Sunday, August 03, 2014
Islam in the head, and Islam in beheading
After all these years, Robert Spencer continues to promote a lack of analytical clarity about the problem of Islam. It's been quite some time since I revisited this particular problem of the Counter-Jihad; but occasionally the movement needs to be reminded of it. For example, in his introduction to his recent report on an ex-Muslim Turkish poet (Serkan Engin) who condemns Islam as "worse than Nazism" and in the context of explaining why Islam should be condemned implies that Islam should be outlawed, Spencer hastens to assure his readers:
“It should also be noted that I do not agree with Serkan Engin’s call for Islam to be outlawed. In the U.S., at least (to say nothing of Turkey or elsewhere), we do not outlaw ideas, and do not employ Thought Police. The criminalizing of thought is a hallmark of the totalitarian state. Even at the height of the Cold War, Communism was not outlawed.”
Well, of course every civilized Westerner agrees with this general principle (though it is noteworthy that certain European nations who suffered the ravages of Nazism on their soil have seen fit to criminalize ideas in this regard to various extents). This truism Spencer seems anxious to communicate tends to obscure the more pragmatic problem we are faced with, as Muslims following their Islam are in fact waging a violent world war against the non-Muslim world, and against the main drivers of the world, the West (with America at its vanguard).
While of course I agree with the unremarkable principle that ideas should not be outlawed, I continue to maintain, however, that the translation of Islam’s ideational content into seditious behavior that fuses violence with seemingly moderate stealth subversion—both of them different arms of the world war Muslims are now waging against the West (and have been waging against the West since the 7th century in its former incarnation as the nascent Christian Roman Empire)—should of course be “illegal” at the very least, but more pertinently (since the problem of Islam is not a criminal problem but a dire military problem) be:
1) recognized as a hot war against us; and
2) be repelled with all our might and with a military strategy intelligently aware of the unique form of this war and its soldiers, unlike any other war and any other soldiery we have been faced with.
And just one of the many points of complexity my rather terse statement above contains implicitly, points which have to be factored in to render more clearly the sense of my statement: the uniqueness of this particular soldiery that is attacking us includes the ostensible fact that the vast majority of its demographic appears to be composed of non-combatants (and many of them are nice and friendly and seemingly assimilable).
When these explications of the problem are not unfolded into the light of clarity, but rather tend to remain obscured by a melange of truisms and more or less latent asymptotic reflexes semi-consciously reinforcing one's ethical narcissism, we tend to perpetuate the paradigm—the PC MC paradigm—that continues to render us increasingly vulnerable, both to the terrorism arm of the war Mohammedans are waging against us, and to the stealth arm of their propaganda deception that minimizes the horrific dimensions of the problem: a protracted operation of deceit they find necessary only because they are too weak to wage war against us openly; a protracted operation of deceit that unfortunately continues to work for them because of the PC MC of the mainstream West.