Posted in: Islamic Gender & Religious Apartheid, Jihad & Terrorism
Published on Jun 27, 2016 by Phyllis Chesler
The American Gulag
For years, beginning in 2003, I have personally faced both censorship and demonization. When I began publishing pieces about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and Islamic gender and religious apartheid at conservative sites, I was seen as having "gone over to the dark side," as having joined the legion of enemies against all that was right and good.
My former easy and frequent access to left-liberal venues was over. I learned, early on, about the soft censorship of the Left, the American version of the Soviet Gulag. One could think, write, and even publish but it would be as if one had not spoken--although one would still be constantly attacked for where one published as much as for what one published.
Since then, Left censorship has only gotten worse. (There is also censorship on the Right--but not quite as much.)
A week ago, a colleague of mine was thrilled that a mainstream newspaper had reached out to him for a piece about the violent customs of many male Muslim immigrants to Europe. He discovered, to his shock, that his piece had been edited in a way that turned his argument upside down and ended up sounding like American Attorney General Loretta Lynch's view, namely, that home-grown terrorists need "love and compassion," not profiling or detention.
I told him: One more left-liberal newspaper has just bitten the Orwellian dust. He could expose this use of his reasoned view for propaganda purposes--or wear out his welcome at this distinguished venue.
"But," I said, "on the other hand, what kind of welcome is it if they change your words and the main thrust of your argument?"
That same week, right after the Jihad massacre in Orlando, another colleague, long used to being published--and published frequently at gay websites--wrote about the male Muslim immigrant/refugee physical and sexual violence against girls and women (their own and infidel women); against homosexuals--and paradoxically, also against young boys. He counseled gays to understand that the issues of gun control and "hate," while important, were also quite beside the point, that "homosexuality is a capital crime in Islam."
His piece was rejected by every gay site he approached. One venue threatened him: If he published his piece "anywhere," that his work would no longer be welcome in their pages.
I welcomed him to the American Gulag.
He told me that he finally "had" to publish the piece at a conservative site.
Gently, I told him that what he wrote was the kind of piece that was long familiar only at conservative sites and that he should expect considerable flack for where he's published as well as for what he's published.
Another gay right activist told me that when he described Orlando as a Jihad attack, he was castigated as a "right-wing hater." He, too, had to publish what he wanted to say at a conservative site.
I published two pieces about Orlando. I said similar kinds of things and I privately emailed both articles to about 30 gay activists whom I know.
The silence thereafter was, as they say, deafening. I was not attacked but I was given the Silent Treatment.
For a moment, I felt like gay activist Larry Kramer might have felt when, in the 1980s, he tried to persuade gay men to stop going to the baths and engaging in promiscuous sex, that their lust was literally killing them. Kramer was attacked as a spoilsport and as the homophobic enemy of the gay lifestyle. Alas, Kramer had been right and many gay male lives were lost to AIDS.
Thus, gay activists see their collective interests as best served by marching, lock-step, with politically correct politicians who view "mental illness," "gun control," and "American right-wing hatred of gays"--not Jihad--as the major problems. Such gay activists also prefer "Palestine" to Israel. It makes absolutely no difference that Israel does not murder its homosexual citizens and that in fact, Israel grants asylum to Muslim Arab men in flight from being torture-murdered by other Muslim Arab men.
A number of European activists have recently visited me. They described what has been happening to women who undertake the journey from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey; along the way, the girls and women are continually groped and sexually assaulted, even penetrated in every possible orifice, by gangs of male Muslim immigrants. If they want to live, their husbands and fathers can do nothing.
So much for Muslim immigrant women on the move.
And now, European women are being told to "dye their hair black," stay home "after 8pm," "always have a male escort at night;" a group of German nudists, whose tradition goes back 100 years, have just been told to "cover up" because refugees are being moved into the rural lake community.
Where will this all end? In Europe becoming a Muslim Caliphate dominated by Sharia law and by all its myriad misogynist interpretations? In Muslim immigrants assimilating to Western ways? In Europeans voluntarily converting to Arab and Muslim ways? In non-violent but parallel Muslim lives?
Bravo to England which has just taken its first, high risk steps to control its borders and its immigrant population.
We are not accepting comments at this time, please go to the Facebook page to generate discussion!