OIC: 'It's Slander When We Say it's Slander' (Part 1)

[Editor’s Note: The author of this post has requested anonymity.]

Since 2005, every Muslim country, to include all of our Coalition partners, signed off on a 10 Year Program to make slander, as defined in Islamic law, a serious punishable crime in every jurisdiction in the world, including the United States. I already sent the 29 September 2009 UN Resolution, submitted by the United States, which would subordinate US free speech rights to UN oversight standards that themselves reflect OIC’s (Organization of the Islamic Conference) 10 Year Plan objectives. I could send you an official English language copy of the December 2005 Extraordinary Summit (OIC Summits are by definition conducted at the head of state/government level) where this 10-year plan was promulgated.

All narratives that support the 10 Year Program necessarily seek the subversion of, among other things, U.S. First Amendment rights. Through “hate speech” legislation, Islamic slander has already taken hold in Europe. When denying Geert Wilders his expert witnesses, the court stipulated to the truth-of-all-the-facts-of-the-matter when the Court stated, in language that aligns with Islamic notions of slander, that: “It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilder’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.” The prosecution followed up by stating that for Wilders, “expressing his opinion in the media or through other channels is not part of a Member of Parliament’s duties.” The imposition of Islamic notions of slander in the Western world – through hate speech legislation no less – is very real and dangerous precisely because it is at best only vaguely understood.

My first experience with the 10 Year Plan came in the Winter of 2006, literally a month after its being ratified, when I picked up on news stories of concerted efforts to make the Danish cartoons into a full-blown OIC-level information campaign against the West that I communicated to the Joint Staff, CENTCOM and SOCOM – weeks ahead of the event. This was a “slander against Islam/if you do not apologize otherwise ‘moderate’ Muslims will ‘self-radicalize’ and kill” campaign. The information was not taken seriously until after events transpired when an ex post facto review documented that actual warning was provided. So accurate was the prediction, based on solid indicators, that SOCOM asked me to explain how it was that warning of such a “random” event could be so precisely forecasted. Of course, it was not random at all.

I prepared a short brief and presented it in March 2006. As part of the presentation, it was argued that this type of information campaign would become a repeating event that would always be initiated against activities that, while understood to be protected speech in Western countries, would also be in some way unseemly so that the campaign would be calibrated to get elites to separate from it thus facilitating a cultural level dilution of our commitment to free speech principles over time. Subordination of U.S. free speech rights is to occur one thin slice of the salami at a time.

This leads us to the issue of the day. There is nothing in this note that should be construed as supporting the Qur’an burning event or advocating that others do. I do NOT support the burning of the Qur’an and feel somewhat unsettled at the idea of saying that those who would do so have a First Amendment right (although today they do). It should be noted that every so often some rather intense Fundamentalists groups round up “Catholic Bibles” and other non-1610 King James Bibles and burn them and have continued to do so despite protests because they have successfully argued the free speech right to do so – with full media agreement on that outcome – to include Catholic priests stating so as the price of freedom. I do not agree with other people when they burn books and would not come to their support either. I am simply recognizing the free speech standard without necessarily agreeing with it. In this iteration of the 10-Year Plan’s information campaign, we have a coordinated media message including tie-ins to the GZ-mosque, Christian clergy bumping into each other to condemn a fellow Christian cleric’s activities as “unchristian” to satisfy Muslim sensitivities, the State Department taking a hostile position against an American citizen when exercising his protected free speech rights inside America, and a U.S. Army General needlessly injecting himself into Constitutional free speech issues, by allocating blame for acts of Islamic-based terrorism on the shoulders of Americans who refuse to submit as against the jihadis who seek our destruction through terrorism unless we submit to their demands. All we have to do is keep them happy and they will remain “moderate” – we know this because they tell us. (In the normal course of events, are not most people “moderate” when they threaten violence and only become “extremists” when follow-up on those threats is made necessary? Kind of like organized crime when folks are nicely asked to pay-up before …?) Knowingly or not, these information attacks are designed to elicit submission to the OIC standard – in just this way. This issue needs to be seriously recast to account for the offensive nature of the underlying reality and the civilization level equities that are actually at risk. It also has to account for the fact that the successful execution of such events requires that they get senior leaders and media-elites to facilitate the successful execution of their hostile IO campaigns.

(See Part 2 tomorrow.)