Tuesday, December 16, 2014

The Lewis Doctrine


This important article by Andrew Bostom notes a 2004 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which reported the crucial detail -- largely ignored by nearly everyone -- that the main impetus and vision of the Bush Cheney policy vis-à-vis the problem of Islam was to try to solve the problem of obviously metastasizing terrorism consequent upon 911 with a strategy of democratizing Muslims (which, perforce, of course, implies the disastrously neo-Wilsonian view that Muslims are capable of becoming "democratic").  

One critical part of that op-ed quoted by Bostom:

Call it the Lewis Doctrine. Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis’s diagnosis of the Muslim world’s malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast… As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends. Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them. Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative. 

Monday, December 15, 2014

Qualified Islam


As we in the Counter-Jihad know, there are many ways that the Mainstream tries to qualify Islam by carefully distinguishing it from some putatively separate, bad Islam, through the use of many cacophemisms:  "radical Islam", "extremism", "Islamism", "fundamentalist Islamism", "militant Islamism", and so forth.  The Islam that is supposed to be left after these various ongoing qualifiers is, of course, the mainstream Islam that the "vast majority of Muslims" adhere to, which of course must be "peaceful"—rendering our problem of Islam a relatively negligible truncation of a difficulty.

On the other side of this coin, we may say that in the battle space of the War of Ideas (currently the most important theater of this world war Muslims are waging upon us), it is pedagogically important to qualify Islam -- not in order to inoculate it from our criticism & condemnation; but rather to highlight the reasons why we find it to be a deadly problem.

Thus, many moons ago, the impressively erudite (but often arrogant) Hugh Fitzgerald in a comments thread of Jihad Watch wrinkled his nose fastidiously when I dared to paraphrase one of his previous remarks:

I quote Khadduri and Tibi as authorities on the doctrine of Jihad in Islam, not as “modern Muslims who advocate violent supremacist Jihad.”

To which I responded:

It may be redundant to you, but pedagogically a little redundancy never hurts—particularly in a sociopolitical climate illterate about jihad.

And then I moved on to quote another objection Hugh had:

And I would never use the phrase “violent supremacist Jihad”—the piling on of adjectives, including the unnecessary “supremacist,” is not something I would ever do.

To which I responded:

Actually, I would pile on another adjective: expansionist.

And from there, I expatiated thusly, for today's post:

Each of the three adjectives performs a distinct function:

violent refers to the necessary element of violence in the doctrine of jihad, symbiotically and inextricably linked with the other ostensibly non-violent ways in which Muslims pursue it, and making those other non-violent ways a problem where no problem would exist were the violence forever non-existent.

supremacist refers to the premise that guides Muslims to their conclusion: The premise being that they are the best of all peoples, because the true God has made them custodians of the absolute truth and of the way to avoid eternal damnation and win eternal paradise.

expansionist, consequently, refers to the conclusion: that Muslims must make Islam dominant throughout the world.

Any one of these without the other two would not pose a great problem for the world:

For example, a group that was violent, but not supremacist or expansionist, would pose only criminal problems, not a problem of warfare.

A group that is supremacist, but not violent or expansionist, may express pernicious ideas, but if they never harm anyone in the furtherance of their ideas, and if the surrounding society is relatively healthy, they will be largely ignored when not roundly refuted and will certainly not persuade anyone but a tiny minority of unhealthy souls.

Finally, a group that is expansionist, but not violent or supremacist, may or may not be bad for society. If, for example, the 4-H Club were expansionist, there would be little to object about. Or if an expansionist group did propose pernicious ideas, they would be impotent to persuade the body politic in any healthy society—unless they used violence.

Which brings me to another important adjective to pile on to jihad: anti-liberal—or, for those who recoil at the L word: unjust—or, for those who require more beef in their diet: sociopathic.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Jihad of the Tube: Cenk Uygur of the "Young Turks" news site


As I have come to realize, the problem (of Islam) -- and the problem of the problem (i.e., the West's ongoing myopia about the problem) -- is not so much Islam, but Muslims.

The seemingly secularized in a smarmy way, You Tube news mogul (and self-defined ex-Muslim atheist) Cenk Uygur, in this long one-on-one conversation he had recently with Sam Harris, helpfully frames the issue with this crucial focus -- though Cenk's motivation, of course, we must reasonably assume, is not clarity but obfuscation in a pursuit of the Stealth Jihad-of-the-Pen (or updated to Jihad of the Tube).

And here's an amusing and incisive parody of this conversation by a You-Tuber named "Atheism is Unstoppable".

Also, the same guy produced a nice dressing-down of Cenk in this Tube chop I prepared.  (From his list of videos, he also seems to take on Christianity, but I haven't assessed to what degree; the two videos I've seen thus far indicate he's not an Equivalencist).  The full video is here.

Friday, December 12, 2014

A Mohammedan slip?


Is it just me, or did Cenk Uygur's glibly secularized mask slip here ever so slightly...?

(From a one-on-one discussion that host and creator of the "Young Turks" online news show -- who, by the way, claims he's an ex-Muslim atheist -- had recently with Sam Harris; about which I'll have more to say soon.)

Tuesday, December 09, 2014



The biggest mistake (and costliest in terms of money, time, infrastructure destruction, and lives lost) in the last several major wars which the West has been embroiled in has been to fight the present war in the same manner as the last war was fought. A braggadocio referencing World War 2 which one sees typically from the jingoistic Anti-Islam Softy is all fine and dandy, as long as we keep in mind the crucial differences of this current war we are in, compared with previous wars.

One of these crucial differences is a most curious one, worthy of an absurdist novel by a hybrid of Jorge Luis Borges, Thomas Pynchon and Joseph Heller: namely, that one side of this current world war we are in doesn’t even know it’s in a world war, while its enemy knows all too well.

Another crucial difference is that millions of the enemy have three characteristics that distinguish them from the enemies of previous modern wars:

1) millions of them are inside our societies, dispersed all over the place (so how are we going to “bomb” them?)

2) these millions of the enemy inside our societies enjoy (and cleverly exploit) our respect and our protection predicated upon our neurotically gullible desire to assimilate them. (This deference on our part that benefits our enemy would be irrational even if these millions were not part of an ideology hell-bent on our destruction; but becomes monstrously perverse and suicidally reckless (when not positively traitorous) given that these millions are in fact part of an ideology hell-bent on our destruction (innumerable members among which have already mass-murdered our citizens and plotted many more attacks to inflict more destruction and casualties on us).

3) This enemy inside our societies by the millions are deemed to be an Ethnic People (or a “diversity” of Ethnic Peoples) by our dominant and mainstream culture which has become heavily influenced in the past half century by Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC). For the PC MC mindset, whenever ethnic minorities are involved in any situation or problem or conflict, it immediately triggers the hot buttons of White Guilt, and a whole litany of historical “shame” floods the heart and mind of the Westerner, who whenever he regards Muslims sees a sea of Brown People we must respect and protect, and never suspect of any wrongdoing -- certainly not any systemic wrongdoing that would threaten our societies; for to do so would cause us to become “racist” and we would be compelled by our own Evil White Western logic to go down the road to putting these Brown People in detention camps and then of course genociding them (for that’s what we must do, given our Evil White Western DNA, you see) (SARC Maple Syrup Spigot Off).

Earlier, I said that there are “three characteristics that distinguish [this present enemy] from the enemies of previous modern wars”. In terms of these three and their interplay, particularly the third one, the West does have a recent precedent, and it brings up a dynamic of this current world war that reflects not so much our enemy, as it does ourselves -- our PC MC, whose sociopolitical effects tend to benefit the strategy & tactics of our enemy, particularly his Stealth Jihad and his Demographic Jihad. These two Jihads constitute the subversive dimension of their war against us, whose connection with their Violent Jihad is cleverly camouflaged by them, and our PC MC culture ineptly benefits their clever camouflage, and we must assume they know this and are cleverly exploiting our PC MC culture in a variety of ways.

As Stephen Coughlin put it: “We don’t know the enemy, and we don’t even know ourselves -- and the enemy knows this.” The recent historical precedent I alluded to is the Internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War 2. Similarly then, there was an enemy who lived among us (most of whom were citizens of the U.S.A.); they were part of an ideology hell-bent on destroying us; they had already attacked us (Pearl Harbor); and they were deemed to be an ethnic people.

While the enemy back then, as fierce and ferocious as they were, were similar to our Muslim enemy, it is arguable that the Muslim enemy is much deadlier in the long run. At any rate, what stands out about this historical precedent is not so much the enemy, as ourselves: America in the 1940s was not so deeply compromised and corrupted by PC MC, and by and large (with only a small minority of opposition, mostly from Leftist and Communist-sympathizing voices), the majority of the American people, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President (a flaming liberal) were on board with Internment. Not only would Internment today be unthinkable (even though, pace Wellington the Jihad Watch Guardian of the Constitution, it was at the time deemed to be Constitutional and has never been deemed otherwise since that time), our PC MC culture has developed over the decades a positive industry of Shame and Guilt over that episode (amid a vast tissue of other similar issues), and the higher Court of Political Correctness (more powerful even than the Supreme Court, apparently) has ruled that the Evil White United States violated the Cosmic Commandment of Diversity.

For this, we must pay, apparently, in a variety of ways -- including by bending over backwards now to make sure we don’t “sacrifice diversity” against this new Ethnic People among us who show a mountain of signs of being our deadly enemy, deadlier even than the Japanese of the 1940s. (An indication of just how insidiously powerful PC MC has become may be gleaned from the fact that many even within the Counter-Jihad would recoil from the thought of actually approving of America’s episode of Internment, and would rather yield to their PC MC reflex spasm of condemning it, so they can stroke their ego of their Ethical Narcissism and feel their nagging anxiety of being an Evil White Westerner ever so slightly assuaged.)

P.S.:  The title of this essay -- ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΑΥΤΟΝ -- is a famous Greek dictum, translated:  "Know Thyself."

Further Reading:

Tuesday, December 02, 2014

And now children: Say "Ek-mel-eddin İh-san-oğlu"...!


How to pronounce Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu.

Who or what is this Turkish noodle soup of letters?  He is, as Frank Gaffney has said, perhaps the most important man in the world; and certainly the most unknown important man in the world -- until recently (before his bid this summer to become President of Turkey), the Secretary-General of the O.I.C. (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation). 

And what is the O.I.C.?  It is an international organization that, as Stephen Coughlin says in this fine piece, remains also virtually unknown -- even among high-level government and intelligence officials in the West whose business it is to know such things (particularly with a war on terror going on, one would think).

A Tube-chop snippet of that talk by Coughlin gives a pithy glimpse into who İhsanoğlu is and what his relevance is (and, I note, he mentions, as I did in an essay here back in 2008, that the O.I.C. functions as a de facto (if not as a de-Sharia-jure) "proto-Caliphate").

Thursday, November 27, 2014

A civil war of ideas, not a Civil War


I keep noticing the tendency among some in the Counter-Jihad to demonize the Westerners who persist in whitewashing the problem of Islam -- as though the only Westerner who would do such a thing must be a wicked Leftist (or must be a closet Muslim).

The more important, because more sociopolitically prevalent and influential, aspect of this general Problem of the Problem (the second Problem being Islam; the first Problem being the problem of the Western myopia to the problem of Islam), is not the minority of arguably evil radical Leftists among us in the West, but the much broader demographic of relatively decent and intelligent Westerners who for complex reasons remain stuck in a paradigm that makes them think that it’s the Right Thing To Do to defend Muslims from “too much” criticism.

To demonize the Problem of the Problem would be, I fear, to steer what should be a civil war of ideas toward the perilous slippery slope of a Civil War.

These remarks serve mostly as a reminder to the reader of my previous two-part essay, A Civil War of Ideas.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Fed up with the Counter-Jihad Softies


I don't know if I'm fed up for good, or if it's just a passing phase (which keeps coming back, like Irritable Bowel Syndrome).  On one level, it doesn't really matter, as the problem it's responding to won't seem to go away (like chronic Athlete's Foot). 

For a glimpse into this, I recently underwent a rather intense flurry lasting a couple of days of exchanges with (or rather mostly irascible pot-shots taken by me against) other Jihad Watch commenters in a comments field attached to a story about Queen Rania of Jordan's recent rallying of the Islam-is-Peace Moderates against the Big Bad (and apparently utterly non-Islamic) ISIS.

Note: my moniker over there at Jihad Watch is "voegelinian".  Enjoy.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

What memo?


In a recent Jihad Watch comments field attached to the latest report (the latest of tens of thousands over the past several, numbingly horrific years) of some Mohammedan outrage (or some outrageous example of ineptitude by the West in response to some Mohammedan outrage), someone had the impertinence to ask:

So what’s the plan. Everybody on this site says the same thing as you. What’s the action plan?

By all means, we need a plan of action.

Before we can have an action plan, however, we need two things:

1) a consensus on the content of the action plan; and

2) the sociopolitical wherewithal to actualize #1.

The Counter-Jihad currently has neither.

So the question then becomes: How does the Counter-Jihad get 1 and 2 going? Well, for that process to engage, two things need to happen:

a) the Counter-Jihad has to want to do 1 and 2; and

b) the Counter-Jihad has to put that desire into intellectual shape through a platform or manifesto, drafted by talented members and approved by general vote.

Currently, the Counter-Jihad does not seem to have the desire (a) and furthermore seems utterly oblivious to the need to do (b).

In addition (I’m not quite done yet), in order even to get to (a) and (b), the Counter-Jihad needs to organize a giant Conversation lasting several days among all its members, in which all these matters are hashed out. Now, if only there existed some kind of electronic medium by which people from all over the world could communicate with each other in real time… hmmm…. what could that be…. hmmmm.... I can't think of what that could possibly be....    (he said, dripping with sarcasm).

Currently, not only are none of these things in place or even on the table for consideration, nobody in the Counter-Jihad seems even aware of them as an exigency. Without (a) and (b), we can’t get to #1 and 2; and without #1 and 2, we can’t get to a plan of action. Apparently, the Counter-Jihad (“such as it is,” as Diana West once wryly remarked) is semi-consciously content to wait with its pants down around its ankles until the shit hits the fan, at which time the extemporaneous plan of action will be to bolt from the outhouse and run stumbling across the field with toilet paper hanging from between its buttcheeks.

Tocsins for the toxin


While looking up words in the old 1913 Webster's dictionary, I ran across the word campanile (in short, a "bell-tower"), and read this accompanying illustrative quote:

"Many of the campaniles of Italy are lofty and magnificent structures." (Jonathan Swift)

(The most famous being the Leaning Tower of Pisa.)

I remembered my longstanding suspicion, which I haven't yet researched (and which likely would require excessive work since the historians and journalists of our time remain remiss in their duty), that medieval Christian bells -- particularly in those regions most vulnerable to Islamic depredations and incursions (the entire Mediterranean coast of southern Europe from Spain to Greece, and pretty much all of eastern Europe, not to mention vast swaths of Russia) -- often, if not perhaps primarily, served as instruments of warning against impending invasions (or razzias, the pre-modern Islamic term for the terror attack).

I.e., historically, for centuries, Christian church bells were alarm bells against Islamic attack.

If so, it makes eminent sense that architecturally the bells were housed in tall towers -- indeed, lookout towers, wherein the bell-ringer perhaps would stand vigil (or if alerted from below would be galvanized into action), ready to sound the alarm for the church or monastery and for its environs.  This would be yet another token, yet another datum to add to the drearily long list, indicating just how widespread and routine and incessant were the assaults by Mohammedans on the vast periphery of the West for the millennium before the tide of their power and ability to pester, traumatize and terrorize us began to turn, following their last frank military onslaught, the (failed, thank Allah) siege of Vienna in 1683.

The entry on "campanile" in The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization by Jack C. Whytock indicates confirmation of this theory:

The campanile originated in Italy where it was built as a bell tower, thus playing a central role in the call to prayer for the daily offices or for worship. However, its origin is probably from the round towers that were built to fulfill military needs as watchtowers.

And if one surveys the many images on Google for "campanile" one gets a more palpable and vivid sense of their function as high eminences providing tactical vantage points for self-defense.

Another thought:  The Islamic prohibition on church bells by the Pact of Dhimmitude may be more than merely the typical control freak aspect of Sharia putting its supremacist arrogance into concrete practice -- and may have had the pragmatic function of stripping a key tool of self-defense from the Christians (for indeed, that same Pact included a stringent control of weapons owned and carried by the dhimmis).

Monday, November 17, 2014



I've long come to the conclusion that we cannot understand Islam by succumbing to our Western tendency to see the Other as some species of Homo Occidentalis -- i.e., by superimposing some behavioral model that makes sense in our worldview.  This becomes doubly, trebly problematic, when the Other in question is the Mother of all Others, Mohammedans.  We must, I maintain, always try to err on the side of assuming Islam is unique, and that Muslims, though they may sometimes appear to be behaving in ways familiar to us (particularly when they are seemingly assimilating), are in fact singularly alien.

I don't have much to go by save for a gut feeling, built on years of informal study of the issue, with its years of dot-connection I have tried my best to make intelligent and literately creative.  One hunch I've had is that while Muslims may seem disordered at times, riddled with societal corruption and internecine pathologies, they yet seem remarkably capable of systemic coordination and "grapevine" networking, in their perennial pursuit of a Pan-Islam.

One glimpse into a theory that may describe this further, if not explain it better than any Occidentomorphic attempts, occurred to me on viewing a Nature video on certain animals that manifest a "swarm" style society, from which I've culled this TubeChop not much more than a minute long.

P.S.:  The Google image I found for my article here is especially felicitous; showing a swarm of fire ants on a floor pullulating around a square box -- the whole scene remarkably resembling the Hajj around the Ka'aba.