Tuesday, April 04, 2017

The Counter-Jihad Trickle

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8b/98/45/8b9845c44f16dea963be141e2c042750.jpg

I've spoken of the "Counter-Jihad Mainstream", that broad quasi-movement of people out there gettin' it done -- writing books, attending seminars & colloquia, participating in various activist events and demonstrations, debating Muslims and/or Islamopologists, being interviewed on each other's Internet radio and/or video shows, presiding over popular blogs, getting invited to brief police and intelligence groups...  have I left out anything?

Gettin' it done.  But what exactly is this "it" they're gettin' done?

Therein lies the rub.  I won't go into details at length about this now, since I've written about it many times before (see this Google page for a few of my previous essays).  In a nutshell, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream pursues a soft approach to the problem of Islam -- chiefly by ignoring (when not positively softening) the crucial corollary problem: the problem of all Muslims.

If this is the Mainstream of the Counter-Jihad, what's left over?  Either an eensy minority, or perhaps a Silent Majority, most of whom apparently (if they exist) are too timid to pipe up and make their disagreements known to the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.  And perhaps many of them coast along under the vague hope that if enough incoherent nougat from the Counter-Jihad Mainstream is thrown on the wall of the broader PC MC Mainstream, something will eventually stick.

Anywho, these thoughts were occasioned by a breath of fresh air I suddenly gulped yesterday evening (I almost choked in my surprise), in the form of a blogger who, as far as I can tell, is decidedly and appropriately tough on the issue.  I speak of Chris Logan, who's blog is Logan's Warning (it's been on my blogroll for some time).  I don't read his blog frequently enough, perhaps; but all along I knew he was tough, I just didn't know how tough, and subliminally I dreaded being disappointed, as I have been so many times before by other seemingly tough-talking Counter-Jihadists, by seeing sudden signs of nougaty softness.

My experience last night had its amusing moment:  I noticed his latest piece was a critique of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  So far, so good.  While I used to be a loyal supporter of Ayaan, I've become increasingly dismayed by her calls for Islamic "reform" and her partnering up, practically, with that pseudo-reformer snake Maajid Nawaz of late.  So I settled into Logan's exposĂ© with eager anticipation.  Then midway in my reading, I had an odd experience: It might have been my inattentive reading, or it might have been Logan's typographical layout which was a little confusing, but I found myself reading some lengthy text that struck me as markedly soft.  I paused, leaned back in my chair, and thought: "Good God, even Logan is a Counter-Jihad Softy?   What the hell is going on...!?"

Stuff like this:

The dominant strategy from 9/11 through the present, focusing only on Islamist violence, has failed. In focusing only on acts of violence, we have ignored the ideology that justifies, promotes, celebrates, and encourages violence, and the methods of dawa used to spread that ideology. Without question, certain military operations against jihadist groups could be conducted more effectively. The virtual abandonment of Iraq, the overreliance on air power and drone strikes, the belief that terrorist networks can somehow be decapitated: all of these have been fundamental tactical errors.  

This is typical of Counter-Jihad Softies: they begin by sounding fairly tough, and yet my semi-conscious weariness already picked up, peripherally, fine cracks of nougat, which I was willing to forgive temporarily (the "Islamist" violence), since I already had respect for Logan and wanted to see where he was going with this.  I read on:

Nevertheless, a return to the highly effective counterinsurgency tactics of the Iraq “surge” and its counterpart in Afghanistan, while necessary, cannot be regarded as a sufficient response to the threat we face. Plainly, we cannot continue to fight political Islam by engaging in large-scale foreign military interventions. 

This was my first slap of cold water.  I thought, "Huh??? Logan is commending our disastrous "Surge" policy?  And what's this about "political Islam" -- that Daniel-Pipesian nonsense picked up eagerly by pseudo-reformers Maajid Nawaz and Zuhdi Jasser...?"

I read on:

The American public has not unreasonably lost faith in that approach. So what else can be done?
First, we need a paradigm shift that recognizes how violent jihad is intertwined with the ideological infrastructure of dawa. 

Ah great, I thought -- a new paradigm!  Who doesn't like new paradigms?  Let's continue:

In the old paradigm, we focused on combating Islamic terrorism  In the new paradigm, we must continue to seek the destruction of groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, but we must also
develop a suitable strategy to combat dawa. 


Okay, I thought, dawa is bad, we can all agree on that.  And since dawa is a central part of mainstream Islam, so far so good, I guessed...

This will reopen—if it was ever over—the contentious debate on how to balance civil rights with the need for security. There are trade-offs to be made here, as always. It is clearly fatalistic to suggest, as the Obama administration did, that Americans must learn to live with the terrorist threat and that, on the basis of statistics, Americans are more in danger from their own bathtubs than from Islamist terrorists. The terrorist threat cannot be measured only by the number of successful terrorist attacks. The threat also includes the many attacks that were thwarted by effective security measures and, more importantly, the unknown plots currently being hatched, and the probability that such plots will grow more numerous and more dangerous in the future.

Again, it sounded good, other than that annoying "Islamist" that was beginning to stick in the craw.

Bathtubs do not plot to overthrow the American way of life. The Islamists do. 

Oh brother, there it is again.

Now the next couple of sentences is where I checked out of Motel Counter-Jihad:

It is the job of Congress to find the right balance in the face of this specific threat between our rights and freedoms and a policy package that is effective in combating the threat. Protection of the religious rights of the members of the Muslim minority who are not engaged in Islamist dawa should be an integral part of that package. 

I thought, "What in tarnation...!!!???  Logan is concerned about Muslims who are "not engaged in Islamist dawa"...!!!???  Have I entered the freaking Twilight Zone...!!!???"

After a few moments of doing something else to clear my head, I realized what had happened.  I had mistaken an extended quotation from Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself for Logan's own thoughts on the matter.  What passed for robustly anti-"Islamist" rhetoric -- the mealy-mouthed pablum of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream retailed by Ayaan -- was being rightly condemned by Logan.  Sanity restored.  Thank you, Logan.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

17 articles up and NINE COMMENTS. Wow! That's some serious counter-jihad shit going on there! What an impact you're having!

You write as mental masturbation.

Your views are irrelevant and they are not listened-to.

You are a kite in a hurricane (to steal a line).

You are absolutely useless, except to yourself, as a masturbator.

Anonymous said...

Imagine that, someone who spells "masturbator" correctly. Good spelling is at least some small measure of adequate cognition.

Does the number of comments beneath Hesperado's articles, have anything to do with the validity or relevance of the points made in those articles?

Yorick of Snarkinore

Hesperado said...

Thanks Yorick. I'd say "that's all he's got", except that two or three times in comments here in the past, he has attempted a more in-depth critique, but in his hamfisted way, he ended up hurting himself in the worst possible way -- without even realizing how inept he was (then stubbornly digging himself deeper when I pointed out his fallacies).

Having zero comments may be preferable to having 54 comments that miss the mark -- as in the recent Jihad Watch report on Ayaan Hirsi Ali being called a "white supremacist" by Muslim apologists, where all the commenters unthinkingly praise Ayaan to the skies, even though she works hard to promote "Islamic reform" and often emphasizes the "Islamist" distinction as useful -- two of the more egregious retardants (among others) to the necessary progress the West has to achieve if it doesn't want to be destroyed before this 21st century is done.

Similar to another comments field attached to another JW article, where some eight Jihad Watchers (among them at least four veteran commenters whom I've seen for at least 10 years there) all agree that Islam should be roundly compared with Nazism -- and none of them show the slightest awareness that their Fearless Leader (Robert Spencer) spent much time and effort repudiating just that view about 10 years ago in Jihad Watch, in several comments spanning several Jihad Watch comments threads, contending with Jihad Watch readers back then who became increasingly dismayed at why Spencer would not only refuse to compare Islam with Nazism, but also insisted that he is "not anti-Islam" and "not anti-Muslim". (I've recently recounted this, in my essay "The key to the puzzle", which includes other links that go deeper into the evidence -- http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-key-to-puzzle.html). Here are the recent comments I referred to in my first sentence of this paragraph:

[see next post]

Hesperado said...

[continued from previous post]

Wellington says

April 4, 2017 at 1:32 pm

The Sturmabteilung (SA), the Nazi Brownshirts, held folksy events like this in the 1920s and early 1930s but it didn’t make Nazism OK. Ditto here.

Am I comparing Islam to Nazism? You bet I am. Both single out certain groups for second-class status or death; Nazism primarily with ethnic groups, Islam with non-believers. Both are enemies of freedom. Both seek world conquest by force. Both are against equality under the law (this is an inevitable result of certain groups of human beings, whatever the grouping, being worthy of second-class status or death). Both make a mockery of Western Civilization, the civilization that pioneered more freedoms than any other in history. Both are enemies of true democracy. Both have a warped moral code. Both are enemies of Christianity and Christianity’s Golden Rule. Both are profoundly anti-Semitic. And both are recipes for the closing of the mind. There are other comparisons too but I think this is enough for now. More than enough I would contend.
Reply

PRCS says

April 4, 2017 at 2:51 pm

“You bet I am.”

Not to put too fine a point on it!
Reply

epistemology says

April 4, 2017 at 9:24 pm

Your comment is superb as usual I contend. saved it in my “excellent” folder, thanks a lot
Reply

gravenimage says

April 4, 2017 at 10:46 pm

Fine post, Wellington.
Reply

mortimer says

April 5, 2017 at 8:41 am

Agree with Wellington on parallels between Nazism and Islamism. There are as many with Bushido-Shintoism of WWII: frequent use of beheading, suicide attacks, cult of personality, abuse of prisoners. One thing often left off lists about Islam is ARAB RACISM which is scattered throughout the hadiths and Sira with approval. It is clear the first generations of Arab Muslims saw themselves as their god’s chosen race to subjugate, enslave and rule over lesser breeds. Arab racism today causes many converts to Islam to drop out of Islam.
Reply

Tjhawk says

April 5, 2017 at 3:40 pm

” Both ( islam and nazism ) are recipes for closing the mind”

What an elegant, and easily understood way of describing why islam must be resisted as much as nazism was.

Free and open societies will need to wrap their minds around that fact if they hope to remain free and open.
Reply

ktulu says

April 4, 2017 at 1:38 pm

Thankyou Hugh Fitzgerald for an excellent expose of this ridiculous farce.
Reply

gravenimage says

April 4, 2017 at 10:56 pm

Seconded.
Reply

*************

And not only are these Jihad Watchers apparently incognizant of that monumental cognitive dissonance between their convictions and the position of Spencer, they would attack (and have attacked -- moi) anyone who would dare to bring it up into the light of critical discussion.

Hesperado said...

More directly apropos of the whole Nazi-Islam comparison (and Spencer's strenuous objections to it) are in my "Third piece of the puzzle" essay:

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2017/03/third-piece-of-puzzle.html

Anonymous said...

"Imagine that, someone who spells "masturbator" correctly. Good spelling is at least some small measure of adequate cognition.

Does the number of comments beneath Hesperado's articles, have anything to do with the validity or relevance of the points made in those articles?

Yorick of Snarkinore

April 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM
_________________________

Imagine that; someone who pretends to understand cognition, who doesn't possess even rudimentary correct usage of punctuation; that is, the correct application of the semi-colon, genius.

As to this: ..."Does the number of comments beneath Hesperado's articles, have anything to do with the validity or relevance of the points made in those articles?"

Why, yes! Of course it does. The notion of relevance is directly tied to discourse; otherwise, what is the point of discussing relevance, which is a concept entailing, at least, two participants taking part in a discussion and deciding what is relevant?

Therefore, the distinct lack of comments OVER 17 ARTICLES clearly demonstrates a very low measure of relevance.

As to the validity; whistling past the graveyard does not mean that everyone there is dead but some might "hear" you. It only means that your whistling is useless and masturbatory.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Try again, genius; and learn the proper use of the semi-colon.

Hesperado said...

Notice that the last "Anonymous", responding to the previous "Anonymous" (who signed off as "Yorick"), alit upon Yorick's "relevance" but ignored Yorick's "validity". Even selecting "relevance" as his dog-bone to chew upon, however, depends on ignoring the distinction between the relevance of this blog in terms of the effect it has on lots of people (the particular dog-bone of the former "Anonymous") -- measured solely, one should note, by the number of comments appearing on this blog -- and the relevance of the points made in the last 17 articles.

If a house is burning, and if a man warns the townspeople (and the inhabitants of that house) of the fire, and nobody listens to him, the former "Anonymous" would come along and mock him for his lack of "relevance".

Secondly, speaking of relevance (or lack thereof) the former "Anonymous" is continuing his pattern of ignoring the most important gist and, instead, fixing upon the least relevant peripherals (the inane irrelevance of a lack of "semicolon") of Yorick's point and chewing on them like an angry but ineffectual little terrier afflicted not with something as manly as rabies, but more like some colic disturbance creating pointless canine irascibility.

Anonymous said...

"...alit upon Yorick's "relevance" but ignored Yorick's "validity".

Oh boy - another genius who apparently has reading issues. I said, CLEARLY, above:

"As to the validity; whistling past the graveyard does not mean that everyone there is dead but some might "hear" you. It only means that your whistling is useless and masturbatory."
________________________________________________________________________________________

READ, dummy!

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous

"READ dummy!"

When you were Philip Jihadski you promised to dog Hesperado with abuse; and so you have. I remember who you were before you were Joe Blow/Philip Jihadski. You're not fooling anybody. You are recognized. You're identifiable too.

Yorick of Snarkinore

Anonymous said...

Abuse?!! Hahaha! What a nice little internet snowflake you are. Pathetic.

Hesperado said...

"As to the validity; whistling past the graveyard does not mean that everyone there is dead but some might "hear" you. It only means that your whistling is useless and masturbatory."

Yes, that clearly avoids responsibilty for actually addressing the validity (though it does happen to mention the word "validity" -- Philip gets a lollipop!)

Hesperado said...

Hey Yorick:

"When you were Philip Jihadski you promised to dog Hesperado with abuse; and so you have."

Actually, he's done a rather poor job of that; perhaps he's too busy with his teaching jobs in various Muslim countries, helping Muslim students with their English...

"I remember who you were before you were Joe Blow/Philip Jihadski. You're not fooling anybody. You are recognized. You're identifiable too."

I didn't know you knew ol' PJ that well. My condolences...