As I've said a few times lately, I don't go back to Jihad Watch comments anymore. Except recently, I thought I'd take a look at one particular thread -- "UK: 12 Muslims jailed for sexually exploiting 13-year-old girl" -- partially because it had so many comments (over a 100 when I saw it).
I wasn't expecting much, after years of general disappointment in the quality of the Jihad Watchers of late. What a pleasant surprise, then, to see the comments of someone I'd never seen before -- one "Gray" -- gracing that battle space of the Counter-Jihad (such as it is) with a refreshing spring rain of integrity and common sense, contrasted with the stale and rigid flabbiness of the regulars there!
It all began when someone named "stan" fired off an intemperate salvo in the form of an ostensibly genocidal comment --
If I was king of this world, I’d exterminate every Muslim that walks the earth.
This very soon elicited various forms of corrective comments from the regulars. Some of them called it "Hitler talk". Leave it to the egregious Jihad Watch Softie, mortimer (so soft, he's downright suspicious), to chime in:
Your Hitlerism was condemned at Nuremburg...
You have not thought through your ideas. Your ideas are uncivilized. No more holocausts or genocides. Muslims who are deprogrammed are the greatest counterjihadists.
It was at this point that Gray weighed in, admirably so:
Your post is profoundly offensive to people like me, whose parents fought against the Nazis in the Second World War, and suffered grieviously as a result. The Muslims are the true followers of Hitler, not us. Islam is a totalitarian, fascist ideology, whose holiest books command adherents to kill Jews. Hitler admired Islam greatly. That is the reality. I suspect Stan and Grace understand the issues better than you do. There is a clash of civilizations in train, one which will not end until Islam is triumphant, and everyone in the West has embraced the only three choices that Islam allows to the non-Muslim. The weakness and appeasement of Western leaders has made an ultimate, winner-takes-all global conflict almost inevitable. Because we have not appreciated the freedoms our forebears left us, we are going to lose those freedoms. However, when the scimitar is descending on your neck, do by all means tell the Muslim warlord all about civilization. I’m sure it will make a difference (Not!).
Leave it then to another of the Peanut Gallery of Softies at Jihad Watch, Wellington, to rush anxiously in to try to correct Gray:
No, Gray, stan and grace don’t understand the issues better than mortimer. Neither do you. It is not necessary for free societies to ban totalitarian ideologies like Nazism, Marxism and Islam. What is necessary is to properly identify them as the freedom-crushing ideologies that they are.
Remember, during WWII, Nazism was still legal in the US as was Marxism during the Cold War, but these two decrepit ideologies were properly identified, which is KEY. Islam has not yet been accurately characterized for the putridity which it is. Accuracy in assessing an ideology and not the banning of it, regardless how odious it is, is the proper route for a free society to take. Reconsider.
Gray, however, wasn't about to be dismissed so easily:
With respect, Wellington, nowhere in my post did I speak of banning Islam. Things are rapidly progressing beyond that. Huntington’s clash of civilizations is happening right now, and it has been going on since the Seventh Century. The West just has not realized it, even yet. Seventy-five years ago, the question of the day was simple. Will the Axis Powers prevail, or will the Allies? It was literally a case of kill or be killed, and the Allies victory was by no means a foregone conclusion. I fear that we will soon face the exact same question. Will it be our lives, and the lives of our families, or will it be the lives of the members of the invading force, those who wish to enslave us, and destroy all we hold dear? I pray to God I am wrong, but I fear that is the choice that all of us in the West will ultimately face, and sooner rather than later. Again, with respect, may I say that it is an act of extreme naivety to bracket to together ‘Nazism, Marxism and Islam’, as though these three worldviews are similar ideologies, and morally equivalent. This might go down a treat amongst academics in Faculty Common Rooms, but Islam is in a class of its own. The Thousand Year Reich only lasted for five years. The forces of Islamic supremecism have been marshalled against the infidel world since the Seventh Century.
But, of course, Wellington, with the stolid stubbornness of a dog loyal to his master protecting a principle instead of living, breathing people, could not leave enough alone and pause to ponder the wisdom Gray was offering:
Hell, Gray, you went along with stan to the extent that you opined he understood things better than motrimer, even though stan argued for the extermination of all Muslims on earth. I trust you get my point here.
And I think it not naïve or inaccurate at all to bracket Islam with Nazism and Marxism. Not at all. The problem, as I already noted, is one of proper identification. Islam is evil (I trust we can agree on this). What has to occur is OVERWHELMING recognition of this by the West, including by the still clueless elites. Once this is done and Muslims are accurately characterized as adhering to a kind of spiritual fascism, the rest will take care of itself. Just because Islam is a better disguised form of evil than Nazism or Marxism should not lead one to agree with stan, who simply and simplistically wants to exterminate all Muslims. C’mon.
You should have distanced yourself from stan’s statement completely. You didn’t. But you should have.
Then we had Gray's last word -- a fine riposte to Wellington's obtuse defense of an obsolete, and incoherently defended ideal:
Wellington, I have a life, and have other things to do than spend my days reading blogs and responding. This will be my final word on the subject. Yes, I acknowledge it is extreme to talk of exterminating all Muslims, and yes, it is not something I would necessarily advocate myself. However I respect, and share, what I perceive to be the underlying sentiments of the gentleman who did so. What annoyed me then (and still does) was the abuse this observation generated, with accusations of being a Hitler and a fascist. It is hard for our young to grasp the full import of the challenge facing the West, simply because it is so horrific, and the present generation has never had to face the life and death challenges that confronted previous generations. I repeat: Islam is a fascist ideology. There is no respect for human life in Islam, which endorses a divinely sanctioned hatred of anything that is not Islamic. Up until recently, I had comforted myself with the thought that Truth and Goodness would eventually prevail in this clash of civilizations, and that the West, with its superior civilization, would ultimately prevail over the barbarism of Islam. I no longer do so. The wilful blindness and cowardice of western leaders, together with events in Europe in the past months, have shown conclusively that this is wishful thinking. Yes, it would be lovely if everyone in the West admitted the obvious reality that Islam is Evil. But it will solve nothing. Events have moved beyond that, and the forces of evil are now in our very midst. Might I quote Churchill, who knew something of last ditch battles to preserve a civilization. He knew a bit about Islam as well:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Churchill gives three alternative choices. I would love to be proved wrong, but now fear that we have already gone beyond Churchill’s first alternative. So please do not abuse those who see this struggle as a fight to the death. They may well be right.
֍ ֍
֍ ֍ ֍
As I say -- a rare waft of the fresh air of common sense in those dank, stale, stifling echo-chamber halls of Jihad Watch comments...
P.S.:
Interestingly but perhaps not surprisingly, the above comments were quickly deleted by Jihad Watch censors; I had barely time to take a third gulp of my morning coffee and refresh my screen, before I saw that they had vanished into the anxious-to-please-our-PC/MC-Masters ether. It was only through Google cache that I was able to retrieve them. The only comment that should have been deleted was that of "stan". It was silly for Robert Spencer to have deleted also those of Gray and Wellington.
9 comments:
There are three obvious flaws with the ideas presented by the PC MC group that I will address here:
1. The West did indeed outright ban (Europe) and effectively ban (USA) both Islam and Muslims from the West for the majority of Western history. It is modern history (after the advent and adoption of Marxism and Marxist leaders in the West) that has inflicted Islam and Muslims upon the historically Christian West.
2. The West has utterly failed to identify and eradicate the evil of Marxism which, again, has been, is, and will be a primary entry point for Islam into the West. The reality that communist Bernie Sanders is running for President and garnering votes proves that the USA lost the Cold War from within.
3. The West will be forced to man up and fight evil inside the West. Using shaming tactics against Muslims (and Talmudic Jews) will be ineffective because their religions inure them against shame.
DP111..
Egghead
You have correctly identified the weak points of the West.
How to win and defeat the left, that is the question. Then one has to put it in action, in polite and opinion forming society.
"I have said many a time, that Islam is worse then either Nazism or communism, even though the latter murdered more people then any other ideology in history..."
Incorrect. The Islamic ideology is responsible for over 250 million murders, as Bill Warner (and others) have estimated -- not to mention the enslavement, oppression, rapes, and physical & psychological torture of hundreds of millions more, for 14 centuries (and not only that, it is now undergoing a global revival to increasingly threaten the world and the West). As such, it dwarfs Nazism & Communism -- in numbers (of victims and of brainwashed perpetrators), grotesqueness, longevity, and global reach.
From Egghead's second point:
"... the evil of Marxism which, again, has been, is, and will be a primary entry point for Islam into the West..."
I might be more amenable to being persuaded of such a thesis, if the one doing the persuading were able to explain a few things; including (to take one example out of many) how it is that members of the Voegelinian Society (just a bunch of professors & grad students in various places in Academe, as well as (like me) fans of Voegelin) tend overwhelmingly to follow the PC MC line on Islam (and largely only on that one issue). I need a plausible explanation for this curious phenomenon that would bridge the gap between --
the evil of Marxism being the lever for the Islamophilia of the modern West
and
Voegelinians evidently succumbing to PC MC about Islam.
The explanation would, naturally, account for the profoundly anti-Marxist temperament & analyses of Voegelin and his students, as well as their relative decency and intelligence.
And, as I said, this is only one phenomenon that needs to be explained, to make that aforementioned thesis persuasive to me. Otherwise, it just doesn't add up.
DP111..
I have said many a time, that Islam is worse then either Nazism or communism, even though the latter murdered more people then any other ideology in history
I should have added, as I did later, in a shorter space of time then any other ideology.
Spencer is doing sterling work in bringing the evil nature of Islam to the wider public. His editorial team though would look askance at controversial "comments", that harmed the repute of the site.
There other sites such Gates of Vienna, that too have their detractors, who feel that the GoV is pulling punches. My feelings are that as long as they are educating the public of the nature of Islam, then let them carry on as best as they can, with what they are comfortable with.
SheikhYarmani pulls no punches but he does not as large an audience as JW.
"Spencer is doing sterling work in bringing the evil nature of Islam to the wider public. His editorial team though would look askance at controversial "comments", that harmed the repute of the site.
That's not a reasonable justification for being excessively anxious about our PC MC Masters and their irrational demonization of the Counter-Jihad.
"There other sites such Gates of Vienna, that too have their detractors, who feel that the GoV is pulling punches. My feelings are that as long as they are educating the public of the nature of Islam, then let them carry on as best as they can, with what they are comfortable with. "
Of course you would feel this way, since you evidently don't see the nature of the problem as being as dire as those who advocate total deportation. For, if you did, you would never write such balderdash as you did not too long ago as a comment here on another article ("Quantum Stupidity" back on January 16).
Unless we have a separation of Islam and Muslims from the West, Western civilisation is finished. The separation needs to take place without forced repatriation, if possible. Otherwise it will sully our civilisation for hundreds of years. The separation needs be voluntary.
A possible solution
1. We have to intervene in more Muslim countries, even more frequently, to weed out the “radicals”, and to take liberal democracy to these unfortunate countries. Unfortunately, this will inflame the situation even more among Muslims in the Muslim world, including Muslims in the West. Why I have no idea, as we are only trying to help the Islamic word, and bring it to the 21st century.
2. At the same time, close the door to Muslim immigration to the West, which one sees is about to take place.
The portions I bolded indicate nodal points of the nougaty depth of the balderdash. Thus:
See part two below...
[continued fro part 1 above]
The separation needs to take place without forced repatriation, if possible. Otherwise it will sully our civilisation for hundreds of years. The separation needs be voluntary.
This indicates, logically, that DP111 does not see the situation as being dire enough to compel us to forcibly relocate Muslims outside the West. If he did see it as being that dire, he would agree we have to, and the question of whether doing so "sullies" our civilization would be agreed to be tragically irrelevant (just as our killing hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese men, women and children during WW2 was tragically irrelevant to the exigency of stopping the Axis powers, and furthermore did not "sully" our civilization. Ditto the internment of Japanese-American citizens).
We have to intervene in more Muslim countries, even more frequently, to weed out the “radicals”, and to take liberal democracy to these unfortunate countries.
This implies that Muslim demographics are separable into "radicals" and apparent "non-radicals". It also implies the Lewis Doctrine that Muslim countries are democratizable (I had to rub my eyes to see whether I was actually reading that from a Jihad Watch regular who has supposedly been educating himself on the problem of Muslims for years now, and yet would still apparently think the Lewis Doctrine is viable). See my article on the Lewis Doctrine here:
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-lewis-doctrine.html
Finally (for now) we have this oddly revealing statement from DP111:
Unfortunately, this will inflame the situation even more among Muslims in the Muslim world, including Muslims in the West. Why I have no idea, as we are only trying to help the Islamic word, and bring it to the 21st century.
He has "no idea" why our Wilsonian intrusion to help Muslims only ends up inflaming them against us more? No idea, after reading Jihad Watch for years??? This indicates he doesn't have an adequate grasp of the problem, and thus why he is so ready to pull our punches with regard to the things we have to do to save our civilization from the grim destruction the Mohammedans intend for it in this coming century. And, given that most of the Counter-Jihad thinks like DP111 -- and the mainstream West is even more naively myopic -- I have lost hope we will last to the end of this 21st century. Nice gift y'all are bequeathing to your great grandchildren and/or to the great grandchildren of your loved ones.
DP111..
Unfortunately, this will inflame the situation even more among Muslims in the Muslim world, including Muslims in the West. Why I have no idea, as we are only trying to help the Islamic word, and bring it to the 21st century.
I don't think you have a clue what I was suggesting. None at all.
Bye. Good luck.
Hi DP111,
I hope that you stay with us to comment. :)
Post a Comment