Please stop using the term ‘antisemitism’, a term created by 19th century German Jew hater Wilhelm Marr. It’s Jew hatred, we are Jews from Judea, not ‘Semites’. Stop using terms coined by non-Jews to define us. Islamophobia is a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood meant to stop any legitimate criticism of political/radical Islam. It’s about we take back our identity and dispense with nebulous terms to define who we are. 😼
Thank you. On reflection I prefer “Jew hatred” to “antisemitism,” since as you say the latter was coined by Marr. Likewise, “Islamophobia” has been promoted politically to shield critique. Your point shows how naming is never neutral because it shapes identity and power.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia. A phobia is an IRRATIONAL fear. Fear of Islam (Islamophobia) is completely rational and healthy considering 1) the tens of thousands of global terrorist attacks by Muslims since 9/11 alone 2) the fact that Islam breeds such radicalism which is often NOT denounced by more "moderate" Muslims 3) Islamists take advantage of the West's tolerance for diversity and multiculturalism- they obtain "soft" power through political means (like Mamdani did in NYC by using the progressive left)- but their tactics - like Mamdani's socialism platform- is merely a cover for their ultimate goal which is the undermining and ISLAMIZATION of Western societies. Just look at parts of Europe where Islam has taken over and imposed Sharia law in many communities. Many of these migrants are not interested in assimilating into our Western, Judeo-Christian societies. They want to destroy them. Americans need to WAKE UP! Qatar has spent BILLIONS brainwashing our youth in our Universities for DECADES now. Read THIS to understand how far back this pan-Arabic campaign to destroy our Western civilization was planned: https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/columnist/365220/the-inside-story-of-how-palestinians-took-over-the-world/
I disagree. islam itself is a radical ideology. It comes directly from the koran. It's as if you used the term radical communism and claimed it differentiated from communism itself.
Its a double bind. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you insist on a clear difference, you risk reinforcing the use of “Islamophobia” as a weapon to silence examination of violent groups.
If you deny any difference, you risk blunt collapsing a vast religious tradition into a radical form.
I see your point. Unfortunately it is more nuanced than that. If it were only that simple. That being said I do agree there is no such thing as Islamophobia, as you said we have every right to be afraid. It is justifiable!
Islamophobia actually is a Real phobia of extreme dangerous radical Islamists 😈, whose goal is to destroy Democracy. Replace with a Islamic caliphate Invented by CAIR, Qatar It's disguised antisemitism, Zionistphobia
The best (and most prescient) book I've read about this topic is by the French writer Pascal Bruckner, "An Imaginary Racism: Islamophobia and Guilt" (2017), with much of it about Islamo-Leftism. It is worth reading.
—"The future will remember that in the twenty-first century, a large part of the Western intelligentsia made common cause with fundamentalist totalitarianism, just as their elders had communed with Nazism and communism.
Beneath the surface, the far left and radical Islam agree on one point: they want to destroy this society, to be redeemed by the immigrant, by the foreigner who will come to regenerate our old, exhausted nations.
Why does everyone want to be a Jew these days, especially the enemies of the Jews? In order to accede in the imagination to the status of the outcast and to compare the defence of Islam with the struggle against Nazism. The Quranic faith alone is supposed to escape the kind of criticism that is normal for all other religions: it is untouchable, they are modifiable...
Jews, the West’s former scapegoat, have become, in their Zionist version, the paragon of colonialism. Thus they are exponential whites, quintessential whites. For them, the choice is as clear-cut as it is simple: either go over to the side of those other Semites, the Arabs, or support Israel and plunge into the abominable.
Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism justified, finally made available to everyone. It is the permission to be democratically anti-Semitic. What if the Jews themselves were Nazis? That would be marvellous. It would no longer be necessary to feel sorry for them: they would have deserved their fate!
Because they enjoyed the privilege of coming earlier, the Jews remain the gold standard for racial hatred when that hatred no longer knows where to turn. Once the other scapegoats have been exhausted, the Jews are still there, a last resort. When will we see progressive pogroms? [N.B.: We've already seen them in the past few years.]
Once the equivalence of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia was established, a subtle process of symbolic appropriation began. The goal was to evict the Jews in order to put the Muslims in their place. It’s our turn, the latter said.
The Jewification of the Muslims automatically leads to the Nazification of the Israelis..."
Thank you for bringing Bruckner in — his analysis applies very well here. He shows how antisemitism is appropriated and transferred: Jews, once the archetypal victims, are recast as aggressors, while grievance is reassigned to others. In that inversion, antisemitism is repurposed and worn by new claimants. That inversion sustains grievance politics and shields it from scrutiny.
Islamophobia is a lite form of Muslim blasphemy law that has been cleverly insinuated into western thought and institutions. It will stop being lite when it finally formally carries the death penalty as it does in Islam itself. Unless the tide is turned it is just a matter of time until this happens.
No, it’s not ‘light’ in the least. Try telling this to friends and relatives of the Charlie Hebdo massacres, or the Bataclan terrorist attacks, or the beheading of French teacher Samuel Paty. Nothing light about it all.
Islamophobia as a “lite” blasphemy law, infiltrating institutions and threatening to criminalise critique resonates. But then again as EJV says it is already lethal (massacres and beheadings). Taken together we see Islamophobia functions both as anticipatory repression and as present violence. Quite a bracing thought. I hope people are able to wake up to this!
To be clear I meant lite only with respect to how western governments punish their citizens for it, not how Islam punishes people for what it considers blasphemy. EJV and I are not in disagreement about this.
Islam has not been taken on since the 1950s or so, Islam took over Bradford very early and has only cultivated it's grievance ideology ever since.
9/11 ought to have led to mass deportations of imams and activists. Instead, Bin Laden proved to be entirely correct. The weak white horse is too stupid to know it's enemy ,and will be loathed by all right thinking people. The strong black horse of Islam will be preferred by the godless. How true.
First, a phobia, as we all know, means a FEAR of something, right? My disgust/dislike of Islam has nothing to do with fear but from my Army Infantry days I remember the expression "Know your enemy" and this "religion" is hostile to everything as we are all known as infidels in the worst sense of that word. Second, I've mentioned this before from General Patton "To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing." Finally, they can't even get along with themselves as Shia hate Sunni and both hate Wahabi and so on.
Yes “phobia” denotes irrational fear, and as you say this is not irrational but grounded in experience. That’s why the activist use of “Islamophobia” is slippery because it risks hiding truths we ignore at our peril. “phobia” becomes a shield around grievance politics rather than a description of fear. Your comment highlights that distortion.
Wound? What wound? You mean the beating they got when they tried to exterminate us? The grievance isn’t real or the result of a “wound.” It’s a made up, contrived, self-inflicted, and convenient excuse to flip the script. It’s the built-in excuse to attack and blame those who reject Islam, and before Islam, Christianity. We Jews are the ones who have stayed true to our own roots for ourselves. We are not dependent on the farce of forcing and subjugating others to our way. That’s why our enemies hate us and won’t leave us alone—we reject their obsessive coercion to accept a man-made, made-up narrative, and by doing so, we expose their false idols. Ouch. I guess that’s a wound of sorts that’s a pain in their asses.
Thank you and yes I agree — grievance politics depends on keeping the wound ignited rather than healed. And in that sense, a wound that is deliberately kept open is not a “real wound”, at least in the way we normally understand injury. It becomes something else entirely: It is very grim and I explored this in Writhing to Kill, where I looked at how grievance is sustained as identity rather than resolved. Your point underscores exactly that pattern.
Please stop using the term ‘antisemitism’, a term created by 19th century German Jew hater Wilhelm Marr. It’s Jew hatred, we are Jews from Judea, not ‘Semites’. Stop using terms coined by non-Jews to define us. Islamophobia is a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood meant to stop any legitimate criticism of political/radical Islam. It’s about we take back our identity and dispense with nebulous terms to define who we are. 😼
Thank you. On reflection I prefer “Jew hatred” to “antisemitism,” since as you say the latter was coined by Marr. Likewise, “Islamophobia” has been promoted politically to shield critique. Your point shows how naming is never neutral because it shapes identity and power.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia. A phobia is an IRRATIONAL fear. Fear of Islam (Islamophobia) is completely rational and healthy considering 1) the tens of thousands of global terrorist attacks by Muslims since 9/11 alone 2) the fact that Islam breeds such radicalism which is often NOT denounced by more "moderate" Muslims 3) Islamists take advantage of the West's tolerance for diversity and multiculturalism- they obtain "soft" power through political means (like Mamdani did in NYC by using the progressive left)- but their tactics - like Mamdani's socialism platform- is merely a cover for their ultimate goal which is the undermining and ISLAMIZATION of Western societies. Just look at parts of Europe where Islam has taken over and imposed Sharia law in many communities. Many of these migrants are not interested in assimilating into our Western, Judeo-Christian societies. They want to destroy them. Americans need to WAKE UP! Qatar has spent BILLIONS brainwashing our youth in our Universities for DECADES now. Read THIS to understand how far back this pan-Arabic campaign to destroy our Western civilization was planned: https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/columnist/365220/the-inside-story-of-how-palestinians-took-over-the-world/
Just to clarify, you are talking about radical Islam, not Islam itself.. I 100% agree!
I disagree. islam itself is a radical ideology. It comes directly from the koran. It's as if you used the term radical communism and claimed it differentiated from communism itself.
Its a double bind. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you insist on a clear difference, you risk reinforcing the use of “Islamophobia” as a weapon to silence examination of violent groups.
If you deny any difference, you risk blunt collapsing a vast religious tradition into a radical form.
Either way you're damned.
I see your point. Unfortunately it is more nuanced than that. If it were only that simple. That being said I do agree there is no such thing as Islamophobia, as you said we have every right to be afraid. It is justifiable!
Islamophobia actually is a Real phobia of extreme dangerous radical Islamists 😈, whose goal is to destroy Democracy. Replace with a Islamic caliphate Invented by CAIR, Qatar It's disguised antisemitism, Zionistphobia
The best (and most prescient) book I've read about this topic is by the French writer Pascal Bruckner, "An Imaginary Racism: Islamophobia and Guilt" (2017), with much of it about Islamo-Leftism. It is worth reading.
—"The future will remember that in the twenty-first century, a large part of the Western intelligentsia made common cause with fundamentalist totalitarianism, just as their elders had communed with Nazism and communism.
Beneath the surface, the far left and radical Islam agree on one point: they want to destroy this society, to be redeemed by the immigrant, by the foreigner who will come to regenerate our old, exhausted nations.
Why does everyone want to be a Jew these days, especially the enemies of the Jews? In order to accede in the imagination to the status of the outcast and to compare the defence of Islam with the struggle against Nazism. The Quranic faith alone is supposed to escape the kind of criticism that is normal for all other religions: it is untouchable, they are modifiable...
Jews, the West’s former scapegoat, have become, in their Zionist version, the paragon of colonialism. Thus they are exponential whites, quintessential whites. For them, the choice is as clear-cut as it is simple: either go over to the side of those other Semites, the Arabs, or support Israel and plunge into the abominable.
Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism justified, finally made available to everyone. It is the permission to be democratically anti-Semitic. What if the Jews themselves were Nazis? That would be marvellous. It would no longer be necessary to feel sorry for them: they would have deserved their fate!
Because they enjoyed the privilege of coming earlier, the Jews remain the gold standard for racial hatred when that hatred no longer knows where to turn. Once the other scapegoats have been exhausted, the Jews are still there, a last resort. When will we see progressive pogroms? [N.B.: We've already seen them in the past few years.]
Once the equivalence of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia was established, a subtle process of symbolic appropriation began. The goal was to evict the Jews in order to put the Muslims in their place. It’s our turn, the latter said.
The Jewification of the Muslims automatically leads to the Nazification of the Israelis..."
Thank you for bringing Bruckner in — his analysis applies very well here. He shows how antisemitism is appropriated and transferred: Jews, once the archetypal victims, are recast as aggressors, while grievance is reassigned to others. In that inversion, antisemitism is repurposed and worn by new claimants. That inversion sustains grievance politics and shields it from scrutiny.
Islamophobia is a lite form of Muslim blasphemy law that has been cleverly insinuated into western thought and institutions. It will stop being lite when it finally formally carries the death penalty as it does in Islam itself. Unless the tide is turned it is just a matter of time until this happens.
No, it’s not ‘light’ in the least. Try telling this to friends and relatives of the Charlie Hebdo massacres, or the Bataclan terrorist attacks, or the beheading of French teacher Samuel Paty. Nothing light about it all.
Islamophobia as a “lite” blasphemy law, infiltrating institutions and threatening to criminalise critique resonates. But then again as EJV says it is already lethal (massacres and beheadings). Taken together we see Islamophobia functions both as anticipatory repression and as present violence. Quite a bracing thought. I hope people are able to wake up to this!
To be clear I meant lite only with respect to how western governments punish their citizens for it, not how Islam punishes people for what it considers blasphemy. EJV and I are not in disagreement about this.
An excellent take on things.
Islam has not been taken on since the 1950s or so, Islam took over Bradford very early and has only cultivated it's grievance ideology ever since.
9/11 ought to have led to mass deportations of imams and activists. Instead, Bin Laden proved to be entirely correct. The weak white horse is too stupid to know it's enemy ,and will be loathed by all right thinking people. The strong black horse of Islam will be preferred by the godless. How true.
The two horses imagery is very vivid! Thank you.
First, a phobia, as we all know, means a FEAR of something, right? My disgust/dislike of Islam has nothing to do with fear but from my Army Infantry days I remember the expression "Know your enemy" and this "religion" is hostile to everything as we are all known as infidels in the worst sense of that word. Second, I've mentioned this before from General Patton "To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing." Finally, they can't even get along with themselves as Shia hate Sunni and both hate Wahabi and so on.
Yes “phobia” denotes irrational fear, and as you say this is not irrational but grounded in experience. That’s why the activist use of “Islamophobia” is slippery because it risks hiding truths we ignore at our peril. “phobia” becomes a shield around grievance politics rather than a description of fear. Your comment highlights that distortion.
One is a stage play. The other is real life.
Wound? What wound? You mean the beating they got when they tried to exterminate us? The grievance isn’t real or the result of a “wound.” It’s a made up, contrived, self-inflicted, and convenient excuse to flip the script. It’s the built-in excuse to attack and blame those who reject Islam, and before Islam, Christianity. We Jews are the ones who have stayed true to our own roots for ourselves. We are not dependent on the farce of forcing and subjugating others to our way. That’s why our enemies hate us and won’t leave us alone—we reject their obsessive coercion to accept a man-made, made-up narrative, and by doing so, we expose their false idols. Ouch. I guess that’s a wound of sorts that’s a pain in their asses.
Thank you and yes I agree — grievance politics depends on keeping the wound ignited rather than healed. And in that sense, a wound that is deliberately kept open is not a “real wound”, at least in the way we normally understand injury. It becomes something else entirely: It is very grim and I explored this in Writhing to Kill, where I looked at how grievance is sustained as identity rather than resolved. Your point underscores exactly that pattern.
What will you die for? It's a very serious question......