Tuesday, October 28, 2014

A shift from Islam to Muslims


I’ve been writing this blog since June of 2006, and over the years (including the five years before that post-911) my sense and understanding of the problem of Islam has changed, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in more significant ways.

One modification I have made of late is to see that the problem really shifts, or should shift in our conception, from Islam to Muslims.  Whether this constitutes a paradigm shift or not, I’m not sure.

At any rate, to understand the PC MC Mainstream, we must keep this in mind -- that the issue is not really Islam, but rather Muslims. One can impugn Islam till the cows come home, and base the condemnation solidly on the texts and teachings; and Lord knows the Counter-Jihad has been massively and assiduously focused on this for years.  But this is a separate issue from whether Muslims following their Islam are a problem — how many of them are, and which ones are (as clearly distinguished from those who aren’t).

Many in the Counter-Jihad may well think the PC MC paradigm is illogical; but what saves it from illogic is the distinction between the Tiny Minority of Extremists and the Vast Majority of Muslims who are supposed to be innocent of terrorism. The concern to protect that latter demographic from broad brush policies that would harm them is what drives the logic.

This concern is furthermore augmented by a more or less implicit Reverse Racism, whereby Muslims are more or less implicitly deemed by PC MCs to be an Ethnic People (or a wonderful tapestry, mosaic, stir-fry, quilt of Ethnic Peoples), adding an extra hot button to the concern to protect them, since PC MCs are so powerfully anxious to redress White Guilt.

Furthermore, many in the Counter-Jihad don’t seem to realize that they share essentially the same anxiety to protect Muslims that runs so broadly and deeply through PC MC culture and psychology.  They think that their no-nonsense anti-Islam stance so markedly distinguishes them from PC MC, they can’t possibly share anything with it.  However, when one notices how they talk and when one pushes them on certain points, one sees they do indeed have a concern to protect a certain indeterminable number of Muslims.  And while they may deride the concept of the "Moderate Muslim", they have found ways to sneak that concept in the back door under other names (see my essay, The Mutation of the "Moderate Muslim"); and it is these classes of Muslim whom they would want to spare from the ethical indignities of Deportation, for example.  As I have noted in another essay, many (if not most) in the Counter-Jihad are phobic about the dreaded A word -- All (Muslims, that is).  They, any more than the PC MC Mainstream, however, have not really thought through what exactly they propose the West do about the metastasizing problem of Muslims following their Islam in the Muslim world -- and increasingly in the West.  When they are not incoherently avoiding this most exigent aspect of the problem, they are whittling the problem down to manageable size (in their heads, that is, not in reality).

This overall concern, on the part of the PC MC Mainstream, to distinguish the Innocent Demographic from the Dangerous Demographic and protect the former from our policies addressing the latter, only differs in degree (a putatively larger Majority of harmless Muslims) — not in kind — from what Counter-Jihad Softies think & feel in their asymptotic confusion of mind.


Kind readers, note my response to an "Anonymous" in the comments section below, which adds a bit more frosting (if not nutrition) to the argument.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

To boldly go where no Jihad Watcher has gone before...


Robert Spencer is excellent when analyzing the problem of Islam.  He falters, however, when tackling the less appreciated corollary problem of Muslims.

Case in point: his recent, almost surreal criticism of Bill Maher's latest controversy in a string of controversies he has been having by blurting out politically incorrect statements about Islam.  Ordinarily, Spencer has offered up sound approval of Maher.  This last incident, however, proved to be revealing -- revealing, that is, of a pocket of nougaty softness inside Spencer's otherwise no-nonsense Counter-Jihad bona fides.
When I first began reading the article in question, it became immediately apparent that Spencer was couching his latest report on Maher with a "big but" -- that he has appreciated Maher lately, but...  Naturally, I assumed that this meant that Maher, unsurprisingly (being solidly in the PC MC mainstream), must have leavened his recent expostulation with some PC MC spasm that revealed he hasn't really freed himself from the PC MC paradigm on the topic of Islam, even as he has showed encouraging signs of struggling to free himself from its Box.  

Imagine my surprise, then, when the one thing about Maher that Spencer was complaining about was not that he was too soft on Islam, but that he was too hard on Muslims!

This one part of Spencer's introduction to the piece, for example, in particular reads like it was composed by a garden-variety liberal.  Out of context, one would be hard pressed to distinguish such asymptoticism from a neo-con PC MC that prides itself (up to a point) on being anti-Islam :

Maher, Spencer wrote, is “failing to distinguish between Islam and Muslims. What people continually fail to grasp is the distinction between the texts and teachings of a faith, which are matters of record, and the many different ways in which people understand those texts and teachings. To say that all the schools of Islamic law teach violent jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law is simply a statement of fact. It can be proven or disproven with reference to the actual teachings of the schools. But if they do all teach this, and they do, that doesn’t mean that every Muslim follows those teachings, any more than the fact that the Catholic Church teaches against contraception means that every Catholic opposes contraception. There is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor among Muslims as there is among believers in every belief system, religious or not.”

As usual, most of the Jihad Watchers who deposited their comments noticed nothing amiss and merely parroted their praise of Spencer (and among them no doubt were many who actually agree with Spencer's softness on Muslims).  It’s nice to know, nevertheless, that there was a pitiful handful among them who are able to notice this problem, and to take the time and trouble to point it out. As I have noticed before, the further phase of graduation on the LCPOI (the Learning Curve of the Problem of Islam) is to graduate beyond all this chest-thumping self-congratulatory I’m-so-wise-and-I’m-such-a-no-nonsense-observer-of-the-problem-because-I-see-how-bad-Islam-is posture and move on to being robustly anti-Muslim

I recall when the refreshingly brash Andrew Breitbart died Robert Spencer took the time to write an appreciative article in his honor & memory, in which he demonstrated the good sense to notice that one of the chief qualities of Breitbart was precisely his “take no hostages” attitude in the face of the PC MCs and his refusal to tiptoe on obsequious eggshells around them—which makes all the more ironic how Spencer in this specific context does exactly that, suddenly shrinking back from his bravery to be oh so careful about Muslims (and at the time, I deposited a tart lemon drop there in this regard under the moniker "LemonLime").

It’s long past time for us to be worrying about the precious sensibilities of Muslims or of the PC MCs who dictate what we should be worrying about when this problem of Islam comes up. Islam is only a concrete problem for the world when Muslims put it into practice. Why is that such a difficult concept for so many in the Counter-Jihad?  And, of course, when I say “when Muslims put it into practice” we then have to factor in whether the reader has himself gone through the LCPOI (the Learning Curve of the Problem of Islam) with sufficient diligence & intelligence to fully appreciate the full horror of the systemic and the metastasizing nature of that seemingly casual phrase “when Muslims put it into practice”—for, if he has, he reaches the threshold of a dilemma where he has only two options at that point: either to recoil and shrink back into a defensive posture defending innumerable Muslims from our searingly appropriate condemnation, or to boldly go where no Jihad Watcher has gone before.

And no, I don’t mean “going there” down that slippery slope to genocide—that’s where the shrinking violet PC MCs irrationally fear we are compelled to go if we follow our ruthlessly intelligent nose having the “mental pencil” (as Hugh Fitzgerald put it) to connect the dots; but that’s not where we rational Jihad Watchers know it has to lead us. The only problem is, where are the rational Jihad Watchers in this regard…? There are a few. One can count them all perhaps on the left hand of a Muslim thief.

Further Reading:

Many years ago I had another blog (what I have called my "sister blog") dedicated to analyzing what I perceived to be analytical deficiencies in Robert Spencer's view (and often also those of his then right hand man, Hugh Fitzgerald) -- Jihad Watch Watch -- more often than not revolving around precisely the problem I highlight here today -- the distinction between being anti-Islam and being anti-Muslim (though I also explored a fundamental incoherence in Spencer's anti-Islam stance).  I wrote so many essays there, and many were so long and detailed, it would take a reader forever to get through it.  I recommend they browse among the titles and only pick out the ones that interest them as relevant.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Bosch Fawstin's multiplication of the crypto-moderate


In the comments section of the Jihad Watch article on Bosch Fawstin referenced by my previous essay (The mild-mannered Moderate Muslim), he provided a link to an article on his own blog where he explains his personal views on Islam in a little more detail.  My dismay dawned on me as I read it, and only increased as I thought about it.  It's remarkable how many permutations of the crypto-Moderate Muslim Fawstin manages to pack in there in that brief article.

In light of that, I am troubled by a number of assertions (all essentially permutations of one assertion) therein; for example:

“Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.”

This seems to rest on a sweeping assumption of what reasonably must be millions, even hundreds of millions, of Muslims all over the world—a sweeping assumption in their favor (benefit of the doubt).  Certainly, Fawstin doesn’t leave it there but does offer a degree of guarded skepticism about all these (seemingly) non-extremist Muslims:

“But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad… The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover.”

How do these “non-Muslim Muslims” give the enemy cover?

“They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.”

Fawstin also uses other terms to flesh out the description of this “indifference”—namely, “their silence and inaction against jihad”.

However, given the essential problem we are faced with, which Fawstin acknowledges—to wit, the game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he doesthe various permutations of Muslims who are “not our problem” would be a perfectly worthless category for our primary priority, the safety of our societies.  Fawstin, like most Jihad Watchers, acknowledges this Muslim Roulette problem, but simultaneously assumes a sweeping knowledge about Muslims that contradicts this very same problem.

In his case, he seems to base this on his personal experience—viz., “I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam.”

I’m sorry, but this isn’t enough to solve the Muslim Roulette problem.

As I noted, it’s downright fascinating how many terms Fawstin comes up with to describe these Muslims who somehow wiggle out of the Muslim Roulette problem (even as at the same time they are, as he himself points out, facilitating that very problem):

Muslims who don’t take Islam seriously

reluctant Muslims

essentially non-Muslim Muslims

less consistent Muslims (the negative complement of his phrase “more consistent co-religionists”)

indifferent Muslims

Muslims who truly don’t care about Islam

Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim

Non-observant Muslims

personally peaceful individual Muslims

your average Muslim [who] is morally superior to Mohammad.

Of these Muslims, Fawstin reiterates that they “are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem.” This clearly implies that for him, he is assuming that these types of Muslim (all basically one type in different configurations) are passively inert, not helping us, but also not hurting us (remember their “indifference” and “their silence and inaction against jihad”). How is this not aiding and abetting the deadly game of Muslim Roulette?

Unless Fawstin agrees that such Muslims should be treated by us with the same suspicion we would treat the other Muslims (which would be logical for him, given his agreement that we can’t tell the difference between these two types anyway), one wonders why he insists on calling attention to the distinction, as reflected in the various formulations of that distinction in which his brief article is positively replete, as my list has documented.

I don’t dispute that any one or more of these types of Muslims exist; the point is, this hypothetical existence is of no pragmatic usefulness to us, if we can’t actually know—as Fawstin himself acknowledges—“which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does”.  Obviously, this means that all those types of Muslims I listed from Fawstin’s various descriptions cannot be differentiated—with a reliability sufficient for our #1 priority, our public safety—from the dangerous Muslims. So why does he bring them up so copiously in his argument?  (And why do so many Jihad Watchers do more or less the same?)

Further Reading:

One anonymous civilian cuts through the "Counter-Jihad" horsefeathers

The Mutation of the "Moderate Muslim"

And from 2011, my first essay on Fawstin:  Still asymptotic after all these years: the case of Bosch Fawstin.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The mild-mannered Moderate Muslim


Bosch Fawstin is a comic book artist who has devoted his career to producing counter-jihad comics.  Jihad Watch recently showcased an interview with him, in which the viewer gets a thumbnail overview of his role in the war of ideas.

Given the inherent limitations of a brief interview calculated to hit only the punchy bullet points, Fawstin articulates well  the overarching problem of Islam.  However, he only makes passing allusions to what I consider to be the more important facet of that problem -- not so much Islam, and not so much the Extremists who ostentatiously broadcast their Extremism: but rather, the vast majority of seeming harmless Muslims, the so-called "Moderate Muslims".  Now, Fawstin according to his interview grew up in a Muslim family -- a "moderate" Muslim family as he himself says.  In this regard, one of his passing allusions near the beginning of his interview breezes by rather briefly, but it is startling:  His own "moderate" Muslim family regularly evinced hatred of Jews, misogyny, and beating of women.

One reasonably surmises that had little Bosch as he was growing up in this family thought to examine and interrogate his family more closely, he would have found all the other ingredients of mainstream Islamic fanaticism, including seditious support for jihad (both stealth and terror jihads) along with the taqiyya deception that normally is used to try to conceal the aforementioned whenever it is deemed to be necessary to dissemble to the surrounding Kuffar in order to advance Islam.

As I put it in a comment in the thread of the Jihad Watch article:

"Given what this was, a relatively short interview with a (thankfully) respectful interviewer (exceedingly rare in the mainstream on this issue), I see no constructive criticism necessary; but I do most emphatically think that our general communication of this problem has to formulate a cogent and concise way to explain the problem of the moderate Muslim: I.e., we need to take the next step after explaining that Islam itself is not moderate — which BF did well — to explaining why there exist so many seemingly harmless Muslims out there (and all around us in the West), and why their harmlessness is only seeming.

"That is the subtler and more difficult challenge in the battle space of the war of ideas in which all of us, no matter how we do it and whether we even know it, are deputized as soldiers of one sort or another."

Now Bosch, in his admirable and brave role as a counter-jihad soldier through the medium of art, has created several counter-jihad comic characters, including most (in)famously Pigman, who, as he describes him in the interview:

"is... an ex-Muslim character... dress[ed] up in pigskin leather... [who] take[s] on the jihadist... go[es] to the Middle East and do[es] what our government is not doing..."

-- which, he goes on to imply, is to "wipe out the enemy".

My bright idea for Bosch at this point would be the creation of a new comic super antihero calculated to highlight my above-mentioned concern about the problem of the Moderate Muslim.  Perhaps riff off of the gold standard of the comic superhero, and call the new character Supermuslim -- a blatantly extremist Muslim super-villain who wreaks the usual mayhem, misery & mass-murder that mainstream Islam has been fomenting for centuries right up to our present day -- and his alter ego:  the mild-mannered Islamic Clark Kent, Moderate Muslim.

Alternately, the character vacillates from the one to the other, and the Western Mainstream, naturally, is nary the wiser as to the identity of the two as one person.  When he's Supermuslim (aka "Saladin Akbar"), he beats his chest like Anjem Choudry and perpetrates super-terrorism around the world with his Mohammedan minions.  When he disguises himself as his mild-mannered self, Moderate Muslim (aka "Sal Snackbar"), he dons glasses, Western attire, takes off his fake beard, and goes to work as a liberal professor in a Western college, teaching his classes about peaceful Islam and the golden age of Andalus, and regularly giving press interviews about how terrorism has "nothing to do with Islam".

It's just an idea.

Thursday, October 09, 2014

All Quiet on the Western Front? Not quite...

Erich Maria von Remarque, 1929
֍  ֍  ֍

This appalling litany of human rights and security monstrosities spans only the past three weeks (and it's only what Muslims have been doing in the West -- it's not counting all the shit they have been doing in various parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia).  Clearly, all's not quite quiet on the Western front (notwithstanding what our PC MC mainstream keeps insisting arrogantly and obtusely); and it's clear that the problem of a Pan-Islamic Revival is metastasizing increasingly in these first decades of the 21st century.

Rhode Island: Three elementary schools get beheading threat; similar threats in Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Four Islamic State jihad terrorists arrested in Texas in the last 36 hours

UK: Muslim medical student arrested for Islamic State plot to commit jihad mass murder in Britain

Germany: Muslims supporting the Islamic State attack Kurds with machetes and knives

“A crime against peaceful coexistence”: Muslims burn Coptic church in Germany

London arrests disrupted public beheading plot by jihadis returning from the Islamic State

FBI chief says jihad attack “imminent,” but U.S. jihadis “entitled to come back”

Muslim from Chicago arrested at O’Hare Airport, was trying to join the Islamic State

Denmark: Snipers attack police in Muslim area, locals reluctant to come forward as witnesses

Norway: Laughing men hoist Islamic State flags in Oslo; EU expert says jihad songs used at beheadings “not extremism”

Australia: 11 suspected jihad terrorists nabbed at airports, had images of beheadings and Islamic jihad propaganda

Islamic State jihadi from UK calls on Muslims living in the West to “cause real damage” in their countries

Teenage Muslima from France stopped on way to joining jihad in Syria

Disturbing video from the Netherlands: Muslims beat, kick non-Muslim girl

France-born Islamic State fighter: “I have devoted my entire life to jihad”

New Zealand Muslim leaders: Don’t send New Zealand troops to fight against the Islamic State

Oklahoma beheader’s city: Man with “thick Arabic accent” enters high school unauthorized, asks “suspicious questions”

Imam of Boston Marathon jihadis’ mosque apologizes to Islamic State

Portland, Oregon: Would-be Christmas tree lighting jihad mass murderer gets 30 years prison

Australia: Pizza man charged with funding U.S. Muslim to join Islamic State

Boston Marathon jihad mass murderer’s sister: “I have people. I know people that can put a bomb where you live.”

Australia: Slain jihadi’s family stones media at funeral

Oklahoma: Another Muslim threatens to behead coworker

White House: Too early to know if OK beheading was terror or workplace violence

Robert Spencer comments:  Jah’Keem Yisrael [the Oklahoma beheader's Muslim name] was shouting Islamic phrases as he stabbed and beheaded. He is clearly a devout Muslim. He has photos on his Facebook page glorifying beheadings and showing him giving the one-finger sign of allegiance to the Islamic State -- and also "Oklahoma beheader wanted to spread message of Islam after release from prison"

Australia: 9-year-old Muslim boy praises Islamic State jihadis in mosque

3 suspected Syria jihadis face terrorism charges after returning to France

Oklahoma beheader’s mosque once led by imam of Boston jihadis’ mosque

Denmark: Christians flee Muslim-dominated areas, “They tell me I ought to be stoned to death”

Italy: Imam gets prison for jihad terror plots

Australian jihad plotter worked at strip club before developing “passion for Islam”

Islamic State jihadi from Canada says jihad attack on NYC coming soon

11 Muslims arrested in Spain, Morocco and UK for jihad terror plots

UK: Jihad preacher Anjem Choudary among nine arrested in anti-terrorism raid

Robert Spencer in FrontPage Mag: An ISIS Nest Grows in Boston

Australia: Teen Muslim who screamed “Slaughter the Christians” outside Christian college charged with intimidation

Norway: Muslims planned to enter random family’s house, cut their throats and post the video on the Internet

Denmark: Poll shows that only 14 percent of mosques denounce the Islamic State

Australia: Muslim who threatened Prime Minister stabs police officer and federal agent, is shot dead

Australia: Five Muslims released after police called to area near nuclear reactor

Germany: Two Muslims arrested, suspected of membership in jihad group

Canada invalidating passports of citizens who have left to join jihad groups

Again in UK: Muslim rape gangs targeted girls in Sheffield, care worker kept mum, fearing being called racist

Belgium thwarts jihad mass murder plots by Muslims returning from Syria and Islamic State sympathizers

Four people tied to jihad groups arrested at US/Mexico border

Austria: Imam accused of driving teen girls to jihad in Syria, says his words were taken out of context

Canada: Muslim pleads guilty to terror charges, says he wants to be “de-radicalized”

Australia: Jihadis planned to behead random person, drape body in Islamic flag

Australia: 600 police in huge counter-terror raid in Sydney and Brisbane

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

The cat's cradle of PC MC


Most in the Counter-Jihad ("such as it is", as Diana West once wryly remarked) by now have seen the TV show where actor Ben Affleck was parroting and regurgitating PC MC memes left and right in defense of Muslims and Islam, while liberal atheist Sam Harris and libertarian libertine Bill Maher were offering up spirited (albeit still Islamo-illiterate) rebuttals.   After the initial smoke cleared, Harris posted a video about it and offered up additional analysis (which, by the way, Robert Spencer praised, even though, as he noted, Harris has been rather rude to him and others Harris has termed "right wing").

Of that video, Spencer wrote:

…In this video, for example, Harris dismisses critics of Islam and jihad who came before him as “fascists” and right wing nuts, without pausing to consider that perhaps his opinions of them are the consequence of previous smear campaigns much like the one of which he is the target.

To which I say:

The cat’s cradle of the PC MC paradigm is very hard to extricate oneself from. Sometimes the way out is the Alexandrian solution of cutting the Gordian knot; but that requires an ability to think outside the Box, and it seems Harris is trying to image (and imagine) three dimensions while remaining a citizen in good standing of Flatland (even while its self-appointed commisars, Affleck, Kristof, et al., are threatening him with the ostracism of persona non grata).

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

El Escándalo de los Calumniadores de Diana West


Apropos of a recent talk Diana West gave at an event hosted by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, I told some acquaintances about it, and they began parroting the tired old memes that sadly continue to prevail about the Cold War—including that particularly annoying and galling one that Leftishly assumes that "McCarthyism" was (and remains) a horrid creature with toxic transmittable cooties.  And these were, of course, solidly conservative acquaintances.

This moved me to try to marshal some evidence in defense of Diana West, and I was amazed upon a mere minute of Googling when I found this convenient Gates of Vienna page showing all the articles on the Diana West Incident collected together—amazed at the number, some 60 articles all told. Even more amazingly, I think I read them all as they came out.

It wasn’t much of a chore to do so, as I found fascinating how otherwise intelligent conservatives who are anti-Islam (Horowitz, Radosh, et al.) could transmogrify so strangely into Leftists.

Additionally, I found it enormously entertaining to read Diana West’s meticulously skillful responses and rebuttals, as well as those of her rare supporters. That long saga as it unfolded was like a protracted train wreck in slow-mo, and I was often spellbound by the spectacle of those aforementioned Conservative Converts showing, apparently, their true colors. (I would also recommend to the readers who want to go above and beyond the call of duty to also dip into the comments threads of those Gates of Vienna articles and read at least some of my comments there.)

After the dust has settled these many months later, it is clear that Messrs. Horowitz & Radosh (and their more or less passive supporters and enablers) still owe us what Lucy always eventually did for Ricky (at least after he glowered at her with his fists on his Cuban hips). Absent that ‘Splainin’, we are perfectly justified in assuming the worst, and darkest, about those two principals (Dave and Ron, that is; not Lucy and Ricky—for Desi Arnaz, unlike Dave and Ron, actually did (deeper than lip service) utterly leave behind and utterly renounce & repudiate a Communist regime…).

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Islam studies before the "Great Inhibition"


A couple of years ago, I drafted an essay for The Hesperado, but never got around to finishing it.  I'll reproduce my introduction first, the better to make the punchline (below the row of asterisks after the introduction) all the more grimly juicy:

I look forward to perusing an old book, scanned and made available for free at Google Books:

Mohammed and Mohammedanism (that title alone is incorrectly promising), subtltled "Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain in February and March, 1871".

And one reasonably expects that, as it was conceived and published in that hallowed period of the late 19th century (lectures by R. Bosworth Smith, a fellow at Oxford, written in 1872, delivered in 1874, published in 1875), the Islamoliteracy therein will demonstrate robust signs of being free of the dogmatic blinders of PC MC so typical in our time -- we who now in our 21st century have the misfortune to live in the shadow of two massive movements: a global revival of deadly, bloody Islam, and the Age of the Great Inhibition (as Hugh Fitzgerald has dubbed it) in terms of speaking honestly and intelligently about that global revival.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Oy, was I wrong about Prof. Bosworth Smith!  His prose reeks of PC MC Kumbaya Christian Wilsonianism -- or I should say, "proto-PC MC", since he flourished so long before the accustomed era of that sociopolitical neurosis.  Usually, we think of the 1960s as marking the beginning of Political Correctness.  I used to agree, until I kept running across texts by various scholars and historians prior to that demarcation which espoused PC MC in one way or another, some of them going back not only before the Sixties, but even back to the 19th century.  I published various essays about this phenomenon:

PC MC in 1917

When did PC MC begin? Second case study

When did PC MC begin? Third case study

When did PC MC begin? Fourth case study

When did PC MC begin?  More info on that question...

What really took the cake and opened my eyes to getting out of the Box on this was my study of an essay by the great French philosopher and statesman, Michel de Montaigne, titled "On Cannibalism" -- written in the 16th century, and yet quite saturated with many of the principles of PC MC, as I analyzed in my article Montaigne: Godfather of PC MC?

So, I wasn't so much surprised when I saw R. Bosworth Smith launch so soon in his book into the nauseating treacle of PC MC type language, but nevertheless -- like Herbert Lom's wearily aggrieved, bitterly longsuffering Commissioner Charles Dreyfus in The Pink Panther who, after the thousandth time he had to suffer Inspector Clouseau's insufferable idiocy, twitches a traumatized smile and flinches a tic of his left eye, no longer feels the pain of his third, or fourth, or fifth finger lopped off by his little cigar guillotine -- I was deeply disappointed in a battle fatigued sort of way.

Without further ado, I quote from the esteemed morosoph, Prof. R. Bosworth Smith (adding bolded emphasis for the politically correct spasms along the way) writing in 1875:

A Christian who retains that paramount allegiance to Christianity which is his birthright, and yet attempts, without favor and without prejudice, to portray another religion, is inevitably exposed to misconstruction. In the study of his subject he will have been struck sometimes by the extraordinary resemblance between his own creed and another, sometimes by the sharpness of the contrast; and, in order to avoid those misrepresentations, which are, unfortunately, never so common as where they ought to be unknown—in the discussion of religious questions—he will be tempted, in filling in the portrait, to project his own personal predilections on the canvas, and to bring the differences into full relief, while he leaves the resemblances in shadow. And yet a comparison between two systems, if it is to have any fruitful results, if its object is to unite rather than divide, if, in short, it is to be of the spirit of the Founder of Christianity, must, in matters of religion above all, be based on what is common to both. There is, in the human race, in spite of their manifold diversities, a good deal of human nature; enough, at all events, to entitle us to assume that the Founders of any two religious systems which have had a great and continued hold upon a large part of mankind must have had many points of contact. Accordingly, in comparing, as he has done to some extent, the founder of Islam with the Founder of Christianity—a comparison which, if it were not expressed, would always be implied—the author of these Lectures has thought it right mainly to dwell on that aspect of the character of Christ, which, being admitted by Mussulmans as well as Christians, by foes as well as friends, may possibly serve as a basis, if not for an ultimate agreement, at all events for an agreement to differ from one another upon terms of greater sympathy and forbearance, of understanding and of respect.

[Just a second, kind readers, I must retrieve my barf bedpan from the adjoining lumber room...  Right!  Back to the learned fool:]

That Islam will ever give way to Christianity in the East, however much we may desire it, and whatever good would result to the world, it is difficult to believe; but it is certain that Mohammedans may learn much from Christians and yet remain Mohammedans, and that Christians have something at least to learn from Mohammedans, which will make them not less but more Christian than they were before. If we would conquer Nature, we must first obey her; and the Fourth Lecture is an attempt to show, from a full recognition of the facts of Nature underlying both religions—of the points of difference as well as of resemblance—that Mohammedanism, if it can never become actually one with Christianity, may yet, by a process of mutual approximation and mutual understanding, prove its best ally. In other words, the author believes that their [sic] is a unity above and beyond that unity of Christendom which, properly understood, all earnest Christians so much desire: a unity which rests upon the belief that "the children of one Father may worship him under different names; that they may be influenced by one spirit, even though they know it not; that they may all have one hope, even if they have not one faith.

[There's really no need to read his book further, I can see; for in his anxious need to be "fair" and "balanced" he has congenially lost his head; for not everything in life is "good and bad".  Some things are thoroughly diseased, dangerous and demonic; and to be authentically and accurately fair and balanced about those things would produce -- perforce and precisely -- a round and robust condemnation and evisceration, and nothing less.]