Tuesday, September 06, 2016

A response to a Jordanian U.N. bureaucrat

A Muslim calling himself "the U.N. high commissioner for human rights" has prepared a rant against the Western politicians who oppose the Islamization of Europe and North America. He gave the speech at the Hague yesterday.

A full transcript is available and will appear below, too. Let me respond to that diatribe.
Dear Friends, I wish to address this short statement to Mr Geert Wilders, his acolytes, indeed to all those like him – the populists, demagogues and political fantasists.
Geert Wilders is a Dutch lawmaker with no executive power right now, even though his Party for Freedom has a significant chance to win the next elections in 2017. It is weird for a U.N. official to single out an innocent Dutch citizen as a target of his personal attacks. Should we understand it as a new U.N. policy to bully innocent yet politically inconvenient individuals in Europe?

Perhaps, the fact that the speech was given at the Hague is supposed to be an explanation why the U.N. official targeted a Dutch politician and tried to intervene into the internal Dutch domestic affairs. However, the U.N. official should only see the Hague as a neutral place that hosts some of the international organizations similar to the organizations that employs the official himself. This location doesn't give him the moral right to intervene into the Dutch domestic political affairs.

The Dutch internal politics is not your business, Mr Hussein, just like the internal politics of Kuwait was not the business of your Iraqi namesake. You may object that there is a difference because Saddam has already been executed while you are still walking and talking. But the difference between the two of you could be just 10 years.

Needless to say, the words "acolytes, populists, demagogues, and political fantasists" are just propagandist slogans supposed to sound negative. The people realizing the importance of similar issues as Wilders' allies, not acolytes, and they are political realists.

The U.N. official continued:
To them, I must be a sort of nightmare. I am the global voice on human rights, universal rights; elected by all governments, and now critic of almost all governments.
I don't know whether Geert Wilders remembers the identity of this U.N. official but I don't. He's a bureaucrat with the charisma of a wet rag. I haven't memorized his contrived name and I doubt that I will ever memorize it. I won't copy and paste his name here because it would look like a dishonest attempt of mine to pretend to know many more "details" than I do. I never remember whether he's from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or the United Arab Emirates.

This U.N. official wasn't really "elected by all governments". There are no "elections with governments as the voters". There are just some obscure rituals in which not everyone can run and random representatives of random countries, most of which are either economically screwed or dictatorships or both, endorse some random person as the chief of one U.N. subsidiary or another. To be chosen in this way is absolutely no reason to be proud – it's a reason to be ashamed.
I defend and promote the human rights of each individual, everywhere: the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and immigrants; the rights of the LGBTi community; the rights of women and children in all countries; minorities; indigenous persons; people with disabilities, and any and all who are discriminated against, disadvantaged, persecuted or tortured – whether by governments, political movements or by terrorists.
I don't know whether he defends the rights of all these extreme left-wingers' privileged groups. What I am sure is that this individual doesn't defend the rights of hundreds of millions of citizens of Europe and North America such as Geert Wilders – and indeed, all of those who are similar to Geert Wilders. He doesn't defend the right of attractive European women who listen to music from their smartphones to pepper spray an Arab savage who physically suggests that they're prostitutes just because they are attractively dressed.

He doesn't defend the patriots who realize that it's a responsibility to inherit our countries from our ancestors, many of whom had to fight against Turks and other non-European invaders in the past. He doesn't defend the rights of hundreds of millions of atheists who realize that Allah is a pile of junk and who don't want to return to the Middle Ages when people were harassed for denouncing stupid religious superstitions. He doesn't defend the rights of the type of people whom Europe has belonged to for some 2000 years and America for approximately 500 years.
I am a Muslim, who is, confusingly to racists, also white-skinned; whose mother is European and father, Arab.
It's great that he brags to be white. At least the people who consider this individual to be an anti-Western savage and bigot who shouldn't be allowed to enter Europe won't be accused of racism.
And I am angry, too.
There are good reasons why intelligent European voters may prefer calm and rational politicians such as Wilders instead of angry savages.
Because of Mr Wilder’s lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear. You see, twenty years ago I served in the UN peacekeeping force during the Balkan wars – wars so cruel, so devastating, which flowed from this same factory of deceit, bigotry and ethnic nationalism.
Personal attacks against Mr Wilders are omnipresent in the official's diatribe. I won't honor them with additional responses.

Balkans has been a "multicultural" territory for many, many centuries, and that's why – along with the nations' Southern temperament – why there have been cruel wars over there for centuries. With its wars and other tensions, the Balkans may be considered a role model for any territory that becomes similarly "multicultural".
Geert Wilders released his grotesque eleven-point manifesto only days ago, and a month ago he spoke along similar lines in Cleveland, in the United States. I will not repeat what he has said, but there are many who will, and his party is expected to do well in the elections in March.
There's nothing to respond to over here.
And yet what Mr Wilders shares in common with Mr Trump, Mr Orban, Mr Zeman, Mr Hofer, Mr Fico, Madame Le Pen, Mr Farage, he also shares with Da’esh.
I am proud that our president Miloš Zeman has made it to the shortlist of 7+1 world's politicians who oppose the Islamization of Europe and North America. If Karel Schwarzenberg had been elected instead, the Czech nation would probably be considered a welcoming appendix of Angela Merkel now. Instead, Central Europe has 4 representatives among Hussein's 8. Not bad. All of them are from the "large" countries of Austria-Hungary.

Incidentally, in his dissatisfied reaction, President Zeman said – among other things – that he was alarmed that a high U.N. official intervenes into the elections in the U.S. in this way. A great point.

The claim that there's a similarity between these 7+1 Western politicians on one side and Daesh on the other side is nothing else than a childish insult. They're similar because all of them do some politics. But so does this U.N. official. But the political values that these 7+1 Western politicians defend are very different – and perhaps diametrically opposite – to those defended by Daesh.
All seek in varying degrees to recover a past, halcyon and so pure in form, where sunlit fields are settled by peoples united by ethnicity or religion – living peacefully in isolation, pilots of their fate, free of crime, foreign influence and war. A past that most certainly, in reality, did not exist anywhere, ever. Europe’s past, as we all know, was for centuries anything but that.
The world and Europe has never been a perfect paradise. But most of the European countries were de facto free of the problems that are caused by the existence of whole communities from very different cultures, such as the Muslim communities.

Just an example. My country's history is often presented as a cruel one that has gone through all possible kinds of pain you can imagine. But this is just a one-sided tendentious distortion. The country was happily living in peace for many centuries, with a few exceptions that had a very limited impact on the civilians.

Those were doing fine in recent centuries. The fights of the First World War largely avoided us. Twenty years of democracy, humor, and music followed. The Nazi occupation was politically constraining and fatal for tens of thousands of Czechs in resistance but the bulk of the country continued in its productive peaceful life. The real war was really fought here for a few days in May 1945 only.

And the decades of peaceful communist stagnation followed afterwards. I don't want to review the history so let me get to the main point. The single-cultural paradise described by the official – the freedom from Islamic attacks and harassment by Muslims and their organization – has not only been real on our territory for more than one thousand years.

This paradise actually still exists in Czechia, despite the efforts of certain nasty people who would like to Islamize Czechia, too. People don't have to be afraid of listening to MP3 players, drawing funny caricatures of Prophet Mohammed and his virtual boss, occasionally showing themselves topless, drinking more beer per capita than any other nation in the world, smoking some marijuana when they feel it's a great time for it, and so on. An overwhelming majority of Czech women and men have never been harassed or groped by a Muslim or woken by a screaming from mosque or anything of the sort.

Czechia still is the real-world paradise that the particular Hussein tries to mock. Czechs only want to preserve this real-world paradise. And so do some other nations. Another group of nations in a different stage just wants to reverse several recent changes of demographics etc. that didn't seem to lead their countries in the right direction.
The proposition of recovering a supposedly perfect past is fiction; its merchants are cheats. Clever cheats.
Obviously, they're not cheats at all, I just proved it.
Populists use half-truths and oversimplification - the two scalpels of the arch propagandist, and here the internet and social media are a perfect rail for them, by reducing thought into the smallest packages: sound-bites; tweets. Paint half a picture in the mind of an anxious individual, exposed as they may be to economic hardship and through the media to the horrors of terrorism. Prop this picture up by some half-truth here and there and allow the natural prejudice of people to fill in the rest. Add drama, emphasising it’s all the fault of a clear-cut group, so the speakers lobbing this verbal artillery, and their followers, can feel somehow blameless.
There exist populists and numerous politicians and other people oversimplify and offer half-truths etc. But when it comes to the questions of our relationships with Islam, Geert Wilders and the other 7 politicians aren't examples of those fallacies. The threat of Islamization is very real, and so are the differences between the countries that were able to defend their Islam-free paradises so far and the countries that are already being "reshaped" to the new, heavily Islamized Balkans-style multicultural image.
The formula is therefore simple: make people, already nervous, feel terrible, and then emphasize it’s all because of a group, lying within, foreign and menacing. Then make your target audience feel good by offering up what is a fantasy to them, but a horrendous injustice to others. Inflame and quench, repeat many times over, until anxiety has been hardened into hatred.
Strange, it's the bureaucrat himself who admitted he was angry. At least in the countries where Islam is not a threat yet, people who want to preserve the paradise are generally happy, calm, and rational. They're terrified when they see pictures of some problems at some places of Western Europe. But let's admit, they also feel lucky and happy that it's not what they have to go through.

It's the U.N. bureaucrat who has admitted to be angry and who seems anxious but anger and anxiety are sometimes preventing one from sharply evaluating the reality.
Make no mistake, I certainly do not equate the actions of nationalist demagogues with those of Da’esh, which are monstrous, sickening; Da’esh must be brought to justice. But in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Da’esh uses tactics similar to those of the populists. And both sides of this equation benefit from each other – indeed would not expand in influence without each others’ actions.
Man, you don't equate Daesh with the Western politicians. You have only written a rant against one of these two political powers – and it wasn't Daesh. It is spectacularly clear that it is the anti-Islamic Western politicians and not Daesh that represent your actual main enemies. It is certainly no coincidence that your rant was directed against Geert Wilders and not e.g. against Al-Baghdadi. Your goals are basically aligned with those of Daesh. You also want the Islamization of Europe and/or other regions where Islam has no right to oxidize.
The humiliating racial and religious prejudice fanned by the likes of Mr Wilders has become in some countries municipal or even national policy. We hear of accelerating discrimination in workplaces.
Pretty much all groups of people sometimes behave imperfectly towards those who don't belong. I won't pretend that some of these groups are complete saints. But there's still a huge difference between the treatment of Muslims in Europe and the treatment of infidels in the Islamic countries etc. The very fact that this Jordanian bureaucrat has chosen the European society as his target proves that he is much closer to the beheading of women for their having consensual sex than to the defense of the European freedoms against those who would like to replace it with a cruel Medieval bigotry such as Islam.
Children are being shamed and shunned for their ethnic and religious origins – whatever their passports, they are told they are not “really” European, not “really” French, or British, or Hungarian. Entire communities are being smeared with suspicion of collusion with terrorists.
I am sorry but ethnic Arab children from mostly isolated ghettos with their mosques, imams, and calls to introduce the Sharia Law aren't really French, British, or Hungarian. There is no need to put the word really in between quotation marks. They are really not European in the primary or cultural sense of the word – in the very same sense in which a European atheist living in Saudi Arabia won't become a Muslim or Arab just because of the long years he spends there.

The European societies still guarantee certain rights to all these kids. When born in Europe, they are citizens with all the constitutional rights. But that can't change the fact that – especially if they keep on belonging to some Muslim subculture – their difference from their all-European compatriots remains self-evident and other Europeans may often take this difference into account.
History has perhaps taught Mr Wilders and his ilk how effectively xenophobia and bigotry can be weaponised. Communities will barricade themselves into fearful, hostile camps, with populists like them, and the extremists, as the commandants. The atmosphere will become thick with hate; at this point it can descend rapidly into colossal violence.
This is a completely silly caricature of the history. The defense against foreign countries or cultures or armies is often existentially needed and the leaders of this "xenophobia" are rightfully considered national heroes. For a nation, to ban all politicians or leaders who would be willing to defend the nation against the aggression or identity-changing influence by others would mean a collective suicide.

Needless to say, suicide is exactly what this Muslim wants Europe to commit.

Should we denounce Winston Churchill because he led the Britons in their fight against the Huns? Or because he loudly appreciated that Islam was the most retrograde force in the world? Well, I surely won't. Those are among the reasons why I consider him one of the most important politicians who worked in the decades a century ago or so.
We must pull back from this trajectory. My friends, are we doing enough to counter this cross-border bonding of demagogues? A decade ago, Geert Wilder’s manifesto and Cleveland speech would have created a world-wide furore. Now? Now, they are met with little more than a shrug, and, outside the Netherlands, his words and pernicious plans were barely noticed. Are we going to continue to stand by and watch this banalisation of bigotry, until it reaches its logical conclusion?
A decade ago, Wilders' comments were greeted with a shock – maybe sometimes even by people like me – because his assumptions seemed remote and implausible. Now, in 2016, basically all sensible Europeans who are capable of basic observations of the political reality see that he was basically right already a decade ago. Ideas that looked marginal, remote, or implausible define the mainstream today. He was basically right, most people think. That's why the attitude to his manifesto has changed!

The basic rules of the Western society prevent you from doing "enough" against folks like Geert Wilders and their political activity. Why? Because the basic rules of the Western society guarantee the freedom of expression as long as it doesn't violate any laws – and (almost?) nothing that folks like Wilders do is violating any laws. So if you – e.g. the U.N. bureaucrat – would "stop" him in some way, it would almost certainly mean that you have committed a crime.

It is the political activity meant to introduce a totalitarian system suppressing the human rights – such as the Islamist political activities – that is unwelcome according to the European traditions and illegal in numerous European countries. Wilders is OK in the Netherlands but you are not. Please don't try to demagogically turn these basic facts upside down.
Ultimately, it is the law that will safeguard our societies – human rights law, binding law which is the distillation of human experience, of generations of human suffering, the screams of the victims of past crimes and hate. We must guard this law passionately, and be guided by it.
Right. But in Europe, the law is not the Sharia Law. In Europe, just because some primitive brainwashed mobs believe in medieval stupidities such as Islam, doesn't give them the right to blackmail individual citizens of European countries such as Geert Wilders and many others.
Do not, my friends, be led by the deceiver. It is only by pursuing the entire truth, and acting wisely, that humanity can ever survive. So draw the line and speak. Speak out and up, speak the truth and do so compassionately, speak for your children, for those you care about, for the rights of all, and be sure to say clearly: stop! We will not be bullied by you the bully, nor fooled by you the deceiver, not again, no more; because we, not you, will steer our collective fate. And we, not you, will write and sculpt this coming century. Draw the line!
No lines will be drawn that would strip the Europeans from their basic rights that have been considered tenets of the European cultures for centuries. Speaking the truth is what the people chosen as targets by this bureaucrat do much of the time – and sometimes they bravely face the risk of being harassed by the Muslims and others.

It's crazy for this U.N. bully to complain about bullies, especially after he boasted to be a very powerful official elected by all the world's governments who must be Geert Wilders' nightmare. It is you, Mr Hussein, who is the ultimate bully. But we won't allow you to influence our countries or moralize. You have no credentials to do so. Maybe in the Netherlands, it's still normal for individuals like you to publicly blackmail the Dutch lawmakers. But if you gave the same speech here, be sure that the calls to deport or otherwise punish you would be very strong.

You're simply and clearly not coming as a friend of Europe. To a lesser extent but in the same qualitative sense as Daesh, you are our enemy.

No comments:

Post a Comment