). These three criteria are required:

1)   Foreign money,
2)   foreign instructions, and
3)   an intent to influence public opinion and change policy to align with foreign interests.
 

— for an organization or individual to have to register as a foreign agent under FARA. And, given the OIC’s statements in the linked document (also excerpted below), they are indeed in place.

We just don’t know who in the U.S. is taking the money to do the OIC’s bidding. Which brings us to…

The Asks:

1.   For the media and other advocates for the OIC’s policy positions: Journalists, and political leaders probably won’t announce that they have been paid by the OIC. But when they clearly ARE writing and advocating for OIC positions, we can ask them outright if they’ve accepted money from the OIC, either directly or indirectly — and demand that they register as Foreign Agents, if they have in fact been paid.
2.   For Congress: Let Congressmen know that the OIC has announced it’s going to do exactly what the FARA legislation was written to cover: it’s a foreign entity purchasing influence and journalists in order to change US opinion and government policies. FARA has come up in the news recently, with the failures by both Paul Manafort and Tony Podesta to register as foreign agents. The State Department needs to demand that the OIC provide lists of any American citizens it is paying, and how much, so that the FARA office can implement the FARA legislation. And of course, the FARA office needs much stronger congressional oversight.
 

Background:

On December 21, 2016 in Jeddah Saudi Arabia, the OIC held the 11th Session of the Islamic Conference of Information Ministers, titled “Session of the New Media to Counter Terrorism and Islamophobia”. The goal of the meeting was to develop the “OIC Media Strategy in Countering Islamophobia and its Implementation Mechanisms.” The document is here. It’s only ten pages long, and various sections may be useful for organizations dedicated to opposing Islamization.

As always with OIC documents, the English can be a bit odd — presumably badly translated from the Arabic.

Somewhat arbitrarily, I quote the following bits, starting with the Long Term Goals (emphasis added):

III. Long Term Goals:

1.   To call media professionals to develop, articulate and implement voluntary codes of conduct to counter Islamophobia. The OIC and its Member States should be vocal in calling media professionals to use the power they have with responsibly through accurate reporting.
2.   To assess successful media campaigns with a view to understanding the strong factors to be replicated and review the unsuccessful ones for avoiding the weak contents and procedures.
3.   To engage with western governments in creating awareness against the dangers of Islamophobia by addressing the responsibility of media on the issue.
 

The Actions are also worth noting — Page 2:

Continue reading →

Deborah Weiss: M-103, Resolution 16/18, and the OIC’s War on Free Speech in the West

Posted on by

Deborah Weiss is an attorney and a writer who specializes in free speech issues, especially the issue of sharia. She has published articles at FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, and NRO, among other places.

Ms. Weiss was the opening speaker on September 10 in Toronto at the conference “M-103: Islamophobia Cure or Sharia Trap?” sponsored by Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedoms.

The video below shows Ms. Weiss’ speech, followed by a Q&A. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this clip:

The Mother of All Misdirections

Posted on by

Below is the latest from the Sharia TipSheet. See the original article for links, videos, and graphics.

The Mother of All Misdirections — U.S. Counterterrorism Training Still Hostage to Radical Islamist Thought

Will the Trump administration bring back counterterrorism training materials that focus on radical Islam? The Sharia TipSheet will stay on this story until the answer is clear. FOIA litigation is anticipated. To be continued…

On November 5, 2009 about 1:30 p.m. local time, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan entered a building at Ft. Hood, shouted “Allahu Akbar” and opened fire with a laser-sighted weapon. He fanned his weapon, spraying bullets, before taking aim at individual soldiers. Two people charged him but were killed; a third was injured. Hasan moved outside the building where he shot down a police officer and targeted fleeing soldiers. Another police officer stopped Hasan with five shots as Hasan was reaching for a new clip. Hasan killed 13 and wounded more than 30 in his 10-minute shooting rampage. Seven victims were shot in the back. There was so much blood on the floor in the building that nurses had trouble reaching the wounded. The Obama administration called it an act of ‘workplace violence’ but, at his trial, Hasan told the court he was defending the Taliban against the U.S. military.

Army personnel who worked with Hasan knew he was a “ticking time bomb”. He had given presentations supporting the killing of non-Muslims, defending Osama Bin Laden, and justifying suicide bombers. He announced that Islam took precedence over the U.S. Constitution (which he had sworn to defend). He stated on multiple occasions that Muslims in the military could kill other service members. The Army did not rebuke him but instead gave him credit toward his academic requirements for his views.

These are some of the findings of a Senate Homeland Security Committee report — “A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S. Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack” (February 3, 2011) (pp. 27-31). The report cited the Defense Department’s “failure to address violent Islamist extremism by its name” and predicted “[i]t will be more difficult for the military to develop effective approaches to countering violent Islamist extremism if the identity and nature of the enemy cannot be labeled accurately.” (p. 48)

The report went on to recommend:

that the FBI should produce in-depth analysis of the ideology of violent Islamist extremism, the factors that make that ideology appealing to individuals (including U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents), and what ideological indicators or warning signs show that the individual is weighing or accepting the ideology. Our review also leads us to believe that the FBI also should provide sufficient training to its agents including: (1) ideological indicators or warning signs of violent Islamist extremism to serve as an operational reference guide, and (2) the difference between violent Islamist extremism and the peaceful practice of Islam. (p. 77)

Violent Islamist Extremism. Name the enemy. Understand the ideology. Develop more effective training. But just a few short months after the Ft. Hood report, the Obama administration would actually turn and go in the opposite direction — throwing out training materials directed at violent Islamist extremism, obfuscating the Islamist threat by cloaking it with other threats, and bringing in new materials and trainers to teach a Muslim Brotherhood-approved concoction called “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE). CVE, which is still in place, takes the focus off of violent Islamist extremism, diluting it to nothingness with vague talk of extremist threats in general, as if the actions of the 9/11 hijackers and animal rights activists are somehow equivalent.

What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?

The switcheroo from standard threat assessment to CVE has had a number of disastrous consequences:

Continue reading →

Using the SPLC and Private Corporations to Crack Down on “Hate”

Posted on by

We’ve reported numerous times in the past on the campaign by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) targeting “hate” groups in the USA, with an eye towards shutting them down. Even though the SPLC is a private organization, and absolutely opaque in its methodology, it is widely cited in the media and used by various governmental agencies at both federal and state levels.

The SPLC’s list of hate groups was prominently featured by CNN after the violence in Charlottesville, and various organizations are now feeling the heat as a result. Our D.C. correspondent Frontinus sends the following brief overview of what’s happening, including proposed action by Congress.

Using the SPLC and private corporations to crack down on “Hate”

By Frontinus

The efforts of the SPLC are bearing fruit inside the Beltway in the form of congressional action.

Note the resolution (JUST a resolution, unfunded, not a mandate but a legislature “marker”) S.Res. 118 that passed the Senate. A similar version was proposed in the House (House Resolution 257) requiring federal investigations of “hate incidents”, not just “hate crimes”. A small possibility does exist that it could pass even in the House, given the campaign being waged this summer (unlikely, but Republicans tend to be timid bunnies). There’s an article on it at Gatestone.

See also a real BILL (with House and Senate versions): HR1566 and S.662, which were reported to committee but not yet voted on; they’re not as likely to pass this session. This formulation is much stronger and more closely aligned with the SPLC/Google campaign. Quite operational in detail.

Keep an eye on this, or at least on its framing of the strategy. And combine these two (the Resolution, the Bill) to get a better idea of the two- to four-year plan to install a legal framework that would, in fact, implement UN Resolution16/18 in its most draconian interpretation.

The Charlottesville violence, as messaged by media and both Democrat and Republican leaders, will certainly help in herding a media/political consensus to pass either the Resolution or the Bill. President Trump will be pressured to sign the Bill if it passes — or if he doesn’t, he’ll be tarred as “pro-Nazi”, and candidates in 2018 will be tarred as white supremacists/pro-haters, etc. etc. etc.

One should see all these efforts as a systematic and integrated campaign. In addition to the Resolution and Bill outlined above, the campaign includes:

1.   The directed violence enabled by the Charlottesville and Virginia State Police and the ensuing planned media and political campaign accusing Trump and his supporters as Nazis (note that mainstream Republicans are part of this campaign, and almost no one in Congress is opposing it).
2.   Various SPLC efforts with Google and Guidestar, to use the SPLC list for discouraging donors (Guidestar) and lowering the search rankings (Google) for organizations;
3.   The SPLC effort with Google and ProPublica (and many others, including AJ+, Al Jazeera) on “hate incidents”, data-mining from anecdotal data (not just “hate crimes”);
4.   The SPLC effort with ProPublica to go after vendors (IT hosts, DNS, as well as transaction processing such as PayPal and credit card companies) doing business with SPLC-listed groups.
5.   Other stuff I’ve either forgotten or haven’t found. Readers should add more items to the campaign tactics list if they know of them.
 

This is a fight for territory in the information warfare battlespace. The Left understands they can’t win in the political battlespace in the USA, and they realize that his use of social media helped Trump in 2016. So the Left needs to control the information warfare battlespace, which is run by private companies — who can decide the applicability of terms of service in whatever manner they choose, under our First Amendment, to banish any organization or citizen from their companies on the internet.

It’s a smart plan. As usual, conservatives and libertarians still don’t know what’s hitting them, much less what lies ahead.

APPENDIX — The core text of HR1566:

A BILL

To provide incentives for hate crime reporting, grants for State-run hate crime hotlines, a Federal private right of action for victims of hate crimes, and additional penalties for individuals convicted under the Matthew Shephard [sic] and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the “National Opposition to Hate, Assault, and Threats to Equality Act of 2017” or “NO HATE Act”.

SEC. 2.

Findings

Congress finds the following:

(1)   The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, known as hate crimes or crimes motivated by bias, poses a serious national problem.
(2)   Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
(3)   A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it not only devastates the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but also frequently ravages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
(4)   According to data obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the incidence of such violence increased in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, in comparison to prior years.
(5)   The Hate Crimes Statistics Act (Public Law 101—275; 28 U.S.C. 534 note) and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (division E of Public Law 111—84; 123 Stat. 2835) have enabled Federal authorities to understand and, where appropriate, investigate and prosecute hate crimes.
(6)   However, a complete understanding of the national problem posed by hate crimes is hindered by incomplete data from Federal, State, and local jurisdictions obtained through the Uniform Crime Reports program authorized under section 534 of title 28, United States Code, and administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(7)   Increased implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System will enable the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain more detailed and accurate information on many crimes, including violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.
(8)   State-run hotlines that direct victims or witnesses of hate crimes to law enforcement or local support services will allow State and local law enforcement agencies, as well as local community-based service providers, to understand hate crimes more fully and to act accordingly.
(9)   A Federal private right of action provides an additional option of recourse for individuals who are targeted for violence based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
(10)   Many perpetrators of crimes motivated by bias may benefit from educational programming or volunteer service conducted in conjunction with, under the guidance of, or with the input of the community targeted by the hate crime.
(11)   Federal financial assistance with regard to certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
(12)   The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal financial assistance to States and local jurisdictions.
 

No Need to Define “Islamophobia” — Just Criminalize It

Posted on by

Last night we posted a report by the Counterjihad Collective on an EMISCO side event at this year’s OSCE/HDIM conference in Warsaw. Below is a follow-up intervention by Stephen Coughlin of Unconstrained Analytics, describing the frightening absurdities he heard at yesterday’s side event.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

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

EMISCO and the Ongoing Push Against “Islamophobia” by the OSCE

Posted on by

The following report was written by the Counterjihad Collective after several members attended an EMISCO side event today at the OSCE/HDIM conference in Warsaw.

This morning’s side event “The Consequences of Islamophobic Discourse in the European Political Parties” was hosted by EMISCO and chaired by Bashy Quraishy, the General Secretary of EMISCO (European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion). the panel was top-heavy with speakers giving country reports on Islamophobia in Europe.. The presentations seemed forced and overloaded in the sense that little time was able to be allotted for questions.

The forum was structured so that the closing statements, given by Bülent Şenay, were delivered after the question-and-answer period to ensure a final word. The panel seemed defensive, with panel members making strident statements about various political parties, labeling them as “racist” and “Islamophobic”. Building on narratives emphasized in 2014, their efforts were aimed at escalating the Islamophobia rhetoric in the guise of racism and gender, with all of the women appearing in head coverings, amid a constant reference to the wearing of headscarves. Also of note was a peculiar omission: the materials associated with side event did not provide the names of the briefers.

Because EMISCO and the Turkish complement were force to acknowledge that the term “Islamophobia” lacks a definition, this question was presented again in this forum. The other question concerned the definition of “new form of racism not based on skin color” and “manifestations of racism” as well. The panel did not answer the question on racism. Quraishy answered that Islamophobia was not about reasonable disagreements. In his closing remarks, however, Bülent Şenay became visibly agitated, went off his prepared notes (he said) and forcefully declared that our asking the question was both Islamophobic and ridiculous because “we all know what it means” and hence “I won’t define it.” He went on to insist, however, that “we must define Islamophobia as a crime.” Of course, defining Islamophobia is an issue because criminalizing an activity that lacks a definition is a serious civil rights and verges on the criminalization of thought.

Continue reading →

Stephen Coughlin: Suppressing “Hate Speech” Means Suppressing Free Speech

Posted on by

The Human Dimension* Implementation Meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) convened for its second week in Warsaw. A team from the transatlantic Counterjihad is there to take part in the proceedings.

Stephen Coughlin, representing Unconstrained Analytics, gave the following intervention this afternoon. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

*   The OSCE’s “Human Dimension” project gives governments and NGOs the opportunity to send representatives to discuss policies and initiatives of interest to all the member states of the OSCE. In the last few years it has been mostly co-opted by Muslim groups under the guidance of the OIC.
 

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

Stephen Coughlin: Yes, the Truth May Constitute Hate Speech

Posted on by

On August 21, the American Freedom Alliance presented a conference in Los Angeles, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can they Coexist?” One of the speakers was Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin, the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

Note: In his talk, Maj. Coughlin refers to OSCE events that he attended. The response by CSP and ICLA to the use of the term “Islamophobia” at OSCE is here. The video of his encounter with the globalist enforcers of the OSCE narrative is here.

Many thanks to Henrik Clausen for recording, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Previous posts about the American Freedom Alliance event in Los Angeles:

2016   Aug   22   Silence is Still Not an Option
        25   “You’re Living Under the Sharia, and You Don’t Even Know It”
 

Ten Arabic Words: Bracken’s Challenge to National Security Professionals

Posted on by

Drawing on the work of Stephen Coughlin, Matthew Bracken has thrown down the gauntlet to those professionals in our government and the military who purport to be guardians of our national security.

Ten Arabic Words: A challenge to national security professionals engaged in the Global War On Terror

by Matthew Bracken

If you are a politically-correct bliss-ninny with a coexist bumper sticker slapped on the back of your Subaru, and you don’t have the slightest clue what the following ten words mean, then this essay is not meant for you. You are excused.

dawah, dhimmi, hijra, jizya, kafir, shaheed, shariah, takfir, taqiyya, ummah

But if you are a national security professional, senior military officer or political leader involved in any aspect of the “Global War On Terror,” AKA “Countering Violent Extremism,” these are ten words that should already be a part of your working vocabulary. If you can’t readily discuss their meaning, significance, and relationships, then you are worse than a fool, you are disgrace to your office and a danger to your country.

If you don’t already have a firm grasp of the meaning of these words, then you are as prepared to conduct the GWOT as President Obama’s “Pajama Boy” is prepared to fight a heavyweight MMA champion in a no-quarter steel-cage death match.

If you couldn’t accurately define at least eight out of the ten directly from your personal knowledge base, then as a national security professional, you are an abject failure. You are as dangerously ignorant as a parent who would send his ten-year-old son to a NAMBLA summer camp, because a friendly self-identified “Namblan” neighbor said it was like Boy Scout Camp, but even more fun, and completely free of charge.

In effect, you sent your innocent and vulnerable young son to a summer camp run by perverts, pedophiles and predators, and you didn’t even know it, because you couldn’t be bothered to learn the actual meaning of NAMBLA independently from your helpful Namblan neighbor. Sounds insane, doesn’t it? Nobody could be that stupid, right? Wrong. That level of stupidity is official Obama administration policy when it comes to fighting the GWOT.

So, if you are an Army general or Navy admiral who, right here and now, without looking at your smart phone, cannot discuss how a kafir becomes a dhimmi, and what a dhimmi’s rights and options (if any) are under shariah, then you are as ignorant of your job as an European-theater Army general circa 1942 who did not know a panzer from a pancake, or a schutzstaffel from a schnitzel. A person as ignorant as you should be kept away from any responsibility for protecting our nation. You are incompetent, and you are a fool.

If you don’t know how to determine when a Muslim suicide bomber is a shaheed and when he is a terrorist according to the shariah, then you are as dangerous to our national safety as a North Atlantic ship captain who believes that icebergs are a fairy tale concocted by conspiracy theorists. Full speed ahead, Captain Smith!

If you don’t know takfir from taqiyya, and can’t discuss the meaning and importance of both, you are as useless as a WW2 intelligence officer who didn’t know the Kriegsmarine from the Luftwaffe, (but who thought that one of them was a private flying club, based on conversations that he overheard among his ever-helpful German cleaning staff).

If you cannot, right now, intelligently discuss the global ummah and its relationship to the OIC in the context of the GWOT, then you should be working for the Department of Parks and Recreation, and not the Department of Homeland Security. If you don’t know what the OIC refers to in this context, put on a dunce cap, and go stand in the corner. And if you don’t know whether your office is in the Dar al Islam or the Dar al Harb, please jump out of an upper-story window, and when you hit the sidewalk, ask any immigrant who is engaged in hijra. He’ll know the answer, even if you do not.

If you don’t know how dawah relates to jihad when faithful Muslims are engaged in long-term hijra, you should turn in your official credentials and take early retirement. You are as oblivious as a WW2 U.S. Army general who thought that the Geheime Staatspolizei were German motorcycle policemen much like our American state troopers, because a helpful German passer-by told him so.

If you don’t know what the three options are for a kafir who violates the shariah when living in the dar al Islam, then please get out of the national security business. If you don’t know why a dhimmi would care about jizya, please retire, and hand your duties over to someone who has the natural curiosity and personal integrity to conduct his own study of our actual enemies and their actual strategies. But in the meantime, you must immediately stop lapping up the false narrative being spoon-fed to you by hostile foreign agents, domestic traitors, useful idiots, and cowards who know better—but who won’t make waves while their pensions are beckoning.

If your job is national security, and you didn’t score at least an eighty on the ten-word quiz, then you have obviously swallowed the big lie that we can safely delegate the understanding of our Islamist enemies to the WW2 equivalent of “moderate Nazis.” Sounds insane, doesn’t it? But under President Obama, this is indeed our national policy for fighting the GWOT: allow a range of Muslim Brotherhood front groups to conduct America’s narrowly limited analysis of so-called “radicalized Islam,” and thereafter guide our policies toward Islam and Muslims in general.

Continue reading →

ESW to American Patriots: “Hang on to Your Hard-Won Rights!”

Posted on by

On April 21 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was the keynote speaker at an event sponsored by the Dallas chapter of ACT! For America in Dallas, Texas. Below is the speech given by her for the occasion. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

The prepared text of Elisabeth’s speech is available here.

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.

Stephen Coughlin on the CVE: The Triumph of the Narrative Over Reality

Posted on by

Below is the second part of Major Stephen Coughlin’s analysis of “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE).

The greatest achievement in the history of the Muslim Brotherhood has been its successful subversion of the American intelligence community over the past fifteen years or so. Carefully placed agents of the Ikhwan have managed to persuade the Pentagon, the CIA, and the FBI that examining Islamic doctrine and law is not only a form of ethnic and religious discrimination, but also helps to validate the ideology of the “radicals” who commit violent terror attacks in the name of Islam. By some unspecified magical process, any study of Islamic law by the DIA or the FBI would cause the “extremists” to believe even more fervently in their misinterpretation of Islam, and help draw other misguided adherents to their violent cause. Therefore intelligence and law enforcement professionals must never, ever examine the ideology of Islam or consider it as a possible motive behind any terrorist attack.

Instead an entire new bureaucratic structure has been built around the concept of “Countering Violent Extremism” — which has no inherent meaning, and is just as real as phlogiston. Normally an “extreme” ideology is an extreme version of something — the word should, after all, be an implied comparative modifier of some unmentioned substantive.

But not Violent Extremism. It is kind of just hanging out there in the aether, somehow causing people named Mohammed and Hassan to blow things up and behead people while shouting “Allahu akhbar!”

The only time the CVE will ever be applied by federal, state, or local law enforcement will be in operations against men who carry firearms and drive vehicles sporting Gadsden Flag bumper stickers. Then it will come in very handy — just wait and see.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading this video:

Previously: Part 1.

Islam is Now Officially a Race in Denmark

Posted on by

I must point out that the city of Elsinore, in which this odious judgment was handed down, is the same that prompted Marcellus to say (in Hamlet): “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” To add insult to injury, the legendary Holger Danske, the Danish hero who will awaken to save his country in its time of greatest need, sleeps in the cellars of Kronborg Castle at Elsinore. Surely at least one of Holger’s eyes is now blinking open …?

Many thanks to Liberty DK for translating this article from Jyllands-Posten. A slightly different version was published earlier at Vlad Tepes:

Man fined for racism following comment on Facebook

The court in Elsinore has sentenced a man fined for comparing Islam with Nazism.

By JOHANNES KAAS FALLESEN, Jyllands-Posten

“…The ideology of Islam is every bit as loathsome, nauseating, oppressive and dehumanizing as Nazism. The massive immigration of Islamists into Denmark is the most devastating event Danish society has suffered in recent historical times.”

Thursday morning these words cost Flemming Nielsen 1,600 kroner. He was sentenced to four day-fines of 400 kroner for violating the Penal Code §266b paragraph 1, also called the racism paragraph. This is from a judgment rendered by a Court in Elsinore.

The accused, Flemming Nielsen, had written the words on Facebook in late November 2013.


“I did not violate the article I have been accused of. I did not mention the religion of Islam or Muslims with one word. I referred to Islamists and the ideology of Islam,” said Flemming Nielsen to TV2.dk immediately after the verdict.

It would therefore be obvious that Flemming Nielsen should be able to appeal the verdict, which he believes has restricted his freedom of expression, to a higher court.

However, he will not be able to do this as the fine falls below the minimum limit by which such judgments can be appealed.

Continue reading →

HR 569: CAIR’s Standard Operating Procedure

Posted on by

Our Washington D.C. correspondent Frontinus sends this report on proposed House Resolution 569, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”, which is now before the U.S. Congress with 82 co-sponsors (all Democrats).

HR 569: CAIR’s Standard Operating Procedure
by Frontinus

Your American readers who aren’t aware of HR569 probably should be, and your European and Canadian readers may be interested to learn just how successful the Muslim Brotherhood has been in its penetration of the U.S. government, and how close we are to seeing the full implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 in this country.

This resolution won’t pass, of course, but that isn’t what’s significant about of it. What’s important is the process that is now underway in Washington D.C., of which HR 569 is just a small part.

First, take a look at the text of HR 569:

Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1)   expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
(2)   steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3)   denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
(4)   recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
(5)   declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6)   urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
(7)   reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.
 

Once again, this will not pass. However, the fact that 82 Democrats have co-sponsored it will be used to validate the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc. etc.) claim that hate crimes have increased (and of course they haven’t for Muslims, although they may have increased against Jews in America, who are historically identified in FBI statistics as victimized in hate crimes five to ten times more frequently than Muslims in America).

This is the usual modus operandi used by the Ikhwan, and it’s a consistent systems approach. (As indeed is the entire jihad-dawa approach to supremacism a systems approach. I recommend Jasser Auda’s text Maqasid Al-Shariah as Philosophy of Islamic Law: A Systems Approach — it’s light on the jihad doctrine, but gets to the broader implications of Shariah as a closed system with open-ended ambitions.)

Continue reading →

Stalking the Mythical “Moderate”

Posted on by

Prompted by yesterday’s exposé of Maajid Nawaz, Matt Bracken created the following image:

This picture ties in with a discussion thread that took place in the comments on the same post. A commenter named Oren made these remarks:

Nawaz appears, at least to the average listener, as a genuine moderate Muslim, a very rare creature indeed. Whether his intentions are truly pure or not is irrelevant, because he is currently serving as a secular, reformed Islamic role model. If he is able to convince the anti-Jihad movement, then he is probably able to do the same for all the young Muslims out there.

I don’t know why anyone would think that the “anti-Jihad movement” is as hard to convince as “young Muslims” about where Mr. Nawaz’ true loyalty lies. I’m certain it’s clear to all Muslims who pay close attention to his words — especially those in the Hizb ut-Tahrir milieu from which he sprang — exactly what he is doing to further the cause of Islam.

This was my reply in the same thread:

I wish I could spend the time answering this comment in depth. However, I will say this:

Your words define the exact strategy that Nawaz and similar “moderates” want to promote.

I think the same process is going on in a lot of places. There must be hundreds of deep-cover Ikhwan operatives in these non-profit organizations, feeding sincere well-meaning people exactly what they want to hear about Islam. It makes those good-hearted folks feel so relieved — it gives them hope that a modern, civilized society that includes Islam can somehow be salvaged.

But it can’t. Despite all the hard work and millions of non-profit dollars that have gone into promoting “moderate” Islam over the past fifteen years, there is nothing to show for it. There is no sign that any of it will bear any fruit.

All this diversionary tactic has done is to keep the Western public in a hypnotic trance wherein they continuously mutter “moderate Islam… radical Islam… tiny minority of extremists… the need for an Islamic Reformation…” etc. This gives the Islamic State — the longed-for Caliphate — the time it needs to grow into a coherent, implacable manifestation of the will of the Ummah.

By the time Westerners throw off the post-hypnotic commands and wake up to what is happening to them, it will be too late. The enemy will have metastasized to the point where there is no choice but full civilizational war, with all the horrors that entails — mass-casualty terrorism, heaps of rotting corpses in the streets, the destruction of parts of major Western cities, and so on. Millions of deaths, economies destroyed, whole nations turned into wastelands. Just like North Africa circa 660 A.D.

So all I can say to you, Mr. Oren, is: Get thee hence, Satan!

Ten years ago I might have embraced your words. But I have learned a lot since then and been hardened by bitter events.

You may well be a taqiyya artist just like Maajid Nawaz. Or you may have just been fooled by his ilk. It doesn’t really matter; the end result is the same.

To expand on these thoughts just a little, let’s consider the long-term consequences of this desperate longing for “moderate” Muslims.

Many Westerners, both inside and outside of the Counterjihad, want to believe that somewhere out there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are deep-down just like us. These good folks just need to be released into the sunshine of a modern secular democracy, and somehow lured out of their thrall to the imams and mullahs, and then “radical” Islam will no longer be the menacing force that it is today.


Muslims real and unreal

It was this earnest hope that led George W. Bush to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet the dismal failure of those two enterprises — which cost thousands of American lives, generated millions of refugees, and emptied the U.S. Treasury of untold billions of dollars — has not deterred well-meaning optimists who want to empower “moderate” Islam. They’re ready to throw good money after bad, invade more Third-World pestholes, spend more blood and treasure, and generate tens of millions more refugees. All in hope that Islam can somehow be modernized and civilized and made to resemble Western culture.

Why do they persist in such madness? What feeds this seemingly bottomless appetite for self-delusion?

Continue reading →