Thursday, September 23, 2010

Can you pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time?

In an update to his
report on the Seattle beating and torture, Lawrence Auster wrote:

The blogger Hesperado usefully, though in his usual obsessively overstated way, suggests that the attack was not a racial attack on a white, but a Muslim attack on an infidel...

I neither said, nor suggested that. If the reader carefully reads my post on which Auster comments, he will see that all I did was call attention to 1) the probability of the Islam factor in this crime, and 2) Auster's utter lack of mention of that probability. When two young ethnic men (in this case a black and a Filipino) beat and torture a white boy and during the crime say anti-white racists things, this does not mean there was no Islam factor going on.

For quite some time now, there have been many indications that Muslims have appropriated the anti-white animus and the anti-white narrative of blacks and other minorities, even as Muslims have rather willingly enabled the typecasting by the PC MC culture of the West of the category of Muslim as an ethnic minority in its own right with analogical resonance to the privileges with which other ethnic minorities, most especially blacks, are accorded (e.g. -- to pick one example out of hundreds one could adduce -- four years ago, the talking airhead Contessa Brewer of MSNBC likened the Islamic imams who were forced to disembark from a flight to "Rosa Parks"; and just this week, an Islamic spokesman used the same "Rosa Parks" analogy with reference to the criticism of the Ground Zero mosque). Indeed, as I have analyzed many times on this blog, Muslims have become the #1 Ethnic Minority in the world, to be privileged above all others, in the post-911 years having successfully elbowed aside the former Ethnic Heavyweight Champions, the Blacks.

At any rate, an act of verbal and/or physical violence need not be either racist or Islamic: it can be both. What a concept!

... his clues being that the black's name is Mohamed...

No: one of my clues (the major one) is that the black perpetrator was named Ahmed Mohamed. A person named "Mohamed" alone is sufficient to raise Islamic flags; couple that with another Arabic name, like "Ahmed", and we have sealed the deal. The question now is not whether this black perpetrator was a Muslim (or Nation of Islam heretic), but whether his Islam played a role in the crime. My rule of thumb always has been that when it comes to Muslims, we must reverse our usual standards of fairness in our forensics: We must be prejudiced against Muslims: We must presume the Muslim guilty until proven innocent.

Why must we? It aggrieves to have to answer such a question, after the mountain of horrific, ghastly, ghoulish, alarming, lethal, freakish, outrageous data pullulating out of the Muslim world (and out of the Muslim world that is increasingly infiltrating into our Western world) over the past 50 years -- not to mention all the similarly disastrous data Muslims have been churning out for the past 1400 years. So I won't answer that question, out of the same spirit of "enough is enough" with which I advise the West to treat Muslims.

We plod on now to dissect Auster's response further:

... While it's possible that Islam brought the two together, the problem with Hesperado's two-pronged theory, about the crime and about me, is that it is the notoriously un-racially preoccupied police, not I, who have officially charged the perpetrators with an anti-white racial motivation, and that the victim himself reported that the perpetrators said to him as they were beating him with his own belt, "How do you like it, white boy?" and "This is for enslaving our people." It looks as though Hesperado missed that part of the story. Perhaps because of his preoccupation with finding me wrong.

To repeat what I said above: Nothing in my post ruled out a racist motive for the crime. The racist motive can co-exist with the Islamic motive.


I modifed and augmented my final paragraph from yesterday's version, with the modified version below now expanded to four paragraphs:

Furthermore, as I noted abo
ve, since PC MC privileges Muslims above all other ethnic minorities, it is likely that police when presented with an Islamic hate crime against an Infidel (or presented with the likelihood of such), would rather go (even if rarely, and grudgingly) exclusively with the racist angle and ignore the Islam angle -- for the Islam angle remains even more of a hot potato for them than the racist angle.

In this case, Auster is failing to appreciate the significant difference in degree between the two sociopolitical phenomena. While the racist angle is (pun intended) criminally under-reported and mischaracterized in the news media, in arts and entertainment media, in academe, and in the political sphere, the Islam angle is even more so. The difference in degree is remarkable and egregious, when we also factor in a rational comparison of the two phenomena being under-reported and
mischaracterized: While the violence of blacks and their anti-white racism and hate together constitute a great problem, and while the hypersensitivity to criticism (and relative lack of self-criticism) of blacks is also a big problem and closely related to the aforementioned, those alarming qualities are sufficiently greater in degree among Muslims in a variety of ways, and include other alarming qualities blacks do not evince (at least not to a degree sufficient to be anywhere close to the ballpark of being on a par with Muslims). Perhaps it would be arguable to exempt the one specific quality of anti-white racism from the list of qualities with regard to which we are arguing that Muslims are sufficiently worse than blacks; though this would have to be nuanced, for Muslims in fact practice a wondrous diversity of racism against all sorts of types -- Arabs are racist against Pakis, Arabs and Pakis are racist against southeastern and far-eastern orientals, and they also are racist against blacks, etc. It would perhaps be arguable that Muslims when they regard the Ferengi (i.e., the Westerner), think and feel a not entirely coherent mish-mash of things, in which would be included anti-white racism, though that might well be sublimated by more important categories of hatred -- against "Christians", against "Crusaders", against "Jews", against "Infidels" in general. And it is reasonable to assume that the black Muslim (perhaps particularly the black convert to Islam) finds a grandly neat new context into which to fit his anti-white racism: he can hate whites not just because they are blue-eyed devils but also because they are Infidels who are "filthy" (najis) because they don't slavishly follow Mohammed's Do's and Don'ts, and because they are "attacking" his faith now and have been doing so for centuries!

To the violence and hatred against the white West, and
to the hypersensitivity to criticism (and relative lack of self-criticism) of blacks which I maintain Muslims also manifest and manifest to a worse degree, we may add other alarming qualities which blacks do not manifest: obsessive fanaticism, a capacity for lockstep solidarity (when have blacks ever managed to display such mass rallies like the annual Hajj -- rallies which easily surpass the Hitlerian rallies as evidence of mass fanaticism?), a global culture (while we see blacks causing problems in various countries, they do not do so with the kind of "pan" consciousness Muslims do in their pan-Islamism); and finally, closely related to the preceding: a blueprint for world conquest. These additional qualities, when factored in with the aforementioned qualities, are sufficiently worse in degree such that the problem they present to the West should take a higher priority -- and the fact that our culture continues to be in denial about these qualities is thus also worse.

And, of course, it is closely related, since the PC MC denial about anti-white black racism (and its mirror image exaggeration of white racism) is one of the reasons why Muslims have become so privileged, since when a PC MC person looks out at the sea of Muslims around the world (and in his own Western world), 98% of the time he will see someone who looks "ethnic" -- and this immediately pushes his button of irrational "respect". Since Muslims are considerably more violent than all other ethnic minorities, including blacks, and since the violence of Muslims is astronomically more fanatical, coordinated, international and scripted (following a fanatically revered divine blueprint) than the violence of any other ethnic minority, the PC MCs are more afraid of Muslims than they are of blacks. That is why Muslims have become, in the PC MC-dominated West, the #1 Ethnic Minority in all the world, to be "respected" more, to be treated with more deference, to be defended more. When was the last time a writer or a teacher had to go into hiding for fear of being killed by blacks? When was the last time a major book publisher reneged on publishing a book for fear that blacks might kill some of their employees or blow up one of their buildings? When was the last time politicians needed 24-hour bodyguards and had to change their lives because of their reasonable fear that organized or lone-wolf blacks were trying to kill them? And additionally, when have we ever seen these kinds of problems on an international scale because of blacks?

A previous essay of mine -- The Muslim: The New Black and the New Jew -- goes into more detail about certain aspects of this issue.


Cyril said...

You must have struck pretty close to home. Why, given the consistent and continuous acts of violence of Muslims against infidels, and the straightforward prescriptions to do so in the Koran, would you ever suspect that this may be a motive? And hey, I know lots of Christian and Jewish blacks names Mohammed.

the author said...

"And hey, I know lots of Christian and Jewish blacks names Mohammed."

And again, this guy was not merely named "Mohamed" -- he was named Ahmed Mohamed, which as I said above seals the deal.

-- Hesperado

Cyril said...

Of course, just to make sure, that comment of mine regarding the name, Mohammed, is sarcasm. The only way a Christian or Jew ends up with that name is by leaving Islam. And the "names" was a typo. Sorry about that.