For the past twenty one years or so, I have studied the history and theocracy of Islam and for the past four years, I have been writing to the world in an effort to inform people about the threat of this radical murderous oppressive nation. Moreover as a result, I have often been accused by some of my readers, of “hate speech” and “Islamophobia,” as well as having my life and the lives of my family threatened by Muslims, if they should ever find me.
I have been described not only as racists but an “Islamophobe,” and worse, a “radical Islamophobe.” This made me question what those terms really mean. What is the difference between “hate speech” and “free speech”? What is “Islamophobia” and will the real “Islamophobes” please stand up.
As for being a racists, my accusers again haven’t a clue what a Muslims is. I’ve got news for you ignorant judges, Islam may be a Nation, but it is not a race of people. It is however an oppressive theocracy, made up of nearly two billion supremacist brainwashed people of nearly all the races of the planet. “Hate speech” verses “free speech” is easy to define. All over the United States, so-called “progressive” individuals and politically correct multicultural groups berate America and Israel and in the process tell outrageous lies about both countries. This is called “free speech.” While others, including me, tell the truth about the threat of Islam it is labeled as “hate speech” by many of these who call themselves “progressives”.
But what is “hate speech” and what is “Islamophobia”? When I describe the threat presented by Islam, I quote chapter and verse from the Koran and authoritative classical Islamic sources. When I describe the worldwide campaign of Islamist hate indoctrination against the West, and the mind-numbing mass violence committed and glorified by Muslims world wide, when I write about the infiltration of Islamic doctrine into the schools of America and into the minds of our children, I am relaying facts that have been published by print and electronic media outlets all over the world. Do the facts about Islamist supremism manifest “hatefulness?” And if so; is the “Hate crime” perpetrated by the messenger or those the messenger writes about?
It is not my fault that the truth about Islamist supremacist teachings and edicts promote hate. I wish they didn’t. But wishing or excusing or cowing down to it, doesn’t make it go away. The Koran explicitly tells Muslims to hate --terrorize, subdue, oppress, and slaughter the unbeliever until Islam is supreme in the world: "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.’” (Koran 8:12)
The Koran explicitly preaches that Christians and Jews are descended from monkeys, apes, and pigs. In more than the 13 centuries since the emergence of Islam, this strict Islamic dogma has never been abrogated, amended, or ameliorated. It is the Koran and ‘its writer’ that is guilty of “hate speech.” I am merely a messenger exposing this hate.
This brings us to “Islamophobia” and “radical Islamophobes.” According to the dictionary, the suffix “-phobe” comes from the Latin phobos, which means “fearing.” Do I fear radical Islam? You bet. And you should too. Do any of these locales ring a bell? London subways, Madrid train stations, Bali night clubs, Beslan elementary school. They are all locations of horrendous terrorist atrocities committed by terrorist Muslims, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed. I can name hundreds of other such locales, from all over the world including our own Twin Towers and Pentagon. If fearing radical Islamist terror makes me an “Islamophobe,” then I am an “Islamophobe” in its healthiest manifestation. In light of all, and especially recent history, I submit that it would be (at least) ignorant, and (at best) foolhardy to be otherwise.
Things get a little more complicated when we get to “Islamophobia.” The dictionary defines a “phobia” as “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable, and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.” Anyone who thinks that my fear of Islam is “exaggerated,” “inexplicable” and/or “illogical” then one is grossly misinformed and ignorant. Moreover, you are invited to take a terrorism tour through the hundred or so documented articles on this site, and or read some of the suggested books, which I submit as evidence from a personal and factual level. If exaggeration or illogic are required elements in the definition, then my fear of radical Islam is NOT “Islamophobia.”
If that was not sufficiently complicated, when used as a suffix “-phobia” can include “intolerance or aversion for” the object of the phobia. Yes, I am intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes, I am. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings? Yes, I do. Am I against oppression, intimidation, and perversion? Yes I am. Then according to that definition, my fear of radical Islam would be “Islamophobia.” However, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to nightclub bombings makes me a “Islamophobe,” then I submit that my so-called “Islamophobia” is fully justified and logical and therefore not a phobia in the usual sense of the word.
The next question must be…: what distinguishes a “radical” Islamophobe from a run-of-the-mill, middle of the road, warm fuzzy Islamophobe? Perhaps they should be distinguished by how their Islamophobia affects their behavior. My “Islamophobia” motivates me to stand up and speak out against the threat of Islam in my country. My “Islamophobia” motivates me to tell-the-truth. This definitely makes me a “radical.”
Examples of conventional Islamophobes abound. Their fear of Islam motivates them to censor themselves in the face of Muslim threats and intimidation. This, my friend, is just how much Islam has infiltrated this culture already, and they will continue to do so unless they are stopped.
The best-known example of the craven failure of the major American media to stand up for freedom of the press; is during the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Anyone who will read this will be familiar with the story. There was much hand washing and wringing out of the story in the media about freedom of speech, but only three newspapers in the United States had the guts, or nicely put, the journalistic integrity to print the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper which originally printed them. Only one newspaper in the United States actually had the integrity to admit that they were not printing the cartoons because of “fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do….” The rest declined to do so, usually offering as their rationale that the cartoons were “offensive,” and they were being “respectful” of Muslim “sensitivity.” Should we have been more respectful of Nazi sensitivity in the 1940’s??? Approximately two dozen periodicals in 13 European countries ran the Muhammad cartoons, “insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish.
”The New York Times itself dutifully reported on various European newspapers printing the Muhammad cartoons in solidarity with and support of the Danish newspaper. The Times could have taken the hint and printed the cartoons, but was apparently oblivious to the irony of being taught a lesson in freedom of the press by a bunch of Europeans. Instead, the Times’ fear of Islam, its Islamophobia, caused the great Grey Lady of the Fourth Estate, the most respected voice in American print media, to roll over and play dead. This is dangerous, craven Islamophobia and cowardice-ness in the face of the enemy. . .
And the Times is still playing dead. It has failed to report adequately on an even more egregious and harmful example of Islamophobia afflicting the American publishing industry. Random House for example, has just cancelled the publication of a book about one of Muhammad’s wives explicitly because of fear of a violent Muslim reaction. The major American media outlets, both print and electronic, have absorbed the lessons of the Muhammad cartoon riots, and the Salman Rushdie affair, and the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, etc., etc. They are intimidated into silence by their Islamophobia. They’ve become like slaves, so… accustomed to the feel of the lash that they flinch at the mere thought of their master raising his hand. No one rings the alarm at the Times when a major American publishing house cancels publication of a book because they fear Muslim rioting. This had been the mistake and the downfall of England, and unless we demand the truth it will be the demise of American Culture as well.
Am I afraid of those Muslims who use the Koran as justification for murder and terrorism? I already admitted that I am. Maybe that makes me a “radical Islamophobe.” But am I not cowed by my fear of radical Islamists. I will continue to stand up and tell the truth.
Will anyone on the staff of the New York Times admit that they fear radical Islam, and that they are cowed by their fear? Most certainly not. On the contrary, they would probably protest loudly that the opposite is true. But their actions, and their editorial policy, speak louder than their protestations. They are also Islamophobes, but of the worst type, they are cowards.
I write under the synonym or pen name of de Andréa to protect the lives and members of my family who are not responsible or who may not agree with what I write. But I continue to write… even though I have been threatened by members of CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other terrorist organizations. One of the more mild threats I have received is…”if they find me, they will hang me up side down, cut my throat and bleed me out, like the pig that I am” This is right out of the Koran my friend.
If I were a New York Times Islamophobe, instead of a Bottom Line Islamophobe, I could no longer say… I come from the land of the free and the home of the brave…
THE BOTTOM LINE: If people like me are to be ignorantly labeled Islamophobes or a racists, then so-be- it. But as for me, I will, as long as I am physically and mentally able, I will print the truth, whether it be labeled as hate speech, racists or political incorrect.
"In the beginning of change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. If his cause should succeed, the cowards join him, for then it costs them nothing to be a patriot.” -- Mark Twain
de Andréa
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment