Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Noah Webster (Peace Be Upon Him), and these "defining days"...


“These are defining days,” says Robert Spencer, with regard to how Charlie Hebdo recently supposedly punished a staff-member with suspension because of her criticism of Islam (even though it turns out that her peccadillo may have been more a financial disagreement than a matter of ideological conscience).

Spencer is right, of course, with regard to the broader issue.  But it's more complicated.

For instance, Spencer in the same breath writes:

I didn’t co-sponsor the show to insult Islam and embarrass the Church by being uncharitable.

Which leads a healthy Islamophobe to ask:  Why not insult Islam?  

Let's consult Noah Webster about that word, just to be sure what we may be so fastidiously eschewing:

Insult—“Gross abuse offered to another, either by word or act; an act or speech of insolence or contempt; an affront; an indignity”

Let's unpack that further:

Gross—“great, palpable, serious”

Abuse—“Vituperative words; coarse, insulting speech; abusive language; virulent condemnation; reviling”

Vituperative—“Uttering or writing censure; containing, or characterized by, abuse; scolding”

Meanwhile, if we recall the latter part of the original definition of Insult—“an act or speech of insolence or contempt; an affront; an indignity”—we can continue to unravel the meaning:

Insolence—“The quality of being insolent; pride or haughtiness manifested in contemptuous and overbearing treatment of others; arrogant contempt; brutal imprudence”

Contempt —“…the feeling with which one regards that which is esteemed mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn”

Affront—“Contemptuous or rude treatment which excites … resentment; marked disrespect; a purposed indignity”

Which leads us finally (though we could go on all day, as the detailed analysis of dictionary definitions interestingly lends itself to seemingly circuitous, if not circular, garden paths of one word leading to the next):

Indignity—“Any action toward another which manifests contempt for him; an offense against personal dignity; unmerited contemptuous treatment; contumely; incivility or injury, accompanied with insult”


Other than most of Insolence and parts of Indignity (viz., “an offense against personal dignity; unmerited contemptuous treatment”), everything else that flows lexically and semantically from the primary word and act which Robert Spencer loftily eschewed—Insult—I have no problem with, and I think the Counter-Jihad should have no problem with, and should be as much a matter of principle in defending for our freedom to do it as is the more mature and dignified behavior of the Garland event.

But naturally, the mainstream has been treating that restrained event as though it were pretty much evincing all the negative connotations from all the definitions of Insult detailed above; bringing up the related question I have asked many times over the years of the Counter-Jihad: you know, the old “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” question—a question rendered particularly acute given that “doing”—i.e. insulting Islam—in this case is so richly deserved.  Not that all members of the Counter-Jihad should feel they have to insult Islam all the time; but as a matter of principle, our freedom to do it any time any one of us damn well pleases should be upheld as staunchly and as explicitly as the more rarified and dignified comportment evinced by the Garland event has been.

Which in turn brings me to my main point here. Robert Spencer wrote:

And particularly for those Christians out there who are sitting in their armchairs and tut-tutting at us for being so lacking in civility and respect that we would actually insult Muhammad and Islam, hear this: I didn’t co-sponsor the show to insult Islam and embarrass the Church by being uncharitable

Again:  Given what we know about Islam, and after digesting the definition of the word “insult”, one reasonably wonders, why is Spencer making such a point about how he and his Garland colleagues avoided insulting Islam?  Does he think the Mainstream will dislike him any less if he anxiously assures them of this?

And again, more pointedly:  Why not insult Islam? In fact, we should insult Islam—for two reasons:

1) Islam is eminently, richly, massively deserving of insult (with the minor caveats I noted above aside).

2) The free speech issue which Spencer and Geller have been defending before, during—and particularly after (in light of the mainstream criticisms of them)—the Garland event, would still apply to an insult of Islam.

Once again, Spencer and Geller are, for the umpteenth time over the years, comporting themselves in an impeccably restrained manner—and the mainstream behaves as though they were pigs splashing around in mud.

Andrew Bostom, in his recent interview on the Audrey Russo radio show, emphasized several times how the Garland event was not stooping to crass behavior or insult, but was "a rather staid event... which was really emphasizing the history of images of Muhammad, why it was important not to succumb to sharia blasphemy law..."  Furthermore, he added that it did not indulge in the "juvenalia" apparently typified by the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who, Bostom noted, had included one image of the 1950s sexpot actress Brigitte Bardot featuring her prominently sexy rear end, with Muhammad's head superimposed on her body, and the accompanying caption in French saying: "Do you like my tush?"  As Bostom keeps insisting on this, however, the listener begins to wonder what his point is: he almost sounds like he's saying that free speech is only okay if it's dignified rather than crass—which, of course, was precisely a viewpoint which he, Spencer and Geller were all otherwise vehemently repudiating.

The point is, as Bostom reiterates (but oddly doesn't seem to fully digest himself), it obviously doesn't matter to the Mainstream how well-behaved the satirists of Muhammad comport themselves.  If it’s clear after years that the name of the game is Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, I say let’s stop anxiously worrying over what the mainstream thinks of us and take the gloves off—and subject Islam to the criticism, condemnation, and contumely it so richly deserves.

What’s that you say? Contumely…?

Contumely—“Rudeness compounded of haughtiness and contempt; scornful insolence; despiteful treatment; disdain; contemptuousness in act or speech…”

For, as the great Edmund Burke (PBUH) wrote:

“Nothing aggravates tyranny so much as contumely.”


Speaking of the Andrew Bostom radio interview, he also mentioned how certain conservative pundits, including Bill O'Reilly and Jeanine Pirro of FOX News, disparaged the Garland event as a "dumb move".  Bostom rightly added that this is precisely missing the point of this most important exercise in freedom of speech.

Then I remembered something Robert Spencer had argued, way back when.  In a report on Jihad Watch in 2008, consequent upon an incident in Afghanistan where an American soldier allegedly used a Koran for target practice (apparently the soldier claimed he didn't know it was a Koran); then naturally the U.S. Military (and by extension the U.S. Government and America itself) apologized to any and all Muslims who may have felt "insulted" (a local Sheikh called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world") -- then, to add insult to insult, the U.S. Military groveled in a most pitifully abject manner:

“I come before you here seeking your forgiveness,” [Maj. Gen. Jeffery] Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. “In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers.” 

Another military official kissed a Quran and presented is as “a humble gift” to the tribal leaders...

In the comments section, an interesting conversation came up, when an astute reader named anonymous took issue with Spencer's editorial remarks.  First anonymousquoted Spencer:

If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur'an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies.

Hm.  This sounds virtually identical in substance and spirit to the complaints voiced by Spencer's (and Geller's) detractors...

Now, after quoting Spencer, “anonymous writes:

Anyone who shows himself as our enemy as a result of someone shooting at the Qur'an is already our enemy, as that person in effect has demanded of us to respect the scriptures of his so-called religion, or else. Our failure to comply merely makes the person reveal himself as our enemy. Thus, the Qur'an shooting should be a good thing, as it will provoke our enemies to reveal themselves. I'm surprised that Spencer considers this Qur'an shooting incident an "unnecessary provocation", since it is no more an "unnecessary provocation" than the Danish Mohammad cartoons were, and Spencer apparently has no problems with posting these on his site.

At that point, he quoted Spencer again:

[Dinesh] D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime.

Then he commented:
I'm glad to hear that Spencer has now realized that ignoring and denying the truth is never an effective strategy. Since Spencer's repeated challenges to Muslims to work for Islamic reform have in fact been expressions of Spencer himself outwardly ignoring and denying the truth, as they have suggested that Islamic reform is possible when in reality this is not the case (something Spencer himself undoubtedly realizes), his recent epiphany suggests that the nonsensical challenge is now a thing of the past, at least if Spencer will practice what he preaches and not merely continue to ignore and deny the truth against his own better judgement.
At this point, the conversation gets sidetracked by some quasi-personal history between Spencer and anonymous, as the two evidently knew each other and had a way of getting under each other's skin.  Nevertheless, this anonymous” essentially had the upper hand, in my estimation.  To the charge anonymous brought up about the seemingly self-contradictory incoherence of Spencer's stand on Islamic reformation, Spencer referred him to a link from a former essay. 

We pick up where
anonymous” responds after having read that essay:

Spencer provides me with a link in which he quotes himself saying the following:

"Many strange things have happened in history and I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible" (my emphasis).
Here, Spencer explicitly admits that he would never say that Islamic reform is impossible, meaning that he does claim it could be possible, even as he admits that it is not likely. For the record, I don't actually believe that Spencer himself personally has any hopes for Islamic reform to occur - on the contrary, someone with as much knowledge of Islam as Spencer necessarily has to know that Islamic reform is impossible. Which begs the question why Spencer is so reluctant to actually admit that this is true. Instead, rather than stating in unambiguous language that Islamic reform is impossible, and that no matter what they say or do, so-called Islamic reformers will necessarily leave us disappointed since as Spencer undoubtedly know there is no potential for reform in Islam, Spencer first informs us of the unlikelihood of Islamic reform, but then all of a sudden challenges Muslims to work for Islamic reform, thereby suggesting that however unlikely it may be, Islamic reform is possible! Ultimately, the issue is not about whether or not Spencer believes that Islamic reform is possible, but about why Spencer insists on challenging Muslims to work for Islamic reform when the challenge itself implies that Islamic reform is possible or else would be meaningless, and why Spencer persists in doing so even after he has been made aware of these implications.

More directly pertinent to our main topic, anonymous” then quotes another commenter, a regular Jihad Watch reader named “Darcy”, who had piped up to help Spencer out:

Hey al-"anonymous." I've bought a little paperback Koran. And I can do ANYTHING I want with it! So, I'm your enemy! Good! COME AND GET ME!

And then
anonymous continues:

Darcy seems to have misunderstood my message completely. What I was trying to convey was that I believe that Spencer is wrong when he claims that the Qur'an shooting will "turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies". The way I see it, anyone who starts behaving as our enemy as a result of our failure to show respect for the Qur'an was already our enemy, and only revealed himself as an enemy when we faildc [sic] to act in accordance with his implicit demands. Bravo Mohammed cartoons! MORE Mohammed cartoons! Because: They tell the Truth about evil Islam. I agree.

At this juncture, Spencer begins getting rather subtle, addressing
anonymous” for the latest round:
Evidently, you, like your friends, do not know the meaning of the phrase "calling a bluff." ...

Then anonymous responded, quoting Spencer:

Evidently, you, like your friends, do not know the meaning of the phrase "calling a bluff."

And I have tried to explain to Spencer that whatever the intent of his challenges, they have the unfortunate effect of suggesting that Islamic reform is possible. If Spencer does not in fact intend to suggest such a thing, he should consider rephrasing his frequent challenges so that they no longer contain this suggestion...

... if we are to take Spencer at his word that he "would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible", then it would be immensely interesting to hear from Spencer himself exactly what it is about Islam that makes him unwilling to rule out the possibility of Islamic reform altogether. (Since the weekend is over and I don't really have much time to participate in this discussion, I think this'll have to be it for me for now.)


Perhaps it is because Spencer hedges his bets about Islam, and about Islamic reform, that he is so chary of "insulting" Islam.  

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Too Much Information, Too Much Islam


A Jihad Watch reader recently remarked in a comments field:

“I don’t know if one exists but some central database should be created highlighting the most important and most damaging truths about islam.”

The answer is no:  A central database on the Problem of Islam (and on the Problem of the Problem -- the PC MC that continues to render the entire West strangely impotent in the face of the primary Problem) does not exist.

A central database is the single most important weapon in this war of ideas phase of this war we are in.

The war of ideas in turn is the most important theater of this war. The primary object of this theater is not Islam or Muslims (unless one indulges in the fantasy that a critical mass of Muslims will “reform” to save us from the problem their Islam is causing us) -- the primary object of our war of ideas is our fellow Westerners, the vast majority of whom remain stuck in the PC MC paradigm about this issue.

The exigency of a war of ideas wouldn’t make sense if the only problem were a Dastardly Cabal of “Leftist Elites” controlling everything; in that speculative circumstance one would logically abandon persuasion and instead opt to go down a Breivikian road.

Back to reality:

The Counter-Jihad desperately needs a central database, or an Anti-Islam Manual which would be, in effect, a digital app.

A central database ideally should fit the following criteria:

1) it should be the “Bible” of the Counter-Jihad — it should be the main and only source for all information the Counter-Jihad needs to fight in the various “battle spaces” (in Frank Gaffney’s phrase) of the war of ideas.

2) The information which the Counter-Jihad Manual contains would be divided into two:

a) information about Islam

b) counter-arguments against PC MC.

(a) and (b), needless to say, will inter-lock with each other in various ways.

And (a) -- the information about Islam we would use in these battle spaces of the war of ideas -- must be streamlined.

For the last nearly 15 years of this asymmetrical war, the Counter-Jihad has suffered from various problems. The biggest problem besets it from circumstances beyond its control -- namely, the worldview of the West all around it, a worldview strangely, stubbornly and maddeningly resistant to waking up to the problem of Islam.

Less broad than this problem but still important -- precisely because of that above-mentioned problem -- has been the problem of “TMI”. The problem is not that we don’t have enough information about Islam; the problem is that we have too much information, and this excess of information is ill-organized, with complex overlaps of redundancy that make the eyes of the audience glaze over.

 In addition, there are quality issues with much of the information, where credible verification is too often spotty or sometimes unavailable (or sometimes you have to spend 10 hours of tedious research just to pin down the verification f one important fact).

An Anti-Islam Manual (which would also be an Anti-PCMC Manual) would help ameliorate that problem by standardizing the information, organizing it, and over time improving its quality control. And it would put into the hands of each one of us — unofficially deputized as we are in the various “battle spaces” of this war of ideas — a formidable, indispensable weapon.

Nearly 15 years after 911, and the Counter-Jihad still doesn’t have something like this. Unacceptable.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Ahoy there, Pilgrim...


There's a text of Islamic law that over the years has become increasingly well known in the Counter-Jihad (and, one hopes, someday outside our beleaguered microcosm), whose title is translated as "Reliance of the Traveler".  A good introduction to it and its significance to the Counter-Jihad can be read in an article posted by Dymphna at the Gates of Vienna blog.  (The problems of its English translation may be gleaned in a couple of comments I posted at the blog, here and here.)

‘Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik is the full Arabic title, at the very least indicating that “Reliance of the Traveler” is an incomplete rendering. I’m guessing “Salik” is the word translated as “Traveler”.
I think the term may be more centrally, even officially, relevant to Islamic Jihad — particularly that one type of Jihad we have come to know all too well, the “Jihad of the Feet” (or Immigration).

Thus, the “Traveler” of that title may well refer to the Muslim migrations, which have been going on for 1,400 years, and which are joined at the hip with its supremacist expansionism (whether by hook (violence) or by crook (stealth), or both as in our time). I.e., in Islam, a Muslim be definition is a pilgrim immigrant in the never-ending desideratum to conquer the world. This would not be the pilgrimage of the Christian “Pilgrim’s Progress” but one intimately interlocked with the militant, supremacist expansionism of Islam.

Meanwhile, any Muslims who seem stationary and settled (no longer on the move) are such by virtue of having been (or their parents or grandparents having been) part of the broader, grander process of expansion.

Aren’t all peoples throughout history like this, the reader may ask? Sure, all peoples throughout history have been migratory to one degree or another, and all “lands” and “nations” and “states” (and “kingdoms” and “empires” etc.) reflect the relatively stationary settlement in that process, but to one degree or another still in flux. However, only Muslims have had a blueprint articulating and mandating an entelechy of world conquest in the name and context of a fanatical eschatolgy which also includes supremacism, hatred of the Other, and a psychopathic cult of violence (criminal, paramilitary, and military) as well as deceit as crucial parts of the whole complex.


A crucial corollary to my essay here is the historical fact that the Muslim migrations over the centuries prior to the 20th century never involved any significant penetration into the West.  The main reason for this seems to be that for the most part, Islam was openly, honestly inimical to the West, trying to conquer us through frank (not to mention often terrifyingly savage) military and para-military attacks.  This, coupled with the other important fact that the West, prior to the 20th century, was not crippled by a mainstream dominance of a cultural paradigm (PC MC) that renders it myopic to the dangers of Muslims pursuing their Islam, would explain the remarkable lack of Muslim penetration in former times.  (A third fact was the nadir of corruption and dislocation into which the Muslim world had sunk by the 19th century, consequent upon the effects of its inability to parasitically support itself on the backs of dhimmis -- a consequence, in turn, of the radical restructuring of their sociopolitical configurations by the various Western colonial powers.)

Further Reading:

Hijra in reverse?

Sunday, May 10, 2015

What's that off the starboard bow...? Iceslam...?


Though the Catholic World Report may not be as shimmeringly mainstream as L’Osservatore (or, for that matter, the Christian Science Monitor, or the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, et al.), and though William Kilpatrick may not be quite the crème de la crème of the Dastardly Elites of Polite Society, still both he and this publication are sufficiently within the ambit of the Mainstream to count, when we see an article by him in it such as this one, as quite a heartening sign of the fact that we may not be having a hallucination—that indeed the H.M.S./U.S.S. Titanic—our collective Ship of Fools of the West—is, with achingly glacial (pun intended) laboriousness and tardiness, beginning to diverge from its seemingly inexorable course headed straight for the Iceberg of Islamic Disaster which anyone with half a brain and a lick of sense standing at the railings of the deck aboveboard (or peering anxiously out a porthole below) can see looming as plain as the nose on their face.

I looked up this William Kilpatrick fellow. He has recently written a wicked satire of our situation, in the form of a dystopian novel called Insecurity. Described at Amazon as:

A witty satire on suicidal government policies, multicultural misadventures, and military ineptitude, Insecurity hits uncomfortably close to home.

They also provide an extended excerpt that had me literally (as well as virtually) Laughing Out Loud—which I hereby quote:

Who’s guarding the fort?

As global tensions mount and army enlistments drop, James Cassandra, a U.S. Army captain, notices signs of increasing Muslim presence in the officer corps at Fort Camp, the base to which he has been newly assigned. Bearded officers and burqas abound, alcohol is no longer served at the officers’ club, and Muslim children in mujahideen outfits practice hand-to-hand combat at the base housing. When Cassandra goes to his politically correct commanding officer, General Coddle, with his suspicions, he is reassured that what he sees is just the result of the Army’s “Proud to Be Me” program―affirmative action for Muslims and gays, “the two most underrepresented minorities in the military.”

Through a friend, Cassandra learns of similar Muslim penetration at other bases. Then, with the help of an eavesdropping device, he discovers a plot by Muslim officers to take over key commands, with a view to establishing an Islamic government. Meanwhile, information vital to the success of the coup is being relayed to the Muslim officers by Stanley Darling, a young gay soldier in army communications who has a crush on handsome Colonel Mohammed Faisal.

Realizing that General Coddle won’t listen to him, Captain Cassandra arranges to meet with a top Pentagon officer, the formidable general Jack Panzer, in order to divulge what he knows. But getting to Panzer is no easy task. Along the way, Cassandra encounters a burly Muslim TSA agent, six scary imams aboard his flight, and a leftist demonstration on the National Mall to support the construction of a gigantic mosque to be situated in the center of the Mall with the Washington Monument serving as its minaret.

Meanwhile, at the White House, President Prince and his security team are meeting to discuss global tensions, but against a background of escalating threats and falling enlistments, their top priorities are to increase the LGBTU presence in the military and to create a less threatening color-coded threat chart. Have naïve generals and politicians set the nation on an irreversible course towards disaster? Or will Captain Cassandra be able to save the day?

Having in the meantime landed in a mental health facility, however, Cassandra is in no position to save anyone―unless he can convince the staff that he’s really not crazy. In a world where craziness has become the norm and sanity is suspect, that proves to be a tall order. When burqas get a pass at the security gate, F-16s are sent to Iran, and the President decides to supplement the First Lady with a Second Lady and a Third Lady, it’s hard to say what’s normal.


Friday, May 08, 2015

Flashback to 2006: Repost: "Elites" -- a peculiar obsession of the Jihad Watchers


[With a couple of minor tweaks aside, the following I wrote nearly ten years ago.]

First, I want to set the record straight: I myself am a ‘Jihad Watcher’—and proud of it. Individual members of any group, however, have the right and obligation to offer up constructive criticism of that group; and that is the spirit in which I write today’s post.

Secondly, by the term Jihad Watcher, I do not limit myself merely to the writers (official and unofficial) of articles, essays and comments at the website jihadwatch.org (and its sibling, dhimmiwatch.org). I consider the term to embrace a slightly larger population that includes anyone whose learning curve about the Problem of Islam has passed a certain threshhold. The threshhold I refer to is the epiphany that the geopolitical problems of terrorism, military assaults, paramilitary raids, and sociocultural regressiveness which one observes wherever there are large numbers of Muslims (whether they are the majority or an agitating minority) are problems rooted in Islam itself. Within the camp of Jihad Watchers there might be disagreements as to the degree of Islam’s complicity in these problems, but all Jihad Watchers would agree that the degree is sufficient to warrant a serious critical examination of Islam and, consequent upon that, various rational actions based upon the conclusions of such an examination. Again, Jihad Watchers might have honest disagreements about which particular actions to take; but none would deny that a number of actions must be taken.

To get to the point of my post today: I have noticed, from being an assiduous Jihad Watcher myself for at least four years (the last two years specifically reading and writing at jihadwatch.org)—and from being a ‘Jihad Watch’-Watcher—a few obsessions which the majority of Jihad Watchers seem to share (I will at some later date go into the other obsessions I have noticed among Jihad Watchers, which would include the subpopulation of Jihad Watchers who populate the Internet chat rooms at Paltalk.com).

One of these obsessions—or ‘hobbyhorses’ (as the Jihad Watch writer (both official and unofficial) Hugh Fitzgerald would put it (ironically, since he happens to ride this particular hobbyhorse himself quite often)—of Jihad Watchers is to insist incessantly that the problem of the West’s inability to recognize the Problem of Islam, and to rally itself against it appropriately, is a problem mostly, or even solely (one cannot be quite sure the parameters of this hobbyhorse, since it has never to my knowledge been formally and clearly argued—only assumed as a matter of parenthetical fact) of ‘elites’ in the West.

Now, what do Jihad Watchers mean by the term ‘elites’? They seem to mean a rather tiny, but very influential and powerful, subpopulation of movers and shakers in the domains of politics, academe and the news media. And what is the fault of these elites? The Jihad Watchers don’t seem to have a particularly coherent answer to this question, as the fault of the elites seems to be either stupidity—that they are unable to recognize the Problem of Islam, and to help their Society rally itself appropriately against that Problem of Islam—or cupidity; or a somewhat paradoxical mix of the two. Some Jihad Watchers seem to go further, and impute more sinister motives to some or all of the elites. The diagnosis of this fault that approaches the most coherence—though it is still an insufficient diagnosis—is that of the Vice President and frequent essayist at Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, who has liltingly called it the “Esdrujula Explanation” (referring to a term for accenting words on the third syllable from the end), offering up three words to “explain the folly”: Timidity, Stupidity, Cupidity (and, on at least one other occasion, a fourth—Rigidity). While our ears may be charmed by this rhyming, rhythmic alliteration, our minds come away dissatisfied: for, as I explain briefly in a later essay on my blog, it reduces the immense and complex problem of PC multiculturalism to personality flaws, which might suffice to explain the folly of individuals here and there, but fails, by a long shot, the mark of addressing the sociological dimensions.

I do not disagree with my fellow Jihad Watchers that such elites exist, nor that they are influential and powerful, nor that many of them are working against finding an appropriate, rational solution to the Problem of Islam. Where I disagree with my fellow Jihad Watchers is on their corollary point—sometimes implicitly supposed, sometimes explicitly trumpeted—that the surrounding Society out of which our elites emerge is not also complicit in this inability to recognize the Problem of Islam and to appropriately rally against it: for, you see, our general Society must be “like us”—as awake to the evils of Islam as we Jihad Watchers are—and it is only those infernal, dastardly ‘elites’ who are obstructing us from protecting ourselves.

Two points about elites should be kept in mind:

1) In any good society, to the extent that the society is good, elites are good and necessary—and inevitable.

1a) No good society is perfect.

1b) No good society that has contracted a virus (for example, the PC virus to which our Society has succumbed) is necessarily beyond hope.

2) “By their fruits ye shall know them”. Elites are the fruits of a society. Elites do not fall from outer space: they grow from the society, and to the extent that a society is democratic (sophomores: please note the small ‘d’), elites reflect the broader, deeper, prevalent currents of the society out of which they have grown.

The truth of these two points does not mean that there may not develop a tension or a friction, in a particular good society, between elites and the broader population. A profound and widespread tension or friction bordering on an outright disjunction, however—as is asserted time and again by Jihad Watchers—requires at least a shred of evidence beyond a tiny subpopulation on the Internet (+ a handful of personal acquaintances here and there + a dash of commentators one has run across on occasion).

Absent such evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that, so far, elites are not weird anomalous fruits growing against the grain, but rather are, as natural excrudescences, the more visible way by which to know the general temperment of our current Society. Which brings us back to #1: our elites are a mirror to a broader, deeper disease in our Society now.

By way of a little more amplification of the foregoing observations, I will quote some interchanges today at the jihadwatch.org website between myself and a couple of other Jihad Watchers:

One Jihad Watcher who goes by the name of ‘Archimedes’ commented on a recent public protest in Montreal, Canada, by Hizbollah supporters that:
“No society in its right mind would pay to import criminals and terrorists. This is sick, and it must be reversed, ASAP.”

I responded by writing the following:

My response is simple: our society is not in its right mind.

Only microscopic pockets, or cells, of our society (such as this tiny subpopulation of Jihad Watchers) are of a right mind.

It’s going to get much, much worse before our society rallies itself out of its disease.

The good news, I believe, is that our society has a bedrock of health and strength beneath the disease. But tapping into that bedrock in order to shake off the disease will not be hastened by the unrealistic wishful thinking characteristic of Jihad Watchers who are obsessed by elites—as though only a tiny population of elites are the problem of dhimmitude. The situation is the precise reverse. The non-dhimmis are the tiny subpopulation, and the elites are the natural expression of the society at large, and are more or less nourished and aided & abeted by it.

That last sentence of mine then occasioned a response from another Jihad Watcher, who goes by the name of ‘anti-uffe’:

“This is only partly correct, IMHO. The elites know something that the kneejerk dhimmis do not about strategic interests, about the risks of incurring the wrath of oil producing countries, about the risk of all-out social turmoil if the enemy was named by the top, and thus being made into a legitimate target, and about the risks involved if their country came under scrutiny by UN watchdogs and other international organizations, with the international stigmatizing that might be the consequence. The elites are probably very, very aware of the role they play in keeping the lid on a number of conflicts that might blow up in their face at the smallest of events - e.g. cartoons...”

I then responded to anti-uffe with the following:

First, Id respond by saying the kind of elites you characterize here are the cream of the elites, a minority (but, of course, a minority with the most influence) of the overall elite population.
Secondly, what this cream of elites “know” about all those strategic interests you aptly adumbrate is, unfortunately, encased within a larger paradigm of relative ignorance and Islamic illiteracy; and this paradigm is furthermore wrapped in the enigma of PC multiculturalism.

This paradigm and this enigma are not at all exclusive to this cream of elites, nor even to elites in general. On the contrary, to restate my previous contention: this paradigm and this enigma are shared by the Society—our Society—out of which the elites and their cream have risen. And that is a problem broader and deeper, ultimately, than the problem of the strategic horse-blindered knowledge of the cream of elites.

I would close today’s post by harking back to one of my statements quoted above:

“The good news, I believe, is that our society has a bedrock of health and strength beneath the disease.”

This is what I was referring to in a previous post on this blog (The West as equivalent to the Cosmos, 6/25/06), when I wrote:

“We are not seeing so much a conquest of noetic culture by Gnostic culture, nor a revolution overturning the one for the other, so much as a subtle ‘corporate takeover’, so to speak, at certain key levels.”

That phrase of mine, ‘corporate takeover’, however, is infelicitious. It invites the very same distinction between elites and the broader population which I have been attempting to dispute. Whatever the nature and style of this ‘takeover’ by which Gnostic culture, in the specific form of PC multiculturalism, has acquired a certain degree of hegemony over noetic culture in our recent West, we must bear in mind that its hegemony has not utterly eclipsed the noetic culture: paradoxically, the two continue to thrive side by side, even though Gnostic culture rules the airwaves and has infiltrated the superficial conscious of the body politic.

Let us hope the body politic—and all the good men and women who constitute it—learn to think more deeply and outside the box they themselves, and their forbears, have helped to construct. The longer that a learning curve about the Problem of Islam is put off, the more likely that thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or even millions of innocent people will be mass-murdered by Muslims in the years and decades to come.


More recently, I had the following exchange with a ‘Jihad Watcher’:

“Do you think this happened by accident?” he asks—and by “this” he means, of course, the prevalence of PC Multiculturalism in the West.

My response:

The phrase “by accident”, if its meant to be contrasted to the only alternative of “planned”, would be a limited and misleading phrase. This sea change in consciousness is not some natural process like the shifting of tectonic plates; obviously, human beings and their thoughts and emotions have played a part, and influential men of ideas have had some role in it. But the prevalence of the phenomenon, and the high degree of freedom and goodness—as well as complexity—of the societies in which this phenomenon has so much prevailing influence, militate against the theory that it has been successfully managed by some cabal.

I quote another of his statements:

“There was no back-room conspiracy by a tiny group of influential persons per se, but if you know anything about the seminars our public school teachers must attend, you'll know there is indeed both a methodology for propagandizing and inculcation...”

And I responded:

Your description here is putting the cart before the horse: you imagine that these seminars are being crafted in order to influence teachers, who in turn will influence students. But the far more likely—though far more difficult to solve—situation is that the seminar-creators and taskmasters themselves are part of a wider, more amorphous shift in world-view, and that, furthermore, this shift affects the teachers before they ever see a seminar; it's simply in the general atmosphere. The seminar-creators are not some sinister group of social engineers, and the teachers some group of naive innocents: we are all in this together. Only in a totalitarian society could there be this kind of social machination going on, perpetrated by a sinister few against the naive many. This is a far more complex sociological phenomenon, precisely because we live in a very free and good and open society (note: I didn't say “perfect”), and, just as importantly, a very complex, sprawling and sophisticated society. 

Just so theres no additional misunderstanding: I am not denying a certain degree of machination and influence by Leftist types throughout the 20th century who have had an agenda to reform society. But I dont think it rises above a certain threshhold, and certainly doesnt explain the fact that most ordinary Americans and Europeans out there would still not be capable of saying that Islam itself should be condemned and that most Muslims are following an evil belief system.

Only in a totalitarian society could a minority have the kind of mass effect you and other Jihad Watchers seem to think explains the reason why the West is not doing anything about the problem of Islam (other than running around putting out one Islamic fire after another wherever it pops up). And the West (Europe, North America, Australia) is not only not totalitarian, it manifests varying degrees of the freest, most open and most beneficent collection of societies ever seen in world history.
No, the problem is a far more complex, amorphous, subtle, and difficult-to-solve shift in consciousness in the West that has developed over the last 50-odd years (with roots going further back in time, of course).

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

A Taxonomy of Taqiyya


Recently on Jihad Watch comments, a Muslim commenter (fatuously calling himself "Galen Muhammad") tried to school the regulars there on the Islamic concept of taqiyya (deception):

"Arabic (not Islamic) words, like taqiyya have been redefined by Islamaphobes [sic] to mean “lying to spread Islam” — a non-existing concept in Islam."

As I wrote at the time:

Galen Muhammad is technically correct about taqiyya—but it’s a distinction effectively without a difference. So, yes, we can say that taqiyya is deceit not directly to “spread Islam”—but rather to defend Islam against “enemies”. And what are these “enemies” doing that needs to be “defended” against? Why, those enemies are preventing Muslims from spreading Islam! Thus once again we see, here in encapsulated form, the reverse bully formula of Islam: Muslims aggress; the non-Muslim defends himself from the Muslim; the Muslim labels the non-Muslim’s defensive action as an “offense” against Islam which must be defended against. In our current era, this is playing out in an elaborately complex and diverse way, involving the mass migration of Muslims into the Camp of the Enemy (the Dar-al-Harb which in this context = the West), coupled with the Islamic precept that any individual or society that refuses to submit to Allah and His Prophet is, ipso facto, committing a casus belli (a declaration of war) against Islam—against which, again, in the Orwellian, Bizarro World, Allah-in-Wonderland logic of Islamic fanaticism, Muslims must “defend” themselves against to protect Islam.

* * * * *

But taqiyya isn't the only style of deceit in Islamic culture.  Not too long ago a handy list—a veritable taxonomy of taqiyya—on a site I'd never seen before (I encourage the reader to go there, as they have reference citations for these terms):

Taqiyya (Shia) or Muda’rat (Sunni): tactical deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam.

Kitman: deceit by omission.

Tawriya: deceit by ambiguity.

Taysir: deceit through facilitation (not having to observe all the tenets of Sharia).

Darura: deceit through necessity (to engage in something “Haram” or forbidden).

And my favorite:

Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia in order that Muslim immigrants appear “moderate.”

* * * * *

As I wrote when I first heard of just one of these (tawriya, from a Raymond Ibrahim article on Jihad Watch), back in 2012:

Oh great, another term for us Infidels to learn from the linguistic jungle of the lexicon of Satan’s pedagogy of his minions. Everytime I learn a new Islamic term I feel the frisson of having uncovered a rock to glimpse yet another fleeting wriggle of some infernal venomous insect; or in a drunken funk chanced upon the toxic worm at the bottom of a bottle of taqiyya—er, I mean, tequila.

This tawriya seems to be not a separate type of deceit from taqiyya, but a categorical distinction: i.e., taqiyya is the category of the virtue and pragmatic efficacy of deceit in general, which may be crudely simplistic or artfully clever; while tawriya would be the methodology of how to do it — or at least one methodology. It resembles clever sophistry, whereas there are cruder ways to lie, as they used to say, “baldly”.

For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him”though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.

The cruder, balder, more blatant form of lying about this would be to say simply, “I have no money”, meanwhile one’s pockets are bulging with 100-dollar bills. Many Muslims have shown themselves to be fully capable of doing this cruder form, and fully willing to do so (and, more often than not, simply not intelligent enough to do otherwise).

The difference between the cruder form and the more artful form of tawriya would be the difference between what has been colorfully rendered as “lying through your teeth”, and the cleverer, more devilish (if not positively Satanic) form where the tongue becomes a cunning linguist of a snake to perform a perverse and abusive fellatio on its more or less unwilling victim (depending on his gullible naivety and desperation to believe in the wiles of the Moderate Muslim...).

* * * * *

I’d thought about kitman too when I first read Ibrahim’s essay mentioned above. There might be, in the Muslim mind and culture, a subtle difference between kitman and tawriya.

We have to remember that Islamic law over the centuries has generated innumerable fanatics who are not barbarians but who are afflicted with an extreme form of OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) in this, and other respects, in cultivating a jungle of semantic layers and distinctions concerning nearly everything in life—from bathroom hygiene, to dietary rules, to the circumstances of “lawful” killing, to the methods of beheading, to the complex determination of who is an enemy to be hated and/or killed, to the complexities of when and where it’s okay and not okay to have incestual sex; etc. etc. ad nauseam.

I.e., Muslim clerics and scholars are not brute barbarians, but dangerous fanatics afflicted with various psychological disorders such as OCD, ADD, autism, idiot savantism, schizophrenia, sociopathy, psychopathy, pneumopathy, etc. We could partially explain this with the prevalence of incest in Islamic culture, over time breeding people with mental disorders; but that somehow doesn’t fully explain the phenomenon to me. Something darker, and deeper than mere biology and biochemistry, is going on in this regard.

A glimpse of this serpentine jungle of obsessive fanaticism I just stumbled upon, when Googling “kitman tawriya” (most of the few results were to Ibrahim’s essay here and on Frontpage) and finding a snippet of a scholarly article on Islamic history (the typographical problems were in the original):

…lying, such techniques of speech (kitman, ta’rıd, ilghaz, tawriya, ta’miya, ¯ ¯ ¯ Ë™ talbıs etc…)

You see, that list not only distinguishes “kitman” from “tawriya”, it also alludes to other distinct forms—ta’rid, ilghaz, ta’miya, and a fourth term for which the software program, unable to render the symbols, apparently had to provide dashes, probably because it was in Arabic script.

Of course, the more important and broader lesson to be learned here is that our fight against Muslims should not depend upon learning the thousands of details of the jungle of terms which their psychosis has over centuries cultivated; but rather to pronounce the whole sordid enterprise Islam as a deadly madness whose believers and enablers have to be stopped from endangering our societies. When we have time in between our far more important and multifarious efforts at stopping Muslims from endangering our societies—and certainly after we have succeeded with a measure of success—then it would be appropriate to spend (or waste) one’s time palpating the throbbing pulsating complex intestines of the disease of Islam in all its amazing diversity.

* * * * *

And finally, as a postscript, I would call the reader's attention to this Google search page, where may be found a few old articles on Jihad Watch about the amusing-if-it-weren’t-so-deadly phenomenon in Islamic culture of “taqiyya about taqiyya”.

Friday, May 01, 2015

Imbroglio at Jihad Watch comments


There's one particular commenter at Jihad Watch who goes by the name of Phillip Jihadski and who routinely, over months and years, has been attacking me in various comments threads over there.  That by itself wouldn't be all that remarkable; after all, I'm an Internet veteran and I've been around the Forum Block a few times in my time and I'm no stranger to various misfit (if not at times sociopathic) behavior from sundry motley individuals.

What lifts this Phillip Jihadski fellow from a minor irritant to a medium-sized nuisance is that he counts so many Jihad Watch regulars as friends, and all the while he has been behaving like a playground bully with anger management issues, lashing out at me with outrageously abusive invective (the reader will see what I'm talking about in my post below and more, if he follows my links), his friends either defend him, or turn the other way and pretend that he's not doing what he's doing.  And a few of these individuals I once counted as friends, too.  So the real problem is not so much Phillip Jihadski, but his friends who for some reason perpetuate a co-dependent relationship of enabling his abusive behavior.

In one particular recent comments thread at Jihad Watch, the discussion surrounding this very sub-topic burgeoned and then subsequently exploded with commentary from all concerned.  I too weighed in -- until, when I felt I needed to say my last piece this morning, I proved unable to post there any longer.  Obviously, the site managers had decided to block any further posts from me.

So here is that final post from me.  I encourage my reader to also go to the link above and swim around in the context of my final post, to get a good feel for the social dynamics there.  My nickname at Jihad Watch comments has been "voegelinian".  At the beginning of my final post, I reference one "Wellington" -- he is one of the Jihad Watch regulars who refuses to do the right thing and scold Phillip Jihadski with verve appropriate to the latter's behavior.   Instead, Wellington gently and respectfully chides him, as though Phillip Jihadski deserved being treated as a fellow gentleman.

Without futher to-do, here is my final post (all bolding is added by me for emphasis):

Wellington with genteel & gingerly civility counseled:

"To the extent we are able, bury the differences. To the extent we are able, think broad coalition."


“To you, PJ, and to Angemon, I understand your frustration with voegelinian…”

There's no coalition, broad or otherwise, possible with someone who numerous times, out of the blue, calls one names such as “donkey” and “jackass”.

Aside from the exhibit A from his various ejaculations above on this thread (throughout which he calls me "donkey" some nine times (then has the gall to assert with a straight face that calling someone "donkey" is not an insult) – Phillip Jihadski (PJ) has posted things like:

"Keep your demands to yourself, Jackass. You don’t dictate to me or anybody else, creep."

[As I pointed out at the time, in the post which PJ was responding to, I wasn't "demanding" anything; indeed, my post didn't even mention PJ at all. I was merely suggesting that social media like Facebook are important for the Counter-Jihad to take account of in its war of ideas. What prompted him to lash out in hate-spittled vituperation against me is between him and his hairdresser, I suppose.]

Philip Jihadski says April 28, 2015 at 5:29 am

My God! Do you ever write anything short and concise? Or are you only concerned with your own narcissism and throwing out 5 dollar words, so as to try to puff yourself up?

Guess what? It ain’t workin’, Donkey Boy. So sick of your long-winded bullshit! Keep it short, Donkey.

Philip Jihadski says August 9, 2014 at 12:43 pm
“and one main indication of how deeply the West is asleep at the switch on this is that most in the Counter Jihad agree that we “cannot” deport Muslims.”

You’re lying again, Jackass. When are you going to stop flogging that dead horse with a whip made of lies? It’s symptomatic of a deep pathology. “Most” of us in the CJ are all for deporting Muslims who break our laws vis a vis treason. Again, you are simply lying. What MANY of us are against is your stupid, illegal and seditious dream of TOTAL DEPORTATION OF ALL MUSLIMS.

Now get it straight, Jackass – stop putting words in peoples’ mouths, admit defeat and go seek counseling, for you are one, disturbed puppy.

[Phillip Jihadski in his abusive fury there doesn’t really make a cogent point. His dispute about my “most” vs. his “many” is childish quibbling; and he accuses me of “lying” about the disagreement I point out from most Jihad Watchers (“most”, “many” – it’s not a science, it’s subjective impression as to the numbers) concerning deportation, when in the next breath he accuses me of advocating total deportation as opposed to partial deportation. So which is it? It’s both, apparently, to Phillip Jihadski.

And as I pointed out at the time:

voegelinian says August 9, 2014 at 9:41 pm  

PJ knows that my advocacy of deportation is for all Muslims, not for some on the basis of some magical distinction we cannot make between harmless and dangerous Muslims. So why he’s pretending like he doesn’t know this, I have no idea.

Anyway, somewhere in the tortured fury of his comment lies the fact: I advocate total deportation, and other than one or two individuals over the years who are the exception that tends to prove the rule, I have received nothing from fellow Jihad Watch commenters about this but either 1) flack (escalated to hate-spittling, abusively demeaning attacks from PJ); or 2) silence when being attacked by people like PJ and his seemingly more sophisticated sidekick, Angemon.

 I have a right to point this out as many times as I bloody well like, and when I get called “Jackass” and “Donkey” in the midst of seething, abusive hatred, I expect others here to tell Phillip Jihadski to knock it off – and when they don’t, over and over and over again, over months and years, I no longer respect them.]

When I posted a long, maturely worded comment (which doesn’t mean it’s perfect and error-free) about Clint Eastwood’s movie and Hollywood in general, Phillip Jihadski retorted:

 Uh huh. Just as I thought. Bloviating on and on about a movie that you have never seen! PFFT! More caca from the Jackass. Get out of mama’s basement, see the movie, then comment about it. I don’t want to read the words of a blind movie critic, thank you.

Shortly thereafter, I posted another long, detailed, maturely worded comment, and Phillip Jihadski wrote:

Philip Jihadski says April 9, 2015 at 10:24 pm  

More Caca from the Psychic Donkey:  

“…Dar-al-Islam is a real (bloody real, literally) geographical entity, however ragged it might translate due to Western Colonialism and the map-drawing consequent upon that.”

Oh, ok. So, for the thousandth time, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what those “ragged boundaries of Dar-al-Islam” are, since you concede that “colonialism and map-drawing” are partly to blame for your idiotic insistence that Dar-al-Islam has distinct geographical boundaries, and hence – it is no problem that we deport American citizens en masse to “someplace in that ragged, amorphous, geographical entity”.

[Needless to say, I wasn’t going to respond to someone who calls me a “psychic donkey” and refers to my long and detailed argument as “more caca”. That said, I don’t know why Phillip Jihadski and Angemon have such trouble with the concept of Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia (to name a few from among the nations collected under the O.I.C., reflecting a physical concretization of the Dar-al-Islam, pace the factors of Western colonialism and post-colonial cartography) -- being 1) actual geographical places, which 2) can provide space for deportees. Phillip Jihadski and Angemon can’t be this dense; can they…?

Oh but, perhaps they can – for example:

Philip Jihadski says July 10, 2014 at 6:45 pm

Voegelinian, in “reply” to Angemon: “What a silly question.”

You see? You are a jackass – you simply won’t acknowledge that your Total Deportation Scheme has been proven logically stupid. You avoid the question!... Tell us where that Muslim is going to be deported to…

I guess Phillip Jihadski and Angemon never heard of … Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia (to name a few from among the nations collected under the O.I.C., reflecting a physical concretization of the Dar-al-Islam, pace the factors of Western colonialism and post-colonial cartography) -- all told containing millions of square miles of physical space for deportees to be relocated to. Surely they can’t be this dense; some ulterior point or agenda must be operative here; if only they actually presented an argument that would advert to the relevant points…]

5) Phillip Jihadski frequently fulminates with throttled abusive belligerent hate-spittling rage at me for “lying” about his position; then he turns around and (twice) refers to me as --

Philip Jihadski says June 30, 2014 at 11:01 pm

“…somebody who openly advocates on this site for seditious schemes that would usurp the Constitution of the USA.”

[PJ has, of course, no proof for that slander against me; all he has is his subjective opinion interpreting what I have said; an opinion he seems incapable of formulating into an actual argument, opting instead to fulminate, lash out, and project.]


It is noteworthy that the presentation above, as copious as it is, represents only a small portion of the outrageous shit this Phillip Jihadski has spewed over the years against me (and against a couple of others who did not deserve it) -- virtually all of it ignored (and sometimes even defended) by the vast majority of intelligent Jihad Watch regulars who should know better. 

I once felt, years ago, that Jihad Watch comments was something of a community of concerned civilians where we could share thoughts, information, and a bit of mutual encouragement in that precious, beleaguered microcosm of a broader West seeming to have gone mad in its stubbornly blithe myopia about the problem of Islam.  While there do remain a smattering of some 3.5 individuals there I feel some warmth from and toward, any semblance of such a community I once hoped for has been, alas, long since shot to hell.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

A Clausewitzian twist on Jihad


In a recent notice on French lawyer Thibault De Montbrial's recent essay on the metastasizing problem of Islam in France, Hugh Fitzgerald parenthetically implies a distinction between qitaal (Arabic for "combat") and terrorism.

I would argue that terrorism is, in fact, "combat by other means" -- viz., in situations where Muslims find themselves too weak to engage in full, formal, frank military maneuvers in the supremacist-expansionist quest of their Islamic Lebensraum.  Indeed, any and everything Muslims do that is not actually killing someone is "combat by other means" -- whether it is violent jihad or the myriad modes of stealth jihad: the long struggle, spanning the epochs, to make Islam supreme.

Monday, April 27, 2015

The Logic of PC MC


Yes, there is a logic to PC MC (after all, there can be a logic to various forms of madness...).

Ostensibly, it is predicated on one major factor:

1) Most Muslims Just Wanna Have a Sandwich.

And secondly,

2) We don’t want to “paint with a broad brush” and generalize from the Tiny Minority of Extremists to the vast majority of innocent Muslims around the world.

We see, therefore, a lurking assumption:

3) There is no substantial connection between the Muslims who ostensibly are harmless, and the Muslims actually perpetrating extremist acts.

#3 and #2 are considerably strengthened by a perception that the vast majority of Muslims are a collection of Ethnic Peoples, thus pushing the enormously powerful additional buttons of White Guilt and Respect for Diversity in order to Avoid Being Racist.


4) When anti-Islam analysts and pundits make statements or arguments that threaten #2, the PC MC person is psychologically prompted to go on the defensive. His defensiveness in his mind is immediately transferred to the noble and lofty (and self-righteous and ethically narcissistic) principle of defending the rights and dignity of untold millions of innocent Ethnic People.

Once we see that this is what is really going on, it no longer is a baffling mystery why the PC MCs so doggedly maintain their otherwise irrational position, and why there are so many PC MCs throughout the West -- indeed, as a dominant and mainstream sociocultural fact. And there’s no need to reach for a conspiracy theory about that Dastardly Leftist Cabal of Nefarious Elites to explain this sociopolitically broad and comprehensive Problem of the Problem (the primary Problem being Islam; the Problem of it being the continuing Western myopia to it).

Further Reading: