Monday, July 06, 2015

Better Cops

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: 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.

Um... yeah.

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.

Monday, June 29, 2015 

Textual Islam means Islam in its purest and most dangerous form. Over centuries, Muslims learned to adapt, mainly by ignoring or choosing not to find out about everything that Islam taught. It was a lot easier to do this in a time of mass illiteracy. Now, with the most militant Muslims spreading their message through the Internet, it is harder to ignore what is being said.

So opined Hugh Fitzgerald parenthetically in a recent essay on Jihad Watch.

This implies that textual inculcation is the only type of significant inculcation (of a religious culture or ideology) and, by extension, a perniciously deadly & seditious ideology cannot be inculcated (in terms of a sophisticated sociological/anthropological cultural atmospherics) without textual means. Or, perhaps worse, it implies that if we can say it is possible for a perniciously deadly & seditious ideology to be inhibited wheresoever & howsoever textual means are lacking, we ought to incline to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt and assume that the ostensible appearance of a “lax Islam” means an actual, relative lack of Islam.

If we’ve learned anything on this bloody, raging mountain of data on fire -- Mt. Jihad Watch -- on whose upper slopes we sit here in our midsummer tragicomedy of the wild wood of our midlife in the middle of this second decade after 911, it should be that, when it comes to our appraisal of Muslims, we should apply Hesperado's Rule:  always err on the side of assuming the worst.

And that wasn't the only asymptotic spasm Hugh had that day (maybe he was having a bad hair day):

I don’t know how those who are “moderate Muslims” deal with the disconnect: that is, they know perfectly well to what extent the members of the Islamic State are merely putting into practice the teachings and texts of Islam without any moderating force, and yet they have to deny this, have to keep saying, not only to Infidels but to themselves, that this is “not the real Islam.”

Here he is being way too generous with the seemingly moderate Muslims, almost as though he were reaching for a way to give them the benefit of the doubt. This is the precise opposite of the inclination we should cultivate -- given, that is, the aforementioned bloody mountain on fire of data about Muslims which we know (or should know, by now).

If the only definition we have of the dangerous Muslim is the violent jihadist (and the stealth jihadist who is supposed to know their Islam full well and who is thus pursuing that stealth jihad in tandem with the violent jihadist), we will be at a loss to explain all the Muslims Who Seem to Just Wanna Have a Sandwich -- without simply giving them the benefit of the doubt and effectively functionally assuming they are just like anyone else (categorized under various mutations and permutations, like the famous rose, of the Moderate Muslim By Another Name Who Stinks Just the Same).

At any rate, the proper methodology the Counter-Jihad should apply whenever we encounter Muslims who aren’t exploding (or stabbing or shooting or beheading -- or lying about the exploding, stabbing, shooting and beheading) is not to assume the best about them -- that there must redeeming reasons for that lack of conspicuous extremism.  Rather, we should begin with the axiom that Muslims -- any and all Muslims -- are nefariously fanatical (which = normatively fanatical -- a fanaticism informed by the supremacist expansionism encoded and enculturated in Islam, the fanaticism that endangers us all in myriad ways, overtly in violence or covertly in taqiyya stealth).  Then, from there, it behooves us to reverse engineer an explanation for why any number of them seem to be un-extremist, without transforming that explanation into a presumption of un-Islamic motivation.

Thus, to pick one example of thousands we could pluck from a fez: When we encounter a seemingly moderate and reformist Muslim like the Tunisian President Béji Caïd Essebsi, who has made a point of distancing himself from the “Salafists” among the Ennahda party that has been trying to dominate the Arab-Sprung “Jasmine Revolution” of Tunisia, who doesn’t sport a zebibah on his forehead, and who in the wake of the most recent Tunisian jihad attack (there have been others, just as calamitous, in recent history) claimed that “Islam is not Islamism” (where the latter is bad, the former made of sugar & jasmine and everything nice) -- we should not glibly assume Essibsi really is a reformist moderate; we should rather figure out ways to explain why he is behaving and speaking as though he were a reformist moderate, given our presumption, cultivating a ruthlessly rational prejudice, that he obviously must know damn well that “Islamism” is Islam and that there is no “reform” or “moderation” that would not utterly destroy that putrid welter of toxic waste otherwise known as Islam.


By the way, for those whose asymptotic lenses prevent them from seeing clearly, the interpretation of the data I am objecting to implied in Hugh Fitzgerald's locutions (viz., that any time we see data that ostensibly shows Muslims seemingly watering down their Islam, we must take that at face value as genuine -- i.e., certain Muslims really were/are watering down their Islam for reasons X, Y, and/or Z; etc.) -- is itself an engineering of the data. 

Given everything we know (or should know, by now) about Muslims and their Islam -- including stealth jihad, taqiyya, and the False Moderate (not to mention the additional little details such as their perennial imperative and blueprint to conquer us, destroy our societies, and mass-murder those among us who resist; their fanatical resolve to do so; and their fanatically psychotic hatred of us), it thus behooves us to reverse-engineer the PC MC paradigm.   

By the latter term I refer to that disastrous template/framework by which (among a litany of grievous fallacies) we as modern Westerners feel obliged to assume that we must give Muslims the benefit of the doubt.  The PC MC Weltanschauung (if that is not too lofty a word to use for a current fashion of thought, endowing it with more substance than it deserves to be credited with) survives in between the cracks and floorboards of the Counter-Jihad in the form of the more decaffeinated (and sweetened with Sweet'N Low) flavor I call "asymptotic" (thanks to Hugh Fitzgerald for unintentionally -- and likely grudgingly if at all -- giving me the idea).

Further Reading:


Monday, June 22, 2015

We hardly Hugh ya...

Sans fanfare, as nonchalantly as he exited, the Masked Man of the Counter-Jihad suddenly appeared on Jihad Watch the other day, nearly five years after he disappeared, as though nothing had happened.

I speak of Hugh Fitzgerald, who wrote essays for Jihad Watch for some six years (2004-2010) until he left under mysterious circumstances (see my essay Nagging questions for further details).  At the time he left, his input had already been flagging and sparse for months, generating murmurs & rumors.  I wondered at the time if it was a mere coincidence that, after people kept asking in various comments what had happened to Hugh, since his prodigious output had slacked off something serious over a rather long period of time -- and, after I published an essay trying to tie all the threads of this ongoing mystery together (Hugh Fitzgerald: another fleeting glimmer of the hallowed interiors of the Gentlemen's Club) -- Robert Spencer then finally made a formal announcement (A Tribute to Hugh Fitzgerald); which, however, did little to allay the nagging questions which lingered (cf. supra).

Hugh's essays were known for being tours de force, waxing literary and philosophical, often brimming with a dazzling and dizzying erudition unmatched by any other writer in the Counter-Jihad.  This does not mean, as it does for the Jihad Watch Sycophants Society, that Hugh was, or is, perfect, and beyond criticism; it only means that he was, and is, impressive and extraordinary as a contributor to the Movement.

However, compared to the high-brow razzle-dazzle of his golden age (2004-2010), Hugh's few essays penned & published at Jihad Watch upon his unceremonious return have been remarkably underwhelming.  I had noticed, also, that his writing in the long Meanwhile (2010-present) at the new home he found for himself, a comfortable nook & niche at New English Review which he called "The Iconoclast" (still his home base) was a pale version of his former self that used to brim over with the cornucopic & encyclopedic breadth of a polyhistor.  For years at The Iconoclast, Hugh has been churning out news reports alluding to this, that and the other thing from the Clash of Worlds that is the concern of the Counter-Jihad, but only appending the briefest commentary to them; whereas of yore in his halcyon days, he produced staggeringly erudite masterpieces chockfull of scintillating observation, recondite knowledge, and wit as sparklingly dry as a flute of Champagne François Secondé du Sillery, Puilsieux et Verzenay.

One hopes that Hugh will begin to flex his intellectual muscles again, more and more as he settles in.  And perhaps anon he may see fit to revive his pointed allusion to the Benes Decrees as an implied recommendation for the West currently grappling with a demographic arguably far more dangerous than were the suspected Nazi-friendly Germans of Czechoslovakia of 1946 -- viz., our problem of millions of Trojan Camels who, due to our disastrous predilection to invite them in and embrace them, have settled deep within what they consider to be the Enemy Camp of the "House of War" (the Dar-al-Harb) in order to pursue their supremacist-expansionist Reverse Hijra which out-Hitlers Hitler's Lebensraum.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Smiling Faces reprised

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:

Smiling Faces

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

Our Keystone Kommanders

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

With faux pas like this, who needs foes...

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?

In disgust,

Howard Glickstein
Attorney at Law
Holualoa, Hawaii

● ● ● ● ●

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

The Race Card

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:

Greenfield rightly points out the zones of race and religion as allowing ample fodder for Islamopologists to exploit in their defense of Islam (and, let us not forget, of Muslims) from all substantive criticism (let alone the condemnation it, and they (Muslims) so richly deserve).

However, it seems Greenfield is not recognizing the essential nexus between race and religion in the rhetorical strategy of the Islamopologists—and in its reception by our PC MC-compromised West.  Greenfield seems to discuss the religion aspect as though it were detachable; as though it did not need the race aspect; as though the race aspect were not, indeed, primary in the memetic mechanism of PC MC.

I.e., the exploitation of the religion meme would not work—at least not anywhere near enjoying the success Muslims have enjoyed in this regard—without joining it at the hip to the race meme (aka, “the race card”).

That leads me to the second seeming lacuna in Greenfield’s analysis: the receiving end of our PC MC West, which is a dominant and mainstream reception, literally with open arms, of Muslims and their Islam. I.e., all the tactics deployed as craftily and cleverly as can be from the Islamopologists would not work, would not gain any traction, were there not such an overwhelmingly receptive society as the West has become under its currently fashionable politically correct multi-culturalist Weltanschauung.

Thirdly, this most crucial factor in the Islamopologist arsenal, the race card—which, again, would not be effective were the West not predisposed to embrace it, stroke it, water it lovingly like luxuriant houseplants and provide it copiously nutritional soil to grow—is not sheer fantasy with no factual basis. The Counter-Jihad seems to convey through its rhetoric in response the odd notion that implies that Muslims are all race-neutral and color-neutral, and that ethnicity is utterly irrelevant to their cultural and historical makeup. This is patently erroneous. Just go to Google Images and type in “Islam” or “Muslims” (or, more creatively, “Mohammed cartoons” or “Salman Rushdie fatwa” or “Muslim riots” etc. etc. ad Islamonauseam), and the vast majority of Muslims that come up are non-white—where white is defined mainly, though not solely, as it appears to the PC MC eye (the fastidiously clinical assertion that Arabs are technically "white" is not only irrelevant to the ideological reality of racialized rhetoric in the PC MC, exploited by Islamopologists, but can be positively obfuscatory).

Of course, there exist white Muslims—both in the form of the sociopathic white Westerners who have converted in recent decades, as well as historically certain people who ethnically are arguably white (certain southeastern Europeans, Slavs, Albanians, some Turkic peoples, and some central Asiatics)—all a result of whites in history converting to Islam in the only two ways all Muslims have ever converted throughout history from the 7th century forward: 1) joining Islam because it was attractive to their already extant psychopathic disease; 2) converting out of the horrendous duress imposed upon them by the vile, pernicious cruelty of Islamic rule and/or violent threats. Most from #2, and all from #1, historically came to become True Believers who, in their thoroughgoing Stockholm Syndrome brainwashing, joined the Borg of the Islamic Umma against the rest of Mankind.

Which brings us to the main reason why Islam is overwhelmingly an ethnic (which, if you are not a brain-dead PC MC or an anxious asymptotic, = non-white) super-culture, whose demographics are overwhelmingly a Third Worldwide tapestry, mosaic, stir-fry, quilt, smelting pot of non-white peoples: because

1) historically, Islam’s supremacist imperialism expanded mostly through areas which in modern times have become collectively known as “Third World”; and

2) for most of its historical career—for 1,300 years from the 7th century forward—Islam and its Muslims were wisely deemed a hostile alien foreign culture and were kept out of the (white) West by and large (with tiny exceptions that prove the rule)—a wisdom which the West has disastrously been reversing since the mid-20th century, and only exponentially increasing this disastrous error with each passing decade, irrationally and perversely accelerating it after 911 and with every Muslim atrocity that comes on the world’s radar since then.

So, when the PC MC anxiously wrings its hands at criticism of Islam, and connects it to race, and from there connects it to a bigotry against Brown People, they are not pulling this out of thin air. When the PC MCs look out at Islam (which means at Muslims), they see a sea of “Brown People”—and this in turn immediately triggers semi-consciously all their hot buttons of White Guilt that have in the meantime culturally become fused with a protection of Islam and Muslims. When Counter-Jihad spokesmen then, at that point, suddenly insist that this has nothing to do with race, this causes an immediate disconnect in the communication between the two camps—the PC MC mainstream and the Counter-Jihad—every time that a representative of each camp talks to the other about this issue.

In this regard, each side, every time a discussion on Islam takes place, is persisting in indulging an erroneous point:

The PC MC representative insists on protecting Muslims because they are Brown People and because the West is White and thus (in the PC MC mind) ever ready to inflict bigotry, racism, and hatred upon Muslims, which will lead to lynch mobs, backlash, rounding up Muslims and putting them in camps, then trying to exterminate them.

Meanwhile, the Counter-Jihad representative keeps insisting on a See-No-Race position, when what he should be doing is go on the offensive to refute and deconstruct the PC MC error of erecting a defense of an indefensible culture mainly on the basis of race. Every time the Counter-Jihad insists that “Islam is not a race” they are putting off a discussion and a refutation of a meme that is not going to go away by merely pretending it doesn’t exist.

Further Reading:

Reverse Racism and Islam

The Race Factor: Reality, and political reality


The problem of Islamic terrorism still has a racial component

And many more of my essays revolving around the subtopic of race and Islam, scroll down on this Google page (and go on to further pages therefrom)

Sunday, June 07, 2015

My "Taking the Temperature of the Counter-Jihad" series

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

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Tuesday, June 02, 2015


“I loved Eliot on sight.

“Isn’t there some other word you could use?”

“Than what?

“Than love.

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:

“Now, strictly speaking, it wouldn’t be discrimination to deny a Muslima an unopened can whilst allowing, say, a Hasidic rabbi to take one. It would be simple prudence, a sound counter-terrorist policy.”

That depends, however, on whether one’s definition of discrimination defaults to the politically correct definition: “Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice”—so deeply woven into our culture as to have become officially #3 in the American Heritage English dictionary (though, of course, refreshingly absent from the halcyon 1913 Webster’s definition).

If one refuses to presume the politically correct definition and instead presumes the saner definitions—“1. The act of discriminating (further clarified by looking up discriminating to find “Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive”)” and “2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment”— one sees that to profile Muslims qua Muslims is, in fact, to be discriminating in the finest, aptest, most exquisitely incorrect sense.

Granted all of the above, however, one could go further and say that even the politically correct definition—“Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice”—comports just fine with our security concerns.  For indeed we should be treating and considering Muslims as a class or category rather than as individuals. We should be prejudiced against them—in the sense of pre-judging them to be a security risk on a macro scale simply because their culture of taqiyya and terrorism in the service of a supremacist expansionism energizing an actual violent war they are waging against us now, coupled with their numbers, and with the complexity of our societies given our bustling freedoms and cultivation of diversity, all render our security needs incapable of the fine-tuned casuistry that would try anxiously to treat each Muslim as an individual.

Incapable, that is, if we focus on the exigencies of our #1 priority: in the coming years and decades, protecting our societies from horrific terror attacks that are part of an ongoing war which Muslims in their current global revival of Islam are waging against us. 

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Noah Webster (Peace Be Upon Him), and these "defining days"...

“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:

Insult—“Gross abuse offered to another, either by word or act; an act or speech of insolence or contempt; an affront; an indignity”

Let's unpack that further:

Gross—“great, palpable, serious”

Abuse—“Vituperative words; coarse, insulting speech; abusive language; virulent condemnation; reviling”

Vituperative—“Uttering or writing censure; containing, or characterized by, abuse; scolding”

Meanwhile, if we recall the latter part of the original definition of Insult—“an act or speech of insolence or contempt; an affront; an indignity”—we can continue to unravel the meaning:

Insolence—“The quality of being insolent; pride or haughtiness manifested in contemptuous and overbearing treatment of others; arrogant contempt; brutal imprudence”

Contempt —“…the feeling with which one regards that which is esteemed mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn”

Affront—“Contemptuous or rude treatment which excites … resentment; marked disrespect; a purposed indignity”

Which leads us finally (though we could go on all day, as the detailed analysis of dictionary definitions interestingly lends itself to seemingly circuitous, if not circular, garden paths of one word leading to the next):

Indignity—“Any action toward another which manifests contempt for him; an offense against personal dignity; unmerited contemptuous treatment; contumely; incivility or injury, accompanied with insult”


Other than most of Insolence and parts of Indignity (viz., “an offense against personal dignity; unmerited contemptuous treatment”), everything else that flows lexically and semantically from the primary word and act which Robert Spencer loftily eschewed—Insult—I have no problem with, and I think the Counter-Jihad should have no problem with, and should be as much a matter of principle in defending for our freedom to do it as is the more mature and dignified behavior of the Garland event.

But naturally, the mainstream has been treating that restrained event as though it were pretty much evincing all the negative connotations from all the definitions of Insult detailed above; bringing up the related question I have asked many times over the years of the Counter-Jihad: you know, the old “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” question—a question rendered particularly acute given that “doing”—i.e. insulting Islam—in this case is so richly deserved.  Not that all members of the Counter-Jihad should feel they have to insult Islam all the time; but as a matter of principle, our freedom to do it any time any one of us damn well pleases should be upheld as staunchly and as explicitly as the more rarified and dignified comportment evinced by the Garland event has been.

Which in turn brings me to my main point here. Robert Spencer wrote:

And particularly for those Christians out there who are sitting in their armchairs and tut-tutting at us for being so lacking in civility and respect that we would actually insult Muhammad and Islam, hear this: I didn’t co-sponsor the show to insult Islam and embarrass the Church by being uncharitable

Again:  Given what we know about Islam, and after digesting the definition of the word “insult”, one reasonably wonders, why is Spencer making such a point about how he and his Garland colleagues avoided insulting Islam?  Does he think the Mainstream will dislike him any less if he anxiously assures them of this?

And again, more pointedly:  Why not insult Islam? In fact, we should insult Islam—for two reasons:

1) Islam is eminently, richly, massively deserving of insult (with the minor caveats I noted above aside).

2) The free speech issue which Spencer and Geller have been defending before, during—and particularly after (in light of the mainstream criticisms of them)—the Garland event, would still apply to an insult of Islam.

Once again, Spencer and Geller are, for the umpteenth time over the years, comporting themselves in an impeccably restrained manner—and the mainstream behaves as though they were pigs splashing around in mud.

Andrew Bostom, in his recent interview on the Audrey Russo radio show, emphasized several times how the Garland event was not stooping to crass behavior or insult, but was "a rather staid event... which was really emphasizing the history of images of Muhammad, why it was important not to succumb to sharia blasphemy law..."  Furthermore, he added that it did not indulge in the "juvenalia" apparently typified by the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who, Bostom noted, had included one image of the 1950s sexpot actress Brigitte Bardot featuring her prominently sexy rear end, with Muhammad's head superimposed on her body, and the accompanying caption in French saying: "Do you like my tush?"  As Bostom keeps insisting on this, however, the listener begins to wonder what his point is: he almost sounds like he's saying that free speech is only okay if it's dignified rather than crass—which, of course, was precisely a viewpoint which he, Spencer and Geller were all otherwise vehemently repudiating.

The point is, as Bostom reiterates (but oddly doesn't seem to fully digest himself), it obviously doesn't matter to the Mainstream how well-behaved the satirists of Muhammad comport themselves.  If it’s clear after years that the name of the game is Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, I say let’s stop anxiously worrying over what the mainstream thinks of us and take the gloves off—and subject Islam to the criticism, condemnation, and contumely it so richly deserves.

What’s that you say? Contumely…?

Contumely—“Rudeness compounded of haughtiness and contempt; scornful insolence; despiteful treatment; disdain; contemptuousness in act or speech…”

For, as the great Edmund Burke (PBUH) wrote:

“Nothing aggravates tyranny so much as contumely.”


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 anonymousquoted 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.