Monday, July 06, 2015
The Better Cop has been developed to improve upon the Good Cop in the Good Cop/Bad Cop ploy.
In terms of the Stealth Jihad, the "Good Mo" (Good Cop) pretends that Islam is all sugar & spice and everything nice, and that, as a Good Muslim supporting that fantasy Islam, he or she represents the norm which has nothing to do with the Tiny Minority of Extremists -- the "Bad Mos" (Bad Cops).
Just as in the Good Cop/Bad Cop game, where the two cops are working in collusion but pretending not to, the violent & hateful Muslims wreak their havoc or spout their hateful rhetoric, while the Moderate Muslims step forward to assure the anxious Infidel that most Muslims are not extremists.
As Muslims have been spiralling out of control in the nearly 15 years derailing from September 11, 2001, this game has shown slight signs here and there of straining credibility. Hence the increased need to trot out a new and improved Good Cop: the Better Cop -- a Muslim who feels our pain, doncha know, and goes further in applying the blade of criticism for deeper cuts into the problem of Islam, knowing that the TMOE meme (Tiny Minority of Extremists) is beginning to wear thin by now (at least on the edges of the Mainstream).
It's still the same game -- but it's played to a specific audience: the warier members of the Counter-Jihad. It's a way of infiltrating the Counter-Jihad. Zuhdi Jasser and Maajid Nawaz are perhaps the most famous of this type (the former apparently fooling Frank Gaffney, the latter fooling Sam Harris).
Over the past couple of years, I have noticed this type pop up more and more; but, unfortunately, other than an occasional essay, I haven't kept close tabs on them. Hopefully, I will do so in ensuing months, and will record my efforts in subsequent essays.
Today's essay features just one of many -- both the Better Cop and the gull who seems fooled by them: Anooshe Mushtaq, a Muslima who writes commentary for various publications about the problem of Islam, and whose pics show a nice, personably secularized persona. About her, Counter-Jihad analyst Mark Durie writes:
...it is a hopeful sign that some Muslims, such as Anooshe Mushtaq, have been willing to explore the Islamic character of the Islamic State...
And what does Anooshe say? After a few paragraphs of the obligatory Better Cop rhetoric that apparently soothes the likes of Mark Durie as sweet taqiyya in his ears, about how dire the problem of extremism is in the Muslim world and how it finds receptive resonance among religious Muslims, she makes sure to assure the reader that:
The vast majority of Muslims, nationally and internationally, don’t support terrorist organisations or their extreme views.
Then she follows that with the requisite equivalency-cum-tu-quoque spasm:
However, there are people in all religions who take it further than others. Radicalisation is not a new trend. With or without the internet, it has been present in all religions throughout history.
Once she has made sure to establish the Affleck Doctrine (that "the vast majority of Muslims just wanna have a sandwich"), she's back to acknowledging the metastasizing, systemic problem, nevertheless, of extremism pullulating out of the Muslim world and spilling over into our world:
...we first need to understand why some Muslims are more susceptible to radicalisation, which seems to be spreading like a plague.
Sure, Mark Durie is ostensibly correct that Anooshe directly alludes to the Religion factor (i.e., the Islam factor) in explaining the appeal of ISIS to Muslims. That's certainly an improvement on the explanations that ignore the solidly and richly Islamic character of the ISIS ideology. However, true to the Better Cop tactic, she's only doing that to suck the Counter-Jihad Kafir in, while with the other side of her mouth she's ready to contextualize that Religion as extremist; thus:
Islamic State follows the Wahhabi sect of Islam... an ultra-orthodox sect that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran and a literal implementation of its teachings... Strict Wahhabis believe all those who don’t practise their form of Islam are infidels and enemies.
Notice the sleight-of-hand there, implying that what Wahhabis are doing is not normative Islam, and thus distinguishing it from what inspires the "vast majority of Muslims". Her way of explaining why this non-normative, unrepresentative "sect" of Islam is having so much broad appeal among Muslims, and why this appeal is growing by leaps and bounds, thus has to unfold into tortured rhetoric and logic -- essentially disentangling (or, rather, entangling) two convoluted entrails intertwined with each other: one putatively benign, the other a growing global cancer.
Even granted the best case scenario, her thesis begs the question why such a horridlyy thorny problem is happening at all. The logic she (and all the TMOE Memers) assiduously avoids is that the "plague" spewing out of the Muslim world leads to the reasonable inference that there is something horribly wrong with the swamp whence it originates. From there, a more informed investigation and appraisal of the history of Islam confirms that the source (mainstream Islam) is the reason for the outbursts and bouts (ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Al Nusra, Sudan, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc. ad Islamonauseam) which we keep seeing boiling over from the global cauldron of the Muslim world undergoing a global revival.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Just about one year ago, on the fly and off the cuff, I published a series of photographs of Muslims who look nice and friendly because they are smiling (and therefore demonstrating that they are harmless if not even hopefully "reformist" -- so goes the logic of the PC MC mainstream and its decaffeinated cousins in the Counter-Jihad, the asymptotic Softies). Every one of the smiling Muslims I featured on that gallery are also direct or indirect enablers of jihad terrorism.
Over subsequent months, I keep running across more such photographic evidence of the Stealth Jihad, and I have tried to add to the gallery accordingly. My latest addition comes from a Jihad Watch story this week, which the reader will see when he scrolls down to the last photograph. The link is here:
Thursday, June 18, 2015
A somewhat regular Jihad Watch reader recently, with a typically asymptotic anxiety lurking between the lines (an anxiety further tempered by their modern Christian evangelism), posed the following rhetorical question:
So if there are no moderate Muslims, why do some Muslims apostasize when they finally read the Koran?
Then went on to add:
Yes, some moderate Muslims become more radical over time. But other moderate Muslims eventually apostasize…
Two problems here, closely related to each other, which indicate that this typical asymptotic is not keeping two important distinctions in mind. The two distinctions are:
1) There’s a difference between saying “all Muslims are dangerous” meaning it literally, and meaning it practically, insofar as we reasonably conclude that other factors (including our safety needs, and our knowledge of taqiyya) prevent us from being able to discern the difference between the harmless Muslim and the dangerous Muslim.
Which leads me to the second distinction:
2) The micro scale and the macro scale.
When I say these other factors prevent us from being able to tell the difference, I mean on the macro scale.
The macro scale is the broad, complex, diverse, and often confusing scale of large numbers of people in society – further multiplied into different societies, different cultures, different nations – all in our modern times inter-penetrating in a thousand different ways. Western nations, Western societies are not small villages – they are massive countries, with massive cities, and given their relative freedoms, a constant influx of people traveling, criss-crossing, emigrating, immigrating, etc. With the disastrous invitation of millions of Muslims over the past few decades (only escalating after 911, because of our insane multi-culturalism), coupled with the problem of terrorism emanating out of the Islam of these Muslims, this problem of the complexity of modern society becomes so big and complicated that in the coming decades the danger of terrorism – again, factoring in the other factors — will render it recklessly irresponsible for us to continue to treat Muslims with the benefit of the doubt and not rather treat them all under equal suspicion.
The micro scale is when one individual, or a tight-knit small group of individuals who know each other, have one-on-one interactions with one Muslim. one at a time. On this micro scale, the well-intentioned non-Muslim Westerner can think and feel that here, they are actually making a connection and this Muslim really seems to be a decent person, capable of change. This may or may not be true. I certainly don’t rule out that various individuals (including myself) may be able to discern such a potentially moderate Muslim in such circumstances. However, I’m certainly not going to let the word of someone else vouch for, and vet, any Muslim in the context where a terror attack could happen -- or in the broader context of fostering an attitude in our society where we continue to embrace the influx of mass numbers of Muslims into our society by expanding the good feelings we may feel about the smattering few individual Muslims we may have had nice interactions with. Even if I myself were to experience those good feelings with a smattering few individual Muslims, I wouldn’t be so reckless as to ignore my civic duty and concern for my fellow citizens, friends and family and presume to foster such an attitude that tends to reinforce the disastrous trust of Muslim on the macro scale.
And if a person doesn’t think the problems and factors of the macro scale are that bad, such that we must reasonably conclude that they trump the micro scale, then they just haven’t been reading Jihad Watch carefully enough over the years.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Consider Exhibit A:
Maj. Gen. Michael K. Nagata, Commander of US Special Operations Forces in the Middle East -- on record uttering the following Klueless Klaptrap:
“ISIS Ideology is a conundrum”
“We do not understand the movement”
“We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”
And, naturally, the Mainstream vaunts this Keystone Komander, General Nagata, as a robust leader:
Meet the Shadow Warrior Leading the Fight against the Islamic State
More like shadow-boxing against the imaginary silhouettes of "radicalized Islamist jihadist extremists"...
Monday, June 15, 2015
As many readers may know, Diana West has encountered a few snags since publishing her last book, American Betrayal, a little over two years ago (May of 2013; it seems like a decade ago!) -- a book that according to her began to germinate in her mind as a study probing the problem of undue Muslim Brotherhood influence in Washington. As her research unfolded, she began noticing threads that resembled those of a whole other tapestry of subversion and sedition in our nation's history -- the era of Communist sabotage. She followed those threads conscientiously and like a true historian and scholar, went where the data led her with an open mind.
As readers also know (or should know), her book quickly became a phenomenon unto itself, and the imbroglio about the book became, in some senses, a problem almost as disturbing, and certainly as quizzical, as the much broader and deeper subject the book itself treated (viz., the era of Communist sabotage against America).
In a nutshell (and boy has it been chock full o' nuts!), the imbroglio, hoopla & brouhaha surrounding this weirdly sideways tangent her book triggered turned out to be the exceeding oddity of various anti-Communist conservatives attacking her for diligently recounting the history of a remarkable penetration into American government of Communist saboteurs and fellow-traveling enablers. These various conservatives wouldn't have minded if Diana had kept to the standard script of the "palace history" -- i.e., if she had described that Communist infiltration in relatively modest terms. Her mortal sin was to bring together a wealth of primary and secondary sources indicating much more infiltration than the standard histories have been conveying all these decades -- infiltration so extensive and penetrating, including subversive influence on major American and Allied policy decisions before, during, and after WW2 -- that it sullied the record of F.D.R. and Truman, and many others in their orbit.
At any rate, I didn't mean to be trying to recount the whole sordid mess these past two years have wrought -- a mess that Diana West herself and a precious circle of stellar friends (e.g., M. Stanton Evans and Soviet dissidents Bukovsky and Stroilov) have been scrupulously and meticulously cleaning up ever since.
A helpful page assembled at Gates of Vienna lists all the articles relating to this protracted train wreck -- at least up to early April of this year. There occurred two other episodes since that time, recounted by Diana West on her site. Every one of them shames the aforementioned conservatives who attacked Diana West, and exonerates her. All together, they convey a problem of such proportions it cannot be explained in any conventional manner. The tangled skein of disinformation and ostensible lies from West's opposition cannot reasonably be explained by stupidity, brain damage, or un-ideological motives such as intellectual competitiveness.
Nor -- and here's the bizarre part -- can it be explained as the result of Leftist propaganda; since the perpetrators have all been conservatives! (The only way to explain this oddity would be to try to argue that these conservatives in question were opposing what they saw in West's book was a reckless tendency toward conspiracy theory (which has been the tack most often taken by David Horowitz). But this explanation has two problems: it doesn't explain why these conservative critics time and time again ignored data, misconstrued West's words, and otherwise generated a jungle of ad hominems, goalpost-moving, straw men, and red herrings -- all meticulously documented by West's detailed and numerous responses to them. And, it fails to go beyond unfounded assertion and slander by implication, in the face of Diana West's impeccable scholarly comportment, never coming off like a conspiracy theorist, while within that temperament of integrity having the perfect right to raise the host of legitimate, and legitimately disturbing, questions which she does raise -- questions which scream to be asked, given the mountain of dismaying dots & data she uncovered and scrupulously footnoted.)
One of the juiciest and gutsiest tongue-lashings I have yet seen in this regard was published the other day by Diana West on her site -- a letter to the Editor of National Review, upbraiding that vaunted institution with a searing dressing down, which I reproduce here for the reader's delight (and dismay):
From: Howard Glickstein
Date: June 5, 2015 at 1:09:48 PM HST
Subject: Diana West, American Betrayal and your destruction of your credibility and integrity
I value National Review for Andrew McCarthy, Victor Davis Hanson and many other authors. That is why it is so dismaying and disheartening to have followed the consistently dishonest treatment NR has given to Diana West's book, even now, two years later.
Disagreement is one thing. Misrepresentation is quite another. I have been a litigator for 36 years (AV peer rated). I have read the evidence: the book, all the pieces in NR, and Ms. West's replies, including the ones you wouldn't publish or buried.
You have knowingly and repeatedly published as facts demonstrable falsehoods that any fact checking intern would catch.
This is not a close call. Dozens of lies are not an accident.
NR's conduct is unforgivable.
To see your publication become an exemplar of the Big Lie dishonors William F. Buckley's accomplishments, integrity and memory.
I expected more from Rich Lowry.
This doesn't pass the smell test. It reeks.
The inescapable question: since you're lying about this, what else are you lying to me about?
Attorney at Law
● ● ● ● ●
Further Reading (as if the reader needs more!):
A Google page listing most of my previous essays surrounding this conservative rabbit hole worthy of the canniest and most cunning Alinskyites.
Monday, June 08, 2015
As I have been insisting for years, the crucial cornerstone of the entire PC MC paradigm is anti-"racism" (to be distinguished from anti-racism without the quote marks, which would be the enlightened and reasonable opposition to actual racism, as opposed to the trumped-up "racism" of the anxiously self-hating white Westerner forever trying to expiate his White Guilt).
And, since the PC MC paradigm is dominant and mainstream throughout the entire West in every cultural institution—including news media, academe, politics, business, popular culture, and arts & entertainment—and since this mainstream dominance explains why the West continues to remain industriously myopic to the problem & danger of Islam, and since Islam has a mandate to try to destroy all free societies that refuse to submit to Allah and His Prophet Muhammad, a simple doing of the math results in the conclusion that the race issue should be the primary focus of the Counter-Jihad (someday to become the A.I.M.—the Anti-Islam Movement) in the various "battle spaces" (as Frank Gaffney has aptly put it) of the war of ideas theater of this asymmetrical war we are in.
And, since this particular theater—viz., as I just got through saying, the war of ideas theater—remains the most important theater of this asymmetrical war, one would think it would behoove the Counter-Jihad to get cracking on what should be its primary focus, which, as I just got through saying, is the Race Card so effectively played by the Islamopologists and their Useful Idiots in the PC MC West. The Counter-Jihad, alas, in this matter, remains remiss, foundering in its disorganized, seat-of-the-pants situation of Too Much Information.
In this regard, I note an inadequacy in the latest analysis of the problem of Islam written by the otherwise quite astute Daniel Greenfield (and published on Jihad Watch). Here is my analytical critique of Greenfield's analysis:
Sunday, June 07, 2015
My 17.5 readers may have seen my series on taking the temperature of the Counter-Jihad, and may have noticed that it only reached a "Part 9" without any indication that it had ended. I intended to add a tenth part not too long after the ninth when I published it at the end of January of this year, but things got in the way, and I also was not quite sure how to wrap it up.
At any rate, I do intend on writing that summation soon, Allah willing; but for now, I wish to collect all the links to each part into one post, for easy reference. So here goes:
Taking the Temperature of the Counter-Jihad
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
“I loved Eliot on sight.”
“Isn’t there some other word you could use?”
“What better word is there?”
“Eliot did to the word love what the Russians did to the word democracy. If Eliot is going to love everybody, no matter what they are, no matter what they do, then those of us who love particular people for particular reasons had better find ourselves a new word.” He looked at an oil painting of his deceased wife. “For instance—I loved her more than I love our garbage collector, which makes me guilty of the most unspeakable of modern crimes: Dis-crim-i-nay-tion.”
God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, by Kurt Vonnegut, p. 86
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
In his report of the latest incident of attempted lawfare by a Muslim(a) who is alleging discrimination at the hands of a United Airlines stewardess and pilot (as well as bigotry from nearby passengers), Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog formulates a sentiment that at first glance seems robust:
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
“These are defining days,” says Robert Spencer, with regard to how Charlie Hebdo recently supposedly punished a staff-member with suspension because of her criticism of Islam (even though it turns out that her peccadillo may have been more a financial disagreement than a matter of ideological conscience).
Spencer is right, of course, with regard to the broader issue. But it's more complicated.
For instance, Spencer in the same breath writes:
I didn’t co-sponsor the show to insult Islam and embarrass the Church by being uncharitable.
Which leads a healthy Islamophobe to ask: Why not insult Islam?
Let's consult Noah Webster about that word, just to be sure what we may be so fastidiously eschewing:
Speaking of the Andrew Bostom radio interview, he also mentioned how certain conservative pundits, including Bill O'Reilly and Jeanine Pirro of FOX News, disparaged the Garland event as a "dumb move". Bostom rightly added that this is precisely missing the point of this most important exercise in freedom of speech.
Then I remembered something Robert Spencer had argued, way back when. In a report on Jihad Watch in 2008, consequent upon an incident in Afghanistan where an American soldier allegedly used a Koran for target practice (apparently the soldier claimed he didn't know it was a Koran); then naturally the U.S. Military (and by extension the U.S. Government and America itself) apologized to any and all Muslims who may have felt "insulted" (a local Sheikh called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world") -- then, to add insult to insult, the U.S. Military groveled in a most pitifully abject manner:
“I come before you here seeking your forgiveness,” [Maj. Gen. Jeffery] Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. “In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers.”
Another military official kissed a Quran and presented is as “a humble gift” to the tribal leaders...
In the comments section, an interesting conversation came up, when an astute reader named “anonymous” took issue with Spencer's editorial remarks. First “anonymous” quoted Spencer:
If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur'an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies.
Hm. This sounds virtually identical in substance and spirit to the complaints voiced by Spencer's (and Geller's) detractors...
Now, after quoting Spencer, “anonymous” writes:
“Anyone who shows himself as our enemy as a result of someone shooting at the Qur'an is already our enemy, as that person in effect has demanded of us to respect the scriptures of his so-called religion, or else. Our failure to comply merely makes the person reveal himself as our enemy. Thus, the Qur'an shooting should be a good thing, as it will provoke our enemies to reveal themselves. I'm surprised that Spencer considers this Qur'an shooting incident an "unnecessary provocation", since it is no more an "unnecessary provocation" than the Danish Mohammad cartoons were, and Spencer apparently has no problems with posting these on his site.”
At that point, he quoted Spencer again:
[Dinesh] D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime.
Then he commented:
“I'm glad to hear that Spencer has now realized that ignoring and denying the truth is never an effective strategy. Since Spencer's repeated challenges to Muslims to work for Islamic reform have in fact been expressions of Spencer himself outwardly ignoring and denying the truth, as they have suggested that Islamic reform is possible when in reality this is not the case (something Spencer himself undoubtedly realizes), his recent epiphany suggests that the nonsensical challenge is now a thing of the past, at least if Spencer will practice what he preaches and not merely continue to ignore and deny the truth against his own better judgement.”
At this point, the conversation gets sidetracked by some quasi-personal history between Spencer and anonymous, as the two evidently knew each other and had a way of getting under each other's skin. Nevertheless, this “anonymous” essentially had the upper hand, in my estimation. To the charge “anonymous” brought up about the seemingly self-contradictory incoherence of Spencer's stand on Islamic reformation, Spencer referred him to a link from a former essay.
We pick up where “anonymous” responds after having read that essay:
“Spencer provides me with a link in which he quotes himself saying the following:
“ "Many strange things have happened in history and I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible" (my emphasis).
“Here, Spencer explicitly admits that he would never say that Islamic reform is impossible, meaning that he does claim it could be possible, even as he admits that it is not likely. For the record, I don't actually believe that Spencer himself personally has any hopes for Islamic reform to occur - on the contrary, someone with as much knowledge of Islam as Spencer necessarily has to know that Islamic reform is impossible. Which begs the question why Spencer is so reluctant to actually admit that this is true. Instead, rather than stating in unambiguous language that Islamic reform is impossible, and that no matter what they say or do, so-called Islamic reformers will necessarily leave us disappointed since as Spencer undoubtedly know there is no potential for reform in Islam, Spencer first informs us of the unlikelihood of Islamic reform, but then all of a sudden challenges Muslims to work for Islamic reform, thereby suggesting that however unlikely it may be, Islamic reform is possible! Ultimately, the issue is not about whether or not Spencer believes that Islamic reform is possible, but about why Spencer insists on challenging Muslims to work for Islamic reform when the challenge itself implies that Islamic reform is possible or else would be meaningless, and why Spencer persists in doing so even after he has been made aware of these implications.”
More directly pertinent to our main topic, “anonymous” then quotes another commenter, a regular Jihad Watch reader named “Darcy”, who had piped up to help Spencer out:
Hey al-"anonymous." I've bought a little paperback Koran. And I can do ANYTHING I want with it! So, I'm your enemy! Good! COME AND GET ME!
And then “anonymous” continues:
“Darcy seems to have misunderstood my message completely. What I was trying to convey was that I believe that Spencer is wrong when he claims that the Qur'an shooting will "turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies". The way I see it, anyone who starts behaving as our enemy as a result of our failure to show respect for the Qur'an was already our enemy, and only revealed himself as an enemy when we faildc [sic] to act in accordance with his implicit demands. Bravo Mohammed cartoons! MORE Mohammed cartoons! Because: They tell the Truth about evil Islam. I agree.
At this juncture, Spencer begins getting rather subtle, addressing “anonymous” for the latest round:
Evidently, you, like your friends, do not know the meaning of the phrase "calling a bluff." ...
Then “anonymous” responded, quoting Spencer:
“Evidently, you, like your friends, do not know the meaning of the phrase "calling a bluff."
“And I have tried to explain to Spencer that whatever the intent of his challenges, they have the unfortunate effect of suggesting that Islamic reform is possible. If Spencer does not in fact intend to suggest such a thing, he should consider rephrasing his frequent challenges so that they no longer contain this suggestion...
“... if we are to take Spencer at his word that he "would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible", then it would be immensely interesting to hear from Spencer himself exactly what it is about Islam that makes him unwilling to rule out the possibility of Islamic reform altogether. (Since the weekend is over and I don't really have much time to participate in this discussion, I think this'll have to be it for me for now.) ”
Perhaps it is because Spencer hedges his bets about Islam, and about Islamic reform, that he is so chary of "insulting" Islam.