The Jonestown Massacre was an anti-Christian Leftist atrocity

The PC MC paradigm is a vast edifice of many interlocking bricks, so to speak.  Many of these interlocking factoids involve revisionism of major events or processes of history both distant and recent.  But it's a revisionism slyly (and/or incoherently) purveyed as historiographic veracity, thus forcing those who wish to restore the original truth into the cultural position of seeming to be the revisionists, and thus on the defensive.

Thus, the myth that the Jonestown Massacre was an example of a fanatical Christian cult led by a fanatical Christian evangelist, Jim Jones, has become a shibboleth in American sociopolitical culture dominated by PC MC (which, being a paradigm of interlocking bricks, connects "fanatical Christian" with "right wing").  Thus whenever Jonestown is held up as an example, it is supposed to be an example of how bad right wing Christian fanaticism can be.  But the myth is just plain wrong, controverted by the facts -- as this fine piece on the TinaTrent.com blog demonstrates well.  Other articles exposing Jim Jones as a maniacal Marxist revolutionary are easily found on the Web, such as this one.

With friends like these, who needs enemas...?

A year ago, Diana West recounted the shameful chapter in the way American conservatives (most notably at CPAC) treated Michelle Bachmann and Frank Gaffney, whose concern has been to sound the alarm about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into American government.

Remember that plane...?

Remember that plane that went mysteriously missing last year, the Malaysian Airlines flight 370?

I noted a year ago, quoting mainstream sources, in March of 2014:

“The Boeing 777 was bound for Beijing when it vanished from civilian radar. Malaysia says satellite data indicate the plane veered west about an hour after takeoff and then flew south deep into the southern Indian Ocean.”

The Maldives, a Muslim archipelago, lie in the Indian Ocean, south and west of India. They have a lovely landing strip just waiting for a plane to land (see pic above).


But we all know that two Iranians, an Uygur, a couple of Malays, and the Maldives have nothing in common…  And we all know that Muslim terrorists would have no need for a jet airliner...

The many flavors of Jihad

What the Mainstream West (and even many in the Counter-Jihad still) don’t seem to grasp is that horrible reports such as the revelations of Muslim rape gangs in the UK sexually exploiting and abusing girls over the past 15 years (if not longer) in Oxfordshire, Bristol, Derby, Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford, "on an industrial scale"—do not merely reflect a crime wave, they also and more importantly represent (para-)military maneuvers.

Criminality for Mohammedans is the deployment of a special form of Jihad, to supplement the jihad bil saif (jihad of the sword), jihad bil qalam (jihad of the pen), jihad bil lisan (jihad of the tongue—i.e., taqiyya & propaganda)—here, the jihad bil malakat aymanukum (jihad of the right hand possessions; cf., Koran 4:24) (i.e., sex slaves taken from among the Harbi during war (and for the Mohammedan, it is always war; indeed, for Islam, all of history before the End Times is war.)

Criminality is merely one mode of warfare for Islam, under the more general category of the Violent Jihad jihad bil saif (jihad of the sword); other modes are civil unrest and terrorism (which, in turn, has several different flavors), which is the Bad Cop complemented by the Good Cop of the Stealth Jihad (whose two major modes are the jihad bil lisan (jihad of the tongue — i.e., taqiyya & propaganda, including false assimilation and the false moderate), along with the jihad bil hijra (jihad of immigration).

I.e., a protracted military invasion is occurring, and has been occurring for decades (with a rippling concatenation of upticks from 911 forward).  Elsewhere, I have articulated this more nuanced appreciation of the multifarious strategy of Jihad.

The longer the West waits to deport all Muslims, the costlier, messier, and bloodier will be the logical eventuality of deportation. Silly me, but I’d like my West to minimize as much money, trouble, and blood as we possibly can. Many (if not most) in the Counter-Jihad, for some baffling reason (well, not really—PC MC is just that psychologically and culturally powerful in its ability to enculturate in subtle ways and in its effects on the heart & mind) continue to disagree with me.

P.S.:

At this juncture, I can well imagine the typical (and typically reflexive) responses my post will elicit from many (if not most) in the Counter-Jihad, as they balk at deportation and express this through inane rhetorical questions.  In a subsequent post, I will advert to this.

The Inferential Future

With regard to the problem of Islam, when offering up my two cents as a concerned citizen, I don't like indulging in speculations about the future.  I don't mind at times sketching out reasonable scenarios, extrapolating from the data of past & present, along with the reasonable inferences we may draw therefrom (as I have on rare occasion on the subject of Deportation); but it crosses a line when we start mapping this out feverishly with a Napoleonic, apocalyptic glint in the eye.

Nevertheless, there is a way to advert to the future (our future) in a way that does not fantasize about a grandiosely speculative dénouement, but which does speculate in a restrained and reasonable fashion about, so to speak, an inferential future -- a future which we may reasonably expect will unfold, given all the different factors we discern to be part of the nebula of the problem.

My futurological post today is perhaps more prescriptive than descriptive.  That said, I think my prescriptions are highly likely to happen anyway, since they will be the consequence of a rational response by the West to the nature of the problem; and I say this because I have faith in the rationality of my West (and do we always have to add the unremarkable truism that "we're not perfect"...?).

The one overarching descriptive speculation about the future is that Muslims are going to get worse.

This is a reasonable inference because Muslims have already been getting worse, particularly post-911.  The problem of Islam is metastasizing.  The 21st century is fast becoming the Century of the Problem of Islam.  Most of the Western Mainstream, of course, doesn't realize this yet, or if they do semi-consciously suspect a glimmer of it in the back of their minds, they are busy manufacturing a cacophony of distracting noise on the public airwaves to stave off this dreaded realization, standing hip-deep in De Nile with their heads in the sand.

As I say, we base this prediction reasonably on the fact that Muslims have been getting worse since 911 (let alone before, but more dramatically since then).  The problem of Islam is clearly spiralling out of (our) control, and what has been coalescing as the smoke clears from 911 over the ensuing years (devolving further through the "Arab Spring" and then the ISIS Caliphate) is the protracted fact of a global revival of Islamic Jihad -- slowly but surely, the fruit of the hopes and dreams (and sermons, demagoguery, and jurisprudence based on the Koran-and-Sunnah) of the last three centuries during which Islam slowly collapsed into a nadir of internal corruption and weakness while the Kuffar around them, the West, ascended on a trajectory of progress that become more and more stupendous with each passing century.

This process of Muslims getting worse and worse, while the Western Mainstream continues to see and raise that deterioration with ever more Denial, cannot last forever.  Simply put, the problem of Muslims will get so bad, the West will have to stop denying it, and start doing something rational about it.  This prediction, this part of the inferential future, is reasonable for two reasons:

1) the nature of Islam (and, by the the logic of its unique fanaticism, the nature of Muslim behavior);

and

2) the nature of the West -- relatively sophisticated, intelligent and rational, and certainly light years ahead of Islamic culture in sophistication, intelligence, and rationality.

And here is the descriptive prescription that unfolds from there, logically, as surely as the prediction of a chemical reaction once we know what chemicals are being mixed, in what proportions, and under what circumstances:

There need to be three world conferences organized to discuss three distinct, but related, things.  Our list will proceed from small to broad, and sequentially from sooner to later:

1) A world conference of the anti-Islam movement -- to adjudicate the following:

a) to come to some consensus on the nature of the Problem of Islam, and closely related to that, the nature of the Problem of the Problem (the problem, that is, of Western myopia to the Problem of Islam)

b) to iron out a platform for the movement, involving ongoing activities as well as an overarching desideratum -- both of these based directly on (a).

2)  A world conference of the Western Mainstream -- to adjudicate the following:

a) To discuss the problem of Islam (hopefully quickly moving past the question, "Is Islam itself a problem?" to more serious questions), which will involve the following process:

b) An active consultation with the anti-Islam movement (which, it is to be hoped, will have gotten its shit together well in advance, during #1 above), with the intent to produce a new consensus between the two (the Western Mainstream and the anti-Islam movement), and from there a consensus of the free world (i.e., the normal world outside the freakish aberration of the Dar-al-Islam).

3) A world conference built on the previous two conferences, at which a new Western & World consensus (cf., 2b) will sit down with global representatives of the Muslim world.

Discursus:

A digression about #3 is in order, since it is pregnant (if not fraught) with critical issues at the heart of the whole catastrophe these conferences would be trying to manage.

The first thing to note, which would likely leap to the mind of most AIM.ers (i.e., those in the anti-Islam movement), is a head thrown back and an explosion of laughter.  WHAT!!!??? Sit down with Muslims!!!??? What could they possibly have to offer at that point, other than their typical taqiyya-&-kitman while their co-religionists continue to rampage, massacre, and plot our destruction...!!!???  Are you out of your cotton-picking MIND!!!???  And so forth.

And they would have a point.  However, unless things will have devolved at that point to make it plain that all Muslims are as at war with us as the Nazis were at war with us after their formal declaration of hostilities, I believe we owe it to our civilization to give them this one last chance to do some 'splainin'.

So, that international conference of Muslim representatives would in a civil manner, but firmly, without allowing the usual tap-dancing prevarications and obfuscations, submit them to a long list of questions.  It would be made clear to the Muslims that they are on the defensive and that this is their last chance to convince the world that Islam can get along with the rest of Mankind.  It will become clear that the only way to do that is for Muslims to transform Islam and to promise to make good on that intent by concretely taking actions against all their ulemas and fuqaha.  Indeed, the ulemas, or at least one representative of each ulema from all nations, should be present at that conference.

Do I think it will work?  Not really.  A snowball's chance in Jahannam.  But it should be attempted, if circumstances are propitious (i.e., if the shit doesn't really start hitting the fan in a global train wreck sort of way, which is certainly a possibility).  It should be done -- for the record, and as a matter of principle.  If for nothing else, it would, or could, be the first time in history that finally all representative Muslims would come to a table in a concerted fashion to do the 'Splainin' they never did before -- under the Klieg lights of the eyes of the world at that point no longer willing to take any more nonsense, and by that time educated enough to know the difference.

Islam is Flat

In a Jihad Watch report, we note that journalist Thomas Friedman writes:

“The U.S. keeps repeating the same mistake in the Middle East: overestimating the power of religious ideology and underappreciating the impact of misgovernance.”

The reader’s first response to this would be, “What planet is Friedman on…!?”  The entire Western Mainstream has clearly not been talking about Islam (or as Friedman puts it, “religious ideology”) enough, and indeed at every turn in the past decade and a half whenever this horrid problem keeps rearing its ugly head, has been veritably trying to avoid talking about Islam!

But when the reader recalls that many another pundit and “expert analyst” of the Western Mainstream has expressed more or less the same breathtakingly assbackward assertion, he takes a pause and a breather -- to get his breath back, and then to consider that something more systemic is going on. Not “systemic” in a conspiratorial way, of course; I don’t roll that way.  Rather, I mean systemic in terms of some kind of paradigm or worldview by which a mass of disparate Data and Dots is not reasonably noticed, interpreted and understood, but instead is rendered into some package of overall sense (or, more often, already comes pre-packaged) that comforts the person who is anxious to avoid the horribly dawning conclusion that Islam itself is the source of the increasingly widespread and dangerous violence we have seen around the world in these first couple of decades of this new century and millennium.

This paradigm, as I have said many times (and analyzed many times on my blog), has become dominant and mainstream throughout the entire West over the past half century (give or take a decade or so). It has many features and moving parts, this paradigm does. It also has a crux, around which all the complex moving parts play their mechanical role, so to speak. This crux, I maintain, is the coin of two sides: Reverse Racism/White Guilt. Now, the very fact that I felt a pang of misgiving upon typing those words (especially “white guilt”), feeling a twinge of anxiety lest my reader think I’m a “racist”, only goes to show how powerful this paradigm of Politically Correct Multiculturalism (PC MC) is. If we want to work to discredit this paradigm and hasten its eventual, inexorable collapse (for an incoherent structure cannot last forever, particularly not when its internal logic is being assailed by literal barbarians in the form of beheading Muslims and their seemingly innocuous, mendacious co-religionists), we must stop walking on eggshells around it. For two reasons:

1) It is the PC MCs themselves who are race-obsessed, who insist on framing this whole issue in terms of race (though most of the time they won’t admit it, and it only comes out sideways);

and

2) when we anxiously walk on eggshells around our PC MC Masters of the airwaves, we are not only letting them get away with projecting their racial obsession onto us, but we are also letting them continue to Control the Conversation.

With all that said, the interesting phenomenon I alluded to at the beginning of my comment is one that is too commonly blurted and blurbed out by PC MCs like Friedman -- namely, their bizarre accusation that their own mainstream is “talking about Islam too much” (or as Friedman puts it, talking about “religious ideology” too much).  This is surreal and bizarre, for we in the Counter-Jihad know all too painfully well that the mainstream clearly doesn’t talk about Islam enough, and rather avoids talking about it when it is clearly the dominant factor of a given outburst of Islamic disorder somewhere in the world.

Is Friedman that colossally stupid that he cannot see this? Why would he be so concerned about a non-problem, and such a massive one as this?  One hesitates to impute stupidity to a person who is obviously intelligent. Something therefore “does not compute”. And, as I said above, the conspiracy theory is simply impermissible. Similarly, needless to say, we cannot say Friedman is evil (which = he knowingly is lying about a matter so grave). What is left? Well, whatever is left must be the case, as Sherlock Holmes would have put it. Friedman must be thinking in terms of a complicated paradigm, and near the crux (cf. above) of this paradigm is the shibboleth, the solemn promise & obligation:

However I explain this problem, I must protect Islam from central, substantive scrutiny.

And Friedman in this piece does so; and, alas, probably succeeds -- at least to those of our generation who unfortunately continue to be the majority, those who while looking at the Emperor With No Clothes On and Buck Naked With His Wee Willie Hanging in Full View, really believe it when Tom Friedman tells them that he is fully clothed.

What planet is Friedman on?

Whatever planet he’s on, it’s the “Flat Earth” of his irritatingly glib book title (The World is Flat) -- flattened out of all rational distinctions one would notice when assessing the mountains of data and oceans of dots we already have about the deep, unique chasm in the world represented by Islam.  A seismic concatenation of distinctions, an ongoing rupture in the tectonic plates of geopolitics, only metastasizing in our time with a global revival of Islamic Jihad, disrupting the ongoing progress of normative peoples and nations who, as imperfect as they have been, have been slowly but surely evolving to a more unified and harmonious world.

But, with supremely bittersweet irony, we must ruefully note, it has been through the very same worldview of this progressive civilizational health that we remain maddeningly incognizant.of the global threat Islam presents to our Fukuyamishly Naïve New World -- the world we were on our neo-Yuppie way to realizing once the bump of Y2K was overcome, so rudely interrupted on that beautifully clear blue morning in September of 2001, when somehow and suddenly a cacophony of Arabic music blared from our 90s digital alarm clock radio, rousing us from our bourgeois Beauty Sleep.  

And we’ve been reaching a pleasantly numb hand over to hit the snooze button on that clock ever since, whose red face, our bleary eyes dimly note (or is it just a dream?), keeps flashing 9:11.

The Pipes Dream, addendum

I've featured Daniel Pipes, the gold standard of a Counter-Jihad analyst deeply compromised by PC MC, before on my blog several times.

I now dust off from the unpublished archives yet another indication of his profound neo-Wilsonianism about Islam.  We begin with a couple of his effusive ejaculations about the influential Muslim the Aga Khan:

"...the Aga Khan (the leader of one of the most peaceful of today's Muslim sects, the Ismailis)..."

and:

"The Aga Khan is a leading anti-Islamist figure..."

However, some ordinary person, in the comments field of another blog -- an ordinary civilian who is not a vaunted expert on Islam as is Mr. Pipes -- easily found the following interview with the Aga Khan in the mainstream German news site Der Spiegel that raises legitimate (and, in my estimation, devastating) suspicions about his "moderateness".  (The blog in which I found that comment once upon a time is called "Ace of Spades", though I can no longer locate that comment on the page where it once was, nor can I recall the commenter's name; I wish I could, so I could virtually shake his hand.)

Furthermore, that ordinary person who is not an expert as is Mr. Pipes presents the findings of that Aga Khan interview and adds appropriate and intelligent commentary mixed in.

Here follows that informative commentary by that ordinary person who is not an expert as is Mr. Pipes:

[QUOTE]

He [the Aga Khan] begins the interview attacking the Pope for a lecture he gave in which he quoted some statements by Byzantine Emperor Manuel, which were negative on Islam. He takes the Pope to task not on whether the statements represented factual historical record, but because they caused "great unhappiness in the Islamic world." The Khan goes on to describe the period of history during which the newly emergent Islamic entity existed alongside Byzantium as a period "of extraordinary theological exchanges and debates between the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim world." No. Actually, that was a period of incessant violent warfare committed by the muslims against Byzantium that only ended with that city's fall to the Turks in fifteenth century. That's what's known as an attempt at whitewash.

The interviewer continues by asking the Khan if Islam has a problem with reason. The Khan responds by asserting that "Of the Abrahamic faiths, Islam is probably the one that places the greatest emphasis on knowledge...Islam is a faith of reason." Okay, so apart from being a complete bullshitter, we can see clearly this is not a man dedicated to Pluralism- he's an outright partizan for Islam.

Spiegel goes on to ask the Khan about the root causes of terrorism. Khan responds by citing "Unsolved political conflicts, frustration and, above all, ignorance. Nothing that was born out of a theological conflict." LOL! Haven't heard that one before. Not in any Koranic exhortations to violence against the unbelievers, you understand- just damned ignorance! He then dissembles with the usual "all religions have been violent at one time or another" and finishes on the subject by asserting that Islam specifically has never called for violence- "...it is a faith of peace.".This is a flat-out demonstrable, thru the teeth bald-faced lie. The man's a snake.

He attacks Samuel Huntington for his book The Clash of Civilizations and the "dangerous ignorance" that work displayed. And then went on about there not being a "clash of civilizations", but a "clash of ignorance".

Here's the true insight into the character and mind of the Khan- when asked by Spiegel which side was responsible for that clash, Khan responds by saying-

"Both. But essentially the Western world."

"Both", that's the Pluralist talking. Feigning even-handedness. But after that pathetic attempt at seeming objective and non-judgmental, he goes on to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the West. We see here, the Khan showing his true face- the devotee and partizan for Islam. Like all classic Islamist liars, he'll show the false face of moderation here, and his true face Islamic face there. He really thinks we're too stupid to see through his act. Well, it would seem that Rick Perry is.
When asked about the compatibility of Islam with Democracy, he answers by saying his Democratic beliefs don't trace back to the French or the Greeks, "...but to an era 1,400 years ago." And begins going off about the Prophet(PBUH) blah blah blah. He goes on to attack Bush for Iraq, assures the interviewer that he's in regular contact with the leaders of Iran, and then pushes for the normalization of Hamas, as they just need a chance to moderate.

This is an interview that could have been given by Tariq Ramadan, or Imam Ralph or Ibe Hooper or any one of the other notorious stealth Islamist creeps. Anyone here still care to defend this guy?
It's case closed on the Khan. The question is now- wtf was Rick Perry thinking in hooking up with this guy?

[END QUOTE]

Apparently, Pipes is too busy being an Expert Analyst to bother to do basic research on an influential Muslim he is breezily vetting as a Moderate, and we must leave such basic research to the ordinary civilian.