Islamophobia Ruse Western Appeasement Western stooges



I have had private exchanges with Andre Oboler (I respect his area of expertise) via email, and yes I still have them, but due to my sense of propriety, they will remain off line. However, my emails to him addressing his many failed understandings of Islam, and his epic fail efforts in casting those of us standing for real human rights and western civilization, are my property alone, and I can do whatever I like with them.

NOTE: They are all available after the fold.

Islamophobia gif

andre.obolerThe Problem with OHPI’s Reliance on the Islamic Council of Victoria

July 3, 2014 • Islam Exposed • Leave a reply

The primary mission of The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI), and respectively its CEO Mr. Andre Oboler, has been to counter anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and replacement geography, as is exemplified by his prior body of work. Many were under the impression that this was his primary mission.

Yet, recently, Mr. Oboler, on behalf of OHPI, has shifted his focus to also include “Islamophobia.” To do so, he is collaborating with the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV), which is clearly established in the Acknowledgements section of his December 10, 2013 OHPI report, Islamophobia on the Internet: The Growth of Online Hate Targeting Muslims, and is confirmed in its Foreword by the ICV Secretary, Ghaith Krayem.

Meanwhile, Mr. Oboler has continuously targeted as “Islamophobic” a pro-Israel Facebook page, Islam Exposed, and its administrators, who are dedicated to protecting Muslims from Islamic/Shariah law inspired terror and raising public awareness about it. As is exhibited by the following video, however, there is a glaring conflict of interest between this, his previous goal to combat antisemitism, and his association with ICV, which has consistently backed terrorist groups and lodged public attacks against Israel and the Jewish people.

More here.

It’s my opinion that where islam is concerned, Andre Oboler is grossly outside his area of expertise, being in great need of reeducating himself on the basics of Islam minus the mind numbing Islamic apologetics.

1st reply to Andre Oboler

Dear Andre, With all due respect.

One of the chief mistakes in the report that I can see straight away, is your treatment of Islam (and its followers), as being the adherents to an ideology that is ”just like any other religion”, this is a fallacy. Philosopher Sam Harris has is it correct in his demonstrating the differences between belief systems that fall under the umbrella of ”organized religion”, with his comparison of Thai kick boxing to badminton. Both are classified as a ”sport” but the comparison between the two ends there. One is a high contact sport, the other is obviously not. [1]

Your report attempts to differentiate between ”vilification of Muslims” and defamation of religion, then it goes on to record activities such as criticism of Halal certification as a de facto example of ”vilification”, though the people speaking out against halal, do so, mostly from the justified fear that proceeds go to fund the jihad.[2.] Also, the examples used (pictures) simplistically depict (much like the OIC uses in on its own ”Islamophobia” watch site) anti-Muslim sentiment, void of any context of why these people perceive Muslim immigration as a de facto threat. I’m reminded as to how the media/think tanks regularly depict Israeli sentiment vis-a-vis the Palestinians, without providing a scintilla of context.

Average citizens spotting massive transformations of their local areas and their way of life, want to put a stop to what they see as their justifiable fears, Islamization, this is something that your report could never accurately relate, because it would then cease to being a report on ”Muslim vilification’. It would be condemned by the OIC as ”Islamofauxbia”. No doubt there are many who cross the line in rudeness, and support of physical violence is never to be condoned, but there are many aspects of Islamization that has to broached, that would fall under the rubric of your over simplified and expansive label of ”vilification of Muslims”.

All ideologies run the gambit of the public market place of ideas, and yes, Islam as is Christianity, are not above being made fun of, and yes at times mocked (you might call it vilified, but so it goes with subjective labels). What you propose Andre, takes us back centuries, back to pre-enlightenment days, where the rights of the gods were of more value than the rights than man. What you propose with your (well meaning) report, is anti-free speech in it’s darkest form, and will only serve to empower those who seek to control debate. The best disinfectant is the light of day, not less discourse, but more of it. This I fear will only be used by those who seek to gain most from our ignorance and western values of fair play. Islam is not here to ”co’exist” but to dominate. You’ll be hard pressed to find any example of Islam in retreat outside of military defeat.




2nd reply to Andre Oboler:

Hi Andre,

First of all, your drawing of a distinction between Islam and ‘political Islam’ is itself, a western concoction, a fallacy, a meme that safisfies well meaning folks who desperately want to disprove 1400 yrs of historical evidence to the contrary. I confronted the OIC sec-gen, ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu face to face during his Q&A in Helsinki, and as someone who represents 57 Muslim and/or Islamic states, rejects any kind of separating of Islam into ”moderate” or ”Islamist” camps. As a matter of fact, he stated he doesn’t know what ”Islamism” is. Islam is Islam, and to the extent of outside non-Islamic influence, determines the moderation of anyone said Muslim group or society.

It’s great that you contacted Sam Harris. However, I never suggested that Islam was not a religion, but the fallacy in deeming ”all religions are the same”, in using his (Harrison’s) comparison of Thai kick boxing with that of badminton. The more a Muslim is introduced to the fundamentals of his/her religion, and accepts them, the more likely they will become more intolerant and violent towards others, as opposed to lets say the Janes sect, which shudders in horror at the thought of stepping on a bug. That was the point.

As for treating Muslims in a monolithic way, Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, who has vast experience in treating criminal youth in the Danish penal system would beg to differ with you. He speaks of Muslim criminal mindset, regardless of where they hailed from throughout the Islamic middle east. [1.]

After having consulted with 150 young Muslim clients in therapy and 100 Danish clients (who, on average, shared the same age and social background as their Muslim inmates), my findings were that the Muslims’ cultural and religious experiences played a central role in their psychological development and criminal behavior. “Criminal foreigners” is not just a generalizing and imprecise term. It is unfair to non-Muslim foreigners and generally misleading.

There appears to be a unifying psychological thread that exists within Islamic communities (including those in the West), that leads to anti-social behavior. Fearing that, does not make one a racist, nor saying so an act of vilification. You take to apples with oranges comparisons with the Jewish community, which allows for diversity, in spite of disagreement between different groups, the same could be said of Christianity as well. Islam is just Islam, and the punishment of divergence is usually severe, only within the West where they still remain a minority, is some measure of ”diversity” allowed, but again, only in accordance with their amount of authority and domination.

As for Halal, you have no way of knowing whether Zakat money, which flows outside of Australia, is heading towards the jihad or even funding Hamas against Israel. All of these Muslim organizations, like CAIR in the US, are money laundering organizations. I will bet you $US 1000 that the “Islamic Council of Victoria” is either an MB entity overtly, or by predominance of staffing. The MB are everywhere. It’s a major scam. [2]

Again, you are more than prepared to define for the rest of us what ”hate” is. I know it when I see it, but people expressing their great dislike for Islamization, and for Muslims who remain silent about the fence goal posts being moved in their favor at the expense of the non-muslim majority, being labeled as ”haters” is immensely counterproductive. Being anti-sharia is by definition being anti-Muslim….you can’t separate the two.

I can’t see any difference with what you’re doing, with that of the OIC, which seeks to determine for the rest of us what can and cannot be said without their approval about Islam. As a US citizen, I deem that as long as someone isn’t advocating violence, the market place of ideas is the best place to battle things out. Equating anti-semitism with ”anti-Muslim hate” is unfortunate, as I said earlier, there a clear examples of people stepping over the bounds, into the realm of the rude, but that shouldn’t be used to equate it to antisemitism. Many ex-Muslims would most definitely disagree with you on that score. We do not need anymore dictatorial mindsets in the fray.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.