Muslims Real and Unreal

The following video is a joint Vlad Tepes/Baron production. It was inspired by the convergence of the coercive “narrative” proposed by the OSCE with the “narrative” peddled by Capt. Mona Shindy of the Royal Australian Navy.

While I was going through Capt. Shindy’s paper in preparation for my post, I noticed the fundamental incoherence of her “narrative”, which is essentially the same as the line used by Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen throughout the West:

  • Violence and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. Terrorists are not Muslims.
  • If we insult Muslims and don’t treat them nicely, they may radicalize and become terrorists.

That is: Our bad behavior towards Muslims offends them and makes them stop being Muslims.

As they say around here, that don’t make no sense.

Many thanks to Vlad for creating and uploading this video:

The script that Vlad and I put together for the video is below the fold. The part spoken by “Len the Lens Cleaner” (wearing hijab in the video) is condensed from what Capt. Shindy wrote in her paper for the journal of the Royal United Services Institute of New South Wales. To demonstrate that my précis has not altered or distorted the meaning of what she wrote, several paragraphs from her paper are included below the script (each listed under its section header), with relevant sentences and phrases highlighted in red.


These people are Muslims. [picture/clip of nice tame Muslims]

These people have nothing to do with Islam. [picture/clip of ISIS violence]

Mona Shindy [pic] is the most senior Muslim in the Royal Australian Navy. She recently wrote a paper for the journal of the Royal United Services Institute of New South Wales explaining to Australians how they can improve relations with Muslims.

Terrorists who claim to be Muslims are magnified by the media, who constantly link terrorism with Islam. The word “Islamic” should not be used to describe these extremists. Call them “separatists” or “militants” instead. Don’t use the name of the religion they falsely claim to follow. The word “Islam” should not be associated with ISIS. Their ideology has nothing to do with Islam.

Censorship, marginalization, victimization, and disenfranchisement affect the mental health of certain elements of the Muslim community, driving them to extremism and radicalization.

In other words:

The people who commit terrorist acts are not Muslims. [picture/clip of ISIS violence]

These are Muslims. [picture/clip of nice tame Muslims]

When Islamophobes talk about extremists as if they were Muslims, [picture/clip of Geert, or Tommy, Pamela etc.] they insult Muslims [tame Muslims], causing them to radicalize [picture/clip of “Islam will dominate” demo] and become non-Muslims. [ISIS]

This is why Islam executes apostates, [custom graphic] in order to prevent them from becoming non-Muslims. [ISIS]

This is also why we should stop provoking and insulting Muslims, [Geert, Tommy, etc.] so they will remain Muslims and be nice to us [tame Muslims] and not kill us. [ISIS]


Excerpts from “Islam in Australia in 2015: an Australian Muslim perspective” by Capt. Mona Shindy (section headings included to help locate the excerpted text):

Islam and Muslims

Islam teaches that the killing of innocent people is a sin. Why then have Muslims been linked to terrorism? Terrorism is an unjustifiable, abhorrent act that has nothing to do with Islam. The extremist behaviour of groups purporting to be Muslims has been overplayed by the media for years constantly linking terrorist behaviours to Islam, e.g. use of the description ‘Islamist’, rather than separatist or militant. Of course, such groups claiming authority for their actions under a banner of ‘Islam’ has not helped, but it is not legitimate to associate the politically-driven behaviours of unsavoury individuals or groups with the teachings of a religion they claim to follow. Extremist groups have emanated from many religious communities over the years.

Root Causes and Triggers

The same argument holds true when governments seek to muzzle organisations that to them hold distasteful, radical views and use violent rhetoric. These groups, however, perceive such government actions as double standards. Censorship forces these groups underground, where they are even less able to be monitored or understood, exacerbating the very problems the governments wish to solve. When, however, freedom of speech moves into the realm of incitement or harassment, limits need to be set. I believe this is no more complicated than the message many children get from their parents or at school about the inappropriateness of bullying and harassment.

Breaking the Terrorist Cycle

Any attempts to break the terrorist cycle must involve communication, education and equity. International government responses have been simplistic and ineffective; and there are arguably double standards and hypocrisy in both international and national policies in world institutions and governments. There is also a need to understand why elements of the Muslim community are vulnerable to extremism and radicalisation. Islam calls Muslims to jihad to stop oppression. So once the idea of Muslim ‘oppression’ is planted in the minds of at-risk individuals, it is easier to move them to extremist actions.


It is also important that, in the public rhetoric, terrorism and Islam are de-linked. Constant negative media reporting on apparent Muslim behaviour provides ammunition for terrorist recruiters enabling them to convince impressionable Muslims that there is an agenda against them and their religion – again, supporting a call for armed jihad.

Indeed, the word ‘Islam’ needs to be removed from reporting on ISIS/ISIL or Daesh. The barbaric nature and ideology of these groups has nothing to do with Islam and we should work to limit their appeal to vulnerable Muslims, preventing the use and advertising of ‘Islam’ in their name. This would also limit the adverse impact they are having on the reputation and quality of life of the true peaceful Muslim majority. This must be coupled with frank, fearless, fair, respectful and honest debate addressing the root causes of grievances with a view to arresting the vicious cycle.


Muslim victimisation and disenfranchisement, real or perceived, puts the Muslim community under great strain. It erodes its confidence and self-esteem, and promotes a victim mentality, leading parts of the community to withdraw from the wider society. Indeed, segments of the Muslim community in Australia now struggle to integrate, to effectively communicate their true nature, and to reach their full potential. This, in turn, has impacted on the mental health of some within the Muslim community, and is a social phenomenon which needs serious and empathetic attention. Effective strategies are needed to address it.

18 thoughts on “Muslims Real and Unreal

  1. I can only conclude Mona Shindy was convulsed with giggles and uproarious laughter as she wrote that drivel!

    Would the kuffar really be stupid enough to swallow it? Well the Swedes certainly would! By the time I got to her conclusion about parts of the muslim community struggling to integrate (they never had any intention to do so) and their mental health has been impacted, etc., I could just hear those sad violins through the tears!

    Give me a break–this has to be a ‘con’ by Shindy, no one could be that stupid.
    Could they?

    • “Would the kuffar really be stupid enough to swallow it?”

      Yes, many of them would, and do. They keep insisting that we are “radicalizing” Muslims and “pushing them into the arms of extremists” if we do “provocative” things like drawing a cartoon figure and labeling it “Muhammad,” or if we point out the propensity of Islam to inspire violent extremism. Thus we basically compel them to prove us right.

  2. Ah, Peter. Never misunderestimate the stupidity of the Muslim message, especially what comes from the mouth of Muslimas, who, according to Mohammed’s vision were falling into Hell at a much higher rate than Muslim men. Mo claimed it was because women talked all the time that they were condemned to eternal fire – or whatever it is that goes on in Islam Hell. He advised them to shut up if they wanted to see Heaven.

    Ah well, this Muslima naval chick is gonna have a hot time of it for sure.
    BTW, how come the Oz Navy does not include Islamophobes? I know some people there who do a bang-up job. After all, China will be coming by sea.

    • According to Correlli Barnet (Collapse of British Power), the Australians refused to ‘see’ the Japanese threat too, so they refused to build up the RAN in the thirties, this meant that when the two RN Battleships in the then Malaya sailed to stop the Japanese invasion of Malaya, there were no escort vessels and the battlewagons were sitting ducks to attack from the air.

      Many superb, brave Australian soldiers died as a result.

      • Correlli Barnett was wrong, as Australia had been aware of the Japanese threat since the end of WWI.
        What happened was that because of Imperial policies Australia got hit particularly hard by the Great Depression and let down badly by promises made by successive British Govts in regards to their intentions for the defence of the Far East – in particular Singapore.
        There was a very good reason that the Australian delegation at the Imperial Defence Conference of 1936 had the authorisation to write a check funding a battleship, or an armoured division, or a heavy bomber wing, to be built in the UK for defence of the Empire.

    • Got it Lady D! So the female of the species is more deadly! BTW, MC and Larry both talk about ‘failing to see the threat…..’ Should read ‘American Betrayal’, what an incredible amount of work went into Diana’s book, which certainly explains why the west has been, and is being such a pushover for islam.

      re the OZ navy, you’ll have to ask Nemesis about that.

  3. What if you belonged to a club and you went through all these gyrations and deceipt to hide what the club was about? This would show that its members were deeply ashamed, wouldn’t it? How would you like to live with millions of your fellows who are all deeply ashamed? It would be a sea of mental illness run amok.

  4. If the Koran contains the immutable words of Allah which must be obeyed, and “moderate Islam” and violent Islam are both derived from Allah’s instructions, how can one be Islamic and the other not? Didn’t Allah set down the instructions for being Muslim in the Koran?

    • YES, so our elites are either stupid, and believe the lies, or are blackmailed to believe the lies, or are paid to believe the lies.

      The alternative is the they are closet Muslims.

      But none of this really makes sense unless one considers Islam to be a satanic invention (monotheism without the Bible) and that it is thus acceptable to other luciferian sects such as skull and bones…..

    • In Koranic logic, two statements can contradict each other and both are true. This is dualistic logic. The contradictions are usually explained by abrogation, the classical doctrine, but the principle of abrogation is limited to the Koran.

      Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for Kafirs. The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever.

      There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way.

      The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam.

      There is no Golden Rule in Islam.

      This is dualistic ethics. Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely foreign to us.

      Muslims think differently from us and feel differently from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic ethics and logic. Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. This aversion causes many to avoid learning about Islam so many remain ignorant.

      Dr. Warner of CSPI at FrontPageMag, The Study of Political Islam, 2007

      The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.
      Dr. Bill Warner, CSPI @FrontPageMag, “The Study of Political Islam”, February 2007

  5. “Islam teaches that the killing of innocent people is a sin.”

    Islam also teaches that disbelief is the greatest sin of all – so no non-Muslim can ever be “innocent.” We are all guilty of being infidels.

  6. What a load of bunk that muslima is spewing. Her crewmates should chuck her over the side.

  7. “Indeed, the word ‘Islam’ needs to be removed from reporting on ISIS/ISIL or Daesh.”

    In USA the word “Islam” has been removed from FBI and intelligence training materials. There has since been a rise in Islamic terrorism.

    • Nixon said he was not a liar. Jimmy Carter said he would never lie to the American people. Today the bought and paid for politicians if being truthful for a split second would say the opposite. We import millions of ‘immigrants’ who go settler on the local infidels within weeks of getting hooked to taxpayer cash freebees. Suddenly they make no secret of the fact that their Islamic ideology demands that they lie cheat and steal from the sucker host at every opportunity. Etc. Lost our way and maybe lose something else as well.

  8. Anyone and everyone with the status of citizen or subject who cannot award total political loyalty to the state should be expelled. Syllogistically, all the Muslims gotta go.

  9. At the risk of being thought vain (if anonymously so), or lazy, I’ll repost my earlier comment on Shindy’s article, summing up her argument much in the way the Baron does here.

    — I’m trying to figure out how being nicer to real, honest-to-goodness Muslims would result in less violence by people who only claim to be Muslims but are really acting contrary to Islam.
    The argument is essentially: If we’re not nice enough to Muslims, we’ll push them into abandoning their good, decent Islamic principles and they’ll start doing evil things that give Islam a bad name. Or: If we insist on linking Islam to terrorism, a lot of good Muslims will be so offended by this slander against their religion that they’ll be induced to act in accordance with our bigoted and completely false suspicions about Islam.

    • Yes, the idea seems to be that Muslims will act like whatever we imagine them to be. Therefore if we imagine them to be terrorists then they act like terrorists. If we imagine them to be peaceful then they act peaceful.

      So we are expected to believe that Muslims are controlled entirely by the infidel imagination.

      I guess we should just imagine that Muslims all convert to some other religion and that will happen too.

      What this Muslim woman has suggested is entirely psychotic, yet it’s really just an intentional lie that is gaining traction with the collective narcissistic psychosis of western countries.

Comments are closed.