:: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 ::
Posted by Edward Cline at 11:25 AM
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1971):
Phobia: Fear, horror, or aversion, esp. of a morbid
character….So Phobist nonce-wd. one who has a horror of or
aversion to anything.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1956) states:
Phobia: An irrational, persistent
fear of a particular object or class of objects.
The Oxford definition does not claim that a
phobia is necessarily irrational, but however stresses its cause as being a
person. The Webster’s definition does
not even mention a person, just objects or classes of objects, which, of
course, can include persons. Other dictionary definitions more or less track
the Oxford and Webster’s definitions.
The term “Islamophobia” was invented
and promoted in the early 1990s by the International
Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front group of the Muslim
Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad -- who was with that
organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected
IIIT's ideology -- now reveals
the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is
nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of
Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its
very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as
a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and
Although the term was coined
in the early 1990s, “Islamophobia” did not become the focus of an active
Brotherhood campaign until after 9/11.
Since that time, Islamist lobby organizations (including the Council
on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR) and Muslim civil-rights activists
have regularly accused the American people, American institutions,
law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of harboring a deep and
potentially violent prejudice against Muslims. The accusers charge that as a
result of this "Islamophobia," Muslims are disproportionately
targeted by perpetrators of hate crimes and acts of discrimination.
“Hate crimes.” “Hate speech.” Discrimination. Bigotry. Racism.
“Islalmophobia.” The lexicon of pro-Islam and pro-“Syrian” immigration is large
Whatever its true origins, the term Islamophobia
is a pejorative term used to describe a state of mind.
That state of mind is not necessarily irrational but the term is intended to
smear anyone who has or has expressed a rational and wholly justified fear of
Islam and even of Muslims in general (the most humble-looking,
innocuous-looking ones often turn out to be the slashers, the shooters, the
killers and wannabe killers; observe the knifing jihad
in Israel). Islamophobia may or may not result in action
taken by the “phobist.” The term has become synonymous with “hate speech” and
racism. If you are an Islamophobe, then you are automatically a racist and a
bigot and a vehicle of hate who ought to be gagged and fined and made to
. Michael Sturzenberger is only the latest Austrian to be charged
and found guilty of “hate speech.”
Now, I think it’s safe to say that neither President Barack Obama, nor
Chancellor Angela Merkel, nor Prime Minister David Cameron, nor French
President François Hollande, nor
Hillary Clinton, nor any other pro-immigration politicians here or in Europe,
is an Islamophobe. Unlike so many ordinary citizens of America, Britain, Germany,
and France, they are surrounded daily by security so heavy that no one would
have a chance to spike their drinks or make an indecent gesture in their
company. I imagine that if I threw a shoe or a shower sandal at Obama’s heavily
armored limousine as it passed by – a vehicle and its string of decoys each of
which could repel an RPG – I’d be instantly wrestled to the ground by Secret
Service goons and charged with endangering the president’s life, and perhaps
with “hate speech.”
They don’t need to worry about
being threatened by ISIS or Muslims. They each have a “safe space” to insulate
them from “microaggressions.” They don’t live in the same neighborhoods as
those of us here in the workaday world. They’ve never needed to fear, mistrust,
or abhor Muslims or Islam or immigrant brutes of any stripe, even though ISIS
has threatened to kill them. It’s an empty threat, made just for show, because
Obama, Cameron, Hollande, both Clintons, and Merkel are the best friends ISIS
ever had. Lower-level elitists like Secretary of State John Kerry won't be
encountering Muslims or “Syrians” or even hostile illegal Mexicans at their
local laundromats, either. The only dangers Obama and Kerry might face is the possibility
of a bicycle malfunction caused by a prankish Islamic jin.
This is an important
ingredient in the positions of our putative guardians of the national security,
that they are insulated from the consequences of their Platonic policies. It
is, from their perspective, incumbent upon the hoi polloi to act out our fantasy worlds. They, the elite, must
remain above and unsullied and undisturbed by those policies.
Did the Nazis ever fear the Vichy government in
France? Not much. If you’re a contemporary collaborationist facilitating the
invasion and occupation of your country by country’s enemies, you needn’t fear for
your personal safety, or fear anything except perhaps reprisals from put-upon
citizens either at the ballot box or at government-supervised rallies whose
media coverage is also carefully supervised and managed.
I don’t think there were any prominent “Naziphobes” at large in the
U.S. during WW2; the basic character of Nazi Germany was understood by most
Americans as something not to sympathize with or welcome into the country.
However, there weren’t very many prominent “Communistphobes,” either, not in
academia nor in the news media of the time, because all the propaganda
reportage and films and so on were geared to prep Americans to blow kisses to
Uncle Joe Stalin. He was an ally. His dictatorship was attacked by another
dictatorship. Poor baby. He was just your ordinary benevolent dictator and
never mind the millions of Russians he’d had put to death, or starved to death,
or shipped to Gulags, Walter
to the contrary notwithstanding. He’s on our side. Never fear. What
are you? Some sort of Slavophobe or something? Racist! Critics of the U.S.-Soviet
alliance were squelched or ignored.
I'll confess here and now and for all time: I’m an Islamophobe, as
well as a Naziphobe and a Communistphobe. I wouldn’t need to be an Islamophobe
if our government did its proper job and declared war on Islam. After all,
Islam declared war on us. On the West. But there’s been no proper retaliation
against the states that sponsor terrorism that is worth noting, although what
has been done has cost thousands of American lives and billions of dollars. This
is because our government has not recognized Islam for what it is. And it isn't
going to recognize its perfidy for as long as Islam is regarded as a “religion
of peace” that’s been “hijacked” or stands as a model for what our current
President regards as an ideal and enviable polity.
You hate what you fear, especially if you have no control over the
nemesis, and especially if the nemesis, like Islam, is allowed to metastasize
in your neighborhood, city, state, and country. There are rational approaches
to curing or at least curbing one’s fear of snakes, spiders, rodents, heights, and
so on. Even of one’s fear of politicians. That’s when you allow reason to take
control of your responses and emotions. But Islam rebuffs reason and its
Western defenders are proof against reason, as well.
One thing you may despise if not hate is the Muslim prayer ritual.
This is the ritual that may take place in your place of employment and
certainly takes place when ISIS fighters rape
their Yazidi captives
. A Jihad Watch reader describes the state of mind of
the average Muslim when immersed in prayer.
prohibits almost every pleasure. If a supernatural belief prevents a person
from indulging in pleasures, then this belief also relieves this person of the
guilt. And when the person is relieved of his guilt and shame because of this
belief, his conviction that this belief is ‘genuine’ is consolidated. This
re-enforces the validity of this belief in the person’s mind on a constant
basis. He feels ‘pure’, clean about himself as a result, while those who
indulge in pleasure, appear ‘filthy’, dirty to him.
Compounding this phenomenon are the
Islamic prayer gestures. While a Muslim is engaged in pretentious bodily
movements and gestures of the Islamic prayer, his brain is subjected to a
trance like state, which resonates with his desire to believe in a god, thereby
again re-enforcing the notion that this belief is genuine, and is making him a
better human being with each prayer.
A particular part of the human brain
plays a critical role in this phenomenon. This part gives rise to a thirst for
supernatural connection, which is quenched by Islam, and hence manipulates and
motivates the person psychologically toward believing in Islam. This feel-good
factor acts as the psychological impetus behind him being attached to Islam. He
now clings on to Islam, because Islam makes him feel better about himself.
Hence this person is motivated to keep practicing Islam, continue being
delusional and keep following the imaginary Allah. Even kill in his name.
This is the secret behind the success
See my column, “The
Collectivist Mentality of Muslims” here
for an extended discussion of what makes Muslims tick.
So, if you see Muslim women in their sweltering
robes and head bags pushing prams in the supermarket or on a street, there is a
reason for that. Dymphna of Gates of Vienna cited information from the Center for Immigration Studies
in a November
23rd column, “Immigration
,” and it contains some revealing and incriminating data. At
first glance, it would seem that the separation of church and state in America
has its limits, especially when the government is paying religious groups to
bring in alien “immigrants” and “refugees” to settle in this country. It’s a
and hush-hush racket.
cascade of governors (over two dozen now) demanding that the State Department
not send them any more Syrian refugees didn’t just happen in a vacuum. Local and
state dissatisfaction with Washington’s dumping of refugees has been building
for years. These communities were dubbed “pockets of resistance” by the federal
Office of Refugee Resettlement a couple of years ago, a moniker they [the
resisters, that is — D] have embraced. The Paris atrocities merely turned the
dial up to 11.
driven much of this local resentment has not been security concerns so much as
cost ones — concerns that apply to all refugees, not merely those from Syria or
even the Islamic world generally. The paid agents of the State Department — the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
(52 percent taxpayer-funded), Church World Service (57 percent
taxpayer-funded), World Relief (70 percent taxpayer-funded), Lutheran Immigrant
and Refugee Services (92 percent taxpayer-funded), and others — decide on their
own, in secret, where they will send the refugees they’re paid to “sponsor,”
whether the local schools and other institutions can handle them or not. I use scare quotes because sponsoring
a refugee does not mean what you think it does — it consists of little more
than signing the refugees up for welfare and then moving on to the next
revenue-generating warm body (the agencies are paid by the head).
states and localities, refugee resettlement
can be is a huge unfunded
mandate. This heavy use of state and local welfare and
other services, combined with the imperious attitude of the State Department
and its minions, has generated resistance across the country….
Think of the phenomenon in terms of a cattle drive over your lawn, and
down your street. It is incumbent upon you, the citizen taxpayer funding the
drive, to scoop up the cow patties and to repair the damage thousands of
“refugees” will leave in their wake. You will be held responsible by your
community for the physical and sanitary condition of the pavements. But you can
bet that the executives of these and other government-subsidized “bring ‘em by
the bushel” immigration facilitators won't be living anywhere in the vicinity
of their paid-by-the-head charges. They have their privacy and peace of mind to
consider, you know. Gated communities which also bar you are their reward for
“doing good.” You? There’s nothing in it for you, except perhaps the cultural
enrichment experience, which can assume all kinds of forms, mainly criminal.
You are expected to be selfless about the invasion.
Any talk of vetting
is nothing more than plausible deniability. Unless a terrorist is already in
our database, vetting him is a lost cause. Our system couldn’t handle the World
Trade Center bombers or the 9/11 hijackers and they came from functioning
countries that weren’t in the middle of a civil war.
We are not going to be able to vet tens of thousands of people who claim they
come from Syria, who have fake passports or who plead that they lost their
passports at sea, whose names can be rendered in enough ways to give even a
linguist a headache and who will get access to the United States long enough
for them to disappear even if we did eventually turn up something on them.
And we’re not supposed to vet them.
No, we're not supposed to give any “refugee” a religious test, or an
ideology test, or any kind of test that would screen out a Muslim Brotherhood
“settler” who’s here to wage civilizational jihad while collecting welfare jizya and not to open a tobacco shop or
a laundromat or a landscaping service. That would be so unbecoming, and
offensive, and insulting, and maybe even unconstitutional!
ISIS may have carried out the brutal massacres in Paris, but Hollande, Merkel
and the other friends of the refugees helped make it happen. And they want to
help make it happen around the world.
The migrant crisis is an invasion. The bodies in Paris could just as easily
have been stacked up in any country that was foolish and feckless enough to
open the door to ISIS by taking in “refugees”.
If Obama and Kerry succeed in their plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrian
migrants to America, the next brutal massacre might not happen in Paris. It
might happen in one of our cities instead.
So, while considering whether or not “open borders” and unlimited “Syrian
refugee” importations are viable options and that we mustn’t pre-judge especially
Muslims, tuck this news into your calculations. Arms are making their way into
Germany, smuggled in with all the “refugees.” Gages of Vienna has this story to
report, from November 24th, “Suppressed
Truth: Waves of Refugees, Trafficking in Weapons and Children”
media report every day about the new folk movement is surely a small snippet of
reality. Why are politicians and the leading media silent about traffic in
weapons and children?
days, I [Udo Ulfkotte,
reporting] was in the border area of Passau/Deggendorf and later also between
Graz and Spielfeld in Austria, near the Slovenian border. At both border
crossings there was open transporting of weapons in the direction of Germany
and of children destined for abuse. No, that is not being said by conspiracy
theorists, but by government security officials on the spot….
have heard confirmation from credible, contemporary witnesses: weapons and
drugs are being smuggled in the waves of refugees.
And how did all those Bulgarian-made Kalashnikovs
in Paris? Doubtless, the Islamic tooth fairy left them under massacre
master-mind Abdelhamid Abaaoud’s smiley-face pillow one night.
Of course, that can't happen
here. Don’t succumb to Islamophobia! It’s all in your head!
0 Comments ::
:: Saturday, November 21, 2015 ::
Islam’s Psychotic Obsession
Posted by Edward Cline at 3:05 PM
propinks like propinquity.
It is also
fortuitous happenstance that two accomplished students of the subject of Islam,
thousands of miles apart and within days of each other, published columns about
what drives Islam’s penchant for homicide, torture, rape, mutilation, conquest,
and destruction. They are Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, in his
November 11th column, “Why
Islam is a Religion of War,” and the mysterious Norwegian writer Fjordman,
in his November 17th piece, “Islam: A
Permanent World War,” on Gates of Vienna. Their common theme is why Islam makes war on
the West. Their themes intersect at certain points, and then go off in
Islamic violence is
a religious problem. Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war
becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will
conquer the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, is to feel called to aid in
that global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become
that a jihadist is much like a
schoolyard bully, who must triumph over his opponents and strike fear in and compel
submission by the other kids. It is an absolute necessity. It is important
that others witness this triumph. It is even better if he triumphs
in cooperation with other bullies, or with their encouragement. It is proof
of his faith. His being the “last man
standing” over his vanquished and bloodied foe is taken as proof for him of the
metaphysical supremacy and superiority of his faith, and of the efficacy of
physical force in the name of Islam. He has faith
in that fallacy. It must be true. It’s
the only thing he’s sure of.
Rob him of
that faith, and he goes berserk. He will lash out at reality for not conforming
to his faith. Reality must be destroyed. Deny him his imaginary metaphysical
anchor, and he is compelled to prove it with more mayhem, come what may, even
if it entails his own death.
To such a
mind, the possibility that Islam isn’t true, that it isn’t superior to
anything, is inconceivable and blasphemous. A mind willingly, volitionally fastened
to that belief is incapable of inquiry into its nature and roots. A Muslim’s faith in Islam is his proof. Period. No
arguments are permitted. Arguments imply the employment of reason. Reason is
not permissible. Circular logic is de
rigor to “prove” faith.
There is no
reaching a mind obsessed with its faith in an imaginary deity, an imaginary
prophet, and existence after death. It’s a Hannibal Lector
species of mind.
bombers obliterate themselves by obliterating anyone who doesn’t share their
faith. It’s “proof” of the universal truth of Islam. In physical destruction,
they believe, is the final and ultimate truth. In negation is victory. It is
reality that suicide bombers and jihadist raiders wish to obliterate in an
ultimate demonstration of the truth of Islam.
That faith is set in some kind of insoluble epistemological
cement. There’s no reasoning with such a mind, no modicum of persuasion
possible to it, there’s no crack in it one can pry open with either a credit
card or a set of professional burglar’s picklocks or a crowbar. It is closed to
reality and closed to human communication. To such a mind, the belief is synonymous with a metaphysical
given. “We are able to destroy you; ergo, the truth of our faith. We are able
to force you to convert or submit; ergo, the truth of our faith.”
This is the
syllogism of a psychosis and of a desperate obsession for things as they are
Servier said about Islam in 1922 (or 1923) supports my own
contention that Muslims are self-lobotomized by remaining faithful followers of Mohammad and adherents to Islam. On Gates of
Vienna is a video featuring the “mastermind” of the Paris carnage, the late and
unlamented Abdelhamid Abaaoud, “What
I did at summer camp” in Syria. At the end of the video were quotations
from Sevier and Winston Churchill. Sevier said:
“Islam was not a torch, but
an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous
people, it was – and it remains – incapable of adapting itself to civilization.
Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and
checked the evolution of society.”
was taken from a badly translated article, digested from a book
by Sevier at Islam
in its Own Words, dated April 2009. I quote further from the article, “Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman,”
with my own
Against current opinion,
Arabs have no imagination at all. They are realists, not able to imagine or
conceive anything that is not directly perceivable. This explains the sterility
of Arabs in painting, sculpture, literature, science and philosophy.
It would be
better to label Arabs as “compilers”. Even Islam itself is not an original
doctrine, but a compilation of Greek, Latin, Biblical, Jewish, and Christian
traditions. Arabs have a strong observation capability, but this is at the
expense of imagination. And without imagination, no progress is possible.
contrary, Arabs (or Muslims) are not
realists. They are divorced from reality. The more devout they are to Islam,
the further away they are from reality and from sanity. They are as divorced
from it as are the likes of Hillary
Clinton, who asserts that “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful
and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” She can
say this with a backdrop of a growing pile of bodies on top of which is a
black-clad Muslim waving the black flag of ISIS and giving the world the finger.
Peace is identical with submission
to Islam. The absence of Sharia law is the absence of peace. Islam is therefore
essentially an ideology of eternal global war. It advocates the permanent
incorporation of the non-Islamic Dar al-Harb, the “House of War,” into
the Dar al-Islam, the “House of Islam” or “House of Submission.” The
term “House of War” indicates that all areas under non-Islamic rule are viewed
as a place of war until such areas cease to exist worldwide and submit to
forces which are loyal to Allah and his Prophet. Some Islamic theologians use
intermediate categories where Islam is making progress, yet does not yet reign
supreme. However, the basic divide in Islamic theology is between the House of
War and the House of Islam.
It is the
physical occupation of non-Islamic space that is paramount in Islamic faith. It is that physical occupation,
writes Greenfield, that is all-important for Islam to validate its means and
ends. Fjordman quotes an Islamic scholar:
“It follows,” wrote the
Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, professor of the Middle East Studies Program at
Johns Hopkins University, “that the existence of a Dar-al-Harb is ultimately
outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the Dar al-Islam is permanently under
jihad obligation until the Dar al-Harb is reduced to non-existence….The
universality of Islam, in all its embracing creed, is imposed on the believers
as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly
conclusion of such a “struggle” (fitna)
all the world will be at peace. Reality will have been altered making Islam the
global “reality.” Fjordman concludes his article:
Islam contains elements of a
traditional religion, but also elements of a totalitarian belief system
centered around a personality cult of Mohammad. Islam is a creed of war, not a religion of peace. In theory, this war
will end when all human beings on Earth have submitted to Islamic rule and
eventually become Muslims. In practice, experience shows us that Muslim
societies are far from peaceful. Muslims will continue to fight amongst
themselves over who are the best and truest Muslims. Islam can with some
justification be classified as a permanent world war, a war that has so far
been raging for fourteen centuries and claimed countless lives. [Italics mine.]
supreme goal is to take possession of the entire planet. Faith in Islam drives them towards that goal. Greenfield notes:
The gang of throat slitters
who accompanied Mohammed on his massacres across the region were given a
religious incentive that would transcend death.
of ISIS, Al-Queda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and any other Islamic terrorist gang
at large in our time also have the same religious incentive – and are afflicted
with the same psychotic obsession. “I’ve got Allah and his Prophet! What do I need
brains for? They’re all the truth I need!”
In April 2006
Fjordman penned an ominous “For Whom the Bell Tolls” piece for the Brussels
Journal, “The Fall of France and the
Multicultural World War.” He foretold the consequences of the migration of Muslims
into Europe. Remember, this was in 2006, before German Chancellor Angela Merkel
opened the gates of migratory hell.
The population movements we
are witnessing now are the largest and fastest in human history. In Europe,
they can only be compared to the period often referred to as the Migration
Period, following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. However, during the
4th and 5th centuries, the total human population of the world was in the order
of 200 million. Today, it is 30 times larger than that, and still growing fast.
We also have communications that can transport people anywhere on earth within
hours, and media that show ordinary people how much better life is in other
countries. On top of that, the Romans didn’t have human rights lawyers
advocating that millions of barbarians be let into their lands. Is it a
coincidence that the last time we had migrations like this was when large parts
of the European continent suffered a complete civilizational breakdown? Is that
what we are witnessing now? The second
fall of Rome?
If you are not
too depressed, the Brussels Journal article, though long, is worth the read.
On that note,
one would be justified in forming the hypothesis that President Barack Obama is
an agent of that psychotic obsession, knowing full well that the Syrian “refugees”
he wants to let into the country do not mean so much as “settle” here as
terrorize and occupy it, was well. A Conservative
Byte article of November 21st reveals his actual state of mind, which is to
help complete the “transformation of the country.”
insider White House sources, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson dropped
a bombshell during an interview with Steve Malzberg (of
Newsmax). Attkisson said President Obama has come to the point where he will
not even listen to intelligence reports on certain Islamic terror groups –
groups that are listed by the U.S. State Department as involved in
international terror against Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims around the
is a former CBS journalist who left that organization after it stifled many of
her investigative reports. She now heads up the independent Internet news site Full Measure. Here is an excerpt from her
interview Friday with Malzberg:
have talked to people who have worked in the Obama administration who firmly believe
he has made up his mind, I would say closed his mind, they say, to their
intelligence they try to bring him about various groups he does not consider
terrorists even if they’re on the U.S. list of designated terrorists. He has
his own ideas. There are those who’ve known him for a long time that say this
dates back to law school. He’s not necessarily going to listen to the people
with whom he disagrees. He seems to dig in. And I would say that’s because he
thinks he’s right.”
don’t know the reasoning for it,” she continued. “I’ve only been told by those
who have allegedly attempted to present him or been in the circle that has
attempted to present him with certain intelligence that they said he doesn’t
want it, he said he doesn’t want it or he won’t read it in some instances.”
for the White House with every intention of doing this country grave harm in
every possible way he could get away with. He has carried Islam’s water for as
long. He wants to see this country hurt, and hurt more than it was on 9/11.
It’s time he
was called out. It matters not to me whether he’s a closet Muslim or dedicated
Marxist or a combination of those “faiths.” Barack Obama is obsessed with
destroying this country, and that makes him psychotic. He is evil. He keeps
giving us the Islamic finger of victory.
It’s time we
gave him our own.
0 Comments ::