The Religion of Peace, Another Big Lie


“Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it…have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth…. Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind.”—John Wesley (1703-1791) Methodist leader

“While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”—John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) Sixth President of the United States

“Qur’an… an accursed book… So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.”—William Gladstone (1809-1898) Prime Minister of Great Britain 1868-1894.

There are such “social values” today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do—that is, to beat back the Moslem [sic] invader.—Teddy Roosevelt (1858 -1919) Twenty-sixth President of the United States

Moslems [sic] may show splendid qualities—but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”—Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) British Prime Minister

“Not all Muslims are terrorists but almost all terrorists are Muslims…. I view Islam not as a religion, but as a dangerous, totalitarian ideology—equal to communism and fascism.”—Geert Wilders Dutch politician, freedom fighter (has needed 24/7 protection for several years due to death threats by Muslims)

First let me say that my prayers and condolences go out to those killed or wounded in the recent Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, and to their families and friends as well. Esprits de lumière et la véritévous guider.

The terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015 give us what is called “a teachable moment.” That is, an opportunity to elucidate, clarify, strengthen and deepen our understanding of something (in this case radical Islam) with minds that are (at least temporarily) more open to new ideas than is the norm.

I started seriously studying Islam about six years ago, and I would like to share with readers some of what I found. But first I would like to discuss a bit of my personal backstory.

In the late 1960s and early ‘70s, I was a big fan of philosopher/teacher/author Alan Watts. I read all his books, and also books that he gave favorable reviews to. One such book was “The Book of Strangers” by Ian Dallas (still being published by SUNY Press). I stumbled upon the book at a store in 1973; read the favorable blurb by Watts on the book’s cover (“He [Dallas] has…given a vision of God that, instead of summoning with duty, allures with delight”), and purchased the book.

I won’t describe “The Book of Strangers,” other than to say that I found its description of Islam very attractive. Around that time I also read several books on Sufism by Idries Shah, whose books were quite popular then. Without misrepresenting it too badly, Sufism may be described as a collection of mystical/spiritual teachings whose taproot is Islam.

In 1975, I attended a satsang/darshan (group/individual meeting, spiritual in nature) with a group of fellow devotees and Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan, head of a Sufi order started by his father, Hazrat Inayat Khan. The meeting was held at the then newly opened “Abode of the Message” in upstate New York. After the meeting, Pir initiated me into the “Chisti Order of the West” (renamed Sufi Order International (SOF) some years ago, it is currently led by Pir Vilayat’s son, Pir Zia Inayat Khan.

It is worth noting that Pir Vilayat served as an officer in the British Royal Navy during WW II, and his sister, Noor Inayat Khan, was (in the words of the BBC) the first female radio operator sent into Nazi-occupied France by the Special Operations Executive (SOE). She was arrested and eventually executed by the Gestapo.”

I mention all this in order to illustrate that when I first started to research Islam in greater depth a few years back, I brought with me a sympathetic attitude and a tendency to give Islam the benefit of the doubt when debatable questions arose. Although I have been for some years a practicing Christian (nondenominational), I retain a great fondness and respect for Sufism, at least as taught by Inayat, Vilayat, and Zia Khan (and certain others, such as Rumi and Hafiz), and, as I implied earlier, since reading “The Book of Strangers”, I had seen Islam in a favorable light.

So I was more than a little surprised and dismayed at the unflattering portrait of Islam that emerged as I delved into its history with an open mind and clear eyes.

Uninterrupted Islamic aggression

Perhaps the first thing to make me sit up and pay attention was the sheer number of aggressive invasions instigated by Muslims, century upon century.

This essentially uninterrupted Islamic aggression (which granted, ebbs and flows) has been largely hidden due to the fact that the Muslims responsible are often referred to by non-Islamic sounding euphemisms. For example, the “Barbary Pirates” that the United States fought its first war against were Muslims (in a very roundabout way I suppose Obama was correct when he claimed that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding”).

The word “Turk” and it variations is another euphemism for Muslims—as in “The Turks killed a million-and-a-half Armenians in 1915” (which could be rewritten as “Muslims killed a million-and-a-half Christians in 1915”). “Ottoman” is sometimes used in place of “Turkish” (a stand-in for a euphemism), as in “The Ottoman Empire besieged Vienna in 1683,” or “The killing of the martyrs by Ottoman troops, who launched a weeks-long siege of Otranto, a small port town [in] southern Italy, took place in 1480.” There’s the “Turkish” slaughter of 5,000 of the Bulgarian town of Batak’s 7,000 residents in 1876—and the list goes on, and on.

Another favorite euphemism is “Saracen,” as in “Saracen pirates were defeated by Italian forces during the ‘Battle of Ostia’ 849AD”—“Saracen” of course means Muslim. Around that same time “Saracen” invaders sacked the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul outside the city walls of Rome (846AD).

“Moor” is another euphemism—for example “Charles the Hammer (Martel) and his Frankish (French) army defeated the Moors at the ‘Battle of Tours’ after the Moors invaded France in 732AD.” Or in other words, Martel kicked Muslims out of France.

Then there’s Tamerlane (Timur) and the countless people he slaughtered in the name of Allah. There’s the “Arabian” slave trade that riddled and rotted the African continent for centuries (not to mention the millions of European and Slavic slaves captured by “Turks” and “Saracen pirates”).

1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa

”How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780?”

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) “Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates”

And oh, let’s see, there’s the centuries-long genocide of Hindus (the latest “incident” occurred at Mumbai, India in 2011).

”The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new foreigner made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.”

Dr. Koenraad Elst “Negation in India”

Eradication of the Nestorian Christian Empire

There’s the total eradication of the Nestorian Christian Empire that once ran from the Mediterranean Sea to China. A Nestorian Christian priest from China (named Bar Sauma) once traveled to Rome where he was given communion by the Pope (Nicholas IV), said mass, and in turn served communion to the King of England (Edward I—see “Timothy of Baghdad’s Lost Christian Empire”).

The longstanding and ongoing murder of Indonesian Buddhists and Christians by Muslims makes for some eye-opening reading—at least it did for me. Then there are the Muslim rebels in the Philippines (whom the US has some history with—ongoing history I suspect). And there’s…well, you get the idea by now, or don’t as the case may be. In any event that’s enough of that.

I would like to discuss one more euphemism for Muslims though—I’m speaking of the ubiquitous all-purpose word “terrorist.” You know, as in “Terrorist Tries to Blow Up Plane,” or “Why would Terrorists Kill Cartoonists” (“Gunman” is also good, as in “Gunman kills 12, Wounds 31.” “Bomber” works well too—“Boston Bomber Apologizes”). “Terrorist” is the king euphemism though—it describes everything and explains nothing. Why do these terrorists rape, murder, torture and maim? Apparently it’s simply because that’s what terrorists do isn’t it, they’re terrorists.

And all these “lone wolf” terrorists have nothing in common with each other outside of their penchant for killing people—or so we are told, over and over again.

Rather than go into more detail about what I uncovered about Islam during my research, I will stop here as I believe that I have provided enough information to open eyes that may have been shut. Those readers who refuse to open their eyes, or already have them open, will or will not continue researching Islam on their own.

So what’s going on here—why does Islam seem to periodically morph into a bloodthirsty intolerant monster from time to time, place to place? The simplest response is that the answer lies in the Quran itself, Islam’s holy book—that and certain historical teachings based on the Quran.

I do not mean that the Quran is an evil book, but when a certain type of Muslim cherry-picks particular passages from the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic teachings they can, and do, come up with a vile, poisonous, intolerant, hateful and hate-filled homicidal/suicidal perversion of Islam.

How to separate the wheat from the chaff, moderate Muslims from radical ones, is one tough nut to crack, because both Sufi saints and murderous zealots read from the same book. The difference is in which passages they focus on and emphasize in their hearts and minds.

In a way the situation is akin to the “old Indian tale” about the two wolves in your heart—one of love and one of hate—ever in conflict. Which wolf wins depends on which one you feed.

We know which one the radical Muslim terrorists feed, and you cannot, simply cannot reason with such hate filled zealots. There has historically only been one way to deal with such insane depravity, and I believe you know what it is.

If TSHTF time ever comes, I feel for the “good” Muslims, the ones not bent on violent jihad. Some few of them have been undeniably courageous in standing up to radical Muslims—but, at least up to this point, there appears to be too few of them to make much of an impact. I say I feel for them because if sufficient American blood is spilled on American soil a “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” mentality will prevail in all probability, and the question of separating good Muslims from bad Muslims will drop by the wayside and become immaterial.

That is not in any way to be construed as a threat. It simply stems from the fact that I’ve been around awhile, and have considerable experience with human nature—and fearful people can quickly become angry people. And very fearful people more often than not become very angry people.

There’s one last major point I want to hit on as I wrap things up. Why have “we the people” been lied to for so long by the press, media, and others about the dangers posed by radical Islam? There are several answers to that question (including the billions spent by Muslim countries to promote Islam in kafir nations), but the one I will focus on ties in with my last article, “Right Wing Nazis: The Big Lie.”

Attentive readers might recall that I pointed out that fascism (and hence its offshoot Nazism) was, is, and always will be a Big Government (i.e. LEFT wing) ideology. Islam, by the by, is LEFT wing also. By its very nature a theocratic (in this case Islamic) government will tend toward totalitarianism, that is, tend to the extreme political left.

The French Revolution’s “Reign of Terror,” Stalin’s gulags, Hitler’s concentration camps, Pol Pot’s “Killing Fields,” ISIS’s cages…do you sense a pattern there?

One of the reasons, perhaps ultimately the main reason, the press, media, politicians (Democrats especially), and others have been covering up for radical Muslims is because the majority of them are all in bed together. Communists, fascists, NWO globalists, and Muslims are all LEFT wing, and you had better believe that Left wing communist/fascist extremists and radical Muslims are tight. Odd bed-fellows, no doubt, but they are united in their hatred of freedom, Western civilization, and Christianity.

The French Revolution’s “Reign of Terror,” Stalin’s gulags, Hitler’s concentration camps, Pol Pot’s “Killing Fields,” ISIS’s cages…do you sense a pattern there? I sure do—and the pattern tells me that Big (i.e. Left wing) Governments which are allowed to metastasize to cancerous proportions will eventually end in tyranny and bloodshed—it’s a proven truth you can take to the bank.

[Sidebar: I suppose you can’t blame the left wing for trying to pawn some of their more disreputable failed ideologies onto the right wing, but don’t you fall for the ruse. Keep the communists, fascists, Nazis, and Muslim totalitarian governments firmly pinned in your mind where they belong—on the LEFT side of the political spectrum. Benito Mussolini, the man who coined the term “fascism,” once proclaimed “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, niente contro lo Stato”—which can be translated as “All within the government, nothing outside the government, nothing against the government.” You cannot get any more LEFT wing than that—yet the Left continues to bray their absurd “right wing fascists” nonsense regardless. They can sing to their choir all they want, but as I say, don’t you fall for it. “We the people” need to be awake and alert, now more than ever.]

If you have done your homework then you know that the Far Left has been busy, busy, busy for some time trying to destroy nation-states (i.e. countries) and painting them as pass√©, retardataire, and other French words. For one example read the Agenda 21 proclamation that President Bush Sr. signed “we the people” up for at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro (”National sovereignty is a social injustice”). National sovereignty is a social injustice? Now that’s something I’ll bet America’s Founding Framers did not realize.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Maurice Strong, chief organizer of the Agenda 21 “Earth Summit”

Hijra is immigration designed to subvert and subdue non-Muslim societies and pave the way for eventual, total Islamization.
Janet Levy “The Hijra

If I didn’t know better I would think that the current Muslim “immigration” problem in Europe looks a great deal like the meshing of Islamic hijra with the Far Left’s desire to destroy nation-states (not to mention the destruction of Christianity in Europe as well—a sort of lagniappe as they say in New Orleans).

Actually I do know better and that’s exactly what it looks like to me. One world government…good God do you have any idea what a bloody nightmare that would be?

Any freedom loving American who suffered through the tin-eared indifference of the historically corrupt (which is saying something) 111th US Congress as they railroaded through ObamaCare, got a faint taste of how arrogant, unresponsive, and uncaring a global government would be.

In any event, my advice to globalists of various stripes and persuasions who have been playing so cute and clever with the Muslim extremists is STOP IT, or “we the people” will make you stop, and you will not like how that goes one bit. In addition, you elites might want to rethink that whole moral relativism/multiculturalism boondoggle you’re so fond of, and you students attending our education/indoctrination centers might want to pull your heads out of your butts for a minute and consider the full implications of what destroying the privilege of free speech means.

It all ties together when you connect the dots.

Jim ONeill — Bio and Archives | Click to view 18 Comments

Born June 4, 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. Worked as a commercial diver in the waters off of Scotland, India, and the United States. While attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student in 1998 was presented with the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award,” 1st place undergraduate division. (The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with money she won from successfully suing a national newspaper for libel). Awarded US Army, US Navy, South African, and Russian jump wings. Graduate of NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School, 1970). Member of Mensa, China Post #1, and lifetime member of the UDT/SEAL Association.

Jim can be reached at:



2 responses to “The Religion of Peace, Another Big Lie

  1. Wonderful article and sooooo true. I have to admit it was not until a year ago or so that I connected the dots between all the different names the muslime/islime have went by over the years. I read a book that summarized the history of Islam and it blew me away when I realized that the Moors, Barberry Coast Pirates, Turks, etc. were all one and the same religious/political ideology. It also explained what September 11 means in muslime/islime history. There really is no difference between a so-called moderate muslime/islime than a radical muslime/islime. One just wants to conquer the world by gradually taking over and the other wants to conquer the world by blood, guts and gore. Great article.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Absolutely no difference MA, they wait until there’s enough of them in country and then they all become zealots for the take over


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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