"If you can't fix it with a hammer, it ain't worth fixin'..."

"I seem to be the only one in the Counter-Jihad who considers PC MC to be logical. Dead wrong, irrational and well nigh treasonous — but still logical. As long as most in the Counter-Jihad fail to appreciate the full logic of the PC MC paradigm, and insist on demonizing it, they will be continuing to take a hammer to a problem that requires a Phillips screwdriver."

When I wrote the above as part of a comment at Jihad Watch, a tried and true Jihad Watch veteran, and Counter-Jihad Softy, (one "Wellington" about whom I have written a few times here) responded:

I submit that arguing for mass deportation of Muslims from a nation like America is an attempt to take a sledgehammer, and not just an ordinary hammer, to the problem which Muslims pose in Western nations. And yet you flatter yourself by arguing for no metaphorical hammer at all but rather for a metaphorical Phillips screwdriver approach. 

To which, wearily, I replied:

"Two different Problems: the Problem of Islam, and the Problem of the West’s myopia. Ironically, and oddly, the Counter-Jihad Softies insist on taking the oppositely wrong tools to each—to the latter, a hammer (“those damned Leftist Elites!”); to the former, a sophisticated array of fine-tuned calibrated screwdrivers supposedly predicated upon a complex taxonomy of Muslims, as though Mohammedan Taqiyya + the dangers their dangerous ones pose don’t render any taxonomies recklessly, dangerously useless (unless deployed with ruthlessly Realislamik skill which, needless to say, would be dubiously entrusted to the Counter-Jihad Softies)."

At the time, I noticed how another subcategory of the Counter-Jihadist—the False Counter-Jihad Toughie—leapt over deportation, didn't even bother to mention it, passes Go and goes straight to all-out violent war inside the West—a position no better than the JW Softy who cannot brook deportation measures.  Sometimes the False Counter-Jihad Toughie actually responds by saying that deportation is "not good enough" for the problem, or is "unrealistic"—an incoherent mix, as can be seen.  Deportation may well be "not good enough", but at this juncture it's worthwhile to pursue it as a long-term goal.  At that point in the discussion, the False Counter-Jihad Toughie (and the Counter Jihad Softy) usually responds with the anxious reflex spasm that we don't have a "long term"—we are in an emergency and the sky is falling NOW!!! and we won't last even a few years given current trends (trends interpreted through their hyperventilated perspective, that is). 

I’ve explained many times how the PC MC paradigm is logical. By the way, I distinguish between logical and rational: an obsessive-compulsive neurotic, for example, can logically organize his day by checking exactly 337 times every day whether he turned his stove off (plus a hundred other things), being quite logical in doing so, but not rational. The PC MC logic is predicated upon an anxious need to prevent a criticism of the Tiny Minority of Extremists from expanding to target all Muslims. Where it becomes irrational is in its suppression of any information that leads to an alarmed appraisal of the systemic and metastasizing problem of Muslims, fearing that such an appraisal would open the floodgates to going down the slippery slope toward rounding up vast numbers of innocent Muslims, putting them in camps, and genociding them. (This irrational anxiety is additionally augmented by the PC MC hot button of White Guilt, since they tend to see Muslims as a Brown People—i.e., as an Ethnic People (or as a wonderful diversity, mosaic, tapestry, stir-fry, paella of Ethnic Peoples).)

This anxious need I’ve found many times amongst Jihad Watch commenters, incidentally; though they obscure it (usually unwittingly) with lots of tough talk and braggadocio against Islam; so the difference between the JW Softies and the PC MCs is only one of degree, not of kind.

One wing of the Counter-Jihad through its rhetoric promotes the idea of a "civil war" as the inevitable course in this regard. Technically speaking, a "civil war" would not involve Muslims (except the Muslims who might be among the Western armies, national guards, police, and intelligence -- and, unfortunately, most Western nations have already disastrously assimilated a few into these (and other) sociopolitical institutions). Technically speaking, a "civil war" would involve two camps of Westerner, perhaps in several different Western nations. On one side would be the PC MC Establishment (which I see no signs to indicate it does not include millions of Ordinary People in addition to dastardly "Elites"), whose self-righteous starry-eyed motivation would be to defend the poor, innocent Muslims, that "vast majority" who are "not extremists" but who are (pace George Bush) "decent moms and pops like the rest of us" including (pace Ben Affleck), a billion “who wanna go to school, have some sandwiches”, as well as all the various nice Muslims in the West which most of us are acquainted with, such as (pace Jihad Watch commenter “Neil Jennison” who has insisted earnestly more than once that he is not PC MC at all) one  “Paul”, a nice friendly Muslim Neil know—among the Muslims (his sneer quotes not mine) “I have met “Muslims” who are Muslims in name only. Nice people”—“who ran the curry house on Spittal Hill in Sheffield” (and about whom Neil added “was a decent enough bloke as far as I could tell” (i.e., as far as his—our collective—revolver would be likely to shoot a blank into the heads of our men, women and children, rather than a bullet).

On the other side of this Civil War that may—or may not—(despite what the Mad Max Wing of the Counter-Jihad insists) happen, would be those Westerners who are anti-Islam, likely accompanied by a rag-tag motley number of “Real Problemers” (conspiracy theory loons who think that Islam is not the “real problem” but rather our “real enemy” is a dastardly cabal of “Elites” who may or may not include Jews, Illuminati, Masons—we know the drill).

Even if this colossal catastrophe did devolve, there is the other problem—that the side against Islam would be minuscule in numbers in comparison with the Mainstream forces arrayed against them, and would not have the resources of armies, national guards, police forces, and intelligence services (other than the few among those institutions who would be part of the minority Counter-Jihad). And this is not even factoring in that a certain number among those in the Counter-Jihad may well not want to join such a disastrous adventure.

My problem with this somewhat feverish, hyperventilated scenario is the profound lack, and loss, of trust in the greatness of the West it implies, and the strange alienation from the West that seems to underlie it. For one thing, if the West is that rotten, why fight to save it? (Hence, the “Mad Max Paradox”—a tiny Saved Remnant will fight the mainstream forces, then hunker down during the ensuing apocalyptic chaos (meanwhile fending off mutant midgets and one-eyed bald guys roaming around with howitzer cannons shotgunning their gutted out convertibles), and hopefully the few male Islamophobes (and Conspiracy Nuts) among them will find hot babes in the Wasteland to repopulate a civilization.(Maple syrup spigot of SARC off with a wintry and vehement squeak.)