Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Muslims: Poster Children of Third World Peoples


In an article on FrontPageMag.com, the pundit Dennis Prager articulates exhaustively seven reasons to explain the irrational elevation of the “Palestinians” into the #1 People Most Politically Oppressed in the World, and contrasts this elevation with the comparative minimization of the plight of the Tibetan people and their much longer, and genuine—as opposed to putative—oppression by the Chinese.

While Prager’s seven reasons are all cogent, he misses the most important reason—the one reason without which all the other seven would not enjoy the traction they do enjoy around the world:
The mainstream domination of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC), which:

a) through its subsidiary doctrine of Reverse Racism, elevates any Third World people above any perceived “white Western” people (here, the Jews);

and

b) through its crucial corollary doctrine of Islamic privilege, elevates the Muslims into the Poster Children of Third World Peoples everywhere.


Now, the reader may well note, immediately, the interesting wrinkle we have with Prager’s comparison—namely, that Tibetans are also a Third World people. On the surface, this would seem to militate against my theory here. However, this would ignore the fact that PC MC has , over the past 30 years—and intensifying after 911 up to the present—become inter-woven with Islam: In the last few years, Muslims have become the #1 Representatives of Third World People everywhere: Their grievances, their complaints, their “oppression” take precedence over the concerns and safety of all other peoples and groups—including Third World peoples and groups normally privileged under the PC MC umbrella (e.g., women and gays).

This is why, for example, not only does the world comparatively ignore Tibetans in favor of “Palestinians”, but the world also whitewashes the problem of Thai Buddhists being victimized by Thai Muslims; Christian Filipinos being victimized by Filipino Muslims; Hindu Indians being being victimized by Muslims of the Subcontinental region; Persian Zoroastrians and Baha’i being victimized by Persian Muslims; black Africans (Christian and polytheists) being victimized by African Muslims; Christian Arabs being victimized by Muslim Arabs in the Middle East; ethnic Berbers of North Africa being victimized by Muslims of North Africa; and so forth.


Through the mechanisms of PC MC, Muslims have become the most fashionable—and therefore most protected, respected and whitewashed—Third World people of the entire world. And of all Third World peoples, Muslims least deserve this privilege, making it exceedingly irrational, and downright perilous for non-Muslims of the world.


This—which above I called the
corollary doctrine of PC MC—has much to do with three factors:

1) Of all Third World peoples, Muslims have the most cohesive trans-national ideological identity. And, of course, PC MC does not allow questioning the ideology of Islam, not so much because of the corollary doctine of PC MC but more because PC MC in general does not allow questioning
any Third World culture or ideology. It is thus an ironic internal paradox of PC MC that its overarching doctrine (protecting Third World cultures in general from criticism and indeed mandating “respect” for them) serves to protect the one Third World culture that is, and has been for centuries, abusing and victimizing other Third World cultures. The singularly trans-national cohesiveness of Islamic culture, then, is one factor explaining the special elevation by PC MC of Muslims to their pre-eminent status of the First in the Third World.

2) The second factor is Islamic violence—both in its actual terror and in the implicit (or often explicit) threat of more violence. Muslims are far more violent than other Third World peoples. (Indeed, as Dennis Prager noted in his comparison of “Palestinians” and Tibetans, there really is no comparison, only stark contrast: since Tibetans have not been violent much at all to far worse treatment they have suffered, while “Palestinians” have been viciously, savagely, grotesquely violent against their putative “oppressors”). Acting with concerted political and social violence and threats of violence all over the world, Muslims generate a subliminal fear of offending them—though this fear among people who are PC MC (which describes the majority of Western people) remains subliminal, semi-conscious, suppressed; because, to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge the darker side of Muslims, which cannot be allowed according to PC MC. At best, and only rarely, whenever the sheer pressure of the mountain of data indicating the volatile violence of Muslims exerts itself on the airtight surface of the ideological box which PC MC people inhabit, some PC MC people may concede to notice that data—but they immediately contextualize and therefore excuse it as being an “understandable reaction” to Western “meddling”, Western “bigotry”, and even Western “oppression”. I.e., the data has nothing to do with Islam, and much to do with the corrupt, decadent, possibly evil West. So the fear persists and exerts a pressure under the surface of thought, actually strengthening the PC MC desire to placate and “respect” Muslims. This subliminal fear will continue to be a factor as long as the unpredictability and savagery of Muslim violence continues; and, after 1,400 years of it, and with its obvious spike in the last quarter century—intensifying post-911—there is no reason to think it will diminish.

3) Closely related to #1 and #2, Muslims
—as a consequence of being Third World peoples plus the profoundly military and paramilitary nature of their culture—have become endowed with the romantically Leftist aura of the Third World guerilla “freedom fighter” who always fights in “self-defense” and always fights for “the People” against “oppression” and “injustice”, etc. One could call this the Che-Guevarization of Muslims. (Never mind that it is singularly queer for a Religion to be picking up arms in combat all over the world: this peculiarity is, of course, ignored by followers of PC MC.) Of course, this packaging of the Muslim would not have the widespread traction it enjoys, were it not firmly in accord with the logic of PC MC, whose overarching axiom is that Third World Noble Savages are always innocent and always “oppressed” by the incompetent, corrupt and sometimes even evil West.

I hesitate to note a possible fourth factor—the prominent policies of President Bush in this last decade and the anti-Bush hatred it has generated among the Left, in turn linking that hatred to an intensification of the defense of Islam and Muslims from irrationally perceived abuses of (if not “attacks” on) Muslims and their Islamic culture by the Bush Administration and his “neo-con” supporters in and out of government. While this is an important subsidiary ingredient in the whole cocktail, it doesn’t explain why the majority of conservatives, reaching right up into the White House and the Pentagon, and throughout the West, not merely in America, are also PC MC when it comes to Islam. Most conservatives may not be quite as irrationally and emotionally PC MC about Islam as Leftists are, but they are nevertheless sufficiently PC MC to contribute massively and forcefully to the mainstream dominance of the PC MC ideological machine that continues to be the #1 obstacle to the West waking up and taking appropriate actions with regard to the menace of an
Islam Redivivus.

12 comments:

Nobody said...

In the last few years, Muslims have become the #1 Representatives of Third World People everywhere: Their grievances, their complaints, their “oppression” take precedence over the concerns and safety of all other peoples and groups—including Third World peoples and groups normally privileged under the PC MC umbrella (e.g., women and gays).


One more you seem to have overlooked, although it may fall under the very PCMC umbrella you are describing: once you have a list of third world cultures, the priorities among them as to who gets to be favored most is directly proportional to their anti-American views. As a result, Thai or Tibetan Buddhists, Indian Hindus, Persian Zoroastrians et al who are not anti-American generally don't figure high on the PC MC radar. It isn't much fun for a PC MC addict to try to walk in the footsteps of a Thai Buddhist if what that implies is satisfaction with one's meager lot, and no envy towards the 'haves'.

OTOH, Islam has provided the perfect successor to Communism in being the convergence point of anti-US hatred. At its height, there were some 30 countries in the Soviet bloc, and that's without even including members of the 'Non-Aligned Movement'. Once that came apart, the only big bloc of anti-American countries is the 57 member OIC (with some non-Islamic countries like Guyana who are also members).

As far as Christian non-White minorities in all these countries go (Iraqi Assyrians, Egyptian Copts, Lebanese Maronites, Paki & Indonesian Christians), they have a handicap coming in because of their leading identification being 'Christian': to make matters worse for them, Christian organizations in the West do sympathize with them, and as a result, these groups are unable to attract the sympathy of the PC MC crowd.

When you couple that with the attraction Islam has for the criminal element of the West and its teachings that all possessions of Infidels automatically belong to those criminals as a result of reciting the shehada, you have a pre-existing PC favored group now interleaved with Islam, which is what makes Islam even more attractive to the PC MC.

I think it is fair to say that the position that used to be held by the third world in terms of support from the PC MC crowd has all been monopolized by Muslims. For instance, even in cases where Muslims aren't involved at all, there hasn't been much support from the PC MC crowd for issues like AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa (with the exception of Bono and Gates).

Nobody said...

Through the mechanisms of PC MC, Muslims have become the most fashionable—and therefore most protected, respected and whitewashed—Third World people of the entire world. And of all Third World peoples, Muslims least deserve this privilege, making it exceedingly irrational, and downright perilous for non-Muslims of the world.

I would add that instead of 'most protected, respected and whitewashed', Muslims are the only protected, respected and whitewashed third world peoples. Any non-Muslim third world peoples one might see gaining the sympathies of the PC MC crowd would be Leftists or PC MCs of third world countries themselves (like an Arundhati Roy, who is more of a global socialist rather than an advocate for Indian causes).

Erich said...

nobody,

"One more you seem to have overlooked, although it may fall under the very PCMC umbrella you are describing: once you have a list of third world cultures, the priorities among them as to who gets to be favored most is directly proportional to their anti-American views."

That is another factor, which I didn't explicitly mention in my essay, but which falls under the Leftist wing of PC MC. However,what is more important about PC MC is not its Leftist aspect, but its ability to be mainstream and therefore suck in people of the Center and Right as well. Many if not most people on the Right probably would not be anti-American (at least not openly and as passionately as many Leftists are); however, they nevertheless have swallowed the PC MC worldview which necessarily entails certain anti-American stances, either obliquely or even sometimes centrally. Those Center-Right believers in PC MC, however, probably don't whitewash and support Muslims (at least not consciously) because of the anti-Americanism of Muslims -- but for the other reasons I explored in my essay.

"Islam has provided the perfect successor to Communism in being the convergence point of anti-US hatred."

This aspect only has traction with the ultra-Leftists, who do not typify all Leftists, although they are uncomfortably numerous today -- and they are a problem. Indeed, their problematic nature vis-a-vis their support of Islam becomes softened even by the Center and Right people, because the latter's PC MC numbs them to any significant wariness with regard to Islam. That, again, is the more important problem -- because, if the the Center/Right people were functioning rationally, the ultra-Leftists would not enjoy the traction and license they do enjoy today.

Quoting me: "Through the mechanisms of PC MC, Muslims have become the most fashionable—and therefore most protected, respected and whitewashed—Third World people of the entire world. And of all Third World peoples, Muslims least deserve this privilege, making it exceedingly irrational, and downright perilous for non-Muslims of the world."

You write: "I would add that instead of 'most protected, respected and whitewashed', Muslims are the only protected, respected and whitewashed third world peoples."

I think that's too exaggerated. But the damage is the same either way, since the disparity under my analysis is great enough to make the Islam favoritism sufficiently dangerous anyway.

Nobody said...

however, they nevertheless have swallowed the PC MC worldview which necessarily entails certain anti-American stances, either obliquely or even sometimes centrally. Those Center-Right believers in PC MC, however, probably don't whitewash and support Muslims (at least not consciously) because of the anti-Americanism of Muslims -- but for the other reasons I explored in my essay.

Yeah, but are those on the Right & Center just as likely to take the Muslim side in a third world 'civil' war, the way that Leftists do? Do people on the Right (other than Islamo-Christian Arabs like Spence Abraham, John Sununu, Darrel Issa) take the side of Palestinians against Israelis? I can think of one example - Yugoslavia, which I'll examine further below, but for this one, how many other cases are there? In general (and at worst) they tend to be neutral, which is bad enough (a notable exception being Serbia).

Do PC people on the Right take the side of the Malay insurgents against the Thai Buddhists? Sub continental Muslims against Indian Hindus? Filipino Muslims against Catholics? I can't say I've noticed it. I do think that they tend to ignore such conflicts since it doesn't involve them, but in that respect, I think they are different from Leftist PC people, who see Muslims as communist-like, but with some very Leftist views on socio-political roles that makes them very compatible, and ally with them wherever possible. Another reason is that people on the Left worldwide tend to be more connected with each other, partly to demonstrate their 'open-mindedness', whereas right wing people worldwide like to operate in their own respective sandboxes. As an example, while you may have US Leftists funding Nepali Maoist guerillas, you won't see US Conservatives doing anything remotely similar for Nepali Hindu campaigners. (Note: this isn't a unique criticism of the US Right: I think that Right wing parties in general, worldwide, tend to be more locally focused since they derive their support from patriotic forces within their countries, and typically don't bother with other countries unless those countries are a major threat to their own).

In the case of Yugoslavia, I know that while members of the Christian coalition (again, I'm unsure how any support for Serbia breaks out denominationally between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox) have been largely supportive of Serbia, that support hasn't percolated to the rest of the Conservative movement: there seem to be particularly those who seem to prefer to sacrifice Kosovo and Srpska to the Muslims to see how that plays in the Islamic world, and I've not seen any opposition to that develop either in the Heritage foundation, nor at Tech Central. But can a claim be reasonably made that Serbs are seen as 'Whites' while Bosnian Muslims (ethnically Serb, denominationally Islamic) and Albanians (ethnic Illyrian, denomiationally Islamic) are seen as non-White?

Erich said...

nobody,

"Yeah, but are those on the Right & Center just as likely to take the Muslim side in a third world 'civil' war, the way that Leftists do?"

Most of them very likely not -- however: the degree of PC MC supported by the vast majority of Center and Right people is likely to steer us into the bloody mess of a third world possibly partially "civil" war. And certainly the PC MC of Center and Right people will contribute (already is contributing) to the likelihood of horrific attacks on the West in the coming decades.

"Do people on the Right (other than Islamo-Christian Arabs like Spence Abraham, John Sununu, Darrel Issa) take the side of Palestinians against Israelis?"

They may not take blatant side with Palestinians, but they have been contributing to the crippling of Israel's defense by framing the whole issue in terms of equivalency and a subtle subtext of Israel being the "oppressors" -- why else would Bush and Rice be giving millions of dollars to the Palestinians and ignoring the obvious genocidal language and threats rooted in Islam emanating out of various Palestinian groups? And Bush and Rice (as previous Administrations) continue to pressure Israel to toe a line that is nearly suicidal for Israel, because of the PC MC framework that perforce ignores Islam in any geopolitical issues, and thus forces the mind to frame the Israeli-Palestinian issue in terms of equivalency.

"In general (and at worst) they [Center/Right] tend to be neutral, which is bad enough"

That is my point. The semi-conscious collusion in PC MC of those millions of people who constitute non-Leftists (whether they be Center, Right, or vaguely "apolitical") is what is making the West incapable of dealing rationally with the menace of Islam on any front, on any level. If PC MC were merely a Leftist (and certainly if "radical Leftist") problem, it would not enjoy the traction it does enjoy, and it would be far easier for the West to move toward a rational stance with regard to Islam. This fixation on Leftism as the main source of the problem leads people to absurd conclusions -- such as that 98% of the news media in the West are "Leftist". After bracketing out Center and Right people in the news media, the actual percentage of Leftists in news media I would guess more at approximately 50% -- while radical Leftists would be a far smaller number. It is not the Leftism of news media that accounts for the nearly universal blackout in Western news (whether newspapers, magazines, TV) on reporting and analyzing the menace of Islam in its various permutations around the globe as reflected in news stories and ongoing current events. Certainly Leftism in the news media contributes to this; but not nearly to the degree that we see.

I also think you are not sufficiently distinguishing radical Leftists from Leftists in general. The latter is a larger demographic, and they tend to be more passive, more hypocritical (about pursuing a suburban bourgeois materialistic lifestyle even while glibly -- but not really substantively -- thinking that Che Guevara was a "hero" and that America is riddled with evil corruption, etc. The smaller demographic of radical Leftists are the ones who actually try to support Communist type guerillas and causes related to that (and of course increasingly Islamic causes).

I would thus sketch out a hierarchy of PC MC:

1) Most consciously and actively PC MC -- radical Leftists

2) Less consciously and active PC MC -- Leftists in general

3) Least consciously and active PC MC -- Center + Right.

4) Of course, the most consciously and active anti-PC MC people continue to be a fringe group, probably mostly Center/Right.

The case of Yugoslavia fits right in to the PC MC paradigm. The non-Muslim Slavs of the region are just barely on the border of being outside the West proper that it was relatively easy to side with the Muslims -- even for Center Right people.

"But can a claim be reasonably made that Serbs are seen as 'Whites' while Bosnian Muslims (ethnically Serb, denominationally Islamic) and Albanians (ethnic Illyrian, denomiationally Islamic) are seen as non-White?"

Actually, I think so, because, like it or not, and regardless of whether it makes sense, racism is a large factor in the PC MC irrationality in its deference to Muslims. I'm going to post an essay on that soon on The Hesperado, with the provocative title "White Muslims: Honorary Browns" -- the flip side of the coin is that Brown Non-Muslims have become 'Honorary Whites' -- and as such, they tend not to get support and deference to their plights and "sensitivities".

Nobody said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nobody said...

I also think you are not sufficiently distinguishing radical Leftists from Leftists in general. The latter is a larger demographic, and they tend to be more passive, more hypocritical

You are right - for purposes of my analysis, I generally include only what you call Radical Leftists in the Leftist category. Other Leftists, like say Union member, pro socialistic economic policy but strongly patriotic, pro-religious Democrats I generally lump in with Centrists for the purposes of this analysis. (Normally, I'd use your terminology if I was railing mad on things like taxes, regulations, environmental policy et al, but for the purposes of Islam, I put my other differences on the backburner so that someone who is the opposite of me on many or even most other things, say education, but on the same page as me on Islam, can be counted on as an ally.)

I also believe that the usual terminology of Left vs Right vis a vis the Media is worthless, as there are several otherwise 'Right wing' commentators like Novak, Buchanan, Sununu who tend to be pro-Islam. I therefore tend to split the media into 3 categories - pro-Islam, anti-Islam and agnostic/neutral. FNC is a good example of the 3rd category.

The case of Yugoslavia fits right in to the PC MC paradigm. The non-Muslim Slavs of the region are just barely on the border of being outside the West proper that it was relatively easy to side with the Muslims -- even for Center Right people.

Your analysis of the racial aspect here is an intriguing one, particularly when it comes to Slavs (Serbs) and Jews. Traditionally, these 2 groups have not been bracketed with other whites when analyzing racism, and White racist groups have themselves tended to regard both Jews and Slavs as non-White enemies. Now, in this case, you have the PC MC crowd put these 2 groups in as what you describe below as 'honorary Whites'. End result - these 2 groups find themselves marginalized from both ends of the spectrum, and when it translates into policy, the results are pretty bad for Israel, but particularly ugly for Serbia, which not only must acquiesce to the loss of Kosovo, but also can't do much about Srpska in Bosnia.

Actually, I think so, because, like it or not, and regardless of whether it makes sense, racism is a large factor in the PC MC irrationality in its deference to Muslims. I'm going to post an essay on that soon on The Hesperado, with the provocative title "White Muslims: Honorary Browns" -- the flip side of the coin is that Brown Non-Muslims have become 'Honorary Whites' -- and as such, they tend not to get support and deference to their plights and "sensitivities".

I look forward to both these essays. Tossing them about in my mind, you look like you are onto something here.

Erich said...

nobody,

Your apportionment of general Leftists who are not radicalized into the "Centrist" category makes sense. I would add a few observations:

1) over the past few years, the numbers of the radicalized Leftists has increased

2) the nature of Leftist "radicalization" is not uniform, but varies depending on the issues -- thus, with regard to Islam (and the slightly larger contextual issue of Third World multiculturalism), the radicalization has seeped into the general pool of otherwise non-radical Leftists (though, of course, not to the most extreme extent of a Lynne Stewart who actually supports Islamic terrorism).

3) The difference, then between the general Leftists and other non-Leftist "Centrists" and/or "moderate Right" might be a fine line, but is definitely there as a matter more of irresponsible sloppiness of thinking rather than passionate conviction (the hypocritical Leftist suburbanites and Capitalists I mentioned previously, who obviously pursue a lifestyle that supports the West, but whose rhetoric and activities tend to subvert the same West that nourishes and supports their lifestyle).

"I therefore tend to split the media into 3 categories - pro-Islam, anti-Islam and agnostic/neutral. FNC is a good example of the 3rd category."

If by "pro-Islam" you mean blatantly so, then most of the news media would be your 3rd category; but if "pro-Islam" includes the thousands of instances of veiled subtle whitewashing of Islam + Tu Quoque (or "Ego Quoque") vilification of the WEst insinuated in between the lines of articles about anything Islamic, both in print and on the air, then I would have to say that most news media is your 1st category.
"Now, in this case, you have the PC MC crowd put these 2 groups [Slavs and Jews] in as what you describe below as 'honorary Whites'. End result - these 2 groups find themselves marginalized from both ends of the spectrum"

Yes indeed. It reaches the absurd when even black Africans become "Honorary Whites", such as the Christians of South Nigeria, etc. Since PC MC is a remarkably slippery ideology, it allows the votary lots of wiggle room for self-contradiction, such that Christian Africans can remain Third World people for certain purposes, but then suddenly be treated as White Pariahs when Islam comes into the equation (with the concomitant favoritism of Black Muslims as the flip side of that coin).

It all points to one feature of the whole race issue that I think pertains: namely, that "race" and "racism" are not merely strictly biological categories, but also function as terms in the more amorphous intellectual spheres of ideology and modern mythology. Even strictly biologically, these terms are not as nailed down as, for example, terms used in the taxonomy of minerals or insects. This imprecision invites the grayer areas of ideology to enter in

Nobody said...

If by "pro-Islam" you mean blatantly so, then most of the news media would be your 3rd category; but if "pro-Islam" includes the thousands of instances of veiled subtle whitewashing of Islam + Tu Quoque (or "Ego Quoque") vilification of the WEst insinuated in between the lines of articles about anything Islamic, both in print and on the air, then I would have to say that most news media is your 1st category.

I meant the latter, more subtle 'pro-Islamic' tilt. For instance, something like the BBC is very much in the first category, and I assign the same to most of the MSM in the US. In fact, I honestly can't think of an anti-Islamic news outlet: maybe the Jerusalem Post, but not any other.

Yes indeed. It reaches the absurd when even black Africans become "Honorary Whites", such as the Christians of South Nigeria, etc. Since PC MC is a remarkably slippery ideology, it allows the votary lots of wiggle room for self-contradiction, such that Christian Africans can remain Third World people for certain purposes, but then suddenly be treated as White Pariahs when Islam comes into the equation (with the concomitant favoritism of Black Muslims as the flip side of that coin).

I'm guessing you meant 'White Muslims'?

Yeah, it's maddening that they are only supported when they are useful for wedge issues against White Infidels, but get ignored when it comes to their persecution at the hands of Muslims.

Erich said...

Yes indeed. It reaches the absurd when even black Africans become "Honorary Whites", such as the Christians of South Nigeria, etc. Since PC MC is a remarkably slippery ideology, it allows the votary lots of wiggle room for self-contradiction, such that Christian Africans can remain Third World people for certain purposes, but then suddenly be treated as White Pariahs when Islam comes into the equation (with the concomitant favoritism of Black Muslims as the flip side of that coin).

"I'm guessing you meant 'White Muslims'?"

No, I was talking about the two Black sides of the issue in Nigeria -- the Black Christians will become "Honorary Whites" while the Black Muslims of course remain "Honorary Blacks". Muslim is the "New Black" -- fashion-wise.

(This PC MC dynamic, of course, is not necessary when there are non-Islamic issues in play.)

Anonymous said...

Muslims are the "niggers" of the world. They are the modern day "jew", they are the "bitch" before feminism and they are the "red skins" before their massacre.

Peace.

Erich said...

"Muslims are the "niggers" of the world. They are the modern day "jew", they are the "bitch" before feminism and they are the "red skins" before their massacre."

It's odd how Islam Apologists like "memories of the willow tree" just quoted seem oblivious to the global fact that the majority of people in the world, and particularly in the West, bend over backwards to avoid any criticism of Islam itself. There is a near blackout in all major mainstream news media on anything critical of Islam. When mainstream news media cannot help noticing Islamic violence and therefore report it, they invariably make sure to soften it and eliminate the "I" word ("Islam") and the "M" ("Muslim") word as much as possible.

Not only mainstream news media do this, but the vast majority of Western politicians also avoid the issue of criticism of Islam, and usually bend over backwards to say positive things about Islam (like John McCain, "I admire the Islam!") and to say negative things about anybody who criticizes Islam. Geert Wilders is an extreme rarity in the Western world of politics.

The same thing we see with mainstream news media and politicians, we see from virtually all major artists and celebrities in the West: the number of any of them who have said anything remotely anti-Islamic you could count on one hand: actors Jon Voight and Ron Silver, comedian Jackie Mason... that's about it. The remainder of Western celebrities spend all their time criticizing (or even condemning) America, not Islam.

Even ordinary folks I have had experience with -- strangers, acquaintences, friends, family -- lean to defending Islam and resenting any excessive criticism, and invariably if I press the issue too much, they bring up the usual Tu Quoque which willow here brought up the other day "Wull, Christianity is just as bad, ain't it? snort snort..."

I don't know what planet "memories of the willow tree" is on, but it sure isn't the Earth I know where pretty much damn near nobody is willing to put Islam itself on the table too even entertain the possibility that it poses a danger.