It Appears as Though I have Arrived

The following article was brought to my attention by Dymphna, at Gates of Vienna and, subsequently, used as an excuse to prohibit me from publishing any more articles about Islam at that forum. It is difficult not to imagine how Dymphna has handed Arab News author, Farha Khaled, a victory on a silver platter. Silencing my voice can only serve the ends of Islam.

Gates of Vienna Incites for Muslim Holocaust

Gates of Vienna the notorious white supremacist blog which published Fjordman and inspired Anders Brievik, recently published a three part essay which calls for the Holocaust of Muslims.

This is the same far right cesspool-of-bigotry-website notorious for publishing Pedar Jensen who vented his Islamophobia for many years under the pen name of Fjordman, and who has now gone into hiding after being interviewed by Norwegian police over the Anders Breivik massacre. Gates of Vienna is run by a couple in the USA, one Baron Bodissey whose real name is thought to be ‘Ned May’ and a woman calling herself Dymphna.

This is not first time Gates of Vienna has published screeds supposedly written by other anonymous contributors calling for the genocide of Muslims. A few years back a similar lovingly written piece inciting for the genocide of Muslims was published as Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs noted in Gates of Vienna Toys with Genocide:

‘If violence does erupt in European countries between natives and Muslims, I consider it highly likely that people who had never done anything more violent than beat eggs will prove incapable of managing the psychological transition to controlled violence and start killing anything that looks remotely Muslim. Our unspoken conviction that we, in 21st-century Europe, ‘

On 20th September 2011, Dymphna Of Gates of Vienna posted a three part series by one Zenster with the introduction:

This is the first of a three part essay dealing with Islamic terrorism and what can be expected regarding Islam’s ultimate fate.

Moving on to Part 1, titled ‘When Will It End?’ the essay begins by setting the tone with:

‘Short answer ― It will end when the tipping point is reached. This tipping point can be defined as follows:

When living with Muslims becomes more trouble than living without Muslims.‘

The only problem being is that Gates of Vienna never published any such line. Dymphna specifically edited it to read:

When living with Islam becomes more trouble than living without Islam

Clearly, Farha Khaled culled this line from the version published here, or at the 1389 blog, in order to increase her smearing power against Gates of Vienna. Chalk it up to the usual Islamic taqiyya.

A long rambling justification about the costs of policing airlines from terrorists, and how that money could be better spent on fighting aids and other social ills follows, in an obvious attempt to find some sort of moral justification as to why there is no other way.

Save for the fact that I do propose another far more moral way which Farha Khaled conveniently neglected to mention.

From "How Will it End?": "Repulsive in the extreme is how truly avoidable this looming Muslim holocaust really is. A far less costly program of “wetwork” style targeted assassinations directed at the top echelons of Islam’s clerical, political, scholastic and financial aristocracy could see global jihad quickly screech to a grinding halt.

As can be seen, I do present a clear alternative to the Muslim holocaust. What's more, in complete contradiction of Farha Khaled's repeated accusations that I advocate the nuclear destruction of Islam, I make it crystal clear about how: "Repulsive in the extreme is how truly avoidable this looming Muslim holocaust really is." Moreover, Farha Khaled demonstrates the usual Muslim inability, or unwillingness, to discern between what is predictive and not normative.

It ends with the ominous warning ‘The tipping point is approaching swiftly’

Part two of the essay has the presumptuous title Why it will End? and answers the question by stating ‘Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it’ before going on to elaborate with hyperbole and lies including one manufactured on Gates of Vienna by Fjordman:

‘Throughout Europe, Muslims are disproportionately represented in rape, violent crime and imprisonment statistics. The expense of this criminality reaches into extra billions of Euros per year and does not cover property damage, victim rehabilitation and other ancillary expenses. Nor does this speak to the same criminal practices and consequences resulting from ostensibly legal immigration into Europe by tens of millions of Muslims over the past few decades.’

The rapes statistics in Scandinavia that Fjordman published at Gates of Vienna which were then repeated on the Islamophobic blogosphere were proven to be lies.

I'm hoping someone more versed in European crime can examine the linked article, Pat Condell claims all rapists in Oslo are 'Muslim immigrants', to see if it fact-based.

Zenster continues his mental masturbation:

The reputation of Muslims as predatory criminals and intensely parasitic occupiers all combines into a damning indictment of Islam. Its presence on earth only promises increased conflict, more atrocities, new genocides and unwarranted diversions of wealth that could better serve far more deserving causes. Finally, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast to where they cannot be expected to keep pursuing their own petty quarrels instead of addressing the overarching threat of jihad. The complete and total inability of Islam to coexist with any legitimate faith or other culture presages a day when its numerous victims will band together in pursuit of an ultimate victory.

That is why it will end.

Except that it is not "mental masturbation" to cite the well-documented and disproportionate representation of Muslims in European crime statistics.

In the concluding Part three, How it will End? Zenster sums it up briefly: ‘The Muslim holocaust.‘ He then continues exhibiting more megalomania and what clearly appears to be a projection of his own fantasies:

Again, Farha Khaled resorts to Islamic misdirection. It is not "megalomania" to assert that Islam intends to impose shari'a law upon the entire world. Actually, it's right there in the Qur'an. Furthermore, it is an established fact that Muslim military forces are supremely incompetent. Both Israel and America have demonstrated this time and again with lots of help from our supposed ally, Pakistan.

Also, it certainly cannot be construed as "fantasies" that Islam is headed directly towards a nuclear confrontation with the West. Iran's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons is just one of many existing flashpoints that threaten to engulf the MME (Muslim Middle East) in a catastrophic conflict which gives little hope of being conventional in nature. Economics alone indicate this.

‘Suffused with delusions of adequacy, Muslims think nothing of constantly antagonizing Western powers who long ago perfected industrialized warfare to an extent that Islam can only dream of, despite its supremacist fantasies.’

This could explain why the far right white supremacists see Israel as an ally. They see Israel as doing their dirty work for them, and as if on cue Zenster trots out the Samson option:

‘Neither is this the end of it. Iran’s reckless pursuit of genocide against the Jews could precipitate the Muslim holocaust all by itself. Little known to most people is Israel’sSamson Option. If true, the Jewish state has quietly informed its Arab neighbours that a single WMD strike against Israel will result in the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) being incinerated in nuclear plasma. Hundreds of fusion warheads along with newly acquired Dolphin class submarines and cruise missiles back this up.’

Please notice where Farha Khaled has inserted the British spelling of "neighbours" into my work. It is difficult to imagine why she felt that was necessary.

Contradictions galore! Elsewhere in this three part essay the author talks of the plot to establish the world Caliphate, but here he says he is convinced it won’t come about. Freudian slip? :

How is it a “Freudian slip” to note Islam’s openly avowed pursuit of a global caliphate and subsequently dismiss any such possibility? Of far greater importance is how Farha Khaled seems to constantly dismiss any notion that Islam seeks global supremacy, despite it being a cornerstone of Islamic doctrine.

‘Now, consider how America rolled up Iraq’s sidewalks in two weeks. This is the “reality gap” confronting Islam and its delusory vision of world domination. No such thing will ever happen.’

More ramblings, perhaps to justify his own dreams of nuclear warfare

Again, Farha Khaled handily ignores my own personal revulsion at how "avoidable" the looming Muslim holocaust really is. Clearly, it would not serve her purposes of victimhood to relate my own distaste for such an outcome. Better to portray me as a bloodthirsty warmonger than one who seeks to prevent it. If anything, it is Islam that is driving this entire situation to the precipice of nuclear war. A simple thought experiment proves this.

Would there be anywhere near the potential for a Muslim holocaust if Islam stopped waging global jihad?

‘It is more than safe to say that an industrially and militarily unlettered Islam is notgoing to take over the world using such a feeble tool as terrorism. As was also noted in Part II, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast and that pace far outstrips any ability of theirs to perfect the mass production of intricate nuclear weapons nor muster fighting forces of even marginal proficiency. Chronic overreach is a hallmark of Islam and its habit of poking at the Western nuclear dragon with its terrorist pointed wooden stick bodes especially unwell for Muslims everywhere.’

The essay is full of dire warnings, rants about liberals who are complicit in Islamising the planet, of the political establishment for being too weak, but more gravely, it even condemns the ‘counter jihad’ movement for not calling for a ‘solution’ and for being too soft.

The only problem being is that the word "solution" never once appears anywhere in all three parts of my essay. Using such a freighted word would be all that someone like Farha Khaled needed to screech about the exact accusations that she has manufactured in the absence of facts. That is specifically why the word was never used even once in my essay. This disingenuous attempt to plant it in my work proves my point beyond a doubt.

When you hear of so called ‘counter jihadis’ accused of being ‘soft’ and the whole of western civilization embroiled in a plot whose aim it is to – err- destroy themselves – it is safe to assume you are reading from someone not quite right in the head, to put it politely.

Note the ad hominem attack? When you cannot attack the argument, attack the person. This strategy is constantly used by the Left and Muslims due to how little evidence they can summon to support their own version of reality.

Someone who doesn’t deserve a second thought and should ordinarily be dismissed as a raving loon.

Again, with the ad hominem attack. It is a hallmark of intellectual bankruptcy and a breach of good manners as well. None of which seems to bother Farha Khaled.

Except that it was at this very website, where a writer with the same Islamophobic rhetoric inspired a loner to kill tens of children on a holiday island!

Farha Khaled is a columnist for the Saudi based Arab News.

Perish the thought that Farha Khaled might behave responsibly and note how Anders Breivik could have acted out of disgust at constant Islamic atrocities and the Liberal Norwegian politicians who knowingly harbor terrorists like Mullah Krekar. Islam is responsible for over 17,000 deadly terrorist attacks since the 9-11 atrocity and that is reason, all by itself, for people to harbor severe animosity towards Islam. I suppose that I should be honored at being placed in the company of Fjordman, but I am equally sure it was not Farha Khaled's actual intent.