Monday, April 15, 2013

"Not all Muslims are savages"

Jihad Watch readers are unanimous in their praise of the latest David Wood video in which he deftly articulates the gaping holes in the sanctimonious concerns of the rabbi (Rabbi Jerome Davidson of the Great Neck Synagogue) who disinvited Pam Geller from addressing an audience there on the problem of jihad.

I agree that this presentation by Wood is eloquent and superbly elegant. However, it comes at a price of leaving an important factor unmentioned.

The important factor, if mentioned and woven into Wood's argument, likely wouldn't do much to relieve the fundamental incoherence of the sentimentally doddering rabbi. Nevertheless, in the interest of an appreciation for the full scope of the facts, it would be apropos not only of a love of the truth, but also of more effective tactics in our war of ideas with our fellow Westerners (a war of rational persuasion that would be senseless if all -- or even a sizeable minority -- of our opponents in this regard were Leftist Marxists with horns-and-a-tail).

The factor I am alluding to is not a fact; but it is a likelihood reasonably inferred from mountains of data and oceans of dots to be connected:

The vast majority of Muslims are savages.

Now, the reason why individuals like the good rabbi would recoil from such a prospect are two-fold:

1) his Western ethics come with an unavoidable "app" or "plug-in" -- namely, the PCMC-refined principle that a People of great numbers, dispersed around the world, of long historical provenance and cultural heritage, and (most importantly) seemingly "ethnic", cannot possibly be mostly savage. It's simply unthinkable -- and therefore it is not to be thought, and whenever anyone dares to even seem to imply it (even while protesting that they never meant to, and never did, say that -- as do Geller, Spencer, and Wood), they are to be ostracized as beyond the pale bigots.  The absolute most the rabbi would be willing to concede would be, of course, the tried and true TMOE meme: a Tiny Minority of Extremists.

2) Deeper than his righteously felt ethics updated by the above-mentioned PC MC app, the rabbi's reflexive reaction is also motivated by an apparently contrary, if not contradictory, sentiment (or, rather, pressentiment): Deep down, below the threshold of his conscious thought, he suspects and fears that there is something horribly wrong with Islam, and that far more Muslims zealously support it than his conscious thought is willing to admit. When the rabbi recoils from Geller, he is as much recoiling from a putative violation of his preciously defined ethics, as he is from his deeper suspicion that the "bigots" may be right about Muslims. Geller thus reminds the rabbi of that deeper fear, and instead of facing it and shining a light on it to study up on Islam and read the damn news about Muslims, he redirects and projects onto Geller his fear.  (The reason the rabbi suppresses and redirects his fear should be clear: to raise it into his conscious thought and follow its logic would undermine the precious ethics that make him feel good about himself, on which, through his ethical narcissism, he has built all his self-worth and the worth of the society he supports.)

This factor, which has effects as described above, however, is being suppressed by both sides of this debate. Neither side seems to want to advert to, and shine a light on, the problem of the vast majority of Muslims (if not the dreaded A-word: the problem of all Muslims) -- the rabbi, out of his incoherent mixture of feeling good about himself ethically + his semi-conscious dread of Muslims; the Counter-Jihad luminaries by their canny refusal to mention the problem of numbers at all and in fact to go out of their way to insist they never meant to say anything of the kind.

But come on; to many of the rest of us sitting on this mountain higher than Everest of data about what Muslim say and do (including the crucial data of the False Moderate and taqiyya), this insistence sounds increasingly strained and counter-factual (if not a fantasy); and one of its seemingly primary functions -- to persuade our opponents in the war of ideas that we aren't tarring all Muslims with a broad brush -- isn't working, and has never worked in all the time it's been anxiously deployed.  

To reiterate: One does not have to apodictically assert that all Muslims are in fact deadly savages.  It is likely that many Muslims exist out there who will never harm a fly.  That's not the point.  The point is that, given the mountains of data and oceans of dots we have about Muslims and their Islam, we find ourselves in a predicament where we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between the deadly Muslims and the harmless ones.  The solution to that predicament is not our responsibility: it is the responsibility of Muslims themselves to clear it up.  Not only have they not done so in the last decade, the predicament is getting worse.

As far as I'm concerned, Muslims tar themselves with a broad brush -- all day long. But I guess I'll have to wait until after they mass-murder at least a million of us in various locales around the West before the Counter-Jihad develops the moxie to say it.


Anonymous said...

"Not all Muslims are savages."

As the song says, "Show me!"


Traeh said...

I agree that Muslims are responsible to clear up that ambiguity as to which of them is jihadist and sharia-ist, and which of them is against jihad and sharia -- and they are not clearing things up. Obviously there are too few Muslims who believe in real religious freedom.

And they probably will never be held accountable, except in very crude and extreme ways, when real disaster strikes (like 50,000 dead in a terror attack). I doubt whether the nation has the mental equipment to handle Islam in the civilized ways Robert Spencer has in mind. Too much subtlety required. Instead, you'll probably have extreme PC types opposing their own crude extremisms to the crude brutality of others who want to cut the Gordian knot and just apply some very simple, brutal solution. In the face of 50,000 or more deaths by Islamic terror, a compromise form of "mildly brutal" policy will perhaps be adopted.

Actually, 50,000 might be too small a number to overcome the ideas of PC forces in public opinion. But the number is probably not that much higher -- 100,000? But even then, the society might not deport Muslims as a group. What society surely will do is increase surveillance massively on all of us, especially Muslims. The increase in surveillance would be so massive that life might well become unrecognizable. So massive that liberal democracy would be profoundly transformed, to the extent that it might cease to exist.

Traeh said...

"...PC types opposing their own crude extremisms to the crude brutality of others..."

should read

"...PC types opposing their own crude ideas to the crude brutality of others..."

Anonymous said...

"So massive that liberal democracy would be profoundly transformed, to the extent that it might cease to exist."

Such transformation is, of course, the ENTIRE purpose of oft-imported Muslims who will be disposable to the New World Order once Muslims have fulfilled their function to cause the Western masses to beg for and fulfill their own Western enslavement.

This is WHY I disagree with our good host Hesperado that PC MC springs from good intentions that - whoopsie! - achieve bad results.

Indeed, the bad results are the planned end results of some quite evil people who have propagandized and forced upon us such PC MC for their own purposes.

Anonymous said...


You are the only guy I know of who is actually clear as to what needs to be done to clear the West of the menace that is Muslims. However your solutions are not going to get implemented any time soon.

The other approach is to actually use Islam against Muslims. Admittedly, even this might not get anywhere until things get much worse, and the west is actually willing to consider this. The only place I can see this getting implemented currently is in China.

The solution is actually very simple. Implement Sharia Law in toto for Muslims only. If the West implements Shariah Law in toto, you'll either see Muslims abandoning Islam or voluntarily migrating back to their hell hole countries from which they came. When Muslims ask for Sharia Law in the West, what they are asking for is the Civil Part of Shariah Law, particularly the Marriage Laws. Muslims ( outside of the Dar-al- Islam ) rarely want Full Shariah. Even when an Anjum Chowdary asks for Sharia, it is in the full belief that he will be part of the elite gang administering Sharia, rather than being the one at the receiving end.

Just imagine, if a convict who converts to Islam in prison will receive the Islamic punishment for his crime, he will never convert.

Even holding a demonstration would become a capital crime under Shariah.

Any prospective terrorist would receive the death penalty.

Most people who receive harsh punishments would convert out of Islam, as they would then be no longer subject to Shariah punishment.

The possibilities are endless, but the net result would be that Islam would be decimated in any country which implements this.

Of course in Muslim - Non Muslim interactions, the Shariah provisions should be reversed.