By Jamie Glazov
Copyright 2018 Jamie Glazov
Editor’s note: Islam is conquering Europe through uncontrolled immigration and a sky-high birth rate, while jihadist mass-murder attacks pose an ever-present threat both in Europe, the U.K. and America. Against that backdrop, one of the most egregious examples of psychological projection in today’s politics is the ongoing campaign – by Islamic supremacists and their enablers in the progressive left, including the media – not only to deny that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with Islam, but to portray Muslims as the innocent victims of racial and religious hatred on the part of a bigoted America. Following is the introductory chapter of Jamie Glazov’s acclaimed new book, “Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us,” which explains this psychological and spiritual jiu-jitsu.
At approximately 3:05 p.m. on Halloween afternoon, October 31, 2017, twenty-nine-year-old Sayfullo Saipov drove a rented truck onto a Manhattan bike path and slammed into nearly two dozen cyclists and pedestrians. He then crashed into a school bus and emerged from the vehicle wielding a paintball gun and a pellet gun. He screamed “Allahu Akbar” throughout the whole ordeal and succeeded in murdering eight people and wounding fifteen – until an NYPD officer shot and wounded him, dropping him to the ground.
Saipov was a married Muslim father of three who had come to the United States from Uzbekistan seven years earlier on a “diversity visa lottery” program, a system that allows foreigners into the country, not through their merit, but through random games of chance.
The evidence was overwhelmingly clear that this Uzbekistani immigrant was engaging in Islamic jihad during his massacre on that Halloween afternoon in Manhattan. Indeed, he was already known to law enforcement “for his direct ties to other terrorism suspects under investigation,” and the FBI quickly tracked down a second Muslim in connection with his attack. Saipov had also left a note behind in the truck, stating that the Islamic State “would endure forever” and that “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.” His cell phones contained thousands of Islamic State-related images, including about ninety videos depicting Islamic State fighters killing prisoners by running them over with a tank, beheading them, and shooting them in the face.
When he was recovering in the hospital, Saipov requested that the Islamic State’s flag be displayed in his room. He waived his Miranda rights and gloated about what he had done, acknowledging that he had acted in response to the Islamic State’s online calls to Muslims to attack non-Muslims. He also boasted that he chose to carry out his rampage on Halloween, so as to maximize the body count.
Saipov was a resident of Paterson, New Jersey, an area known to the locals as “Paterstine” for its sizable Islamic community, where the PLO terror flag flies over city hall, and where Islamic terrorist sympathizers celebrated after their compatriots murdered thousands on 9/11. Saipov;s twenty-three-year-old wife, Nozima Odilova, wore a niqab, a Muslim garment that reveals only the eyes. The Muslim couple had two girls (ages six and four) and a six-month-old baby boy. A neighbor observed that “the girls didn’t have friends. There were no parties.”
Notwithstanding all of the empirical evidence pointing to the Islamic nature of Saipov’s Halloween massacre, the establishment media, New York’s leaders, and America’s higher culture just couldn’t seem to find a motive in it all. Saipov’s shouts of “Allahu Akbar” throughout his terror attack, for instance, were quickly explained away by Zainab Chaudry, a member of the Hamas-linked Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR), who informed the New York Daily News that the Arabic term simply meant “God is greatest” and that Muslims use that term in a variety of contexts, and not only while they are murdering infidels.
The New York Times was also most happy to assure Americans that Saipov’s “Allahu Akbar” pronouncements had absolutely no connection to his crime. The paper tweeted that although the phrase had “somehow become inextricably intertwined with terrorism … its real meaning is far more innocent.” CNN’s Jake Tapper jumped forward to explain all of that innocence, noting that “Allahu Akbar” meant that “God is great” and that it was “sometimes said under the most beautiful of circumstances.”
During these curious developments, the leaders and authorities in New York joined the peculiar chorus. The governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo (D), stepped forward to assure everyone that Saipov was just a “lone actor,” that there was “no evidence to suggest a wider plot or wider scheme,” and that there was, therefore, no “ongoing threat or any additional threat.” The mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, was of a similar mind, announcing that what had happened in Manhattan was very un-Islamic. “The last thing we should do,” he pleaded with his constituents, “is start casting dispersions on whole races of people or whole religions or whole nations. That only makes the situation worse.”
New York Deputy Police Commissioner John Miller was also on the same page, announcing that what Saipov had perpetrated “isn’t about Islam” and “isn’t about the mosque he attends.” Even H.R. McMaster, President Donald Trump’s then-national security adviser, got into the mix, affirming that Saipov should be classified as a “mass murderer,” a statement that clearly implied that the jihadist was not motivated to carry out his crime by a religious conviction.
In this bizarre atmosphere of denial, Muslims were depicted as the victims of it all. And the establishment media went the extra yard to drive that particular theme home. The Press Herald led the way, titling its main article on the terror attack: “In aftermath of bike path killings, mosques near NYC face hostility again.” The story featured Dr. Mohammad Qatanani, an imam at a mosque in Paterson, New Jersey, voicing his concern that, after Saipov’s murder spree, Muslims in the area would now feel “blamed as a religion and as a people.” The article also highlighted the views of a Muslim interviewee named Abu Mohammed, who blamed Saipov’s massacre on the policies of the United States.
The New Yorker made sure to help out with the whole narrative, running a piece that focused on how Muslims and Islam were the real victims of Saipov’s act. The story featured Annie Thoms, an English teacher at Stuyvesant High School in Lower Manhattan, who was very worried about Islam being maligned and about the feelings of her Muslim students. “Especially after 9/11,” she said in the article, every time I see that something is a terrorist incident, and someone has said ‘Allahu Akhbar,’ I feel a pit in my stomach, because terrorism is the evil opposite of what Islam is. So many of our kids here at Stuyvesant are Muslim, and they fear being tarred with this kind of thing.”
It was probably Isaac Stone Fish, a former Newsweek correspondent who was on sabbatical from the magazine Foreign Policy, who best encapsulated the establishment media’s view of the Manhattan massacre. Seemingly unable to grasp what all the fuss was about, he tweeted, “The most Trumpian thing most people do is overreact to a small terrorist attack.”
Even the U.S. court system couldn’t seem to find a speck of Islam in Saipov’s Islamic act. When a federal grand jury returned a twenty-two-count indictment against the jihadist, it treated him as though he were a Mafia member, charging him with murder “in aid of racketeering” – a charge that federal prosecutors typically use in organized crime cases. The message rang out loud and clear: Saipov had nothing to do with a religion or with an ideological movement.
Despite all of this denial about Saipov and his terrorist act, the truth nonetheless stared everyone in the face: Saipov was a devout Muslim and was clearly devoted to ISIS and to his prophet Muhammad. The fairy tale of “Allahu Akbar” that Zainab Chaudry, the New York Times, and Jake Tapper tried to foist on Americans couldn’t erase one undeniable fact: that the Arabic phrase is a declaration of Islamic superiority and supremacism.
Those who understand Arabic are well aware that the phrase does not mean “God is great,” but “Allah is greater” – because Allah is greater than the other gods of other religions and that is why Islam’s followers, like Sayfullo Saipov, are commanded to subjugate and/or kill them.
What Chaudry, the New York Times, and Tapper also failed to tell their audiences was that the actual origin of “Allahu Akbar” lies with the Prophet Muhammad himself, who shouted the phrase upon destroying the Jews of Khaybar in the year 628. When jihadists shout those words, therefore, they are emulating their prophet and declaring Allah’s superiority by killing non-Muslims. This is why the last words heard on the flight recorder of United Airlines Flight 93, the domestic passenger flight that was hijacked and driven into the ground by four al-Qaeda terrorists on 9/11, were “Allahu Akbar.” It is also why Mohamed Atta, ringmaster of the 9/11 plot, advised his fellow hijackers to shout that phrase, since, as he explained, “this strikes fear in the hearts of the unbelievers.”
Thus, when the New York Times tweeted its confusion about why “Allahu Akbar” had somehow become “inextricably intertwined with terrorism,” the paper revealed its breathtaking ignorance regarding the millions of Muslims who have screamed that phrase over the centuries in the process of murdering millions of unbelievers.
When Tapper stated that “Allahu Akbar” is “sometimes said under the most beautiful of circumstances,” he was partially right, but he failed to explain the context, which, as Cheryl K. Chumley of the Washington Times has accurately noted, is that “Heil Hitler” was also said in circumstances that many Nazis perceived as “beautiful.”
The statements of New York’s leaders also left much to be desired. In terms of New York governor Cuomo’s assurance that Saipov was just a “lone actor” and that there was no “wider plot,” one couldn’t help but wonder: Upon what evidence had Cuomo based his assessment? How did his assurance square, exactly, with the fact that law enforcement knew of Saipov’s direct ties to other terrorism suspects under investigation, and that the FBI had
tracked down a second Muslim in connection with Saipov’s attack?
How was Cuomo’s assurance consistent with all of Saipov’s other ISIS connections and with his personal declarations? How did it fit with the fact that in June 2017, the Islamic State published a poster depicting an SUV driving over a heap of skulls and bearing the legend “Run Over Them Without Mercy”? How could Saipov have possibly been a “lone actor” if he was a foot soldier for ISIS, and ISIS had issued a directive to Muslims to engage in vehicular jihad? And how could there have been no “wider plot” if Saipov’s vehicular jihad mirrored many other terror attacks, from the vehicular jihadist attacks in Barcelona to France to the UK?
No one asked Cuomo these questions directly, so he did not have to answer them. Nor was Mayor de Blasio taken to account on his warning against “casting dispersions” [sic] on whole religions.
Neither was New York Deputy Police Commissioner John Miller called out personally on his contention that Saipov’s attack wasn’t about Islam or about Saipov’s mosque.
But de Blasio and Miller had left one very pertinent question unanswered: What if Saipov’s
religion and his mosque’s teachings actually had inspired him to wage terror against unbelievers?
In terms of the court that treated Saipov as though he were in the Mafia, one matter remained extremely disturbing: Saipov was not, in fact, in the Mafia. He was a soldier of Islam and of the
Islamic State. As leading scholar of Islam, Robert Spencer, noted on this issue:
The Islamic State is not a mafia family, and jihad mass murder is not racketeering. This is a war, and the New York City truck jihad massacre was one battle in that war. Yet authorities continue to prosecute these jihadis as if they were a series of criminals committing separate and discrete criminal acts that are unrelated to one another.
In the end, one of the most troubling aspects about Saipov’s Halloween massacre was that it could have easily been prevented.
But it wasn’t prevented precisely because of the attitudes exhibited by the Chaudrys, de Blasios, Tappers and all of their other ideological comrades. Indeed, evidence surfaced that the NYPD had actually suspected Saipov’s mosque of terror ties over a decade before the massacre, and that it had kept the mosque under surveillance for a number of years. But all of that stopped because an individual by the name of Linda Sarsour, the notorious Palestinian-American political “activist” who was one of the organizers of the 2017 Women’s March, considered the NYPD’s surveillance of the mosque to be discriminatory. With the help of the ACLU and other pro-terror groups, she waged a campaign to stop this surveillance, and Mayor de Blasio complied, terminating the NYPD’s capacity for investigating all mosques and Islamic radicalization.
This dire development resulted in eight dead in Manhattan.
What had inspired de Blasio to make his decision about the NYPD was, of course, very clear, just as it was very clear what Sarsour and the New York Times were expecting him to say about Saipov. And that is exactly why they so approvingly embraced his announcement. It was the message that has been sanctioned by our society’s elites; the message that is now the only one allowed to be spoken or heard.
And that message is that Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. What Saipov had done on that Halloween afternoon in Manhattan, therefore, also had nothing to do with the Religion of Peace – even if Saipov himself thought it did.
De Blasio’s, Cuomo’s, and Miller’s message was just the latest in a long and consistent narrative of messages that had been emanating from American leadership, media, and popular culture long before Saipov plowed a truck into innocent civilians on a Manhattan bike path. Its hackneyed theme had been heard after every single Islamic terror attack on American soil, from Fort Hood in 2010 to the Boston Marathon Massacre in 2014, and from San Bernardino in 2015 to Orlando in 2016. And that theme was that no matter how proudly and unambiguously jihadists point to Islam to justify and explain the mayhem and violence that they perpetrate, their pronouncements are never to be taken seriously. Rather, it is other factors, the ones connected to racism, unemployment, and climate change, that, we are told, are actually the main causes of the terrorists’ actions.
As we stand back and examine this picture, it becomes painfully evident that something very wrong is transpiring right before our eyes in the terror war. Some kind of “pressure” is in the air – a pressure that ensures that after every jihadist attack, we call the attack everything but what it actually is. We are to ascribe many different motives to the perpetrators, except the very motives that they themselves have candidly identified. Indeed, we have been given a template of mantras to repeat each time, with just a few blanks to be filled in for each new attack, so that the different set of names, times, and places fit accordingly.
Accompanying the “pressure in the air” are several articles of faith that we are expected to dutifully embrace. The party line is unmistakable: First, when jihad strikes, we have to accept that the guilty party is us. We are expected to believe that it is America and
the West that are responsible. That’s right: The devil made them do it. Second, and perhaps most importantly, we have to embrace the sacred rule that it is Muslims who are the real victims. Any deviation from this perspective is now considered tantamount to a
hatred of all Muslims in general. In other words, you are an awful and bad person if you fail to embrace every single tenet that the “pressure in the air” instructs you to believe about terrorism.
What we have here is a situation in which any desire to protect the West from the terrorist enemy is now categorized as a hatred of an entire group of people. It is also labeled “racist” – even though jihad is not a race and its Muslim practitioners come in all shapes, colors, and ethnicities. And no matter how illogical and erroneous this line of thinking may be, it now prevails as the only permitted narrative in our cultural and official discourse.
Consequently, we have a disaster facing us. And that disaster, in a nutshell, is this: A totalitarian and expansionist ideology called Islamic supremacism is waging a deadly war on the West. It is a war that Islamic supremacists have openly proclaimed and shouted from the rooftops. They have made it abundantly clear as to why they are waging this war, why they hate us so much, and why they are so determined to destroy our way of life. But standing up to this ideology and protecting ourselves from those who heed its call is now, as noted above, considered hateful, racist, and, of course, “Islamophobic.” And since most people’s most dreaded fear in our leftist and politically correct culture is to be called a racist, our civilization’s will and ability to defend itself has been severely disabled. What we have, in essence, is our surrender to Islamic supremacism.
The “pressure in the air” can take credit for this surrender.
And it has done its job extremely well. This “pressure” has been created, of course, by a pernicious and treacherous entity: the Unholy Alliance, that sinister pact between Islamic supremacism and the Left that seeks to destroy the democratic-capitalist West and every liberty that comes with it. As empirical reality reveals, and as author David Horowitz has meticulously documented in his book “Unholy Alliance” and on his website DiscovertheNetworks.org, leftist and Islamic supremacist totalitarians are working feverishly together to destroy America and the West.
It is transparently clear who our enemies are today, and there is no mystery about the agendas they are pursuing. But tragically, the Unholy Alliance controls our culture, which is why it has succeeded in creating the “pressure in the air” that is now so effectively sealing so many eyes and lips and, in turn, allowing the enemy to encroach with so much ease.
This book is dedicated to unveiling the causes and elements of this tragic catastrophe. It will reveal Islamic supremacism’s assault on our society and the Left’s complicity in that assault. In so doing, it will expose the Left’s inner nature, its method of regulating our thoughts and language, and the treacherous manner in which it empowers our deadly foes. The work will also crystallize how Jihad Denial, which manifested itself so blatantly and disturbingly in the
Saipov Halloween massacre, plays a key role in the Left’s agenda – and in our own suicide.
Our story will be told in a completely original and unprecedented context, unambiguously laying bare the fact that Islamic supremacy is rooted in psychopathy. To make this case, we will document how a psychopath behaves and then demonstrate how Islamic supremacism’s behavior is classically psychopathic. As a result, this work will make manifestly clear that our psychopathic enemy is doing what a psychopath does best: charm, seduce, and devour his prey – all while playing the role of the victim. We will be able to see that Islamic supremacism is subjugating the West in exactly the same way that psychopaths subjugate their victims. In turn, we will also see that the manner in which we are surrendering is exactly the manner in which victims surrender to psychopaths.
And thus, the Jihadist Psychopath will be unveiled for the first time for all to see.
In demonstrating this thesis, this book will reveal the powerful temptation in human nature to accept a pernicious lie like Jihad Denial, showing how and why humans desperately cling to its subliminal and comforting assurances that a safe and ordered world is possible, if only we will turn a blind eye to the very forces that seek to annihilate us. In illuminating this human need to delude oneself in the face of a dire threat, this work will make clear what the psychopath’s conquering of his prey is really all about.
The pages ahead will focus primarily on the battle taking place in America, which is reflective of what is happening in the rest of the world, especially in Western Europe, where the battle is now almost totally lost. There are, of course, still many brave people left in Europe who want to save their freedoms and are valiantly rising up and fighting back, but they face a colossal uphill battle.
This book maintains that the election of President Donald Trump in America has brought great hope that we may be able to prevail in our own struggle with the Jihadist Psychopath – a struggle that seemed irretrievably lost during the Obama era. Trump’s victory revealed that there are still many Americans who want to preserve their country and who are ready to do what is necessary to halt Islamic supremacism in it tracks. Thankfully, the new president has shown many signs that he intends to take on the Jihadist Psychopath and his minions. And admirably, he has demonstrated a willingness to name the enemy and to take the fight to him.
The significant problem, of course, is that even with President Trump in office, the Unholy Alliance remains robust and retains its power on many levels, enjoying a vast army of leftists who have penetrated the U.S. government itself. The manner in which the State Department and the courts have frustrated Trump’s attempt to impose a travel ban on individuals from terrorism-infested countries reveals the vast leftist resistance that remains against Trump. Indeed, legions of Unholy Alliance devotees remain heavily entrenched, not only in all realms of U.S. government, but also within the Trump administration itself. Trump has, of course, made extremely positive strides in replacing some of the worst of these devotees with strong individuals who seek to confront Islamic supremacism.
To compound the resistance against Trump, the Left, as always, continues its suffocating monopoly over the media, academia, public schools, Hollywood, popular culture, and, consequently, the boundaries of permitted discourse. Progressive ideas are so deeply ingrained in our society that confronting them, let alone reversing their dominance, represents a Herculean challenge. The battle is on.
And so, this book sets out to tell the story of this battle. And it will do so through the scope of psychopathy and the psychology of the psychopath’s victims. There is no more effective way to do so. The first chapter explains how our surrender was nurtured and institutionalized by the Obama administration. To fully appreciate the influence of the Jihadist Psychopath, we must first show how deeply Islamic supremacists entrenched themselves in our government with Obama’s help. Our journey therefore has to begin with seeing this treachery for what it really is – and with witnessing how much power the Unholy Alliance has actually acquired, all the evil it has spun with that power, and all the dark things it still plans to do with it.
And so we embark on dissecting and crystallizing the threat of the Jihadist Psychopath and the process by which, with the willing aid of his leftist minions, he is charming, seducing, and devouring us. It is a harrowing tale that, this author prays, lovers of freedom will heed with gravity, taking every lesson and warning to heart.
For there is not much time.
Excerpted with permission from “Jihadist Psychopath” by Jamie Glazov.
Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in history with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpage Magazine, the host of the web TV show “The Glazov Gang” and author of several books, including “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror,” and most recently, “Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us.