Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Counter-Jihad 2.0: Outdated Software

In a posting on Jihad Watch, where outmoded Counter-Jihad software often compromises its fine reportage with dubious analysis, Raymond Ibrahim within his first three paragraphs slipped on a banana peel.  Of course, no one at Jihad Watch noticed, nor will notice.

First paragraph: Raymond quotes himself from another recent article:

When it comes to the connection between Islam and violence against non-Muslims, one fact must be embraced: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in the West are either liars or fools, or both. No other alternative exists. 

Then he notes that various readers took issue with his overly "simple" approach.

Both in the comments section on my site as well as those of other websites that carried the article, and through emails, many begged to differ.  They argued that there are other alternatives and my distinction—fool, liar, or both—is too simple.

The problem with Raymond's formulation is not that it is too simple, but that its simple parts are not developed, and more importantly, Raymond is not fully digesting the implications of the simple formula he sets forth.  Raymond went on to note one type of objection he rejects:

Some argue that those Western leaders who refuse to connect Islam to violence and terrorism are simply being “politically correct”...

So the first problem that leaps to our eye is that Raymond for some strange reason thinks that being politically correct is not to be a fool.  That's Raymond's first mistake.

It goes downhill from there.

On the contrary, and massaging the tissue of the issue with a bit more subtlety, we may stipulate that politically correct multi-culturalism (PC MC) is a species of folly, but it is not simple folly -- it is what has long ago been termed that paradoxical subspecies:  learned folly.  Over six years ago, I examined this issue in detail with an essay titled Morosophy and the Mother of all Others -- where the archaic word "morosophy" means precisely "learned folly".

The main reason the analysis moves to a point where we must tweak the folly into a paradoxical form is two-fold:

1) many of the Westerners who continue to defend Islam & Muslims are themselves intelligent and therefore not stupid or foolish in the simplistic sense; and

2) if on the other hand, we impute mendacity to them rather than any kind of folly, we are suddenly moving into conspiracy-theory territory and charging a few million Westerners with knowing evil and functioning as a Dastardly Cabal of "Elites" who are either knowingly manipulating Muslims into destroying the West or who are knowingly playing along with Muslims in order to destroy the West.

For many reasons I have articulated over the years, I reject Door Number Two.

(That third option Raymond proffers, by the way, is incoherent:  you can't have a mixture of folly and mendacity, since the folly is precisely based in unwitting enablement, whereas the mendacity is based in knowing collusion.)

If it could be demonstrated persuasively that it is impossible to defend Islam & Muslims and not be in knowingly evil collusion with Muslims, I might begin to perk up and entertain the egregious "Real Problemer" thesis (see here and here -- the latter link leading the reader on to a two-part essay -- for my previous discussions of this problem).  As it is, the fact that PC MC may be found in centuries past -- even as far back as the 16th century philosopher and statesman Michel de Montaigne -- indicates it is not some new and recent cabal.  To then acknowledge that millennial provenance, and yet still argue for a dastardly conspiracy theory, leads the analysis into the feverish level of a Manichean gnosis where the evil is cosmic; which not only is untenable, but also impossible to verify or falsify.

At any rate, I have to my satisfaction over the years explained PC MC by examining its component parts using an Occam's razor that brackets out any conspiracy theory elements, and it seems plausible to me that those component parts are sufficient to explain the whole, and that the whole is not a mystery demanding a more radical explanation.  In speculating on this process -- specifically, the rise of PC MC in the West in the 20th century to sociopolitical dominance as a reigning fashion of worldview -- I do not reject the role of Marxists (and their less caffeinated cousins, Leftists) in enhancing the problem.  But there is always the nagging problem, whenever someone pushes this further and nudges forward the implication that Communists (and/or any other nefarious cabal) are actively manipulating our collective mass neurosis about Islam as though that is the main reason for Western myopia about the problem of Islam.  Such an implication has the strange rider of imputing a sheeplike docility to untold tens if not hundreds of millions of Westerners who would have to be the unwitting dupes, including many who are otherwise intelligent -- unless the conspiracy theorist is going out on a drastic limb to claim that the majority of Westerners -- hundreds of millions -- are also knowingly evil.  And these are not the only problems of the conspiracy theory that would somehow take the spotlight off of Islam and put it back on the West itself as the locus of the "real problem".

So, the Problem of the Problem needs to hold in tandem and in balance many competing facts, respecting them individually, and then assessing whether they can be held together plausibly.


I note that the Rabbit Pack (a high-school clique of long-time regular Jihad Watch commenters) weighed in on this issue, when two of its members (gravenimage and Mirren) saw fit to help school a newbie (one "ktulu") who was inordinately baffled by the prevalence of PC MC in the West.

Quoting ktulu --

”I’m just trying to understand this seemingly relentless inability of authority to recognise the clear and present dangers inherent in allowing Islam to spread it’s vitriol seemingly unchecked, and seemingly (atm) uncheckable.”

-- Mirren says that

ktulu, graven is right, I think.

 What gravenimage was "right" about was her simplistic iteration that political correctness is the explanation.  But that's not really an explanation; it's merely a label for the phenomenon that demands an explanation.

So Mirren seems to notice there's more to the story:

But I also think there is another layer, as you put it.

Her explanation, unfortunately -- and unsurprisingly -- doesn't really explain much and only raises new questions that should baffle a ktulu:

For one thing, those in authority are not *personally* affected, and never will be. They are surrounded by massive security, 24/7. Therefore it doesn’t touch them.

Also, as far as they are concerned, we, the ordinary people, who *are* affected, are mere collateral damage/sacrificial lambs on the altar of PC/MC. Their virtue signalling is far more important to them than a few thousand deaths of the hoi polli [sic].

Other layers would include the vast sums of money dangled by Middle Eastern mohammedan countries, and concomitant with that, a political attitude that really doesn’t give a tuppenny damn about the generations to come, so long as they don’t have to take any uncomfortable/unpopular decisions right *now.*

The first two paragraphs are just claiming that the Dastardly Elites are out of touch with the Common Man and because they are so lofty in their gated communities (literally and figuratively), they are not bothered by the problem of Islam.  This begs the question of whether they know how dangerous Islam is, but because they are comfortably and safely ensconced in their palaces, they don't care.  This creates a cartoonish caricature of Dastardly Elites who simultaneously are callously devoid of civic duty on a Dickensian level on steroids, and who are witless fools to underestimate the danger of Islam which if left unchecked will also destroy their means of comfort.  Mirren's third paragraph only goes downhill from there, implying that the Dastardly Elites also are motivated by greed to defend Islam -- which again begs the question: are they doing this knowing that Islam is evil and if left unchecked will destroy the West?  Or are they that stupid to think it won't happen? 

Nowhere in the explanations proferred by gravenimage and Mirren is any sense of understanding what must be positively motivating those in our society who are PC MC -- what virtues, values & principles are being confused with a defense of Muslims, such that in fact it is the honorable motives of these so-called "Elites" which are moving them to so distastrously put Muslims on the side of the angels (and those who are reasonably alarmed at Muslims on the side of the "bigots" and "racists" and other outcasts of modern polite society).  This is not even factoring in that the explanations proferred by gravenimage and Mirren don't allude to the vast swaths of Ordinary People who are also beholden to PC MC in the modern West -- a massive fact that can be verified by just stepping outside of one's home and engaging in a discussion any random carbon-based entity with opposable thumbs and walking upright on the problem of Muslims.


Egghead said...

One more thing: With what we know about Agenda 21, one or more bombs would be a perfect way to consolidate large masses of people into small 'safe' areas.

Note well that any bombs do NOT need to be real. Only the martial law leading mandatory evacuation and loss of all income, assets, and civil rights need to be real. Once citizens are made refugees, people will be helpless against both government and civilian depredations.

Egghead said...

Well, the censors are back with a vengeance!

Egghead said...

If our friendly neighborhood jihadis decide to bomb the candidates at either debate, my family will be in the path of more (VA) or less (NY) nuclear fallout.

The first presidential debate in Monday, September 26, 2016, in Hempstead, NY.

The vice presidential debate is Tuesday, October 4, 2016, in Farmville, VA.

I am very worried about the September date. I am worried about declaration of indefinite martial law, invitation to UN to control USA, confiscation of guns from new refugees at checkpoints and camps, and 'democratic' imposition of new Sharia government by OIC-controlled UN.

Egghead said...

As for mendacity, let's look at your number 2 option.

You like (former? current? CFR staffer) Frank Gaffney, right?

Anonymous said...

"Raymond Ibrahim within his first three paragraphs slipped on a banana peel. Of course, no one at Jihad Watch noticed, nor will notice."

Oh, and you know this because you can read minds? You are such a phony blowhard, it boggles the mind. I have read you over at JWatch for years amidst all your bannings and have simply cringed at all of your bullshit.

You are a phony. Simply put. A crazy internet phony. Nobody is listening to you. Nobody reads your crap. You are a non-entity, flailing about like a kite in a typhoon.

Hesperado said...

Once again "Joe Blow" (aka "Philip Jihadski") posting as "Anonymous" above hamfistedly errs. He berates me for saying that "no one at Jihad Watch noticed, nor will notice" as if that takes mind-reading. No; what it takes is looking at the comments section there and seeing... no comments noticing the slip I pointed out. Not only were there no comments noticing it then, there still aren't any, a week later (and with comments sections, after a week passes, it's exceedingly unlikely anyone will post any new comments). The only comment that comes close is one by "pennant8" who wrote:

"It takes a special kind of fool who is blind to all the empirical evidence about Islam accumulated not from the year 610, but just from the year 1979 which is a date as good as any to mark the resurgence of Islamic jihad in the modern era."

Indeed, a special kind of fool -- not just a plain vanilla fool. That is the whole point of the analysis whereby we avoid the twin dangers of a speciously sophomoric explanation on the one hand, and a conspiracy theory on the other. Unfortunately, pennant8 didn't develop that further. And naturally, Philip Jihadski's tag-team buddy, "Angemon", gave uncritical thumbs-up to Jihad Watch relative newcome Michael Laudahn's simple-minded observation:

"I completely agree with this alternative – liars or fools. It’s as simple as that."

It would be nice if life were as simple as the simple minds of Philip Jihadski, Angemon, Michael Laudahn make it out to be...

(The rest of Philip Jihadski's comment above is generalized unsubstantiated blather in the form of a brutely hostile ad hominem fallacy. The Rabbit Pack -- gravenimage, Mirren, Wellington, dumbledoresarmy, PRCS, Western Canadian, et al. -- must be proud of their friend.)

Anonymous said...

"No; what it takes is looking at the comments section there and seeing... no comments noticing the slip I pointed out."

Oh, and because there are no comments, that PROVES your statement that "nobody noticed"?!

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Like I said - you have no way to know if anyone noticed or not, what you claim, unless of course, you're a mind-reader.

And it's not Ad Hominem if it's true, are a phony blowhard who is still up to his same old bullshit, which is why you were banned from JWatch. We all got sick of it and you.

Egghead said...

Why do either of you care about the other?

If Hesp is incorrect, it should be inconsequential to you.

It is only if Hesp is correct that it would matter.

Hesp, he is here to waste your time and lower your morale.

He is here because a psychologist somewhere thinks that this particular psyops will work best against you.

You have more valuable things to consider and write.

Hesperado said...

Egghead said...

Why do either of you care about the other?

As I've stated elsewhere before, I don't care about PHilip Jihadski per se; what bothers me is how the support for him by numerous Jihad WAtch regulars who form a kind of nucleus of a counter-jihad community at Jihad Watch comment s(because of the number of comments they post, the networking they manifest, the solidarity they uphold, the encouragement (or chastisement) they offer to other commenters who are either seldom participants or newbies) -- and the support for Angemon -- poisons what could have been, what could be, a useful community in the larger context of the counter-jihad. It pisses me off, and I occasionally want to express the hows and whys of my anger * disappointment about it. That -- and related important issues of erroneous methodology -- is why I have devoted time to write whole essays tangential to this.

Secondly, me writing one brief comment here, another brief comment there, over the span of weeks where I don't bother to write anything in response, to clarify the erroneous logic of PJ (as his JW friends call him) is hardly me diverting my time.

But now -- though PJ is not even one thousandth as talented in rabbit-hole sophistry as his tag-team buddy, Angemon, who inevitably ensnares his interlocutor in time-wasting rabbit trails -- I see PJ is attempting to deepen the hole he's dug with more specious red herrings & non sequiturs; all of which I will avoid.

Egghead said...

Ok. :)

Anonymous said...

" I see PJ is attempting to deepen the hole he's dug with more specious red herrings & non sequiturs; all of which I will avoid."

Translation? I can't answer the simple logic because I'm too stupid. You didn't address my retort, of course, because you can't. You're an idiot - plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

Scarmbled Eggs Head:

"If Hesp is incorrect, it should be inconsequential to you.

It is only if Hesp is correct that it would matter."


Looks like you went to the same Idiot School that Bob went to. According to your fabulous logic:

1.) If I am a teacher of Algebra, it should be "inconsequential" to me if a student of mine gives incorrect answers and proofs on an exam.

2.) I should only give attention - it should only "matter" to me - when certain students give correct answers.

You're a complete idiot, too.

Egghead said...

If we are complete idiots, then it should be obvious to all without requiring rebuttal or insult.

Your attention to us means that you want to draw attention away from us and to yourself.

Anonymous said...


"Your attention to us means that you want to draw attention away from us and to yourself."

FINALLY! You got something right! You're exactly correct, because the more attention I get, the less goes toward you and your Jew-Hating conspiracy theories and your rampant illogic.

Oh, and by the way, this is an open forum, so kiss my ass, dummy! I'll say what I like when I like, without a care in the world.

So fuck off, you little Jew-Hating Twit.

Egghead said...

Hi David Horowitz (wink!),

Let's be real. Of course you are Jewish.

Jewish people need to stop genociding white Western Christians - and other non-Jews.

Thou shalt NOT murder!

Egghead said...

Oh, and many Jews DO sound whiny and immature and self-centered - like you sound.

I guess that it's the 'end of the world' if someone calls Jews 'whiny brats,' whereas Jews routinely accuse EVERYONE else of being Nazis - even the people who fought the Nazis - in a war that was contrived by Jewish financial terrorists so that Jews could genocide white Western Christians!

Egghead said...

Here we go again with your 69 page report (note well the sexual connotation of 69):

You are determined to draft defenseless white Western Christian girls away from their families into the military where they will be easy targets for rape and murder by Muslim rape gangs.