The blog 1389--Counterjihad! has collected together in one place vital information about a major American military academy spending the time (and to an extent the money of taxpayers) to indulge in a presentation, with numerous speakers, of Islamic deception, in the form of a whitewash of the brutal and fanatical imperialism of Islamic history in the conquest and subsequent regime of Islamic Spain (which lasted approximately 800 years, from the 7th century to the 15th century). The military academy in question is the Virginia Military Institute.
Diana West has also brought to the table important information about this on her blog.
The only precise point at which I seem to differ from my various anti-Islam colleagues (including Diana West) on this particular issue is that what the Virginia Military Institute is doing -- swallowing and regurgitating the Myth of Andalus -- is not at all unusual. It simply reflects the mainstream dominance of PC MC throughout the West. If a Western institution -- whether a college, a military academy, a political platform, a mainstream newspaper story or editorial, Hollywood or television -- were to present the truth about Islamic Spain, now that would be remarkable. We must not, therefore, make more, or the wrong thing, out of this particular show of dhimmitude.
6 comments:
One thing I wonder - is Col Allen West someone who's holistic about the Muslim problem?
Nobody,
West uses the "radical Islam" distinction a lot.
Also, there was that recent incident where a Rabbi and a Christian who head some inter-faith organization scolded West for his language about Islam, and West backed down and said the usual about how he respects Islam, but that it's only the extremists he's concerned about.
However, with West there is a je-ne-sais-quoi about him that makes me suspect he might really be the type (unlike Spencer, et al.) who is only pretending to be asymptotic for pragmatic political reasons while truly being holistic inside.
This of course is distinct from the issue of whether such a tactical pretense is a good thing -- which I remain unsure about.
This of course is distinct from the issue of whether such a tactical pretense is a good thing -- which I remain unsure about.
That segways in w/ my other argument recently w/ Kinana on whether we should confront Muslims w/ the truth, or w/ lies of our own?
My argument there was that given that in any argument, people assume that 'the truth is somewhere in between', it's better to lie about Islam/Muslims to our advantage, so that people doing the fact-checking find out the truth about Muslims, w/o feeling that they've been influenced by our side, which as you know is an ego buster. Also, depending on how the lies are fine-tuned, after a while, they'd conclude that even our overstating things is not that far off from the truth
Nobody, I'm not sure that wouldn't backfire. A person who already tends to be suspicious of anti-Islam people is not necessarily (and usually not) rational. For example, if we lie and say that 200 million Hindus were massacred by Muslims in India over the span of 100 years, and they did their own research and found that in fact it was more like 60 million over 300 years, I dare say that many of them would focus more on the discrepancy and how that reflects poorly on us, rather than the actual fact they themselves uncovered that reflects disastrously on Muslims.
But I suppose that in certain instances, your tactic might work. I can't think of any right now, though.
Over the past 4 years since I have left active duty service I have seen a disturbing trend among the Anti-jihadist crowd. This trend is to attack the American military because "they don't understand Islam". I think this is a huge mistake. It is a mistake because 1. it is false. 2. It severely insults the Iraq/Afghan veteran & active duty serviceman.
This "the troops just don't get islam" trend really got on a roll after the Ft. Hood jihadist massacare. Yes Gen Casey made some real ignorant statements no doubt about it. But there is a huge difference between a politico like Casey and your boots on the ground serviceman.
The anti-jihadists fail themselves to see the difference between the political officer class and the enlisted class.
For enlisted men like myself I get 2 reactions from the American public.
The first reaction is that since I was enlisted I must therefor be uneducated, poor, and unable to think or make decisions for myself.
The second is that since I was enlisted I must have done something that prevented me from being an officer.
Second one first. Being an officer is not the end all beat all to being in the military. Being an officer is mainly a political career nowadays, also being an officer prevents you from doing most of the hands on jobs in the military.
First saying that we enlisted are just uneducated robots who are unable to think is not only insulting it is wholly inaccurate.
I will use myself as the example and you can judge whether I am just an uneducated hick or not....
Before I enlisted when I was 22 I had an Associates degree in history. By the time I was an E4 I had my BA in History. Since I went to the inactive reserves I now have both BA's in history & Anthropology.
Before I went to Afghanistan I read the Koran & studied on my own the history of the region and the people. Also I held classes for my men on the history and mindset of the people. This was also done prior to the invasion of Iraq.
While the Admirals and Generals are the official spokesmen of the military who the media gravitate t words, they are consumed by political correctness. We in the enlisted class are NOT consumed by such nonsense. Yes while a lot of us enlisted may be covered in Tattoos & swear every third word, do not mistake that for being dumb.
Olsen Rainer,
Thanks for posting.
First off, intelligence and education do not necessarily lead to Islamorealism (the awareness of the pernicious danger of Muslims who follow Islam). Indeed, when the dominant and mainstream realm in which intelligence and education thrive has been compromised by PC MC, it can often only make matters worse -- for it gives the PC MC person extra ammunition to engage in sophistry on the problem of Islam (even if most of them may be incoherently sincere about their anxious need to defend Muslims from suspected "bigotry").
See my essay, Quantum Ignorance for further analysis on this.
Second, my essay wasn't impugning the regular soldiers of the U.S. Military, and I'm sorry if you thought it implied it.
I have no idea what the rank-and-file of the U.S. Military as a whole, in terms of statistical majorities, thinks about Islam and Muslims. As valuable as your military experience may be, in the end it is just the anecdotal report of one individual. While US Military soldiers may be in some respects a kind of subculture distinct from "civilians" (and within that subculture there may be two distinct subcultures of officers and non-officers), in many ways they are not much different from the public at large. Since I think the public at large is largely PC MC, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of rank-and-file in the Military were also PC MC -- though it would be reasonable to suppose that the percentage of PC MC among them would still be lower than that of the public at large: i.e., still a majority, but a smaller majority.
I also don't doubt that a certain number among that majority, through their varied experiences in Iraq and/or Afghanistan (not to mention Somalia), have adjusted their tolerance of Muslims accordingly, having seen the ugly side of daily Muslim behavior -- the duplicity, the hatred, the fanaticism, the paranoia, the irrationality, the backwardness; etc.
Post a Comment