Friday, April 28, 2017

Still Incoherent After All These Years...

Of Peter Beinart, writing for The Atlantic an article that "claims that conservatives want to restrict the religious freedom of Muslims", Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch accuses him of "spectacularly poor reasoning".  Actually, Beinart is being more coherent than Spencer is.  Spencer is trying to have his cake and eat it too -- his cake of being a Fearless Leader of the Counter-Jihad, whilst eating too his refusal to condemn Islam and to condemn Muslims as agents & enablers of Islam.  Spencer robustly criticizes Islam all day long, 24/7, and has done so for  years, but maintains that he is not thereby opposing Islam or Muslims.

Thus, Spencer's bold rebuke of Beinart:

Beinart should beware, as he commits himself to the proposition that all opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression constitute a desire to restrict Muslims’ religious freedom. Would he, then, agree with attorney Mary Chartier that to prosecute those who mutilate girls’ genitals is restricting Muslims’ religious freedom? That would open the door to a host of other exercises of Muslim religious freedom that Beinart might not find so appealing.

I am sure that many of Spencer's fans disagree with him on this; they know that it would be a good thing for the West to "restrict Muslims' religious freedoms", because they know -- having had Spencer himself as a teacher for the past decade as he has been amassing a mountain taller than Everest of data damning the Islam of all Muslims -- that the religious freedom of Muslims facilitates and enables the dangerous evil of Islam.

Why would any sane person (i.e., any lover of liberty and human rights) not want to restrict the religious freedom of a religion as pernicious and perilous as Islam?

Shame on Spencer for continuing to push his incoherence, and shame on his sycophants society for not calling him on the carpet for it.

Further Reading:

Counter-Jihad Mainstream Gumbo (particularly the links at the end)

You'll Thank Me Later

Monday, April 24, 2017

A laboratory of the Counter-Jihad (Jihad Watch comments)

The main reason I rifle through Jihad Watch comments pretty much on a daily basis is because I believe it affords the reader an insight into the state of the Counter-Jihad (such as it is) -- and, given that Robert Spencer is solidly representative of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, an insight into not only that Mainstream as well, but the relationship between that Mainstream and the broader demographic pool of Counter-Jihad Civilians haling from all over the world.

Rarely when I dip into a Jihad Watch comments field roiling with over 100 comments do I come away encouraged by what I consider to be the most important instinct for the West to cultivate as this 21st century unfolds, imperiled as never before by a revanchist Islam: a sense of zero tolerance for all Muslims. Much more often there is reflected in Jihad Watch comments an incoherent stew of various thoughts and feelings based rather on the diametrical opposite of such a zero tolerance -- indeed, an underlying, indirectly expressed anxiety about avoiding such a zero tolerance, in incoherent tension with a growing sense of horror about the metastasizing Islam of those Muslims one is so anxious to avoid condemning "with a broad brush". This anxiety reflects, in turn, the retention to varying degrees, among the Civilians of the Counter-Jihad, of the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism of the broader Western Mainstream.

Today's lab experiment involved the complex combination of the following chemicals:

1) Islam (specifically, the Islam that Jihad Watch readers should know by now, educated as they have been over the years by Robert Spencer himself, not the various Islams of the confused Western Mainstream)

2) A Muslim apologist communicating inaccuracies (let alone outright falsehoods) about Islam.

3) That Muslim apologist being a young female who seems sincere.

4) That young, seemingly sincere female Muslim apologist being a Nobel Prize winner because, ostensibly, she has been fighting for school education for young female Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

5) The commenters being more or less "in the Counter-Jihad", though a coherent sense of what that means continues to elude us. This being, in fact, the crux of the lab experiment: to see what kind of chemical compound this "Counter-Jihad" is, when combined with the other chemicals listed above.

Test Results:

The results were worthy of a Jerry Lewis movie, I'm afraid. An incoherent mess of chemicals short of a laboratory accident.

The primary chemical in the experiment is the young, seemingly sincere female Muslim apologist Malala Yousafzai -- the famous Poster Child for Well-Meaning Muslims We Westerners Are Obliged to Feel Sorry For and Help Against the Tiny (or, for the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Large) Minority of Extremists Who, In Twisting Their Islam, Are Endangering the Majority of Moderate Muslims Like Her.

Instead of condemning her with rational prejudice as a Muslim we must reasonably assume is doing taqiyya to defend her indefensibly monstrous mainstream Islam, we see various Jihad Watchers, including many who swagger around comments with tough anti-Islam rhetoric, exhibiting an incoherent mess of useless chemicals:

IQ al Rassooli

"Malala is either very STUPID or the usual Muslim DENIAL about their depraved CULT of Muhammad"

Wow. IQ al Rassooli seems incapable of assuming that Malala is knowingly supporting what we know to be an evil, hateful, intolerant, fanatical, and dangerous Islam. Instead, he lurches in the direction of explaining away her Islamopologetics with Stupdity and/or Denial. Perhaps his robustly manly anti-Islam temperment melted into mush when he saw that Malala was a girl.


"I vote denial. And the denial is abetted by every “It’s a religion of peace, and they will kill us if we say otherwise” politician and clergyman out there.

How staunchly anti-Islam of you, Anne.

Next we see the notorious Jihad Watch Softy, mortimer, about whom I've written before. Even these limp-wristed criticisms of Malala by IQ and Anne aren't soft enough for old mortimer:


"Malala is well-meaning. SHE JUST WANTS GIRLS TO GO TO SCHOOL. PLEASE STOP MALIGNING MALALA. Let her blather about Islam. She is clueless about the JIHAD DOCTRINE. Malala doesn’t want to learn what Islam is. Real Islam is inconvenient to Malala’s purpose of getting girls to school."

Along with his anxiously sincere PC MC instincts, mortimer apparently can read minds too -- most importantly the minds of Muslims like Malala.

Next came a brief diamond in the rough, leavened by the salt of the earth, sarcasm:

Jack Diamond

"She meant well donating her prize money to Hamas (UNRWA)."

The next commenter, Waltg, then goes into greater detail about this, but has to equivocate, suspended in agnosticism:


"There is always the possibility that she knows full well that she’s spouting unadulterated B.S., but she engages in taqiyya….permitted deceit (lying) to advance the cause of Islam. Or….she could be blinding herself from the truth…which, if she was to face it head-on would require her to reject Islam entirely…if she possesses any integrity. Regardless….untruths like those she’s propogating should always be challenged."

On one important level, there is no "regardless" to the matter: the mealy-mouthed "ifs" buttressed by the "shoulding" and "coulding" and "woulding" which pepper Waltg's argumentation effectively reduce to a quivering mass of equivocating jello what should be a boldly no-nonsense intolerance we should be cultivating, based on a rational prejudice against all Muslims.

Next, Carolyn types out what seems to be yet another potent condemnation -- effectively ruined by her penultimate sentence:


"Could anyone tell me one thing this girl did to help girls in the Muslim world go to school other than say it? She went to her father’s girls school, got shot in the head, was taken to England to get the best medical care, which is not available in barbarian Pakistan and is now living on donations and guarded every minute of the day. She is very fortunate that those people whom Islam wishes dead were available to take care of her.

The Nobel Prize has become a joke. It was given to Jimmy Carter as, so one of the judges said, a “Kick in the knee” to the US. Obama got it for things he might have done in the future but he accomplished nothing except damage to this country. This silly girl got it because she was shot. BTW stating the truth is not maligning anyone,."

By insulting Malala as a "silly girl", Carolyn effectively lets all the air out of her Counter-Jihad tires. A Mohammedan fanatic who is doing Jihad of the Tongue aided by a global megaphone of all the mainstream media backed up by and the United Nations and her Nobel Prize, is hardly merely "silly". And haven't the namby-pamby Jihad Watchers ever wondered why virtually the entire Western Mainstream, besotted as it is with PC MC, praises Malala and never accuses her of "bigotry" or "hate" or "Islamophobia"?

Once in a while, a typical disappointing Jihad Watch comments thread will have a refreshing surprise, a suddenly bracing gust of fresh air which barely keep me going as I limp across this desert of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream. Thus one "martin" whom I don't know from Adam:


"Get stuffed [martin says to mortimer!] ] she has lied from day one over here. She spits on the help we have given her and lies, lies and lies. A very deceitfull but typical muslim."

Amen, martin!

Wouldn't you know it, along comes "SDN", a softy as bad if not worse than mortimer, who actually thought that IQ al Rassooli was "hating" Muslims:


"I won’t attack her intentions. I’m not in her mind so I won’t make any vote on this. When it comes to Islam if we are to make thoughtful, legitimate criticisms like Robert did we should avoid making malicious anti-Muslim generalizations like yours."

Typically for a Counter-Jihad Softy who blusters about as a Counter-Jihadist, IQ al Rassooli protests:

"I do not generalize since you cannot REFUTE a single one of the adjectives I used about Muslims You are obviously very comfortable with Muslims GENERALIZING their HATRED for every human being who is NOT a Muslim ... Every Muslim is the Eternal and Mortal ENEMY of every Infidel/ Kafir/ non Muslim on Earth"

Now, the reader might think that his IQ's last sentence quoted above seems to exonerate him from the charge of being a Softy, eh? The only problem with that is what he said earlier about Malala, which I quoted up top:

"Malala is either very STUPID or the usual Muslim DENIAL about their depraved CULT of Muhammad"

I call that the "release valve" of the Counter-Jihad Softy Pretending to be Tough about Islam: if innumerable Muslims are "very stupid" or "in denial" they are not then in conscious, willful enmity against us. Logically then, such Muslims (and how many of these are there, and how does IQ know which ones they are distinguished from others?) are only our "mortal enemy" by accident, not on purpose.

IQ is then high-fived by a couple of Jihad Watchers, then along comes another who concludes that Malala must be "stupid", followed by yet another:


"Not very bright.maybe she knows if she tells the truth she’ll be killed."

Yes -- anything but the horrible conclusion that this seemingly sincere, soft-spoken young female actually consciously hates us as Unbelievers due to her Islamic programming. The Stupidity Elf, buttressed by the Timidity Elf for good measure (I refer to Hugh Fitzgerald's "Esdrujula Elves").

Thank Allah, this was followed by another breath of fresh air:

Michael Ray

"Malala is a notable public figure. It is her job to lie for islam. It is her means of jihad."

Amen, Michael Ray!

Of course, mortimer, lurking in the wings, had to swoop in and anxiously correct this waft of a reasonable breeze:


"No… she just wants girls to go school. She knows very little about Islam. She’s trying to make friends of the jihadists, but I believe that’s pointless."

Then, responding to mortimer's asinine retort... what do you know... another breath of fresh air! That makes three so far -- rather amazing, for Jihad Watch comments:


"She’s old enough to read and understand. Are you saying that she’s never read the Qu’ran and Hadiths? As a public advocate for Islam, she must be accountable. She is the perfect victim that allows idiots to believe there are good Muslims and bad ones; Muslims follow Islam which is always evil. Don’t apologize for the apologist."

Amen, StacyGirl!

At this point, a Jihad Watcher I remember from the past, "TheBuffster", had to weigh in to protect Muslims from our rational condemnation:


"I agree that Islam is evil. But it isn’t true that all Muslims follow Islam. If you read a lot of apostate testimonies you’ll find out what a variety of former Muslims believed about their religion when they were Muslim. You’ll find that a lot of people who consider themselves Muslims haven’t read the Koran and know even less of the story of Muhammad’s life. They have a hodge-podge idea of what the religion is about. Some know more than they want to know and engage in a lot of evasion and denial. Now, we could say that a person who follows a set of beliefs that are incompatible with the Koran and the Traditions of Muhammad isn’t really a Muslim in any meaningful sense, but I’m sure a good many such people are counted as officially Muslim when we’re told there are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world."

TheBuffster's argument sounds like a nice theory; only problem is, we don't have the luxury to be speculating on the basis of such a sweepingly generous generalization about untold millions of Muslims. Speaking of ol' Buffster, I recall an exchange I had with her a couple of years ago, when I was rolling up my shirtsleeves and getting embroiled in Jihad Watch comments myself. After she posted (as usual) some anodyne tripe that subtly gave innumerable Muslims a way out from our rational condemnation, I responded (under the nickname "voegelinian"):

"An open mind on general principle is a good thing; but about some things, the more reasonable and prudent thing to do is adopt a closed mind. Example: the prospect of an “Islamic reform” in numbers and influence large enough to solve the problem of Islam.

"There is no evidence for such a reform — only a tissue of hope, benefit of the doubt, Wilsonian vision, and varying degrees of PC MC. With someone like Hirsi Ali, we may reasonably include to the tissue of this pretty scarf we are weaving some psycho-cultural residues of the effects of Islam on her mind. This tissue has no evidence to back it up: it only makes an inductive inference based on the same data we more grimly pessimistic realists use: that bloody, smoking, fiery mountain of data — or rather volcano of data — which the Muslim world keeps churning out; a volcano that is getting worse, not better. Sure, on this same mountain of data there appear verdant slopes of green — multitudes of Muslims Who Just Wanna Have a Sandwich grazing seemingly peacefully, and here and there among them cunning wolves disguised as Moderate Shepherds (e.g., Maajid Nawaz); but is it asking too much that at least this tiny, beleaguered, rag-tag group of people otherwise known as “the Counter-Jihad” adopt a robustly jaded posture with regard to the ostensibly hopeful green slopes, flowers & snow that is supposed to distract us from the bloody, raging, fiery volcano as plain as the noses on our faces?"

And I note that I appended a P.S. to my comment:

"I.e., there is no need to read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book in order to conclude that she is dead wrong about Islamic reform. The Counter-Jihad should adopt as a matter of principle carved in stone that an Islamic reform is not only impossible, it is an idea actually indirectly enabling the stealth jihad."

Back to the regressive present.

Next comment, Don Foss, moves in to add some more protective layering to poor little Malala:

Don Foss

"I almost always agree with you, Mortimer. I watched two documentaries on Malala. Close to 2 hours total. Never saw her once pray or get into the qur’an... Only in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize did she mention Islam and Muhammad, and I got the strong impression people got to her and used her as a tool to try to ease the kuffars worries and concerns about Islamic doctrine. As far as her comment, I believe she is only being used as a tool by outside Islamic organizations."

To this wild (and generous) speculation, our old friend gravenimage chimes in:


"Even nominal Muslims feel the need to whitewash Islam for the Infidels. We see this all the time."

What are "nomimal Muslims"? And even if we could define them coherently, how would we know which Muslims are actually "nominal" and which ones are only pretending to be "nominal"? It's 2017, and a veteran Counter-Jihadist like gravenimage is still using a term like "nominal Muslims" with a straight face, not realizing it is no less ridiculous than "moderate Muslim"?

Moving on: Even a seemingly strong comment like this one from "ermom" is way too generous:


"TAQIYYA, Malala. Shame on you. The cognitive dissonance this abused young woman exhibits is amazing."

We reasonably assume that ermom is finding it necessary to inject cognitive dissonance and "shame" there because she can't compute how a young seemingly nice and sincere female could possibly be a conscious, sincere supporter of evil Islam.

Next up, the ill-named "RationalVoice" pipes up with a load of pap worthy of the PC MC mainstream:


"Malala is a good person, I can sense that, but she would be, even if she had no religion at all. She is one Muslim I would be happy for her to live in the UK as long as she likes but Malala come on this site and explain to us the terrible hate filled instructions in the Qur’an and the other Islamic texts which are so shocking to non Muslims throughout the World."

Then we have Westman:


"I hope Malala has a security detail to protect her from the Muslim “brothers”. Her innocent ignorance speaks well for her character yet places her at risk."



"I don’t doubt that sweet little Malala actually believes everything she says. But as the article points out, she is just plain wrong."



"She is young. She doesn’t realize the truth."

Actually, she's 20 years old.

Then another momentary waft of fresh air:


"Ma-La-La-Land disinformation for Useful Idiots."

Amen, Peter! Then, alas, the room gets stuffy again:

Guy Macher

"A silly young woman, surrounded by sycophants... why do Western leaders listen to this ignorant and stupid Muslima?"

By emphasizing her supposed "silliness" and "ignorance" and "stupidity" one is effectively evacuating any positive ideological content motivating her to be doing her Jihad of the Tongue. Way to go, Counter-Jihad Mainstream...

Then from the "oh good grief" department:


"Malala looks kind of kind, but gosh she is stupid. Muhammad never advised his followers to “go around killing people… Sounds like she has never read the quran. Claiming then to be a true muslim is ludicrous."

(And Ren got an "exactly", no less, from another commenter...)


"Malala is not a bad person, merely delusional."

Then, the same commenter who exactlied Ren above followed up with something that would seem to contradict that softness (these Counter-Jihad Softies do it all the time; they seem to have a state of mind of constant cognitive dissonance, vacillating from no-nonsense toughness to wishy-washy incoherence, created by the tension between their growing horror of Islam and their persisting fear of condemning all Muslims):

Asma Sultana

"Another moderate Muslim! Taking opportunity from the world and playing the victim card as all the Muslims are doing. I was sympathetic to her, but no more. She is old and educated enough to fathom the truth, to know Islam her own religion. It took me only 13 years to feel disgusted about Islam. ... Malala: if you know how to read, then read Quran once again before you open your mouth! I feel pity for you now!"

A clue into Asma's softness may be that she herself is an ex-Muslim (and so too, I believe, is the aforementioned Jihad Watcher, "IQ Al-Rassooli"); I've found many of them suffer from a peculiar subcategory of the asymptotic condition (a rather detailed glimpse of one episode of my experiences with them may be gleaned from my participation back in 2009 in a discussion forum revolving around the CEMB -- the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain; the reader will readily see how those Muslims have no problem robustly attacking Islam per se, but suddenly get very testy and gingerly when the focus goes to the Muslims who are propping up Islam all over the world).

Waltg weighs in again:


"Ultimately….there really is no such thing as an “extremists muslim” or a “moderate muslim”….all there is….is “observant muslims” versus “non-observant muslims”..."

But this is a distinction without a difference. This way to taxonomize Muslims into "observant" and "non-observant" is just another way to do the same thing that the "extremist/moderate" taxonomy does -- only with the supposed advantage that it's avoiding the speciousness of believing in "moderate Muslims". The problem is that it's glossing over our most formidable difficulty: we can't tell the difference, on a macro scale (the only scale that matters to the safety of our civilization in the long run) between any Muslims. Or has the Counter-Jihad suddenly forgotten about the horrendous problem of taqiyya and stealth jihad, and the monstrous fanaticism driving them...???

One good instinct I noticed from gravenimage, when she intervened to correct "Bsrat" who pontificated about Muslims based upon his apparent ability to mind-read millions of them:


"When u get brainwashed from a young age reading the Qur’an in Arabic but never understand the true meaning of what’s been thought and is expected of every follower. Even the scholars don’t agree on the interpretation of what’s written in the Qur’an and to top it off there are authentic and weak narations where does it stop. Malala is no different to all the Muslims and others who like to pass islam as a religion of peace, Muhammad is the perfect example when he raped a 9 year old.surely nothinh good can come out of this kind of person. Islam is just a borrowed religion and based on Arabic culture."


"Bsrat, most Muslims understand all too well what their foul creed demands. That’s why so many Muslims support Jihad."

However, when in the next breath, someone named "Val" went further with nonsense about Malala, gravenimage's response was not as bracing a splash of informed cold water as it could have been:


"I feel sorry for Malala. Such a confused person. She is correct to pursue an education but not in a satanic madrassa where she was apparently brainwashed in the past. I hope that she will study Muhammad’s behavior intensively for the rest of her life. No need to even read any of Muhammad’s meaningless utterances. Muhammad’s behavior will inform Malala as to who Muhammad was a messenger from."


"Her father’s school is pretty secular–by Pakistani standards, at least…"

At this point, three Jihad Watchers -- Demsci, Jack Diamond, and Waltg -- embark upon a lengthy and complex discussion of the heart of the matter. However, even their robust tackling of the issue with supposedly PC MC blinders off curiously avoids the elementary solution of zero tolerance against all Muslims, and reflecting this, they studiously avoid the problem of how ostensibly, the vast majority of Muslims in the West are not doing anything bad or illegal. The problem of Muslims in general (in the West and anywhere in the world) is known by inference, after digesting a mountain of data and connecting an ocean of dots. But robust, no-nonsense Jihad Watch Softies ignore that and talk as though they can leap over that problem. And it is Demsci's anxious concern which apparently reveals why this is so -- his concern, namely that the West develop at some point (hopefully soon, but of course, unlikely given the general saturation of PC MC throughout the West) his solution to what he thinks the problem of Islam is:


"[The Koran is] a recipe for disaster, in this case, of one religion only, Islam, and not of any other religion. And clinging to this disastrous religion in a democratic nation, THAT is what we must hold Muslims accountable for. But only in a mild way, so as to get a majority in parliament to do at least this much."

Of course, Demsci puts it in terms of trying to persuade our PC MC majority to begin doing something substantive against the danger; but his advice founders on two accounts: 1) the PC MC majority's main objection is to institute any measures that would effectively punish what they consider to the vast majority of harmless, innocent Muslims, and they would be able to see through Demsci's attempt to be partially lenient on those Muslims. More importantly 2) we have no way to distinguish between harmless and dangerous Muslims on the macro scale, and the only way out of that is to drastically reduce (if not totally deport) the population of indigenous Muslims in the West, and enforce that.

Et cetera.

To recap: Malala said:

“The Prophet never advised his followers to “be impatient and go around killing people.”

[Incidentally, note the bit of kitman there -- the "be impatient" part -- to which one could judiciously add that yes, Muhammad also advised his followers to be judicious about their jihad; i.e., to be deceitful and feign patience, in order to better destroy an enemy currently stronger than Islam.]

Moral of the Story:

The proper lab test results should have been, not over 100 comments of Counter-Jihad civilians wringing their hands, scratching their heads and trying to find ways to absolve Malala, but rather one comment: "Ho hum, another lying Muslim."

Followed by 30 or so comments simply saying "Yup".

Or if some of them wanted to add some useful information about why we should never trust any Muslim and why this means they all need to be deported from the West (and there is looming right over their left shoulder a veritable mountain range of data they could choose from to bolster such a position), preface it by "I don't really need to add this information, but for the benefit of those strange, and strangely common, Westerners who remain stuck at various stages of uncertainty & denial about just how monstrously bad the problem of Islam is..."

The dismaying thing is that apparently, many if not most "in the Counter-Jihad" are those strangely common Westerners.

The fact that the "lab experiment" failed (and it fails nearly every day, in one way or another, over at Jihad Watch), shows how far the Counter-Jihad baseline is from where it should be. It's 2017 for God's sake. Will the counter-Jihad be futzing around like this in 2027? 2037? 2057? 2077? 2100? Apparently most of them don't see this as a problem, because for them, the survival of the West is not at stake, because that survival for them is not connected to the exigency of a zero tolerance against all Muslims.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

When did PC MC begin? A dispiriting note.

Years ago on this blog, I embarked upon a series, When did PC MC begin?  Readers who consult the Google page of search results will find several installments (or "case studies"), along with other essays that look at the phenomenon from different angles.

One theme of that series was my disheartening discovery that PC MC, historically, is not as recent as I thought (the usual starting point we surmise is those dastardly Sixties).  One can even find vestiges, sometimes quite robust, as far back as the 19th or 18th centuries (and even back to the 16th century, with the French statesman and philosopher, Michel de Montaigne).  As a consequence of this discovery, I tentatively concluded that the difference among eras & epochs is not the existence of PC MC at all, but rather their sociopolitical dominance or lack thereof.

Today I note only one example, pre-1960s:  The historian J. Spencer Trimingham, whose area of expertise was the history of Islam in Africa.  Born in 1904 and died in 1987, while his life overlaps the advent of the sociopolitical dominance of PC MC in the West, his generation's provenance, it is fair to say, predates that dominance (his seminal works, The History of Islam in Africa (1962) and The Influence of Islam upon Africa (1968) were published in the 60s, but evidently expressed the fruit of research in the 50s and before).

At any rate, here is a dispiriting (but utterly unsurprising) quote from Trimingham, from the latter mentioned book:

Islam in contact with the Africans is characterized by a series of gradations which act as insulators passing on Islamic radiation gradually to animist societies... Islam thus does no violent uprooting but offers immediate values without displacement of the old [pp. 41-42].

(quoted by the Jewish historian of Islam, Nehemiah Levtzion (1935-2003), himself apparently also PC MC in the self-hating Jew subcategory).

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Over five years ago, I hammered this comment out on my beleaguered keyboard, after reading yet another report on Jihad Watch about yet another Mohammedan atrocity:

Okay, that's it. I'm done. I'm toast.

This particular datum about Muslims, sitting here atop the veritable mountain that is Jihad Watch reporting just part of the grotesquely ghoulish ultra-violent psychotically fanatical Satanically deranged data about Muslims around the world -- this particular datum here is the last straw.

I am no longer going to tolerate anti-jihad people who show the slightest signs of tolerance for Muslims.

Of course, that hasn't stopped the majority of civilians of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream to continue merrily on in their hypocritical incoherence, affecting to be oh so anti-Islam meanwhile telegraphing in various ways a perilous leniency for Muslims in general.

I.e., it's not my fault that my stance, on my knees in the sand before the Liberty Spikes cast adrift from our collective Western Ship of Fools as so much seawrack on the shore of this Planet of the Apes, has passed over from a tragicomedy to the third act of some Kafkaesque, off-off-Broadway-at-the-Y Ionesco play.

Monday, April 17, 2017

Anne Marie Waters botches the "A meme"

The "A meme" is the "All" word -- specifically referring to all Muslims.

In a recent video published on Jihad Watch through the medium of the egregiously soft Jamie Glazov, Waters appropriately points out that when we try to educate our fellow Westerners more or less deformed by PC MC (whom she calls "Useful Infidels") about Islam, their common retort is "well, not all Muslims do that!"

However, Waters shows that she doesn't understand why this retort is so common, and she thereby shows a lack of comprehension for how to deal with it in discussions and/or debates with such Useful Infidels.

What Waters doesn't seem to grasp is that the reason why these Useful Infidels are so concerned about "all" Muslims is that, if the West were to begin to respond appropriately to all the evil and dangerous behaviors Muslims have been perpetrating in the West -- even granted that it is not "all" Muslims doing this (even only a minority among them) -- our responses would in many ways be unable to avoid impinging upon most, if not all Muslims, and most of these Muslims who would be affected by our rational policies to keep our societies safe from Islam would be Muslims who have no ostensible connection to any overt behaviors making us unsafe.

I.e., a rational policy by the West to help make it safe from Islam would necessarily entail all Muslims.  Only someone who hasn't digested the full horror of the mountains of data about Islam and about Muslims (including the devastating phenomenon of taqiyya) would disagree.

Waters, and the entire Counter-Jihad Mainstream, never address that aspect of the problem.  And so they, and the broader Mainstream, will continue talking past each other, never really connecting about what they actually disagree about.

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Another Smiling Muslim

And another reason why Robert Spencer is wrong when he protests that he is "not anti-Islam" and "not anti-Muslim".

And another reason why his adoring fans are wrong for being so incoherently timid about bringing this issue up into the light of reasonable discussion.

Anywho, here's another Smiling Muslim to add to my list of "Smiling Faces".

Image result for ali al osaimi
Ali Alosaimi -- a Muslim Naval officer of the UK who one day decided to join the monstrously evil Islamic regime of ISIS.

Friday, April 14, 2017

The Flat Earth myth--a modern anti-Christian myth

Jeffrey Burton Russell is an American historian who has written interesting books on the history of religion.  Years ago, I read his trilogy on the history of symbolisms of evil, surveying ancient pre-Christian times, the time of early Christianity, the Patristic period, and the medieval and early modern eras, a thought-provoking exercise in comparative religion, tracing the cross-currents between Persian and Greek mythology with reference to such symbolisms as evil, hell, demons, and the devil, and how they eventually influenced the Israelite and then Christian mythologoumena.

More recently, I note that he has written a book in the academic genre of what may be known as the "history of ideas" about the myth of the Flat Earth -- specifically, the myth that nearly everyone in the Middle Ages and in the ancient world (before they grew up to be wise Modern Men like us) believed the earth is flat.

In a review & discussion with Russell about his book, The Myth of the Flat Earth, Russell notes how modern historiography is not immune from spin and skew:

Contortions that are common today, if not widely recognized, are produced by the incessant attacks on Christianity and religion in general by secular writers during the past century and a half, attacks that are largely responsible for the academic and journalistic sneers at Christianity today.

A curious example of this mistreatment of the past for the purpose of slandering Christians is a widespread historical error, an error that the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat--especially medieval Christians.

And getting to the heart of the matter of his book, Russell goes on to note:

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. [bold emphasis in the original]


Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.

And this:

Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error. Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense. 

He couldn't have put it more emphatically:

No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

Russell then asks the obvious question:

How and why did this nonsense emerge?

At this point, I could ask the reader whether this sounds a bit familiar.  Like, oh, the modern Western Myth of the Moderate Muslim purveyed throughout the Western Mainstream, and the closely related Myth of a Peaceful Islam (which, moreover, pioneered Science and invented Everything Good while the West was sunk in the Dark Ages).

At any rate, the specific nonsense Russell is referring to, he traces to the 19th century -- to a French academic, Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), and an American, the famous novelist, Washington Irving (1783-1859).

This specific nonsense Russell has documented and exposed is just one of the perhaps thousands of facets of the much broader and deeper mass neurosis of a civilization curiously indulging in a self-criticism taken to irrational, morbid excess.

Why is why the West currently continues to defend, rather than condemn, as it should, Islam and all Muslims.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Counter-Jihad Mainstream Gumbo,h_416,c_fit,fl_progressive,q_95/v1/img/recipes/21/45/87/6ByDW9jRESiaAjtzRj8V_gumbo-6.jpg

All the ingredients are there on display, in a recent Jihad Watch report, for a Counter-Jihad Mainstream gumbo:

Robert Spencer, the éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, out gettin' it done, this breathless week in his successful and lucrative Counter-Jihad career slated to give a lecture at a venue in the broader Western Mainstream, a public university in Missouri, United States (Truman State University).

Various PC MCs at that public university getting wind of this, and fomenting a campaign of trying to prevent Spencer from speaking there, in order to protect our Muslim brothers and sisters from the ugly and demagogic "hatred" and "racism" that would surely result from Spencer's lecture, since after all, he is anti-Islam and anti-Muslim.

Next ingredient, after the demonizing shrimp, is the garnish: Spencer predictably protesting that he is "not anti-Muslim" (as he has done in the past, along with his equally inane protestation that he is "not anti-Islam").

Final ingredients: an incoherent stir-fry of over 70 comments laced with Jihad Watch sycophancy for their Unquestionable Leader, ignoring the central garnish while adding in the corn and minced onion of seemingly robust anti-Islam chili powder (yet rather mild to the palate, given its timidity about condemning all Muslims), 

Further Reading:

Q... but no A today...

...damned if you don't...

Who's Watching the Jihad Watchers...?

And if any reader wonders what I mean by "the Counter-Jihad Mainstream", he may take a gander at any one or more of the following essays I've published previously here on the subject.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Sisi, ISIS: The dyslexic counter-jihad

Naturally, I've seen many comments and remarks over the years within the Counter-Jihad Mainstream indicating that they actually believe a Muslim can be a Muslim all his life, and hail from a thoroughly Muslim country teeming with Islamic extremism (i.e., teeming with normal, baseline, mainstream Islam), and yet somehow be a "moderate".

All a Muslim has to do, apparently, is say the right things -- whisper sweet taqiyya in our ears -- and we gush like a schoolgirl and accept them at their word.  This process of deception -- and gullibility -- of course is far worse in the broader Western Mainstream, besotted as it is with PC MC; but my point is that it still occurs all too often, in various ways, even within the Counter-Jihad.  Which is why I call it the "Counter-Jihad Mainstream".

So, along came Egyptian military man and politician, Al-Sisi, in the wake of the "Arab Spring" turmoil in Egypt, ousting and replacing the Bad Cop Egyptian Leader, Morsi; and because Al-Sisi knows how to up the game to fool the warier in the West who are beginning to weary of the standard-issue Good Cop routine so many Muslims still deploy, many in the Counter-Jihad swooned.  I've seen disturbing signs that, for example, someone in the Counter-Jihad as bright even as Stephen Coughlin will turn around and talk as though he actually trusts Al-Sisi to be telling the truth, rather than taqiyya, when he affects moderation and feels our pain about "Islamist extremism".  Meanwhile, Robert Spencer, as usual, dances his dance in between trusting Al-Sisi and being skeptical.

Thus we have a report on Jihad Watch on Al-Sisi vowing to fight the extremists in his country, Egypt, after the horrific terror attacks against two churches occurred this week.  The reliably soft analyst on Spencer's team, Christine Williams, notes:

Sisi has mastered the gift of words, but apparently not action. 

And she proceeds to detail evidence that violence and hatred by Muslims against Christians has continued in Egypt, even under Sisi's rule.  But this should surprise no one, least of all in the Counter-Jihad.  That is, if the rule of thumb in the Counter-Jihad were to "trust no Muslim no matter what", instead of wasting our time searching around for evidence to show that a given Muslim does not deserve our trust.

Virtually the only person in the Counter-Jihad not taken in by Al-Sisi, it seems, is Andrew Bostom.  Four articles he wrote about Al-Sisi indicate that once again, a rational prejudice against Muslims qua Muslims is the way to go.  Merely by linking those articles here and now, I cannot avoid getting sucked into the "logic of vetting" -- which assumes that there is some reliable way to determine whether a given Muslim is, or is not, trustworthy.  My citation of Bostom here is not meant to try to prove Al-Sisi is a lying Muslim (i.e., an ordinary Muslim), since I don't believe one should have to even try to go through that exercise.

All I can hope for, as I continue re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic here, is that readers in the Counter-Jihad will wean themselves away from the baby steps of milk & sugar pablum (i.e., needing evidence to prove a given Muslim is not to be trusted), to a more radical framework: rational prejudice against all Muslims.

Andrew Bostom's four articles on Egyptian General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi:

Al-Sisi’s 2006 Mini-Thesis Obtained by a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act Request (Albeit Some Hours After It Mysteriously Appeared Online at Foreign Policy)

Why Egyptian Putschist General Al-Sisi’s Anti-Secular U.S. Army War College Thesis Matters

Sisi Is Just Another Caliphate-Idealizing Apologist For Islam Whose In-Actions Speak Louder Than His Hollow Words

Taqiyya Theater? General al-Sisi’s August 2013 Wash Post Interview vs. His 2006 US Army War College Thesis 

The reliable analyst, Chris Logan over at Logan's Warning, has also seen through Al-Sisi.  Funny how so many in the Counter-Jihad can't adjust their brains with the simple principle in mind, trust no Muslim, no matter what he says.

Over two years ago, Logan penned a useful essay on the matter.  He begins with an incisive observation, articulating the relevant key to the whole matter:

All it takes is for a Muslim to say something non-Muslims want to hear, and many in the non-Muslim community come running in support. If one of them says Islam does not condone terrorism, or that Islam will reform they are mistakenly paraded around as the “savior” of the free world.

Logan goes on to note certain Muslims who fit this bill; though Logan doesn't seem to have refined the analysis into a taxonomy of types of deceitful Muslim, which I have analyzed at length in several essays revolving around the "Better Cop" phenomenon.  Indeed, one Muslim noted by Logan in that essay is one of the classic Better Cop Muslims par excellence out there -- Zuhdi Jasser.  And again, Logan is one of the precious few in the Counter-Jihad who is not fooled by Jasser.

Logan then turns to Al-Sisi, and notes dismayingly how even Pam Geller (a loyal partner of Robert Spencer's over the years, right up to the present) was suckered by his Better Taqiyya:

Today’s “moderate” Muslim rage is all about the President of Egypt Al Sisi, and I know she has done some excellent work with her transit ads, but of all people Pamela Geller should have known better.

Logan quotes some of her gushing statements about Al-Sisi:

Egypt’s President Sisi: A Titan For Freedom in the Islamic World Calls for Reformation of Islam 

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi gave an extraordinary, groundbreaking speech on Islam on New Year’s day.

And so forth.

Sisi, ISIS; however you spell it, it's all the same.

Sunday, April 09, 2017


I've butted heads many times with a veteran Jihad Watcher, one "Wellington" (example, my 2013 essay, The Wellington/Hesperado Tennis Match and later, my 2016 essay, Apparently, the Constitution is a Suicide Pact...), over the issue of the ultimate existential necessity of deportation of all Muslims from the West.

Wellington's argument concentrates on American law, and centers on the inviolability of natural born citizenship.  I've posted my long and detailed exchanges with Wellington a few times here; though often the links have become broken due, apparently, to Robert Spencer's tech genius, Marc, rendering comments fields to old Jihad Watch articles (I don't know when the cutoff date is) inaccessible.  One then has to spend much time and labor looking up the articles through the "Wayback Machine" archives, which do preserve the comments fields.  Given that comments fields often contain useful and intelligent nuggets of analysis and information about various facets of the problem of Islam (along with much hot air and tripe), Spencer's apparent decision to do this is shortsighted, if not arrogant.

At any rate, while taking a walk through Wayback Lane this morning, I ran into a comment by Wellington that implies clearly that his central concern is not, in fact, the Constitution, but the anxiety not to punish Muslims collectively, with a broad brush.  Concerning the former Moderate Muslim al-Awlaki, whose mask subsequently slipped so egregiously, even Obama felt it necessary to drone him, another Jihad Watch veteran, CGW, noted that al-Awlaki's citizenship was just an "accident of birth".  Wellington then responded:

Actually, CGW, an "accident of birth" did make al-Awlaki an American citizen since he was born on American soil and the 14th Amendment provides that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen of this country. But it's of no matter since the rube effectively declared war on the United States. Whether one is an American citizen (e.g., al-Awlaki) or not (e.g., Adolf Hitler), once that person engages in war upon the US, then he is fair game for termination under the rules of war and the Bill of Rights is effectively no longer operative. I might add that a non-American citizen is covered by the Bill of Rights in criminal and civil matters but, of course, not where it is war the non-citizen is engaged in against the US, just as the American citizen who has decided to wage war on America and acts accordingly is no longer entitled to 5th Amendment due process or anything like this. I'm surprised that any lawyer would aver otherwise.[bold emphasis added]

So now the question becomes (as William Buckley used to say) the question I've been asking the Counter-Jihad Mainstream in several essays over the past year:

What's the difference between an al-Awlaki and any given Muslim?

Are the Softies from the Counter-Jihad Mainstream willing to defend the proposition that any given Muslim -- qua being Muslim and no other datum -- is not beholden to an ideology of sedition against all non-Islamic polities?  That the mainstream Islam of any given Muslim is not in fact predicated upon a trans-national allegiance to the Umma, specifically and grandly based upon a perennial war against the non-Muslim world (either in the mode of hot war, or, when the Muslims happen to be too weak by circumstance, sedition and deceitful infiltration)?  And that, by logical extension, any "citizenship" which a Muslim enjoys anywhere in the West is, in the context of their mainstream Islam, not merely a vehicle for sedition masked by deceitfully false assimilation?

Apparently this is the standpoint of the Softies from the Counter-Jihad Mainstream; though their habit of dancing between denial and incoherence on this matter (when they don't go into attack mode against their interlocutor who would bring up this issue to them) puts off the question from the clear & cogent response it deserves.

What makes it clear to Wellington that al-Awlaki has "effectively declared war on the United States" but that countless other Muslim citizens of the U.S.A., whose Constitutional rights Wellington anxiously wants to protect, are not effecitvely part of that seditious war against us?

Wellington, of course, like all the Counter-Jihad Softies, is granting Muslims the axiomatic generosity which the West has developed as a part of its moral and legal culture: presumed innocent until proven guilty.

There are exceptions for everything; and Islam in this case, as in so many others, breaks the mold.  Given everything we know about Islam (or should know, by now), it would be reckless of us to extend that generosity to Muslims.  And yet, time and time again, either overtly or implicitly, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream upholds the principle of that generosity.

Speaking of morality and law, and defending society from danger, a quote from Thomas Jefferson (cited in that 2011 thread by the aforementioned Jihad Watch commenter CGW) is apposite:

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

Further Reading:


You'll Thank Me Later

Saturday, April 08, 2017

D.U.I. -- Driving Under [the influence of] Islam

“Touch your nose and walk a straight line while reciting the Koran...”

Stockholm, Sweden

St. Petersburg, Russia

London, England

Berlin, Germany

Jerusalem, Israel

Graz, Austria

Vienna, Austria (attempted vehicular slaughter)

Melbourne, Australia

Montreal, Canada

Vancouver, Canada

Ohio State University, United States

Nantes, France

Foggia, Italy

Antwerp, Belgium

Nice, France

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States.

No doubt this is an incomplete list, of places around the world where Muslims have been driven by their Islam to want to slaughter Unbelievers by plowing into crowds of them while driving various types of motor vehicle (and often supplementing this by jumping out of the car afterwards and stabbing bystanders).

Traditionally, we’ve had jihad of the sword and jihad of the pen (and of the mouth, etc.). Now we have a new subtype: Vehicular Jihad. Although motor vehicles are relatively new in history, and decidedly Western (and therefore non-Muslim), their use in jihad may not necessarily be an instance of bid’ah (the “innovation” that is forbidden in Islam), and could be simply an updated version of Koran 8:60:

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy…

The context of Koran 8:60 makes clear (viz., in the preceding verse, 59) that the enemy is the Unbelievers (Arabic: Kuffar).


Molenbeek, Belgium -- Mainstream news services throughout the West trumpeted the charge that a Muslima was run over by a "far right" winger; then it turned out that the perps driving the homicidal car were in fact two Muslims (but of course we know that Muslims never kill other Muslims, right...).

Then we have the mass vehicular carnage in Las Vegas in 2015, where the mainstream news media, as usual, is not doing its job of ascertaining whether Islam was the motive there (see this Google page for implications that the driver was a Muslima).

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

The Counter-Jihad Trickle

I've spoken of the "Counter-Jihad Mainstream", that broad quasi-movement of people out there gettin' it done -- writing books, attending seminars & colloquia, participating in various activist events and demonstrations, debating Muslims and/or Islamopologists, being interviewed on each other's Internet radio and/or video shows, presiding over popular blogs, getting invited to brief police and intelligence groups...  have I left out anything?

Gettin' it done.  But what exactly is this "it" they're gettin' done?

Therein lies the rub.  I won't go into details at length about this now, since I've written about it many times before (see this Google page for a few of my previous essays).  In a nutshell, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream pursues a soft approach to the problem of Islam -- chiefly by ignoring (when not positively softening) the crucial corollary problem: the problem of all Muslims.

If this is the Mainstream of the Counter-Jihad, what's left over?  Either an eensy minority, or perhaps a Silent Majority, most of whom apparently (if they exist) are too timid to pipe up and make their disagreements known to the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.  And perhaps many of them coast along under the vague hope that if enough incoherent nougat from the Counter-Jihad Mainstream is thrown on the wall of the broader PC MC Mainstream, something will eventually stick.

Anywho, these thoughts were occasioned by a breath of fresh air I suddenly gulped yesterday evening (I almost choked in my surprise), in the form of a blogger who, as far as I can tell, is decidedly and appropriately tough on the issue.  I speak of Chris Logan, who's blog is Logan's Warning (it's been on my blogroll for some time).  I don't read his blog frequently enough, perhaps; but all along I knew he was tough, I just didn't know how tough, and subliminally I dreaded being disappointed, as I have been so many times before by other seemingly tough-talking Counter-Jihadists, by seeing sudden signs of nougaty softness.

My experience last night had its amusing moment:  I noticed his latest piece was a critique of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  So far, so good.  While I used to be a loyal supporter of Ayaan, I've become increasingly dismayed by her calls for Islamic "reform" and her partnering up, practically, with that pseudo-reformer snake Maajid Nawaz of late.  So I settled into Logan's exposé with eager anticipation.  Then midway in my reading, I had an odd experience: It might have been my inattentive reading, or it might have been Logan's typographical layout which was a little confusing, but I found myself reading some lengthy text that struck me as markedly soft.  I paused, leaned back in my chair, and thought: "Good God, even Logan is a Counter-Jihad Softy?   What the hell is going on...!?"

Stuff like this:

The dominant strategy from 9/11 through the present, focusing only on Islamist violence, has failed. In focusing only on acts of violence, we have ignored the ideology that justifies, promotes, celebrates, and encourages violence, and the methods of dawa used to spread that ideology. Without question, certain military operations against jihadist groups could be conducted more effectively. The virtual abandonment of Iraq, the overreliance on air power and drone strikes, the belief that terrorist networks can somehow be decapitated: all of these have been fundamental tactical errors.  

This is typical of Counter-Jihad Softies: they begin by sounding fairly tough, and yet my semi-conscious weariness already picked up, peripherally, fine cracks of nougat, which I was willing to forgive temporarily (the "Islamist" violence), since I already had respect for Logan and wanted to see where he was going with this.  I read on:

Nevertheless, a return to the highly effective counterinsurgency tactics of the Iraq “surge” and its counterpart in Afghanistan, while necessary, cannot be regarded as a sufficient response to the threat we face. Plainly, we cannot continue to fight political Islam by engaging in large-scale foreign military interventions. 

This was my first slap of cold water.  I thought, "Huh??? Logan is commending our disastrous "Surge" policy?  And what's this about "political Islam" -- that Daniel-Pipesian nonsense picked up eagerly by pseudo-reformers Maajid Nawaz and Zuhdi Jasser...?"

I read on:

The American public has not unreasonably lost faith in that approach. So what else can be done?
First, we need a paradigm shift that recognizes how violent jihad is intertwined with the ideological infrastructure of dawa. 

Ah great, I thought -- a new paradigm!  Who doesn't like new paradigms?  Let's continue:

In the old paradigm, we focused on combating Islamic terrorism  In the new paradigm, we must continue to seek the destruction of groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, but we must also
develop a suitable strategy to combat dawa. 

Okay, I thought, dawa is bad, we can all agree on that.  And since dawa is a central part of mainstream Islam, so far so good, I guessed...

This will reopen—if it was ever over—the contentious debate on how to balance civil rights with the need for security. There are trade-offs to be made here, as always. It is clearly fatalistic to suggest, as the Obama administration did, that Americans must learn to live with the terrorist threat and that, on the basis of statistics, Americans are more in danger from their own bathtubs than from Islamist terrorists. The terrorist threat cannot be measured only by the number of successful terrorist attacks. The threat also includes the many attacks that were thwarted by effective security measures and, more importantly, the unknown plots currently being hatched, and the probability that such plots will grow more numerous and more dangerous in the future.

Again, it sounded good, other than that annoying "Islamist" that was beginning to stick in the craw.

Bathtubs do not plot to overthrow the American way of life. The Islamists do. 

Oh brother, there it is again.

Now the next couple of sentences is where I checked out of Motel Counter-Jihad:

It is the job of Congress to find the right balance in the face of this specific threat between our rights and freedoms and a policy package that is effective in combating the threat. Protection of the religious rights of the members of the Muslim minority who are not engaged in Islamist dawa should be an integral part of that package. 

I thought, "What in tarnation...!!!???  Logan is concerned about Muslims who are "not engaged in Islamist dawa"...!!!???  Have I entered the freaking Twilight Zone...!!!???"

After a few moments of doing something else to clear my head, I realized what had happened.  I had mistaken an extended quotation from Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself for Logan's own thoughts on the matter.  What passed for robustly anti-"Islamist" rhetoric -- the mealy-mouthed pablum of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream retailed by Ayaan -- was being rightly condemned by Logan.  Sanity restored.  Thank you, Logan.

Monday, April 03, 2017

What's the difference between a "Muslim" and a "Jihadist"?
Once again, we revisit what will become the most important rhetorical question of the 21st century:

What's the difference between a "Muslim" and a "Jihadist"?

The momentous importance of this question may pivot in either direction: answered incorrectly, with devastating consequences for the eventual survival of Western civilization; or the correct answer, gaining more and more sociopolitical traction over the coming decades, and thereby possibly preventing the aforementioned cataclysm of a Mohammedan ruination of the Occident.

In previous essays, I've addressed this question:

Robert Spencer on the problem of Muslims

Are all Muslims jihadists?

The problem is not Muslims, but only 'jihadis'...?

I was reminded of this again by a Jihad Watch report, whose headline read:

"Convert to Islam who waged jihad for the Islamic State returns to Belgium"

It wasn't so much the headline, but the editorial remark by Robert Spencer that reminded me:

He should not have been allowed to return. He is an enemy combatant. The Islamic State has repeatedly vowed to conquer and subjugate Europe, including Belgium. As soon as Younes Delefortrie joined them, he should have been stripped of his Belgian citizenship.

Spencer can sound so tough and robust, because he's limiting his tough talk to a "jihadist".  The question that needs to be asked is, why does his tough prescription not apply to any and every Muslim in the West?  What makes any given Muslims in the West significantly different from this Belgian convert to Islam?  The fact that, ostensibly, they didn't join ISIS?  Somehow I doubt that any but the most nougaty-soft Jihad Watchers would tolerate such a view, that the problem is only ISIS, not Islam itself. 

Or is the crucial difference that garden-variety Muslims don't ostensibly "wage jihad" on a battlefield (whether literally in far-flung "bloody borders" throughout the Third World, such as Syria/Iraq, Nigeria, Sudan, the Af-Pak region, or the Philippines, or in a more paramilitary way, by running Infidels over in their car in various places in the West, and/or stabbing them, or shooting them, or exploding in one way or another)?  Again, I doubt that most even in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream would want to limit the deadly problem of Jihad to merely the front-line soldiers who perpetrate terror attacks.

So, on what rationale does one significantly distinguish this Belgian convert to Islam, and any given Muslim, such that we would robustly agree with our Fearless Leader, Robert Spencer, that citizenship should be stripped only of the former type, but not also of the latter type?

In yet another recent Jihad Watch report, we run up against the same thing (but of course, neither Spencer nor any of the commenters advert to the most important facet of it).  The headline reads:

"UK: Son of jihadi imam stripped of passport after waging jihad in Syria"

And yet again, like clockwork, Spencer writes:

This should be done with every last person who went to wage jihad in Syria or Iraq. Those jihad groups are at war with Britain. They are enemy combatants.

Again we ask: How do these Muslims who join the jihads du jour in, say, Syria, differ from any Muslim anywhere, whatsoever?  The weary person who has been educating himself on Islam for the past 15 years (at least) -- in great part illuminating himself on its growing horrors by learning from the growing mountain of data Robert Spencer himself has been amassing -- knows by now that the only difference is the superficially chatoyant mirage of false moderation and taqiyya deception. 

If the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, that small but growing nucleus of the West educating itself about Islam, doesn't engage this question head-on and discuss it openly, intelligently, and thoroughly, the West will never get around to readjusting its blithely perilous course, full steam ahead in its Titanic Ship of Fools, towards the Iceslamberg.

Sunday, April 02, 2017

The Wrong Instincts

Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch wrote recently about a bit of good news out of France -- that the French Jewish scholar Georges Bensoussan was recently absolved of the "crime" of "hate speech" against Muslims. 

All that is fine and dandy, and as usual, the bulk of Hugh's essay is sterling silver -- except for one line where my tooth hit pewter, when Hugh was busy mentioning supporters of Bensoussan:

"...and importantly, from several Arabs, including the Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, who had witnessed the Algerian civil war of the 1990s, and the Algerian journalist Mohamed Sifaoui, who has risked his life both in Algeria and in France denouncing Islamist threats."

First, what's an "Islamist"? and how is that different from a "Muslim"?

Second, why is Hugh calling these two Muslims "Arabs"?  Did he have a flashback to when he was going to college during the Nasser era? 

Third, why is Hugh vamping the résumés of these two Muslims with their experience supposedly confronting "Islamism"?

The reader may wish to revisit one of the two go-to Muslims Hugh relies on -- the Boualem Sansal character, whom I analyzed in my essay, The ponytailed Muslim, with special mention in my other essay, Our Reliance "on" the Traveler.

The other Muslim character Hugh trots out, Mohamed Sifaoui, is even flimsier (though all comparative terms measuring quality of Muslims relative to other Muslims founder on our inability to adjudicate taqiyya). Has Hugh not read about this guy on the French website Riposte Laique...?  Their reports seem to show he's another one of these pseudo-"reformer" Muslims pretending to be against "Islamists" but still defending Islam. I guess he's pretending pretty well, since he fooled Hugh.
One can also find plenty of ammunition (depending on one's level of Islamo-literacy, that is) against Sifaoui on his own website.  In one posting, after Sifaoui has railed against the Riposte Laique for its "racism" in its blanket criticism of Muslims celebrating Ramadan as ipso facto contravening civic duty and helping to drain the system by, among other things, increased visits to the ER from its fanatical fasting regime, he goes on to write:

"You assume that I am reacting against the criticism of the religion [of Islam].  What fools! It is false and dishonest to asseverate such a thing, because I am one of those who has fought in order that dogmas, religions, beliefs, all Gods and all Saints and all Buddhas be open to criticism."

Notice Sifaoui's equivalencism there, implying that criticism of Islam is okay, as long as such criticism is safely corralled together under the common umbrella of an amorphously generalized criticism against "all religions" -- when it is only one religion, Islam, and no other, that is causing the problems in our time warranting criticism (if not, indeed, condemnation).  And this equivalencism is also matched by its gold standard -- in the hackneyed portrayal of the "Palestinian"-Israeli conflict as a problem of a bilateral "cycle of violence", a matter of both sides succumbing to "extremism".  One may glean this from his many posts on Israel, and particularly this one. (This was rather dramatically exposed on Riposte Laique in terms of Sifaoui's "mask coming off", and by other bloggers, including Paul Landau, who wrote on the blog Vu de Jerusalem an article titled, "The anti-Israeli 'coming out' of Mohamed Sifaoui".)

Sifaoui then goes on to level that certain accusation against Riposte Laique which we've come to know all too well in our weariness:

"You agitate just like the Extremists you so readily demonize.

"For you, it's the 'moderate Muslim' -- and elsewhere you write that he doesn't even exist. [You thus imply that] he does not exist unless he leaves Islam and pledges allegiance to your rhetoric of insignificant hotheads."

If what Sifaoui says about Riposte Laique is accurate (and from my reading so far, it is), I like those guys!

Moving on, we find Pascal Hilout, an apostate (i.e., an ex-Muslim), writing of the criticism of Islam in robust, bold terms, in a piece partially addressed to Leftist lesbian critic of Islam Caroline Fourest who demonstrably is, as I would say, a "Counter-Jihad Softy":

"My diagnosis is very simple... the name of the disease is 'Islam' = veneration of the Koran and of Mohammed.  Certainly you might stubbornly insist, Madame Fourest, to have spent a great deal of time denouncing the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, and the Jihadists, among other Muslims afflicted with this filth that is the emulation of the Islamic practices of Mohammed...  Historical facts demonstrate the nullity of your theory and the inanity of your fight: countless dictators, good Muslims, have fought, and still fight in our time against the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, the Jihadists; in Algeria and Egypt, for example. The result: the pathogenic germs are still there, and in our time spreading better than ever. The struggle against "Islamism" is mental masturbation which will generate nothing useful for humanity... It has even be come a religious litany and a political business, which consists in sacrificing those human beings most afflicted with the need to flatter those who are 'moderately' contaminated ..."

Pascal Hilout is among many whom Mohamed Sifaoui has seen fit to attack, for his supposed bigotry and "racism" (and we must reasonably assume, behind those conveniently popular charges, lurks Sifaoui's repulsion at the capital crime Hilout has committed, apostasy).   As Jean Bourdillon put it in a Riposte Laique essay:

"Where does his hatred against people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali come from, and even more so against Pascal Hilout -- who, among other things... have dared to say loud and strong what Mohamed Sifaoui is even incapable of whispering under his breath?"

As we mentioned above, many have taken Sifaoui to task for his mask-slippage with regard to Israel.  Guy Millière writes that Sifaoui --

"...has manifested a mildness in response to the Gaza flotilla, which we know was a flotilla for Hamas, and which had been equipped by the İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri ve İnsani Yardım Vakfı, a "humanitarian" organization with marked ties to diverse Islamist groups."

Moreover, Millière points out that Sifaoui ha s attacked Bat Yeor and Daniel Pipes:

"...and he went so far as to compare Bat Ye'or's work with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Then we have an essay by Guy Beaupin, revealing further disqueting (but supremely unsurprising) things about Hugh Fitzgerald's go-to Muslim, Mohamed Sifaoui:

"Mr. Sifaoui has insisted many times concerning the fundamental difference there is between Islam and Islamism, that they ought not to be confused.

"In one and the same book, the Koran, there are two ways to understand it, one good and one evil.  The Taliban, for example, whose goal is to study the Koran, understand it in an evil way.  Moreover, from it they apply the law, the Sharia, a divine law, of which they show us an Afghanistan, a concrete example.  According to Mr. Sifaoui, in the Koran there is that which is written and that which must be understood."

At this juncture, Guy Beaupin notes, with wryly apposite verve:

"If Mr. Sifaoui rails against those who who have an evil comprehension of Islam, let us note that he fails to take advantage of this occasion to indicate the good passages of the Koran which we apparently have ignored.  It would have been a good teaching moment for him."

We conclude with an observation by Beaupin on Hugh's go-to Muslim, Mohamed Sifaoui, that reflects the gold standard of the "Better Cop" Muslim ("Better" because they go further to appear to be condemning Islam, thus to fool the smarter folks in the Counter-Jihad -- like Hugh):

"As a Muslim, M. Sifaoui has suffered from religious [i.e., "Islamist"] fanaticism; he condemns the fanaticism but not the religion that produces it."

Is that really the kind of Muslim Hugh Fitzgerald wants to hold up as an example of an ally in our common cause?  And behind that rhetorical question and its answer, we surmise that for Hugh, the very fact that he selects useful Muslims like a connoisseur would pick what his flawed monocle takes to be dainty morsels out of a raging pile of shit on fire, indicates how far he is from the epiphany that any Muslim whatsoever, by the mere fact of being Muslim, is forever untrustworthy.

Saturday, April 01, 2017

Foiled terrorism is still terrorism

My essay from last year -- cheekily titled "Taliban, Taliban, tally me banana: Jihad come and me want to go home" -- made the point that we should not merely worry about the successful terror attacks that have happened, but also the countless ones that could have happened, but which were foiled by various intelligence agencies throughout the West.

I was reminded of this by the latest attempt by Muslims to kill us (and yes, I count among "us" the Italians, who are part of the wondrously diverse West which Muslims want to destroy):

The story relayed by Jihad Watch:

"Three Muslims arrested for Islamic State plot to blow up historic Rialto bridge in Venice"

In the story, we learn that:

Venice’s chief prosecutor Adelchi D’Ippolito said the suspects had celebrated the Westminster attack in London which saw Khalid Masood kill four people and injure up to 50 others on March 22.

And also that:

The prosecutor said up to three other Kosovans [Muslim Kosovans, that is] were also under investigation over their ties to those arrested.

And that:

Mr D’Ippolito revealed one of the suspects had said “Considering how many infidels there are in Venice, we could get to heaven right away by putting a bomb on the Rialto bridge”.


The point is that our assessment of the threat of Islamic terrorism should also factor in every foiled plot (and there have been hundreds in the last 15 years throughout the West) as though it had been successful -- since the Muslims who plotted it surely wanted it to succeed.  This magnifies the problem far beyond even what the famous website,, adumbrates in its regular, ghastly litany of Mohammedan terror against us.