Islamophobia lecture weak arguments
Page 2 of 2

Author:  chijohnaok [ Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Islamophobia lecture weak arguments

On Islamophobia:

Quote: ... h-goldberg

January 17, 2015 4:00 AM

Victims Über Alles
The Left’s Islamophobia obsession shows the extent to which victimology dominates our politics.

By Jonah Goldberg

Dear Reader (including my Twitter followers who are just scanning this for the hidden glottal stops),

So Charlie Hebdo is selling like hot cakes, giving new meaning to the Profit Mohammed. And, just as I suspected, the images are pissing off lots of Muslims who aren’t terrorists. And, again just as I suspected, the New York Times et al. can’t help but make that the real story. No doubt millions of people hashtagging “Je Suis Charlie” were sincere — or thought they were — but the real reason that slogan spread into nearly every ideological quarter is that sympathizing, empathizing, and leeching off the moral status of victims is the only thing that unites Western societies these days. Celebrating winners is divisive. How long did it take for the Sharptonians to leap on the Oscar nominations?

What is remarkable is how short the half-life of solidarity for Charlie Hebdo was. The moment it dawned on people that there must be consequences to the Hebdo attack, not just group hugs and hashtags, the divisions, gripes, and handwring re-emerged.

Victims Über Alles

Simply put, victimology is the language and currency of our politics. Fighting for victims is a calling and minting new victims and grievances is a trillion-dollar industry. Heroism, fidelity, courage, duty, temperance: Their stock value may be volatile but the long-term trends have been bad for a while. But guilt and resentment are the gold and silver of our realm, a perfect hedge against the civilizational recession.

And so before the street-sweepers even put a dent in the discarded “Je Suis Charlie” signs, the media was already on the prowl for signs of Western overreaction. The New York Times editors warned that “perhaps the greatest danger in the wake of the attacks” was a backlash against Muslim immigrants.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want an anti-Muslim backlash, but in all of this talk of Islamophobia, it seems the most acute and relevant phobia is the fear our elites have of their own people. The rabble can’t be trusted to keep things in perspective. While the story was still unfolding in Paris, Steven Erlanger, the New York Times’s London bureau chief, was invited on Shep Smith’s show for a “phoner.” Erlanger couldn’t resist starting the interview by warning Fox about how “careful” it needs to be covering the story. The Eloi must be ever vigilant not to arouse the Morlocks, don’t you know. It was this sentiment that no doubt motivated the Times to edit its own reporting on the attack, removing any reference to the fact that one of the Charlie Hebdo attackers spared a woman’s life — and advised her she needed to convert to Islam. You can almost hear the editors saying, “Look, if we leave that in, the little people might get the impression this had something to do with Islam. We know it does, but we can handle that truth. The flyover people might miss the nuances.”

What Did You Do During the Anti-Muslim Backlash, Grandpa?

By the way, how much have you heard about the anti-Muslim backlash over the last decade and a half? Well, here’s a fun fact. In every year since 9/11 the number of anti-Jewish hate crimes in the U.S. has dwarfed anti-Muslim hate crimes.

In 2001 — you know, the year when the World Trade Center was knocked down by Islamist terrorists — there were still twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as there were anti-Muslim ones reported to the FBI. By 2002, things got back to “normal” and anti-Jewish outstripped anti-Muslim hate crimes by roughly a factor of five – and it’s stayed that way ever since. In 2013, nearly 60 percent of anti-religious hate crimes were against Jews. Just over 14 percent were against Muslims. Now, I’m not saying America is anti-Semitic, far from it. It’s easily the most philo-Semitic country in the world, save for Israel (and if you spent time listening to Israelis criticize themselves, you’d consider that a debatable proposition). But when was the last time you heard a reporter from the New York Times fret over the need to be careful lest we encourage an anti-Semitic backlash?

I’ll take my answer off the air.

(One hilarious tic of the anti-Islamophobia brigades is they can’t even use the right words. Technically, bigotry against Muslims is anti-religious. But denouncing bigotry against religion creates too much cognitive dissonance for a crowd that routinely denounces Christianity. It’s too risky to set that precedent. So instead they use “Islamophobia” whenever possible and “racism” whenever they can get away with it.)

Continued below due to length

Author:  chijohnaok [ Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Islamophobia lecture weak arguments

I don’t dispute that Islamist terrorist attacks threaten to give Islam a bad name. (Actually, that ship probably sailed a long time ago for lots of people.) What I don’t get is why Muslims should have blanket immunity from the rules that apply to everyone else. If Israel does something bad, Jews are expected to condemn it — and they do. When a pro-lifer goes vigilante and blows up an abortion clinic, you can be damn sure that pro-life leaders are expected to denounce it — and they do. More to the point, the entire liberal establishment gets their dresses over their collective heads about the need to hold larger communities accountable. Just ask tea partiers, Evangelical Christians, gun-rights advocates, and my other fellow Legionaires of Doom.

The entire edifice of supposedly sophisticated left-wing thinking is about collective responsibility. For instance, The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote an impassioned case for reparations last year. Whatever you think of his argument, two things are indisputably true: (1) The piece was universally praised on the left (and parts of the right) and (2) slavery reparations amount to collective punishment. You might say that slavery was collective punishment — and you’d be right! But there are no living former slaves in the U.S. (not counting refugees) and there are no living former slave owners of the Confederacy either. Moreover, there are quite literally hundreds of millions of people who have little to no tangible connection to slavery — even by lineage. There are over 40 million foreign-born Americans today. Why should a Vietnamese immigrant be asked to pay for 19th-century slavery? My mother is half of southern heritage and half of northern, but my dad’s side of the family were all refugees from the pogroms. Do I pay a quarter reparation?

Forget reparations. What about correcting “white privilege,” taxing the “1 percent,” and denouncing all cops for the actions of a few? These, along with critical legal studies, critical race studies, and vast swaths of feminism, Marxism, post-colonialism, and other bits of wreckage from the overturned manure truck of left-wing thinking all depend, in one way or another, on notions of collective responsibility. Moreover, they depend on them not just in a communal or political sense, but as a matter of metaphysics. White people owe. Men owe. The wealthy owe. The West owes. They owe because the goddess “social justice” demands it. And this particular goddess is Crom-like in the sense that she cares not whether you were born in poverty or what good works you have done in your life. You don’t matter. All that matters is the eternal them and they owe by virtue of their identity.

Murdoch Is Gallic for Mordor, Right?

I bring all of this up because I found the hissy fit over Rupert Murdoch’s tweet last week pretty hilarious. Murdoch wrote:

Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.

Now, I might have phrased that differently, but you have to suffer a kind of anti-Murdoch dementia to not get his point. He was not calling for drone strikes on 1.6 billion Muslims. He was saying the Islamic world has to confront the problem in its own community, as he explained here.

But for those who feel awkward and uncomfortable denouncing Islamic terrorism (people might get the wrong idea!), denouncing Rupert Murdoch is like curling up by the fire in warm footie-pajamas. It is ground zero of the liberal comfort zone. Chris Hayes called Murdoch’s tweet evidence of “A disgusting, vile sentiment, whose logic is ghastly.” He added:

“Hold them all responsible” is precisely the evil logic of terrorism. #pt
— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) January 10, 2015

Now, in a seminar, it’s absolutely true that one can do a little dance at the chalkboard and explain why the language of Murdoch’s tweet can by syllogistically compared to the “logic” of terrorism. But in reality, the real evil here is playing word games that fuzz-up the differences between an utterly defensible tweet and the mass slaughter of innocent people by large groups of people determined to kill more and, ultimately, erase Western civilization and all the liberal and “liberal” values progressives hold dear. What I mean is jihadism is at war with both my kind of liberalism — free minds, free markets — and Chris Hayes’s kind of “liberalism” — gender norming, sexual liberation, etc. But confronting that truth is hard. It’s so much easier and more satisfying to whine about Rupert Murdoch because “Fox News!!!!111!!!

Kevin Williamson got this very well in an excellent piece on the use and abuse of ideological extremism. Just because you can do the logic chopping dance and compare different kinds of “extremism” that doesn’t make them equivalent in the real world. Here’s Kevin:

As the slaughter at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris reminds us, the phrase “religious extremism” is useless in that it is almost entirely devoid of content. It matters — and it matters a great deal — which religion is under consideration. The world does not have much of a problem with Quaker extremism, Mormon extremism, African Methodist Episcopal extremist, Reform Jewish extremism, Zen Buddhist extremism, Southern Baptist extremism, etc. We’ve seen, over the past few decades, scattered paroxysms of Hindu extremism and Sikh extremism (India), Buddhist violence (Burma), quasi-Christian cult violence (Uganda, Sudan), etc., but the big show in terms of violent extremism is the never-ending circus of jihad.

Continued below.

Author:  chijohnaok [ Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Islamophobia lecture weak arguments

Juan Cole, in a particularly dopey moment, compared Sarah Palin, of all people, to the sort of people who just carried out a mass murder in Paris. “The values of [John McCain’s] handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers,” he wrote. “What’s the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.”

Lipstick and 3,000 corpses in lower Manhattan, hundreds of thousands more around the world, and a dozen new ones in a Paris magazine office.

I am sure there is something that passes for an “extreme Unitarian” but I would feel much safer around one than an avowed “extreme Wahhabist.”

Don’t Call It Brave

The Left has long been enamored with the idea that they speak truth to power. But the powerful people they set their sights on almost invariably turn out to be pretty harmless (and the institutions they attack — universities, corporations, etc. — are remarkably spineless). As I noted the other week, if the Koch brothers were a fraction as dangerous as they’re made out to be, no one would be attacking them for fear of being fed to sharks with frick’n lasers on their heads. We’re breeding generations of citizens who think attacking left-wing college administrators from the left is bold and courageous and denouncing Islamic extremism is racist. We apologize for the “root causes” that lead to actual violence, while we theorize endlessly about how ultimately we’re really to blame. Our military heroes are terroristic and the terrorists are misunderstood. That’s not merely dazzlingly idiotic; it is effulgently suicidal.

Back to the Backlash

I realize this “news” letter has been taking a gloomy turn of late, but I am truly dismayed about where things are going. I feel like Fred Thompson in The Hunt for Red October: “This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”

Again, I support Charlie Hebdo and I am glad they didn’t back off. But, again, this isn’t necessarily good news. It’s simply a matter of making the best of a bad situation, but so is finding a nice buoyant armoire amid the flotsam of the Titanic. And doing the right thing often makes things worse in the short run. When the Brits finally declared war on Nazi Germany, they did the right thing, but that didn’t mean they weren’t in a bad place.

America is not the Titanic and we are not on the verge of World War III, but we are in a bad spot. Jihadism is forcing bad decisions on the West, and the West isn’t even choosing the least bad decisions when it can identify them. Things will get worse before they get better.

Author:  abradley [ Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Islamophobia lecture weak arguments

Is this Islamophobia?

Author:  chijohnaok [ Tue May 01, 2018 12:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Islamophobia lecture weak arguments ... -of-islam/


Analyst says plan should be 'warning' of looming danger

Published: 3 hours ago

author-image BOB UNRUH

Turkey for years was a moderate Middle East nation, with both Western leanings and aspirations. It’s in NATO, along with the United States.

But in the last few years, it’s taken a sharp turn toward full-blown Islamic Shariah law and persecution of non-Muslims.

It just got worse, with a statement from a high government official that it wants all governments across Europe to criminalize “Islamophobia,” which would include any negative comment about the religion.

The report comes from Uzay Bulut, a journalist from Turkey who has worked with the Haym Salomon Center. She’s currently based in Washington, and writes at the Gatestone Institute.

She said just weeks ago, in a report from the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Çavuşoğlu called on EU governments to criminalize Islamophobia.

Her report quoted him saying, “There is no ideology or terminology called ‘Islamism’; There is only one Islam and it means ‘peace.'”

She pointed out that it is salaam that means peace, not Islam, which means submission.

She wrote, “Urging all politicians to recognize Islamophobia as ‘a hate crime and a form of racism’ in their constitutions, Çavuşoğlu accused European judiciaries of applying a double standard by not paying as much attention to Islamophobia as they do to anti-Semitism.”

Nothing new about his views, the report said.

In fact, it’s demanded by the Quran, where it states, “It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion…”

The writer suggested that perhaps Turkish officials might need to be reminded about what is, or has been, going on in their nation already.

“Non-Muslims in Turkey have been exposed to severe persecution and attempts at annihilation, such as the 1914-1923 Christian genocide; the 1941-1942 conscription of the ‘twenty classes,’ of all male Christians and Jews, including the elderly and mentally ill; and the 1942 Wealth Tax, which aimed to impoverish non-Muslims and transfer their wealth to Muslims,” she explained. “Today, only 0.2 percent of Turkey’s population of nearly 80 million is Christian or Jewish.”

Her report said there are fewer than 2,000 Greeks left in Istanbul, after they were “murdered, deported or forced to flee severe persecution” over the years.

Some 1.5 million Armenians were killed during Turkey’s 1915 genocide, and since then, they have been targeted with the seizure of property and other assets, the report said.

The nation has systematically discriminated against Jews for generations.

“The laws that excluded Jews and other non-Muslim citizens from certain occupations in the 1920s and blocked the Jews’ freedom of movement; the 1934 anti-Jewish pogrom in eastern Thrace, and the continued anti-Jewish hate speech in the Turkish media and certain political circles are among the forms of persecution and discrimination against Jewish citizens of Turkey,” she wrote.

As for Assyrian Christians in Turkey?

They “suffered forced evictions, mass displacement and the burning down of their homes and villages, abductions (including of priests,) forced conversions to Islam through rape and forced marriage, and murder. These pressures, and other insidious forms of persecution and discrimination, have decimated the community.”

Even now, the government and Muslim Kurds “continue to seize their lands and property illegally,” she wrote.

Protestant Christians are not considered a “legal entity” in Turkey, and are deprived of the right to establish and maintain places of worship.

And they are targeted with “hate crimes and speech, verbal and physical attacks and workplace discrimination.”

Yazidis are simply not recognized as having religion, she wrote.

It’s actually been since about the 11th century that “Turks seem to have had a tradition … of being unneighborly to non-Muslims,” she wrote.

“The West needs to be reminded that this tradition is alive and well in modern Turkey,” she said.

“Çavuşoğlu, in his talk against Islamophobia, did not mention the atrocities committed by radical Islamists in Europe. Those abuses are at the root of the debate about how to tackle the calls to violence in Islam without hampering the civil liberties of law-abiding Muslims. By proposing to block all criticism of Islam on the grounds that it is ‘extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic and Islamophobic,’ Çavuşoğlu is revealing that he would welcome banning free speech to protect a religious ideology,” her warning said.

Author:  nero [ Tue May 01, 2018 12:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Islamophobia lecture weak arguments

chijohnaok wrote:

Consider the source. :lol:

WND is in the same category with Alex Jones' infowars. ;)

And Erdogan can go fuck himself and the goats anyway. :twisted:

Author:  chijohnaok [ Tue May 01, 2018 5:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Islamophobia lecture weak arguments

nero wrote:
chijohnaok wrote:

Consider the source. :lol:

WND is in the same category with Alex Jones' infowars. ;)

And Erdogan can go fuck himself and the goats anyway. :twisted:

Just because you don't deem WND as a worthy source of news doesn't mean that what they report is not accurate.


The authors of every respective national report have suggested specific recommendations regarding the country they have covered. This will support all those forces within European societies, who work towards a more equal society and fight every form of racism. The editors of the EIR support the following recommendations, which were made by leading organizations in the struggle against anti-Muslim racism:

    In the face of the increased and generalized suspicion and marginalization of Muslims in the post-terrorist attacks and migration contexts and the deep impact the former have had on Muslims’ lives, including newly arrived migrants, the recognition of the specific form of racism targeting Muslims (or those perceived as such) is crucial.

    EU institutions need to recognize and address Islamophobia politically as a form of racism that can lead to human rights violations.

    The legal and political recognition of Islamophobia is of utmost importance. Therefore, a European-level conference on Islamophobia should be organized with the support of at least one EU member state or the European Parliament.

    In this context, the European Parliament should adopt a resolution on combatting Islamophobia with concrete policy recommendations and ways forward – as it did to combat anti-Semitism and anti-Gypsysism.

    EU member states should adopt national action plans against racism addressing Islamophobia as a specific form of racism.

    Europe needs courageous leaders and activists who can confront Islamophobic discourses and narratives in the age of rising far-right parties.

    The recording of anti-Muslim/Islamophobic crimes as a separate category of hate crime by the police forces of all European states is essential to uncover the real extent of this problem and to develop counter-strategies to combat it.

    Muslim women’s access to employment should be improved since they are the most discriminated group among Muslims. Gender equality departments and the corresponding committees of EU institutions should give specific attention to situations of discrimination affecting Muslim women by documenting the issue and pushing for specific programs and measures to combat it.

    While protecting free speech, developing clear guidelines to tackle online hate speech and considering primary legislation to deal with social media offences and online hate speech are also vital since the Internet plays an important role in the spread of Islamophobic discourses and also in the radicalization of far-right terrorists.

    Discrimination in the workplace should be tackled to address the low level of economic activity among Muslims through targeted interventions at the stages of recruitment, job retention, and promotion.

    Preserving the Human Rights Act and the protection of minority rights including religious slaughter, circumcision and the wearing of religious attire or symbols are imperative for a multicultural Europe.

    Counter-terrorism policymakers should work with Muslim communities, not against them, in the so-called “de-radicalization” programs. These programs should also incorporate the fight against far-right and far-left terrorist groups and should not only target Muslims.

Executive Summary of the report: ... ry/2017-2/

You can read their full 2017 report here: ... R_2017.pdf

They have an entire chapter (some 18 pages long) on Finland.
Perhaps you should read that section---perhaps there are things that you can do to help combat Islamophobia in Finland?

Author:  Kameolontti [ Wed May 02, 2018 7:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Islamophobia lecture weak arguments

Anthropoid wrote:
I get my hair cut by a Muslim lady, Gula who is from Kazakhstan. Nothing at all wrong with your 'typical' individuals Muslim, especially in the U.S.

But there are clearly fucking crazies a plenty in that 1.7 billion people and the religion itself is easily 'twisted' and used to promote nuttiness. Even in the absence of the nuttiness it strikes me as a fairly backward and creepy religion, about where Catholicism was 100 years ago or so, at best. As far as the worst elements . . . clearly they are about 1000 years behind modern notions of justice, liberty, etc.

You can get your hair cut by a Nazi who has a Swastika carpet as big as the basement down there with Hitler paintings on the walls.

It is the definitive proof that most Nazis are quite OK, it's just the couple radicals at the top who are rotten. The ideology/religion itself must be OK because the barber didn't murder you or insult you off the bat, a paying customer none the less. Clearly if the ideology was rotten then it's members would have ooze dripping from the sides of mouth and some form of exaggerated canines for sucking blood protruding from the upper and possibly also from the lower part of the mouth.

I love the decent barber example. It is the only proof required to point out that a religion or ideology is mostly OK.

Just ask my Carthaginian barber, it's unlikely that he personally has sacrificed that many children for Baal, that's just Roman Baalphobia.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group