Those who follow European political affairs may already be familiar with “A Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance” (pdf available here), an OIC-approved framework proposal published by the European Parliament, which seems likely to be implemented across the EU. The proposed law would devise a draconian new form of politically correct “tolerance” and impose it on European citizens and institutions by establishing bureaucratic bodies with the authority to enforce it.
Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing
By Michael C. Schneider, Esq., Frankfurt am Main
Anyone who speaks and writes about the abrogation of freedom in Europe is accused of being a pathological conspiracy theorist. So it is advisable to be a little more specific, and name names.
The abrogation of freedom in Europe is not occurring naturally, but according to the planning of educated elites, who have been trained to replace civic freedoms — especially those of expression, of the press and of the airwaves — with ideological coercion, and thus smash civil society into microscopic shards, like valuable, defenseless porcelain.
Elites active in this endeavor have established themselves in all areas, including lead positions in science, for instance, the very renowned scholar, Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. Rüdiger Wolfrum, professor emeritus and one of the directors of the Max Planck Institute on foreign public law and international law in Heidelberg.
Born 1941, study of law in Bonn and Tübingen, doctorate in 1973, post-doctoral qualification (Habilitation) in 1980, professor since 1982, from 1990 on member for several years of the UN commission against racial discrimination, since 1993 director of the Max Planck Institute, showered with countless honors and memberships. This honorable person is also in a dubious think tank, “The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation” about which one may find relevant information on the homepage of the president of “The European Jewish Congress ” (EJC), Viacheslav Moshe Kantor. Among other things are those documents which describe the political intentions of the think tank.
A substantial find: A Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance is a political manifesto on the transformation of nations of the EU and beyond, compiled by, among others, Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing, under the aegis of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation.
The basic consideration of the document as read are attractive and allow no suspicion to arise — that is if you do not know what EU political-speak means — for instance, “human diversity” standing for the systematic destruction of the autochthonic population and its traditional canon of values. Whereas respect for human dignity is based on recognition of human diversity and the inherent right of every person to be different, etc.
All possible groups are supposed to be protected by this concept of tolerance — just not the majority population. With this policy, minorities are purposefully advanced at the cost of majority cohesion. This splits the society, thereby controlling it better and leading to the final goal. This becomes visible in the typical, EU-wide concept of the protected minority, which is inherently aimed at splitting the society — divide et impera: “Group” is a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linguistic links, sexual identity or orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature. This unlimited “definition” makes it possible to inflate “tolerance” for any social interest or ideological motif to a fighting phrase and deploy it as a universal weapon against possible dissidents.
Undesirable behavior, too, is defined so broadly that freedom of expression, the press, radio, television, art and science and any other communicative freedom can be flushed down the toilet with a loud whooshing sound. It shall be prohibited to make any possibly discriminatory comment against any group against which there may be discrimination — “Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) — or members thereof — with a view to inciting to violence, insulting the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges. Under such a totalitarian regime as planned here, Mohammed cartoons are just as unthinkable as are objective, scientific observations on any group having to do with its intelligence, its other genetic endowments, its behavior (unless it is described unreservedly positively) for instance, cumulatively occurring deviant or criminal behavior, etc. Even someone who reports that a group of sixty took part in the attack on a German police officer, and none of them was an ethnic German, can thus become a serious criminal. Warning: the persecution of the police officer is not the crime, but the politically incorrect report on it.
It seems almost a question of taste whether to call a regime like the one Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing is planning fascist, Stalinist or just plain totalitarian, but its essence is Orwellian. That is to say, what may be thought, and how, is decreed, and since the boundaries of my speech are the boundaries of my world (Wittgenstein), reality itself is thereby defined beyond reality, and regarding this reality as doublethink is strictly forbidden.
Wolfrum has good connections in the Islamic world. Wikipedia writes, “He is presently training the high judges in Afghanistan and Sudan.”
So if you do not want to be crucified by jihadist fanatics but only by the federal president with The Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, then your tolerance must take the form of latent Islamophilia.
More on the text: For dummies, the draft is accompanied by explanations intended to show its effect in examples — This definition covers “blood libels” and anti-Semitic slurs as well as allegations that, e.g., “gypsies are thieves” or “Moslems are terrorists.”
For Islam explicators in a free, enlightened and scientifically thinking civilization, it is clear that this is meant to impede a measured treatment of the problematics of Islam. And to do so in such a way that any well-founded generalization is branded as criminal stereotyping and will usher the participants in this discussion out of the auditorium and into the jail cell.
To appease the critics, the unavoidable effect of the plan — splitting and ultimately destroying societies through the disproportionate demands of minorities who are impossible or difficult or unwilling to integrate — is concealed in an implausible formula: Promote tolerance within society without weakening the common bonds tying together a single society.
The nations addressed are expected to model future legislation on the goals of the paper, which are in no way inferior to the insipid, naive and unreflective sermons of the petit bourgeois Freemason lodges full of complacent business people, whose creeping dictatorship of tolerance has already taken such a toll on our free, uninhibited and liberal culture of discussion.
The nations of Europe are expected to take specific legislative steps to elevate the goals of the paper to valid law — Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.
Clarifications that dot the paper leave no doubt of its political thrust: religious intolerance is understood to cover Islamophobia.
The paper is directed not only at executive and legislative bodies or the administration but — as always with totalitarianism — at Everyman. Since the “party” is always right, it is unthinkable that anyone in any walk of life could flee its doctrinal claim of validity. It is important to stress that tolerance must be practised not only by Governmental bodies but equally by individuals, including members of one group vis-à-vis another. So the dissident is confronted not only by the law, but also by custom, morality and social ethos. He does not belong, because he is not “tolerant.”
Naturally, it is within the power of a director of a well-equipped Max Planck Institute to bring dissertations and habilitation papers by the dozen onto the path, and the obedient student authors to influential professorial chairs. And so the cheesy tolerance sermon becomes an obligatory citation in the appropriate quotation pantheon and in one or two decades is confirmed as the dominant opinion in jurisprudence. The highest legal judgment is decisively shaped by this, even if one or the other student is not tactically placed in a high judicial position, whence he can combat Islamophobia by declaring with legal force that it is hate speech and slander of religious beliefs. A Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing must not be underestimated. A believer in an ideology sitting at the crucial switch point of the legal system can alter the whole country according to his own thinking, by swimming along with the zeitgeist and honing its intention to an absurd point, so that everything fits together.
Constitutional law as the basis of horizontal legal relationships among citizens must also be made to fit — for instance the laws governing work and rental. If you believe you have the right to refuse employment or residence to a terrorist-sympathizing Salafist, you have another think coming — it is the obligation of the Government to ensure that intolerance is not practiced either in vertical or in horizontal relationships. Which means that you must continue to employ someone who is constantly rolling out his prayer rug instead of working, and you may not resist when the occupant of the space you rented out as a residence becomes a muezzin by legal attack on the rental restrictions, and the proprietor’s flexible tonality in the execution of his profession drives away the other 29 tenants of your 30-residence building so that you can no longer make payments on your loans. The expansion of tolerance in your house must be worth a little private bankruptcy.
The right to be a demographic bomb must also be expressly confirmed: right to acquire nationality based on birth or long-term residence.
The tolerant configuration of education avoids the threat of integration or assimilation, thus assuring social splintering: freedom of education in the language of the group, as well as in accordance with its religious and cultural traditions.
The liberal, bourgeois concept of freedom ends at the point where someone could feel discriminated against, in which case, protection against discrimination replaces the liberal, civil concept of freedom with the state compulsion of an anti-bourgeois, illiberal concept: freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.
The paper expressly confirms that all possible minorities — no more exactly defined — will be inflated to holders of special rights, so that the general principle of equality is destabilized and the state may favor certain groups as it pleases, thus logically disadvantaging the normal, autochthonic population — members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, in addition to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State.
The implementation of the universal obligation of tolerance toward everyone and anyone must accompany the creation of a pertinent authority — the building up and not the de-constructing of bureaucracy is, after all, the most important goal of the EU and comparable transnational entities: a special administrative unit in order to supervise the implementation of this Statute […] where no such body exists, it has to be set up. Ultimately, the state is not there for the person, but the person for the state, as totalitarians have always known in a specific Aristotelian interpretation (zoon politikon — the person as a “political organism”).
Of course, it is important that tolerance supervisory boards be above democratic monitoring, because they are on a quasi-equal footing with national administration and are composed of the same oxygen-deprived air as administrative, party, union, church, synagogue, mosque and other bodies representative of the establishment: a National Tolerance Monitoring Commission as an independent body — composed of eminent persons from outside the civil service — vested with the authority to promote tolerance […] external to the Government, acting independently (not unlike a special Ombudsman). The concept “civil service” is to be understood very broadly.
The paper is really gripping in section 7 about penological implementation of ideological guidelines — the following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes.
It shall be punishable to utter an accurate but undesirable comment about any group in the population, however defined — Group libel as defined in Section 1(b) — so, since practically everyone belongs to some group that can be defined as threatened, e.g., as a woman, a short-sighted person or a person with bad teeth and therefore handicapped, as a happy drunk and therefore as an alcoholic, as an adherent of any belief that is less than 50% of the population and is therefore a minority — which in fact is true of all faiths — then any comment about any person is potentially criminally liable.
All that is needed then is a mob of reporters demanding punishment, a politically correct prosecutor and a politically correct judge and “tolerance” will be intolerantly enforced.
That is how Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing is bringing Orwellian conditions down on us.
As a proven legal thinker, he is not doing this by mistake but with malice aforethought and out of deepest conviction.
We should all hold compulsory membership in the lodge of universal tolerance, voluntary or unwilling, and without exception. Anyone who does not play along will be punished. Anyone who doubts is a criminal. Anyone who thinks is a criminal — a thought criminal.
It is important that even at the level of juvenile criminal law, future thought-criminals are targeted, in the best North Korean style, and put into a re-education camp: juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.
Of course. it must be established that such a political persecution is not aimed at “political” perpetrators, but completely ordinary criminals: crimes listed in paragraph (a) will not be considered political offences for purposes of extradition.
And it is understood that taxpayers must bear all costs which accrue to Salafists from defending themselves legally against the surging, despicable intolerance of society, for instance, police excesses which are standard because there had been individual incidents with forbidden objects: free legal aid will be offered to victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a), irrespective of qualification in terms of impecuniosity.
Naturally, the indoctrination of children in surroundings specifically created for the purpose cannot begin too soon: schools, from the primary level upwards, will introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity and promoting a climate of tolerance as regards the qualities and cultures of others […] it is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational programme […] up to and including universities. This applies to the gender agenda already at work all across Europe, according to which heterosexual men, homosexual (gay) men, bisexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual (lesbian) women, bisexual women, transsexual men with heterosexual tendency as New-Woman, etc. — infinite new sexual identities and orientations, like the much-discussed intersexuality — are lived and preached. The mathematical task for coming generations — if calculation to powers is still used — will consist of calculating the possible combinations (at the moment it could be at least 512), regardless of whether this negatively affects their power or makes them unstable in it. In the end, it is more difficult to find your way in this underbrush than simply to be a “boy” or a “girl.” These concepts, according to the agenda, will be criminal and will soon be forbidden. From kindergarten on, anyone who wishes to integrate politically correctly will have to be at the very least a “goy” or a “birl.”
Wolfram in Sheep’s Clothing and his stooges are convinced that the military and the police — breeding grounds of the worst machismo — must be ideologically fumigated — courses will be incorporated in the training of those serving in the military and law enforcement agencies.
That is not all. Your employer may soon invite you to some compulsory courses to learn not to say “Negro” any more, but “Afro-German,” no more “Gypsy” but “Sinto” or “Roma” (Rats! You don’t know the difference!), and no more “Mohammedan” but “True Believer” — training must be made available as part of continuing adult education. For this re-education to work consistently, effectively and efficiently, you will have to forgo 20 years’ worth of vacation and Christmas pay, and raises in salary you have been dreaming about in your youthful fantasies, because your boss will need every available penny to pay the imams and Roma kings a proper docent’s fee so that you can finally learn to act with tolerance.
And the primary goal of the re-education is the court itself. Judges, prosecutors administrative officers are not yet 100% in line — just 99 %. There is still that invisible Gallic village[1] of 1% of the jurists who have retained deep within them an impregnable fortress of common sense. This fortress must be ground down: it is especially important to ensure advanced professional training of lawyers (including judges and criminal justice personnel), administrators, police officers, doctors, etc.
A new job description is created. Now the master of every Freemason lodge[2] is a barren, anti-intellectual leisure-time apostle of tolerance, who instructs humanity to believe that everything is good, even the opposite. The apostle/evangelist of tolerance has a full-fledged professional position with a regulated professional track — instructors will be trained in a manner qualifying them to meet the needs.
And of course, the media, seduced by subsidies — possibly in the billions — will push the total tolerance agenda across Europe (with the possible exception of Hungary) — the production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes — promoting a climate of tolerance — will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.
If the carrot does not work, the stick will help. A media codex will so firmly fold up incorrect sheets like Junge Freiheit or Weltwoche that they will never open up again, in order to…ban the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a media complaints commission.
The mainstream media will be able officially to censor the smaller resistance publications, as guaranteed by the composition of the commission — it has to be set up by — and report to — the media themselves, rather than the Government.
The free internet will be gone in short order. That too will be assured by enacting the Wolfrum papers, because…initiatives to bring about a legal regulation of cyberspace are currently debated in a wider context…and we all can imagine what that means. Since some servers can also exist outside the slave-holding EU, an appropriate regulation will be pushed through the UN and the last free servers — like the one that hosts PI — will soon be turned off. Whatever reports you like from PI, download them now and print them out, so that you can remember them when the server is silenced and your guide to the future is purged of all evil content.
That is the brave new world that Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing dreams of nightly. No thank you, we don’t want to know where his hands are when he dreams. Are you dreaming along? On my last flight with Lufthansa, I swiped a lot of barf bags. They are on my nightstand, for when the nightmares of Wolfrum and his consorts come to me.
Thousands of newly arrived migrants, the vast majority of whom are men, crowd the platforms at Vienna West Railway Station on August 15, 2015 — a common scene in the summer and fall of 2015. (Image source: Bwag/Wikimedia Commons)
Lars Hedegaard was acquitted by the Danish Supreme Court in 2012 on charges of “hate speech” for critical comments he made about Islam.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments