Dylann Roof: The Nexus Between White Supremacy’s Anti-Blackness and Islamophobia

By Garibaldi

Prof. Juan Cole posted an article Sunday with the provocative title, European Islamophobic Networks Influenced Roof to Kill in Charleston. Prof. Cole first provides some recent historical context, noting that the Islamophobia Network helped incite the terrorist mass murderer, Anders Behring Breivik.  Prof. Cole then cites a paragraph from Roof’s manifesto possibly hinting to the same sort of ideological beliefs as those held by Breivik and co.,

From this point I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race, and I can say today that I am completely racially aware.

The predictable retort from those who will try to disassociate what Dylann Roof believed from their hate-filled ideology will be that he doesn’t mention fascist European politicians such as Geert Wilders by name, nor does he cite Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller specifically the way Breivik did. They may even claim that Roof isn’t referencing the Muslims of Europe at all.

However, those who object would be wrong. Roof was absolutely influenced by Islamophobic conspiracies when he mentions that “the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries…Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there.”

It should be recalled that Roof cited the Council of Conservative Citizens (CoCC) as having particular influence on his murderous anti-Black racism. CoCC heightened his paranoid perception of unfairness and belief that somehow Whites were an oppressed class whose “women were being raped” by Black men who “were taking over.” Language that is very similar to what one hears from the Islamophobia Network about Muslims, especially Muslims in Europe.

In fact, a corollary to CoCC’s horrid anti-Black racism is their virulent Islamophobic hate and conspiracy theories. A simple search for the term “Islam” on the Council of Conservative Citizens’ website brings up articles, including: White supremacist Jared Taylor discussing a future third World War between Europe and “Islam”, claims that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerburg is censoring criticism of Islam, multiple articles supporting European groups and individuals involved with the anti-Muslim group PEGIDA, promotion of the conspiracy of “Islamization” by Geert Wilders’ PVV party, positively citing Bill Maher for his views on Islam and Muslims, fear of the spread of Islam in US prisons, claims that Jews are supporting the “Islamification” of Europe as “revenge for the Holocaust” (an Islamophobic-anti-Semitic narrative that I discussed in a previous article), pushing the conspiracy about Muslim men raping White women across Europe, targeting the predominantly Black Muslim Islamberg community (a group that was recently the target of a foiled terrorist attack by a White Christian). There are also a number of articles claiming “no one has mistreated Blacks like Muslims,” an attempt to exculpate themselves for their own racist views by projecting onto another religion.

It is therefore not a leap at all to consider that Roof’s expression of deep angst about “what was going on in Europe” was a reference to the Islamophobic language, narratives and conspiracy theories common among the differing currents and trends within the trans-Atlantic Islamophobia Nework.

charleston-shooting

They lived a life of love and service and while worshiping were killed because of hate.

Roof’s mad manifesto is shorter than Breivik’s 1,500 page screed, yet we can gleam commonalities and some minor distinctions in their beliefs. Both Breivik and Roof see Europe as the home of Whites (their “people”), under “threat” from “outside invasion.” Roof makes no mention of Christian identity whereas Breivik explicitly considers himself part of a Neo-Crusader movement and in fact one of a group of “Templar Knights” (It should be noted here that CoCC’s “statement of principles” asserts that the US is a “Christian country,” that should be made up of “European peoples.”) Roof’s seminal preoccupation was race and seeing everything through the lens of “racial awareness,” while Breivik also focused on other aspects of civilizational identity, specifically Christian heritage.

There’s ample evidence that Roof held deeply anti-Black beliefs for years and he may not have required the influence of the pervasive White supremacist currents of the Islamophobia Network to kill and terrorize in Charleston. In the end he was a racist with a supreme hatred of Blacks and other races, (oddly he admired East Asians and thought of them as allies). Yet it is clear that Roof was further radicalized by his visits to CoCC and there is no doubt that the prominence given on their website to the narratives of the Islamophobia Network influenced and heightened his ideological belief in the oppression of Whites world-wide.

via. Loonwatch

NewYorkTimes: Free Speech vs. Hate Speech

There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.

But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

That distinction is critical because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech. The current dispute at the American chapter of the PEN literary organization over its selection of Charlie Hebdo for a freedom of expression courage award is a case in point — hundreds of PEN’s members have opposed the selection for “valorizing selectively offensive material.”

 

Photo

Pamela Geller Credit Mike Stone/Reuters

 

Charlie Hebdo is a publication whose stock in trade has always been graphic satires of politicians and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. By contrast, Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims.

Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.

Those two men were would-be murderers. But their thwarted attack, or the murderous rampage of the Charlie Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the barbaric killers of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event. These can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel.

Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.

David Horowitz to OSU: ‘Jews didn’t expel the Arabs in 1948′ and ‘the occupation is a huge lie’

By Susie Kneedler, MondoWeiss

Sounds limp, but I shook all day after the “Committee for Justice in Palestine at The Ohio State University” forwarded OSU College Republicans’ invitation to hear David Horowitz pontificate on “Why Israel is the Victim on April 22.   But I had to film Horowitz, because he and CAMERA wield ridiculous power in U.S. schools.  As my friend Sami Mubarak told me:

Many minority students, especially Muslim and Arabs, are feeling unsafe that David Horowitz is allowed to speak on our campus. He claimed responsibility for the hateful anti-SJP posters found in Smith-Steeb dorm on our campus a couple months ago.

Though I’m a member, I’d no clue that OSU’s CJP had been among those targeted, because CJP chose not to distract from its work at a crucial time.  (More about that soon.)  Mubarak reminded me that Horowitz had “funded an Islamophobic ad in The Lantern back in 2012″–a fact I’d reported at the time–full of calumnies Horowitz repeated that night.

Readers of this site know David Horowitz’s efforts at hate-mongering on campus, last week and a couple months ago.  Ben Norton has also debunked Horowitz’s lies, so I’ll point out a few lowlights and post the whole, in six parts, for context.  (Sorry for the background noise, and that my video wobbles, whenever I was asked to move.)

From his rancid start (2, 0:30) to his abrupt departure, Horowitz’s venom stunned.  He skipped the courtesies, like thanks or a nod to Earth Day, dear to many.  Instead, Horowitz made sure everyone could hear him, then griped, “I understand that we have people here from several groups that support the terrorist regimes in Gaza and the West Bank (#2, 0:20).”

People gasped.  When one, then two, clapped in mock shock, Horowitz lapsed into sarcasm: “Great day for America when you support terrorists.”

David Horowitz crackled radioactive hypocrisy.  He demonized the Muslim Students Association and CJP  (#2, 5:09, 14:00) through guilt by association to Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas–casting even Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas as “literally Nazis”(#2, 21:36),  yet obscured the Israel’s use of all–including the fact that Israel helped start Hamas to divide the PLO (see also this and that).  He claimed that the Holy Land Foundation, Council on American-Islamic Relations, and Hatem Bazian all plot “the destruction of Western Civilization,” based on one supposed secret memo (#3, 13:55), but could scarcely be less civilized himself.  Worse, he ignored miscarriage of justice involved the Holy Land Foundation trial and convictions.

He accused opponents of supporting terrorism, but elided Israel’s own terrorism from the King David bombing to the Nakba onward.  He tried to swell his credibility using his status as a former “Communist” and “Leftist,” yet projected his ideology onto us.  He whined that he had the right to be heard without listeners leaving in protest.  He exclaimed that Jews are victims of  “Jew-hatred,” yet scorned the “Victims studies,” that he claims “this University like every other university has (#4, 1:25).”

He moaned that people “put words into my mouth that I didn’t say, they omit every qualification” (#4, 10:30), yet that’s precisely how he misrepresents those who criticize Israel.  He alleged that four “Disappearing Palestine” maps “is a Hamas map….The map is one big lie” (#3, 15:18).   Paradoxically, those pictures of the ongoing theft of Palestine were the one good thing Horowitz provided: they overshadowed his harangue.

Among other nonsensical claims:

“Students for Justice in Palestine, the Committee for Justice in Palestine has only one agenda: the destruction of the only Jewish state (#2, 16:25)….The Jews didn’t expel the Arabs when they attacked them in 1948, nor did they… in the 1967 war or in the 1973 war.  Turns out that this generosity on the part of the Jews was a mistake; these people are not grateful, they’re fanatics, they’re driven by hate.  Four hundred years is a long time: the American Indians have a greater claim on the U.S. than the Arabs have either on Israel or on the West Bank (#2: 19:00).”

At least he admitted here that the West Bank is not part of Israel.

But he resorted to long-discredited hasbara, asserting that the people of Palestine had no right to their own homes, because there was “no national movement of the Palestinians” (#2, 19:41)–that is, that if people did not claim a land precisely as “the Jews” had done on the basis of an eminently-debatable brand of national identity, they forfeited the ground they owned.  He announced,

“Occupation is one huge lie…. because if you think the Jews stole the land, then you don’t pay attention to all the amazing things Israelis have done to contribute to YOUR health…cell phones, you owe the Israelis that (#2, 25:00).

He asserted that “The second lie is that Israel is an Apartheid state” (#2, 26:00): “The only state that’s safe for women, gays, and Christians is Israel” (#2, 27:40). Excuse me if I quote from the the Kairos Document that declares,

“The aggression against the Palestinian people which is the Israeli occupation, is an evil that must be resisted…. Christian love invites us to resist it.  However, love puts an end to evil by walking in the ways of justice.”

He alleged that if you’re a woman “in the [other] countries of the Middle East, “you’re just chattel,” and the merriment that greeted it was priceless (#2, 26:45). And piled up equally laughable falsities about Gaza next (#3, 0:01):

If you want to know why Palestinians are poor,…why they are suffering,…why they get killed in wars, it’s Hamas that’s reponsible, because Hamas is the aggressor.  The Jews weren’t firing rockets into Gaza (#3, 6:00).

When Sami Mubarak and a friend asked,”When will the hate end, David?,” as they held up the sign (3, 6:48),” Horowitz barked,

“You tell me.  You’re obviously the–.  Do you guys want to identify yourselves? Are you MSA or the CJP or some other leftist hate group?”

A whimsical voice quipped, “It’s the Chess Club.”

What an entrancing spirit to return drollery for malice.  Horowitz, however,  grumbled as people stood to leave, “I don’t know how you guys live with your consciences.”  But CJP, MSA, and other groups do know: they had already started a hashtag campaign called ‘EndHateOSU.”

A “representative of Student Government” offered more comic relief about “sinister acts like food and dancing” (#26:45).  Nevertheless, Horowitz posed as an innocent threatened by us: “If the police weren’t here, who knows what would happen!” (#4, 0:15), “You haven’t been attacked on campus.  I have! (#4, 0:20).”  And he yelled at others: “You’re just stupid!  You have no brains (#4, 2:50).”  Or this abuse:

“You’re on a different planet from me.  I don’t understand how you got all that crap in your head and spew it out at me….[I refuse to waste any more life transcribing poison] (#4: 5:50).”

At last, but too soon for students to debate, Horowitz closed his talk: “It’s a sad, sad performance.  Now, [mumbling] we’re finished.  Thank you all, even the people who disagreed with me in a civil….[unintelligible].”

He then lingered less than twelve minutes for civil chitchat, seemingly scared off by a question he couldn’t answer.  A friend of mine asked why so many Holocaust survivors “condemn Israel’s actions (8:41).”  He smeared such critics who’d lived through the death camps, saying, “Some of the Jews shoveled the bodies….ovens….” before waving her off: “You’re just being sarcastic.”

Then he went off Stage Right with a parting curse“F— Off”  (#6, 9:00).

The obscenity was so startling that I–stuck behind my lens–assumed he’d involuntarily yelped at my friend.  Only in the video could I see him direct it straight into my camera.

Still, I wonder: How has Horowitz retained respectability, when he acts so—-unimaginably?  For the College Republicans’ applause seemed keen (#4, 10:55).  And the CR leaders were polite to visitors.  Still, I can’t understand the moderator’s double standard about protecting “civilized discourse”: allowing Horowitz to denigrate the audience but not the latter to respond.

Why ever the CR did invite the infamous Horowitz when Hillel’s Buckeyes for Israel pointedly did not?  OSUCR recently supported several Israel-centric events, but Buckeyes for Israel did not co-sponsor Horowitz’s visit.  I can only assume that Hillel and BfI at last calculate that Horowitz’s grotesquery will do anything but pump up Israel’s popularity.  And this person has shaped academic debate?

Meanwhile, what’s with CR’s urging “anyone who felt personally subjugated by Mr. Horowitz’s comments to contact the Office of  Counseling…Services“?  Many have justly condemned that condescension.

I think psychological care is a great thing. As one flawed human to another, I feel for David Horowitz, because paranoid vigilantism is a sad life.  Short of getting professional help, though, we can all hang out with good people who radiate sanity, spreading resilience all round.  A week ago, comradely sumud helped me creep into the hate-fest I dreaded. So now I call out to #EndHateOSU, “Thanks.”

Deacon Robert Spencer And Pamela Geller To Host Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders is on his way to the US again, this time at the invitation of two US congressmen. He will also be awarding a prize at Pamela Geller and Deacon Robert Spencer’s “Draw Muhammad” contest in Texas. (h/t: WaltervanderCruijsen)

GeertWilders.nl

On Wednesday April 29th, he will speak at a reception offered to him by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R, TX).

That same day, he speaks at the invitation of Congressman Steve King (R, IA) at the breakfast meeting of members of the US Congress belonging to the renowned Conservative Opportunity Society, a group founded in 1984 by Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Wilders: “I feel deeply honored by the invitations. In my speeches I will warn my American colleagues of the dangers of Islamization.”

After his visit to Washington, Geert Wilders travels to Garland, Texas, where on May 3rd he will give a speech and award a prize of $10,000 for the best Muhammad cartoon.

via. loonwatch

 

Nutcase Nicolai Sennels Still Posting on Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch

For some years now Nicolai Sennels has been posting on Deacon Spencer’s blog, JihadWatch. Sennels is very popular in the “counterjihad” movement that has spawned the likes of Anders Breivik and the EDL.

Sennels, in much the same way as earlier racist pseudo-scientists, focuses his Islamophobic output in his reputed field of expertise: psychology. These self-declared bonafides are supposed to be enough to lend credence to what is in effect a new-age racist scientism. Muslims are viewed as a racial group of inbreds who are genetically inferior. For more on Sennels see Sheila Musaji’s excellent article at The American Muslim aptly titled, Nicolai Sennels’ Nazi Style Propaganda.

Of course we relay this as part of being the studious fact compilers we are, there is in reality no difference in the views Sennels and Spencer. That’s why he continues to write there.

 

Brigitte Gabriel: ‘No Chance’ Of Muslim Americans ‘Blending In’ To U.S.

Brigitte Gabriel: ‘No Chance’ Of Muslim Americans ‘Blending In’ To U.S.

Anti-Muslim activist Brigitte Gabriel told Newsmax host Dennis Michael Lynch last week that there is “no chance” of American Muslims ever “blending in” with U.S. society.

In an interview on Friday, Lynch told Gabriel that he had recently traveled to Dearborn, Michigan, and “did not see all but maybe one or two homes with an American flag waving outside” and at one point stopped to ask for directions and was ignored.

“Why is it that the Muslim community is not blending in with the rest of American society?” he asked.

“Because this is what they are being told in mosques across the United States,” Gabriel responded, claiming that American mosques are “instructing their people not to shake hands on Christmas or Easter or wish the Americans a happy holiday.”

“Is there any chance that the Muslim community will ever turn it around?” Lynch asked.

“No,” Gabriel responded, “there is no chance, we are seeing a reverse, actually, instead of a blending in, instead of assimilation.”

via. IslamophobiaToday

Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer Discover “Movie Theater Jihad”

Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer Discover “Movie Theater Jihad”

by Sheila Musaji
A recent fake story about patrons being refused entrance to a movie theater in Britain because they weren’t Muslim was completely debunked by Bob Pitt on Islamophobia Watch.  He noted:

…  the arrival of Eid provided the pretext for yet another round of anti-Muslim scaremongering. According to a rumour that quickly spread across the internet, the Vue cinema in Birmingham’s Star City entertainment complex was only allowing Muslims who were celebrating Eid to enter the venue and had turned away non-Muslims.

This transparently ludicrous story would appear to have been kicked off by a comment posted on the Birmingham Mail Facebook page by one Emma Noakes, who accused Birmingham City Council of colluding with Vue in implementing a discriminatory admission policy:

You’ll note that Ms Noakes’ accusation wasn’t based on her own experience of being turned away from the cinema but on a second-hand and probably garbled account by a friend. As for her suggestion that the local authority was co-operating with Star City in banning non-Muslims from the venue, this was clearly nonsense.

Nevertheless, it was enough to provoke a predictable spate of outraged comments denouncing the supposed ban as further proof of an Islamic takeover of Britain and the subjugation of the indigenous people. A Facebook page was set up to rally opposition to the discrimination against non-Muslims, under the title “Boycott star city – racist shithole”. The accusation of racism was particularly ironic, given that the page is clearly a far-right initiative, as the photos below demonstrate.

Unsurprisingly, Birmingham City Council denied any involvement, telling those who inquired about the issue: “This has nothing to do with the council and is simply not true.” The Birmingham Mail, a newspaper not averse to engaging in a bit of anti-Muslim scaremongering itself, also dismissed the rumour as baseless, stating: “We have fully investigated these allegations and can find no foundation for them.”
Star City management too was adamant that there was no discriminatory policy against non-Muslims on their part, and issued the following statement:

“Star City is a family entertainment centre open to and enjoyed by all. Star City has enjoyed growing success in recent months and we have a proud record of community involvement. Over the past few days Star City has been extremely busy and the volume of traffic has been very high, causing significant traffic congestion and delays in getting some visitors access into the Centre. During the busiest times some visitors have been turned away and there has been some disappointment for some, for which we apologise. However, there is simply no truth in the recent allegations – the nature of which have no place at Star City.”

Although the statement doesn’t mention Eid, this was obviously a major contributory factor to Star City being very busy last week. It is hardly surprising that the festival should result in large numbers of Muslim families visiting the entertainment complex – according to the 2011 census, 21.8% of the population of Birmingham is Muslim, while Star City itself is situated in the Nechells area of the city, where 43.5% of the population is Muslim. Presumably what happened at the Vue cinema was that tickets sold out and disappointed visitors were told they were unable to get a seat because of Eid, which they took to mean that only Muslims were allowed in.

This silly rumour would probably have fizzled out, had it not been taken up and given legitimacy by the Daily Mirror, who reported it under the headline “Vue apologises after families ‘barred from cinema for not being MUSLIM’”. (The Mirror‘s story was then picked up by the Daily Mail, who went for the headline “Vue cinema apologises after friends ‘are turned away by security guard because they were not a Muslim family celebrating Eid’”, while the Daily Star also ran a piece on it, entitled “Lads turned away from busy cinema ‘because they weren’t Muslim’”.)

The Mirror used Emma Noakes’ Facebook post as evidence of discrimination at the Vue cinema and even referred to the “Boycott star city – racist shithole” as an example of public concern about the situation – without mentioning the name of the page or bothering to inform readers that it is run by anti-Muslim bigots. But the Mirror‘s star witness was an individual named Leon Jennings, who told the paper that a “burly security guard” at the Vue cinema informed him and his friends that they “couldn’t go in because it was only couples and families celebrating Eid”. Jennings accused the guard of “making assumptions about my religion and banning me based on my skin colour” and said the cinema’s action amounted to “blatant racism”.

Now, it may be that Jennings failed to understand the reason he was given as to why he couldn’t attend the screening at the cinema, or perhaps the guard failed to explain the situation coherently. Or it could be that Jennings is an attention-seeking self-publicist who contacted the Mirror with a cock-and-bull story with a view to getting his name in the papers. Then again, perhaps Jennings is someone who just has a problem with Muslims. Anything is more likely than the possibility that the cinema actually operated a ban on non-Muslims.

If Jennings genuinely does believe he was barred because he wasn’t a Muslim, then he should go to the police and report it. Discrimination on religious grounds in the provision of goods and services is a criminal offence under Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006. The problem, of course, is that the police would subject Jennings’ claims to considerably more scrutiny that the Mirror did, and if he were found to be making false accusations he could be charged with wasting police time.

The Mirror‘s article was posted on the “Boycott star city – racist shithole” Facebook page as proof that their paranoid accusations were true (“To all the people claiming this is false please read…..”) and was also taken up by the English Defence League and Britain First (see screenshots below). As Steve Rose points out, the Mirror‘s irresponsible reporting resulted in an outburst of online far-right hatred including threats of violence (“Let’s just blow it up? See how they like it”). The Mirror should be ashamed of itself. …

Of course, Pamela Geller jumped on this and published UK: Families barred from cinema for not being Muslim, and she added her own comments:  The islamization of the UK is now approaching dizzying speed. I cannot imagine that it will be recognizable in five to 10 years.  Good thing the UK banned Robert Spencer and me from the UK — we might want to go to the cinema, and that would surely not be “conducive to the public good”: Muslims might riot. It seems, though, that it’s no longer confined to those of us who oppose jihad ….

Geller’s partner in hate, Robert Spencer also posted UK: Families barred from cinema for not being Muslim and added his own comments “This time the cinema apologized. Next time they won’t. Leon Jennings and everyone else in Britain better get used to this sort of thing, because it is going to keep happening. They better get used to their new overlords. And if they don’t like it, they can take it up with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Jacqui Smith, Jack Straw, Theresa May and their ilk.

Pamela Geller’s Collateral Damage

Spencer’s and Geller, the leaders of “AFDI” are up to their tired advert Crusade again.

Collateral Damage

San Francisco Foghorn

If you are planning on riding the 14L bus this week, keep your eyes open for the newest ad taken out by Pamela Geller, founder of the American Freedom Defence Initiative. In response to the recent Islamophobia surrounding ISIS, Geller depicts Muslims as a radical group of extremists showing how one’s devotion can only be measured by their radical acts of aggression. Geller’s ad deserves the triple crown for not only being polarizing, but also for being uninformed and mistargeted as well.

Two years ago, Geller made headlines when she took out similar ads on New York buses equating Muslims to savages. When her ads were pulled by the Metropolitan Transit Authority, Geller sued the MTA, and with the federal court ruling in her favor, was able to continue to promote her proudly anti-Islamic views. With the recent obsession with ISIS and Ebola, how could Geller not capitalize on the state of fear that the mainstream media is perpetuating?

Geller is painting an entire religion, culture, and region of the world as terrorists causing fear against Muslims in the United States. This xenophobic response to war is not new and it is a stark reminder of how little has changed since the Japanese Internment camps of the 1940s. Geller has the attention of many Americans peaked because of the recent military gains ISIS has made, as well as the footage they released of their executions of American and British citizens. The association then becomes jaded; if Muslims are only mentioned for their acute actions of violence then one would assume it is a culture inherently full of bloodshed. This could not be more wrong. Associating an entire religion, an entire culture, and entire region of the world with these small organized radical groups causes harm to the Muslim Identity and further alienates Islam from other religions.

These ads — not only harmful to Muslims, but lump Sikhs and Hindus into the same group because of slight similarities in their religious clothing — further perpetuate an intolerant stereotype. It is religious collectivism that is not grounded in any sort of number, statistic, or study. With every religion, there is a radical minority that defaces the tradition in order to gain political leverage and a larger following. But the association that has been made between Muslims and violence must end.

Geller is subject to fear, just as we all are. This fear has caused her to demonize and destroy what she believes is a threat — Islam. Is she wrong? Definitely. But this is no different than it has ever been. This fear comes from an unrealistic view of what Muslims are and what their culture consists of. As for every group that we are fighting, there is propaganda created by fear that leads to a radical view from those who would otherwise be neutral. However, these ads do not condemn ISIS. They attack every man in a turban and every woman in a burka. They fuel the growing Islamophobia in the United States instead of substantiating Islamic culture and beliefs. They are ignorant of any cultural identity as well as ethnic background. They perpetuate violence and hatred where understanding is necessary.

Ads like this and organizations like the American Freedom Defence Initiative will never disappear. It is within their constitutional rights to exist and espouse their views in whatever nonviolent way they choose. But, these ads are misleading and wrong in scope. These ads do nothing to stop ISIS. They do nothing to further defend the United States from their aggressive advances, and do nothing to stop the terrorist organization’s rapid recruitment. These ads instead perpetuate hatred and ignorance — hatred for those who do not deserve it and ignorance in regards to why they do not.

Racist David Horowitz Says ‘There Is No Community More Racist In America Than The Black Community’

RightWingWatch

Discussing the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, on Phyllis Schlafly’s “Eagle Forum Live” radio program this week, conservative commentator David Horowitz argued that liberals are overly eager to brand conservatives as racist and, in doing so, have wrongfully maligned the police officer accused of shooting unarmed black teenager Michael Brown.

“[Protesters] destroyed a city to get a cop who was defending himself. Look at the picture of him in the hospital with his eye socket practically blown out,” he said of Officer Darren Wilson, in reference to a bogus photograph that is confirmed to be of a completely unrelated person.

Insisting that Brown was “just a thug” who suffered the consequences of his actions, Horowitz complained that white people have been vilified in matters of law enforcement and criminal justice. “They’re not interested in waiting for a trial and its result. If you’re white, you’re guilty; that’s the attitude,” he said of the Ferguson protesters. “They’re racist, for crying out tears. There’s no community that’s more racist in America than the black community. And everybody knows it, but nobody will say it.”

Discussing the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, on Phyllis Schlafly’s “Eagle Forum Live” radio program this week, conservative commentator David Horowitz argued that liberals are overly eager to brand conservatives as racist and, in doing so, have wrongfully maligned the police officer accused of shooting unarmed black teenager Michael Brown.

“[Protesters] destroyed a city to get a cop who was defending himself. Look at the picture of him in the hospital with his eye socket practically blown out,” he said of Officer Darren Wilson, in reference to a bogus photograph that is confirmed to be of a completely unrelated person.

Insisting that Brown was “just a thug” who suffered the consequences of his actions, Horowitz complained that white people have been vilified in matters of law enforcement and criminal justice. “They’re not interested in waiting for a trial and its result. If you’re white, you’re guilty; that’s the attitude,” he said of the Ferguson protesters. “They’re racist, for crying out tears. There’s no community that’s more racist in America than the black community. And everybody knows it, but nobody will say it.”

[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/172307470" params="color=ff5500" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /]

Geller And Spencer Remove Picture of James Foley From Ads But Continue to Use Image Of Aqsa Parvez

It seems they had no compassion for the family of Aqsa Parvez who asked Geller to end their use of their dead daughters image for their Islamophobic agenda.

James Foley Photo Removes From NYC Anti-Islam Ads Following Complaint From Family

Reuters

A photo of American journalist James Foley shortly before his beheading by the Islamic state militant group is being removed from anti-Islam advertisements appearing on Monday on 100 New York City buses and two subway stations.

In response to a complaint from the Foley family, the advertisement is being altered to include an unidentifiable severed head held by the masked militant seen wielding a knife in the video of Foley’s beheading, said David Yerushalmi, lawyer for Pamela Geller, whose group is sponsoring the ads.

“The use of Mr. Foley’s photo in your advertisement will cause profound distress to the Foley family,” family lawyer J. Patrick Rowan said in a letter to Geller.

Geller writes a blog criticizing Islam. Her group, American Freedom Defense Initiative, paid for a six-ad series scheduled to run for a month on the city’s mass transit system.

The ads, including one showing Foley in the video of his beheading released in August, suggest that Islam is inherently violent and extremist, and call for the end of American aid to Islamic countries.

“Having lived in and reported from communities in which nearly everyone was of Muslim faith, he had great respect for the religion and those who practiced it,” the Foley family lawyer wrote, referring to the journalist.

“The advertisement you are preparing to run seems to convey the message that ordinary practitioners of Islam are a dangerous threat. This message is entirely inconsistent with Mr. Foley’s reporting and his beliefs.”

Foley, 40, was kidnapped by armed men in Syria in 2012. Islamic State has seized parts of Syria and Iraq.

Geller’s lawyer said the image will be replaced out of “compassion for the family’s pain and anguish.”

New York City politicians and religious leaders last week criticized the ad campaign, saying no faith should be subject to attack ads and calling it an attempt to divide the city.

Geller was behind a similar ad campaign in 2012 on the city’s transport system, which was initially rejected by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a state agency. A federal judge later decided that the MTA’s rule against ads that demeaned race, gender, religion or several other categories was unconstitutional.

The MTA has since revised its standard, and so-called viewpoint ads like Geller’s now run with a large disclaimer saying the MTA does not endorse the views expressed.