Taking the temperature of the Counter-Jihad, part 4

In part 3, I referred to a "Conversation" which the Counter-Jihad needs to have, before it can become the optimal sociopolitical movement its members desire it to be.  This Conversation, I said, needs to take place in order to hammer out a coherent platform for the movement.

I then wondered if this Conversation would "go on forever, with internal bickering that never resolves itself?"

It's a good (albeit frustrating) question, because there does seem to be a lack of unity within the Counter-Jihad.  On one level, there may seem to be an ostensible unity, insofar as one can go into any large comments thread at Jihad Watch or Gates of Vienna or any number of other venues (alas, there was a time, aeons ago, when the Little Green Footballs blog provided a relatively healthy forum for airing out feelings, thoughts and opinions on this matter, before that blog was strangely hijacked -- from the top down -- by brains-devouring Leftards), and one can see superficial unanimity as everyone goes for the easy jugular of lambasting Islam itself and the easily identifiable Extremists, as well as the Dastardly Cabal of "Leftists" (ignoring the majority of Conservatives, Centrists and the Comfortably Apolitical who also do their part in reinforcing the dominant and mainstream PC MC point of view with regard to Islam), when a particular news story provides the easily identifiable red blood of a jihadist story du jour.  When, however, more complex issues are raised -- including the increasingly exigent question of what do we do about this problem -- that unanimity begins to show cracks, if not important fault lines.

The fault lines tend to break down in terms of how tough (or how soft) the Counter-Jihadist shows himself to be.  There seems to be a spectrum of degrees or gradations in this regard, from those who are virtually indistinguishable from the George Bush line (i.e., Mainstream PC MC which recognizes only the TMOE meme -- that a Tiny Minority of Extremists is the only problem); to those who pretend to be tougher than this but end up parroting essentially the same logic (the Daniel Pipes / Nicolai Sennels contingent); to those who seem even more robust but who at odd moments show signs of PC MC reflexes; and so forth.  The truly anti-Islam position I have frankly rarely found in the Counter-Jihad; its apparent appearance invariably seems to be tempered by something (whether lurking PC MC concerns like an anxiety about being too "racist", or whether a conspiracy-theory flirtation with the "Real Problem" beyond, or behind, the problem of Islam; or any number of other ways people have found ingeniously to go into yoga pretzel contortions avoiding the holistic position that boldly stands on a condemnation of Islam and all Muslims).

Before the Counter-Jihad can forge its platform, then, it has to get straight what the problem of Islam is, exactly, and what it advises its West to do about it.  And before that can happen, as I have said in the previous installments of this topic, its members need to have a Conversation about this.

Coming up in part 5:  If the differences among Counter-Jihad members are unavoidable, would a Compromise among them be possible?  What would such a Compromise look like?