You are here

DANGEROUS WORDS – THE TRUTH HAS BECOME THE ENEMY

DANGEROUS WORDS – THE TRUTH HAS BECOME THE ENEMY

Speech given at the Dangerous Words conference in Stockholm, October 2016

In 2016, we might assume that the most dangerous words we could utter would be words that are critical of Islam – and it would be a fairly safe assumption. To be critical of Islam, or even un-flattering, can result in death at the hands of the state in numerous Islamic countries – including countries from which thousands, if not millions, are now arriving in Europe.

Punishment for insulting Islam has widespread support from Muslims around the world. The death penalty for leaving the faith for example has support across North Africa and the Middle East that in some countries is above 80%. In the UK, a Channel 4 poll revealed that 78% of British Muslims believe that those exhibiting Mohammed cartoons should be criminally punished.

Writers butchered in Bangladesh, Christians jailed in Pakistan, bloggers lashed in Saudi Arabia. Vast swathes of the Muslim world, either by law or vigilantism, will not accept the expression of anything that reflects badly on Islam.

The reason for this is of course obvious – it is because critical, reasonable, or objective scrutiny could bring Islam crashing down. The threat of death or serious punishment is what gives Islam its power; it’s what keeps its clerics in control. Without it, the imams would have nothing. It is only through the imposition of Islam by force, that it can survive. Even Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a man of the Muslim Brotherhood, himself said that if the apostasy laws did not exist, there would be no Islam.

So now, here we are in Europe in the 21st century. Reason, science, civil rights, free speech and open discussion have created the most productive, civilized, freest and economically prosperous region on earth. Things were going so well. But then we allowed mass migration from all over the world, no questions asked as to belief, culture, compatibility…. the globalists got their hands on our politicians and demanded that our doors be open.

We were supposed to all come together as one people, one world – but Islam refuses to play along. Islam considers itself supreme and therefore will afford no equality to those of other beliefs, to others cultures and peoples, all are subject to the superior authority of Islam.Thanks to immigration and globalistion, Europe is beginning to resemble the Muslim world in many aspects, nowhere more so than on the issue of freedom of speech, or more specifically, the freedom to breach sharia blasphemy laws.

In Europe, insulting Islam can and does result in a person being fired from their job. In Europe, insulting Islam can and does result in a person facing criminal charges. In Europe, insulting Islam can and does result in murder and bloodshed. This is Europe in the 21st century – post-enlightenment secular democracies now have the brutal fist of Islam pounding on our right to speak.

I said at the start that one could assume that insulting Islam was the issue, but upon closer examination or more detailed analysis, it isn’t actually insulting Islam that is the problem, it is telling the truth about Islam – this is the reason for the prohibition, both in the Islamic world because it keeps the imams in power, but also in Europe.

In order to persuade the people of Europe to allow this mass migration from the Muslim world, it was necessary to convince the public that Islam was a religion of peace. To do this, it was necessary to misrepresent its scriptures, to lie about the kind of societies it creates, and to disguise the brutal oppression that it inspires.

It is only by perfecting this façade that Islamic migration to the West can continue. Anything that exposes the true cost of living with the influence of Islam must be quashed. The truth is the enemy. The truth is the problem.

Orwell said that freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four. It is that most vital of freedoms we have now lost.

How does one crush truth? By pretending there is no such thing – this is done through the transformation of objectivity in to subjectivity.

The objective truth replaced by perception or opinion. Everyone’s opinion being equally valid of course. This piece of paper is white. That’s an objective truth. But if I say that in my opinion this piece of paper is blue, that opinion is apparently valid. There is no truth.

In Britain, subjectivity has been enshrined in policing. The MacPherson inquiry, which featured suggestions for policing following a racially-motivated murder, actually recommended subjectivity in the assessment of crime. The definition of a racist incident for example was “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”. Though subject to reasonableness, this can denounce a person as a racist even if they had no racist intent whatsoever. The report contained the following words: Colour-blind” policing must be outlawed. The police must deliver a service which recognises the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society.

The result is that if one feels someone else is a racist, or you feel that you are a victim, then that person is a racist and you are a victim – regardless of objective truth.

So insane has our deference to subjectivity become that one can be born with white skin yet declare themselves to be black. ‘I was born white but I identify as black, therefore I am black.’ The objective truth has disappeared.

Just as importantly, the objectivity of language has been undermined in our attempts to disguise reality. Haitham al-Haddad, a sharia judge in the UK, was asked by a Channel 4 reporter whether or not a man may beat his wife under the rules of sharia. He knows perfectly well that this is the case but rather than lie outright to his British audience, he gets round the matter by saying that the word “beat” has several different meanings. It does not. Beat means beat, and that is all it means. But you can bet this worked – people relax – “he doesn’t mean beat in the way that we mean beat so its ok”. But he does mean beat in the way that we mean beat, there is only meaning for beat.

Nowhere can the destruction of objective language be better observed than in the dishonest use of the labels attached to those who speak the negative truths about Islam. We are racists because we are declared to be, not because we are. We are fascists for the same reason.

Free speech matters so that we may tell the truth. All over England, while 1000s upon 1000s of girls were being brutally gang-raped by Muslim gangs, people didn’t say so. They kept quiet. Those who did speak out lost their careers. The truth was hidden so as not to cause offence to Muslims. Even though the consequence of this was continued mass rape, people would not risk the punishment involved in telling the offensive truth about criminal behaviour by Muslims. Indeed, many of the rapists exploited this fear, playing the race-card to frighten police in to leaving them be – sometimes in the company of their underage victims

The right to tell the truth without punishment is the most important right we ought to possess.

Free speech is the backbone of democracy because it facilitates free and fair elections. We cannot have free elections if the candidate is not permitted to speak freely and the audience is not free to hear. To deliberately distort the message of a political candidate is to interrupt the democratic process and present a falsity to the voter. This lying, mislabeling, and distortion of message is now the mainstream in Europe.

In conclusion, the most dangerous words in Europe today are not the ones that insult Islam, but the ones that tell the truth about Islam. Words that accurately describe objective reality are the great antagonist. War on words has therefore been declared. War on truth has been declared. Our language has been neutralized so objective understanding is under threat. Objective reality itself is under threat because reality is problematic in the pursuance of fantasy.

Globalists will allow nothing to interfere with their aim of open borders. They know that for globalism to work, different cultures must indulge in mutual respect. Islam will not however indulge in mutual respect, it demands adherence to its will.

The United Nations, the ultimate symbol of world government, is also invested in the lie that Islam is peace and to pull of this disguise, it allows the most vile and brutal Islamic states in the world to sit on human rights bodies. The result is confusion and of course the concealment of truth.

While people are slaughtered and oppressed all over the world in the name of Islam, the West continues its open borders to that religion’s adherents. To ease this process, it confronts not the slaughter or the oppression, but those who describe and criticize it.

Words that portray Islam negatively are the enemy. The truth is the enemy. Objective reality is the enemy – it is the enemy of those who seek to turn black in to white, and to turn Islam in to peace.