You are posting a comment about...
Jihadist Psychopath: How he is charming, seducing, and devouring us
Jamie Glazov's book shows how Jihad Denial is allowing Military Jihad, Stealth Jihad (via mass immigration), and Institutional Jihad (the takeover of institutions by Islamic supremacists) to destroy the West. No, he is not Islamophobic.
by Phyllis Chesler
In Andrew Roberts’ new biography of Winston Churchill, Churchill: Walking With Destiny, he describes Churchill as a young soldier and war correspondent on the border of then-India and Afghanistan, fighting the Pathans. There, Churchill found that ‘a rigid form of Islam kept the Afghan people in the grip of miserable superstition... (which) stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism.’”
On the North West Frontier and soon again in Sudan, Churchill saw “Islamic fundamentalism up close...It was not unlike the political fanaticism that he was to encounter forty years later. None of the three British Prime Ministers of the 1930s... had ever personally encountered such extremism in their personal lives and they were tragically slow to discern the nature of Nazi ideology. Churchill had fought against fanaticism in his youth and recognized its salient features earlier than anyone else.”
Author Jamie Glazov was born in Soviet Russia to dissident parents who published and circulated “samizdat.” Glazov himself obtained a Ph.D in history and he has a similarly keen and Churchillian sense of the overwhelming and imminent danger posed by totalitarianism and fanaticism—and therefore by Islamic Jihad. In his new book Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us, Glazov clearly and powerfully exposes the nature of Islamic Jihad and Jihad Denial in America, which he views, correctly, as a form of psychological suicide.
I am on record having challenged what I’ve called “psychiatric imperialism,” the non-clinical use of clinical diagnoses to explain an entire culture or ideology. However, we are long past that minute before midnight and Glazov’s analogy of a psychopath with a Jihadist achieves an eery resonance. The analogy more or less works.
Although I have been covering Islamic terrorism for the last eighteen years, Glazov’s book still has the power to make my blood boil. He is masterful when he describes well-known Jihad attacks in America that were quickly “spun” as having nothing to do with Islam, or with Muslim terrorist organizations.
The Jihadist who shouted “Allahu Akhbar” and who pledged loyalty to ISIS or who studied with Anwar Al-Awlaki, is always described as a lone, mentally ill, self-radicalized, economically impoverished and racially oppressed man, a one-off, certainly not a new kind of soldier in an old kind of war against the infidel, the apostate, the West, and the “wrong” kind of Muslim.
What’s worse: Immediately following a genuine, full-blown, unmistakably Jihadist attack (in Jerusalem, Mumbai, Bali, Nice, Paris, Boston, or New York City), what seems to terrify most Westerners is the possibility that innocent Muslims will be blamed and attacked. This has rarely happened but this virtue-signaling (no, we are not racists, yes, we are very politically correct), an attitude which by now is an obsession, usually overwhelms any analysis of the Jihad attack itself.
Glazov gives us many such examples. Here’s one. The first Somali Muslim police officer ever hired in Minneapolis shot and killed an unarmed woman “for incomprehensible reasons.” The police officer said that he’d been nervous and admitted his pronounced lack of respect for women in general. The female mayor of Minneapolis said nothing about what can happen when incompetent or poorly trained officers are hired in order to satisfy multiculturalists. “Instead, she stressed that after this shooting, Islamophobia would not be tolerated.”
Another Glazov example: After the Jihad bombing of the Boston Marathon, the city decided to hang posters against Islamophobic harassment—but not against Jihad terror.
This is galling, unbelievable—but it is even more unbelievable that most people do not know this, have not connected these dots, and do not want to hear about it. Too upsetting.
Glazov clearly exposes the three forms of Jihad that now threaten the West and the world. Military Jihad, Stealth Jihad (via mass immigration), and Institutional Jihad (the takeover of institutions by pro-Jihad and Islamic supremacists). What has allowed this to proceed apace is what Glazov terms: Jihad Denial.
The American media, professoriate, and government, first under George W. Bush, then under Barack Obama, engaged in Jihad Denial after 9/11, (2001), after the Fort Hood Jihad (2009), after the Boston Marathon Jihad (2013), after the San Bernardino Jihad (2015), after the Orlando Jihad (2016), and after the NYC Halloween truck Jihad (2017).
The Brooklyn-born-and-bred Linda Sarsour, who self-identifies as a Palestinian-American, was part of a group that persuaded the ACLU to successfully close down police surveillance of the Patterson New Jersey mosque where the Halloween truck Jihadist regularly prayed. Eight people were murdered and many more injured— a small price to pay in the fake war against racism. True: There is no iron-clad guarantee that this attack could have been prevented even with surveillance and yet, without it, the attack was certainly not prevented.
Glazov shocks and enlightens by documenting how many Jihad attacks—in our country and on our watch—might have been stopped had President Obama not discontinued surveillance and fired all the key administration officials who were not psychologically disabled by Jihad Denial. Such Denial is a psychological syndrome which automatically “paints all concerns about Jihad as Islamophobia, racism, and bigotry.”
I forgot that President Bush “gave in to the self-destructive Jihad Denial agenda, dutifully announcing that Islam was a ‘religion of peace,’ and that it had no connection to Islamic terror in general or to 9/11 in particular.”
I forgot how outraged I was by President Obama’s opening statements and actions. Thankfully, Glazov reminds me. Obama refused to use the word “Islam” or “Jihad;” even as Jihad attack after Jihad attack was clearly perpetrated by Muslims who said they were obeying Islamic law; and had ties to certain mosques, mullahs, and/or terrorist groups, both here and abroad.
Righteously, virtuously, stealthily, the Obama’ administration shut down crucial surveillance of individuals, community networks, and mosques. It banned reviews of the social media accounts of suspected Jihadists.
Glazov reminds me that Obama actually appointed members of the Muslim Brotherhood to his administration and insisted that President Mubarak allow Muslim Brotherhood leaders to occupy front row seats when he spoke in Cairo in 2009.
“See no Islam/Hear no Islam” is now a “mass psychosis” in the West. Those who dissent are treated as pariahs: blasphemers, traitors, and racists.
“Islamophobia.” How many times can we note that Islam is not a race—that it is a totalitarian ideology which claims religious status. How often can we insist that Islam has a magnificent history, in terms of art and science, and that Islam is a religion of peace—when the facts do not bear this out? How can we claim that in the past, Muslims lived ever so peacefully with pagans, HIndus, Sikhs, Bahai, Buddhists, Christians, and Jews? This is not the case and Glazov makes that clear too. Those infidels who wished to live were converted by the Islamic sword; all others were slaughtered, enslaved, taxed, impoverished, or exiled.
According to Glazov, the “See no Islam/Hear no Islam” is now a “mass psychosis” in the West. Those who dissent are treated as pariahs: blasphemers, traitors, and racists. They are, accordingly, exiled (Oriana Fallaci), silenced or dis-invited (Bruce Bawer), sued (Elizabeth Sabaaditch-Wolfe), death threatened (Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali), forced to live in hiding or with 24/7 protection (Lars Hedegaard, Lars Vilks, Magdi Allam), jailed (Tommy Robinson), and sometimes, murdered (Theo Von Gogh).
Still, why would a sane Westerner need to deny reality? Drawing on a variety of psychiatric and psychological sources, Glazov has some answers.
First, it is psychologically very difficult for people to believe that evil truly exists and that we may be unable to abolish it. Those who think we can and who try to do so are delusional. It is hard to accept that one is not in control and at the mercy of larger, hostile forces. Harder still (unless you are an Israeli), to understand that such a war, also known as the “situation,” may be a long war and one that we and our children will have to fight in order to survive and defend our way of life, imperfect though it may be.
Many people under siege, or under a psychopath’s influence, find it easier to blame themselves or to pity the poor psychopath. Surely if we improve our own behavior and help the psychopath-victim, all will be well.
According to Glazov, and to some other psychoanalytic theorists, Jihadists are psychologically “empty.” They have something akin to an “attachment disorder” due to their having been severely neglected in childhood. I found that Bin Laden was a prime example. His father had 57 children and his mother was forced to flee when he was an infant. He was known as the “son of the slave woman.” He burned for paternal attention and affection which was never forthcoming. Therefore, a Jihadist feels alive and powerful only when he or she can “dominate” and paralyze others in order to destroy them.
Perhaps I was most shocked by something I did not know, namely, that, according to Glazov, under Obama the rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan made it impossible for them to to survive. In fact, Obama’s new rules were “suicidal” for soldiers and on his watch, “U.S. casualties skyrocketed with over 70 percent of the more than two thousand American deaths in Afghanistan occurring after the (pro-Muslim, pro-Taliban) rules were implemented.”
Glazov—remember, he is the son of Soviet dissidents—sees Jihad Denial as “catastrophic.” He likens it to a “Cold War scenario in which the FBI was searching for communist spies but was simultaneously not allowed to ask them anything about communism. Even worse, imagine the FBI having to deny the existence of its enemy during the Cold War while asking the KGB for advice on how to deal with the enemy that supposedly doesn’t exist?”
His book is persuasive.
It is tragic—and not his fault—that Glazov, the Editor of FrontPage Magazine, must so often cite authors whom he has published and/or, with some exceptions, rely mainly on sources that are all defamed as “conservative” and “Islamophobic.” However, what this means is that Glazov is correct about what one is allowed to write in the liberal/left-stream media which has perfected and enacted Jihad Denial. Only “conservative” authors are clear about the Islam in Islamic Terrorism—the subject of a forthcoming book by my dear colleague, Ibn Warraq.
Glazov begins his book with a “warning.” He clarifies that the thesis of this book is “not that all Muslims are psychopaths. Rather, this book’s focus is on the Jihadist Psychopath, on those Muslims who follow him and the violent commands of Islam, and on those inside our own camp who are aiding and abetting the enemy... (this) is not about all Muslims.”
However, this is a book about the war being waged against the West, which means against Israel, against Christianity, against women, and against freedom. Rather than deny this is so; rather than blame ourselves and look for ways to appease the self-described Victim/Killer; according to Glazov we must name the enemy, expose his lies, and fight to win. Surrender is not an option. I will let Glazov have the last, stirring words:
“We still have a small window of opportunity in which we might resist the Jihadist Psychopath—and liberate ourselves from his deadly and ruthless grasp.