Rearranging deck chairs on the H.M.S. Titanic...
They are making a terrible mistake because their distinction is without merit. It's meaningless. They neglect the fact that jihad is hardwired into Islam and once they have numbers or political influence in a region they will revert back to type as sure as the sun rises.At best they are making excuses for a indigestible alien minority whose values run in complete opposition to Western mores and laws.If I were to hazard a guess as to why this view is so mainstream among JW crowd, I would chalk it up to cowardice. They are genuinely afraid of being labeled racist, xenophobic, etc.Cronk
Well Anonymous, I don't think it's merely cowardice. I think we make the mistake when analyzing problematic sociopolitical processes of neglecting to factor in the *positive* ideological motivation, while we tend to impute only *negative* factors (cowardice, stupidity, greed, etc.). Those negative factors may well play their part, but along with that is the genuine & sincere sense the PC MC (and his Counter-Jihad cousin the Asymptotic) has that he is ethically on the side of the angels in his defense of "diversity" along with the virtue of Protecting the Innocent (a virtue that, for the Westerner still nursing a semi-conscious White Guilt, becomes even more hallowed by a halo of self-righteous sanctity when that Innocent is a Brown Person).
I've been into this since around 2004. On September 11, 2001, I had no idea what Islam was.When I started to figure it out, and what an enormous problem it is, like any sane person would, I thought, 'People need to know the truth,' so I started telling them.I must admit that when I first started, when I talked with people, I took the Spencer approach of separating 'Islam' from 'individual Muslims.' I only did this for tactical reasons, because when I talked about Islam, people would immediately freak out and say, 'OMG You're trying to blame all Muslims for terrorism!!'I thought that if I scaled it back to just Islam, maybe they would be less resistant to hearing some facts.Never once has that tactic ever worked for me. I've never once had someone say, 'Oh, yes, now I see: you're right, there is a difference between an ideology and the adherents of that ideology.' I've learned from experience that anyone who freaks out over a criticism of Islam separated from a criticism of individual Muslims is going to freak out anyway, so it's a waste of time. We may as well simply tell the full truth.The Spencer tactic is also a wide open vulnerability for anti-Islam (or anti-jihad, or whatever anyone wants to call it) critics. Because the go-to logical question is always 'how can you criticize Islam without criticizing individual Muslims.'When asked this, Spencer dances around the subject. But what the reader or viewer sees is a clearly illogical position, so their reflexive position is to discount all of what he is saying about Islam in general.
Exactly, Fiqh, I couldn't agree more. I wish more people in the Counter-Jihad would reflect this type of common sense.
Post a Comment