Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Surprise, Surprise...

Yesterday in the heart of London, there was (another) terrorist attack.  To the broader Mainstream, it was perpetrated by a terrorist who has nothing to do with Islam.  To the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, it was perpetrated by a "jihadist" who is somehow meaningfully distinct from all other non-"jihadist" Muslims.

The anti-Islam website & news journal headquartered in Paris, Riposte Laique (and, unlike Robert Spencer, they actually are anti-Islam), has a synopsis that usefully puts this into perspective:

“Since the attack, British Parliament has been totally shut down, and deputies and journalists who happened to be inside Parliament buildings were placed under maximum security and forbidden to leave the buildings for their own protection. Parliament is being prepared to be thoroughly searched for bombs.  The entire center of London is blockaded; authorities have evacuated civilians from there and have prevented anyone else from entering.  Helicopters are circling Parliament as well as 10 Downing Street.

“At the beginning of March, Scotland Yard announced that British security services have foiled 13 terror plots since June of 2013 in the United Kingdom.  Since August of 2014, the threat level has remained at ‘grave’, the 4th of a scale of 5 [5 being the worst].  Following the Muslim attacks in France of November 13, 2015, British police announced the deployment of 600 additional armed police in London, bringing their numbers to 2,800.”

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Fifth piece of the puzzle...
We continue merrily on in our series, merrily, merrily, merrily, Jihad's but a dream.  

If only.

Anywho.  My series here subjects to a critical analysis Robert Spencer's recent, lengthy, and unprecedented response to pseudo-reformer Zuhdi Jasser.  Recap links of all the pieces of the puzzle thus far:

Piece 1

Piece 2

Piece 3

Piece 4

Today's piece involves Spencer rightfully latching onto one name on a list of Muslim "reformers" whom Jasser listed as beacons of light to save the world from "Islamism" -- specifically, the Bosnian Muslim leader Izetbegovic.  Spencer marshals the minimum evidence needed to shoot that camel in its tracks before it leaves Jasser's starting-box.  Not that we should need any evidence at all to disqualify any Muslim on the list -- or any Muslim whatsoever, wherever.  Oh sorry, I forgot to think like a Counter-Jihad Mainstreamer, where we still accord any and every Muslim with the suicidally generous principle of Presume innocent before Islamist.

Now, here's the important piece, buried amid others in Spencer's over-complication of the issue:

If that’s the best “reformer” that Zuhdi Jasser can come up with, how can we not be skeptical? It’s no wonder that Zuhdi Jasser, with his Blaze program, and his CPAC speech, and his Fox appearances, and the uncritical adulation of so very many non-Muslims on the Right, is feeling insecure and threatened: his position is incoherent, and somewhere in his heart of hearts, even he knows it. And so not content with all the fame and fawning and financial advantages, he lashes out against the few remaining people who dare to challenge him on the facts, desperate to destroy us. He is in this doomed to fail as spectacularly as he has in trying to reform Islam, because there is just one weapon we have that he does not: the truth. [bold emphasis added]

 "...and somewhere in his heart of hearts, even he knows it."

There goes Spencer again, generously assuming Jasser is not doing taqiyya.  And rather than hit Jasser honestly, square on the kisser, by reasonably assuming he is doing stealth jihad, Spencer bobs and weaves and, at the very worst, only imputing to Jasser the all too human and amorphously un-Islamic motives of greed and need for fame; since after all, according to Spencer, Jasser's "heart is in the right place".

Monday, March 20, 2017

Fourth piece of the puzzle...

See Part 3 (and in that post, there will be a link to Part 2 which, in turn, contains a link to Part 1).

We continue this series, critiquing Robert Spencer's lengthy responses to pseudo-reformer Zuhdi Jasser.

Next quote by Spencer:

Jasser includes a practical argument: “So how is that I’m the lying jihadist [who ever said that?], but when the yin to the yang of jihad, which says, yes, the jihad is the only Islam, calls them out with no solution other than eternal war against twenty-five percent of the world’s population or a plan to convert them?” (Yes, his show is just as incoherent as that.) This is a common argument: we have to support the Muslim reformers because there is no other solution: we can’t have eternal war and the vast majority of Muslims aren’t going to convert to Christianity, so it’s the only alternative. The problem with this is that supporting Muslim reformers lines the pockets of Muslim reformers, but it really doesn’t do anything to stop the jihad. In reality, we need a comprehensive response to the global jihad that includes standing for our own principles as a nation: if we really had offered the people of Iraq and Afghanistan the freedom of speech, equality of rights for women, equality of rights of all before the law, etc., many Muslims would have come to our side.

Let's back up this piano movers truck a sec, shall we...?

Quoting Jasser -- “So how is that I’m the lying jihadist..." -- Spencer interjects within square brackets:  " [who ever said that?]".

Once again we see, in stark bold relief, what makes the Counter-Jihad Mainstream oh so safe, oh so careful... oh so mainstream.  The bolder civilians of the movement (apparently a minority, but perhaps a silent majority?) have no problem calling Jasser a liar, deceiver, taqiyya artist, stealth jihadist.  Why is it so hard for comfortably mainstream Counter-Jihadists to do this?  Instead of plain speaking, Spencer gets tied up in voluminous knots as he responds to Jasser's attack on the Counter-Jihad (or what Jasser calls the "alt-jihad").  And a good deal of that unnecessary complexity on Spencer's part is his careful avoidance of calling a spade a spade.

Moving on, why am I not surprised to see out of Spencer's pen basically the Lewis Doctrine:

...if we really had offered the people of Iraq and Afghanistan the freedom of speech, equality of rights for women, equality of rights of all before the law, etc., many Muslims would have come to our side.

The two Mainstreams converge into a vast swamp.  Speaking of swamps, I have some in Florida I'd like to sell all the Jihad Watchers who have no problem with Spencer's view here.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Third piece of the puzzle...

See part 2 of this series, examining Robert Spencer's response to pseudo-reformer Zuhdi Jasser (where you will also find a link to Part 1).

Another piece of the puzzle -- another quote from Spencer as he unravels Jasser's rant:

The difference between him [Jasser] and those whom he smears as “alt-jihadists” is apparently, in his view, that we see him as non-Muslim and say that there is no chance for Islamic reform. As far as I am concerned, that is a false charge (and none of the other people on his enemies list think these things either, as far as I know). 

Spencer might want to revise that last part, when it comes to Diana West -- one of the names on Jasser's Enemies List -- (though since Spencer long ago burned his bridges with Diana, "as far as he knows" isn't far, apparently).

At any rate, more to the meat of the matter:

I’d love to see Islamic reform succeed. I’m just not willing to kid myself or others about its prospects, or pretend that it has a greater standing in Islamic doctrine or tradition than it does. But for this, as far as Jasser is concerned, I am now as much of a jihadist as the caliph al-Baghdadi. The idea that because someone recognizes the ideological roots of a movement, he must support that movement, is of course absurd. Did Churchill support Nazism because he recognized that Nazi German society was a valid expression of Nazi beliefs as Hitler had articulated them?

 Let's back up a bit:

I’d love to see Islamic reform succeed.

Of course, the R.S.S.S. (Robert Spencer Sycophants Society) would try to argue that he only meant this rhetorically.  But years of him saying this, or formulations similar, indicate otherwise.  And when he is on record saying that he is "not 'anti-iIslam' " (and of course that he is "not 'anti-Muslim' "), and that he is only against "elements of Islam" not Islam per se, we are thick into Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM) territory.  I.e., Spencer can't even be anti-Islam for Allah's sake -- forget about him ever making the paradigm shift past anti-Islam into anti-Muslim.

I’d love to see Islamic reform succeed.

Why would anyone who knows as much as Spencer does about Islam say such a thing?  It would be like saying, "I'd love to see toxic excrement turn magically into gold."  I.e., given what Islam actually is, such a formulation can't even be salvaged as a rhetorical device (at least not for the argument Spencer is trying to make here).

I just stumbled upon one old remark by Spencer (among dozens one could find) that's revealing in this regard.  This was in the context of a long, drawn-out disagreement he was having with Lawrence Auster back in 2006:

Larry doesn't seem to understand that what tempered radical Christianity is what will ultimately temper radical Islam: post-Enlightenment secularism. When Islamists have lost all/most of the arguments, and when they start changing their doctrine accordingly, then we'll see the beginnings of a true Islamic Reformation.

What's going on here (as with other CJM pundits & analysts) has really less to do with Islam directly than it does with an underlying, semi-conscious anxiety about Muslims -- more specifically, about what our growing awareness of the horrors of Islam might mean for the multitudes of Muslims out there who are decent moms and pops like the rest of us, just trying to get through the day and have a sandwich, as we adjust our policies with regard to Muslims in light of our need to defend our societies from them.  And, perhaps more importantly than what it might mean for those multitudes of ostensibly innocent Muslims, is what it means for our ethical narcissism.  We don't want to be a horrible, bigoted racist who would genocide "all Muslims", do we?  But that's where all this anti-Islam rhetoric might lead us, if we don't put the brakes on it well before it gets to that point.  Enter Robert Spencer and his studied vagueness about what exactly he is against.  Not Islam, not Muslims.  Then what?  Oh, yes, "Jihadists".

But what's the difference between a "Jihadist" and a "Muslim"?  I asked just this question in an essay back in September of 2016 (and another essay I published that same month, "Robert Spencer and the Problem of Muslims", is also quite apposite here).  Spencer never gets around to articulating this most exigent question, whose answer is an agnostic position -- that we must reasonably assume there is no difference.  And once we attain that realization, we stop prevaricating around it, pretending as though that horrible realization isn't the disastrous case, consequent upon our putting together two things: 1) our growing awareness of what Islam is, plus 2) our need to protect our societies from those who put Islam into practice.  And then, finally, our analyses of this metastasizing problem that poses an eventual threat to our civilization will begin to achieve coherence.

Speaking of lucidity based on coherence (or the lack thereof), let's continue with Spencer's words:

I’m just not willing to kid myself or others about its prospects, or pretend that it has a greater standing in Islamic doctrine or tradition than it does. 

Again with the rhetoric about the prospects of shit turning into gold.   Let's unpack this.  What could "pretend that beneficent reform of Islam has a greater standing in Islamic doctrine or tradition than it does" possibly mean, when we know (or should know, by now, after educating ourselves for years on the subject -- including the mountains of data and interpretation amassed by Spencer himself over the years!) that there is zero "standing" in Islamic doctrine or tradition for such a goal?  Not only does it not have "greater standing" -- it has NO STANDING.  Spencer, apparently, is afraid to just speak plainly -- or he actually believes Islam isn't that disastrously, thoroughly pernicious and rotten to the core.  Or he's playing some game with sophistry.  Any way you slice it, it bodes ill for the R.S.S.S. -- particularly the ones who, by their multitudes of comments over the years on Spencer's Jihad Watch, apparently disagree with him on this (but are themselves too timid, or too sycophantic, or both, to say so).

As for Spencer's Nazi Germany analogy --

Did Churchill support Nazism because he recognized that Nazi German society was a valid expression of Nazi beliefs as Hitler had articulated them?

-- we've already visited that years ago, when Spencer had more time to dip into comments on his website and get into lengthy arguments with readers -- and when there actually existed a few readers who weren't sycophants deathly afraid of publicly disagreeing with him about anything.

Among the important points on which those few readers disagreed with Spencer was the suitability of the Nazi analogy.  Spencer stubbornly insisted that it's a bad idea to compare Islam with Nazism:

Islam is more multifaceted than Nazism, and involves many beliefs, some good, some bad. You are comparing a huge 1400-year-old tradition over many nations with 12 years of Germany. If you met a Nazi in 1938, you would know what he thinks. But the fact is that when you meet a Muslim today you can have no certainty about what he thinks or knows.

(Unfortunately, whether by design or technical process, links to old Jihad Watch posts no longer contain the comments fields, and one has to take added time and labor to track them down with the "Wayback Machine", an archive of old websites -- which I did just now to find the link to Spencer's comment I quote above.  If the reader clicks on that link, he will be taken to an old Jihad Watch posting called "On assertions without evidence", from May of 2006, and he would have to dip way down into the many comments to find it, or just search the page for any word or phrase. Incidentally, I count some 16 comments Spencer posted in that one thread, in various responses to other commenters.  That was rather common for him back then; for several years now, Spencer only very rarely might pop into a comments thread to lodge some tiny clarification.)

The perceptive reader will note that, with a bit of sophistry emollient, Spencer could (and no doubt would) easily squeak by with both his Nazi analogies; i.e., that his affirmation of the seemingly robust one he used against Jasser recently, and his refusal to affirm the even more robust one over 10 years ago, do not contradict each other -- since the recent one against Jasser (unlike the latter he used against civilian Counter-Jihadists over 10 years ago) isn't necessarily referring to Islam in toto.  I mean, Heaven forbid Spencer should be condemning Islam in toto...  We wouldn't want to have that, eh?


(Amusingly, a couple of years ago, one of the Jihad Watch regulars in the comments fields, one "Mirren" (also a member of the "Rabbit Pack", that high-school-clique-cum-lynch-mob-of-hall-monitors that patrols the comments fields there to enforce a strict adherence to the Robert Spencer Sycophants Society by-laws), had a flutter of anxiety when Spencer had a wardrobe malfunction about Islam, and when I stepped in to inform her of Spencer's prevarications about Islam, I was of course lynched by the aforementioned "Rabbit Pack".  See my essay recounting this sordid episode: "Who's Watching the Jihad Watchers?".)

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Second piece of the puzzle...

See part 1 for details.

Continuing with my analysis of Spencer's lengthy (and unprecedented) dressing down of "Better Cop" pseudo-reformer Zuhdi Jasser:

Still, there have always been a few of us who have never jumped onto the “moderate Islam is the solution” bandwagon. We have recognized, often with regret, that Muslim reformists have had scant success. I myself have always invited Muslims who sincerely reject jihad and Sharia supremacism to join with me...

There, gleaming like the edge of a point buried in a hill of detailed rhetoric, is the difference between the Counter-Jihad Mainstream and a restless, growing minority (or silent majority?) among the civilians of the Counter-Jihad.  The latter have realized, have put two and two (or two and taqiyya) together, have drawn the reasonable conclusion from the mountain of data that exists out there about Islam and the ocean of dots screaming to be connected -- a mountain and an ocean to which Spencer himself has ably contributed in amassing over the years -- that all Muslims are equally untrustworthy.

That we must reasonably assume all Muslims are willfully supporting the long, slow Jihad against us.

But in Spencer's rhetoric, there always remains that generous assumption about Muslims; an assumption that tends to have the effect of putting the brakes on the progress of the Counter-Jihad to undergo the paradigm shift that will free it from servitude to the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist Mainstream that sets the tone and rules of the Discussion about the problem of Islam (which = the problem of all Muslims).

Simply put, Spencer is too afraid to put it in these terms, lest the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist Mainstream reject him and demonize him.  Um (cough, cough), Robert: they already do reject you and demonize you, as you yourself know (see my "Damned if you do" series of essays).  One detects, in many comments at Jihad Watch, a growing realization among the civilians of the movement that they are ready for this paradigm shift.

Part of the readiness of that shift is to stop letting the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist Mainstream bully us and cow us onto the defensive, where we anxiously permit them to slander us with the outrageously false accusations that our growing, educated awareness of the problem of Islam -- which means, also, the problem of Muslims -- automatically and inexorably leads us to (or already stems from our supposedly "racist" baseline that would) "hate all Muslims" and want to genocide them.

By contrast, the safer, more timidly cautious Counter-Jihad Mainstream continues to cultivate the Defensive, and in many subtle ways continues to let the broader Mainstream control the Conversation.

Friday, March 17, 2017

Pieces of the Puzzle

From practically ignoring Zuhdi Jasser for years (other than some debate he had with him ages ago), Robert Spencer suddenly took the time to write a detailed refutation of over 2,500 words of a recent screed by Jasser.

This is rather odd, since a while back when Spencer gave a speech (during which he of course didn't mention Jasser or any of the other Better Cops, like Maajid Nawaz) and opened up the end for a Q & A with the audience, he grudgingly agreed with a civilian in the audience that there is a problem with so-called Muslim "reformers" like Jasser.  As I pointed out in my essay on this -- Ees not jure job...? -- Spencer only addressed the point after this civilian pressed him on it, then there was a strange moment in the video where it seems a few seconds (or more) were censored.  As I described it in that essay:

At 1:06:02, while Spencer is drinking from his water bottle, there's an obvious editing splice in the tape, meaning something was cut out. Since this video is from "JihadWatchVideo" recording an event for the group Spencer is affiliated with, "ACT for America", we may reasonably surmise that Spencer himself had a few seconds edited out, right at the point where he's discussing the problem of Zuhdi Jasser with that female audience member -- it's a problem for her, at any rate, not for Spencer, apparently; for right after the seeming edit splice in the tape, he says:

" -- look, I don't really want to talk about Zuhdi Jasser because he's a good guy... and I don't doubt that Zuhdi Jasser's heart is in the right place..."

What's changed since then?  Perhaps what finally got Spencer to take notice of Jasser and talk about his deficits at length (not that these Better Cop "reformers" are important, right?) was that Jasser attacked him.  That's a sure-fire way to get Spencer to take notice and do his job of analytically diagnosing problems in our various battle spaces of this most exigent war of ideas we are all, in one way or another, engaged in.

So, I will be analyzing Spencer's refutation of Jasser, piece by piece.

Today's piece:

The public discussion on the jihad threat has been essentially dominated on the one hand by those who insist that Islam is a religion of peace and jihad terror is caused by poverty and solved by foreign aid and “outreach,” and on the other hand by those who recognize that there is a problem within Islam but maintain that moderate Islam and moderate Muslims are the solution, and should be the focus of our counter-terror efforts. The former point of view is, of course, that of George W. Bush and much of the Republican establishment, as well as the Democrats. The latter point of view is that of the rest of the Republican establishment — many Fox hosts, CPAC, etc.

Um, Spencer forgot to mention in that "latter" category his old friends David Horowitz, Horowitz's main man Jamie Glazov, whose "Glazov Gang" missives are a regular feature at Spencer's Jihad Watch (remember his "Why I Love Muslims" series...?), and their friend & colleague, Daniel "Pipes Dream" Pipes.


Speaking of Jamie Glazov's two-part series "Why I Love Muslims" published at Jihad Watch in 2015, see my two comments I posted there (under my nickname there at the time, "voegelinian") here and here. I remember being pleasantly surprised at the time that "Angemon" didn't zoom in to pester me as he had so many times before (and would so many times after that).  But, sure enough, after I lodged my third comment, he just couldn't control himself.  As a friend and commenter there put it so aptly, responding to Angemon:

Angemon why are you defending the defense of Muslims? This was suppose to be “anti-Islam” video but Glazov made it so he could tell us how great Muslims are and that we should love them. You don’t see a problem with this? Angemon, wake the fuck up.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Another jihad to add to the list

As I've noted in the past -- particularly in two essays, The Multifarious Strategy of Jihad and also The Many Flavors of Jihad -- jihad is not merely a simple, uniform phenomenon in Islam.  It is, rather, a complex way of interacting with the enemy that has evolved over centuries.

In simpler times, perhaps, jihad could be simpler -- mostly a military strategy, in a context (e.g., throughout the Middle Ages) where Muslims didn't have to pretend they weren't hell-bent on conquering the West.  In our epoch, after centuries of development from the 17th century forward, the West has outstripped Islam astronomically, and Muslims must combine their Jihad of the Sword with a variety of other Jihads, many of them cloaked in various ways, and thus disconnected from the Jihad of the Sword; for if that overall connection were seen by their enemy (that's you and me and our Western societies), it would reveal the unity of motive and goal behind the panoply of Jihads.  (Indeed, this is one function of the Jihad of the Pen & Tongue, precisely to disconnect one of the Jihads -- Terror -- from Islam and from Muslims.)

Particularly in the first noted essay above, I adumbrate a list of ten different, distinct types of jihad which Muslims have been deploying against their perennial enemy (that's you and me and our Western societies):

Jihad of Terrorism

Jihad of Criminality

Jihad of the Pen & Mouth (i.e., propaganda & disinformation)

Jihad of the Feet (immigration)

Jihad of the Womb (demographic jihad, outbreeding us)

Jihad of Lawfare

Jihad of the Publicity Stunt

Jihad of Victimology & Grievance

Jihad of the Phony "Hate Crime"

Jihad of Just Being Here

The reader will see that some are obviously interconnected or overlap, while others seem more distinct.

Today, on seeing a particular headline on Jihad Watch, I realized there is a subtly distinct jihad to add to the list:

"Germany spent more than 20 billion dollars on refugees in 2016 as crisis outstrips state budgets"

That would be the Jihad of Draining the Kuffar's Resources.  This can be done in many ways in addition to a massive Biblical flood of immigrants into the West. The particular jihad of terrorism, for example, has triggered enormous expense in myriad ways throughout the West for the past 15 years since 911.

Incidentally, that headline illustrates the overlap of jihads, in that it involves at least four from the list (aside from the new one I just added):  Jihad of the Feet, Jihad of Criminality, Jihad of Terrorism, and the Jihad of Just Being Here.

Wednesday, March 08, 2017

Baby Steps, cont.

Robert Spencer, the √©minence grise of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM), actually used the term "political Islam" with a straight face.  That's how you know he's part of the CJM.  And he will remain so, comfortably and arrogantly, until enough of his civilian supporters call him on it (I wouldn't hold my breath on this).

Thus, in a story reported at Jihad Watch in late January on Trump reaching out to Al-Sisi of Egypt, Spencer wrote [bold emphasis added]:

Sisi’s regime isn’t perfect. Muslims are still brutalizing Christians in Egypt, and the government has done little to protect this despised and defenseless minority. At the same time, Sisi is a bulwark against political Islam in the Middle East. With Turkey rapidly re-Islamizing and the Islamic State still in the picture, that is important. So after the Obama administration’s unwavering support of the Muslim Brotherhood, this is most welcome.

Meanwhile, the story itself from Reuters indicates more baby steps from Trump:

“Trump, Sisi discuss fighting terrorism in phone call,” Reuters, January 23, 2017:

CAIRO (Reuters) – Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and U.S. President Donald Trump discussed ways to boost the fight against terrorism and extremism on Monday and the new American leader underscored his commitment to bilateral ties, the two countries said.

Trump told Sisi in a telephone call he appreciated the difficulties faced by Egypt in its “war on terror” and affirmed his administration’s commitment to supporting the country, Sisi’s spokesman Alaa Youssef said in a statement.”

As I argued in my last posting, Baby Steps, this kind of shortsighted Realpolitik is all well and good in the short term; but the danger of the global revival of Islamic Jihad is not in the short term; it's in the long term.  Based on the intelligent development of a "Realislamik", we should anticipate and plan for an arc of time lasting a century from this point forward, based upon a reasonable dot-connection and assimilation of the mountain of data on Islam that we already have, pored over by innumerable, motley analysts over the past 15 years.

One way to undermine that kind of long-term planning is for the West to continue reinforcing, through these Baby Step measures, our collective blindness to the links between Islamic "terrorists"/"political Islam" and mainstream Islam.

Monday, March 06, 2017

Baby Steps

A comment attached to a recent Jamie Glazov report on Jihad Watch, in which Glazov, unsurprisingly, lauds President Trump for having the courage to name the problem as "radical Islamic terrorism" alludes to the point about such close-but-no-cigar rhetoric:

What Trump did is a step in the right direction. It was a major step considering that neither Bush nor Obama would say it. But it isn’t entirely true. Until we have a president who is willing to say islam is the problem we are still working with one hand tied behind our backs.

 It seems axiomatic among Counter-Jihad Softies to assume that even a baby step in the right direction is a good thing.  However, I would argue that sometimes it can be deleterious.  If the problem is a context of protracted, complex sabotage by a foreign power -- including a two-track system of terrorism and stealth, where the two tracks are deceitfully kept apart as though there is no collusion between the two -- then what Trump's baby step rhetoric can do is actually reinforce, unwittingly, that deceitful distinction between terror and stealth.  For, the rhetoric only goes after the front-line jihadists and their battlefield generals, so to speak: only the ones exploding, the ones plotting explosions, and the ones planning broader facilitation of the larger, more complex terror plots.  In terms of the broader facilitation, sure, a robust policy rooting that out would help in the short-term, but if that policy is built on a non-existent, fantasy-based distinction between the average Muslim and the broader facilitator of terror plots -- conceiving the former as having utterly nothing to do with the latter, and even going further, of being on our side against the latter -- then such a policy, and the baby-step rhetoric that underpins it, will actually help to ensure that in the future, among the Muslims (or their future generations) who in the meantime will have infiltrated into every institution of Western societies, there will be critically placed moles ready to move the Jihad to Phase II -- a dramatic escalation (in terms of incidence, geographical dispersion, spectacular location, high casualties, and gruesome methods) of violent terror throughout the West which, by that time, will have been degraded and compromised enough by its continual appeasement of Muslims, including trillions spent on safety measures from terrorism.

That last sentence contains an implication about terrorism and the broader strategy of Jihad as Islam undergoes a global revival of its former glory, meanwhile, their perennial enemy (the West) remains ostensibly much more powerful and sophisticated than they are. The implication is that the broader strategy of Jihad involves two phases. The first phase, which we are in, involves a use of terrorism not as a means for outright conquest, but mainly (if not only) as a means for a protracted shock to our infrastructures (socioeconomic infrastructure as much as technological infrastructure), a protracted drain on our system, and a protracted degradation of our collective conscious (e.g., exacerbating our irrational responses of acting out of repressed fear of Muslims and triggering our Western anxiety about being "racist" against Brown People).

Thus, in this first phase, because of our superiority, Muslims deploy terror as a "strategy of sid√©ration" and part of that necessitates that the link between terror and stealth be kept invisible to the enemy.  And thus also in this first phase, terror is kept below a certain threshold in terms of incidence and effect (casualties and material destruction) -- for, if the terror happens too much and too lethally, it would be more likely to trigger Western governments, even if they be deeply infected by PC MC, to wake up and clamp down on Muslims.

And since the goal of this global revival of Islam is the destruction of the West as an impediment to full Shariah, it will have to involve, at some point, actual, physical, violent conquest.  There is no such thing as "Shariah creep" simply because the end game of full Shariah is so diametrically antithetical to the values and worldview of the average modern Westerner, and as such he would only acquiesce at the point of a sword.  See my argument about this in my recent essay, Philip Haney's lapse in logic.


So, if Trump's baby step (that we should oppose "radical Islamic terrorism") is the first movement in a process that will end up contradicting the logical implication of that baby step (namely, that there is a broader Islam that is not "radical" and is not "terrorism" which we should not oppose) -- then sure, it's a good thing.  However, such rhetoric has a built-in resistance to following through with the logical contradiction of its central implication, especially among those (like the witless Jamie Glazov and the insufferably correct Sam Harris) who sincerely believe in dividing Islam up into good and bad segments.

Sunday, March 05, 2017


A fine article by Diana West published in December of last year contained this intriguing excerpt from her book, American Betrayal:

By 1936, after civil war broke out in Spain, George Orwell could sense a sea change in the writing of history, of news, of information, of the handling of what he called “neutral fact,” which heretofore all sides had accepted. “What is peculiar to our age,” he wrote, “is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written.” Or even that it should be, I would add. For example, he wrote, in the Encyclopedia Britannica’s entry on World War I, not even twenty years past, “a respectable amount of material is drawn from German sources.” This reflected a common understanding—assumption—that “the facts” existed and were ascertainable. As Orwell personally witnessed in Spain, this notion that there existed “a considerable body of fact that would have been agreed to by almost everyone” had disappeared. “I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, ‘History ended in 1936,’ at which he nodded in immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism generally, but more specifically of the Spanish Civil War.” He continued, “I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed . . . I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.”

Then he hits it precisely: “I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’ ” (emphasis added). Ideology over all.

The rest of the article is similarly excellent, with one caveat: West tends to see these various trends of ominous threats in the 20th century to freedom and liberty as entirely -- or nearly, de facto entirely -- due to concerted efforts by Communists (both in the Red Bloc and among their sympathizers and agents in the West).  She thus unwittingly generates an explanatory vacuum that tends to undervalue various amorphous sociopolitical factors that had nothing to do with Communism, pre-dated even Karl Marx's birth, and were essentially intra-Western tendencies; factors that tended to predispose many Westerners to be vulnerable to the wiles of the Communist saboteurs and disinformation specialists.  When West says "ideology over all", it seems she neglects the parallel ideological current, of something for which we yet have no name, though I call it "PC MC" (Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism) for want of a better term.  This PC MC would have little traction & effect -- not only in predisposing innumerable Westerners to the siren song of Communist utopianism in the later 19th century and throughout the 20th century, but also to the equally insidious sophistry of Islamopologists in our post-911 era -- were it not held sincerely by those affected.  Part of the problem with PC MC is that it is sincerely held: once an idea or worldview takes root in the hearts and minds of people, it becomes far more sociopolitically dangerous (if its content, that is, is already dangerous) than if it remains imposed from without.  The other problem is that its genesis is amorphous; one can only note watershed moments in history that helped catalyze its prevalence -- one of them being, in fact, the 18th century Enlightenment (another being the Protestant Reformation).

Indeed, in her book, American Betrayal, Diana West a few times invokes the Enlightenment as a font of the virtues which were, through the complex "betrayal" of her thesis (the rather sordid symbiosis -- which she documents in intricate and voluminous detail -- throughout the 20th century, even pre-dating WW2, between Communists and various Americans), being ignored or even undermined.  Not once does she mention the Enlightenment as a problematic cultural historical event.  It may never have occurred to Diana West that a good deal of the pathology that led to the spread of the Communist cancer in the 20th century (not to mention in one of its Founding Fathers, Marx himself, in the century before), has its roots in that very same Enlightenment.

But that's another story; anyone who would balk at its implications should first, at least, read a book published in 1975 by philosopher Eric Voegelin, From Enlightenment to Revolution.  The reader may consult a brief review of it which I wrote a couple of years ago (unfortunately, the "amazing resource" I refer to in my first paragraph, the Library Genesis Project, has turned out to be not quite so amazing, and the link to Voegelin's book there no longer works).

Saturday, March 04, 2017

Dancing in the Titanic ballroom

"The musicians of the R.M.S. Titanic all perished when the ship sank in 1912. They played music, intending to calm the passengers, for as long as they possibly could, and all went down with the ship. All were recognized for their heroism."

I wonder if some passengers danced during that terrible hour.  And a-one, and a-two: One step forward, two steps back, one baby step forward...

Starting with a severe handicap (a sprained ankle from dancing the Funky Chicken of the OBushma years) constituting one small step for Presidents, a giant leap backward for Westernkind, we get the step forward of a Trump victory, then two steps back with key appointments as national security advisors for his Presidency -- General Robert "terrorists are un-Islamic" McMaster, General "New World Order" Mattis, and General John "Nation-Building" Nicholson".

Then we have Trump in his recent address to Congress reasserting the one step forward ("radical Islamic terrorism") that still constitutes a step back (for those few of us who know that mainstream Islam itself is "radical" and "extremist" already), but seems to be progressive due to the severely regressive policies & worldview of the OBushma years.

Meanwhile, the West's collective Titanic Ship of Fools plows the waves blithely toward the Iceslamberg.

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Recipe for Disaster

Image result for galloping gourmet cookbook

When you put all the ingredients together, the reasonable response would be a one-two combination:

Zero tolerance of all Muslims --> Total deportation of all Muslims from the West.


1. The nature of Islam (based on Islamic holy texts, Islamic history, Islamic news):

a.  supremacist
b.  expansionist
c.  seditious
d.  violent
e.  stealthy
f.  anti-human rights, anti-secular

2. The history of Islam:

a.  initial explosion in time and space, leading to violent conquest of an empire larger than Alexander the Great's empire
b.  a millennium (a thousand years) from approximately the 7th century to the 17th century, of incessant terror attacks on Europe (including Byzantium and nascent Russia) with the intent to conquer the West
c.  a temporary lapse into geopolitical inferiority beginning in the 17th century, contrasted to the stupendous progress of Europe/America to superiority on all levels (technological, scientific, military, legal, moral, social, philosophical, artistic), a progress that has proven exponential with each passing century, and still in the 21st century seeing no serious signs of abating -- as long as the West deals adequately with the long-term threat of Islam.

3.  Islam in current events:  A global revival of Islam in our time, arguably metastasizing, with a goal to resume the conquest of the West attempted for 1,000 years from the 7th century to the 17th century,

4.  The relative superiority of the West on all levels (technological, scientific, military, legal, moral, social, philosophical, artistic) -- necessitating that if #3 is correct, then #1e (stealth) becomes a crucial part of Mohammedan strategy.


If any one, or a combination of a few, of the ingredients of the overall problem listed above is either ignored, minimized, or understood inaccurately, there would be no need for a conclusion of
zero tolerance of all Muslims, in turn logically leading to an advocacy of total deportation of all Muslims from the West.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Image result for walkin blues

About Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, whom President Trump appointed his senior national security advisor, a recent headline trumpets the profoundly depressing Same Old Same Old News:

...McMaster... told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first "all hands" staff meeting, that the label "radical Islamic terrorism" was not helpful because terrorists are "un-Islamic"...

It's bad enough when our representatives, and our counter-terrorism analysts and experts, indulge in cushioning Islam from criticism (let alone the condemnation it so roundly deserves) with such dysphemisms as "radical Islamic terrorism" (or worse, "radical Islamist terrorism").  It's even worse when their PC MC skittishness can't even tolerate anything remotely hinting at linking terrorism to Islam.  For such extremely sensitive souls, even qualifiers like "radical" and "extremist" are not enough; and even softening "Islamic" with an "-ist" on the end is too incorrect.

The election victory of Trump constituted one step forward.  The first step back of the OBushma years was not corrected by Trump's senior advisor on national security; instead, McMaster took a second step back, to reassert the Western Mainstream status quo: our anxiety to protect Islam from all scrutiny.

Monday, February 27, 2017

Better Cops in the Trump Era

Remember, the "Better Cop" Muslims depend on the Useful Idiocy not of Leftists, or of liberals, or of the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalists -- but of those in the Counter-Jihad.  The Better Cops are infiltrating the Counter-Jihad, to reinforce the inhibition, the semi-conscious fear prevalent in the Counter-Jihad, of progressing to a Zero Tolerance against All Muslims.

And, if a Better Cop Muslim may not always enjoy the Usefully Idiotic trust handed to them on a silver platter (as, for example, Jamie Glazov does in his recent interviews we will discuss below with two of them, and granted a prominent platform on Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch), they can at least count on a general muddle of incoherence in the Counter Jihad civilian population -- where various Counter-Jihadists may balk at the notion of a "free thinking Muslim" and of the notion of "Islamic reform", and may scratch their heads in puzzlement at why these Muslims seem so wonderfully on our side; but they won't go further in their logical conclusion to realize that an Asra Nomani or a Shireen Qudosi (two of the Better Cops we feature today) embody the impossibility of the Square Circle.

There's no need, really, to examine the words of any Better Cop Muslim -- whether of an Asra Nomani or a Shireen Qudosi or Joe Schmoehammed -- if, that is, we have graduated to the Zero Tolerance.  For the fruit of such a graduation is the realization that nothing a Muslim could possibly say could demonstrate they have earned our trust.  In fact, the Good Cop Muslim and even more so, the Better Cop Muslim (my terms for two flavors of the "Moderate Muslim" -- the former good enough to fool the broader Western Mainstream, the latter more cleverly calculated to fool the growing Counter-Jihad) demonstrate by their affront to logic a more vivid example of the impossibility of Islamic "reform".  This should be the nodus upon which the Counter-Jihadist focuses, as he reminds himself that under no circumstances can he trust an Asra Nomani or a Shireen Qudosi -- or a Zuhdi Jasser or a Maajid Nawaz or an Irshad Manji or a Tawfik Hamid or a Tarek Fatah or an Abdessamad Belhaj or an Islam Buheiry or a Hamel Abdel-Samad... et al. (qaeda).

So let's see how that representative sampling of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM), the civilians who comment on Jihad Watch (that bastion of the  CJM), fare, shall we...?

Two articles posted on Jihad Watch, from Robert Spencer's Counter-Jihad friend Jamie Glazov, himself prominently featured on the Counter-Jihad site of Spencer's other Counter-Jihad friend, David Horowitz, offer up a revealing selection, in two separate video interviews with two different Better Cops -- Shireen Qudosi and Asra Nomani.  As we said, the fact that Glazov trusts these two and it apparently never occurs to him to ask them probing, tough questions about the giant Camel in the Room (why they remain Muslim and, as such, we reasonably suppose, still revere Muhammad and the Koran), is not our focus today, since it's a given (see this Google page of my previous essays on Glazov).

Nor are we concerned today to call analytical attention to why David Horowitz and Robert Spencer, two luminaries in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Leadership (and I've written plenty on Spencer over the years), see fit to endow Glazov with such a platform through which these Better Cops can better propagandize their Taqiyya Dawa to lull the Counter-Jihad Mainstream and reinforce its tendency to anxiously avoid progressing to a Zero Tolerance of All Muslims.  We are here today only looking at the civilians of that Counter-Jihad Mainstream, and seeing how they handle these Better Cops.

Shireen Qudosi

The first article, titled Glazov Gang: Muslim Free Thinker Calls Out Linda Sarsour and the Women's March, is a video interview with Muslima Shireen Qudosi.  She came on my radar before this, when I noted her potential qualification as a "Better Cop" from her Twitter page, positively glittering with tweets against all manner of "Islamist extremism".  She finds in Zuhdi Jasser a mentor and ally in this movement of Islamic "reform", provocatively couched in terms of "We are fighting not a war with Islam, but a war within Islam" -- echoing Jasser's book, melodramatically titled: A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot's Fight to Save His Faith. Among her tweets is one titled:  "It is our responsibility as American Muslims to speak out for the silent majority who aren't represented by theocracies & dictatorships."  That's a silent majority of, evidently, Muslims Who Just Wanna Have a Falafel Sandwich and Apple Pie -- and who are all aghast, just as Shireen affects to be, at the minority of  "Islamists" causing so many problems around the world.

The first thing to note is the small number of comments on these two articles, below the average on Jihad Watch.  For a topic that cuts right to the heart of the problem of Muslims (that problem which the Counter-Jihad Mainstream studiously avoids tackling head-on), such an apparent disinterest is disheartening -- but not surprising.

Secondly, we note that among the measly 23 comments there, perhaps most of them express at least an appropriate degree of skepticism about the possibility of Glazov's titular phrase, a "Muslim free thinker".  Thus, the first commenter's salvo right out of the box:

There is no such thing as a “Muslim free-thinker”. You believe the whole heap of shit or your reject the whole heap of shit,

The next commenter agrees:

I concur. The muslim mind is confined in a box with xyz dimensions sharia x sharia x sharia. The fourth dimension is 1400yrs. This mindset is not amenable to any kind of recognizable organic evolution. The immutable text imposes strictures that preclude free-thinking.  

In the same vein, but now moving on to Shireen's chimerical hope for Islamic "reform", the third commenter notes aptly:

Shireen talks about reform that she can do in the USA but not in sharia countries. It sounds good but is not possible. Reform is still NEVER EVER POSSIBLE.

The temperature rises with the fourth comment:

These “reformers” drive me crazy thinking they can put lipstick on a pig, but… it’s still a pig. Also, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. 

This commenter also alludes to one of Shireen's tropes (also a Jasser and Nawaz trope), distinguishing Muslim from "Islamist" --

There is NO difference between a “MUSLIM” (follower of Islam invented by the psychotic pedophile prophet) vs. an “ISLAMIST” (follower of Islam invented by the psychotic pedophile prophet). 

However, with the next sentence in the comment, we begin to see the fault line in the CJM Mainstream view:

Stop the nonsense and become an APOSTATE already.

This implies, at best, an uncertainty about whether Shireen is sincere or not -- leaning toward generously assuming she is, even if she's pursuing a pipe dream.  Her avowal of Islamic "free thinking" and her calls for Islamic "reform", thus, are sincere, but confused attempts to "put lipstick on a pig".  The commenter elaborates on that, making pretty clear his generous gift to Shireen of the Benefit of the Doubt:

Just because you were born into it, doesn’t mean you need to stay a Muslim. It’s not a racial ethnic group. You confuse what Islam IS or COULD BE by trying to invent your own fantasy version of Islam which would never, ever resemble anything invented or intended by the IslamoNazi Mohammad.

The commenter is assuming that Shireen doesn't know that her dream of reform is, in fact, trying to square the circle of an Islam impossible to reform.  The commenter never bothers, apparently, to ponder how it could be that an intelligent 30-something Muslima who has been a Muslim all her life, and who spends most of her time studying the issue of Islamic reform, doesn't know something we all in the Counter-Jihad know, something exceedingly readily available to know (especially with the Internet).  As Judge Judy (PBUHer) says, "If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true."  The only explanation for a Shireen Qudosi -- as for her mentor, Zuhdi Jasser (and all the other Better Cop Muslims) -- is either that they suffer a strangely severe brain damage; or, they are lying to us.  The Counter-Jihad has to assume that there is no third alternative explanation that makes sense.  And yet, as we shall see below, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream keeps pretending there could be a third alternative, which they never get around to articulating coherently.

One of the commenter's remarks, however, is searingly apposite.

I except [sic -- should be "expect" ] MORE from Jamie in questioning her self-identification of being a “free thinking” Muslim.

Meanwhile, as we move down the comments, we see a few repetitions of the theme:

How can you be a Muslim and free thinker at the same time. Surely these two are mutually exclusive. Please explain!

Note how this commenter ably gets to the first stage of thinking the matter through, but then suspends himself before taking the next logical step.

A couple of commenters down, we have someone who's getting warm:

How can you be a Muslim and free thinker at the same time?

Maybe Shireen Qudosi know that when she call herself “Muslim” instead of “ex-Muslim”, she could infiltrate the retard liberal. I should call myself Muslim now.

This commenter is correct that by presenting herself as a "Muslim", Shireen makes her presentation (of selling the lemon of the used car of Islamic Reform) more appealing -- but he's wrong about the target audience.  It is not so much directed at the "retarded liberal" -- that's the job of the standard-issue, garden-variety, bargain-basement Good Cop Muslim who just goes through the motions of "Islam is a religion of peace" and "we hate terrorism just like you do" etc..  The target audience of the Better Cops, like Shireen and others, is in fact the Counter-Jihad.  And what is their goal?  To reinforce the semi-consciously anxious inhibition prevalent among members of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, to go all the way to a Zero Tolerance of All Muslims based on a Rational Prejudice Against All Muslims.

Next, we have a visit from "Mirren", our old Jihad Watch veteran commenter and member of the "Rabbit Pack" -- that high-school-clique-cum-lynch-mob of hall monitors who, as informally deputized by Robert Spencer's tech genius, "Marc", police the comments fields to make sure the Soft approach to the problem of Islam is enforced.

Mirren gets closer to the nub of the issue, but leaves the logical conclusion suspended in incoherence:

This woman, like Asra Nomani and Irshan Manjid (?) are either extremely subtle taqiyya artists, proficient in jihad of speech and pen, or are determined to espouse an islam that has no existence outside their own brains and emotions. [That bolded "or" is my added emphasis]

The Counter-Jihad (or better yet, the Anti-Islam Movement) should stop wondering whether or not any Muslims are sincerely "secular" or "reformist" or whatever.  We should reasonably assume they are not, and stand by our rational prejudice against them.  The stakes are too high in the next century to continue cultivate a waffling on this most essential point, which only tends to reinforce, as I said above, our anxious disinclination to suspect all Muslims equally.

Mirren goes on to thrash in her confusion on this point, achieving the rhetorical feat of muddling the glimmer she had so ephemerally grasped in her previous sentence quoted above:

Which I am totally at a loss to understand; if one is determined to ignore the hatefulness and violence *inherent* in islam, and cling to what can at most be described as morally neutral, why on earth not go the whole hog, and dump the entire putrescent mess, instead of trying to pretend there is something morally worthwhile in it ?

Another veteran Jihad Watcher, responding to Mirren, feels her incoherent pain:

I’ve been wondering the same thing for over a decade.

Will the Counter-Jihad Mainstream civilians be still scratching their heads about this when it's 2027, or 2037, or 2057...?  After another thousand plus terror attacks have occurred, showing signs of further escalation world-wide (and increasingly in the West)...?  Auguring the destruction of our precious West, made possible only by virtue of the fact that the West had not cultivated, in time, a zero tolerance against all Muslims, but allowed enough to dwell in the West who in later generations proved to be the agents of terror attacks too numerous and destabilizing to prevent a general breakdown of our technical and social infrastructures...?  The grimly bleak answer, given how stuck the Counter-Jihad Mainstream remains in its rut, is: probably so.

Yet another Jihad Watch veteran chimes in, alluding to one of the Better Cop Muslims mentioned by Mirren, Irshad Manji, and accents the incoherent nonsense of this ridiculous indecision that seems to afflict the Counter-Jihad Mainstream:

I’m familiar with some of Irshad Manji’s earlier writings and web page. Ali Sina once judged her to have her heart in the right place but to be insufficiently familiar with the contents of the Quoran and I’d concur with that appraisal.

I didn't know that about Ali Sina.  If that's true, that makes Ali Sina himself suspect, since he's an ex-Muslim, and as such (and as an intelligent activist who has been studying and thinking about this issue for years) he should know better.  That phrase, that Ali Sina "judged her to have her heart in the right place" reminds me of Robert Spencer, concerning that prominent Better Cop Muslim, Zuhdi Jasser (see my essay on this). 

Another commenter appropriately rejects the message of Shireen --

What a load of utter drivel.
The notion that islam has any aspect whatsoever viable to be given the tag “moderate” or that there could ever exist a “free thinking muslim” is just complete nonsense.
Islam is thoroughly and wholly Evil.
Any consideration to the contrary is just impossible.

This commenter has aptly expressed one half of the problem.  However, he (or she) doesn't put two and two together, leaving in suspense whether or not we must assume Shireen is sincere.

Then the same commenter who had responded approvingly to Mirren's confusion, reveals the soft nougat inside most every Counter-Jihad Mainstreamer:

Good luck, Shireen. You’re going to need it. Jasser has been espousing this idiocy for years now, but I don’t think he has a whole lot of muslim converts to his fantasy view of islam.

Echoed by another veteran Jihad Watch Softy:

Shireen is fighting the good fight. Whatever we non-Muslims say Islam is doesn’t matter. If enough Muslims believe in free thought, that becomes a significant sect within Islam. Good luck Shireen.

Some other guy, whose name I don't recognize to be a long-time commenter on Jihad Watch, weighs in by going even preposterously further:

I agree with you. I think she’s sincerely trying to reform Islam. That is probably not possible, but she’s literally risking her life. She is not the villain here, she’s heroic.

Meanwhile, more muddle from another apparently newbie commenter:

I have not heard Shireen before but I am greatly impressed by her views and her positive outlook. So don’t misunderstand me when I say I have the same question as other commentators here, viz. how is it possible to be a Muslim and a Freethinker? I truly would like to know... I really would l like to support Shireen Qudosi but the term “Muslim Freethinker” really has me puzzled.

(Note that none of the Jihad Watch veterans -- much less the members of the Rabbit Pack -- bother to move in to correct these eructations of muddled, starry-eyed nonsense.)

Given all the relatively intelligent confusion and incoherence exhibited by these Jihad Watchers quoted above, one welcomes an uncouth rant in all caps from one "Barbara" capturing incisively, if crudely, the gist of the whole thing.


Asra Nomani

The number of comments for the "Glazov Gang" feature on Asra Nomani (a slightly more well-known Better Cop Muslim) is even paltrier: a mere 14 comments.  And wouldn't you know it, our old friend and nemesis, "Angemon" -- the veritable "Energizer Bunny" of the "Rabbit Pack" who pestered me hundreds of times over the years for my tougher stance against Muslims when I was actively commenting on Jihad Watch -- sees fit to register his soft nougat on this:

I don’t know how influential the Muslim Reform Movement can actually be, but I wish them the best of luck.

Meanwhile, several comments are effusively offensive in their idiotic praise of Asra Nomani:

Asra Nomani,
Thanks for all you do. However, it is in the DNA of Islam that it can not be reformed. How can you change or reform something supposedly came directly from the mouth of ALLAH?

Another commenter ramps it up:

Asra Nomani! That was one of the best interview I’v seen so far, and you gave me a lot of belief and hope white your agenda; it’s worth to fight for it. You are a brave, visionary and a genuine person, and I’d like to help you spread it as far and wide as possible. I live in Australia Any way I can help With the local community hear? I did – by the way – Shard your interview with my fb friends. Stay strong. [this commenter even appended an emoticon of a rose at the end, just to rub in his useful idiocy...]

 And, sounding that same note that seems to be thematic among the Counter-Jihad Softies, every time they encounter a seemingly sincere Muslim (particularly charismatic ones, like Shireen and Asra):

Asra Nomani is a brave woman but I doubt that Islam can be reformed. 

And this:

Trying to reform Islam is like spitting in the wind. It is so fundamentally corrupt starting with a prophet that married/raped a six yr. old girl named Aisha. Asra Nomani is fighting a loosing battle

Or, we should say, that Asra Nomani is doing her part to fight a winning jihad: the Long Jihad against us, which will require many different modes of fighting over several decades of time, of the sword and of the pen, and of fooling different types of Infidel, from Leftists to conservatives, and including the Counter-Jihad (and dispiritingly, I've been demonstrating how that is working all too well).

Only one comment even approximated the mark:

Islam and the Left just lie about everything, they have no problem with lying to advance their agenda’s and in fact Muslims are commanded to do so. Go learn what taqiyya is and then you will know why we infidels can never trust what a Muslim says. When any Muslim says they want to reform Islam they are either practicing taqiyya or they have no idea what the Quran says, because in order to “reform” Islam you would have to get rid of Muhammad and the Quran – so what’s the point.

This commenter's fixation on "the Left" aside (since the problem is that so many non-Leftists -- including in the Counter-Freaking-Jihad, also are fooled by Muslims), it's a welcome change from the prevailing view on Jihad Watch.

Afterword on Zuhdi Jasser:

Zuhdi Jasser is a much more prominent Better Cop Muslim than the two featured today, in the league of a Maajid Nawaz -- and indeed, both Shireen Qudosi and Asra Nomani are partnered up with Zuhdi Jasser with his ostentatious "MRM" (Muslim Reform Movement).  And, naturally, the comments attached to that story at Jihad Watch are similarly disappointing, though the number of comments is unusually high, at 144.  Many of them are off-topic (including the aforementioned Angemon and other members of the "Rabbit Pack" going after a commenter they don't like, "Christianblood" about off-topic issues).

I'm not going to plow through these as I did for Qudosi and Nomani; perhaps I will revisit this for a later date.  What I will say in brief, for now, is that of the comments that are on-topic, they contain versions of the same muddled thinking we saw above for the other two Better Cops. 


Zuhdi Jasser is a great hero. A rather tragic one.
I keep asking myself how and why he still thinks he is a Muslim.

One variation was notable, a commenter named "Dave" who characterizes the Better Cop Muslims as a "...bunch of dumb lunatics (unintentional stealth jihadists)..."

That phrase, "unintentional stealth jihadists", represents rather exquisitely the furthest reach of the incoherent anxiety of the Counter-Jihad Softy in trying to grapple with these Better Cop Muslims.

And, par for the course, we get occasional, maddeningly close-but-no-cigar (what I used to call "asymptotic") glimpses just a hairsbreadth short of the logical conclusion:

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is dangerous, and I wish Fox would stop paying attention to him.
He’s a charismatic guy, well-spoken, and seemingly harmless.
Either he’s a master Taqiyya-artist, or he’s sincere.

It's that "Either...or" that gets the Counter-Jihad Softy every time.  There's no "either or" -- nor "ifs, ands or buts" -- about it. And, in yet another Jihad Watch article about yet another Better Cop Muslim -- Tarek Fatah -- one Jihad Watcher commented:

Lets be honest guys. If someone says he is a muslim. He is totally ignorant or Evil. 

How likely is it that a Muslim (like Tarek Fatah) who is nearly 70 years old now, has been a Muslim all his life, and has been studying Islam and the problem of Islam for most of his life -- is "totally ignorant"?  Why even pose that as an alternative explanation at all?  This is the wedge into which creeps the air pocket of the anxiety about a zero tolerance against all Muslims.

If the West doesn't adopt a stern, firm, rational PREJUDICE against all Muslims, it will surely, albeit eventually (oh, say, in a hundred years, give or take a few Mohammedan atrocities), die.  Perhaps the Counter-Jihad Softies have no children, or grandchildren to worry over their futures about...

At any rate, I've written a few times about Jasser, most fully this analysis of a Frank Gaffney interview with him.  The blogger Logan's Warning also has some good stuff on Jasser (it seems that Logan and I are the only people in the universe who reasonably assume Jasser is lying about his "moderation").