Sunday, May 22, 2016

The Hesperado Glossary

http://images.faithtap.com/2015/09/octopus.jpg

I've used many terms in my essays over the years -- terms that may not be familiar to most readers either because I coined them, or I took someone's coinage and refashioned it for my analytical purposes, or I used some extant term in a way different from the norm.  What follows is a still incomplete list of the most important terms.  I will continue to add terms as the days and weeks go along.  I thought I'd give my readers a preview:

The Problem of the Problem

Also known as the "secondary Problem" -- it refers to the West's inability to deal with the "primary Problem" (Islam).  The "tertiary Problem" (the Problem of the Problem of the Problem) then denotes the deficiencies of the Counter-Jihad in dealing with either the secondary problem or the primary problem (or both).

PC MC

An acronym standing for "Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism/ist".  It denotes the worldview and paradigm of those who promote and/or enable the secondary Problem (cf. The Problem of the Problem).  The use of this term would be a redundant synonym for "Leftist" (or "liberal") if Leftists (or liberals) were the only promoters and/or enablers of the secondary Problem.  However, it has become clear to me over the years that innumerable non-Leftists (or non-liberals) throughout the West are also enablers, and sometimes promoters, of the secondary Problem.  A new term, then, became necessary to denote this broader sociopolitical & cultural phenomenon in the West, whereby not only Leftists, but also most Centrists and Conservatives -- as well as the Comfortably Apolitical (cf. same) -- tend to defend Muslims in various ways from the thoroughgoing opprobrium and suspicion they rationally deserve.

Asymptotic

I was inspired to use this term by parenthetical remarks Hugh Fitzgerald had made years ago, where he denoted essentially the same phenomenon as I do, though he never developed it as fully, nor used it as widely to include some individuals in the Counter-Jihad, as I have.  This term denotes those who are in the Counter-Jihad and who therefore are supposed to be free of PC MC (cf. same) nevertheless exhibiting various signs & symptoms of PC MC.  Since PC MC is recognized as the reason why the West remains myopic to the problem of Islam, it becomes strange when someone in the Counter-Jihad exhibits signs & symptoms of it.  Nevertheless, I have seen this countless times, among Counter-Jihad civilians and among leadership -- leading me to conclude that PC MC is just that blandly insidious, or just that widely dispersed in our modern Western societies, that it even seeps into the Counter-Jihad.  Its points of entry are the hearts & minds of the Counter-Jihad individuals who cannot fully exorcise themselves of certain PC MC feelings or axioms they feel and think, all revolving around the twin shibboleths of PC MC -- an irrationally excessive cultivation of two main virtues of our Judaeo-Christian Graeco-Roman Western civilization: 1) self-criticism, and 2) an interest in, and concern for the welfare of, the Other.

The Comfortably Apolitical

The unfortunately stubborn terminology of "Left" and "Right" in pop poli sci exerts an unavoidable influence on us, much as we would like to attain the lofty peaks of intellectual transcendence achieved by those (e.g., Hugh Fitzgerald, Eric Voegelin) who disdain such terminology.  Rather than scrap the terms, perhaps one can at least massage some nuance into the polarity, beyond the by now traditional "Centrist" (whose meaning is amusingly compromised by such observations as "the Center has shifted Leftward").  My term PC MC attempts to do this (see the definition on the glossary list).  So too, though from a different angle, my term the "Comfortably Apolitical".  By this I denote what seems to be a vast and otherwise sociologically diverse swath of a demographic of people who are the political equivalent of the agnostic:  they just live their lives with all its joys and sorrows (or, more often, its less grandiose-sounding good times and bad times, good moments and annoying moments) largely indifferent to politics, and thus rather irresponsibly, but harmlessly perhaps, parasitical upon benefits derived from the same system they don't care to think about in their daily life.  This political class, I maintain, is the unique fruit of modern Western progress -- in a sense, a vast and amorphous efflux from the unique sociopolitical phenomenon of what used to be called the Middle Class Bourgeoisie (later rechristened the "Yuppie").  Their significance for my glossary is that as seemingly insouciant as they are about politics, they nevertheless seem to have absorbed the PC MC worldview to the extent that they tend to be more or less as reflexively defensive of Muslims as their more politically aware fellow citizens on the "Left" and "Right" and in the "Center".  They also are significant insofar as they point to a subtler sociocultural landscape than one that insists on "Left" and "Right" (which insistence then often leads to ignoring how many on the "Right" are PC MC about Islam).

[To be continued...]

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

An "Angemon Watch" or a "Fessitude Watch" continued...

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/macysthanksgiving/images/0/03/5209196461_4090c31ac5_o.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140208021406

In a recent post -- "Angemon Watch" vs. "Fessitude Watch" -- I noted how a certain long-time regular commenter on Jihad Watch and part of the dominant in-group there, one "Angemon", has been pestering me for at least two years (if not much longer).  The "pestering" consists of the following behaviors:

1) I post a comment of some kind of observation or analysis about one of the many features of the problem of Islam.

2) In my comment, the vast majority of times, I don't mention Angemon by name.

3)  Angemon zooms in to quibble, carp and harp on my points -- more often than not misunderstanding them and in an annoyingly complex way mischaracterizing parts of what I argued.

4) #3 wouldn't be so bad if it was just a few times here and there.  But it has been incessant, regular and voluminous for over two years now.

5) And #4 wouldn't be so bad if Angemon wasn't taking all that obsessive time & trouble to  criticize my tougher stance on the problem of Islam.  And even that by itself I wouldn't mind if he did it in good faith, intelligently, and without sophistry; qualities which seem to elude Angemon.  It took a while, I suppose, but eventually Angemon's true colors came out when almost a year ago he accused me of being like "Goebbels" (typically, his fellow in-group member, "gravenimage", at the time waved her frail wrist in strangely mild reproof, telling Angemon gently that such a comparison is "wrong" -- rather than monstrously unacceptable (unless, of course, I were "like Goebbels") and indicative of something deeply amiss with Angemon's analysis of the entire problem).

More broadly, this doggedly offending nougat of underlying softness in Angemon has seemed seemed to be motivating him to hound me and pester me for over two years (if that's not the reason, then he's a deranged stalker, or he just likes my aftershave that much...).  The failure of the Jihad Watch in-group to notice this, and to rally & respond with baseline health to his nonsense, then has morphed into the larger problem beyond Angemon -- who by himself is not that significant.

Since I returned to Jihad Watch in (I think) early March under a new name "Fessitude", I studiously ignored Angemon and kept plugging away with my own comments about other things far more important than him.  I could not help notice, of course, every time I would revisit my comments to see if any decent, fair-minded, sane reader had seen fit to respond, I kept noticing, more and more, the words "Angemon says..."Fessitude wrote" hovering beneath my comments like some kind of needling, lunatic wasp, followed I am certain by now (after months of weary experience back in the days when I actually tried to engage him) by his tortured blather of sophistry in the service of the soft approach to the problem of Muslims.  A sophistry, as I say, I have learned from years of beleaguered experience to recoil from (or at least to do my best to try to avoid), as one would when suddenly coming upon a giant tarantula in one's pile of laundry.

So, as March and April unfolded and the cherry blossoms began to explode almost as abundantly as Muslims around the world, I couldn't help but notice, more and more, with increasing annoyance and weariness, those multiplying "Angemon says..."Fessitude wrote"s adhering like irritating sticker burrs to my posts.

At that point, I made the following observation in a blog post update here in early May:

 Angemon has continued to pester me so much, zooming in to pick at my comments with his sophistry in service of a soft approach to the problem of Islam, that by now the number must have doubled to 40... 

Well, after I actually took the time and trouble to go through the March and April archives using Google Advanced Search (at the time, May was not available), I learned that I had underestimated that Energizer Bunny of Jihad Watch comments.  As I documented in the previous blog posting here (linked up top), the actual ratio of comments by Angemon zooming in to pester me when I didn't even mention him -- versus those comments where I had mentioned him first -- turned out to be 62 to 5.

That's 62 comments by Angemon zooming in to pester me, compared with a measly 5 by me -- during the months of March/April.  Before I had done that research, I noted in a Jihad Watch comment:

...the ratio of comments where I respond to (or even indirectly allude to) Angemon, versus those where he is responding to my comments is like 90 to 1 (90 Angemon pestering me, 1 me mentioning Angemon)...

Turns out my guesstimate was amazingly near the mark.

Since then, I thought I'd check on the May archives and see if Angemon has kept up his ratio. It's only May 18, and already Angemon has exceeded his rate of pestering me.  I counted the following ratio as of today:

Angemon -- 41 [Update: the morning of May 19 -- it's now 42] 
[Second Update: even more have cropped up in the three days since, May 19-21 -- too tedious to count, and not really relevant to my overall point; Angemon in the month of May may even double his record of the previous months of approximately 30 per month]

Fessitude -- 9 [And yes, my number is still 9] [Update (5/22/16): As Angemon has continued to pester me, I have responded here and there (but nowhere approaching the vicinity of his obscenely high numbers) -- a natural reaction, as when a person responds to a bully (what is not a natural reaction is when the Jihad Watch in-group, including gravenimage, chide me for responding to my bully, rather than chide the bully.  That is a curiously perverted reaction, whose most generous explanation is that they have become caught up in the in-group psychology of defending their own at all cost, no matter how irrational and unfair that turns out to be)]

Remember, it took Angemon two months (March and April) to accrue the already obscene number of 62 posts zooming in to pester me (versus my 5). Now, with only 18 days under his belt, he has managed to accrue proportionally significantly more than that. Calculating the March/April record of Angemon as 31 per month, we then calculate the 18 days of May thus far as 2/3 of a month. Had Angemon maintained his obscene level of March/April, he would have accrued as of May 18 only 2/3 of 31 which = approximately 23.

Seeing that he has in reality accrued 41 [42: see Update above] as of May 18, we can see that Angemon has nearly doubled his rate of zooming in to pester me at Jihad Watch comments.

(Note: The increase of my part of the ratio is from 5 over the course of March/April, to 9 in the first 18 days of May. Should this lessen the obscenity of what Angemon is doing? In what universe would that be a fair judgement of the situation?)

Speaking of bizarre alternative universes, let us remind ourselves of those words of reproof which the Jihad Watch regular (and member of Angemon's in-group), one "gravenimage" directed my way a couple of weeks ago. At the time, I was in the fresh aftermath of this flurry of Angemon's obsession with me. Already he had zoomed in to pester me with 62 responses to comments of mine in which I hadn't even mentioned him -- even though at the time, I hadn't bothered to tally it up. At that point, when I happened to dare dared to pipe up and fight back against my bully, what did gravenimage bother to say about it all?

Oh yes:

gravenimage says
May 10, 2016 at 10:34 pm

When faced with the horror of Muslim savagery on display here, Fessitude appears to believe that this is “Angemon Watch”.


֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍

Further Reading:

Readers may want to read my comments to two of my readers below.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Neither a flip, nor a flop...

http://clipartion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/silly-flip-flop-clipart.jpg

Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch makes a fairly big deal out of a supposed "wilt[ing] under pressure" and "backing off" on Trump's part with the now infamous "it was only a suggestion" remark Trump made on Wednesday.

The CNN report Spencer adduces says that “the presumptive Republican presidential nominee told Fox News Radio’s Brian Kilmeade Wednesday.”

Their official website has the full transcript.

Given the rampant media distortions of Trump’s words that have been going on for months (and distortion can mean twisting words out of context, even subtly so, with Western versions of kitman and tawriya), one should not rely on a truncated CNN report.

Here’s Trump’s full statement (from the afore-linked FOX site, which provides the transcript and the audio) -- which is the context from which that “gotcha” moment which everybody is making hay out of (including Robert Spencer) was pulled.

[BEGIN QUOTE]

FOX: Trump‘s response to newly elected London Mayor Sadiq Khan saying his views on Islam are ignorant

(TRUMP) Well I assume he denies there is Islamic terrorism. There is Islamic radical terrorism all over the world right now. It’s a disaster what’s going on. I assume he is denying that. I assume he is like our President that’s denying its taking place. We have a serious problem, it’s a temporary ban, it hasn’t been called for yet, nobody’s done it, this is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on. We have radical Islamic terrorism all over the world, you can go to Paris, you can go to San Bernardino, all over the world, if they want to deny it, they can deny it, I don’t choose to deny it.

[END QUOTE]

First, it’s not necessarily a contradiction to say “I am calling for X” and later to say “My calling for X was just a suggestion”.  Nor is it necessarily a contradiction to call the December moratorium a "statement" and later to refer to it as "just a suggestion".

Robert Spencer opines that Trump’s December press release “was quite clearly and definitely a policy proposal when he made it” -- but that’s a subjective opinion, not a fact. The act of “calling for” something is, technically speaking, a “suggestion.”  But not all “suggestions” need be casual, off-the-cuff remarks that hold zero weight.  The seeming contradiction comes in, I think, not so much from a misapprehension of the December “statement” that “called for” the moratorium, but rather of this week’s “just a suggestion”. When a major contender to be the leader of the nerve center of Planet Earth makes even just a suggestion, that by itself is momentous (even huge).

Also, if the recent term “suggestion” were a flip-flopping shift in position, the official Trump website wouldn’t retain the original December statement, now would it?

Secondly, look at that context in which Trump said it: the full paragraph reproduced above.  That context makes him, warts and all, “quite clearly and definitely” better than any other candidate was or is.

There is one factor that trumps any Negative Nellies like Spencer that flutter about harping & carping every time Trump opens his mouth seemingly the wrong way: He’s not perfect, but he’s a hell of a lot better than anyone else.

Further Reading:

Trump savvy about the right people

Freedom of speech -- up to a point

Things that are supposed to trump Trump

The Counter-Jihad Mainstream polarized by Trump?

Friday, May 13, 2016

"Doctor, I can only see the Left...!"

http://kayfunpatch.com/assets/uploads/2015/10/eyepatchboy-285x285.jpg

Robert Spencer continues to indulge in a see-Left-only analysis of the Problem of the Problem.  Editorially remarking upon the latest hay made from Trump's comment that his December 2015 moratorium on Muslim immigration was "only a suggestion", Spencer notes that his moratorium at the time and for months after, caused rampant vilification of Trump, and he goes on to say:

“In fact, this is why the Left has targeted his rallies and committed violence at them.”

However, it has not been just the Left. The entire Republican establishment has been attacking Trump and his supporters viciously for months, prior to that moratorium, and after. The best source for this relentless onslaught by the establishment Right against Trump is Diana West’s blog, which has catalogued and analyzed it over the months in all its grotesque & multifarious splendor.

Spencer goes on to add also that:

Poll after poll has shown that a huge number of Americans supports a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration — not because huge numbers of Americans are “racist,” as the Left feverishly imagines...

Again, it's not just the Left that has used the race card against Trump.  Stolid Republicans have done so as well.  One doesn't even need to consult Diana West on this (though one would be advised to if one still has the Spencerian astigmatism causing one to see only the Left on this).  The mainstream media has often reported this.  For example, the CNN website has two brief video reports, in which one sees, for example, not only that Paul Ryan, Republican House Speaker, said it was "not what this party stands for... not what this country stands for..." -- but also that the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a conservative Baptist Christian from South Carolina, said in response to Trump's moratorium:

"He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."


֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍

Further Reading:

Robert Spencer's "Leftist" label-gun: Imprecision of terms on the problem of the problem

Evidence demonstrating that mainstream conservative non-Elites are PC MC about Islam

Thursday, May 12, 2016

An "Angemon Watch" -- or a "Fessitude Watch"...?

http://orig05.deviantart.net/cb94/f/2013/225/a/1/tired_toes_of_th_energizer_bunny_by_zp92-d6i01wu.png

Recently, in an update to my April 30 post Damned if you don't, continued (again... and again...), I noted how a particular veteran reader & commenter at Jihad Watch, one "Angemon" has been pestering me egregiously ever since I returned to Jihad Watch under my new moniker there, "Fessitude":

Second Update 5/8/16:  Angemon has continued to pester me so much, zooming in to pick at my comments with his sophistry in service of a soft approach to the problem of Islam, that by now the number must have doubled to 40...  And, of course, the aforementioned Peanut Gallery [Jihad Watch regulars Mirren, gravenimage, Wellington, dumbledoresarmy, Jay Boo, Champ]  continues to pretend like they don't see him doing it.)

I had taken a break (more like a traumatic rupture) from Jihad Watch comments after I "snapped" following the Paris attacks.  Prior to that, I had been commenting for a long time (a year or two?) as "voegelinian" -- and then too, Angemon had been pestering me incessantly, and none of the aforementioned Peanut Gallery noticed -- unless I called attention to it, then invariably they would rudely chide me, not Angemon.  That has been the pattern; and it went on even before that time, to when I was commenting as "Hesperado" prior to "voegelinian".

However, I recently learned that it's even worse than what my Update describes as "the aforementioned Peanut Gallery continues to pretend like they don't see him doing it" -- where one of that Gallery, one "gravenimage", in the comments thread of a recent Jihad Watch article just a few days ago, strangely felt it necessary to say this about me:

gravenimage says
May 10, 2016 at 10:34 pm
When faced with the horror of Muslim savagery on display here, Fessitude appears to believe that this is “Angemon Watch”.

My response to that when I saw it (about 48 hours ago, I think) was:

This is a bizarre comment from gravenimage, given that since I returned to Jihad Watch under this name Fessitude, the ratio of comments where I respond to (or even indirectly allude to) Angemon, versus those where he is responding to my comments is like 90 to 1 (90 Angemon pestering me, 1 me mentioning Angemon) — and most of those comments of mine which Angemon is zooming in to pester me about I don’t even mention Angemon!
I invite gravenimage to do an advanced Google search of “fessitude angemon” specifying Jihad Watch website, and count up the ratio. Then be honest about the findings.

It's highly unlikely that gravenimage will do what I challenged her to do -- to wit, to back up her outrageously surreal charge against me with evidence.  Indeed, I see that she hasn't deigned to respond to that post as of now (over 48 hours later) -- though naturally Angemon, the Energizer Bunny of Jihad Watch comments, has meanwhile zoomed in to pester me yet anew.

So let us do what gravenimage is failing to do, shall we?

Here is the breakdown of the results from an advanced Google search as I noted above, searching "angemon + fessitude" and specifying the Jihad Watch website. Following the breakdown will be some discursive explanation.

Note: I will follow the chronologically random way the Google results display them.  This is not an exhaustive list (I know for a fact there are many more instances -- in the month of May, which Google does not yet have -- of Angemon zooming in to pester me even though I didn't mention him at all).  Seeing as I only began as "Fessitude" I believe some time in March, the examples will only go back that far.  (I could repeat this exercise for my previous two or three nicknames, possibly going back two or three years, to demonstrate the same pestering by Angemon, but... one thing at a time).

The Breakdown:

Random sample of 31 different Jihad Watch comments threads from March and April from five Google pages (though it's about 50 links total, some of the links were not really leading to a comments thread that had comments by me).  Out of those 31 threads, there were 62 instances of Angemon posting a comment in response to one of my comments in which I had not mentioned him.  Every one of those comments by Angemon is picking at me in some way.  In all 62 instances, I had not mentioned Angemon.

Now, among those 31 threads, I did post a few comments mentioning Angemon.  Let's tally those up, shall we?  My total comments in which I mention Angemon first (then he responds after) is 5.  There were two other threads where I commented about Angemon, but only after he started it.  We are counting here gratuitous sniping, where someone mentions someone else out of the blue (and with the vast majority of those, in addition, I ignored Angemon altogether).

Let's recap:

Gratuitous mentions of the other person out of the blue out of 31 randomly sampled comments threads:

Angemon about Fessitude: 62.

Fessitude about Angemon: 5.

What were gravenimage's words...?  Oh yes:

gravenimage says
May 10, 2016 at 10:34 pm
When faced with the horror of Muslim savagery on display here, Fessitude appears to believe that this is “Angemon Watch”.

62 to 5, and I'm the one she worried about diverting our counter-jihad concern into an "Angemon Watch"...?

More like a Fessitude Watch by Angemon.

At least if you can do basic arithmetic.

Links:

3 Angemon 0 Fessitude GG only after 2 Angemon
4 Angemon 0 Fessitude
2 Angemon 0 Fessitude (GG only after Angemon + others)
9 Angemon 0 Fess + others piling on me me only responding ATF
3 Angemon GG only after + others piling on Fess 1 only after one A
1 Angemon + followups A obtusely not registering what I said
4 Angemon 0 Fessitude
2 Angemon 0 Fess
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 3 Fess 0
2 Angemon Fess 0 Fess 1 A 1
Angemon 1 F 0 / F 1 A 1
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Angemon (Jayboo) 2 Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Fess 1 Angemon 1 (+ Champ)
Angemon 3 Fess 0 (except responses) graven zoomed in to answer coinidentally
Champ talking to Angemon about "the clown fessitude" and his "piece or garbage" blog
Angemon 1 Fess 0 / Fess 1 Ang 1
Angemon 1 Fess 0 / Fess 1 Angemon 0
Amgenon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0
Angemon 2 (Jay boo) Fess 0
Angemon 2 Fess 0
Angemon 1 Fess 0 (+ F on Trump, no Angemon)

P.S.:  

Two links included in the list above merit additional explanation: the last one from early April also contains a comment where I explained my whole stance on Trump -- how initiallly I was anti-Trump, then with new data I changed my mind about Trump.  A few days ago, Angemon zoomed in to pester me after I wrote a comment about Trump in which I made no mention of Angemon, taunting me about why I was anti-Trump long ago, as though that is some kind of a "gotcha" moment of victory for him.  That early April link (in which he was active, zooming in to pester me about something else) shows that I had already explained myself about Trump long ago, and Angemon ignored it.  Secondly, there's a link where early on in my "Fessitude" career (early March I think) Angemon apparently had guessed it was really Hesperado, and Champ chimed in to thank Angemon for his "good catch" on that, then she laid in about how I am a "clown" and my blog is a "piece of garbage".  Did gravenimage hasten to gently correct her?  Why, of course not!

Beyond that, if gravenimage or any other Jihad Watch regular really cared about the truth, they might study Angemon's 62 gratuitous needlings of me and see what ideas exactly they are opposing -- and by implication what other ideas are they thereby defending -- and ask themselves, is this what the Counter-Jihad should be standing for?

But why take the trouble to be fair in scrupulous detail, when one can just be lazy and defend one's in-group, right?