Thursday, November 05, 2009

Not so Great Expectations and the Proverbial Straw

“Muslims need to develop a sense of humor and an appreciation of satire. . .”

So the now famous Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was
reported to have told a New York audience at the end of September.

No, actually Mr. Westergaard is wrong. One only uses the locution “X needs to develop Y” when X has the capacity to develop Y. But in fact, Muslims will never develop a sense of humor and an appreciation of satire—at least not in numbers sufficient for our #1 priority: our security. Nor will they ever develop—at least not in numbers sufficient for our #1 priority—all the other traits of a free and rational mind and heart.

In fact, then: Members of the Anti-Islam Movement need to stop saying “Muslims need to do this, that, and the other thing”. We have to give up our not so Great Expectations, our
Great Brown Hope that somehow, some way, Muslims will help us solve the nightmare their Islam Redivivus is increasingly causing the world.

That is to say: We have to graduate from the position of expecting Muslims to change in numbers sufficient to make a difference so that they will become the relatively harmonious co-existent partners on Earth with the West that most other polities and peoples are, such as (with a few kinks and rough spots to work out) Russia, Eastern Europe, India, Thailand, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, non-Muslim Africa (perhaps excluding the violently anti-white racist South Africa), Central and South America (excluding two or three countries infected by the pathology of Marxism), and so forth. Muslims will never change. Muslims will never become harmonious with the rest of Mankind—at least not in numbers sufficient for our #1 priority: our security.

This locution of expectation from Muslims used by Mr. Westergaard, incidentally, reveals one of the crucial reasons why certain members of the Anti-Islam Movement really aren’t anti-Islam: they hold out hope that somehow, some way, some day, we and Islam will be able to get along—if by “Islam” is meant (counterfactually) some fantasy Islam that has been viably reformed, or some collective of a sufficiently large majority of Muslims whose inveterate fanaticism has become somehow dissolved by the seductions of modern Western secularism. When a Jamie Glazov or a David Horowitz or a Daniel Pipes, for example, expresses this hope either implicitly or explicitly, one is not all that surprised, for they are bleeding hearts at heart, and they nurture this ludicrous and preposterous hope as a way to appease their psychological unease at finding themselves unavoidably against a massive sociopolitical movement composed mostly of non-white peoples; for, otherwise, however, their intellectual and ethical conscience does not permit them to submerge quite all the way down into that refuge of scoundrels
below the deep end of the asymptotic pool in the shark-infested waters of PC MC merging into the deeper murk of Leftism. When, however, a Robert Spencer insists he is not anti-Islam nor anti-Muslim, it arouses bafflement at the apparent paradox of an analyst who with one hand spends years amounting a mountain of evidence that damns Islam and that damns all Muslims who support Islam (and how many Muslims don’t support Islam. . .?), while with the other hand or other side of his mouth claims not to be anti-Islam nor anti-Muslim. One reasonably suspects that Mr. Westergaard lies somewhere between these two poles, and probably more toward the Glazovian end. From an interview with Spiegel Online, Westergaard shows his Glazovian colors, in statements such as:

It was a cartoon aiming at fanatic Islamist terrorists -- a small part of Islam. The cartoon must not be used against Muslim society as a whole. That was not my intention.


Wilders has a [sic] overly generalized perception of Muslims as potential terrorists. But it's not like that at all -- I know a lot of Muslims living here in Denmark who accept democracy completely and who live their religion as a very private matter. I hope that all Muslims will adapt to secular society.

(Thanks to a reader, “Anonymous”, for the tip.)

Pace these various asymptotic representatives of the Anti-Islam Movement who are curiously not all that anti-, we rather must avow our antipathy and follow its logical consequences based upon the mountain of damning evidence that has engendered it in the first place: We must evolve to a position of eternal segregation.

We must do this because:

a) Muslims themselves virulently and violently erect an eternal barrier between themselves and all Others (though their conceptual barrier moves them not to an isolationism but rather to a supremacist expansionism);


b) as a central part of their belief in, and project of, separation of Mankind into Believer and Unbeliever, with the latter to be subjugated under the dominant yoke of the former, Muslims will forever foment too much destabilizing and dangerous fitna and fasad in the world.

And that eternal segregation must be reflected concretely in terms of geography—a line in the sand, so to speak, drawn around the Dar-al-Islam, a new Iron Curtain: an
Iron Veil. This actual spatial boundary (roughly comprising the traditional swath of land from Indonesia to Morocco) must of course be militarily enforced. And, of course, concomitantly with the creation of this spatial boundary: all Muslims outside of that perimeter must be deported from the Free World and sent into that heretofore voluntary Gulag of a Hell on Earth, that “House of Islam” that will house their chosen way to live out their wretchedly fanatical existence where they can abuse each other to their heart’s content, cut off from, and thus inoculating, the rest of Mankind so that we can get on with our own imperfect lives without having to worry about unpredictably exploding, shooting, flying, and beheading Muslims, and without having to put up with all the other outrageous crap they have been shoving in our faces, or at our civilizational periphery in savage razzias whensoever they had not the power to penetrate its tegument, for 1400 years. Life’s hard enough without having to put up with Muslims.

That old desert adage comes to mind: the straw that broke the camel’s back. We have enough problems in our societies without having to shoulder this additional, intolerable burden of a people who are stark raving maniacs and fanatically follow a blueprint of hostile supremacist expansionism based on ludicrously insane beliefs and an obsessive-compulsive disorder that pursues a warped version of justice.

Enough’s enough. No, Mr. Westergaard, Muslims don’t “need” to do anything—except get the hell out.


Anonymous said...

Speaking of Westergaard, he actually threatened with legal action against Geert Wilders in order to force Wilders to remove Westergaard's Mohammad cartoon from the movie Fitna.

Allegedly, he did this because his cartoon was supposedly taken out of its original context. He explained that It was a cartoon aiming at fanatic Islamist terrorists -- a small part of Islam. (Emphasis mine.) He also claimed that I know a lot of Muslims living here in Denmark who accept democracy completely and who live their religion as a very private matter. I hope that all Muslims will adapt to secular society. There is currently friction between Muslim and Christian culture. But I am quite sure that our Western democratic culture will prevail over the darker version of Islam. We must have Islam-light.

Hesperado said...


Thanks for that info. I will revise my essay: I had plotted Westergaard somewhere between Spencer and Glazov, but it's clear he is at the very least as low on the asymptotic scale as Glazov, if not deeper.

Nobody said...

Here is the latest from Debbie Schlussel where she points out that Muslims are a threat, and she isn't going to help any of them into the US (except 1 former client of hers she defended from Hizbullah):

On Monday, I got a call from a woman with a thick accent. She told me she and her husband are both from Albania, that they’re looking for a lawyer to help them with immigration.

Me: Are you Muslim or Christian?

Albanian Chick: We are both Muslim.

At that point, I know for sure I’m not helping them. This is the only kind of Muslim I’ll help. Islam is at war with the West, at war with America, and I know on which side of that war I am.

We need less Muslims (from Albania or wherever else) in our country, not more. Do you have the magic decoder ring that tells you which Muslims will be like Nidal Malik Hasan and which won’t? I will not be helping to increase their presence. And frankly, we have enough immigrants right now and not enough jobs (and too many jobs with wages pushed down by aliens). Not my job to make it worse.

Read the rest of it in the link above.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Nobody,

I tried to access your link the other day, but I usually have a devil of a time with both Schlussel's blog and with Atlas Shrugs -- I think they have their blog sites loaded up with bells and whistles and cookies, and more often than not it takes forever then my screen freezes up.

I'll try again.

Hesperado said...

Nobody, I finally got around to reading Schlussel's article as well as the one she links to from her archive about that "only Muslim she would defend".

That type of Muslim whom she defending represents the minuscule percentage of Muslims one could contemplate exempting from an otherwise blanket suspicion. The percentage is on the order of a zero then several zeros after the decimal point, for it would require the kind of life-risking above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty behaviors her client demonstrated, and the numbers of Muslims doing that is obviously infinitessimal.
And even Muslims like that should be watched, if otherwise exempted.

Nobody said...


I agree. I think she would as well. And this type of client is good, as long as his good citizenship is not heavily publicized and is treated just like if you or I were to do it. That way, the general populace does not get to project his good citizenship on the rest of the ummah.

Reason I brought this up is that this makes Debbie the first somewhat well known figure who's raised the point that one can't distinguish b/w hinged Muslims and unhinged ones. Hinged being to the law, not to the Qur'an.