Sunday, August 28, 2016

Closing the Barn Door

If a farm is threatened by wolves, many of which have already attacked and killed some livestock, it makes sense to close the barn door.

But what if there are wolves inside the barn already?

Well, it should be easy -- with an adequate force of farmers armed with shotguns and torches -- to ferret out the wolves, chase them out if not shoot them.

What if some of the wolves already inside look like sheep?  Then it depends on how astute the farmers are, to be able to discern which of the seemingly harmless farm animals are really wolves.

Can we, however, trust the judgement of the farmers in charge if they assert that some of the wolves inside the barn -- even after knowing they are wolves -- are harmless, and that only "radical" wolves should be ejected while the other wolves can remain?

That essentially is the position of the otherwise robustly anti-Islam opposition party of the Netherlands, PVV ("Party for Freedom"), headed by Geert Wilders, a preeminent member of the leadership of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM).

In their recent 11-point plan they issued, the very first one says:

1. De-islamize the Netherlands.

What this entails is adumbrated in bullet points:
  • Zero asylum seekers and no immigrants anymore from Islamic countries: close the borders
  • Withdraw all asylum residence permits which have already been granted for specific periods, close the asylum centers
  • No Islamic headscarves in public functions
  • Prohibition of other Islamic expressions which violate public order
  • Preventive detention of radical Muslims
  • Denaturalization and expulsion of criminals with a dual nationality
  • Jihadists who went to Syria will not be allow to return to the Netherlands
  • Close all mosques and Islamic schools, ban the Koran
This resembles Trump's plan, though it tightens a couple of the bolts a bit, insofar as the first bullet point would prohibit all immigrants from apparently all Islamic countries (if defined as belonging to the O.I.C. -- as it should be -- that would be 56 countries including the "occupied" territories in what should be Israel).  Trump's rhetoric, from his acceptance speech at the RNC, meanwhile, is not so sweeping:

...we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.

And, of course, Trump will do nothing about the wolves already in the U.S. (approximately three million), and only promises to go after the radical extremist wolves among them.

Meanwhile, the remainder of the PVV bullet points stipulate that only "radical" wolves inside the barn will be ferreted out and "detained" while only "criminals with a dual nationality" will be tracked down and expelled, and only those Muslims who go to Syria (to join ISIS or other jihadist groups) will not be allowed back in.  It says nothing of all the Muslims who will lie about being moderate. 

While there are robust measures in the PVV plan to minimize public Islamic expression (prohibition of hijab, closure of mosques & Islamic schools, and banning of the Koran), one could say these are almost too robust, if they are going to continue to allow approximately one million Muslims to live inside the Netherlands, who will surely be deeply angered and offended by their religion being so profoundly stigmatized by laws.  That would be like allowing 50 wolves to live inside the barn and then set up measures whereby those wolves will be regularly provoked every day for years.

Three factors elucidate why this problem is worse than the CJM apparently realizes:

1) the ability of all the "wolves" in question -- viz., the Muslims who will be allowed to remain inside the West -- to feign assimilation and to lie about their moderation;

2) the guillibility of the "farmers" in question -- our Western representatives, even our fellow Western citizens, and apparently the majority of those in the CJM -- that leads them to believe that not all Muslims are wolves either openly or in sheep's clothing; and

3) the monumentally plausible likelihood that no Western country, Netherlands or any other, is going to go as far as the platform of Geert Wilders any time soon and before Muslims mass-murder many more Westerners through a series of terror attacks worse than 911.

Even if by some miracle, the PVV did win an election in the near future in the Netherlands, it's highly doubtful that the other political forces, which in a parliamentary system like the Netherlands continue to have a say in policy, would allow those bullet points to pass (particularly the one about closing down all mosques and banning the Koran).  And even if the rosiest prediction came true for the Netherlands, there still remains the rest of the West, nearly all member nations lagging seriously behind in a PC/MC-blinkered retardation that continues to enable Mohammedan infiltration.

An expression of this attitude could not be more exquisitely expressed than by an editorial in the UK Sun about the recent reversal of the French ban on burkinis in public places.  While the UK Sun is broadly mainstream, it is a bit of a tabloid.  The more important point for our purposes here, however, is that the editorial was reported by that bastion of the CJM, Jihad Watch, and the reporter, Christine Williams, who has published many pieces for Robert Spencer over this past year, relays the UK Sun report without the slightest hint in her long introduction to it of anything amiss with one of its main assumptions (emphasis in bold mine):

But the truth is that most French citizens at both ends of the political spectrum SUPPORT the [burkini] bans.
This includes French Muslims, especially women.
They agree with Laurence Rossignol, France’s Socialist women’s minister, who suggested burkinis were designed to “hide women’s bodies in order better to control them”.
To liberal Muslims — still the majority in France, where the burka has been banned since 2010 — the burkini is the latest of encroaching advances made by the ultra-conservative Salafist Muslims.

Even if Christine Williams, and any of the Counter-Jihad civilians in the Jihad Watch comments section, might, if someone called their asleep-at-the-switch attention to it, balk at this almost comically outdated assumption by the UK Sun of a majority of moderate Muslims, the much more frequent tendency among CJMers to balk at deportation of all Muslims implies basically the same assumption -- that, to wit, in any given Western country, not all the Muslims are equally suspect.  This was one theme of a couple of my previous essays.

Let's take a gander at that brook flowing out of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, the 90 comments (to this point) attached to the report by Christine Williams, shall we...?

David A. writes:

Deport all Muslims who follow this orthodox Islam. Ban all religions that advocate any of the above crimes ["hate, violence, murder, sedition, legal rape, legal assult, and second class status for all but Muslim males"], because they are crimes. If Catholics want a Catholic government again, that is sedition. Support the very few Muslims who interpret the Koran and jihad as internal struggle ONLY. Remove all hate literature from all mosques. Confiscate their assets.

The problem with David A.'s prescription is that he's not factoring in taqiyya and the clever ability of Muslims to obfuscate their mainstream Islamic support for those veritable crimes.  And David A. leaves a wedge for precisely that Islamic sophistry, by his silly belief that there are any Muslims (even if "very few") who don't support those crimes -- since such a Muslim would be, ipso facto, a non-Islamic Muslim.  But that, in a nutshell, is the incoherent meme of the CJM in its refusal to adopt and cultivate a zero tolerance of all Muslims.

Another Jihad Watch commenter, billybob, uncritically relays a report from that soft-on-Islam mainstream news source, FOX, which itself uncritically gave its platform to a Better Cop Muslima, which in turn only helps to reinforce the UK Sun's meme (again, bold emphasis mine):

“Don’t be fooled, the burkini has nothing to do with Islam or faith”


“I’m a conservative, an American, and a Muslim reformer. As a Muslim woman I was disappointed on Friday to see the France’s highest court overturn the burkini ban. For a liberal society, the decision means the protection of free expression. For watchdogs like myself who look to the horizon, we know this sets a second precedent: the acceptance of Islamist culture. Friday there were two wins: the first for a tolerant society and the second for Islamists waging a soft civilization jihad.”

Notice the clever deployment of the term "Islamist" by this Muslim "reformer" -- that term, which has no basis in any Islamic reality other than in the clever propaganda of pseudo-reformers like her (the snake-oil salesman of Reformed Islam, Maajid Nawaz, leaps to mind).  And, of course, none of the Jihad Watch regulars, or anyone else in that comments section, saw fit to take 60 seconds out of their life to register an appropriate skepticism about the notion of a "Muslim reformer".

A commenter named "KnowThyEnemy" circles elliptically around the point, and never quite gets there.  His final paragraph may or may not logically lead to the conclusion that all Muslims are suspect of seditious support for the Islamic plan to destroy our societies.  Naturally, none of the other Jihad Watch regulars (or anyone else there) saw fit to help nudge his last paragraph into more useful clarity:

Conclusion: Islam, its members, symbols, and practices should be declared tool of a foreign govt by all non-Muslim majority countries. The burqinis should especially be banned, including in the US, because of the societal threat they pose to women (besides the reasons mentioned by you, and in point 1).

The reason, perhaps, why "KnowThyEnemy" is so strangely vague about a logical conclusion to his comment, is that he hasn't capped off his knowledge of the enemy with the crucial corollary: that they are waging hot war against us which includes stealth jihad, and in doing so they have already mass-murdered us and are now and for the foreseeable future planning more mass murders of us in order to bring us down.  And that the success for their goal against us depends crucially upon two things: their continued presence among us, and our continued stupidity about how not all of them are part of the one jihad against us.

Further Reading:

An essay I wrote some seven years ago:

Closing the barn door -- not after the horse has got out, but after the wolves have got in.

Friday, August 26, 2016

The "New Normal" (the Two Mainstreams, cont.)

As a longtime regular contributor of articles to the pinnacle of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM), Jihad Watch, and as having become well-known in CJM circles years ago when he published his important book, The Al Qaeda Reader, the Egyptian-American Christian Raymond Ibrahim can be said to be solidly CJM.

In a recent article he published at Jihad Watch titled "Are Nonstop Muslim Atrocities the 'New Norm'?" Ibrahim examines that question.  What's interesting is not so much where he differs from the broader Western Mainstream, but where he lines up with it.

As I wrote last month in an essay titled, This is the "New Normal" is a defeatist phrase, some in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream seem to agree with, for example, the Prime Minister of France, who said in the wake of the horrific Islamic massacre in Nice, France, that “...France is going to have to live with terrorism....” 

Now along comes Raymond Ibrahim whose entire essay is on one level an acceptance of this New Normal.  Ibrahim himself quotes the Prime Mininster of France, as well as other Western Mainstream politicians saying basically the same thing.  And of course Ibrahim chides them; but what is conspicuous in his essay is the absence of the most important reason why the broader Western Mainstream is wrong:  The phrase "New Normal" implies that Muslims in their pursuit of a global revival of Jihad are not forcing our future onto a trajectory leading to our destruction; that, rather, the West will just keep chugging along as the West, with the only difference being an increase in randomly exploding and stabbing Muslims popping up with a regularity and frequency that may be getting incrementally worse, but not worse in a game-changing, metastatic way that threatens to destroy our societies.

Thus, two opposing sides examining this problem of terrorism could both agree that it's the "New Normal", but they would only differ in how they respond to it as such.  The CJM, in its oh-so robust and no-nonsense way tough on Jihad, advocates stiffer wrist-slapping.  As Ibrahim himself puts it in this article:

A ban on or serious vetting of Muslim immigration—which a majority of Americans support—and close monitoring of already existing mosques and Islamic centers would virtually eliminate Islamic terror from America.

Sure, this is more than what the broader Western Mainstream wants to do.  But that doesn't mean the CJM model is adequately responding to the actual nature of the problem of Muslims.

This lack of a sense of the urgency of the metastatic dimension of the problem seems to be shared by both Mainstreams, the broader Western one, and the Counter-Jihad microcosm of it. Nowhere in his essay does Ibrahim show the slightest hint of the metastatic dimension to this problem and how its analytical absence is the crux of the whole deficiency of the PC MC paradigm which dominates throughout the hroader Western Mainstream.  His last sentence may seem to be a hint of it --

For the fact remains: unlike natural disasters—earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and the like—we actually do not need to “live with” Islam

-- but since nowhere else in his essay does he advert to it, one may reasonably assume what he means by “not living with Islam” does not involve an actual extrication of all Muslims from the West.

Thus, somehow, incoherently, the West for an indefinite future will be able to -- will have to -- continue living with millions of Muslims even though (hopefully) we will have ceased to “live with” Islam after the West finally agrees, a few decades from now, to inch further along to put the seemingly robust but actually timid and half-assed measures of the CJM into place.  Meanwhile, during those coming decades, we can be assured that millions more Muslims will move into and be born in the West (along with a growing number of psychologically marginal Western converts to Islam).

Thus yet again we see the odd disconnection in the CJM between the problem of Islam, and the problem of Muslims -- where it is really only the former we must grapple with, and not the latter in any significant way, as though one can do the one and not the other.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The two Mainstreams: talking past each other

The CJM (Counter-Jihad Mainstream) continues to avoid the main focus of the Western Mainstream:  Muslims, not Islam.  Meanwhile, the CJM persists in focusing on Islam, not Muslims.

All the while, they both share the same presupposition -- that not all Muslims are waging jihad against us.  The numbers may vary between the perspectives of the two Mainstreams (no doubt a vast majority for the broader Mainstream, and perhaps a minority for the CJM, though because they avoid the subject, we can't say for sure).  Nevertheless, they both exonerate large swaths of Muslims from condemnation.  And this is the important part: they do this for essentially the same reason -- an anxiety to avoid "tarring all Muslims with one brush" out of "bigotry".

So if they share the same presupposition and the same reasons for having that presupposition, why do they continue to talk past each other?  Curiously and ironically, the fault lies more with the CJM than with the broader Western Mainstream.  At least the Western Mainstream is up front about its motive of wanting to avoid "racism".  The CJM's psychologically suppressed anxiety not to be bigoted against all Muslims has the effect of torturing its logic into an incoherent impasse, because of two opposing forces of logic:

1) the increasing, horrifying awareness of the problem of Islam


2) the anxious need not to be bigoted against all Muslims.

This is what I have called the asymptotic dilemma.  The first vector is a reasonable result of learning more and more about Islam -- in the news of current events and in the history of its career and of its founding holy texts.  This learning curve, in turn, develops in an individual as part of the process of freeing oneself from the prevailing cultural force-field of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC).

Once a person has broken free of the thrall of PC MC, he can approach the data of the problem of Islam with a relatively open mind, and the growing horror of it all begins to dawn on him.  However, that isn't the end of the story.  There is an opposing force to this journey of the open-minded learning curve, if PC MC remains lurking in the heart and mind of the person who has otherwise embarked upon the alarming journey of the open mind assessing the data of Islam.

To the degree that traces of PC MC remain in the person's heart and mind, he will remain asymptotic -- which means, he will be unable to complete the journey to the realization that leads to Zero Tolerance against All Muslims.  The force of the data, however, in all its horrifying quantity and quality -- including the devastating data of taqiyya -- pulls the person toward that Zero Tolerance.  There thus grows in the person a tension between these two forces: his own latent vestiges of PC MC, nagging at him that he will become an evil bigoted, racist, neo-Nazi "hater" if he succumbs to the force of the data; and his open mind and reason knowing, deep down, that the data cannot be suppressed forever and that it is increasingly becoming a matter of the survival of Western civilization.  Most in the CJM, it seems, are stuck in a kind of limbo, where their sheer denial of this internal dilemma allows them to remain passively and irresponsibly suspended this way.  When someone comes along and prods them with provocations that shake up their irrational non-position by exposing their incoherent logic, they often react in a hostile fashion (e.g., long-time commenter at Jihad Watch "Philip Jihadski", who externalizes his inner turmoil into a neo-Nazi racist scapegoat, at which he lashes out), and/or they double down into a position strangely resembling the PC MCs they otherwise spend all their time attacking, in effect defending innumerable Muslims from condemnation.

When a CJMer defends Muslims, he does it on a negative basis, not a positive basis.  When a PC MC defends Muslims, it's the reverse.  The positive defense of Muslims in PC MC is the classic meme of the Moderate Muslim.  There exists out there a viable mass of Muslims, no doubt the majority, perhaps the vast majority, who believe in a good Islam that is their cultural identity and that can get along with the modern world as a "diverse" contribution to the wonderful cultural family of diverse cultures around the world living in Kumbaya harmony, and this mass of Muslims and their Islam are distinct from the Tiny Minority of Extremists who are trying to hijack the good Islam of all these nice, diverse, modern and moderate Muslims.  It is our duty as non-Muslims to help these nice Muslims oppose the Tiny Minority of Extremists: this in fact is the proper way to respond to the problem of Islam.

The negative defense of Muslims in the CJM doesn't posit any positive ideological Islam forming the Muslims we should defend: rather, it posits a baseline humanity of decency and ascribes this axiomatically to an indeterminable mass of Muslims (the CJM never gets around to telling us how many Muslims fit this amorphous category).  The Muslims which the CJM is concerned to defend are decent people in spite of their culture of Islam, not because of it.  That's how the CJM perspective differs from that of the broader Western Mainstream.  Nevertheless, the two views share the same presupposition that there exists a viable mass of Muslims who are to be defended from a comprehensive intolerance.  The decent Muslims, in the view of the CJM, are decent for various reasons (which I have explored in a few essays):  they are ignorant of their own Islam; they are afraid of getting killed by their more extremist co-religionists; they are "Muslims In Name Only"; etc.

So, along comes Sally Kohn, reiterating the basic presupposition of the PC MC Western Mainstream she belongs to -- the same presupposition shared by the CJM.  And yet, when one examines the comments of the CJMers in the Jihad Watch articles about Kohn, one sees not a trace or hint of any cognitive dissonance.  And naturally, they attack her every which way -- except on the one point they share with her: namely, that there exist innumerable decent Muslims out there.

At least Kohn is up front about her view: she contends that there are innumerable decent Muslims who are capable of assimilating in the modern world (who even march in gay pride parades!) who also happen to support sharia law.  Her conclusion from this ostensible fact is that sharia law cannot be necessarily Draconian and barbaric -- that in fact sharia must be "diverse", with some extremist flavors on the fringe promoted by the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.; while mostly, there flourish moderate flavors supported by all the innumerable, decent Muslims out there she believes in.

The CJM, on the other hand, doesn't forthrightly contend that there are innumerable Muslims capable of assimilating in the modern world; but when backed into a corner, they will defend that supposition.  And generally speaking, their unwillingness to guide their Counter-Jihad by the principle of zero tolerance against all Muslims exerts a force on their analyses of the problem.  Indirectly, passively, and tacitly they end up defending Muslims just as much in principle as a Sally Kohn does.  For the CJM, the amorphous demographic of decent Muslims may support sharia, but they must be doing so out of their ignorance of Islam, or out of the deadly peer pressure they find themselves in as Muslims.  I.e., for the CJM, the toxicity of sharia remains, on principle, a constant.  Therefore, in order to salvage Muslims they must tinker with Muslims, not with sharia.  

Sally Kohn and the PC MCs, by contrast,  do not consider sharia to be a toxic constant; they assume that the sharia of all those decent Muslims must also be decent itself -- because they make the reasonable assumption that all those Muslims must know enough about their Islam not to stupidly support something that is evil (and remember, they are assumed to be decent moms and pops like the rest of us).  Thus there is assumed to be a diversity of flavors of sharia -- each flavor just as authentic as the next.  More generally, Sally Kohn and PC MCs make the same assumption about Islam.  There are multiple Islams out there -- the "extremist" variety, and more moderate flavors.

The CJM, however, maintains there is only one sharia and one Islam -- deadly, evil, and toxic.  Once they establish this as a non-negotiable principle, the only way they can explain the existence of innumerable decent Muslims is to assume those Muslims either don't know their own Islam, or they are afraid of coming out of the closet and so continue to pretend to be Muslim.


If the CJM became aware of what they are doing, and engaged the Sally Kohns of the West directly on it, we might get somewhere in our general Conversation on this problem.  For then, the CJM might suddenly realize to its chagrin that it's not so different from the PC MCs they otherwise spend all day bashing.

I see no signs of this kind of coherent self-awareness happening any time soon, however.

Friday, August 19, 2016

A Counter-Jihad Paradigm Shift

"Those Muslim countries that don’t do these things [amputations, stoning, etc.] don’t have a “more moderate interpretation” of Sharia. They just don’t fully implement its provisions."

This was Christine Williams, a new writer who has joined the Jihad Watch team as a frequent reporter and essayist.  She wrote this in response to a critical response to Trump's call in a recent speech in Youngstown, Ohio, to vet and screen out immigrants "who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles or who believe Sharia should supplant American law."

Part of that critical, PC MC complaint about Trump's call involved an argument that separates Muslims from Islam, through the claim that Islam's Sharia is diverse:

"Terror groups such as ISIS are trying to implement a brutal version of Sharia law, but millions of Muslims are guided by a much more moderate interpretation."

Again, here was the response from CJMer Christine Williams:

"Those Muslim countries that don’t do these things [amputations, stoning, etc.] don’t have a “more moderate interpretation” of Sharia. They just don’t fully implement its provisions."

Notice that she has transposed the PC MC claim about "millions of Muslims" into a point about "Muslim countries".  I've seen this many times: the concern of the Western Mainstream is really about Muslims, and how a putative mass of nice, harmless and innocent Muslims among them would be harmed if the West became too critical of Islam.  The response to this concern from the Counter-Jihad Mainstream tends to be to avoid or deflect this concern about Muslims and refocus back onto how bad Islam is.

The two Mainstreams thus are talking across each other, not really connecting.  The Counter-Jihad Mainstream has to decide which side it's on:  Does it agree with the Western Mainstream that "most Muslims just wanna have a sandwich"?  Or does it avow, based upon a mountain of evidence that is available out there, that we can't adequately discriminate among Muslims for the purposes of our society's safety and that thus we must consider them all to be suspect?  Instead, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream continues to try to straddle a middle position and hope, apparently, that its incoherent concern for Islam and not Muslims will somehow over time help to protect our societies from... Muslims.

Why does the CJM do this?  For one of two, or both, reasons:

1) They are anxiously afraid that the Western Mainstream might punish them (as if the Western Mainstream doesn't already demonize them and treat them as Neanderthal bigots anyway).

2) They themselves have latent PC MC instincts and reflexes, and themselves are anxiously concerned not to be bigoted and not to "tar all Muslims with a broad brush" -- and would thus rather put that overweening concern not to be bigoted above our society's safety.

Further Reading:

My essays on the paradigm shift needed for the Anti-Islam Movement.

Thursday, August 18, 2016


“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence.” 

This was a recent Papal spasm by Pope Francis I (as reported at Jihad Watch by Christine Williams).  It is a quintessential crystallization of what I call Equivalencism -- the false equivalency between Islam and any other religion (usually it's Christianity dragged into the specious comparison).

The larger context of an argument the Pope made in which his nervous tic of politically correct multi-culturalism twitched only makes matters worse, because it illuminates the desperate logic at work here:

"I don’t like to speak of Islamic violence, because every day, when I browse the newspapers, I see violence, here in Italy … this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law … and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics! If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence ... and no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything. There are violent persons of this religion … this is true: I believe that in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them. When fundamentalism comes to kill, it can kill with the language — the Apostle James says this, not me -- and even with a knife, no? I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true. I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think ... They seek peace, encounter ... The nuncio to an African country told me that the capital where he is there is a trail of people, always full, at the Jubilee Holy Door. And some approach the confessionals — Catholics — others to the benches to pray, but the majority go forward, to pray at the altar of Our Lady ... these are Muslims, who want to make the Jubilee. They are brothers, they live … When I was in Central Africa, I went to them, and even the imam came up on the Popemobile … We can coexist well … But there are fundamentalist groups, and even I ask … there is a question … How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work … they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups. One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent ... because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast how they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things … But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS … but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist."

The Pope is right:  It is like fruit salad -- not the actual situation, but his tortured thinking process.   There are so many bits of erroneous fruit tossed into this word salad, one doesn't know where to start.

Let's start with the fact that one fruit in the salad (Islam) is monstrously different from all the other fruits -- when we rationally account for both the quantity and the quality of the violence it cultivates, foments, and deploys.


The quantity of Islamic violence and the astronomic contrast of this quantity when compared with that of any other religion on the planet is a matter of such screamingly evident record, it is not only surreal even to be called upon to adduce it -- it is an insult to our intelligence and common decency to have to do so.  The Pope only deepens the manure of his error by flailing around to cite instances of Catholic violence -- " I see violence, here in Italy … this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law … and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics!" -- as though this is supposed to offset the grotesquely copious quantity of Islamic violence the world has seen in the past 15 years.

One could pick just one incident of Mohammedan violence -- oh, say, the commando unit of Muslims who terrorized the shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya three years ago, massacring and torturing men, women and children for hours -- and any reasonable, sane person would agree that the practitioners of no other religion on the planet comes anywhere close to matching even that one horrifying datum -- on a merely quantitative level.  But we know there have been hundreds of incidents more like that, all over the world.

The error here of the strangely inept arithmetic employed by PC MCs like the Pope involves the strange maneuver of counting as a reasonable comparison violence done by any Catholic for any reason, and lumping that in with a category "Catholic violence" that is supposed to counter-balance, on the Kumbaya Scales, the "Islamic violence" on the other side.  (And of course one can modify this, and the PC/MC-besotted majority in the West do routinely whenever anyone dares to point out Islamic violence, by using "Christian violence" or "right wing violence" or "Israeli violence" or even "Western violence", etc.)

Which brings us to the qualitative consideration...


The indiscriminate lumping (fruit salad, indeed) discussed in the last paragraph above most often takes the form, in PC MC argumentation ever anxious to salvage Muslims from the condemnation they so richly deserve, of mushing the generic categories of criminal and political violence in with the fanatical Islamic motivation unique to Mohammedan violence which is an inseparable fusion of religious, political, military, and para-military.  One could write a book about the qualitative distinction of Islamic violence -- all of which could be summarized with the key factors of fanaticism, supremacism, expansionism, militarism, totalitarianism, and a style of ultra-violence so qrotesque one would be forgiven, in our oh so sophisticated, modern era, for describing it as Satanic.

Problem #2

The other problem with Equivalencism is its fallacious logic, which can be exposed by thinking clearly about the implications of the statement, so wonderfully typical (for which we can thank the Pope):

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence.” 

The question immediately comes to mind: So why not speak of both, then?  Even if one is equating the two, that doesn't let Islam off the hook.  However, the Pope -- and everybody else I've ever heard use this logic -- imply they don't want to talk about either one.  They are using the equivalence in order to shut down scrutiny of the problem of Islam.  However, what usually happens is they eventually can't help themselves and violate their own implicit rule -- but only one half of it: They will start picking critically at Christians and Christianity (or right wingers, or Israel), while leaving Islam virtually untouched.

Thus is exposed, beneath the seemingly "equal" cubes and slices and pleasing melon balls of fruit in the Equivalencism Kumbaya Fruit Salad, the real ulterior agenda: to undermine the West in confused, incoherent self-hatred -- and, in confused, incoherent xenophilia, to genuflect at the Altar of the Other (in our time, the Mother of All Others, Islam).

The Case of Sally Kohn

After I wrote the above, I came across another example (one could bump into dozens, maybe hundreds, every day, if one surfed the Mainstream on this topic even just casually):  Far afield from Pope Francis I (though still in Left field), we have Exhibit B in a secular Jewish lesbian Leftist, Sally Kohn, who came to the attention of Jihad Watch by blurting out that:

Hey @realDonaldTrump, many *progressive Muslims* — the ones we should support in ideological fight against extremism — believe in Sharia!!

Sally is right about this, but not in the way she thinks (nor in the way many in the Counter-Jihad think, who continue obstinately to imply support for what they think are, or may be, what is tantamount to the "progressive Muslim" or the "moderate Muslim" -- though of course they avoid those labels and think that merely by avoiding the label, they can get away with their way of compromising what should be a primary principle of the Anti-Islam Movement: Zero tolerance for all Muslims).

But that's the subject of another essay, another day.  What caught my eye was another tweet of Sally's manifesting (in the context of the Orlando jihad massacre of gays) the Equivalencist spasm:

Islamic extremists kill LGBT people.

Christian and Jewish extremists just drive us to commit suicide.

Either way, .


Fallacious logic often depends upon being correct in part:  Thus it is superficially true that "hate is hate" and that one could find the same hatred of gays in the Orlando mujaheed as one could find in a Fundie Christian preacher -- just as one could say "heat is heat" and find the same essential heat in a toaster oven as one finds in the core of the Sun.  But to leave it at that and ignore the monumental differences would be a strange species of irrationality.  And yet that is what one finds throughout the Western Mainstream in our time, with regard to their inability to see the uniquely monstrous contrast between Islam and all other religions.

Further Reading:

Leftists are not Relativists

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Is stealth jihad an innovation in Islam?

As to my title question, that's what I've thought all along, mainly because I'd never been aware of any evidence to the contrary -- and secondly, because I reasonably assumed that in pre-modern times, three factors militated against Mohammedans waging stealth jihad:

1) They didn't have to keep up an elaborate pretense of being peaceful and being the friends of the West, because they were more blatantly and honestly arrayed against the West as enemies, having attacked the West relentlessly for at least a solid millennium from the 7th century to the 17th century (only flagging thereafter due to their weakness relative to the stupendously progressive West by that time, but still attacking us).

2) They had no demographic presence within the West, because the West hadn't yet developed the politically correct multi-culturalist stupidity to let them in, in large numbers -- and thus they had no need or opportunity to develop a Fifth Column Trojan Horse (or Trojan Camel) which would, of course, involve the taqiyya complex of deceit that forms the backbone and appendages of stealth jihad proper.

3) In pre-modern times, there was much more symmetry between the West and Islam in terms of military capability and socio-military infrastructure.  Thus, as one major reason (if not the major reason) why Mohammedans deploy stealth jihad is because they find themselves temporarily weaker than their enemy, that reason was far less of a factor in former eras. Indeed, there prevailed a kind of tug-of-war of military parity off and on for centuries, where each success by the West (e.g., Lepanto) was followed by a tragic reversal in favor of Islam (e.g., the battle of La Goulette shortly thereafter).

In this spirit, I would deposit comments here and there over the years expressing this, such as the following at Gates of Vienna back in April of 2011:

To what extent, if any, did Muslims need the modern kind of dhimmitude (which is sort of an anticipatory dhimmitude -- kowtowing to Muslims even before they have conquered you, thus enabling their intended conquest) when they successfully conquered more territory than Alexander the Great or the Romans? Were there key non-Muslims in Persia, India, central Asia, SE Europe, the Roman Christian Middle East, Roman Christian North Africa, and Roman Christian Iberia (Spain) who were this kind of modern dhimmi, helping pave the way for the conquest of Muslims?

My instinct (absent enough historical information) is to answer no: It seems that historically, the stupendous expansion of Islam was due mainly to frontal assault using fanatically supercharged and rabid ultra-violence...

More recently, however, I've come across indications from history that may show that Muslims did in fact deploy a stealth jihad in long-term preparation for more concerted jihad of the sword.  The indications are enfolded in the data discussed in an obscure academic journal article, "The Coming of Islam to the East Indies" by G.E. Marrison, published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 24, No. 1 (154), February 1951, pp. 28-37.

The author, Prof. Marrison, in this article was not concerned to delve into (much less notice) the phenomenon of stealth jihad; but his indirect (and unintentional) evidence the reader can palpate between the lines, and it implies an interesting process:

1) During the long jihad against India, the Islamic conquest of the Subcontinent proceeded in piecemeal fashion, with advances, then reversals, all because the native Indians at various times and localities fought back (and at times won ground, or retook ground).

2) For a time early on (9th century forward), apparently, southern India remained a region the Muslims were unable to conquer, at least in any comprehensive sense.

3) Lacking a solid military home base in southern India, therefore, when Muslims continued their inexorable Drang nach Osten (part & parcel with their Drang nach Westen, and both subsets of their overarching fanatical mania for a global Lebensraum) by expanding eastward into the archipelagos of what the French later called L'Insulinde -- basically SE Asia and all the island cultures that extend southward (Malaysia, Indonesia) and eastward (Philippines) -- they did not do so as frank military conquerors.

4) We reasonably assume at this juncture in our analysis that the expanding Muslims did not conquer at that point, not because they didn't want to (as Western idiots assume), but because at the time they were unable to do so in any feasible way.  Their expansion into areas like Indonesia thus resembles a peaceful osmosis of "Muslim traders" (as our stupid Western historians put it) simply peacefully "expanding" while over time Islam just "took root" like some kind of creeping ivy, growing organically without any bloodshed.  The process resembled this because, in that phase of Islamic expansion, that's what Muslims knew they had to do, to lay down layers of insidious, seemingly pacific expansion in preparation for later military assaults.

5) Thus, apparently, during that first wave or phase of expansion, Muslims pretended to be peaceful and to forge alliances with local chieftains and native rulers in various primitive island communities, in the process over a long period of time (perhaps a century) insinuating themselves into the diverse fabric of all those various archipelago cultural systems.  Then when the time came that they had the military wherewithal -- a more substantial military home base in southern India -- they finished the job with violence.

That's the theory, at any rate.  What it requires is some more solid academic research which, in the lamentable state of current academic studies in relation to Islam where whitewashing propaganda more often than not substitutes for actual historiography and sociology, seems unlikely to occur any time soon.

There also could be variations of the above 5-point theory -- such as the possibility that during that first wave or phase of stealth jihad in Insulindia, there were many instances and episodes of violent strong-arming, including assassinations and terrorist razzias (and threats of same), if only because here and there local rulers or people resented the increasing intrusion of Islam and resisted. But there was not the massive violence of a frank military assault.

And, of course, the same theoretical template could be applied analytically to other global regions and eras of Islamic expansion -- most notably the Spanish peninsula and the Byzantine incursions.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

A great statesman before the “Great Inhibition”

That phrase the “Great Inhibition” was coined by Hugh Fitzgerald (harking back to the Great Prohibition) to denote the surreal, bizarre, irrational, maddening mass neurosis of our era with regard to our collective habit of walking on eggshells around the Elephant in the Room (Islam) and everybody pretending that the Emperor has clothes on when he’s standing buck naked with his wee willy and balls dangling in full view.

It’s difficult to say when this mass neurosis set in; but it’s interesting to note that French philosopher Jacques Ellul, speaking of academe, complained as long ago as the early 1980s about already then a climate of inhibition.  In his preface to the 1985 edition of Bat Ye'or's book (The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam), Ellul wrote:

"In France, criticisms of Islam or Arab nations is no longer tolerated."

And in his preface he goes on to articulate many other interesting habits of this Western intolerance to open rational criticism of Islam, such as:

"Thus one 'demonstrates' that it is false that Arabs were cruel invaders, that they rampaged with terror and massacres against peoples who would not submit... that [it is false that] Islam was intolerant, on the contrary, it was Tolerance itself.  [That] it is false that women are held in an inferior state and that she was excluded from the city.  [That] it is false that jihad was a material war; etc. etc...."

Years later, in 1991, Ellul wrote in the foreword to Bay Ye'or's book (The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude):

"In the general current of favorable predispositions to Islam... there has been a reluctance to allude to the jihad.  In Western eyes, it would be a sort of dark stain on the greatness and purity of Islam."

And he goes on to say about Bat Ye'or's book:

"This book neatly highlights what one is concealing -- I would say carefully concealing --  so widespread is the agreement on this silence that it can only be the result of a tacit agreement based on implicit presuppositions."

And this situation of inhibition, of self-censorship, only became worse in succeeding decades -- perversely magnified post-911, where in a sane world such a collective trend of fashionable political correctness would have appropriately corrected itself by renewing and reviving a general suspicion of Islam and of the Muslims who keep insisting it is made of jasmine & spice & everything nice.

But we know that didn't happen.

At any rate, many great men of yesteryear -- before this inhibition set in, in the massively fashionable way it has in our time -- had no qualms about speaking truth to jihad: Voltaire, John Quincy Adams, Mark Twain, Carl Jung, Bertrand Russell, Will Durant -- and Teddy Roosevelt.

The problem today is that the West thinks Muslims are not still driven by their perennial dream of conquest; that somehow they have shed their medieval past as we have; for, after all, all peoples of the world must be, deep down inside, Homo Occidentalis, for we are the measure of all men, right...?  Thus the condescending global narcissism of the PC MC view (and, in spades, the Leftist view).  To think that Muslims have grown out of their perennial jihad is a disastrous miscalculation on our part, and, regrettably, remains the reigning fashion of thought.  With exquisitely painful irony, this fashion of thought of ours is the one factor that will enable Muslims to realize their dream of conquest; given that, due to the astronomic disparity between the two cultures (West and Islam) on every level, they can’t otherwise conquer us anymore by conventional military means.

Let us then take some small comfort in one voice of yore who had his head on straight, unlike most in our West today:

It is utterly impossible to appreciate social values at all or to discriminate between what is socially good and socially bad unless we appreciate the utterly different social values of different wars. The Greeks who triumphed at Marathon and Salamis did a work without which the world would have been deprived of the social value of Plato and Aristotle, of Aeschylus, Herodotus, and Thucydides. The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization, because of victories stretching through the centuries from the days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century.  

During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any “social values ” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence and the decaying native Christian churches are concerned. There are such “social values” today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do, that is, to beat back the Moslem invader. 

-- Teddy Roosevelt, “Social Values and National Existence” (p. 18 in an edition of essays by various individuals titled War and Militarism in their Sociological Aspects, published by the American Sociological Society, 1916)

Note:  Charles Martel’s army of European allies saved Europe in the 8th century from invading Muslims who had already taken Spain; while John Sobieski’s army of European allies at the Siege of Vienna in 1683 saved Europe from invading Muslims who had already conquered a massive chunk of Eastern Europe and what is now Turkey -- which used to be Christian Byzantium. Two names that every Western child should learn in school; but of course, doesn't anymore.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Two Jihads for the Price of One

"Thus do Muslim terrorists manage to inflict great damage on Western economies without firing a shot or swinging a scimitar."

Thus does Hugh Fitzgerald mar his otherwise superb essay on the alarmingly remarkable cancellation of the largest flea market in the West, La Braderie, held annually in Lille, France.

As Hugh reports, La Braderie is "the largest flea market in Europe, with 10,000 exhibitors and, last year, 2.5 million visitors."  And he adds the apposite fact: 

"The cancellation of this gigantic event is a severe economic blow to those exhibitors from all over France who depend, for a significant portion of their year’s profit, on that Lille market, but also a blow to those ancillary businesses — cafés, restaurants, and hotels – that benefit from exhibitors and visitors alike."

Hugh then circles in to the searingly relevant crux:

"Martine Aubry, the mayor, and a Socialist stalwart, said that the safety of visitors could not be assured – “there are risks we cannot reduce.” By this she meant, of course, risks of an attack by Muslim terrorists. Only once before, during the goose-stepping German occupation, has La Braderie ever been called off. "

At that point, Hugh had to append his unfortunate sentence with which I opened my piece above:

"Thus do Muslim terrorists manage to inflict great damage on Western economies without firing a shot or swinging a scimitar."

Such a sentence is only correct in a punctiliously technical sense -- that in this particular, concrete instance, Muslims did not actually kill anyone in Lille, France, thus causing the Mayor of Lille to call off the flea market.  But surely, the (reasonable) fear of Muslims is based solidly on the facts -- numerous times, in numerous places, over the years, not only in France but also elsewhere in Europe, let alone the entire planet, and only getting worse -- of Muslims already having killed, and having planned to kill, and still planning to kill, and having threatened to kill.

Thus do Muslim terrorists manage to inflict great damage to Western economies precisely by having fired shots and having swung machetes and having set off explosives and having driven trucks into crowds and having flown planes into buildings.

I.e., after all these years, Hugh is still strangely disconnecting the Stealth Jihad from the Violent Jihad.  I'm not just picking on Hugh; the Counter-Jihad Mainstream more broadly seems to suffer from this inability to see how the two Jihads are intimately dovetailed.  When they're not detaching the Jihad of the Hilt from the Jihad of the Sword, they are undervaluing the Stealth Jihad and fixating on terrorism.  It's like the Counter-Jihad Mainstream can't pat its head and rub its stomach at the same time.

Further Reading:

It's the Violence, Stupid

How the stealth jihad needs violence (a posting I feature on my "Miscellaneous & Potpourri" section up top, culled from a comment I posted on Jihad Watch comments back in the summer of 2010)

A collection of my essays on the nexus between stealth jihad and violent jihad.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Counter-Jihad 2.0: Outdated Software

In a posting on Jihad Watch, where outmoded Counter-Jihad software often compromises its fine reportage with dubious analysis, Raymond Ibrahim within his first three paragraphs slipped on a banana peel.  Of course, no one at Jihad Watch noticed, nor will notice.

First paragraph: Raymond quotes himself from another recent article:

When it comes to the connection between Islam and violence against non-Muslims, one fact must be embraced: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in the West are either liars or fools, or both. No other alternative exists. 

Then he notes that various readers took issue with his overly "simple" approach.

Both in the comments section on my site as well as those of other websites that carried the article, and through emails, many begged to differ.  They argued that there are other alternatives and my distinction—fool, liar, or both—is too simple.

The problem with Raymond's formulation is not that it is too simple, but that its simple parts are not developed, and more importantly, Raymond is not fully digesting the implications of the simple formula he sets forth.  Raymond went on to note one type of objection he rejects:

Some argue that those Western leaders who refuse to connect Islam to violence and terrorism are simply being “politically correct”...

So the first problem that leaps to our eye is that Raymond for some strange reason thinks that being politically correct is not to be a fool.  That's Raymond's first mistake.

It goes downhill from there.

On the contrary, and massaging the tissue of the issue with a bit more subtlety, we may stipulate that politically correct multi-culturalism (PC MC) is a species of folly, but it is not simple folly -- it is what has long ago been termed that paradoxical subspecies:  learned folly.  Over six years ago, I examined this issue in detail with an essay titled Morosophy and the Mother of all Others -- where the archaic word "morosophy" means precisely "learned folly".

The main reason the analysis moves to a point where we must tweak the folly into a paradoxical form is two-fold:

1) many of the Westerners who continue to defend Islam & Muslims are themselves intelligent and therefore not stupid or foolish in the simplistic sense; and

2) if on the other hand, we impute mendacity to them rather than any kind of folly, we are suddenly moving into conspiracy-theory territory and charging a few million Westerners with knowing evil and functioning as a Dastardly Cabal of "Elites" who are either knowingly manipulating Muslims into destroying the West or who are knowingly playing along with Muslims in order to destroy the West.

For many reasons I have articulated over the years, I reject Door Number Two.

(That third option Raymond proffers, by the way, is incoherent:  you can't have a mixture of folly and mendacity, since the folly is precisely based in unwitting enablement, whereas the mendacity is based in knowing collusion.)

If it could be demonstrated persuasively that it is impossible to defend Islam & Muslims and not be in knowingly evil collusion with Muslims, I might begin to perk up and entertain the egregious "Real Problemer" thesis (see here and here -- the latter link leading the reader on to a two-part essay -- for my previous discussions of this problem).  As it is, the fact that PC MC may be found in centuries past -- even as far back as the 16th century philosopher and statesman Michel de Montaigne -- indicates it is not some new and recent cabal.  To then acknowledge that millennial provenance, and yet still argue for a dastardly conspiracy theory, leads the analysis into the feverish level of a Manichean gnosis where the evil is cosmic; which not only is untenable, but also impossible to verify or falsify.

At any rate, I have to my satisfaction over the years explained PC MC by examining its component parts using an Occam's razor that brackets out any conspiracy theory elements, and it seems plausible to me that those component parts are sufficient to explain the whole, and that the whole is not a mystery demanding a more radical explanation.  In speculating on this process -- specifically, the rise of PC MC in the West in the 20th century to sociopolitical dominance as a reigning fashion of worldview -- I do not reject the role of Marxists (and their less caffeinated cousins, Leftists) in enhancing the problem.  But there is always the nagging problem, whenever someone pushes this further and nudges forward the implication that Communists (and/or any other nefarious cabal) are actively manipulating our collective mass neurosis about Islam as though that is the main reason for Western myopia about the problem of Islam.  Such an implication has the strange rider of imputing a sheeplike docility to untold tens if not hundreds of millions of Westerners who would have to be the unwitting dupes, including many who are otherwise intelligent -- unless the conspiracy theorist is going out on a drastic limb to claim that the majority of Westerners -- hundreds of millions -- are also knowingly evil.  And these are not the only problems of the conspiracy theory that would somehow take the spotlight off of Islam and put it back on the West itself as the locus of the "real problem".

So, the Problem of the Problem needs to hold in tandem and in balance many competing facts, respecting them individually, and then assessing whether they can be held together plausibly.


I note that the Rabbit Pack (a high-school clique of long-time regular Jihad Watch commenters) weighed in on this issue, when two of its members (gravenimage and Mirren) saw fit to help school a newbie (one "ktulu") who was inordinately baffled by the prevalence of PC MC in the West.

Quoting ktulu --

”I’m just trying to understand this seemingly relentless inability of authority to recognise the clear and present dangers inherent in allowing Islam to spread it’s vitriol seemingly unchecked, and seemingly (atm) uncheckable.”

-- Mirren says that

ktulu, graven is right, I think.

 What gravenimage was "right" about was her simplistic iteration that political correctness is the explanation.  But that's not really an explanation; it's merely a label for the phenomenon that demands an explanation.

So Mirren seems to notice there's more to the story:

But I also think there is another layer, as you put it.

Her explanation, unfortunately -- and unsurprisingly -- doesn't really explain much and only raises new questions that should baffle a ktulu:

For one thing, those in authority are not *personally* affected, and never will be. They are surrounded by massive security, 24/7. Therefore it doesn’t touch them.

Also, as far as they are concerned, we, the ordinary people, who *are* affected, are mere collateral damage/sacrificial lambs on the altar of PC/MC. Their virtue signalling is far more important to them than a few thousand deaths of the hoi polli [sic].

Other layers would include the vast sums of money dangled by Middle Eastern mohammedan countries, and concomitant with that, a political attitude that really doesn’t give a tuppenny damn about the generations to come, so long as they don’t have to take any uncomfortable/unpopular decisions right *now.*

The first two paragraphs are just claiming that the Dastardly Elites are out of touch with the Common Man and because they are so lofty in their gated communities (literally and figuratively), they are not bothered by the problem of Islam.  This begs the question of whether they know how dangerous Islam is, but because they are comfortably and safely ensconced in their palaces, they don't care.  This creates a cartoonish caricature of Dastardly Elites who simultaneously are callously devoid of civic duty on a Dickensian level on steroids, and who are witless fools to underestimate the danger of Islam which if left unchecked will also destroy their means of comfort.  Mirren's third paragraph only goes downhill from there, implying that the Dastardly Elites also are motivated by greed to defend Islam -- which again begs the question: are they doing this knowing that Islam is evil and if left unchecked will destroy the West?  Or are they that stupid to think it won't happen? 

Nowhere in the explanations proferred by gravenimage and Mirren is any sense of understanding what must be positively motivating those in our society who are PC MC -- what virtues, values & principles are being confused with a defense of Muslims, such that in fact it is the honorable motives of these so-called "Elites" which are moving them to so distastrously put Muslims on the side of the angels (and those who are reasonably alarmed at Muslims on the side of the "bigots" and "racists" and other outcasts of modern polite society).  This is not even factoring in that the explanations proferred by gravenimage and Mirren don't allude to the vast swaths of Ordinary People who are also beholden to PC MC in the modern West -- a massive fact that can be verified by just stepping outside of one's home and engaging in a discussion any random carbon-based entity with opposable thumbs and walking upright on the problem of Muslims.

Tuesday, August 09, 2016

A black Pope?

The buzz in Catholic circles is of the high likelihood that the next Pope may well be a black African -- specifically, one Cardinal Robert Sarah.  This article by the normally fine Catholic reporter, Sandro Magister, explains much of the significance; though for some reason, he doesn't mention the problem of Islam.  Robert Sarah (born in 1945) is a cardinal from the African nation of Guinea, a small country in West Africa just northwest of the area that is raging with an Islamic genocide of Christians, northern Nigeria.  Guinea too is a predominantly Muslim country (85% Islamic).

Will a Pope Robert be any better than a Pope Francis with regard to the problem of Islam?  I would fall off my cathedra in shock if he did prove to be as good as (or, God forbid, better than) Pope Benedict XVI.  But we needn't stew in our reasonable pessimism on the matter.  Consider what the good Cardinal himself has had to say about it, from an interview he gave about a year ago, largely about his new book, God or Nothing (Dieu ou rien), but also ranging onto other subjects, including Islam in Africa:

On relations between Christianity and Islam in Africa:

"Until recent times, Christians and Muslims lived in perfect harmony."

Oh, brother.  We don't really need to read any further to verify that Cardinal Sarah is a Dhimmi. (I say "Dhimmi" rather than PC MC or Leftist because of his provenance, growing up in a Muslim country as a Christian -- for, whenever we see Islamophiliac reflexes in such a milieu, it's more likely to stem from a holdover of dhimmitude rather than from Leftism or PC MC, as is the case in the West, where one has never lived under Islamic rule or had to breathe the cultural atmosphere of a Muslim-majority society.)

But I will go further, just to drive the nails into the coffin (or the theses into the door):

"The fanaticism, with the rivers of blood which it gives rise to and the barbaric violence it deploys, has come about [only] recently, since the 1970s, after certain Africans had been indoctrinated in Islamic universities in Saudi Arabia or in Libya, or elsewhere."

That's just a reiteration of the previous sentence, with a bit of specious specificity thrown in, having the effect of reinforcing the meme that (Islamic) "extremism" is a modern 20th century phenomenon, not a perennial constant of Islamic texts, history, and culture.

"The religious conflicts and massacres have rarely seen the light of day in Africa."

This is an obscenely inaccurate claim, given the horrendous violence perpetrated by Muslims in his neighboring Nigeria -- not to mention in Somalia and Sudan over the decades, let alone the grotesquely ultra-violent Islamic attacks in Kenya.

And finally:

"What we see happening in our time in the name of Islam is pure barbarism perpetrated by barbarians without God, without Faith or Law."

Another claim that is strangely disconnected from the massive mountain of data we have about Islam.  It becomes doubly strange from someone who is learned, intelligent, deeply interested in religion, and has lived in a Muslim-majority country.  Given that we know Cardinal Robert's claim is patently false -- that in fact Muslim terrorists are centrally motivated by their God, their Faith (the Islamic Deen) and their Law (Shariah) -- we marvel once again, even in our bitterly jaded weariness having seen it countless times before, at this degree & depth of Denial tantamount to a psychosis.


His aforementioned book, God or Nothing, seems to be largely a D'Souzish meditation on the godlessness of modern (Western) secular culture as, it would be implied, the single most important problem in our era, to be solved, or healed, by a return to God (meanwhile sidestepping exploding and stabbing Muslims who keep popping up around us and in our midst as the "new normal" that, of course, does not augur a systemic and metastasizing danger with a trajectory in our not-so-distant future ending in the destruction of our civilization...).

Thus, a Pope Robert would not only be the first black Pope, but also may well be the last (or, given that he would be in his 70s upon ascension to the Papal seat, and assuming that it will take Muslims more than 30 years to destroy us, penultimate) Pope before the Fall of the West to Islam.

Friday, August 05, 2016

The D word, cont. 
Winchester Guildhall 

Paul Weston, chairman of the LibertyGB party in England, is a solid member of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, having gained his 15 minutes of fame back in April of 2014, when he was arrested for speaking the words of Winston Churchill in England -- more specifically, with a megaphone on the steps in front of Winchester Guildhall in Winchester, a borough a little less than 70 miles southwest of London.  Initially, his thought crime (amplified by megaphone) was "racially aggravated crime under section 4 of the Public Order act" (the charge was later dropped and by bail he was set free; see this informative report).

More recently, just last month in July, Paul Weston published a piece on the Gates of Vienna blog entitled:  France has two options: Civil war or surrender.

Does the reader notice the conspicuous absence of a third option (let alone a fourth)...?  Yes, we speak of Deportation.

Later on in his essay, Weston finally breezes past the D word -- parenthetically -- as he writes the following:

Can France be saved? It can, but it would mean removing Islam from public life. It would mean closing down the mosques. It would mean deportation. French Muslims in their millions wouldn’t like this, so it would also mean civil war. Real civil war à la 1990s Yugoslavia. Hollande and Valls are not prepared to take the steps necessary to ensure France’s survival. Even Marine Le Pen might baulk [sic] at instigating civil war, but France’s survival has moved beyond peaceful measures now, through the sheer weight of Muslim numbers combined with a fanatical belief system.

So many subtle things wrong with this.  First off, if French Muslims "wouldn't like this" (i.e., being rounded up and deported), that would not trigger a "civil war" -- it would trigger sporadic, mass bouts of violence from the Muslims who happen to be in France (one hopes Weston meant this when he wrote "French Muslims").  These flare-ups of violence that Muslims would engage in would not be a "civil war" since a civil war, properly speaking, is a breakdown into violence reflecting a grave sociopolitical division among the population of a nation who belong there -- and since Muslims don't belong in France and the Muslim citizens among them never really were citizens in the true sense, this would be the eruption of an internal jihad against France by an alien demographic who, through a series of disastrous policies based upon the mass neurosis of politically correct multi-culturalism, were allowed over the decades to immigrate, infiltrate, and insinuate their alien fanaticism deep into the social fabric of France.  One hopes that when and if any Western polity decides to round up and deport its Muslims, it will have prepared itself for the dangers attendant upon this delicate operation, more fraught with lethal consequences than when one is trying to figure out which wire -- the red or the blue -- should be cut to defuse a bomb. 

The process of deportation, then, should be framed as a process with a high potential for spontaneously networked jihad among the Muslim demographic being deported.  It should not be framed as a potential "civil war".

Thus Weston should have titled his piece -- France has two options: Surrender or Deportation of Muslims. Immediately thereafter, in his first paragraph, he should have spelled out why this is the dilemma facing France -- and eventually facing the rest of the West. Then in the piece he could have explained, as I did, how the latter would be a complex, delicate, and dagerous operation. As it is, Weston's piece buries the D word and conveys the impression that "civil war" is somehow distinct from deportation, and is the "only" choice other than surrender.

This reflects, I think, the prevailing diffidence if not timidity throughout the Counter-Jihad Mainstream about the idea, and the topic, of total deportation.  If it won't be thought and then hashed out in discussions in the Counter-Jihad, how will it ever percolate into the wider Western mainstream...?

Further Reading: 

The D word

The Counter-Jihad Community, working together as a team...

My title is sarcastic, of course.  Far from working together as a team, you have Robert Spencer burning bridges with old colleagues whom he previously praised (e.g., Diana West, Baron Bodissey, Andrew Bostom, Hugh Fitzgerald -- the last two belatedly welcomed back to the Jihad Watch family after years of wintry exclusion; though Jihad Watch seems to have been strangely Bostomless after a brief splash of a reunion in the spring of 2013)  (The only name of those listed above I don't link is Baron Bodissey -- only because I learned of Spencer's ruthless anathematization of him from Bodissey himself; Bodissey wouldn't say why Spencer did this, only that in his estimation it was over a minor matter that had nothing to do with the problem of Islam.  And Bodissey added that he was afraid of divulging the details, because Spencer threatened him with something which Bodissey wouldn't tell me.  How many others in the Counter-Jihad mainstream has Spencer treated this shabbily?  We peons, we Great Unwashed, we hoi ochloi of the Counter-Jihad civilians may never know what goes on behind the closed doors and back rooms of the Gentlemen's Agreement among the Counter-Jihad Luminaries & Elites...)

Another way the Counter-Jihad Community shoots itself in the foot is by banning useful contributors like me -- as Jihad Watch did from their comments sections recently, after one or more of the lynch-mob-cum-high-school-clique, the Rabbit Pack (Angemon, Champ, Mirren, gravenimage, JayBoo, Wellington, PRCS, Western Canadian, and dumbledoresarmy) persuaded Robert Spencer's site tech person "marc" to ban me.  In a private communication with an acquaintance of marc's who lives in London, marc told that acquaintance that he decided to go ahead and ban me in order to protect "Robert's friends" -- i.e., the aforementioned Rabbit Pack.  I know this, because that acquaintance told me, as he is a regular in my chat room at Paltalk.

The reader will notice the name of one of the Rabbit Pack, "dumbledoresarmy" (about whom I've written a few times before).  Well, just this morning, as I was sipping the last of my strong cup of coffee, I noticed a comment by dumbledoresarmy in a recent comments thread at Jihad Watch attached to a report about the London stabbing.  In one comment, dumbledoresarmy had alluded pertinently to the Theo Van Gogh assassination in 2004 and linked to an old comments section from Jihad Watch of 2004.  Then another commenter, one "Alvin", noted that he can't see any comments when he clicked on the link dumbledoresarmy had provided.  At that point, dumbledoresarmy responded:

  • Kay
    sorry about that. ‘Alvin’ just mentioned not seeing any comments on that archived article about Theo Van Gogh.
    it’s really odd, because there were *heaps* of really interesting and excellent comments attached to the article. Luckily I *saved* them all when I was first exploring the archives, ages ago (having discovered jihadwatch late in 2006, I went and *read the archives* and at that stage every posted article had its complete quota of comments firmly attached. And everything I thought interesting, I *copied and saved* on my own computer, in masses of e-clippings files). And the sample comments I put up here were from the relevant clippings file.
    But perhaps the older threads and earliest lots of comments have now been LOST?? – failed to ‘roll over’, or something, as the site has changed its security regs? That would be sad, because many of them were good and added extra info, and Spencer’s friend Hugh Fitzgerald put a *lot* of effort into comments at the coalface, especially in the earlier years of jihadwatch. I’d hate to think they’ve all gone down the ‘memory hole’.
    Shoutout to ‘marc’, Mr Spencer’s tech adviser/ IT Mr Fixit – **what HAPPENED to the archived Comments threads? Did they all get lost, somewhere along the way?”
Well, if dumbledoresarmy's lynch-mob-cum-high-school clique hadn't banned me, I would have informed her that I too had recently run up against this problem -- and I had solved it.  What one has to do is the following:

1) First, ascertain the date of the Jihad Watch article in question.

2) Go to the "Wayback Machine" -- a comprehensive archive of the Internet.

3) Paste in the Jihad Watch URL into their search box.

4) From there, go to the month and year from #1.

5) The Wayback Machine will display Jihad Watch recovery pages by months -- but usually only a few days out of a given month are accessible.  But this is not as bad as it seems.  All one has to do, if your date is not highlighted on the Wayback Machine month squares for Jihad Watch, is select a date near it -- select a date that is later in time (i.e., more recent) because when you open a Jihad Watch page from yesteryear, you'll notice that the articles above are more recent than the articles below.  Once you select an article that may be, say a week later than the one you want, just scroll downwards until you find the right title.  The comments thread should be there, intact as it always was.

Let's try it now, with the article dumbledoresarmy suppled:
We can see that the title is "Theo Van Gogh, maker of Submission, shot dead in Amsterdam" and that the posting date is November 2, 2004.

Now we go to the Wayback Machine:*/

We select the year, 2004.

We look for November...  we see that, as expected, the precise day, November 2, is not available.   So now we select a date more recent -- the nearest one is November 4.  It happens to take us to an article at the end of November 3.  No matter.  All we need to do is keep scrolling downwards until we find the precise article we're looking for -- "Theo Van Gogh, maker of Submission, shot dead in Amsterdam".

Interestingly, one finds that the story is at "Dhimmi Watch" -- which formerly, was an adjunct website attached to Jihad Watch, but on a separate stream.  Fortunately, Spencer posted a note in the Jihad Watch stream we are browsing indicating this, with a link.   We click on that link, and voilà! -- we are there.   And all of the comments which dumbledoresarmy mentioned, and whose sudden absence she worried over, are there, preserved as if in amber.

You're welcome.

She can also thank the lynch-mob-cum-high-school clique she belongs to for the fact that I was unable to impart this useful information to her (and for the likely fact that she will never see this).

Thursday, August 04, 2016

The D word
Eduard Benes, leader of post-WW2 Czechoslovakia, who drafted decrees to deport millions of Germans, including Czech citizens.

It's not Denial -- though it seems to be closely related.  The D word is Deportation.

Once again, I see on Jihad Watch comments a chatter named "abad" (not one of the Rabbit Pack, of course) call for the West (specifically, Europe) to round up all its Muslims and deport them:

Every single Muslim in Europe needs to be rounded up and deported to Saudi Arabia or Syria.
They simply do not belong in Europe.

Naturally, the Rabbit Pack (Angemon foremost, then gravenimage, Mirren Wellington, Western Canadian PRCS, JayBoo, dumbledoresarmy, Joe Blow) did not swoop in to chastise abad; perhaps because since it was one lone comment, it would slip by unnoticed.
According to one of the founding members of the Rabbit Pack, one "Joe Blow" (aka "Philip Jihadski"), he and the rest of the Rabbit Pack all support total deportation too.  He wrote this in a comments thread here on my blog:

"Look, dummy...for the thousandth time - we're all in for deporting all of the Moslems. I've ALWAYS been in favor of that."
(He then went on to add red herrings, such as: "But we have to change our laws FIRST."  And: "You cannot simply go out and "round 'em up", because you first must identify them..." Which, incoherently, he followed up with claiming that identification is impossible: ",,,and to do that, you have to be a mind reader, or institute lie-detector tests on each and every fucking "suspect"."  At the time, I posted an explanatory comment which for reasonable human beings, unlike Joe Blow, should clear things up -- among them that I am not formulating policy for next week, I am pushing the meme in order to help wake up our mainstream West to the exigency of Deportation; a meme which will never have any such effect if the Counter-Jihad keeps ignoring it like Joe Blow and his friends in the Rabbit Pack.)
Speaking of which, the Rabbit Pack certainly have a strange way of pushing the meme of total deportation.  They either attack those who express it too insistently (like me), or they simply ignore them when they do it once in a blue moon (like abad).  And they never bring it up themselves.  Yeah, way to push the meme, Total Deportationers!
Concerning the succinct sentence written by abad above, I only have two minor problems: the delimitation of the call to Europe, not the entire West; and the destination being Saudi Arabia or Syria, as if there are not 54 other countries that belong to the O.I.C. we could not also ship them off to.

I mentioned above about abad's call for total deportation that "because since it was one lone comment, it would slip by unnoticed", but there was one other lone comment replying to abad's comment -- also by someone outside that lynch-mob-cum-high-school-clique, the Rabbit Pack.  Namely, some relatively new commenter at Jihad Watch, one "Lanya LaPunta". 

I guess that I am just one confused soul, that just doesn’t “get it”. We are at war with mohammedans. When, in history, did any nation send enemy combatants back to their homeland, during the time of war?
Are they (mohammedans) wearing civilian clothing? Does that not, under the rules of war, make them enemy spies?
Is not the penalty for spies, during time of war, execution?
Someone, please explain all of this “deport” talk.

I'm glad someone in that arid desert of Planet Jihad Watch is asking these questions at all, but Lanya's way of framing them is problematic.

First off, that last sentence -- "Someone, please explain all of this "deport" talk."  Unless her English is somewhat rusty, there hasn't been "all of this deport talk" on Jihad Watch coments.  It's been quite the opposite in fact -- a veritable desert of Not Talking About (Total) Deportation.  As far as I know -- and I have read and commented on Jihad Watch for years -- I was the only person ever to bring it up, and because I did it persistently often in an in-your-face way, I was routinely pestered, mocked, and attacked by Angemon and Philip Jihadski (both of them calling me a Nazi, among many other insults, while the other members of the Rabbit Pack usually ignored these attacks on me, and if I brought them up, they would then notice, and attack me, not reprove their colleagues).  Occasionally, that stolid, stuffy gentleman of the Rabbit Pack, Wellington, would weigh in with his defense of the Box he's in about this subject ("You can't deport citizens" etc.), about which I've devoted a few essays here on my blog.

Secondly, Lanya's first question --  When, in history, did any nation send enemy combatants back to their homeland, during the time of war? -- sets the stage for the fallacy of Fighting This War Like the Last War.  The Mohammedan war against us is unique in many ways.  It would be a strategic mistake for us to insist that we have to apply maxims & axioms from other wars to this one.  The West must be flexibly casuistic as we go through the long, complex process of Waking Up.  One of the unique features of the Mohammedan war is that there is no essential difference between enemy combatants and civilians -- either for them, or for us.  Lanya goes on to flesh out her question:

Are they (mohammedans) wearing civilian clothing? Does that not, under the rules of war, make them enemy spies?

Well, yes and no.  Yes, it effectively makes, of all Muslims who seem to be non-combatants, enemy spies.  But we mustn't fall into the trap of the Box again, and assume that "spy" and "espionage" with Muslims must mean the exact same thing it does in our experience with our previous wars.  Lanya's Box Logic goes from A to B to C:  "Wait a second, in previous wars, we have dealt with spies not by deporting them, but by executing them.  So if they are spies, why don't we just execute them?  What is all this Deport talk?  It's hurting my head!"

Either Lanya is perfectly content with the West rounding up all its Muslims and executing them, or she is maneuvering her rhetorical questions to have the effect of undermining Deportation on the same grounds as one would logically and morally (if not perhaps also pragmatically) reject Mass Executions.  At any rate, we need to apply casuistry (approaching the problem on a case-by-case basis) when dealing with this problem.  The Mohammedan War against us is a case to examine, which is a hexagonal peg we examine without insisting it must be forced into a square hole.  In fact, it is a unique peg, for which we have no hole to fit it into.  We must create a new hole that accomodates its unique form & features.  And as we apply casuistry, which puts practical thinking above theoretical thinking, we keep foremost in our mind the pragmatic exigency of protecting our societies from eventual destruction.

The question which the D-Word Demurrers need to think about is this:

Is it possible that total deportation of Muslims will be the only way -- short of genocide -- to protect our societies from eventual destruction at the hands of Mohammedans?

If you say it's not possible, present an argument defending that position.  If you think it's possible, do you then believe we should err on the side of assuming its high probability, on the basis that not doing so would have devastating consequences for our future generations and for the precious civilization our forbears have labored so wonderfully hard to create?

If you don't think we should err on the side of assuming its high probability, present an argument defending that position. 

Rather than entertain these questions, and mull over them, and discuss them, the  D-Word Demurrers prefer to jibber-jabber on the level of their pre-fab axioms from their Box -- when they're not spending most of their time complaining about Islam and the Leftists who enable them.