Saturday, December 20, 2014

The Strategy of Sidération

http://adriandoni.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/adrian-doni-guernica-free-interpretation.jpg

A new book by Alexandre Del Valle, the French terrorism analyst and self-styled "geopolitologue", titled Syrian Chaos: Springtime Arabs and Minorities confronting Islamism, in its blurb has an interesting (though not necessarily new) idea.  In reading through this, the seasoned reader may try, as did I, to suppress his profound dyspepsia at such ridiculous terms as "radical Islamism", in order to glean the useful parts.  (From what I can gather, Del Valle is roughly on the Daniel Pipes end of the asymptotic spectrum, so one must have one's table salt handy when reading him.)

"A lucid and flexible description of the totalitarian menace represented by "jihadism 2.0", this new book by Alexandre Del Valle written with the Syrian Christian intellectual Randa Kassis was published [in November]...

"As a specialist of disinformation and radical Islamism, Del Valle [and Randa Kassis] ... explains that:

...the double aim of Daish (Islamic State) and of Islamo-terrorists in general is not above all to kill just for the sake of killing -- which would be once again to misunderstand the laws of terrorism -- but rather [it is calculated] to provoke a generalized "Stockholm syndrome" among both the Arab and Western societies, [thus] psychologically terrorized.  The objective of the psychopaths of the Islamic State and their Caliph, "Ibrahim" (aka Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi), is also to arouse at the same time a morbid fascination in the heart of an active minority of human beings who are naturally fascinated by barbarism..."

The blurb goes on to describe how this terrorism is a kind of "strategy of  sidération" -- a useful French word difficult to translate with just one English word; which may be rendered as "a state of shock, disarray and paralysis" -- deployed with clever sophistication by the ISIS Muslims through social media; even to the point where the mere communication of the horrors of this terrorism seems to suffice to cow some of the villages and areas they conquer without having to use much physical military force.

And, of course, more subtly, the ongoing propaganda communication of the sidération to the wider Western world (in the ongoing implicit context of already successful -- as well as numerous luckily aborted -- terror attacks in the West by their co-religionists) has tended to induce the generalized Stockholm syndrome and PTSD that reinforces and results in the Western myopia, whitewashing of, and deference to, the Islam that is the main context and engine of this terrorism which we in the Counter-Jihad know all to well.  (It may be needless to add to the literate reader who has been autodidactically matriculating along the learning curve that this strategy is a worldwide and Western phenomenon, not merely limited to its obvious spearpoints of ISIS and Al Qaeda; and this is one of the many problems with Del Valle's unfortunate cacophemistic truncation of the problem to "radical Islamism").

It also should be added, to supplement Del Valle's analysis with Bill Warner's interesting idea, that what this strategy of sidération does -- in eliciting Stockholm syndrome and PTSD (and from there, irrational deference) -- reflects not merely a current dynamic, but also, and importantly, serves to revive a perennial sidération which Muslims have been provoking for centuries by their relentless terror attacks against the West (both large, as frank military assaults, and smaller, as razzias, or the medieval version of the terror attack).  As Bill Warner has noted, the millennial, protracted and diverse onslaught against the West which lasted for approximately the thousand years from the 7th century to the 17th century (marked by the last time -- 1683 against Vienna -- when Muslims were able to mount a major military assault) induced in the Western psyche and Western culture a kind of generalized PTSD about Islam; which goes a long way to explain the curious, and curiously widespread, whitewashing of Islam in Western pop culture, sociopolitical culture, and academe.


Further Reading:

Western Amnesia and Islamnesia


֍ ֍ ֍

5 comments:

Egghead said...

Hi Hesp: I am going to tweak you a bit here. There is an apparent conflict between 1) the idea that white and/or Christian Westerners suffer from PSTD due to the real (reinforced by oft-threatened) terror of Islam as enlivened by nonwhite non-Christian Muslims, and 2) the idea that white and/or Christian Westerners have whole-heartedly embraced and adopted the PCMC dogma (particularly regarding Islam) due to 'human' (your designation versus mine) white and/or Christian Westerners being fundamentally 'good' people.

The recent situation in Ferguson clearly illustrates that our many diverse friends are willing and able to threaten and use force to achieve their self-serving aims. Indeed, according to the website The Conservative Treehouse, major parts of the rioting were being orchestrated by a Muslim living in a Muslim majority land.

As to the question of 'Why bother to save white and/or Christian Western civilization if Western civilization is NO better than others?" Well, the obvious answer is that white people need to LOVE the white race - and the Christian religion enlivened by that white race.

Muslims and other diverse people LOVE their races and religions - and actively promote them. As such, Muslims and other diverse people truly believe that the world is MUCH better off with them in charge of - and perhaps even eliminating - white and/or Christian people.

----

P.S. Muslims continued their terror onslaught on Western Christians via piracy and raids long after their last military campaign. Through its main biographical story set in the early 1700s, the book 'White Gold' discusses Muslim raids on the West with their all too predictable enslavement of (one million!) white Western Christians. Even later, the Founding Fathers of the United States were forced to send our navy overseas to quell Muslim piracy.

Hesperado said...

Hi Egghead,

I'm not sure I see why necessarily there is any conflict between the 1 and 2.

As for the piracy, yes; sometimes my reference to the long arc of Mohammedan attacks on the West is abbreviated. The 1683 marker is only meant to indicate a watershed in terms of a subsequent inability to mount conventional and frank military invasion; the Mohammedan attacks thereafter perforce had to be exclusively non-military and thus para-military (with a variety of flavors, including piracy and, beginning in the second half of the 20th century, renewed terror razzias, escalating slowly with each passing decade, then metastasizing exponentially from 911 to now (with no end in sight and likely worse to come)).

Egghead said...

The conflict between 1 and 2 goes to motivation. Is the motivation for various increasingly awful cascading actions 'good' or not? The conflict goes to the question of whether 'humans' (using your designation) are fundamentally good or evil. Embracing an evil idea to avoid getting tortured and murdered is NOT the same as making a 'good' moral choice. Such embrace may be expedient and/or necessary to survival without being 'good' - and such embrace is indeed the apparent reason that the vast majority of 'nonhuman' (your designation) people have already adopted and maintained Islam.

------

Also, regarding 'convention,' we would have to take into account perspective (some would call it culture). From the Muslim perspective, it makes MORE sense to infiltrate using demographics and the threat of terror than to participate in wars that murder lots of Muslims who could be making babies. Which is more fun - getting murdered or making babies? To summarize, it appears that a demographic war (versus a fighting war) using emigration, infiltration, and reproduction is ultimately the more conventional and effective invasion tactic if we compare the success of armies at holding land. We must always think outside the box if we are to win the next war which Muslims are winning on the battlefield of babies. There IS a valid reason that the Catholic Church banned all Muslims from the West - and also 'encouraged' women to have as many children as possible....

Anonymous said...

Egghead
Yes it is a demographic war, one that a lot of whites don't see(if you are here in CA, it's quite obvious), let alone understand the difference between immigrants and colonists from a religious/cultural matrix that is totally antithetical to Western values and to the survival of it's peoples.

What makes bad for us is that the MSM and the government is working hand in hand to encourage this demographic destruction via welfare programs that encourage them to have kids while punishing working and middle-class natives.



cronk


Blogger said...

Do you drink Pepsi or Coke?
PARTICIPATE IN THE POLL and you could get a prepaid VISA gift card!