Monday, November 30, 2015
The Anti-Islam Movement currently suffers from a certain degree of incoherence and confusion. This incoherence and confusion could be remedied to a large extent by an effort on the part of participants to crystallize what is now an inchoate and amorphous movement into a formal organization guided by a consensus of goals, policies, methodology and ideological clarity.
1. General Terms:
There is a difference between a movement, and an organization.
a. A movement may be incoherent both pragmatically, in terms of policies and activism, and ideologically, in terms of the ideas that would guide its pragmatism toward goals reached by a consensus of its members.
b. An organization, on the other hand, is the endeavor by its members and leaders to have coherency of policies, activism, ideas and goals. And coherency requires a degree of consensus.
c. When a movement acquires coherency, it becomes an organization.
d. Organizations that have made the transition from being movements into organizational coherency tend to be more sociopolitically influential and have wider scope than mere organizations in the technical sense (e.g., organizations of business associations, technology, science, etc.).
e. Organizations tend to have better capability for financial support than social movements, and this in turn serves to help realize the goals of the movement.
f. Various political parties of Western nations are examples of organizations in the sense intended here.
g. The Anti-Islam Movement as organization would be, of course, international in scope, and broad-based in terms of membership, embracing members of all faiths except for Islam, and all non-Muslims irrespective of race, gender or political affiliation.
h. Various implications of 1(g) above will, of course, have to be discussed and agreed upon as part of the process of forging consensus that is entailed by the crystallization of the movement into an organization.
2. Specific Problems:
The Anti-Islam Movement has not yet made the transition to being an organization.
a. Currently in the Anti-Islam Movement, with regard to ideological coherency, there is a high degree of incoherency, some degree of confusion, a lack of consensus, and a relative lack of even an ostensible interest in creating consensus.
b. One amusing (if annoying) indication of this ideological incoherency are indications that many members and a few of its influential “leaders” would likely be uncomfortable with the rubric of “Anti-Islam” for the movement of which they are otherwise enthusiastic and committed participants! What then, exactly, are they “anti-”? Some would probably propose the overarching guiding rubric to be “anti-Jihad”. Would everyone in the movement agree to this? I think some of us would consider this too limiting. Some of us would also consider such a rubric to imply a distinction between “Jihad” and “Islam”—a distinction that not only seems artificial, but also reinforces a protection of “Islam” (or, at best, some indeterminate part of “Islam”) that is, by logical implication, not “Jihad” and therefore not a problem to occupy the concern of the movement. Such a distinction would solidify the movement’s acquiescence in an axiom too closely for comfort resembling the PC MC paradigm. Furthermore, there are currently a few “leaders” and quite a few “civilians” who seem to have a conception that positively avoids identifying Islam qua Islam as the problem, and Muslims qua Muslims as the problem as well. The same ideological difficulty noted above applies to these movement members as well.
c. Nevertheless, a consensus can be reached even though disagreements would persist among its members—as long as dissenting minority opinions are at least fairly represented in the organization’s manifesto.
d. Aside from ideological incoherency, the Anti-Islam Movement also shows signs of pragmatic incoherency. This is only logical, since if a movement lacks ideological coherency, it will most likely proceed in terms of policies and activism in a slapdash manner. Granted, there are many brave and respectable individuals forging ahead in terms of traveling around the country if not also around the world to do speaking tours, to participate in public debates, to participate in round table discussions, to write books and to engage in certain types of social activism. But what exactly are they advocating, and what exactly are they opposing? The effectiveness of these fine individuals, and of the aspirations of their “civilian” supporters, would be better served and augmented if ideological coherency became an explicit desideratum—for the movement will not be able to make the transition to an organization if it does not develop ideological coherency. And a mere movement will be less effective than an organization.
e. There is something of an apparent paradox in the process of the transition from a movement to an organization: in order to make that transition, ideological coherency is required. But in order to develop that ideological coherency, there has to be a mechanism for developing consensus—and that mechanism requires at least the bare bones of an organizational structure. This apparent paradox can be resolved, by simply making the goal of reaching a consensus about ideological coherency the first priority.
3. Prospectus for Implementation:
In the spirit of this priority discussed above under 2(e), the following is a suggestion of what should be done:
a. All the “leaders” of the movement should agree to meet to discuss this issue of ideological coherency and to hammer out a consensus that would balance compromise with respect for differences. This meeting ideally should last several days.
b. This meeting should be coordinated with an on-line hook-up to all the “civilian” supporters. One ideal vehicle for this coordination would be the Paltalk live voice chat venue. Another would be to set up one blog on the Net as a Command Center, where proceedings of the meeting are posted, and consensus points up for arbitration are posted for on-line voting. Those consensus points that carry a majority both of the “leaders” in the meeting, and of the “civilians” participating in tandem through the Command Center, would carry the day.
c. Prior to this meeting and its Command Center hook-up, there should be a period of time of discussion about it—ideally several months in advance—through the same Command Center. This would give a chance for the “civilians” to register their opinions on what they would like an ideological consensus to look like. Severe restrictions on word count for opinions should be imposed, to inhibit the bewildering verbosity that is a common problem on the Internet.
d. After the consensus has been reached at the close of the meeting, the task of growing the structures of policy and activism can be embarked upon.
e. One crucial part of the ideological consensus would be the agreement by everyone not to continue disputing the other points of the ideological consensus. Future meetings can be scheduled to revisit the discussion (perhaps one meeting per year), while during the time before those future meetings, ideological disputes should cease, in order to endow the pragmatic policy and activism with optimal effectiveness.
4. First Steps:
Okay, the ball is now in the court of the “leaders”. As a “civilian” myself, and thus lacking their degree of influence and networking contacts, I can do little more than make this proposal. It is up to the “leaders” now to set the actual gears in motion.
a. The very first step would be to publicize the Command Center discussion that would precede, by several months, the actual meeting of “leaders”. The best way to publicize this would be for all the “leaders” to do so at their respective blogs. Imagine if Jihad Watch, frontpage.com, LGF 2, Gates of Vienna—and then all the anti-Islam bloggers out there by word-of-mouth snowball effect—made this a top priority and published a notice about it once a week for several months!
b. The second step would be to create a Command Center and set a time period for the discussions.
c. After the discussion period, the “leaders” should read through all the opinions from the “civilians” which they posted on the Command Center which, since they will be severely restricted in word count, will not be that onerous of a task.
d. With the opinions and recommendations of the “civilians” under their belt, the next step will be for the “leaders” to decide on a venue and a date for their meeting or symposium to hammer out a guiding manifesto of ideological consensus.
e. Part of the process of the symposium of “leaders” would be the live hook-up with the “civilians” through the on-line Command Center. The main function of this hook-up will be to give a chance to the “civilians” to vote for consensus points, not to participate in the discursive hammering out of a consensus—as they already had their chance to weigh in during the discussion period described in 3(c) and 4(c) above.
5. The Next Step:
a. All right, chumps & humps, I got the ball rolling. Now it's up to you.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Succinctly and precisely, we may adumbrate three phases in Islamic history:
1) Waxing (first thousand years from the 7th to the 17th century);
2) Waning (from the end of the 17th century to the mid 20th century);
3) Revival (from the mid-20th century right up to now).
We may now flesh this out:
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, in the wake of its exhausting World War 2, of the world consequent upon its voluntary deconstruction of its prior Colonialist scheme. The impact which this reconfiguration has had upon the Muslim world (which had been a major part of the Western Colonialist empires) has been profound -- not in terms of the unchanging essence of Islamic supremacism, but in terms of reversing its historically temporary misfortune (see phase 2). For, in the centuries unfolding from its last major military assault upon the West near the close of the 17th century, the Muslim world 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 malignant ghettos of the world, nursing 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; Deobandi and Tablighi Jamaat movements in central Asia; neo-(i.e., retro-)jihadist of the pen like 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 (phase 1), a phase that never ceased in intent but was only been put on pause for regrouping by mitigating circumstances beyond the control of Muslims (phase 2) -- now in our time undergoing the convulsions of a global revival (phase 3) with two advantages Muslims never enjoyed before: (a) availability of modern technology for weapons as well as transportation & communications, and (b) unprecedented access into enemy territory by an enemy (i.e., us) stupid enough to let Mohammedans in by the tens of millions and stupid enough to whitewash Islam as harmless if not wonderful.
Islam Redivivus and Western Colonialism
Western Amnesia and Islamnesia
The Good Old Days
As Good as It Gets
Friday, November 27, 2015
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Some of my readers know that recently I snapped. It occurred Friday evening, November 13, the day of the Paris razzia. I won't go into the tedious details I already recounted in two previous essays -- Something snapped yesterday... and Why I snapped -- other than to note that it happened because I finally became fed up with two counter-jihad communities (Jihad Watch comments and Paltalk chat) which I thought, for over ten years, were in fact real communities.
After the Paris attacks, I realized I really need a counter-jihad community -- a real one, not the half-assed ones of Jihad Watch comments and Paltalk chat. I kept thinking over the years that they had more potential than they actually delivered. I finally snapped on Nov. 13 and saw that they don't, not by a long shot.
And after I snapped, I cut the cord. I stopped my habit of going into those two communities. I stopped cold turkey.
All this wouldn't be so bad, if there were some counter-jihad community out there, somewhere, to take their place. (Cue whistling winds and tumbleweeds rolling through a ghost town...)
Other than those two, there doesn't seem to be any venue large or seemingly vibrant and cohesive enough to even fool me into thinking it has potential. This past week plus, I have tentatively tried out FrontPageMag comments as well as a chat venue called Buzzen. Neither one offers anything in the way of hope for growing a community, from what I can see. The former I've written about many times in the past, noting how riddled & rife they are with asymptotic twitches & analysis (not to mention their shameful, shabby treatment of Diana West for her daring thesis on Communist infiltration into American government). This past week as I have dipped my toe into their comments threads, I've noted to my amusement how they have their own Phillip Jihadskis and Angemons -- i.e., seemingly tough, no-nonsense Counter-Jihadists who suddenly balk at any robust recommendations to treat all Muslims with zero tolerance, including the meme of total deportation (and of course, the usual gaggle of what I call the "Gung Ho Wing" of the Counter-Jihad -- text warriors who beat their chests in braggadocio against "those damned Muzzies and damned Leftists" but who otherwise have the subtlety and sophistication of a bag of household tools). Anywho, one can safely spend time there and at Buzzen chat without the threat of wasting time (as I did for years at Jihad Watch comments and Paltalk chat) looking for something deeper. Other candidates include comments fields at Gates of Vienna and at Debbie Schlussel's blog. Neither one of these really has the feel of a community nor the traction necessary to get one going. At best, in places like this one can occasionally bump into someone who's on the same wavelength and one can exchange some heartening, albeit ephemeral mutual support. In addition, Gates of Vienna (as I've mentioned a few times over the years) seems to have a subculture of point of view about the Problem of the Problem that veers damned close to conspiracy theory. While all Counter-Jihad forums have a bit of it, some have more of it than others; and for some reason it seems to thrive at Gates of Vienna more than at some other sites.
More broadly from a bird's-eye view, it's telling that any semblances of community in the Counter-Jihad seem forced to grow in unofficial places like the comments fields that attach to the sides of a blog or website -- almost like trying to start a garden on the sidewalk outside an office building. There should be a Counter-Jihad Central Community website, whose main focus and attention is on being a place where concerned civilians from all over the world wide web -- and from all over the world -- come together to talk about what they've learned elsewhere, as well as to vent, rant, commiserate, inform, enlighten, and over time build upon all this pent-up concern, frustration, alarm and civic duty we all feel to one degree or another. Of all the places I've run across these past 14 years, I really thought Jihad Watch comments -- and especially Paltalk chat with its features of real time conversation and voice chat -- presented a chance of this happening.
Lord knows this past nearly two weeks I've been tempted to go back to those two main haunts of mine. I continue to read Jihad Watch itself, for the useful reportage about the problem of Islam (and the Problem of the Problem -- the Western myopia to the problem of Islam) it offers. But it takes some discipline to resist plunging back into comments fields. It used to be my daily habit: I'd wake up, brew some coffee, open up Jihad Watch, see an article that seemed interesting (i.e., aggravating), and plunge into the comments to offer up my two cents. So since the night of November 13, I have checked in on it pretty much daily, and I see certain headlines that excite my trigger finger & mouse-clicker to want to join the comments and participate like the old days, like a bottle of fine Irish whiskey to an alcoholic -- example, Archbishop of Canterbury: The way Islamic State distorts Islam "one of the most desperate aspects of our world today" (97 comments) or Hillary: Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism (136 comments) -- but I have been strong in my resolve for rehab: I have resisted the temptation, because I know from years of bitter experience those comments fields will be filled with Counter-Jihad Softies who will attack me if I interject too much zero tolerance for all Muslims (or who will ignore those who are attacking me, or worse yet, chastise me for defending myself, instead of my attackers).
As for Paltalk chat, the other community I left unceremoniously on that Black Friday of Nov. 13, it's different. I don't have a daily reminder in the form of a website. I either have to go there, or restrain myself from going there. That makes it easier, I suppose. But I still miss the vague glimpses & resemblances of a community which for so long made me think an actual community could be grown there. Every time I feel tempted to go back, I remember all the years of shit I endured, and how so few of my supposed friends really had my back in a consistent and reliable way that mattered.
Again, as I said on the night of the Paris attacks: I snapped. I'm no longer going to accept anything that's half-ass.
That said, there were some good things I can say about my experience there.
In Paltalk chat, there were definitely glimmers of a potential I envisioned, which would appear now and then (which is probably why I kept staying on), in the fitful company of certain individuals. By the end of my disastrous career there, about four or five people came to be chat acquaintances who gave me hope that such a community could develop -- and while three of them seemed to rise above the general, pleasantly distracted inertia that seems to infect everyone there like an invisible gas (Godlessgirl, SamHuntington and Apologist), they didn't quite push through to the finish line, so to speak. Not for want of trying; all three of them devoted a lot of time and effort, but each had different limitations. Godlessgirl has a scintillating grasp of all three Problems, the best I've ever seen; but personal problems I won't go into here debilitated her ability to stay focused and reliable. SamHuntington has a deeply conscientious concern for the primary Problem that infuses his participation with a sense of civic duty; but in the end he had a blind spot for the secondary and tertiary Problems that at times bordered on naiveté. Apologist, meanwhile, is enormously energetic and knowledgeable about the primary Problem, but, as with Sam, she seemed to have a poor sense of, and little interest in, the other two Problems.
Perhaps more importantly than all this, these three (and a few others of somewhat lesser caliber) didn't quite seem to ever want to get serious about doing what it takes to forge a community-within-a-community. The first thing it takes is a willingness to spend hours together -- all of us -- having a discussion about what we're doing there and where we want to go as a community; something they never seemed to want to get around to doing, even though I kept nagging them about it. The fact that these three were so good is what makes our failure to grow a lasting community all the more disappointing.
As for the other community that failed me -- Jihad Watch comments -- I have even less of an excuse for sticking around that long. There was literally no one there I could count as a counter-jihad ally; and there were plenty who would come out of the woodwork to mock or attack me whenever I expressed my commitment, in various ways, to a Zero Tolerance for Islam and for all Muslims. Oh sure, now and then, slightly more often than once in a blue moon, a person would suddenly pop up to say something appreciative about some comment I wrote; but that wasn't nearly enough to satisfy my hunger for a genuine community. For the last two years there, I was mostly going in there like a scuba diver in a bathysphere, depositing commentary on the articles or on other comments I noticed among the coral reefs down there, avoiding the sharks (i.e., Counter-Jihad Softies who lunge and bite if you dare to criticize their softness on Muslims) that teem down there, and after swimming around an hour or two, I would surface again to do other things, ready to dive back in the next day. Increasingly, however, it was less of a pleasant underwater seascape than it was the wreckage of the H.M.S. P.C. M.C. -- and what made it worse were the affectations of counter-jihad street cred, followed by the prickly hypersensitivity to any observations that dared to notice how much squishy sea sponge they carried around in their underbelly, enough to sink a ship of fools.
Speaking of surfacing, I better do so now, before I get mired in a tangle of my own nautical metaphor...
֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍
At any rate, as far as the Counter-Jihad family goes, I will be spending my time alone in the dark on Thanksgiving Thursday, nursing a bottle of Wild Turkey, thinking about what could have been, and what could be, but what ain't.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Another addition to my blogroll. Maureen Mullarkey, who keeps a blog at Studio Matters, and contributes essays to The Federalist. I'm looking forward to reading more of her essays. She combines a sure grasp of Islamo-literacy with a judiciously juicy turn of phrase, sharp and cutting where appropriate (i.e., directed at the Useful Idiots among us).
Maureen isn't perfect; she flirts with her own permutation of the Moderate Muslim Which Smells the Same Under Another Name:
...the jihadist we kindly isolate, in misplaced courtesy, as radical or extremist is simply a Muslim who takes his faith seriously. Our so-called moderate Muslims are the lukewarm, the less vigorous in their observance. Jack Muslims.
This lapse aside, I heartily recommend her to the Counter-Jihad.
A couple of recent entries at Jihad Watch are noteworthy for the opportunities they offer to deepen the analysis of the Problem of the Problem, and for the failure to do so by Robert Spencer.
The first regards CNN’s Irene Papas-like journalist with the funny lower lip -- sort of a Mediterranean (by way of the Persian Gulf) Baba Wawa -- Christiane Amanpour. As usual, Spencer's reportage of the What is fine and on point, so we can rely on him to flesh out the broad strokes. It's in the glimpses of the underlying Why where he fails the Counter-Jihad.
Amanpour, Spencer writes --
...believes “we can all afford to be human” regarding the Syrian refugees. Recently, she condemned the U.S. and other countries for not letting them enter the homeland, despite FBI Director James Comey’s testimony explaining that vetting this population is literally impossible.
Apparently, “discerning” does not qualify as a human trait to Amanpour...
What Spencer at this juncture misses is why "discerning" does not qualify as a human trait to Amanpour. It's because when the activity of "discerning" is directed at Muslims, it automatically transmutes, in Amanpour's PC-MC-deformed heart & mind, into discriminating. Not "discriminating" in the sense of the multi-million-dollar aesthetic taste of George Clooney's interior decorator at his villa on Lake Como in Switzerland she may have complimented him on at the last soirée she was invited to there following his wedding to the pro-Palestinian Lebanese Druzina, Alma Alamuddin. No; we are dealing here with a different sense of the word, its politically correct pejorative sense -- discriminating in the sense of ethnic or racial discrimination.
This reflects one of the most glaring (if not gaping) lacunae the Counter-Jihad continues to indulge -- the unwillingness to recognize that perhaps the most important dynamic going on to explain why & how the PC MC paradigm structurally fosters its general myopia to the problem of Islam lies in the racialization of the problem at the heart of that paradigm.
I have speculated before on this odd lacuna in the Counter-Jihad analysis -- where the best they can do is simply put up the mantra "Islam is not a race!" as a sort of magical amulet that is supposed to cause the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist to shrivel up into a furry, defeated ball -- and have tentatively concluded that what is going on here is that the Counter-Jihadist in question apparently still retains a bit of PC MC in his own heart & mind. The Counter-Jihadist himself deep down is anxious to avoid being "bigoted" and "racist" and this leads him to the drastically erroneous conclusion that most Muslims don't look ethnic (non-white, non-Western), and that because they don't look ethnic, this does not color (pun intended) the analysis which the PC MCs bring to the issue. This almost neurotic disinclination on the part of certain Counter-Jihadists to face the racial component of Muslim physiognomy, and to see how important that has become to the PC MC perspective, ironically resembles the kind of thinking PC MCs and Leftists indulge in -- simply assert that a fact isn't so because the consequences of the fact may make you uncomfortable and may threaten your ethical narcissism. (For more in-depth analysis, see my many essays touching on this issue.)
In the second example I'd like to call attention to, Spencer again ably skirts the edge of the deeper problem, but fails to peer down into it in order to cast much needed light on it.
It concerns an article Spencer recommends highly by writer Maureen Mullarky published at IP5 (short for "1 Peter chapter 5" -- a website, incidentally, that looks quite promising, as this search result of articles on Islam there indicates), about a Catholic bishop, Robert Barron of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, who has adopted and promoted a posture of appeasing pusillanimity to the problem of Islamic jihad in general as one reasonably exptrapolates his delimitation of that global problem to the only problem in that regard in the small world of PC MCs -- ISIS. Thus Spencer writes:
This brilliant article sums up not only the myopia of Bishop Robert Barron’s approach to the Islamic State (and to the global jihad in general), but the weakness and wrongheadedness of the entire contemporary Catholic Church when confronted with jihadist savagery. There is today a wholesale confusion of weakness and submission with compassion and mercy, such that many Church leaders, including but by no means limited to Bishop Barron, believe that Christian charity mandates acquiescence to evil and submission to it. [bold emphasis added]
To plumb the reason for that confusion, one must probe to the psychological undercurrent motivating it. It is, as I argued at length in an older essay, because of an ethical narcissism that itself is tied to an anxiety about White Western Guilt -- where the remedy that is supposed to cure that anxiety, that White Man's Burden, expresses itself in an idealistic Wilsonianism of one sort or another. And, of course, this wouldn't be relevant to the problem of Islam, were Muslims not perceived to be a non-Western Ethnic People (or a wonderful diversity, tapestry, mosaic, quilt, stir-fry of non-Western Ethnic Peoples).
In another context, yet directly related to this crucial node of the Problem of the Problem, I wrote about an observation Debbie Schlussel made about the various Western beheading victims of ISIS -- those starry-eyed Leftist do-gooders who find themselves in that horrible predicament mainly because their ethical narcissism has driven them to plunge into those hellholes in order to save Muslims. I first quoted Schlussel discussing one of them in particular -- Kayla Mueller:
"...few people can really handle it, as they’d rather be infantilized and told that every American In Name Only put out of his/her misery by ISIS is really a hero fighting the good fight against Islamic terrorists (when in almost all the cases, the newly beheaded are really America-haters and Muslim apologists who were lucky enough to be born here)."
And I wrote:
Schlussel is correct; and it's a curious phenomenon, until you think about it more. Part of what's going on, I think, is that there exist a large number of these starry-eyed cosmopolitan Do-Gooders-Without-Borders (and Without Brains) who have realized that even more glamorously humanitarian than the Third World Classic of yesteryear -- e.g., various Indian tribes of central and South America oppressed by cruel right-wing (never left-wing, of course) dictators; various generic black African people suffering from their perennially Biblical afflictions of drought, famine, pestilence and wars, etc. -- are the Suffering Victims of the Muslim World. Not the non-Muslims whom the Muslims are oppressing and massacring, of course, but the Muslims themselves who, when they keep getting embroiled in their Bloody Borders (not to mention internecine fitna), need the help of all the bleeding hearts of the West who can pitch in to try to do their part to alleviate the suffering of those Poor Muslim Victims.
I will soon read the article by Maureen Mullarkey (The Incredible Shrinking Bishop Barron) and see if she handles this deeper, broader issue any better than Spencer does.
I just read it. I'm quite impressed. Though she didn't advert to the deeper issue I articulated above, her essay displayed a virtuosity and literacy about Islam invigorating enough to forgive her lapse.
She came close at one point, when she wrote about Bishop Barron: "...he confused Paris in 2015 with Selma, Alabama in 1965." I.e., PC MCs such as Bishop Barron make this kind of confusion because they see Muslims as the New Black and the New Jew -- i.e., as the #1 Ethnic Minority whose grievances need to be respected. The vast majority of these New Blacks/New Jews, numbering over a billion all around the world, cannot, must not, be "tarred with the broad brush" of ISIS. This primary anxiety to avoid "bigotry" and "racism" against so many hundreds of millions of Brown People is what motivates PC MCs like Bishop Barron to lurch into postures & positions that end up grotesquely minimizing if not appeasing the danger of Islam, precisely because semi-consciously they are becoming increasingly aware that this danger pertains to a far broader demographic among Muslims in general than is comfortable to suppose. Because their semi-conscious exerts this pressure (the pressures of the love of truth and the fear of death), their ethical narcissism feels a counter-pressure to try to suppress that growing awareness, for it might lead them to think bad thoughts about Muslims -- and that, in turn, would make them feel bad about themselves (which is what really concerns them).
Monday, November 23, 2015
Some GOVer (part of the commenting community at the counter-jihad community at Gates of Vienna) approvingly quotes in full an article by oily reformist Muslim Amir Taheri published at the New York Post, about the Paris attacks and what they "mean":
The jihadis’ master plan to break us
By Amir Taheri November 15, 2015 | 5:40am PARIS — Still under shock from Friday night’s terror attacks... blah blah blah...
[For the full camelshit, see this]
In that steaming pile of feeling our pain, Amir coins (or retails) such silly phrases as "neo-jihadi".
In subsequent comments, Gates of Vienna co-owner Dymphna comments on this, as does another GOVer, RonaldB, at some length (I recall him as a dubious Softy from Jihad Watch comments), both seemingly impressed by Amir's Islamopologese -- or at the very least indicating not a shred of sense of seeing the Good Cop ploy being spun by Taheri. Thus RonaldB wrote, sounding all no-nonsense and expert in a State-Dept. sort of way: “The big difference between neo-Jihad and jihad, as you pointed out, is that jihad, as expounded by theorists such as Sayub Qutb and S.J. Malik, is that jihad envisions a movement towards traditional war, while neo-jihad describes an eternity of pinpricks, until the infidel submits through pure exhaustion. ”
Meanwhile, Dymphna seemed impressed by Amir Taheri's coinage (or usage) of the silly term “neo-jihadi” (or if she didn't, she showed no sign of a reasonable cynicism).
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Assyrians of Paris: ‘There are now many jihadists in France. We have the impression of being invaded…’
Video: Gunfight as police raid Paris suburb searching for jihad attackers; Muslima blows herself up in jihad suicide bombing
German soccer match canceled after police discover bomb truck disguised as ambulance
Germany-Netherlands soccer game canceled, stadium is being evacuated — Merkel was set to attend match
Syrian ambassador to India says that over 20% of refugees to Europe may have links to the Islamic State
BWI Airport: Flight about to take off called back to gate, four people of “Middle Eastern descent” removed from plane
23 in custody, 104 under house arrest in connection with Paris jihad attacks, rocket launcher seized
Main target in Paris jihad attack: Jewish-owned Bataclan Theater, frequent target of Muslims and BDS groups
Just released: full text of Islamic State statement on “Blessed Onslaught in Paris against the Crusader Nation of France”
֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍
And before the Paris attack, it was another quiet week in Lake Mobegone (one of its tributaries, so I'm told, is that ol' River in Egypt; and those who are in De Nile are also in (the) Seine ...):
In compliance with Islamic demands, Indonesian authorities in the Aceh region have started to tear down Christian churches. Their move comes after Muslim mobs rampaged and attacked churches. At least one person was killed; thousands of Christians were displaced.
Al Nusra’s Lion Cubs Religious Academy: “All the Christians and a message to America, your grave is in Syria”
Imams? How could this happen? Don’t they know the Qur’an teaches peace? John Kerry should jet over to Senegal and explain Islam to these imams. Too much misunderstanding going on.
Ingrid Carlqvist, a Senior Distinguished Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. Ingrid came on the show to discuss Sweden: On the Verge of Collapse, unveiling the cliff that Sweden is speeding toward—as the mass wave of Muslim “refugees” overwhelms the country
UK: Muslims attack convert from Islam to Christianity with pickaxe
Eight Syrians caught at Texas border in Laredo
֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍
My introductory satire on Garrison Keillor's "Lake Wobegone" monologues:
Well, it's been another quiet week in Lake Mobegone...
֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍
And others in the series: