Friday, July 15, 2016

"This is the New Normal" is a defeatist phrase

A couple of commenters on the Gates of Vienna posting when the Bastille Day attack first hit trot out the well-worn phrase, "Welcome to the new normal".  While those commenters are clearly anti-Islam in the garden-variety Counter-Jihad sense, that phrase implies a misapprehension of the actual nature of the threat of Islam.

And once again we see a common thread between the Counter-Jihad Mainstream and the broader Western Mainstream, when the Prime Minister of France himself responded to this latest paramilitary assault by saying that, quote: “...France is going to have to live with terrorism....”

What does “live with” mean, exactly?  France has already been living with Islamic terrorism for years (indeed, decades).  The “is going to have to” part of his statement, of course, implies that France is going to adopt a new attitude.  An attitude of “living with”?  Again, this can only mean that France is going to absorb and accept this “new normal” while, of course, trying its best to minimize its unexpected ravages.  The Prime Minister went on to say that “we must face this together and show our collective sangfroid.”  We can bet that whatever efforts France will take to minimize the problem will not be enough, for however much “collective sangfroid” the French will show, it will not be responding to the actual nature of the problem -- all Muslims -- only to some permutation of the Tiny Minority of Extremists.

For, what this New Normal meme fails to factor in are two crucial components of the problem of Islam:

1) it is systemic


2) it is metastasizing.

The first means that it involves all Muslims, in a complex & diversified strategy of jihad.

The second means that it is getting horribly worse, so much so that it is transforming our “normal” by destroying it; not by merely genetically modifying it so we can continue to digest it and learn to live with it after a few “bumps in the road” -- as the New Normal meme, with its kitschy & catchy vibe of pop cultural nonchalance, implies.  No: In fact, what we can expect is a disastrously protracted course of devolving catastrophe over the next hundred years, leading to the end which all Muslims hope for, and which nearly all Westerners (including most in the Counter-Jihad) remain in denial of: our destruction.

#2 can still be averted, but only if we face squarely and rationally the fact of #1.   As I put it in a comment at Gates of Vienna:

It’s not difficult to predict what will happen to the Titanic, if there are no indications of actual divergence from course.

And “course,” of course, means proceeding as normal -- whether old normal or new normal, it matters little.


Speaking of the Gates of Vienna, I just noticed that in the comments section of the posting there to which I alluded above, where I deposited a few comments this morning, the owners, Baron Bodissey and his wife Dymphna, deleted my post where I wrote that (to paraphrase) unless the West rounds up and deports all Muslims, we will be destroyed.  (Unfortunately, I failed to take a screenshot; for one doesn't expect to be in a hostile situation at a supposedly anti-Islam website where one would need screenshot documentation before publishing every anti-Islam post...)

If that isn't bad enough, Baron also censored another post of mine where I criticized the Counter-Jihad, and then added insult to injury by posting a warning to me:

Hesperado, I’m calling you on this, your perennial obsession.
From now on, this is what I insist you do. You have two choices:
(1) If they post here at Gates of Vienna, name the person(s) from the Counterjihad who have fallen short of your standards, so we know who you’re complaining about.
(2) If those less-than-ideal Counterjihadists post somewhere else, go over to THOSE sites and berate them, not us. Go to Jihad Watch or MEF or FrontPage or wherever and tell them off. Don’t complain here, where your complaints are off-topic (and annoying). Leave us in peace.

Note the ad hom of calling my concern a "perennial obsession".  Also note his imperious verdict that my concern is "off-topic".  No, it's not off topic.  The inadequacy of response by the West -- and by the Counter-Jihad whose main job should be to try to wake up the West -- to these horrifying attacks by Muslims, could not be any more searingly, lucidly, horribly on topic,

This anxious censorship from that bastion of the Counter-Jihad, with bitter irony, exemplifies the problem (of the problem (of the problem)) in one little nutshell, and justifies my pessimism overall.  And I just submitted a comment to Mr. & Mrs. Bodissey that most assuredly will result in my banning from there:

After Bastille Day, I’m not taking any more bullshit from Counter-Jihad Softies like Baron and his wife.


Anonymous said...

Hear Hear.

Mr. Hesperado,

I know your perennial obsession annoys people, giving rise to the frequent complaints about your "manner" as you have discussed before; but deporting Muslims from western countries is the only rational choice, however grim, unpleasant, and seemingly impossible it may be.

You may like to know that last night, as the news of this recent attack began to appear on the almost conservative Fox News, Newt Gingrich actually called for deporting Muslims. There were of course some qualifying statements in his call. We ought not to be surprised at that; but I took it as a dim, yet hopeful sign. Not even his Trumpiness has called for outright deportation. He has merely made a proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entry into the United States.

I'm wondering now if Gingrich hasn't made his views on deporting Muslims known to Trump during any discussions they might have had out of the public eye, and that this is the reason that Gingrich was not chosen for the VP position on the presidential ticket. If so, it would be too bad.

Yorick of Snarkinore

Hesperado said...

Thanks Yorick. On Gingrich's remarks, calling for deportation is only good if it falls within a certain "bandwidth" so to speak. Many Western countries -- even the UK -- has deported Muslims, here and there. Muslims who rise to the level of being so outrageously seditious, they force even the most PC MC of governments to deport them. The problem with those deportations, of course, is that they are severely limited in terms of number, and closely related to number, in terms of the casuistry they employ by which to define "deportable".

Gingrich too has a casuistry. While I agree that Gingrich's casuistry is sufficiently better than the mainstream approach as to constitute the bare minimum of a "baby step", it would have to be actually adopted to even actually become such a baby step.

Egghead said...

Word to the wise: I remember reading that Frank Gaffney used to work for the CFR, but that part of his biography appears to have been scrubbed from the internet.

Egghead said...

Hey, did I ever tell you about the time years ago that the Baron asked me to edit (for free) a high profile counterjihad project for Gaffney?

I declined because I might want to write my own counterjihad book someday - and I have a very unique voice.

I often wonder if the CFR was recruiting (co-opting) me to volunteer for them?!


Egghead said...

Speaking of defeatist, more than one mainstream counterjihadist has seriously offered the following slogan: 'You will have to kill all of us!'

Geert Widlers sends the message to Muslims: 'Free yourself.'

Egghead said...

Correction: Geert Wilders.

Henry said...

It's interesting to me that nobody, as far as I am aware, gave this angle to Gingrich's idea - it was his last ditch, anything goes move to get VPed. Just look at the timeline. It was the last grasp of tipping the scales. It was just po po po politics. And as such, it has no substance. It could even be detrimental to the idea, because it was stated without integrity and conviction. But mostly, it was empty air.