Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Update on my "Signs of intelligent life on Planet Jihad Watch" posting

My last posting published yesterday (Signs of intelligent life on Planet Jihad Watch) triggered a comment from a long-time veteran Jihad Watcher who used to go by the name "Philip Jihadski" then more recently "Joe Blow".  Though he commented anonymously, his signature calling-card was his favorite epithet for me, "Donkey" (he's called me many other childish names over the years as well); not to mention his singularly obtuse argumentation and generally belligerent, angrily scowling demeanor.  (For more on him, see my essay from May of 2015, Imbroglio at Jihad Watch comments).

My posting was about one solitary commenter at Jihad Watch ("John A. Marre") who boldly articulated a zero tolerance of all Muslims coupled with an explicit desideratum for deportation of all Muslims.

When I checked just now to see if anyone had in the meantime deigned to respond to him, I saw that "Joe Blow" had copy-pasted half of my posting (leaving out the other half and leaving out my response to him in my comments section here).  I almost fell off my ergonomic chair when I saw that one of the "Rabbit Pack" who goes by the name "Mirren" had actually bothered to respond to John A. Marre.  I have not yet read Mirren's long response.  I will do so presently, and will write my thoughts on it here below.  I'll just say right now that if I had a million dollars right now on my desk, I would bet it all in a New York minute on the likelihood that Mirren's response is compromised by serious flaws (undoubtedly caused by her asymptotic incoherence, a problem common in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, of which the Rabbit Pack members are deeply conformist enablers).

So let's examine it now, shall we?

John A. Marre says :
”Yes, that’s it, and I want all Muslims kicked out of this country! Enough! I’ve had it! This is too much! Every last one of them out of here! I don’t care where they go! Get out!
And the enabler in chief out along with them! I don’t care where he goes! Send him to Kenya!”

**How** I agree with you. Unfortunately, before we can bring about this ”consummation devoutly to be wished”, we first have to 1) Make islam a foul ideology, even more than the KKK, so that adherence to this vile and evil religion is something any decent person is ashamed of...

Okay, let's examine this.  The clear implication here is that we need to convince Muslims that their own Islam is "vile and evil" (that would be the most logical implication of Mirren's phrase "so that adherence to [Islam] is something any decent person is ashamed of").  The two words "adherence to" and "ashamed of" are curious locutions if Mirren meant to denote non-Muslim Westerners.  What has a non-Muslim Westerner to be "ashamed of" about Islam?

At any rate, this reflects one of the most elementary flaws rather common in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM) -- this notion that somehow the solution to the problem of Islam will happen as a consequence of our efforts to (supposedly successfully) change Muslim minds.  This notion comes in many flavors; perhaps the most common being Christians who dream of converting Muslim en masse, and second to that, CJMers who think that our modern Western secular ways will eventually rub off on Muslims.  This in turn reflects a woefully inadequate grasp of just how broad and deep the fanaticism of Islam runs in Mohammedan culture and psychology.  For it to be even remotely feasible, a critical mass of Muslim minds would have to be changed; and what numbers would this entail?  At least 700 million (approximately 3/4 of the total population of world Muslims). 

The other part of Mirren's statement excerpted above contains the meme of a proper sequence -- essentially, "Okay, deportation would be great; but FIRST we have to do X, Y and Z..."  I don't know why Mirren sees fit to talk down to John A. Marre as though he's a little child who doesn't know the screamingly obvious and elementary proposition that the Western Mainstream needs to go through a change in learning curve before it can get around to seriously considering, then implementing, deportation.

Let us continue:

2) In order to do *this*, we have to keep pushing under the noses of everyone who keeps whining, ”but not all muslims do this”, the facts of islam and jihad.

Well, of course the prevailing reflex throughout the West (that "not all Muslims" support the jihad against us) needs to be changed; however merely confronting them with the facts of Islam and jihad is evidently not enough -- because no matter how persistently we hammer home these facts, the typical Westerner in Denial always has an escape valve that exempts vast, amorphous swaths of Muslims from their alarm.  The resilience of this escape valve I have analyzed dozens of times over the years (and hammered home myself in various Jihad Watch comments, usually attacked for it by the Rabbit Pack of which Mirren is a solid member).

To overcome this prevailing resistance to the idea that all Muslims support the jihad against us, we need a better strategy than just telling people the facts of Islam and jihad.  We've been doing that for 15 years, and the Denial seems as great as ever.  We need to stop framing the problem as a "problem of Islam" and approach it from the other end -- as a problem of Muslims.  (Thus, one of my dozens of essays, calling for a paradigm shift in strategy; or another discussing the "Two Islams meme".)  And one of the most important facets of this latter problem is the wide variety of styles of jihad which, once the person becomes better educated in the facts about these styles, shows that even the smiling Muslim in Western garb who seems wonderfully assimilated is doing their own jihad as an adjunct to the more conspicuous jihad-of-the-sword.

Let us continue:

Considering the number of jihad attacks in Europe, over the past few days, one would think this wouldn’t be such a difficult exercise...

Once again we see reflected in this sentence of Mirren's the outdated paradigm of the CJM.  Apparently, CJMers like Mirren haven't given this much thought, and don't care to read the analyses of those who have.  For not only does the violent style of jihad (only one arrow in the diverse quiver of Islamic jihad) not have the effect of waking up the Western Mainstream; it perversely and paradoxically -- but logically -- seems to have the opposite effect.  There is a logic to this prevailing PC MC inertia about the problem.  One mechanism of that logic works thusly:  Whenever some Muslims engage in violence, the typical Westerner whose heart & mind have been deformed by PC MC considers this to be a contrast to the vast majority of Muslims who just wanna have a sandwich (in the immortally asinine words of Ben Affleck) or are "decent moms and pops like the rest of us" (in the immortally asinine words of former President Bush).  The violent jihad actually reinforces the sense that "not all Muslims are like this".

And why it does this is a complex bundle of factors, which I have analyzed many times.  It's difficult to summarize succinctly, but relevant factors include a) a semi-conscious and growing fear & alarm at Muslims; and b) a deeply held and powerfully reflexive fear of being "bigoted" or "racist" (where the sneer quotes indicate a hyperventilating and irrational distortion of actual bigotry and racism, which all good men and women should indeed eschew).  The thoughtful reader will note that (a) + (b) implies a paradox.  Perhaps like all psychological paradoxes, it sets up an uncomfortable tension that exerts a force leading to a need to resolve in one of two ways -- here being either the victory of (a) over (b) or vice versa.  So far, it seems massively evident that (b) is holding sway in the hearts & minds of the majority of Westerners.  This psychological tendency has subtle twists to its main paradox. For example, what I denoted as (a) above -- the growing fear & alarm at Muslims, which remains semi-conscious, below the threshold of conscious consideration -- actually has the odd function of reinforcing the denial, by making them anxiously indulge in the wishful thinking that "not all Muslims are like this".  This can even take more grotesque forms, where a Sam Harris or an Ayaan Hirsi Ali or a Douglas Murry -- all intelligent analysts of the CJM -- actually seek out the trust & cooperation of "reformist" Muslims and believe their hogwash (or camelwash) about how "most Muslims are not extremist Salafists".  Sam Harris couldn't be clearer in his new resolve -- after collaborating with the oily snake-oil salesman Maajid Nawaz -- that in order to solve the problem of Islam, we need to embrace the majority of Muslims who are supposedly benign and solicit their help in defeating the supposed small minority of "extremist Islamists".

Other important factors include the ostensible fact that most Muslims are not engaging in violent jihad nor are overtly communicating support for it and its ultimate goal (our subjugation).

This phenomenon, as I mentioned above, should be the main focus of the Counter-Jihad's main function (to wake up the West).  We need to educate our fellow Westerners not about how about "Salafist" Islam is; but how the seemingly innocuous, ordinary and mainstream Islam of the vast majority of seemingly benign Muslims is the same Islam that, for example, ISIS is spearheading.  And the bulk of this education would in turn focus on the diversity of styles of jihad, the phenomenon of the False Moderate, and on the prevalence and function of taqiyya.

Let us continue...

...3) As much as I would *love* to kick out all muslims from the West, it’s not, unfortunately, as simple as that. We, in the West, have evolved deep and complex ideas about human rights, tolerance, etc, etc. It is entrenched in our laws, and our society. We just have never, in living memory, come across a religion that spits on all this, in fact, comes right out and says our beliefs and mores are something to be destroyed. Who was it who said, if we refuse to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it ?

Well, um, yeah.  So what?  Why should this obvious truism be stipulated (with a "3)" no less), as though it's some kind of objection to John A. Marre's intelligently passionate desideratum?  Unless this desideratum catches fire and becomes thought and discussed in wider and wider circles, it will never have the sociopolitical effect of changing minds over time.  So why is Mirren throwing cold water on it by pointing out how far the West is from thinking and discussing it?  We all know that -- hence the point about pushing the meme more and more.  Mirren seems to be confusing the expression of that meme with somebody advocating a policy paper on Deportation for next Thursday afternoon.  This is a common confusion in the CJM, I've noticed.

Let us continue...

...4) In order to deport all muslims from the West we are going to have to (i) change our laws...

Nobody has persuaded me of this extremely common opinion in the CJM.  I maintain that our existing laws are perfectly capable of accommodating the implementation of total deportation.  Here's a simple thought experiment:  Imagine that tomorrow morning, all the West had incontrovertible proof that all Muslims support the jihad against us and are, in myriad ways, waging that jihad.  Would any Western country at that point hesitate to either a) incarcerate its Muslims in camps or b) deport them?  Had the internment of Japanese-Americans by the U.S. under President Roosevelt never happened, the typical CJMer would balk at the notion of interning American citizens in camps for the purpose of our safety, and would argue exactly as Mirren has, solemnly claiming (but offering no evidence to back it up) that we would first have to "change our laws".  As I have argued dozens of times over the years (here and in Jihad Watch comments), Western nations, including America, routinely do things that on the surface appear to be a violation of the constitutional rights of various individuals (and hence would be deemed "illegal").  Another thought experiment:  Imagine a sniper or several snipers (it's unclear) are on various high places around a dense city center, shooting people at random.  47 people have already been murdered, including children, on the city streets below.  Police and FBI, on the scene, haven't figured out the number of snipers, nor their exact location.  Does anyone think that in that circumstance, the police and FBI won't do things that on the surface resemble actions that, absent that dire context, would be deemed to be "against the consitution"?  So, law enforcement personnel would bang down doors without a warrant, commandeer offices and apartments without a warrant within the ambit of the ongoing carnage, block free access on public streets and sidewalks,  detain people on suspicion, etc.  Imagine then that you present only the last part to someone -- the actions of  law enforcement personnel -- but leave out the dire & deadly context:  "Law enforcement personnel are banging down doors without a warrant, commandeering offices and apartments without a warrant, blocking free access on public streets and sidewalks, and detaining  people on suspicion."  Of course anyone with a lick of sense would hear that and say, "No that's impossible -- they can't do that!  It violates the constitution!"  Fill in the context -- the snipers killing people on the streets and the situation only getting more horrific with each passing minute -- and suddenly all those "unconstintutional" actions are perfectly legal measures to recover public safety.

Let us continue...

I’m all in favour of this, but it isn’t something that is going to happen all in a minute. Before that happens, there has to happen a gigantic change in how islam is perceived. What is happening all over Europe, right now, may be conducive to that.

More obvious truisms, which I've addressed above.

5) In terms of deportation, there are obvious practical questions. Where, exactly, are we going to deport them *to* ? 

To any member nation of the O.I.C.  Duh.

There is no international law, that I am aware of, that will force *any* country to take in nationals from another country, that they don’t wish to take in. 

Is Mirren serious?  Why do we need the permission of a vile and evil nation to receive more of its vile and evil co-religionists we have decided to eject?  Just drop them off by boats and/or kick them out of planes (wearing parachutes, of course) that we send over the airspace of the country or countries we have selected.  One method that comes to mind for selecting the country or countries would be to have a map of the 56 member nations of the O.I.C. taped to a wall, put on a blindfold, strip naked, drink a couple of shots of tequila, and throw a dart at the map.

So, why don’t we just ship them all off to any muslim country at all, and see what happens ? The result of course, would be a maelstrom of international screeching and screaming, diplomatic incidents, probably declarations of war. 

Yes, and if we do nothing but continue our policy of Whack-a-Mo as the jihad deepens and worsens both in escalations of violence and in deeper infiltration by all the deceitfully friendly Muslims among us, we will eventually suffer a maelstrom anyway, one leading to the destruction of our societes and reduction to vast killings fields, civil insurrection by Muslims, and breakdowns of social order and general panic.  Mirren is arguing as though only the acts of total deportation by the West would incite a maelstrom.

What country will be the first to brave all this, and take the consequences ? I have no idea.

Again, all this is beside the point -- that the West needs to wake up, so that it can take the proper measures to ensure not only its safety, but its very existence.   And the only way it will wake up is by the people who constitute it waking up.  And that won't happen unless more and more people insist on how dire the problem is.

No, the very *first* thing that needs to be done, is a recognition, all over all civilised societies, that islam can never co-exist with decent societies, and that it is an evil, anti-human creed.

Again, Mirren repeating this irrelevant truism.  Of course that's the first thing.  But it's not the "very" first thing.  The very first thing would be for the Counter-Jihad Mainstream to begin pushing the meme -- the meme of zero tolerance for all Muslims (informed, as I said above, by a wealth of data about Muslim taqiyya and the False Moderate).  The Counter-Jihad needs to do this in many ways, all over the place.  (And it doesn't help when one of its lofty luminaries, Robert Spencer, himself has solemnly averred that he is "not anti-Islam" and "not anti-Muslim".  Amusingly, once when Mirren saw a particular locution of Spencer's that seemed to indicate this, she anxiously sought reassurance -- and of course a Jihad Watch regular zoomed in to offer it in the form of sophistry; and when I pointed out that in fact Spencer is indeed by his own words "not anti-Islam" and "not anti-Muslim" -- I was mocked and attacked by Mirren's friend and fellow Rabbit Packer, Angemon and naturally no one bothered to come to my defense or even consider my evidence & argument.)

Instead, one will look high and low throughout Jihad Watch comments threads to find the intelligently passionate desideratum expressed by John A. Marre.  I see such comments once in a blue moon there.  Way to go, Jihad Watchers, pushing the meme!

Had John A. Marre not posted that comment, I doubt Mirren would have chimed in with her response that with one hand agrees with the desideratum, but spends 95% of the rest of the verbiage throwing cold water on it.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Signs of intelligent life on Planet Jihad Watch

Another day, another Mohammedan attack.  This time two Muslims raided a sleepy little church -- the parish church of St. Etienne du Rouvray just south of the city of Rouen in the French region of Normandy and about 80 miles northwest of Paris -- took nuns and parishioners hostage, then with cries of the takbir ("Allahu Akbar!") beheaded the 86-year-old priest, Father Jacques Hamel.  They apparently attacked others as well before French police killed them.  A nun is reportedly in critical condition.  Given how the mainstream politicians and media have been not only reacting with denial to Islamic terrorism but have shown signs of actively covering up the more grotesquely alarming details (as with the Paris attacks last November and the Nice attack more recently), I feel I am perfectly reasonable in assuming that the mainstream is withholding information showing that this attack, like most of the other attacks, involved horrific tortures and rapes by the Muslims (if they had time to do so).

So that’s it now. A Muslim murders a priest in a church. This is what the world has come to? An elderly man who had dedicated his life to God and peace is brutally murdered by slime yelling their favorite Muslim death chant!

Yes, that’s it, and I want all Muslims kicked out of this country! Enough! I’ve had it! This is too much! Every last one of them out of here! I don’t care where they go! Get out!

And the enabler in chief out along with them! I don’t care where he goes! Send him to Kenya! No more murders in the name of Islam! I’m tired of hearing the word Islam! It means murder, death and destruction!

Amen, brother.

And amusingly, I noted that none of the "Rabbit Pack" -- Jihad Watch comments veterans Angemon, Joe Blow (aka "Philip Jihadski"), gravenimage, Mirren, Wellington the (Stolid Conservator of the Constistution), dumbledoresarmy (the Librarian of Jihad Watch with her rhinestone pince-nez on a chain), Western Canadian, PRCS, et al. -- saw fit to swoop in to chastize or admonish John A. Marre for his reckless post.  That's probably only because he hasn't pushed their buttons and hasn't pressed the issue in several posts, as I did when I raised the issue so insistently in their faces, they couldn't pretend not to notice.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Nobody's Perfect

Three flaws -- none of them necessarily fatal -- with the Republican National Convention this past week:

1) The speech of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on Tuesday contained this unfortunate mini-rant against Assad, within his overall rant against Hillary:

In Syria, she [Hillary] called President Assad a "reformer" and a "different kind of leader".
With 400,000 now dead ... think about that.
Thousand. Dead.
At the hands of the man Hillary defended.
We must ask this question: Hillary Clinton, as an awful judge of the character of a dictator-butcher in the Middle East guilty or not guilty?

Certainly the Assads -- fils and père -- are evil dictators.  Big deal.  The world is full of them.  The question is whether the mass movement of mujahideen trying to topple him are not a worse evil, far more dangerous for the world geopolitically, than the Alawite Dynasty of Syria.  Christie's hamfisted rant seemed obtusely incognizant of this concern.  When Trump gave his speech, he alluded to the Syrian jihad, but rather elliptically.  His rhetoric against Hillary's (and Obama's) nation-building that contributed to this catastrophe bodes well, albeit too circuitously, for the Chris Christie remarks being largely ignored by a Trump Administration.

2) Trump's Acceptance Speech on Thursday.  Overall, a tremendous speech.  But at some point we must always focus on the Islam factor.  Approximately 12% of the speech's content was directly related to the problem of Islam.  Of course, mere quantity isn't enough to assess the anti-Islam quality of a statement or speech.  One speech (of the same length) could have 75% (seemingly) anti-Islam content, while being inferior to another speech that only had 10% -- because the former was framing it all in terms of the Tiny Minority of Extremists who are not primarily motivated by the same Islam which inspires the totality of Muslims, while the latter was not.

Assessing the quality of Trump's 12%, it's kind of a mixed bag.  It was heartening that Trump used the adjective "Islamic" and not the mealy-mouthed cacophemism, "Islamist" -- he used it three times, in fact.  Thumbs up.  The fourth time he used it doesn't count, however; for he immediately padded it with the popular cacophemism, "radical":

The damage and devastation that can be inflicted by Islamic radicals has been proven over and over –at the World Trade Center, at an office party in San Bernardino, at the Boston Marathon, at a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, and many more. 

I understand that in that pivotal context, where the entire world is looking at him as the momentary epicenter of the planet, Trump may have to mince words here and there.  And that particular sentence forces a difficulty upon the writer/speaker.  For how else would he put it?  Consider:

The damage and devastation that can be inflicted by Muslims has been proven over and over –at the World Trade Center, at an office party in San Bernardino, at the Boston Marathon, at a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, and many more. 

Such a locution, more straightforward (and accurate), gets suddenly up close and personal with any, each and every Muslim, indiscriminately discriminating against all Muslims.  Of course, I would prefer that; and a tiny (albeit growing at an excruciatinly snail's pace) nucleus of canaries-in-a-coalmine around the world -- increasingly fed up not only with Muslims putting their Islam into horrible practice, but also with our Western mainstream unable or unwilling to talk straight about this growing horror -- thirsts for such a drop of water after years of crawling in the arid heat of a desert culturescape of political correctness.  Yet I do understand the tactical need, here and there, for moderating our rhetoric.  It would matter less, or not at all, to this tactical argument if one had good reason to suppose that Trump has demonstrated no hope of progress, by means of a slow adjustment of our disastrously Titanic course.  But he has.  Not only his December 2015 Moratorium on immigration; not only his supposed later flip-flop which actually turned out to be a reinforcement of the raison d'être of the Moratorium; and not only his later wonderfully refreshing blurt on CNN -- "Islam hates us!" -- but also in his speech last night, a few words after the above statement, where point-blank he calls the Orlando attacker what no one in the mainstream dared to utter (and rather obfuscated with a wealth of nonsense):

Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist.

Other aspects of the 12% problem-of-Islam content of his speech are similarly ambiguous.  Speaking of his December Moratorium, he reiterated it, but with a couple of discomfitting notes sifted in:

...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. My opponent has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people. Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will be.

While of course what he's proposing here is astronomically better than the disastrous policy Hillary proposes, that doesn't mean it's flawless.  The first problematic nuance is the fact that the blanket moratorium on Muslims from his December Moratorium seems to have been retooled to suspending immigration "from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism".  Of course, some of us believe that all Muslim lands have been compromised by terrorism and so that would be a de facto ban on Muslims in general in terms of immigration.  But somehow, I doubt that Trump is on this same wavelength.  Secondly, he proffers "vetting mechanisms" as a goal, as though something that is thoroughly impossible could ever be a goal.  (Sure, it might be a clever way to keep the moratorium in place forever; but somehow, I doubt it...)  Finally, his definition of the type of person we should be banning from entry:  Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will be...  Could Trump be any vaguer?

Again, Trump could be, with all this rhetoric, taking gingerly steps all around the Elephant in the Convention Center, as some kind of adroit tactic to anticipate and elude the demonization of our PC MC Masters.  Perhaps; perhaps not.  Perhaps he really has PC MC instincts himself about the nerve center of the problem:  Muslims.  And these instincts operate in his mind to inhibit the kind of Plain Speaking which a growing number of Americans -- and Westerners in general -- ache to hear someone who's not a "greasy Islamophobe" spit out without anxious prevarications.

So all in all, Trump's 12% about the problem of Islam has its merits and demerits.  The only question is, with a Trump victory and hopefully a second term down the line, will the merits sufficiently outweigh the demerits by continuing to grow in strength & quality in order begin the process of baby steps as a legacy that will be able to reverse our Titanic course, and thus avert the long-term, slow-mo destruction of our civilization by Mohammedans that is already underway now?

3) Perhaps the worst defect of the whole Convention occurred on Wednesday night, as reported by Cowger Nation:

"...the GOP, in its misguided and mindless effort to expand its big tent, invited a Muslim, one Sajid Tarir, to offer the closing benediction last night at the Republican National Convention."

This Sajid Tarir is the head of a group preposterously called "Muslims for Trump".  Well not so preposterous; they are Better Cops trying to infiltrate the Enemy Camp where opposition to them is more likely to be centered.  Better Cops logically would want to make this their priority.  And thus, we have the likes of Maajid Nawaz and Zuhdi Jasser infiltrating the Counter-Jihad; Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist infiltrating the Republican party; and now Sajid Tarir infiltrating the Trump camp.

It is heartening, at least, to learn that some brave souls in attendance heckled the seemingly benign Sajid Tarir with chants of "No Islam!" as he said a few words then offered a prayer couched in slyly anodyne and generic language (in English, naturally, not Arabic, and using the word "God" rather than "Allah").  According to a report from The Telegraph, "scores of delegates walked out" in protest; while one delegate --

...was evicted from the arena by secret service. "He was shouting profanities at the speaker because of his religion," an officer explained. 

Who is that delegate?  He deserves a medal -- and our heartfelt appreciation.