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:
- 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 KatzAll Rights Reserved
- 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
Five Stages of Islamic Conquest
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.
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 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:
“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.
Your generosity is always appreciated:
Please Support NCCR
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 doescontain 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.
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.
 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.]