Saturday, January 21, 2017

The Psychology of the Counter-Jihad, yadda yadda...

(This continues from my preceding post in my series on the psychology of the Counter-Jihad.)

What better laboratory specimen for examining and analyzing the psychology of the Counter-Jihad than the comments section (growing day by day, at 188 at this point) of a recent Jihad Watch article, emblazoned with the energetically robust title:

Trump vows to "eradicate completely" "radical Islamic terrorism"

For the Counter-Jihad, whose raison d'être, one would reasonably think, is to wake up the West to the problem of Islam, the crux of the discussion should be about two things:

1) this facile & fallacious distinction between "radical Islam" and "Islam"

2) the logical consequences flowing from our educated conclusion that the problem is Islam, not any dysphemistic term that would try to whittle the problem down (e.g., "radical Islam" or "political Islam" or "Islamism" or "Salafism" or "Wahhabism" or any mixed-and-matched combination of the aforementioned).

And what are those logical consequences?  Obviously, it is that, if the problem is Islam, the Islam of 1.6 billion Muslims, then what does that say about those 1.6 billion Muslims, for whom this same Islam is their central meaning of life spiritually, socially, and politically?

This question then looks back at #1 to guide it.  We in the Counter-Jihad who have educated ourselves about Islam, knowing that the problem is mainstream Islam, the same Islam of all Muslims, know that Islam is, and always has been, a blueprint for world conquest based upon a fanatical totalitarianism, involving a combination of violent terrorism and non-violent subversion -- the latter proceeding successfully because too many in the West, including in the Counter-Jihad, do not see the necessary, intimate connection between seemingly harmless Muslims and the Muslims on the front lines of their perennial jihad against the rest of the world.

Whenever they find themselves pressed by the logic of this kind of question, Counter-Jihadists tend to squirm and in their anxiety they generate innumerable permutations of different kinds of Muslims.  This permutation of types of Muslims is evidently supposed to get the Counter-Jihadist out of the uncomfortable position of condemning all Muslims, by releasing that pressure through positing the viable existence of innumerable Muslims who are somehow, in one way or another... not Islamic.

And this tendency of the Counter-Jihad is how they can have their cake (of robustly asserting that the problem is Islam, not just "radical Islam"), and eat it too (positing innumerable Muslims who are somehow not putting Islam into practice and thus should not be targeted by our policies of self-defense from Islam).

And this is the movement that is supposed to help wake up the West? 

So those 188 comments by Counter-Jihad civilians, what do they say about these questions?  Predictably, the topic of of the specious distinction "radical Islam" and "Islam" straight no chaser comes up many times, quite robustly -- but only twice does anyone dare to connect the dot to all Muslims.  

And of those two times, only one of these is worth considering:

It seems that American politicians don’t have the courage to speak of opposing Islam without slapping the “radical” modifier on it. The fear is understandable — they’re afraid of criticizing “all Muslims” — but their solution is unacceptable.

This commenter is correct on this point but, alas, he failed to draw out the logic. And naturally, it was typed by someone I've never seen commenting on Jihad Watch before.

(The other one was clearly connoting genocidal hatred -- "ALL muslims are abhorrent and foul disgusting filth, the utter dregs of human slime and sickness." -- and besides, such emotional hatred is irrelevant to our pragmatic concern to protect our societies from Muslims.)
Otherwise, we see various & sundry Jihad Watchers typing all around the crux, while avoiding its logic:

Trump may know very well that Islam is Islam and it is radical, but in the current situation it is hard even for him to say it.

* * * * *

A good first step (IMO): remind our neighbors and friends that our constitution’s 1st amendment does not permit religious ACTS which violate U.S. law.
Carrying out Qur’an 5:38’s command to amputate thieves’ hands (as but one example) is ILLEGAL in this country–per our manmade law.
Muslims around the world need to be reminded of that, too.

* * * * *

Among other things, the First Amendment doesn’t protect sedition. Thanks to the Saudis, that’s what is being preached in mosques all over the US.
Jihadist mosques should be closed.

* * * * *

All mosques teach jihad and therefore all of them should be closed. No imam can preach Islam without teaching jihad. It is as simple as that!

* * * * *
All preaching in the mosque should be subject to prior approval by the state(authorized English translation) and should be closely monitored by the state as a first step towards taking legal action including closing down the mosques that violate the rule .

* * * * *

“radical Islamic terrorism” is just a euphemism for “Islam”

[And, I would add, "Islam" is a euphemism for "all Muslims"]

* * * * *

An impossible task [to eradicate radical Islam completely]. Terror is generic to Islam, just like biting is natural to rattlesnakes.
But certainly its eradication is possible in the USA under his leadership.

* * * * *

A measure of how far we are removed from rationality is that we can’t say we want to eradicate Islamic terrorism, we have to limit ourselves to eradicating RADICAL Islamic terrorism.
Islam is the scourge of the earth. Deal with it accordingly.

* * * * *

President Trump will go for the throat , if he can find it…
The first step toward eliminating terrorism is to stop using the word ‘radical;,,,when I hear kuffar use it, I know they don’t really understand Islam and then can’t really know the enemy…If you don’t know the enemy, you will underestimate the enemy, and you will lose…

* * * * *

The “radical” has got to go. It’s just Islam, Islamic Terrorism (Jihad). Now if Trump starts using “Jihad” that’s even better.

* * * * *
One commenter began to get warm but, unfortunately, didn't pursue his logic explicitly (and also failed to remind his reader of the necessary symbiosis of violent jihad with stealth jihad):

Radical Islãmic terrorism could voluntarily vanish, as a directive from Islãm.
The Muslims have to be only simply as nice as pie, and as accommodating as you like, and breed and be merry, and wait, and plot and plan.
They may see themselves as the pilgrims on the Mayflower did.
The Islãmic invasion remains, terror or no terror, the tide of Islãm vibrates in ebb, waiting, growing, waiting, growing, as ‘peaceful’ as you like, plotting, planning, smiling, lying.
Allah is a mass of Muslim souls, the right catalyst may cause it to explode, releasing souls that will migrate somewhere.

* * * * *

Trump’s war on “radical islamic terrorism” will be as effective as the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror and so on. It is like to treat headache caused by a brain tumor. It will make a patient more comfortable, but the problem is still there and will likely get worse. The disease is islam. If islam continues to be a legal ideology, terrorism will continue. Only by making islam as illigal as some other cults, war on terror can be successful. American congress might pass a law banding islam after 2 or 3 more 9/11ns.

* * * * *


It becomes almost surreal how these robust, tough, no-nonsense Counter-Jihadists can wax boldly about the problem of Islam -- yet studiously tip-toe around the ones (um, you know, Muslims) who put Islam into practice on a daily basis -- either by killing us more and more, or plotting to kill us more and more, or lying about it.


Nobody said...

Hesperado, had anyone else made the statement Trump made, I'd have just groaned the same way as you. However, Trump saying it is different in that he's well known for making imprecise, hyperbolic and sweeping statements

If you recall, this is the same man who talked about thousands of people celebrating 9/11. It doesn't matter whether the actual number was thousands or hundreds or tens: bottom line is that he recognizes it as a hostile community and would deal w/ it as such. Similarly, using the redundant adjective 'radical' and equally redundant noun 'terrorism' should do nothing to disguise his apparent disdain for Islam. He almost half-joked that Obama would have attended Scalia's funeral had it been done in a mosque, and doesn't make any distinctions b/w groups of Muslims.

So while I would normally groan at Trump's statement if made by anyone else, I'm fine w/ Trump's statement. In his case, it's important to go by what he means, rather than take him literally. That was the Clinton standard, where one had to carefully parse what 'is' is, but that's never been the case w/ Trump

Hesperado said...


Speaking of psychology, you almost had me agreeing with you, out of wishful thinking. You are neglecting to factor in how difficult it is even for most in the Counter-Jihad to go there, let alone someone (Trump) who never showed signs up until a few months ago of being substantively concerned about it. This, indeed, seems to be a central feature of Counter-Jihad psychology -- to cling to a partial indication as though it were the whole, when there is no evidence for that (and plenty of evidence for the massive phenomenon of partial thinking on the problem of Islam/Muslims and its complex, albeit incoherent, justification).