Monday, January 16, 2017

The Logic of the Stealth Jihad
Muslims, fanatically following their Islamic blueprint encoded in their Sunna (not merely of Sunni Muslims, but also of Shia Muslims, who have their own Sunna) want to take over the West and replace our civilizational order with their anti-civilization.

Muslims won’t be able to take over the West without massive and rampant acts of violence, for two reasons: 1) The West remains astronomically superior to Islam, in every way, including technologically, scientifically, militarily, and morally.  And 2) because the Islamic order with which Muslims want to replace our West is outrageously inimical to the worldview and values of the vast majority of Westerners (other than a tiny minority of extremist Leftists and sociopathic criminals).

Anyone who thinks otherwise, apparently hasn’t thought through how radically, monstrously different the Muslim society is from Western society (we’re talking the true Muslim society, not the traveling Potemkin Circus the pseudo-Reformer Muslims try to sell the West). Only a tiny fraction of Westerners are so far gone they would actually prefer, or allow, such a takeover without being violently compelled to submit.

What’s going on with “Sharia Creep” that Hugh Fitzgerald and others in the Counter-Jihad document is an artificial phenomenon, generated by the stealth jihad that has to operate that way because Muslims aren’t capable of just taking over with might.

The transition from the elaborate subterfuge and deception going on in this phase to a “takeover” logically can’t happen by more of the same -- more subterfuge and deception -- because that is not the real Sharia nor is it the real Islam. And the reason why, obviously, is because Westerners wouldn’t put up with hand-chopping for theft, head-chopping for witchcraft, stoning adulterers, and flogging for casual sex acts (let alone for mere mingling of men and women in public), and hanging gays from cranes. So, Muslims have to sell the idea of a “Sharia Lite” (which is a taqiyya fiction) in order to get a toe-wedge in for the beginning of Sharia Creep.

But again, there is no smooth, gradual transition from the Sharia Lite to head-chopping. At a certain point, the vast majority of Westerners -- including even the dunderheaded PC MCs -- will be forced awake, and at that point Muslims will have to pull off the mask and draw out the sword to attack us. They can’t do that yet, because they have more infiltrating to do. And the West continues to enable that continued infiltration -- and many in the Counter-Jihad do their part in this Useful Idiocy, by refusing to push the meme of rational prejudice against all Muslims.


Nobody said...

A good litmus test of your theory should play out this year in Europe. In France, Marine Le Pen should win by a landslide. Similarly, all anti Islamic parties, even if they are neo-Nazi, should win their countries by landslide, if what you say about people awakening is correct.

After all, Europe has seen those record number of rapes in Germany and Austria, and other terror attacks in France. Given what they've gone through, if I were a citizen of any of these countries, I'd vote for any party that's anti-islamic, including neo-Nazis.

If despite everything that's happened, governments don't change in France, Germany and other European countries in favor of brazenly anti-Islamic parties, I'd say your theory is wrong: they can conquer us, and we won't care

Hesperado said...

Nobody, I wasn't arguing that the West will wake up in time. I think it's inevitable that the West, that Westerners in general, will wake up to the full catastrophe of Islam, because Muslims have to pull off the mask at some point (after they feel they have enough leverage to ruin our societies comprehensively). The only question is whether Westerners in general will wake up in time to reverse the horror, or will they wake up at the moment it is too late? I used to be an optimist about this; I've become a pessimist (and a good deal of my pessimism has dawned on me as a consequence of seeing the Counter-Jihad thrash around in incoherence about the problem of Islam, and deep denial about the problem of all Muslims).

Nobody said...

I have become a bit more optimistic over the last year. If you recall when Trump first announced his ban on Muslims (since morphed into Extreme Vetting), people expected his numbers to dive, even in the primary. Instead, while Trump's overall numbers in the primary at that time remained at ~35%, 70% of the GOP voters agreed w/ him on this, even though half of them were supporting other candidates. In the larger population, 45% of ALL voters supported him. That is significant, when you consider that this includes the population of SJWs, CAIR supporters and everyone else in the country. And if you consider how he carried the election

Don't draw your conclusions on what you see on Jihadwatch. Look outside it, and you'll see a lot more opposition to Islam across the board.

Hesperado said...

I'm a bit confused, Nobody. In your first comment, you say I'm being too optimistic, and you conclude with " I'd say your theory is wrong: they can conquer us, and we won't care."

Then in your second comment, you paint a rosy picture of the future, and in your last sentence you imply that your optimism is based on ordinary people in general ("across the board").

Just to take your last sentence for now, I have looked outside Jihad Watch -- I do all the time -- and what I see is no better, and often worse.

But of course, how are we measuring "better" and "worse"? If we have different measures, then of course we could be talking past each other. One key component of my measure is the willingness (or lack thereof) to join together the problem of Islam with the problem of all Muslims -- and to do so coherently, intelligently, and consistently. Not only do I not see that for the most part outside of Jihad Watch (nor inside of Jihad Watch), I see more often than not -- even within the amorphous boundaries of the Counter-Jihad in general -- subtle (or sometimes blatant) impediments to such a willingness.

Nobody said...


My optimism was about the US alone, based on the reactions to Trump. Nowadays, whenever I post anti-Muslim stuff on other places, namely slashdot, I get trashed, but I get plenty of support as well. Which I never expected at one time.

The doubts that I expressed in my first post was about the West at large, and Europe in particular, but I wasn't including the US in that

Hesperado said...

In my estimation, Trump provides hope only to the extent that his demonstration of an increased knowledge and awareness of the problem of Islam graduates beyond its present state of robust vagueness to something more definitive -- and accurate in relation to the actual nature of the problem. His choices for Cabinet, particularly General Mattis, indicate he is satisfied with the status quo ante, invigorated by that maddening kind of "toughness" that is soft and chewy nougat on the inside, in terms of its inability to break free of the Tiny (Perhaps Slightly Larger Than Tiny) Minority of Extremists Who Have a Lot to do with "Islamism" but Nothing To Do With the Islam of the Majority of Nice Muslims paradigm.

Then there's the problem of a Europe that falls to Islamic disorder (not "conquest" per se), a disastrous eventuality for the world, and for the USA, hardly a thing to be optimistic about. Indeed, what Trump should have said about NATO was this: "We don't need a NATO in the traditional sense anymore, as a bulwark against a now non-existent Soviet expansionism; but we do need a NATO against an all-too real expansionism of Islam."

Shoulda, woulda, coulda -- ain't did.