First, let’s define phobia.
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.
And here is the origin of the term Islamophobia, from Discover the Networks.
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 silencing them….
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 and loathsome.
For an extended discussion of the term’s origin, see Robert Spencer’s August 2012 Jihad Watch column, “Did the Muslim Brotherhood Invent the term ‘Islamophobia’?” Spencer’s argument about the term’s origins is at odds with the account given by Discover the Networks.
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 perform community service. 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 Duranty 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.
Islam 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 of Islam.
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 is Immoral,” 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 horrible and hush-hush racket.
The 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.
What’s 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).
For 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.
Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish on November 23rd in his column, “Everything’s Fine Until the Bombs Go Off,” noted about bringing in Obama’s 10,000 or more Syrian “refugees”:
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”:
What our 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?
In recent 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….
Amazed, I 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 wind up 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!