Alliance of what? Reflections on a World Gone Mad

Just yesterday we were lectured that  Islam and Muslims are “not belonging to any fine culture or civilization of the world”. I found that a rather frank and bold admission; coming from a belief system than makes the tallest claims of all.

In Vienna, where  the Wahabi Crime Syndicate from Soddy Barbaria established a bastion right smack in the middle of the dar-ul harb;  deep behind enemy lines, the  so-called “King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Center for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue (KAICIID) with the lofty goal to “promote world peace and serve the humanity”, the Arabs  and the worlds interfaith clowns met  to see and hear how we can all be finally brought into the peace of Islam.

If anything, this is an alliance of Islamic headbangers, socialist-fascist totalitarians, nihilists and “global village” idiots against civilisation.

But first, lets crack the code: when Muselmaniacs speak of  “humanity”, they mean Muslims only, because  kafirs don’t count for much. When they speak of “religions”, they mean Islam only.  The Saudi’s and their useful idiots in the West get away with this, while the jihad around the world rages on.

“Making the world a better place ” means making it more Islamic. Full stop.

Needless to mention that peace can only be achieved when everyone is converted to Islam or murdered.

Click on image to enlarge!

Da’awa! (the call to Islam)

For that reason the UN (United Ummah Nations) celebrated the fifth annual Forum of the UN Alliance of Civilizations met in Vienna on February 27th and 28th.

 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was one of the attendees. Here’s  Part 1 of her report via the Gates of Vienna.

The fifth annual Forum of the UN Alliance of Civilizations met in Vienna on February 27th and 28th. The official goals of the AoC consist of vague feel-good bromides, but practically speaking, its primary purpose is to implement the program of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. In particular, the AoC is keen to crack down on “defamation of religions”.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff   has filed a account on what she observed, and discusses the larger ramifications of the AoC in the ongoing Islamization of the West.

 Here’s Part II:

“One of the major tasks of our generation is to build a global community, where people of all persuasions can live together in harmony and mutual respect.”
— Karen Armstrong, AoC goodwill ambassador

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.”
— George Orwell

“Dialogue means persuasion through threats, ‘cross-cultural understanding’ is translated as submission.”
— Bat Ye’or, in Europe, Globalization
and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate

In past decades, there has been a more or less covert movement to deliberately dissolve the sovereignty of nation-states, particularly in Europe. Decisions regarding politics, culture and information which should be taken on a national or even a local level have been relegated to a great extent to an international level represented by organizations such as the Anna Lindh Foundation or the Alliance of Civilizations, both of which are, putting it mildly, obscure and unknown to the public. The sinister instruments used in these organizations are called “dialogue”, “peace and harmony”, “partnerships”, and “multiculturalism”. According to eminent scholar Bat Ye’or:

Europeans are hemmed by a game of multiple mirrors, which radiate at every level and into infinity, prefabricated opinions in accordance with political and cultural agendas, of which they know nothing and often disapprove, but which they finance with their taxes. […] This opaque, elitist system undermines democracy. It also lacks visibility, doubling and multiplying itself like a hydra into networks and sub-networks. (Bat Ye’or, Europe, Globalization and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate, p. 125-6)

The setting could not have been more bizarre: the Vienna Hofburg, the hub of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, all glitzed up and shiny, hosted the most undemocratic event imaginable outside North Korea’s borders. The Austrian monarchy can be hailed a beacon of democracy compared to the Alliance of Civilizations, which celebrated its 5th Global Forum in Vienna, sucking up financial and other precious resources and taxes along the way and producing — unsurprisingly — no tangible results.

More than 1,000 men and women attended this forum, young and old, clergy and imams, from near and far, all in perpetual smiles, chatting with each other in the imperial hallways about how to make the world a better place, all the while ignoring the usual elephant in the (Hofburg) castle. Peace and harmony for 72 hours, then it was a collective exodus to the airport to return to reality. In fact, for these 72 hours, the Forum completely negated the outside world, as if the inter-religious tensions existed only in the minds of a few loonies, and if there were only more talk about peace and harmony, these loonies would acknowledge their idiocies and disappear in history’s dustbins. Irksomely, these men and women constituted a non-elected body, for not one spoke for himself, but rather identified with a group, most likely with a Muslim group.

In light of the Alliance’s evil machinations, and before we delve into the actual meeting, it is well worth the effort to examine its origins and aims. The 2004 attacks in Madrid perpetrated by “Muslim extremists” shocked Spain, toppled its (conservative) government, and gave birth to the creation of the Alliance of Civilizations, which — in the words of the inimitable Bat Ye’or —


“would operate in the political and cultural spheres of the rapprochement of Islam and the West, thereby fulfilling the wishes of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). […] This fell to a UN strategy on a world-wide scale. […] This project was not [Spanish prime minister] Zapatero’s but the OIC’s — Zapatero merely became their European representative.” (p. 93)

The Spanish university professor Isaias Barrenada argues that the name of the Alliance itself is misleading, lacking correspondence with its content. Furthermore, he adds, “it is very difficult to define ‘civilization’, which tends to be identified with religion and culture. What constitutes a civilization today? Who represents it? Who speaks on its behalf? The Center for Inquiry[pdf], in turn, condemns the Alliance’s lack of “discussion of Islamist movements and organizations world-wide; the question of tensions between Islamic law and government and universal human rights norms.”

Then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan then set about selecting personalities for the Alliance’s so-called High Level Group which would be in charge of solving the clash of civilizations once and for all. The members of the HLG were not elected nor did the public even know about the creation of this group, nor does any member represent a secularist organization. This is significant, since the HLG adopted the Islamic view of history, shifting all the blame onto the West for any and all conflicts. Colonialism and Zionism, of course, are at the top of the list of shame.

The HLG, in the name of the Alliance’s 100-plus members, decided — without any democratic process or discussion — that “world conflicts are reduced to conflicts between the privileged and the poor, between the powerful and the weak, because […] poverty leads to despair and alienation.” (Bat Ye’or, Europe, p. 94) An action plan was recommended to “reduce conflicts through affirmation of mutual respect between peoples, creating a relationship that gives special attention to relations between Western and Muslim societies.” (p. 95) All of this takes place in the hope of reducing hostility and promoting harmony among nations and cultures of the world. Apart from the fact that these plans will influence millions of people in Europe and the United States and Canada, none of these millions of citizens have been informed of, let alone asked about, the Alliance’s deals and plans, while the interests of the OIC are being implemented through the backdoor. Before we move on, a few questions come to mind immediately:


1. What does reducing hostility mean?
2. What is the definition of harmony?
3. What does the promotion of harmony entail?

But apparently there is no need for any definition, as we shall see later. Makes dialogue and harmony much easier, doesn’t it?

Bat Ye’or’s assessment of the reports issued by the High Level Group is devastating. They are

“unilateral, granting the United Nations, the OIC and international organizations the right to determine the policies, laws, culture and thought processes of [500] million Europeans [and Americans]. It is an international, multipolar, fascist-type and totalitarian government that carries out such a cultural inquisition [that] would replace their democratically elected national systems. Conclaves acting without the public’s knowledge insert their decisions by means of networks, partnerships and ‘representatives of civil society’, who have been elected by no one but themselves and paid by mysterious humanitarian ‘foundations’ aiming at world ‘peace and justice’. (pp. 108-9)

Next: Ignoring the central problem of our times

 Here’s how I see it:

Part 3: Implementing the results

by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

How does the Alliance of Civilizations propose to implement its strategies of re-education? In order to achieve alignment with demands voiced by the OIC, the Alliance aims to address youth, education, media, and migration, picking up initiatives proposed by the OIC:


1. Intercultural and interfaith dialogues
2. Media education
3. Teaching religion in school
4. Governmental, university, and civil society programs and initiatives “that educate and empower Muslim immigrants in the US and Europe”. (Bat Ye’or, p. 163)


Concerning education, it was Kofi Annan who, back in 2004, urged the “need to unlearn the habit of xenophobia, that people are taught to hate by leaders who exploit fear, ignorance or feelings of weakness.” In order to combat this, we must engage in the process of unlearning the stereotypes about the “other” or “the others”, unlearning the habit of xenophobia, and unlearning intolerance.

And what better way to accomplish this evil than to re-educate youth? This constitutes Goebbels-like indoctrination at the lowest and weakest level of society, our children, who are to be conditioned to tolerate even the intolerable.

Would that include tolerance of religiously sanctioned domestic violence? Just a cultural matter which must be respected. Acceptance of the death penalty for apostasy? A minor matter which inter-religious dialogue can talk away. A woman receiving only half of what her brother inherits, as sanctioned by religious law?

So this is suddenly no longer a matter of fundamental rights after all, and must be unquestionably respected in the name of diversity? And why is there nothing said about religious and cultural norms and practices which promote hatred of Jews, Christians and apostates, those institutions which oppose freedom of expression and which see blasphemy as a serious moral vice, or even a capital crime to be punished according to sharia law?

How does one square this circle of preventing one thing — undefined hatred, according to the Alliance — by allowing and “safeguarding” something else — freedom of expression? I have asked the OSCE about this apparent contradiction, but then again, neither the OSCE not the UN has any misgivings about this discrepancy.

Sampaio even goes as far as to question whether “existing legal instruments on freedom of thought, conscience and religion are capable of meeting the new ongoing challenges.”

Continue reading →

2 thoughts on “Alliance of what? Reflections on a World Gone Mad”

  1. The EU and the UN elites are a deluded bunch. The EU can go around and pretend that we are all big happy family, but is just a thin veneer. Whilst the UN can pretend we are all ‘civilized’ when there are a plethora of countries that are hardly civilized let alone living in the 21st century.

    It does not take much for old feelings of nationalism and remembered slights to rear it’s head when everything hits the fan. And no one, exemplifies that better then the Greeks and then the Greeks bringing up WW2 to illustrate there anger at the EU/Germans.

    As for the UN, last week, I read a comment in an article on the UN that was brilliant, “the whole point of the UN was not to bring civilized countries down, but to bring up poor countries to up to higher levels of living and modernity. <–paraphrasing. sorry about that.

    That is the problem with the globalist. They are (besides being elites) defeatist at heart.

    In simple terms, they want everyone to be equal and because they are incapable of a successful strategy in making that happen, have by and large given up and decided it is better to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, rather than up. They have been unsuccessful incoming up with a plans to bring those who are in substandard conditions into modernity.l

Comments are closed.