Fear, Inc. - America's Islamophobia Network

The Center for American Progress has released a fascinatingly detailed, complete report on the organized Islamophobia industry in the USA:

Fear, Inc. - The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America

Some key exerpts:

"The funding

• More than $40 million flowed from seven foundations over 10 years.
• The foundations funding the misinformation experts:
Donors Capital Fund; Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation;
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; Newton and Rochelle Becker
Foundation and Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust;
Russell Berrie Foundation, Anchorage Charitable Fund and William
Rosenwald Family Fund; Fairbrook Foundation.​

The misinformation experts

• Five experts generate the false facts and materials used by political
leaders, grassroots groups, and the media:

• Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy
• David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence
• Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum
• Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America
• Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism​

• These experts travel the country and work with or testify before
state legislatures calling for a ban on the nonexisting threat of
Sharia law in America and proclaiming that the vast majority of
mosques in our country harbor Islamist terrorists or sympathizers​

"

"The reach

• The movement is moving nationwide in more than 23 states—
made possible by a combination of new, single-minded
Islamophobia groups, exemplified by Brigitte Gabriel’s ACT!
For America, Pam Geller’s Stop Islamization of America, David
Horowitz’s Freedom Center, and existing groups such as the
American Family Association and the Eagle Forum.
• Misinformation experts are broadcast around the country and the
world, with their work cited many times by (among others) confessed
Norway terrorist Anders Breivik.
• U.S. politicians such as Reps. Peter King (R-NY), Allen West (R-FL),
and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) repeat these anti-Muslim attacks
give credence to incorrect facts.​

"

"Why it matters

• These attacks go right to the heart of two critically important
national issues: the fabric and strength of our democracy and our
national security. Our Constitution upholds freedom of religion for
all Americans. Contending that some religions are not part of the
promise of American freedoms established by our founders directly
challenges who we are as a nation.
• One of Al Qaeda’s greatest recruitment and propaganda tool is
the assertion that the West is at war with Islam and Muslims—an
argument that is strengthened every day by those who suggest all
Muslims are terrorists and all those practicing Islam are jeopardizing
U.S. security.​

"

Note the similarity between this tactic and various other right-wing media-push assaults in recent history: the defense of Big Tobbacco, Climate Change denial, the Red Scare, etc. Are sunshine and fresh air sufficient remedies for these pathologies, or is a more direct, concerted response indicated?

Consider recent results from RPI on social consensus through the influence of committed minorities:

"Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists [...] used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”​

"

The question that naturally presents itself, then, is whether the forces of counter-Islamophobia are sufficiently organized and committed to meaningfully counter the well-organized, funded Islamophobia network. If not, there is a danger of the manufactured Islamophobia reaching the tipping point and running away with the whole show.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aren't both sides wrong? We can't use irrational fear to push an extreme political agenda, but we also can't deny that certain forms of violence are associated with Islam.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

see it is all about blacknaphobia from whitey when it comes down to it . The thing is it is not about skin color so as much ( I know there are skin heads in the world and it is about the skin color with shit loads of fuckers still )That given ): It is about ideology . You got it religion meddling in the state . Think about all the Muslims that are born American and have made big contributions to the society of the U.S. . Yeah way . Some of you ignorant of that fact . Consider this : For every one you see there is five more in close range of the one you see . The hero's are endless . You just see the few that hit the spot light . The ones that go unnoticed because there heads are down in the trenches making things happen . They are out there right now . There is a chance you might be one

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

? The whole point here is that the debate is one-sided.

That latter equivocation will start to carry some weight right after "we" start going around making a point of the undeniability of the association between "certain forms of violence" and Christianity, Judaism, American nationalism, etc.

Which is to say that it's a fool's game. The progressive position must surely to be to reject stereotyped conceptions as such, and instead relate to people on the basis of their individual agency and worth. To go along with the "clash of civilizations" conception of war between ideological/political factions is to be a sucker.

It's not a question of "Islam Good!" vs. "Islam Bad!", but a question of "Relate in Terms of Stereotypes!" vs. "Don't be a Dick!" This way we get to hate on both the Islamophobes and Al Qaeda, instead of being marginalized as supporting one or the other side.

 

Well and succinctly put.
I've been on board with the above for quite some time.


When will they be bringing the refreshment cart by?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh yes stewardess? how much to spike that coffee with a shot of rum?
Later : Rummmmm...

 

+1

The unshakeable 10% of religious extremists seems less shakeable than a bunch of Jihadwatchers. I've seen what the former kind of retard can get up to, and I'll take a firm worry about them than those reacting to them.

Besides which, ol' Bob isn't exactly rich.

 

^^^ Bingo.

 

Interesting, will read the report today, although, in my opinion, its a matter of too little, too late.

 

It does raise the question: is it anti- to just notice a trend? To comment on it? Or is the supposition that they have gone beyond it? On what is that based, if anything beyond hopeful wishing?

 

I can understand all the popular suspicions regarding conservative Muslims, but the sad and frustrating part is to watch these suspicions and libels being directed at Muslims who aren't actually conservative. We should be worried about the people who actually preach in their mosques that violence can be justified for religious purposes, and instead we're surrounded by nutjob propagandists targeting middle class Muslims trying to buy into the American dream, as if the basic desire for shared prosperity is a new and unprecedented threat. I can't even begin to count the number of historical instances in the last two millenia wherein Judaism and Christianity were invoked to justify some form of inhumane bloodshed, and it clearly belies a lack of integrity on the part of news media when they try to pretend that such trends are somehow unique to Islam. America was founded by refugees of religious persecution, not advocates for it. In any case it's really just a cynical game (with very dangerous consequences), given the way the same leaders of these Islamophobic movements will happily deal with Muslims of highly questionable character whenever cheap oil is at stake.

 

True.

Also...look, not to be a shit here, but what's Puritan mean to you?

This isn't meant as a generalization. I'm sure it will be taken as such, by some people.

 

The Puritans certainly caused problems of their own as masters of their own fate, but when they initially settled in the new world, they were the underdogs. My reading into American history indicates they had little trouble supporting the establishment of democratic institutions (for white males), specifically due to the collective resentment for the self-declared authority of outsiders, and that authority (monarchist) naturally had its origins in religious practice. The founding fathers weren't themselves generally opposed to conventional religious practice, but they had plenty of reasons to be adamant that such practice should never find its way into the internal workings of the state, which is precisely what's happening now as large portions of the population advocate a biased national stance in favour of Judaism and Christianity, with not even the slightest regard for inconvenient nuances and distinctions like region, ethnicity and sect.

 

No. The whole point is that it is a major act of denial on the part of the islamophobes.

Westerners tend to be greedy and they want luxury items, but at cheap prices.
So they buy oil and natural resources from Muslim countries. Many clothes that Westerners wear are manufactured in Muslim countries. Many electronic devices are manufactured in Muslim countries. Many Westerners go vacationing in Muslim countries.
In many ways, Westerners are economically dependent on Muslims and Muslim countries.


If the Muslims end up thinking that the Westerners want them and even need them, then the Muslims are really not to blame if Westerners have denial issues.

 

The underlying problem is proper education regarding superstition's role in society. I expect things to deteriorate as the economy crashes and idiotic progressive ideals give way to reality.


You know what I saw last year? I went to a Koala park and there in "Education Center" was a mural of some stone age Aboriginals tossing spears at some Koala's. A few were shown preparing Koala for dinner. Now, I have no problem with Aboriginals eating Koala in 2011, let alone 200 years ago. What I do have a problem with is White Australian obsession with protecting "Aboriginal culture". Aboriginals are always presented as stone age cavemen living in caves or nomadic existence. And there's White Australian, there to "Protect" them. To this day I've never seen Aboriginals portrayed with suits and iPhones (which would better represent most Aboriginals), It's always weak savages that need White people's help.

Now, think about Muslims.


Most Progressives are self deluded mutton heads who like to denigrate themselves just a little because they secretly think they're better than everyone else.

 

I would have to ask, does it matter?

 

I'd say it was. Breivik cited Robert "Bob" Spencer 162 times in his 1500 page manifesto before he bombed government buildings and shot down teenagers in his "gruesome but necessary" act to stop the "Muslimisation" of Europe. And I'm betting that everyone who campaigned against the "mosque" at "ground zero" is familiar with Jihadwatch. Ironic, that the war against terror has come home to roost and Americans will now have to be wary of Islamophobes blowing up their buildings and shooting their children.

I have to ask: was it worth it?

 

You've said it is worth it but haven't explained why. Both fear mongering political agendas and Muslim violence are both real. That is the trend. Geoff asked if it is "anti-" to notice the trend and I asked if it matters. You said yes but then wrote about some anti-muslim going nuts with a gun. So, how does this equate to "Yes, it matters that it is 'anti-' to notice a trend"?

Your argument is showing the dangerous effects of when people buy into fear mongering political agendas (which is a very separate concept than what I was addressing).

 

I agree with you. It does matter. And it is anti- to note a trend if based on "Five experts generate the false facts and materials "


You want to know how many people Robert Spencer will inspire to commit murder in the name of religion or ethnicity - I personally would like to know how many people influenced by him are in Iraq and Afghanistan posing with pictures of kids they have killed. And not just him

But all this discussion is 10 years too late.

 

This is pretty much so. There seems to be no difference drawn between most Muslims who are going to be good for this country...and the tiny minority who are nutjobs.
But if you were to turn around and do this to the Christian right...oh no you di'in't!!

But Bork, we have a longstanding and fine tradition of religious persecution and/or discrimination:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion_in_the_United_States

For the 2.0 version, see the following wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_discrimination_against_Neopagans

And I note, the people who did this literal witchhunt are probably going after Muslims now. Who exactly is running a holy war here?

 

Not in the eyes of some people.

Yet, Robert "Bob" Spencer has never once called for any such violence. If you can find such, please post it. Breivik was, as the saying goes, "a tiny minority of extremist". Please pardon the pun.

Leaving aside the fact that Spencer doesn't call for any such violence, I feel compelled to point out that in your citation of the 'eminent' Mawdudi, you never feel compelled to ask the same question of Islamism. This is a little OT, of course, but when you cite Mawdudi while railing against Spencer for something he's never asked for, well... If one is going to saddle him with the responsibility of this act, then I wonder what other beast might be brought to bridle for the acts of its extremists.