Paranoia Creation and Its Implications
A Follow-up to Creation of Paranoia
by Karl Ericson
They deem him their worst enemy who tells them the truth.
- Plato
I hope that I will live long enough to see American
politics return to vigorous debates
where we argue who's right and who's wrong, not who's good and who's bad.
Former President Bill Clinton at the unveiling of his and his wife's portrait at the
Whitehouse (6/15/04).
Unfortunately in politics each side generally tries
to create as much paranoia as possible to the opposing side.
It is ironic that President Clinton made this very praiseworthy statement
in the presence of his wife Hillary who, when accusations
were made that he was philandering announced that a (bad) vast right wing conspiracy
was making
false accusations in order to discredit her husband. Bill Clinton also accused
critics of Obama of being part of a right wing conspiracy.
An enemy is required by every would-be
totalitarian
Frank Gaffney, Putin’s
Ploy, The Washington Times, 6/15/2007
“The whole aim of
practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed —
and hence clamorous to be led to safety —
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Henry Louis Mencken
“educating the children to Jihad and to hatred of
the Jews, the Christians, and the infidels” is “what is needed now.”
Sermon
of Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid in Al-Daman, Saudi Arabia
We have to
understand the depth of the disgrace of the enemy,
until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad at Tehran Conference 2005
You cannot teach people hate and then ask them to
practice peace
British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a speech
at the United States Congress on July
17, 2003
in regard to Muslim indoctrination of
children to hate Jews.
For a Great Song About Paranoia Click below
For a very disturbing example of Islamic creation of Paranoia click below.
I Introduction: Why Understanding Paranoia Creation is Important
IB2 Hatred of the non-Believer
II Reasons for Religious Antisemitism
2)
Desire to keep believers from being led away from the religion by nonbelievers.
3) Finding a scapegoat for the failures of the religion. (Protecting self esteem by blaming others)
IIIA2 Religion's Creation of an External Enemy for Internal
Stability
6) Islam’s Need to Create Paranoia to Sustain Jihad
4) Creating Paranoia to Create Pride
Creation of Paranoia to Gain Influence
IIb Religion's Creation of Oppressors
IIB Use of Religion to Create Paranoia
IIC Creation of Paranoia to Reduce Shame
IID Creation of Paranoia to Avoid Facing a Threatening Reality
IID2 Creation of Paranoia to Prevent Hate
IIE Creation of Paranoia to Prevent Terror
IIF Creation of Paranoia to Prevent War
IIFa Creation of Paranoia to be Loved
IIG Creation of Paranoia To Feel in Control
IIIm1 Creation of Paranoia to Gain Power and Control
III Creation of Self-Humiliation and Paranoia to Gain Power and Control
IIIA Creation of Paranoia to
Maintain Power and Control
IIIb Creation of Paranoia to Make Money
IIIc Assumption that if a Group is Persecuted they must be Guilty
IV) Assumption that Others are Evil Leads to the Assumption they are Guilty
V) Creation of Paranoia to View the Side One Identifies With as Good
VB) Creation of Paranoia to Obviate Guilt
VI Terrorists View those they
are Fighting as Terrorists and Justify their Terrorism that Way
VIb Creation of Paranoia Because of Boredom
VII Creation of Paranoia
because of Greed
VIIa Creation of Paranoia Because of Hate
VIIb Creation of Paranoia by Academia
VIII Techniques of Paranoia Creation
4 Misplacing the Source in the Cycle of Violence
4a Reporting Unsubstantiated Allegations as Truth
4b Creation of Paranoia by the Islamic Media in America
5 Impact of Creation of Paranoia by the Media
IX Creation of Paranoia To Justify Aggression and Terrorism
IXA Creation of Paranoia and Delusion to Encourage Aggression and Terrorism
IXAA Creation of Paranoia to Hide Motives of Conquest
IXAB Creation of Paranoia to Avert Catastrophe
IXB Creation of Paranoia To Prevent Conflict and Violence
IXC Creation of Paranoia to Protect Civil Liberties
IXD Creation of Paranoia to Stay Out of Jail
X Denial of Contradictory Evidence
XB Creation of Paranoia to Explain Away Contradictory Evidence
XC Creation of Paranoia to Gain Status
XI Creation of Paranoia to
Overcome Opposition
Xib Creation of Paranoia to Overcome Competition
XII Creation of Paranoia to get Revenge
XIII Creation of Paranoia to Divert Hostility and Shift Blame
XIIIa Creation of Paranoia to Shift Blame to Protect Self Image
XIIIb Creation of Paranoia for Unknown Reasons
XIV Self Feeding Nature of Paranoia Creation
XVI Creation of Paranoia By the Jewish Left
XVII Funding Paranoia Creation
XVIII The Cause of Secular Anti-Semitism
XVIIIA Cross-Infection of Other Religions with Anti-Semitism.
XVIIIB Creation of a Power Myth
XIX Who are the Greedy Conniving Jews That Everyone Hates so Much?
XX Creation of Paranoia by the Chinese
XXI Creation of Paranoia in America
XXIB Creation of Paranoia in Latin America
XXIII Creation of Paranoia as a result of seeing oneself as entitled when one is not:
XXIIIB Eco-extremist Creation of Paranoia
XXVI The Desire to Feel Oppressed
I Introduction: Why Understanding Paranoia Creation is Important
The consequences of paranoia creation can be genocide. Itamar Marcus wrote in the Jerusalem Post (4/26/2009):
Survivors of the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur spoke in Geneva this week at the parallel conference on human rights to counter the UN Durban II event. Listening to them describe how they were systematically demonized by the killers made it clear that genocide does not happen in a vacuum. The hate condition of a population willing and anxious to commit genocide needs nurturing. Genocide must be framed positively to get the necessary broad public support.
Common to the framing of all genocide is a very specific kind of demonization. In Rwanda, the Hutus taught that the Tutsis were cockroaches and snakes. Tutsi women were portrayed as cunning seductresses who used beauty and sexual power to conquer the Hutus. In Bosnia, a fictitious news report said Muslims were feeding Serb children to animals at the Sarajevo zoo. Radio Rwanda repeatedly broadcast a warning that Hutus were about to be attacked by Tutsis, to convince the Hutus that they needed to attack first to protect themselves.
This demonization included two specific components. First, the victims had to be perceived as a clear and present threat, so that the killers were convinced they were acting in self-defense. Second, the victims were dehumanized, so that the killers convinced themselves that they were not destroying real human beings.
In
most conflicts both sides have grievances against the other. Those who wish to resolve those conflicts
attempt to get each side to compromise so that those grievances are met. The Palestinian Arab/ Israel conflict is a
classic example of this. The
Palestinian Arabs claim that the evil Jews violently took away their land and
expelled their people and occupied their land took away their freedom and
forced them to live in misery in refugee camps (There are exceptions to
this, there are Palestinian Arabs who blame the Arabs for forcing them to leave
before the attempt to destroy Israel in 1948). The Israelis have diverse opinions on the conflict. One of these opinions is that the land
historically belonged to the Jewish people long before conquering Arab hordes
invaded and that the Palestinian Arabs, through the corruption of their leaders
and their constant attempts to destroy Israel and to kill Israelis bring
poverty and misery on themselves. According to this argument Arab hatred and
violence make it necessary for the Israelis to control Arab occupied areas of
Biblical Israel in order to prevent terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.
Those Americans who have attempted to resolve the Middle East conflict
such as Dennis Ross, tend to attempt to
address the grievances of both sides.
The Israeli grievance is terrorist attacks and the Israeli concern is
security so the Bush administration kept talking about the right of Israel to
be secure and the need for the Arabs to stop terror. The grievance the Arabs have is that they are occupied and so the
United States demands that Israel withdraw from lands such as Judea and Samaria
and Jerusalem that the Arabs say are theirs. The
assumption being made here is that both sides grievances are the cause of the
conflict.
What if some of those grievances are created and not the root cause of
the conflict? What if the root cause of
the Arab/Israel conflict is Islamic paranoia toward and hatred of the Jew as
well as the desire to conquer Israel for themselves?
What if the Islamic desire for Jerusalem stems not from love of Jerusalem but
realization
that taking Jerusalem away from the Jews is key to the destruction of the Jewish
state? The Koran is full of statements about how
evil the non-believing Jew is and how the Muslim must fight the Jew until
he is subjugated. Could grievances such as “the Evil Jews violently
and unjustly took away our land” originate from such apparently unrelated
statements in the Koran?
There is evidence that concern for the refugees is not the root of the
Arab Israel conflict but rather that the refugees are seen as useful tools to
perpetuate the conflict. Mizra Khan, in
an article titled The Arab Refugees – A Study in Frustration, Midstream,
included some quotes that I include here that demonstrate this:
“It is perfectly
clear that the Arab nations do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want
to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations, and as a
weapon against Israel. Arab leaders
don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die” Mr. Galloway, former UNRWA representative in Jordan
to an American study group meeting in Amman in 1952
“We shall be most
insistent in perpetuating the Palestine problem as a life question… The Palestine war continues by dint of the
refugees only. Their existence leaves
the problem open.” Abdullah Nawass, member of Jordan’s Parliament
on June 6, 1952
The existence of the
refugee problem “is an important harassing factor vis-à-vis the Jews and the
West. As long as it remains unsolved,
Israel’s political and economic existence are acutely endangered” Member of
Jordanian Parliament quoted in Falastin, June 3, 1952
“Those human
beings, whom political ambitions and intrigues turned into cave-dwellers
overnight- what have the Arab rulers done for them these past eight years?” Falastin
August 26, 1955
“We refugees have
left our homes merely to enter a world of intrigue on the part of those who are
our own flesh and blood…” Difa of September 10, 1953
Palestinian TV airs shows that make the Jews out to be bloodthirsty sadistic monsters. Is this because the Jews are bloodthirsty sadistic monsters or is this creation of paranoia that has its roots in the paranoia created toward Jews in the Koran? Does this creation of paranoia have roots in a desire to subjugate the Jews in order to score points with Allah? Would the Palestinians hate the Jews even if there was no Israel? Does creating a grievance that the Israelis stole Arab land stem from the desire to fuel hatred among the Arab masses toward the Jew in order to conquer and subjugate him? Andrew Bostom while reading about a Sufi jurist in India came across overwhelming evidence that this is indeed the case.
Moshe Yaalon in a meeting with members of the Israeli Knesset (May 26, 2009) said:
"The Palestinians' extreme violence does not stem from despair over their situation, as the West tends to assume, but rather from hope – hope that the State of Israel will disappear"
Palestine for the Palestinian Arabs consists of all of Israel. The following video makes it clear that Palestinian violence arises from the desire to conquer what they consider Palestine.
The key to peace then is to make it very clear to the Arabs that they will not attain their goal.
Obama appears to believe that bad past behavior of the United States has brought about Iranian paranoia toward the United States and that apologies and concessions are the way to win over Iran. What if Iran's leadership deliberately creates paranoia among its population. Michael Rubin wrote:
Iran's economy is in tatters and the regime preserves power through the ever more pervasive Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
To deflect responsibility for failure, it pays to have an enemy to rally masses around the flag. Iran's leadership has determined that the United States -- the "Great Satan" -- is it. Meaningful rapprochement would mean the regime's demise. Rather than work to improve relations with the US, therefore, Iranian authorities, either directly or by proxy, impose ever more obstacles.
The answers to questions about the roots of paranoia are clearly important when it comes to attempting to solve conflicts. If the grievance is only that a region of land is occupied then ending the occupation should resolve the conflict. If on the other hand this is a manufactured grievance to justify conquering the Jew, then addressing this manufactured grievance simply furthers the goals of those who manufactured it and encourage further paranoia creation and violence. This is exactly what occurred when the Israeli government under pressure from the U.S. and Europe as well as it’s own internal pressure, forcibly removed Jews from Gaza and turned their land over to the Palestinian Arabs. Nonie Darwish explained:
For decades, Arabs had demanded that Israel end the "occupation," and in 2005, Israel did so, disengaging unilaterally from Gaza. With their demands met, there was no ‘cycle of violence’ to respond to, no further justification for anything other than peace and prosperity. With its central location and beautiful beaches on the East Mediterranean, a peaceful and prosperous Gaza could have become another Hong Kong; a shining trade and commerce center. But instead of choosing peace, the Palestinians chose Islamic jihad. They rolled their rocket launchers to the border and started bombing Israeli civilians.
The creation of
paranoia toward the Jews continued and the Palestinian Arabs fired rockets
towards Israeli cities such as Sderot and Ashkelon from the areas of Gaza from
which the Israelis withdrew.
This is just one example of how the efforts to mediate conflicts without taking into account the role of paranoia creation has led to disastrous foreign policy mistakes by the United States.
XIV Self feeding Nature of Paranoia Creation
This web page is full of examples of how and why one group will create paranoia toward another group. In spite of the existence of all these mechanisms the degree with which groups create paranoia toward is so great that there must be something else at work. The degree of paranoia held by the Nazis toward the Jews or the paranoia of Medieval Christendom toward the Jews or the paranoia of the Islamic world toward the Jews and the United States is of a magnitude of insane proportions. Both Islam and Christianity accuse the Jews of killing their most holy figure, the Christians accuse the Jews of killing Jesus and the Muslims accuse the Jews of killing Muhammmad. How did these religions develop to make the worst possible accusation they could make toward the Jews. It is likely that this insane level of paranoia is reached because paranoia feeds itself.
One obvious way creation of paranoia leads to more paranoia is illustrated in the cycle diagram below.
|
Group A believes Group B is hostile |
Group A Becomes hostile to Group B |
|
|
Group B takes defensive action and revenge against Group A |
|
Group A takes defensive action and revenge against Group B |
|
Group B becomes hostile to Group A |
Group B believes Group A is hostile |
According to the Muslims a Jewess poisoned Muhammad after he and his followers wiped out her fellow Jews in the city of Khaibar. If this is true it is likely that it was done as revenge for the murder of her people. This fits the above cycles description of how paranoia feeds itself. The Hamas charter mentions this murder as a rationale for fighting the Jews as do rabid Muslim clerics.
Hostility can also lead to the desire to demonstrate that the object of one's hostility is evil to others so that they will strike at whoever one is hostile to. Another way of look at this is that hostility can be a motive toward creating paranoia. This leads to the vicious cycle shown below.
|
Members of Group A convince other group A members that Group B is evil in order to hurt and dominate Group B |
|
Group A becomes more hostile to Group B |
In the previous section I mentioned the theory that paranoia in the Koran lead to creation of paranoia by the Palestinians towards the Jews. The above cycles illustrate some of the ways this occurs.
A recent example of this was when a top Shiite cleric urged Kuwait to let Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of the Christ," be shown in this conservative Muslim state because it "reveals crimes committed by Jews against Christ." (Yahoo News 3/28/04)
A less obvious way was described by Daniel Pipes in his book Conspiracy. He writes how nineteenth-century anti-semites argued that the Jews' unhappy experience (of being tormented by Christians) naturally turned them against their Christian tormentors and that Jews would use their power to exterminate the Christians. The way this leads to more paranoia is shown in the cycle diagram below.
|
|
Christian Paranoia Toward the Jews |
|
|
Christians
reason that Jews must be out for revenge. |
|
Christians
attack Jews |
One irony of this is that paranoia is created toward the victims just because they are victims, without any action on the part of the victims.
The growth of paranoia toward the Jews can be seen in the New Testament. John Dominic Crossan, the author of Who Killed Jesus Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus wrote in a web page on beliefnet.com how in Mark 15:6-15, "the crowd" comes before Pilate to obtain amnesty for Barabbas and only turn against Jesus when Pilate tries to release him instead. But now watch what happens to that Markan source as the story progresses through the later Gospels. Matthew 27:15-26 first copies Mark's "the crowd" but then enlarges it to "the crowds" and finally to "all the people." Luke 23:13-15 changes Mark to "the chief priests, the leaders, and the people." Finally, John 18:37-40 speaks simply of "the Jews." ... "The crowd," in other words, grows exponentially before our eyes.
One way to get a lot of prestige and influence among other Christians was to claim you had visions from God and to tell shocking horrific tales that people were likely to believe because of their pre-existing paranoia. Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich an 18th century nun, claimed to have a vision in which she rescued from purgatory an old Jewish woman who confessed to her that Jews strangled Christian children and used their blood in the observance of their rituals. (Jewish Week 7/4/03) Other visions she claimed to have had included
- Jesus' cross being constructed at the orders of the high priest in the courtyard of the Temple.
- Servants of the high priest bribing fellow Jews to demand Jesus' death and even paying some of his crucifiers.
- Violence far beyond what the gospels present during Jesus' hearing before Caiaphas and Annas.
- Pontius Pilate criticizing the high priests for physically abusing Jesus and suggesting that they are thirsting for both his body and blood (cf. John 6:53).
- Scenes of the brutalizing of Jesus not present in the gospels, such as Jewish figures dragging him around with a bag over his head so that it violently impacts against stone.
Lest we think that mankind is now rational enough to reject such accusations we need only to realize that the visions of the Jews of Sister Emmerich, was incorporated by Mel Gibson in his movie The Passion which was released in 2004 and which has had a huge audience thoughout the world.
Sister Emmerich's vision of an old Jewish women confessing to the use of babies blood for rituals stems from the blood libel" which was first leveled in 1144 in Norwich, England. There, Jews were charged with kidnapping a Christian baby and draining the baby of blood. The charge became so popular it would sweep, in various forms, through Europe and then spread to other parts of the world. Why would someone levy such a charge? People make accusations all the time against other people, for motivations such as revenge etc.. Normally such accusations are judged in a court of law or ignored. In the case of this charge it became widely believed. Why would such a charge become so popular? Paranoia is self feeding. If people are paranoia toward another group to begin with they are more likely to believe paranoid accusations against them. One can think of the blood libel charge, as a match in a forest full of dried up tinder.
One problem the Christians faced was coming up with a reason why Jews would drain the baby with blood. A list of such reasons is given below. (The Passion, A Historical Perspective)
a.
Jews suffered from hemorrhoids as a punishment for killing Jesus and drinking
blood was the best cure for hemorrhoids at the time.
b. All Jewish men menstruate and need a monthly blood transfusion.
c. Jewish men, when they're circumcised, lose so much blood because of that
surgical procedure that they need to drink Christian babies' blood.
d. It's the chief ingredient in matzah, and therefore prior to every Passover
Jews would be requiring a large supply.
These explanations although absurd to any non-paranoid individual are plausible to people if they already are paranoid. It's ironic that Jews, who are prohibited by Jewish law of consuming any blood whatsoever (kosher meat is carefully washed and salted to remove all traces of blood), were precisely the people accused of drinking blood.
In the 13th century the Church adopted the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is a mystical idea which maintains that when the priest says mass over the wafer and wine, these objects mystically change into the body and blood of Jesus. Christians who consume the wafer and drink the wine are said to be mystically eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. It's ironic that the Christian world, while engaged in the ritual of "drinking the blood of Jesus" would accuse the Jews -- who are forbidden to drink blood -- of this totally fabricated hideous crime. But then the accusations got even wilder.
Starting in Switzerland and Germany in the 13th century, Jews were accused of kidnapping communion wafers from churches -- to torture it. Medieval documents tell stories describing how a Jew (usually called Abraham) would steal a wafer from a church, stick a knife in it, and blood would start pouring out. He would then cut it up into pieces and send it to different Jews who would continue to torture it. Thousands of Jews were slaughtered as a result of such stories. For example, the entire Jewish community of Berlitz, near Berlin in Germany, was all burned alive based on the accusation of torturing a wafer. These accusations became a pretext for other mass exterminations as well (see History of Antisemitism by Poliakov).
For a brief summary of an alternative view of Jesus's life and who was responsible for his death see the "Who was Jesus" and "Who Killed Jesus" web pages.
Morphed forms of the blood libel are reemerging in modern times. Andrea Levin wrote an article about accusations that Israelis plunder and sell Palestinian organs written by Donald Bostrom for the Scandanavian leading daily Aftonbladet. She wrote how his accusations:
quickly metastasized to mainstream Muslim media, spawning cartoons of Jews stealing body parts and drinking Arab blood. These have been published in Syria, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, to name a few.
In early September, Algeria's al-Khabar newspaper echoed Mr. Bostrom in a new fantasy claiming Jewish-directed gangs of Algerians and Moroccans round up Algerian children, spirit them into Morocco and thence to Israel to have their body parts harvested and sold. On Sept. 17, Iran's PressTV breathlessly declared "an international Jewish conspiracy to kidnap children and harvest their organs is gathering momentum."
Hate-filled Web sites have also taken up the theme. Almost invariably, wherever such permutations on the idea of Israeli organ theft appear, Aftonbladet is cited.
Paranoia Creation in Society
There are incentives to be and to create paranoia. A conspiracy theorist who believes he is
uncovering a sinister plot feel brilliant and excited, he feels like a great
man who sees what the other fools don’t see, he feels he is helping save the world
by uncovering the sinister plot. A
paranoid person in a mental institution may feel the same way. Member of society who want to overcome an
enemy may incite the rest of the population by creating paranoid accusations
toward the “enemy”. This article
discusses many of the different incentives to be paranoid and to create
paranoia.
Paranoia is considered to be a
symptom of individuals who are suffering from mental illness. Paranoia is
actually pervasive among "normal" people and among groups of people.
Groups can be considered to suffer from mental illness. Dr. Abd Al-Khaleq
Hussein an Iraqi reformist, wrote
an article about the insanity of Arab society called , Arab Society and Schizophrenia
(translated by memri.org June 22, 2006),
which makes this argument.
Richard
Hofstadter wrote an article in 1964 in Harper’s Magazine called the Paranoid
Style in American Politics in which he applies the term paranoia to groups
of “normal” people. He wrote:
In fact, the idea of the
paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance
or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed
minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal
people that makes the phenomenon significant…
The paranoid style is not
confined to our own country and time; it is an international phenomenon.
Studying the millennial sects of Europe from the eleventh to the sixteenth
century, Norman Cohn believed he found a persistent psychic complex that
corresponds broadly with what I have been considering—a style made up of
certain preoccupations and fantasies: “the megalomaniac view of oneself as the
Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the
attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to
accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such
as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral;
the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always
gross and often grotesque.”
Just as we can derive lessons about social madness from the madness of an individual, we can derive lessons about the madness of an individual from the madness of societies. When we study paranoia in society we find that it is deliberately created for a variety of reasons some of which are discussed on this web page. This suggests that perhaps individual may have reasons to create their own paranoia. I have written an article about this called Creation of Paranoia (Part 1, Part 2) which was published by the International Bulletin of Political Psychology. I encourage the reader to read the article before reading the rest of this web page.
Today there is massive creation of paranoia toward the infidel which is funded by the huge oil revenues of Saudi Arabia. Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote that (Jihad on the American Mind, frontpagemag.com 3/11/05):
Saudi Arabia according to various Saudi official publications, has spent somewhere between $70-87 billion on the spread of Wahhabism around the world since the oil boom began in the mid- 1970’s.
Lt. Col Gordon Cucullu, wrote about how Saudi Arabia is creating anti-Western hatred in the large immigrant Muslim population of France as follows: (France: A Nuclear Proliferator? FrontPageMagazine.com 3/4/05).
Into this fertile, disaffected immigrant soil came Saudi Arabia with its proselytizing, aggressive Wahabbist ideology. Wahabbism is vitriolic, anti-Western, xenophobic, and jihad-oriented. It encourages hatred of and actions against those defined as "infidels" and "non-believers." The Saudis continue to pour uncounted hundreds of millions of dollars into Europe, including France, to promulgate this offensive ideology. The result is that Muslims in France are highly radicalized, anti-French, anti-Western, and bent on ultimate conquest of their hosts. Texts from mosques in France -- issued by the Saudi public affairs office -- refer to Muslim residents in France as "living behind enemy lines" and "representing a force for the ultimate conquest by Islam of the infidels." Muslims are taught to hate their Christian, Jewish, and secular neighbors and to work assiduously to undermine the government. More than one thousand of these Muslim enclaves exist in France. It is said that French police will not enter 400 such communities.
An outstanding book that discusses Saudi funding of hate was written by Dore Gold and is called Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism. This paranoia is being spread via mosques in the West. In July 2004, German authorities raided a mosque in Frankfurt after a nine-year-old girl said that she had been shown graphic videos there calling for “a holy war against unbelievers.” Modern technology is spreading this paranoia creation into the Western world. One of the example of this was the broadcast of Al-Shatat, a 29-part series, based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which depicts among other scenes the killing of a Christian child on the orders of a rabbi so the blood can be baked into matzot for Passover. This was broadcast in France through the Paris-based satellite operator Eutelsat (Jerusalem Post 8/5/04). Another example was a disturbing home movie circulated widely on the Internet in June 2004, showing four Muslim children in Sweden playfully reenacting the savage beheading of American contractor Nicholas Berg. An online clip about the creation of paranoia by the Palestinian Authority and its consequences called Seeds of Hate is on the Coalition Against Terrorism Web Site.
The well known consequence of paranoia creation against the infidel West include the suicide attacks against the United States of September 11th 2001. This paranoia is likely to lead to more attacks against the United States some of which may be deadlier than the attacks of 9/11. The most obvious way to fight this is for the Western world to stop giving foreign aid to countries that incite hate. David Bedein in an article titled "An Unquiet Peace" (frontpagemag.com 2/14/05) wrote how after Mahmoud Abbas became leader of the Palestinian Authority the incitement continued yet president Bush requested an additional $350 million dollars for the Palestinian Authority despite the fact that it won't even stop its media calls for killing Israelis.
Another way to fight Islamic incitement is to cut our dependence on foreign oil. One way to achieve this would be to tax oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Iran and other states that create paranoia and/or sponsor terrorism. I think the tax increase on oil could be offset by a tax decrease on other goods especially alternative energy sources such as nuclear power. I subscribe to the theory of true cost economics in which the government should tax items according to their true cost to society when it is very clear that their true cost is higher than their actual cost.
There is vast paranoia creation in the European media against Israel and America. Reasons for this paranoia creation are discussed later in this web page.
IB What Makes a Madman:
Are paranoid people mad mentally ill individuals? What Makes a Madman? This question was asked by Jacob Sullum in a column in the New York Post (7/15/02). Here are excerpts of his column:
It's clear to me that Zacarias Moussaoui (The 20th Hijacker) is a raving lunatic. But then, so are Michael Jackson, Lyndon LaRouche, and a certain percentage of the people who e-mail me each week....
The defense team's consultants are right when they say "there is considerable evidence that Mr. Moussaoui's thinking is dominated by irrational and unrealistic persecutory beliefs." They are also probably right to suggest that he qualifies for a psychiatric diagnosis. He seems to fit the criteria for "paranoid personality disorder," for instance.
But so what? Under this heading psychiatrists have gathered a set of characteristics that would describe just about any conspiracy-minded extremist, especially in hostile surroundings.
Putting these traits on a list and giving them a scientific-sounding name does not make them symptoms of a disease, let alone a disease with the power to dictate someone's legal strategy. If the capacity to believe ridiculous things is a brain defect, it's one shared by the whole human race.
This topic is discussed further on the What is Madness web page.
IB2 Hatred of the non-Believer
A pervasive motive to create paranoia toward someone is to discredit them if they do not share one's viewpoint. This is not only done by religions but also by people with differing ideologies. During the campaign between Kerry and Bush, I saw several signs with Bush and a Hitler Mustache and a swastika painted on it. To some Kerry supporters, Bush the non-believer in progressive Kerry causes, was the equivalent of Hitler. Jeff Jacoby has written about the creation of Paranoia toward president Bush.
A year after the 9/11 attack, The New York Times' Frank Rich was carping about Bush's national security plans, saying we could judge Bush's war on terror by whether there was a major al-Qaida attack in 2003, which -- according to Rich -- would have been on al-Qaida's normal schedule.
Rich wrote: "Since major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough." ("Never Forget What?" New York Times, Sept. 14, 2002.)
There wasn't a major al-Qaida attack in 2003. Nor in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Manifestly, liberals thought there would be: They announced a standard of success that they expected Bush to fail.
As Bush has said, we have to be right 100 percent of the time, the terrorists only have to be right one time. Bush has been right 100 percent of the time for seven years -- so much so that Americans have completely forgotten about the threat of Islamic terrorism.
For his thanks, President Bush has been the target of almost unimaginable calumnies -- the sort of invective liberals usually reserve for seniors who don't separate their recyclables properly. Compared to liberals' anger at Bush, there has always been something vaguely impersonal about their "anger" toward the terrorists.
By my count, roughly one in four books in print in the world at this very moment have the words "Bush" and "Lie" in their title. Barnes & Noble has been forced to add an "I Hate Bush" section. I don't believe there are as many anti-Hitler books...George Bush is Gary Cooper in the classic western "High Noon." The sheriff is about to leave office when a marauding gang is coming to town. He could leave, but he waits to face the killers as all his friends and all the townspeople, who supported him during his years of keeping them safe, slowly abandon him. In the end, he walks alone to meet the killers, because someone has to.
Bernard Goldberg was asked about Bush hating by Bill O’Reilly.
“Do you think it’s a mental disease or do you think it’s business?” He was actually talking about the general Bush-hating. I immediately said, “It’s a mental disorder, because don’t underestimate the power of insanity. ‘Bush-derangement syndrome’ is for real.” But in the case of MSNBC, it’s also business. They have made a conscious business decision to corrupt an entire news organization in order to jump on a liberal bandwagon. That’s a journalistic sin. That’s not just the old bias. That’s a kind of corruption that runs very deep and is hurting the NBC news brand.
Those who hate Bush love Obama. NBC's Chris Matthews said he had “a thrill running up his leg” when he heard Barack Obama speak. And Matthews said, "You’re not an American if you don’t cry when you hear Obama speak." The Washington Post wrote the following about Obama:
“The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weight-lifting sessions each week and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.”
After governor Palin made a speech supporting McCain Democrats Photoshopped her head onto lewd bodies to discredit her. Randi Rhodes, former Air America host insinuated that Palin could not be trusted around teenage boys among other accusations and said that McCain was well treated in North Vietnam because he traded propaganda interviews for good treatment (wnd.com 9/14/2008). Heather Mallick in a column for the Canadian Broadcasting Service (September 5, 2008) wrote that John McCain’s running mate (Palin) “added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn’t already have sewn up, the white trash vote.”
She proceeded to write that the Alaska governor “has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favored by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression.”
She also questioned why the Palins were allowing Levi Johnston — 17-year-old Bristol Palin’s boyfriend and father of her unborn baby — into the family.
“What normal father would want Levi ‘I’m a f—-n’ redneck’ Johnson prodding his daughter?” Mallick asked.
“I know that I have an attachment to children that verges on the irrational, but why don’t the Palins? I’m not the one preaching homespun values but I’d destroy that ratboy before I’d let him get within scenting range of my daughter again, and so would you. … Turn your guns on Levi, ma’am.”...
On the same day, Britain’s Guardian newspaper published another column by Mallick in which she trashed Palin’s home state of Alaska as a “frontier state full of drunks and crazy people.”
Josh Gerstein wrote in The Sun (Palin Pick Puts Many Women on the Verge 9/19/08) about the reaction of New York women to the selection of Palin.
Noemie Emory at The Weekly Standard <http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/591xzuuj.asp> described the liberal meltdown over Governor Palin via Power Line <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021562.php> :"All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows," an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. "People were flipping out... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president... out potential next president."
Ms. Kricorian allowed that she was among those driven to distraction, upon occasion, by Mrs. Palin's nomination. "My Facebook status last Monday was, "Nancy is freaking out about Sarah Palin yet again." the writer said.
A posting on a New York based Web site for women, Jezebel.com spoke of unbridled anger. "What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage," an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. "When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull."
Ms. Gross was not alone. More than 700 comments poured in, many from women who said they were experiencing a visceral hostility to Mrs. Palin that they were struggling to explain.
"When I see people crowing about her 'acceptable' speech last Wednesday... I literally want to vomit with rage," a comment from Anibundel said.
"I am shocked by the depths of my hatred for this woman," another commenter, CJ Weimer, wrote.
"It is impossible for me not to read about her in the newspaper in the subway every morning on my way to work and not come into the office angry and wanting to kick things," a commentator using the name ChampagneofBeers wrote...
"I am having Sarah Palin nightmares," an acclaimed playwright and writer, Eve Ensler, wrote on the Huffington Post. She said she was disturbed by the chants about oil and gas drilling during Mrs. Palin's speech to the Republican convention. "I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination," Ms. Ensler wrote.
I find it insulting to women, to the Republican Party, and to the country," said Sally Quinn in a Newsweek/Washington Post blog. In the Baltimore Sun, Susan Reimer found Palin's selection "insulting on so many levels" that she barely could name them. Ruth Marcus, reading from the same cue cards, sputtered in the Washington Post: "I found Palin's selection . . . insulting." Google the phrase "Palin's pick is insulting to women," and you come up with 943,000 entries...
Somehow, every element of her life--the dual offense of being a beauty-queen and hunter; the Down syndrome baby who wasn't aborted; the teenage daughter about to get married, whose baby also wasn't aborted; the non-metrosexual husband working the nightshift; the very fact of five children--touched a nerve on the liberal template, and sent the whole beast into convulsions, opening an intriguing and somewhat frightening window onto the turbulent id of the left.
She is everything radical feminists fight against. Their ideal of a woman is one who liberates herself from men by being a lesbian and who, if she does have sex with a man and becomes pregnant liberates herself of the pregnancy by aborting the baby. I wonder if they have a nagging element of guilt about abortion and so are angry at someone who is morally above them and who keeps the child. Calling Palin's appointment an insult to woman is very twisted if McCain did not appoint a woman that would be seen as sexist.
Lori Ziganto wrote the following explanation for the left wing female hatred toward Sarah Palin.
Palin is the popular, pretty girl who doesn’t fit the liberals’ ideological agenda nor their idea of what a woman should be. I mean, she got pregnant and chose not to abort! She managed to have a career and children! While they claim they want women to “have it all,” that has been exposed as utter lip service. They actually believe that there is a conflict between motherhood and self-fulfillment. As such, they become insane with jealousy and rage when a successful, conservative mother proves them wrong.
Charles Rangel when asked during an interview with New York’s WCBS-2 television why Democrats seem afraid of Palin’s popularity, replied: “You got to be kind to the disabled."
The following list was compiled by gateway pundit.
** Leading Dem Barney Frank <http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/leading-democrat-sarah-palins-family.html> - Sarah Palin's family and pregnant teen are fair game.
** Chief Obama Supporter Howard Gutman <http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/chief-obama-supporter-calls-palin-bad.html> - She's a bad mother.
** Senator Joe Biden <http://palinsexismwatch.blogspot.com/2008/09/biden-palin-would-be-backward-step-for.html> - Palin would be a backward step for women.
** MTV Awards Host Russell Brand <http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/british-mtv-awards-host-if-you-dont.html> - Sarah Palin. She’s a VILF! A vice president I’d like to... fondle.
** Senator Barack Obama <http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_Lipstick_on_a_pig.html> - It's just like putting lipstick on a pig.
** Hollywood's Matt Damon <http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/hollywood-actor-says-palin-story-like.html> - She's like this really bad Disney movie.
** Dem Leader Carol Fowler <http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/unreal-dem-leader-spouts-off-crude.html> - She's only qualified because she did not have an abortion.
** Professor Wendy Doniger <http://palinsexismwatch.blogspot.com/2008/09/professor-wendy-doniger-palins-biggest.html> : Palin's biggest hypocrisy is her pretense that she's a woman.
** Comedian Bill Maher <http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hx-N_B9scTQ6FCKiVprBnpcyunFQ> : Palin is a snarling bitch.
** Film critic Roger Ebert <http://palinsexismwatch.blogspot.com/2008/09/roger-ebert-shallow-chirpy-person-with.html> - She's a shallow, chirpy person with those vaguely alarming eyeglasses.
** Former Senator Lincoln Chafee <http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/11/politics/horserace/entry4442097.shtml> - Palin is a "cocky wacko."
** Hollywood's Pamela Anderson <http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/pamela-anderson-on-sarah-palin-i-cant.html> - I can't stand her. She can suck it.
** Singer Pink <http://www.popeater.com/music/article/pink-sarah-palin-hates-women/172323?icid=100214839x1209505393x1200548081> - Sarah Palin hates women.
** Comedian Brad Garrett <http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2008/09/brad_garrett_1.php> - Palin is white trash.
** Air America's Randi Rhodes <http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/13/the-latest-sarah-palin-smear-from-the-left-teen-molester/> - She can't be trusted with teenage boys.
** Leftist Juan Cole <http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022618.php> - Sarah Palin resembles those of Muslim fundamentalists.
** Author Cintra Wilson <http://sweetness-light.com/archive/another-insane-rant-from-a-lefty-woman-hater> - She's a f**kable Christian Stepford wife in a ’sexy librarian’ costume.
** Wonder Woman Linda Carter <http://www.phillymag.com/news/2008/09/11/the-real-wonder-woman-on-sarah-palin-america-should-be-very-afraid/> - America should be very afraid.
** Hollywood's Lindsay Lohan <http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=29730276> - (She's) a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13426.html> (D-FL)- She doesn't know anything.
** Vagina Monologues author Eve Ensler <http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/17/the-book-banners-hollywood-ignores/> - Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking.
** Actress Sandra Bernhard <http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-fan-threatens-sarah-palin-with-gang-rape> - Turncoat bitch! Don’t you f**king reference Old Testament, bitch!
Saturday Night Live had a comedy skit which suggested that Todd Palin, Sarah Palin's husband was having sex with their daughters.
Hollywood savaged Palin. Journalists mocked her. Liberal blogs slimed her. Opponents cursed her, Photoshopped her, hacked her e-mail, hanged her in effigy, called her bigot, Bible-thumper and bimbo, and attacked her husband and children. But nothing Palin endured compares to the treatment she's receiving from these backstabbing blabbermouths who worked on the same campaign she poured herself into.
Even after McCain was defeated and Obama was
about to enter the White House Palin was a constant topic of conversation and
scorn. (Palin
Fascination, Scorn shows no Sign of Receding, 1/13/2009) One example
of this is the Huffington Post, which, on its Palin-bashing Web page, explores
"Sarah Palin Naked" and names her "The Dumbest Thing of 2008."
That may be
partly because the Left still sees her as a possible nominee and future threat.
The sponsors of TeamSarah.org, a pro-Palin Web site hacked
by Palin foes, say the Alaska governor stirs fear and loathing on the left
chiefly because of her challenge to the established order.
"She really is the first woman of her kind to run for public office on
the national stage," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, with the Susan B. Anthony
List, a political action committee that supports anti-abortion female
candidates. "She's very traditional in her views, but at the same time she's
doing a very modern thing by blazing a trail for women like her in politics.
"Now, young women can look at her and say, 'I can do that. I don't have to
be Gloria Steinem. You know, I don't have to be Jane Fonda. I can be Sarah
Palin.'"
John Zeigler is the author of a movie titled Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted. He was asked
"Why was the feminist Left so silent in witnessing the media treating a woman so badly?"
and responded:
It seems pretty obvious that it was because she was obviously very pro-life and someone who actually lived that belief. But I think it went further than that. I think the fact that she was a very successful career woman, with five children, who still clearly loves her husband, who kills her own food and who looks amazing doing all of it, is a very threatening package for a lot of women. Unfortunately, Sarah Palin makes a lot of women feel badly about themselves.
The fact that Sarah Palin's beauty had something to do with leftist rage is supported by the fury the left showed to Miss California, Carrie Prejean for saying that she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. Ann Coulter wrote an article about this. A psychotherapist wrote:
Let's call them by their true name. When an actress calls for gang raping Palin, she's a sadist. When people torch Palin's church with children inside, they are sadists. When bloggers call her a c___t and scorn her disabled son, they are being sadists.
In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist tried to think of ways to discredit Palin. Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, suggested: “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.” Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.
Tea party protests were held throughout America to protest the huge escalation of debt by Obama. I believe the increase in debt is estimated to be $20,000 for every man woman and child in the U.S.. If a couple has one child that's the equivalent of charging $60,000 to their credit cards, taking the money and giving some of it as a stimulus package. It's understandable why Americans are alarmed. Supporters of Obama including the liberal media smeared the protesters. Michelle Malkin wrote:
The nightly airwaves turned into a soft-porn cesspool last week as liberal journalists derided and slimed hundreds of thousands of Tea Party protesters across the country who oppose reckless taxing and spending by both major political parties. Award-winning CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, mimicking his bottom-of-the-barrel competitors at MSNBC, smugly indulged in sexual puns about "teabagging." MSNBC devoted the entire week to sophomoric sexual slang and innuendo with references to "nuts," Dick Armey and "full-throated" protesters.
And White House adviser David Axelrod calls the Tea Party folks "unhealthy"?
Speaking of unhealthy, angry white liberal actress Janeane Garofalo venomously played the race card: "It's about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks." The theme was echoed by Jeffrey Kimball, a professor emeritus of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, who castigated the "extreme right" for organizing against Obama because "he's black and he's liberal."
Tell that to the thousands of activists in South Carolina who practically booed and heckled white Republican Rep. Gresham Barrett off the stage at a Tea Party in Greenville last Friday night for supporting the trillion-dollar TARP and embracing the pork-laden stimulus law after voting against it. "Go home!" they shouted.
When people turned out all over the country in the thousands to attend tea parties, Obama followers, especially those in the media, were shocked and bewildered, and it showed. The obvious explanation -- that many average, everyday Americans were not thrilled with the "change" they were getting from the new administration -- was not something those in the media or Obama supporters were willing to accept.
Instead we heard about how the estimated 500,000 or more people attending the 800 or so tea parties did not attend of their own free will as grass roots activists. One explanation from critics was that the protests were from "fake" grassroots. We were to believe those people didn't take time off from work and show up in the rain on their own. No. Fox News did it all. Fox somehow has enough control over those people to cause them, against their otherwise free will, to go to the trouble to interrupt their normal activities, make signs, pack up the kids and their diaper bags and strollers, travel to their nearest tea party site, find a parking space, walk to the protest area and raise their signs and their voices.
Jeff Jacoby wrote that the New York Times's Frank Rich informed his readers that
Tea Party protesters opposing the Obama health-care bill were "goons," so inflamed by "homicidal rhetoric" -- Rich cited the protesters' chant "Kill the bill!" as an example -- that they had turned into latter-day SS troops engaged in a "small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht."
To Washington Post columnist Colbert King, on the other hand, tea partiers bring to mind not the Third Reich but the segregationists of the pre-civil rights South. "Those same jeering faces," King wrote on March 27, "could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock's Central High School in 1957." He also remembered those faces "exploding with yells of excitement" when David Duke "spewed vitriolic white-power rhetoric" at a rally in 1991.
Then there is Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, who concedes that there might be more to the Tea Party movement than unadulterated racism. There is also, he said in a recent broadcast, "blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections."
Sarah Palin gave a speech at a tea party rally. She wrote some words on the palm of her hand to make sure she discussed certain topics such as energy. The next day am-NY had an article trashing Palin for having a cheat sheet and being a palm reader and acted as if this was a big scandal which they called hand-gate but did not report anything about the content of her speech.
Bobby Eberle posted the following on the media reaction to Sarah's notes on Feb 2010:
As noted by Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters.org, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the one who got the tingling feeling down his leg when he heard Obama speak, is having a cow over this non-issue:
Chris Matthews: Can a palm reader be president? What do we think of kids in school who write stuff on their hands to get through a test? What do we think of a would-be political leader who does it to look like she's speaking without notes? What do we think of Sarah Palin this weekend answering pre-screened questions from a like-minded audience in Nashville, a tea party convention, and still having to put a cheat sheet on her palm to answer what she calls the basics of her beliefs? How can someone presume to be auditioning for president when they can't even answer questions they know are coming?..
CBS's Nancy Cordes reported, over a helpful graphic showing the words written on Palin's hand, that while Palin "dismissed the President Saturday night as a 'charismatic guy with a Teleprompter,' she may have been relying on some crib notes of her own." Cordes concluded: "Her supporters called it an endearing sign that Palin's a real person, while detractors argue it's proof she doesn't know her facts." On NBC, Brian Williams led the Palin story with how "it happened after a speech where she criticized the President for relying too much on a Teleprompter."
Jeff Jacoby summarized some of the paranoia creating in 2009 in an article.
A friend of mine who was a Republican graduate student told me a personal story which is a classic example of non-religious hatred of the non-believer. He saw a female student friend of his campaigning for Kerry. He went up to her and started to argue with her. He said "Here are the facts" and gave her a long list of facts and she responded "Facts are not important. You and I have two different moralities. We have two different consciences". My friend complained to me that she won't talk to him and that they used to be friends.
I explained to my friend that she is doing what extremist fundamentalist Muslims do, to her he is a non-believer and therefore must be bad. It's interesting that facts are not important to her. She has the truth as far as she's concerned, to hell with facts, and anyone who doesn't believe in what she believes must not be as moral as she is.
This young woman is not an
anomaly. Hatred of the non-believer originating in ancient religious
texts is alive and well today and not just among Islamic terrorists. Turkey is an example of a country that has
been considered moderate but the Milli Gazete, a Turkish daily produced
by Erbakan’s National Salvation Party since January, 1973, published articles
in February and April of 2005 which were toxic amalgams of ahistorical drivel,
and virulently antisemitic and anti-dhimmi
Qur’anic motifs: 181 One paragraph of this drivel that clearly demonstrates
modern hatred of the non-believer is:
(Andrew
Bostom, frontpagemag.com)
It is a mistake for so-called professors, writers, thinkers, and famous intellectuals to make “sympathetic” statements about Christians and Jews. Particularly, to say that “they too will go to heaven” is an even bigger mistake…Christians and Jews, who have rejected our Prophet and refuse to recite “Muhammad is the Messenger of God” belong forever in Hell…In the eyes of God, there is only one religion, and that is Islam…There is only one book, and that is the Qur’an…For so-called “dignitaries” to present Christianity and Judaism as “godly religions” is terribly wrong.
Andrew
Bostom wrote a book called the Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism which describes
the results of hatred of the Jewish non-believer. The cover of the book is a painting of a Jewish woman who was
martyred because she would not become a Muslim. The tragic story can be read here.
For any event there is more than one explanation. In general the most likely explanation is the one that requires making the fewest assumptions. Lets say Joe was at a party last night during which he imbibed an excessive amount of alcoholic beverages and this morning he woke up with a headache. Joe might explain his headache as being the result of too much to drink. Or Joe might believe that some hostile individual or organization slipped something into his drink to make him have a headache. Or Joe might believe that the mysterious guy in the corner slipped a knockout drug in his drink so that after he passed out the mysterious guy could make a move on Joe's girlfriend. The explanation that requires the least number of assumptions and so is the most likely one is that Joe had a headache because he had too much to drink. Some people however, might chose the paranoid assumptions in spite of this. Why choose a paranoid assumption? One would think that it would be preferable to believe that one's headache is simply the result of overdrinking than believing that someone is out to hurt oneself.
On Christmas of 2003, the United States went on a very expensive code orange alert against terror and suspended some flights from France and Britain to the United States due to fears the planes would be used in terrorist attacks. A journalist in the French weekly, Le Point, did not believe this explanation for the flight suspensions and in a special section entitled “France punished by the US.” wrote an article called “Diktat on Air France,” in which he argued that the terrorist threats against Air France flights during Christmas were just an excuse for the US to bankrupt Air France as revenge for France opposing the U.S. war against Iraq (Blame it On America, frontpagemagazine 1/19/04).
Why did the French journalist choose the paranoid explanation? The explanation given by the United States of concern about a terrorist threat was a very reasonable one in light of the September 11 attacks and the expensive code orange alert as well as the stopping of the British flights. The paranoid explanation does not explain why the United States stopped British flights or paid to go to code Orange. The American explanation requires fewer assumptions. Why choose the unpleasant and less likely explanation which makes American an enemy out to get France?
The book, 9/11: The Big Lie, from the French author Thierry Meyssan was a best seller in France for over a year. This book supposedly proves how no plane ever crashed on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It also states that Bin Laden was a US agent paid by Bush to destroy secret CIA offices in the World Trade Center. Why believe this explanation instead of the one that Al Qaeda attacked the United States. Thierry's explanation requires believing that the United States murdered thousands of American citizens for some evil reason. Why believe that the United States is evil?
I don't know why the French choose paranoid explanations of American behavior. I do know reasons that people choose paranoid beliefs and can extrapolate those to guess as why the French choose these explanations. If the French were to believe that America was good and that for good reasons they overthrew Saddam Hussein that would require admission that the French were in the wrong and perhaps even cowardly when the opposed the United States. If the French make America out to be bad than they can feel better about opposing America. Also if they acknowledge that French planes were a terrorist threat to the United States that would imply that terrorists have infiltrated France, not a pleasant belief at all and one that shines a very unfavorable light on French policies that allowed this to happen.
America's superpower status may give the French a nagging feeling of inadequacy that they are not a superpower as well. If they regard Americans as bad, then they can view themselves as morally superior and feel better about themselves. This may be one of the reasons why so many French embrace paranoid beliefs toward the United States. Other factors such as their large anti-American Muslim population probably plays a role as well in infecting non-Muslim Frenchmen with anti-American attitudes.
Just as French Paranoia gives rise to French hatred, French hatred may be giving rise to French paranoia. Frontpage Magazine interviewed several prominent Frenchmen about French hatred of the United States(.The death of France? By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com | June 9, 2003.) One of the interviewees Milliere ascribed French hostility to envy. He said:
France is a very sick country. Many French still dream about the time when France was the main power in the Western world. It has been over for three centuries now, and so they are full of envy when they think about the countries that became more powerful than France after the death of Louis XIVth. Great Britain first, then the United States. For the French, the United States has no past, no legitimacy, no culture and if they are the first power in the world it's really unfair.
For years, France has searched to create alliances against the United States. Now it's a conscious alliance with Islamists and Arab dictators. The French dream to see the United States defeated. Just by envy. .. The French love leaders that give them the appearance of strength, even if it brings them to disaster, and in front of a strong enemy, they surrender very easily. They surrendered to the Nazis in six days; they have already surrendered to radical Muslims thirty years ago. The people I meet in France are not ready to fight: they say "soon our women will have to wear scarves, that's life"... I am finishing a book in English about this French sickness. I think it has to be fully explained...
Everybody in France knows Chirac and Villepin acted as they did, not because they disagreed with the US, but because France too had a lot to lose if Saddam was toppled. Anti-Americanism is rising in the world because large parts of the world are very sick and full of envy. France acted as the leader of the axis of envy, it's the reason why I think she has to pay the price. France is not an ally of the US anymore.
Jean-François Revel another interviewee and the author of L'Obsession Anti-Américaine (The Anti-American Obsession) also argued that envy was behind French hatred: He said:
France is the prey of an anti-American obsession. For the French, Americans are the enemy they have to hate in every circumstance. They have to hate Americans because Americans are successful, because Americans are powerful, because the French prefer resentment to achievement. They are so obsessed by their hatred of the United States they do not see anymore the real dangers confronting France. It's a very dangerous situation. I do not know how we could go out of this situation. I honestly don't know if it is even still possible.
Frontpagemag interviewed John J Miller (Our Oldest Enemies, 10/18/04, frontpagemag.com) co-author of Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France. who explained:
The French suffer from a very bad case of wounded national pride. Three hundred years ago, they ruled a globe-spanning empire. But ever since their defeat in the final French and Indian War--known in Europe as the Seven Years War--they’ve traveled on a downward trajectory. Napoleon provided a brief and bloody interruption to this relentless decline. At the same time, the French have watched the United States grow in power. Our gains mirror their losses. This has resulted in a tremendous sense of jealousy that embodies itself, nowadays, in a distinctly anti-American geopolitical outlook.
John Miller quoted Francois Mitterand as saying shortly before his death:
“We are at war with America,” he said. “A permanent war ... a war without death. They are very hard, the Americans--they are voracious. They want undivided power over the world.”
and French Prime Minister, Jean Pierre Raffarin as saying:
“The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies.”
French hatred may be at
the root of the French desire to paint the United States in as black colors as
possible and to be paranoid of the United States. Envy may be the root of
French hatred and the desire to eliminate low self esteem, which is associated
with envy may be a motivating factor in being paranoid.
Philippe Karsenty, the founder and president of Media-Ratings, was interviewed by Frontpage
Magazine (5/16/06) about the anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism of
France. He said
Anti-Americanism
is also very present in the French political and intellectual life. Never
forget how our actual prime minister, Villepin, travelled all over the world to
fight American diplomacy before the Iraqi war. Another thing interesting
to think about: not one French newspaper or magazine supported the US
in the war in Iraq. Not even one. And when you asked French diplomats or
intellectuals why America was going at war against Saddam, they answered that
it was because Bush was receiving marching orders from Ariel Sharon…
As I
said, the Iraqi war was launched, according to most of the French people, in
the name of Israel. And if you look at the nuclear bomb in preparation in Iran,
you see that the French media only focus on the Israeli supposed interest. They
just forget that if Iran provides terrorists with dirty radioactive material,
it’s Europe that could be affected very soon. They also forget to recall that
Europe has no missile anti-missile as Israel has with the Hetz. This means
that, objectively, Israel is less endangered by a nuclear Iran than Europe.
But, if you hear French media, the only country is danger is Israel and French
people don’t want to fight a billion of Muslims to defend 6 million Israelis.
The
phenomena described by Mr. Karsenty is one in which those who stand up to evil
are considered evil because the world is a less threatening place that
way. Israel is the enemy of Iran. Iran is the country whose nuclear weapons
threaten France yet the French prefer to blame Israel. The United States is the enemy of Iran and
the best chance the world has of militarily disarming Iran yet the French see
the U.S. as making the world a more dangerous place by supporting Israel. The world becomes less threatening when
viewed this way because then that is required is that the United States stop
supporting Israel. If the French were
to view the United States and Israel as doing the right thing and standing up
against the looming Iranian threat then they have to face that the threat won’t
just go away by sacrificing Israel and that they have a moral obligation to
help fight Iran a very unpleasant thought.
The desire to sacrifice Israel in order to save France creates a desire
to demonize Israel, otherwise the French would have to face that they are
sacrificing good in order to appease evil.
We have here a motivation to create paranoia toward a target, in order
to feel good about one’s own immoral behavior toward that target.
The French and Europeans in general prefer to believe that if they’re
just nice to the Muslims the Muslims will leave them alone. They know that if the United States strikes
at Iran, Iran is likely to strike them and they are afraid. So they are hostile to the U.S. because of
fear that U.S. actions will endanger them.
They are unwilling to face the reality that Islam will strike at them no
matter how nice they are to Muslims and no matter how much they appease the
Muslims and no matter how much of their freedom they sacrifice to the Muslims. They are unwilling to face the threat that
they face because it means that they have to fight.
Bruce Bawer, author of While
Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within was
asked by Jamie Glazov about European anti-Americanism. His answer sheds light on motives to be
paranoid. He said:
It’s very strange. I
never get used to it. It’s kind of schizophrenic, actually. On one
level there’s an enthusiasm for America. America is sexy, exciting.
Europeans love American TV, American pop music. They wear Yankee caps and
t-shirts with Old Glory on them. If you’re out someplace for the evening
and somebody hears you’re an American, they want to talk to you and hear about
your life. It’s thrilling for them. But the very same people will
then turn around and tell you how horrible your country is – everybody in
America is overweight, nobody has health insurance, they’re all idiots, and so
forth. This is what they’ve been taught in school and heard in the
media. Weirdly, it’s their very enthusiasm for America, I think, that
feeds their eagerness to believe this nonsense. They’re so in awe of
America, so drawn to it, that they need to believe that there’s something
horrible at the heart of it in order to be content with their own lives in
their own societies.
Besides, buying into the
idea that America is the #1 problem in the world – the #1 threat to world peace
and so on – is a good way of distracting themselves from the genuine problems
facing their own countries. After all, in Europe, there’s a lot of
pressure not to address those problems. To criticize any aspect of immigrant
communities or immigration policies is to risk being called a racist. In
Norway, there’s been a rash of cold-blooded murders by rejected asylum seekers,
who, after being rejected, incredible as it sounds, are simply allowed to roam
free in the streets of Oslo. Recently, one of them walked into the
downtown Oslo office of somebody I knew, a wonderful doctor, and stabbed him to
death with a huge knife he’d brought with him. On the day it happened, a
mutual friend of ours, who was despondent and in shock, said, “Something needs
to be done about these asylum seekers.” And as soon as the words were out
of his mouth, he added, “Oh, I shouldn’t say that, it sounds racist.” He
hadn’t said anything racist. But this is how people have been trained to
think. It’s paralyzing. So it is that the frustration and anger
over the crisis in their own societies is deflected to a safe target –
America. You can say anything you want about Americans and nobody will
call you a racist.
FP: What is your perspective on
what we could call European
dhimmitude and the reflexive European appeasement mentality?
Bawer: Americans and Europeans
both learned a lesson from World War II – but we learned different
lessons. America learned that evil should never be appeased. If
Britain and France had not caved in to Hitler at Munich, the war and the
Holocaust might never have happened. Europeans, however, have been taught
that the lesson of WWII is the evil of war, pure and simple. War should
be avoided at all costs. Dialogue is always better than armed
conflict. This mentality feeds anti-Americanism – instead of admiring
America’s willingness to defend its freedoms in war, which after all is what
made possible the liberation of Western Europe from the Nazis – duh! –
Europeans see Americans as people who simply love to make war. We’re
primitive, bloodthirsty warmongers. They see themselves, by contrast, as
the preachers and guardians of a new, more noble and sophisticated era of
peace. And they’ll make any compromise in order to preserve that
peace.
The Europeans fail to realize that if they keep yielding to Islam they
will become Islamicized and part of the army of Islam, if they don’t fight
Islam now, they will fight for Islam later.
This web page and the article, Creation of Paranoia (Part 1, Part 2) discusses how low self esteem can give rise to paranoia and other possible reasons why people create paranoia or desire to be paranoid.
The idea that the September 11 attacks were staged by the Pentagon is believed by one in five Germans and is common throughout Europe. (Menace in Europe, frontpagemag.com 4/7/06)
One of the most pervasive examples of mass paranoia is anti-semitism and in order to understand mass paranoia it behooves us to examine anti-semitism.
ID Sources of Antisemitism
We can learn a lot about the cause of the cause of anti-semitism from the history of Gaius Caligula of Rome. Caligula wanted people to erect statues of him and worship him. Every people subject to Rome erected statues of Gaius in their cities along with their gods, except for the Judaeans. The Judaeans declared that they were forbidden to place an image of God, and certainly not that of a human being, not only in their Temple, but anywhere in their country. They would never transgress the laws that they had received from their forefathers, even if that meant all the Judaeans - men women and children - would have to be killed.
This was a recipe for disaster. Solomon Zeitlin wrote about what happened in his book The Rise and Fall of the Judean State.
When Gaius declared himself a god, the heathens were able to accept him as such, and they erected statues of him and worshipped them. The Judaeans, who believed in one God alone, could not do this... When the Judaeans refused to allow the erection of statues in their proseuche, house of prayer, a disastrous progrom took place in Alexandria...
When the heathens of Jabneh (a town in Judaea) learned that Gaius considered himself a god, they erected an altar to the emperor... and the Judaeans promply destroyed it. Gaius became greatly enraged at this sacrilegious act. He decided to destroy the Judaean "superstition" and if necessary, wipe out the entire people. He ordered Petronius, the legate of Syria, to erect an enormous statue of himself in the guise of Zeus, and place it in the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Jerusalem, using force to crush any resistance.
In order to avoid the annihilation of the Jews, Petronius delayed the erection of the statue on the grounds that to create a statue worth of Gaius would take time. Ultimately the assassination of Gaius saved the Jews.
Gaius hated the Jews because they would not worship him. Similarly believers of other religions have throughout history hated Jews because the Jews would not worship their deities and believe their beliefs. This hatred gave rise to creation of paranoia against the Jews including the Christian slander of deicide against the Jews.
II Reasons for Religious Antisemitism
Most of the problems of the world today have their seeds in creation of paranoia that occurred thousands of years ago. About two thousand years ago the Christians blamed the Jews for killing the son of God an accusation that religious historians such as Dr. William Nicholls argue is false. The belief that the Jews killed Jesus leads people today to hate the Jews and to assume they are the guilty party in the Middle East.
One example of this is a statement of Professor Eugenio Chahuan, a member of the University of Chile's Center of Arabic Studies to the daily La Hora,
If the Jews killed, the Messiah, we can expect that they may kill any people.
Jostein Gaarder, the author of Sophie’s World, in a letter
published in Aftenposten, Norway’s leading newspaper in the summer of
2006, claimed
that “the first Zionist terrorists started operating in the time of Jesus.”
Mike Evans a Christian minister in an article titled "Christ Killers" (worldnetdaily.com 2/20/04) wrote:
I am a Christian minister. My father was a Christian, my mother an Orthodox Jew. I was raised as a Christian, but still, I was physically attacked as a child in "Christian America." I was called a "Christ-killer" hundreds of times. I pushed my mother's grocery cart down the street while self-professing Christians threw eggs and tomatoes from their vehicles, and shouted obscenities – including "Christ-killer" and "Jew-witch." I remember waking one morning to the words "Christ-killer" spray-painted on the front door.
Mr. Evans asked his mother
Why am I being beat up for killing Christ?
He writes:
my mother sat me down and told me the story of her grandfather. He was a rabbi. Russian Orthodox Christians burned him and his entire congregation to death inside the synagogue. She said to me, "They did it while screaming, 'You crucified Christ, you Christ-killers.'"
I can still see the pain in her eyes as she told me of loved ones who were thrown into the ovens of Auschwitz. "The last words many of them heard," she said, "were 'Christ-killers.'"
Mr. Evans tried to get Mel Gibson to put a pro-Jewish message at the end of his Passion film which he didn't do. Instead he appears to have based his script partly on anti-semitic visions of a German nun by the name of Anne Emmerich and included scenes in which Jewish children transform into demons and Satan walks among the Jewish crowds as they clamour for Jesus's death. Predictably the Passion is leading to anti-Jewish hatred and anti-semitics acts.
For example, in one incident at the Rehoboth Beach area in Delaware (The New Journal 5/2/04) a group of people approached a person at a mall and said, "You're Jewish. We hate you. You killed Christ."
According to My Way News (4/5/04)
Hanan Nsour, a veiled, 21-year-old Muslim in Jordan, came out of "The Passion of the Christ" in tears and pronounced her verdict: Mel Gibson's crucifixion epic "unmasked the Jews' lies and I hope that everybody, everywhere, turns against the Jews.
The Quran, though, says Jesus's crucifixion never happened...
Kuwait bans any movies depicting any of the prophets recognized by Islam, but one of its top Shiite clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Mehri, has urged an exception for "The Passion" because it "reveals crimes committed by Jews against Christ."...
When the 1998 animated movie "Prince of Egypt" reached Cairo, censors banned it. One reason given: Islam reveres Moses as a prophet, and many Muslims recoil at seeing their prophets portrayed as flesh-and-blood characters.
Jesus is also a prophet to the Muslims, yet "The Passion" was OK'd by Egypt's censors with no changes.
According to a Muslim Hadith a Jewess from Khaybar poisoned Muhammad and
this poison ultimately led to his painful and protracted death.
Michel Gurfinkiel ("Frances Jewish Problem", Commentary July-August 2002, p38) gave two examples of how religion is currently creating antisemitism. He wrote about how Liberation a left of center French newspaper, carried a cartoon published the day after Christmas 2001, showing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon standing next to a cross with a hammer in his hand and nails in his mouth. The caption: "No Christmas for Arafat, But he is welcome on Easter." This was an obvious reference to the crucifixion of Jesus which is blamed on the Jews. Two days earlier, at midnight mass in Montpellier, a Catholic priest had handed out the text for a humn in the Occitan language that read: "He was born in Bethlehem, Palestine. He was born in Bethlehem, poor and innocent. Sharon shot him down." The implication is that Sharon shot Jesus.
In April 02, La Stampa - a liberal Italian newspaper - depicting the infant Jesus in a manger, menaced by an Israeli tank and saying "Don't tell me they want to kill me again."
In 2001, the founder of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center the Anglican Rev. Canon Naim Ateek, wrote that, “Jesus is on the Cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him…The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily.”
Aren't the Jews guilty of oppressing the Palestinians you may ask. How do I know it's not the oppression of the Palestinians that creates anti-semitism? My answer to that question is another question which is "How do you know the Jews are oppressing the Palestinians"? That's absurd you say, "I read it in the newspapers, I see it on on the news, I hear it on the radio." "But how do you know what you hear on the radio and see on the news and read in the newspapers is impartial and objective?" I respond. "If religion creates bias against the Jews and a large number of people with that bias have money to influence the media with than one would expect that bias to distort reporting about the Middle East and the biased reporting to create even more bias against the Jews". I give some examples of how the media distorts the news about the Middle East in the Creation of Paranoia by the Media section of this web page.
One would expect the historical aspect of the bible regarding the Jewish presence in Israel to create support among Christians for Jews in the Middle East and probably it has to some extent. However, there are Christians in the Middle East who promote replacement theology, a revivial of a medieval church doctrine that states that Jews have been replaced by Christians in God's favor and that therefore any promises to the Jews, including their historic links to the holyland, lack any validity. One of the main proponents of "Replacement Theology" is the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, Riah abu el-Assal.(Response Spring 2002)
The Friday, January 17 2003, edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that: "Anti-Semitism is widespread among America's young adults, with a fourth believing Jews control the media and Wall Street, according to a survey released this week...Another key finding is that 37 percent of American adults, or 65 million people, continue to believe Jews were responsible for killing Jesus." More: "The Christ-killer charge remains a pervasive belief."
About 1400 years ago Muhammad wrote
into the Koran how the infidel must be killed or pay for protection and live as
a Dhimmi (person with inferior status). He also slandered the Jews
in the Koran to create hatred against them.
According to the hadith, the Jews caused Muhammad’s protracted, excruciating death from poisoning. (frontpagemag.com 5/15/2006)
Andrew Bostom has summarized some of the creation of Jew Hatred in Islamic texts.
Indeed the Koran’s overall discussion of the Jews is marked by a litany of their sins and punishments, as if part of a divine indictment, conviction, and punishment process. The Jews wronged themselves (16:118) by losing faith (7:168) and breaking their covenant (5:13). The Jews (echoing an ante-Nicaean, Marcionite polemic) are a nation that has passed away (2:134; repeated in 2:141). Twice Allah sent his instruments (the Assyrians/or Babylonians, and Romans) to punish this perverse people (17:4-5)—their dispersal over the earth is proof of Allah’s rejection (7:168). The Jews are further warned about both their arrogant claim that they remain Allah’s chosen people (62:6), and continued disobedience and “corruption” (5:32-33) Other sins, some repeated, are enumerated: abuse, even killing of prophets (4:155; 2:91), including Isa [Jesus] (3:55; 4:157), is a consistent theme.
The Jews ridiculed Muhammad as Ra’ina (the evil one, in 2:104; 4:46), and they are also accused of lack of faith, taking words out of context, disobedience, and distortion (4:46). Precious few of them are believers (also 4:46). These “perverse” creatures also claim that Ezra is the messiah and they worship rabbis who defraud men of their possessions (9:30). Additional sins are described: the Jews are typified as an “envious” people (2:109), whose hearts are as hardened as rocks (2:74). They are further accused of confounding the truth (2:42), deliberately perverting scripture (2:75), and being liars (2:78). Ill-informed people of little faith (2:89), they pursue vague and wishful fancies (2:111). Other sins have contributed to their being stamped (see 2:61/ 3:112 above) with “wretchedness/abasement and humiliation,” including—usury (2:275), sorcery (2:102), hedonism (2:96), and idol worship (2:53). More (and repeat) sins, are described still: the Jews’ idol worship is again mentioned (4:51), then linked and followed by charges of other (often repeat) iniquities—the “tremendous calumny” against Mary (4:156), as well as usury and cheating (4:161). Most Jews are accused of being “evil-livers” /“transgressors” /“ungodly” (3:110), who, deceived by their own lies (3:24), try to turn Muslims from Islam (3:99). Jews are blind and deaf to the truth (5:71), and what they have not forgotten they have perverted—they mislead (3:69), confound the truth (3:71), twist tongues (3:79), and cheat Gentiles without remorse (3:75). Muslims are advised not to take the Jews as friends (5:51), and to beware of the inveterate hatred that Jews bear towards them (5:82). The Jews’ ultimate sin and punishment are made clear: they are the devil’s minions (4:60) cursed by Allah, their faces will be obliterated (4:47), and if they do not accept the true faith of Islam—the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims (3:113)—they will be made into apes (2:65/ 7:166), or apes and swine (5:60), and burn in the Hellfires (4:55, 5:29, 98:6, and 58:14-19).
The Koranic curse (verses 2:61/3:112) upon the Jews for (primarily) rejecting, even slaying Allah’s prophets, including Isa/Jesus (or at least his “body double” 4:157-4:158), is updated with perfect archetypal logic in the canonical hadith: following the Muslims’ initial conquest of the Jewish farming oasis of Khaybar, one of the vanquished Jewesses reportedly served Muhammad poisoned mutton (or goat), which resulted, ultimately, in his protracted, agonizing death. And Ibn Saad’s sira account maintains that Muhammad’s poisoning resulted from a well-coordinated Jewish conspiracy...Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ—or according to another tradition, the Dajjâl is himself Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions maintain that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree, as per the canonical hadith included in the 1988 Hamas Charter (in article 7). Another hadith variant, which takes place in Jerusalem, has Isa (the Muslim Jesus) leading the Arabs in a rout of the Dajjâl and his company of 70,000 armed Jews. And the notion of jihad “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology—on the day of resurrection the vanquished Jews will be consigned to Hellfire, and this will expiate Muslims who have sinned, sparing them from this fate...
Finally, a profoundly Antisemitic motif occurring after the events recorded in the hadith and sira, put forth in early Muslim historiography (for example, by Tabari), is most assuredly a part of “the birth pangs” of Islam: the story of Abd Allah b. Saba, an alleged renegade Yemenite Jew, and founder of the heterodox Shi’ite sect. He is held responsible—identified as a Jew—for promoting the Shi’ite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s “political innocence”, culminating in the assassination of the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, and the bitter, lasting legacy of Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian strife.
The anti-semitism that led to the Holocaust occurred in this century partly because of what was written into the Christian Bible and what was written in the Koran. The Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini encouraged Hitler to annihilate the Jews. The anti-semitism that leads to wars in the Middle East against Israel are largely a result of what was written in the Koran. William Nicholls in his book Christian Antisemitism, A History of Hate, wrote that:
Anti-Judaic hostility, contrary to what is often said by Arabs and their apologists, has deep roots in Islam, going back to the life of the Prophet himself and to the words of the Quran.
An example of Islamic Creation of Paranoia
Toward Jews Through Images.
One of the causes of
anti-semitism and for that matter hatred of another group is the "evil
gene delusion". This is the delusion that if a group of people did
something wrong a thousand years ago, that means their modern day descendents
are evil as well. There is one way that evil can progress through generations and
that is through beliefs. If a group believes a religion such as Islam that
preaches that the non-believer is evil, the evil in that paranoia is
transferred through generations of believers. However, if a tribe 1000
years ago betrayed a treaty with another tribe and that was not part of their
religion, then the modern descendents of that tribe have not culturally
inherited any of the wickedness of their ancestors. To assume that the
modern descendents are wicked would entail the assumption that they inherited
wickedness through their genes. The Nazis assumed that all non-Aryans
were inferior and evil due to their genes. The Moslems hate the Jews
partly because they believe that Jewish tribes betrayed Mohammad and that
therefore the Jewish descendents of those tribes and all other Jews are
treacherous as well. A diatribe against the Jews in the Milli Gazette, a
Turkish newspaper that illustrates this is included below. (Andrew
Bostom, frontpagemag.com)
Judaism is synonymous with treason…They [the Jews]
even betrayed God…When God told them to bow their heads while entering Al-Quds
[Jerusalem], they entered with their heads up. The prophets sent to them, such
as Zachariah and Isaiah, were murdered by the Jews…In fact no amount of pages
or lines would be sufficient to explain the Qur’anic chapters and our Lord
Prophet’s [Muhammad’s] words that tell us of the betrayals of the Jews,
Steven Stalinsky in an article titled Jihad by Satellite (frontpagemag.com 5/20/05) quoted Muslims with the evil gene delusion. He wrote:
In August on Saudi Arabia 's MBC TV, Saudi Sheikh Abd al-Qader Hammad said, "From the day civil strife began in Islam, the Jews were behind it. There is no evil in the world that the Jews are not behind. Search in the depths of history ... and you will find the finger of the Jews behind it."
"Jewish treachery is the nature of this race. It runs in their blood and passes from generation to generation," 'Adnan abu Al-Qattam said in an official Friday sermon that aired on Bahrain TV July 30. "The Jews proved to history ... they are a corrupting people ... History clearly attests to their... despicable behavior," he said. He then cited a Koranic verse calling Muslims "to kill Jews."
That would imply
that there are genes for treachery and that our morality is governed by our
genes and not by choices that we freely make. The truth is that there are good
and bad people of all races and that politics, culture, religion and
personal choice are the predominant factors in determining the morality of a
group toward other groups.
Additional reasons for religious antisemitism include
1) Anger by religious leaders at those who
reject their religion and at who they can't control with religion.
2) Desire to keep believers from being led away from the religion by
nonbelievers.
3) Finding a scapegoat for the failures of the religion. (Protecting self
esteem by blaming others)
1) Anger by religious leaders at those who reject their religion and at who they can't control with religion:
Jews experienced hostility from their neighbors well before Christianity came on the scene. William Nicholls in his book Christian Antisemitism, A History of Hate, writes that:
Pagan hostility toward the Jewish people was aroused, above all, by the refusal of the Jews to join the ecunemical consensus of paganism, that the Gods of one people could be satisfactorily equated with those of another...Pagan calumnies against the Jews seem to be outgrowths of this central rejection. If the Jews would not worship the Gods their customs must have been inhuman and barbaric.
In my article Creation of Paranoia (Part 1, Part 2) I quote Luther condemning the Jews because they rejected Christianity. Julius Streicher, the editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer, claimed that if he must stand arraigned for his views on Jews, so should Martin Luther. He was right.
The paranoid myth that Jews killed God was born as a result of Christian hatred of Jews for rejecting Christianity and that myth led to further hatred against Jews. This hatred was expressed by the so called "saintly" Christians, two examples of their saintliness are given below:
In 379 A.D. Vicious St. Ambrose in Milan said (Anti-Semitism What is it) :
The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them.
In 395 A.D. St. Gregory of Nyssa in sermons and writings characterized Jews as assassins of the Prophets, companions of the Devil, a race of vipers, a Sanhedrin of Demons, enemies of all that is beautiful, hogs and goats in their lewd grossness.
I recently experienced paranoia toward me as a result of my rejection of Jesus. I was walking through a subway tunnel when I heard a man preaching about Jesus. I said to him "Jesus does not exist". He said to me:
You have allowed your mind to be infiltrated by the Devil.
Muhammad created paranoia toward those who rejected Islam. In the Koran 62.5 he said:
Evil is the likeness of the people who deny the revelations of Allah.
Initially Muhammad sought to gain the support of, and legitimization from, the Jewish tribes of western Arabia for religious, financial and military power reasons. However, Muhammad was rebuffed by the Jews who refused to see in him a Prophet. Rejection of Islam turned Muhammad against the Jews. According to the Religious Persecution of the Jews by Arabs web page:
It was the Prophet Muhammad himself who attempted to negate the positive image of the Jew that had been prevalent earlier. According to historian Bernard Lewis, the Prophet Muhammad's original plan had been to induce the Jews to adopt Islam When Muhammad began his rule at Medina in A.D. 622 he counted few supporters, so he adopted several Jewish practices-including daily prayer facing toward Jerusalem and the fast of Yom Kippur-in the hope of wooing the Jews. But the Jewish community rejected the Prophet Muhammad's religion, preferring to adhere to its own beliefs, whereupon Muhammad subsequently substituted Mecca for Jerusalem, and dropped many of the Jewish practices.
Three years later, Arab hostility against the Jews commenced, when the Meccan army exterminated the Jewish tribe of Quraiza.2 As a result of the Prophet Muhammad's resentment, the Holy Koran itself contains many of his hostile denunciations of Jews 3 and bitter attacks upon the Jewish tradition, which undoubtedly have colored the beliefs of religious Muslims down to the present.
Muhammad's growing armies prevailed and the struggle for the fate of Arabia ended with the slaughter and defeat of the Jews. The rejection by the Jews may be the reason Muhammad had the following written into the Qu'ran [9:29-30].
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day... Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse they are!"
Robert Spencer when asked why the Muslims regard the Jews as their worst enemies said:
Torah-observant Jews did not and do not accept Muhammad as a prophet, and this enraged the prophet of Islam during his lifetime. Muhammad initially appealed energetically to the Jews, hoping they would accept his prophetic status. He even had the Muslims imitate the Jews by facing Jerusalem for prayers, and he adopted for the Muslims the Jews’ prohibition of pork. But he was infuriated when the Jews rejected him, and Allah shared his fury in Koranic revelation: they had the Torah, and the Koran confirmed it, and yet they refused to accept the Koran! “And when there came to them a messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a party of the people of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if (it had been something) they did not know!” (2:101).
Muhammad instructed Moslems to torture nonbelievers. Quotes of his on this are on the Islamic Hell web page. Islam considers belief in any God other than Islam an "insult" to Islam. One illustration of this was the fatwah (religious edict) issued by the Taliban's spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, on Monday February 26, 2001, calling for all statues to be smashed including two Buddha images that soar 125 feet and 174 feet above the village of Bamiyan. (This was reported in CNN.com March 2, 2001) Mohammad explained:
Only Allah, the Almighty, deserves to be worshipped, not anyone or anything else.
In the Excessive Kindness of Islam web page Muhammad's conquest of Quraiza is described as follows:
In 627 A.D he raided the Jewish tribe of Qurayza. The Jews were defeated in the fight and many prisoners were taken. They were either sold or assassinated in the name of merciful Allah. In one place alone, approximately 800 Jews were beheaded in cold blood. In 629 A.D after the battle of Khaybar, and the defeat of the Jews, the same play was enacted. All the Jews were put to the sword. The raids undertaken by the prophet and methods followed became the guidelines for the Caliphs and other leaders who followed him.
The revenge taken by Muhammad on the non-believer is discussed in more detail in the revenge section of this web page. Before destroying the statues carved into the rock face near the central town of Bamiyan the Taliban explained that the statues were:
Insulting to Islam
They also planned to destroy all statues and religious artifacts in their museums as well. For a fundamentalist Moslem anything and anyone who is not a Moslem is an insult to Islam.
Osama bin Ladin in an interview with John Miller of ABC news in May 1998 explained that Allah's orders are to fight the non-believer. He said:
Allah has ordered us to make holy wars and to fight to see to it that his word is the highest and the uppermost and that of the unbelievers the lowermost.
In an interview with al-Jazira in 1999 Osama bin Laden, boasted that he had created:
The front of the Islamic Nation
to fight the Kufar (non-believers).
Balint Vazsonyi wrote an article in the
Washington Times (9/18/01) called "The People's
Right To Know" in which he wrote the following about the intolerance
of the Saudis to the American non-believers during the Gulf War.
It is Thanksgiving 1990. Hundreds of thousands of
Americans are spending it in Saudi Arabia, invited by its rulers to protect the
country -- not against the infidel, but against a fellow Arab Muslim, Saddam
Hussein of Iraq. Having raped Kuwait, Iraqi forces were poised to storm
Saudi Arabia, a country unable to defend itself.
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush arrived
to share the Thanksgiving meal with the armed forces whose commander in chief
he was. Upon arrival, the Saudi hosts informed him that the sight of a banquet
connected in any way, shape or form with Christian traditions, giving thanks to
God, was so hateful to Muslims that the president and his lot would have to
repair to the high seas, far from the shores that would be soiled, defaced,
desecrated by their act and presence...
Here then is a question Americans are entitled to
have answered. When Arabs and other Muslims arrive and settle in America, when
and how does the miraculous transformation occur whereby the Christianity -- or
Judaism -- that surrounds them ceases to offend?
Robert Spencer in his book Onward Muslim Soldiers wrote about how many Muslims considered non-Muslims contaminated. He wrote:
Many Muslims believe that the impurity that Christians are considered to have by the standards of Islamic ritual laws "will be passed on by physical contact with them. A young Christian journalist found that a female Muslim typist would not eat with her for this reason. An elderly Christian man who staffed the press lounge at the National Assembly was banned by the National Assembly staff from touching any canteen utensils or even carrying a tray. A Christian student of science at the Islamia College in Karachi was forbidden by his fellow students to drink from a tap. Five Christian schoolgirls from St. Mary's School in Gujrat, who were taking a Home Economics practical examination on February 25, 1997, found that the Muslim examiner would not test or mark the food they had cooked. She ordered the Christian's food to be put into the dustbin, but tested the food of their eight Muslim classmates in the normal way.
In Pakistan two Christian brothers tried to buy ice cream from a vendor who insisted they not use his utensils which were reserved for Muslim customers. They protested and he accused them of "desecrating the Koran and blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed." Both received thirty five year prison sentences and fines of $1,500 (U.S. Dept. of State Bueau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor "Pakistan," Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2000 Feb 23, 2001).
Professor Laurence Loeb in a book titled (“Outcaste- Jewish Life in Southern Iran,” 1977), wrote that:
Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behavior by Muslims.
Water was considered the most common agent of pollution, therefore Jews were not permitted to use the public baths…The possibility that rain-water might splash off a Jew onto a Muslim led to the prohibition of Jews walking in public during the rain. One informant from Shiraz told the following anecdote:
‘When I was a boy, I went with my father to the house of a non-Jew on business. When we were on our way, it started to rain. We stopped near a man who had apparently fallen and was bleeding. As we started to help him, a Muslim akhond (theologian) stopped and asked me who I was and what I was doing. Upon discovering that I was a Jew, he reached for a stick to hit me for defiling him by being near him in the rain. My father ran to him and begged the akhond to hit him instead.’
Jonathan Foreman in his column "Islam's Cruel Crusaders"(New York Post 10/31/01 p37) wrote the following about the Saudis:
This U.S. "ally" actually banned Christmas carols from Armed Forces Radio during the Gulf War.
2) Desire to keep believers from being led away from the religion by nonbelievers.
The existence of a non-believer is a threat to those promoting belief. Especially if the non-believer is powerful and successful, after all, God is supposed to reward the believer and punish the non-believer. If the believer is convinced the nonbeliever is bad, better yet, if the believer kills the nonbeliever, than the believer is less likely to be influenced by the nonbeliever.
The Iranian Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri further indicated that a non-Muslim (kafir’s) impurity was,There is an Islamic belief that the non-believer is unclean. This idea was promoted to create hatred of non-Muslims so that they would not influence Muslims (Bostom, A. The American Thinker 7/22/08). Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran explained that:
Eleven things are unclean: urine, excrement, sperm, blood, a dog, a pig, bones, a non-Muslim man and woman [emphasis added], wine, beer, perspiration of a camel that eats filth…The whole body of a non-Muslim is unclean, even his hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body…A child below the age of puberty is unclean if his parents and grandparents are not Muslims; but if he has a Muslim for a forebear, then he is clean…The body, saliva, nasal secretions, and perspiration of a non-Muslim man or woman who converts to Islam automatically become pure. As for the garments, if they were in contact with the sweat of the body before conversion, they will remain unclean…It is not strictly prohibited for a Muslim to work in an establishment run by a Muslim who employs Jews, if the products do not aid Israel in one way or another. However it is shameful [for a Muslim] to be under the orders of a Jewish departmental head.
“a political order from Islam and must be adhered to by the followers of Islam, and the goal [was] to promote general hatred toward those who are outside Muslim circles.” This "hatred" was to assure that Muslims would not succumb to corrupt, i.e., non-Islamic thoughts.
To much of Islam, the United States represents the powerful successful non-believer.
Daniel Pipes when asked why Islamic radicals attacked the United States (CNNfn: Moneyline News Hour August 29, 2002) answered:
You know, it's in the nature of all totalitarian movements, all radical utopian movements, like the Fascists, the Communists, and now the Islamists, that sooner or later they get the United States in their sights as the most dangerous enemy they have. And we're dangerous by virtue of who we are, not necessarily what we do. By our democracy, our individualism, our consumerism, our commercialism. And totalitarians can't abide that because, among other things, it is an enormous temptation for their own people. So they have to get rid of it.
Mosques teach the faithful that the practices of the non-believer are
evil. For example the Khalid Bin
Al-Walid Mosque of Toronto has a web site in which it is written:
"Allah and his messenger have warned us against
following or imitating non-Muslims in things which are characteristic of their
religion or beliefs. This is more emphasized in the case of their eids
[festivals] or occasions, which always hold some religious or ideological
non-Islamic meanings, and on which the kuffaar indulge in many evil
practices."
What are these evil holidays
in which the Kuffaar (non-believers) engage in “many evil practices”? Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years,
Halloween, birthdays, New Years are among them. (National
Post 10/4/07)
Christians called those who disagreed with their doctrine heretics and created paranoia toward them. The following paragraphs about this are from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Heresy, in the sense of falling away from the Faith, became possible only after the Faith had been promulgated by Christ. Its advent is clearly foretold, Matt., xxiv, 11, 23-26: " . . . many false prophets shall rise. and shall seduce many. . . . Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall rise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. "Christ also indicated the marks by which to know the false prophets: "Who is not with me is against me" (Luke, xi, 23); "and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican" (Matt., xviii, 17); "he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark, xvi, 16). The Apostles acted upon their Master's directions. All the weight of their own Divine faith and mission is brought to bear upon innovators. "If any one", says St.Paul, "preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema" (Gal., i, 9). To St. John the heretic is a seducer, an antichrist, a man who dissolves Christ (I John, iv, 3; II John, 7); "receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you" (II John, 10). St. Peter, true to his office and to his impetuous nature, assails them as with a two-edged sword: " . . . lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction . . . These are fountains without water, and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved" (II Pet., ii, 1, 17). St. Jude speaks in a similar strain throughout his whole epistle. St. Paul admonishes the disturbers of the unity of faith at Corinth that "the weapons of our warfare . . . are mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God . . . and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience" (II Cor., x, 4, 5, 6).
What Paul did at Corinth he enjoins to be done by every bishop in his own church. Thus Timothy is instructed to "war in them a good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith. Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme" (I Tim., i, 18-20). He exhorts the ancients of the Church at Ephesus to "take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, . . . I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock . . . Therefore watch, . . ." (Acts, xx. 28, 29, :31). "Beware of dogs", he writes to the Philippians (iii, 2), the dogs being the same false teachers as the "ravening wolves". The Fathers show no more leniency to perverters of the faith. A Protestant writer thus sketches their teaching (Schaff-Herzog, s. v. Heresy): "Polycarp regarded Marcion as the first-born of the Devil. Ignatius sees in heretics poisonous plants, or animals in human form. Justin and Tertullian condemn their errors as inspirations of the Evil One; Theophilus compares them to barren and rocky islands on which ships are wrecked; and Origen says, that as pirates place lights on cliffs to allure and destroy vessels in quest of refuge, so the Prince of this world lights the fires of false knowledge in order to destroy men. [Jerome calls the congregations of the heretics synagogues of Satan (Ep. 123), and says their communion is to be avoided like that of vipers and scorpions (Ep. 130).]" These primitive views on heresy have been faithfully transmitted and acted on by the Church in subsequent ages. There is no break in the tradition from St. Peter to Pius X
The punishment for heretics is described by the Catholic Encyclopedia as follows:
The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake. Paul III (1542) established, and Sixtus V organized, the Roman Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office, a regular court of justice for dealing with heresy and heretics (see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS).
It is interesting to note that from the Jewish point of view Jesus was a heretic. Many Christian antisemites hate the Jews because of the belief that the Jewish leaders reported Jesus to the Roman authorities yet the Christians killed and tortured heretics. At least the Jewish leaders had the excuse that they were supposed to report all sedition to the Roman authorities and would have been killed by the Romans if they did not report Jesus. We don't know with certainty if the Jewish leaders reported Jesus to the Romans at all, the Romans must have known about him because of the large following that he had. In fact when the Romans killed him they called him the "King of the Jews".
3) Finding a scapegoat for the failures of the religion. (Protecting self esteem by blaming others)
According to Yossef Bodansky, in his book Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument:
The Jewish conspiracy is the most effective excuse and justification of Islamist leaders about the backwardness of the Muslim World-the loss of power and economic failures vis-a-vis the West. All of these calamities, they argue, are because of a Jewish-dominated global conspiracy aimed to eradicate Islam. Being a divine way of life, Islam is expected to have an answer to everything. Therefore, the troubles from which the contemporary Muslim society is suffering must be due to nonbelievers and to plots-primarily by Zionists.
According Andrew Bostom, one of Islam's oldest and most respected Sunni historians, al-Tabari (d. 923), taught that a renegade Yemenite Jew, Abdallah b. Saba, infiltrated the Muslim faith, propagated false teachings (Shia Islam) and launched the split between Sunnis and Shiites.
Ralph Peters in an article called "The Tragedy of the Arabs" (New York Post 3/30/03) wrote:
Without the United States - and, of course, Israel - as excuses for Arab political squalor, Arabs might have to engage in self-examination, to ask themselves, "How have we failed so badly?"
They prefer to blame others, to sleepwalk through history, and to cheer when tyrants and terrorists "avenge" them.
On one level, Arabs know that Saddam Hussein is a monster. They know he has killed more Arabs than Israel ever could do. Saddam has been the worst thing to happen to Mesopotamia since the Mongols razed Baghdad. But Arabs are so jealous and discouraged that they need to inflate even Saddam into a hero. They have no one else.
Many Christians reacted to criticisms of Mel Gibson's Passion movie with paranoia.
Rabbi Benjamin Blech in an article titled "The Passion, The Movie and the Aftermath" (3/9/04?) wrote how after he saw the Passion a woman asked him what he thought of it. He replied that the movie was very violent. She angrily said to him: "You must be Jewish. Jews are always going to find fault, with a story that tells the truth about our Lord!" There have been numerous Christian articles claiming that those who attack the Passion are really against Christianity. Although that may be true in some cases, in some cases the criticisms are out of genuine concern. One case in point is that of Sister Mary Boys, a professor at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, who was part of an ad hoc group that was asked to read an early screenplay, and who publicly warned that it could inflame anti-Semitism. Rabbi Blech wrote about the Christian reaction to her as follows:
The result? Sister Boys said that not only was Gibson furious but since the group made those criticisms, she and other members have been attacked by supporters of the movie as "anti-Christ, the arrogant gang of so-called scholars, dupes of Satan, forces of Satan and other terms that I cannot use in polite company.
Recently created religions show the same disturbing tendencies as Christianity and Islam. For example Scientology calls nonbelievers the "enemy". In addition religions often inculcate a feeling of superiority toward the nonbeliever. Part of Christian doctrine was that God rejected the Jews and chose them instead because the Jews killed Christ. Scientologists derisively term people outside Scientology "Wogs" or as Hubbard defined them, "common, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety humanoids." (See, Tom and Nicole Split, a Question of Faith).
The motive to create paranoia to
those who challenge the faith extends to those who challenge the faith of
others in oneself. For example paranoia was created to Israeli
journalists who reported Palestinian criticism of the corruption of a local
Fatah leader in Bethlehem (Palestinians: We'll kill Israeli journalists who
enter Bethlehem, by Arieh O'Sullivan and Lamia Lahoud Jerusalem Post Feb 13,
2001). Following the report, the Bethlehem Fatah movement published an
announcement intended to clear Hamid's name, saying that the corruption charges
were planted by "external agents interested in splitting the Palestinian
street and the Fatah leadership." The Bethlehem Fatah movement created
paranoia to the Israeli journalists in order to discredit them. This also
falls under the category of creation of paranoia to remove a threat which is
discussed in my article.
6) Islam’s Need to Create
Paranoia to Sustain Jihad
Nonie Darwish in a speech to the Heritage
Foundation which can be viewed
online said:
Jihad is defined by Al Azhar University which is the oldest Islamic
University in Cairo over a thousand years old this is the definition of
Jihad. It's a permanent war instition
against nonbelievers Jews Christians and Pagans. Permanent war institution.
To maintain this permanent Jihad a villain must always exist as a reason
and motivation. Thus we get a culture
dominated by anger hatred pointing fingers and being constantly offended.
Islam
promises men the reward of virgin beauties in paradise if the kill the
non-believer. In order to provide
additional motivation for Muslims to kill they are shown videos depicting tortured and
slain Muslims that are now on
the internet. Although Muslims are slain in conflicts with
non-Muslims I have not heard reports of torture of Muslims other than by other
Muslims it is likely Muslims are
accusing the United States and the Jews of committing these atrocities. Videos of Muslims committing atrocities can be seen here.
4) Creating Paranoia to Create Pride
Mark Juergensmeyer in an interview by the New York Press (Jihad 101 11/28-12/4/01) said how Dr. Abdul Rantisi, the political head of Hamas told him:
Don't think we're fighting for land. We're fighting for pride.
In the same interview Juergensmeyer writes how Mahmud Abouhalima told him the story about a lion who was raised by sheep. One day the lion went to a pond and saw his own reflection and then he suddenly realized he wasn't a sheep he was a lion. He said that is what Islam taught him -- that he wasn't a sheep, he was a lion. This exhilarating sense of empowerment came with feeling he was part of a great struggle. He was a warrior. A fighter.
IIb Religions Creation of Oppressors
Religions such as Islam command their adherents to subjugate or kill the non-believer. Non-believers are not going to walk like lambs to the slaughter at least not all of them. Some will fight back with the result that there will be dead Muslims. An unfortunate but very common human trait is to forget one's responsibility for disasters. So Muslims are likely to forget their responsibility for the violence that led to the defensive action of the non-believer that led to the dead Muslims. That would be hard on their self esteem. They are much more likely to view the defensive action as an aggressive action of the non-believers against them. Then they become the heros fighting the evil non-believer oppressor. That much better for the self esteem. This is illustrated in a cycle diagram on this web site.
This cycle to a large degree explains the view of many of the Arabs that the Israelis and the Americans are the evil oppressors. The Arab propaganda directed toward the West doesn't argue this of course and instead argues that the Israelis are brutal oppressors and that they are fighting for their freedom. The falsity of these claims is discussed on the Arab Propaganda page of Americans For A Safe Israel.
Muslims have a long history of enslaving other people in fact they enslave blacks today in the Sudan and they sold enslaved blacks to Europeans who shipped them to America. Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, however, accuses Jews of being involved in the slave trade. The majority religion of the ship owners were Christian however there were some Jews who owned some of the ships. There were also some Jewish slave owners. However the paranoid picture painted by Louis Farakhan differs greatly from reality. We get a picture of reality from Oscar Straus who wrote as follows: (We lived there too (Kenneth Libo and Irving How)
In our town, as in all Southern communities, the better families were kind, especially to their household slaves, whom they regarded as members of the family requiring guardianship and protection, in a degree as if they were children. And the slaves addressed their masters by their first names but always preceded by Mr. and their mistresses as “miss.” My mother, for instance was Miss Sara. I recall one of our servants pleading with my mother: “Miss Sara, won’t you buy me? I want to stay here. I love you and the white folks here, and I am afraid my master will hire me out and sell me to someone else.” At that time we hired our servants from their masters, who we paid an agreed price. But, as the result of such constant pleadings, my father purchased household slaves one by one from their masters, although neither he nor my mother believed in slavery…
Creation of Paranoia to Gain Influence
Alan Dershowitz wrote an article about creation of paranoia by the modern Catholic church. He wrote:
An essential aspect of Christian teaching, and especially of Catholic teaching, is the important principle that distingusihes between intentionally killing an innocent person, and unintentionally killing an innocent person in the process of legitimately trying to prevent harm to one’s self or others. This concept, known as the principle of double effect, is central to Catholic theology. It traces its roots to Thomas Aquinas and has had enormous influence on moral thinking not only within the Catholic Church, but throughout Christianity and indeed in the secular world as well. Understanding and complying with this principle may literally mean the difference between eternal damnation and eternal salvation. That’s how important it is.
Except, apparently, when it comes to the Jewish state of Israel. Then suddenly moral blindness makes it impossible for church authorities to see, understand or apply this principle. Cardinal Martino is not the first church leader to try to create moral equivalence between the actions of Hamas in willfully and proudly trying to kill as many Jewish children, women and other civilians as possible, and the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces in trying to stop them from killing Jewish children, while inadvertently killing some Palestinian civilians who are used as human shields by Hamas. The Pope himself has been guilty of invoking such moral equivalence between these very different actions. Indeed it is fair to say that the Vatican’s entire approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict has been to suggest a false moral equivalence.
Church leaders know better. They understand precisely what they are doing. They are making utilitarian, pragmatic and very anti-Catholic cynical judgments calculated to bolster the influence of The Church in the Middle East.
The odd aspect of this is that Christians are persecuted throughout the Middle East by Muslims. It may be that the church hopes to protect Christians in the Middle East by attacking Jews. Since many Christians view the Jews as evil killers of Christ it is easy to blame the Jews for Muslim attacks on Christians. If we only attack the Jews too, the Church leaders may reason, the Muslims will not associate us with them and treat us well.
IIB Use of Religion to Create Paranoia:
The accusation that the Jews were planning to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque has been used to repeatedly incite Arabs to violence against the Jews. In August 20 such incitement led to assaults by Arab gangs which included massacres in Hebron, Safed and Jaffa where elderly, defenseless people were tortured and murdered. (Years of Wrath, Days of Glory, Yitshaq Ben Ami 1983)
According to the Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin (Aug. 26, 2004):
On
Aug. 21, 1969, a non-Jewish Australian named Michael Rohan set fire to
the podium of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Israel arrested and tried the mentally
deranged arsonist.
For years, the PA has been portraying this as a Zionist attack on the
mosque. This week, a special program dedicated to the issue described the
incident as a premeditated attack by the Israeli government. According to this
broadcast, Israel conspired with the arsonist, then deliberately allowed the
fire to spread by delaying the arrival of fire engines and cutting off water to
the site.
The PA version of events -- this week and in previous years -- also states
that then-Prime Minister Golda Meir referred to the fire as both the
"hardest" and "happiest" day of Israel's history: the
hardest because she feared the incident would lead to an attack by neighboring
Arab countries, and the happiest because such an attack never occurred. One
account from 2001 even claimed that Meir "laughed" when there was no
attack.
Here is an example of the Al Aqsa accusation from a PA sermon in 2010
As is usually in these types of paranoia creation those creating the paranoia are guilty of doing the same thing to their enemies. The Muslims have dug near the Al Aqsa mosque and the dirt from their digging was full of Jewish artifacts. In fact a law suit was filed against the Muslims for damaging Jewish antiquities.
The Saudis post online sermons that incite according to Dore Gold author of Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism. (Response summer 2003 V24 #2)
The sermons advocate ongoing religious conflict with Christianity and Judaism, described as the camp of blasphemy and polytheism.
IIC Creation of Paranoia to Reduce Shame
I read an interesting hypothesis for one of the causes for Nazi anti-semitism on a website called All the Emperor's Men which was that blaming Germany's defeat on a Jewish conspiracy reduced the shame of having lost. Garry Greenwood the author of the web page wrote:
Possibly the most frightening and devastating facet of Adolf Hitler's blueprint for world power had already come into his possession as early as 1919. For it was around then that the supposed records of the proceedings of the World Congress of Jewry, held in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897, had been recently smuggled out of Russia, where they had been secretly kept till then, and published in Germany and other countries. These published proceedings are known as "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", and purport to be the resolutions and plans of a Jewish conspiracy for world domination....
The recently defeated German nation soaked up the contents of "The Protocols" like a dry sponge, since they explained, to them at least, why their powerful nation had suffered such a bitter defeat in World War I. From "The Protocols" they perceived how they were the victims of a global world conspiracy, and this allowed the Germans to place the blame for every conceivable woe rightly upon the shoulders of the Jews.
The Japanese school system hides from Japanese children the atrocities Japan committed before and during World War II. Garry Greenwood wrote:
Immediately upon their surrender, the Japanese army, which was in charge of the education system, totally erased all reference to and information regarding Japanese aggression, occupation and atrocities committed during the war. All documents and films recording their recent holy war were confiscated or destroyed. Nowhere, particularly today, will you find any Japanese reference to what their army did in the years leading up to 1945. This means most Japanese born after that year, which probably amounts to around 75 percent of the population, are almost totally ignorant of these facts. No Japanese under 50 will have any knowledge of the infamous "Rape of Nanking", the Baatan and Sandakan death marches, and so on. I have asked several Japanese Mahikari members if they are aware of the infamous "Rape of Nanking", and they have all answered in the negative. However, the Japanese have been told of their struggle to halt foreign imperialism, and how this struggle resulted in the fire-bombing of Tokyo in which 200,000 people were incinerated, plus the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the use of atomic bombs.
Thus the Japanese erase their shame and create paranoia to the rest of the world, paranoia that some day may lead to war.
When the hero of the Arab world, Saddam Hussein was capture in a hole after not firing a shot this was a day of sadness and intolerable shame for the Arab world. As a result they generated conspiracy theories such as Saddam having been drugged before he was captured so that he couldn't resist and so on. Perhaps the most creative conspiracy theory was written about by Robert Spencer in frontpagemag.com as follows:
Have you heard? Saddam Hussein is in Tel Aviv. He has been an agent for the U.S. and Israel since 1980, and followed instructions given him by George W. Bush himself in a phone conversation last winter about how to behave when American troops entered Iraq. The capture of Saddam was an elaborate charade designed to bolster the flagging morale of American troops in Iraq. The bearded, broken man who was captured wasn’t Saddam; any keen observer would know that Saddam had a mole or wart on his cheek, but that the crude double in the hands of the Americans has no such mark. What’s more, in the footage of Saddam’s hideaway, the foliage is from late summer! Clearly the Americans are trying to fool us with months-old archival footage that has nothing to do with Saddam at all!
Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay, meanwhile, are in Monte Carlo, continuing to live the high life. American troops spirited them out of the country and staged their deaths in order to demoralize the Iraqi resistance.
There apparently is shame in the
Arab world that Muslims are fighting Muslims and that their heroic role model
Al Qaeda is attacking other Muslims. How does a Muslim rid oneself of
this shame? By blaming the Jews of course. This may explain why the
Palestinian newspaper, Al Quds ran an
article on March 23rd which quoted a Saudi official as saying that "world
Zionism" was behind Al Qaida. Salah Zahrani, chairman of the Saudi
Consultative Council's security committee told a lecture in Riyad that world
Zionism has fueled Al Qaida attacks throughout the world.
The idea being promoted is that the Zionists
sowed confusion among the Al Qaida leadership when they killed Al Qaida's real
leader, Abdullah Azzam. The Mossad killed him because he wanted to bring
Islamic holy war from Afghanistan to Palestine.
Since then, world Zionism has supplied Al Qaida
and deceived its membership into attacking Islamic countries. Zahrani pointed
out that Al Qaida has never conducted a major attack against the Jewish state.
He also said Saudi security forces have found a Mossad link with Al Qaida,
which has received weapons supplies from Israel. (Palestinian
Clan Battles, Frontpage Magazine.com 3/28/2006)
The Islamic faith says that Muslims are to be dominant to infidels. Muslims feel shame when they do not achieve the dominance they are commanded to achieve. Kenneth Levin, a psychiatrist who authored the Oslo Syndrome Delusions of a People Under Siege, said that the impulse to Islamic indoctrination of the Jews:
which is also directed to a lesser degree against Christians and other groups, lies largely in Arab xenophobia and the dominant self-perception - advanced by both Islamist and secular regimes - of being a people whose rightful superior place in the world has been stolen from them by the evil machinations of others. (Purifying Allah's Soil, Frontpage Magazine 1/27/06)
David Gutmann, in an article titled The Arab Lie Whose Time Has Come (frontpagemag.com 4/21/04) wrote that many Palestinian Arabs fled in 1948 and about how they've rewritten history to make it appear that they were brutally driven out of their homes. He wrote:
The Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women... To relieve their shame they stridently and continually demand that their unsavory history be rewritten and reversed.
After Al Qaeda bombed Jordanian hotels and killed many Muslims including the fathers of a couple having a wedding many Jordanians blamed Israel even though Al Qaeda took "credit" for the bombing. They didn't want to believe that Muslims would do such a thing. (New York Times, 11/12/05) On Nov 13, an Iraqi woman confessed to being part of the suicide plot on Jordanian TV (Excite News 11/14/05).
The more shame a group has the more it has to defend its honor.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a speech at Columbia University, in which he assured the audience that there are no gay people in his country. Joseph Masad a professor at Columbia said that:
“Queer is an imperialist term. It is part of the Anglo-American gay agenda... queer is an example of cultural imperialism.”
IID Creation of Paranoia to Avoid Facing a Threatening Reality
Korea:
South Korea faces a very threatening situation from North Korea. North Korea has enough conventional weapons
trained on Seoul to annihilate it and has exploded a nuclear bomb. The United States is probably the only
barrier preventing war with the North. Many
South Koreans would like to believe that the North really isn’t that bad and
that the problem is the United States and if the South just helps out the North
economically and perhaps merges with the North into a single Korea all will be
well. One can speculate that blaming
the United States is desirable because the United States is a lot less
threatening and also because it’s easier on the self esteem to blame the
Caucasians then their people of their on race.
In an article titled Cracking the Hermit Kingdom, Gordon Cucullu and
Joshua Stanton wrote: (frontpagemagazine.com
10/24/2006)
To their everlasting shame, many in South Korea
choose to live in cognitive dissonance and outright denial about conditions
inside their northern neighbor. Many South Koreans dismiss reports of grave
human rights abuses as “U.S. propaganda,” and dispute reports of conditions
within North Korea’s gulag, to include the reported experimental poison gas chamber at Camp 22.
Britain:
Britain
faces the same Islamic threat as the rest of the western world. The underlying reasons for this are that
Britain is a largely infidel country that is not governed by Sharia and the
support Britain has given the United States which the Muslim world considers
the Great Satan. The Muslims world
considers the United States the great Satan because it supports the “little
Satan” Israel and because it is a large infidel country not governed by Sharia
and because it overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan and is fighting a war
against the terrorist Muslims of Iraq.
Muslims hate the little Satan, Israel, because Israel is a free
democracy not governed by Sharia law and because of the hostility written into
the Koran and the Hadiths towards the Jews because they rejected Islam. Unless they submit to Sharia law and fight
for Islam, Britain will always be a target of Islamic terrorists. Israel is an ally in the war against Islamic
terror. This is a very undesirable
reality. It is much more preferable to
believe that the Islamic threat would disappear if Israel would disappear, or
at least if Britain did not ally itself with the Israel supporting United
States. It is much less threatening to
create paranoia toward the United States. To ease the guilt of allowing another
Holocaust of Israel it is much more desirable to see Israel as the Nazi-like
aggressor in the region that deserves whatever happens to it. It feels better to create paranoia toward
Israel. Melanie Phillips in an article
titled “Britain
is turning on the U.S. at its Peril” (USA Today, 10/24/2006) wrote:
Fury at Prime
Minister Blair for being President Bush's "poodle"
has reached such a pitch that the most successful Labor prime minister in
memory is being forced out of office because of his support for U.S. policy in
Iraq and Israel. Labor's members of Parliament say his refusal to break with
America by calling for an earlier cease-fire in Lebanon was the last straw. The
disturbing fact is that Britain is consumed by a rampant anti-Americanism and
an allied hostility toward Israel, which are driving public debate into irrationality,
prejudice and appeasement.
In a Populus poll last month in The Times of London,
62% said the government should change its policy by distancing itself from the
United States, being more critical of Israel and declaring a timetable for
withdrawing from Iraq. An August YouGov poll in The Spectator magazine
revealed that … only 14% supported closer U.S. ties…
The
biggest single cause of British anti-Americanism, however, is Israel. Despite
being the target for more than half a century of genocidal Arab and Muslim
aggression, Israel is widely perceived in Britain as the regional bully, and
its acts of self-defense are viewed as the principal motor behind both the
Middle East impasse and Islamic grievance because of its supposed refusal to
allow the Palestinians to have a state of their own.
Thus John
Denham, chairman of the parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee, wrote that
Israel's policies were making Britain a target for terror. America brought the
9/11 attacks upon itself, goes this type of thinking, because of its support
for Israel — and the only reason Britain is now threatened by Islamic terror is
because of Blair's support for the United States…
A recent
report by the Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-semitism found that since
2000, anti-Semitism is on the rise in Britain. It is now common to read in the
news media, for example, that the Jews are engaged in a global conspiracy that
has subverted U.S. foreign policy to serve the interests of Israel and put the
rest of the world at risk. In April, for instance, The Independent
newspaper illustrated an interview on the subject of the "Israel lobby"
in America with a picture of the American flag in which the stars of the union
were replaced with the Stars of David. The headline: "The United States of Israel."
Thus the prejudice against America is inextricably conflated with prejudice
against Jews and the Jewish state.
The dismaying
truth is that, even after the suicide bombings in London,
America's defense of the free world against Islamic terror is widely viewed in
Britain as the cause of that terror. The paranoid bigotry that drives the jihad
— that the United States and its Jewish puppet masters make up a giant
conspiracy of evil — is being increasingly echoed within Britain's non-Muslim
population.
Europe:
Robert Wistrich in an interview (Outpost, Nov 2004) said that:
For now, Europe prefers to single out Israel, to pretend that if only the Israeli Palestinian conflict was resolved on Arab terms, terror would fade away...
The belief that pressuring Israel will end terror is a much more preferable belief to the belief that even if Israel did not exist, Muslims would commit acts of terror against Europe and that as they develop nuclear capability those acts of terror could involve nuclear weapons. The belief that showing hatred to Israel will make Europe popular in the Arab world is certainly less threatening than belief that until Europeans are Muslim, they are part of the Dar al Harb and therefore Moslems are commanded by Islamic law, to fight them whether Israel exists or not. According to Robert Wistrich
European policy toward the Arab world is de-facto appeasement. In some respects it reminds one of the 1930s. European Jews find themselves again caught in a very sensitive and potentially dangerous situation. If they support Israel in this constellation of European appeasement of the Arab world - and Muslims in general - they are increasingly treated as "warmongers" going against the political consensus. These are not only far-Left and far-Right accusations but also mainstream ones. They revive the old, seemingly unresolved question mark about the 'dual loyalties' of Jews.
Dr. Kenneth Levin, in an interview with Jamie Glazov that appeared in frontpagemagazine (The Oslo Syndrome 11/24/05) wrote about American self delusion in the face of the Islamic threat as follows:
Those
who unleashed the carnage of 9/11, as well as their supporters, have conveyed
in word and deed their grievances against America and their goals. They have
declared their deadly hostility not only to America’s military and diplomatic
presence in the Muslim world but to its cultural presence as well. They have
informed us of their determination to pursue a violent path to a recreated
Islamic caliphate cleansed of all Western "pollution" and to fight
for imposition of their Islamic rule worldwide. They have declared this a
religious duty. They have demonstrated there are no limits to the methods and
weapons they are prepared to use in their war.
Yet, while much of the American public quickly recognized the gravity of the
challenge, many have sought to recast the threat, to rationalize it, and to
urge policies aimed at appeasing the terrorists and their supporters in the
delusional hope of thereby rescuing the nation from the dangers it faces. Or
they have preferred to focus on particular, supposedly misguided, American
policies as having caused or intensified the threat. Indeed, blaming America is
the standard line in significant segments of American academia and media.
Among our political leaders, a number have urged us to compromise our answers to
the war against us by yoking our policies to European allies, to those even
more determinedly averting their eyes from the threat in the Middle East.
In the last Presidential election, one candidate, with the support of his
party, advocated subsuming our measures to the collective will of the United
Nations. The UN has routinely pandered to terror-promoting states and has
failed to respond forcefully even to acts of genocide. It has deemed Sudan and
Saudi Arabia fit for membership on its human rights commission, and it chose
Libya to chair that commission. Why political leaders would urge us to follow
the consensus of that body in fashioning our own actions in the war against
Islamofascism is difficult to fathom except as the delusional perspective of people
determined not to look honestly at the threats we face.
Averting our eyes from the actual challenge cannot help but sap our capacity to
fight the war in a manner that might minimize the losses we are yet to suffer.
While the U.N. puts human rights abusers on its human rights commission it condemns Israel. A powerful 5 minute video of the United Nations being condemned for this can be seen here. The United Nations published the Goldstone Report that accused Israel of crimes against humanity in operation Cast Lead against Hamas in Gaza. The following youtube video by U.N. watch discusses what's wrong with that.
Coptic priest Fr. Zakaria Botros, has been called by al Qaeda "one of the most wanted infidels in the world," issuing a 60 million dollar bounty on his head. Popular Arabic magazines also call him "Islam's public enemy #1". He hosts a television program, “Truth Talk,” on Life TV. When asked Muslim clerics and imams have such a difficulty discussing what Islam itself teaches and instead just attack you personally? he answered
I think the answer is obvious. The Islamic sources, the texts, speak for themselves. Muslims have no greater enemy than their own scriptures—particularly the Hadith and Sira—which constantly scandalize and embarrass Muslims. To date, I have done well over 500 different episodes dedicated to various topics regarding Islam. And for every one of these episodes, all my material comes directly from Islam’s textual sources, particularly usul al-fiqh—the Koran, hadith, and ijma of the ulema as found in their tafsirs.
So what can the sheikhs of Islam do? If they try to address the issue I raise based on Islam’s texts and sharia, they will have no choice but to agree—for instance that concubinage is legal, or that drinking camel urine is advocated. The only strategy left them, then, is to ignore all that I present and attack my person, instead.
Blaming Others Rather
than Facing the Truth:
Former
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as of 11/15/2006 has been making the effort
to warn the world about how serious the threat of a nuclear Iran is. He said regarding the Wests view of the
situation:
They really
think that this is a Jewish problem.
They think that the Militant Islamists hates the West because of Israel.
They've hated the West for hundreds of years before there was an Israel.
To view Netanyahu’s speech on video click
here. What much of the Western
world is doing is avoiding facing the reality that they are faced with nuclear
annihilation unless they fight Iran.
The way the West is doing that is by rationalizing that if Israel would
only disappear the threat from Iran would be diminished. They rationalize that if they just show the
Islamic world that they don’t like Israel and join the world in ganging up on
Israel the Islamic world will not be angry at them anymore and cease to be a
threat. Israel is one of the Infidel
Bastions against the threat of Islam.
That is a fundamental reason that the Arab world hates Israel. Ironically the world does not appreciate
Israel for this. On the contrary they
turn against Israel to avoid facing reality.
In March 2006, Mearshimer and Walt published an
article entitled "The Israel Lobby" in the London Review of Books
and on the Kennedy School's Web site. The paper asserts that a consortium of
American Jewish groups and individuals has conspired to undermine US national
security by forcing the US to support Israel in contravention of America's
national interest. Caroline Glick
wrote (The Jerusalem Post online 11/6/2006):
Sadly, the popularity of Walt and
Mearshimer's thesis is a consequence of a larger cultural phenomenon. Today
large swathes of people throughout the Western world wish to avoid the harsh
reality of global war at almost any price. This desire induces them to blame
any person or group they feel is forcing them to recognize this reality. And so
over the past five years we have been witness to malignant vituperations of
hatred directed against President George W. Bush, the neoconservatives, and the
Jews for their insistence on recognizing the reality of war.
Indeed, it is Bush's insistence on
recognizing the reality of war far more than the Democrats' refusal to accept
the results of the 2000 presidential elections that has fuelled the widespread,
obsessive and venomous hatred that Democrats heap on the president.
IID2 Creation of Paranoia to Prevent Hate
Paranoia creation is generally done to create hate not to prevent it. When the BBC created a drama about a Muslim being beheaded by a Christian (wnd.com 7/12/2008) they may have been trying to prevent hatred toward Muslims by showing that Christians are guilty of the same things. They may also be hostile to Christianity and trying to create hatred toward Christianity.
IIE Creation of Paranoia to Prevent Terror
Bat Ye'or in her book Eurabia wrote that fear of Arab retaliation against America has prompted Eurabians to distance themselves from America. She wrote:
George Bush's June 2004 visit in Ireland provoked hostile demonstrations. According to the Irish Examiner, the mayor of Shannon said that "the town's residents were being made into potential targets for a terrorist attack." Francois Heisbourg, director of the Paris Foundation for Strategic Research announced a future catastrophe with al-Qaeda soon gaining access to weapons of massive destruction, the extensive support it enjoys in the Arab world, and the lack of preparedness in teh targeted countries. He advises that Europe dissociate itself from America.
Of course the same fear prompts Eurabians to distance themselves from Israel. They fear massive terrorist strikes if they support Israel. Daniel Bernard, the French Ambassador to Britain called Israel a "shitty little country" and then asked, "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" Israel is not threatening to commit a terrorist attack against France, Arab terrorists are, yet the French are unwilling to blame the Arabs for fear of antagonizing them (Antisemitism, Israel's National Shame, frontpagemag.com 1/10/02).
IIF Creation of Paranoia to Prevent War
In Israel there are those among the Israeli left who believe that demonizing the residents of Judea and Samaria will help bring peace. If those residents are demonized, the reasoning goes, it will be easier to uproot them from their homes and turn the land over to the Arabs who will then no longer wish to fight Israel. One of the ways the residents of Judea and Samaria have been demonized is with accusations that they cut down Arab olive trees. In one case, leftist activist Yoel Marshak was caught in an Arab olive grove holding a saw. (Israel National News 10/12/2008)
Phyllis Chesler in an article about why Progressives blame the victim rather than the perpetrator (frontpagemag.com The Chesler Wars 6/18/04) wrote:
Progressives find it easier to blame the Israeli or American governments for their mistakes than to stare long and hard into the face of radical Islamist evil. People often blame the victim. It's more dangerous to blame the perpetrator. He might come after you too and he can only be stopped by a high-risk rescue mission or prolonged military operation. Finally, because people are also good, they prefer to look away from the matter entirely rather than endure the guilt they would otherwise feel for doing nothing.
IIFa Creation of Paranoia to be Loved
When a group is hated some members of the group turn against it in order to be loved by those outside the group. One of the most hated groups is the Jews and this phenomenon is used by the enemies of the Jews as propaganda. See even the Jews say it is a very convincing argument. David Solway in Frontpage Magazine asked:
Why are Jews—not all, of course, but a truly disconcerting number—so prone to turn against themselves and make common cause with those who, given the chance, would delight in their extermination?
Regarding anti-Israel Jews Solway wrote:
These are Jews who have used whatever means at their disposal to attack the very country that was founded to provide them with shelter in adversity, believing instead that Israel is the greatest obstacle to their dream of seamless assimilation. It is Israel, they feel, that stands in the way of their desire for acceptance by provoking the world’s undiluted animosity, and it is Israel, therefore, that must be resisted, denounced, contained and defeated. The sequel would then presumably lead to harmony and perfect integration into their host societies.
Jews have been persecuted throughout the world and throughout history, long before the modern rebirth of Israel but this fact does not prevent these Jews from shifting creating paranoia to their own in order to be loved by the rest of the world.
IIG Creation of Paranoia to Feel in Control
In an article titled Allah’s
England Daniel Johnson wrote about how many in England blame Israel for the
Islamic terrorism it is a victim of and blame British Jews if they don’t
condemn Israel. He wrote:
The
perverted reasoning goes like this: since Israel is at fault for inciting
Islamist terrorism in England, those who refuse to dissociate themselves from
Israel are acting against the British national interest.
Daniel Johnson gave an example of how the Muslims encourage
this line of reasoning. After an
al-Qaeda conspiracy to destroy up to five transatlantic airliners was discovered
Muslim politicians and organizations wrote an open letter to Tony Blair in
full-page newspaper advertisements. Under the heading, “Protect Civilians
Wherever They Are,” the letter slyly equated victims of Islamist terrorism in
the West with Lebanese or Palestinian casualties in the conflict with Israel.
It was, according to the signers, “the debacle of Iraq and now the failure to
do more to secure an immediate end to [Israeli] attacks on civilians in the
Middle East” that was putting “civilians at increased risk both in the UK and
abroad.”
Tom Bethel said in regard to the Europeans:
The
latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe
(at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism.
People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who
do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they
are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view
everyone must submit.
This is
why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of
European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around
them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have
chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red
rather than dead.
The Oslo accords were supposedly going to bring peace between the Arabs and the Israelis but were followed by increase terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Norman Podhoretz in an article titled Intifada II: Death of an Illusion (Commentary December 2000) wrote:
...any Jew of for that matter any non-Jew (and there was a small brave band of them, an unhappy few) who voiced skepticism about Oslo immediately got stigmatized as an enemy of peace. This made him the moral equivalent, if not the de-facto ally, of Arab opponents of Oslo like the Muslim terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah. Having been thus morally delegitimized, critics of the non-sacrosanct process were derided as well for their intellectual sins, accused of being too rigid to perceive that new developments had totally transformed the conflict between Israel and the Arab world.
The politicians who promoted the process may have discredited their opposition for various reasons including staying in power but they may have sincerely believed that they were protecting the peace by doing so.
IIG Creation of Paranoia To Feel in Control
Kenneth Levin, the author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege was interviewed by frontpagemagazine (The Oslo Syndrome 11/24/05). He was asked by Jamie Glazov:
Tell us how and why people under siege often end up internalizing the hatred against themselves and delude themselves about the malicious intentions of their enemies?
and answered:
They do so because they are eager to feel some control
over a painful situation which is, in reality, out of their control.
Chronically abused children - more specifically those subjected to parental
abuse - typically blame themselves for their victimization because to do so
supports a fantasy that if they reform, if they become "good," their
parents will treat them differently. To look at their predicament more
realistically would force them to accept their helplessness to change their
terrible circumstances, and children, and adults as well, prefer to fend off
acknowledging such bitter realities.
Similarly, within populations under chronic siege -
whether minorities marginalized, demeaned and attacked by surrounding societies
or small nations besieged by their neighbors - some will invariably seek either
to avert their gaze from the severity of the threat or rationalize the threat
and blame themselves or others within their community for the danger. Their
doing so reflects wishful thinking that if only they would reform sufficiently
the danger would be alleviated.
Israel has, at best, a capacity to respond effectively
to attacks by its neighbors; it does not have the capacity to end the Arab
siege, to force peace upon the Arabs. Peace, if and when it comes, will do so
on the Arabs' timetable, not Israel's. Unfortunately, all the evidence indicates
the Arab world is not about to choose genuine peace with Israel in the
foreseeable future. This lack of control over a painful situation led many
Israelis to embrace delusions of control; delusions that the right concessions
could not help but win peace from the Arabs.
In Israel the left blames the lack of peace on the religious and the right wing.
Kenneth Levin spoke about how Jews blamed each other in response to antisemitism as well. He said:
Among
those who have embraced aspects of the anti-Semitic attack but have stayed
within the community, it has been common to blame Jews on the other side of
economic or religious or social divides as the provokers of Jew-hatred. Thus,
in Europe in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was common for
German Jews to blame eastern European Jews for anti-Semitism, and secular Jews
to blame the hatred on religious Jews, and socialist Jews to blame the Jewish
bourgeosie.
IIIm1 Creation of Paranoia to Gain Power and Control
David Horowitz and Ben Johnson in their book, Party of Defeat wrote that:
General Ion Mihai Pacepa was the highest ranking intelligence official ever to defect from the Soviet bloc during the Cold War... During the Vietnam War, General Pacepa wrote Soviet intelligence "spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but ... as Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against he U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness."
Nor did this Soviet campaign to discredit the United States stop with Vietnam. As Pacepa explains: "The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the United States from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
The Soviets also channeled Islamism's Jew Hatred into anti-Americanism. Pacepa wrote (Symposium, the Terror War How We Can Win Frontpagemag.com Nov 15, 2004):
According to KGB theorists, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hate. Islamic cultures had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against America would flow naturally from their religious fervor. We had only to keep repeating, over and over, that the Untied States was a "Zionist country" bankrolled by rich Jews. Islam was obsessed with preventing the infidel's occupation of its territory, and it would be highly receptive to our dogma that American imperialism wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.
Ann Coulter wrote a book titled "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America." She told Worldnetdaily that her book explains how liberal politicians and reporters drag sob stories before the public eye and bemoan how Americans are being "victimized" by trumped-up injustices, all to further their plan to change America's culture, laws and government.
"Most Americans are normal, lovely, decent people, and they hear these wails of a liberal claiming to be 'offended, offended,' and their reaction is to go and provide comfort to the afflicted," Coulter explained to WND. "I want them to start noticing these are crocodile tears. … These people pretend to be victims in order to advance, attack, and oppress others."
Katherine Kirsten
wrote an article about the lynching of Gabriel Keith, an editor of the
campus newspaper and ex-marine who made the mistake of making a noose with his
sweatshirt drawstring with a note about missed deadlines. He
was fired and accused of bigotry.
We are angry," Lisa Dean,
president of Association of Black Collegiates, a student group, told the Star
Tribune for an article about the incident. "If we do not nip it in the bud, it
will spread and a lot of students may not want to attend this college because of
racism." At the P.C. circus' surreal climax, Keith unknowingly
walked into a protest rally where a crowd vented outrage at his bigotry.
Meanwhile, administrators scrambled to use the incident as a "chance to educate
our students."
Katherine Kirsten wrote: "Today, a favorite
college pastime is fanning the flames of grievance. Victimhood is a tremendous
source of moral power, and being outraged and oppressed is a sure bet to get
your picture in the paper -- displaying a look of grave concern for all
humanity."
During Barack Obama's campaign for president the racist comments and victimhood preached by his minister Jeremiah Wright, came to light. Ronald Kessler in an article for Newsmax (3/17/2008) wrote:
Juan Williams, a Fox News commentator and author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America,” tells Newsmax that Wright’s sermons reflect “the victim mindset that is so self-defeating in the black community and one that is played on by weak black leadership that chooses to have black people identified as victims rather than inspiring them as people who have overcome. In posing as victims, they say the most prejudiced and vicious things, not only about whites but about America. They call it theology. In fact, it’s nothing but bigotry.”
In an article in the Wall Street Journal Ronald Kessler wrote:
In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama's longtime minister, friend and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president.
Kathy Shaidle in an article titled Obama's Church: Gospel of Hate wrote how Wright's preachings are part of Black Liberation Theology. What is Black Liberation Theology? She explained:
The leading theorist of Black Liberation Theology is James Cone. Overtly racist, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African-Americans as the “chosen people.” In Cone’s cosmology, whites are “the devil,” and “all white men are responsible for white oppression.” Cone makes this point without ambiguity: “This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective,” Cone has written. “What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”
If whiteness stands for all that is evil, blackness symbolizes all that is good. “Black theology,” says Cone, “refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
One way Iran gains power in South America is by portraying the United States as causing the poverty there. FoxNews reported how Ahmadinejad did this when he spent much of his time lashing out at the United States on a visit to Nicaragua. According to FoxNews 1/16/2007
During a visit to a trash-strewn neighborhood in the capital of Managua, he told hundreds of Nicaragua's poor: "The imperialists don't like us to help you progress and develop. They don't like us to get rid of poverty and unite people. But the whole world knows that Nicaragua and Iran are together."
In 2006 the Hamas
terrorist group, won Palestinian elections. Abu Nasser a member of the Al
Aqsa's brigade, a terrorist competitor to Hamas, claimed Israel put
Hamas in power, and says his group is preparing a new terror onslaught as a
result (wnd.com
2/14/2007). Accusing Hamas of being a Zionist would be equivalent of
accusing Hitler of being a Jew-lover. It's possible that Abu Nasser
believes this since insanity in the Arab world knows no bounds, and it's also
possible that he makes this accusation because he is jealous of Hamas's victory
and he wants to be the dominant terrorist.
Muslim extremists rally the Muslim world by creating paranoia toward the West. A good from the movie Obsession can be viewed online. Glen Beck had a broadcast on CNN in 2006 that can also be viewed online and that also exposes Islamic incitement.
After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans many on the left jumped on this opportunity to blame Bush's environmental policies for causing the Hurricane as if the changes in green houses emissions during the few years he was in office were enough to cause a hurricane that otherwise would not have happened. It is likely that the left makes these accusations because they see Hurricane Katrina as an opportunity to smear the Republicans and win the Whitehouse after Bush. Ironically it was the environmentalists parties of the left that contributed to the disaster of Katrina since environmentalists sued to stop construction that would have helped reduce the damage of Katrina.
Another accusation about Katrina, was made by Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, who said:
“I heard from a very reliable source, who saw a 25-foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry.”
Minister Farrakhan made the charge Monday in Charlotte, North Carolina, where many of the hurricane’s evacuees had been taken (at federal expense). (Ben Johnson, White Devils Strike New Orleans, frontpagemag.com 9/15/05) In an official press release, racial separatist Malik Zulu Shabazz, head of the New Black Panther Party, described New Orleans thus:
“Wholesale police brutality is being waged against the victims of this natural disaster.” The police (sniper units) are using tactics to provoke attacks by Black residents as to substantiate their reasons of opening fire on groups of black males randomly and indiscriminately…According to Shabazz, “this is more of a racist occupation of subjugation rather than a relief effort.”
The creation of paranoia by Farrakhan and Shabazz appears to have the purpose of creating hatred of Whites and to motivate black people to attack white people. Perhaps the desire for power over white people motivates Farrakhan and Shabbazz. Perhaps another motivating force is power over black people since by making themselves leaders of the fight against a manufactured white enemy, they make themselves leaders of the black people.
One of New York City's most prominent Islamic leaders said that "greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House," Jews control the media, and Muslims are being tortured in Manhattan jails. (New York Post, 3/9/2006).
Muslims throughout the world have engaged in protests and deadly riots in response to 12 cartoons caricaturing Islam's prophet Muhammad published in September by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and three much more provocative images distributed by Ahmad Abu Laban, a Danish Imam and pro Al Qaeda leader of the Islamic Society of Denmark .
Muslim leaders have been unable to document where Ahmad got these images. One of those images was allegedly a picture of Muhammad looking like a pig. It turns out that the picture was really a faxed copy of a competitor at the annual French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise. ('Muhammad Cartoon' Proved Fake, WorldNetDaily 2/8/2006). This is probably an example of creating humiliation and paranoia in order to incite Muslims against the infidel and ultimately defeat and subjugate the infidel.
Abu Laban took the
images on a tour of the Middle East in December to rally support for his
protest against the newspaper and Danish government.
On October 6, 2007, Worldnetdaily reported
that:
Rampaging Muslims have killed 10 Christians,
injured 61 others, destroyed nine churches and displaced more than 500 people
in northern Nigeria, according to eyewitnesses – all because Muslim high school
students claimed a Christian student had drawn a cartoon of Islam’s prophet,
Muhammad, on the wall of the school’s mosque.
The rampage occurred Sept. 28 in the town of Tudun
Wada Dankadai, in Nigeria's northern state of Kano.
The Christian students at the school insist no one
ever saw the alleged cartoon, and furthermore that no one in the tiny minority
group of Christians would have dared such a feat, especially during Ramadan.
"How can we take such a risk when we know
that we are a minority and cannot stand [against] them?" Christian student
Shehu Bawa told Compass. "This is a lie created to have a reason to attack
us." …
One of the Christian students, Shehu Bawa, told
Compass his arrival on campus that morning was punctuated by shouts of
"Allahu Akbar" (Allah is Great) "all over the school." In
fact, he said, "The Muslim students were now attacking every Christian
student on sight….
"If you go around villages, you will see
people missing one hand or one foot," explained Rev. Obiora Ike. "Do
you think that's the result of an illness? That is the result of sharia
law."
More than 10,000 Christians have been martyred in
the region since the Islamic law was imposed in the region in 1999,
The Saudis have invested huge sums of money in Western Academia and in the Western Press in order to gain influence so that they appear as good as possible and those they dislike (the Jews) appear as bad as possible (Why is the Press So Anti-Israel)
When the Israelis restored the Hurva synagogue Palestinian Arabs engaged in riots and street violence targeting Jews in Jerusalem. The PA and Hamas claimed Israel's rededication ceremony was a threat to the al-Aqsa Mosque even though the synagogue is not connected to the Mosque.. Hamas called for a "day of rage," prompting Palestinians throughout eastern Jerusalem to hurl stones at police. There were also reports of rocks and Molotov cocktails aimed at Israeli buses.
III) Creation of Self-Humiliation and Paranoia to Gain Power and Control
Rory Miller and Ephraim Karsh in an article titled Europe’s
Persecuted Muslims wrote how Muslims portray themselves as victims to gain
power. In fact they portray themselves
as being targetted by Europeans the way the Jews were targetted by the
Nazis. At the end of the article he
warns:
To
overcome their misplaced faith in multiculturalism and their negligent handling
of its baleful consequences, European leaders might make a start by refusing to
countenance any longer the idea that the experience of Europe’s Muslims today bears
any similarity to the Jewish experience under the Nazis. Until they are ready
to draw this fundamental and self-evident distinction, and to declare that the
concrete threat to European society stems not from “Islamophobia” but from the
refusal of substantial numbers of Muslims to integrate and to accept the
legitimacy of non-Islamic values, the Muslim grievance industry in Europe will
go from strength to strength. So too will its dogged struggle, under the cover
of alleged victimhood, to promote an Islamist political platform aimed
ultimately at undoing Europe itself.
Muslims often speak about humiliation by the West. It doesn't take much to get them to feel offended and humiliated. One Muslim decided that he swirling ice cream cone picture on Burger King ice cream resembled the name of Allah and went on a Jihad against Burger King. As a result they had to redesign their logo. One reason Muslims may feel humiliated is the Koran commands them to subjugate the non-believing infidel and the West is not subjugated. The writings of Hasan al-Banna, the founder of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood confirm this theory. He wrote:
Today the Muslims, as you know, are compelled to humble themselves before non-Muslims, and are ruled by unbelievers.
Ahmed Sheikh, granted an interview in
December 2006 with Pierre Heumann, the Middle East correspondent of the Swiss
weekly Die Weltwoche. He told
Heumann
“The Palestinian cause is central for Arab thinking.”
Heumann asked:
“In the end, is it a matter of feelings
of self-esteem?”
Sheikh replied:
“ Exactly. It’s because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the
people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about
7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That
hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every
Arab. The West’s problem is that it does not understand this.”
David
Gutmann explained muslim shame as follows:
The Arab response to their recently exposed backwardness is to feel
excruciating shame, and then to project or "export" their shame onto
those who in their eyes have inspired it.
And who better than the Jews? The Jews and particularly a relative handful of
Zionists have been humiliating the Arabs since the onset of modernity. They
have turned Arab deserts into fertile croplands, they have built flourishing
cities where there were once Arab hovels, they have recovered from a great
butchery to create science, industry and literature as well as a working
democratic state with a first-rate army - an army that routinely crushes
"the four corners of the (Arab) world in arms."
Ahmad, a young Egyptian pilgrim who works as a laborer in Qatar said during Hajj to Saudi Arabia (MSNBC 2/9/03)
America is not after Saddam. It is out to humiliate Muslims. It wants to dominate the region and leave Israel free to kill more Palestinians...I hate America. It is the cause of Muslim and Arab disgrace. If I were ever on a plane with an American on it, I’d hijack it. If I see them in the street, I’d kill them.
Usama bin Ladin spoke about the humiliation of the last 80 years by the West. It was 80 years since the west carved up the Ottoman empire which was the dominant Muslim power in the world up through World War I.
From an Islamic perspective Islam should reign supreme in the world and when that is not the case it is a cause of humiliation and paranoia. The fact that the little country of Israel has been able to exist despite the best efforts of the Muslim world must be very humiliating, first of all there are many more Muslims and Allah is supposed to help them in their jihad against Israel.
Hal Lindsay in his article Impact of Iraqi Defeat on Islam (Worldnetdaily 4/17/03) , explained that there is a religious source of the feeling of humiliation that the Moslems feel when they are defeated in battle:
The Koran teaches him that the Muslim warrior will be invincible when he fights in a holy war or jihad. They believe that it is a sacred duty to fight and recover any Muslim land that is taken by the infidel. This is especially true of territory that contains Muslim holy places like Jerusalem.
They believe that the Middle East is the heart of their world. Any incursion into that territory by Western forces is considered a new invasion of the "Judeo-Christian Crusaders" ...
Islam creates such a 'machismo' type of pride, that Muslims will do all kinds of irrational things to avenge its wounds. There is no way for the Western mind to understand the depths of anguish and humiliation Muslims feel because of Western defeats of their armies.
The humiliation Israel's military victories have inflicted on them is unbearable. And now the two rapid victories the United States has achieved over Afghanistan and Iraq have compounded the sense of humiliation.
Samuel
Anvil wrote an excellent article titled “What’s
Behind the Double Standard” 5/12/2004 explaining the cause of
Islamic humilation. He wrote:
You
see, in the Islamic view of things, the lives of infidel kafirs like us
(Christians, Jews and everybody else), are "worth" something between a
Moslem woman and a camel. I'll bet you didn't think there was room between those
two lowly categories to wedge a fingernail in, let alone the vast majority of
human beings on this planet, but there is. There's room for each and every one
of
us. It's another of Allah's miracles.
At the top of the heap are Moslem men, Masters of the Universe, the
purpose of all creation, the exclusive custodians of the eternal Truth, and the
people
whose feet we kafirs should all be kissing. Below them are Moslem women,
whose job it is to wash those feet. Below them, us, then camels and other useful
creatures like sheep that don't make too much of a fuss when a Moslem
man whips out his knife.
So when a Moslem man tears out another Moslem's fingernails and rapes
his daughters and slits all their throats, well that's just the way things are
in
Allah's dysfunctional little family. And when a Moslem man shoots dead a
pregnant dhimmi woman and her four daughters as they drive through a
part of the world he thinks belongs to him (and of course every square inch of
this
planet rightfully belongs to Moslems and to nobody else), well, that's his
natural-born right as Master of the Universe. Even the kafirs of Europe
don't dare deny him that right.
But if a kafir, a dhimmi, one of those so-called people whose role in this life
is to be properly submissive to and respectful of his Moslem betters,
should turn around and strike back, well that's completely unthinkable. It's
against
Allah's holy law. It's as though a wife should, perish the thought, hit back
when her husband beats her. It's a shameful humiliation, a travesty of
Allah's creation, it can't be allowed to stand, and it "fuels Islamic rage."
It's shameful and humiliating because what the dhimmi is saying when he
strikes back is that maybe, just maybe, Moslem men are not the pinnacle of all
creation, the reason why the whole universe exists. And when the dhimmi
creates a free society in which people have real hope of better lives, while
Moslem
men use their oil billions to create one hellhole country after another, the
dhimmi is saying: "Don't give me this crap about how wonderful you are, and how
Allah himself has chosen you to rule the world."
And that is a message no Master of the Universe wants to hear. Not from
his wives, not from his slaves (and yes, they do have slaves in this
twenty-first
Christian century), and certainly not from the dhimmis, the sons of pigs
and monkeys.
Emmanuel Winston in his commentary ISRAEL, AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MIDDLE EAST (Freeman center broadcast 2/27/03) wrote:
In
brief, an Arab Muslim, driven by Pride and Islam, believes himself
superior to all others - no matter how backward and low he may be
economically. Then there is the issue of Shame which, when one is in an
inferior position must be compensated by aggressive behavior. Islam and its
Koranic mandate to expand though any means, especially conquest, fills the
need to overcome Shame.
Al-Qa'ida spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith wrote an article titled "In the Shadow of the Lances" that was translated by. The Middle East Media Research Institute, see (Special Dispatch Series - No. 388 June 12, 2002 No.388) In the article Suleiman asked:
How can a Muslim accept humiliation and inferiority "when he knows that his nation was created to stand at the center of leadership, at the center of hegemony and rule, at the center of ability and sacrifice? … When he knows that the [divine] rule is that the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah – not to the East, not to the West – to no ideology and to no path except the path of Allah?…"
In order to gain the control and power that not feeling humiliated demands the Muslims create paranoia that the infidel is trying to gain control over them. One of the masterminds of the bombing in Bali, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim when asked why he didn't feel sorry for the Australian victims of the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, explained that the Australians are brutal. When asked why he considered Australians brutal he explained:
You can see from their attitude ... they come here, people such as Americans, the Jews and their allies. They want to colonize, not just to play. They want to control Muslim people. They make us weak and they take our people to bars. They want to control all of us, not just in Indonesia but all over the world.
Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammed, as of 12/4/01 is the judge of the Shari'ah court for the United Kingdom, the Secretary General of The Islamic World League, the principal lecturer of the London school of Shari'ah, the Leader of Al-Muhajiroun & the Spokesman of The International Islamic Front. He said regarding England:
"Our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer here and then we will live under Islam in dignity,"
Notice how he implies that Muslims are not living in England in dignity in the present.(New York Times 4/24/2004)
On his web page The Humiliation of Muslims by America the Sheik says that the United States uses the United Nations to exploit the third world. Like Osama bin Laden he ascribes American intervention in Somalia to imperialist and not humanitarian reasons. He then explains that the United Nations Charter is against Islam. He says that the UN propagates the Kufr (non-believer) ideology of Democracy. He criticizes article 1 of the United Nations Charter "...to bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law:" as follows:
The notion of international law is man-made and undeserving of recognition. Islam should constitute the only source of laws...
He criticizes article 2 of the U.N. charter which is "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples." by saying that:
Self-determination contradicts Islam because it too is based on nationalism and the supremacy of the people rather than Allah (swt). From another perspective, if there were an Islamic state none of its constituents would be given the option of seceding under the notion of self-determinism. The Khilafah will insure that all those living under it would abide by Islam and would seek to dissolve all artificial borders.
He criticizes article 4 of the U.N. charter 'All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations' as follows:
Islamic foreign policy directly collides with this article. Islamic foreign policy is based on carrying the Islamic Da’wah to the whole world.
David Gutman in an article titled Saving Arabs From Themselves (frontpagemag.com 8/12/05) argued that humiliation is a motivating force behind suicide bombing. He wrote:
The Arab world is suffering a crisis of humiliation. Their armies are routed not only by Americans, but also by tiny, Jewish Israel; and as Arthur Koestler once remarked, the Arab world has not, in the last 500 years or so, produced much besides rugs, dirty postcards, elaborations on the belly-dance esthetic (and, of course, some innovative terrorist practices). They have no science to speak of, no art, hardly any industry save oil, very little literature, and portentous music which consists largely of lugubrious songs celebrating the slaughter of Jews.
Now that the Arabs have acquired national consciousness, and they compare their
societies to other nations, these deficiencies become painfully evident,
particularly to the upper-class Arab kids who attend foreign universities.
There they learn about the accomplishments of Christians, Jews, (Freud,
Einstein, for starters) and women. And yet, with the exception of Edward
Said, there is scarcely a contemporary Arab name in the bunch. No wonder, then,
that major recruitment to al-Qaeda's ranks takes place among Arab
university students. And no wonder that suicide bombing becomes their tactic of
choice: it is a last-ditch, desperate way of asserting at least one scrap of
superiority—a spiritual superiority—over the materialistic, life-hugging, and
ergo shameful West.
Dealing with humiliation may be a reason for suicide bombing but Islam is the reason Muslims feel humiliated. If they are not dominant and do not rule the infidel as their religion commands they feel inadequate and ashamed.
Creation of paranoia and humiliation is a technique used to gain recruits for Jihad. Here is what the respected Islamic scholar and founder of the Islamic American University in Southfield Michigan, Dr. Salah Sultan said at the 1999 IAP conference in Chicago (Terrorist Hunter):
What does "the Cause" mean to you? And what does it mean to your children?...How much do they know about these tragedies? Did we mention to them that the Children of Zion over there cut open the wombs of mothers. As Khalid M. Ihalid mentioned in 1992 when he visited Shamir and saw on his desk a strange ashtray. He asked him, "What strange ashtray is this?" Shamir told him that this was the skull of an embryo. The skull of an embryo? An Israeli soldier opened the womb of a Palestinian mother, took out the embryo, cut off his head, and gave it to him as a present. He gave it to him as a present! This is the method of the Jews. Killing a Muslim or any other non-Jew does not matter to them. Because their motto is, "The gentiles mean nothing to us." This is what the text of the talmud says: "If you come across a non-Jew kill him!"
Dr. Sultan does not give the chapter and verse of the Talmud where this statement is made because it doesn't exist. However many such quotes regarding non-Muslims can be found in Islamic holy books. For example:
I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them. (Koran 8:12)
And
When the end days are near….the stones will talk to
Muslims telling them O'Muslim come ...come....there
is a Jew behind me....come and
slaughter him/her". (Hadith of "Prophet Mohamed" according to
ALBuchkary: ")
The latest article about Sultan as of 3/29/06 is in frontpage magazine.
According to a pamphlet called Secrets of the Talmud, The Talmud teaches Jews how best to demolish the world economy and gives Jews the right to take non-Jewish women as slaves and rape them. Isn't it interesting that the Koran gives Muslims that right!
Dr. Kenneth Levin, a
clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and a
Princeton-trained historian, and author of The Oslo
Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege had this to
say about Islamic humiliation:
The imposition of control by European colonial powers over virtually
the entire Muslim world represented, as Peter Raddatz suggests, a severe
narcissistic injury to Muslim self-image. In some respects, the establishment
of Israel, in the middle of the Arab world, represented even more of a
narcissistic injury, at least to the Arabs, in that Jews were perceived as
particularly low beings, given their traditional place within Islamic societies
and their traditional powerlessness, and so it was particularly disconcerting
to see Jews defeating the combined invading armies of surrounding Arab states
and building a viable nation. (Arab spokespeople commonly refer to Arab
humiliation at the hands of Israel, and their sympathizers in the West choose
to interpret this as having to do with security checkpoints set up by Israel
and other such steps. But Israel's very existence is experienced as a
humiliation in the context of Arab and broader Islamic self-image, even more so
as the incessant message in mosques, media, and schools has become that
Israel's existence is a violation of the natural order of things and it is the
obligation of Muslims to annihilate this abomination.)
Avram Hein wrote in frontpagemag.com (A Long
Time Threat 10/19/04)
According to Matthew Epstein, a lawyer and assistant director of the Investigative Project, the largest non-governmental organization devoted to researching the militant Islamic threat, the Islamic political leadership in the United States have parallels with the radicalization of the Islamic leadership worldwide, including “a ... conspiratorial belief that Western nations, led by the United States, aim to destroy Islamic culture” and “an acceptance that violence in the name of Islam is justified in the face of western aggression against the ummah (Islamic community).” Epstein points out that the institutional Muslim leadership in the U.S. has become anti-Western and anti-American. Numerous mainstream American Muslim organizations have portrayed U.S. counterterrorism policy as anti-Muslim in an attempt to weaken the legitimate and constitutional search for domestic terrorists.
Daniel Pipes in an article titled Cair's Hate Crime Nonsense, wrote: (frontpagemag.com 5/18/05)
Should you read Unequal Protection: The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2005, an annual report issued last week by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), you'll learn how the Muslim experience in America is worsening. Specifically, the number of "anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States" has gone up dramatically: from 42 cases in 2002, to 93 cases in 2003, to 141 in 2004.
Daniel Pipes investigated 20 examples given by CAIR and found 6 were false and wrote that further research would probably show problems with the others. He wrote:
Nor is this the first unreliable CAIR report; earlier ones were just as bad. Speaking about the 1996 CAIR report, terrorism expert Steven Emerson noted in congressional testimony that “a large proportion of the complaints have been found to be fabricated, manufactured, distorted or outside standard definitions of hate crimes.” The 1996 report included the arrest of Musa Abu Marzouk, a Hamas leader, and the trial of Omar Abdul-Rahman, the blind sheikh and ringleader of the foiled “Day of Terror” plot to blow up New York City landmarks.
Daniel Pipe's theory as to why CAIR creates paranoia in this way is
1) to scare its constituency, thereby raising more money; and
2) to put the American public on the defensive, thereby winning more privileges for Islam
Historically there have been situations where Muslims have been subjects to non-Muslims. This often was the result of their jihad against the infidel. European powers occupied Turkey, partly out of greed but also to protect the Armenian Christians from mass slaughter by the Turks. They were slaughtered in the end anyway but the point is that the doctrine of subjugation of the infidel and Jihad against him created subjugation of the Muslim.
There are many Muslims in Afghanistan who do not approve of the new freedom of women bought about by the American liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban. Women live in fear of what will happen to them if they vote. Farida an Afghan woman who is 23 and unmarried said that:
"My biggest fear is that if something happens election day, the whole town will talk afterward. There is already a general rumor that women who work outside the home are prostitutes to Americans or foreigners, that women who work outside the home lose their honor."
This rumor was probably spread by Muslims who do not approve of woman being free and who want to incite hatred against them so that they are afraid of voting and so that Muslim men can be in control.
An Afghan court on Tuesday sentenced a 23-year-old journalism student to death for distributing a paper he printed off the Internet that three judges said violated the tenets of Islam, an official said.
IIIA Creation of Paranoia to Maintain Power and Control
Natan Sharansky in his book The Case For Democracy wrote how regimes create enemies in order to maintain power and control. He wrote (p87)
During its seventy years, the Soviet regime used many enemies, external and internal, to stabilize its authority, but in its last four decades, none more so than the Jews. From the infamous Doctor's Plot, in which Stalin planned to blame Jews for trying to poison the Soviet leadership, to allegations that Soviet refuseniks like myself were Western spies, thwarting the "Zionist agents" was one of the regime's constant refrains. Though Hitler borrowed the concentration camp from Stalin, Stalin and his successors would learn from the German dictator that hatred for Jews could be the perfect glue to keep a fear society together, providing an "enemy" that was both internal and external, both old and new.
The former Soviet regime is certainly not unique in thinking that external enemies are the key to internal stability. For decades, the Assad family's Alawite dictatorship in Syria has used emergency laws to control the Syrian people, justifying these restrictive measures on the grounds that Israel threatens the security of the Syrian state. A half century after the Korean War, North Korea still demands from its people "iron clad unity under leader-party-nation" to keep the country safe from "external predators." And the Saudi family, by giving more and more power to the Wahabi religious authorities within its kingdom and more and more money to spreading their virulent form of Islam around the world, has used external enemies to whitewash its own decadent lifestyle and justify its repressive rule. While it was posturing in the West as a close ally of the United States and a force for stability in the Middle East, the policies of the Saudi regime were actually destabilizing the entire region by mobilizing millions for war against the West, Christians, Jews, and even fellow Muslims. Thus, the global spread of a fanaticism that now threatens our entire civilization is partly rooted in a non-democratic Saudi regime's need for internal stability.
Now we can see why nondemocratic regimes imperil the security of the world. They stay in power by controlling their populations. This control invariably requries an increasing amount of repression. To justify this repression and maintain internal stability, external enemies must be manufactured. The result is that while the mechanics of democracy make democracies inherently peaceful, the mechanics of tyranny make nondemocracies inherently belligerent. Indeed, in order to avoid collapsing from within, fear societies must maintain a perpetual state of conflict.
Non democratic societies have always been powder kegs ready to explode, but today the force of that explosion can be far more lethal than it was in the past. In an age of weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism, the dangers of ignoring the absence of democracy in any part of the world have increased dramatically.
[T]he virulent hatred that emanates from Egypt today is a perfect illustration of a dictatorship's use of an external enemy for internal stability. In return for signing a peace treaty with Israel, Egypt received the Sinai Peninsula that Israel captured during the 1967 Six Day War as well as tens of billions of dollars in aid from the United States - aid that helped Egypt upgrade the quality of its antiquated weapons systems. But in making peace with Israel, Egypt was also in danger of losing the "Zionist enemy" that had long helped the regime justify its repressive policies and excuse its immense failure to improve the lives of most Egyptians.... [T]he (Egyptian) regime's continuing need for external enemies has resulted in the indoctrination of yet another generation of Egyptians to hate Israel.
Putin's regime creates paranoia toward the West in order to maintain control. David Satter of the Hudson Institute explained that the Kremlin needs to “exploit the notion of a hostile West,” for domestic consumption, “the better to consolidate its own hold on power.”
In January 2010 a severe earthquake struck Haiti. The United States send in aid and troops to make sure the aid was distributed. Hugo Chavez the president of Venezuela told Spanish newspaper ABC that the earthquake was the product of a "tectonic weapon" launched by the U.S. Navy in a test-run for the U.S.' ultimate target: Iran. He also accused the United States of seeking a military occupation in Haiti. Chavez clearly does not want good feeling in Venezuela and in Latin America for that matter, toward the United States. Blaming the U.S. is probably a big component of how he stays in power.
China creates paranoia to anyone who advocates freedom for territories they have conquered or wish to conquer. China conquered Tibet and then had the nerve to complain to the United States over a decision to award exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama a U.S. Congressional Gold Medal. Afterwards China's state media lashed out at the Dalai Lama, accusing him of supporting "evil cults," such as Japan's Aum Shinrikyo and banned Chinese spiritual group Falun Gong. On Thursday, the overseas edition of Party mouthpiece the People's Daily said the Dalai Lama was involved in killing people during an uprising in the 1950s, in violation of Buddhist principles, and that he was a liar.
"The armed rebels set houses on fire, looted Tibetan people and raped women. What happened then still lingers in Tibetan people's minds today,"
said the commentary, signed by somebody called Shi Shan. (China Condemns U.S. Award for Dalai Lama, Reuters, MSNBC 10/11/07). I find it hard to believe that pacifist Buddhists and their spiritual leader the Dalia Lama would engage in violence let alone looting and raping Tibetans.
China has accused the Dalai Lama of colluding with Muslim terrorists to destabilise the country before the Olympic Games (The Times 3/24/08).
China considers Arunachal Pradesh which is now part of India
as belonging to
them. A Chinese military website that reflects official positions
observed that the border issue may be symbolic of how India looks upon China as
the "greatest obstacle" to its rise.
The website suggested that the border dispute over Southern Tibet constitutes a
security threat to China and that Beijing may need to adopt a strategy to weaken
control of the Indian central government.
China created paranoia to the U.S. when Hillary Clinton called for lifting of restrictions on the internet there. China said the criticism was false and threatened that it was damaging to bilateral ties. A state-run newspaper labeled the appeal from Washington as "information imperialism." (China lashes out at U.S. for internet criticism)
After the elections of 2009 in Iran there were widespread protests there of election fraud when Ahmadinejad was designated the victor. Manda Zand Ervin with the Alliance of Iranian Women in a message to President Obama said:
“Mr. President it is now proven to you and your advisors that no matter what you say or don’t say the Islamic regime in Iran, like all other dictators, will blame United States because without it they have no other reason for being in power. This is an inescapable fact. Your advisors also know that the Islamic regime in Iran will drag negotiations without any outcome the history has proven this fact. Now that the people of Iran have been able to use a window of opportunity to prove to the world that this regime is not their representative, standing with them, is the right political decision to make. Oppressed people have always looked to America for freedom.”
Egypt is “the Arab world’s biggest center of publishing anti-Semitic literature.” according to a report by the Tel Aviv-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. (Hatred Egyptian Style)
Nonie Darwish in a speech to the
Heritage Foundation spoke about the need
of Islamic regimes to create paranoia to maintain control.:
The mere existence of western democracies success is a
threat to these tyrannical religious and political regimes. Young Arabs and women see Western freedoms
on TV. Now the world is closer when I was growing up there was no satellite
dishes to show us what the west is all about we didn't have computers and
internet we didn't have cell phones and travel as much as we have now so we
were insulated. This jihad was kept
behind what I call the Arab berlin wall psychological wall that separated us
from the rest of the world. Now that
we are all intermixed and there is a lot of travel and immigration so a lot of
Arabs in the Muslim world are demanding we want the same we want to be like the
West we want democracy we want to vote they see the voting here and they see
our system they see two people running for the same office and one is winning
and at the end they shake hands. This
is unheard of in the middle east. I
never I lived for 30 years I never voted there was nothing called voting we had
a dictator and we all worshiped there were songs just to praise him all the
time on the radio wherever we go statues, it's not just Saddam Hussein go to
Syria and Gamal Abel Nasser his picture was everywhere wherever we went they
adored them they treated them like Gods.
The more Muslims citizens are exposed to Western freedoms the harsher
the criticism of the West by these radical Muslims. They are in a race. The
West is coming to them through all of these technology their people are boiling
and angry and want freedom and to suppress this human need for freedom what
they do they scare the hell out of them from the West and Israel. How long is
going to last I don't know They are in a race with their hate propaganda. The key to the survival of this system is to
maintain a state of total control over the minds of their citizens.
Omran Salman of the Middle East Media Research Institute wrote:
"The distortion of the image of the United States has become a political objective for Arab governments in their struggle for survival, and a tool to banish the specter of democracy and change in the Arab region."
Muslim creation of paranoia is not limited to the West, Sunnis for example create paranoia toward Shiites. The following is an excerpt from John Bradley’s book Saudi Arabia Exposed that illustrates this.
A decades long campaign by
the Wahhabi religious leaders, fully endoresed by the Al-Saud, has embedded in
the minds of young Saudis stereotypes prevalent among many Sunnis
elsewhere. Shiites, they were told, are not in fact real Muslims, and as
such are a constant subversive threat to the well-being of the nation.
The misinformation campaign alleged, falsely, that the Shiites believe Ali was
a prophet (a total negation of Islam, which says that Muhammad is the last
Prophet). It was also propagated that Shiites do not believe in the
universally accepted version fo the Qu'ran, because they have secretly added
chapters of their own. Meat slaughtered by Shiite butchers is not fit for
consumption, it was claimed. Sunni Muslims were even encouraged to shun
Shiites socially, with warnings like "Shiites will spit in cups of water
before they hand them over to Sunnis" and "inherent tenet of Shiite
belief is the absolute necessity of betraying Sunnis."
Even under King Faisal - the
most progressive, clear-headed and best educated of Saudi Arabia's kings - a
series of fatwas, or religous edicts, were issued that blindly condemned
Shiites as heretics (although during his reign Faisal personally removed many
restrictions against the Shiites and enabled them to benefit from state
educational and health services). Even today many local schools continue
to teach Shiite children that their sect is an apostasy from Islam, and even
part of a Jewish plot to sabotage the Muslim nation. In order to pass
certain examinations, they must damn themselves as infidels in the answers they
give to questions.
Fatah and Hamas create paranoia toward each
other. Both sides have chosen to accuse
the other of defiling the Quran. This accusation is very significant. When
American soldiers were accused of defiling the Quran in Guantanamo in 2005 it
sparked riots across the Muslim world.
Click to view Hamas defense of Islam video on
YouTube or PMW website
Click to view Fatah defense of Islam video on YouTube or PMW website
According to Palestinian Media Watch’s 9/5/2007 report
The anti-Hamas video
produced by Fatah is a medley of scenes of destruction in a Gaza mosque that
was attacked by Hamas gunman. The Fatah clip includes pictures of the dead and
interviews with the injured Islamic Jihad members who had been in the mosque.
The Fatah cameras focus on
the bloodstained floor of the mosque and on copies of the Quran, covered with
grenades and bullet casings, to blame Hamas for the desecration. The caption
makes the accusation, “Whose grenades are these?”
The Hamas clip is far more
creative, featuring high-quality animation in which the Fatah members are
depicted as rats wreaking havoc on Islam, while Hamas is a majestic lion. The
lion, with a strong resemblance to Disney’s character of the Lion King, arises
to defend Islam and defeat the Fatah rats. The rats are shown crawling over,
and burning, Islamic texts and the Quran. They also remove the veil from a
woman’s face and target mosques with machine gun fire and RPGs.
In Gaza, this is ratings gold.
"We received hundreds of letters from inside and outside [Gaza] asking for the program to be shown again," a network official told Agence France-Presse.
Frank Gaffney in article titled Putin’s Ploy wrote:
An enemy is required by every would-be totalitarian… For Vladimir Putin, it is us. By building up
the notion we are a threat, he is able to garner popular support for his
growing consolidation of power and even repression at home. He is also able to
justify a new military build-up and adventurism abroad…
A good way to understand this is to put oneself in the shoes of a dictator and imagine that one wanted power over other people so that one can have their money and they will do what one wants. You need them to think you are the greatest and all those who oppose you are the worst. The last thing you would want is your people to want freedom because then you can’t control them and if a country like the U.S. is an example for everyone of free happy people you have a problem. A country like the U.S. is a threat to your power, so you have the incentive to indoctrinate your population to hate the United States so that they will fight the any effort of the United States to remove you from power. You have the incentive to build up your military so that it will be too costly for the U.S. to fight you. You have the incentive to support enemies of the United States and make alliances with them. This behavior describes the actions of many dictators towards the United States through history.
If you are the leader of a religion and you don’t want your followers to leave the religion you don’t want them thinking that the non-believer is good. You have the incentive to portray the non-believer as bad. Islamic and Christian scriptures portray the Jewish non-believers as bad.
IIIA2 Religion's Creation of an External Enemy for Internal Stability
The same mechanism of creating an external enemy for internal stability may be at work in religion. I read how a Muslim preacher told other Muslims in a mosque, how just nearby in nightclubs Fatimahs and Muhammads are drinking and how this is bad and therefore everyone should strictly adhere to Islam.
The non-believer represents a threat to the conviction of believers and so making the non-believer an enemy is another way to maintain the internal stability of a religion.
IIIB Creation of Paranoia to Make Money
Kenneth R. Timmerman wrote a book called Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson about how Jesse Jackson used cries of racism to steal from individuals corporations and government, to give to himself. According to an editorial review of the book
Ken Timmerman has cracked Jackson's machine, found Jackson cronies willing to break ranks, and uncovered a sordid tale of greed, ambition, and corruption from a self-proclaimed minister who has no qualms about poisoning American race relations for personal gain.
Robert Spencer in
an article which discussed how CAIR creates false allegations of discrimination
against Muslims wrote:
Why would CAIR trump up hate
crimes? Because victimhood is big business. The Department of Homeland Security
recently unveiled a $24 million grant program for non-profit organizations who
are deemed high-risk for a potential international terrorist attack” – and CAIR
immediately issued an “Action Alert” urging American mosques to apply for money for surveillance and
security systems.
IIIc Assumption that if a Group is Persecuted they must be Guilty
Yashiko Sagimori tells the story of how: (Freeman Center Broadcast 7/13/04):
A friend of mine recently went to Hong Kong on business. His local associates invited him for dinner, and the conversation somehow turned to World War II. The host told my friend it was hard for him to believe that Germans had really killed 6 million Jews. My friend assured him that as incredible as it might sound, it was historic fact. The host responded,
“The Jews must have done something truly terrible if the Germans punished them in such a harsh way.”
IV) Assumption that Others are Evil leads to Assumption that they are Guilty
Ion Pacepa formerly head of Romanian intelligence said that:
"Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness"
An unfortunate consequence of this in the United States is that social services are likely to believe accusations of child abuse against parents when there is no corroborating evidence. In one such case a child was taken away from his family and social workers kept pushing the child's mother to say her husband molested their son, insinuating that such an admission would set her boy Josh free. In the end a judge released him because there was no evidence that there had been abuse. There are cases where the innocent defendants were not so lucky and still languish in prison.
Lawrence Auster, in an article titled The truth of Interracial Rape in the United States wrote about how the assumption that the white man is the evil oppressor leads those who believe it to believe baseless accusations against whites and to ignore evidence that the black man who they see as the victim is the victimizer. He wrote:
Like Ahab's search
for the Great White Whale, liberals' search for the Great White Defendant is
relentless and never-ending. When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley's and Al Sharpton's then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including
prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper
article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely
false, the Nation said it didn't matter, since the charges expressed the
essential nature of white men's treatment of black women in this country. When
the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper
last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as
with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to
reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America.
To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a
look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005.
(Go to the linked document, and under "Victims and Offenders"
download the pdf file for 2005.) …
In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. …In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.
America's involvement in the campaign to eradicate polio in Africa creates a cognitive dissonance in the minds of hostile Muslims. Why would evil America be giving life saving vaccines to Africans? Ibrahim Datti Ahmed, 68, a physician and president of Nigeria’s Supreme Council for Shari’a Law. Ahmed, an Islamist, solved that cognitive dissonance by charging that Americans of lacing the vaccine with an anti-fertility agent that sterilizes children (or, in an alternate theory, that infects them with AIDS) and considers them, according to John Murphy of the Baltimore Sun,
“the worst criminals on Earth … Even Hitler was not as evil as that.”
Daniel Pipes wrote (A Muslim Conspiracy Theory Keeps Polio Alive, frontpagemag.com 5/24/05):
The polio-vaccine conspiracy theory has had direct consequences: sixteen countries where polio had been eradicated have in recent months reported outbreaks of the disease – twelve in Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Sudan, and Togo) and four in Asia (India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen). Yemen has had the largest polio outbreak, with more than 83 cases since April. The WHO calls this “a major epidemic.”
The common element, the New York Times notes, is that incidents of polio are now located “almost exclusively in Muslim countries or regions.”
Christianity teaches that the Jews killed Jesus. William Nichols, in his book Christian Antisemitism, A History of Hate, writes how this assumption about the Jews led to further paranoia during the Middle Ages:
..hatred, fueled by and expressed through the ancient myth of Christ-killers, broke out in unbridled violence - sometimes under the leadership of venerated saints. Jews were massacred and tortured, and soon whole Jewish populations were expelled from countries where they had long resided. The imagination fo the Christian people began to devise far more deadly calumnies against the Jews than the theological offenses with which they had so far been charged. Most of them have survived in the popular mind ot the present day.
In this period, we first hear of the blood libel, the baseless accusation that Jews practiced ritual murder in order to consume the blood of their victims. Christians charged their Jewish neighbors with desecration of the consecrated host from the mass, and with poisoning the wells of Christians and causing the plague, the Black Death that ravaged Europe in the fourteenth century. Christian society denied the Jews all occupations except banking, and as a result they became the creditors of Europe. Soon, we begin to hear of Jewish love of money and Jewish skill at acquiring it. (As Israelis joke, Jews have not yet lost this reputation, in spite of the state of the economy of Israel.) This is the period from which classical antisemitism later drew its store of images of the Jew as evil, powerful in uncanny and magical ways: in the Christian imagination the Jew finally became the agent of the devil himself, the ultimate supernatural origin of all evil.
Nicolls asks:
What was going on in the Christian mind that could cause Christians to imagine and believe in such atrocious falsehoods?
In attempting to answer the question we are almost inevitably led to the notion of paranoia. Paranoia is a pathological condition, in extreme cases a form of insanity.
The Koran teaches that the non-believers are evil, especially the Jews. Therefore if Israel is fighting they must be the guilty party and must be committing atrocities. Osama Bin Ladin was quoted in the New York Daily News (Friday September 21, 2001) as saying:
The Jews are a people who Allah cited in the Koran as those who attacked prophets with lies and killings....They are a people who killed Allah's prophets. Would they not kill, rape and steal from humans?"
Osama Bin Ladin in an interview with John Miller of ABC News (May 1998) said:
Our mothers and daughters and sons are slaughtered every day with the approval of America and its support. And, while America blocks the entry of weapons into Islamic countries, it provides the Israelis with a continuous supply of arms, allowing them thus to kill and massacre more Muslims.
When the United States sent troops to feed the starving Somalis they were attacked. Osama explained the reason to Peter Arnett in an interview that took place in eastern Afghanistan in late March 1997. He said:
Resistance started against the American invasion, because Muslims do not believe the U.S. allegations that they came to save the Somalis. A man with human feelings in his heart does not distinguish between a child killed in Palestine or in Lebanon, in Iraq or in Bosnia. So how can we believe your claims that you came to save our children in Somalia while you kill our children in all of those places?
In January 2004, Israel exchanged 400 Arab prisoners for one live Israeli prisoner and the bodies of three dead ones. Instead of understanding that Israel's desire to save one of their own was behind this very foolish deal, Ahmad Nasser, Secretary of the Palestinian Legislative Council, in an interview broadcast Feb. 6 on PATV, said that the prisoner exchange is part of Israel's plan to show that a Jewish life is worth more than an Arab life, and proves that Israel is a "racist country" that "hates all the goyim, all the foreigners." I say foolish deal because there is no doubt that the released Arabs will commit terrorism again and that such deals will encourage kidnapping of Israelis. In fact Hezbollah threatened to kidnap more after the deal was carried out.
Drug use has increased in Egypt. Dr. Shahida Al-Baz said, in an interview on Iqra TV on Feb 10, 2005 that Israel was behind this. His reasoning (wnd.com 2/16/05):
"Although
some people say this is a conspiracy theory, it is not. The reality is that we
have an enemy. There is an enemy. Israel serves as a channel for drugs. Israel
profits from this financially, and at the same time corrupts our youth."
He believes Israel is behind it because it fits his other paranoid beliefs
about Israel.
V) Creation of Paranoia to View the Side One Identifies With as Good
After the United States liberated Iraq, Iraqis went on a wild looting rampage. They looted everything including Saddam's nuclear facilities even stealing barrels that used to hold uranium in order to store food. Yet many Iraqis refuse to admit that Iraqis were responsible for the looting. In an article called "City of Deadly Rumor" Jonathan Foreman writes: (NYPost 5/7/03)
Hussein an educated young man ... believes it is "the Kuwaitis" who did most of the looting here," in revenge for 1990-91.
It was the Kuwaitis who sent in free food to help the Iraqis after the war.
Foreman writes:
The daughter of one of Saddam's ambassadors...says "All the looters are Shia - they come from Iran".
During their first formal encounter with U.S. troops, community leaders in the poor Salhiya neighborhood insisted to Staff Sgt. Craig Hobbs of the 4/64 Scouts that it was U.S. Marines who looted the National Museum...one man claimed to have seen the flags on the soldiers shoulders...
Capt. Phil Wolford of the 4/64 Armored's Alpha Company has arrested and questioned hundreds of looters and thieves. "Every single one of them admitted to being Iraqi," he says.
This approach of blaming others
was also used by Arabs when confronted with evidence that Osama Bin Laden was
behind the attacks of 9/11. A month after the attacks, with Ground Zero
still smoldering, "CAIR
made outrageous claims that Mohamed Atta and other hijackers were alive,
that Atta's passport was stolen, that the attacks were not caused by Muslims,
and that the media should investigate the Israelis," according to the book
Muslim Mafia.
"What about the world Zionist network?" demanded CAIR's New York executive
director Ghazi Khankan. "Why are you in the media not looking at them?" Although the United States
kept its key evidence about Osama bin Laden's guilt secret, bin Laden himself
made a number of self-incriminating statements. Salman Rushdie in his
article "Yes This is About Islam" (Nov. 2, 2001) pointed out that
Osama bin Laden made the self incriminating statement that "there will be
a rain of aircraft from the skies" and that Muslims in the West should not
live or work in tall buildings in the United States. Despite this
incriminating evidence many Muslims claimed that they don't believe that Osama
bin Laden was behind the attacks. Osama finally admitted to the attacks
in a video he
released before the Nov 2, 2004 elections.
The Pakistanis who identify with Osama Bin Ladin don't want to see the United States as justified for responding to the suicide bombings of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. Mr. Muhammad Khalid of the Jamiat-tul- Islamia seminary in the Binori Town section of Pakistan, said the confrontation to a political move by the United States to justify attacking Islam. This view is share by many others in Pakistan (New York Times 9/30/01). Newspapers in Karachi, Pakistan warned that the attacks in New York and Washington were a trick by the Jews to plunge the United States and Islam into war. (New York Times 9/29/01).
Prince Nayef, the Saudi interior minister, told reporters in October 2001, that he doubts the hijackers of Sept. 11 were even Arabs. According to the London Telegraph the prince said:
There were more than 600 passengers on the four hijacked planes. We are still wondering why they [the Americans] have singled out Arabs, especially Saudis.
Rather than accept the blame the prince is creating paranoia toward the United States.
On 9/28/02, Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz said that Western media reports highlighting Saudi support for terrorism are “orchestrated by the Zionist lobby which works against the American people’s interests.” “The most powerful nation in the world,” he asserted in all seriousness, “is hostile to Arabs and Muslims as a result of the influence the Zionist lobby wields in the United States” (Arab News, September 27). Rather than acknowledge Saudi support for terrorism Nayef blames the Jews.
The father of Mohammed Atta said that the Zionists must have kidnapped him in order to steal his identity and make the mask that the agent carrying Mohammed's passport could then wear onto the plane. (What makes a suicide bomber, The New York Times Magazine, Oct 28, 2001 p48)
Lebanon's anti-Syrian Druze leader Walid Jumblatt believes the CIA and Israel's secret service Mossad are behind the terrorist attacks in the United States, and that Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden is an "American agent", according to newspaper reports. "There are a number of questions on the authors of the attacks in America. I think they (the attacks) were a great coup carried out by the secret services. The CIA and the Mossad could be behind (the attacks) to provoke a new war and impoverish and occupy the Middle East," Jumblatt was quoted as saying.
Who is bin Laden who has become the number one (enemy) of western civilisations? He is an invention of the American secret services who chose to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan with US backing," said Jumblatt, who had ties with the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. (Sydney Morning Herald Sept 2001)
The Jerusalem Post of Oct 19, 01 reported that:
Syrian
Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass has blamed the September 11 attacks on the World
Trade Center on Israel. At a meeting in Damascus last week with a
delegation from the British Royal College of Defense Studies, Tlass said the
Mossad planned the ramming of two hijacked airliners into the WTC's towers as
part of a Jewish conspiracy...The Jewish-conspiracy theory started circulating
in the Middle East shortly after the terrorist outrages in New York,
Washington, and Pennsylvania. The "rationale" was that Israel wanted
to provoke US retaliation against the Arab world.
In Israel and in Jewish circles abroad, the theory has been dismissed as a
"gross lie." It had been dismissed by Arabists as "wishful
thinking" by frustrated Arabs who badly wanted to believe that Muslims
were not responsible for the atrocities.
But Tlass's comments last week indicate that it has been commuted to fact
among senior Arab officialdom. Experts believe the false rumor has taken root
in the Middle East, thanks to the deep anti-Semitism propagated by Arab governments
as well as the myth of the "awesome power" of the Jews.
The PA's official radio station, Voice of Palestine, reported on October 7, 2001, that
The FBI has handed a report to the Palestine National Authority which states that the Israeli Mossad is responsible for the September 11 terror attacks in the U.S. The FBI report states that U.S. law enforcement officials have nabbed three cadres of Mossad operatives in New York in connection with the September 11 attacks.
(Translation courtesy of Israel Resource News Agency.)
The Moslems have even blamed the attacks on the Elders of Zion. It's interesting how many Moslems insist that there is not enough evidence that Osama bin Ladin was guilty and yet are willing to accept wild accusations that the Jews are responsible for everything including the attack on the World Trade Center.
The belief that the destruction of the World Trade Center was a Zionist plot continued even though Bin Laden himself proclaimed after the attack on the World Trade Center that:
God has blessed a group of vanguard Muslims, the forefront of Islam, to destroy America.
and
America was hit by God in one of its softest spots, if it continues with this policy [against Iraq and the PLO], the sons of Islam will not stop their struggle.
and even though he threatened that a storm of planes would crash into American buildings. The absurdity of this was pointed out by Sheikh Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, the former Dean of the Faculty of Sharia at the University of Qatar, in an article published in the London-based Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat (8/2/04). He wrote:
One of the absurdities is that while Al-Qa'ida and its supporters are proud of their deeds, calling them the 'Manhattan Raid,' and even printing advertisements in London in commemoration of the 9/11 attacks, with pictures of the 'magnificent 19' – our religious, cultural, and political elite [are] struggling to deny that [the Arabs] could have had anything to do with it.
Mark Steyn wrote that (National Review
5/1/2007):
I lost count of the number
of Muslims I met who believed simultaneously (a) that 9/11 was pulled off by
the Mossad and (b) that it was a great victory for Islam.
Bryan Curtis in his article 4,000 Jews, 1 Lie Tracking an Internet hoax which was posted in Slate on October 5, 2001, wrote that:
It is an article of faith in many Muslim countries that Israel was behind the attack on the World Trade Center, with many citing as their evidence a "news report" that 4,000 Israelis called in sick from their jobs at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The allegation has now appeared on scores of Web sites and bulletin boards, has been reproduced in e-mails too numerous to count, and has run as fact in newspapers and news broadcasts in the Middle East. Where did this charge originate, and what path did it take around the world...
According to Nexis and the Google search engine, the first mention of Israeli involvement in the attacks came in a Sept. 17 report on Lebanon's Al-Manar Television (The television station of Hezbollah). The Los Angeles Times reports that the terrorist group Hezbollah has free access to Al-Manar's airwaves, and the station's Web site claims that the station exists to "stage an effective psychological warfare with the Zionist enemy."
The next day at 6:26 a.m., the American Web site Information Times published an article headlined "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," and credited it to an "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." This was not the first time that Information Times had pointed the finger at Israel. The day after the attacks, it warned in an article that the "terrorist government of Israel … cannot be ruled out" as a suspect. Information Times purports to be edited by Syed Adeeb from the eighth floor of the National Press Club at 549 15th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20045. The Press Club says it has no such tenant and repeated messages sent to the e-mail address for Syed Abeed listed on the site bounce back as undeliverable. Directory assistance for Washington, D.C., has no listing for Information Times... Within days, the story appeared in newspapers around the world.
At least 130 Israelis were killed in the World Trade Center attack. Many more are missing. Many non-Israeli jews were killed as well. One of them Andrew Zucker is known to have stayed to save others. (The Jewish Week Nov. 2, 2001). It is ironic, in light of these accusations, that Daniel Lewin, a former Israel Defense Forces officer who was aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first to be hijacked and subsequently piloted into the World Trade Center, may have been the first to try to rebel against the hijackers according to the final report of the U.S. commission investigating the attacks of 9/11 (The Jerusalem Post 7/23/04). As Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, and Abdul Aziz al Omari moved toward the cockpit, "passenger Daniel Lewin, who was seated in the row just behind Atta and Omari, was stabbed by one of the hijackers – probably Satam al Suqami, who was seated directly behind Lewin," the report says... He may have made an attempt to stop the hijackers in front of him, not realizing that another was sitting behind him," it adds.
In mid November 2001 Bin Laden was videotaped talking about the attack on the United States of September 11, 01 with a supporter. The most self-incriminating statement he made on the videotape was:
We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.
The New York Post reported (12/14/01 "Arab conspiracy kooks shout: It's all a forgery!") that:
the videotape was dismissed as unconvincing propaganda in many parts of the Arab world, with some blasting it as a complete fabrication.
Only in a few Arab countries did government officials and citizens view the video as evidence of bin Laden's active role in the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes.
Abdul Latif Arabiat, head of Jordan's Islamic Action Front -- considered a "mainstream" party -- called the footage "shameful."
"Do Americans really think the world is that stupid to think that they would believe that this tape is evidence?" he asked.
"Of course it is fabricated," said Dia'a Rashwan, a Cairo-based expert on Islamic movements.
"If this is the kind of evidence that America has, then the blood of thousands who died and were injured in Afghanistan is on Bush's head."
A Gallup poll released on 2/26/02 showed the following statistics regarding the belief that Arabs were not responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center.
|
Country |
Percent Moslems believing Arabs Were Not Responsible |
|
Kuwait |
89% |
|
Pakistan |
86% |
|
Indonesia |
74% |
|
Iran |
59% |
|
Lebanon |
58% |
|
Turkey |
43% |
36% of Kuwaitis said that the attacks on the World Trade Center were morally justifiable the highest of any country polled. Only 28% of Kuwaitis viewed the U.S. favorably as opposed to 40% of Turks. This is amazing considering that the United States liberated Kuwait from Iraq. What distinguished Kuwait and Turkey was that at the time Turkey was a much more secular country. Islam is the difference that has turned the Kuwaitis against the United States despite the fact that they were rescued by the United States from Iraq. Since then Turkey has become more Islamicized and much more hostile to the United States. An excellent article about this appeared in the Wall Street Journal called The Sick Man of Europe - Again 2/16/04. As Turkey has tilted toward Islam it has naturally become more anti-Israel. This manifested itself in the violent attacks on Israeli soldiers who peacefully boarded a Turkish ship intent on breaking the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The Israelis had to defend themselves and about 10 of their attackers died as a result. The leader of Turkey Prime Minister Erdogan reacted by creating paranoia toward Israel. He cried
"The heart of humanity has taken one of her heaviest wounds in history... Bloody massacre … spilling the blood of innocent humans" … "in the history of humanity this has been recorded as a major shame" … "a despicably cowardly and vicious act."
In an article for the September 10 2006, edition of the New Sunday Times, "Did the U.S. Stage a Lie on 9/11?" the vice chancellor of the University Sains Malaysia, Dato Dzulkifli Abdul Razak, also questioned the official version of the attacks. And the Malaysian cleric Hussain Ye appeared on Peace TV on November 1 and said there was no proof Muslims were involved in the attacks and that Jews are guilty.
Egypt's Al Ahram online weekly (25 - 31 October 2001 Issue No.557) quoted Mamdouh Attiya who they describe as an expert on global strategic matters and weapons of mass destruction as suggesting that the Mossad was behind the anthrax letters mailed to American politicians. Mr. Attiya said:
Bin Laden's Al-Qa'ida is a possible suspect, but I would also suggest the involvement of the Israeli Mossad. The scare may be an attempt to shift attention from greater Israeli atrocities in the Palestinian territories.
It's interesting to note in this regard, that Reuters reported on October 21, 02 that in Pakistan the police, working with the FBI, arrested a local doctor who supplied anthrax germs to Islamist terrorists.
According to an article titled Jews Blamed For All World Terrorism (wnd.com 4/24/04)
Egypt's government newspaper has accused Jews of carrying out all terrorism throughout the world, including the Madrid bombings.
"If you want to know the real perpetrator of every disaster or every act of terrorism, look for the Zionist Jews," wrote Abd Al-Wahhab 'Adas, deputy editor of Al-Gumhouriyya in a recent article titled "The Secret Israeli Weapon."
The Jews do this to harm and distort the image of Arabs "and represent them to the world as terrorists who endanger innocents," the editor said.
Although I expect the
Arabs to accuse the Jews of their crimes, I didn't expect Walter Cronkite to
accuse Bush of working with Bin Laden, an accusation he made before the Nov. 2,
2004 election.(Cronkite:
Bush Working with Bin Laden, Worldnetdaily Nov 1, 2004)
Six
years after the attacks of 9/11 conspiracy theories are multiplying according
to an article by MSNBC. A Scripps
Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect
the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands.
Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent
believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.
The paranoia delusions of these conspiracy theorists was written about
by MSNBC. One example from the article I found amusing
was:
The Web is their mother lode. Every citizen is a researcher. There's nothing like a triple, Google-fed epiphany lighting up the laptop at 2:44 a.m. “Did you see that the CIA met with bin Laden in a hospital room in Dubai? Check out this Pakistani site, there are really weird doings in Baluchistan . . .”
It must be exciting to believe one is a brilliant detective uncovering the coverup of the sinister Bush Administration. This would fall under the category of creation of paranoia to boost self esteem. So many people believe this stuff that the National Institute of Standards and Technology felt it necessary to post a Web "fact sheet" poking holes in the conspiracy theories and defending its report on the towers.
Although one familiar with the Arabs would expect their schizophrenic response to 9/11 in which they are proud of Bin Laden carrying it out while they blame the Jews and CIA for carrying it out, it is surprising that most of the world thinks the Al Qaida did not carry it out even though Al Qaida boasts that they did carry it out. Michelle Malkin wrote about this in an article (GOPUSA 9/12/2008):
Al-Qaida's media relations department must be seething. Or rather, they must be seething beyond the usual Destroy America -- Kill the Jews -- Behead the Infidels -- Convert-or-Die seething that is their second nature. After years of churning out throat-slitting propaganda videos, investing in the finest video editing software and studio sets, and establishing cozy relations with sympathetic international newspapers and global network news channels, the jihadists still don't get no respect from world opinion.
They are the Rodney al-Dangerfields of global mass murderers.
A poll released this week of more than 16,000 people in 17 nations revealed that "majorities in only nine countries believe al-Qaida was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001." A mere 46 percent of individuals overall said they believed al-Qaida executed the attacks -- despite all the back-patting, fist-pumping video productions from AQ's media arm, al-Sahab, claiming credit.
The poll, conducted between July 15 and August 31 and involving over 16,000 respondents, suggests that America's European and NATO "allies" are in fact infested with legions of anti-American conspiracy theorists. A slight majority of Britons blame al Qaeda for the attacks (57 percent), but another 26 percent say they don't know who the perpetrators were. The numbers were roughly the same for the French and the Italians, many of whom (8 percent and 13 percent, respectively) think the United States authored the act. Among Germans, nearly a fourth of all respondents (23 percent) finger the United States. Yes, one in four.
In 7/7/2005 Muslim suicide bombers blew themselves up in London subways. Shortly afterward leftists and Muslims were accusing Israel of having done it. (The Left's New Conspiracy, frontpagemag.com 7/29/05)
On June 13, 2003, a Belgian citizen tried to blow up a synagogue in Belgium, using two gas balloons hidden in his car. On November 15, 2003, two cars exploded in front of a synagogue in Istanbul, causing the deaths of 23 people. In December 2003 a synagogue in Paris was set on fire. Palestinian Media Watch (January 11, 2004) reported that the editor of the PA official daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, in an interview on PA TV. explained that because Israel suffers from low immigration, it was Israel who set fire to the Parisian Synagogue -- to convince French Jews to immigrate to Israel. Hafez Barghouty said on PA TV that:
"The Secret Zionists gangs have been trying, and are acting in France in the same way they used to act in Arab countries- Iraq, Egypt and Morocco, blowing up... Jewish synagogues in order to force them [the Jews] to immigrate [to Israel]. So after the attack on a synagogue, the Israeli ambassador in France called for all the Jews in France to immigrate [to Israel]...
...There are Israeli or Zionist gangs that carry out terror attacks against Jews and force them to immigrate [to Israel], because Israel suffers from emigration."
In October 2002 Chechnyan Muslims took hostages in a Moscow theater with the result that 118 died as Russian forces freed them.
Fuad Abu Hajleh, senior columnist for the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, wrote on October 29 that the CIA masterminded the attack in response to Russia's opposition in the UN to American policy concerning Iraq. Abu Hajleh writes, "The CIA will never acknowledge its responsibility for this operation which claimed over 170 lives, including those of the perpetrators."
Those CIA women sure put on an excellent act when they told the Russian hostages in perfect Chechnyan Russian how they wanted to go to Allah and were going to take the hostages with them.
In order to explain disapproval of the Arabs when it is expressed by the American media Arabs blame the hostility on Jewish control of the media. On 60 Minutes (11/18/01) a student at Kuwaiti University told Wallace:
The media is controlled by Jews in America…They have money, so they control all the financial…They’re strong lobbyists…That’s why there is hate in the media for Arabs.
VB) Creation of Paranoia to Obviate Guilt
Pilar Rahola, a former member of parliament of the Spanish Republican Left in an Oct. 2 2003 interview with Marc Tobiass of proche-orient.com explained how European guilt feelings regarding the Jews has created a need to see the Jews as evil so that they feel less guilty. She said:
After the Holocaust, after Auschwitz, that is, after the ultimate stage in the destruction of the Jewish soul - a process which lasted for centuries in Europe - Europe is shattered, many of its elements are dead, but it also has a bad conscience; it knows it is guilty. Since then , Europe has looked for and found in the Palestinian cause the expiation for its guilt. Further, the more the Jews are presented as being the evil party, the bad ones, the less difficult it is to carry the responsibility ane the guilt. This is a process of collective psychology. From such a perspective, there essentially is no difference between France, for example, and Spain. It is unbelievable how Europe continues to hate its Jewish soul, even after it has expelled it!
In an article titled "In Favor of Israel" she wrote:
...with its Manichaeanism and its uncritical fondness for the Palestinian victims, Europe redeems its guilt, it denies it and makes it vanish. It is not about being indifferent, as Broch denounced. Now it is about being the accuser, a nice way to stop being guilty ...
The trivialization of the Shoah is part of this same process of extermination. And regarding this subject we must be very clear: the perverse use of the memory of the Holocaust as a point of view in the conflict of the Middle East is a radical degradation of morality, and, undoubtedly, it is the spearhead of a deeply reactionary way of thinking.
Irwin N. Graulich (JewishIndy, July 16, 2003) wrote:
The "Palestinian cause" is Europe's way of clearing their consciences of culpability from WWII genocide. If the Europeans can show that the Jews are really bad guys anyway, and indeed, are committing their own form of genocide against the poor, defenseless Palestinians, then their own actions during WWII weren't really so objectionable. By continuing to recognize Yasser Arafat as the leader who is persecuted by those "bad" Jews, Europe today believes they are wiping away their own guilt and blood stained hands.
Ralph Peters in an article titled Crocodile Tears (NYPost 3/10/03) also wrote that Europe vilifies Israel in order to obviate its guilt. He wrote:
Today, Europeans dismiss their historical guilt toward Jews by insisting that Israel is as bad as Nazi Germany - a Big Lie worthy of Hitler and Goebbels - while cheering on Israel's genocidal enemies.
Melanie Phillips in an article in The Spectator, 3/22/03 also subscribes to this explanation. She wrote:
Europe has waited for more than half a century for a way to blame the Jews for their own destruction.
Manfred Gerstenfeld in an article titled The Rise of German Revisionism (frontpagemag.com 5/23/05) wrote:
One approach to sanitize Germany 's immense past crimes is to accuse Israel of acting similarly. In 2002, Norbert Blum, a former German Christian Democrat minister of labor, wrote to Israeli ambassador Shimon Stein referring to Israel 's "Vernichtungskrieg" against the Palestinians. This is the Nazi expression for a war of extermination. Blum repeated this in an interview with the weekly Stern.21
The Christian Democrat party expelled parliamentarian Martin Hohman many months after he called Israelis, in 2003, a nation of criminals, using the expression "Taetervolk," commonly reserved for Nazi Germany. He was praised by German General Reinhard Gunzel, who was subsequently retired by the German minister of defense.
Robert Harris wrote that:
While many conflicts are compared with World War II and aggressors are compared with the Nazis’, this motif has never been more widely used than when judging Israel. No pro-Palestinian demonstration is complete without the symbol of the swastika within the Star of David on badges and placards. Indeed this symbol more so than any other has come to represent the pro-Palestinian movement. Since the Star of David is also the prime symbol of Judaism it can also be clearly interpreted as a symbol highly abusive to the Jewish religion and those that constitute the Jewish people, especially due to the tragedy of the Holocaust. Comparing Israeli figures with leading Nazi figures is also not uncommon. In Ireland, during Operation Cast Lead, Sein Fein (IRA) member Aengus O’Snodaigh repeatedly compared the Israeli ambassador to Ireland with Josef Goebbels, the master propagandist, for merely trying to explain that the invasion was due to continued attacks. Divisive figures such as disgraced Scottish politician George Galloway declared during a UK protest last year: “Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943.”
There are Jews who side with the critics of Israeli policies no matter how unfair their criticisms may be. They may be worried that people will turn against them because of Israeli policies and believe that if they join in the condemnation of the policies, they will not be targets of antisemitic hostility. It may be that they do this to show themselves that they are innocent and pure. Phyllis Chesler in an interview with Frontpagemag.com (2/24/04) said:
At one level, those Jews who are the first to condemn Israel (but not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan) and religious Judaism (but not totalitarian Islam) are, in their view, practicing Jewish ethics; they have a point. Some Jews pride themselves on being a "light unto the nations," and on understanding the other fellow's point of view and feeling his pain, on being an internationalist in pursuit of justice for all. I have no problem with this. Indeed, I have practiced Judaism in precisely this way in the past. But, many such Jews are also refusing to extend any compassion to the Jewish and Israeli victims of suicide terrorism--or for that matter, to American civilians too. Many are, instead, demonizing Israel and religious Judaism as if their lives depended upon it.
Many such progressives end up romanticizing fascism and scorning democracy. Tony Judt, in a recent article for The New York Review of Books, said that he was a Jew but that he did not "need" the Jewish state. Let me suggest that he apply for citizenship in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, or Egypt and he will discover not only that life is harsher there than in Israel (for Jews, intellectuals, free spirits, non-Muslim westerners), but that, as Jew, he cannot even become a citizen. All 22 Arab Muslim states in the Middle East are judenrein, the Jews fled and were forced out. This does not bother Judt at all nor does the surreal level of Jew-hatred in the Islamic world or it's glorification in the West among intellectuals.
Bat Ye'or in her book, Eurabia wrote that a factor contributing to European anti-Americanism was:
the profound resentment that cowardly or impotent societies, which ahv echosen surrender through fear of conflict, have toward those who stand strong. Constant anti-American propaganda in Europe gives Europeans, even as they submit to the Islamic political agenda, a sense of moral superiority.
I would express this as anti-American hatred being a way to avoid low self esteem. It may be that the Europeans want to avoid a feeling of shame that they are not standing up to terror when the Americans are.
VI Terrorists View those they are Fighting as Terrorists and Justify their Terrorism that Way
Wnd reported (1/6/2009) how Hamas justifies it's plan to murder Jewish children.
Hamas has threatened to kill Jewish children anywhere as Israel continues its counteroffensive in the Gaza strip.
"They have legitimized the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine," Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said in a televised broadcast recorded at a secret location.
"They have legitimized the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people," he said in the report, according to the London Times.Islam expert Robert Spencer, director JihadWatch.org, reacted to Zahar's threat.
"Behold the brazen hypocrisy: Hamas launches attacks from civilian areas and uses children as human shields, and then uses the deaths of Palestinian children to justify murdering Jewish children anywhere in the world," he said
Osama Bin Ladin in an interview with John Miller of ABC News (May 1998) said:
Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame...We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets...
Osama's justification for killing civilians is that it will prevent America from killing civilians. So from his point of view he is saving lives by committing acts of terror and killing people. What a rationalization! A rationalization like this probably is Osama's way of protecting his self esteem while satisfying his desire to kill Americans. He may hate America and desire to kill Americans because many Americans reject Islam and yet despite this outrageous sin America is a powerful country with a good standard of living.
VIb Creation of Paranoia Because of
Boredom
Dennis Prager in an article
titled Why
People Believe in Conspiracies wrote:
One should never
underestimate the power of boredom -- and the subsequent yearning for
excitement -- to affect people's thinking and behavior. Belief in a hidden
conspiracy is far more exciting than accepting prosaic truths. Figuring out the
"mystery" of who killed JFK is a much bigger thrill than accepting
that one jerk was responsible. Deciphering who was "really"
responsible for 9/11 is a lot more interesting than accepting that 19 Arabs
with box cutters did it.
VII Creation of Paranoia Because of Greed
In my article I mention elimination of a threat as a motive for creation of paranoia. Another motive can be greed. When King Philip IV of France expelled the Jews from his country in 1306, he confiscated their property. He confiscated the property of the Knights Templar the following year. To justify his actions he created paranoia toward the Jews by saying they "dishonour Christian customs and behavior in inumerable ways" and he created paranoia to the Templars by accusing them of blasphemy, homosexuality and a host of misdeeds that proved that they were the devil's helpers. Daniel Pipes in his book Conspiracy writes that in both cases the King's motives included a fear of the suppressed group's power and a covetousness for their wealth.
VIIa Creation of Paranoia Because of
Hate
Dennis Prager in an article titled Why People Believe in Conspiracies wrote:
Many people want to blame
those they loathe for as much of what they do not like as possible. Just about
everyone who believes in hidden conspiracies attributes those conspiracies to
those they hate. People who hate President George W. Bush blame him and his
administration for 9/11. Egyptians who hate Israel have blamed AIDS on Israeli
prostitutes. Indeed, attributing to Jews hidden conspiracies -- the
"world Jewish conspiracy," the Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- is the oldest and most common belief in a hidden conspiracy.
The Egyptian TV station A-Nas aired virulent anti-Semitic propaganda in January 2009, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). The station broadcast a speech from cleric Ahmed Abd As-Salam, who accused Jews of corrupting Islam, creating sexual temptation and giving Muslims cancer. He said:
"The Jews conspire day and night to destroy the Muslims' worldly and religious affairs... The Jews conspire to infect the food of the Muslims with cancer,”
He also said Jews
“conspire to destroy the economy of the Muslims” and “spare no effort in stripping Muslim girls of their clothes.”
VIIb Creation of Paranoia by Academia
When Young Americans For Freedom sponsored Islamo-Fascism awareness week in 2007, phony hate flyers by a group that is against them were posted around George Washington University that read “Hate Muslims? So Do We!!” in order to discredit them.
Islamic studies departments are being used by the Saudis to spread anti-Israel hate in the West. Martin Kramer wrote a book about this called Ivory Towers in the Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America. The Saudis fund these departments with large sums of money and so influence who is appointed to teach. Steven Plaut in an article titled Berkeley's War Against Israel (frontpagemag.com 3/7/05) wrote that:
The Center for Middle East Studies is a bastion of Israel bashing that is financed in part by Saudi money, including donations from those connected with terrorism.
There are thousands of Saudi funded schools in America. Barbara Stock in an article titled Home Grown Sleeper Cells (frontpagemag.com 3/7/05) wrote:
For a modest investment, the Saudi government has had total access to thousands of young American minds and has used that opportunity to corrupt and mold those young minds into its view of the perfect Muslim. The perfect Muslim is full of hate for all non-Muslims, has no loyalty to the United States, and is convinced that only radical Islam - Wahhabism - is the correct interpretation of Islam. There are now thousands of pre-programmed terrorists in America, waiting for the war against the American infidel begin in earnest. These soldiers do not consider themselves: they know they are loyal Muslims in the army of Islam...
Hatred for infidels is preached from American mosques. The absolute belief that Islam will rule the world is taught in Islamic schools in America and all over the world. New converts to Islam are isolated and indoctrinated to hate their country and their people. The war is here. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet.
One could argue that some of the shooting already has started such as the Muslim sniper attacks in D.C. of 2002
VIII Techniques of Paranoia Creation
The media makes money with exciting, outrageous and horrifying stories. That's what people want to read and the newspaper with the most shocking headline is the one most likely to be picked up by a customer on the way to work. During Israel's first Lebanon war, reporters paid kids to burn tires and ladies to wail in front of tombstones. In one episode the tombstone read that the interred had died 20 years ago but the newscaster somberly informed the viewers that this was her child killed by Israel.
In my piece, Creation of Paranoia, I mentioned how the press distorts the news in such a way as to create paranoia to the Jews. One of the ways in which they do this is by omitting information.
When terrorists attacked the city of Mumbai in 2008 they made phone calls explaining their grievances. The following comment was posted on Frontpage Magazine's web site in response to an article in the Washington Post which discussed these phone calls.
There were four grievances given by the Muslim terrorists for the atrocities they committed in Mumbai, The destruction of the Babri Mosque by Hindus, the anti-Muslim riots that occurred in Gujarat in 2002, and the killing of Muslims in Kashmir. The fourth given to justify the torture murders of Israelis in the Chabad house was revenge for the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel. There is a common thread running through the grievances given by the Mumbai terrorists and that is one of omission. They did not mention that the Babri mosque whose destruction by Hindus they complain about, was built on a Hindu temple destroyed by Muslims and that archaeological digs have proven the existence of that temple. They omitted the fact that the anti-Muslim riots of Gujarat followed the burning alive of Hindu religious pilgrims by a Muslim mob. They neglected to mention that Kashmir was Hindu long before it was conquered by Muslims just as Palestine was Jewish long before the Muslims invaded. They also ignore the atrocities committed by the Muslim invaders against both Hindus in Kashmir and Jews in Palestine.Two of the people they tortured in the Chabad house, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rifka were personal friends of mine and two of the nicest people I've ever met. Instead of choosing a life of safety in the U.S, they chose to provide a home away from home and a place people could go to for help in a country where they knew they were in danger. Even if the terrorists grievances had been legitimate it did not justify the torture killings of these wonderful people or the hundreds of other people they killed and injured.
The Washington Post article did not give the background information that was given in this comment giving the impression that perhaps the terrorists did have some legitimate grievances.
The terrorists themselves were probably not aware of this background information. The people who indoctrinated them would not want them to know such information. To generate paranoia it's important to only give one side of the argument, not both.
1 Omission of Information:
When Palestinian terrorists fire rockets at
Israel the New York Times omits the fact that they did it. How can they do
that?
Honest Reporting cited several headlines, such as "Israeli Force Kills 9 in
Gaza" in contrast with "Rocket Fired from Gaza Kills Woman in Southern Israel."
In 22 articles that dealt with Israeli counterterrorist operations, the headline
writers used the words "Israel kills" and "Israel shoots." However, a large
majority of headlines describing Arab attacks omitted the names of the terrorist
attackers and focused on the weapon, as in "Rockets Hit Israel Whose Strikes
Kill 5" and "Suicide Attack in Israel Kills One."
The New York Times omits pictures that can elicit sympathy
for Israel. When a Palestinian Arab is killed the reason the Arab was
killed is omitted. One picture of a funeral for an Arab teacher shows
relatives crying over the death, leaving the reader ignorant of a rocket attack
near an Israeli playground and pre-school nursery that precipitated the
counterterrorist operation that killed the teacher. The picture also did not
show that the supposed school where the teacher worked was a series of huts used
by terrorists to launch rocket attacks against Israel.
Another pictures showed Arabs fleeing with infants from an Israeli attack.
although the accompanying article described the death of a three-year-old whose
father was "a fighter" for the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization. He and his
brother had fired on the IDF from alongside and inside the house that was hit by
an IDF shell.
Kenneth Levine wrote about the selective Middle East reporting of the British Media as follows:
As Israelis were being killed by the score each month in suicide bombings, roadside shootings and other terror attacks, media coverage in Britain tended to portray the slaughter as nothing worthy of exceptional attention. In April, 2002, however, the Israelis finally launched a ground offensive in response to the terror assault - after 133 people had been killed in anti-Israel attacks the previous month. Israel invaded the terrorist safe-haven in the center of Jenin, an operation that, according to a UN investigation and reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, resulted in about 23 Israelis and 52 Palestinians killed, the latter mostly armed combatants even as the terror groups used civilians as human shields. The Israeli operation was almost universally decried in Britain as the "Jenin massacre," and Israel condemned in the most lurid of purple prose:
"We are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide," feverishly exclaimed A.N. Wilson in London’s Evening Standard. (He also accused Israel of "the poisoning of water supplies," perhaps throwing this in because the other accusations didn’t satisfy his appetite for traditional anti-Jewish libels.)
"Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life," emoted Janine di Giovanni, the London Times correspondent in Jenin.
"Every bit as repellent" as Osama Bin Laden’s September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, was the measured assessment of the Guardian in a lead editorial.
Similarly, Hamas’s incessant rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli communities in the three years since Israel’s total withdrawal from Gaza, attacks undertaken with the exclusive aim of killing civilians and forcing survivors to flee the area for safety, received minimal coverage in British media. Instead Israel was condemned for not being sufficiently forthcoming in allowing supplies to this government bent on its annihilation. It was also falsely charged with withholding essential food and medical supplies from Gaza. In fact, there has never been a shortage of either, except to the extent that Hamas has commandeered provisions and either offered international contributions for sale to Gazans or diverted them to the organization’s own use.
And, of course, when Israel sought to end Hamas’s attacks by an air and ground offensive this past December, there was little in British reporting about the precipitating Hamas assaults or Hamas’s use of civilians as human shields.
The New York Times which was against American involvement in Iraq edited a fallen soldiers letter to say:
''I
kind of predicted this, A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my
chances."
Michelle Malkin wrote: (All the News That's Fit to Omit, frontpagemag.com
11/2/05)
The
paper's excerpt of Corporal Starr's letter leaves the reader with the distinct
impression that this young Marine was darkly resigned to a senseless death. The
truth is exactly the opposite. Late last week, I received a letter from
Corporal Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness. He wanted you to know the rest of the
story -- and the parts of Corporal Starr's letter that the Times failed to
include:
"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of
predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just
seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but
few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing
why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they
can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators.
To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have
died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
David Solway in an article about media bias wrote that:
But the media also practice another, time-honoured form of subterfuge, namely, omission. In an article for The Quarterly Journal of Economics (Vol. CXX, Issue 4, November 2005), entitled “A Measure of Media Bias,” Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo conducted a quantifiable analysis of how media prejudice cribbles the news, estimating that for every sin of commission, “there are hundreds, and maybe thousands, of sins of omission—cases where a journalist choses facts or stories that only one side of the political spectrum is likely to mention.” In the concluding statements to their 47 page study, the authors find “a systematic tendency for the United States media outlets to slant the news to the left,” in which the tactic of omission figures prominently. Despite its analytical complexity and its mammoth data collection, the study is worth consulting by anyone who still doubts the fact of media one-sidedness or that so much of the news we are fed resembles blacked-out letters from the front.
A recent powerful example of such dissimulation involves the virtual suppression of disturbing material, translated from the Arabic, emanating from reams of recently disinterred Iraqi documents as well as from witnesses’ accounts, that Saddam may indeed have possessed WMD. These would have been shipped out of Iraq (with Russian help) prior to the second Gulf War by truck convoy to Syria, conceivably to a prepared site in the northern province of Deir al Zour, where a nuclear installation was bombed by the Israelis in September 2007. The evidence suggests that Saddam may have acted with respect to his alleged stocks of WMD, or a considerable portion of them, precisely as he did with his airforce in the early days of the first Gulf War, only the destination on that occasion was not Syria but Iran. The hypothesis is certainly a plausible one. The U.S. recently facilitated the removal of 550 metric tonnes of remnant “yellowcake” uranium stockpiled at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex twelve miles south of Baghdad—the port of destination was my home city of Montreal (Associated Press, July 6, 2008).
The media’s intention, of course, is to hinder the extrapolation from the Iraq situation to Iran’s current nuclear project in a misplaced effort to avoid the cost of pre-emptive action—the Ostrich Syndrome that comes so naturally to us. The tactic of omission is probably an even more effective form of lying than that of its two correlatives, misrepresentation and exaggeration. Meanwhile the public welfare is dismissed as subordinate to the ideological gradient of the media barons who, like the mass of pontificating public intellectuals, political experts and Beltway operators, are for the most part deliberate obfuscators passing themselves off as oracular symposiarchs.
The following example of deliberate omission of information by the media was reported by Israel National News on 6/23/2005
|
Despite the IDF's distribution of a video of the Arab suicide bomber who intended to blow up a hospital, nearly all foreign news agencies chose to boycott the story almost totally. |
An
outraged former undersecretary in the late US President Ronald Reagan's
administration, who was also a candidate to be the Republican Party's
presidential nominee, Gary Bauer, has written a scathing critique of the world
media’s decision to avoid the story.
Excerpts from Bauer’s letter:
”If you don't get the Fox News Channel then you
didn't see any of the dramatic footage of the Israeli army's arrest yesterday
of a 21-year old, female Palestinian homicide-bomber, strapped with 25 pounds
of high-explosives, just moments before she was to commit mass-murder by
detonating herself inside an Israeli hospital. No other television network
featured the story.
”Utterly ignoring the extraordinary video of the
homicide-bomber's arrest, both the BBC and CNN focused extensively on how much
'damage’ Israel's early morning arrest - for which there was no video - of 55
Fatah and Islamic Jihad terrorists, described by CNN as ‘Palestinian
activists,’ would cause to today's scheduled ‘summit meeting’ between Israeli
Prime Minister Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
”That only one network would air incredible
footage of the seizure of a ticking human-bomb, just moments before she tried
to murder hospital patients, means this story was not simply ignored by the
mainstream media - it was boycotted by the mainstream media. Since nearly every
aspect of this remarkable story contradicts everything the mainstream media has
been trying to tell us about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they just opted
for the easiest way to handle it - denying it ever happened.
[…]
"Ignoring the story meant that the networks
didn't need to tell viewers that yesterday's homicide-bomber was not dispatched
by terrorists of Islamic Jihad or Hamas, groups opposed to President Abbas -
but was in fact working for the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, which is controlled by
the political party Fatah, whose chairman is none other than President Abbas
himself!
"Ignoring the story meant not having to
reveal that the would-be-murderer had been traveling regularly to Israel for
years on a valid medical pass, which granted the woman free treatment for burns
she received in a home cooking accident, and was thus ruthlessly exploited by
depraved terrorists whose shameless capacity to cynically manipulate goodness,
in their pursuit of murder and death, knows no bounds.
[…]
"Ignoring the story meant not having to cover
comments the female terrorist made in a rare army-supervised press conference
in which she revealed what her mission was and who sent her. 'I believe in
death,' she said on Israeli TV. 'All my life I have been preparing to be a
martyr. Mother, please forgive me for failing in [my] mission.' Sentiments not
exactly consistent with the line long peddled by the liberal media, and more
recently even by the Bush administration, that Israel is the obstacle to
'peace.'"
Fox News may be going the way of the other networks. Fox News along with the other networks did not cover a demonstration of 10,000 people who demonstrated against a mosque being built adjacent to Ground Zero.
A classic example of omission of information that was discussed in An Open Letter to the New York Times about its failure to cover the Palestinian Authority's Anti-Jewish Hate Mongering by Camera (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America). The letter discussed the way the New York Times reported a speech by Gazan sheik Ahmed Halabaya. The New York Times of October 24, 2000 wrote:
Israelis cite one egregious example [of incitement] a televised sermon that defended the killing of the two soldiers [in Ramallah]. Whether Likud or Labor, Jews are Jews' proclaimed Sheik Ahmad Abu Halabaya in a live broadcast from a Gaza City mosque.
This makes it sound like the only incitement the Jews have to complain about are Sheik Halabaya's statement that "Jews are Jews". Well Jews are Jews, what's so bad about that? The following is what the New York Times left out.
They are the terrorists. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed, as Allah the almighty said: 'Fight them; Allah will torture them at your hands, and will humiliate them... 'Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them
Honest Reporting.com in an article called Terror-Denial wrote about how the media omits reports of terror attacks on Israel:
On
Nov. 8, the Associated
Press released a list of "Recent Terror Attacks Around the World"
to accompany reports on Saturday's deadly bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The
list notes Islamic terrorism all over the world since 1998, but completely
ignores all Palestinian terrorist attacks that occurred in Israel. On
Nov. 9, Reuters
released a similar list of "Worst guerrilla attacks since September
11" that also omitted terror in Israel entirely.
This is becoming a disturbing pattern in media chronicles of Islamic terror
- if it happened in Israel, it just doesn't count: AP
published a similar list of "Recent World Terror Attacks" on May 19,
which also omitted attacks in Israel, and The New York Times
Online devotes a special section to world terror that leaves Israel
conspicuously absent. [In response to HonestReporting subscribers'
complaints, the Times adjusted not the content of the section, but rather
its title, eliminating the word "terror."]...
For a list of "major" Palestinian terror attacks in Israeli in
the past years - none of which are included in the AP or Reuters lists - click here.
Tom Gross wrote an excellent
article (Dead
Jews Aren't News, The Spectator, 10/26/05) about how the media ignores
Israeli victims of Arab attacks but focuses instead on unintentional victims of
Israeli self defense. Rachel Corrie for example has been widely featured
in the British Press whereas the following Rachels were ignored. Rachel
Thaler a sixteen year old from London, blown up
in a pizzeria in an Israeli shopping mall, Rachel Levy (aged 17, blown up in a
grocery store), Rachel Levi (19, shot while waiting for the bus), Rachel Gavish
(killed with her husband, son and father while at home celebrating a Passover
meal), Rachel Charhi (blown up while sitting in a Tel Aviv cafe, leaving three
young children), Rachel Shabo (murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 16
while at home) and Rachel Kol, 53, who worked at a Jerusalem hospital and was
killed with her husband in a Palestinian terrorist attack in July a few days
after the London bombs.
HonestReporting.com had an article titled Ignoring Israeli Kindness (12/29/04) which listed Israeli humanitarian efforts after the tsunami in the Indian Ocean and pointed out that:
With the exception of UPI (as of this writing - Tues. 4pm EST), none of the major news outlets have dedicated an article to this remarkable Israeli humanitarian effort. This, despite the fact that the IDF sent all Israel-based journalists a press release Monday evening (Dec. 27), inviting them to the airport to cover the departure of one IDF group.
This is all the more surprising given the fact that the major news agencies have entire teams of reporters in Israel, who submit at least one 'Israel-article' each day.
Deborah Orin wrote an article titled Reporting For the Enemy (New York Post 6/16/04) about how the American media won't show videos made of Saddam Hussein's torture of Iraqis but endlessly showed photos of humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops at the Abu Ghraib prison. Why does the media do this she asks? She quotes the answer of American Enterprise Institute schoalr Michael Ledeen.
Because most [journalists] want Bush to lose.
Worldnetdaily compiled a list of the most covered up stories of 2009. The agenda that emerges from this pattern of coverups is a radical left wing one.
2 Choice of Words:
The press chooses words to describe events in order to convince the reader of their point of view. The most obvious example in the case of the Middle East is the name the press uses for Judea and Samaria. They call Judea and Samaria the West Bank which is what Jordan called those areas after seizing them in 1948. If the press were to call those areas Judea and Samaria that would imply that the Jews have a historical claim to the area, a claim that the press does not want to support. The press called Yitzhak Shamir, a "hard liner" because he believed in his people's historical claim to Judea and Samaria. The Press calls Netanyahu a hardliner and Muhammad Abbas a moderate even though the reverse is true as can be seen by viewing this clip. Another area which the press labels in such a way as to undermine the Jewish attachment to it is Jerusalem. Although Jerusalem has been part of Israel since Biblical times, the press calls the old city of Jerusalem, which has had a Jewish majority for over a century, Arab East Jerusalem.
In response to a wave of suicide bombings Israel decided to build a sophisticated fence to keep them out. The press description was a fence that snakes it's way through the West Bank making it sound like the Israelis are snakes for trying to protect themselves against suicide bombings.
As Israel prepared to build a wall to protect worshippers at Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, Reuters published this headline:
Israel to Split Christ's Birthplace with Barrier.
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) the supposed great new hope for Middle East peace said (Jerusalem Post, July 30, 2003):
The fence is racist. It represents a title for no coexistence.
Other Arab propagandists have called the fence apartheid. So Israel's defense against suicide bombers, a defense that avoids the potential collateral damage of targetted strikes against terrorists, and that is the most humane way of dealing with terrorism possible, is used to create paranoia against them as being racist and having an apartheid state. These Arabs are against the fence because it makes it more difficult to carry out suicide bombings and terrorist attacks. On the other hand they can still shoot rockets over it and dig under it, it just makes it more difficult.
In a report about terrorist attacks on Jewish settlers Reuters wrote:
Palestinians regard Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as major obstacles to peace and have regularly attacked them. (Sept. 26)
This description suggests preposterously that Palestinian terrorists perpetrate the willful murder of civilians out of their quest for peace.
Another example was the reporting by CNN (2/2001) of Sharon's decision not to negotiate until terrorism by the Palestinian Authority ends. The CNN reported that as a decision by Sharon not to negotiate until Palestinian protests end. That casts him in a very unreasonable light. "Why shouldn't they protest if they want too?" is a reaction many would have to CNN's choice of words.
In his August 5, 2001 column, On Language, William Safire wrote: “Words have connotations. In the disputed territory known as the West Bank, an Israeli village is called a settlement, implying fresh intrusion; a small Palestinian town, even one recently settled, is called a village, implying permanence.” Although Safire correctly used the word “disputed” the press uses the term “occupied.” You'll never see the press use the term "liberated" to describe Judea and Samaria even though they were regained by the Jews after centuries of occupation by foreigners.
Steve Plaut wrote about how the media uses the word resistance to describe Arab terror: (Peace de Resistence 3/13/03 Freeman Center Mailing)
One
of the clearest signs of the growing nazification of so much of the
world's media is the increasing trend to label Palestinians atrocities,
such as the exploding of the bus full of children in Haifa this week, as
"Palestinian resistance". The PLO and its amen
choruses routinely
explain away such mass murders of Jewish children and other civilians as
"Palestinian resistance", but so do the BBC and many other
establishment
media outfits.
Of course describing Palestinian behavior as
"resistance" makes
precisely as much sense as describing as "resistance" the
campaign of the
Wehrmacht and Gestapo in the 1940s against the various anti-German
partisan forces. In other words, it is yet another Orwellian
inversion.
The Palestinians are not the forces that resist evil, but rather they are
the savages. The Jews are those who are resisting savagery.
Resistance
against fascism and barbarism is what Israel does when it assassinates
terrorists and blows up their homes.
The trendy use of the term
"resistance" for Palestinian violence is
a rather naked attempt by anti-Semites to justify those atrocities,
exactly as would be an attempt to label 1944 German anti-partisan activity
as "resistance". It is really entirely consistent with the
long
insistence by the press on referring to Palestinian mass murderers as
"activists" and "militants", as if they are marchers in
a gay pride parade
or Save-the-Whales march, rather than terrorists and Nazis.
Steve Plaut contrasted the use of words to describe the terrorists who destroyed a nightclub in Bali with the user of words to describe terrorists who destroyed a bus in Israel. He wrote:
I
suppose there is something reassuring whenever the world returns to
its boring normal routine, and yesterday the world ended its campaign to
demonize terrorists. When terrorists blew up Bali, the world
was
suddenly uncharacteristically outraged. It condemned the
"terrorists"
for the "atrocity", and demanded harsh retaliation.
And then Shimon Peres' friends from Jenin responded to Ariel Sharon's
goodwill measures the way Arabs always respond to Israeli goodwill
measures and blew up a bus yesterday at Karkur, murdering at least 14
Israelis. And within seconds, the BBC and CNN had reverted to speaking of
"activists" and "militants", the carcasses of the dead
suicide bombers
were counted in the "death toll", and every news broadcast was
accompanied
by explanations of how it was all Israel's fault for occupying the
Palestinians and that only a political deal (meaning capitulation by
Israel) could end such tragic unrest. With Israeli leftists
agreeing on
the air (for balance) with these calls for more appeasements of
terrorists.
One reason the media chooses not to call terrorists, terrorists is out of fear. Reuter's global managing editor, David A. Schlesinger, expressed concern about a Canadian media conglomerate’s (CanWest) insertion of the word “terrorist” in Reuters news stories concerning groups such as Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. He expressed fear that this could lead to “confusion” and “endanger its reporters in volatile areas,” indicating intimidation, and not objectivity, is guiding Reuters’ editorial policy. (New York Times 9/20/04)
Haim Harari, former president of the Weizmann Institute of Science, gave a speech on April 2004 in which he discussed the misuse of worlds in the world media in regard to the Middle East. Here is an excerpt of what he said:
A
demonstration in Berlin, carrying banners supporting Saddam's regime and
featuring three-year old babies dressed as suicide murderers, is defined by the
press and by political leaders as a "peace demonstration". You may
support or oppose the Iraq war, but to refer to fans of Saddam, Arafat or Bin
Laden as peace activists is a bit too much. A woman walks into an Israeli
restaurant in mid-day, eats, observes families with old people and children
eating their lunch in the adjacent tables and pays the bill. She then blows
herself up, killing 20 people, including many children, with heads and arms
rolling around in the restaurant. She is called "martyr" by several Arab
leaders and "activist" by the European press. Dignitaries condemn the
act but visit her bereaved family and the money flows. There is a new
game in town: The actual murderer is called "the military wing", the
one who pays him, equips him and sends him is now called "the political
wing" and the head of the operation is called the "spiritual
leader". There are numerous other examples of such Orwellian nomenclature,
used every day not only by terror chiefs but also by Western media. These words
are much more dangerous than many people realize. They provide an emotional
infrastructure for atrocities.
It was Joseph Goebels who said that if you repeat a lie often enough,
people will believe it. He is now being outperformed by his successors.
Phyllis Chesler wrote in an article (Truth on Trial) that:
Both
Western leftists and Islamists brandish many tools against America and Israel
in this war. Their first weapon is the systematic misuse of language.
Mainstream and liberal newspapers write about “insurgents,” not “terrorists,”
whom they describe as “martyrs,” not “killers, and as “freedom fighters,” not
as “well educated evil men.”
Anti-American and anti-Israel demonstrators, who are clearly and visibly filled
with hate and rage, are described as “peace activists.”
Steve Vincent the author of In the Red Zone, A Journey into the Soul of Iraq was interviewed by frontpage magazine in 12/9/04. In regards to the choice of words of the press he said:
Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital. For example, take the word “guerillas.” As you noted, mainstream media sources like the New York Times often use the terms “insurgents” or “guerillas” to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen, as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement. But when the Times reports on similar groups of masked reactionary killers operating in Latin American countries, they utilize the phrase “paramilitary death squads.” Same murderers, different designations. Yet of the two, “insurgents”—and especially “guerillas”—has a claim on our sympathies that “paramilitaries” lacks. This is not semantics: imagine if the media routinely called the Sunni Triangle gunmen “right wing paramilitary death squads.” Not only would the description be more accurate, but it would offer the American public a clear idea of the enemy in Iraq. And that, in turn, would bolster public attitudes toward the war.
Supporters of the conflict in Iraq bear much blame for allowing the terminology—and, by extension, the narrative—of events to slip from our grasp and into the hands of the anti-war camp. Words and ideas matter. Instead of saying that the Coalition “invaded” Iraq and “occupies” it today, we could more precisely claim that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it. More than cosmetic changes, these definitions reflect the nobility of our effort in Iraq, and steal rhetorical ammunition from the left.
The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists “the resistance.” What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers--the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government, people like Nour—they are the “resistance.” They are preventing Islamofascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofascism—or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought—should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language.
The International Solidarity Movement regularly sends out news reports in which armed terrorists arrested for attacking or murdering Israeli civilians by the Israeli army are described as "innocent Palestinians" arrested for no reason at all, or labeled "peace activists." Google News has decided to afford the ISM equal credibility by posting its propaganda missives alongside genuine news stories from major news agencies.
To really understand the bias of the media it is worthwhile to get an opposing view of what is going on in the Middle East. One place to find that is the primer page of Americans For A Safe Israel (AFSI). There is a large contrast between the way the media portrays the history of the Middle East and the way AFSI does. Granted one would expect AFSI to have a pro-Israel bias but there is a lot of information on their primer page whose accuracy can be verified.
Michael Radu wrote an article about how the press covered the riots in France in which he discusses choice of words. (Gangs in Search of an Ideology, frontpagemag.com 11/14/05)
Le
Monde writes, "To the provocations of Nicolas Sarkozy answers the
stupidity of teenagers, who ruin the fragile economic tissue and burn the buses
borrowed by their families. Some of the arsonists were victims of a system,
before becoming small mafiosos taking advantage of the situation."[7] So,
the mayhem was an "answer" to the Interior Minister's calling the
criminals "criminals and hooligans"? Criminality becomes
"stupidity" and criminals become "victims." It is precisely
this kind of language to which philosopher Jean-Francois Mattei refers below:
The betrayal of the language: when one does not have the courage to face
things, one speaks to better obscure them. We apply the usual meaning of words
to the violence we know in the urbanized banlieues and elsewhere. In France one
does not speak anymore of 'riots' but of 'harassment actions'; not of
'delinquents' but of 'youths'; not of 'drug trafficking' but of 'parallel
economy'; not of 'policemen' but of 'provocateurs'; . . . not of 'lawless
zones' but of 'sensitive neighborhoods'; not of 'infringement of the right' to
work: but of 'movement of legitimate demands.'[8]
Or from the statement of the "anti-racist" MRAP (Movement against
Racism and for Friendship among Peoples):
MRAP has compassion for the victims of the riots [but] the words crime or riot
are never used. Instead, all is explained through "social, ethnic and
territorial 'apartheid,' the refusal to respond to a social fracture expanded
by an ethnic one. If police were attacked, it is because there are 'tensions'
between this daily victimized population and police. As for law, well, the only
thing to do is check the circumstances of the deaths of the two teenagers
self-electrocuted [in hiding from the police at a power station, which set off
the riots] and of the tear gas canister falling in front of a Clichy mosque.
Most importantly, MRAP demands 'total mobilization against racist
discrimination' and against "any racist exploitation of these dramas and
sufferings generated by violence.[9]
3 Moral Equivalence:
In any situation in which there is an attack and a counterattack the media can blur responsibility for the violence. In addition the media can quote unreliable unconfirmed sources from one side that accuses the other side. When CNN reports on the ongoing violence in Israel it appears that both sides are aggressors in the conflict. In fact it appears that Israel has most of the responsibility since more Arabs have died in the violence than have Jews. The media doesn't make clear that the Arabs who died generally died while attacking Israeli soldiers while many of the Israelis who died were civilian victims of Arab terrorism. In the cases where Israeli soldiers died they were often not fighting at the time. One example of that is when an Arab bus driver drove his bus into Israeli soldiers and killed 7 of them and one civilian (2/2001). Mortimer B. Zuckerman, in his article "A shameful contagion" US News & World Report 10/7/02, called this the "Moral Equivalency Trap"and wrote:
When
Israel responds to terrorism, Europe treats it as if the response and the
terrorism are morally equal; as if there were no difference between the
arsonist and the firefighter; as if Israel's response, which seeks to minimize
civilian casualties, is equal to the terrorism, which seeks to maximize
civilian casualties...
Of course, the point of the double standard and moral equivalency is to
create the impression that Israel is an illegitimate state, among the world's
worst human-rights violators, and thus legitimize the extinction of a state the
Arabs have never accepted. The insight of Amos Oz, a liberal Israeli writer, is
pertinent. He is haunted, he says, by the observation that before the
Holocaust, European graffiti read "Jews to Palestine," only to be
transformed in modern times into "Jews out of Palestine." The message
to Jews, notes Oz, is, "Don't be here and don't be there. That is, Don't
be."
Journalists intentionally avoid reporting that would put the Palestinians in a bad light perhaps out of fear of antagonizing the Palestinian Authority and being prevented from reporting at all. Fiamma Nirenstein in her article The Journalists and the Palestinians (Commentary January 2001 pp 55-58) gave an example. She wrote:
On October 12, two Israeli reservists on their way through Ramallah were seized, beaten, lynched, and horrifically mutilated at the hands of Palestinian police and a civilian mob. PA forces on the scene promptly hunted down and confiscated film and videotape of the incident to prevent its being aired-- but not before a crew from a private Italian TV channel managed to send a clip of the atrocity to Rome that was soon broadcast around the world. Thereupon Cristiano published a letter of apology in the official Palestinian daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. In it, he explained that he and RAI were not the ones at fault; blamed the misdeed on his colleagues at Mediaset, owned by Italy's right-wing opposition leader Silvio Berlusconi; reiterated his commitment to "respect" the "rules" laid down by the Palestinian Authority-rules that presumably prohibit anti-PA reporting; and promised to bend every effort to prevent similar images being shown in the future.
Perhaps this explains why the Associated Press in September 2000, described a photo they took as that of an Israeli soldier beating a Palestinian when in reality it was an Israeli soldier fending off a mob of Palestinians who had attacked a Jew.
Mark Steyn wrote: (THE ‘OLDEST HATRED’Mark Steyn National Review Online, January 10, 2009)
In Paris, the state-owned TV network France-2 broadcasts film of dozens of dead Palestinians killed in an Israeli air raid on New Year’s Day. The channel subsequently admits that, in fact, the footage is not from January 1st 2009 but from 2005, and, while the corpses are certainly Palestinian, they were killed when a truck loaded with Hamas explosives detonated prematurely while leaving the Jabaliya refugee camp in another of those unfortunate work-related accidents to which Gaza is sadly prone. Conceding that the Palestinians supposedly killed by Israel were, alas, killed by Hamas, France-2 says the footage was broadcast “accidentally.”
I can imagine how this might have happened. The State owned TV network wanted footage of dead Palestinian civilians killed by Israelis and didn't have it. They wanted it because it would help the Palestinian cause to enrage the French population against Israel and they wanted it because it made their news network look good to have images right from Gaza. They probably didn't feel too guilty about using the wrong pictures because knew that there were Palestinian civilians that died in Gaza and thought what's the difference if the images are from 2005 or 2009 and if they were killed by Hamas or by Israel?
Broadcasting an image of a dead civilian generates hatred to whoever fired the bullet that killed the civilian and one way the media creates hatred toward one side of the conflict is to broadcast images of victims of one side and not the other. An argument can be made that all the civilians who died in Gaza were killed by Hamas even if they were killed by Israeli shells because Hamas shoots from behind civilians. Ralph Peters made this argument in the New York Post. He wrote:
Israel hasn't killed a single civilian in the Gaza Strip. Over a hundred civilians have died, and Israeli bombs or shells may have ended their lives. But Israel didn't kill them.
Hamas did.
When viewers see images of civilians that died as a result of an Israeli shell broadcast by the media their gut reaction is to hate Israel no matter how true Ralph Peters statements are.
3b The Double Standard
Mortimer B. Zuckerman, in his article "A shameful contagion" US News & World Report 10/7/02, wrote:
The double standard is manifest in the way Jews and the Jewish state are judged in a way no other people would be. With venom unsurpassed in modern dialogue, Europe demands that Israel acts as if it has to win the "moral man of the year" award just to defend itself. Israel is attacked for any deviation, no matter how trivial, as if responding to those that seek its destruction is a moral failure. This pernicious, and intellectually dishonest, double standard has the effect of implicitly denying Israel the right to the same measures of self-defense that any other state would exert. When Israelis take steps to assert their collective rights of self-defense in the face of unprecedented terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, they encounter an almost unanimous condemnation from the European establishment and the European media. European detractors turn every Israeli act of defense into its current euphemism: crimes against humanity.
The Muslims are driving the Christians out of Bethlehem yet the media reports that Israel is responsible. Joe Loconte wrote that:
images of America as international gangster gush forth daily from the print and broadcast media of Europe and the Arab world.
4 Misplacing the Source in the Cycle of Violence and Reversing the Time Line
If one side attacks another side and that side retaliates the original side uses that as a pretext for its own retaliation and a cycle of violence is created. After a while it becomes unclear which side is the instigator and which side is the retaliator. The press when biased confuses the two. For example, Israel assassinates terrorists to prevent suicide bombings. There have been statements in the press that the Israeli assassinations are the cause of the suicide bombings. Never mind that there were suicide bombings before Israel's premptive assassinations of terrorists.
One example of reversal of time line was a Fox News broadcast about Israeli retaliation for rocket attacks from Gaza on the city of Ashkelon. In 2005 Israel uprooted its citizens from Gaza with the idea that would help bring peace, or at least appease the State Department. For 3 years since then the town of Sderot and neighboring areas have suffered rocket attacks from the areas of Gaza from which Israel withdrew for peace. The Gaza Arabs then started firing rockets they received from Iran at Ashkelon. That was too much even for Olmert's government which sent planes to strike at terrorist targets and sent troops into a mile of Gaza from where rockets were being launched. As part of their operation they destroyed buildings which housed terrorists.
Fox News reported that Israeli carried out air attacks and the Palestinians fired rockets. Notice the time reversal. One hears this and thinks that the Palestinians are firing rockets in self defense against the Israeli air attacks. Then Fox News filmed a building that the Israelis bulldozed with dolls placed in a row in front of it to elicit sympathy against those brutal Israelis who smash buildings and hurt children. I believe this Fox News broadcast was in the beginning of March 2008 although it may have been at the end of February 2008.
Jason Maoz in an article titled Passive Voice Genocide (JewishPress.com 8/3/05) wrote:
The day after a recent Netanya suicide
bombing, this is how The New York Times headlined its story: "Suicide
Bomber and 2 Women Die in Attack at Mall in Israeli Town." Talk about
imprecise language and fuzzy imagery. Were the suicide bomber and the two women
killed by a swarm of killer bees? Shot by Israeli police? Felled by
simultaneous heart attacks? Were the women perchance accomplices of the bomber?
Would not a more literate - certainly a more accurate -
headline have read, "Suicide Bomber Kills Two Women in Attack at Mall in
Israeli Town"? It seems that if the Times can't paint a particular news
story in the pale pastels of moral equivalence, the next best thing is to come
up with a headline written in what grammarians call the passive voice, in this
case lumping a terrorist together with his victims, all three of whom are
described as having simply died.
4a Reporting Unsubstantiated Allegations as Truth
Khaled Abu Toameh, a journalist who used to work for the PLO explained one of the reasons media reports are slanted against Israel. He wrote (A Minority Report from the West Bank and Gaza Feb 1, 2009):
Fortunately for us, Israel is an open country that allows people to write whatever they want, criticize the prime minister, the defense minister, the IDF. You can write all these horrible things against Israel and still walk in downtown Jerusalem. But when it comes to covering the Palestinian territories, the story is completely different. You can't wake up in the morning as a foreign journalist and drive on your own into a Palestinian village. You can't just show up and say “Good morning, I work for the New York Times, can I speak to Hamas please.” It doesn't work like that for a number of reasons. You don't know the language and need a translator. You don't know your way around. And most important, it's not safe.
So foreign journalists who want to cover stories in the Palestinian areas rely on fixers.
Translated this means that the source of information upon whom these Western journalists depend for their facts are anti-Israel Palestinians.
The May 9 issue of Newsweek vouchsafed that a new report issued by the Southern Command (“SouthCom,” which includes Guantanamo Bay) would reveal that, “in at least one case,” a Gitmo GI attempting to interrogate Muslims “flushed a holy book [Koran] down the toilet.” Pakistani opposition leader Imran Khan held a copy of the Newsweek story high aloft during a press conference, thundering, “This is what the U.S. is doing, desecrating the Koran!” Soon riots had broken out throughout the Muslim world, from Malaysia to the Suez Canal, with violent crowds chanting “Death to America!” and burning American flags – and U.S. and UN government buildings. A Palestinian protestor stomping through the Jabalya refugee camp raging, “The Holy Koran was defiled by the dirtiest of hands, by American hands.”
In the following issue Editor Mark Whitaker and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas admitted that the original source cannot remember where he read the allegation of flushing the word of Allah. Thomas justified Newsweek’s coverage of the scantily sourced provocation on the grounds that similar reports had been issued – by released detainees and al-Jazeera Television.
Ben Johnson wrote (frontpagemag.com 5/16/05):
Thomas cites Gitmo detainee lawyer Marc D. Falkoff’s claim that an American serviceman stomped on a Koran and former detainee Bader Zaman Bader’s avowal that another serviceman threw a Koran in an inmate’s latrine...
Thomas omits the fact that a Pentagon spokesman told Newsweek it “had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them ‘not credible.’” Many of these original allegations were popularized by the Muslim Council of Britain, the largest Muslim organization in the UK which, when it isn’t calumniating Allied soldiers protecting its host nation from its constituents, stays busy inventing tales of Islamaphobia...
Army Colonel Brad Blackner exposed the true provenance of this psychological warfare, noting, “If you read the al-Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels.”
The error by Newsweek is reminiscent of one made by the Boston Globe last May and exposed by WND.
The paper, owned by the New York Times Co., published graphic pornographic photos supposedly depicting U.S. troops gang-raping Iraqi women.
But the photos were fake – taken from pornographic websites and disseminated by anti-American propagandists, and exposed as fraudulent by WND a week before the Globe published them.
Likewise, the photos infuriated the Muslim world, despite the later admission by the Globe that they were published in error and the product of a pornographer's imagination.
The International Solidarity Movement regularly sends out news reports of fabricated atrocity stories. Lee Kaplan wrote:
The ISM falsely claims that Israeli soldiers use Palestinian children for "target practice." Uda Walker, “Education and Political Coordinator” for the ISM’s Middle East Children’s Alliance, made such claims when debating me at Diablo Valley College in California . When challenged she could not cite any specifics. Reporting false atrocities, however, is part of the ISM's mission to destroy Israel "by any means necessary," a common subject of the group's activities, meetings and seminars. The ISM still sends out dispatches and "news items" in which it claims thousands of Palestinians were "massacred" in Jenin, despite acknowledgement by the Palestinian Authority that most of the 56 Palestinians killed were armed combatants. (Terrorist Propaganda Outlet frontpagemag.com 8/3/05).
Google News has decided to afford the ISM equal credibility by posting its propaganda missives alongside genuine news stories from major news agencies.
4b Creation of Paranoia by the Islamic Media in America
Stephen Schwartz in an article titled "All the Hate That's Fit To Print" (Weekly Standard 7/22/02) wrote:
One expects appeals to the extremist jihad to be heard in the streets of Karachi, in the canyons of Tora Bora, and from the government media of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Some of the most strident voices, however, are here in the United States, directed not from the Middle East or South Asia, but from modern offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, and the Detroit suburbs...
The Muslim Observer publishes anyone given to an exaggerated anti-U.S. idiom, and its contributors have included Osama bin Laden...
The Minaret, also published in Los Angeles by the Islamic Center of Southern California, is infamous for its anti-Jewish cartoons. Its May 2002 issue features a tasteful headline: "Axis of Evil: The United States, Israel, and Arab governments," adorned by a graphic of a rattlesnake. In it, editor Aslam Abdullah accuses Israel of pursuing "a policy adopted by Henry Kissinger in 1979 that called for a final solution of the Palestinian problem."...
In the April 27-May 2 issue of the Michigan-based Muslim Observer (www.muslimobserver.com), we find an article titled "Eyewitness Account of Washington March," in which a Pakistani-American proudly describes how one of his companions, a 16-year-old boy, "put on a Palestinian scarf and truly gave the tingles to the breakfast crowd, looking quite the epitome of the suicide bomber."...
Meanwhile, in the March 27 issue of the Weekly Mirror International (www.readmirror.com), author Khalil Osman declaims, "The Bush administration has demonstrated unprecedented zeal in instituting draconian measures aimed mainly at Arabs and Muslims. . . .
5 Impact of Creation of Paranoia by the Media
The
following letter to the editor appeared in Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper Thursday
August 2, 2001:
Israel is reported to be compiling a list of countries in which its
officials might be in danger of arrest for war crimes allegations. Never
mind officials - all an ordinary citizen has to do is say
"Israel" to get
attacked by members of the public.
I was queuing in a small London post office the other day and the clerk
asked me where my parcel was going. When I replied, "Israel,"
people in the
queue started shouting abuse at me. An elderly man snarled "Israel!
Israel!
You like Israel? Why don't you just go bloody live there, and hopefully get
blown up by a bomb?" The other people in the queue laughed.
As I left the post office, an even more elderly lady shouted at me
"The
trouble is all you Jews sending money to Israel."
I then migrated to the wine shop, which I have frequented for twenty years.
I asked the proprietor if he would be stocking the Israeli wine that has
just won several medals at the Bordeaux Festival. Having never before been
rude to me, he startled me by thundering "I would never stock anything
from
Israel!"
Feeling thoroughly persecuted, I ended up at the organic food shop, where I
complimented the manageress on her stock of Israeli corn on the cob.
Believe it or not, she said: "Israel? That must have slipped through
the
net! I'm removing it from the shelves. They are an apartheid state and they
use Arab slave labor."
I asked her where she learned these fictions and she replied: "I read
The
Guardian and The Independent. (Britain's two most relentless Israel-bashing
newspapers.) It's little wonder one feels under siege. In Saturday's
Guardian, Tony Evans advises readers to avoid visiting Israeli kibbutzim,
where visitors become "cheap labor to subsidize the Israeli state,
which
has occupied Palestine for decades."
In London's Evening Standard this week, Edward Fox writes a scathing piece
about Israel and "... the sheer ghastliness of a place like Tel
Aviv." He
writes Israeli coffee is so terrible that "it tells us more than reams
of
political analysis what the place is really like."
Israel's government, PR and tourism industry still have a lot of work to do
to combat this relentless Israel-bashing. It should be inviting visitors to
stay on kibbutzim and to enjoy the rich cultural life of Tel Aviv - not to
mention the great coffee.
Carol Gould
London
Carol Gould has since written a hair raising article about the paranoia toward America and Israel in Great Britain and about her personal experiences of British hatred toward her because she is a Jewish American (frontpagemag.com 10/12/04). She realizes that this anti-Americanism is a form of madness and wrote that anti-Americanism:
is a disturbing and hurtful form of psychosis that is rapidly eroding the all-important special relationship.
IX Creation of Paranoia To Justify Aggression and Terrorism
Hitler created paranoia among Germans before invading other countries. Before invading Czechoslovakia Hitler gave a speech in Berlin's Sportpalast, a huge sports arena, in which he said that on orders from the Czech president, "whole stretches of country were depopulated, villages burned down, attempts were made to smoke out Germans with hand grenades and gas. William Manchester wrote about German paranoia creation before the invasion of Poland as follows:
In Danzig and Poland, local Nazis were following the modus operandi which had played so well in Austria and Czechoslovakia. Local Nazi storm troopers in uniform sacked stores owned by Jews, painted huge yellow swastikas on synagogues, and assaulted critics of their fuhrer in the streets. In Polish communities where Germans were a majority, policemen cheered them on. Meantime German newspapers were telling their readers the exact opposite - that the victims were Polendeutsche, stalked by Polish terrorists. In Karlsruhe the daily paper carried the headline "Warsaw threatens bombardment of Danzig... On Saturday August 26 the Zwolf Uhr Blatt reported: "This playing with fire going too far - Three German passenger lanes shot at by Poles - In corridor many German farmhouses in flames." The banner headline in the Berliner Arbeiterzeitung that day read, "comlete chaos in Poland - German families flee - Polish soldiers push to edge of German border!" Goebbels saved his masterpiece for the Sunday Volkischer Beobachter:
All of Poland in a war fever! 1.5 million men mobilized! Uninterrupted troop transport toward frontier! Chaos in Upper Silesia!
William L. Shirer notes dryly: "There was no mention, of course, of any German mobilization." Germany had been fully mobilized for two weeks, but the Poles, anxious to avoid provoking the Reich, and on British advice, had actually delayed their mobilization. Only thirty Polish divisions were in position to defend their frontiers. The Germans had massed fifty-six divisions, including nine armored, on Poland's orders. Two great pincer movements were prepared to overwhelm the defenders, troops whose leaders had no plan and cherished an absolute faith in the power of cavalry charges to defeat modern tanks...
On Hitler's orders the Sicherheitsdienst, the SS security service, had dressed a dozen German prisoners in Polish uniforms. Identical uniforms were to be worn by SS men who would "lead" them in a simulated attack on a German radio station near the Plish border, holding it long enough for a Nazi fluent in Polish to announce Pland's invasion fo the Reich. The criminals - whose conde name was Konserven (Canned Goods) - woudl be iven leathal injectiosn by an SS doctor and then shot; their bloody bodies would be shown to the foreign press as evidence of Polish aggression.
When Russia attacked Georgia the Russian controlled media and government defended these actions by creating paranoia among Russians to the West. Garry Kasparov wrote in the Wall Street Journal that:
Throughout the conflict, the Kremlin-choreographed message in the Russian media has been one of hysteria. The news presents Russia as surrounded by enemies on all sides, near and far, and the military intervention in Georgia as essential to protect the lives and interests of Russians. It is also often spoken of as just the first step, with enclaves in Ukraine next on the menu.
Paranoia is being used by the Russian leadership to motivate the Russians to invade their neighbors. My understanding is they were instigating the Ossetians to fire on Georgians so that the Georgians would counterattack. Then tales of Georgian atrocities toward the Ossetians were spread by the Russian media. The Georgian attack on South Ossetia then became an excuse to invade. Evidence that it was just an excuse is reports that the Russians were planning to invade that were made before the Georgians attacked South Ossetia. Mikheil Saakashvilli the president of Georgia told the U.S. State Department in advance that the Russians were planning an invasion as did Movladi Udugov of the Caucasus emirates. Ralph Peters has written an article about how the Russians instigated the invasion and how their actions required a great deal of preparation before hand. FoxNews.com reported on 8/28/2008 that Putin said that the United States probably instigated Georgia to attack Ossetia to change the results of the elections. He may have said this out of concern that his actions could sway Americans to vote for McCain who wants to build up a strong military in contrast to Obama who wants to dismantle most if it and use the money to feed the world. By creating paranoia that the invasion was a result of a desire to get McCain into office he might hope to create a backlash that would vote Obama into office.
Stephen Brown wrote in Frontpage Magazine 9/2/08 that:
In the United States, a column in The Nation indulged in a Republican conspiracy theory. It blamed Randy Scheunemann, John McCain’s foreign policy advisor, for the war, since he had once been a paid lobbyist for Georgia in Washington. In another conspiracy fantasy worthy of Soviet-era Pravda, a Russian state radio station told listeners that Dick Cheney was responsible for the war as part of a plot to prevent Barack Obama from being elected American president.
The U.S. wants a missile shield in Poland to protect against Iran. The Russian leadership acts as if that is a threat to them and says they will have to take military action to prevent it. This is the excuse they are looking for to convince their people to invade Eastern Europe. The missile shield is necessary because of the threat of Iran's growing nuclear capability and missile capability both of which are protected by Russian missiles.
The Russians want power over the West and the more vulnerable the West is the more they can control it. One reason for invading Georgia was the oil pipeline there. Once the Russians control that they have more power over the oil dependent West and they can charge even more for oil.
Putin is creating paranoia in order to convince the Russians that Ukraine should be invaded. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia has angrily accused Ukraine of sending weapons and military personnel to help Georgia fight its war with Russia. He said:
"The weapons could have been supplied during the military action, and it was operated by Ukrainian specialists," Putin said. "That is a crime. That's an attempt to set Russian and Ukrainian people against each other."
It
is likely that Iran is planning to assist in a terrorist attack on Disney. Iran is paving the way by creating paranoia
to Disney. In February 2006, Hasan
Bolkhari, suggested
that Disney created the Tom and Jerry Cartoon to help
“erase
a certain derogatory term that was prevalent in Europe."
According to the professor, "Tom and Jerry" was created to eradicate the association between mice and Jews created in the minds of Europeans by Hitler. Professor Bokhari's lecture can be viewed on youtube.
An anchor on
Iranian TV also said that the Zionists were attempting to obtain cultural
control with the movie Pirates of the Caribbean. To view the insane Iranian accusations about Pirates of the
Caribbean click here. To view the insane accusations about Tom and
Jerry click here.
Eurodisney, that American
offense to French (and by extension) European culture, is one-quarter owned by
prince Walid bin Talal. If there is
an influence on Disney money is it and Talal has the money.
The argument that killing Jews is the only way to peace is taught in the Arab world to justify aggression against Israel. Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian, in a speech at Duke University's Counter-Terrorism Speakout spoke about this (A Survivor of Palestinian Tyranny Defends Israel, frontpagemag.com 10/15/04) and said:
I was raised in Lebanon where I was taught that the Jews were evil, Israel was the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.
You can watch a video of her speaking out about the Middle East on her American Congress For Truth Web Site.
The New York Post August 12, 2001
quotes Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the head of the radical Lebanese guerrilla
group Hezbollah, issuing a call to suicide bombers.
What protects your men, women and children is your
suicide bombings, not the United Nations.
What Sheikh Nasrallah is doing is creating the paranoid delusion that suicide bombings are needed to protect Arab women and children against Israeli attacks.
Holocaust denial is a denial of truth in order to justify aggression. Belief that the Holocaust took place creates sympathy for the Jews and makes it harder to motivate people to engage in another one. Creating the myth that the Holocaust is a fiction created by the evil Jews, helps justify aggression against them. An example of this is the statements of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who at a conference in Tehran on Tuesday April 24, 2001, said the number of Jewish victims of the Nazis was exaggerated
To install in the heart of the Islamic world an anti-Islamic state under the guise of supporting the victims of racism.
Another example is the publication by Egypt's leading newspaper, Al-Liwaa Al-Islami, of an article titled 'The Lie About The Burning of the Jews' that denies the Holocaust, and claim Jews invented "lies of genocide" to extort the West and make possible the establishment of the Jewish state. (Egypt Newspaper: Holocaust a Lie, Wnd.com 8/8/04)
Another way to justify another Holocaust is to say that it is the Jews who are committing the real Holocaust. According to Palestinian Media Watch's 3/20/08 bulletin:
Palestinian children in Gaza were gathered for an exhibition
that depicts Israel burning children in a crematorium. Young children are seen
standing beside dolls being placed into a model of a cremation oven.
According to the article in Al Ayyam, "The National Committee for defense of Children from the Holocaust opened its activities with a Holocaust exhibit. The Exhibit include a large oven and inside it small children are being burned, the picture speaks for itself." [Al Ayyam, March 20, 2008]
Another part of the exhibit was a black platform with the
words, "Stop the Israel's Holocausts." [Al Hayat Al Jadida, March 20, 2008]
Palestinian Authority (Fatah) TV already already taught children in the past
that Israel burned children in the Holocaust. With ovens pictured in the
background and actors playing dead children as part of a musical play, an actor
in a video declared:
They [Israel] are the ones who did the Holocaust... They
opened the ovens for us to bake human beings... and when one oven stopped
burning they lit a hundred more.
The World Conference Against Racism was held in Durban, South Africa between August 31 and September 7, 2001. The US and Israel walked out over moves to brand Israel as racist. During the conference, on September 4, 2001, the Palestinian News Agency, (WAFA ) accused Israel of using gas chambers to kill Palestinians. The WAFA political editor wrote :
Second, are the over talented defenders of the Israeli practices, who arrogantly accused the 3000 NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) of being deceivers, and at the same time mentioned the gas chambers in a moment of unconsciousness, unaware to the similarity between the gas chambers of the Jews and the gas chambers taking place daily, on the Palestinian occupied lands, and unaware to the slight difference between then and now, that is today's gas chambers are more sophisticated and modernized. Those who filled the entire world with their moaning about the historical gas chambers should not build such to others.
According to Israel Hamas has used chemical poisons in some of their bomb attacks (New York Post 1/3/02 p20). So while Palestinians make false accusations against Israel about using chemicals they themselves use them.
An excellent article which discussed further the topic of Palestinian incitement was written by Itamar Marcus, the Director of Palestinian Media Watch and is called Lies and Libel of the Palestinian Authority. An excellent editorial about the subject called Stop Palestinian Incitement appeared in the Jerusalem Post.
On Monday March 26, 2001, a Palestinian sniper shot a 10 month year old baby in the head and then short the baby's father in the legs. On April 3, 01, Voice of Palestine radio reported that 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass was not killed by a Palestinian sniper but by her mother. The VOP report was as follows:
On the matter of the baby settler who was killed in Hebron a few days ago, we already said that her death was a fishy action and there is information according to which this baby was retarded and it was her mother who killed her in order to get rid of her.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Gideon Meir said the statement is "a genuine indicator of just how low the PA is willing to sink to win over world opinion." He said that the Foreign Ministry continues to carefully monitor PA media reports to document the ongoing propaganda campaign being waged by Arafat and PA officials. Education Minister Limor Livnat, during a Voice of Israel interview today, said the radio report was "just another example of ongoing incitement and anti-Semitism that has become an integral part of the PA media war against Israel." An excellent article by Nadav Shragai called Roots of Palestinian Hatred describes the creation of paranoia by the Palestinians.
The bodies of Yaakov "Koby" Mandell, (from the U.S.) who would have celebrated his 14th birthday the next month, and a classmate, Yosef Ishran, 14, were found in a cave May 9, 2001 near their Judean Desert community of Tekoa. They had been stoned and stabbed a day earlier while hiking, their bodies unrecognizable. The Iranian news agency justified this by referring to the boys as "two Jewish terrorists who were stabbed by Palestinian guerrillas. Koby's Aunt said "I'm repulsed" as she read it. "This was a harmless little boy--fun-loving Koby".
Raphael Israeli in his article "The Oslo Delusion: The Collapse of Assumptions - Part 1, (Outpost August 2001, page 3) wrote how the Palestinians say that:
The moral depravity of the Jews is evinced in their systematic "desecration" of Islamic holy places, in particular the al-Aqsa mosque. Since the 1970s, Israeli men and women soldiers have been accused in the Palestinian and other Arab press of performing drinking and sex orgies within the mosque compound.
Palestinian radio has said that "Israel's survival is forbidden by Islamic Law".
60-year-old Mahmoud al Zahar, the most senior Hamas member in Gaza explainee (Goodbye Gaza, Hello Hamas, Frontpage Magazine.com 8/24/05[i]):
Israel has no right to any inch of Palestinian land. This is an important issue. Our position stems from our religious convictions. This is a holy land. It is not the property of the Palestinians or the Arabs. This land is the property of all Muslims in all parts of the world.”
After the United States liberated Iraq in 2003 sermons throughout the Arab world asked Allah to deal with the enemies of Islam including the Americans (Michael Freund, National Review, April 29, 2003)
Freund writes that official Palestinian television aired a sermon delivered at a Gaza mosque in which the preacher created paranoia toward America by accusing America of overseeing the devastation of Iraq. He said:
America organizes the systematic destruction of Iraq. America organizes the looting, plundering, and destruction operations... America organizes these campaigns by thieves and traitorous plotters in order to strike at honest Iraqis and the upcoming Iraqi resistance.
The preacher concluded his harangue by praying for victory for the Palestinians and Iraqis:
against the Jews, Britain, and the United States and their allies.
"Israel and the War of Images" and "The Trojan Horse," both produced in France with English and French dubbing and subtitles show Arafat and his spokesmen, clerics and negotiators revealing that peace negotiations with Israel are part of a strategy leading ultimately and inevitably to one overriding objective the destruction of the Jewish state. One of the videos shows one of Arafat's clerics shouting in a Friday sermon broadcast on Palestinian television:
Jews are Jews, Amongst those are no moderates, nor peace partisans. They are all liars. They must be massacred, they must be killed. Allah the Almighty said, 'Fight them. That's what the Jews are. Have no pity for them, wherever they are, in whatever country. Fight them wherever you are, wherever you meet them, kill them.'
Two months after the Sept 11 attack on the World Trade Center Arafat, in a speech in the United Nations on November 11, 2001 accused Israel of "state-organized terror". According to the New York Post of Nov 12th, when Arafat was escorted to the podium, many delegates broke out in applause, giving him a warmer reception than Bush received before his speech. This shows that his creation of paranoia toward Israel and his creation of an image of his people as innocent victims is working. This is particularly outrageous considering his terrorist past and that the theme of the U.N. meeting was fighting terror.
Marjorie Housepian, in her book, The Smyrna Affair wrote about how Sultan Abdul Hamid II created paranoia in order to wipe out the Christians. She wrote:
He roused tribesmen to the kill by having his agents spread rumors that the Armenians were about to attack them, then cited every instance of self-defense as proof of rebellion and as an excuse for further massacre. He sent his special Hamidieh regiments to put down "revolts" in such districts as Sassoun, where the Armenians were protesting that they were unable to pay their taxes to the government because the Kurds had left them nothing with which to pay...
Ms. Housepian writes how the same strategy was used by the Turks under Enver Pasha in 1915. She wrote:
In order to prove the rebelliousness of the victims it was necessary first to provoke them into acts of self-defense, which could then be labeled "insurrectionary."... "The Armenian clergy and political leaders saw many evidences that the Turks ... were [provoking rebellion] and they went among the people cuationing them to be quiet and bear all insults and even outrages patiently, so as not to give provocation," wrote Henry Morgenthau, American Ambassador to Turkey. 'Even though they burn a few of our villages,' these leaders would say 'do not retaliate for it is better that a few be destroyed than that a whole nation be massacred.'"
Creation of paranoia in Turkey against America is now widespread (see The Sick Man of Europe - Again, Wall Street Journal 2/16/04) and Is Turkey Lost, by Michel Gurfinkiel in Commentary Magazine, March 2007.
In a Turkish movie, "Kurtlar vadisi - Irak" ("Valley of the Wolves--Iraq") U.S. soldiers are portrayed as brutal murderers who "kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison - where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv," according to AP. Gary Busey plays the Jewish-American doctor. (Schlussel, D., Gary Busey's Blood Libel, frontpagemag.com 2/6/2006)
Michel Gurfinkiel wrote that:
In 2005, a sensationalist novel, Metal Storm,
featured characters drawn from real life—George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld,
Condoleezza Rice, etc.—and a plot set in the near future that was sheer
paranoia: a surprise American invasion of Turkey complete with the bombing of
Anit Kabir, the majestic mausoleum in Ankara of Mustafa Kemal, the founder of
modern Turkey. The book sold heavily— 450,000 copies in less than a year. Hard on the heels of Metal Storm came a
movie: Valley of the Wolves, Iraq. Taking off from a popular TV serial, it
depicted the U.S. presence in Iraq as a nightmare of brutality. According to
the movie, the U.S. was engaging in mass murder and then trafficking in the
victims’ organs. Much of the action was devoted to a supposed joint
American-Kurdish operation to “cleanse” northern Iraq of its Turkmen (i.e.,
Turkish) minority. If Metal Storm was a best-seller, Valley of the Wolves could
be the Turkish film industry’s biggest commercial success ever. Then there is anti-Semitism. Kavgam, a
Turkish translation of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, was published at about the
same time as Metal Storm.
Almost
two
years ago, as I and other European and American visitors saw on a fact-finding
trip sponsored by the Nixon Center, it was on prominent display in airports,
shopping malls, academic bookstores, at the archeological museum in Ankara—
everywhere. And Kavgam is hardly the only example of the new anti-Semitism in
the Turkish media. The worst character
in Valley of the Wolves is an American Jewish doctor who supervises organ
traffic from Iraq to the United States and Israel. Another recent best-seller is a book called Hitler’s Leadership
Qualities. Turkish newspapers are rife with anti-Jewish innuendo and
worse. No less salient is anti
Christian prejudice. Both Metal Storm and Valley of the Wolves “explain”
alleged American designs on the Turkish people as part of a Christian crusade
to convert Muslims or to restore Istanbul to its former status as
Constantinople, the Byzantine metropolis.
A non-Middle Eastern example of creation of paranoia to justify aggression was the user of the term "Criminal gang" by Chinese officials to describe the villagers of Yuntang who refused to pay what they call illegal and impossibly high local taxes and fees. Before dawn on April 15, 2001, 600 police and paramilitary troops stormed Yuntang and opened fire on a gathering crowd of unarmed farmers, killing 2 and wounding at least 18. Much of this money may be padding the pockets of corrupt officials.
In late February 1933 when the Reichstag burned. Hitler and the Nazis immediately accused the Communists of setting the fire. A great deal of evidence collected and analyzed by Walther Hoferand and others, however, points in the direction of the Nazis themselves. (See, e.g., "The World at War: The Reichstag Fire," by Soren Swigart.)
In 1934 Stalin rival Sergei Kirov was assassinated in Leningrad by one of Stalin's goons. Stalin used the assassination that he himself had engineered to foment hysteria among the populace of the Soviet Union and to provide the pretext for the murder of millions of his countrymen. Lev Navrozov memorably recounts the contemporary effects of Stalin's public relations campaign regarding the assassination in his memoir The Education of Lev Navrozov, and Robert Conquest methodically traces the evidence implicating Stalin in Stalin and the Kirov Murder. (powerlineblog.com 3/19/04)
Professor Dunn a visiting professor of Claremont College in California claimed that her car was spray-painted with ethnic slurs and had its windshield smashed and tires slashed the night before.
In "Claremont hate crime called hoax," today's Los Angeles Times reports:
A week after a reported campus hate crime drew national attention, sparked protests and shut down the prestigious Claremont Colleges, police on Wednesday called the incident a hoax staged by a professor who slashed tires, shattered windows and spray-painted racist graffiti on her own car.
According to powerlineblog the motive for staging this "hate crime" was to impose a climate of conformity empowering the diversity police and their friends among the governing powers.
IXA Creation of Paranoia and Delusion to Encourage Violence and Terrorism
The best way to encourage violence and terrorism is to convince
people that the intended victim is a threat to them. One
way the Palestinian Authority does this is to propagandize, that Israel is
planning to conquer Arab lands, “from the Euphrates until the Nile” (Palestinian Media Watch). The Palestinians are sophisticated in their
propaganda, detailed fictitious allegations are often advocated to make the lie
sound credible.
The following are some of these detailed fictitious allegations:
The
term "From the Nile to the Euphrates your land, oh Israel,” is written
above the gates of the Knesset.
The term &q