Infamous Islamophobe Geert Wilders funded by US Right-Wing

Brown Bomber

In the same week that a young Iraq-born mother of five was savagely beaten to death in her San Diego home with a note left "Terrorist. Go Home" Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP for the Freedom Party (PVV) was outed as a Neocon shill by his own former party member Hero Brinkman who recently split from the PVV and divulged that Wilders is financed solely through donations. . Wilders is a prominent member of the global anti-Islamic network, being the creator of anti-Islamic hate film Fitna for example. He doesn't consider Islam to be a religion and wants to ban the Koran.

According to earlier Dutch reports Wilders is financed by extremists from the US and Israel. He was also investigated by Dutch intelligence services for being an Israeli spy.

Wilders and the US Israel lobby

A crucial detail about Wilders’ party, the PVV, is that it only has two official members: himself, and the Friends of the PVV Foundation which he formed as a finance-gathering apparatus.

Dutch law states that every party with a membership of 100,000 or more can receive state subsidy. Wilders’ decision to keep his party in his own hands therefore also has severe financial consequences.

Someone else aside from the Dutch state has to provide the money. Much of it comes from the US, where Wilders travels regularly. According to the Volkskrant, in 2008 Wilders even changed the statutes of the Foundation to ensure that it could be used to accept donations for legal cases – the grounds of which remain unspecified in the document – that he might be faced with.

The Dutch press has tracked down several of the principal financial sources for the PVV in the US. Two figures stand out: David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes. Horowitz runs the online FrontPage Magazine and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which with an annual budget of around 5 million dollars is an important financier of outlets such as Jihad Watch and Islam critic Robert Spencer.

According to the NRC, it was Horowitz who introduced the Dutchman to leading conservative activists Senator Jim DeMint and Dick Cheney´s daughter Liz last year, and brought Wilders into contact with one of his own financiers who is not named.

Pipes is founder of the pro-Israeli Middle East Forum and has long been in favour of a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Pipes also formed the Legal Project in 2007 to raise and distribute funds for researchers, journalists, and authors who face legal battles based on their critical statements about Islam – ‘jihad by court’, as they say.

Wilders is of course an ideal recipient. In 2009 Pipes managed to round up “an amount in six figures” for Wilders in the USA. Interesting detail is that both Horowitz and Pipes belong to the Right of the Republicans but see Wilders mainly as a useful extension of their pro-Israeli agitating.

Horowitz literally said in this article that he couldn’t make the same anti-Islamic comments as Wilders in the US because it would be too dangerous. Then there is the American Freedom Alliance, who honoured Wilders with a reception in the Reagan Library in October 2009. Officially the AFA doesn’t do fund-raising for the PVV. But of course, gatherings such as this are ideal for opening up private channels.

So what of Israel? Vrij Nederland covered that angle in an article last year. Interesting part of the narrative was the trail behind Wilders’ film Fitna, which appeared in many scenes to be a very close (if not identical) copy to the earlier 80-minute documentary Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West, which Horowitz promoted in the US.

Financial supporters for the film (which is meant to have cost $400,000) came from the obscure Clarion Fund and the orthodox Jewish religious/cultural organisation Aish HaTorah, based in Jerusalem opposite the Wailing Wall and closely linked to the West Bank settler movement.

In December 2008 Wilders spoke at the Facing Jihad conference in Jerusalem, where he also showed Fitna in Israel for the first time. There were few Europeans present, but several US neocons like Pipes and his blog-groupie Pamela Geller.

The conference was organised by Arieh Eldad, former Israeli army officer and leader of the extreme right Hatikva party tht places itself on the no-compromise right of Benjamin Netanyahu. For these groups the West Bank should be emptied of Palestinians, who can leave to neighbouring Arab states, to ensure a secure Jewish nation – a crucial part of the global struggle against the Islamic threat.

Financial support for the conference came from the Ariel Center for Policy Research, a base for the anti Peace Process hawks in Israeli politics, who propagate their views via the publication Nativ.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/columns/2010/06/wilders_and_the_us_israel_lobb.php

The Clarion Fund (who funded Wilders film), Pipes and Horrowitz all have Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson to thank for their existence.

The same Sheldon Adelson who wants his son to grow up to be an IDF sniper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EGgCdChPOw

The same Sheldon Adelson who is bankrolling Newt Gingrich's campaign for The White House.

And why?
Gingrich: Adelson supports me because of Israel

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/gingrich-adelson-supports-me-because-of-israel-112665.html

The same Newt Gingrich who would only support a hypothethical American Muslim Presidential candidate if he publically denounced Shariah Law.

Jeboa Safari

People with similar ideologies in supporting each other shocker

Jonny7

whats the conspiracy?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

whats the conspiracy?

A programme of dehumanisation of Muslims worldwide to manipulate world public opinion into not caring when Muslims are killed and ethnically cleansed from land stolen from them or when they are invaded and have their natural resources stolen.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A programme of dehumanisation of Muslims worldwide to manipulate world public opinion into not caring when Muslims are killed and ethnically cleansed from land stolen from them or when they are invaded and have their natural resources stolen.

And what exactly leads you to believe that this is part of a programme?

Why can't it just be a case of people who have an irrational bias and hatred who like to overhype and scaremonger about a group of people using anything they can to smear that group.

Honestly, I don't see much difference between the nonsense that these guys claim and the nonsense you claim, this program being a good example of it.
Cept that they're better funded.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And what exactly leads you to believe that this is part of a programme?

Why can't it just be a case of people who have an irrational bias and hatred who like to overhype and scaremonger about a group of people using anything they can to smear that group.

Honestly, I don't see much difference between the nonsense that these guys claim and the nonsense you claim, this program being a good example of it.
Cept that they're better funded.

It doesn't matter if they hate because they are paid or are paid because they hate. Either way they are subservient to their Zionist paymasters and must stay on message. It's an international network who all push the same message.

For example Newt Gingrich before receiving Adelson's millions:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/18/is-gingrich-s-hard-line-on-palestine-paid-for-by-sheldon-adelson.html

urged the “Palestinian diaspora” to invest in “their ancestral lands,” and even urged Congress to “establish a program of economic aid for the Palestinians to match the aid the U.S. government provides Israel.”

And after receiving Zionist money:

The Palestinians are an invented people

It's extreme Zionists like Aubrey Chernick and Sheldon Adelson who are the top of the pyramid funding the propaganda of the likes of right-wing, pro-Zionists like Pipes, Horrowitz, Geller and Spencer in the US who are interconnected with extremist groups across Europe with Wilders as the figurehead, but you also have The EDL, Swedish Democrats and other Islamophobic groups all pushing the same pro-settler, pro-Israel, anti-Islam, clash of civilisations agenda. With Anders Breivik being a result of all this conditioning.

This article explains briefly the network with Israel at it's core.
Europe's Right-Wing Populists Find Allies in Israel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,777175-2,00.html

Dehumanising the enemy is nothing new. Why is it so hard for you to accept when it is staring you in the face?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they hate because they are paid or are paid because they hate. Either way they are subservient to their Zionist paymasters and must stay on message. It's an international network who all push the same message.

For example Newt Gingrich before receiving Adelson's millions:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/18/is-gingrich-s-hard-line-on-palestine-paid-for-by-sheldon-adelson.html

And after receiving Zionist money:

It's extreme Zionists like Aubrey Chernick and Sheldon Adelson who are the top of the pyramid funding the propaganda of the likes of right-wing, pro-Zionists like Pipes, Horrowitz, Geller and Spencer in the US who are interconnected with extremist groups across Europe with Wilders as the figurehead, but you also have The EDL, Swedish Democrats and other Islamophobic groups all pushing the same pro-settler, pro-Israel, anti-Islam, clash of civilisations agenda. With Anders Breivik being a result of all this conditioning.

This article explains briefly the network with Israel at it's core.
Europe's Right-Wing Populists Find Allies in Israel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,777175-2,00.html

Dehumanising the enemy is nothing new. Why is it so hard for you to accept when it is staring you in the face?

For the same reason I don't buy the Islamic boogeyman Wilders is selling me.

You are doing exactly the same thing you are charging them with.
You are trying to manipulate people's opinion against you prefered shadowy menance. And you're being extra obvious about it in this thread.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

For the same reason I don't buy the Islamic boogeyman Wilders is selling me.

You are doing exactly the same thing you are charging them with.
You are trying to manipulate people's opinion against you prefered shadowy menance. And you're being extra obvious about it in this thread.

Your nonsense post only highlights your ignorance. I'd suggest reading this sharpish to inform yourself.

Fear, Inc.

The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America


Download this report (pdf)
Read the report in your web browser (Scribd)
Download individual chapters of the report (pdf):

• Introduction and summary
• Chapter 1: Donors to the Islamophobia network
• Chapter 2: The Islamophobia misinformation experts
• Chapter 3: The grassroots organizations and the religious right
• Chapter 4: The right-wing media enablers of anti-Islam propaganda
• Chapter 5: The political players
• Conclusion

Video: Ask the Expert: Faiz Shakir on the Group Behind Islamophobia

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your nonsense post only highlights your ignorance. I'd suggest reading this sharpish to inform yourself.

Why should I exactly? It has nothing to do with the topic which involves Islamiphobia in Europe, nor does it seem to support your claim that the Zionist/Israeli boogeyman is behind it all.

The fact you are claiming that makes your position hilariously hypocritical.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Why should I exactly?

So you won't make ignorant comments like you have throughout.

King Mob wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the topic which involves Islamiphobia in Europe, nor does it seem to support your claim that the Zionist/Israeli boogeyman is behind it all.

Congratulations! You've missed the point of the thread. Try reading the posts carefully in future.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you won't make ignorant comments like you have throughout.

Congratulations! You've missed the point of the thread. Try reading the posts carefully in future.

And you seem to have missed the point I'm making and you're unable and unwilling to address.

The nonsense you are claiming on this thread and else where is just as bad as the crap spouted by Wilders et al.
You're trying to replace one overhyped, nebulous and shadowy threat with a different overhyped, nebulous and shadowy threat using the same misinformation and blatant manipulation.

As I said, hilariously hypocritical.

Channel Zero

The fear factory.

studiorat

What particularly fascinates me with the posts here and similar stories is how the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law centre are used as reliable sources one minute and part of the "zionist plot" the next. Even the Centre for American Progress, (with it's "close links to the White House") who published the study, is funded by CT darling and "puppet master" George Soros.


Wilders has support from both the Right and Left through policies of opposing the "Islamization of Europe" and his Euro-Sceptic stance.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/03/26/eurosceptic-populis/

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

The nonsense you are claiming on this thread and else where is just as bad as the crap spouted by Wilders et al.
You're trying to replace one overhyped, nebulous and shadowy threat with a different overhyped, nebulous and shadowy threat using the same misinformation and blatant manipulation.

Everything I have said is factual. Try being a skeptic and debunk anything I've said or do me a favour and if you've nothing on-topic other than ad-homs to add don't waste my time anymore.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

What particularly fascinates me with the posts here and similar stories is how the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law centre are used as reliable sources one minute and part of the "zionist plot" the next. Even the Centre for American Progress, (with it's "close links to the White House") who published the study, is funded by CT darling and "puppet master" George Soros.

Terrific. Now since it fascinates you so much maybe you'd start a thread about it in an appropriate forum.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

whats the conspiracy?

Are you for FÜCKING real?

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

What particularly fascinates me with the posts here and similar stories is how the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law centre are used as reliable sources one minute and part of the "zionist plot" the next. Even the Centre for American Progress, (with it's "close links to the White House") who published the study, is funded by CT darling and "puppet master" George Soros.


Wilders has support from both the Right and Left through policies of opposing the "Islamization of Europe" and his Euro-Sceptic stance.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/03/26/eurosceptic-populis/

The economics "genius" has spoken!

studiorat

Thing is, “Islamophobia” and anti-Semitism are often two sides to the same coin.
Both are used cries are used to prevent any meaningful discussion.

There are those who tell us of creeping Islam where our where we are going to have Sharia law by the year 20-whatever and of terrorist cells in every mosque. And like-wise we have those who purvey the myths about shadowy Jewish elites controlling governments from behind the scenes. Each myth is as insidious as the other.

Kenan Malik (film maker “Are Muslims Hated?” (Channel 4 January 2005))tells us “The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is too often used not to highlight racism, but to stifle criticism” , and we should consider who exactly is promoting the concept of Islamophobia and what are their motives. (Malik 2005) It all too easily confuses the hatred and discrimination against Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other.

There is a concerted effort to convince the general public that “we are living in a heightened climate of Islamophobia”. However, Islamophobia itself actually legitimizes rasciist thinking. Islam is a religion not a race of people. Yet, proponents of Islamophobia explicitly link religious belief and cultural practices with race. They therefore revive the notion that race and culture are inextricably linked, that non-white people are unable to assimilate into majority white societies. Crudely put, “You can take the savage out of the Jungle, but you can’t take the Jungle out of the savage”. Or as the proponents of Islamophobia believe “You can take the Muslim out of the Pakistani village, but you can’t take the Pakistani village mentality out of the Muslim”. Those who propose adopting some sort of ‘multi-culturalism’ which says opposing Islamic ideas or Islamist politics is some type of racism are in reality engaging in a kind of ‘politically correct’ racism. In this respect. Brown Bombers approach reminds one of some sort of holier than thou Victorian Christian missionary.

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

The economics "genius" has spoken!

Still a bit rattled are we Jakey?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Everything I have said is factual. Try being a skeptic and debunk anything I've said or do me a favour and if you've nothing on-topic other than ad-homs to add don't waste my time anymore.

And I'm sure that everything Wilders said is "factual" too.

But instead of addressing what he said or claims, you're just making ad hom attacks against him.

I'm just pointing out that you and he share very similar tactics.

Channel Zero

studiorat wrote: »

Thing is, “Islamophobia” and anti-Semitism are often two sides to the same coin.

They're both disgusting.

But according to toads like Alan Dershowitz, anyone who points out blatant examples of the former is to be dismissed as the latter.

Ring any bells people??

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Thing is, “Islamophobia” and anti-Semitism are often two sides to the same coin.
Both are used cries are used to prevent any meaningful discussion.

There are those who tell us of creeping Islam where our where we are going to have Sharia law by the year 20-whatever and of terrorist cells in every mosque. And like-wise we have those who purvey the myths about shadowy Jewish elites controlling governments from behind the scenes. Each myth is as insidious as the other.

Kenan Malik (film maker “Are Muslims Hated?” (Channel 4 January 2005))tells us “The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is too often used not to highlight racism, but to stifle criticism” , and we should consider who exactly is promoting the concept of Islamophobia and what are their motives. (Malik 2005) It all too easily confuses the hatred and discrimination against Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other.

There is a concerted effort to convince the general public that “we are living in a heightened climate of Islamophobia”. However, Islamophobia itself actually legitimizes rasciist thinking. Islam is a religion not a race of people. Yet, proponents of Islamophobia explicitly link religious belief and cultural practices with race. They therefore revive the notion that race and culture are inextricably linked, that non-white people are unable to assimilate into majority white societies. Crudely put, “You can take the savage out of the Jungle, but you can’t take the Jungle out of the savage”. Or as the proponents of Islamophobia believe “You can take the Muslim out of the Pakistani village, but you can’t take the Pakistani village mentality out of the Muslim”. Those who propose adopting some sort of ‘multi-culturalism’ which says opposing Islamic ideas or Islamist politics is some type of racism are in reality engaging in a kind of ‘politically correct’ racism. In this respect. Brown Bombers approach reminds one of some sort of holier than thou Victorian Christian missionary.

Such convulated rubbish. Any chance you can rephrase that into a form that makes sense`?

Brown Bomber

Channel Zero wrote: »

They're both disgusting.

But according to toads like Alan Dershowitz, anyone who points out blatant examples of the former is to be dismissed as the latter.

Ring any bells people??

... and notice how he puts Islamophobia in quotes to deligitimise it but not anti-semitism.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And I'm sure that everything Wilders said is "factual" too.

But instead of addressing what he said or claims, you're just making ad hom attacks against him.

I'm just pointing out that you and he share very similar tactics.

That's brilliant that is. You have no interest in discussing the topic or examining any evidence given but just shouting ad-homs from your pulpit. If you haven't any interest in topic please post elsewhere on a topic you have an interest in.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's brilliant that is. You have no interest in discussing the topic or examining any evidence given but just shouting ad-homs from your pulpit. If you haven't any interest in topic please post elsewhere on a topic you have an interest in.

But your evidence is based on the exact same sort of bias, misinformation and distortion that Wilders et al get theirs from.

I am interested in the evidence, but I'm also interested in the manipulative tactics you used but are reluctant to address.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and notice how he puts Islamophobia in quotes to deligitimise it but not anti-semitism.

Cop on to yourself there and try and make a intelligent rebuttal, we haven't had one from you yet. Which would you prefer, take the quotes out or put another pair in?

Islam is a Religion, a set of beliefs. Why shouldn't it be criticized? Even by a maggot like Wilders?

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Cop on to yourself there and try and make a intelligent rebuttal, we haven't had one from you yet. Which would you prefer, take the quotes out or put another pair in?

I can only make intelligent rebuttals to coherent arguments, which is why I asked you to rephrase your original blather.

The fact remains you included the terms Islamophobia and anti-semitism in the the same sentence yet placed only Islamophobia in quotation marks. This begs the question: do you consider the existence of Islamophobia real?

studiorat wrote: »

Islam is a Religion, a set of beliefs. Why shouldn't it be criticized? Even by a maggot like Wilders?

I assume you mean why shouldn't Islam be critiqued? And my answer would be of course it should, I never suggested otherwise.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But your evidence is based on the exact same sort of bias, misinformation and distortion that Wilders et al get theirs from.

Don't keep banging on about it then. Show me how. I hope to all that's good you don't mean when you bolded the word Zionist a couple of times when it was used appropriately and also bolded my claim that Anders Breivik was inpired to commit mass-murder by the anti-Islamic literature of some of those that I have already mentioned when it is a demonstratable fact.

It is beyond ridiculous if that is your position.

King Mob wrote: »

I am interested in the evidence, but I'm also interested in the manipulative tactics you used but are reluctant to address.

Bollox you are. I linked to a study which you refused to read. What are you afraid of?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't keep banging on about it then. Show me how. I hope to all that's good you don't mean when you bolded the word Zionist a couple of times when it was used appropriately and also bolded my claim that Anders Breivik was inpired to commit mass-murder by the anti-Islamic literature of some of those that I have already mentioned when it is a demonstratable fact.

It is beyond ridiculous if that is your position.

I bolded the world to point out that was the bogeyman you are trying to sell us. It's no different to the words Islamist or Jihadist being thrown around.

And yes Anders Breivik is an example of one of the dishonest points you used.
Even if I accept he was inspired entirely and exclusively by the "Zionist funded propaganda" you are refering to and we ignore the fact that he was mentally ill, it would still be a total non sequiter. And you know it, since you realise that you would not accept me posting examples of bigoted crimes against Jews and Israelis as evidence that your claims are harmful.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Bollox you are. I linked to a study which you refused to read. What are you afraid of?

I browsed it. It does not support what you claimed and is barely connected to the topic.
And of course this is ignoring what studiorat pointed out about it.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The fact remains you included the terms Islamophobia and anti-semitism in the the same sentence yet placed only Islamophobia in quotation marks. This begs the question: do you consider the existence of Islamophobia real?

It was unintentional actually. However, in the dis-ingenious frame that you choose to use the word, it probably does deserve the quotes.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Such convulated rubbish....

So while we're on the subject of punctuation and grammar what does convulated (sic) mean?

wexie

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He doesn't consider Islam to be a religion and wants to ban the Koran.

This is absolutely untrue and if you'd looked into it at any great depth you would know Wilders has (very publicly) stated he considers Islam a 'religion of hate' and wants to have the Koran banned on the grounds it incites hatred.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He was also investigated by Dutch intelligence services for being an Israeli spy.

Not true again, only one 'newspaper' in the Netherlands reported on this and this newspaper is the equivalent of the Sun in the Netherlands. Every respectable newspaper has quite thoroughly debunked this story. Even the Dutch intelligence services laughed at the suggestion (although I doubt you'd take that as evidence). Think about it, an Israeli spy in the Netherlands? Really? The link (if that's what you want to call it) was created due to his (very open) visits to the Israeli embassy. Conveniently left out was the fact that he used to be spokesperson for foreign affairs during which time he made some relationships with some Israelis. No doubt they have some very similar views. Nothing to see here, move along.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The same Newt Gingrich who would only support a hypothethical American Muslim Presidential candidate if he publically denounced Shariah Law.

This might well be true, if it turns out to be so personally I'd applaud it. Sharia law has no place in Western society whatsoever and I'd dare say that anybody in any western society with even half a brain who has even basic knowledge of what Sharia law entails couldn't possibly argue against this.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I bolded the world to point out that was the bogeyman you are trying to sell us. It's no different to the words Islamist or Jihadist being thrown around.

Islamist and Jihadist are both words that can be used appropriately in a sentence just like Zionist can be used appropriately in a sentence. Adelson, Chernick, Geller, Horrowitz and Spencer all self-identify as Zionists. Get over it.

King Mob wrote: »

And yes Anders Breivik is an example of one of the dishonest points you used.

More bollox. I've read his manifesto in full. Have you?

King Mob wrote: »

Even if I accept he was inspired entirely and exclusively by the "Zionist funded propaganda" you are refering to and we ignore the fact that he was mentally ill, it would still be a total non sequiter.

What does it matter if you accept it or not? It's documented (by Breivik) fact that Breivik's murdereous anti-Islamic ideology was inspired by anti-Islamic propaganda that is funded by Aubrey Chernick who also fund illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian land. Sinking in yet...?

I browsed it. It does not support what you claimed and is barely connected to the topic.
And of course this is ignoring what studiorat pointed out about it.[/QUOTE]

Seriously? You "browsed" it? FFS...you seem to have missed the part (essentially all of it) that supports my claim and as you have no intention of reading it despite feigning interest in evidence allow me to hold your hand...

This network of hate is not a new presence in the United States. Indeed, its ability to organize, coordinate, and disseminate its ideology through grassroots organizations increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Furthermore, its ability to influence politicians’ talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.

And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam—in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.
Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:

• Donors Capital Fund
• Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
• Russell Berrie Foundation
• Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
• Fairbrook Foundation

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...amophobia.html

And a little more:

Fairbrook Foundation
The Fairbrook Foundation, an affiliate of the California Community Foundation, is
controlled by Aubrey and Joyce Chernick.50 Aubrey Chernick is a Los Angeles-based
software engineer whose net worth is estimated to be $750 million,51 due in large part
to selling his software company to IBM Corp. in 2004.52 In 200253 he founded the
security firm National Center for Crisis and Continuity Coordination.
Aubrey Chernick is president and chairman of the Fairbook Foundation board. Joyce
Chernick serves as vice chair. In 2009, the last year for which we have complete financial
information, the Fairbrook Foundation provided tens of thousands of dollars to
mainstream conservative foundations that are not Islamophobic, such as the Hudson
Institute and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.54

Between 2004 and 2009, the Fairbrook Foundation contributed $1,498,450 to
Islamophobic organizations profiled in this report. Among the recipients: ACT!
For America, receiving $125,000; the Center for Security Policy ($66,700);
the David Horowitz Freedom Center ($618,500); the Investigative Project on
Terrorism, ($25,000); Jihad Watch ($253,250); and the Middle East Forum
($410,000).55 Importantly, the foundation provided the majority of the $920,000
in support going from the David Horowitz Freedom Center to Robert Spencer’s
Jihad Watch, according to Politico.56

Separate from the Fairbrook Foundation, Aubrey Chernick is a trustee of the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy57 and helped provide the $3.5 million58
in initial capital to start the conservative blog Pajamas Media, which used

Now do yourself a favour and find out how many times Breivik uses Chernick funded groups as sources in his manifesto and then come back to me and tell me it is "dishonest" to claim that Breivik was inspired by this anti-Muslim propaganda.

studiorat

More bollox. I've read his manifesto in full. Have you?

Fair play to ya. I bet that was convalated

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Islamist and Jihadist are both words that can be used appropriately in a sentence just like Zionist can be used appropriately in a sentence. Adelson, Chernick, Geller, Horrowitz and Spencer all self-identify as Zionists. Get over it.

That's great, and I'm sure Wilders uses his scary words to correctly identify his shadowy menance as well.

Which was my point.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

More bollox. I've read his manifesto in full. Have you?

What does it matter if you accept it or not? It's documented (by Breivik) fact that Breivik's murdereous anti-Islamic ideology was inspired by anti-Islamic propaganda that is funded by Aubrey Chernick who also fund illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian land. Sinking in yet...?

Again you've most likely intentionally missed my point.
I said, even if he was inspired by Zionist funded propaganda (which you are welcome to back up, but you won't.) and we ignore that he is mentally ill, then it is still a dishonest nonsequiter.
This is because you would not accept an example of anti jewish/israeli violence as evidence that your nonsense is dangerous.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Seriously? You "browsed" it? FFS...you seem to have missed the part (essentially all of it) that supports my claim and as you have no intention of reading it despite feigning interest in evidence allow me to hold your hand...

And a little more:

Yet no where in the document you posted does it blame it on Zionism, or make any insinutations based on claimed Zionism. Nor does it mention anything about the subject you are posting about.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now do yourself a favour and find out how many times Breivik uses Chernick funded groups as sources in his manifesto and then come back to me and tell me it is "dishonest" to claim that Breivik was inspired by this anti-Muslim propaganda.

I won't because it's not important. It's a dishonest plea to emotions, the exact same thing these horrible Zionists do when they show images of supposed Islamic violence be they true or not.
Yet it's only when they do it is it a bad thing :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

wexie wrote: »

This is absolutely untrue and if you'd looked into it at any great depth you would know Wilders has (very publicly) stated he considers Islam a 'religion of hate' and wants to have the Koran banned on the grounds it incites hatred.

No. It's absolutely true. From the horses mouth, from about 1min:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faPCH-4uAEY

wexie wrote: »

Not true again, only one 'newspaper' in the Netherlands reported on this and this newspaper is the equivalent of the Sun in the Netherlands. Every respectable newspaper has quite thoroughly debunked this story. Even the Dutch intelligence services laughed at the suggestion (although I doubt you'd take that as evidence). Think about it, an Israeli spy in the Netherlands? Really? The link (if that's what you want to call it) was created due to his (very open) visits to the Israeli embassy. Conveniently left out was the fact that he used to be spokesperson for foreign affairs during which time he made some relationships with some Israelis. No doubt they have some very similar views. Nothing to see here, move along.

I'm open to correction if you can provide some links. My claim was based on the below BBC documentary that was on recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peAer3Ul6cU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAfgHW0XdpY

wexie wrote: »

This might well be true, if it turns out to be so personally I'd applaud it. Sharia law has no place in Western society whatsoever and I'd dare say that anybody in any western society with even half a brain who has even basic knowledge of what Sharia law entails couldn't possibly argue against this.

It's not a question of Shariah Law it's a question of discrimation based on religion which goes against the first amendment of the US Constitution. How you can support discrimination I have no idea.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

That's great, and I'm sure Wilders uses his scary words to correctly identify his shadowy menance as well.

Which was my point.

... That Wilders describing Islamist-Jihadi Bin Laden as an Islamist or Jihadi is "point"? And I suppose describing Hitler as a Nazi or Lenin as a Bolshevik is also a "point"? Please. Please. Please. Stop wasting my time with these ridiculous arguments.

King Mob wrote: »

Again you've most likely intentionally missed my point.
I said, even if he was inspired by Zionist funded propaganda (which you are welcome to back up, but you won't.) and we ignore that he is mentally ill, then it is still a dishonest nonsequiter.

1- Expert opinion in Norway is divided over whether or not he is mentally ill.

King Mob wrote: »

This is because you would not accept an example of anti jewish/israeli violence as evidence that your nonsense is dangerous.

2-That is because your accusation against me is based on a false premise. Perhaps if you engaged openly with me we could avoid this. I freely accept that anti-Jewish propaganda can lead to violence against Jews. I am equally against that as anything else. I've already stated that dehumanisation of different groups has occured through history. A prime example would be Julius Streicher in Nazi Germany. My point is that these anti-Islam propagandists are the Streichers equivalent today.

King Mob wrote: »

Yet no where in the document you posted does it blame it on Zionism, or make any insinutations based on claimed Zionism. Nor does it mention anything about the subject you are posting about.

It lists as source this article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0910/The_Park51_money_trail.html?showall

UPDATE: Here's a link to the 2008 990 filings for Chernick's charitable foundation, the Fairbrook Foundation, that shows donations to a wide range of groups, including the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim that funds Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, MEMRI, The Center for Security Policy, over $900k to the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, $150k to American Jewish Congress, ADL, the Middle East Freedom Forum Fund, another David Horowitz group the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, the pro-Israel campus advocacy group Stand With Us; $80k to Gary Bauer's "American Values," the pro-Israel media monitoring group CAMERA, $150k to the "Council for Democracy and Tolerance" of Alta Loma, CA, which listed as a fellow and senior fellow Nir Boms, a former Vice President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a former Israeli embassy official; the group is listed as promoting the "Obsession" video; the former president of the Council, Tashbih Sayyed, a Pakistani-American Shiite journalist who died in 2007, was also an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute and a member of the Jihad Watch board, both also supported by Chernick's foundation; the Council for Secular Humanism; $80k to a group called "Defend the West" whose address is a UPS box in Santa Monica, CA but whose website domain is registered to Nina Cunningham of Quidlibet research and the former chair of the Illinois regional branch of the Republican Jewish Coalition's National Women's Committee who is listed on tax forms as a director of the Clarion Fund which funded the distribution of 20 million copies of the "Obsession" DVD; $50k to the Heritage Foundation; $50k to the Hudson Institute; etc. etc.
Similar donations in 2007 and 2006, including $190k in 2007 to the Hudson Institute; $200k in 2006 to the Zionist Organization of America, and $250k to ZOA in 2005; $60k in 2005 to the Central Fund of Israel, a U.S. nonprofit that funds settler security and other programs in Israel, and on whose board (listed in 2008 as vice president) is Itamar Marcus, who heads Palestinian Media Watch; $25k in 2005 to fund projects by Tariq Ismail at the Council for Secular Humanism (the funding for Islamic secularism contrasting with the foundation's generous funding of Jewish religiosity, including Aish HaTorah of Los Angeles); $120k in 2005 to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, on whose board Chernick's wife Joyce Chernick served.

Sinking in yet...................?

King Mob wrote: »

I won't because it's not important. It's a dishonest plea to emotions, the exact same thing these horrible Zionists do when they show images of supposed Islamic violence be they true or not.
Yet it's only when they do it is it a bad thing :rolleyes:

You won't because your not interested in the truth of the matter. Besides, your whole excuse for an argument is one big fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Channel Zero

King Mob:

All you have to offer so far is ad hominem, obvuscation and flat out denial.

You've said things like "nonsense" and "hilarious", but you only find it hilarious because it’s something you’ve constructed for the purpose of laughing at it, ie your biased personal view of the OP that you have introduced into the thread in an attempt to discredit the OP and his contention.
You’re basically reducing the OP's opinions to a caricature of your own devising, and then laughing at your own caricature.
You also accuse the OP of selling something, but then using that logic you're also guilty of selling something yourself are you not?

Anyhoo back on topic..:rolleyes:

From where i'm standing, there are four main sources of Islamophobic hatred emanating from the U.S. and elsewhere:

Evangelical right wing Christian groups and individuals.
Zionist right wing Jewish groups and individuals.
Militant athiest writers and 'intellectuals'.
Extreme right wing Objectivists/Tea Partiers/Libertarians.

So it's quite a multi-denominational affair really.

wexie

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. It's absolutely true. From the horses mouth, from about 1min:

I stand corrected. Looks like he's regressed a bit so. Or maybe he feels more protected by the free speech in the US. Not the kind of statements he's (so far to my knowledge) been able to make in the Netherlands. Like I said, he hasn't been too shy condemning Islam as a religion of hate and did mention having the Koran banned on the grounds it incites hatred.

While he might have a point insofar that it has (and no doubt still is) been used to incite hatred I'd dare say that if you got people with a similar but Christian mindset they'd have a good go at it with the Bible. I recall a few organisations doing this very thing.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm open to correction if you can provide some links. My claim was based on the below BBC documentary that was on recently.

None in English but some articles here
http://nos.nl/artikel/159060-pvver-weg-na-waarschuwing-aivd.html
http://vorige.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2549615.ece/AIVD_waarschuwde_voor_PVVer_Markuszower
Essentially what they say is that one of Wilders' party members allegedly was passing information to 'foreign bodies' (Mossad allegedly) and a letter was sent to Wilders informing him about this. At which stage the person in question stood down from the party. Reason that it was such a big deal was because of the guys standing he would likely have had a seat in parliament after the elections.

Wilders has quite openly spoken for his love of Israel and his many travels there. Maybe these two stories have led to a story of his being investigated. There have also been numerous stories of one of the ministers suggesting/demanding he be investigated around the time he was making his movie. Both to find out if anything could be done to stop him and for fear of reprisals of an outraged Muslim population.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not a question of Shariah Law it's a question of discrimation based on religion which goes against the first amendment of the US Constitution. How you can support discrimination I have no idea.

I'm not too sure how to respond to that. I'm not sure where I see the discrimination to be honest.

The same Newt Gingrich who would only support a hypothethical American Muslim Presidential candidate if he publically denounced Shariah Law.

Surely it's his good right to decide who he supports or doesn't support? Personally I think he's right, while Sharia law seems to be widely open to interpretation and it definitely has a lot of parallels with Western morals and laws (dare I say Christian?) it also has a lot of horribly outdated (discriminating) tenets. Yes the same goes for the Bible but last I heard there aren't any Christians out there campaigning for our laws to be based on a direct translation of the Bible.

If there are I would have the same misgivings about them as I do about Muslims campaigning for Sharia law being implemented.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point but it seems there are a number of people financing organisations and politicians with some very outspoken views on Muslims / Islam and they're using their wealth to further their views.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that conversely there are plenty of Muslims and Muslim organisation doing the exact same thing from their point of view. I doubt you'll be able to find their accounts published online though.

If the problem you're trying to point out that this is an elected official getting funding from these organisations then yes I see that as an issue.
However being fairly intimately familiar with Dutch culture and politics I can assure you that if there was anything whatsoever iffy with Geert Wilders other than his views it would already have come out and he would no longer be anything to worry about.

I suspect he is walking a very tight rope but there will be no doubt that he is under very very close scrutiny in the Netherlands and if there was anything he could be pulled up upon it would have happened. He is probably using this funding for any of his pet projects.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... That Wilders describing Islamist-Jihadi Bin Laden as an Islamist or Jihadi is "point"? And I suppose describing Hitler as a Nazi or Lenin as a Bolshevik is also a "point"? Please. Please. Please. Stop wasting my time with these ridiculous arguments.

It is, because like Wilders and his words, you and Zionist is just an example of trying to dehumanise the "enemy".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1- Expert opinion in Norway is divided over whether or not he is mentally ill.

But it was decided in court that he was. But then even if we are to move the goalposts to make it easier for you, he's still far far outside the norm of any of the supposed effects of this propaganda.

It would be exactly like me disingeniously pointing to skinheads as examples of the effects of your particular nonsense.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2-That is because your accusation against me is based on a false premise. Perhaps if you engaged openly with me we could avoid this. I freely accept that anti-Jewish propaganda can lead to violence against Jews. I am equally against that as anything else. I've already stated that dehumanisation of different groups has occured through history. A prime example would be Julius Streicher in Nazi Germany. My point is that these anti-Islam propagandists are the Streichers equivalent today.

Accusing a group of people of trying to infiltrate government and society, alter and control people's opinion using dishonest and shady methods...

So again, what's the different between what you believe and what Wilders et al claim?

And I'm quite sure that Wilders, like yourself is very careful to mention how he's not accusing Arabs or all Muslims, just the ones pushing the views he's standing against.

So again, if I started to post examples of anti-Israeli and Anti-jewish violence, would you accept them like you're expecting us to take your example?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It lists as source this article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0910/The_Park51_money_trail.html?showall

Sinking in yet...................?

So which bit of the report you posted specifically mentions a Zionist network? Or blames all the propaganda on Zionism?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You won't because your not interested in the truth of the matter. Besides, your whole excuse for an argument is one big fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

I'm not disbelieving your claims because they are like Wilders. I'm disbelieving them because they are based on the usual bias and misinformation you use.
I'm pointing out your hypocrisy because are accuing Wilders of the same stuff you do.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Are you for FÜCKING real?

More real than the phantom Zionist bogeyman apparently

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

More real than the phantom Zionist bogeyman apparently

I'm sick and tired of this "bogeyman", "phantom threat" etc bull**** that people are bringing up. It's a lame argument. I've named numerous individuals and organisations involved.

Brown Bomber

wexie,
thanks for the info and for the unique insight. From what I can make of it from google translate it appears you were correct . All your points are reasonable and considered but I strongly disagree on one point even if I don't fully agree on everything.. It is certainly discrimination to consider US born Muslims of supporting the implementation of Shariah Law by default. It is surely discrimination to place extra conditons on presidential candidates based solely on their religion, which the Constitution guarantees freedom of choice of.

wexie

Brown Bomber wrote: »

. It is certainly discrimination to consider US born Muslims of supporting the implementation of Shariah Law by default. It is surely discrimination to place extra conditons on presidential candidates based solely on their religion, which the Constitution guarantees freedom of choice of.

Potentially, I guess it would depend on the implementation. There are a number of countries (UK included) that have condoned the implementation of Sharia (and Halakha) courts to which people can voluntarily go to have their disputes sorted. It's like a legally binding mediation so to speak.

This I would have no problems with and to me falls under freedom of religion. If it falls within 'the laws of the land' and makes people happy as they can live their life by their religion without bothering anybody (which is really what most Muslims want I gather) it's a good thing surely?

However there have been numerous Muslim proponents none too shy about indicating they would want to see Sharia law imposed on all those in the jurisdiction. This I would see as an imposition on MY freedom of religion and will vehemently oppose.

So I guess it depends on the finer points on what exactly is being asked or what the extra conditions are. It surely is a fine line. But I guess it will always be with religion involved.

Best I can make of it is this :

Muslims: You're religion is being hijacked by extremists!!!
Christians : Pay attention as well

Brown Bomber

wexie wrote: »

Potentially, I guess it would depend on the implementation. There are a number of countries (UK included) that have condoned the implementation of Sharia (and Halakha) courts to which people can voluntarily go to have their disputes sorted. It's like a legally binding mediation so to speak.

This I would have no problems with and to me falls under freedom of religion. If it falls within 'the laws of the land' and makes people happy as they can live their life by their religion without bothering anybody (which is really what most Muslims want I gather) it's a good thing surely?

However there have been numerous Muslim proponents none too shy about indicating they would want to see Sharia law imposed on all those in the jurisdiction. This I would see as an imposition on MY freedom of religion and will vehemently oppose.

So I guess it depends on the finer points on what exactly is being asked or what the extra conditions are. It surely is a fine line. But I guess it will always be with religion involved.

Best I can make of it is this :

Muslims: You're religion is being hijacked by extremists!!!
Christians : Pay attention as well

Again I find it difficult to find fault with anything you say here. It's refreshing to see an intelligent counter-argurment. I still think it's inescapable that the notion that Muslims are inherently guilty, and uniquely so until they state otherwise is discrimination though. No observant Muslim can condemn Shariah by definition. It's crucial to understand that this is not the same as not condemning Islamic extremism and any modernist or moderate personal interpretation of Shariah is not unpatriotic, unconstitutional nor incompatible with public service. In short Shariah is not simply chopping off thiefs hands.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

wexie,
thanks for the info and for the unique insight. From what I can make of it from google translate it appears you were correct . All your points are reasonable and considered but I strongly disagree on one point even if I don't fully agree on everything.. It is certainly discrimination to consider US born Muslims of supporting the implementation of Shariah Law by default. It is surely discrimination to place extra conditons on presidential candidates based solely on their religion, which the Constitution guarantees freedom of choice of.

What exactly is wrong with Gingrich giving his opinion on a question that is asked of him, and what is wrong with him opposing someone who would seek to impose Sharia law in the US?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

It is, because like Wilders and his words, you and Zionist is just an example of trying to dehumanise the "enemy".

Change the record and come back if you can come up with a counter-argument.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with Gingrich giving his opinion on a question that is asked of him, and what is wrong with him opposing someone who would seek to impose Sharia law in the US?

I never said that there was anything wrong with either of these two things you bring up. I said that it is wrong that Muslims should be discriminated against based on their faith. Please pay attention.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Change the record and come back if you can come up with a counter-argument.

I gave you several, you as usual ignored the ones you can't honestly address.

Your claims of Zionists taking over are exactly the same as claims that Islamists are taking over.
You are as guilty of everything you're accusing these propagandists of doing, using the same tactics, though you are less well funded. And every single argument or justification for your scaremongering you can use applies to Wilders and his ilk.
Simply because you think that your conspiracy is supported by evidence, doesn't excuse all of that because i've no doubt that Wilders fully believes his bull**** too.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I never said that there was anything wrong with either of these two things you bring up. I said that it is wrong that Muslims should be discriminated against based on their faith. Please pay attention.

Whats wrong with asking if someone who may support sharia, which he sees as a threat, if they do? Was it wrong for people to question John F. Kennedy about his allegiance to the pope?

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Whats wrong with asking if someone who may support sharia, which he sees as a threat, if they do? Was it wrong for people to question John F. Kennedy about his allegiance to the pope?

Listen, your just highlighting your own ignorance with this "may support Shariah" claim. As I've already stated any observant Muslim by definition "supports" Shariah; but overwhelmingly in the US not the fundamentalists/extremists interpretation. Fearmongering fools like Gingrich either don't know this or pretend not to.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

I gave you several, you as usual ignored the ones you can't honestly address.

Your claims of Zionists taking over are exactly the same as claims that Islamists are taking over.
You are as guilty of everything you're accusing these propagandists of doing, using the same tactics, though you are less well funded. And every single argument or justification for your scaremongering you can use applies to Wilders and his ilk.
Simply because you think that your conspiracy is supported by evidence, doesn't excuse all of that because i've no doubt that Wilders fully believes his bull**** too.

But nobody is funding those who question Wilders and his ilk. There is no lobby to advertise against him nor to discredit him.

If one were to complain that some local thug is receiving money from the town council to continue his operation and / or campaign of lies and somone speaks out about it, are you going to accuse that person of spreading the same propaganda that they purport to attempt in exposing? Because that's how weak and ludicrous your stance is.