My commentary on my last post, "The Psychology of the Counter-Jihad Softy"

For years, as I kept noticing the chewy, nougaty softness of the typical Counter-Jihadist ("sure, Islam is horrible, but not all Muslims are bad!  Just deport the few Salafist Extremists, monitor the Salafist Extremist mosques, stop the immigration of the Salafist Extremists, educate the majority of Muslims who just wanna have sandwiches, and we'll solve the problem..."), 

In the interest of brevity, my description doesn't mention nuance and complexity.  It's not like all the Counter=Jihadists I've observed over the years exhibited the same degree of softness; nor that they remained static that way.  But on certain key points -- the problem of all Muslims, and the topic of total deportation -- their baseline nougat would tend to assert itself.

I kept thinking that surely, they would begin to adjust their rosy-colored perspective with every fresh atrocity Muslims would perpetrate and/or plot. 

Again, the nuance:  I did notice some adjustment of their perspective, and some varied instances of tougher language over the years, cautiously verging toward a suspicion and antipathy of Muslims in general.  But again, when assertively pressed on this, they tended to retreat back to a safe softness (and direct their ire at the provoker, me, who dared to press them on this -- either for being a stupid ninny for thinking they weren't truly tough on Islam, or for being a crypto-Nazi.

...the more I confronted them assertively, the more they recoiled to defend their nougat.  

And when they aren't confronted, they tend to be looser with their anti-Islam rhetoric edging (or spilling) over into a vague anti-Muslim rhetoric that could be interpreted as so general as to refer to all Muslims.  But when I would challenge them to think this through logically (as in, "How do you know that a Muslim who's just eating a sandwich is part of the jihad that threatens our civilization?" or "What are we going to do about the problem of Muslims?"), then would begin their tortured process of incoherent avoidance of the logical extrapolation.  The bottom line is the question:  How many Muslims act out the problem of Islam?  A recent essay of mine -- How many Muslims are jihadists? -- explored this related problem.

The logic that reasonably flows from our increasing education on Islam -- particularly the devastating problem of taqiyya, as well as the underlying and comprehensive worldview of world conquest through sword and through deceptive subversion -- is that no Muslim is exempt from our suspicion.  When you then add to this what the stakes are -- nothing less than the survival of the West  -- it becomes reckless to continue to obstruct, in various (often subtle) ways, this flow of logic from reaching conscious, coherent clarity as a platform for the Counter-Jihad's main raison d'être -- to wake up the mainstream West to the nature of the problem of Islam.

It then struck me recently that it is the very fact of the alarming nature of the problem of Islam -- its frighteningly grotesque ultra-violent fanaticism coupled with the vertiginously escalating worsening of its effects around the globe (and increasingly in our West) -- that actually fuels their softness.  Deep down, the Counter-Jihad Softy shares the same fear of being "bigoted" and "racist" against Muslims; but he can't admit this consciously.  Instead, the psychological impact of the indigestibly horrific data they are digesting, by a curious dynamic, actually strengthens the Counter-Jihad Softy's resolve to be soft on Muslims.  

And this dynamic seems to be self-reinforcing:  Not only will it not adjust with mounting evidence indicating it should adjust; it positively feeds off the worsening of the situation.  Thus, as with the PC MC, the Counter-Jihad Softy apparently is not going to change his mind when more data is presented to him.  The process, apparently, is not quantitative.  A qualitative paradigm shift has to occur in his mind.  How to bring that about seems to be a puzzle as mystifying as it is for how to bring about the awakening of the average PC MC -- for whom also, more and more data about Islam doesn't seem to lead to the scales falling from their eyes.  Of course, it's not that no amount of Islamic horror would cause them to change their minds; the question is only, will that sufficient amount (whatever it is)  be so cataclysmic that, once it succeeds to wake them up, it will be too late for all of us...?