You are on page 1of 8

Recommendation 1162 (1991)

of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of

Europe, 43rd Ordinary Session a milestone on
the road to Eurabia

If measured by his own public speeches, writings and recorded

statements Joseph Visarionovich Stalin was a very kind, generous, well-
read person. A modest intellectual, a fine humanist with a sense of
humour who enjoyed art, classical Russian literature, listened to
Chaykovsky and Shostakovich, liked theatre and ballet, cared for equal
rights and education in his country, loved animals and children. In his
1935 speech, where he accidentally disclosed the secret of his power
by saying his memorable phrase „Cadres decide everything”, he
explained wisely “emphasis must now be laid on people, on cadres
(...). That is why the old slogan, ‘Technique decides everything’, which
is a reflection of a period already passed, a period in which we suffered
from a dearth of technique, must now be replaced by a new slogan, the
slogan ‘Cadres decide everything.’ That is the main thing now.”
Now if measured by their public speeches, official documents,
flattering media reports and mutual assurances the EU barons must also
look altruistic, generous, self-sacrificing and chivalrous. Their favourite
public discourses revolve invariably around the supreme spiritual and
moral values of humanity which they themselves have meanwhile
monopolised and now are justly managing . They safeguard our
happiness, particularly in a distant future. They protect our right to
freedom of thought and expression against so many dangers and
temptations, the greatest of all being ourselves of course. They defend
human rights against all kinds of tyrannies, oppression, despotisms and
a plethora of threats posed mostly by wicked white majorities, the
specilaities of which include - as we all know – „racism” and
„intolerance”. We must not forget their efforts to combat poverty
( particularly in their own ranks). They are indefatigable in
enlightening the youth on how happy young people must feel now that
the EU dream has come true. They protect culture from sure decline
and fall if left without EU subsidies. They care for scientific progress
which if made the EU bosses are credited with. And last not least they
fight their own corruption whose real extent is never disclosed though.
So one might have the impression that with such humanistic-oriented
agenda the uncles and aunts form the EU must have long since
adopted Stalin’s new slogan „Cadres decide everything”. Yet a glance
into the maze of the EU organisations is enough to convince us that
Stalin’s old slogan „Technique decides everything” is by far not „a
period already passed”. It is particularly conspicuous when one tries to
track any single decision made in the EU. Neither origins nor the final
responsible decision-makers are easily discernible. It’s easier to see
who executes the decision and who profits from it. Any clarity and
openness is lost in the darkness of the EU chambers and halls. And it
seems to be quite an intentional device. If something wrong is decided,
the culprits are never found. Some clueless scapegoats are found and
punished. Instaed if a right decision is made the EU barons will take the
full responsibility for it.
One interesting intance of that is „Recommendation 1162 from 1991
: On the contrtibution of the Islamic Civilization to European Culture”.
It is a small document that is drowned in the sea of other documents
dealing with any possible issues from Nagorno-Karabakh to the well-
known EU favourites : „racism” and „intolerance”. But the impact of
these three sinsister pages on the course of European history may be
compared only with the effect on the USSR of Stalin’s small pieces of
paper containing recommendations on ‘Collectivisation of Agriculture’
or on ‘Fighting the evil Zinovyevist-Trotskist Bloc’.
So first a few words about „the EU technique that decides all”. The
Council of Europe, which in 2007 officially consumes 197 214 100
euros, consists of four bodies – 1/ „ the Committee of Ministers”
decision-making body ; 2/ „the Parliamentary Assembly” (PACE)
defined as the „driving force for European co-operation”; 3/ „the
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities” ; and 4/the huge (c. 1800
persons) „Secretariat”.
The Parliamentary Assembly has 10 committees whose members and
their substitutes are suggested by the national representations to the
Assembly and are approved by it. Now the cadidates must be carefully
chosen to please the majority or the dominant political lobby there and
thus hardly anyone from the wrong faction and just an independent
spirit ever gets elected, which simplifies a lot the job of the committee
which in fact depends on those that have voted for its memebrs, i.e.
the strongest faction in the Assembly controls the committees. Every
committee elects its president for a season and can start debates if 1/3
of its members are present. It further faciliates political manipulations
of the committees. However, the most important point is that, unlike
the Parliamentary Assembly’s, the committees’ debates take place
behind the closed doors, i.e. no one can check what and how it was
argued and decided in a particular committee in a particular case.
Besides, the committees can invite as experts anyone they wish, which
in practice means that only some chosen guests are invited.
Now as Stalin said „Cadres decide everything”, if one has the right
cadres in a given committee everything can be decided according to
one’s wishes. And so it was decided too in 1991 in the „Committee on
Culture and Education” of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe of then European Community.
This committee has had quite a tortuous history since its inception
in 1949. In 1968 it became “Committee on Culture and Education”. In
2001 the committee was bapised “Committee on Culture, Science and
Education”. Among other obvious and commendable things its mission
includes also „encouraging cultural co-operation within Europe and
between Europe and other parts of the world, in particular the
Mediterranean area.” The „Mediterranean area” is the EU codeword for
the Arab world, of course.
Despite its innocent name this commission has incredibly wide
inquisitorial powers. Beside „preservation of Europe’s cultural
heritage” it is also in charge of „education and youth policy”; of „the
media, including, in particular, questions of media ethics”. „Questions
of ethics” is the codeword for „control of the media”. Inconvenient
journalism is banned on ethical grounds. Further the commission deals
with „issues relating to freedom of expression and the role of the artist
and censorship, development of respect for and tolerance of differing
cultures, including minority cultures within the member states”. Again
very wide discretionary powers are given to the committee to interfere
in anything he or his bosses dislike. All is done in the name of a higher
ethics. This control has been extended even further as „ the
committee shall share representation in the European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance (Ecri).” This time the ethics experts
from the Holy Office of Culture, Science and Education shall decide
which acts and words are ethical or not. Nor can art escape the prying
eye of the watchful committee. „The committee shall represent the
Assembly in the Council of Europe’s Committee for Works of Art.” What
it implies in practice is clear. The committee examines every work of
art for its possible racism, intolerance, questions of artistic ethics and
other thought crimes.
Together with „El Instituto Occidental de Cultura Islamica” (FUNCI)
from Madrid and „l’Institut du monde arabe” from Paris ( founded as
allegedly “non-profit, non-partisan, strictly independent cultural and
scientific organisations” in 1982 and 1980 respectively to promote
peaceful Islamisation of Europe) and with UNESCO the „Committee on
Culture and Education” organised in May 1991 in Paris a momentous
congress “Contributions of Islamic Civilisation to European Culture”.
As one of the oganisers of the congress explains on its webpage “The
primary target of this multi-cultural encounter was to inform European
MPs about the importance of the influence of Islamic culture in Europe
throughout history, and to sensitise them about the necessity to take
concrete measures to help solve the inter-cultural problems which
affect our present day communities.” In other words the impression is
created that the initiative for the congress came from the scientific
Islamologist environment not the politicians, which is hardly probable
given the above structural dependency of the committee upon the
Parliamentary Assembly. It seems that, as it usually happens in such
hierarchical organisations, the idea of a congress was suggested by a
powerful lobby, from above together with the expected results it
should bring. It seems that the Socialist lobby and its Moslem sponsors
pushed the initiative as its is officially acknowledged later that
Recommendation was “promoted by ‘Funci’ together with the socialist
The congress was duly organised and afterwards the decisions were
made referring to the “findings” of the congress. That it was not a
scientific, but a highly political congress is not disproved by the fact
that “noted experts in Islamic culture like Louis Baeck, Sherif Mardin,
Oleg Grabar, Mohammed Arkoun and Rémi Leveau participated in the
colloquia”. Its political essence is evident from what followed the
discussions and lectures. “The European Community Commission
granted the Islamic Culture Foundation the Distinction ‘European
Platform 1991’ for this project. Also, and most importantly, the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved
Recommendation 1162, a clause advising its members to promote the
knowledge and study of Islamic culture in European countries to
increase awareness and understanding of common cultural roots and
encourage the development of well-adjusted, muti-cultural
In other words the Parliamentary Assemby, with its shock troops of the
socialist lobby that stood behind the project together with the Moslem
sponsors of the Spanish and French Islamic institutes, rewarded its own
initiative and the good job done according to informal guidelines to
promote its a priori agenda of Islamising Europe through its aggressive
obsure and unverifiable moral imperatives of “awareness and
understanding of common cultural roots”, “multiculturalism” and other
sweet dogmas.

Recommendation 1162 was approved by the Parliamentary

Assembly of the Council of Europe on 19.09.1991. After grandiloquent
introduction resembling rescripta of the late Roman emperors the
document refers to the „findings” of the Paris colloquy and remarks
„The new Europe as well is becoming increasingly subject to influences
from Islam (...) by immigration”. For this development we have to
thank not the experts from L’insitut du monde arabe’, but the Council
of Europe and its socialist barons. Then we are taught in a moralising
tone the way first-graders are usually taught that poor „Islam has,
however, suffered and is still suffering from misrepresentation, for
example through hostile or oriental stereotypes, and there is very little
awareness in Europe either of the importance of Islam's past
contribution or of Islam's potentially positive role in European society
today. Historical errors, educational eclecticism and the over-
simplified approach of the media are responsible for this situation.”

Clearly, the wise Parliamentary Assembly tells us that we know

nothing about Islam and our European history and even if we do it is
just „hostile or oriental stereotypes”, isn’t it ? The Assembly knows
better!... Charles Martel 732, Constantinople 717, Constantinople 1453,
Vienna 1683, Armenian genocide 1915... All of that
„misrepresentation”, „hostile or oriental stereotypes”!

I think most of us have got used to being treated by the EU politruks as

nasty stupid children. The wise comrade from the Council of Europe
does not answer silly questions like „Will we be taught friendly or
western sterotypes now, sir?”
As to „Islam's potentially positive role in European society today” we
must still after 16 years wait to see any. On the other hand this
sentence is potentially understandable if we assume that „positive” is
another EU codeword for something different, e.g. „furthering the
cause of the EU” which Islam no doubt does. In the same spirit we
must see the statement about „the valuable contribution that Islamic
values can make to the quality of life through a renewed European
approach on an overall basis to the cultural, economic, scientific and
social fields.” Now the EU openly champions the „Islamic values” and
if by a „renewed EU approach” we understand „the traditional
incurable EU dogmatism”, then again „cultural, economic, scientific
and social fields” will flourish under the EU-Caliphate whose advent the
recommendation 1162 brings closer to us than ever.
More superb expert knowledge of the Parliamentary Assembly is
shown in the passage where we are instructed that the maliciously
suggested incompatibility between Islam and the so called European
values „is not representative of Islam as a whole”. Why? Because „it
must be recognised that intolerance and distrust unfortunately exist on
both sides, Islamic and non-Islamic”. Just let’s Islamise our European
values and we’ll perceive Islam’s beauty, won’t we? Let’s blame us for
their faults and shortcomings and everything will be fine, won’t it? The
EU emirs have already done that, haven’t they?

In paragraph 10 the original political agenda of the whole 1991 scheme

surfaces clearly. „The Council of Europe has already done a
considerable amount of work on intercultural understanding and this
should be further developed with specific reference to Islamic culture.
Further co-operation should be sought with non-governmental
institutions and organisations in this field, such as the Western Institute
for Islamic Culture in Madrid, the Paris Institute for the Arab World and
others.” What was done behind the closed doors should now be
promoted as the official doctrine of the EU. The main instruments of
that policy are the above mentioned institutes. Many other
unmentioned dubious forces still act behind the scenes to further the
unholy doctrine.

The Recommendation appeals to the most powerful organ of the

Council of Europe - the decision making body of the „Committee of
Ministers”. The latter should impose unpon all the member states the
following guidelines. From now on Islamic history should be
represented as its opposite – an idyl disturbed by Islamophobia and
misunderstandings. The code expression for that vulgar and heinous
distortion of the past sounds „A balanced and objective account of the
history of Islam”. In universities Islamic history and shar’ia should be
disconnected from specialised fields of oriental studies and included
into the basic curricula. In view of the crammed timetables it means
that important historical material has to be reduced and eleminated in
order that the desirable impression might be created in the minds of
the students of „great positive contribution of Islam” to our culture. In
theological studies the myth of the „Abrahamic religions” should be
forced under the codeword „comparative approach” as if no one before
the recommendation 1162 had compared those three religions! Of
course, the point is to reverse the historical insights of great European
scholars and replace them with EU sickening dogmas! Students and
teachers exchanges should be intensified and a special programme
„Averroes programme” is to be created to serve the Euro-Arab
students’ exchange. TV, radio, newspapers, dependent publishing
houses are to produce movies, programmes, articles, books in full
accordance with the Recommendation 1162 depicting the sweetness
that is „the religion of peace”. Islamic cultural centres, Islamic clubs
and other Muslim institutions should be built and promoted everywhere
in the memeber states. Also historical Islamic sites and museums in
Europe were not forgotten. They should attract minor Moslem pilgrims
and and tourists and their socialist and multi-culturalist fellow-
travellers. Some places like Poitiers (732 battle) were probably
excluded from those pious itineraries conceived by the Council of
Europe’s experts on Islam. But twinning towns and cities in Europe and
the Arab world was by all means recommended.
At the very end of this memorable recommendation we find a hidden
infantile hope of our otherwise so patronising EU emirs that all of the
above „ will more surely help forward the historical process of the
democratisation of traditional (Islamic) societies thanks to a
broadening of the cultural horizons on which they are based.” Again
this pretension to know and run the „historical process”! In plain text,
this passage reads thus : If the Moslems see the free world, breath the
continental air and are allowed to converse with the kaffirs they will
become like kaffirs. Perhaps they even convert ? This incredible theory
could be born only in the brains accustomed to the comfortable air-
conditioned rooms of Strassburg or of luxury cafes in Brussels with
obedient servants. All this rubbish shows is that self-proclaimed moral
superiority and constant boasting of one’s own supreme ethical values
and defence of humanity’s cause does not protect one against the most
elementary stupidity and ignorance. The EU final ardent desire for
„countries of the Islamic world to take similar initiatives on a
reciprocal basis” sounds like an insipid joke from a play by Stalin’s
favourite writer - Nikloai Gogol!!! We have to wait still a few centuries
for 20 000 000 Europeans settling down in Maghreb, Egypt and Saudi
Arabia to build synagogues, churches, centres of atheism and restore
statues of the Olympian gods in old Hellenistic cities in the Near East,
to stamp out everywhere shari’a on behalf of common law or modern
codes of law , to riot at the sight of a veiled woman or a casual
beheading of an apostate......

Stalin absolute power was largely based on his own personal decision
as to who should be in the „Cadres that decide everything”. He had to
purge them so often as they decided a little too much in his opinion,
even though they always decided in his favour. The EU cadres provide
an obvious analogy. They also decide in favour of their hidden Islamic
Stalins. If left in their place they will inevitably bring upon us Islamic
Stalinism which will purge both us and them of un-Islamic elements.

You might also like