The B Vocabulary of the EU: Brussels Bans Jihad

The Daily Telegraph has published a story that should concern anybody who believes that by pussyfooting around we will remain in denial about the threats facing Europe and the West,

“The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements. Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers ‘non-offensive’ phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include ‘Jihad’, ‘Islamic’ or ‘fundamentalist’.”

Last year, this website already reported about the EU’s attempts to control language and introducing a ‘B vocabulary.’ As Orwell wrote: “The B vocabulary consist[s] of words which [have] been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only [have] in every case a political implication, but [are] intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.”
Some are trying to block the campaign of Euro Newspeak,

“Conservative MEP Syed Kamall hit out at the lexicon. ‘It is this kind of political correctness and secrecy that creates resentment among both the mainstream in Europe and in Islam,’ he said. Meanwhile, UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten claimed that the EU was in denial over the true roots of terrorism. ‘This type of newspeak shows that the EU refuses to face reality,’ he said. ‘The major world terrorist threat is one posed by ideology and that ideology is inspired by fundamentalist jihadi Islam’.”

Mr Batten has put in a parliamentary question about this,

The Council of The European Union’s Document JAI 452 / ENFOPOL 164 / COTER 81, The EU Strategy for Combating Radicalisation & Recruitment to Terrorism [pdf] states on p. 4, sect. 11, that the EU will seek to “Correct unfair or inaccurate perceptions of Islam & Muslims”. It also states in the same paragraph that the EU will seek to develop a “non-emotive lexicon for discussing the issues in order to avoid linking them to terrorism”.

The Daily Telegraph on 12/4/2006 responded to a Reuters report that the EU is developing this ‘non-emotive’ Lexicon. The Lexicon seeks to restrict and replace terms such as Islamist, fundamentalist & Jihad. The words ‘Islamic Terrorist’ would apparently be replaced with ‘Terrorists who abusively invoke Islam’. However the Lexicon is being kept secret from journalists. It appears the EU not only wants to restrict freedom of speech but to restrict information on the restrictions it imposes.

1. Will the Commission make this lexicon available to Members of the European Parliament? If so, please inform me how to obtain a copy.

2. If the Lexicon is not to be made available to MEPs, will the Commission please provide a full explanation of why not?

3. On what legal basis does the Commission consider that institutions of the EU have competence to determine freedom of speech & the use of language?

4. Does the Commission consider that it has any legal basis to provide, what appears to be legally binding instructions to member state press spokesmen and women, and if so, what is that legal basis?

5. On what basis is the EU empowered, or feels itself able, to decide what is and is not authentic and non-authentic Islam?

6. Has any institution of the European Union consulted any organisation or body representing the Islamic religion on the use of language to describe its adherents, or terrorists purporting to be Muslims?

What is particularly concerning is the way that the British authorities have responded to the story. What, pray do they mean by this: “Details on the contents of the lexicon remain secret, but British officials stressed that it is there as a helpful aid ‘providing context’ for civil servants making speeches or giving press conferences. ‘We are fully signed up to this, but it is not binding,’ said one.”


I can't wait to see them start trying to tell UK pols that they should not say beastly things about the Islamists. Wonder how well this holds up next time we get hit by empowered murderous loons for Allah?


European elites are euthanazing the Old Continent. It's almost painful to watch. 


But basically, they are just turning official what the media already decided would be the newspeak (see BBC, Guardian guidelines regarding the use of "terrorism" and "jihad").  


and to top it off...

"Freedom is not free"

I Have Some Substitutions of My Own

  • Multiculturalism - De-culturalization
  • Immigration - Colonization
  • Illegal Immigration - Invasion
  • Immigrants - Fifth Columnists
  • Illegal Immigrants and Refugees - Invaders
  • Political Correctness - Submission
  • Open Borders - Defenseless
  • Soccer Hooligans - The First Line of Defense
  • Supporters of Open Borders, Multiculturalism and Political Correctness - Traitors
  • 'Difficult Youth' - Enemy Combatants
  • Extremist Clerics - Enemy Commanders


I could go on...

European De-enlightenment

The beginning of true wisdom is to call things by their proper name. - Chinese proverb

This does not bode well for Europe's future.

Forbidden Words

The word "enemy" is notably absent in newspaper reporting about the jihadis. As the Communists have taught us, he who controls the language of debate has half-won the argument.


"Welcome to dhimmi France (it is no mystery why jews are leaving France since 2000"


Because they get free money from the US, interest free housing loans paid for by my US tax money to build on stolen Palestinian land, instant Israeli citizenship and probably still collect from Fwance?  What a racket.  Good riddance.  I don't even like Fwance but if you are citizenship shopping please leave the EU.  You can probably still receive any "Holocaust" extortion checks at your Tel Aviv address so please leave.

Amsterdamsky :

Kind to you to find me a new country, but not being jewish, I am not sure that Israel is the right place to go to. Seems btw that you don't have a particular fondness for the jews or Israel. I love the "stolen palestinian land"...did you get this one on your daily dose of aldjihadzeera ?...

"Censored" desecrated Lille's jewish cemetary

XXXXX (censored) desecrated Lille's jewish cemetary.50 graves were damaged and desecrated yesterday in this french town. Lille is, no need to say, home to a very big arab-muslim population.
Even though we all know how vicious the young arab-muslims have been in their attacks against jews in the recent years in France, the media and politicians commenting about this other jewish graves affair (jewish cemetary destructions like this one happen regularly now and then in France_how strange...) speak and behave as this all came from aliens from another galaxy and as if they had no clues, really, ABSOLUTELY NO, NO, NOOOO CLUES about who could have done this....
See link to Le Figaro article here (with all the empty-sounding condemnations of course) : (paste separately the 2 lines)

And see the leftist paper "Le Monde" article here (I had trouble to find it on the "Le Monde" website : this probably-very-unimportant news for "Le Monde" was relegated "in a corner") :,14-0,39-30357399@7-40,0.html

Welcome to dhimmi France (it is no mystery why jews are leaving France since 2000)
By the way, France long ago adopted this 1984-type of vocabulary substitution :

Young violent arabs are called here "youth-in-difficult-situation" (sic!) ("jeunes en situation difficile").

Arab-muslim neighboorhoods in France are : "difficult neighboorhoods" ("quartiers difficiles").

Violent acts by these "youths" (other code name) such as the destruction of phone booths, of bus-stop shelters, and the arson of cars, are called "incivility" ("incivilité") !!

You indeed need a decoder when you listen to the french media, like you did in the Soviet Union with the official version of the soviet journalists. The media people and politicians in France twist the words as much as they can to hide to the french people the reality of the muslim onslaught on their country and civilization. Only the jews understand what is going on, and they are leaving...


"British officials stressed that it is there as a helpful aid ‘providing context’ for civil servants making speeches or giving press conferences. ‘We are fully signed up to this, but it is not binding,’ said one.”

If they're fully signed up it doesn't have to be binding, does it?

Have you formulated your emergency escape plans?

Do you have fresh batteries in your crystal noise detector?


This is true, but, either they are fully signed up, thus they are using it, or they are not.
If it is not binding, it does not mean that they are not applying it, merely that they will not be taken to court if they fail to apply the lexicon's instructions.
So I would suggest that to all intents and purposes it is politically and morally binding, not legally binding. Which when it comes to getting information out there amounts to the same thing. The information that the public will receive from Government press spokesmen and women will be censured.