Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Pride and Prejudice

http://redcarpetcrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/victoria.png

No, my photo does not introduce a review of this atrocity of Islamophiliac propaganda.  I thought it would be a curiously apt emblem of the apposition of the title of an older essay of mine (from 2014), as a corrective to that tragic-comic pairing of Queen Victoria and her tall, dark, handsome Mohammedan. 

There is a point where a mountain of data and an ocean of dots screaming to be connected motivates the rational man to draw a reasonable inference—and to commit to the judgement of that inference. Here, in the Counter-Jihad (someday hopefully to become an actual Anti-Islam Movement), “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” and sisters know (or should know, by now) that mountain and that ocean—the mountain daily looming larger like a volcano, the ocean daily burgeoning beyond its bourn with tidal waves; and it behooves us to move rationally to the next step and commit to the judgement that is, precisely, a pre-judgement. I.e., to treat the inference, because reasonable (cf. the aforementioned mountain and ocean), as a judgement.

I know this will insidiously itch and rankle those in the Counter-Jihad who still suffer from signs and symptoms of the PC MC virus (even if only in the form of a scratchy throat, a few sniffles, a dry cough, a slight fever), but we need to have, and to hold, prejudice against all Muslims.

Not because we know enough to condemn them all equally as being a deadly and pernicious sociopolitical & ideological demographic—but rather because that aforementioned mountain and ocean indicate preponderantly that to do otherwise, and to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt which we reasonably give to any other people on Earth, would endanger our society in lethal ways—mass murders, destruction of property and social dislocations—now and increasingly as the decades unfold in this 21st century: our children’s, grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s lives and beyond.  We know (or should infer by now) that the logic of Jihad, already undergoing a global revival in our time, will not stop until it has ruined all of civilization.

Postscript:

When I wrote the above as a comment at Jihad Watch, a no-nonsense Jihad Watcher responded:

I don’t give the benefit of the doubt to Nazis or KKK members, why should I give the benefit of the doubt to anyone of an equally disgusting and vile ideology, that of pisslam?

A sallutary response, although one that seems oblivious to that other mountain and other ocean out there that continues to interfere with our perception of the first mountain and ocean—namely, PC MC, which remains dominant and mainstream throughout the entire West; and according to which such a comparison as being made between Muslims, and Nazis or KKK is forever stymied by various factors.

Nazis and KKK number very few as a tiny minority, are concentrated in only a few countries, and are by now marginal and not doing any damage nor threatening much for the future. In addition, the vast majority in the West agrees that they are pernicious.

Muslims number hundreds of millions all over the world in nearly every country on the planet. In addition, the majority throughout the West continues to indulge the mush of thought-and-feeling that tends to want to defend Muslims in the name of protecting “diversity” and defending against “bigotry”. The principle I outlined in my previous comment—the need for the West to adopt prejudice against all Muslims, is extremely vulnerable to charges of “bigotry” and most even in the Counter-Jihad would shrink back from it like shrinking violets, timid and anxious lest they anger the PC MCs who dominate in their culture all around them (or who even lurk more insidiously, psychologically within their hearts and minds as internal censors against thought crimes). Indeed, my principle would be seen by most in the mainstream—and by a few even within the Counter-Jihad—as ominously indicative of the evils of precisely the Nazis and KKK.

Meanwhile, some of the precious few in the Counter-Jihad who would embrace my principle may do it a bit too juicily and wholeheartedly, revealing glimpses of a slipped mask of Breivikian jingoism.

In her book and her speeches, the great Oriana Fallaci urged the West to recover their "Rage and Pride".  I wholeheartedly agree with her; and go further to recommend that we inform that Pride with reason leading us to Prejudice.

Monday, October 16, 2017

The Education of Hesperado...

http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/3/f2918770da111a4b9234ec2628867322/GW413H290

I've read many books in my time; but, of course, far more remain unread.  And -- forgive me father for I have sinned -- I am continually remiss in rectifying that habit of sloth and divertissement...

At various times in my life, I've tried to turn the tide on this.  I recall fondly in my early 20s, resolving one summer to "read the classics" -- which at the time turned out to be three books: Madame Bovary, by Gustav Flaubert; Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky; and The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Over the years since then, my autodidactic life has been fitful; at times investing enormous energy (as when I hired native French speakers to tutor me in French to prepare me for reading Salammbô, by the aforementioned Flaubert, which I proceeded to do, three times; or when I climbed that daunting mountain of reading the entire corpus of Shakespeare -- all his plays, the Histories, the Comedies, and the Tragedies -- and did so, again, thrice; or when one romantic collegiate day, I simply stayed up all night, and did not sleep, getting drunk on the poetry of Dante's Divine Comedy); at times letting months, even years go by unread.

The last 20 years or so has been a rather fallow period, in terms of reading the works of others (spending most of my time writing my own fiction as well as this blog, when I haven't been binge-watching Netflix shows or chatting on Paltalk...).  About two years ago, I finally resolved to plow through Flaubert's Sentimental Education (using the English translation as my guide, periodically dipping into the French for reference & interest).  More episodes of perpendicular learning I leave uncounted (such as, for example, the delightful diversion of discovering Stephen Crane's slender, and unappreciated, novel, The Third Violet, which was recommended to me by a parenthetical allusion made by one of my top five favorite authors, H.E. Bates; not to mention my devoration over the decades of the oeuvres of two of the remaining four -- Donald Barthelme and Kurt Vonnegut -- leaving the aforementioned Shakespeare and Flaubert reverently aside).

At any rate, on a sublime whim, I have lately embarked upon a reading of Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene.

Right near the very beginning, in Canto 1, my ever-attuned Modar picked up a possible reference to the perennial enemy of the West, as the narrator begins to describe a mysterious, fair maiden riding on a "lowly ass" alongside the main character (a knight), and her august lineage of a royalty of apparently former glory:

And by descent from royal lineage came
Of ancient kings and queens, that had of yore
Their scepters stretched from east to western shore,
And all the world in their subjection held;
Till that infernal fiend with foul uproar
Forwasted all their land and them expelled;
Whom to avenge she had this knight from far compelled.


Saturday, October 14, 2017

Repeating myself, again...

https://cdn3.miragestudio7.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/india_stairs.jpg

In light of my recent essay on the pointed usage of the unusual word postjudice by Gavin McInnes in his rave review of Robert Spencer's new book, I direct my readers to a fine essay (if I don't say so myself) I wrote expatiating on the issue of a necessary expansion of postjudice to include what I call rational prejudice.

That essay I wrote over two years ago:

Dis-crim-i-nay-tion.

Roll back Debbie

I've announced new additions to my blogroll many times.  This time I'm announcing a deletion: Debbie Schlussel.  Her blog is top-heavy with ads and cookies that assault the visitor; every time I try to comment on there it never appears -- then when I emailed her to complain about that she said she would fix it, but it was not fixed.  Still recently, my comments on her blogs don't appear.  What's up with that?  Does she want people to see her ads she gets paid for or not?  Then at least allow commenters to comment for G_d's sake.

In addition, I'm increasingly put off by her crotchety, curmudgeonly, prickly attitude about Everyone Under the Sun.  I suspect that she probably would call Diana West a "bitch" who did something wrong for some reason in the past.

Enough already, as the Jews say.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Postjudice?



No, it doesn't refer to the judge who replaced Judge Judy.

In perhaps the briefest blurb ever published on Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer featured a two-sentence encomium from the Canadian cultural commentator, Gavin McInnes:

“This book proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Islamophobia is not based on an irrational fear of Islam, but a rational concern. Robert Spencer eloquently and definitively proves that concern about Islam is based on postjudice, not prejudice.”

I hadn't encountered that word before, and thought it might have been a neologism on the fly by McInnes.  A quick consultation of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) reveals that it is a word.  Its coinage occurred over a century ago, in 1903, by the British writer, journalist and social observer, G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936).  After that, the OED lists only three more instances of the word, in 1966, 1984, and 2002 (though a cursory search through Google Books yields a few more).  No doubt this paucity of usage is due to its angular awkwardness in rolling off the tongue (whether orally or mentally as one reads it).

There's a little snag, however, in the service McInnes enlists for it, at least as far as Chesterton was concerned:

Prejudice is not so much the great intellectual sin as a thing which, we may call, to coin a word, ‘postjudice’, not the bias before the fair trial, but the bias that remains after.

The second source, British novelist and activist Brigid Brophy (1929-1995), is an amusingly ambiguous if not backhanded complement to Chesterton's coinage: She calls postjudice “prejudice through hindsight”.  All the other employers of the term are as cheerlessly prosaic as McInness.

There's a more important problem with hailing postjudice as a virtue for the Counter-Jihad.  It implies a bondage to facts and dots with an acquiescence to an unreasonable inhibition about interpretations we can draw from the facts and connections we can infer from the dots.  Do there not exist contexts or situations where important decisions about our public safety cannot wait for mass-murders after the fact, or for explicit professions of extremist sedition, before some preventive measures are in order?  (One could go further and redefine our entire West-- seen by Muslims as the Dar-al-Harb -- as just such a context.)

In the spirit of that question, and factoring in a literacy about the problem of Islam (including the devastating problem of taqiyya), we note further that if we (the West) limit ourselves to postjudice, we will be limiting ourselves to noticing, ferreting out, and taking various actions against Muslims only after they show signs of "extremism" and "radicalization" -- thus implying a policy based upon the supposition that when Muslims don't show those signs (or when they may claim to be opposed to those signs), they must be harmless.

This would doom us to a Whack-a-Mo response to the problem of Islam -- no doubt one somewhat better than heretofore pursued by the Mainstream West, but still guided by the same failed paradigm out of touch with the actual nature and dimensions of that problem.

Rather than limit ourselves to postjudice (perhaps as an anxious way to virtue-signal to our PC MC cultural masters who dominate the Conversation, assuring them that we are "not prejudiced"), we need to amplify it with what I call rational prejudice.

Rational prejudice would be the reasonable extrapolation from facts and connected dots, such that we assume that even "moderate" mosques, madrassas and Islamic institutions are suspect, and that even "moderate" Muslims -- including the ultra-moderate "Better Cop" Muslims who tend to fool most in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream -- are suspect.

We can see that adopting rational prejudice as a principle would discomfit the likes of Robert Spencer and Gavin McInnes (and virtually the entire motley Leadership of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream), for then they'd have go through the painful process of a paradigm shift, from an exclusive focus on the problem of Islam, to a problem of Islam that includes the problem of all Muslims.

Speaking of the great Judge Judy (PBUHer): To anyone -- including anyone in the Counter-Jihad (which, sadly, seems to include the majority) -- who says there's no problem of Islam and all Muslims, I invoke the words of one of her tangiest quotes (and title of her book):

“Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining.”

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Repeating myself...

https://sep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-71015718095253_2269_823980259

I've written so many essays on this blog over the years (the first one was published on July 11, 2006), with a total thus far, eleven years later, of 1,374, that I've lost track of how often I've reiterated a limited set of critical talking points.

So many essays are piled up on this mountain heap, I more often than not forget what I've written, or forget that I've already argued long ago -- sometimes better -- a point I'm laboring with in the present.  It also hits me nearly every time I comb (or go on a leisurely stroll) through my archives that I've been hitting my head against, not so much a wall, as the starboard port door on board this Titanic of a West we're all on.

Id est, I could easily hang up my hat now, confident in the knowledge that I've pretty much analyzed the Three Problems every which way but loose, and several times over to boot.

One summation I wrote a year ago, as good as any I've written (and no doubt one of nearly a hundred over the years):

Is this the only choice?  Either Stupidity or a Conspiracy Theory?

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

What's wrong with this picture...? Part Two.

https://dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/diy-wacky-upside-down-shelf.jpg

In Part One, I laid out the overall structure of the problem.  In Part Two, I just want to look at the rhetoric of the Muslim reporter, Hannah Allam, zeroing in on the portions I bolded in my extended quote in Part One.

...the scandal surrounding Muslim preacher Nouman Ali Khan...

Calling him a "preacher" subtly massages in the impression of him being equivalent to an Elmer Gantry type of Christian evangelist.  This in turn hopefully arouses memories in the white Western (especially American) reader of so many Christian evangelists in the past who have been hypocrites and/or fanatics of one flavor or another.

...how difficult it can be for Muslim communities to deal with claims of misconduct by leaders, especially when women are involved.

Implying that "Muslim communities" (by extended implication the majority of Muslims in America) are decent, in contrast to the few bad apples (hypocritical "preachers" like Khan) whom they have to contend with.

Khan is a conservative, Texas-based teacher whose lively Qur’an lectures draw hundreds of thousands of fans to his stories blending modern-day scenarios with strict interpretations of scripture.

Calling a Muslim cleric (and/or rabble-rouser slash demagogue) "a conservative" is to imply that normative mainstream Islam is not itself "conservative" and that only outliers like this Khan fellow are notably so.  This is not to mention, in addition, that "conservative" is way too mild to describe the extremist fanaticism of normative, mainstream Islam (which, as a Muslim, the reporter herself at the very least enables if not countenances).  The same sentence climaxes with Khan's "strict interpretations of scripture" (why not "of the Koran?") -- again, implying that the "strictness" Khan is getting from the Koran are his "interpretations" rather than what's there on the page (and what has been, in fact, interpreted in all the mainstream tafsirs; all quite "strict" and none remotely liberal or modern or secular).

...the accusations ... portrayed him as an undercover ladies’ man who violated the rigid moral code he advocates.

Again, the Muslim reporter Hannah Allam by qualifying this "rigid moral code" as something Khan "advocates", is implying that this "rigid moral code" is not already in the Koran and Hadith and tafsirs, and therefore not already in mainstream, normative Islam.

Conclusion:

The real question is, why didn't any of the Jihad Watch Leadership (notably Robert Spencer who introduced the report) nor any of the Jihad Watch Civilians pick up on this implicit Good Cop stealth jihad being retailed by Muslim reporter Hannah Allam?

Sunday, October 01, 2017

What's wrong with this picture...? Part One.


https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a2/8c/76/a28c7620ae1f694bc51e183e91a64844--illusions-tea-party.jpg 

"Texas: Women harassed for speaking out on Muslim preacher’s misconduct allegations" -- so a recent Jihad Watch report informs us.

Robert Spencer begins this posting with an apparently key quote from one of the female victims of this Muslim "preacher":

Said Laila Alawa, one of Khan’s accusers: “The reality is, speaking out as a woman can cost you your reputation, your job opportunities. It’s an insanely deep fear that we’ve taught our young women time and again with all the rhetoric around modesty and hijab. If you’re being told over and over that it’s the woman’s responsibility to be chaste, women are going to internalize it as their fault if they get harassed.”
[Note: "Said" is the Muslim woman's first name, not the English verb "Said"]

After this quote, Spencer inserts a pregnant pause in the form of a paragraph space, with the succinct impact of one word indicating his agreement & affirmation.

Yes.

After that, and a picture of the Muslim "preacher" (are there any Muslim "preachers" per se? Or are they not more accurately termed "clerics"?) sporting a ridiculously Amish or Abrahamic-Lincoln beard-with-no-moustache, Spencer launches immediately into reproducing the story as reported by a venue called "BuzzFeed" (which Wikipedia tells us is "an American internet media company based in New York City... a social news and entertainment company with a focus on digital media and feminism"):

“Women Are Being Harassed For Speaking Out About A Muslim Preacher’s Misconduct Allegations,” by Hannah Allam, BuzzFeed, September 29, 2017 

Once you get past the shirtless selfies and the “sugar daddy” boast, the scandal surrounding Muslim preacher Nouman Ali Khan is a rare window into how difficult it can be for Muslim communities to deal with claims of misconduct by leaders, especially when women are involved. 

Khan is a conservative, Texas-based teacher whose lively Qur’an lectures draw hundreds of thousands of fans to his stories blending modern-day scenarios with strict interpretations of scripture. He disapproves of men and women shaking hands, promotes marrying young, and chides Muslims who wear “skintight” clothes. Shocking claims that he abused his power to pursue relationships with women set off a nasty battle over how to handle allegations of religious leaders behaving badly. 

Last week, the accusations — along with screenshots of text messages and photos allegedly sent to women by Khan — portrayed him as an undercover ladies’ man who violated the rigid moral code he advocates.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

1. It's a story not about a Muslim victimizing non-Muslims (which is what the Counter-Jihad should be focused on), but rather a Muslim victimizing other Muslims (in this case, the female Muslims who attend his "sermons") -- and the story is clearly siding with the women and portraying them as sympathetic victims of this Muslim cleric's hypocritical violation of his own "conservative" values and "rigid moral code".  Such internecine Muslim-on-Muslim attacks, however, are only useful for us "in the Counter-Jihad" as specimens of the pathology of Muslim society which we can include in our arsenal of facts by which to wake up the majority of Westerners around us.

2.  Then we have the reporter's language throughout, here and there subtly massaging in the normalcy of the Muslim "community" in America.  This scandal, she says, is a rare window into how difficult it can be for Muslim communities to deal with claims of misconduct by leaders, especially when women are involved.  

3.  Not only is it implied that Muslims are a "community" woven into the fabric of American societies, but also that many (most? the vast majority?) Muslims are normal decent people who oppose this "conservative" extremism and the hypocrisy attendant upon it.

4.  Notwithstanding the implication in the article of a broad base of moral decency amongst Muslims, the reporter also implies, paradoxically, that it is extraordinarily difficult for all those decent Muslims to do the right thing -- though the reporter never explains how this intimidation by a tiny minority could exert so much successful influence on the vast majority.

5.  Let's back up here to note yet another thing wrong with this picture -- the name of the reporter: Hannah Allam.  Clearly it's an Arabic last name, juxtaposed to a Western-sounding name (although "Hannah" is a Hebrew name originally from the Old Testament, it has since become an unremarkably normative name for Western, mostly white, females).  Thus Robert Spencer, and by extension the Counter-Jihad, is relying upon a Muslim reporter for a spin which, as we see from the first four flaws listed above, subtly slips in between the lines the Good Cop/Bad Cop split -- thus reinforcing our already difficult-to-exorcize reflex to want to help the decent Muslims whom we assume exist in large numbers (many? most? the vast majority?).

This reflex, if it is not reversed, will be the primary reason for the doom of the West as we know it, and its reduction by the end of this 21st century into vast zones of killing fields, rampant violence, and a general breakdown in social order throughout the West -- all made possible by four factors:

1) The fanatical desire and blueprint in Islamic culture motivating the destruction of all societies that do not submit to Allah and His Prophet.

2) The ability of Muslims -- chiefly through having been allowed by us to infiltrate  & insinuate deep into the fabric of our society -- to implement a sufficient quantity & quality of violence in the West in order to finally bring us down, after about a century of planning.

3) The sufficient quantity & quality of this violence will be primarily through a concatenation of terror attacks of varying degrees of magnitude, ranging from small-scale "lone wolves" to small commando units roaming around, to medium-sized attacks, to spectacular attacks using chemical, biological, or suitcase nuke WMDs -- attacks as bad as or worse than 911.

And, last but not least:

4) Western Islamophobophobia.

Monday, September 25, 2017

The uniquely offensive nature of Islamic jihad

http://introduccionalahistoriajvg.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/muqaddimah-english2-copia.jpg
In a notice on Jihad Watch some four years ago, Spencer alerts the reader to the normative extremism of Ibn-Khaldun, the great 14th century Muslim version of a Thomas Aquinas whose name is titular for the sumptuously accredited university "Chair" (at American University in Washington, D.C.) on which a certain Muslim academic, Prof. Akbar Ahmed, seats his prodigously moderate behind and from which, when he's not doing supposedly scholarly work, he propagandizes ex cathedra about how Islam is peachy keen and critics of Islam are "Islamophobic". 

Spencer quotes from Ibn-Khaldun's great work the Muqaddimah --

“in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”

Another telling quote from the Muqaddimah which Spencer did not quote:

“The other [i.e., non-Muslim] religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense.

This (in conjunction with the quote Spencer provided) is as direct an avowal of the fundamentally offensive nature of Islamic war as any -- and a surprising admission of the uniqueness of Islam in that regard.  

This is something no Islamopologist in our time -- including, no doubt and with supreme irony, Prof. Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University in Washington, D.C, himself -- would ever dare avow, lest the much stronger Infidel Enemy in whose midst the good professor plies his trade wise up to the ultimate goal of his Islam before the time is ripe.

The full quote (from this scholarly translation available as a pdf, pp. 408-409):

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same time. 


The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. It has thus come about that the person in charge of religious affairs in (other religious groups) is not concerned with power politics at all. (Among them,) royal authority comes to those who have it, by accident and in some way that has nothing to do with religion. It comes to them as the necessary result of group feeling, which by its very nature seeks to obtain royal authority, as we have mentioned before,and not because they are under obligation to gain power over other nations, as is the case with Islam. They are merely required to establish their religion among their own (people). This is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned 

(Note: the above-linked pdf seems to have no page numbers; so the reader may simply search for a phrase in the quoted paragraph, such as "universal mission" or "religious duty".)

For more on Muslims like Akbar Ahmed and the gullible Christians who fawn all over them, see my essay Liberal Christians and Islam. (And here is a key link which did not work in that older article.)

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

A glimpse into the African Jihad

https://terrortrendsbulletin.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/la-fg-boko-haram-denies-truce-20141101.jpg

The Jihad is a global mosaic, of which different regional jihads are the ostensibly separate tiles, all together realizing over time a unified, pan-Islamic tesseration.  The ultimate goal, of course, being the submission of the entire world to Allah and His Prophet -- through submission, by indefinite proxy, to Muslim rule.

The global Jihad is also diverse, disparate, and often seemingly disunited -- a complex of data which causes those who have PC MC reflexes to miss the jungle for the trees and dismiss an underlying & overarching unity. 

This report on one outbreak of that global Jihad (Boko Haram in West Africa) by FSSPX.NEWS -- the communication agency of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X -- is brief, but should alarm anyone who hasn't had their hearts & minds deformed by PC MC (Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism).

On September 17, 2014, during the Nigerian Bishops’ Conference in Warri, Bishop Oliver Dashe Doeme, bishop of Maiduguri, capital of the State of Borno, made a list of the progress of the armed Islamic group Boko Haram. The northeast of Nigeria is partially under Boko Haram’s control, declared the bishop, pointing out that in one month, ten cities of the state of Yobe, ten of the state of Borno, and five in Adamawa have fallen into the hands of the radical Islamist rebels, who demand the creation of a caliphate in the region. “As a nation, we have almost lost this battle, because the situation is out of control,” stated Bishop Doeme. 

Boko Haram’s progress threatens to make the Nigerian government lose control of the whole region bordered by Cameroon, Chad and Niger. In a communication sent to the agency Fides, the bishop of Maiduguri -- whose diocese includes the States of Borno, Yobe and a part of the State of Adamawa, where Boko Haram is very present – declared that the destruction accomplished by the Islamist sect over the last month can be compared to that of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. “Thousands of people have been obliged to take refuge in caves, mountains and forests, or to flee to Cameroon and live in miserable conditions.” Every day many leave their country: “We expect the number of fugitives to the three neighboring countries to reach 95,000 before the end of the year,” warned Babar Baloch, spokesman for the High Commissariat of the UN for refugees (HCR), in Geneva. 

Bishop Doeme insisted on the sophisticated arms the Islamist group has obtained over the last few months -- tanks, anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, huge quantities of ammunition -- and accused the military of remaining “lukewarm” in the face of the threat the sect represents. And he added: “we can be afraid, we can remain silent and unable to speak of a plan that aims to Islamize the north of Nigeria or all of Nigeria, (but) what we are seeing at present in the north of Adamawa is a clear confirmation that such is their goal,” concluded Bishop Doeme.

Father Patrick Tor Alumuku, director of the Social Communications of the archdiocese of Abuja, confided to the agency Fides that “even the Nigerians who supported Boko Haram can no longer control the group; it has become an international movement, emancipated itself from its Nigerian sponsors, and risks becoming a problem for all of western Africa.” The press, he added, has denounced the financial support that Boko Haram has found in the ranks of the president’s own party, in order to insinuate that the head of State is not able to ensure the safety of the population. “All because President Goodluck Jonathan is a Christian from the south and his internal opposition are Muslims from the north who do not want him to run again in the 2015 presidential elections,” explained Fr. Tor Alumuku. “However, even if the Muslims won the elections, they would no longer be able to control Boko Haram, for the sect has become an international organization, connected with other jihadist movements, including the Somalian Shabaabs and the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,” he added. “Boko Haram has proclaimed a caliphate in the zones under its control in the north of Nigeria, and I do not think that they will give this caliphate up just because a Muslim becomes president of Nigeria. 


What began as a fire in the north of Nigeria thus risks becoming a huge blaze in the heart of Africa,” concluded the spokesman for the archdiocese of Abuja. During the Ad Limina visit of the bishops of Cameroon to the Vatican on September 6, 2014, Pope Francis asked them to develop a “dialogue of life with the Muslims in a spirit of mutual trust,” for this dialogue “is indispensable today in order to maintain a climate of peaceful cohabitation” and “to discourage the development of violence of which Christians are the victims”… Cameroon, which is 20% Muslim, is particularly, in the north, under the influence of the Islamist sect Boko Haram, located in neighboring Nigeria.  How much longer can we impose upon the atrociously persecuted Christians the mirage of a dialogue from the paneled offices of the Vatican? The Syriac Catholic Patriarch Younan, answers: “Dialogue does not stop the extremists...”  (Sources: apic/fides/afp/unhcr/imedia – DICI no.302 dated October 10, 2014).

* * * * *

It also takes a trained eye (trained from years of autodidactic investigation into this problem to make up for the dereliction of duty on the part of our education system and our MSM) to see dots that call for connection.

For example: 

Bishop Doeme insisted on the sophisticated arms the Islamist group has obtained over the last few months -- tanks, anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, huge quantities of ammunition...

That indicates support from other Muslim groups, support from zakat (the "charity tax" all Muslims are supposed to pay which time and time again has been found to support various jihads around the world) and, last but not least: support from other Muslim countries.  This last includes no doubt our "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia -- if not perhaps also Egypt under the "moderate" Al-Sisi following in the footsteps of his great predecessor, the "secular nationalist" Nasser who, during the Biafra crisis (known by Western media as the "Nigerian civil war" but of course really one more jihad in a relentless series of jihads going back centuries) of the late 1960s, when Egypt assisted the terrorism of the Nigerian mujahideen against Christians of the region by sending the Egyptian air force to strafe the already terrorized Christian people.

Another dot to connect:

Bishop Doeme ... accused the military of remaining “lukewarm” in the face of the threat the sect represents.

That's the military of the Christian part of Nigeria (no doubt infiltrated, as the West is, by “moderate” Muslims -- "Muslims from the north"), mirroring the sinister problem noted by Bishop Doeme's fellow Christian, Father Alumukui, mentioning that:

The press...  has denounced the financial support that Boko Haram has found in the ranks of the president’s own party...

This is echoed indirectly by what Bishop Doeme says immediately afterwards:

“...we can be afraid, we can remain silent and unable to speak of a plan that aims to Islamize the north of Nigeria or all of Nigeria...

No doubt he is referring to a common tendency of timidity to the insidious advance of Islam within its society which is also prevalent throughout the West in the form of PC MC, and among so many non-Muslims throughout the Muslim world in the form of dhimmitude -- both perhaps based in a kind of protracted PTSD (Post-Traumatic/Terrorized Stress Disorder).

We then, as we continue our dot-connection exercise, detect this PTSD linked up in later parts of this report, when another Nigerian Christian, Father Patrick Tor Alumuku is solicited for his observations:

“...even the Nigerians who supported Boko Haram can no longer control the group; it has become an international movement, emancipated itself from its Nigerian sponsors, and risks becoming a problem for all of western Africa.” 

And again:

“However, even if the Muslims won the elections, they would no longer be able to control Boko Haram...
 
These assumptions from Father Alumuku imply a  belief in Muslims who do not desire to enable Boko Haram, presumably because they don't believe in Boko Haram's perfectly Islamic aims.  Paradoxically, this supposed majority of Moderate Muslims in the region who are supposed to oppose Boko Haram -- even the ones who (in the past tense) "supported Boko Haram" -- can no longer control Boko Haram's aggrandizement.  We see Father Alumuku indulging the same kind of assumption so many Westerners do, that the jihadists-cum-terrorists who are metastasizing around the world somehow cannot be controlled by the supposed vast majority of Moderate Muslims; never pausing to wonder if this does not indicate the paradigm of a supposed vast majority of Moderate Muslims isn't fundamentally flawed.  Particularly when we factor in the first dot we noted above -- the remarkable ability by the putatively Tiny Minority of Extremists to acquire large quantities of sophisticated military materiél.  Not to mention what the good Father noticed about the "Muslims from the north" who are supposedly disunited from Boko Haram:

“... President Goodluck Jonathan is a Christian from the south and his internal opposition are Muslims from the north who do not want him to run again in the 2015 presidential elections...”   

Monday, September 18, 2017

Another addition to my Blogroll...

https://www.dannybritt.com/photos_files/Morello.jpg

As I mentioned in my last post, Introducing a new Hesperado offshoot, I've created a new adjunct, called "The Daily Jihad Watch Café" -- now linked on my blogroll. 

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Introducing a new Hesperado offshoot

I call it "The Daily Jihad Watch Café".  It's basically my quick two cents on either a Jihad Watch story or, more often, some comment(s) amongst the Counter-Jihad Civilians who comment there.

Since I was banned from commenting there about two years ago, I no longer have the itch to want to participate, as I did for the first couple of months after being cast into the outer darkness to gnash my teeth.  That doesn't mean I don't still have thoughts about what is being said there.  Indeed, I've penned quite a few essays here on that basis. However, they invariably turn out to be top-heavy and verbose, and the time & energy it takes to do them has inhibited me from weighing in more often.

Hence "The Daily Jihad Watch Café", where I hope to restrain myself and be as concise as possible.  The first entry there, today, while much shorter than most of my essays here, is still not punchy enough.  I'll have to work on that.  Until then, dear readers, enjoy.

The Daily Jihad Watch Café

 https://s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/JXqqU5ZEXEZ1X2UbIRXu8A/348s.jpg

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Cognitive Dissonance

http://www.wheelofpersuasion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/cognitive_dissonance.jpg
About three years ago, when I was still commenting on Jihad Watch comments fields (about a year before I finally had had enough with the incessant attacks on me by "Angemon" and "Philip Jihadski" and by the utter lack of support I received from other Jihad Watch commenters -- including veteran commenters -- while I was being regularly pestered and mocked by these two clowns), I had occasion to expatiate on one Nick Lowles, a politically correct multi-culturalist in the UK.  His behaviors gave me an opportunity to articulate an analysis of the paradox, the cognitive dissonance, in the heart & mind of the typical PC MC.

I wrote that Nick Lowles is:

...a front-line soldier on our side — unfortunately fighting on the wrong side of our war of ideas — Nick Lowles, the PC MC from the UK on the forefront of helping “moderate Muslims” in their propaganda war and, as Spencer says, who had a leading hand in having the UK forbid Spencer and Geller from entering the UK.

As Spencer describes Lowles’ psychology, consequent upon Lowles thumping his chest to condemn the TMOE (the Tiny Minority of Extremists who are the only problem) and to try to sound strongly anti-“jihadist”:

This is Nick Lowles in a hard place, as the Islamic supremacism he has now aided and abetted is in full bloom in the Islamic State, and he can see vividly what he has been enabling. Others can as well; hence his furious denunciation of the Islamic State and call for it to be confronted — for otherwise “Islamophobes” will take advantage of the situation by spreading “poison about ordinary Muslims.” For some clarity in his befogged mind, Lowles should ask this “ordinary Muslim” friends where he can find a program in any mosque or Islamic school in the UK that teaches young Muslims and converts to Islam why they should reject on Islamic grounds the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam…

While Spencer is correct that the mind of such a PC MC is “befogged”, there is a logic to it: it is the logic caused by the enormous pressure which the unavoidable data of pernicious Islam causes as it increasingly impinges on the PC MC paradigm defending the false peaceful Islam it has constructed. And because that false Islam is logically joined at the hip with a feeling of (self-)righteous tolerance for the majority of Muslims deemed to be ever threatened by our evil white Western bigotry, it becomes in such a befogged mind a major human rights issue, making him feel he is standing on the right side with the angels, helping to stem the “backlash” tide of evil white Western bigotry, hate and racism.

The mental and emotional energy he should be directing at the actual human rights catastrophe of a global revival of Islam is thus redirected perversely to protect Islam and its vast majority of “decent” Muslims; but — and here is the key point — the enormous pressure caused by the actual data of pernicious Islam (the real Islam, which doesn’t go away — and is actually metastasizing and getting horribly worse daily — when someone, like a Lowles, fantasizes about a pseudo-Islam) creates a cognitive-emotional dissonance in his mind, where his conscience (you know, that area of the human being that actually loves the truth and the good) is increasingly in tension against his politically correct Internal Censor which he has assimilated from his surrounding culture that governs his conscious thoughts. And so he lashes out against ISIS and against the evil white “bigots” who would extend the problem beyond ISIS to Islam, and to Muslims in general.

We see pretty much the same psychological dynamic operative in the Counter Jihad Softies as well — with perhaps an even more intense pressure of cognitive dissonance, as I explained in my blog essay Ethical Narcissism:

… for the garden-variety PC MC, this presents less of a problem, since they don’t set up the enormous cognitive dissonance which the asymptote [i.e., the Counter-Jihad Softy] creates in his own heart and mind. I.e., the PC MC is already predisposed to try to feel good about Muslims, to embrace and respect them and their Culture, and so he has ordinarily little tension between that and his logical extension of this, when he proceeds in one or more of a variety of ways to do just that, in word and/or in deed — to embrace and respect Muslims and their Culture.

[Note, the contrast I am drawing is relative to the differences; it doesn’t mean that a PC MC like Lowles isn’t feeling a good deal of cognitive dissonance — it only means that the asymptotic Counter-Jihad individual feels that much more, for the reasons I am arguing here. To continue:]

The asymptotic Counter-Jihadist (or “asymptote”), on the other hand, can often generate a good deal of internal tension and dissonance, because he is otherwise familiarizing himself with an inordinate amount of ugly data about Muslims and their Islam, and he likely is supplementing this autodidactic learning curve with an activity of participating, more or less, in a self-reinforcing subculture of discussion about how evil Islam is — whether in discussion forums, chat rooms, book clubs, town meetings, informal gatherings, and so on. In this ongoing context, which is not static, but must be growing apace with the continuing escalating metastasis of Islamic jihad around the world, the asymptote will increasingly feel a deep discomfort, because his own self-worth is joined at the hip with how good he feels about himself as an ethical person, and his ethics in turn are dependent — in part — on the PC MC still resident in his heart and mind through his asymptotic tendency.

To put it simply, the residue of PC MC in his heart and mind tells him to be nice to Muslims, while his growing knowledge of Muslims and their Islam tells him this will be very difficult, if not impossible to do, if he wants to protect his society and if he wants to stand up for human rights. Indeed, what often occurs is the development of a tension between two competing ethical concerns: the ethical concern to be nice (or “humane”) to Muslims, and the opposite ethical concern to stand up for the rights of the various victims of Islamic violence and oppression. Of course, this wouldn’t be much of a tension, nor much of a problem, if one is convinced (as the mainstream PC MCs are) that Muslims by and large (other than a “Tiny Minority of Extremists”) aren’t doing that much violence or oppression. But the tension can become enormous, the more that a person has opened his mind to learn the full catastrophe: that is, the horrifying, growing mountain (nay, volcano) of data out there about the grotesquely ghoulish and gruesome atrocities Muslims are perpetrating around the world, getting worse by the day, enabled by a larger, amorphous context of taqiyya sophistry indulged by Muslims and the high numbers of fanaticism in Muslim populations (e.g., Pew polls) -- in a context, furthermore, of a concerted desideratum in their mainstream Islamic holy texts to conquer the world and try to destroy our free world using a combination of terrorism and stealth jihad.

Further Reading:

Various essays of mine on this Google page, concerning "asymptotic" psychology.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Andromania

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck4lat8VAAAovEm.jpg

I'd never heard of this word before I read the article about the 14th century Orthodox theologian and archbishop (not to mention saint) Gregory Palamas that formed the basis of my essay I posted here over a year ago, Speaking Truth to Jihad.  It means a disordered, excessive lust by a man for other men (and/or boys).

Here's the relevant information:

According to historian G. Georgiades Arnakis, the 14th century theologian Nicephoras Gregoras alleged that the Muslims [Turks at the time, 14th century] "among whom sexual perversion was very common, frequently abused [sexually] their Christian captives..." and that they sexually abused the archbishop Gregory Palamas whom they had kidnapped, subjected him to "the most shameless of carnal and conspicuous vices, in a more theatrical manner."

And Arnakis in the same context notes that Palamas himself spoke of "andromania" ("lust for men") as "one of the vices of the Turks."

Source: "Gregory Palamas among the Turks and Documents of His Captivity as Historical Sources", G. Georgiades Arnakis, Speculum, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan., 1951), footnote 5, p. 119.

(Note:  Arnakis says that the imputation Gregoras makes about Palamas's captors sexually abusing him "may be untrue" -- but offers no evidence to back up his skepticism.)

Further Reading:

Islam and Homosexuality

The punishment for homosexuality according to Islam

Sexual Schizophrenia

Misunderstanding Islamic Sexual Mores

And this long posting where, if the reader searches for "diana west" then reads from that point forward, he will find indirectly relevant material.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Hugh and the Hui

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_XBVuysvwMI/Vb7GwNI-DoI/AAAAAAAAHl0/X8m4M4VCXlw/s1600/Sambutan%2BHari%2BRaya%2BAidilfitri%2Bdi%2BChina%2BD.jpg

In his article on the Muslims of Burma published at Jihad Watch last week, Hugh Fitzgerald wrote:

...the Hui Panthays — a Muslim Chinese people — live in perfect security, free to practice Islam, in Myanmar, perhaps because that doesn’t fit the narrative of anti-Muslim mad monks that has been so successfully peddled in the West. Unlike the Rohingya, the Hui Panthay have not attacked and displaced Buddhists, as the Rohingya, Bengali Muslims, attacked and displaced the Buddhist Rakhine people in parts of Rakhine state.

However, by a casual Googling of "hui panthays", I found that there was in fact a "Panthay rebellion", about which Wikipedia tells us:

The Panthay rebellion (1856–1873)... was a rebellion of the Muslim Hui people and other (Muslim) ethnic minorities against the Manchu rulers of the Qing Dynasty in southwestern Yunnan Province, as part of a wave of Hui-led multi-ethnic unrest. 

This is pretty much what Hugh describes about the Rohingya Muslims (and we reasonably assume this "rebellion" was a jihad attendant with the usual Mohammedan atrocities).  And it's ironic, given that elsewhere in his article, Hugh chides the Western mainstream for failing to learn the historical context:

Should the history of Muslim-Buddhist relations in Myanmar be better known, with journalists taking it upon themselves to learn about, and then to transmit, this history, it is possible that the “international community” would address the current violence differently.

Not only that, but the Wikipedia entry also notes that:

The name "Panthay" is a Burmese word, which is said to be identical with the Shan word Pang hse. It was the name by which the Burmese called the Chinese Muslims who came with caravans to Burma from the Chinese province of Yunnan. 

Thus these Chinese Muslims whom Hugh naively thinks were really peaceable also manifested what I call the "Jihad of the Feet" (migration) which Hugh himself notes about the Rohingya Muslims causing trouble now in Burma -- a subtype of Jihad which has been a pattern of Islam's "bloody borders" throughout the world and across history right into our own present -- indeed our very West -- as one crucial component of the perennially aggrandizing jihad of Muslims to conquer the Earth (only periodically waning -- or, more pertinently, regrouping -- for reasons beyond the control or desire of Muslims following their Islam script).

Summary:

Hugh here is not merely lapsing into his tendency I've seen before (usually, if I recall, with assorted obscure central Asiatic Muslim peoples) -- of according undeserved praise to Muslims who ostensibly happen to be refraining from jihad; he's also not even doing minimal diligence to check and see if his assumption about their pacific nature is warranted.  At any rate, Hugh's flaw here is his failure to follow the rule of thumb of rational prejudice when it comes to appraising any and all Muslims.

As an adjunct to that rule, I might add, there is the meditation on the question: Why is this Muslim group (or individually, this Muslim) refraining from jihad as far as we can tell?  The question acquires pedagogical usefulness when we bracket out -- i.e., refuse to assume -- any benign reasons that would explain this apparent deficiency of jihad.  For, such a meditation (informed by the mountains of data and oceans of dots to be connected that abound concerning the dangerous pathology of Islam) helps us to adumbrate & augment our knowledge of the "stealth jihad" -- that is, of the jihad that seems to be an absence of jihad.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Slouching towards Bethlehem: Another 911 anniversary...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Freso_-_Rachel_is_weeping_for_her_children.jpg 
                                                      —Rachel is weeping for her children

֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍

And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem. -- Genesis 48:7

But thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose exoduses [ἔξοδοι] have been from of old, from everlasting. -- Micah 5:2

Turning and turning in the widening gyre 
The falcon cannot hear the falconer; 
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; 
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, 
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere 
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; 
The best lack all conviction, while the worst 
Are full of passionate intensity. 

. . .

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi 
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand; 
A shape with lion body and the head of a man, 
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, 
Is moving its slow thighs, 
while all about it 
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. 
The darkness drops again but now I know 
That fourteen centuries of stony sleep 
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, 
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, 
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? 

-- William Butler Yeats ("The Second Coming")