Freedom of Speech or Political Correctness?

· Islam
Authors

Freedom of Speech or Political Correctness?

Time and time again when discussing culture or religion there are many who insist that discussing the “politics of Islam” means that you are automatically an “Islamophobe” or a “HATE MONGER.” Even when one quotes for Islamic religious text to illustrate the ideology of Islam, we are accused of “pick-and-Choose” our selection to show Islam in a bad light. But do those who are “apologists for Islam” do they know what they are talking about or are they simply playing into the hands of Islam by silencing any critical discussion of Islam. Is that not curbing “The Freedom of Free Speech” when it is all right to criticise the immoral Christians or the Zionists for their views but not Islam?

What I would like to know is that do people prefer to live in a world of, “Political Correctness” and never want to know the truth of any ideologies or is it through ignorance that they take this stance and that a lot of other readers could benefit by being exposed to all points of view of a religion short of slandering it? Many people get uncomfortable learning the truth and attack the messenger (ad hominem) without being able to rebut the points of the argument because they are ignorant of the facts.  The Universal acceptance of “the Freedom of Speech” should protect those speaking the truth. But is that what the site wants?

What does this site want? Most sites, including their Moderators, get uncomfortable with heated controversy. But should we bury the truth because the truth upsets the sensitivities of a few people. Many people want to silence Geert Wilders, the Dutch Politician, because he speaks the truth, but others feel it is time the world knows the whole truth instead of burying their heads in the sand of “political Correctness” imposed upon Europe and the world by the Arabs on the European Union through blackmail – Oil. Read Eurabia by Bat Ye’or.

The Imposition of Islamic Political Correctness on the European Union and the World

A survey of the Cause and Effect

After WWII, France, as with all other European colonial nations, lost control of all her colonies as signatories of the Atlantic Charter. After brooding 15 years over the insults he suffered from Roosevelt and Churchill, De Gaulle came up with his conception of a unified Europe, headed by France and Germany.  France realised that “to counter the dominance of America,” and to regain her former glory, it was necessary to counter America with “a unified Europe” coupled with the power and resources of the Arabs in order to form a “European bloc.” This bloc, De Gaulle perceived, would require a new “close alliance with the Arab nations” of the Middle East, unparalleled in European history.

Creation of the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD)

When De Gaulle returned to power in 1958 France continued to maintain the pro-Israel socialist government policy from the mid-1050’s. In fact, when De Gaulle received Israel’s Prime Minister David Ben Gurion at the Elysee he called Israel, “notre ami et notre allie” (our friend and ally).

However, when Algeria gained its independence in 1962 (4 years later), De Gaulle set out to reorient France’s policy toward the Arab/Islamic world. He pursued economic and strategic long-range planning designed to unite the European and Arab countries, on both sides of the Mediterranean, into a single, interdependent economic bloc that could oppose America.

However, ever since the mid-nineteenth century, France had already adopted an Islamophile orientation determined by her greater and greater influence of France’s Arab-Muslim empire in Africa and the Middle East.[See Appendix 14 for “France’s Islamic Empire.”] [4 p.40]

From 1880’s Paris had been one of the most anti-Semitic cities in Europe, competing with Vienna, a tendency that led the Vichy government to collaborate fully with Nazi and Arab anti-Jewish racism. France’s pro-Arab policy necessitated for France to adopt a stronger anti-Semitic attitude and national policy. This naturally led to an anti-American stance since America stood by Israel. [4 p.40]

Influential French intellectuals and politicians urged the government to adopt a coherent policy toward the Muslim world. Pierre Lyautey, a nephew of Marshall Lyautey, the first French governor of Morocco championed a Franco-Muslim Association. In May 1962 he said,

A French Islamic policy carried out together with the new Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, perhaps linked tomorrow with a North African federation, and with the states of the Middle East, would bring us a prestige which would impress the United States and the USSR.”

De Gaulle shared with his collaborators his wish to build a community with all the Mediterranean countries, different from the American model. This French- Arab policy coalesced with De Gaulle’s greatest ambition, the creation of a unified Europe whose centrepiece was an unprecedented rapprochement between two traditional enemies, France and what was then West Germany.

The Treaty of Paris 1951

In 1951, these two countries (France: Pres.Felix Gouin adopting De Gaulle’s policies & W.Germany: Conrad Adenauer,) along with Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, signed The Treaty of Paris.

This Treaty formed the initial basis for an economic European community (EEC); the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). In 1957, these same countries signed the treaties of Rome, founding the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM),which aimed at economic integration in Europe. De Gaulle, angry with Britain’s close links with America, rejected Britain’s application in 1961 and 1967. [4.p41]

France’s hostility towards America and Britain may have appear inexplicable especially when these countries liberated France from Nazism at great cost of lives, but De Gaulle could not ignore the humiliation he felt when he was excluded from decisions on “Operation Overlord” and also from the decision making meetings of the leaders concerning the future of Europe after the war at the Yalta Conference.  De Gaulle felt snubbed and brooded over it.

On November 27th, 1967, De Gaulle announced that French-Arab collaboration would be a fundamental element in French politics.

Naturally, De Gaulle had already put out feelers and already had a positive feed-back and had laid the foundations for this collaboration. Following the announcement, the French then openly took a hostile attitude towards Israel (and America) to impress the Arabs of his sincerity. And thus “began the demonising of Israel and America.” Americans have often wondered and asked why the world hates America since WWII. It should now be obvious that the machinery behind this demonising of America (and Israel) emanated from France’s desire to convince that France was sincere in her support for the Arabs and their culture. And it was the payback time for the slights America (and Britain) did to De Gaulle during WWII including stripping France of all her colonies.

It is important to note that the 2 principle factors that induced the Arabs to accept De Gaulle’s overtures for cooperation were the Arab’s perception of the:

(1) Convergence of France’s, (De Gaulle’s) continuance of the French Vichy anti-Semitism with the Arab obsession to “destroy Israel” and

(2) The French paranoid anti-Americanism born out of France’s frustrations of world power ambitions as a result of American policies, coincided with the Arab perception that “America and Israel were inextricably linked together and were mortal enemies of Islam.”

The Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples”


This conference was held in January, 1969 in Cairo. The chief object of this conference was to demonstrate “European hostility towards Zionism and show solidarity with the Arab Population of Palestine.*” The conference stressed:

“that all information media should be mobilised to enlighten world public opinion, kept in ignorance and confusion by deceitful propaganda on the part of Israel and its supporters.”

It is an incumbent moral and political duty” of all participants of this conference to reveal the truth and spread it through the press, the radio, television, demonstrations, visits of delegations, and the organisation of seminars and conferences in the West and through all continents.”

Resolution 15*: “The conference decided to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform for promoting support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.”
Resolution 22*: Representatives will organize, on return from the conference, special meetings and publications, and utilize the press, radio, and television media to popularize the conference’s decisions in the most appropriate way for each individual country.
[Not only were the Arabs determined to force the new European partners to demonise the Israelis and Americans, but also to force them to accept the legitimacy of the Palestinian peoples, that was a newly created *political identity since 1945, and to support their demands for their territorial demands, that also was non-existent before 1945. United States cannot claim not to have been aware of the decisions taken at these meetings as they were represented there.]
Of the 54 members of the conference,43 were from Europe, i.e., France, East Germany, England, Italy, Belgium and Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Poland, and Hungary, and Chile, and the United States. [Appendix 4] [4.p44]

The Yom Kippur War-1973

The Arabs were not slow to press their advantage, realising that Europe needed them as a partner to counter-balance America a sworn ally of Israel.

So after the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Arabs declared a oil boycott against all European nations that had close ties or supported Israel. After 21 days after the start of the war, the “European Community” of nine *countries (Belgium, France, West Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Britain, Denmark & Ireland.)  “recognised the rights of “the Palestinians” to participate in political negotiations and demanded Israel’s return to the armistice lines of 1949,thus diverging from UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1967 and still the basis of a negotiated settlement. [Appendix 13]

The Arabs now knew that the trump cards were now in their hands, and they would take full advantage of it. *

(1)The Palestinians were formally recognised as a political body “for the first time by the EU in 1973.” Arab political pressure worked, creating an non-existent entity into one with International status recognised by the Western nations in Europe. This strengthened the Arab belief that Allah was the greatest.

(2) Supporters of Israel (America & Britain) were considered enemies of the Arab nations was clearly understood. Hence the EU appeasement to the Arabs regarding Palestine was necessary, if the EU hoped to be influential with the Arab nations. This proved the EU bowed under pressure and appeased  Arab determination to eliminate Israel their arch enemy from the time of Muhammad in the 7th century.

France and Germany Requested Official Dialogue with Arab Leaders-1973


After Europe capitulated, and the Oil Boycott of Europe ended “the French and German governments requested Arab leaders to enter into an official dialogue with European leaders to cement a stronger understanding and  a solid relationship between them.” This heralded the “birth of the EAD,” the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and the capitulation to Islam in every aspect of European political and cultural life. It was a case of the “tail wagging the dog.”



The Arabs agreed to a cooperation, but it was “conditional” that the Europeans accepted a unified foreign policy “in synchrony with the interests of the Arab states.” With such an agreement, we can appreciate why Europe has always appeared to toe the Arab line. The Arabs now call the tune  on issues of Palestinian-Israeli issues and Europe cannot ignore them any longer. This is an important aspect,  when we wonder why France and Germany and the rest of the European Union appear  submissive to Arab demands. The European Union have already conceded to the  most important Arab demands, i.e.,” to accept Arabic culture and philosophy as part of European culture, i.e., acceptance of the Islamic faith in Europe. Is it a price worth paying because Islam is displacing the Christian culture faster than anyone could have anticipated?”
Having established the institutions of an European-Arab Dialogue, “recognised and ratified by the European Union, the Arabs lost no time in ensuring that the interests of the Arabs was firmly established in Europe.

The ensuing body will be referred to as the “Euro-Arab Dialogue, EAB,” and its purpose was to bring together the two shores of the Mediterranean with the interests of the Arab world “fully appreciated and accepted in European society.” It was to be the start of a “fusion of an Arab-European culture,” acceptable on both sides of the Mediterranean. It was meant to homogenise the culture, politics, economies and policies between the two shores. It would no longer represent a European body politic culture, but a culture of Eurabia. But could it be as simple as that? Because it is difficult not to realise that the two cultures are immiscible.

Most Europeans, man-in-the-street, (that includes British as well as those outside Europe) are still largely not aware of this European inclusion of the Arab culture within the European culture and included in the European Union policies. “The Arab hatred of Israel “(and thereby Israel’s supporter, America)  was introduced into the European psyche through this EAD influence.  The influence of the EAD has been carefully planned and instituted into many sectors of society, including all educational institutions of learning from the lowest to University levels, it controls the European media, political organisations, the publications of literature, European foreign policy, and even NATO.Through the influence of the EAD, “political correctness regarding Islamic sensitivities was and is observed, but  Freedom of Speech has been tilted and censorship is practised to protect Islam. Jihadist values are tolerated and terrorism is never associated with Islam but with some obscure tiny minority of extremists, and never with orthodox Islam. That is why no one has officially denounced Islamic terrorism as such.  Islam is never to blame for any atrocities but is always the victim of any conflict or aggression. European leaders continue to appease the Arabs and allow such absurd statements to go unchallenged.” Meanwhile, as part of creating a better understanding between the two peoples, and as part of the friendship agreement, “it was decided to allow a free flow of Arab(Muslim) immigrants into the West so as to better introduce their culture and their religion to the West.” This allowed millions of Arabs seeking better standards of living through the generous social welfare benefits handed out by EU countries to immigrants.  Arabs usually  arrived with large families. This eased the burden on their original nations but burdened the host nations and caused resentments among the local citizens. Most Arabs arrive expecting and receive such social welfare benefits immediately, even depriving the native population of their rights like housing and jobs by jumping the queue. Yet unknown to most native (EU) citizens, all this was surreptitiously agreed upon by the EU with the Arabs. The European Union allowed these Arab immigrants full access to our Social Welfare system yet were non-contributors because of “the unheralded diplomatic agreements” through the EAD. This silent and unrestricted immigrant Arab invasion has been responsible for the huge surge of the immigrant Muslim population growing at an alarming rate. [3] [4]

Solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance Movement-1970

The primary objective of the Arabs was to eliminate Judaism in the Arabian Peninsular. The secondary objective, gifted to them by the French and Germans, was to alter European attitudes, alienation and perception of the Arab/Islamic culture. But little did Europe suspect that this secondary objective was to cause them insurmountable conflicts and problems for the future.

So powerful was this movement triggered by the Cairo conference of 1970, proclaiming,

“Solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance and the Arab peoples”

throughout Europe as well as at the United Nations when a Committee on “the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” was set up. Unbelievably members of many European groups joined a left-wing Catholic group called Temoignage Chretien (Christian Witness) in several anti-Israel demonstrations. Georges Montaron, its director had played a vital role in the Cairo Conference’s French delegation. He organised the World Conference of Christians for Palestine (WCCP). WCCP opened in Beirut on May7, 1970 by the Christian President of Lebanon, Charles Helon. Two thousand people from 37 countries assembled. The organizers of the conference rejoiced at the ecumenical nature of the meeting.

The Geneva bulletin of the League of Arab States recognised that the WCCP had a considerable impact on the Christian population in the West. One of the aims of the WCCP was to inform Christians around the world about the plight of the Palestinians. The Arab League’s Bulletin stated that the Middle Eastern Christian were “anxious to bring to their brothers in the West and in Eastern Europe, a testimony not only of their solidarity, but also of their identity with the Arab peoples of the region with whom they form an integral part.” For the Arab League, it was also a major victory for unity between Muslims and Christian Arabs, and for Arab solidarity in general especially in supporting the Palestinian claims in Palestine and Jerusalem.

But in reality, cracks were already appearing in this solidarity. Eastern Christians opposed anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on principle, and never accepted the basic premises of the WCCP.  In April 1969 clashes began between the Lebanese Army and the PLO in southern Lebanon and in a few years the PLO managed to destroy Lebanon in 1970. Bashir Gemayel, Lebanon’s president elect  denounced the tragic fraud imposed upon his country in the name of Arab solidarity. When he appealed for help to European politicians and the Western Churches it was in vain, as they were already backing Lebanon’s enemies in their common war against Israel. [4.p46]

The West is Blackmailed by Oil Embargo of 1973

Socked by the total Arab defeat of the Egyptian-Syrian war against Israel in October, 1973 the Arab oil-producing countries met in Kuwait on October 16-17 and decided unilaterally to quadruple the price of oil and to reduce their production of crude oil by 5% each month, until Israel withdrew from the territories that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan lost in the  1967 Six Day War which they failed to recover in 1973.

More ominously they imposed an embargo on oil deliveries to the countries that they considered friendly to Israel: the United States, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

Qaddafi said, “We will do like Samson, we will destroy the temple with all its occupants, including ourselves.”

King Faisal of Saudi Arabia declared, “There will not be any softening or compromise except if our demands are met without conditions……. in no circumstances would we abandon Arab Jerusalem.”
Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi’s oil minister, threatened that the oil-production countries could “reduce production by 80%. How could you survive with that?”
Thus, unable to annihilate Israel militarily, the Arabs used the oil threat as a weapon to coerce the West to support their war, despite the fact that they were totally dependent on the West for their industrial development, foodstuffs, and any modernization that was taking place in their countries. Western nations responded to this threat from a united Arab front in divergent ways. America, on the one hand stood firm and disregarded the Arab threats. But France and Germany panicked. Throughout the oil crisis France was careful to maintain good relations with the Arab leaders, even the most radical – such as the Saudi, Algerian, Syrian, and Iraqi leaders. The French even established semi official relation with the PLO at this time and renewed a unilateral embargo on arms sales to Israel.
Ignoring Washington’s objections, the EEC insisted on making an approach to the oil-producing countries. The nine countries of the EEC met in Brussels on November 6, 1973, and issued a joint Resolution based on their dependence on Arab Oil. [4.p47-8]

EEC Resolution of Brussels, November 6, 1973

The following resolutions were added:
(1) the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force, already stated by UN Security Council’s Resolution 242;
(2) that Israel must withdraw to the armistice lines of 1949;
(3) That “the legitimate rights of the Palestinians” must be included in any definition of peace for the Middle East. [4.p48]

This clearly shows that the European Community have agreeably colluded with the Arabs against Israel and supporting the creation of the “Palestinian people” ex nihilo and giving it legitimacy.

(The above clearly shows how the European Union capitulated to the total demands of the Arab Muslims in observing “political correctness” to the point of absurdity and personal ethics.)

[The above is an extract from, “Dar es-Salaam (Dar al-Islam)-Post WWII (Pt 2 of 3)” URL:

https://mbplee.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=384&action=edit&message=1   ]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: