Posts

FASCISM: Simon & Schuster Employees Demand Publisher Drop Books They Disagree With

Over 200 employees of Simon & Schuster have gone full fascist, signing a petition calling on the publishing giant to stop providing a platform for everyone except fellow leftist fascists. The haters of the freedom of speech made three demands:

  1. Cancel the two-book deal with Mike Pence and do not sign any more book deals with former members of the Trump administration.
  2. End Simon & Schuster’s distribution deal with Post Hill Press [which publishes conservative books].
  3. Commit to ongoing reevaluations of all clients, authors, distribution deals, and all other financial commitments that promote white supremacist content and/or harm the aforementioned marginalized communities.

The fascists claimed that “when S&S chose to sign Mike Pence, we broke the public’s trust in our editorial process, and blatantly contradicted previous public claims in support of Black and other lives made vulnerable by structural oppression. Simon & Schuster has chosen complicity in perpetuating white supremacy by publishing Mike Pence and continuing to distribute books for Post Hill Press, including predator Matt Gaetz’s FIREBRAND. By choosing to publish Mike Pence, Simon & Schuster is generating wealth for a central figure of a presidency that unequivocally advocated for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Blackness, xenophobia, misogyny, ableism, islamophobia, antisemitism, and violence. This is not a difference of opinions; this is legitimizing bigotry.”

Of course. No dissent from the left is a legitimate “difference of opinions,” because leftists see the world in a way that religious fanatics throughout history would find familiar: they alone have the vision of what is good and just, and since all those outside the fold are ignorant and evil, they have no rights that the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable opinion are bound to respect.

So far, however, Simon & Schuster’s chief executive Jonathan Karp has shown himself to be among the unredeemed. Karp reminded the fascists in his employ that the job of a publishing house was to allow for “a diversity of voices and perspectives.” Diversity! Karp’s choice of words must have driven the petitioners up the wall, because like all leftists, they are no doubt extremely proud of their commitment to “diversity” in all forms except, of course, a genuine diversity of thought. Black and brown and queer and trans voices and all the rest are welcome among them, as long as they all think the same way and say the same thing. But here was Karp gently making it clear that the petitioners weren’t really in favor of diversity in any meaningful way. “We come to work each day to publish, not cancel,” he said, “which is the most extreme decision a publisher can make.”

For that he will likely be canceled himself before too long.

The American left long ago embraced authoritarianism and fascism, and is increasingly intolerant of any point of view other than its own. Note that the petitioners included in its laundry list of denunciations the spurious propaganda neologism “Islamophobia.” “Islamophobia” is an illegitimate conflation of two distinct phenomena: crimes against innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and honest analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terror, which is always necessary. It is inconceivable that anyone would want to publish a book calling for attacks on innocent Muslims or any innocent people, but there are many books discussing the motivating ideology of jihad terrorism.

Islamic advocacy groups and their leftist allies have been insisting for years that such books, too, constituted “Islamophobia.” Such analyses are what these fascists at Simon & Schuster want to stamp out. If the left succeeds in consolidating power, it will be impossible to publish, and likely illegal to enunciate publicly, any opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women and others, for there is no example of any such opposition not being considered “Islamophobic.”

The fascist employees also demanded that Simon & Schuster cut ties with my publisher, Post Hill Press (my last six books have been or are in the process of being published under Post Hill’s imprint, Bombardier Books), with which Simon & Schuster has a distribution arrangement. The petition libelously asserts that Post Hill “openly supports and normalizes violence against minors, Black women, and all Black people by individuals and the state.” This is, of course, not remotely true. It is how left-fascists lie in order to demonize and destroy their opponents. Although Karp has rejected this petition, expect to see much more of this sort of thing. We have not yet reached the high tide of left-fascism in America today.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Turkey: Armenian Apostolic Church sues government for return of its historic seat, seized during Armenian Genocide

French paper justifies decision not to try Muslim who murdered Jewish woman while chanting Qur’an verses

Pakistan: Police torture Christian into false confession of blaspheming Islam, detain him for over two months

Pakistan enraged over EU parliamentary resolution calling for its repeal of blasphemy laws

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Turkey blasts Geert Wilders ‘anti-Islam’ tweet to start Ramadan

To highlight the jihad during Ramadan, Geert Wilders released a tweet which drew stinging attack from Turkey — illustrating yet again the validity of Geert Wilder’s warnings about Islam.

Listen to clip HERE.

For many, Ramadan is the month of jihad:

month of holy war and death for Allah. It is a month for fighting the enemies of Allah and God’s messenger, the Jews and their American facilitators.” — Qaedat al-Jihad

Quiet prayer during Ramadan, needless to say, isn’t the issue, but alerting people about the heightened threat of jihad during Ramadan is a big issue. And beyond Ramadan, the global jihad against infidels is a critical issue, far too often avoided. That includes the stealth invasion of the West, which includes the “Islamophobia” subterfuge, which is intended to beat down critics of Islam.

Turkish officials reacted angrily, accusing Wilders of being “racist.” What race is Islam again? Wilders’ critics keep on proving him correct, from their reaction to his criticisms, to the widespread reaction by Muslims to the Muhammad cartoon that was shown in the classroom by French teacher Samuel Paty (who was beheaded for it). Such a mentality (which is pervasive) isn’t compatible to the values of the Netherlands, and not only the Netherlands, but the entire Western world, in which freedom of thought and speech have been protected, at least up to now.

Turkey condemns Dutch lawmaker’s anti-Islam tweet

Al Jazeera, April 14, 2021:

Turkish officials reacted angrily to far-right Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders after he made disparaging remarks about Islam at the start of Ramadan.

On Monday, Wilders, chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands, shared a short video clip on Twitter attacking Islam and the Muslim holy month.

Turkey’s ruling AK Party spokesman Omer Celik on Wednesday accused Wilders of having “a racist and fascist mind”.

“Enemies of Islam also hate migrants, poor people, needy people and foreigners,” he said on Twitter.

Ali Erbas, the head of the Presidency of Religious Affairs, condemned Wilders’ remarks as “unacceptable”.

“I invite the international community to a conscious struggle against the racist mentality that incites Islamophobia and targets social peace,” Erbas said.

Turkey’s Communications Director Fahrettin Altun also condemned Wilder’s remarks.

“Heartless @geertwilderspvv is racist, fascist and extremist. Islam condemns all. Stop racism,” Altun said on Twitter, tagging the Dutch lawmaker….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Egypt: Court sentences acting Muslim Brotherhood leader to life in prison

Nigeria: Government outraged as bishop criticizes its response to jihad terror

UK: 1,483 migrants have entered via English Channel in 2021, more than triple the number who arrived last year

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Daniel Pearl’s Widow Highlights Message She Got About His Murder: ‘This is Not Islam’

Suicidal self-hatred continues to sweep the West. Mariane Pearl, the widow of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and beheaded by Islamic jihadis in Pakistan in 2002, has suffered a great deal, and it is perhaps churlish and uncharitable to venture any critical word at all. But it isn’t she I am criticizing. It is the general tendency, the felt need or the unspoken imperative, to take all possible opportunities to exonerate Islam of all connection to crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings. One can never solve a problem by pretending it doesn’t exist. But that is exactly what we are doing.

The 19th anniversary of Daniel Pearl’s murder was Monday, and on Wednesday, Mariane Pearl published an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled “My husband’s killer could go free in Pakistan. Despite the injustice, I still have hope.” It began: “Almost two decades ago, the people of Pakistan sent me messages expressing sadness and anger at the murder of my husband, Daniel Pearl, in their beloved country. Danny was 38 years old and the Wall Street Journal’s bureau chief for South Asia. “I am a Muslim and this, my friend, is not Islam,” one wrote. My favorite message read: “Your husband had a great smile . . . a happy mixture of Pope John Paul and Dean Martin.”

It is certain that Mariane Pearl received numerous messages after the murder of her husband. The one that she and/or the Post chose to give first mention, however, was “I am a Muslim and this, my friend, is not Islam.”

The first question that springs to mind about this is: Why this message? Why is cleansing Islam’s image the number one priority?

The second question is: Why is this always asserted but never explained? Daniel Pearl was made to state that he was a Jew in a video, where he likely read a statement the jihadis had prepared for him: “My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California USA. I come from, uh, on my father’s side the family is Zionist. My father’s Jewish, my mother’s Jewish, I’m Jewish. My family follows Judaism. We’ve made numerous family visits to Israel. Back in the town of Bnei Brak there is a street named after my great grandfather Chaim Pearl who is one of the founders of the town.” Then he was beheaded.

In a hadith that Muslims consider authentic, Muhammad is depicted as saying:

“The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Sahih Muslim 6985)

And the Qur’an says:

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (47:4)

In light of all that, it is unfortunate that Mariane Pearl’s interlocutor apparently did not explain how the killing of Daniel Pearl was not Islam, how the jihadis who killed him were transgressing Islamic tenets, or how the passages of the Qur’an and Hadith that seem to allow for such behavior actually have some other meaning or can be interpreted in a benign manner.

In the article, Mariane Pearl describes how it all happened, and how a Muslim who was the chief of the counter-terrorism unit in Karachi offered his help. Mariane Pearl jokes in response to kindness from this man and his wife: “Stop being so nice. How am I ever going to hate you guys?” That is the choice as most people see it today: one must either hate Muslims, or pretend that Islam is a religion of peace. But in reality, the fact that Islam teaches warfare against unbelievers does not mean that every Muslim will believe this to be an imperative or practice it. It doesn’t mean that no Muslims will be kind to unbelievers. But to believe that such kindness precludes the possibility that Islam does teach this warfare is to be willfully blind. And that’s where we are as a society.

The third and easiest question to answer is: Would the Washington Post ever print an explanation of the Islamic justification for the murder of Daniel Pearl, even if such a story included statements by Muslim spokesmen in the West offering differing interpretations of the passages in question? And the answer is, Not on your life! Not only is the Post, and all the rest of the establishment media as well, dedicated indefatigably to whitewashing and obfuscating the ideological roots of jihad terrorism; it is also determined to pretend that there isn’t even a question about those roots: they lay, according to the Post and its colleagues, in “racism” and “Islamophobia,” not in Islamic texts and teachings, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a racist “Islamophobe” himself.

The victory of “Islamophobia” propaganda has been so complete that the elites don’t even consider it remotely necessary even to address the arguments of those whom they smear as “Islamophobes,” or to acknowledge that they have any arguments at all. The only problem with all this is that the jihad, motivated by Islamic texts and teachings according to numerous statements of jihadis themselves, is not going to go away for all this pretending that it doesn’t exist.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Khamenei: ‘Enemies cannot do a damn thing against the Islamic Republic and that Islam’s power is growing’

Professor says he’s ‘struggling’ with his Christian faith because of Trump, beheadings shouldn’t reflect on Islam

Universities get billions from Islamic entities, Biden drops rule forcing revelation of cash from propaganda centers

Pakistan’s Khan: ‘West associated Islam with terrorism. Muslims should have made it clear that there is no link.’

Nigeria’s military executes 6 Christian soldiers framed by a Muslim colonel for a crime they didn’t commit

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Wonder Woman 1984: ‘I didn’t pick up on the blatant Islamophobia during my initial viewing’

Trailer WW84:


Maybe Farid-ul-Haq initially missed the “Islamophobia” in “Wonder Woman 1984” because one has to strain so hard to see it at all. What exactly constitutes “Islamophobia” is never defined in this article; it is taken for granted that everyone knows what it is, and it appears that Farid-ul-Haq thinks of it as an irrational prejudice against Muslims. He bases his case that “Wonder Woman 1984” (which I haven’t seen and have no intention of seeing) is “Islamophobic” on its “featuring a Muslim character as one of the bad guys” while not having “a single Muslim character playing the role of a good guy.”

Farid-ul-Haq thus takes for granted that Hollywood must never portray Muslims as “bad guys,” despite the existence of Islamic jihad terrorists all over the world, or at least must not do so without a balancing Muslim “good guy.” Why must Hollywood act as a PR service for Islam? Farid-ul-Haq would likely say that it is because Muslims are particular targets of “hate and discrimination in the real world,” but this is actually not true. The FBI listed 995 anti-Jewish “offenses” in 2019, and 219 anti-Muslim “offenses.” Even one is too many, but 219 offenses against Muslims in a year in a country of 330 million actually shows that such offenses are quite rare, as they should be. Would Farid-ul-Haq agree that Hollywood should show four and a half times more Jewish “good guys” than Muslim “good guys,” so as to combat “hate and discrimination” against Jews? Must Hollywood always balance portrayals of “bad guys” who really exist in the world with “good guys” from the same group? Would Farid-ul-Haq want every movie that features a neo-Nazi to feature also a good German for balance?

Farid-ul-Haq is also enraged at “Wonder Woman 1984” because a character was depicted as “swatting away a pendant, inside a taxi, with the name Allah and Muhammad (P.B.U.H) written on it.” However, a commenter on his article states: “Thanks to this article, I’ve re-watched this scene over and over, and it looks to me that Steve is swatting the rear-view mirror to get it out of the way so he can climb out of the taxi after crashing it into the armored vehicle. Watching it frame-by-frame, it’s obvious he’s aiming for the mirror and not the pendant. The other issues brought up I can see, but I don’t see the pendant one.” Even if the character were swatting away the pendant, must Hollywood also abide by Sharia provisions mandating absolute reverence for Islamic religious objects? Has Hollywood ever shown similar deference toward Christianity, the cross, the Bible, the name of Jesus, etc.? Here again, why should Muslims and Islam be singled out for special consideration?

“Addressing the Islamophobia in ‘Wonder Woman 1984,’” by Farid-ul-Haq, The Geekiary, December 27, 2020:

Turns out, along with being problematic when it comes to consent, Wonder Woman 1984 also features Islamophobia. Sigh! At this point, if you’re out there supporting Wonder Woman 1984 while ignoring or excusing certain narrative issues, I don’t know what to say to you.

This piece contains minor spoilers for Wonder Woman 1984. Consider yourself warned. 

Full disclaimer, while I rolled my eyes at Wonder Woman 1984 featuring a Muslim character as one of the bad guys, I didn’t pick up on the blatant Islamophobia during my initial viewing. I got to know about the implications of the scene in question after I decided to head on over to the Muslim side of Twitter.

An action sequence during Wonder Woman 2 occurs in Cairo. Maxwell Lord goes to meet Emir Said Bin Abydos and take over his oil empire. The Muslim character’s wish is to construct a wall and regain control of his ancestral land.

During the final moments, the movie also had a character in mujahideen-looking garb wishing for nuclear weapons.

Yes, it felt weird this movie didn’t have a single Muslim character playing the role of a good guy, especially after the first Wonder Woman had a Muslim character be one of Diana’s friends. But it is what it is. I would like Hollywood to do better, of course.

Now, coming to the most problematic and Islamophobic scene that involved Steve Trevor (Chris Pine). I was surprised when I saw tweets about said scene and how blatantly Islamophobic it was to show Steve swatting away a pendant, inside a taxi, with the name Allah and Muhammad (P.B.U.H) written on it.

Turns out, my mind didn’t even register such a moment. Instead of realizing what had transpired onscreen, apparently, my brain did something and I thought Steve had quickly placed the pendant on the dashboard before crawling out of the taxi to help Diana.

I rewatched the scene and was quite disappointed to see the scene for it was. In my opinion, there was no reason for such a scene to exist. It served no narrative purpose other than Steve being shown throwing away the names of two beings held in high regard in the Muslim community.

Such artistic content uses fictional Muslim characters to challenge the “interpretations” of Islam that continue to be used to encourage hate and discrimination in the real world….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim former US professor who was darling of the American Left renews call for Israel’s destruction

Iranian news agency: ‘Muslims love Jesus, too’

France: Muslim migrant with ‘visible psychiatric disorders’ gets six months for sexual assault of 15-year-old girl

Iran’s Rouhani: ‘We are nullifying sanctions on both exports and imports’

Yemen: Houthi jihadis beat woman to death in front of her two children

Nigeria: Muslims murder three loggers, kidnap dozens more

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ADL smears foes of jihad violence against Israel as ‘Islamophobes,’ gets canceled as ‘anti-Muslim’ anyway

Jonathan Greenblatt is discovering that any dissent, no matter how small and qualified, from the far-Left agenda — which is increasingly open in its hostility to Israel — will get you defamed as an “Islamophobe,” no matter how much you pander, no matter how much you desperately try to stay in the good graces of those who set the tune to which the rest of us must dance. The sinister Salam al-Marayati of MPAC has smeared ADL as “anti-Muslim” for supporting Israel, and Greenblatt is dismayed, saying that “the allegation that ADL falls along the same side of Islamophobes is patently false.”

Of course it is. The ADL has repeatedly done to foes of jihad violence against Israel and other states, and foes of Sharia oppression of women and others, exactly what Salam al-Marayati is doing to him now. Greenblatt could have used this as an occasion to wake up and realize how he is being played, and how the entire “Islamophobia” enterprise is a scam designed to intimidate people into fearing to oppose jihad terror, for fear of falling prey to what al-Marayati is doing to him now. But instead of having an original thought for the first time in his life, Greenblatt is doubling down, pleading with al-Marayati to accept him. Will it work? Almost certainly not, but it will likely lead the ADL to become even more anti-Israel than it is now.

“ADL: We’re proud of our record defending Jews — and Muslims,” by Jonathan A. Greenblatt, Forward, December 16, 2020:

As one of the oldest civil-rights organizations in the Jewish community, we’re not unaccustomed to criticism, even in the pages of one of America’s oldest Jewish news outlets. But the OpEd by Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which the Forward published on Tuesday morning, was illuminating about how certain quarters in our society desperately try to employ cancel culture to silence others. In this case, the author is trying to marginalize ADL and make support for the State of Israel disqualifying in pursuing civil rights for all Americans, including the Muslim-American community.

Al-Marayati argues that ADL is a source of “anti-Muslim” rhetoric and cannot be fully trusted as an ally in the fight for civil rights because of our support of the Jewish state. It is an argument taken from the playbook of a fringe smear campaign being run against ADL that, to its credit, MPAC has not signed his name to, but which he still chose to directly quote in his piece. Still, their campaign is wrong and without merit on a number of levels. It is also dangerous, creating a space where we as a Jewish organization are judged more for what we do or do not say about Israel than for all of the advocacy work we do here in the U.S. and abroad fighting for marginalized communities.

This is a common tactic in a smear campaign – narrow down a broader argument (in this case, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) into a singular, unfounded allegation (in this case, that ADL is Islamophobic because of our support for the Jewish State). But the allegation that ADL falls along the same side of Islamophobes is patently false….

RELALTED ARTICLES:

Hamas-linked CAIR applauds Rep. Dingell’s letter to Facebook demanding removal of ‘anti-Muslim content’

UK: Publisher Little, Brown cancels book decrying cancel culture because the author criticized Islam

Manchester jihad mass murderer trained with jihad group in Libya, traveled in and out of UK with no problem

Rice University Sacrifices Academic Standards on the Altar of Fantasy Islam

Can the Egypt-Israel Peace Warm Up?

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

15 Dem Senators, including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, urge Facebook to block ‘anti-Muslim hate’

Incitement to violence against any group should always be blocked. The problem here is that Islamic advocacy groups and their allies in the West have for years claimed that any honest discussion of the motivating ideology behind jihad violence was “anti-Muslim hate.” Facebook already makes such discussion virtually impossible to find. Expect it to be completely blacked out in a Biden/Harris administration.

“US senators call on Facebook to address anti-Muslim bigotry,” Middle East Eye, November 16, 2020 (thanks to Henry):

Democratic senators are calling on Facebook to “do more” to mitigate the spread of anti-Muslim bigotry, after the social media giant was criticised for failing to address attacks against the faith group on multiple occasions, including the aftermath of the Christchurch shootings.

In a letter sent to Facebook to CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday, a group of 15 Senators said the platform needed to immediately enforce its community standards to address anti-Muslim hate and ban the use of event pages for the purpose of “harassment, organizing, and violence” against the Muslim community.

The letter also said that Facebook had not taken proper steps to enforce its “call to arms” policy, a year-old rule created in large part due to pressure from Muslim advocacy groups, which since 2015 had flagged multiple instances where organisers of Facebook events had advocated for followers to bring weapons to mosques and other places of worship.

“We recognize that Facebook has announced efforts to address its role in the distribution of anti-Muslim content in some of these areas,” the letter, signed by Senator Chris Coons, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and 12 others, said.

“Nevertheless, it is not clear that the company is meaningfully better positioned to prevent further human rights abuses and violence against Muslim minorities today.”

An independent civil rights audit of the social media company released in July outlined that despite having policies that did not allow for hate speech against religious groups, incidents of hate speech continued to persist across Facebook.

Muslim Advocates, a rights group that called for the audit two years ago, thanked the senators for writing the letter.

“Since 2015, Muslim Advocates had warned Facebook that the platform’s event pages were being used by violent militias and white nationalists to organize armed rallies at mosques,” the group’s executive director Farhana Khera said on Monday.

“We need to know what Facebook plans to do to end the anti-Muslim hate and violence enabled by their platform – and end it now.”…

“As members of Congress who are deeply disturbed by the proliferation of this hate speech on your platform, we urge you to do more,” the senators’ letter read.

RELATED VIDEO: Guest on US-funded Alhurra denigrates Christians

RELATED ARTICLES:

Swamp Rat Boasts of How He Lied to Trump to Defy Syria Withdrawal Orders

‘Non-Muslim women are being kidnapped, raped, lured, converted to Islam, punished and brainwashed’

UAE Official: Hamas and the PA Are ‘Corrupt’ and ‘Murderers’

Islamic Faith Community of Austria complains that counterterror measures foster ‘Islamophobia’

Hungary: ‘Threat not as high as in Germany or France, because we hardly have any immigrants from Islamic countries’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PHOENIX: Hijab-wearing transsexual Antifa rioter decries ‘Islamophobic’ jail conditions, tweets ‘AbolishAmerikkka’

The Leftist/jihadist alliance in action and a vivid, if somewhat revolting, illustration of the hatred for America that both of these allies share.

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Muslim students cheer burning of French flags in response to Muhammad cartoons

Trotskyites: French ‘ruling elite’ is ‘whipping up an atmosphere of anti-Muslim hysteria’ in wake of jihad beheading

Tunisia: MP glorifies the beheading of a French teacher for showing a Muhammad cartoon

France: Interior Minister wants to dissolve ‘anti-Islamophobia’ organization, calls it ‘enemy of the Republic’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Harry Potter and the Islamophobic Author

J.K. Rowling, the famed author of the Harry Potter series, has fallen victim to the cancel culture. Laurie Charles, a British writer who equals Rowling neither in accomplishment nor in renown, has accused Rowling of “transphobia” for a book she wrote under a pseudonym in 2014, The Silkworm. The UK’s appalling Daily Mail, noticing that the “transphobic” passage involves a burqa, claims that Rowling “has been accused of playing into both Islamophobic and transphobic prejudices.”

Here is the offending passage. If you can’t spot the “transphobia” and “Islamophobia,” you just aren’t woke enough:

A young woman wearing a hijab was watching them talk from an opposite seat. She had large, sweet, liquidbrown eyes.

‘Assuming somebody really did enter the house on the fourth, I’ve got to say a burqa’s a bloody good way of getting in and out without being recognised. Can you think of another way of totally concealing your face and body that wouldn’t make people challenge you?’

‘And they were carrying a halal takeaway?’

‘Allegedly. Was his last meal halal? Is that why the killer removed the guts?’

‘And this woman—’

‘Could’ve been a man…’ ‘—was seen leaving the house an hour later?’

This enraged Laurie Charles, who took to Twitter to call attention to this passage, about which she fumed: “JK Rowling made her f**ked up attacks against trans people and threatened to sue anyone who called her transphobic because she’d already sent her manuscript off to the publisher and wanted to preempt the inevitable criticism of this.”

And just to make sure everyone knew the depth of her moral indignation, Charles added: “It’s like she’s sipping human blood and viscera from a skull through a curly straw with one hand and typing with the other.”

Charles may have been on the lookout for new evidence of Rowling’s “transphobia,” for she has been in hot water for it before, when she dared to note that using the term “people who menstruate” instead of “women” is absurd. And even that wasn’t the end of Rowling’s villainy, according to the Daily Mail: “The row worsened after her new book Troubled Blood was released on Tuesday, which tells the tale of a man who dresses as a woman to kill his victims – a trope in literature that’s been criticised by activists for perpetuating negative stereotypes about transgender people.”

So now, in the Left’s moral universe, making the common-sense observation that “a burqa’s a bloody good way of getting in and out without being recognized” is somehow prejudicial to men who dress in women’s clothing, and men who like to think they’re really women, and that will just not do. And the burqa! You know what that means. “Not just transphobic but Islamophobic too… I regret ever spending money on Harry Potter,” commented one former Rowling fan on Charles’ tweet.

Another added: “So apparently Rowling is just racist as well. What a surprise, transphobes tend to be obsessive bigots, huh.” And a third: “Ewwwww how does she manage to be racist and transphobic in one paragraph?”

Of course Rowling must be racist, because Rowling is bad, and everything bad is racism, and so there you are. Islam is not a race and women of all races wear burqas and niqabs, but no matter: in Britain and the U.S. today, you’re a racist for imagining someone committing a crime while wearing a burqa. Because that never, ever happens, right?

Well, let’s see. Back in February, a burqa-clad man in New York City stole nearly $1 million in jewelry. In October 2018, France’s most-wanted fugitive evaded police by wearing a burqa. And in Cameroon in July 2015, burqa-wearing Muslims murdered at least twelve people in jihad-martyrdom suicide attacks.

There are many, many other such incidents. In January 2014, the Syrian army arrested a jihadist who was trying to evade capture by dressing as a woman. Four French soldiers in Afghanistan were killed in June 2012 by jihad suicide bombers who were wearing burqas. Two months before that, a man who was accused of participating in the July 7, 2005 jihad bombings in London was caught fleeing in a burqa. In June 2011, a Taliban burqa-brigade attempted a prison break in northwestern Pakistan.

In April 2010 in Pakistan, jihadists dressed in burqas murdered 41 people in double jihad suicide bombings. The year before that, jihad suicide bombers in burqas killed six in Afghanistan.

All that and much more indicates that when J.K. Rowling imagined a criminal escaping by wearing a burqa, she wasn’t engaging in gratuitous “Islamophobia,” much less “transphobia,” but was simply reflecting reality. It is reality, however, that the Left is making war against. They’ll cancel everyone, no matter how famous, no matter how beloved, in order to push us all into accepting their fantasies about the world. Orwell neatly encapsulated this impulse in 1984 when he had Winston Smith’s torturer force him to say, and believe, that two plus two equals five. Now we’re being forced to affirm that again, on pain of being labeled “transphobic,” “Islamophobic,” and “racist.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pakistan: Muslim beats, rapes 6-year-old Christian girl, threatens to rape her again if parents continue court case

Italy: 124 Muslim migrants leap from NGO migrant ship to reach Sicily in a hurry as crew waits for authorization

Germans fear taking in Muslim migrants displaced by fire migrants started in camp will trigger new migrant wave

France: Head of human resources at Charlie Hebdo flees home after ‘precise and detailed’ death threats

Arab Muslims are People of Color, Arab Christians are White

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.©

Minnesota: Hamas-linked CAIR enraged, demands firing of barista who wrote “ISIS” on Muslima’s coffee cup

The involvement of Hamas-linked CAIR makes this suspicious on its face, as that unsavory organization has trumpeted many hate crimes that turned out to have been faked. But there are two other striking aspects to this story. One is that Hamas-linked CAIR “has yet to identify” the woman to whom this supposedly happened. Why not? Could it be that her name sounds something like “ISIS,” and would thus reveal this to have been an honest mistake on the part of the barista? Anyone who has ever been in a Starbucks knows that many baristas are not exactly intellectual giants, and for many, English is not their first language. Mistakes on names abound at Starbucks outlets all over the country, and most people shrug or laugh them off. Hamas-linked CAIR says: “A supervisor told the Muslim customer that ‘mistakes’ sometimes happen with customers’ names, suggesting that this is not the first incident in which a customer felt targeted or harassed by a Target employee’s conduct when receiving their coffee order.” Or maybe the customer was just noting that his or her name was wrong; not everyone assumes that a mistake means one is being targeted or harassed.

Hamas-linked CAIR has shaken huge sums of money out of corporations with intimidation tactics, claiming “Islamophobia” over honest mistakes. Could that be what is happening here?

“A Muslim woman ordered a frozen drink at Starbucks. The barista wrote ‘ISIS’ on her cup.” Sahan Journal, July 5, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A Muslim woman said that on July 1 she ordered a drink at Starbucks within the Midway Target in St. Paul.

As soon as she started telling the Target Starbucks employee her first name, she said, the barista wrote something on a clear plastic drinking cup.

When the Muslim woman received her drink, she found “ISIS” written on the cup, according to the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization said in a press release that the woman confronted the employee, asking why “ISIS” was written on the cup. ISIS, an acronym for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is a terrorist group that is active in Iraq and Syria.

“The employee claimed that she had not heard her name correctly,” CAIR-MN stated in the press release. “Later, a supervisor told the Muslim customer that ‘mistakes’ sometimes happen with customers’ names, suggesting that this is not the first incident in which a customer felt targeted or harassed by a Target employee’s conduct when receiving their coffee order.”

CAIR-MN is calling for the firing of the Target Starbucks employee who wrote “ISIS” on the cup….

The woman, whom CAIR-MN has yet to identify, will appear at a press conference with the organization on Monday.

RELATED ARTICLES:

America Magazine discovers Muslim genocide of Christians in Nigeria, wishes US and European bishops would speak out

Italy: Police seize 30,000 pounds of amphetamines, “the drug of the jihad,” produced by the Islamic State

Georgia: Members of heavily armed black militia shout “Alhamdulillah”

Black Lives Matter founder: “Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here”

NYC: North Korean and “Palestinian” protestors scream “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation strategizing to silence free speech

The OIC is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which represents 57 Muslim countries world wide and they know that to advance Islam (and Shariah law) worldwide they have to silence any criticism of Islam in the media.  To that end they held a conference two weeks ago in (no surprise) London to strategize on how to silence anyone standing in their way.

When I read this story by Leo Hohmann at WND, the french novel ‘Submission’ came immediately to mind.  It is a dark, disgusting book, but probably worth reading because its title tells us exactly how Islam/Shariah could triumph—instead of a cataclysmic battle of titans (a possible physical battle), we simply get worn down and give up.

Beating people up over speech would be an important element in bringing us to submission.

From Hohmann:

A group of international Islamist organizations led by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, recently held a two-day conference on countering “Islamophobia” in which it recommends imposing Islamic blasphemy laws on the media worldwide.

Monks in Burma fighting against Islamic blasphemy laws.

Under Islamic law, it is considered a serious offense to criticize Allah, Muhammad or Islam. In countries like Pakistan, a Muslim can take a non-Muslim to court and claim he was “offended” by something that was said, resulting in a trial and jail time, even death, for the non-Muslim.

Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Sudan and other Muslim-dominated countries with significant Christian minorities have been the targets of brutal persecution, with the blasphemy laws often serving as the catalyst for their incarceration. Christians have been jailed, stoned, beheaded, and even had acid thrown in their faces for violating the blasphemy laws.

But the OIC, which consists of 57 Muslim-majority countries and boasts the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, is not satisfied with its own people living under threat of arrest for offending Islam by something that is said, written or posted on the Internet.

The July 15-16 symposium, held at London’s Central Mosque Trust and Islamic Cultural Center, was attended by lawyers, media leaders, politicians, academics from European universities and diplomats from various embassies. It was titled: “Mechanisms to challenge Islamophobia legally and through the media.”

Continue reading here.

Is the SPLC carrying the water for the OIC, here. You betcha!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Even Kushner Knows Negotiation Can’t Solve the Palestinian Conflict

“Palestinian” Muslim Who Slaughtered Israeli Family to Receive $3,120 Per Month Reward From Palestinian Authority

Marquette University pays for faculty to attend ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ workshop

It also “will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.”

When will Marquette pay faculty to attend a workshop about the ideological and theological roots of jihad terrorism? Why, that would be inconceivable. And so would any honest discussion of the jihad terror threat at Marquette or most, if not all, other universities in the U.S. today, especially Catholic universities. They are radioactive centers of hard-Left indoctrination, not institutions of higher learning in any genuine sense.

The real “Islamophobia” industry, the one dedicated to fooling people into thinking that “Islamophobia” is a genuine problem, operates by deliberately conflating two quite distinct phenomena: vigilante attacks against innocent Muslims, which are rare but never justified under any circumstances, and honest examination of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists. By lumping the two together, “Islamophobia” victimhood propagandists hope to inhibit all examination of the jihad doctrine, and to demonize and marginalize all those who engage in such examination.

“University Offers To Pay For Faculty Attending ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ Workshop,” by Rob Shimshock, Daily Caller, July 17, 2017 (thanks to Tom):

A Wisconsin university announced Monday that it will cover costs for its faculty to attend an anti-Islamophobia workshop, and will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.

Marquette University will pay the $30 registration fee for faculty that choose to attend “Overcoming Islamophobia: Creating a Positive Classroom Culture,” hosted at Alverno College in August. The fee will also cover lunch at the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.

The event is co-sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Alverno College, the Milwaukee Muslim Women’s Coalition and the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Marquette University will grant attendees that submit a written assignment pertaining to Islamophobia an Alverno graduate credit….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim cop tells friends, not investigators, he was “startled” by unarmed woman he killed

Boston to hang 50 posters addressing public harassment, “Islamophobia” around city

College professors organize national ‘Teach-In’ to challenge ‘Trumpism,’ ‘Islamophobia’

“Islamophobia” is a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into being afraid to resist jihad and Islamic supremacism. But that doesn’t faze today’s enlightened Leftist academics:

“On that day, we intend to organize against the proposed expansion of state violence targeting people of color, undocumented people, queer communities, women, Muslims, and many others. On that day, we intend to resist the institutionalization of ideologies of separation and subordination, including white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, and virulent nationalism.”

State violence? Who is proposing any state violence? Why, no one, of course, but the Left is in the midst of a hysterical meltdown of Vesuvian proportions over the prospect of the inauguration of Trump on Friday. Meanwhile, imagine how surprised these professors will be when their Muslim friends start to force their women into hijabs and niqabs and start to throw the members of “queer communities” off the tops of tall buildings.

“College Professors Organize National ‘Teach-In’ to Challenge ‘Trumpism,’” by Susan Berry, Breitbart, January 15, 2017:

Some 25 colleges and universities – many of them public – have answered a call by professors at UCLA to use their regular class time to “teach, organize, and resist” what they view as the discriminatory political agenda of President-elect Donald Trump.

Slated for Wednesday, January 18, the teach-in, dubbed #J18, is taking place between the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday and Trump’s inauguration. The event’s planners say:

Let it be known that on #J18 and beyond, universities, colleges, and high schools refused to bear silent witness to the politics of hate and fear; that in these times, these places of teaching and learning not only served as a sanctuary for its students and workers but also stood up to proclaim the power of knowledge on the frontlines of social justice.

On January 18, the professors are calling upon their colleagues to “Teach, Organize, Resist,” and “affirm the role of critical thinking and academic knowledge in challenging Trumpism.”

They continue:

On that day, we intend to teach about the agendas and policies of the new administration, be it the proposed dismantling of economic and environmental regulations or the threatened rollback of the hard-won rights that form the fragile scaffolding of American democracy. On that day, we intend to organize against the proposed expansion of state violence targeting people of color, undocumented people, queer communities, women, Muslims, and many others. On that day, we intend to resist the institutionalization of ideologies of separation and subordination, including white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, and virulent nationalism.

In addition to UCLA, universities participating in the event to date include: American University, Washington, D.C.; University of California, Berkeley; University of Cincinnati; University of Dayton; University of Minnesota; New York University; Princeton University; Texas State University; University of Kentucky; Vanderbilt University; and University of Washington….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Where are anti-Trump marchers defending women against abuse by Sharia-adherent Muslims?

US professor says journalists must not call jihad attacks on Israeli soldiers “terrorism”

Those pushing ‘Islamophobia’ are advocating Sharia law, oppression of free speech & hamper public safety

People who push the false Islamophobia narrative are advocating Sharia law, trampling other people’s free speech rights, and hurting public safety.

Approximately 1.7 million Muslims in America believe Sharia is superior to the United States Constitution, and approximately 800,000 Muslims in America believe violent jihad would be justified to make Sharia superior.

Failure to confront this issue could have dire consequences for our freedoms.

Organizations with links to the Muslim Brotherhood like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America(ICNA), and Muslim Student Association (MSA) together with the leftist media and educational institutions who empower them, are using grade school humiliation tactics of name calling and social stigmatization to intimidate people away from criticizing Islam.

Those who use the term Islamophobe to label and stigmatize people who criticize Islam are enforcing a top tenet of Sharia law.  Muslims are instructed by the Quran to strongly oppose anyone who criticizes Islam even if that means brutal violence.  Quran 5:33 states “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.”

Many Americans personal and professional lives have been “maimed” for criticizing Islam on social media and in the marketplace and classroom. The consequences of being labeled an Islamophobe can cost a person their employment, educational opportunities, business relationships, and friendships.

The threat of encountering such personal costs for being labeled an Islamophobe are having a chilling impact on the rights of Americans guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.   The fear of being labeled a racist or Islamophobe has intimidated scores of Americans to forego saying anything about Islam. Such stifling of free speech impairs public safety and helps the Islamist political agenda to go unnoticed and therefore not countered.

It appears that people who push the Islamophobe false narrative believe their First Amendment Right is superior to the First Amendment Right of the people they stigmatize as Islamophobes.  They know that their punitive name calling tactics can “maim” people’s socio-economic status.  Consequently, they know that many people will give up their free speech right to criticize Islam in order to avoid such “maiming” consequences.  The Islamist and leftist progressive will to win the political correctness game at the cost of “maiming” people’s socio-economic lives indicates that they believe their speech is superior to Americans who express legitimate concerns regarding Islam.

This superiority of rights is documented by the statements that CAIR leaders have made. Omar Ahmad, Chairman and founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, told a Muslim crowd that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”  Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, told a crowd at a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas in 2013 that “if we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.” 

The Center for Security Policy commissioned a poll in May 2015 which found that 51 percent of Muslims in America preferred Sharia courts over the legal system governed by the U.S. Constitution.  The poll also found that nearly 25 percent of Muslims in America believe the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Sharia.

Pew Research reports that there are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims living in America. Therefore, based upon the Center for Security Policy poll results approximately 1.7 million Muslims in America believe Sharia is superior to the United States Constitution and approximately 800,000 Muslims in America believe violent jihad would be justified to make Sharia superior.

Islamophobia campaigns attempt to discredit prominent, safety conscious Americans who voice support for vigorous efforts to counter terrorism and the Islamist agenda.  Islamophobia propaganda and “maiming” tactics have caused people to remain silent regarding situations that they have observed that could pose a public safety risk from terrorism.

Fear of being branded an Islamophobe played a role in suppressing communications that may have had different results for the lives of thirty-six people in San Bernardino and 102 people in Orlando.  Townhall.com issued a report titled “Neighbor Didn’t Report Suspicious Activity of San Bernardino Killers For Fear of Being Called Racist.”  The Townhall article by Katie Pavlich on December 03, 2015 reported in part “According to a local Los Angeles news report, a neighbor of San Bernardino massacre suspects Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik didn’t report suspicious activity at their apartment for fear of being accused of racism.” Floridatoday.com issued a report titled “Mateen’s employer ignored complaints about his death threats because he was a Muslim.”  The Floridatoday.com article reported in part “Gilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.”

Many in the liberal left media and educational institutions appear to also follow and advocate for other tenets of Sharia law which instruct Muslims to hate Christians and Jews.  Quran 5:51“O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” Quran 9:30 “The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them.”

The leftist media and educational institutions are complying with and enforcing a top tenet of Sharia law with their Islamophobia propaganda.  Such “maiming” propaganda scares Americans away from reporting suspected Islamic terrorism and thwarts the sharing of facts regarding the Islamist political agenda to subvert the United States Constitution in favor of Sharia law.

EDITORS NOTE: The Florida Family Association is spearheading numerous projects with the goal of countering Islamophobia propaganda.  These projects include countering CAIR’s “maiming” of Americans who are brave enough to oppose Islamism and countering the Huffington Post’s proliferation of Islamophobia propaganda.

VIDEO: On the War against the First Amendment

The ground we’ve lost during the Obama years — and the dangerous consequences for national security. I’ve posted this video before, but here is a transcript as well.

Below are the video and transcript to Robert Spencer’s speech at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2016 Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 10th-13th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

Robert Spencer: Thank you very much.  It’s great to be here on this occasion.  I’m here year after year and this is certainly the happiest Restoration Weekend I’ve been to and very happy to say we won’t have Chick Nixon to kick around anymore.  Come on.  The fact is that Hillary Clinton’s defeat is a very, very serious victory not only for the Second Amendment, but for the First and this is something that has been insufficiently appreciated in all the commentary before the election and after.  Donald Trump, of course, he went after her many times saying Hillary Clinton is against the Second Amendment, she’s going to stop the sale of lawful weaponry in every way she possibly can, but he never spoke about the threat that she posed to the First Amendment and that is an ongoing threat and a still existing threat and it’s very important to bear that in mind because even though she was defeated, this threat has not gone away.  The left is in a full court press and a year’s long effort to destroy the First Amendment and essentially to criminalize any point of view that is not their own and this is a struggle that they are going to continue.  Now, there are many, many facets of this.  One is, of course, the most notable one I should say, is the organization of Islamic cooperation, which is 57 Islamic governments around the world, 56 states and the Palestinian Authority, the largest voting block at the United Nations, and they of course for years now since the publication of the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed in 2006 they have been working to restrict the freedom of speech and to compel Western states to restrict the freedom of speech at the UN.

I know a lot of you are familiar with that effort and that they have, under the guise of what they call “incitement to religious hatred,” been trying to compel Western governments to criminalize essentially criticism of Islam.  Obviously, when you talk about incitement through religious hatred, any kind of incitement, unless it’s absolutely direct and explicit, is a subjective judgment in the first place.  Secondly, nobody cares when people put crucifixes in jars of urine or mock Israel and Judaism.  Nobody cares about those things.  They only care about religious hatred in an Islamic context, and the most insidious aspect of this endeavor, this initiative, is of course that any honest discussion of how Islamic Jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence is classified explicitly by the OIC as incitement to religious hatred.  So, what they want to do is criminalize any discussion of the motivating ideology behind Jihad terrorism and the goal of that, of course, is to enable Jihad terrorists to advance unopposed and unimpeded.

Now, this has been going on for years.  It’s been going on since the Bush Administration and the Bush Administration at the UN vetoed these initiatives every year, but then of course came Barack Hussein Obama and twice the United States signed on to these initiatives and actually cosponsored one with Egypt in 2009 and even more notoriously signed on to Resolution 1618 of the UN Human Rights Council, which once again called upon UN member states to criminalize incitement to religious hatred and then had a little asterisk going to a footnote explaining that yes, the UN understood that there were certain countries that had protection for the freedom of speech and they would have to devise other ways to implement this initiative that would not collide with their laws.  Now that was the most insidious aspect of the whole thing and Hillary Clinton explained what it was all about not long after that in a speech in Istanbul to the OIC. And she said, and I know many of you have heard this quote, many of you are very well aware of what she said in this, but I think that not many of you are aware of exactly how this initiative is proceeding.  What she said of course was that we value the freedom of expression, which she doesn’t, but she said that she did and that in light of protecting the freedom of expression as well as protecting religious sensibilities, in order to compel people not to do what we don’t want them to do, we have to resort to, she said, old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming. Remember when she said that?  This is exactly how the Western media has proceeded in order, essentially, not to criminalize, but to rule out of the realm of acceptable discourse any honest discussion of these issues.

What happened to Oleg in his presentation just now is actually a case in point.  He’s not facing a felony charge for using the wrong kind of glue.  C’mon, we weren’t born yesterday.  We know that if he had been putting up posters for the Palestinians there would have been no problem at George Mason University, but because he was putting up pro-Israel posters from the David Horowitz Freedom Center suddenly all these rules about glue kick in and he goes to jail.  Now, peer pressure and shaming is essentially a strategy that makes it impossible for us to discuss these matters because of exactly that kind of bias and favoritism.  Only one point of view is acceptable and any other point of view is something that we’re going to be shamed out of.  You can just think about how many times Trump supporters were mocked, ridiculed.

I read a piece by Paul Berman from December 2015.  I re-read it a few months ago.  I recommend that you find it and read it.  It was in Tablet Magazine and he explains how Trump gives his poorly educated, redneck racist supporters permission to hate.  Now what is that but peer pressure and shaming?  People read that in Tablet and they think, “Oh, well, I don’t want to be one of those.  I don’t want to have permission to hate.  I don’t want to be a racist redneck yahoo,” and so they’re shamed out of it. The objective, the goal is — I would hope that nobody was foolish enough to read that and think, “Oh, I better not support Donald Trump” — but the goal of it was to shame his supporters out of it and this is something that goes on. It manifests itself in all kinds of forms.  Of course, the primary vehicles for this peer pressure and shaming is the whole concept of hate speech.  Now, hate speech is really pretty straightforward.  If somebody is speaking hatefully and saying that you’re a terrible person, you ought to be killed, you ought to be beaten up, that’s pretty hateful, but hate speech as a concept, hate speech as something that ought to be a consideration in determining who gets a platform and who doesn’t is an entirely spurious fiction, an invention of the left in order to silence those with whom it disagrees in order to silence us.  That’s what hate speech is all about.

I was speaking a couple years ago at Cal Poly University in San Luis Obispo, wonderful little town, and very nice crowd and some very good questions during the presentation.  At one point I said that there was actually restriction on the freedom of speech on the Cal Poly campus and people said, “What? What are you talking about you racist, bigoted Islamophobe That’s not true,” and I said, “Well, take me as a case in point.  I’ve written all these books.  I’ve written a biography of Mohammed.  I’ve written a guide to the Quran.  Several studies of Jihad from various angles.  I guarantee you,” I said to the students, “that the point of view that I represent is not discussed in your classes on Middle East studies or Islam and if it is it is only discussed in order to be dismissed if not reviled outright,” and a young lady said, “Oh no, you’re wrong.  We did discuss your books.  We did discuss your work in a class that I just took.” And I said “Oh that’s very interesting.  What was your conclusion?” And she said, “Hate speech is not free speech.” That was the first time I heard that. Have you ever heard that?  Hate speech is not free speech.  This is an increasingly common slogan that is going to be used and is being used right now to shut us down.  What the young lady at Cal Poly was saying was that she had supposedly read my work and decided that it was hate speech and that hate speech in and of itself does not enjoy the protection that the freedom of speech ought to be given, that hate speech is not speech that we ought to respect even to the extent of saying I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  And so I said, “Okay, that’s very interesting.”

I asked the young lady this following question.  Then who gets to decide because I don’t think what I’m doing is hate speech, unless the Quran is and I quote it, but you think it’s hate speech.  Now, which one of us has the right to determine what’s hate speech? What governing authority, to whom should be entrusted this governing authority so that we know what hate speech is and rule it out of free speech protection? And she said, “Well, the relevant governing authority. That’s not important for this discussion. That would be something that would be determined by Congress and the president.” And I asked her, “You really want to give them that kind of power?  Do you realize that to give anybody the right to determine what hate speech is and silence it on that basis is a tool of the powerful to silence the powerless and the tool of the tyrants to silence their critics?” And she said, “That’s just a Hobbesian argument against the powerful.” And I thought, “Oh, now I’m stretched because I had to remember okay who’s Hobbes and what does she mean by that?” I haven’t been to college in 30 years, but of course she meant Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan. I had to look it up and Leviathan is a political treaties from the 17th century that posits that the only thing that can save us, because we’re all sort of brutal and violent and selfish and vicious, the only thing that can save us from an all-out war of all against all is a strong government that keeps everybody in line. And there are some countries you can say that’s true about, but what she was saying was that I was manifesting an alarming lack of trust and that really I ought to just relax and let the relevant authorities determine what is hate speech and quietly go to jail with Oleg.

But the thing is, of course, that she only thinks that because her position is the dominant one that’s in power.  The problem that she manifests however, the problem of which she is an example, is the fact that there’s a whole generation of young people who are growing up with the idea that there is a concept of hate speech and that we are it and that we are way beyond the pale and ultimately to be criminalized and this is happening.  As a matter of fact, no less a constitutional authority that Chris Cuomo articulated this last year when we dared to try to stand up for the freedom of speech in Garland, Texas and, of course, in January 2015, 13 people who had dared to draw Mohammed were murdered by Islamic Jihadis in Paris and in response to that we thought we have two choices.  When they say we’re going to kill you for drawing Mohammed you either have to draw Mohammed or you have to submit and say yes you can get me to do what you want by threatening to kill me, and so you can manipulate me into silence and slavery. And so to stand up for freedom and for freedom of speech of course we had a Mohammed art exhibit and cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. Jihadis attacked it and there was a great deal of media coverage there for a while about it at which time Chris Cuomo actually stated that the First Amendment does not apply to hate speech and what we were doing was hate speech and therefore it was ruled out.

Now, actually, if you read the First Amendment it doesn’t say anything about hate speech nor is there any legal thing in United States law called hate speech.  There is no such concept because of course what’s hateful to you is not hateful to me.  One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.  Everybody has a different evaluation of what is true and good right and what is evil and hateful for that matter, but just the advance of this idea, that Chris Cuomo could think that, a major commentator on a major network, that in itself indicates how deep the rot has gone and how far advanced this concept is, that there is an idea of hate speech and that we are it.  Now, the peer pressure and shaming advances of course by charging us with this hate speech and recently — there are so many examples of this I could talk all evening (I promise I won’t) — but there are so many examples of this where opinions that are perfectly valid and have a claim to truth and in an earlier and saner age would have been evaluated on their merits are instead dismissed as hate speech, labeled as such and that is all part of this overall initiative of peer pressure and shaming that Hillary Clinton told us they were going to do.

One example of course is our friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that actually did valid work in the ’60s for civil rights, but now has completely gone off the rails and become a tool for the left. The Southern Poverty Law Center recently, as you may know, issued a report on the 15 top anti-Muslim extremists in the United States, which included of course David Horowitz and me, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Gellar, many others, 10 or 12 others obviously and two of the people on the list of these anti-Muslim extremists were a reformist Muslim from the UK, Maajid Nawaz and the ex-Muslim from Somalia, the famous freedom fighter Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Now, this made this all very interesting because Frank, David and I and the others we’re used to being defamed in this way, although this was a new one.  To call us anti-Muslim extremists, if you think about that for a minute, what does the Obama Administration call terrorists?  Extremists.  Their whole program to fight Jihad terrorism doesn’t say “Jihad” or “Islam” because that’s forbidden in the Obama Administration and it’s called “countering violent extremism.”  So, to call us extremists the SPLC is saying we are terrorists.  We are the equivalent of Baghdadi, the ISIS Caliph and Osama Bin Laden and Al Laki and all the rest of them.  We are just the flipside of the coin.  Now actually it’s true.  David and I do plan to fly a plane into a high-rise building later on tonight, but in the meantime, I do think that that is an absurd categorization, but what happened in the wake of this was that Maajid Nawaz, in particular because he is very prominent on the left and particularly popular among the atheist critics of Islam and Jihad, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and so on, the atheists’ spokesmen who have actually spoken about Islam, there was a petition to get Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan off the list and of course the implication was it was perfectly fine for us racists and bigots to be on it, but now they had crossed the line.  Now, there was a certain touching naïveté to this.

You see, these supporters of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were thinking that those 13, those terrible deplorables, they belong on the list, but our friends, they don’t.  These people, no, they’re just unjustly maligning Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan.  They’re taking their statements out of context and misrepresenting them.  They are claiming guilt by association, indicating that they have associations with unsavory types and they’re questioning their motives and so on.  Well, what do you think happened to the rest of us?  This is just what the SPLC and its allied groups have been doing to us for years.  It’s exactly the same thing.  It’s all been a large-scale effort at peer pressure and shaming, making it so that we are toxic so that nobody else wants to speak out in the same way because they don’t want to be toxic and the whole idea of speaking out is stigmatized so that everybody is mute and silent as the Jihad advances.  It’s very well thought out.  I’ve really got to give them credit.  It’s a very skillful plan.  It’s very clever and very imaginative and deeply evil, but there’s always a silver lining, and the uproar about Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan being included among us anti-Muslim extremists it woke up a lot of people who I think had no idea that the SPLC is just a propaganda machine, but it is part of this propaganda machine that is working to extend the peer pressure and shaming to every honest critic who explores the motivating ideology of the Jihad terrorists and so we see it in all kinds of contexts.  Quite aside from the Southern Poverty Law Center.  We even see it at ESPN.

Now, ESPN is where I go when I want to not think about this, but it intruded even there.  Of course you probably know that Curt Schilling, the great baseball pitcher, after his pitching years were over he joined ESPN as a sports analyst of some kind.  I guess he probably talked about baseball and Curt Schilling actually is a conservative.  He now has a conservative talk show in the Boston area and he’s got very sound views on pretty much everything as far as I know and he actually dared to tweet out on his Twitter account some statements about Islam, most notoriously one where he said you say that only a tiny percentage of Muslims are Jihadis.  Well, only a tiny percentage of Germans were Nazis.  How did that work out?  For daring to say that he was suspended.  For saying other things that were outside the realm of what is acceptable he was ultimately fired by ESPN.  So, apparently, in order to talk about baseball on ESPN you have to have the right opinions or you will be shamed out of your job and the wrong opinions are of course the ones that probably most of us hear hold today.  It’s being taken for granted that we represent hate speech and it’s being extended into every aspect of society.

The ultimate goal of course is to make everyone afraid to hold these opinions because everyone will be afraid of losing their job, of being stigmatized as a racist and a bigot and so on and of course we’re so used to this we’ve heard ourselves called this for so many years, but it has never been so far advanced into the mainstream.  It is a tremendous blow to this whole initiative that Donald Trump was elected president.  Above all, because it shows that people don’t just buy this off hand.  I actually started to get some hope.  All summer and all fall the news was so bleak, the polls were so bad and Hillary was saying, “Why aren’t I ahead by 50 points?” And everything was so bleak, but I saw one thing that made me just dare to hope that things might turn out better and that was that trust in the media was at the lowest point it had ever been since anybody started keeping track of this sort of thing. And so while they are working to shame us and to apply peer pressure to silence us and while they are working to label what we do as hate speech, more and more people are waking up to it and 60 million of them did not buy it and voted for Donald Trump.  What we have now, however, is a president of the United States who commits hate speech and is subject to peer pressure and shaming and it’s an extraordinary position because after working so hard to delegitimize half of the American electorate and half of the spectrum of opinion that Americans legitimately hold, now that opinion is in power against their best efforts.

Now things are really going to get interesting and one of the best things actually that’s come about in this election cycle besides the election of Donald Trump was also the WikiLeaks exposure of just what the media really is and that’s one of the reasons why the trust in it is so very low because we grew up – I remember my father yelling at Walter Cronkite.  Walter was not in the room.  He was on the screen, but it was just what he was saying, and I remember Nixon, the first one, saying that he had faced bias from the press when he was running against John Kennedy in 1960.  Now that’s an awfully long time ago and that’s a lot of elections.  We’ve all grown up taking for granted media bias, but now we know that it’s far worse than that.  I took an online tour of the major news outlets in the early fall and the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Hill, all the major names, and every last one of them had story after story after story about what a dangerous scoundrel Donald Trump was and stupid to boot.  There is an inherit self-contradiction in how they classify all conservatives.  They did this with George W. Bush, too.  He was a monkey, he was a marginal idiot, but he was also an evil genius who had somehow thwarted all their plans while being an idiot monkey.  Really astonishing talents. And of course Trump is the same way. And every last media outlet had anti-Trump, anti-Trump, anti-Trump stories.  Not even the pretense of trying to be balanced news outlets anymore.  Not even pretending to have any objectivity.  It was just all wall-to-wall anti-Trump all the time and then it came out in WikiLeaks.

George Soros-funded organizations paid those august, trusted news outlets, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, you name it, they paid them for favorable coverage of the Iran nuclear deal.  They paid them for favorable coverage of the Muslim migrant influx into Europe.  They paid them for reports on the terrible Islamophobes.  They probably paid for that Southern Poverty Law Center anti-Muslim extremist list, but they certainly paid for other reports about how David Horowitz and I and others are these terrible, hateful, evil people who no decent person should have anything to do with.  And so we now know this is not news outlets at all.  These are bought and paid for propaganda outlets and their hegemony has been broken.  Even if Hillary Clinton had won, they would never have the hold that they had.  They will never have it again.  And so, we have every reason to be upbeat.  This is an ongoing initiative, as I said, and it’s not going to go away.  There are going to be continued efforts to stigmatize us, continued efforts to smear Trump as he becomes president, as he does anything, continued efforts to say that this is just some anomaly, sunspots, an accident of the Electoral College, something happened so that this maniac got to be president, but he’s still a maniac and any decent ordinary person will think he’s a maniac.  Nonetheless, the blades of grass have broken through the concrete, and it can’t be repaired, and so there’s every reason for hope.

But I will close with noting what exactly it is that we’re up against, what the effect of this stigmatization really is.  We have heard for decades now, and particularly after 9/11, that any honest discussion of how Islamic Jihadis use the text and teachings of Islam, which you can see in my Guide to the Koran and biography of Mohammed, available now, any honest discussion of that is hateful in itself, bigoted, racist, beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.  No.  This is how this works.  A few years back there was a Jihad plot against Fort Dix in New Jersey, and a group of Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and shoot as many American soldiers as possible before they themselves were killed because the Koran promises paradise to those who kill and are killed for Allah.  It’s the only promise of paradise in the Koran.  It’s Chapter 9, Verse 111 if you want to look it up, and it says you’ll go straight to paradise if you kill and are killed.  These Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and kill and be killed and go straight to paradise.  But they were foiled.  Now, they were only foiled — it was on a shoestring.  As it happened, these guys were Islamic Jihadis.  Islamic Jihadis love death.  They always tell us that.  They love death, they love bloodshed, they love gore. And they went to a video store because they had their bloody Jihad videos, their beheading videos and their bombing videos, they had them on VHS tapes, and so they asked the young man at the video store, 17-year-old boy, they asked him to transfer their VHS Jihad tapes to DVD.  As he’s doing the job, he saw what was on the tapes and he got alarmed, and he went to his boss, and he said, “Dude, I’m seeing some very weird shit on these videos.  Should I call the police or would that be racist?”  Now, I should tell you, these Jihadis were Albanians; they were Albanian Muslims.  Albanians are blond-haired, blue-eyed white guys, so there was nothing remotely racist about what they were doing, not by any stretch of the imagination.  The idea that turning them into the cops would be racist was just something that had been drummed into this young man’s head all his life, that Muslims are victims and that any movement against Jihad terrorism, there’s something wrong with it.  And you think that that’s outlandish; it’s not.

A very successful program of surveillance in Muslim communities, a completely legal program that had been challenged in court and held up to the challenge, in New York City, was shut down by Mayor de Blasio on the grounds that it was hateful.  Now, what’s hateful about trying to defend ourselves against these people?  If you think about it, you know, how Trump is Hitler because he had proposed a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration.  Now, you may recall the real Hitler, in 1940, he banned the immigration of Jews so that he could kill them.  And Trump, not Hitler, wants to ban the immigration of Muslims so they won’t kill us.  Those two things are not exactly equivalent.  But the idea that it’s a terrible anti-Muslim thing completely obscures the fact that he doesn’t have something against Muslims.  He doesn’t have something against brown people.  That’s the way it’s always put.  He does not have some racist agenda here because, for one thing, he’s not saying let’s have a ban on Hindu or Buddhist or any other kind of immigration of people of the same brownness as supposedly the Muslims are.  The problem is that he’s trying to address in suggesting this ban is that there are going to be Islamic Jihadis among the Muslims who get into the country.  How do you keep them out?  You can’t tell the Jihadis from the peaceful Muslims.  They don’t carry membership cards in Al-Qaida.  So how are you going to tell?  There’s no way to tell to distinguish the one from the other, so you either have mass immigration of Muslims into the United States or more Jihad massacres or you have a ban on the immigration, but the idea that it’s racist and hateful is just more of this peer pressure and shaming that almost worked with that young man at Fort Dix.  He did turn them in.  He decided to go ahead and be racist, and so he saved a lot of people from being killed, but the stigma had already worked or he wouldn’t have hesitated, and the stigma is what they are trying to apply to any and every form of resistance to Jihad terror, that it’s anti-Muslim, it is hateful, and therefore, it must be ruled out of polite society.

Now, you understand, we still have the First Amendment.  We still have the freedom of speech.  But we now that there are certain things that can be said in the mainstream and certain things that will immediately be branded as hateful, and that is how Hillary Clinton’s program of peer pressure and shaming works just absolutely so well, and is going to continue to do so, unfortunately, despite her defeat.  The upshot is, however, that we do have every reason to be optimistic not just with Trump’s election, but with the breaking of the stranglehold of the mainstream and the possibility that truth might now actually even breakthrough somewhere like CNN.  I’m not counting on it.  I suspect that these great news conglomerate industries will go out of business before they would moderate what they’re doing, but the people have had enough and that is our hope.  What we have is an ongoing struggle that we have to be very aware of and resolute in whatever fashion that we can be in our own sphere in life to resist, and to identify this as an insidious attempt at the peer pressure and shaming to stigmatize what is a legitimate point of view and indeed a necessary one for our common defense.  And because, ultimately, we do have the truth on our side, we know that we will, in the final instance, be victorious.  Thank you very much.

Question and Answer Session

Audience member: Robert, could you tell us how do you undo Resolution 1618 that has been signed by Hillary Clinton?

Robert Spencer: Well, resolutions in the UN are not iron dogma, but they can be reversed. They can be repealed just like in any other parliamentary body, and one thing that I think the Trump administration ought to do is make sure that the United States is clearly and explicitly and defiantly on record defending the freedom of speech at the UN.  And –

Audience member: Because in fact, they’re going forward with this 1618 resolution and making it larger and bigger, all of the states at the United Nations, so it’s something perhaps –

Robert Spencer: Hillary probably would have tried to implement it.  All you needed was a ninth justice who was a foe of the freedom of speech.  The four leftist justices on the court right now have all gone on record saying they would be in favor of various kinds of restrictions on the freedom of speech. And so all you needed was one more.  We really dodged a bullet here.  All you needed was one more to say hate speech is not free speech and does not enjoy First Amendment protection and actually codify that in a Supreme Court decision and the First Amendment would have been dead.

Audience member: One more question.  There’s 1.7 billion Muslims according to your very, very thorough research.  What percentage would you say of that 1.7 billion are a threat to the world?

Robert Spencer: There’s no way to answer that question. The reason why is because the teachings about Jihad warfare against unbelievers and subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law, which denies the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience and equality of rights of women and so many other things, all that is in Islamic law.  It is not negotiable.  It’s not some extremist opinion.  It’s basic mainstream ordinary Islam.  Those who tell you otherwise are lying.

Now, that said, does every Muslim believe that?  Is every Muslim bound to carry those things out?  No.  Absolutely not.  Just like in any other religious tradition, there’s some people who are very serious about it and some people who aren’t and every gradation in between.  So you have in the Catholic church, contraception is illegal, is immoral according to the Pope, but surveys show most Catholics practice contraception.  Does that mean that the Catholic church does not teach that?  No, it really does, but most Catholics don’t pay attention.

Now, in Islam, it’s the same thing.  Does Islam in all its various sects and forms teach Jihad warfare against unbelievers?  Yes.  Does that mean every Muslim is a Jihadi?  Absolutely not.  Many, many Muslims don’t know about that, don’t care about that, are never going to put it into practice.  They would rather live a comfortable life than go blow themselves up, but they’re not going to lift a finger to stop the guys who are blowing themselves up because they know that it’s in there.

Who has the mic?

Audience member: I do. This is a question I wanted to ask Anne Coulter and probably would have gotten a flip, funny answer, but I’d actually rather ask it to you, which is what would you like to see happen to the UN in a Trump world?  I’d appreciate your perspective on that.

Robert Spencer: What would I like to see happen to the UN in a Trump world?  Was that the question? Well, can you imagine the mushroom cloud?  Seriously, what I would like to see happen to the UN is that certainly the U.S. should withdraw all funding from it and evict it from the United States.  We can’t shut it down because there are a few other countries in it, but we can keep it out of New York and the United States in general.  They can go to Geneva and they can raise their own money.  It’s a propaganda arm for the global Jihad, for the OIC.  It’s a propaganda arm to hit Israel above all and so we have no business allowing our ally to be subjected to this or to continue with this pretense that it’s something that actually brings anything good to the world.  It doesn’t.

Audience member: Robert, thank you.  First of all I want to thank you profusely for all of your efforts in the cause of freedom. Your courageous efforts.  Now, could you kind or explain or expound upon and assess the following two assertions that we hear all too frequently?  One of them, we are not at war with Islam and the second one, the ideology of takfirism is an existential threat to the United States.

Robert Spencer: Well, the ideology of takfirism is kind of an incoherent thing to say because takfir is the practice of one Muslim group declaring that another Muslim group is not Muslim and can therefore be killed as heretics or apostates because heresy and apostasy carry the death penalty in Islam.  So many of the groups that are more entrenched in holding on to their wealth and power, like the Saudi government, the Iranians, they declared groups like Al Qaeda, they call groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS takfiris, which means these are the people who are saying that the rest of us are not Muslims and trying to kill us, but that doesn’t mean that, of course, the Saudis or the Iranians — the Iranians say it because they’re Shiites and the Al Qaeda and ISIS people are Sunnis, but in any case, nobody should get the idea that the takfiris or that is Al Qaeda and ISIS and the other Jihad groups are the only people who hold to the view that there should be warfare against unbelievers.

This is, as I said, standard Islam, kill them wherever you find them.  It’s three times in the Quran, Chapter 2:191, 489 and 95 if you want to look it up.  Chapter 9, Verse 29 says to wage war against the Jews and Christians and subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law, paying a special tax.  All these things are in basic Islam.

So if somebody says that it’s just these takfiri groups, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf and so on, that practice this, that’s just completely false on the face of it.  It’s taught by all the mainstream sects of Islam.

And the first question, we are not at war with Islam.  That also is sort of a false statement.  I mean, we’re not at war with Islam, but large portions of Islam are at war with us and the Muslims who are at war with us, they point to the Quran and Sunnah the example of Mohammed to justify what they’re doing and they recruit some unpeaceful Muslims and unless and until we recognize that, we’re never going to get anywhere.

The Obama administration in 2011 outlawed any honest discussion of the motivating ideology of the terrorists.  It actually is forbidden.  If you joined the FBI today, which I would not recommend, maybe when Trump is in, but not right now, if you joined the FBI today and you say I want to go into counterterror, you will not learn anything about Islam, anything about Jihad, even though that’s the largest global threat the U.S. faces.  You will hear about right-wing extremists and militias and constitution groups, but it is official policy of the Obama administration that there be no mention of Islam and Jihad in connection with terrorism.  The upshot is that our agents are completely unequipped to deal with what they are seeing with the Jihadis.  You can’t defeat an enemy you don’t understand and to get the intel about these people they don’t know what it means.

The Tsarnaev brothers who blew up the Boston Marathon, Russia reported them to the FBI.  They said these guys, actually Tamerlan the older one, he went to Jihad groups, he joined Jihad groups in Dagestan.  Now this was right around the time that the FBI under orders from John Brennan and Obama were erasing all mention of Islam and Jihad from counterterrorism.  So they get the intel from the Russians that says these guys joined Jihad groups right when the United States is blinding itself as official policy to the idea that Jihad is benign, nothing to worry about, nothing to be concerned with.  How could they possibly have followed through on that intel?  It went against the state policy of the administration and so the marathon blew up.

And so we have to understand that Islam, to a tremendous degree, is at war with us and that if we don’t realize that, it’s just going to get worse, but of course, Trump he made a big deal during the campaign of the fact that he would say that there was a threat from what he called radical Islam. It’s actually mainstream Orthodox ordinary Islam, but even saying radical Islam after these 8 years of denial and willful ignorance is refreshing and one would hope that he will change the institutional culture in the FBI and the CIA and Homeland Security and all the rest of them.  It’s drastically needed.

Who has the mic?  Yes, sir.

Audience member: Hi.  So I go to a high school where 99 percent of the students their parents are lobbyists or work in government.  I guess you could say I live in the swamp.  So I recently wrote something reflecting on the results of the election and as you can probably imagine it’s pretty positive and also as you can imagine I received a slew of peer pressuring shaming as you’d say.  I was told that Trump validates the KKK and white supremacy and I said no, the only reason they latched onto the campaign is because of the media’s lies and character assassination that told everybody that Trump was racist even though that’s not the case.

However, what other advice would you give to someone like me who lives in the midst of all those people to defend myself against such claims?

Robert Spencer: I think that mockery is awfully undervalued and that there’s a tremendous potential for it, particularly on college campuses.  I didn’t quite hear everything that you were saying.  Are you in a college right now or –

Audience member: No, high school.

Robert Spencer: High school, okay, even better.  Same thing really at this point.  The colleges are high schools and the high schools are middle schools and so on.  But the Muslim groups, I don’t actually know about high school, but I know that when you get to college you’ll see, the Muslim groups or the anti-Israel groups, the Students for Justice in Palestine and so on, they make a great show of their victimhood and their grievance theater is always featured on campuses.  So, for example, they have Israeli Apartheid Awareness week and they build a wall and have a checkpoint and you have to go through the mock IDF soldier to get to your class and it’s supposed to show you how terrible Israel is.

Well, we can have a lot of fun with that kind of thing if we turn it around on them and have, for example, they have Islam awareness week, well, why don’t we have Quran awareness week and put up “kill them wherever you find them” and “if you fear disobedience from your wife, beat her,” and all these things from the Quran. And they’ll say how could you have this terrible Islamophobia?  Well, it’s just the Quran.  I thought you wanted us to be aware of Islam.  And you play their contradictions back on them.

They talk about being feminists and being in favor of women’s rights and yet they are in bed with and in league with the most misogynistic and absolutely violent ideology toward women on earth.  So you have honor killing victim awareness week and put up the pictures of the unattractive women who have been killed by their fathers or their brothers for not wearing the hijab.  Actually, they have hijab week now on campuses and I’m seeing that all these non-Muslim girls are wearing the hijab to show solidarity with the poor Muslim girls who are yelled at for wearing hijab by racist, Islamophobic Trump supporters and, well, what about all the girls that have been killed for wearing hijab?  I can give you a long list and give you pictures of them.  And what about them?  Do they have any rights?  Can we have an awareness week for them?  What, you don’t care about these women?  It’s only those women?  And so on.

You see what I mean, that you have to in the first place have a very thick skin and be ready to be called everything that there is and understand that this is their tactic, to shame us out of doing what we’re doing, but you bring it back on them and shame them for their own contradictions and hypocrisy.

Audience member: Why are you so racist? No, that wasn’t my question.  My observation first of what you last said.  There are student groups working on colleges planning just that.  Saudi Arabia apartheid week. And planning to do street theater with gays hanging from – in Iran week.  But the question now, if I can remember, it was about changing the culture in our security services.  I know people from the intelligence and FBI community.  On a personal level, they are highly aware of this, but their investigations cannot be geared that way.  How long do you think it will take after 1:00 or 2:00 on January 20 for that to change? And how do we go about doing it?

Robert Spencer: You’re absolutely right.  I also know many people in the FBI and other agencies who are well aware of the nature and magnitude of the Jihad threat, but they’re keeping their head down, they’re doing their job, they’re biding their time and so things will get better very quickly.  But there’s also 8 years’ worth of agents who don’t have a clue and who have been completely misinformed.  I have a local FBI agent whenever I get death threats. He calls me or I call him and he says they’re on it and I say yes and then we go back to our business and nothing happens.

But I talk to him now and again and he was reassuring me the other day, last time I got a death threat and he’s saying, “I want you to know that I’m well aware of this problem with these guys that you’re tracking and also, we’re right on top of the other guys on the other side” and I said, “What do you mean, the other guys on the other side?”  And he said, “The people upstate, the right-wing militias, they’re just as dangerous as the guys you’re talking about,” and I thought, do they smoke opium now in the FBI as a matter of training?

Can you imagine, he thinks right-wing, when have you heard of right-wing militias, I mean, 30,000 terror attacks around the world by Islamic Jihadis acting explicitly in the name of the Quran, Islam, Mohammed since 9/11.  How many right-wing militias have done that?  And you can say, oh, yes, well, this fella or that fella or this guy had a Confederate flag, the psychopath with the bowl haircut in South Carolina.  This is hardly proportionate and hardly remotely the same magnitude of threat, but this is what they’re being taught nowadays and they can only explore the ideology of the one group and not the other.  So we can hope and I have every confidence now that that’s going to change and change quickly when the new administration comes in.

Thank you so much for being here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Peugeot car plant closed as Muslim workers took “too many prayer breaks”

Reza Aslan: A Muslim “Will & Grace” will cure “Islamophobia”

Tucker Carson vs. Muslim Professor on Islamophobia

Did Islamophobia cause the terror attack at Ohio State?

If that question seems as ridiculous to you, as it does to us, we have a video you need to see!

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, recently debated a Muslim Professor over the motivation for the recent Ohio State terrorist attack.

This conversation outlines perfectly, the discussion taking place in our increasingly divided America.

In one corner, we have those willing to speak the truth about the threat of radical Islam and in the other, we have those who not only deny the reality of the threat, but attempt to shame, and silence those who speak the truth.

To individuals like the Muslim Professor in this video, the reaction to an Islamic terrorist attack is not, “How can we do our best to prevent these horrific incidents from re-occurring?”

Rather, it is “What did we as Americans do to cause this hatred towards us?”

If these appeasers had it their way, our only defense to Islamic terrorism would be silence and submission.

More to it, that is exactly what our radical Islamic adversaries would prefer, for us to keep our lips sealed, and hands tied behind our backs.

We cannot allow ourselves to fall into this fatal trap of tolerance. Instead, we must continue to speak the truth, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes the politically correct appeasers.