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.]

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Our Learning Curve

As I've been saying for a long time now, the Counter-Jihad (some day, hopefully, to become the A.I.M. -- the Anti-Islam Movement) needs to graduate beyond its massively implicit distinction between Islam and Muslims (e.g., "We condemn Islam, not Muslims") and realize that 1) Muslims are the problem of Islam actualized, and 2) a comforting taxonomy of Muslims (viz., into Harmless and Dangerous, with an incoherent spectrum of gradations in between) is impossible.

The following points along our public trajectory do not, in my opinion, reflect a sufficiently ascending curve:

George Bush (September 17, 2001)

Jack Straw (October, 2009)

Robert Spencer (April 2011)

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

By their fruits...

On the definition of terrorism, the UK Guardian had a helpful piece ages ago—ironically published about 4 months prior to 9/11 (just avoid the Leftish assumptions the writer slips in here and there)—analyzing the official US definition put out by the State Department:

“Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

However, the State Department adds qualifiers to clarify what is meant by “noncombatants”:

The state department regards attacks against “noncombatant* targets” as terrorism. But follow the asterisk to the small print and you find that “noncombatants” includes both civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time. Several examples are given, such as the 1986 disco bombing in Berlin, which killed two servicemen.
The most lethal bombing in the Middle East last year was the suicide attack on USS Cole in Aden harbour which killed 17 American sailors and injured 39 more.
As the ship was armed and its crew on duty at the time, why is this classified as terrorism? Look again at the small print, which adds: “We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases.”

The slaughter at Fort Hood in late 2009, for example, was terrorism under this definition (and certainly not the laughable "workplace violence" President Obama has seen fit to label it).  Calling it “terrorism”, however, is a bit too general.  It's like calling an orange “a plant”—when it’s more pertinent to call an orange “a citrus fruit”.  That one-man commando operation by (American Muslim Major and Army Psychiatrist in the U.S. Army) Nidal Malik Hasan, then, was more specifically a razzia—itself a subcategory of qital—the violent form of Jihad (e.g., in its imperative form qatiloo in verse 9:29 of the Koran, properly translated as "Kill", though too often softened as "Fight")—i.e., the war which Muslims have been waging against the West unremittingly for 1,400 years, never ceasing, only either pretending to cease or taking a break due to circumstances of weakness, and now being renewed with escalating vigor in a global revival of Islam.

It’s not apples and oranges: By their fruits ye shall know them.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

The colubrine Maajid Nawaz

Reading through the comments to a recent report on Jihad Watch by Robert Spencer summing up his rather punches-pulled misgivings of the latest attempt at moderation by the colubrine Maajid Nawaz, I must say I’m pleasantly stunned -- that pretty much all the comments by and large express the more rigorous skepticism that Robert Spencer should have hedged his bets with.

This latest Maajid Nawaz communiqué must be seen for what we must reasonably suppose it is (if our Reason, that is, has appropriately assimilated and digested the horrible mountain of data of Islam’s Twin Peaks of Violent Jihad & Stealth Jihad over the years): To wit, the sly Good Cop (who, we must recall, does not exist except as a tactical appendage in collusion with the Bad Cop) has upped his game.

Allow me to repeat more tersely for those Counter-Jihad readers who need punchy bromides:

The sly Good Cop has upped his game. That’s all that is happening here.

We may say Maajid is trying the uniform of the Better Cop on for size.  It’s a phenomenon I have noted has been happening increasingly: As the global revival of Islam continues to unfold and metastasize, its naturally attendant effects of hatred, horror and terror and grotesquely ghoulish evil have had the result of chipping away at the massive ice shelf of Complacent PC MC Denial that immobilizes the West, and some more adroit and astute Stealth Jihadists, like Maajid Nawaz, seem to notice this with alarm, and decide to do their part in the Stealth Jihad by going daringly further in their Faux Moderation. In doing this extra Good Cop maneuver, above and beyond the call of Jihad Booty, their target audience is not the mainstream (the usual tried & true target of the classic Stealth Jihadist) -- but rather, precisely, the Counter-Jihad (or pale resemblances of it in the mainstream, like Megyn Kelly of FOX News).

And it is dismaying that Spencer entertains it at all and effectively lends it his imprimatur of credence, rather than summarily dispatching it to the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing, the gnashing of teeth, and the biting of forked snake tongues. For that means that the Good Cop tactic works -- or has a chance of working (though it is salutary, again, that the comments thus far, by and large (with some rough edges of specious assumptions and axioms here and there that need sanding down with a few applications of a power sander) have shown a remarkable awareness of the thoroughly suspect nature of Nawaz. 

One detects the likely reason for Spencer’s egregious lapse. Before I get to that, I note that I tend to think that by now, after all these years, I’ve been around the Jihad Block, utterly weary and jaded of all the cluelessness of the mainstream, and all the wrongheaded habits of the Counter-Jihad (against which I have been hitting my head for years now on my blog and in various lifetimes and incarnations here in JW comments as well as over across the hall in that camera non grata, the Gates of Vienna blog); and yet, darned if I can still be surprised. It hit me on reading Spencer’s analysis that he actually believes that the notion of calling for a change in the Muslim mindset about their religion is actually a realistic proposition! I guess I assumed he was being rhetorical all these years, in order to underscore and highlight what was monumentally NOT being done by Muslims. I.e., I guess I thought he was being rational about this. To think that Muslims en masse could actually reverse course of their 1,400-year warship of worship and turn it radically around in a uniquely unprecedented way for which there is not the slightest shred of an iota of a scintilla of evidence is even the remotest possibility -- at least, that is, if your Bullshit Detector is set on “Reasonably Ruthlessly Skeptical” rather than on “Asymptotically Gullible” (with the “Christian Wilsonian” switch, in this case, additionally activated)!

Sometimes clichés come in handy, and one comes desperately to mind now: something about a snowball, and its chances… in Hell, I believe…

Bring the rubber to the road.

It's easy for most of us in the Counter-Jihad (unlike the clowns to the left of us and jokers to our right all around us in the Mainstream) to mercilessly mock and cogently cudgel the prevailing and strangely stubborn dogma that "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam".

When our minds are prompted to pursue the logic, however, there develops an odd inhibition.

When, for example, some PC MC bozo dropped into a Jihad Watch comments field to protest that the prospect of revoking citizenship from those Muslims who have gone to join ISIS would make the poor souls "stateless", a veteran Jihad Watcher reared up and raised all her no-nonsense hackles to set him straight:

“But these creatures *are* stateless.
The only law that they recognise as legit is the sharia of Islam. The only political authority they recognise as having a right to rule is an Islamic authority.”

Well, that's all well and good; but as a member of the Choir who already knows this, I have so ask:

Just how are the ISIS jihadists any different from all other Muslims in this regard? The no-nonsense Counter-Jihadists are quick to ridicule the specious distinction between ISIS and Islam; but what about bringing the rubber to the road and dealing with the specious difference between the ISIS Jihadists and all other Muslims?

Of course, there exists a whole galaxy of superficial factors which the asymptotic Counter-Jihadist, anxious to maintain such a distinction lest he succumb to the dreaded A word, will be able to avail himself of in his anxious desire to spare so many Muslims from such a “broad brush” (and thus, more importantly, to spare his own ethical narcissism). But is he able to do so cogently and coherently?  And more importantly, why would he even try?

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Islamic History in a Nutshell

Succinctly and precisely, we may adumbrate three phases in Islamic history:

1) Imperialist expansion:  Its first millennium (7th century-17th century), during which its supremacist voracity continued to expand, albeit with complex patterns of waxing and waning and plenty of internecine problems and occasional fragmentation.

2) Plateauing stagnation followed by incremental deterioration:  Approximately the 15th century to the 20th century (one sees therefore an overlap with #1), during which its own internal corruption and degradation coincided with the spectacular ascendancy of the West to global geopolitical hegemony.

3) Islamic global revival:  A concatenation of events and processes beginning in earnest in the 20th century, with roots going back to the 18th and 19th centuries -- some serendipitous (e.g., the geological accident of the discovery of oil in Persia and Arabia); some traumatic for the Mohammedan psyche (e.g., the dismantling of the Caliphate in 1924, the "Nakba" of the founding of Israel in 1948, etc.); and some reflecting concerted machination (e.g., the establishment and subsequent international sedition of the Muslim Brotherhood, or the assiduously industrious activities of Wahhabism) -- all revolving around the unified aim to realize Islam's perennial pan-Islamic vision in order to restore and revive the former glory of #1.

ISIS, then, represents the latest spearhead of the third phase.

An analyst of the European Counter-Jihad, Christian Zeitz, who has much of worth to say, slipped up a little recently, perhaps:

"I think it is a question here of a qualitatively new condition in the Islamic world; for ISIS really constitutes one of the most compact distillates of the Islamic Weltanschauung and religion in the history of Islam generally." [bold emphasis added by me]

I'm not sure it's helpful to emphasize what might be "new" about ISIS; particularly in our current Western context of mainstream PC MC, whereby what is old about ISIS -- its grounding in traditional mainstream Islam from the 7th century to today (both in the Koran and in the Sunna, as well as in Caliphatic history, medieval and more recent) -- is routinely obscured and obfuscated by a mélange of earnestly consternated Islamo-illiteracy and anxiously Islamo-deferential disinformation.  

ISIS is in fact simply the logical culmination of the Arab Spring devolution (itself a later kinesis of the chain reaction 911 set in motion) of the geopolitical order imposed by the stupendously superior West in its reconfiguration of the world consequent upon its voluntary deconstruction of its prior Colonialist scheme upon a Muslim world that, in the centuries unfolding from its last major military assault upon the West near the close of the 17th century, had grown weaker and more and more stagnant and corrupt, breeding not only its usual and natural sociocultural malignancies, but also, like a brooding spider hunkering down in its dark corner of the world, resentments and dreams of renewing and reviving its former glory (among which were plans and activism of jihad and Islamic revival -- e.g., Dan Fodio in 18th century Africa, al-Wahhab of 18th century Arabia, the Sufi Sheikh Ushurma in 18th century Russia, Maududi of Pakistan and Sayyid Qutb of Egypt both of the early to mid 20th century; and so forth).  ISIS should be seen, thus, as the latest spearhead of a millennially perennial jihad that began in the 7th century and has never ceased since, but has only been put on pause for regrouping by mitigating circumstances beyond the control of Muslims.

Further Reading:

Western Amnesia and Islamnesia

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Islam: Up Close and Personal

It has only really been since we have forcibly occupied Muslim societies in Iraq and Afghanistan that we have had the opportunity to see, up close and personal, through the eyes of troops on the ground, the uglier, seamier side of ordinary Muslims and ordinary Muslim society which likely would never have been data-gathered otherwise, whether by Muslims themselves, or by PC/MC-addled United Nations human rights groups. 

Buried in the pages of a recent report of interviews with our men and women deployed in Afghanistan, conducted by the US Military (hat tips to Andrew Bostom and Diana West), we learn the following:

As West put it:  

...the U.S. Military conducted interviews (of course buried in a report few are reading and left untouched by the mainstream media) of American military personnel about how they felt trying to “win the hearts and minds” of creatures who have no hearts or minds...

Here are some quotes from that report:

Many US soldiers were appalled by the rampant torture of dogs and puppies they witnessed while being based with ANSF [Afghanistan National Security Forces] units. Many ANSF members are prone to inflicting abuse onto stray dogs they bring to the base for “entertainment” purposes.

Other ANSF members, while not condoning the torture, fail to see any importance in such behaviors given the standing of dogs in Islam.  Dogs are seen [in Islam] as vermin and many ANSF members find it inexplicable that anyone could be concerned about such "trivial matters," and deeply resent any interference.  [So much for "not condoning the torture"...-- Hesp]  This animal abuse is a substantial psychological stressor for many US soldiers and has been the cause of many serious social altercations with ANSF members.

US soldiers reported that they had observed many cases of child abuse and neglect that infuriated them and alienated them from the civilian populace. They made it very clear that they wanted nothing to do with people who treat children so cruelly.

Although not reported by the US soldiers who participated in this study, there have been numerous accounts of Canadian troops in Kandahar complaining about the rampant sexual abuse of children they have witnessed ANSF personnel commit, including the cultural practice of bacha bazi, as well as the raping and sodomizing of little boys…

Similarly, US soldiers…mentioned the poor treatment and virtual slavery of Women in Afghan society, and how they found such practices repugnant.

They found it unpalatable to befriend other men who had such primitive beliefs; the cultural gulf was too wide.

They were repulsed by the abuse and neglect they observed in how children are treated in Afghan society.

US soldiers largely reported that they did not care for Afghan civilians due to these factors as well as their suspected sympathies for the insurgents.

[End quote]

These aren’t “extremists” or “Salafists” – these are the ordinary “moms and pops” which our men, under our insane COIN policy, have to try to befriend, sit on mats in yoga-style and drink tea with, and spend our blood, money and precious time helping to become human.
Had we never had the grim opportunity to intrude upon Muslim societies and turn over the rocks and see the maggots crawling underneath, we’d basically be thinking like Bush, Romney, Daniel Pipes, and the whole PC MC establishment -- at least those of us who can see what's as plain as the nose on our face.

Given the mountains and oceans of data we do have which indicate a galaxy of dots screaming for connection, and given the problems with data-gathering from Muslim societies which I noted above, it is irrational to persist in demanding irrefutable data before we condemn Islam. 

Monday, September 15, 2014

The West in bed with its enemy

A typical ejaculation from a Jihad Watcher in a comments field over there today:

"It’s staggering that soo many people of different levels of authority are getting this subject very wrong it’s either gross incompetency on a huge level or it’s deliberate."

The subject, of course, is how IS, is, in fact, Islam -- and why the Western "Elites" remain stubbornly myopic to this.

We must, however, rule out the improbables:

1) It can't be gross incompetency (not on this scale).

2) It can't be stupidity (not on this scale; and besides, most our leaders and representatives in Politics, News Media, and Academe are fairly intelligent).

3) It can't be deliberate (not on this scale; most of our leaders and representatives in Politics, News Media, and Academe are relatively decent and would not knowing support an evil enemy of their society).

Once we rule out these three improbables, are we left with nothing?  What about sociology and culture?  Methinks that the typical Jihad Watcher-cum-Counter-Jihadist who insists the explanation for our massive Western myopia to the problem of Islam must be one or more of the three above just hasn't gotten out much, or when out has been strangely oblivious to the Forest for the Trees -- the Forest of modern Western secularism and its massively mainstream and dominant Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism, a fashionable paradigm guiding society implicitly with insidiously user-friendly software, a Weltanschauung as prevalent as the air and sunshine on a brilliantly sunny day.

Remember the crucial ingredients of this paradigm:

1) "Diversity" is more important to protect than the lives of our men, women and children (as our silver-haired General George Casey, sporting more fruit salad on his chest than a Filipino cafeteria worker, lectured the Americans in 2009 he was supposed to be protecting)

2) This "Diversity" may be further unpacked to air out its noxiously smelly and incoherently convoluted ravel of underwear from the baggage the modern West carries around thusly: "Muslims are Brown People, therefore we cannot say or even think anything overly negative about them, lest we commit the thought crime and the hate speech of 'racism' -- an exclusively white Western sin responsible for the worst and most shameful crimes of history and, moreover, itself a worse crime (cf. #1) than mayhem and murder."

3) The sheer numbers and dispersion of the Muslim Diaspora, a massive quantitative fact that only augments the psychological and cultural weight of #1 and #2.

4) The demographic invasion of Muslims in the form of a mass immigration -- seen by the mainstream West as an exodus of peaceful Brown People seeking a better life like any other people would do, whose existential Burden must be the White Man's to shoulder, but seen by the Muslims themselves (we must reasonably infer, from the mountain of data we have) as the Hijra, one grand wing of their global Jihad -- involving a mélange of stealth jihad, Daw'a promoting the historical lies of the Myth of the Golden Age of Islam and supposed "contributions" of Islam to Western civilization, grievance-mongering laced with race-baiting, pseudo-moderation, a Good Cop/Bad Cop collusion with the ongoing violence (in various forms, from terror attacks to all manner of lower-level criminality) of a certain volatile and indeterminable number of Muslims in the West, and Islam apologetics promoting the TMOE meme: to wit, that the problem is a Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam "radicalized" by the inherent racism of the West which, furthermore (said the spider to the fly, said the bedridden Wolf dressed as Grandma to Little Red Riding Hood), the vast majority of Peaceful Muslims can help the West solve -- with more Islamization of the West, of course!

Sunday, September 14, 2014

The News: A Fractured Fairy Tale
Recently, Prime Minister of England David Cameron pronounced more harshly no-nonsense condemnations on ISIS (e,g,m “We will do everything in our power to hunt down these murderers and ensure they face justice, however long it takes” and, in a manly Tweet subsequently, adding that the latest beheading, of David Haines, is an “act of pure evil.”).  Similarly, Obama and Kerry have these past weeks pulled out the stops of outraged rhetoric at these atrocities.

What’s going on here is what could be called Misplaced Bluster & Bravado.

It’s a rather common phenomenon, unfortunately: The pressure of avoiding the Camel in the Room—Islam and all the human rights atrocities that have been roiling throughout Africa, the Middle East and Western Asia (not to mention increasingly in the West) flowing out from mainstream Islam like rivers, torrents of grisly blood—builds up enormously, particularly when you are an otherwise sincere, intelligent, conscientious public leader with a responsibility you take seriously to protect the public good. But if you are also beholden to PC MC and your sense of ethics is joined at the hip with PC MC, you simply cannot think the unthinkable—you cannot think that there is a systemic and obviously metastasizing problem with Muslims in general and with their support of Islam. Nevertheless, your conscience nags at you and your intelligence is telling you there is a horrid problem of frightful proportions that is, indeed, metastasizing out of control. What do you do then? You magnify your rhetoric against this problem, but then you minimize the actual problem and whittle it down to more manageable (and thinkable) proportions, and you focus all your alarm & ire exclusively on the "radicalized extremists", the "Islamists-who-have-nothing-to-do-with-Islam"—and fashionably, on the jihadists du jour, ISIS.

“Selective conscience” was a phrase from the 60s. It’s time to revive it as a diagnostic term of the political rhetoric of no-nonsense nonsense spouted & spewed daily by our leaders and representatives in our time.

What we have here more broadly in this curious Clash of Civilizations (or, rather, “Clash of Epochs”, as George Will shrewdly put it) is a most surreal asymmetrical mirror-image that in its carnivalesque fun-house reflection distorts the problem into a Pseudo-Clash between a grandiosely hapless neo-Wilsonianism and a "Radicalism" that has nothing to do with Islam.  Thus, while the West would be truculently thrusting its chest out in misplaced bluster and bravado — punctuated by rhetoric of sincere moral superiority couched exclusively in terms of the suicidal drivel of a neo-Wilsonian idealism), tilting its Quixotic spear at the imaginary windmills of “Islamism-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-Islam” while tragicomically blind as a bat to the actual Islam under its post-Colonially meddling nose — in its preposterous game of Whack-a-Mo figuratively cutting off one head after another of the Hydra monster it refuses to see (and whose heads, naturally, regrow all the more with these decapitations), the unseen Mohammedan monster, meanwhile, is busy in its gruesomely industrious way, all too literally cutting off the heads of its hapless Harbi who have already lost their heads long ago.

This would be a story worthy of a Jorge Luis Borges channeling Cervantes and the Brothers Grimm, as depicted by Salvador Dali and televised in the adroitly cheeky terms of the Fractured Fairy Tales. If only it were only a story, and not rather our grim reality.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Deprogramming in order to "de-radicalize" Muslims

Recently, Jihad Watch published a report of a Canadian mother, Christianne Boudreau, whose son had converted to Islam and then (of course) felt that the Levantine jihad currently raging (i.e., Syria and ISIS) was the greatest thing since sliced cheese and went off to fight the enemy as a mujahid, then got killed in the process.  The Canadian mother became so distraught at the loss of her son (both his mind and then his life) that she is organizing an international movement (in collaboration with a French mother whose two sons suffered the same horrible fate) to try to “de-radicalize” people who convert to Islam and show they want to join the Levantine jihad (the latter part of that is crucial: this Canadian mother obviously does not suspect Islam itself as the problem, only a “radicalization” that leads to an “extremism” that of course has nothing to do with the Religion of Peace -- which is precisely the larger problem).

This idea of a nascently inchoate process of “de-radicalization” from what can be gleaned in the Jihad Watch report reveals a fascinating glimpse into the sincerely hapless flailing about which PC MCs are forced to indulge when they proceed without proper Counter-Jihad training:
“The pair [the Canadian mother and the French mother] decided to form an international mothers group, determined that there must be a way to intervene and stop the radicalization process before it’s too late.”

By all means, MARI (Mothers Against Radicalized Islamists), try to stop the radicalization process before it’s too late by ignoring the primary inspiration and guide to the problem.

“Boudreau has also set her sights on establishing the Canadian chapter of a German group called Hayat. That means “life” in Arabic, and its aim is to work with families to help de-radicalize young men and women.”

Oh dear, a group with an Arabic name meaning “Life”—no doubt staffed by Moderate Muslims helping the hapless Kuffar deal with the problem of Jihad.

“Hayat is an offshoot of a German organization called “Exit,” which has had good success in deprogramming neo-Nazis as if plucking them from a cult. Hayat adopts similar methodology and applies it to dealing with militant Islamists.”

Ah, sounds wunderbar! There are only a couple of problems with this: There is no such thing as “Islamism”: it is a false construct devised semi-consciously to grapple, blindly, with the problem of Islam.  And secondly, other than its mass-murderous genocidal expansionist supremacist goals, the neo-Nazi disease in its blueprint, methodology, inspiration and fanaticism bears no structural or essential resemblance to the Mohammedan disease.  But part of the deeply flawed paradigm of PC MC is the dogma that forever maintains that there is nothing unique about "Islamism" and that it must resemble other pathologies so much, one can play mix-and-match willy-nilly with one's diagnoses of the problem, and with one's prescriptions to fix it.

“After meeting with its organizers in Berlin, Boudreau came away convinced that with the right funding and staff, a Hayat chapter could make a difference in Canada.”

Boudreau is spending a lot of time, trouble and money grasping at straws, while evidently ignoring the one thing that might make a difference—the approach that sees mainstream Islam itself as the source of the disease that claimed her son. (One can be assured that the staff at Hayat adroitly steered her away from any hint that Islam itself is the primary source of the problem.)

“It’s a sense of reining them [radicals] back in so they are closer to the family again,” she said. “They work with them closely after they’ve taken a step back and decided ‘maybe this is not for me,’ and help them get reintegrated within the community, finding a job, so they focus on the normalities.”

Yes, Canadian Mom; and some day we can realize the other goals of Miss Universe—world peace, no more hunger, and eyeliner that never runs again when you cry in joy at having won your dreams.

Another indication that Christianne Boudreau (the Canadian Mom) is reaching out to precisely the wrong kinds of assistance I gleaned from another article on this:

Muhammed Robert Heft, an anti-radicalization counsellor who works with new converts and serves as a liaison between the Muslim community and CSIS, said he corresponded with al-Gharib’s mother several times last year.

At the time she began speaking with Heft, she was still in contact with her al-Gharib. Heft had hoped to reach out to him as well.

Notice how the hefty Heft (see the video from the link above), himself evidently a white Canadian convert to Islam wearing one of those collapsed baker’s caps some Muslims wear, cleverly redirects the problem away from Islam (not that anyone was trying to direct it there, but always carefully just in case) and “explains” the problem in ways that have nothing remotely to do with Islam:

Heft said there are two types of people that choose to leave Canada for the battlefields of Syria.

He said there are Syrian-Canadians “who feel their family has been subjected to a tyrant” and then there are “overzealous converts or newly practicing people” who see Syrian conflict as “an indirect way to fight, fire off weapons, hate society and vent their frustrations.”

“One group, I would say, is legitimate in their concern and want to help their family, and one group is taking advantage of the fact that it’s a place they can go and be angry.”

This is one of the people Canadian Mom reached out to for help: like a desperate Hen reaching out to a Fox dressed as a Moderate Rooster.


Before we deprogram individuals who have been “radicalized” by an “extremist Islamism” that “has nothing to do with Islam”, we need to deprogram our mainstream West. How do you deprogram tens of millions of people from all walks of life spread out in dozens of countries? The Counter-Jihad has been trying to do it, without really knowing how to do it (as there is no guidebook on how to do this), and it has been achingly slow going (for the Counter-Jihad remains only a minuscule nucleus of an activist movement, treated shabbily by the Mainstream as though infected with right-wing and racist cooties), with glimmers of hope in drops here and there of melting ice amid a still massive iceberg toward which the U.S.S. & H.M.S. Titanic barrels full speed ahead.

So far, we've been rather politely chipping away at the wall of the iceberg with icepicks only approved by the very same proponents of that iceberg on whose Titanic ship of fools they hold us, as necessary passengers & fellow-travelers, hostage.  At the very least, we need to include, as part of a diverse process of waking up our West, a more Breibartianly aggressive modality of slapping this pleasantly somnambulant Rip Van Winkle and dunking buckets of cold water on his head.

Friday, September 12, 2014

"Not all Muslims are bad"

While it’s true that the anxiously impulsive spasm to leap to “but all Muslims aren’t bad” whenever anyone dares to call Islam itself into question is a red herring fallacy (and, alas, all too prevalent throughout the West), it’s not enough for us to react by reminding such an interlocutor that we are not talking about “all Muslims” but rather only about Islam itself.

The reason it’s not enough is that there is in fact a problem of Muslims following their Islam. And this problem is not a nice and tidy problem of a Tiny Minority of Extremists who will forever remain a small number. The problem of Muslims following their Islam has two features which have to be faced by the mainstream (and by the asymptotics within the Counter-Jihad).

The problem is:

1) systemic


2) metastasizing.

By systemic, it means that the problem is not just a “tiny minority” but is much broader. To say it is a broader problem triggers anxiety among PC MCs and asymptotics, causing them to worry that opening up the barrier of the Tiny Minority to consider a broader demographic problem among Muslims around the world is to lead us inexorably to the logical conclusion of “all Muslims”—and from there, of course, to rounding them up, putting them in camps, and genociding them (a natural inevitability, of course, seeing that we Westerners are naturally prone to such a "racist" “backlash”).  And so, the impulse is to shut down this line of thought altogether, to nip the thought crime in the bud, so to speak.

And when I use the locution “the problem of Muslims following their Islam”, the reasonably informed rhetorical questions this should immediately generate in us are the following: “How many Muslims are not following their Islam? And how would we really know that any given Muslims are genuinely not following their Islam rather than trying to deceive us by pretending to be not following their Islam?”

By metastasizing, I mean that the problem (of Muslims following their Islam) is not static; it's getting worse. Indeed, it has been getting worse over the course of the entire 20th century; though, of course, most Westerners have been comfortably oblivious to it until it bit them in the ass on 9/11—and even after that (and hundreds of other atrocities in the years since then) most Westerners remain clueless.
So no, we should not evade the PC MC accusation about us supposedly saying (or implying) that “all Muslims are bad” by refusing to talk about the problem of Muslims. That would be to play the PC MC game by PC MC rules.

Further Reading:

Statistics: a double-edged sword in the War of Ideas

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Oil and Water, and the rubber that meets the road...
A commenter on Jihad Watch wrote:

“Personally, I think we are slowly being subjugated. ”

Subjugated by Muslims, that is.  And what he refers to is, of course, the creeping proto-dhimmitude the West has been cultivating in its cringing "respect" for the Muslims who continue to encroach on our societies in their demands, their social unrest, their criminality, their threats, their terrorism, and their cunningly crafty moderation.

This gave me the chance to rally a response:

Yes, the West is being slowly subjugated; however this process is only succeeding thus far for two crucial reasons usually overlooked by those in the Counter-Jihad who worry about it (or the few Christians and/or Conspiracy Theorists among them who almost seem to eagerly anticipate it eschatologically):

1) it’s proceeding under a camouflage of stealth moderation enabled by the West’s PC MC anxious need to respect diversity and avoid racism

2) it’s proceeding in the form of a pseudo-Sharia Lite which, perforce, cannot express itself in its true frankly red-blooded form.

The reason for #2 (and for the stealth camouflage of it all) is because Subjugation is, in this context—logically (if one thinks it through)—the full interpenetration and complete fusion of the Oil and Water of Islam and West. What so many in the Counter-Jihad seem strangely to fail to appreciate, however, is just how profoundly and massively and richly different this Oil and Water are, and how mutually repellent they are in their respective essences. Thus, this Subjugation is a process, not a static done deal; and this process is incremental, not swift; and this incremental process is proceeding from the superficial and mild form slowly (and under camouflage) toward its goal of full engagement and fusion (i.e., victory). However, two factors about the difference of the Oil of Islam and the Water of the West indicate that it cannot succeed:

1) their profound mutual disparity

2) the astronomic superiority of the West in comparison with Islam—on every level of comparison one can imagine (political, economic, technological, scientific, intellectual, artistic, sociological, cultural, philosophical, theological, spiritual ).

For those in the Counter-Jihad who continue to fret about an Islamic conquest, something’s gotta give in their imagination: they have to minimize #2 and magnify #1 in ways that are unwarranted and approach irrationality (and sometimes seem to bespeak a curious detachment or alienation from their own civilization).

In my view, the problem is not that the Mohammedans will succeed in their desideratum, but rather that they will be able to wreak untold mayhem, misery and mass-murder merely in trying—but failing—to suceed. For the West will finally rouse and rally to save itself when the rubber meets the road as the Oil and Water began to combine in a flammable way such that Denial will no longer be possible. The only question is: will the West do so before—or after a few million of its men, women and children are mass-murdered and horribly wounded (along with considerable chunks and gouges of infrastructure destruction) by Muslims.

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Harry's Place

In a recent article published at Jihad Watch on the PC MC "scholar" Juan Cole (who, no surprise, was assuring his readers that Islam is made of sugar and spice and everything nice), Robert Spencer writes:

“Certainly Cole’s piece reassures ignorant Infidels, such as the British Useful Idiot Sarah Brown of the UK dhimmi hate site Harry’s Place, who used it as part of her case against me as the wrong kind of opponent of jihad terror.”

I recall that episode almost a year ago where there was a brief flurry of “cultural exchange” between Harry’s Place and Jihad Watch. A few prominent Harry’s Place regulars tried to protest their counter-jihad bona fides while at the same time promoting asymptotic points & principles (such as touting as moderate the Quilliam Foundation and its influential and unctuously colubrine member, Maajid Nawaz). It’s worthwhile to revisit those 100+ comments almost a year ago.

My Jihad Watch comments handle back then was “LemonLime” and, not to toot my own horn, I'd say that my posts there delve into the heart of the matter the best.  One of the Usual Suspects that day was one "SarahAB" (whom those in the know deemed notorious); she demonstrates this week her abysmal inability to progress along the learning curve.

Meanwhile, Spencer’s characterization of the Harry Placers back in August of 2011 summed it up nicely:

“The Leftist dhimmi blog Harry’s Place, which dabbles dilettantishly in counter-jihad poses while seldom missing an opportunity to denigrate and defame genuine counter-jihadists…”

Zero summer

Midwinter spring is its own season
Sempiternal though sodden towards sundown,
Suspended in time, between pole and tropic.
When the short day is brightest, with frost and fire,
The brief sun flames the ice, on pond and ditches,
In windless cold that is the heart's heat,
Reflecting in a watery mirror
A glare that is blindness in the early afternoon.
And glow more intense than blaze of branch, or brazier,
Stirs the dumb spirit: no wind, but pentecostal fire
In the dark time of the year. Between melting and freezing
The soul's sap quivers. There is no earth smell
Or smell of living thing. This is the spring time
But not in time's covenant. Now the hedgerow
Is blanched for an hour with transitory blossom
Of snow, a bloom more sudden
Than that of summer, neither budding nor fading,
Not in the scheme of generation.
Where is the summer, the unimaginable Zero summer?

                —T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding" (from Four Quartets)

֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍