Saturday, January 21, 2017

The Psychology of the Counter-Jihad, yadda yadda...

(This continues from my preceding post in my series on the psychology of the Counter-Jihad.)

What better laboratory specimen for examining and analyzing the psychology of the Counter-Jihad than the comments section (growing day by day, at 188 at this point) of a recent Jihad Watch article, emblazoned with the energetically robust title:

Trump vows to "eradicate completely" "radical Islamic terrorism"

For the Counter-Jihad, whose raison d'être, one would reasonably think, is to wake up the West to the problem of Islam, the crux of the discussion should be about two things:

1) this facile & fallacious distinction between "radical Islam" and "Islam"

2) the logical consequences flowing from our educated conclusion that the problem is Islam, not any dysphemistic term that would try to whittle the problem down (e.g., "radical Islam" or "political Islam" or "Islamism" or "Salafism" or "Wahhabism" or any mixed-and-matched combination of the aforementioned).

And what are those logical consequences?  Obviously, it is that, if the problem is Islam, the Islam of 1.6 billion Muslims, then what does that say about those 1.6 billion Muslims, for whom this same Islam is their central meaning of life spiritually, socially, and politically?

This question then looks back at #1 to guide it.  We in the Counter-Jihad who have educated ourselves about Islam, knowing that the problem is mainstream Islam, the same Islam of all Muslims, know that Islam is, and always has been, a blueprint for world conquest based upon a fanatical totalitarianism, involving a combination of violent terrorism and non-violent subversion -- the latter proceeding successfully because too many in the West, including in the Counter-Jihad, do not see the necessary, intimate connection between seemingly harmless Muslims and the Muslims on the front lines of their perennial jihad against the rest of the world.

Whenever they find themselves pressed by the logic of this kind of question, Counter-Jihadists tend to squirm and in their anxiety they generate innumerable permutations of different kinds of Muslims.  This permutation of types of Muslims is evidently supposed to get the Counter-Jihadist out of the uncomfortable position of condemning all Muslims, by releasing that pressure through positing the viable existence of innumerable Muslims who are somehow, in one way or another... not Islamic.

And this tendency of the Counter-Jihad is how they can have their cake (of robustly asserting that the problem is Islam, not just "radical Islam"), and eat it too (positing innumerable Muslims who are somehow not putting Islam into practice and thus should not be targeted by our policies of self-defense from Islam).

And this is the movement that is supposed to help wake up the West? 

So those 188 comments by Counter-Jihad civilians, what do they say about these questions?  Predictably, the topic of of the specious distinction "radical Islam" and "Islam" straight no chaser comes up many times, quite robustly -- but only twice does anyone dare to connect the dot to all Muslims.  

And of those two times, only one of these is worth considering:

It seems that American politicians don’t have the courage to speak of opposing Islam without slapping the “radical” modifier on it. The fear is understandable — they’re afraid of criticizing “all Muslims” — but their solution is unacceptable.

This commenter is correct on this point but, alas, he failed to draw out the logic. And naturally, it was typed by someone I've never seen commenting on Jihad Watch before.

(The other one was clearly connoting genocidal hatred -- "ALL muslims are abhorrent and foul disgusting filth, the utter dregs of human slime and sickness." -- and besides, such emotional hatred is irrelevant to our pragmatic concern to protect our societies from Muslims.)
Otherwise, we see various & sundry Jihad Watchers typing all around the crux, while avoiding its logic:

Trump may know very well that Islam is Islam and it is radical, but in the current situation it is hard even for him to say it.

* * * * *

A good first step (IMO): remind our neighbors and friends that our constitution’s 1st amendment does not permit religious ACTS which violate U.S. law.
Carrying out Qur’an 5:38’s command to amputate thieves’ hands (as but one example) is ILLEGAL in this country–per our manmade law.
Muslims around the world need to be reminded of that, too.

* * * * *

Among other things, the First Amendment doesn’t protect sedition. Thanks to the Saudis, that’s what is being preached in mosques all over the US.
Jihadist mosques should be closed.

* * * * *

All mosques teach jihad and therefore all of them should be closed. No imam can preach Islam without teaching jihad. It is as simple as that!

* * * * *
All preaching in the mosque should be subject to prior approval by the state(authorized English translation) and should be closely monitored by the state as a first step towards taking legal action including closing down the mosques that violate the rule .

* * * * *

“radical Islamic terrorism” is just a euphemism for “Islam”

[And, I would add, "Islam" is a euphemism for "all Muslims"]

* * * * *

An impossible task [to eradicate radical Islam completely]. Terror is generic to Islam, just like biting is natural to rattlesnakes.
But certainly its eradication is possible in the USA under his leadership.

* * * * *

A measure of how far we are removed from rationality is that we can’t say we want to eradicate Islamic terrorism, we have to limit ourselves to eradicating RADICAL Islamic terrorism.
Islam is the scourge of the earth. Deal with it accordingly.

* * * * *

President Trump will go for the throat , if he can find it…
The first step toward eliminating terrorism is to stop using the word ‘radical;,,,when I hear kuffar use it, I know they don’t really understand Islam and then can’t really know the enemy…If you don’t know the enemy, you will underestimate the enemy, and you will lose…

* * * * *

The “radical” has got to go. It’s just Islam, Islamic Terrorism (Jihad). Now if Trump starts using “Jihad” that’s even better.

* * * * *
One commenter began to get warm but, unfortunately, didn't pursue his logic explicitly (and also failed to remind his reader of the necessary symbiosis of violent jihad with stealth jihad):

Radical Islãmic terrorism could voluntarily vanish, as a directive from Islãm.
The Muslims have to be only simply as nice as pie, and as accommodating as you like, and breed and be merry, and wait, and plot and plan.
They may see themselves as the pilgrims on the Mayflower did.
The Islãmic invasion remains, terror or no terror, the tide of Islãm vibrates in ebb, waiting, growing, waiting, growing, as ‘peaceful’ as you like, plotting, planning, smiling, lying.
Allah is a mass of Muslim souls, the right catalyst may cause it to explode, releasing souls that will migrate somewhere.

* * * * *

Trump’s war on “radical islamic terrorism” will be as effective as the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror and so on. It is like to treat headache caused by a brain tumor. It will make a patient more comfortable, but the problem is still there and will likely get worse. The disease is islam. If islam continues to be a legal ideology, terrorism will continue. Only by making islam as illigal as some other cults, war on terror can be successful. American congress might pass a law banding islam after 2 or 3 more 9/11ns.

* * * * *


It becomes almost surreal how these robust, tough, no-nonsense Counter-Jihadists can wax boldly about the problem of Islam -- yet studiously tip-toe around the ones (um, you know, Muslims) who put Islam into practice on a daily basis -- either by killing us more and more, or plotting to kill us more and more, or lying about it.

Friday, January 20, 2017

The Psychology of the Counter-Jihad, again...

In my first installment of this series on the psychology of the Counter-Jihad Softy, I wrote:

I kept thinking that surely, they would begin to adjust their rosy-colored perspective with every fresh atrocity Muslims would perpetrate and/or plot.  Lord knows there's been no short supply of Mohammedan atrocities over the years...

And this:

But every time Jihad Watch or Front Page Mag or Atlas Shrugs, etc., would report yet another frightfully gruesome attack by Muslims, I would notice a strange resiliency in their underlying nougat.  

Well, when I saw the story on Jihad Watch of the latest Muslim atrocity, when a Muslim in Melbourne, Australia, mowed down a crowd of people in a mass-murderous rage (perfectly in keeping with the spirit and dictates of mainstream Islam), I noticed there were 137 comments on the initial article.  I don't even have to read them to know the comments will be filled with incoherent, inconsistent flailing about, hitting peripheral points with robust gusto, but for all that, still missing the point that the problem of Islam is the problem of mainstream Islam -- and that this problem, in turn, is joined at the hip with the problem of all Muslims, including all Muslims who are in the West, including any upon whom the West (including America) has disastrously conferred "citizenship".

And that, as long as the West doesn't grasp this, the West will be continuing to sail straight ahead for the Titanic disaster that looms ahead, auguring the mayhem and misery Mohammedans will eventually, inevitably wreak upon the West.

And that, for the West to wake up to grasp this in time, there needs to be a growing nucleus within it of a movement (the erstwhile "Anti-Islam Movement" that still doesn't exist coherently) to help wake their fellow Westerners up.

As long as I continue to see this movement flail about in incoherence, in a diverse multitude of ways hampering the realization of the dreaded A word (all Muslims), I reasonably, sorrowfully, remain a pessimist.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

The Psychology of the Counter-Jihad Softy

Another thing I've noticed about them -- they tend to wear rose-colored glasses about the future threat of Islam, though sometimes not consistently (as when they magnify the corruption and danger of Leftists to an almost ludicrous, comic-book degree, in effect making their apparently malevolent superpowers the worse problem).

One example of this is the tendency for Counter-Jihad Softies to ridicule Muslims they are engaging with online (whether in discussion forums, or more dramatically, in Paltalk chat rooms where, in addition to typing text in real time, chatters can also speak on the microphone and take turns, generating mini-debates, discussions, or diatribes).  This ridicule is most often expressed as demeaning insults (e.g., "Muzzies like you drink camel piss" or  "Whatsa matter? Did you have a marital spat with your goat this morning?" etc.).  In addition to the ridicule, there is the tendency to get embroiled in wrangling "debates" with various and sundry "Muzzies" -- where the predictable result is that the Muslim in question proceeds to do an elaborate tap-dance of stonewalling taqiyya and prevaricating sophistry while the Counter-Jihadist browbeats him (or her) with a deluge of data from the Koran, hadiths, tafsirs, and Islamic history.

The problem as I see it with this ridicule and these kangaroo-court "debates" is that they confer too much respect on the Muslims in question.  We already know their taqiyya tactics backwards and forwards, and all they do each time is repeat them with slight variations, and this has been going on for years.  A much better expenditure of our time would be to ignore any and all Muslims while we talk about them (in the third person even when they are present in a discussion forum or chat room) and their Islam -- and, more importantly, while we dialogue about how to fine-tune the still amorphous, not quite yet existing, Anti-Islam Movement. 

Psychologically, I think this penchant of the Counter-Jihad Softies reflects their view of Muslims as more or less clowns and country bumpkins from the desert.  This minimizes drastically the danger they pose, and leavens with too much of a vibe of slapstick comedy their deadly-serious fanaticism that continues to endanger our lives in various ways.  Part and parcel with this, the Counter-Jihad Softies tend to minimize the intelligence of Muslims, reducing them to hapless, retarded Middle Eastern versions of the dueling banjo-picking hillbillies of Deliverance. This, again, is a reckless miscalculcation of what I call the fanatical intelligence of the Mohammedan -- an intelligence born of the single-minded hatred for the Other cultivated by Islam, and the assiduous obsession with doing everything for the goal of subjugating that Other by any means necessary.  (This is not to say that there don't exist many stupid and comical Muslims out there; it is only to caution against generalizing that into some kind of standard baseline.)

Psychologically, I think this reflects an underlying, semi-conscious denial of just how afraid and frustrated they feel about this metastasizing problem of Muslims in our midst, any number of whom, at seemingly random times and places, may explode, stab, shoot, or drive vehicles into crowds.  Or far worse, in the coming decades, as our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren grow up to a world increasingly beset by a global revival of Islam, and a persisting denial of that fact by our political representatives, news media, academic experts, and influential celebrities.  Often, the Counter-Jihad Softies will deny that they are afraid of Muslims -- but what rational person would not be afraid of a frighteningly random, often unpredictable, and escalating violence popping up in various places all over the world, driven by some strange, grotesquely ghoulish species of religious fanaticism we had convinced ourselves over the 20th century -- as we advanced in our Fukuyamish Progress toward the Millennium, with a Seinfeld laugh track for our charming foibles -- was a phenomenon of the distant past, or of fantasy novels and sci-fi movies?

Part of this psychology manifests itself in tough bravado:  "If those damn Muzzies try that in America, we'll show them -- we have guns!"  Cough, cough.  Muslims have already "tried" that in America, several times, to the tune of thousands dead.  And it is reasonable to suppose that more of that is to come -- despite Trump's fine-tuned vetting process for foreign immigration of Muslims. 

Another example of this psychology is in the Counter-Jihad reviews of the new movie about the Boston Marathon razzia in 2013, Patriot's Day.  Even Debbie Schlussel gave it a glowing thumbs up (with tangential caveats).  One discerns in her comments about the Kevin Bacon character -- who plays an FBI agent who was worried that the dragnet to capture the Tiny Minority of Terrorists Who Have Nothing To Do With The Islam of Most Decent Law-Abiding Muslims in America might paint that Vast Majority of  Decent Law-Abiding Muslims in America with a broad, bigoted brush -- that she thinks the movie was actually criticizing him.  Methinks she was reading into the movie what she herself feels.  This reflects an interesting psychology, whereby what the Counter-Jihadist thinks must be felt by the Mainstream.  What planet is Debbie on?  Does she honestly think that the major Hollywood bigwigs who gave the green light to this picture would be on her side on this? 

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

PC MC before PC MC was cool?

I quote from Devant l'Islam (“Confronting Islam”) by Louis Bertrand (published 1926) where in the first chapter he writes about a visit to Alexandria, Egypt, in the late 1920s, where there had recently been a massacre of non-Muslims:

“I questioned the older Alexandrian citizens.  They recalled periodic massacres: some church, some hospital, some neighborhood having to be rebuilt so many times over a century…  They also recounted recent massacres of 1922.  And don’t tell me it was only the Middle Eastern Jews or Christians who were targeted.  Whoever wore a Western hat was targeted by the same axes or hatchets of the assassins.  In the West, in this age, a media ignorant or venal has glorified the supposed tolerance of the Egyptian Muslims.  If you believe our newspapers, the Copts fraternize from the depths of their hearts with their age-old enemies.  The Crescent has combined with the Cross on one and the same flag -- and glib or complaisant writers see in that a proof of fraternal sentiments of Muslims with regard to Christians.” [chapter 1, p. 21]

As the French say, plus ça change.  Or, at the very least, the longevity of our Western inability to enemize Muslims (I just coined that, I believe) moves us to ponder and reconfigure the Problem of the Problem as having more depth and breadth than the Counter-Jihad Mainstream would seem to think.

(Note on my translation: a bit free here and there, perhaps; as with my "media" for presse and "Western hat" for simply un chapeau.  The original text may be found here.)


The most benign scenario possible -- still disastrous enough -- is that the Washington context that allowed the OBushma administrations the sociopolitical traction to pursue their policy goals, indulges a Geopolitikanschauung (a geopolitics worldview) vis-à-vis the problem of Islam (which in their perspective, of course, is not a problem of Islam but rather a problem of the whack-a-mole terrorism-cum-guerrilla destabilization of the Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Have Nothing to do With Islam) guided by at least two conceits:

1) that in the maelstrom of the hot spots of the Muslim world, there exist viable numbers and groupings of moderate jihadists (or if not strictly speaking “moderate”, at least capable of forming useful alliances with us in the long-term);

2) the old order that prevailed both prior to, and in the wake of, the protracted dismantlement of Western Colonialism, must be “reconfigured” or “rebooted” with a new Operating System -- the old order being a political order throughout the Muslim world whereby tin-pot dictators had their falafel and ate it too: they kept their corrupt power & money and supported the West against Communism, while at home they also knew (being Muslims themselves) that they had to keep a constant lid on the natural demographic pressure caused by Muslims, involving among other things a near constant holding action against paramilitary/terror coups threatening to topple them in the name of a “purer” Islam.

#1 and #2 above do dovetail, when one fits them into the PC MC worldview: both are in different ways predicated upon the belief that in the Muslim world, “The People” are mostly freedom-loving and, when they want to take up arms against a despotic regime, are just like America’s Founding Fathers and the freedom-fighting patriots of Boston, etc. -- even better (in the perspective of those besotted by PC MC): they are Brown People fighting for freedom against tyrants.

Meanwhile, as Muslims have been pursuing their protracted global revival of Islam after a 300-year-long reversal of fortunes that have increasingly humiliated what should be the Best of Peoples surrounded by superior seas of filthy Kuffar striding over the world and controlling pop culture and global economies, they have been pushing for one step after another in a chain of dominoes to attain this goal -- including not only disparate yet interconnected terrorism, not only transnational Daw’a and Jihad of the Feet (immigration into the Enemy Camp of the Dar al Harb), but also the regional jihads of the “Arab Spring”.

In this complex, protracted dynamic, Muslims who in the old order, before PC MC became the dominant worldview of the West, were more or less pawns of Western geopolitics, have now become the dog wagging the sincerely hapless Wilsonian Dogwalker who, among other disastrous things, looks on at the alarming meltdown of the old order of dictators who kept a cork of sorts on the Genie-in-the-Bottle of Islamic fanaticism and, instead of being appropriately alarmed, think: “Oh, look at all the freedom-loving Brown People who if we only help them get their freedom-loving Moderate Islamic way, will help us manage this problem of the Tiny Minority of Extremists which otherwise would get out of control!”

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

P.S. to my "Logic of the Stealth Jihad"

In my previous post, "The Logic of the Stealth Jihad", I well may have given a few misleading impressions -- only because I may have underestimated how markedly many (even in the Counter-Jihad) disagree with me on certain key components of the primary problem (Islam) and the secondary "problem of the problem" (the problem of the West persisting in its myopia about the primary problem).

Just three clarifications for now.  In that aforementioned post, I wrote:

At a certain point, the vast majority of Westerners -- including even the dunderheaded PC MCs -- will be forced awake, and at that point Muslims will have to pull off the mask and draw out the sword to attack us. 

1) That "certain point" to which I allude refers to some future moment which I did not specify, but which for the record I presume will likely not occur for another hundred years or so.

2) When I write that at that "certain point" Muslims "will have to  pull off the mask and draw out the sword to attack us", of course I didn't mean to imply Muslims have not already been doing this, too many of them, in various places around the world (and increasingly in the West), for years; only that the mask-lifting will be comprehensive, by all Muslims -- for at that point, they will have concluded that:

a) there is no further need for taqiyya deception, because

b) they will have confidently assumed, by then, that they possess the ability to definitively ruin our societies and reduce them to breakdowns in social order, thus leveraging their logical next step, a rampant takeover.

And, finally, when I wrote that -- "the vast majority of Westerners -- including even the dunderheaded PC MCs -- will be forced awake..." -- I did not necessarily mean "awake" in the sense of "able to repel this comprehensively existential threat from Muslims."

What I meant, in my pessimistic gloom that has devolved over this past year, is that Westerners will finally wake up -- only to see that it's too late to save their civiliization.  An analogy, on a micro scale, would be an individual who stubbornly persists all his life to believe that his Muslim friend is one of the moderate good Muslims -- until the moment when his Muslim friend's blade, gripped fervently by that same Muslim friend, is sawing through his neck, and his hands are tied. 

Monday, January 16, 2017

The Logic of the Stealth Jihad
Muslims, fanatically following their Islamic blueprint encoded in their Sunna (not merely of Sunni Muslims, but also of Shia Muslims, who have their own Sunna) want to take over the West and replace our civilizational order with their anti-civilization.

Muslims won’t be able to take over the West without massive and rampant acts of violence, for two reasons: 1) The West remains astronomically superior to Islam, in every way, including technologically, scientifically, militarily, and morally.  And 2) because the Islamic order with which Muslims want to replace our West is outrageously inimical to the worldview and values of the vast majority of Westerners (other than a tiny minority of extremist Leftists and sociopathic criminals).

Anyone who thinks otherwise, apparently hasn’t thought through how radically, monstrously different the Muslim society is from Western society (we’re talking the true Muslim society, not the traveling Potemkin Circus the pseudo-Reformer Muslims try to sell the West). Only a tiny fraction of Westerners are so far gone they would actually prefer, or allow, such a takeover without being violently compelled to submit.

What’s going on with “Sharia Creep” that Hugh Fitzgerald and others in the Counter-Jihad document is an artificial phenomenon, generated by the stealth jihad that has to operate that way because Muslims aren’t capable of just taking over with might.

The transition from the elaborate subterfuge and deception going on in this phase to a “takeover” logically can’t happen by more of the same -- more subterfuge and deception -- because that is not the real Sharia nor is it the real Islam. And the reason why, obviously, is because Westerners wouldn’t put up with hand-chopping for theft, head-chopping for witchcraft, stoning adulterers, and flogging for casual sex acts (let alone for mere mingling of men and women in public), and hanging gays from cranes. So, Muslims have to sell the idea of a “Sharia Lite” (which is a taqiyya fiction) in order to get a toe-wedge in for the beginning of Sharia Creep.

But again, there is no smooth, gradual transition from the Sharia Lite to head-chopping. At a certain point, the vast majority of Westerners -- including even the dunderheaded PC MCs -- will be forced awake, and at that point Muslims will have to pull off the mask and draw out the sword to attack us. They can’t do that yet, because they have more infiltrating to do. And the West continues to enable that continued infiltration -- and many in the Counter-Jihad do their part in this Useful Idiocy, by refusing to push the meme of rational prejudice against all Muslims.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Our forgetful Jihad Watchers...,204,203,200_.jpg

A commenter at Jihad Watch whom I've never seen (under a nickname that is an amusing pun, "My Shari'a Moor") quoted Thomas Jefferson:

“[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” – 3rd US Pres. Thomas Jefferson, 1803.

Then one of the "Rabbit Pack" -- that high-school-clique-cum-lynch-mob of hall monitors who patrol the corridors of Jihad Watch comments -- one "Mirren", with whom I've had run-ins before, expressed effusive approval of that quote.  Indeed, one of those run-ins I see, on re-reading it, is directly relevant to my post today.  At any rate, here's Mirren's response to the above quote by Thomas Jefferson:

  • Brilliant quote from Thomas Jefferson, thanks for posting it. I’ve sent it to Sharia May, and Nigel Farage.
Well, that's rich coming from Mirren. I say that not only because she has countenanced the hundreds of attacks on me over the years from her fellow Rabbit Packers ("Angemon" and "Philip Jihadski" being the worst offenders) because I have advocated that the Counter-Jihad push the meme of Total Deportation -- and she even occasionally participated in their attacks -- but also because of the above-linked essay (Update on my "Signs of intelligent life on Planet Jihad Watch") in which I analyze, piece by piece, her long and detailed response to another Jihad Watch commenter who is not part of the Rabbit Pack, one "John A. Marre".  This is what John A. Marre wrote that triggered Mirren to compose a lengthy, detailed dunk of cold water on him:

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!

And how did Mirren respond?  Of particular note is the following:

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.  ...In order to deport all muslims from the West we are going to have to (i) change our laws...
Even if we don't have to change our laws (which I argue in my above-linked analysis), notice how back then, six months ago, she was not only failing to carry the torch of Thomas Jefferson about which now, six months later, she is so gung-ho -- she was positively dampening its fire.

”Brilliant quote from Thomas Jefferson, thanks for posting it. I’ve sent it to Sharia May, and Nigel Farage.”

Perhaps Mirren should also send it to herself.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Say Bye, Bye, Obama...

Here was a parody I wrote back in the fall of 2015 about our Outgoing President (thank Allah!), Obama, and the way he would use his slick talent for rhetoric in service of his disastrously soft approach to the metastasizing problem of a global revival of Islam in our time.  It was occasioned by the news story of the American off-duty military man who, along with his two buddies, saved the lives of the passengers of a train he was riding in France, from a Muslim terrorist intent on a mass shooting.  The headline read:

“Spencer Stone, the US Air Force serviceman who stopped him in his tracks, was today personally commended by President Barack Obama.”

My parody:

From the special press conference:

President Obama:

“Yesterday on a passenger train from France to Amsterdam three valiant Americans stepped in to do the right thing. I want to commend Airman Spencer Stone, standing here to my left, for risking his life to save the lives of other innocent persons on that train, by tackling and immobilizing a member of the Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam -- a salutary endeavor that helps us see the problem of terrorism for what it is: not a war against Islam or against Muslims, but a recalibration effort calculated to reconfigure and reboot our geopolitical security in the face of a very small, indeed tiny, fraction of twisted individuals who have nothing to do with Islam. Did I say this terrorist has nothing to do with Islam? Let me repeat…”

Reporter for the Washington Post: “Mr. President! Now that our brave citizens helped foil this latest terror plot, what is your assessment of our overall Struggle Against People Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam?”

President: “Whoa, Jerry! I didn’t even need my trusty old Chicago Cubs mitt to catch that softball! [patter & flutter of laughter]. To answer your very good question, I can say that our Holding Action Against the Non-Islamic Forces that Threaten Our 56 States -- er, I mean 51 States -- is on a cautiously hopeful uptick, as long as we stay the course, rely upon our national reserves of integrity and decency under the law of nations, look forward with optimism to the future, and continue putting our right hand forward in the shape of the traditional politician’s fist with thumb sticking up as an emphatic gesture of good old-fashioned American stick-to-itiveness!”

Applause all around.

President:  “Time for one more question -- yes, Pete....”

Peter Baker of the New York Times: “Thank you Mr. President; will you please bless my infant child with your holy palm?”

Friday, January 13, 2017

So many Better Cops, so little time...

Over the past couple of years I've developed the term "Better Cops" to denote the clever Muslim pseudo-reformer who is so clever in saying the right things, he often even fools otherwise Islamoliterate folks in the Counter-Jihad.

Several of my previous essays on this phenomenon can be found on this Google page.

Aside from the superstars in this category -- Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, Irshad Manji, and others -- there seems to have been more and more of these Better Cops popping up all over the place.  As I wrote back in March of 2016, there are so many, I haven't had time to sustain a regular "Better Cops Watch", though now and again I have noted likely candidates.

At any rate, for now I will just name names of a few various, lesser-known Muslims who fit this bill, and indicate with one sentence the kind of thing they do or say that leads so many, even in the Counter-Jihad, to assume he must be (or "could be") a Muslim Reformer Who Will Help Save Us from their Islam.

Hamed Abdel-Samad:  "Islam is not compatible with democracy".  (For more info & analysis, see here and here.)

Nasser Dashti:  "Islamic conquests constitute colonialism; the Arab mentality is sectarian, dictatorial, tyrannical"

Abdessamad Belhaj:  “In Islamic discourses, migration is seen as a beginning of the Islamisation of Europe, the rich land that will change the fate of Islam, from a religion of the poor to a religion of the rich." 

[Also, the report characterizes Belhaj's position]:  

The scholar of Islam and social sciences warned that large numbers of migrants are “calamitous” for the European people, and that neoliberal elites see Islamic terrorism, and state bankruptcy and collapse as collateral damage in their pursuit of endless wealth. 

[I.e., Belhaj is appealing to the latent conspiracy-theory sentiments of those in the Counter-Jihad, to divert their attention away from Islam, onto the dastardly cabal of "neo-liberal" elites who are supposed to be the Real Problem.  And guess what, most of the Jihad Watchers who commented on that Jihad Watch thread demonstrate, unwittingly, that they got suckered in by Belhaj.]

Ali Akbar:  In response to Sally Kohn, a lesbian activist who blamed the Orlando attack on right wing Christians, Ali Akbar started a petition against her:   

"Sally Kohn has an unhealthy and very inaccurate view of Christians, not just Christianity but Christians themselves," wrote Ali Akbar, author of the petition, in an email statement to PJ Media.  Akbar defended calling Kohn a bigot. "Bigotry is when you hate an entire group and generally believe you have a superior view. That's clearly what Kohn believes," he declared.  He argued that the Left has "a broader view that 'intolerance' is the real evil and their original sin. Richard Dawkins and the rest of them--all of them believe religion is used to control people instead of communing with the Creator." Akbar continued: "Sally Kohn truly believes that Christian 'intolerance' leads to this attack and all other ails of society, including the gay suicide rate and other tragic things."  Akbar emphasized that "there's no evidence for her accusation. It's bigotry. These are the same people, like Samantha Bee, who say 'f*ck your prayers' and other things. What they want is legislation and their worldview to reign supreme. That's bigotry." "Kohn shares more in common with the killer in Orlando than I do or any right-leaning American, yet we don't blame her," the petition author wrote. "That would be bigoted to lump folks in together like that. I'm opposed to that and CNN should be too." 

[Notice how Ali Akbar slyly tries to make common cause with the so-called "right wing Christians" and, we logically surmise, with the Counter-Jihad -- adroitly positioining himself (and all good Muslims like him) as a victim no less than the Christians Sally Kohn is demonizing]

Raheel Raza: Consider these bullet points of what Raza calls the "Muslim Reform Movement" (partnered with Zuhdi Jasser, that other problematic Muslim "reformer"):
  • We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam. We invite our fellow Muslims and neighbors to join us.
  • We reject bigotry, oppression and violence against all people based on any prejudice, including ethnicity, gender, language, belief, religion, sexual orientation and gender expression.
  • We are for secular governance, democracy and liberty.
  • Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do
Sounds lovely, doesn't it? I wonder if Raheel Raza has also squared the circle and derived 5 from 2 + 2, or blood from a turnip...?  Those are no less impossible than deriving these bullet points from Islam.

The Moral of the Story:

I could spend time digging through Raheel Raza's articles at the Gatestone Institute (linked above) to find more fishily paradoxical formulations.  And above, for a couple of the names I listed of these Better Cops, I provided further evidence of their fishiness (example, on Hamed Abdel-Samad).  But my point is more radical.

The rule of thumb for the Anti-Islam Movement (which still doesn't quite exist, though there is a complex, straggling, amorphous, incoherent, inconsistent approximation of it in the so-called "Counter-Jihad", riddled with nougaty softness about Muslim) is simplex:

Any Muslim, merely by the fact that he is a Muslim, is not to be trusted.  

No matter what they say, no matter how "reformist" and "secular" they seem, we must reasonably conclude, with a ruthless rational prejudice, that all their reformist & secular talk is so much sweet taqiyya whispered into our Counter-Jihad ears to seduce us into thinking that here, finally, we have found the ever-elusive endangered species of the MOMBAN -- i.e., the Moderate Muslim by Another Name.

We, in the still not-quite-existing Anti-Islam Movement, must simply reject any and every Muslim reformer, without even bothering to get evidence for why he or she should not be trusted.  The mere fact that they are not rejecting Islam -- all of Islam in its entirety -- is evidence enough for us to withhold our trust. 

Thursday, January 12, 2017

"It's a kind of a psychosis..."

That was Philip Haney's sober conclusion, in an interview with Alex Jones back in May of 2016.

I've written about the fine analyst Philip Haney before, in two essays:

Better Cops Watch: Oh irony of ironies...


Frank Gaffney's gaffe.

In this interview with Alex Jones, he said the following:

"We've been handcuffed by rules of engagement to the point where we're virtually... it's almost impossible to do our job..."

At this point, Alex Jones pipes in with typical insinuations of conspiracy theory:

"Why do you think that's being done?  I mean, for me, it's beyond political correctness.  Why would Europe let 5 million of these people in, in the last three years?  This is suicidal."

Haney replies, perhaps wisely not taking the bait to go down the conspiracy logic, and keeps to the problem of the problem which, if it's not a conspiracy, points to deep dysfunction and disablement in the capacity of Westerners to reason about an alarmingly growing threat:

"Yes, it's a kind of a psychosis.  Natan Scharnsky has a premise that's very true: 'If you lose your identity as a person or as a nation, you will die.  You cannot function if you lose your identity.'  And that's what we're on the verge of doing, if we're not careful."

Alex Jones again, now ostensibly contradicting a conspiracy theory:

 "We don't have an identity, except political correctness, that's just a bunch of... mindless fluff!"

Then Haney again:

"Well, I would like to recommend the listeners to go to the 2012 FBI Touchstone document, their training guidelines, where in paragraph 1 it says that even though an individual is affiliated with a known terrorist organization, you are basically not allowed to assume that that person himself might be a terrorist."

Of course, the "psychosis" -- or, rather, mass psychosis -- isn't merely about America's intelligence community being outrageously remiss in pursuing the danger of Islam, nor merely the way Europe and the UK have been handling the Mohammedan invasion in the last few years, but rather the full catastrophe of politically correct multi-culturalism rendering the entire West disabled in the face of a global revival of Islamic Jihad, and strangely incapable of thinking and talking about this issue without going through contortions of logic and pangs of anxiety over being "bigoted" and "racist".

To get back to the first quote above --

"We've been handcuffed by rules of engagement to the point where we're virtually... it's almost impossible to do our job..."

-- unfortunately, it seems that Donald Trump is not discriminating in his selection of his Cabinet between those who seem to be tough and blustery (General "Mad Dog" Mattis) and those who have a surer handle on the problem of Islam as it actually is.  About Trump's choice of Mattis for Defense Secretary, there have been three critical analyses, by Andrew Bostom, by Debbie Schlussel, and by Diana West.  West, in particular, points to how Mattis in terms of his history and military culture seems to be deep into the disastrous COIN rules of engagement which have hamstrung the American military for the nearly 15 years of the OBushma administrations, transforming it virtually into a globalist enablement of a pan-Arab Spring.

At any rate, The approximately 19-minute video interview is very good, and I recommend it for my readers..

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

The Jihad Watch Sycophants Society

In a recent post at Jihad Watch relaying a report from the UK paper, the Daily Mail, about the Meryl Streep rant, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch vented his opinion about that paper:

"The Daily Mail, the worst paper in the Western world..."

In the comments section (nearly 100 now), two commenters evidently from the UK dared to disagree with Spencer and risked their necks by going further to chide him for his intemperate over-generalization:

Off topic but why is Spencer so committed to the idea that The Daily Mail is so bad? Sure, it’s terrible but there’s much worse! Maybe he just read it once and assumed that no tabloid could go lower. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but in the UK there’re far, far worse rags. Spencer should check out the Guardian sometime if he really feels like being depressed. Whilst still awful, The Mail is far more centrist and balanced than The Guardian, which knows no limits in terms of it’s mind-bending propaganda. Seriously, I think the Guardian is in financial trouble owing to its trenchant bias. Even the left have started to go off it. It’s rotten to the core.
Exactly what I was about to write! Spencer makes some foolish comments when he’s on unfamiliar territory. The DM is probably the most anti-Islam of all UK newspapers, BBC, Guardian the opposite. Wise up, Mr Spencer!
If you think Spencer is foolish, why are you posting here?…It’s bad form to insult the host…

The reflex reaction of "duh swami" implies that one cannot criticize Robert Spencer and still support in general terms (with critical caveats here and there) his work and mission. This reflects an uncouth betrayal of Western reason, one of the virtues we are supposed to be defending: the freedom to disagree and the intellectual discrimination to tell the difference between an attack and a reasonable disagreement. But it's a typical reaction from the Jihad Watch Syhcophants Society.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

A nice dressing down of a Jihad Watch Veteran

Most of the time, my reading of Jihad Watch comments is an exercise in tedium, boredom, and frustration.

Once in a blue moon, I see a slam-dunk so satisfying, it makes it all worth it.

Thus, the other day, I had the pleasure to read one "ECAW", a commenter whom I've noticed for quite some time, though he (or she) doesn't strike me as being a "veteran" of the Jihad Watch community per se -- and certainly not a member of the "Rabbit Pack", that high-school-clique-cum-lynch-mob of hall monitors who patrol Jihad Watch comments -- doing what had to be done against one of the Jihad Watch veterans there, one "Undaunted".   I've had a couple of run-ins with Undaunted in times past, and he strikes me as being a typical Counter-Jihad softy -- tough bluster on the outside, soft nougat on the inside.   (Meanwhile, the ever selectively cautious "gravenimage" (of the aforementioned the Rabbit Pack) engaged Undaunted with timid respect, which did not communicate the essential connection of the point from a boxing glove to the side of the chin.  This is what ECAW did superlatively, to set "Undaunted" in his place.

Here is ECAW's KO of Undaunted.  After soaking up his satisfaction of this fine riposte, the reader may scroll up in that Jihad Watch comments thread to see what led up to it.


It may be ironic that the Jihad Watch commenter whom ECAW is defending from Undaunted's reckless attack is one "mortimer" whom I have numerous times when I was commenting there found to be egregiously soft and incoherent on the problem of Muslims (e.g., he advocates "deprogramming" Muslims but never explains how that would be done, and even some of the Rabbit Pack have begun to show impatience with him).  This time, however, mortimer happened to be correct, and Undaunted was incorrect, about a point of history.  This mortimer fellow may not have worded it with ideal precision, but Undaunted went off half-cocked in his angry derision of mortimer's point.  What was mortimer's point?   This is what he wrote that started the firestorm in Undaunted's temper:

Esteban Santiago [the recent Fort Lauderdale Airport terrorist] was a jihadist sabotaging the West’s transportation.

Muslim pirates in the Mediterranean did the same thing, thus causing the Dark Ages through sabotaging transport and trade on the Mediterranean Sea.

To which Undaunted typed:

You're so full of shit.

And then, we were off to the races -- until ECAW stepped in with a right cross that shut Undaunted up for good, it seems.

Speaking of mortimer's point, see my "Further Reading" below.

Further Reading:

The Decline and Fall of a Theory

Monday, January 09, 2017

Better Cop, Ignorant, or Psychologically Compromised?

These are the only three choices that would reasonably explain the behavior and words of Zineb El Rhazoui, a 34-year-old female Moroccan Muslim, sociologist and journalist, who worked for Charlie Hebdo, and recently quit in protest of their capitulation to "Islamist extremists".

To the Counter-Jihad Softy, of course, she would be praised as a "reformer" who is "finding her way out of Islam" or who, as an example, offers us hope about an uncertain number of Muslims out there (the number is never pinned down, but it is implied to be large enough to make a difference to the problem of Islam that threatens our collective existence).  Indeed, Jihad Watch has featured her twice in two reports -- here and here; entirely uncritical reports, of course (and, naturally, while some of the Counter-Jihad civilians in the comments sections notice the cognitive dissonance in Zineb, none of them follow the logic of the dissonance to confront the problem head-on).

The only problem is statements Zineb makes which, like squaring a circle, or 2 + 2 = 5, don't add up.  One example that comes to our attention is what she told an interviewer back in October of 2016 (the same article the Jihad Watchers read in the first report linked above, so they have no excuse).  In the context of speaking about her situation, of having to be under 24-hour protection because "Islamists" want to kill her, she elaborates:

And if you call them by their names you are Islamophobic and racist. I am racist? I can teach them a few things about Arab culture. I can show them how to discover its richness and the diversity of their culture. I believe this culture deserves universality because you can be Arab, Muslim and a free thinker.”

Did you catch that?  Zineb believes that "you can be... Muslim and a free thinker".  (And she says many more dubious things that, were the Counter-Jihad to have more rigorous standards, would not pass muster anymore.)

Either she is ignorant of her own Islam; she is psychologically compromised; or she is a stealth jihadist in the cleverer form of the Better Cop, hoping her audience of Westerners will be egregiously naive (and, alas, most of them are).

Door #1 seems unlikely.  There doesn't seem to be any evidence or reason (other than our anxious need to avoid assuming Door #3) to assume Door #2.  That leaves us Door #3.

Sunday, January 08, 2017

A reader's query

A reader posted a comment that was essentially a battery of tendentious attacks masquerading, in part, as rhetorical questions.  In the interest of reason and the perhaps perennial tendency of other readers not to fully inform themselves before forming opinions, I set the record straight by addressing this particular reader's points (an exercise much like painstakingly collecting buckshot fallen from the various targets it has missed).

You never answered the most pertinent question: how do you tell who is a moslem? 

I love it when someone begins with a claim impossible to verify.  I can say that, in fact, I have, on multiple occasions over the years (including in numerous essays right here on this blog), answered that "most pertinent question".  It's my word against his, I suppose; and when your interlocutor accuses you of "lying", it's time to shake the dust from your sandals and take your leave.  This reader's question is framed rhetorically, implying he thinks it's impossible to tell who is a Muslim.  If that were the case, then PEW polls, and news services, and the United Nations, and the CIA Factbook, etc., etc., would be unable to tell us how many Muslims currently reside, year by year, in various countries of the world, including France, Germany, England, the U.S., Canada, etc. etc.  So, when a question seems to be based on such elementary lapses, it's hard to take the questioner seriously.  I try to make it a practice not to answer questions that a reasonably intelligent person (unlike the questioner, apparently) could answer for themselves.

Tell us again how that is going to happen ? will you round them up according to ‘traditional garb’ ? or possibly, ‘brown skin’? 

Already, we see the telltale signs of lurking PC MC in this supposedly no-nonsense Counter-Jihadist (whom I suspect of being one "PRCS" who says he has been a U.S. Marine; only proving that even Marines can be infected by vestiges of PC MC).

What if they lie? 

Yes, that's a problem which law enforcement has never faced in the history of law enforcement!  Can I get an LOL...?

How do you know who the moslems are? What about the nominal moslems, who fear for their lives and are only seeking a way out of the mess? You're going to round up all 'brown-skinned', 'middle-eastern' looking people you see and drop them somewhere else?

At this point in his interrogation, this reader's style is quickly approaching the hyperventilating state of buttonholing his opponent (me), as though he had me up against a wall, and with his pudgy index finger, like Edward G. Robinson, jabbing at my chest as he asks each one of his specious, rhetorical questions.

Philip Jihadski and Angemon have already, on many occasions inquired as to, exactly, how you intend to go about his dream of Total Deportation. You never answered, nor have you ever given any, pragmatic instructions as to how to carry it out. 

In fact, I have addressed this, multiple times -- and addressing it has often included elucidating how the questions are specious and misguided.

Now here is the evil in what you desire:

Oh, this ought to be good...

In NAZI Germany, literally thousands of Jews (practicing, nominal, non-practicing ? whatever) were deported to places outside of Germany (mainly, Poland, at first), in an effort to create a JewFree Germany.

So now he launches into the argumentum ad Hitlerem fallacy.  There are so many things wrong with this.  For now, I only point out the most obvious:  In the 1920s and 30s (and escalating in the 40s) when Hitler's Nazis were targeting Jews, then rounding them up and putting them in labor & extermination camps, Jews hadn't done anything wrong (nor had they in the preceding decades going back to the 19th century and earlier).  Jews hadn't rammed planes into buildings in order to mass-murder.  Jews hadn't blown up various public trains; various random numbers of them hadn't gone around stabbing people in crowds; no Jews had assassinated any film-makers or the staff of any magazines or newspaper publishing houses; no Jews had rammed cars and trucks into people in order to mass-murder.  Jewish clergy hadn't been preaching fanatical hatred and sedition in various places of the world (including throughout the West), calling for the destruction of the non-believer.  Jews elsewhere in the world hadn't been massacring Christians in veritable attempts at ethnic cleansing if not genocide.

All of this has, in fact, been done by Muslims in our time.  That's the difference.  And the brief list I provided above is only the tip of the motherfucking iceberg of all the ghoulish, fanatically hateful, violent shit Muslims have been doing around the world as they undergo a global revival of Islam (and I haven't even included all the facets of the insidious Stealth Jihad, facilitating the invasion of the West, and enabled by the Useful Idiots who abound in the West, infected by the same PC MC which infects my questioner).  For this anonymous questioner (perhaps "PRCS") to overlook this crucial difference between the Jews Hitler targeted, and the Muslims of our time, demonstrates a shocking lapse in pragmatic thinking on his part.

Dr. Jackass seeks to create a Muslim Free United states, by deporting them all. Herein lies the rub: many, many of those “Jews” were not Jews, AT ALL! They were “ratted out” by neighbors who had personal beefs, or those who seek favor with the NAZIs by telling lies (much as Voegy does on these page) and condemning people to death.

Now he's insulting me like a child.

What happens, for example, if we deport a, say, 12 year-old girl (nominally moslem, but trying to escape the clutches of her famiy and Islam) by force, according to Dr. Voegy’s wild-eyed NAZIesque scheme?

Yes, wars have never, ever had tragic collateral damage.  How many 12-year-old girls were killed, or horribly injured, by the devastating mass-bombing campaigns the Allies waged against the Axis power nations?  PRCS and his friend PJ might as well ask the same question (reworded, of course) of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Gen. Patton.

That reader's interrogation quickly deteriorated past the point of no return:

Well, let me tell you what happens ? Donkey Boy then has the blood of that innocent girl on HIS hands!

Yes, he is no better than a NAZI, in this regard. He sees a moslem in every brown-skinned person, in every Middle Eastern-looking individual, etc.

His little scheme is incredibly dangerous and fraught with possibility of mistake.

Now, to conclude, I absolutely advocate the deportation of all moslems who can legally be deported. Other than that, I refuse to have Hitleresque blood on my hands. 

And here's the kicker: This reader is a part of the Jihad Watch commenting community, a solid part of the longtime veteran commenters there -- and as such, a representative of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream. That's why I have, belatedly (I held on for dear life to hope all these years), become a pessimist with regard to the chances of the West to survive the protracted invasion of Mohammedans as they undergo their global revival of Islam and try to realize their dream of finally conquering "Rome" (i.e., the West). If those few who are waking up, those in the Counter-Jihad, tend to be this dense, what chance has the rest of the West to wake up in time?

Saturday, January 07, 2017

Food for thought on the Inquisition

The Inquisition, as most of us in the Counter-Jihad know all too wearily well, is -- along with that gold standard, the Crusades -- one of the common barbs in the politically correct quiver of arrows of outrageous multiculturalism by which any substantive criticism of Islam (let alone the condemnation it so richly deserves) is supposed to be disabled, as the politically correct multiculturalist comes to the aid of the Brown Person (the Mother of all Others, the Muslim) under attack by greasy, white, racist right wing Islamophobes.  And this virtue-signalling aid, though it resembles the classic Tu Quoque fallacy, actually turns out to be, on closer examination, a strange sideways mutation of it: what I call the Ego Quoque fallacy.

At any rate, enough about the neurotics who dominate our Western culture.  Let us consider some food for thought about how that one bête noire among a litany of others (the Crusades, the witch-burnings, Galileo, the Transatlantic slave trade, the "genocide" of the American Indians, Western Colonialism, etc., etc., ad Dhimminauseam) may well have had a salutary silver lining.

From a comment I made on Jihad Watch last April (before I was banned from Jihad Watch by the Rabbit Pack complaining to Robert Spencer's tech genius, "Marc"):

† † † †

It is arguable that the Spanish Inquisition was importantly — if not primarily — a vetting process to winnow out the seditionist Muslims and ex-Muslims. Consider the context; the Christians had finally won back their Occupied Territory after centuries of ruthless Islamic rule by rulers as bad as ISIS. And now they had a society riddled with Muslims and Muslim spies.

In the study on the great Spanish poet & playwright Cervantes, Michel de Cervantes, sa vie, son temps, son oeuvre politique et littéraire (“Miguel de Cervantes: His life, his time, his political and literary works”), by the 19th century French historian, Émile Chasles, he mentions in passing that after the Reconquista, Spain contained many ex-Muslims who had ostensibly converted to Christianity and who thus had been allowed to remain — and that within a generation or two, large numbers of these supposed ex-Muslims perpetrated seditious sabotage so extensive, the Spanish King had to call back troops he had sent south into the Mediterranean to fend off Muslims down there (perennially terrorizing Christians), and deploy them back at home against this general insurrection. That should come as no surprise; but apparently always will to Westerners who can never, it seems, wholly exorcise their naivete about Muslims.

Further Reading:

See my previous writings on Cervantes and Islam, listed on this Google page.