The Counter-Jihad Nougat

An ordinarily hard Counter-Jihadist posted a comment on Jihad Watch recently which revealed a glimpse of the nougaty softness beneath the otherwise tough and no-nonsense exterior that person is noted for—namely, by proposing the solution to the problem of Islam be in 1) restricting immigration and in 2) tougher "investigation" of domestic Muslims and their mosques and other Islamic associations.  It should also be noted that all of the toughness of this Jihad Watcher is directed not against Muslims in general, but only against known extremists -- as if we can tell, with sufficiently reliable certitude, which Muslims are going to follow their deadly (or stealthy) Islam, and which are not.  Many in the Counter-Jihad who don't already readily agree with that nougat (and, alas, I keep noticing many) if they read the comment would likely be easily distracted by the otherwise spirited intelligently articulate anger conveyed around this chewy nougaty center.

The way I see it, in a few decades at the latest, the situation not only in the UK but in various areas throughout the entire West will morph into proportions so complex and deadly that merely “not letting back in” and “thoroughly investigating” will become woefully inadequate. This will devolve because the West continues to invite Muslims in by the millions, and no end in sight seems on the horizon to this disastrous policy.  Furthermore, the paradigm which defines the vast majority of the millions of Muslims already in the West as unremarkably harmless continues largely unabated, with subtle yet powerful cultural penalties still the norm for anyone crossing the line into reasonable dismay and suspicion of the ideology of Islam.

The sooner we reorient (or re-Occidentalize) our imagination and resolve around to the paradigm of Total Deportation, the better—less messy, less costly, and less bloody—it will be for us. Conversely, the longer we wait for this reorientation, the messier, costlier and bloodier it will be.

Why is this small precious nucleus of Canaries-in-a-Coalmine—We few, we happy few, we band of brothers (and sisters)—otherwise known as the Counter-Jihad, not only not pushing for this paradigm shift, but rather in myriad subtle ways helping to reinforce the psychological and sociopolitical inertia that abounds all around us in our societies, by which the likely denouement of mess, cost and blood will be maximized, rather than minimized?

Is what I want to know.

As I put it some two years ago in another essay here:

...the world out there, outside of Jihad Watch and a precious few other blogs devoted to the counter-jihad, remains a place unfriendly and unpalatable (when not hostile and infuriating) to those of us who have come to our grimly lucid awareness of the problem of Islam. And it becomes acutely annoying (if not aggrieving) to find such softness on the issue as exemplified above in the hallowed walls of Jihad Watch. 

I.e., if you want to be soft, there's a whole wide world out there—and a whole Wide World of the Web too—that will cater to your softness all day long. At least here—at Jihad Watch, or at some of the other precious few venues for discussion about the problem of Islam that exist as small islands few and far between among the vast archipelagos of politically correct stupidity that span the West, if not the whole freaking world—for God's sake, can't we be a little better, a little stiffer, a little less forgiving, and have some tighter standards of analysis?