Saturday, April 19, 2008

Addendum to "Stability through Equilibrium"

<<< Back to original article by Dr Sam Holliday

This paper outlines the reasoning behind the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE), as presented in the essay of that name dated 30 March 2008. It is suggested that StE is more useful for decision makers than the Hegelian dialectic. However, StE certainly cannot replace Hegel’s philosophy. This article is only an attempt to answer legitimate philosophical questions that those familiar with the views of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) might ask.

Hegel was one of the thinkers of German Idealism that challenged Enlightenment thought of the 17th and 18th centuries. If you ignore the tendency of philosophy to slight the virtues of faith, duty, and group identity in favor of reason and thinking, there is much to be learned from German Idealism of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries in general, and from Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in particular. Kant attempted to counter the excesses of the French Enlightenment of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries: Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755), and Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire (1694-1778). He also attempted to counter the extreme anti-rational collectivist views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).

Kant’s aim was to provide a balance between belief and science, to have both religion and reason, and to prevent feelings and skepticism from causing extremes. Kant realized that how people think about God shapes how they related to others and how they make decisions. He wanted the benefits of the reason, science, technology, and individualism of the Enlightenment and also to prevent a fragmented, godless, passionless, amoral society. He wanted what we now call modernism. However, Hegel and Johann Fichte (1762-1814) corrupted Kant’s thoughts. And then others corrupted Hegel’s thoughts: Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). The outcome is today’s postmodern thought.

To understand how German Idealism has been corrupted it is necessary to outline Kant views. Kant argued that people are both controlled and control themselves--that both internal will (volition) and external knowing (cognition) influence the actions of individuals. He conceptualized a duality: unique idiosyncratic individuals with Free Will and members of many groups each having norms, constraints, roles, rules and standards. This established a sound basis for decision-making. And when combined with the ideas of the Enlightenment this was the intellectual basis for the modern era of Western Culture (1715-1965).

Kant’s views were not deterministic since he gave greater importance to the inner compass and will of individuals than to external controls. For Kant the will (volition) of individuals is something that can be observed (man is a phenomenon) since will is the cause of behavior. “We learn,” according to Kant, “what this empirical character is only from phenomenal effects and from the rule of these which is presented by experience.” (Kant, Pure Reason, 1901, p. 309) For Kant, behavior results from the interaction of will and desire (optative). “All the matter of practical rules rests on subjective conditions, which give them only a conditional universality (in case I desire this or that, what I must do in order to obtain it), and they all turn on the principle of private happiness.” (Kant, Practical Reason, 1909, p. 123). In other words, for individuals freedom is a prerequisite for autonomy.

Accordingly Kant establishes two causes for action. One is experience and the other is an individual’s inner compass. Experience is external to individuals and controls choice and behavior as a result of group norms, rules, roles and laws that can be social, commercial, or governmental. Ancient Greek thinkers (Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle) referred to such external controls as secular authority. Today secular authority is often called “the rule of law”. Moral, ethical and religious belief interacting with will provides the internal controls of choice and behavior. The ancient Greeks referred to this as sacred authority. For Kant it is not either secular authority or sacred authority, it is both—as parts of a whole. For him there was no direct cause and effect relationship. Control and choice were the results of knowledge (cognition), experience, self-interest (desire), and will. “Complete unity, in conformity with aims, constitutes absolute perfection.” (Kant, Pure Reason, p. 389). In other words, Kant claims that the goal is not the superiority of anything over other things, but an equilibrium that resulted in stability.

Reason, according to Kant, cannot be explained solely in terms of mental operations on sensation data. This contrasted with Schopenhauer “form and rules for thinking operations” (Schopenhauer, Sufficient Reason, 1891, p. 136). Kant introduced control through a “mere idea” that lies “beyond the sphere of possible experience…. if we desire to see, not only those objects which lie before us, but those which are at a great distance behind us; that is to say, when, in the present case, we direct the aims of the understanding, beyond every given experience, towards an extension as great as can possibly be attained.” (Kant, Pure Reason, 1901, p200)

However, Kant did visualize an end as a result of conflict/cooperation, i.e. he had a teleological vision. This was one of the reasons many of the outcomes of German Idealism have been so tragic.
One of the advantages of the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is that it made it unnecessary to engage in philosophical arguments over the meaning of reason, reality, skepticism, subjectivism, objectivity, metaphysics, epistemology, rationality, phenomena, noumenal, competence, necessity, and universality.

Hegel presented his views as a refinement of Kant’s views. However, his writing and the lecture notes of his students are confusing. Since Hegel’s death, in 1831, very different, and contradictory, movements have claimed his philosophy as their inspiration. Perhaps this is because his writing is so obtuse, abstract, and unintelligible it can mean many things to many people. However, all of these movements have adopted his theory of dialectic, his glorification of centralized governance, and his vision of progress as endless unfolding motion and turmoil toward some Utopia.

Hegel’s glorification of the state results in him claiming that the citizen’s life and property should be used to further state ends, and that the state was a “higher being.” Individual freedom was turned upside down by the unique view that “Only that which obeys law is free.” This created an association between the dialectic and “rule of law.” The adversarial approach used by lawyers is essentially the process of a thesis being challenged by an antithesis resulting in a solution through a synthesis. Secular authority (the rule of law) is one way to control behavior. That is it specifies certain kinds of human conduct that is no longer optional, and is in some sense obligatory. Law, and the legal procedures to enforce compliance, is the way someone specifies what others should do and specifies the unpleasant consequences if they refuse.

Also Hegel’s glorification of the state diminished the importance of sacred authority. Sacred authority is another way to control behavior. It provides an inner compass to individuals (from moral, ethical or religious belief), which imposes obligations and withdraws certain behavior from the free option of individuals. Therefore, through reliance on the procedures and processes of legal systems and through ignoring sacred authority, postmodern thought shows its Hegelian origin.

Hegel's romantic vision of all-powerful central governance and a Utopian “World Spirit” had little impact on the English liberalism of David Hume (1711-1776), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mills (1806-1873) in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, both English liberalism and the hierarchy of knowledge have influenced postmodern thought in the 20th century. Nevertheless, Hegel’s views are the foundation of postmodern thought in Europe and America today.

Modernism refers to the progressive economic and administrative rationalization and differentiation of societies that evolved in Europe from 1500 to 1914. It was built on the ideas of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), John Locke (1632-1704), and Isaac Newton (1642-1727). The result was the modern era of Western Culture from 1715 until 1965. The fundamental aspects of modernism (belief, group identity, loyalty, and science) are means developed during this period to achieve order and prevent chaos. Modernism evolved from Hebrew-Christian, Greco-Roman, and Germanic roots and the striking cultural growth during the European Renaissance. The ensuing three hundred year struggle between belief (accepted thoughts) and science resulted in significant advances in both science and theology. Today science is given credit for most of this progress.

After the death of Louis XIV in 1715 the Old Regime in France failed to make the adjustments needed to reflect the struggles between belief and science during the Age of Reason (18th century). This was the start of the modern era. During this evolution of Western Culture change was commonplace and repeatedly some ‘answers’ proved to be no solution at all, while the dignity and creativity of the individual grew rapidly. By the early 19th century that struggle had profoundly weakened the influence of religion on shared civic virtues, and for some science became a secular God.

Modernism continued to evolve during the 19th and 20th centuries as long as it maintained the Golden Mean, i.e. equilibrium among the four fundamentals.

1. Belief provided individuals with the Free Will and inner strength to control their behavior, to be creative, to enjoy freedom, to have self-esteem, and to be responsible for their actions. It provides an inner compass, which Christians call the Holy Spirit. It prevented the individual from being subservient to either the state or nation.

2. Group (national) identity provided a community with a sense of kinship and a unique intellectual, creative, technological, and artistic culture.

3. Loyalty (patriotism) supported the structure for a state of political unity, a democratic polity, and economic success.

4. The scientific method established an objective means for determining what is correct by uncovering falsehoods.

Modernism flourishes when these four fundamentals are all vibrant and in equilibrium. However, whenever, one is take to the extreme, and dominant the others, the evolution of modernism is slowed or cut short. Such extremism and lack of balance is what current modernists want to prevent in their struggles with postmodernists.

Modernism continued to evolve during the industrialization of the 19th Century. By this time the nation-state with the people, rather than a King, as sovereign became the dominant actor in international relations; this necessitated the social contract, group identity and loyalty. In turn a cohesive, formidable nation-state required shared civic virtues (based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs). Many abstract moral concepts from the past, such as Virtue, Sin, Good, Evil, Right, Wrong, Country, Duty, Glory, Honor, Beauty, and Truth, were retained - and sometimes redefined - during the Victorian era by the efforts of the ruling class. Belief in such moral concepts is one of the four fundamentals of modernism. It provides an inner compass for individuals.

However, during this period rigorous, mathematical thinking and reliance on mathematical logic were introduced. This was another of the four fundamentals, i.e. the scientific method as the criterion for establishing what is correct by uncovering falsehoods. Europe in the 19th century was a time of hope and optimism for most people (‘the many’) with a good balance (a kind of Yin-Yang) between belief and science; this was maintained until the start of World War I. It is true that the optimism of the 19th century was challenged by the fears and anxieties among a few intellectuals who looked to the past (Hegel) or looked to the future (Nietzsche).

From Modernism to Postmodernism
Optimism among the people vanished after World War I and there were attempts to eliminate or modify the four fundamentals of modernism—we can now recognize this as the birth of postmodern thought. Until 1947 this challenge to modernism had no name, but we can accurately refer to it as anti-modernism.

Many of those who witnessed the chaos, death, destruction, and horror of World War I, sought ways to achieve a better world. This was the breeding ground of anti-modernism. The youth of the 1930s had been shaped by what they considered the failure of science, liberal politics, democracy, the nation-state, reason, and Christian belief. They wanted to end the world as a lawless jungle ruled by money and power, with conflict of ‘every man against every man’. As always this despair had its philosophical and psychological underpinnings. In 1923 Albert Schweitzer referred to a disastrous imbalance between material and spiritual development, which would result in a loss of freedom for the individual. This fatalistic, pessimistic outlook eroded belief in the dignity and creativity of the individual and in ‘reason’ as the supreme arbiter. Traditional belief was replaced by ideology, with both ‘true believers’ and the disillusioned.

One aspect of blurring the concept of the nation-state was advocacy of a ‘community of nations’ governed by mutual consent under the rule of law in which legalistic diplomacy and law enforcement paradigms would prevail for the whole world. This gave life to The League of Nations. Another aspect was the prophetic voice of ‘progress’. This facilitated the spread of Marxism and nihilism. Nietzsche declared that “God is dead” and put the nation-state as the focus of belief. The League of Nations failed before World War II, and Marxism failed during the Cold War. By the end of the 1950s many of the ideologies had lost their vigor and had become artifacts of the past. Yet the sentiments behind these legacies of the post World War I period were to reemerge in the Counter Culture movement of the 1960s and in postmodern thought.

Between the two World Wars the revolt against absolutes by ‘the few’ was expressed in the literature of Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Andre Malraux (1901-1976), and Albert Camus (1913-1960). They were reacting to the contradictory or hypocritical interpretations by politicians who often appealed to some abstract ‘right’ in order to conceal selfish motives, to individuals using absolute ‘truth’ in the support of partisan and irrational opinions, and to claim change and progress as the road to some utopia. Their thoughts reflected changing moral beliefs, the emergence of psychology, a focus on feelings and emotions, and the questioning of the scientific criteria of reality among ‘the few’.

However, their words had limited impact on ‘the many’ because they were presented in intellectual and esoteric terms. For example in 1938 Camus wrote in Noces: “The most repellent form of materialism is not what is usually thought of as such but the kind that wants to make dead ideas masquerade as living realities and to divert towards sterile myths that obstinate and lucid concern which we have with what is mortal in ourselves”. While such intellectual arguments might have been limited to ‘the few’, between the two World Wars there were widespread emotional reactions among ‘the many’ to the tragic events of World War I and the economic depression that followed.

The primary actor in international relations under modernism - the nation-state - depended on abstractions such as duty, social contract, honor, civic virtues, country, moral code, and patriotism being considered absolutes. Anti-modernism undermined these abstractions with its emphasis on concrete situations, the subjective, feelings, and an individual’s personal response to his environment. While many people still attended religious services, shared religious beliefs no longer shaped behavior as they had in the past. For an increasing number of people the source of all behavior was the unconscious, and moral, ethical and religious beliefs were only projections of the unconscious - making the idea of Free Will a dangerous myth, and the Holy Spirit foolishness.

Without the unifying absolutes which a more self-confident age was ready to affirm, common identity was lost. The ideal of a rational, responsible, consciously motivated individual was seriously damaged. Many analogies appeared of man as a machine. This was in a time of industrial societies, the expendable man, economic depression, instability, anxiety, violence, and deceit. In response the leaders of nation-states had to offer ideological certainty, Realpolitik, and the adventure of power, as answers to the emotional reaction to the apparent senselessness of existence felt by ‘the many’. The result was World War II.

Following the chaos, death, destruction, and horror of World War II a new generation followed the path of the post World War I generation. This generation wanted to create a new culture that would be a break from the past. They did not want an evolution of modernism; they wanted a paradigm shift in Western Culture. They found their answer in sentiments for multilateral governance, socialism, self esteem, feelings, compassion for the disadvantaged, and ‘new age religions’—actually they were putting old wine into the new bottles of postmodern thought.

They turned patriotism upside down by making dissent a key element of patriotism; they weakened national identify by stressing multiculturalism and diversity; and they ridiculed Christianity as childish superstition. Basically they did not want to seek a balance between shared belief, national identity, patriotism, and the scientific method as the arbiter of truth. They sought ‘progress’ toward their vision of an ideal world. They rejected Imago Dei (that humans are created in God’s image) and they made people superior to ideas with all ideas equal, rather than all people being equal before God with ideas being either right or wrong.

Postmodern Thought
The term postmodernism was first used in 1947 with regard to architecture, from there it move to art. By the end of the 1950s the term had spread to the inner circles of most academic disciplines where there were endless debates to define postmodern thought. Today those debates continue.

Although the term postmodern did not spread throughout society with the Counter Cultural movement of the 1960s, the ideas in a revised form did. During the 1960s postmodern ideas were expressed in terms of the rights of females and blacks, compassion for the disadvantaged and people in less developed countries, resentment of the ‘oppression’ of Christian churches, and how to avoid getting killed in some distant land. This remains the heart of postmodern thought today.

The extremes and violence of all movements based on Hegel’s philosophy (i.e., Communism, National Socialism, and Postmodernism) flow from an emphasis on logic and thought, to the exclusion of existence (being), and on a consciousness (mind) that creates its own version of reality. In other words there is no objective reality. This means there is no objective right and wrong. There is no Truth. The atheists of these movements have simply replaced the God of religion with a supreme being in a state, nation, nature, leader, ethic group, or social class.

Since they ignore existence (being) these movements lack the benefits of moral, ethical, or religious belief. It is this belief that provides individuals the Free Will and inner strength to control their behavior, to be creative, to enjoy freedom, to have self-esteem, and to be responsible for their actions. This belief, not reason or thought, provides an inner compass, which Christians call the Holy Spirit. It prevents the individual from being subservient to a state, nation, or leader, but belief can also cause evil when carried to the extreme. To correct this deficiency there must be a balance between belief and the scientific method.

Postmodern thought accepts some questionable premises:
1. Humans are mere mammals with large brains.
2. The mind (consciousness) is either identical with brain activity or existentially dependent upon brain activity (materialism).
3. Freedom (and Free Will) is an illusion since all behavior is predetermined.
4. Change is application of the dialectic in order to achieve progress toward a utopian vision.
5. The world consists of relatively fixed, static, discreet material particles.
6. Humans think in terms of space. Humans are the most intelligent adaptive organisms on earth.
7. Human behavior is the automatic resultant of pre-existent forces as motive flows into action, i.e. it is deterministic.

The theory presented here (StE) is based on alternative premises:

1. Humans are not mere animals with sensations. Human are distinctive because they have an inner compass, which influences their behavior. The belief of an individual, that person’s inner compass, might be God given (the Holy Spirit), or the outcome of survival instincts.

2. Humans act upon both what they perceive from their external environment and from their internal compass (affections).

3. Humans have Free Will since choice is experienced directly by the whole person (both external perceptions and the inner compass), and the behavior is only deterministic (mechanical responses) when the person lacks an inner compass.

4. Change can be either good or bad depending on decisions made to affect the rise and fall of groups. Humans are the creative force of change.

5. The world reflects continual adjustments of thought and action of life within functional wholes made up of coordinated parts. Life is a matter of time, change and quality, not of space, position and quantity. The flow and essence of life can be visualized by the theory of Stability Through Equilibrium (StE).

6. Humans think in terms of time and space. Time is fundamental to change whether it is building, growth and improvement or declining, fall and decay. The past, present and future are all aspects of the reality of living but the future can never be the same as the past.

7. Human behavior involves choice, which is difficult when it requires effort to overcome laziness, custom, tradition, feelings and emotions. Humans can be creative because consciousness is the selection of images and choice of reactions to those images.

Good and evil are terms that have emotions and political utility, but no true meaning. They depend on desires and ends. One person’s, or group’s, good is often other’s evil. For example, there is no agreement on the meaning of freedom, responsibility, honesty, duty, or honor. The saying of Confucius “What you do not like when done to yourself do not do to others” comes as close as anything to being a universal value. Although most of the Ten Commandments have wide acceptance, they certainly do not define good and evil for all humans. Evil is complicated by the fact it is tied to religious beliefs in the goodness and power of God. As the atheist Spinoza has noted (Ethics, IV, pref.) “As far as the terms good and bad, they indicate nothing positive considered in themselves…. For one and the same thing can at the same time be good, bad, and indifferent”.

The history of Ethics is evidence that this is an issue of continuing interest, yet to be resolved. Good and evil are words that will always be disputed; they are too subjective. Therefore, the solution in StE is to keep the subjective and the objective in balance—to seek Truth through belief, the adversarial method, and the scientific method. This solution might not satisfy the requirements of philosophy, yet it provides a useful tool for the art of decision-making.

Since 1965 there has been a struggle between modernism and postmodernism. Michel Foucault advocated raw power solutions to determine who gets what when and how. Jacques Derrida advocated the deconstruction of language since no language can describe reality. Richard Rorty advocated subjective agreement within members of competing ‘tribes’ to challenge realism and thus resolve conflict.

Under modernism people were expected to think in terms of equality of opportunity, to think that through ambition, skill and personal effort individuals can be successful, that society should merely remove artificial barriers and then judge everyone by the same standards. However, postmodernists see these values as oppressing some people, which makes them racism and sexism - the greatest of evils. Therefore, they consider it moral to deconstruct such “obsolete“ views through de-stabilization of the core values (inner compass) of individuals. (Kate Ellis, Socialist Review 91:2, 1989, pp, 39-42) This is why postmodernists often use ad hominem attacks, set up straw men, make absurd moral equivalences, and attempt to silence anyone who questions their views. (Stanley Fish, Free Speech, 1994, pp 68-69 and Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 1987, pp. 123-126)

Language is the key to how postmodernists want us to investigate the origin, nature, methods and limits of knowledge. They claim that language concerning interpersonal relations is a way to manipulate, and that it is really only an expression of the unquestioned assumptions of the author. For postmodernists words do not have a specific meaning; they can only be “unmasked”, i.e. to determine different interpretations. Language, according to postmodern thought, has been a means used by those in authority to manipulate others--the way that authoritarian, patriarchal societies of Western Culture have kept women and "others" in their place. Therefore, for postmodernists language never ends in reality. Language is always a self-referential system for each individual. Language only reveals more language. Deconstruction is, therefore, a never-ending process. Fortunately StE allows such postmodern rhetoric to be ignored since decision-makers can agree in advance on the meaning of words by using objective standards and thus come to a shared awareness of reality.

We have not yet reached the era of postmodernism sought by Michel Foucault, Jean-Fran├žois Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty and Stanley Fish. However, since postmodernists reject many aspects of the modern era (1715- 1965) this struggle has caused a decline and decay of Western Culture.

Stability Through Equilibrium
The theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is an attempt to challenge how today’s postmodernists misuse the ideas that after 1500 evolved into the modern era of Western Culture (1715-1965). It is an attempt to link theory and practice, to recognize that decisions should reflect both the freedom of individuals and the need for common identity and cooperation, to take into consideration that there is no utopia, and to recognize that all groups first rise and then fall.

Today there are at least three reasons why postmodern thought is an inadequate tool for the art of decision-making:

1. It relies of moral relativism.
2. It does not reward performance.
3. It undermines Western Culture.

According to postmodern thought there is no existence (being), and individuals can create their own personal versions (narratives) of reality. Therefore, shared belief does not exist: what is good according to one narrative is evil to another. This is moral relativism. Without moral, ethical, or religious belief there is no way to differentiate between good and evil. Therefore, there can be no right or wrong. Hegelian dialectic keeps the violent struggle going. It is self-perpetuating.

Postmodern thought redistribution rewards without regard to merit or performance. Without objective truth postmodern thought attempts to eliminate or modify many of the roles, rules, standards, and character that were accepted as proper, good, and right prior to the 1960s. The result is that postmodernists want to take from wealthy, powerful, heterosexual, white males, who were the cornerstone of the progressive economic and administrative rationalization and differentiation of societies that evolved in Europe from 1500 to 1914, and to redistribute rewards to minorities (that is, everyone else).

This is why, for many, multiculturalism has replaced the modern era ideal of the melting pot. And why postmodernists consider Christianity evil, but understand how Islam serves the human need for religion, and consider all cultures and ethnicities equally valid. Postmodernists will never give this up. It is the fuel that keeps their ideology alive: no struggle, no theme of oppressors versus oppressed. It is the very basis of their nonjudgmental, nondiscriminatory ideology, in which the elitists and ideas are equal, and in which disagreements are resolved by discussion and compromise - but never by the use of force.

Ever since the invention of this challenge to modernism, by the anti-modernists after World War I, the entire Western Culture has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. All vestiges of masculinity have been diminished. This includes fatherhood, father figures (authorities), fathers being responsible for their family unit, and the sanctity of marriage; as well as changes in education (all levels), the military, the church, journalism, and with regard to sexual relations. Postmodernists using “political correctness” have perverted all of Western Culture. Paradoxically, many postmodernists in Europe and America have embraced Muslims as a tool of violence to destroy Western Culture.

For some it is difficult to understand the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) and thus easy to ignore or discredit. Here are the six key elements of the theory:

 First, it is offered only as a helpful tool in the art of decision-making, not as a contribution to philosophy.

 Second, stability is the condition of a system that maintains balance among its parts through continual adjustments, not a condition of permanence or an attempt to preserve the status quo.

 Third, equilibrium is a means of self-regulating (homeostasis) to maintain the internal stability of the system regardless of any internal disruptions or input from its external environment.

 Fourth, equilibrium is a dynamic process that relies on feedback in order to make necessary changes. This process requires both contingency planning and the ability to recognize, and respond to, random events.

 Fifth, equilibrium requires structures and processes to insure checks and balances.

 Sixth, Conflict/Cooperation is a dynamic whole with two interacting parts; the two parts cannot be separated in the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE).

As with all theories Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is subject to revision. Although it certainly has implications for philosophy, there is no intent to describe, or explain, it in the technical, academic terms used in the study of philosophy. If the words used do not accurately describe reality they need to be changed, or defined better, so as to insure effective communication. If the theory is shown to be lacking as a tool for the art of decision-making, it needs to be modified.

The adversarial approach, as practiced by lawyers, politicians, and academics, is the outcome of interpretations of Hegel’s dialectic theory and his utopian vision. As a result secular authority is drifting toward ever-greater centralization—the “whole” of which Hegel speaks—and endless self-perpetuating conflict. An alternative is needed for decision-making. A theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) seeks self-regulating systems of conflict/cooperation that maintain a stable system through coordinated responses of its parts. Also this theory would encourage decentralization and greater freedom. StE should replace the adversarial approach for decision-making in public affairs, both foreign and domestic.

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at

Printable format (in Google Docs: may require registering)

- <<< Back to article by Dr Sam Holliday

- Filed on Articles in in "The Dystopia of Paradise", cat. Philosophy

Sunday, April 6, 2008

"Islamization Is Already Upon Us"

Present article by interpreter and author Nahed Selim was first published in Dutch newspaper "Trouw" on 5th April 2008. We hereby post a free translation. Hat tip: Muslims Against Sharia
On 30th March Dutch Islamic Broadcasting (NIO) aired responses from Egypt to (Geert Wilders' video) "Fitna". A Protestant minister weighed in. Besides the usual rants about respect and insults he also appeared to be incensed over the title of the film. He wondered if the director knew what fitna actually means. Judging from what the director said in the Parool newspaper on 9th February it is clear that Geert Wilders is indeed aware of its significance. "Every Muslim knows the Arabic word fitna," says the Freedom Party (PVV) leader (Wilders). "It concerns situations in which a Muslim's belief is put to the test: uncovered women, alcohol, infidels, resistance against the authority of Islam. I use the term in the reverse sense: to me the corruption of Islam means fitna." Wilders has been taken by the idea. "I wanted a word from the Koran."

cont'd >> For several reasons this title is a good choice. Fitna is a fascinating word. On an individual level it means 'seduction' and 'testing of the faith.' Remarkably also seduction by women is understood as fitna. Moreover, the concept is associated with disorder, civil war and chaos. In the classical Islamic history there have been three major occurrences of fitna.

Between the years 656 and 661, after the assassination on the third caliph Uthman Ibn Affan, a power struggle ensued, during which Muslims fought each other for the first time. The second fitna took place between 683 and 685. This also concerned a political fight; for the control of the Islamic realm between the Ummayad and the Abbassyd dynasties. The third fitna refers to a fight between army leaders and authorities during the latter period of the Islamic domination of Cordoba, Spain.

Under Muslim scholars the fear of fitna with its associations, from chaos and civil war, to seduction and tribulation, is enormous. It is almost comparable to the phantom of World War II for Europeans.

The Egyptian minister, although a Protestant Christian, finished his declaration in the NIO program with a spontaneous prayer to God to protect our countries and societies against all types of fitna and against the instigators of it.

It is doubtful if Wilders was as aware of this historical dimension of the film's title as Gilles Kepel. The French political scientist and expert of radical Islam was the first to use the term in the title of the book "Fitna: war in the heart of the Islam" (translated title "The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West" (note product details and editorial reviews, 2005). In this captivating book he discusses the interaction between jihad and fitna. Everyone is aware by now what jihad is. Fitna to Muslims is just as important a term, but it hardly known to non-Muslims. Wilders changed that. Thanks to him millions of people all over the world are now acquainted with the fascinating term.

The Freedom Party leader wanted the film to be a final warning to the Netherlands against Islamization. Why a final warning? I hope many are yet to follow. But every country that adopted total Islamization has deteriorated. The more Islamization, the more disorder, material and cultural poverty, conflicts between populations, bloodshed and other misery. Look at Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia. Present society is the best option for everyone.

Discussing Islamisation is a taboo in the Netherlands. I think many Dutch do not understand the term entirely.

Islamisation is not limited to the increase of the Muslim population alone, or the military conquest of the country by Muslims, or the foundation of an Islamic state. Islamisation is a process whereby (the Muslim) religion gradually dominates all aspects of life.

Turkey is an Islamic country, the majority of the population is Muslim, yet the country is not entirely Islamic. There's a substantial group of seculars who think and live differently. It is a group which still refuses to conform to the Muslim majority. And it is a group with power, because it is represented in the army and in the elite. The question is how long these seculars will be able to maintain their dominance.

A few months ago some 140,000 people protested against the proposed lifting of the prohibition of the veil in universities. They feared social pressure in favour of a general adoption of the veil, whereas prohibition provides many women and their families with an excuse not to wear it. They can say that it is not legal. They feared also that lifting the prohibition constitutes an important link in the process of Islamisation.

The seculars in Turkey have a better understanding of the meaning of Islamisation than the Dutch Government. However slowly it unfolds itself, Islamisation is also the process of a gradual change in the way of thinking. Islamisation of thought means an end to all creativity, original thinking and creative power, because creation and creative power are divine properties that are Allah's exclusive prerogative. He tolerates no competition of human beings. Islamisation is the process whereby Islamic values on the long run dominate all other value systems.

This process has been going on in the West for quite some time. It is demonstrated almost daily in a series of incidents.

For example when a Muslim drugstore assistant refuses to sell birth control pills or condoms, when a Muslim doctor refuses to treat AIDS patients or perform abortions, when medicine students refuse part of the curriculum because it is not in line with their beliefs, when Muslim taxi drivers refuse to carry blind passengers if accompanied by guide-dogs - unclean animals according to the Muslim belief, when it becomes impossible to criticize Islam or Muslims without being threatened, when the Juvenile Protection Service needs to call in imams because it is otherwise impossible to work with Moroccan families, when municipal civil servants refuse to shake hands with women, when women teachers and government civil servants during work represent Islam, wearing the veil - whereas they ought to be representing the state, when Fortis Bank pull the plug on a promotion which gives children a piggy bank because the piggy is offensive to Muslims, when museums hide photographs and paintings for fear of Muslim reactions, when posters of traditional nudes can no longer decorate underground railway stations - the list is endless.

These incidents have all occurred over the last few years, in the West including in the Netherlands. And they are signs of the advancing process of Islamisation.

Can a political party warn against that? Of course it can. It even has a duty to warn against these dangers.

My critique of the film "Fitna" is that Wilders does not sufficiently highlight the aspect of the encroaching mental and institutional process of Islamisation, while it is a bigger threat to democratic, secular society than terrorism.

Just one sentence in the film refers to institutional Islamisation. Wilders has a voice say: "The mosque will become a component of the Dutch governmental system."

I am afraid this is already the case. The fact that Juvenile Protection Services cannot work without the assistance of imams is testimony to that. The state is delegating part of its tasks to the mosque. This also proves that such Muslim families have no loyalty to the government or its civil servants, but only to their spiritual leaders.

It is a pity that Wilders did not pay more attention to these aspects. Otherwise he might have observed that it is not just Muslims who are at fault. Often institutional Islamisation is made possible by native Dutch, who have taken to self-Islamisation as the notion of the separation of church and state escapes them.

The most violent part of "Fitna" is of course the first, in which we see images of terrorist attacks collated with sermons and Koranic texts. Wilders aimed at showing the link between terrorism and its theological justification - a relation that is categorically being denied by all commentators, Muslims and non Muslims alike. Yet, the bulk of the sermons delivered by those terrible imams can almost literally be reduced back to Koranic texts and the declarations of the Prophet Mohammed. All Muslims whom I have spoken reject them, and describe them as radical and extremist interpretations. But the point is that these are not interpretations. They are verbatim quotations from authentic Islamic sources.

What is extremism?

Take the Ramadan as an example. The normal principle of faith is that lent lasts for a month. That is what it says in the Koran. It may be termed radical or extreme if a person fasts for a whole year. Or take prayers. According to Islam prayers take place five times a day. A religious movement that expects believers to continue prayers the entire night may be correctly defined as extremist or radical. It deviates too far from the source. A simple principle, I'd say.

Now imagine it was the other way around. I know Muslims who reject certain medicines, because they contain alcohol which the Koran forbids. Are they radical? Or is the Koran radical? The Koran also contains instructions for believers to kill unbelievers. Most Muslims think that's carrying it too far. They refuse to follow these instructions. It would seems to me they are more judicious than the holy texts. But imagine there are people, who for some reason think the instructions should be adhered to, and act accordingly. Is he an extremist or is Scripture extreme?

I sometimes say to other Muslims that there's no need to follow the Koran in everything, for example with regard to the veil. I can be assured of reactions that, on the contrary such instructions must be obeyed, exactly because they are Holy Scripture.

The English say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

People gladly believe that the texts revealed by God contain unique levels of wisdom and beauty. They believe they have the right to apply the written word literally, even if it deviates from (Western) norms. The film "Fitna" confronts them with cruel texts which are devoid of wisdom, beauty or ethics. For an honest believer the film can be a confrontation leading to fitna, a crisis of the faith. Most shy away from such a confrontation, blame the interpretation, or the clergy narrating the texts, or the director of the film.

Of course every person is responsible for his own actions. No text, Holy or worldly, can be a licence kill. Accordingly, no film or cartoon can legitimise riots or assaults. How many people will have the courage to endure such a confrontation?

In another article, I wrote there are moderate Muslims, but that there is no moderate Islam.

But this might still happen. In the meanwhile I've met Muslims Against Sharia; founded a year ago in the United States. It is an Islamic organisation for the reformation of Islam. It has thousands of sympathizers all over the world. Its motto is: admit errors, accept responsibility, move on.

Its aims are raising awareness among Muslims of the dangers of some Islamic religious texts. And is - and that is unique - against Sharia law. On their Internet site is a list of Koranic texts which the movement labels as morally problematic. They even define some texts as ethically unacceptable. Muslims Against Sharia want to publish a sanitised version of the Koran. Not literally ripping up the Koran, but making a rational judgment which texts are worth keeping.

Wilders gets what he's asking for.
Nahed Selim's latest book "Allah houdt niet van vrouwen" (Allah does not like women) was published last year (Houtekiet Publishing - ISBN 9052409587)

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Legal Jihad: archive

To current file <<<

Shariah Finance Watch: "Joke of the day-”Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”

The Sharia-compliant ‘Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam‘ (CDHRI) charter, adopted by 45 Muslim nations 45 Muslim nations in August 1990 and officially supported by the Organization of Islamic Conference in June 2000, is being touted to replace the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by Islamic nations. The recently adopted UN resolution which denounces Islamophobia and criticisms of Islam paves the way forward for the CDHRI eventually to replace the UDHR at the UN. The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) — a world union of Humanist organizations — has responded clarifying that the CDHRI is neither a replacement of, nor is complementary to, the UDHR (...) >>>

Updated: 9th July 2008
... the 'idealism' emanating from the postmodern Spanish, French and Belgian
meddling in sovereign states is leading to its natural conclusion: Jordanian
Courts prosecuting Danish and Dutch parliamentarians and Rwanda threatening
France over genocide ...

FT: "Rwanda threatens Paris over genocide"

(...) In February, a Spanish judge indicted 40 Rwandan officials for their alleged role in the killing of thousands of Hutus in Rwanda and Congo in the years after the RPF took power. Mr Kagame was named but enjoys immunity as head of state. “There is no basis [for the Spanish and French charges] . . . They are indicting the people who actually stopped the genocide,” he says, adding: “One would expect there to be an international regulatory mechanism. Otherwise you will have chaos – everyone will be indicting everyone.” If European countries could extend their judicial powers to Africa, he warned, African countries should be able to do the same. “Hopefully, our judges will also enjoy indicting some of them [French nationals], he says. I don’t rule that out unless these issues are sorted out.” (...) >>>

Updated: 4th July 2008

... muzzl'im and the rest as well! ... once again our transnational 'idealism' prevents us from defending democratic values ... the Dutch Government prefer the soft approach of diplomacy, because the tough line proposed by Wilders is directly in opposition to our preaching to third world Governments that Courts should be independent, free from political interference; what is lost on the Dutch Foreign Minister is that the Jordanian judiciary are not independent entities, but extentions of the crypto totalitarian royal Hashemite state; Jordan is meddling in the affairs of sovereign states - a diplomatic sin of the highest order ... today's Front Page article hits bull's eye:

Front Page Magazine: "Jordan's Legal Jihad"

In a brazen attempt to stifle free speech in the West, a Jordanian court recently summoned twelve European citizens to answer criminal charges of blasphemy and inciting hatred.
Among those sought by the court is Geert Wilders, the Dutch liberal politician who made the anti-Islamist film, Fitna. (...) Now a Middle Eastern court would like to prosecute Wilders for the “crime.” (...) The Jordanian court’s move is only the most ambitious attempt to silence debate about Islam. Until now, the preferred strategy has been to file civil lawsuits in western courts to intimidate critics. The latest version of what may be called the legal jihad is even more disturbing. (...) This new campaign of intimidation against the West is being mounted by a Jordanian organization calling itself “Messenger of Allah Unite Us”, which is made up of “… media outlets, professional associations, parliamentarians and thousands of volunteers.” This organization, according to one account, arose as a “civilized response” to the Mohammad cartoons’ republication in 17 Danish papers last winter, after which it took the matter to a Jordanian court and successfully had charges pressed against the Danes, and later against Wilders. (...) Citizens of western countries who criticize Islam, and are even willing to face lawsuits in civil courts their own countries for doing so, may now exercise restraint if they risk facing criminal charges in a Muslim country (...) But what is most disturbing is that an Islamic country would dare subpoena citizens of another state for an action not committed within its borders but in a land where no laws were broken. Besides being meant as a weapon of intimidation, this tactic also represents a frightening extension of Islamic law into the heart of western countries.

But perhaps most ominously, this incredibly brazen measure shows that even a small Islamic country like Jordan has no fear of Europe. And, indeed, no retaliatory response met the Jordanian court’s action against European citizens. Europe’s appeasement is also evident in the second part of Messenger For Allah group’s anti-blasphemy campaign. This part calls for a commercial boycott of all Danish and Dutch products in Jordan (...) The overall goal of the Messenger of Allah group’s legal and commercial campaign against the two European states, it says, is the enactment of “a universal law that prohibits the defamation of any prophet or religion”, especially of the Prophet Mohammad. Islamic countries are already pushing for such a law at the United Nations.

“The boycott is a means but not an end,” said Zakaria Sheikh, a spokesperson for Messenger of Allah Unite Us. “We are not aiming at collective punishment, but when the Danish and Dutch people put pressure on their governments to support the creation of an international law, we are achieving our goal.” Well, there you have it. The Muslim organization wants Denmark and Holland not just to muzzle themselves but to help it muzzle the rest of the world as well.
But just the opposite should occur. All western countries should help put a muzzle on Jordan’s ridiculous campaign to squelch free speech, meddle in the internal affairs of two sovereign, western states and intimidate their citizens. (...) >>>

Updated: 3rd July 2008
Politeia: "Liberty for Sausages: boycott the cowards!"

Last Friday we reported here that Jordan is seeking the extradition and prosecution of Dutch Freedom Party politician Geert Wilders on three counts: - racism - incitement to hatred - insulting Muslims and Islam - An Amman Court last Monday accepted the charges against Wilders on account of the short film "Fitna" pressed by a Jordanian group called "The Messenger of Allah Unites Us." "Fitna" outlines the dangers of radical Islam for democratic society. (Link to "Fitna")

Today we know which Dutch companies have 'distanced themselves' from Fitna. Politeia proposes a ban of its own against these companies which sell out democratic principles for sausages (...) >>>

Updated: 23rd June 2008

Politeia: "Wilders Prosecuted by Jordanian Court"

(...) An Amman Court on Monday accepted the charges against Wilders pressed by a Jordanian group called "The Messenger of Allah Unites Us." Wilders is accused of racism, incitement to hatred and insulting Muslims and Islam. This will be an important test-case in respect of legal Jihad. According to Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the terrorism czar are on the case because of the implications the matter could have for freedom of expression in the Netherlands. For once it seems the Government is siding with liberty instead of signaling inter-religious solidarity. (...) >>>

Updated: 20th June 2008

NY Times: "Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech" - Hat Tip: American Power (...)
“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man. “It’s free speech!” yelled another. In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence. The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006). The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path. “In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.” “But in the United States,” Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.” Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France. Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep. By contrast, American courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though a march would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there. (...) >>>
Updated: 12th June 2008

Pajamas Media: "The Kafkaesque Show Trial of Mark Steyn," by Kathy Shaidle
(...) Canadian Human Rights Tribunals boast a 100% conviction rate on such “hate speech” cases, and have already handed down lifetime bans against the likes of Rev. Scott Boision. That Christian preacher is now forbidden for life from ever citing Bible verses regarding homosexuality in his sermons, or “in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet.” So Mark Steyn’s guilty verdict seems a fait accompli. As he predicted in May, his “career in Canada will be formally ended next month.” (...) "We want to lose so we can take it to a real court and if necessary up to the Supreme Court of Canada and we can get the ancient liberties of free-born Canadian citizens that have been taken away from them by tribunals like this. We want those ancient civil liberties restored." (...) >>>
Updated: 11th June 2008

Tundra Tabloits: "Finnish Court Serves Seppo Lehto Two Year Jail Sentence For Insensitivity Against Islam......."
Finland now stands on the brink of being one of Europe's foremost suppressors of free speech, with both the process and speed in which it has tackled Internet "political thought crimes" over the last year and a half, being nothing short of stunning. The Finnish Court's case against well known racist, Seppo Lehto, revolved around (...) >>>
Updated: 6th June 2008

Atlas Shrugs: "Danish Cartoons: Jordan Summons Danes for Prosecution"
(...) A Jordanian organisation wants to prosecute the Danes responsible for the publication of cartoons considered blasphemous to the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. According to Danish media reports, 11 Danes have been summoned to appear before the Jordanian public prosecutor to answer charges of blasphemy and threatening the national peace. Summoned to Jordan?
The media reported the action a day after a bomb attack outside the Danish Embassy killed at least eight people and injured several others in Islamabad.Those facing legal action include the cartoonist who drew one of the Mohammed cartoons and editors from 10 of the 17 newspapers that reprinted them. (...) >>>
Updated: 4th June 2008

Politeia: ""Fitna": of Farce and Fall-out IV"
Geert Wilders has today been acquitted of charges brought by the Dutch Islamic Federation (NIF) of disseminating hatred and calls for violence against Muslims. (...) "Wilders [is] provocative from time to time, but a Member of Parliament must be able to express his point of view". NIF's original objective was to restrict the screening of the film "Fitna", but Wilders published the film on the eve of the lawsuit. A new lawsuit brought by NIF wanted Wilders muzzled altogether, but the Court deemed Wilders' opinions not unlawful. (...) >>>
Updated: 7th Apr 2008

Muslims Against Sharia: "RACHEL's LAW* unanimously Passed by NY Legislators - Legislature Passes Libel Terrorism Protection Act To Protect American Journalists and Authors From Overseas Defamation Lawsuits"
The New York State Legislature today unanimously passed the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act” (S.6687/A.9652) (...) this legislation will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights. (...) “This is a great day for free speech and freedom of the press (...) This law will protect our journalists and authors from trumped up libel charges in kangaroo courts in overseas jurisdictions which don’t share our commitment to free speech and freedom of the press,” [it] will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world (...)truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror,” said Senator Skelos. “This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers. In its decision, the Court of Appeals called upon the State Legislature to revise the law. Today, we made clear that New York State will safeguard the First Amendment and these courageous writers.” (...) >>>
* reference to case of Rachel Ehrenfeld, to also video footage
Updated: 1st Apr 2008

Muslims Against Sharia: "Savage lawyers target CAIR's paymasters: Muslim group bankrolled by Arab states tied to 9/11"
Preparing an appeal of a dismissed lawsuit against the Council of American-Islamic Relations, talk radio host Michael Savage and his legal team have taken a new tack, investigating CAIR's foreign financial backers, WND has learned. CAIR is registered as a nonprofit organization recognized as tax-exempt under IRS code section 501(c)(3), which restricts "lobbying on behalf of a foreign government." CAIR's website claims that it receives no foreign government support.However, CAIR's headquarters near the U.S. Capitol until recently was owned by the ruler of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and the ruler's foundation has pledged $50 million to capitalize a long-term CAIR public-relations campaign. "This should start to get interesting," said a member of Savage's legal team. (...) >>>
Updated: Mar 14, 2008

Muslims Against Sharia: "Islamofascist-Dhimmi Axis Assault on Free Speech: Latest Casualties" JUST IMAGES - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED - A MUST SEE!
Updated: 20th Jan. 2008

Muslims Against Sharia: "Belarus jails Prophet Mohammad cartoon publisher"
Belarus on Friday jailed for three years an editor of an independent newspaper who reproduced cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad Read more ... (...) >>>
Updated: 20th Jan. 2008, now we know the totalitarian standard for this criminal offence ... just curious to see where the jurisprudence in the 'civilized' world will lead us ....

Politeia: "Europe's Speechless, Frantic Surrender"
Elsevier is reporting today (link in Dutch) that the police admitted to have been instructed to treat those pressing charges against Wilders with leniency. Charges of 'insult' and discrimination need not be beefed up by criminal evidence. If one didn't know any better, one would almost suspect a plot. (...)
The EU has in numerous agreements with Muslim countries made it clear that "Islamophobia" is a form of racism and hate speech. The EU is now practicing this media censorship. (...)
"Should it come to riots, bloodshed and violence after broadcasting the Quran movie by PVV-leader Geert Wilders, then Wilders will be responsible." This was said by the Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun (...) If Wilders tears up or burns a Quran in his film 'this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed. And he will be responsible' (...) it is 'the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop Wilders'."If you read the official texts by the EU media, this threat has been totally removed. >>>
Updated: 19th Jan. 2008

Middle East Forum: "Mark Steyn Is Not Alone", by Brooke M. Goldstein
(...) The public inquisition of Steyn has triggered outrage among Canadians and Americans who value free speech (...) major player on this front is Khalid bin Mahfouz (...) sued more than 30 publishers (Rachel Ehrenfeld) and authors in British courts, (...) This is troubling. The United States was founded on the premise of freedom of worship, but also on the principle of the freedom to criticize religion. (...) >>>
Updated: 17th Jan. 2008

Calgary Herald: "In rebuttal: Squashing debate like mosquitoes", by Mark Steyn
"The amount of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes."(...) they're not my words. Rather, they were said by a prominent Scandinavian Muslim (...)
Updated: 2nd Jan. 2008

1389 Anti Jihadist Tech Blog: "Michael Savage Sues CAIR to Expose 9-11 Terror Links"
You may recall that CAIR launched a boycott against companies that advertise on Michael Savage’s show. (...)
Updated: 31st Dec. 2007

Ironic Surrealism II: "The United Caliphate of The United Nations" - Hat Tip: My Flanders Fields: "UN Sold"
(...) the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution against the “defamation of religions (...) We discussed the UN Human Rights Council's Resolution at length in "Quick. while it's still legal" ...
Updated: 23rd Dec. 2007

Atlas Shrugs: "Italy Soccer Officials "Astounded"by Muslim Lawsuit"
A Turkish lawyer is taking legal action against Inter Milan, (...) for wearing a strip with “Crusader-style” red crosses (...)
Updated: 12th Dec. 2007

Muslims Against Sharia: "'Islamophobia' Used to Crush Muslim Dissent, Panel Says"
Updated: 1st Nov. 2007

Front Page Magazine: "Sued For Terror Watching"
Updated: 26th Oct. 2007

The Lighthouse: "Quick, While it's Still Legal"
Updated: 2nd April 2007

Front Page Magazine: "Muslim Target", by Robert Spencer (on frivolous lawsuits)
Updated: 14th June 2005

- Terror Finance Blog (Rachel Ehrenfeld video link, Darko Trifunovic)
- The Legal Project (protection of analysts from predatory lawsuits to silence free speech)


- "The Unholy Alliance"
- "In Defense of Liberty"
- "The Jihad Project"
- "The Balkan Caliphate"
- "Stop Islamization of Europe"
- "Eurabia"
- "Islamization=Apartheid"
- "Apostating Islam"
- "Muslims versus Sharia"