Sunday, March 20, 2011
7 comments:
-
I just want to add here that I was almost banned from Winds of Jihad for my suspicions of Glenn Beck.
I don't take him seriously, I think he's nothing more than a CT thinker who needs to acknowledge his mental illness and go on disability.
Beck should be unemployed and above all, unemployable.
I think SYM depends too much on Beck, and he seems to irrationally idolize the man. -
March 22, 2011 at 7:07 AM
-
Quote:
I didn't say it was the only explanation; but it certainly explains the remarkable degree of traction in the resistance to rationality throughout the West as the mountains of data against Islam and Muslims keep mounting. Were the worldwide people not perceived to be ethnic, but white and Western-derived, there would still be some resistance due to the simple problem of indicting so many people; but there is enormous extra resistance here that requires explanation, and it is provided by the West's irrationally excessive culture of anti-"bigotry" against ethnic peoples.
end quote.
I think this is an excellent argument for the irrational approach to Islam in the West.
The West is turning catatonic when it can least afford to. -
March 22, 2011 at 7:17 AM
-
I agree goethechosemercy about Glenn Beck insofar as when I wrote that the problem of PC MC consists in the fact that most PC MC people are "good and intelligent" people, it doesn't mean there aren't relative degrees of intelligence among them, with a Glenn Beck comparatively lower on the totem pole in that regard. But a simple lack of intelligence cannot explain the PC MC defense of Islam in the face of mountains of data; for that lack would have to be on the level of clinical retardation which, much as we may like to amuse ourselves with the imputation here (and similarly with other pundits like Beck), is mere hyperbole.
-
March 22, 2011 at 11:12 AM
-
Another problem with the people who refuse to see the data is simple cowardice.
They really favor their own lives and limbs, they don't realize that they have something worth fighting for.
I've often written that many people will knuckle under to Islam, they'll submit.
They'll do it because that is the easier course; but in the process, they will be parties to the destruction of a 7,000 year-old culture that brought honor to the individual in himself and demanded that he be his best.
To see the likes of Beck doing so is not surprising. In spite of the mad prophet mask he tries to wear, he's as big a coward as the rest, and perhaps he should be. He doesn't have the intellectual and mental resources to fight.
I consider him to be an unreclaimed madman, and as such, a good model of Mohammed.
But there are people who are intellectually stronger, who've built their integrity on this manufactured tolerance called multiculturalism, and these are the trully remiss. -
March 22, 2011 at 5:26 PM
-
Hesperado -
Very informing, this topical bit of nostalgia of yours ;-)
Always nice to see the comments of Wellington. I have great respect for his intellectual honesty and discipline in online discussions.
Meanwhile, and I hope you're not finding the "link-whoring" too intrusive, back at GoV, I have found another nugget that could serve as an object lesson at "discover the PC MC reasoning".
It is a piece by Nicolai Sennels, called Why multiculture will always fail.
Some parts are really telling, especially the part that follows after, "Secondly..".
Have fun!
Sag. -
March 24, 2011 at 3:57 AM
-
Hesperado,
next time you hold my feet to your campfire, could you at least invite me?
I would bring some good red meat along (Aussie beef) and we could watch the sparks fly....
Do I think Glenn Beck is evil because he makes $ 60 million bucks p.a.?
I don't.
Do I think Murdoch is evil because of.... what exactly?
No I don't. His heirs will be a lot worse.
Like you, I'm well aware of the group think at Fox and the combined attacks on Geert Wilders. Sad, but it looks like Al Waleed calls the shots. Well, Fox is not Al Jizz yet, and CNN and all the rest is beneath contempt.
On the other hand, GB has done more than anyone to redeem himself, what he puts out lately is the best he's ever done and he stands heads and shoulders above anyone else on US TV.
I am well aware of the race factor and that 90% + of blacks voted for the Obamination in the white house.
I am also firmly opposed to the invasion of Europe (and America) by Africans, Arabs and Pakistanis strictly because it is a one way street. If Africa belongs to black Africans, then it should be out of the question that large numbers of black Africans are allowed to settle in Europe.
The current political climate does not allow any discussion of the racial aspect of this dilemma, and demographics will decide the final outcome.
Islamic terrorism can be dealt with. The massive invasion of foreign cults and third world peoples is almost impossible to deal with, because its done in the name of ' care & compassion', which is ironically also a form of racism.
I'll leave it at that. If you have something to add, you know where to find me..... -
March 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM
-
sheikh yer mami,
Right off the bat, you formulate a straw man:
"Do I think Glenn Beck is evil because he makes $ 60 million bucks p.a.?
I don't."
I didn't say you think Glenn Beck is evil because he makes 60 million bucks a year. I said that your implication that he aids and abets our (and his) society's mortal enemy knowingly for money logically makes him evil. -
March 28, 2011 at 8:05 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60 million per annum, that's what he makes. That's what's got into him.
Don't forget: Rupert Murdoch is owned by Al Waleed.
And who really pulls the strings behind Fox?
Jihad Watch reader sheik yer'mami's train of thought as demonstrated by his words quoted above are, I think, common among Jihad Watchers in general (which includes all people who declaim against Islam).
What on earth has gotten into Beck?
Note the sense of bafflement here, as though it goes against the grain of a conservative pundit like Beck to toe the PC MC line, and thus it becomes well nigh inexplicable when we see it in no uncertain terms, as we do here with Beck's denunciation of Wilders (and about two years ago when Beck insisted that the Koran is a "book of peace").
sheik yer'mami's train of thought proceeds, building on this explanatory vacuum which his bafflement arouses. Logic abhors a vacuum, and this one's a doozy, so it must be explained:
60 million per annum, that's what he makes. That's what's got into him.
What sheik yer'mami is saying here, essentially, is that Beck is evil. He is knowingly enabling a deadly enemy of his own society, just for money. If that isn't a definition of evil, I don't know what is.
The final remarks of sheik yer'mami expand on this:
Don't forget: Rupert Murdoch is owned by Al Waleed.
And who really pulls the strings behind Fox?
Not only is Beck evil, Rupert Murdoch is evil, the board of directors of FOX are evil, and countless others in high managerial positions at FOX are evil, knowingly selling the lives of their fellow citizens threatened by a deadly enemy of unprecedented proportions.
Obviously, this is not the optimal way to solve the problem of the explanatory vacuum. Unless one has a penchant for conspiracy theories.
And then we have the subtler incomprehension of another type of Jihad Watch reader, as exemplified by the observation quoted above, made by Eastview.
Is Eastview saying that intelligent news analysts Krauthammer and Kristol choose to support evil because they "don't have integrity"? That seems unlikely. In fact, it is more accurate to say that it is precisely Krauthammer and Kristol's integrity which explains their defense of Islam! I.e., through a complex psycho-sociological process of a shift in worldview which the West has undergone over the past 50-odd years, to have integrity has become synonymous with "not being bigoted" against a perceived Ethnic People. Muslims are a designated Ethnic People (or better yet, a wonderfully diverse rainbow of various Ethnic Peoples) and their unifying culture, Islam, is therefore immune from substantive criticism. But what about all those bad features of Islam we keep seeing? Simple, for those whose moral intelligence has been formed by PC MC: All aspects of Islam that seem to be vulnerable to substantive criticism must pertain not to Islam, and not to the majority of Muslims, but rather to some attempts by a minority of "extremists" (and their Islamophobic enablers) at twisting, perverting, hijacking the normatively good and wonderful unifying culture of Muslims around the world. The alternative explanation, to which mountains of data point, is unthinkable, therefore it must not be thought. PC MC provides an elaborate and complex mechanism of interlocking logical and axiomatic parts to help the person continue to avoid thinking the unthinkable. And PC MC is on the side of the Angels -- i.e., Those Who Have Grown Up and Evolved, Beyond Their Fallible Forbears, to Eschew "Bigotry".
To think this way has become the Way To Think for all those, on the Left, in the Center and on the Right who desire to be on board with the moral progress of the modern West. To think otherwise is to be "bigoted", if not downright "racist" and "fascist". We Enlightened Moderns know that, as clear as the sun on a sunny day. If some of Us Enlightened Moderns happen to be on the conservative side of the aisle and disagree with our colleagues on the Left about this, that and the other peripheral issue of the day, nevertheless we all agree that being "bigoted" is bad, and that anyone who shows the slightest inclination to go there must be condemned and ostracized as a persona non grata.
Caped Crusader similarly moves from being "stunned" by Beck's vilification of Wilders, to imputing that greed has motivated Beck to knowingly sell his country out to the deadliest enemy in history. This would make Beck evil. Such a conclusion is impermissible (without smoking gun evidence, that is).
This box that many JW readers are in, where they can't explain the pro-Islam attitudes among people without either branding those people as a) Leftists or b) Traitors motivated by Greed, stems from a sorely simplistic view of the modern West and its sociopolitical culture. The problem we face among our own dhimmi enablers of Islam is not that those dhimmi enablers are evil, but precisely that they are good intelligent people. How can goodness and intelligence lead to a pro-Islam attitude? That's the kind of question that needs to be explored. The most plausible conclusion is that the West's worldview, and conception of ethics, has shifted in the past 50-odd years, and a major part of this shift has strengthened and solidified an anxious antipathy against all forms of "bigotry" against perceived Ethnic Peoples.
Along comes a world-wide Ethnic People, Muslims (or better yet, a wonderfully diverse rainbow of Ethnic Peoples), who are being increasingly criticized and targeted (never mind that it is their own actions that have made this necessary), and the good and intelligent modern man (whether on the Left, Right or Center) has little choice but to side with the Muslims and their unifying culture, Islam, against the "bigots" -- "bigots" here defined tendentiously as anyone substantially critical of Islam and/or of Muslims who support Islam.
The alternative for the good and intelligent modern man is unthinkable, so he does not think it. And PC MC provides him with a rich, elaborate, complex mechanism of logic and axioms by which to continue to avoid the mountain of data that would lead any rational person to think the unthinkable.
According to the logic here, it is impossible for a Conservative Pundit by nature to take any pro-Islam stand. Therefore, when we see it happen, we naturally seek an explanation for it.
The most common explanation is that they are motivated by Greed, knowingly selling out to the deadliest enemy which their own society faces. But this would make them evil. That seems highly unlikely, and would require irrefutable evidence, not circumstantial evidence.
Another explanation is Ignorance. These intelligent analysts just don't know what makes Islam bad. If only someone could get past their entourage and slip them a copy of Spencer's book, or some kind of booklet containing information about Islam, then the scales would fall from their eyes and they would see, like we Jihad Watchers do. This too seems unlikely, since the information is all around us, readily available, and if we Jihad Watchers can become Islamorealistically literate, so too should they. Ignorance cannot be an excuse, nor an explanation.
The other explanation offered by wildjew is Fear. According to this explanation, these Conservative Pundits (to which, by the way, we can add the vast majority of Conservative politicians, artists and writers in the West) are not ignorant of Islam -- they know like we do that it is evil, unjust and dangerous -- nor are they selling out for money: rather, they are just afraid. Now, some are divided on this, but I tend to distinguish the evil of Greed-motivated treason, from the sin of cowardice that tends to serve to endanger one's fellow citizens. Certainly, the latter reflects poorly on the moral character of the person, but it is not as blatantly evil in terms of supporting the enemy knowingly, as is the Greed.
There have been other ways out of the explanatory vacuum over the years (and Hugh Fitzgerald used to have a habit of trotting out a menagerie or Follies of them in the form of what I called his Esdrujula Elves) but, as I wrote in that essay, all resemble the above three in their shared conceit "as though the entire stupendously sprawling problem of the Western inability to recognize the problem of Islam were reducible to mere character flaws."
The more plausible way to account for this cognitive dissonance is to put it another way:
1) A paradigm shift in worldview has occurred in the past 50-odd years throughout the West.
2) One major feature of this paradigm shift is the strengthening and solidification of a moral principle based upon an anxious antipathy to "bigotry" against ethnic peoples.
3) Consequently, being "against bigotry" has become one major sign of one's moral integrity, moral intelligence, and participating in the ongoing moral progress of the West, surpassing the fallibility of our forebears as we continue to advance into the future.
4) Muslims are perceived to be an Ethnic People (or better yet, a wondrously diverse rainbow of Ethnic Peoples) by all those who are True Believers in the Paradigm Shift (and I'd say they constitute a majority of people in the West).
5) If Muslims seem to be doing more and more bad things around the world, and if their unifying culture, Islam, seems to have dangerously and centrally extremist and supremacists features, then a normally rational person would be moved along a train of thought that is critical of Islam, and of Muslims who support Islam. According to the Paradigm Shift and its Moral Code, however, we cannot criticize an Ethnic People and their culture in any substantial way. But never fear, the Paradigm Shift has engendered over the years an elaborate mechanism of interlocking axioms and logic by which to fend off the temptation, naturally aroused by the increasing mountain of data about Islam and Muslims, to criticize Islam and the Muslims who support it. One of its axiomatic mechanisms is to counter any example one could bring up of Muslim malfeasance with the TMOEWATI (the "Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Twisting Islam" explanation), which delimits the problem to a tiny minority, thus saving the vast majority of Muslims, and saving their guiding unifying culture, Islam.
Mitt Romney, eh? You mean the Mitt Romney who is on record saying this --
I didn't refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.
There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.
?
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/03/mitt-romney-jihadism-is-not-part-of-islam.html
As you wrote, "According to this explanation, these Conservative Pundits (to which, by the way, we can add the vast majority of Conservative politicians, artists and writers in the West) are not ignorant of Islam -- they know (at least they know at a gut level - W.J.) like we do that it is evil, unjust and dangerous -- nor are they selling out for money....."
Right. Who owns a man like Rush Limbaugh, for example, other than the fear of having to alter his way of life?
".....rather, they are just afraid."
They are simply afraid. Again, I forced myself to watch a gruesome video - posted by a reader on Frontpagemag this morning; on this very topic; Wilders - of a beheading of a Christian in Somalia or somewhere in Muslim north Africa. It was graphic, horrific; bloody. How can a public figure not consider the consequences should he or she fall into the hands of these savages?
'I didn't refer to Islam at all, or to any other religion for that matter. I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future'....."
I am not, nor have I ever been impressed by Mitt Romney.
Wellington,
Your Ethnic Peoples explanation for why so many are loathe to criticize Islam has merit, Hesperado, but I think there is hesitation as well because folks in the West are just not inclined to consider the possibility that a major religion of the world could be evil, the ethnic composition of it believers notwithstanding. As Wordsworth observed, there's rarely one cause for anything.
I didn't say it was the only explanation; but it certainly explains the remarkable degree of traction in the resistance to rationality throughout the West as the mountains of data against Islam and Muslims keep mounting. Were the worldwide people not perceived to be ethnic, but white and Western-derived, there would still be some resistance due to the simple problem of indicting so many people; but there is enormous extra resistance here that requires explanation, and it is provided by the West's irrationally excessive culture of anti-"bigotry" against ethnic peoples.
And if we eliminate one of the causes (the magnitude of an Entire People), and had a situation where two small religious groups were the subject -- one white Western, the other composed of 98% perceived ethnics -- if the former were responsible for bombings, suicide attacks, machine-gunnings of innocent people in crowds, beheadings, supremacist language, hateful homophobia and misogyny, etc., you can bet your bippy it wouldn't take long for the West to crack down on them. If the latter were, however, it would take longer and would be riddled with difficulties, a procedural minefield through which our law enforcement agencies and personnel would have to step gingerly for fear of doing anything that might be deemed "racist".
The ones who really scare me are those who can do this when one of those people lying dead on the floor is not a stranger but someone they claim to love. The ones who can maintain that state of mind while seeing strangers mowed down merely disgust me.
Meanwhile, the croc is lumbering ever closer to the buffett line.
Oh yeah, almost forgot. There's a fourth element in all this and it's indifference. Many folks just can't be bothered by things outside their immediate purview. Ah, man never learns, does he?
In the case of Krauthammer, I have always respected him as being one of the better conservative pundits who is capable of analyzing situations dispassionately and independently, and usually accurately according to my lights. That he would so characterize Wilders in the worst possible way just seemed out of character, and suggested to me that he was influenced by Fox policy in how he would spin this story. And, yes, to allow himself to be manipulated, if this is in fact what happened, would, in my opinion, be a reflection on his integrity. The question I don't have an answer to is what Krauthammer's actual opinions are about the kinds of things we discuss here, as compared to what he expressed.
(BTW, in one of your posts on a story from a few days back you gave a link to an essay on Tu Quoque that didn't work. Did you by any chance fix that? I couldn't find the story on your site.)
For my Tu Quoque essay, try this link:
http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.com/2008/05/logical-fallacy-of-tu-quoque-and-ego.html
You wrote:
...my point about Krauthammer and Kristol is related to their being part of Fox, and the speculation that Fox seems to have made a policy decision to paint Wilders as dangerously close to being a fascist.
How else to explain the uniformity of the Fox pundits in the way they have discussed Wilders?
If you underestimate the near-universal hold that PC MC has on people, you will be forced to seek alternative explanations. To me, I would be surprised if Krauthammer or Kristol supported Geert Wilders (which perforce would include his stand, however less-than-desirably-coherent it is, on Islam). I would be surprised, because I already assume that most intelligent, good, decent analysts throughout the West are PC MC about Islam (even if many of them might be politically INcorrect about many other issues). What most JW readers still don't seem to get is that you don't have to be a liberal gnome with warts to be PC MC. That is the problem with PC MC: intelligent, good and decent people accept and support the worldview of PC MC with regard to Islam as a given, and that is mainly because of the ethical progress of anti-"bigotry", shared by those on the Left, Center and Right (as I discussed in other comments above). It's sort of like smoking. After two or three decades of concerted propaganda campaigning and educational efforts, nearly everyone in North America is now against smoking (with the exception of certain teenagers, Hollywood actors, and assorted low-lifes; oh and Obama too). The anti-smoking dogma cuts across political parties and class distinctions. Nearly everyone now accepts it as a given, as simply the truth. Indeed, the anti-smoking campaign has drawn some of its substance from PC MC, which probably explains its remarkable success -- see my essay "Ant-Smoking / Anti-Islam":
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/02/no-smoking-no-islam.html)
In the case of Krauthammer, I have always respected him as being one of the better conservative pundits who is capable of analyzing situations dispassionately and independently, and usually accurately according to my lights. That he would so characterize Wilders in the worst possible way just seemed out of character...
A person can be conservative about nearly every other non-Islam-related issue, and can be intelligent and astute about all those other issues, but when Islam comes up, PC MC kicks in (one sees this time and time again). I suspect Krauthammer was this way about Islam before he joined FOX.
On November 23, 2007, Jihad Watch had this article:
Glenn Beck: "I have read the Koran and can tell you that I unequivocally believe that Islam is a religion of peace"
[Spencer noted:] So says Glenn Beck in his bestselling new book, An Inconvenient Book.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/11/glenn-beck-i-have-read-the-koran-and-can-tell-you-that-i-unequivocally-believe-that-islam-is-a-relig.html
That thread, by the way, had 178 comments.
One of the commenters, "awake", noted:
Awhile back, Glenn made an unfounded statement that he believed, conservatively, that approximately 10% of the world's Muslims are "radicals". He had no more evidence back then, then he does now stating that at LEAST 90% of the world's Muslims are peaceful. His revised statement implies that the number of radicals in his baseless estimation is less than 10% and could go all the way to 1%.
Currently, [i.e., as of 2007]Beck employs Zuhdi Jasser as a spokesman to point to "radical" Islam, which Jasser cleverly refers to the jihadists as practicing "Islamism", while trying to maintain a complete separation of "Islamism" from Islam and its canonical texts.
If you can show me that Glenn Beck wasn't a dope about Islam before 2007, then I will concede that he has "obviously changed his public views in a short period of time". Otherwise, I will just assume he is a carbon-based life form who walks on two legs -- i.e., that he, like most everybody else, reflexively swallows and regurgitates the PC MC paradigm about Islam now, and always has, and that his "conservatism" about other issues does not immunize him from his sophomoric conformism on this issue.
1) Over time, from the late 19th century and into the 20th century, Mormons have learned to adapt to American culture and become relatively good productive members of society.
2) For the first few decades, however, they were causing enough violent and treasonous disturbances to warrant the Governor of Missouri, with the support of Federal troops, in the late 1830s to fight, kill and expel them and drive them to the West.
#1 shows how Mormons are different from Muslims.
#2 shows how we don't have to worry about the Constitution to take physically violent actions, if need be, against any religion that is causing sufficiently egregious disturbances, unless someone can show me that the Supreme Court at the time, or at any time since, ruled the actions local and federal authorities took against unruly Mormons was un-Constitutional.
My email was brief, polite, informed and quoted some verses from the Koran to show he made a misinformed conclusion.
I never got a response.
Actually, no need to "recall." In this video a year back, Beck was comparing Wilders's message to that of Churchill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I8jw4v7TMk&feature=player_embedded
You don't see a discrepancy?
As I am currently unable to see video on my computer, I read the transcript of that interview here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,499408,00.html
(Let me know if it included everything pertinent.)
I don't read anything there in Beck's words that indicate he was anti-Islam; in fact, he even says at one point:
BECK: ... I disagree with you on Islam. I know Muslims that are good people.
WILDERS: Yes. I have nothing against Muslims. It's the ideology.
BECK: Yes, right — as it's used for control purposes.
WILDERS: Exactly.
Now, first of all, we can safely assume that when Wilders says "exactly" at the end of that little exchange, Wilders may or may not mean something different than what Beck means by "the ideology" being bad insofar as it is "used for control purposes". I.e., when Beck hears "the ideology" we can safely assume he understands the "Islamism" which extremists use to do their dastardly deeds, not Islam itself. And thus when Beck says "as it's used for control purposes" he is not referring to Islam nor to the vast majority of good Muslims, but to the TMOEWAHTRP (Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Hijacking the Religion of Peace).
Thus, what has happened in the intervening year is that Beck has been learning more about Wilders -- learning, i.e., the wrong kind of information from the wrong sources whom he in his cheerful obtuseness no doubt trusts -- such that by now, Beck has concluded that Wilders isn't the harmless politician with whom he just had a disagreement over terms, but someone who has a sinister agenda to move from his condemnation of Islam to wanting to do bad things to all those good Muslims. The only change here has been in Beck realizing he was mistaken about Wilders, and thus the inexorable consequence of that, for a mind deformed by PC MC, is to reject Wilders. And, as I have argued elsewhere, he's probably right about Wilders.
In fact, this recent rejection of Wilders by Beck, Krauthammer and Kristor demonstrates that point I made rather forcefully: Wilders doesn't seem to be mollifying the PC-MC-formed crowd (even the supposedly reliably "conservative" ones) by sweetening his message with "I am only against Islam, not against Muslims". Perhaps he might as well go whole hog.