Friday, June 24, 2016


After Brexit, next may come NExit -- as Geert Wilders said after the British "Independence Day":

A recent survey (EenVandaag, Dutch television) shows that a majority of the Dutch want a referendum on EU membership. It also shows that more Dutch are in favour of exit than of remaining in the EU.
The Dutch people deserve a referendum as well. The Party for Freedom consequently demands a referendum on NExit, a Dutch EU exit.

Marine Le Pen reportedly has also called for the French version, FRExit.

Other nations may well follow suit, in a kind of domino effect, whereby the dystopic EUtopia of the Brussels hegemony falls like a house of cards; hopefully, in reverberations across the Pond, also leaving in its wake jokers on the floor and the Trump card standing.

Perhaps this significant baby step augurs the first sign of the achingly slow turnaround of the West's H.M.S. Titanic in its still seemingly inexorable course straight for the Iceslamberg of civilizational catastrophe.

Now, how about a “WExit” -- where every member of the Western family leaves the politically correct multi-culturalism that has dominated the cultural mainstream of the entire West, restores individual sovereignty, and pledges to work together in voluntary and respectful solidarity to round up all resident Muslims and deport them, then quarantine them in economic isolation & militarily enforced travel restrictions within the Dar-al-Islam.

That’ll be my next sci-fi/fantasy novel…

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Hugh Fitzgerald deconstructs the New York Times,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1490413210716943274.jpg

In a fine piece of analytical journalism, Hugh Fitzgerald refutes the New York Times meticulously, point by point, line by line.

What Hugh is refuting is the attempt of the New York Times to construct a narrative to "explain" the motivations of the Orlando ghazi, Omar Mateen, with every explanation under the sun except for one -- Islam.

It is a deconstruction one could say is the mirror image of the process of defusing a bomb -- insofar as what the New York Times has constructed is not a live bomb, which Hugh has then prevented from exploding, but rather a phony bomb calculated to pre-empt the explosion (or more accurately, to divert our attention away from the explosion elsewhere).  In its editorial, the New York Times as elucidated by Hugh's analysis is evidently weaving a complex tapestry of taqiyya.  Since their piece was written by "Dan Barry, Serge F. Kovaleski, Alan Blinder and Mujib Mashal" -- a Christian, two Jews, and a Muslim -- we can surmise that it's three Useful Idiots and a sly taqiyya Muslim responsible (if we valiantly uphold our disinclination to go conspiracy theorist, that is).

In his meticulously masterful analysis, perhaps a tad calmer than James Bond at the climax of Goldfinger figuring out how to stop the timer on the atom bomb he's been handcuffed to in Fort Knox, and stopping it in time at the seven-second mark ("007"), Hugh restores the explosion -- and its explosive ingredient and intricate wiring of Islam -- in our minds.

Let's just hope that such analyses the Counter-Jihad keeps producing over the years will at some point stop at "911" -- which means will wake up our broader, surrounding West -- before it's too late.

Kitman or Tawriya...?

The Attorney General of the United States of America, Loretta Lynch, is one of a small handful of people who have the highest obligation to tell the truth under law.

The American legal phrase used in courts across the nation to swear in testimony is refers to:

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

This seemingly redundant phrase is masterful because if followed conscientiously, would prevent the person from engaging in two of the main forms of Islamic deception -- kitman and tawriya (subtypes of taqiyya).  Kitman is telling half the truth, but leaving out a crucial portion of the truth.  Tawriya is is deceit by ambiguity.

When we look at our Attorney General's pronouncement upon the Orlando terror attack by the Muslim ghazi Omar Mateen, it's difficult to tell which form of taqiyya it fits best:

"The most effective response to terror is compassion, unity and love."

The Attorney General is correct:  From the standpoint of Islamic Jihad, the most effective response to terror is when their enemies fail to fight back, and rather think they must indulge in the Kumbaya virtues of compassion, unity and love.  Such a response by us will indeed most effectively help Muslims conquer our societies.  So the Attorney General was speaking the truth.  The truth from the perspective of Islamic victory, that is.

In a way this is both deception by speaking half the truth, and a manipulation of the semantics of rhetoric through ambiguity: thus a combination of kitman and tawriya. 

Do I think Attorney General Lynch is actually doing taqiyya?  Or is she one of the thousands of influential Useful Idiots the West suffers under?  It's becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the latter view, but in the interest of Ockham's Razor, I still do:  the behavior of our "Elites" over the past 15 years in response to the metastasizing danger of Islam can be explained by a pervading culture of politically correct multi-culturalism (PC MC), so there's no need to reach for the more elaborate and implausibly diabolical explanation of some sort of conspiracy.  This principle is reinforced by the fact that innumerable non-Elites throughout the West evidently share varying degrees of that same PC MC perspective.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

What if the Idaho Falls Muslim rapists were U.S. citizens...?

The recent Jihad Watch report on the rape of a 5-year-old girl in Idaho Falls by three Muslim boys (ages 8, 11 and 13) has generated an unprecedented (or rarely precedented) number of comments there -- 278 and still growing, and it was only published yesterday.  [UPDATE:  a few hours later, the comments are up to 360]

One commenter there, "robert galluzzo", whom one Jihad Watch reader has called an "Agent of Disinformation", has been needling the commenting community there with not-so-subtle accusations of fomenting a lynch-mob mentality (example, "You were advocating violent mob action with torches and pitchforks like in a Frankenstein movie!"), along with other assorted, slyly insinuated points related to that.

Initially, the report indicated that the perps were Syrian refugees.  However, the story seems tangled up in the kind of mainstream anxiety not to tar Muslims that we see has become typical in the post-911 West (this process of denial year after year accelerating as Muslim behavior gets worse and worse), and some of the facts of the story are either being suppressed, "managed", or are only coming out in drips and drabs rather than in the timely manner that would befit our representatives in politics and journalism.

Apparently, the latest news on the perps, relayed by this "robert galluzzo" character, is that they were two Sudanese and one Iraqi.  Naturally, "robert galluzzo" thinks he scored one against the Counter-Jihad by pointing this out, as though that lets the perps off the hook.

However, in the waters-muddying splashes of disinformation he has been trying to make in that comments thread, "robert galluzzo" did advert to one point that the Jihad Watch regulars -- particularly the "Rabbit Pack" of long-time veterans who command a kind of in-group clique there (and have individuals like "Angemon" and "joe blow" to police those who get "out of line" with bullying tactics and intricately voluminous sophistry) -- in my long and deep experience with them over the years, don't want to face squarely and discuss maturely:  namely, the problem of vetting any and all Muslims, not just "immigrants".

And this problem immediately (if one is thinking rationally about it, assessing the mountains of data and oceans of dots we already have) leads to the problem of what to do about it.  The latter problem wouldn't be such a big deal, if it weren't systemic (effectively all Muslims, since we can't tell the difference between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims) and metastasizing (getting horribly worse and more lethal for us, decade after decade).

So, this "robert galluzzo" character, like a broken clock, finally posed a good point:

  • We don’t know when or if they were vetted. They may have been born in the US like the
    Orlando shooter was.

[UPDATE: Apparently, the Muslim perps are indeed immigrants, but not recent immigrants.  This makes about as much of a hill of beans' difference to our #1 priority -- our society's safety from Muslims -- as if they were citizens]

Dozens of times over the years, the Jihad Watch thought police ("Angemon" and "joe blow") have pestered me and attacked me for raising robust points of alarm at our situation of a horribly worsening problem of Muslims in our society -- whereby the distinction between Muslim "citizens" of any given Muslim polity and Muslim "immigrants" should not matter.  But "Angemon" and "joe blow" are so anxiously concerned to protect Muslims, they apparently feel obliged to spend literally hundreds of hours in hundreds of different comments threads on Jihad Watch over years of time, policing commenters like me (even to the point of organizing a lynch mob against me to get me banned from there altogether).

Monday, June 20, 2016

A footnote to history on one of the four pillars of the West -- the "Graeco-" in Graeco-Roman Judaeo-Christian

The abstract of the essay On Being is a priceless document because it has preserved one of the earliest, if not the very first, instance of the perennial type of enlightened philosophizing. The thinker operates on symbols that have been developed by mystic-philosophers for the expression of experiences of transcendence. 

He proceeds by ignoring the experiential basis, separates the symbols from this basis as if they had a meaning independent of the experience which they express, and with brilliant logic shows, what every philosopher knows, that they will lead to contradictions if they are misunderstood as propositions about objects in world-immanent experience. Gorgias [an early Sophist who disputed with Plato's teacher, Socrates] applied his acumen to the Parmenidean Being; but the same type of argument could be applied to other symbols of transcendence, and the set of three propositions about the gods are probably the summary of such an argument.   

If we assume the Gorgian tract to be representative of the sophistic attitude toward problems of transcendence, and if, furthermore, we define enlightenment by the type of philosophizing just characterized, we can arrive at some clearness with regard to the question whether the sophistic age can justly be labelled an age of enlightenment. We may say that the age indeed has a streak of enlightenment in so far as its representative thinkers show the same kind of insensitiveness toward experiences of transcendence that was characteristic of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century A.D., and in so far as this insensitiveness has the same result of destroying philosophy — for philosophy by definition has its center in the experiences of transcendence. 

Moreover, the essentially unphilosophical character of sophistic writings may have been the most important cause of their almost complete disappearance in spite of the impressive collection and organization of materials which they must have contained. For the materials could be taken over by later writers and, stripped of the materials, the writings held no interest for philosophers. And, finally, we can understand more clearly why Plato concentrated the essence of his own philosophizing in an emphatic counter-formula to the Protagorean homo mensura [“Man is the measure of all things”]. After the destruction of philosophy through the sophists, its reconstruction had to stress the Deus mensura [“God is the measure of all things”] of the philosophers; and the new philosophy had to be clearly a "type of theology." [as Plato formulated it in The Republic; indeed Plato coined the word itself, “theology”].

Eric Voegelin 
Order and History, volume 2
p. 275

Sunday, June 19, 2016

The new totem pole

Well, it's not that new.  It's been de facto for about 15 years, since 911.

As Milo Yannopoulos put it in a recent video press conference in Orlando, Florida in the wake of the terror attack there:

"[The Left] creates a victimhood hierarchy, with Muslims at the top.  Well, the problem with putting Muslims at the top is that they want to kill everyone else on the list."

When I tried to express this concept in Jihad Watch comments a few times (with a refinement of Milo's "Leftists" into "PC MC"), I was pestered and attacked by a long-time Jihad Watch comments regular, "Angemon"; and no one else there, none of the other regulars, defended me.

Further Reading:

Lawrence Auster's First Law of Majority-Minority Relations, and Muslims

Kate Hopkins notices Auster's "First Law of Majority/Minority Relations"

Friday, June 17, 2016

Better Cops Watch: Oh irony of ironies...

An important report appeared on Jihad Watch the other day:  a former Homeland official, Philip Haney, gave an exclusive interview with Breitbart news, in which he said a few soberingly interesting (but to me, unsurprising things) -- the most important of which was his conviction, after years of study of the problem of Islamic terrorism, that the notion of the “self-radicalization” of these supposed “lone wolves” that keep popping up in various places throughout the West is a myth.  As Haney put it:

“As though nobody knew anything – that’s completely preposterous,” he said. “If you know anything about the Islamic worldview, family and community is ultimately central to everything they do. The concept of operating alone is anathema to the Islamic worldview. They just don’t do it.”

More specifically, he said:

I had my own superiors making these kind of statements incessantly. When I was sitting there with evidence, for example, about the Ft. Pierce mosque -- not only was there another person that blew himself up in Syria, but there’s an individual who is teaching a radicalization course who is on early release for weapons charges and tax fraud. And then his own FATHER is vice-president of the mosque.  [caps for emphasis in original as italics]

One “irony” from my title is that Haney himself used the term “radicalization” matter-of-factly -- though evidently it's because he probably believes that the Muslim world may be divided up into “radicalized” and “non-radicalized”.  We may (and should) fault him for this naivete; but that's another matter, for another day.  His other point, however, is useful.  One thing about the nature of the problem of Mohammedanism that the West hasn't learned (or has forgotten and needs to remember) is how assiduously Muslims are able to network.  I maintain that this is a unique feature of Islam: that, amid its ostensible “diversity”, it is strangely coordinated along intricate grapevines, so to speak; much like a vast army of ants (indeed, of army ants -- or jihad ants).  For Westerners ever unwilling, due to degrees of the PC MC neurosis in their system, to “paint Muslims with a broad brush”, the various features of Islam's ostensible diversity serves to distract them from thinking the thought of Mohammedan unity.  One of the aspects of its uniqueness, indeed, is its ability to be unified while simultaneously appearing as complex as a jungle and riddled & rife with internal cracks, fault lines, and internecine hostilities.

A couple of essays of mine have touched on this (though it's a field that sorely needs more in-depth research -- which, if there were an Anti-Islam Movement, might get underway before Muslims destroy us... but I digress...).   Readers might wish to consult my essays Islam Redivivus and Western Colonialism as well as The Spider and the Starfish.

So Philip Haney has done the Counter-Jihad a great service; which, however, I don't expect the Counter-Jihad will absorb rationally by extending its logical consequences & conclusion anytime soon (and since it won't, how do we expect the broader Western Mainstream to do it...?).

The “irony of ironies” of my title that caught my eye was more a post by long-time Jihad Watch reader and commenter, one “dumbledoresarmy” (my readers may recall she is a passively countenancing member of the “Rabbit Pack”), with whom I've had unpleasant run-ins before (she has out of the blue upbraided me a few times over the years in various Jihad Watch comments threads for my supposed “bigotry” and “extremism” (the sneer quotes reflect my sneering, not verbatim quotes of terms she necessarily used).  These run-ins clued me in to the evident asymptotic tendencies she must have -- and that may well be relevant to today's “irony of ironies”.  (In addition, I've written about dumbledoresarmy at least three times before on this blog or my companion blog, which readers can find by browsing this Google page.)

Now, what dumbledoresarmy did wouldn't be ironic, of course, if there weren't a half-truth involved.  She began by rightly seizing upon the most important point in Haney's interview:


This is very, very important.

The most important point is the one that Mr Spencer has, rightly, put in bold.

“As though nobody knew anything – that’s completely preposterous,” he said. “If you know anything about the Islamic worldview, family and community is ultimately central to everything they do. The concept of operating alone is anathema to the Islamic worldview. They just don’t do it.”

To repeat, “The concept of operating alone is anathema to the Islamic worldview. They just don’t do it.”


So far, so good.  She begins to falter, however, by amplifying this insight with an intelligent articulation of the perspective of ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Where she falters is not visible; it takes awareness on the part of the reader, autodidactic in the Better Cop phenomenon:


This meshes with something that Ayaan Hirsi Ali says in “Infidel”, when she is describing the Muslim Brotherhood revivalists who were active in the expat Muslim ‘community’ in Kenya when she was in – I think – her late teens. She herself somehow didn’t quite swallow what they were peddling, because she had been devouring western literature both classical and popular (especially, on the ‘popular’ side, sexy Mills & Boon and Harlequin romances that, subliminally, taught the significance of the individual human person and of one’s own desires and personal choices). But she understood what they were about, and with the benefit of hindsight, she reflects upon it (and upon the type of ‘culture’ and attitudes that Islam promotes and seeks to inculcate in both men and women.


Two things should disquiet us in this otherwise fine analysis by dumbledoresarmy:

First is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has increasingly shown signs of softening her stance on Islam (assuming she had taken a significantly harder line in years past, which is my memory) -- in at least two ways:  She has been pushing the "Muslims must reform their Islam" line rather markedly (in major mainstream media, including in a featured op-ed in the Wall Street Journal); and she has become a friend and supporter of the transparent Muslim snake, the pseudo-reformer Maajid Nawaz.  While she doesn't seem to have adopted his slyly Islamopologetic terminology of "Islamism" as the problem supposedly distinct from Islam --

“I see no difference between Islam and Islamism. Islam is defined as submission to the will of Allah, as it is described in the Koran. Islamism is just Islam in its most pure form. Sayyid Qutb [the thinker who inspired al Qaeda] didn’t invent anything, he just quoted the sayings of Mohammed”

-- as their mutual friend Sam Harris has with such gullible alacrity, she seems to have become uncomfortably chummy with Nawaz (the above-linked conversation between them oozes with amicable enabling).  Nawaz, in having thus fooled not only Ayaan, but also Sam Harris and Douglas Murray (if not many others in the Counter-Jihad), surpasses the standard-issue, garden-variety "Good Cop" Muslims who just try to peddle their "Islam is peace" and "Islam says that the killing of one soul is worse than blah blah blah" camelshit, and weaves a cleverer, stealthier line of apparently conceding that Islam is problematic with one hand, but through a sly sleight-of-hand manipulating the conversation into a defense of Islam qua Islam.

Apropos of Ayaan's unrealistic call for Muslims to "reform" their (unreformable) Islam, she said this in the wake of the Paris attacks last September:

"There is a strain in Islam, that is political, that is inspired by the Koran and the prophet Mohammed, that is expanding all over the globe..." 

And she went on to refer to a "schizophrenia in Islam" between "there was a peaceful character in Mohammed" and "a warlord, a military man, a beheader, a man who sold people into slaves" -- i.e., "his bad side". 

Speaking of schizophrenia, we see it in Ayaan herself, in her anxious need to split Islam into two in order to assuage the cognitive dissonance that apparently has bedeviled her all these years since she, an ex-Muslim, became an Islam-critical activist.

Given this schizophrenia even in ex-Muslims, we need to handle their wisdom carefully, and be ever mindful of the gimlet eye on the problem -- which is our primary priority:  the safety of our societies.  We can appreciate Ayaan's courage and intelligence; but not when it contravenes our primary priority.  And her insistence of Islamic "reform" is not in our best interest (the fact that the Western mainstream, such as the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post, accords her a platform should be a hint as to the limitations of her usefulness).

Even worse when we consider the seemingly "reformist" Muslims, like Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, Tarek Fatah, and others, whom I have dubbed "Better Cops".

This brings us to the second reason for dumbledoresarmy's irony: She invokes what she calls a "MINO" ("Muslim In Name Only", after the more well-known "RINO") which I have identified as one of the many permutations of what, as long as we're coining acronyms, we could call the "MOMBAN" ( the "Moderate Muslim By Another Name" which the Counter-Jihad uses to retain the Moderate Muslim meme without the overt stink of its mainstream associations) -- namely, one Tawfik Hamid, whom we must (if we are to survive this century as a civilization) assume, no matter how blandiloquently oily his charms are, is also a Better Cop: for we must assume that any Muslim who gets into the game of grappling with the problem of Islam is a stealth jihadist -- the only differences among them being how transparent they are relative to how cleverly they try to disguise their stealthy jihad.

Some other day I'll try to write an analysis elucidating why the Counter-Jihad should not even avail itself at all of the input from these various Better Cops who keep popping up; but for now it would embroil this already top-heavy essay here.  Readers can peruse my various essays on the Better Cop thus far.  I could express succinctly at least one of the most trenchant reasons: namely, that we Kuffar already know everything we need to know about why Islam is a pernicious threat to our societies -- we don't need some sly Muslim who claims to "feel our pain" help us with our war of ideas.


The irony here is a Counter-Jihadist who urges us to be wary of the insidiously networking infiltration & coordination of jihadists -- but seems blind to the deeper infiltration of the Better Cops who pretend to share our alarm at the jihadists who follow the same damn Islam they do.