John R. Houk
© July 11, 2019
After WWII the image of the United Nations was an
international organization that the Allied victors would utilize to prevent
another nation to pull any conquest objectives ala Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy
and Imperial Japan. After the war and the public emerging of atrocities
committed by Nazis and the Japanese war machine populations of Western nations
breathed a sigh of relief that a UN would prevent global despotic atrocities.
The first dent in this relief was the Communist
international revolutionary agenda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR – essentially Russia) and Communist (Red) China. Those Communist giants
used their satellite vassal yet officially independent nations to fill the UN
with Marxist opposition to everything Western especially to the USA.
The USSR and Red China in their efforts to woo global
Communism began to assist Third World nations willing to be anti-Western (with
anti-Americanism as the focus) in their development. Hence Communist
revolutionaries began to emerge in newly independent nations formerly dominated
as Western Colonies primarily of European nations.
The Muslim world advanced despots as monarchs and dictators
who nationalized the Western control of the oil industries managed by Multinational Corporations
(MNC). Islam is inherently antagonistic to all things non-Muslim inspired by
Islamic revered writings.
The USSR tried to use this Islamic antipathy to export
Communist principles to the Muslim world. However, Islam-alone brainwashing
ultimately meant the Muslim despots used the USSR support to offset the power
of Western supported MNCs. Essentially Muslim despots played an international
game of pitting the USA and the USSR against each other to shore up their own
Islamic authoritarian regimes.
THEN the unthinkable according to Islamic doctrine occurred.
Jews abused for centuries in the West gained sympathy due to Nazi genocide
resulting in a gradual reclamation of the Jewish Homeland. A homeland that had
been under one form or another of Islamic control due to conquest since the
mid-600s AD.
A Jewish Homeland is unthinkable because in intolerant
doctrine, once conquered by Islam a land must remain Islamic forever. The
Islamic vision of conquest domination in three opinions:
o The Main Reason for
the Present Middle East Conflict: ISLAM and not "The Territories";
By Jan
Willem van der Hoeven - Director International Christian
Zionist Center; EretzYisroel.org; Portions Copyright © 2000 International
Christian Zionist Center, Portions Copyright © 2001 Joseph Katz All Rights Reserved
o Why
Islam is a totalitarian system and a threat for every non-Muslim civilization; By
Dr. Bill Warner; FaithFreedom.org;
12/10/17 UPDATED 12/17/17
o Islam
from First Muslim to Total Control, Five Stages of Islamic Conquest; Beyond the Cusp;
8/17/17
The absence of
Communist satellite nations due to the collapse of the USSR led to the domination
of two groups in the UN: Nations dominated by Leftist Globalist
Multiculturalism and Nations dominated by Islamic Thought.
Since I’m not really
an erudite writer let’s look at some quotes relating to Leftist (perhaps
Marxist) Globalist Multiculturalism (all
from essays or opinions that should be read in full at your leisure):
The
Pox of Multiculturalism; By
Bruce Walker;
American Thinker;
5/19/18:
What the left calls "multiculturalism" is actually the
systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a
synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture. When the left
talks about "diversity," it really means the crushing of differences
in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes
the soul or elevates the mind.
…
Multiculturalism is an effort to destroy culture in the name of
harmonizing cultures. It is, at best, gross globalist
imperialism. It is, at worst, the Orwellian deconstruction of all
societal values and beliefs.
Multiculturalism:
As A Tool To Divide And Conquer - The Layman's Primer; By Louis Beam; LouisBeam.com:
No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well
as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A
multicultural state carries in it's [sic] geneses the seeds of eventual
national destruction.
All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.
In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.
The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.
Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an "economic hierarchy" that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century "natural hierarchy." A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.
All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.
In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.
The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.
Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an "economic hierarchy" that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century "natural hierarchy." A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.
…
Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values,
coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting
ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to
implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and
values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior.
This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word:
anomie.
As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.
Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.
As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.
Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.
As a general rule:
The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to
the corruption at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to
national unity.
This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the
country has failed.
Multiculturalism can further be used as "transitional tool" to
take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a
political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is
coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein
exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more
closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem
and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA's importation of
some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the
United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and
other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic
terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously
thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.
Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:
Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:
"Almost certainly we are
moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of
thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless
abstraction."
A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is … TRUST ME READ ENTIRE ESSAY
The
Globalism Threat – Socialism’s New World Order; By Jeff Carlson, CFA;
TheMarketsWork.com;
2/24/17:
…
Globalism is often clad in free trade garb but in fact there is a hindrance
of free trade with globalism. Globalism, through its attempt to erase
national borders (and identities), applies a broad economic brush to varying
problems and economic conditions of differing regions and as a result fails by
definition. Globalism tends to exacerbate economic problems rather than fixing
them, and hinders free trade by distorting market responses.
Globalism initiates with talk of open borders and free trade but
inevitably leads to concentrated government and centralized planning. …
…
Although the terms are often used interchangeably, Globalization is NOT
the same as Globalism. They are very different things. Globalization is a
natural economic outgrowth of trade. Globalism is a political goal – plain and
simple.
…
Globalism differs from Capitalism in several distinct aspects. Globalism
promotes globally centralized control of laws, foreign policy
and monetary policy. Unlike Capitalism, Globalism inherently blends rule of
law with rule of man. Globalism comes into existence through
the ownership of laws. And through the ownership of law, Globalism
gains ownership of nations.
If you refer back to Gramsci,
Alinsky and the Left, you will recall I introduced several concepts
– Counter Hegemony, Critical Theory and Gradualism. Antonio Gramsci created the
Theory of Cultural Hegemony – the way in which nations use cultural
institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. Gramsci felt that in
order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must
be overturned. This would require the introduction of an entirely new set of
values and beliefs – Counter Hegemony. Gradualism – along with Critical
Theory – were the processes used to achieve Counter Hegemony. Marxist/Socialist
philosophers – led by the Frankfurt School – picked up where Gramsci left off
and brought these ideas to America. They refined Gramsci’s Marxist ideas – they
reshaped them.
…
If Culture is the true source of Capitalism – how do you truly change
Culture? You change it by removing the identities of Culture. As Theodor Adorno
stated, you create a “genuine liberal” – an individual “free of all groups,
including race, family and institutions”. A Global Citizen.
The tool used to accomplish this goal? Political
Correctness – or “same thinking”. Raymond V. Raehn put it this
way; “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and
behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature”. Political
Correctness is Cultural Marxism – also known as multiculturalism. Political
Correctness is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural
terms. And once you’ve changed the culture you can change the laws.
The end game of Political Correctness – its ultimate goal – is Globalism.
And it is here we must be careful. For Globalization has opened a pathway
to Globalism. This is the very reason the two are so often presented as the
same. An economic process – Globalization – has been altered and repackaged to
further a goal of societal change. This is why Globalists so often dress
Globalization as Globalism. Globalization is required for Globalism to become a
reality. But Globalism is NOT a necessary prerequisite for Globalization.
…
… Just as Communists first seek to impose Socialism on their way to
Communism, so do Globalists seek to turn Globalization into a stepping stone
towards Globalism. Their goal is to convince citizens they are one and the same.
Using Gradualism.
But there is a distinct difference – and an obstacle. Globalization can
lead to benefits for all while still preserving the nation-state. Which means
the concept of national identity stands firmly in the way of Globalism. In
order to maintain national identity you must first
maintain self-governance and full sovereignty. Globalism
seeks to break national identity by subsuming national laws. Ultimately,
preservation of national or sovereign law is the key to preventing Globalism.
In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance issued a report
titled Our
Global Neighborhood. The report advanced the view that
nations are interdependent and called for a strengthened United Nations. The
Commission made a standard definition of global governance stating that;
“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions,
public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process
through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and
cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes
empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people
and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest…It
is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central
role in global governance.”
It was the U.N.’s first real published step towards World Governance.
Towards Globalism.
…
… Of particular note is the UN’s focus and treatment of
Israel. Since the creation of the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2006, there
have been 121 condemnations of nations for human rights violations. Of
these, 62 condemnations were of Israel. Condemnations for the rest
of the world’s nations combined equaled 59.
Corruption, fraud and mismanagement in U.N. procurement have been ongoing
since the organization’s creation.
…
How is “piercing the shell of state sovereignty” accomplished? It is done
slowly and incrementally. It is done through division – by undermining society
through created rifts. It is accomplished through the application of Political
Correctness. Society is slowly fractured into divisions of class,
race and gender. Sub-groups are created within these divisions to further
enhance societal stress. By lessening national identity the process of
usurping national sovereignty becomes easier. There is a reason why George
Soros, the self-avowed billionaire globalist, funds 150 different progressive
organizations through his Open Society Foundation. Groups like the ACLU, Black
Lives Matter, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Human Rights
Campaign, La Raza and the Women’s March. More importantly, this is why
Globalists are in favor of unlimited immigration – and the national strife and
divisions it creates.
… THIS MAY SEEM A LONG QUOTE BUT
THE ESSAY IS MUCH LONGER AND WORTHY
TO BE READ
I used a lot of
posting space to understand the influence of Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism
in the United Nations. The other influence in the UN is from Muslim
dominated nations committed to Islamic Thought.
A rational person
would think or wonder: How in the world can Marxist oriented Globalist
Multiculturalism and those committed to Islamic thought be on the same page?
The simplistic
answer is both concepts seek a global New World Order by dismantling the Old
World Order.
The Old World Order
is currently dominated a Western Christian Heritage that has developed
governing institutions related to various forms of Representative Democracy.
For clarity: Not absolute Democracy which degenerates into mob rule which is
its own form of despotism. At present, the American Republic form of governance
is the best paradigm of Representative Democracy.
The American
Republic is the ideological enemy Globalist Multiculturalism and Islamic
Thought.
What in the essence
of the traditional sovereign American Republic bugs the crap out of Islamic
Thought? For brevity’s sake here is a quick (meaning not exhaustive) comparison
between Islam and guarantees in the U.S. Constitution courtesy of Bill
Federer at WND:
The First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free
exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad
said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih
al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those
who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of
them and kill them wherever you find them.”
The First Amendment states
Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting
them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices
during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to
Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are
not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross,
Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.
The First Amendment states
Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot
repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to
participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the
graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.
The First Amendment states
Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances,” yet
Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the
Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
The Second Amendment states “the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot
possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.
The Third Amendment states one
cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three
days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the
Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in
their places of worship.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees
“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle
and bridle, the horse can be taken away.
The Fifth Amendment states that
“no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime …
without due process of law,” yet
Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).”
(Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a
“public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right
of trial by jury shall be preserved,”
yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims,
even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.
The Eighth Amendment states
there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands
of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have
done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also
punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you
experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you
may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a
last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters
who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in
Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.
The 13th Amendment states there
shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.
The 14th Amendment guarantees
citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims
as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the
Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been
under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60,
7:166, 2:65).
The 15th Amendment guarantees
“the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as
democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by
making the laws.
The 16th Amendment has some
similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and
collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not
in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)
The 18th Amendment [Blog Editor:
Repealed by 21st
Amendment] has some
similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of
intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
The 19th Amendment allows women
to vote, yet in strict Islamic
countries women cannot vote.
The 21st Amendment allows for
the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law
states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly. [Bold
text by Blog Editor]
It is my humble
opinion if the Globalist Multiculturalist Left and the Muslim World ended
sovereignty nations, eradicated effective Representative Democracy and/or
caused the demise of the American Republic; the Globalists and some kind of
Muslim coalition would engage in a bloody war for global domination. You could
count on genocides from both sides.
NOW! To the
inspiration of these thoughts leading to global strife with unpredictable
winners and losers. The Gatestone
Institute has posted some news about how the United Nations
intends to “War” on Free Speech at least as America knows it. Many UN speech
restrictions have already affected Free Speech in the rest of the so-called
Free World.
JRH 7/11/19
*************************
UN Launches All-out War on Free
Speech
July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am
§ In other words, forget everything about the
free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its 'values' are being threatened and
those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.
§ Naturally, the UN assures everyone that,
"Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of
speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more
dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence,
which is prohibited under international law".
§ Except the UN most definitely seeks to
prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN's
agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in
which it was explicitly stated that public funding to "media outlets that
systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination
towards migrants" should be stopped.
§ In contrast to the UN Global Migration
compact, the UN's action plan against hate speech does contain
a definition of what the UN considers to be "hate" and it happens to
be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: "Any kind of
communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative
or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis
of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality,
race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor". With a definition
as broad as this, all speech could be labelled "hate".
§ The new action plan plays straight into the
OIC's decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as 'hate speech'. In the
wake of the launch of Guterres' action plan, Pakistan has already presented a
six-point plan "to address the new manifestations of racism and
faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia" at the United Nations
headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the
Holy See and the UN.
In January, UN
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commissioned "a global plan of action
against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis," and said that
governments and institutions need "to mobilize solutions that respond to
people's fears and anxieties with answers..." One of those answers,
Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech. Pictured: Antonio
Guterres. (Image
source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)
In January, United
Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the
Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to "present a global plan of action
against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis". Speaking at a
press conference about the UN's challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, "The biggest challenge that
governments and institutions face today is to show that we care -- and to
mobilize solutions that respond to people's fears and anxieties with
answers..."
One of those
answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.
"We need to
enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces
today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and
intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past"
Guterres said, "Poisonous views are penetrating
political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let's never forget the lessons
of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human
rights..."
Guterres added,
"Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our
universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety
and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values
that are under such grave threat today".
In other words,
forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its
'values' are being threatened and those who criticize those values must
therefore be shut down. Not only that, but -- disingenuously -- the UN is
comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the
1930s.
Now the action plan
that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:
"Hate speech
is...an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our
human rights norms and principles," Guterres said.
He also wrote in an article on the subject,
"To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say:
diversity is a richness, never a threat...We must never forget, after all, that
each of us is an "other" to someone, somewhere".
According to the action plan, "Hate is moving into the mainstream – in
liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm,
the pillars of our common humanity are weakened". The UN sees for itself a
crucial role: "As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront
hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and
intolerance...".
Naturally, the UN
assures everyone that, "Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or
prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating
into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination,
hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law".
Except the UN most
definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that
challenges the UN's agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in
which it was explicitly stated that public funding to "media
outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other
forms of discrimination towards migrants" should be stopped.
Whatever constitutes
intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined,
making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund
media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.[1]
In contrast to the
UN Global Migration compact, the UN's action plan against hate speech does contain
a definition of what the UN considers to be "hate" and it happens to
be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:
"Any kind of
communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative
or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis
of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity,
nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor". With
a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled "hate".
The action plan,
"aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address
hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and
programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights
norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and
expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root
causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the
impact of hate speech on societies".
The UN makes it
clear in the plan that it "will implement actions at global and country
level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities"
to fight hate speech. It considers that "Tackling hate speech is the responsibility
of all – governments, societies, the private sector" and it envisages
"a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and
stand up to hate speech". What a brave new world.
In the plan, the UN
sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will "need to
know more to act effectively" and it will therefore let "relevant UN
entities... recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech
trends". It will also seek to "adopt a common understanding of the
root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best
address and/or mitigate its impact". In addition, the UN will
"identify and support actors who challenge hate speech".
UN entities will
also "implement human rights-centred measures which aim at countering
retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence" and "promote
measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs
addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and
psychological counselling".
Disturbingly, the UN
plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through
education:
"The UN system
should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to
address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance,
non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression" and
"take action in formal and informal education to ... promote the values
and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information
Literacy".
The UN is acutely
aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global
and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal.
"The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant
stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the
meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by
governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media,
religious and other civil society actors" the action plan notes. "UN
entities," it adds, "should also engage private sector actors,
including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN
principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging
partnerships between government, industry and civil society". The UN also
says that, "upon request" it will "provide support to Member
States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate
speech."
The action plan also
reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an
"international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on
addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of
Education".
The new action plan
plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the
launch of Guterres' action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan "to address
the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially
Islamophobia" at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation
was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey,
the Holy See and the UN.
According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan's Permanent
Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled
"Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or
belief".
"A particularly
alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent
manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid
and many other forms of discrimination," the ambassador said in her speech. She added, "My Prime Minister Imran Khan has
recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today
the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against 'the other'".
"We are fully
committed to support the UN's strategy on hate speech," said the Pakistani ambassador, "This
is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and
bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful
co-existence."
In 2017, Facebook's
Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from
Pakistan's Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to "remove fake accounts and
explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and
terrorism" because "the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and
has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate
blasphemous content".
At the UN,
Pakistan's Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to
fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly "called for framing a more
focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A 'whole
of government' and a 'whole of society' approach was needed. In this regard,
the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of
actors, including governments, civil society and social media companies to take
action and stop social media users being funneled into online sources of
radicalization".
The UN's all-out war
on free speech is on.
Judith Bergman, a
columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at
Gatestone Institute.
NOTES:
[1] According to Objective 17 of the UN
Global Compact on migration, member states commit to: "Promote
independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including
internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media
professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical
reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public
funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote
intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards
migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media." [Emphasis
added.]
____________________
The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World
Despotism
John R. Houk
© July 11, 2019
___________________
UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech
©
2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of
the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any
of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior
written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not
acquired to cross post. Upon request the cross post will be removed.]
No comments:
Post a Comment