Tuesday, September 27, 2016

An interesting (hopeful) footnote to the "Mohammed video"


The "Mohammed video" my title refers to is the infamous (and sarcastically titled) "The Innocence of Muslims" which President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cynically lied about as causing the Benghazi "riot" (actually we now know a jihadist commando operation in synch with a Muslim lynch mob) that led to the deaths of our American ambassador Christopher Stevens there as well as a U.S. official, Sean Smith; followed shortly by another attack on another compound nearby, killing two CIA contractors and injuring ten others.

A relevant article published last year about the sordid role Hillary Clinton played in that affair was reported at Jihad Watch:

Documents reveal that Hillary knew all along that Benghazi jihad attack had nothing to do with Muhammad video.

About the same time, I wrote about aspects of the issue, including the filmmaker who made the video:

As of 2012, the Mohammed video producer/filmmaker was sentenced to one year of prison, followed by four years of “supervised release” — the latter meaning that he is out of prison, but has to watch himself or he’ll be arrested again, since he was arrested in 2012 partially because he was already under “supervised release” from a previous problem with the law — “after being convicted in 2010 of bank and credit-card fraud, in which he was accused of causing $800,000 in losses.”
He has multiple aliases: the one as of 2012 was Mark Basseley Youssef, and prior to that it was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, as well as Sam Basile (or Bacile).


More recently, Jihad Watch had a follow-up story on the filmmaker, reporting that although he is finally a "free" man, he has to live looking over his shoulder as a guest of Rev. Wiley S. Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church, living in the homeless shelter the pastor maintains.  Both the filmmaker and the pastor are being rather brave (or rather reckless) in not hiding the identity and location of the filmmaker -- for innumerable Muslims, a marked man.

Doing a little more Googling, I found interesting further information on a disturbing judicial action in the immediate aftermath, then later signs of hope in the American system:

Apparently, some time perhaps in 2014, the 9th Circuit’s three-judge panel -- led by then-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ordered Google to take down the video trailer.  

“Prior to issuing an opinion in 2014, the panel had issued a secret order to Google, demanding that it take down the trailer within 24 hours...“

That may sound rather chilling, but to me it’s rather evidence of the irrational lengths which PC MCs will go to in order to anxiously avoid “poking the hornet’s nest” of Muslims they view as volatile, flammable primitives who have no ethical or intellectual ability to control themselves, and whose volatile flammability is our responsibility to try to prevent -- in this case, through emergency censorship.

Anyway, the slender sliver of a silver lining was this:

In 2015 apparently, Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown overturned that order of the 9th Circuit’s three-judge panel — not only using language of legal technicality to do so, but also striking a deeper chord:

Judge McKeown ruled that:

…its injunction was “unwarranted and incorrect as a matter of law,” and “gave short shrift to the First Amendment values at stake,” she added.

“The mandatory injunction censored and suppressed a politically significant film – based upon a dubious and unprecedented theory of copyright. In so doing, the panel deprived the public of the ability to view firsthand, and judge for themselves, a film at the center of an international uproar,” McKeown wrote in her 30-page opinion.


For me, that’s like Reason #317,043 why I don’t think, as some Counter-Jihad Real Problemers do, that America and the rest of the West are hopelessly in thrall to some nefarious cabal of “Leftist” “Elites”.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Robert Spencer on the problem of Muslims


Back in 2008, in the context of editorializing on a report of openly jihadist sentiments expressed by some Indonesian Muslim students, Robert Spencer opined:

There are indeed peaceful Muslims, and there are indeed some among those who aren't interested in waging any kind of jihad.

How does he know this? He cannot know this with the sufficient certainty we need to make such a factoid useful for our general safety.

So why even express it? To placate the PC MC monster? He should know that monster is irrationally ravenous, and its voracity for placation is endless. It will never be satisfied until the person trying to appease it stops criticizing Islam and any Muslims altogether. As long as Spencer criticizes any element of Islam and as long as Spencer criticizes any Muslims as Muslimseven if only some and not all Muslimsit doesnt matter to the PC MC monster that he also professes to believe in the existence of peaceful Muslims and continues to imply that there is a potential for a viably peaceful reformation of Islam. The PC MC monster will devour those attempts at appeasing it, but its irrational voracity will not be sated: It will continue to brand him as a bigot, and Islamophobe, and a hater”—if not also a racist and a fascist.

Spencer continues:

They [these "peaceful Muslims" who apparently exist in numbers sufficient to make their mention worthwhile in this important context] either don't know or don't care about the imperative to struggle against unbelievers. They may have what they consider to be better things to do.

This is just airy extrapolation built on the initial airy speculation devoid of sufficient pragmatic evidence supporting it. Even if these numbers of peaceful Muslims exist, our general inability to identify them sufficiently for our safety makes these numbers useless to us. Thus, they should not be mentioned as though they have a use to us. So why is Spencer mentioning them?

Spencer goes on to note appositely:

The group of Muslims who feign indignation when non-Muslims discuss the jihad ideology, and who claim never to have heard of such a thing or that it is a heretical version of Islam cooked up by a Tiny Minority of Extremists™ -- they are much more numerous. They are dangerous, also, because they fool so very many people. 

The problem here is that Spencer does not apparently notice that the axiom of the Existence of Peaceful Muslims is also dangerous, because it also fools so very many people. The difference, of course, between Spencer and the PC MC minions is that he believes there also do exist , along with the numbers of peaceful Muslims, dangerous Muslims qua Muslims. But his persistence in repeating the aforementioned axiom (and of implying it on innumerable other occasions) only reinforces it.

At other times (though rather rarely), we have Spencer fine-tune that axiom, such that he moves asymptotically toward the holistic end of the learning curve:

That not all Muslims are on board with the Islamic supremacist program is simply a fact, but it does not follow from that fact that there is any significant body of Muslims who are actively or seriously opposing the jihadists and Islamic supremacists. There are a few courageous individuals here and there, but as I have pointed out many times using Ibn Warraq's phrase, while there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam. And while some people are cultural and nominal Muslims who are ignorant of and/or indifferent to the jihad imperative, it cannot be assumed (as many Western government and law enforcement officials assume) that any given peaceful Muslim opposes the jihad simply by virtue of the fact that he is not actively engaged in violence or participating in plotting in a violent jihad group.

In this quote, we can almost feel the pressure exerted by the holistic vector on Spencer's thought, prompting the reasonable question: if one is so close, if the arc of one's learning curve is almost touching the logical conclusion, why not just cross over and become holistic? The same question applies to all critics of Islam who are at least above the threshold of the PC MC paradigm. For, once a person has cut the umbilical cord that binds him to the PC MC paradigm, he begins to free-float with an open mind that is able to actually assimilate new data and speculate about what that data means through actually thinking, rather than relying on pre-fab axioms. And, on this issue, the problem of Islam, once a person begins free-floating, he embarks upon a course, a trajectory, where the vector of the holistic logical conclusion pulls on him. Different individuals respond differently to that pull. Some persistently resist it, and even set up a kind of second version of the PC MC paradigm that justifies their inability to move toward the logical holistic conclusion. Others do show signs of moving ever closer, but never seem to quite get there.

Yet another quote from Spencer arouses the same misgivings in us:

"There is a muddle in these comments that needs sorting out. Fallaci said that there was no moderate Islam; she did not say that there were no moderate Muslims. This is a crucial distinction. As Ibn Warraq has said, “There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.” In other words, there are manifestly peaceful people who have no intention of working by violent or subversive means to impose Sharia on the West, and who identify themselves as Muslims. This simple fact does not mitigate the other fact, that some high-profile moderates, such as Cleveland Imam Fawaz Damra, who signed the recent Fiqh Council of North America’s fatwa against terrorism, turned out to be deceivers. No one can claim that all peaceful Muslims are deceivers without being able to look into the soul of each one — although I know that some ignorant and intemperate writers on Islam have made just such a claim. And to say that the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of the jihad movement is not to deny the reality that many, if not most, people who identify themselves as Muslims are primarily interested in living ordinary lives, making a living, providing for their families, etc."

Notice that Spencer says:

"No one can claim that all peaceful Muslims are deceivers without being able to look into the soul of each one — although I know that some ignorant and intemperate writers on Islam have made just such a claim."

By the same token, however, Spencer cannot know what elsewhere he claimed (which I quoted at the start):

"There are indeed peaceful Muslims, and there are indeed some among those who aren't interested in waging any kind of jihad."

Spencer can't know this, without being able to look into the soul of each one of these Muslims he's making this claim about.
Spencer seems to have an innate ability to dance on the head of a pin in abeyance of the logical conclusion -- which would be that:  Since we can't tell the difference, sufficiently for the purposes of our society's safety, between the harmless Muslims and the dangerous Muslims, we must err on the side of caution and presume (not claim to know) that all Muslims are suspect.

A few souls in the Counter-Jihad actually do arrive at the logical conclusion.

Most of the West will arrive, eventually, when the chopping-blocks of Riyadh are in our home town.

Or a critical mass of us could arrive at that awareness sooner.  This will not happen in sufficient numbers among us in the West, however, unless the PC MC paradigm, which is dominant and mainstream throughout the Westaffecting not only our elites”, and not merely our “liberals”, but also the vast majority of ordinary people—becomes dismantled.  How to do that, other than through the patient stillicide of more and more people trying to educate their fellow Westerners, and the slow dissolution of the PC MC paradigm, I do not know. I am convinced, however, that by watering down the problem, by mincing words about the threat that faces us, by anxiously comporting ourselves to the PC MC monster in order to appease its wrath, we are not doing ourselves and our civilization any favors, and we are only thus enabling the retardation of the learning curve whose logical conclusion is our only hope against the menace of an Islam Redivivus.

Further Reading:

A shift from Islam to Muslims

The mainstream concern is Muslims, not Islam

Robert Spencer's Moderate Muslims

Which Muslims are not Islamic?

Oh, I thought of another relevant essay (which in turn contains two other important essays in this regard):

Damned if you don't, continued (again... and again...)

Sunday, September 25, 2016

The Multi-Culturalist Caste System


As I've noted many times over the years, Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC), that fashionable worldview dominant throughout the mainstream West in our time, is not merely anti-West and anti-white and pro-Other in a general way: It has a hierarchical taxonomy, putting Muslims at the top as the Most Privileged Ethnic Minority to be accorded our utmost respect and deference, and puts white European men at the bottom.

In between these two poles it is less clear how PC MC stratifies various groups.  I'd guess that blacks occupy the #2 tier, with perhaps LGBTQs at #3, then women at #4, Hispanics at #5, etc.  Perhaps at times, these In-Betweeners get shuffled around, according to contexts where PC MC gets wound up in its incoherent logic.  The two poles, however -- Muslims at the top, white Western men at the bottom -- are engraved in eternal stone.  And the acute irony, of course, is that this totem pole is largely the work of white Western men and women.

At any rate, I was reminded of this in the recent story about the Muslim who shot and killed five people at a mall in Washington State this week.  As Robert Spencer noted:

The initial reports about this killer said he was “Hispanic.” From the photos of him that were released, that always seemed to be more politically correct wishful thinking than reality.

Spencer fails to also note, however, how strange it is for political correctness to actually lunge for a "Hispanic" as the culprit, when PC MC otherwise is so respectful of Hispanics (just as that longtime regular Jihad Watch commenter, "Angemon", failed to also note that strangeness when he reminded readers in the comments section of how the PC MC mainstream media threw the Hispanic man George Zimmerman under the bus by calling him a "white man" when he clashed with a young black man -- higher up on the PC MC totem pole).

The strangeness, of course, is clarified when we realize the PC MC totem pole at work.  And over six years ago, in my essay -- Lawrence Auster's First Law of Majority-Minority Relations, and Muslims -- I analyzed why that totem pole stratifies as it does.

Also see my more recent essay:  The new totem pole.

Friday, September 23, 2016

My thoughts on the "problem of Jews"


In the last year or so, I've had a couple of regular commenters deposit comments that imply an anti-Jewish perspective.  Then, more recently, a couple of members of the "Rabbit Pack" from the comments community at Jihad Watch ("graven image" and "Mirren") posted comments objecting to the fact that there were commenters freely depositing such comments -- with the clear implication that I should censor their freedom.  (Even more recently, the most rabid of the Rabbit Pack, "Philip Jihadski" aka "Joe Blow" aka "Anonymous" has reiterated the same talking point with his obtuse hammer.)

I explained in a recent posting my philosophy of comments on my blog (crucially revolving around my respect for utmost freedom of expression) -- The Hesperado policy on comments for Dummies 101.

By pure accident, as I was rummaging around my archives, I noticed a rather lengthy exchange between me and a reader on this topic in one of my comments sections from an article I posted in September of 2008, where, because some reader named "Guessedworker" pressed the point, I expatiated upon the subject (viz., the "problem of the Jews").  My thoughts have not appreciably changed since then.

Note: the above link leads to a very lengthy exchange, oftentimes delving into issues unrelated to the main subject.  The gas begins to cook with my comment time-stamped -- December 18, 2008 at 5:57 PM  (on my comments threads, the time stamps are at the end of the comment in question).

(Also, in January of 2013, I published a posting here on The Hesperado where, in its comments section, I reposted some excerpts and commentary by me on them concerning another reader, "Egghead" (perhaps the main source of consternation among the aforementioned Rabbit Pack), and discussion of this topic of the "problem of Jews" on Gates of Vienna.)

Monday, September 19, 2016

Coherence and Counter-Jihad...?


In response to the Prime Minister of Australia voicing a common concern of the Western Mainstream -- the demonization or denigration of "all Muslims" -- Robert Spencer wrote recently:

"No one is actually seeking to demonize or denigrate all Muslims. I’ve been accused for years of saying that all Muslims are terrorists or terror sympathizers; no one has yet produced a quote from me to substantiate this claim, but it is nonetheless often made, because the claim itself is actually an attempt to discredit foes of jihad terror."

Spencer's position on this as a Counter-Jihad luminary would be tenable and coherent were the problem of the global revival of Islamic jihad truly a matter of a Minority (whether Tiny or Somewhat Larger than Tiny) of Extremists.

Since, however, there is a mountain of data out there (including an ocean of dots which for years many amateur sleuths and official analysts have been combing through to connect ) -- a mountain and an ocean Spencer himself has done a great deal to amass -- indicating that the problem of the global revival of Islamic jihad is systemic to such a degree that the reasonable response we would take for the safety of our societies in the coming decades would have to entail a suspicion of all Muslims.  This is acutely so because of the culture of taqiyya in Islam and a multitude of indications of stealth jihad and the False Moderate.

The Counter-Jihad Mainstream, including Robert Spencer, seems to be afraid to "go there" and so instead of shining a light on the logic that would lead to the conclusion of a generalized suspicion of all Muslims, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream instead indulges in a paradoxical incoherence -- with one side of its mouth insisting it doesn't demonize all Muslims, and (to mix metaphors) on the other hand amassing data and dots that would lead any reasonable person to suspect all Muslims of collusion in the jihad that threatens to destroy our societies.

As long as the Counter-Jihad Mainstream continues this equivocation, its primary function -- to help educate and wake up its own broader West to the global revival of Islamic jihad -- will be hindered.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Q... but no A today...


Today, in a report titled London mayor Sadiq Khan: We must affirm that Muslims can hold Western values, or they'll join jihad groups published at that bastion of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, arguably one of the luminary heads of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, picks at the new Muslim Mayor of London, who repeats a by now tired cliché to counter the Counter-Jihad:

“We play straight into the hands of those who seek to divide us, of extremists and terrorists around the world, when we imply that it is not possible to hold Western values and to be a Muslim.” 

Right out of the starting gate, Spencer begins by defensively defending Muslims.  Of the Muslim Mayor's claim, Spencer asks the rhetorical question:

Has anyone actually done that? 

I.e., Spencer is asking:  Has anyone actually implied that it is not possible to hold Western values and to be a Muslim?  As though it would be a bad thing to do so.

Spencer's question implies he is out of touch with some of his own supporters, who in various ways over the years robustly imply that very notion.

No wonder that Spencer employs a regular writer and editor for Jihad Watch, Christine Williams, who on 911 Eve no less, had the temerity to publish this:

Until Western ostriches wake up and recognize that to oppose Islamic supremacism, the worst enemy of human rights and democracy, is not remotely anti-Muslim...

Will Spencer ever be held to account for his position, or will his Sycophants Society forever let him off the hook?  Someone in the Counter-JIhad (preferably not an Unwashed Civilian whom Spencer will just insult and ignore, but someone he can't ignore, someone higher up the Counter-Jihad food chain) needs to ask him a line of tough questions under a spotlight out of which he can't squirm.

The first question would be:

What does it mean to "be a Muslim"?

Follow-up questions would include:

Can an individual "be a Muslim" and not follow and support Islam?  Walk us through what precisely that means, and how concretely that would play out.  Oh, and Robert, while you're doing that, factor in Taqiyya, the False Moderate, and the Stealth Jihad -- and then tell us how your answer is relevant for the safety of our societies.

And a final question, Mr. Spencer:

What exactly is wrong with averring that "to be a Muslim" is tantamount to being unable to hold (let alone uphold) Western values?


On second thought, another question occurs:

Hey, you Counter-Jihad Civilians, what do you think of Robert Spencer defending Muslims like this?

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Car accidents vs. Islamic terrorism: Constructing a counter-argument


Jihad Watch reports a Western mainstream report (WKSU radio station out of Kent State University in Ohio -- according to its website serving "more than 20 Ohio counties and parts of Western Pennsylvania") presenting the conclusion of an argument that "You’re far more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a terrorist attack in Ohio" and that, therefore, concern for the latter from "recent polls" irrationally far outweighs concern for the former.

I call attention to this because it's a common ploy by those who would minimize the legitimacy of the Counter-Jihad (let alone the Anti-Islam Movement it ought to become).  They may not use "car accidents" to counter-balance (and then counter) the concern over terrorism; they may also use the danger of bathtub accidents.  For example, The Atlantic magazine reports:

Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do.  

Or they may use "being fatally crushed by furniture"!  I kid you not: the Washington Post earlier this year actually proposed that danger as being "more likely... than [being] killed by a terrorist".

Only one commenter (one "Ciudadano") in the comments field attached to the Jihad Watch report actually tackled this ostensibly specious argument.  His argument has at least five parts:

1) "...car accidents are preventable and people have some control. People can take safety measures and precautions to avoid that kind of accident."

Problem: terror attacks are also preventable and people have some control.  It's not a difference in kind here, but a difference in degree.  One could argue that the difference in degree (along with other factors) makes it reasonable to have higher concern for terror attacks, but one would need to beef up the counter-argument still.

2) "Terrorist attacks are unpredictable and usually cause many casualties."

Problem:  car accidents are also unpredictable and may cause many casualties.

2b) "Terrorist methods are unpredictable: planes, shootings, lorries, bombs, etc."

Now we're getting warm.  2b is an element unique to terror attacks, compared with any other type of accident.  Take the "furniture-crushing" accidents which the Washington Post educated us about.  They will always only happen with relation to furniture and with activities related to making such "crushing" more likely -- example: moving a large, unwieldy cabinet down a flight of stairs.  One has no reason to worry about furniture suddenly crushing one when one is, for example, on vacation relaxing at the beach.

Nor, for example, while mingling on foot amongst a large crowd of hundreds walking and standing around with no vehicles driving anywhere in the vicinity on a nice sunny day on a promenade reserved for foot traffic during a large public gathering to watch a fireworks display celebrating Bastille Day on the coast of Nice, France, does one expect a vehicular accident to occur in the midst of that pedestrian event that would kill 86 people and injure 303.  More pointedly in this regard, one should not expect a terror attack to occur when one is just enjoying oneself at a public event like a Bastille Day celebration or, a Boston Marathon, or a rock concert at the Bataclan auditorium in Paris, or enjoying a fishwich and fries at a McDonald's in a Berlin shopping mall...); but after countless have happened over the years, one reasonably does -- even though it should not be tolerated.  Accidents from inanimate objects -- like cars, planes, bathtubs, slipping grand pianos, etc. -- however, one does expect to happen as part of the unavoidable statistics of imperfection in large, highly populated, complex societies.  Feelings of alarm and intolerance would be inappropriate (if not mentally unhinged) in reaction to the statistical incidence of such inanimate accidents; but such responses are appropriate when the mayhem ensues from human beings who have intent to kill and terrorize.

We must, nevertheless, proceed with the moving parts & building blocks of our counter-argument, to lend added weight to our counter-argument.

2c) "You don’t know if the next attack will kill 2 people or 3 thousand."

This is an important part of #2, and it reflects the human element (if one can call the fanatical motivation and intent to inflict mayhem & terror on crowds of men, women and children "human").  I.e., it reflects the fact that there are innumerable individuals, organized into cells all over the world in various nations (including more and more within the West) which we haven't adequately understood -- cells which may have more collective, systemic networking and coordination than we fully surmise -- intent upon devising and executing terror attacks of many different orders of magnitude, from random stabbings to spectacular mass-murders.

(Incidentally, this feature of organization and international networking, with a plan & blueprint that is grand and broadly destructive, also distinguishes Islamic terrorism from crime statistics -- another meme the PC MC mainstream likes to whip out by which to allay our alarm at Islam.  Although crime statistics are not inanimate and do also involve the human element, they don't have the added elements of networking and organization, and an ultimate plan for our destruction; and thus to some extent they represent a kind of statistic of Bad Stuff that all societies learn to "live with" even while they do their best to minimize it (and the modern West has dramatically minimized crime stats in general).  Indeed, there is more than enough evidence to show that Islamic terror is far more alarmingly organized even than Organized Crime.  When was the last time the Mafia or Serbian crime gangs mass-murdered civilians...?).

All told, #2 in its three parts indicates that the rational fear of terrorism is not solely a concern the next time we go out to a ball game, or shop at the mall, or attend a rock concert, or ride a plane, or participate in a conference -- but also the concern that these attacks are phenomena on a trajectory that is systemic (networked and planned) and metastasizing (getting worse), with a zealously pursued goal ending in an attempt to destroy our societies.

Accidents -- whether vehicular, furnituristic, or bathtubular -- have none of these added dimensions, and so we don't worry about a seriously worsening future.  We just make adjustments to make them safer to the best of our ability.  And because there is no malevolent intent involved with cars, grand pianos, or bathtubs (indeed, no intent at all), we know that all we can do is try to tweak the problem technically to minimize the dangers.  With fanatical humans deploying terrorism, however, we can do more than merely technical tweaks.  We can 1) kill the perpetrators; 2) quarantine them; 3) remove them through deportation; 4) or, idealistically, try to change their minds.  Any one of these, or some cocktail from among them actually makes the problem less difficult to radically reduce (if, that is, we ever get around to doing them) than technological accidents that will always happen at some statistical incidence, especially with vast, sprawling, complex, hyper-technological societies of the modern world.

Let us continue:

3) "Terrorist attacks are intentional and try too inflict the greatest damage."

Yep.  See my discussion above under #2.

4) "Terrorist attacks in other countries concerns people all over the world.

Yep. And they do so because of the factors I outlined in my discussion above under #2 above -- in a nutshell, because the source, motivation and logistical deployment of Islamic terrorism is 1) systemic, 2) metastasizing, and 3) has an ultimate goal of our destruction and/or submission to Islam.

5) "This guy isn’t even considering foiled terrorist attacks. Almost every day there is a new terrorist attack foiled by the police. And those are the ones we know. Who knows how many more are stopped without any publicity. Those foiled terror attacks also make people to be concerned."

Very good point. I explore this, and the general problem of the magnitude and metastasis of Islamic terrorism, in detail in my recent essay -- Taliban, Taliban, tally me banana: Jihad come and me want to go home -- and in the further several essays of mine which I link inside that colorfully & cheekily titled essay.

Beyond the initial stab at a counter-argument for which we thank "Ciudadano", there may be more that needs to be done to tighten up the nuts & bolts of it.  For now, I would note one telling angle of the overall problem:  The entire Western Mainstream is talking out of both sides of its mouth -- trying to assure us the problem is relatively minimal and manageable; yet behaving as though it is a gargantuan and alarmingly unpredictable problem.  For example,just to adduce one example out of thousands one could pluck from a beret:  cancelling the largest flea market in the world in Lille, France -- an unprecedented cancellation with one exception: during Nazi occupation in the 1940s -- out of fear of a possible Islamic attack.  Or another example, cruelly ironic:  the remembrance march for the victims of the Bastille Day attack in Nice, slated to be held a couple of weeks after the attack, was cancelled out of fear of more Islamic attacks.

More broadly, if we have been paying attention to this problem, we notice such headlines as this recent one from the mainstream UK paper the Daily Express:

"Terror in France: Nearly 300 potential terrorists thwarted in the last nine months alone."

Why doesn't the Daily Express have alarming headlines about car accidents, or bathtub accidents, or out-of-control, careening boudoirs?  (That was a bitterly rhetorical question, of course.)

On a smaller scale, yet no less significant, is a final example I would bring up:  The famous magic/comedy due, Penn & Teller, who make millions with their Las Vegas show, tour around the world, and have appeared on David Letterman and Jay Leno among many other shows, a few years ago gave an interview -- that is, Gillette Penn gave the interview, since he's the only one of the two who ever talks to the public.  In that interview, Penn noted that among their many acts, they have a regularly staged show where they insult, mock and castigate religion in general, and particularly Christianity, Christians, God, Jesus, the Bible, etc.  Penn went on to stress that the Christians who come to see the show are the "nicest people in the world": they watch the show, applaud, even come backstage to compliment him and sometimes give him complimentary Bibles.  The interviewer then happened to ask about Islam.  Why not include Islam in your show in which you rake religion over the coals?  Penn's devastatingly revealing reply:  "We have families."  Think about this response and my essay today.  And keep in mind that Gillette Penn is a very bright and intelligent atheist and skeptic, as is his partner Raymond Teller.  Even though car accidents, plane accidents, and bathtub accidents far outweigh in incidence Islamic terrorism, Gillette Penn continues to ride in and drive cars, continues to fly in planes (and as a successfully millionaire performer, he has to fly far more often than the average citizen), and continues to take baths -- but he refrains from even mentioning Islam at all in a regular show he puts on in which he deeply and at great length castigates religion in general and Christianity in particular.  Penn's rational behavior -- based on a rational fear of Muslims -- gives the lie to the Car Accident Meme.  And Penn & Teller aren't the only ones:  see this horrifyingly long -- yet still incomplete -- list from my posting Islam and Free Speech. And note the ghastly irony when in that posting I wrote the following:

"French newspaper (after being firebombed for printing a cartoon of Muhammad, the next day the paper prints that cartoon again, and more! Bravo!)"

I posted that in 2011, when that "French newspaper" -- Charlie Hebdo -- was still bravely ignoring Islamic threats.  We all know what happened less than four years later, in early January of 2015, when a commando team of Muslim fanatics made good on their long-standing threats and killed 12 people in all, and caused three days of terror, panic and alarm (not to mention a million or more dollars/francs in expenditure of police, intelligence, and medical aid personnel).

The BBC headline from that link above read:

"Charlie Hebdo attack: Three days of terror".

Why doesn't the BBC have alarming headlines about car accidents, or bathtub accidents, or out-of-control, careening chests of drawers?  (That was a bitterly rhetorical question, of course.)

Indeed, that attack was seen by the French people and nation as "France's 911" -- and this happened before the far worse attacks in Paris and then in Nice.

As I pointed out earlier, the entire mainstream West behaves as Gillette Penn does, in its various measures it has taken over the past 15 years to ramp up security as a response to the global revival of Islamic jihad, to the collective tune of billions of dollars -- for airline flights, business and political conventions, major music concerts and sports events, book publishing concerns (deciding not to publish Mohammed cartoons or novels in which Muhammad is put in a bad light); etc. etc., ad Islamonauseam.

Monday, September 12, 2016

The Jasmine Counter-Jihad...

Hugh Fitzgerald, a solid member of the Jihad Watch team (after a long hiccup) whose wonderfully verbose and erudite essays of yore were numerous and popular, and as such, a solid representative of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, penned an essay he titled thus:

"A Tunisian moderate remains, alas, a Defender of the Faith".

That's another reason why Hugh's a solid representative of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream: He, like it, still believes in the Rose By Another Name That Stinks the Same (i.e., the Moderate Muslim nuanced, not eliminated, by his analysis).

The first question that comes to mind from Hugh's title above is:  Are you surprised?  Evidently, he is.  Let us read further.

After quoting the article reporting this --

The Tunisian businesswoman, who co-founded the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet which won the 2015 peace prize, said Muslims who practice their faith calmly and respectfully are “victims of a semantic problem” when “terrorists” are described as “Islamic terrorists.”

Hugh editorializes:

"In other words, don’t ever describe terrorism as “Islamic terrorism,” because that will make the good, moderate, Muslims, the ones who do not engage in or support terrorism, feel bad, make them the real victims. And who knows what they might do in response?"

This is catty and disingenuous, given that Hugh himself does not promote zero tolerance of all Muslims.  And what the non-terrorist Muslims might do in response is not the only concern in the Mainstream:  What we might do to them hangs just as ominously in their PC-MC-haunted minds.

Hugh then embarks on a crash course of Tunisian history:

"In 2015, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to four Tunisian groups that had been engaged in a “national dialogue” to head off violence between the secularists and the Islamists in Tunisia. The reason such an effort succeeded in Tunisia, while failing everywhere else in the Muslim Arab world (think of the continued violence in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, which began with the “Arab Spring”), is that the Arab secularists have always been strongest in Tunisia..."

See?  I told you Hugh does not proceed on the basis of zero tolerance of all Muslims.  Already, less than halfway into his analysis, he is invoking Muslim "secularists" with a straight face.  These are no more secularists than the Nobel laureate he had just finished exposing as a jihadist of the pen.

Fast-forward to the more recent Arab Spring (i.e., the Jasmine Jihad in Tunisia), Hugh continues:

"...after some terror attacks by Muslims even more extreme than those in Ennahda, a convinced secularist, 89-year-old Beji Caid Essebsi, was voted in, as a representative of the French-educated and secular Tunisian elite. They have been among the main beneficiaries of France’s mission civilisatrice, and wanted to ensure that Tunisia would not relapse into a medieval Muslim mire."

This "secular" Tunisian elite Hugh keeps invoking; did it not occur to him that they too, like his Nobel laureate, are defenders of the faith no less?  And that as such, they are all waging jihad of the pen?  I.e., that they are all jihadists?

Apparently, Hugh, and the rest of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, have not graduated along their learning curve to the realization that when assessing any and all Muslims, we must reverse engineer the phenomena.  As I explained in my essay written over one year ago, Reverse Engineer (and, coincidentally, centering my argument around another essay of Hugh's as well as a reference to the Tunisian Spring), whenever we see what appear to be moderate Muslims (or Hugh's rose by another name, "secularist" Muslims), we must ruthlessly withhold our generosity and presume with rational prejudice that there must be some Islamic (i.e., evil and extremist) reason why they are appearing as this un-Islamic mirage; and from there, our analysis should unfold.  Hugh, on the other hand, presumes with generous prejudice that the mirage of "secularism" is real, and from there his analysis proceeds on the shifting sand dune he thinks is solid ground.

And what's this business of parsing out a Taxonomy of Extremism?

"Muslims even more extreme than those in Ennahda..."

How could such a phrase spring forth from the bosom of the Counter-Jihad, 15 long, beleaguered years after 911?  

Sunday, September 11, 2016

911 Error: Counter-Jihad Not Found


Once again, the West is slouching toward another 911 anniversary.  One staple of these surreal anniversaries is, as the Counter-Jihad (such as it is) knows, a veritable increase in Denial throughout the mainstream West about the problem of Islam.  Another staple is, about which the Counter-Jihad Mainstream apparently remains oblivious, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream's dogged persistence in upholding a flawed and outdated Operating System from yesteryear.

It seems ages ago when I noted the tenth anniversary (911 X) and how nothing had changed about the three problems -- the primary problem of Islam; the secondary problem of the problem of the West's denial about the primary problem; and the tertiary problem of the problem of the problem of the Counter-Jihad's inadequate methodology.  What has dawned on me is that it's even worse than this.  On all three fronts of all three problems, the situation has only gotten worse.

Muslims pursuing their global revival of Islam through jihad (both violent and stealth) has metastasized, on a trajectory evidently leading to a grand and complex attempt to destroy the West.  That same West, meanwhile, has only ramped up its Denial -- particularly noticeable in this past year as mainstream authotities and analysts continue to insist that every Muslim terrorist who pops up to stab, behead, shoot, explode, or run people over with vehicles has "nothing to do with Islam". 

Most dismaying, perhaps, has been the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, continuing to try to maintain its PC MC cred that it's neither Islamophobic nor bigoted, by insisting in various ways that not all Muslims are jihadists.

Thus Christine Williams, a frequent and regular writer on that bastion of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Jihad Watch, recently penned an editorial about the coming anniversary of 911:

Until Western ostriches wake up and recognize that to oppose Islamic supremacism, the worst enemy of human rights and democracy, is not remotely anti-Muslim, but a necessary defense of Western civilization, we will continue to slowly lose our freedoms. 

Not remotely anti-Muslim?  Such an asseveration, coming out of the heart of the Counter-Jihad, here on September 11, 2016, fifteen years after the attack, is deeply dispiriting.

If my readers might think this is only the opinion of Christine Williams, I have not only logic on my side -- that as a frequent and regular writer on Jihad Watch, it is unlikely her views disagree with the views of Robert Spencer, owner and creator of Jihad Watch -- but also the skinny straight from the horse's mouth:

I am not “anti-Muslim,” as I have stated many times. It is not “anti-Muslim” to stand for human rights for all people, including Muslims… 
(Robert Spencer, in a Jihad Watch article, September 17, 2011).

For a fuller discussion of Spencer's asymptotic twitches and spasms, see my two essays -- ...damned if you don't... and ...damned if you do...

Even worse, the motley Civilians of the Counter-Jihad don't seem to care.  I know that if I click on the link of comments to the Christine Williams editorial published yesterday on 911 Eve (September 10), I will find not a single commenter calling bullshit on that.  Indeed, that article should have 500 comments, all clamoring to set Williams straight on that appallingly, and politically correct, claim.

Update (9/12/16):

Well, I nearly fell off my ergonomic chair when I dipped into the comments section of the Christine Williams article and found these two comments:

“Until Western ostriches wake up and recognize that to oppose Islamic supremacism is not remotely anti-Muslim”.

If opposing Islamic supremacism is not anti-Muslims, then why aren’t all Muslims opposing it?
Belief in Islamic supremacism is a necessary part of being a Muslim!
This is spelled out in many verses in the Koran, such as but not limited to, the following:
“Surly the filthiest of animals in Allah’s sight are non-Muslims” (Qur’an 8:55).
Since what it means to be a Muslim is to follow the teachings of the Koran, what could possibly be wrong with anything or anyone being “anti-Muslim”?

I didn't quite slip off the smooth naugahyde of my chair onto the floor, however; since I realized these are only two comments out of 62 (and where are the other hundreds who should have weighed in from among the tens of thousands of Jihad Watch readers...!?), and that neither "nightlight" nor "JawsV" are regulars in the Jihad Watch comments community (much less are they privileged to belong to that lynch-mob-cum-high-school-clique-cum-deputized-volunteer-hall-monitors, the Rabbit Pack) -- unless, perhaps, "nightlight" is one of the regulars, but is too afraid of the aforementioned lynch mob to out him or herself as he or she dares to find fault with Robert Spencer's regular writer Christian Williams...?  At any rate, kudos to nightlight and JawsV.

Thursday, September 08, 2016

Andrew Bostom's microcosm


Stealth Jihad, as I have outlined, includes a panoply of non-violent styles of jihad, all calculated to deepen the infiltration of Muslims into our society so that in the distant future (probably a generation or two after all the current stealth jihadists will have passed away) Muslims will be able to engage the JIhad of the Sword more effectively against this great enemy -- "Rome" (i.e., the modern West) -- which currently Muslims are unable to topple.

The styles I have been able to discern I listed in an essay, The Multifarious Strategy of Jihad:

Jihad of the Pen & Mouth
Jihad of the Feet

Jihad of the Womb
Jihad of Lawfare
Jihad of the Publicity Stunt  
Jihad of Victimology & Grievance  
Jihad of the Phony "Hate Crime"
The Jihad of Just Being Here.

(Readers are encouraged to go to the link above for a fuller discussion of these).

Aside from the diversity of styles, indicated by the self-evident names I've given them, there is also the factor of the dimensions of macro and micro.  Readers should consult that link to know in more detail what I mean.  Today I only wish to call attention to a vivid glimpse of the micro, in the form of a personal anecdote the otherwise great Counter-Jihad analyst Andrew Bostom relates parenthetically in a symposium he participated in (the Education Policy Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, in January of this year).

Someone in the audience asked Bostom a question after he had finished speaking, so he returns to the podium to answer it.  After adverting to one massive aspect of the macro dimension of the perennial jihad (the Barbary pirate onslaughts on Europeans for centuries and on Americans for over a century), Bostom begins his curious parenthetical statement that reveals, unwittingly it seems, a telling glimpse of the micro dimension of the Stealth Jihad:

"It's a conundrum I deal with all the time.  I'm currently mentoring two junior faculty who are Muslim women and working on their grants with them, etc., in my real job in the kidney disease division.  All I can tell you is that I think there is something to this notion that open, sort of in-you-face expressions of piety may be at least a red flag, because these young very gentle women are totally embracing the gift that is America -- they are very secular; and again, sometimes things can be a facade, but I will say that the faculty -- I have to deal with everybody -- are more pious, are very much more detached and removed.  And again, you can't universalize about these things.  But the problem is the institutions, whether we look at America or whether we look overseas.  The institutions [in the Muslim world] are traditionalist, conservative, bigoted, to an overwhelming degree."

Bostom goes on to illustrate his last point with solid evidence about the fanaticism of Al-Azhar university in Cairo -- a major, if not the major, institution for Sunni Islam.

What's interesting to me is Bostom's thought process as he seemingly unwittingly divulges it in this brief anecdote he tells.  He exonerates these two Muslim women he is mentoring at his American university without the slightest shred of an indication that he has done any vetting of them at all.  He seems evidently swayed by nothing more than their manner.  He calls them "very secular" but tells us nothing about how and why he comes to this conclusion.  One surmises that it's their dress -- wearing Western clothes -- and perhaps other subtle indications, such as parenthetical mentions of pop cultural references they may let slip in the hallway or in the minutes of small talk before and after his academic mentoring sessions with them.  I.e., it's reasonable for us to conclude that his verdict of "very secular" was arrived at at the prompting of superficial data that could easily be either a) feigned, or b) irrelevant to an underlying Islamic fanaticism.

Other superficial data that seem important to Bostom about these Muslim junior faculty members:  They are "young very gentle women" who "are totally embracing the gift that is America."  How does he know they are "totally embracing" the gift that is America?  Because they are taking advantage of the intellectual wealth of our academic superiority?  Just because they are availing themselves of our American bounty, through our academic culture and through the economic largesse that allows them to get grant funding and allows them to immigrate to enjoy these things and so many other benefits of our society, doesn't mean they are "totally embracing" America.  The naivete of Andrew Bostom in this regard is rather marked, and disconcerting -- especially given how much he knows about the fanaticism of Islam, and the taqiyya deceit of Muslims in advancing Islam.

Speaking of taqiyya deceit, Bostom breezily alludes to it -- "...and again, sometimes things can be a facade..." -- only, apparently, in order to dismiss such a concern. 

After this point in his brief anecdote, Bostom's locutions become a bit unclear, but we can reasonably restore their sense through square brackets:

...these young very gentle women are totally embracing the gift that is America -- they are very secular; and again, sometimes things can be a facade, but I will say that the faculty [i.e., these two Muslimas, whom earlier he referred to as "junior faculty"] -- I have to deal with everybody -- are more pious, are very much more detached and removed.  [This seems to contradict his earlier distinction he made about these Muslimas, contrasting them with the "open, sort of in-you-face expressions of piety" -- while now he is emphasizing that they are "more pious" and even "very much more detached and removed."  How are they "more pious" if they are also "very secular"...?  Bostom never clarifies.]

And again, you can't universalize about these things.  But the problem is the institutions, whether we look at America or whether we look overseas.  The institutions [in the Muslim world] are traditionalist, conservative, bigoted, to an overwhelming degree."

The rather confused locutions Bostom's anecdote devolves into seem to indicate that these Muslimas he works with, whom he is exonerating from our suspicion that would demand a vetting process of them, do in fact give off indications of certain data that could be suspicious, but that other superficial data override Bostom's concern -- they are "young", they are "very gentle", they are "very secular" (without defining what he means by that), they "totally embrace the gift that is America" -- again not defining it, and a rather silly locution that sounds more like something a political candidate might say glibly just to earn public, politically correct approval. 

It is telling, then, that Bostom ends his account with an oblique reference to the macro/micro distinction, and insisting that the locus of the problem is the macro, not the micro:

And again, you can't universalize about these things.  But the problem is the institutions, whether we look at America or whether we look overseas.  The institutions [in the Muslim world] are traditionalist, conservative, bigoted, to an overwhelming degree."

Certainly, the macro level is important; but the Counter-Jihad should know by now that one way the Jihad advances is through Stealth Jihad -- and one tactic of the Stealth Jihad is to operate like army ants, where the efforts of each ant may seem to be a minuscule, microscopic, and therefore negligible, phenomenon.  However, if considered in terms of a massive concerted operation, these individual micro jihads are having their effects.  The stealth jihad of these two Muslimas whom Bostom is uncritically recounting would pertain, I think, to the subcategory I call The Jihad of Just Being Here -- and which I defined in my previously linked essay as:

...merely settling in, setting down roots, getting jobs, raising families, having sandwiches, walking around in the streets, shopping, going to school, attending college, joining gyms, etc., all non-verbally telegraphing the overall message: "We're here, we are insinuating our threads into your cultural fabric, get used to it."

With an Andrew Bostom, the Muslimas he is mentoring are helping to predispose him to relax any tendency he might be cultivating for a zero tolerance of all Muslims.  When that is relaxed in enough people in the West, it will help to weaken our resolve in the future when we might have to do things that will seem to be overly harsh to innumerable numbers of nice, "very gentle" Muslims like the ones Andrew Bostom knows personally.


If the only way the West will be able to save its societies from Jihad will be to extract all Muslims from its midst by deportation, we will have internal, formidably psychological inhibitions to do so, to the extent that the Jihad of Just Being Here (especially with myriad interpersonal relationships on the micro level of many different kinds intertwined with us Infidels) along with the increasing Jihad of the Feet (immigration) continues to advance and deepen throughout the West.

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

The jihad function of rape


A recent update on Jihad Watch about what is known as the "Rotherham sex grooming gang scandal" indicates that the problem has been much larger even than heretofore thought:

1) The sheer numbers:  Hundreds of thousands (perhaps over a million) young girls victimized by Muslim sex grooming gangs

2) the many different areas in England -- not just Rotherham -- suffering this insidious onslaught

3) and the violent and traumatic nature of the treatment of all these girls -- including rape, death threats, and violent sexual abuse:

“The thing you have to understand about this rape of children is it’s not just sexual abuse. It is unspeakable levels of violence, victims being raped with knives, victims being raped with bottles, victims having their tongues nailed to tables. These are sometimes girls who are picked up from a children’s home on a Friday, are being raped during the course of a weekend by hundreds of men and returned with bleeding groins back to the children’s’ home on a Monday morning and they don’t do anything about it at all.”

That was a quote from George Igler, policy analyst consulted for this story reported by CBN News.

A motive was speculated upon by Igler:

Igler said of the grooming gangs, “They get sexual kicks out of ruining the most precious possession that people have, their daughters.”

That may be true, but it is reasonable for us to suppose, if we have educated ourselves about Islamic jihad over the centuries, that this is not all of the story.  In addition to the sadistic fun these Muslim males have been enjoying doing this, they are also performing a higher function for Islam.  Consider the effects this will be having on over a million girls who grow up damaged, deeply dysfunctional, traumatized and thus more inclined to flinch as dhimmis when Muslims increase in numbers and influence throughout the UK.  This is one way of readying the enemy Dar-al-Harb for eventual conquest, by weakening it and shocking it with disorientation and trauma.  This is particularly necessary when the enemy is so vastly superior, as the West is now, compared with Islam.

And in addition, we learn a horrifyingly sobering indication from that report:

One victim told a British newspaper, “Nothing has changed, not in the slightest. It’s still the same scale as before.”

Which means that in the years ahead, if the PC MC mainstream doesn't radically change its approach (and I see no signs it will), this civilizational assault may involve a second million or more girls.

By itself, of course, it would not work.  But Muslims have many other jihad tactics up their sleeve.  All combined, over a long period of time, and they may very well realize their desideratum of bringing down "Rome" (i.e., the West).

Further Reading:

Jihad of the Kitchen Sink

Tuesday, September 06, 2016

"Taliban, Taliban, tally me banana: Jihad come and me want to go home."


My sanguine friends, who are not Elitists and not hard-core Leftists (though they are varying degrees of what nearly everyone else is in the West, PC MC) more or less acknowledge the problem of terrorism, but evidently consider it to be a relatively stable problem which Western political and intelligence authorities are pretty much adequately handling.

That's their first problem: they think the problem is static, rather than gravely metastatic (getting horribly worse).

Their second problem: they think the problem is disparate, unorganized and random, rather than systemic (a veritable world war organized in trans-national networks and following a blueprint with a trajectory & goal leading to the destruction of the West as it is).

Their third problem is that they don't put together the first two problems and draw the reasonable (and reasonably horrifying) inference: that the trajectory of "getting worse" is aiming at a goal to destroy our civilization as it is.  And even the best case scenario -- where Mohammedans do not succeed in their ultimate goal of replacing the Western order with an Islamic Caliphate -- will entail horrific, hellish violence and disorder throughout the West.  A wonderful legacy for the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of my friends (if they care about them).

But my friends evidently don't think these three things.  When they think about the problem of terrorism, they are thinking of something else, something much smaller, more stable, and more manageable; hence their relatively calm attitude about the whole thing.

And when I use the locution "they think" I don't mean they are carefully assessing the data and deliberating upon it to come to reasoned conclusions; I mean they are rather passively acquiescing to a conclusion which the mainstream media and mainstream politicians convey -- a conclusion that is comforting (the problem is stable, not alarmingly metastasizing according to a blueprint whose goal is the destruction of our society) and that seems reasonable because it's not compelling one to step outside of one's sociological Box by thinking thoughts that are against the normative grain.

Part of the reason my friends are so sanguine about the problem of terrorism is that they've never digested the full enumeration of terror attacks, both the ones that happened and the ones that have been plotted, but stopped in time (sometimes by sheer luck).  Most people, including myself, have not seen a complete tally of all the terror attacks accomplished by Muslims and all the terror attacks plotted by Muslims that were foiled by authorities -- even over the relatively small slice of time of the past 15 years.  What people like me do is pay attention to this growing problem, spend a few dozen hours over those years reading from sources that shine a light on the problem (rather than obscure it by embedding it in distracting or irrelevant contexts & analyses), then we draw reasonable inferences from and connect dots among the oceans of incomplete data we have absorbed.

For example, I can visit the website well-known in CJM (Counter-Jihad Mainstream) circles, TheReligionofPeace.com, which lists all the reported, successful terror attacks that have occurred (and are still occurring) world-wide in the name of Islam.  As valuable as that site is, it doesn't present the full horror of Islam -- for it leaves uncounted the hundreds of terror plots over the years that could have been successful, had not authorities stopped them in time.  Example, just this past week (the last week of August, 2016):

In France, the French intelligence authorities nabbed and deported two Moroccan Muslims who had "been ordered to co-ordinate a number of large-scale terrorist attacks in France, during which he would officially pledge allegiance to ISIS."

Or in Italy, in the same month, when Bilel Chihaoui, a Morocon Muslim plotted to blow up the Leaning Tower of Pisa as well as other landmarks in that Tuscan city.

There have been literally hundreds of such plots by Mohammedans over the years, throughout the West.  None of them get tallied by the Religion of Peace website (and certainly don't get reported adequately by the mainstream media).  But they should be part of our general tally of terror, because they point to the ongoing motive that motivates those who wish to kill us, are assiduously trying to kill us, with the eventual aim to destroy our societies.

And even among the terror statistics which the Religion of Peace website does tally, they admit to lacunae.  On their website, their explanatory page "About the List of Attacks" indicates that their list, as horrifyingly massive as it is, in but one icy crag of a much broader, deeper iceberg toward which the West's Titanic chugs along heedlessly:

This list of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11/01 (a rate of about five a day) is incomplete because not all such attacks are picked up by international news sources, even those resulting in multiple loss of life. 

These are not incidents of ordinary crime involving nominal Muslims killing for money or vendetta.  We only include incidents of deadly violence that are reasonably determined to have been committed out of religious duty - as interpreted by the perpetrator.  Islam needs to be a motive, but it need not be the only factor.

We usually list only attacks resulting in loss of life (with a handful of exceptions).  In several cases, the deaths are undercounted because deaths from trauma caused by the Islamists may occur in later days, despite the best efforts of medical personnel to keep the victims alive.

In 2014, the BBC did a thorough analysis of Islamic terror attacks occurring during the month of November.  They found 664 attacks and 5,042 deaths.  Our list has only 284 attacks and 2,515 deaths for that month, meaning that we undercounted the true extent of Islamic terror by a significant margin. 

The further report from their BBC link reported these further, disturbing details:

The data gathered by the BBC found that 5,042 people were killed in 664 jihadist attacks across 14 countries - a daily average of 168 deaths, or seven every hour.

About 80% of the deaths came in just four countries - Iraq, Nigeria, Syria and Afghanistan, according to the study of media and civil society reports.

Iraq was the most dangerous place to be, with 1,770 deaths in 233 attacks, ranging from shootings to suicide bombings.

An interesting caveat the Religion of Peace includes is this:

We usually don't include incidents related to combat, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan [and one assumes other "combat" zones of "bloody borders" in the Philippines, Thailand, and various African countries], unless it involves particularly heinous terror tactics, such as suicide bombings or attacks on troops sleeping in their barracks or providing medical care to the local population.

Unfortunately, this list of Muslim terrorist attacks barely scratches the surface of atrocities committed in the name of Islam occurring world-wide each day.  For that reason, we don't tally up the dead and dismembered, except on a weekly and monthly basis.

Beyond the quantitative tally -- which again, very few will be able to digest thoroughly, simply because there are too many -- there is a certain amount of self-education one does in this issue where one gets to the point that one is able to supply the "connective tissue" (as Frank Gaffney puts it) capable of connecting the seemingly disparate ocean of dots.  Part of this self-education involves reading the Jihad Watch website daily for years.  As I say, one doesn't have to spend an enormous amount of time at Jihad Watch; one can just breeze through the headlines there and only occasionally dip into a story that catches the eye and pulls one in to want to read more, and maybe even following a link or two.  Some days one may merely visit the site for 10 or 15 minutes.  Other days, perhaps longer.  What occurs to the open mind upon a daily diet of Jihad Watch over weeks, months, years, is that it sinks in that this is a global, systemic, metastasizing problem.   My occasional series, "Lake Mobegone", has tried to convey this stunningly disturbing enumeration of fanatical violence.

Further reading and video-watching of other analysts -- including ex-Muslims and Middle Eastern Christians and intelligent individuals who have spent years in Muslim countries -- puts this growing mountain, or volcano of data, into a framework:  the framework of a concerted, albeit seemingly disparate & disconnected, global revival of Islamic jihad.  Historical knowledge about Islam further illuminates this as having a continuity with one long, ultimate jihad against the West spanning centuries, right back to the beginning in the 7th century.

Monday, September 05, 2016

The two Mainstreams talking past each other (cont.)


The two Mainstreams to which my title refers are the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM), and the broader Western Mainstream (WM).

The CJM is "mainstream" in the bad sense -- they tend to be compromised by residues of the same Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC) that dominates the WM, even though they usually would strenuously deny this is the case, and pretend to distinguish themselves starkly from the WM; when, actually, they have a degree of PC MC in common.

It's this curious combination of similarity and difference -- coupled with emotional denial -- that produces the ongoing effect of talking past each other about the problem of Islam.

Interestingly, there is denial in both Mainstreams:  In the CJM, they deny how much they share with the WM -- both are concerned to protect innumerable Muslims (the numbers and location of said Muslims are never specified); the difference is only in degree, not in kind.  I.e., the CJM may be more suspicious of more Muslims than is the WM, but nevertheless they can't let go of their concern to protect an uncertain number of Muslims.  In the WM, meanwhile, there is a denial of their fear of Muslim violence escalating and spiraling out of control. 

The key aspect of this problem around which this miscommunication revolves is that the problem of Islam is really, or masks, the problem of Muslims.

Ironically enough, the WM may be less incoherent than the CJM about this, insofar as the WM consistently frames the issue in terms of protecting Muslims from broad-brush policies that might ensue were our societies to take seriously the problem of Islam.  This is obviously based on the notion that there exist innumerable Muslims out there who are innocent of any of the bad aspects emanating out of Islam.  But it is also based on the suppressed fear that maybe the bad aspects of Islam are far more systemic throughout Muslim demographics than we might think -- especially if we think in terms of the WM, which uses as its major guideline the principles of PC MC.  In this regard, the WM's strategy (if a semi-conscious, emotional reaction may be deemed a "strategy") is to cut the problem off at the pass:  claim that mainstream Islam is made of sugar & spice and everything nice, so that the innumerable ordinary Muslims who exist may be deemed to be Islamic without being worrisome to us.  This is the locus of the WM's incoherence.  Their attempt to split Islam into two (a wonderfully nice mainstream Islam, and a smaller truncation of an "extremist Islamism" that has nothing substantive to do with the former) flounders on so many levels, and requires regular feats of denial of mountains of facts to maintain -- though it helps to do the seemingly impossible when your entire mainstream culture around you (viz., PC MC) buoyantly supports you in this effort.

What also helps this "strategy" of the WM is, again, their regularly implied concern for the innumerable innocent Muslims who must exist out there -- the "moms and pops like the rest of us", all the Muslims who "just wanna have a sandwich", the Muslims who are just getting through the day like us, etc.  Now, this wouldn't be a communication problem for the CJM, if the CJM roundly disagreed with this concern.  The CJM could confront this head-on.  But isn't it interesting how the CJM routinely avoids confrontation on this key point?  That's because they too share the concern.  But they share it incoherently.  The CJM already knows (or should know), through the time and effort it has taken to educate itself about Islam, that there is no way to defend a single Muslim, let alone any demographics of Muslims, from our suspicion, let alone our condemnation.  But they can't face this conclusion from the data.  They are afraid to "go there" to Zero Tolerance of All Muslims.  So instead, they deflect all their analytical and emotional energies onto the Problem of Islam, and just avoid the uncomfortable implications this has for a Problem of Muslims.  They pursue this through an incoherent hope that if they expose the alarming danger & evil of Islam long enough, it will wake up the West.  But wake up the West to do what, exactly?  Apparently, to enact measures that follow the same paradigm as the WM, but merely tighten the screws and bolts more on the same old machine -- all basically versions of "monitor radical extremist Islamists more than we're doing currently".  Thus effectively ignoring the vast ocean of non-"radical", non-"extremist", non-"Islamist" Muslims whence the whole bloody problem pullulates, and proceeds -- with a trajectory aiming at the destruction of our societies.

A good example of this failure to communicate between the two Mainstreams could not have been on more glaring display than in a recent Jihad Watch report where Robert Spencer, the éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream par excellence, confronted the Western Mainstream head-on -- but in a diametrically wrong-headed way illustrating my argument here with exquisite (albeit, on Spencer's part, unwitting) precision.

The report in question was how a Muslim organization in New York objected to a 911 monument referring to the 19 hijackers as "Islamic terrorists".  Their complaint centered on how such a designation would be "painting all Muslims with the same brush".  While strictly speaking this involves a Muslim organization, and thus is not itself Western Mainstream, this anxious concern not to paint all Muslims with the same brush has been the guiding light of the entire Western Mainstream since at least September 11, 2001 (if not also years prior).  And this Muslim organization knows very well and slyly how their voiced concern fits like a doeskin glove the concern of the wider Western Mainstream that comforts and supports them throughout our culture.

So how did that prominent member of the leadership of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM), Robert Spencer, handle this concern?  Ineptly, naturally; because he's solidly CJM, and thus his template & paradigm are outdated and ill-suited to confront such key aspects of the problem as this.

First, Spencer denied that calling attention to the Islamic identity of the 911 terrorists paints all Muslims with the same brush:

This is an oft-used and tired talking point. How does identifying the motivating ideology of the 9/11 attackers paint all Muslims with the same brush?

Um, cough cough, because that same "motivating ideology" is the fervent worldview of all Muslims, by the fact that they are Muslims.  Duh.  Unless Spencer can point out which Muslims are not Islamic, explain how they are not Islamic, and tell us how many there are and which ones they are so that we can feel safe around them and let them stay in our societies.  But Spencer can't do that, and neither can anyone else in the CJM, or the WM, or the whole wide world.  Or would Spencer take the other tack, and claim that being Islamic is not necessarily a bad thing?  I wouldn't put it past him (though usually he adroitly avoids this nodus of the problem, and hasn't revisited it in years).

That was his first mistake: defensive, rather than boldly taking the offensive.  From there, Spencer only dug a deeper hole, with a specious analogy:

Does referring to the Italian mafia amount to calling all Italians mafiosi? Does referring to German Nazis mean that one is calling all Germans National Socialists? 

His analogy implies that generic Muslims are to be considered as innocent as "Germans" compared with "Nazis" (and "Italians" compared with "the Mafia").  This analogy fails, because the two parts of the analogy don't survive the mountain of data we have about Islam and Muslims -- a mountain of data which screamingly indicates a problem qualitatively different from the problem of Nazis and the Mafia.  A mountain of data, incidentally, which Robert Spencer himself has done great work in amassing over the years for the education of his fellow Westerners. A good deal of this mountain involves taqiyya in all its wondrous forms, including the False Moderate in hundreds of instances over the years, where a given Muslim everyone thought was moderate turned out to be a supporter of the jihad against us.

Unsurprisingly, the Civilians in the comments section ignored this lapse in Spencer's editorial remarks; though a few of them left comments strongly implying that they don't buy Spencer's specious analogy and defense of Muslims from the accursed "same brush".

A commenter named "pfwag" for example, wrote:

All Muslims have the same asinine holy book, follow the same murdering pedophile prophet, and worship the same hateful god.

And our old friend "Angemon" who had pestered and attacked me hundreds of times (if not veritably thousands of times) over the years primarily because of my provocative challenges to the CJM to stop pussyfooting and prevaricating around a zero tolerance of all Muslims, with supremely ironic (and incoherent) hypocrisy, deposited this comment:
“The Islamic group has asked that the monument just read, “terrorists” or even “Al-Qaeda terrorists.”
How about it just reads “muslims”?

Saturday, September 03, 2016

A reminder, children...


Back in early June of this year, I published a posting here on my general outlook on comments:

The Hesperado policy on comments for Dummies 101

An apposite extract from that posting I quote here as a gentle reminder:

"I've always found it odd when people can't see that a comments thread attached to the underside of a blog essay or article is a separate adjunct.  It's a precious public space where, in my view, the utmost freedom possible should be allowed (with only extreme exceptions, such as death threats, publishing other people's private information, or egregious spamming).

"And, more importantly, it should be clear to anyone with minimum sense that, unless the blog owner explicitly states that the commenters are his publishing minions or that he agrees with them, public comments are just a random influx of people from the wider world of the World Wide Web drifting in and taking the opportunity to register their two cents."

Friday, September 02, 2016

Counter-Jihad Mainstream deficiencies (again...)

My commentary in square brackets.

Canadian Human Rights Commission advertises Islam as a religion of peace and justice

[Christine Williams, as I've noted before, is a frequent writer at Jihad Watch.  Since Jihad Watch is a bastion of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, and since Robert Spencer, the founder and still energetic publisher, promoter and writer of Jihad Watch is a shrewd and intelligent man, he wouldn't pick someone to be a frequent writer of his publication if she weren't on track with his views on the problem of Islam.  And so we can reasonably assume that Christine Williams, when she editorializes, reflects the Counter-Jihad Mainstream view on the problem of Islam.]

The Canadian Human Rights Commission sponsored a webinar entitled “Building Bridges Between Cultures,” promoting Islam as a religion of peace and justice that shares values with other major faiths.

[Nowhere in her lengthy editorial analysis does Williams advert to the obviously main reason why the  Canadian Human Rights Commission -- and the whole bloody rest of the mainstream West -- indulges this kind of nonsense:  Because they are anxious to protect innumerable Muslims who are (seemingly) innocent -- moms and pops like the rest of us, Muslims who just wanna have a sandwich, who seem to be just going about their daily lives, who seem to be nice people, who are not stabbing anyone, not shooting anyone, not exploding, not running people over with trucks, etc.  This is the same anxiety I've seen countless times from the Jihad Watch comments regulars (the "Rabbit Pack" as I've dubbed them, a lynch-mob-cum-high-school-clique, whose leading member (if only because he has been so indefatigably active, like an Energizer Bunny, in pestering & policing those who don't abide by the lockstep rules of the aforementioned Rabbit Pack) -- including gravenimage, Mirren, dumbledoresarmy, Wellington, Western Canadian, PRCS, JayBoo, mortimer, and Philip Jihadski (though with his anger management issues, attacking hapless commenters who mean no harm (example, this one, where his victims were Peggy and Ernie. two decent people whom Philip Jihadski savaged) so venomously his comments had to be scrubbed by Robert Spencer's tech genius, Marc, one could say he belongs to the "Rabid Pack" as well...

Unless Williams believes that all Muslims pose an equal problem to the societies of the free world, how is her position (and the position of the rest of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream) really all that different from that of the Canadian Human Rights Commission?  Numerous indications from many of her Jihad Watch writings over the months, however, lead one to surmise that Williams does believe that innumerable Muslims are harmless and innocent, and should be treated as such.  At any rate, she -- and the entire Counter-Jihad Mainstream -- needs to clarify this, because it is the crucial nodus of the reason why the two Mainstreams -- the Counter-Jihad Maisntream and the broader Western Mainstream -- remain rhetorically at odds in an incoherent and inconsistent fashion, talking past each other.  Where there is no traction of explicitly articulated disagreement, there will be no productive movement forward.]

But given the sizeable problem the globe is experiencing with political Islam, the first question one might ask is, why is this ignored? The second question might be...

[Woah, Nelly.  Before you proceed with your questions, Miss Williams, we have a question for you:  How is your 'political Islam' any different from 'Islam'?]

[But of course, she does barrel ahead without answering that most important question, because the Counter-Jihad Mainstream to which she belongs rarely poses that question amongst themselves...]


Shahina Siddiqui, President of the Islamic Social Services Association (ISSA) of Canada, was the keynote speaker at the webinar. She’s also a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Commissioner’s National Advisory Committee on Diversity, and the RCMP Commanding Officers’ Diversity Committee. She stated:
So going back to Islamophobia…. to really understand what the definition of Islamophobia is – it is proposed that Islam and Muslims are monolithic, and cannot adapt to new realities. This is one of the elements of Islamophobia…..
It also says that they cannot share, Islam does not share values with other major faiths, and this consistently you hear it in the media coming from Islamophobic websites…
What reasonable person could disagree with Siddiqui about how it is incorrect to think Muslims are unable to adapt to new realities?

[It depends on what "unable" means.  If one means it in an ontological sense, well sure.  But if one reasonably concludes that Muslims -- given everything we know about their history, culture and psychology -- are mostly likely not able to "adapt to new realities" (i.e., to stop following their evil, fanatical ideology), then all reasonable people will, unlike Christine Williams (and probably also Robert Spencer and most of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream), not agree with Siddiqui.]

That is, if her statements were as innocent and authentic as they appear. If Muslims are fully willing to be citizens of Western countries and fully reject Sharia law, then they should be embraced, as is everyone of other faiths who upholds the same values.

[There's Williams shoulding Muslims again -- here also "If-Thenning" them:  "If Muslims blah blah blah, then they should blah blah blah..."  No.  We need to stop framing the problem this way.  When we have good reason to believe Peter is not going to do X in a million years, then we should stop saying he "should do X".  We should stop critiquing Muslims altogether, and just figure out ways to protect our society from them.  We already know what's wrong with them.  Now we have to work on waking up our society to do what needs to be done -- which is not rocket science.]


Siddiqui also says:
Islam in fact is not a violent religion. The word Islam comes from two root words: peace and submission. The objective of an Islamic way of life is to bring peace, not only to the individual, to the family, to the community, but to the world.
Islam believes that peace comes when there is justice. A great responsibility on Muslims to pursue justice, to establish justice, to work against oppression and any kind of oppression and to speak up against it.
How might Siddiqui explain 1,400 years of violence and conquest, and the current human rights violations in Muslim states, especially against women, Christians and apostates? Come to think of it, how might she also explain the slaughter of over 10 million Muslims since 1948 at the hands of other Muslims, for not being Muslim enough?

[Who gives a flying F what Siddiqui "might explain"?  We need to stop having discussions with Muslims altogether.  The time for dialogue should be over -- speaking of shoulds.]