Monday, April 24, 2017
A laboratory of the Counter-Jihad (Jihad Watch comments)
The main reason I rifle through Jihad Watch comments pretty much on a daily basis is because I believe it affords the reader an insight into the state of the Counter-Jihad (such as it is) -- and, given that Robert Spencer is solidly representative of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, an insight into not only that Mainstream as well, but the relationship between that Mainstream and the broader demographic pool of Counter-Jihad Civilians hailing from all over the world.
Rarely when I dip into a Jihad Watch comments field roiling with over 100 comments do I come away encouraged by what I consider to be the most important instinct for the West to cultivate as this 21st century unfolds, imperiled as never before by a revanchist Islam: a sense of zero tolerance for all Muslims. Much more often there is reflected in Jihad Watch comments an incoherent stew of various thoughts and feelings based rather on the diametrical opposite of such a zero tolerance -- indeed, an underlying, indirectly expressed anxiety about avoiding such a zero tolerance, in incoherent tension with a growing sense of horror about the metastasizing Islam of those Muslims one is so anxious to avoid condemning "with a broad brush". This anxiety reflects, in turn, the retention to varying degrees, among the Civilians of the Counter-Jihad, of the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism of the broader Western Mainstream.
Today's lab experiment involved the complex combination of the following chemicals:
1) Islam (specifically, the Islam that Jihad Watch readers should know by now, educated as they have been over the years by Robert Spencer himself, not the various Islams of the confused Western Mainstream)
2) A Muslim apologist communicating inaccuracies (let alone outright falsehoods) about Islam.
3) That Muslim apologist being a young female who seems sincere.
4) That young, seemingly sincere female Muslim apologist being a Nobel Prize winner because, ostensibly, she has been fighting for school education for young female Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
5) The commenters being more or less "in the Counter-Jihad", though a coherent sense of what that means continues to elude us. This being, in fact, the crux of the lab experiment: to see what kind of chemical compound this "Counter-Jihad" is, when combined with the other chemicals listed above.
The results were worthy of a Jerry Lewis movie, I'm afraid. An incoherent mess of chemicals short of a laboratory accident.
The primary chemical in the experiment is the young, seemingly sincere female Muslim apologist Malala Yousafzai -- the famous Poster Child for Well-Meaning Muslims We Westerners Are Obliged to Feel Sorry For and Help Against the Tiny (or, for the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Large) Minority of Extremists Who, In Twisting Their Islam, Are Endangering the Majority of Moderate Muslims Like Her.
Instead of condemning her with rational prejudice as a Muslim we must reasonably assume is doing taqiyya to defend her indefensibly monstrous mainstream Islam, we see various Jihad Watchers, including many who swagger around comments with tough anti-Islam rhetoric, exhibiting an incoherent mess of useless chemicals:
IQ al Rassooli
"Malala is either very STUPID or the usual Muslim DENIAL about their depraved CULT of Muhammad"
Wow. IQ al Rassooli seems incapable of assuming that Malala is knowingly supporting what we know to be an evil, hateful, intolerant, fanatical, and dangerous Islam. Instead, he lurches in the direction of explaining away her Islamopologetics with Stupdity and/or Denial. Perhaps his robustly manly anti-Islam temperment melted into mush when he saw that Malala was a girl.
"I vote denial. And the denial is abetted by every “It’s a religion of peace, and they will kill us if we say otherwise” politician and clergyman out there.
How staunchly anti-Islam of you, Anne.
Next we see the notorious Jihad Watch Softy, mortimer, about whom I've written before. Even these limp-wristed criticisms of Malala by IQ and Anne aren't soft enough for old mortimer:
"Malala is well-meaning. SHE JUST WANTS GIRLS TO GO TO SCHOOL. PLEASE STOP MALIGNING MALALA. Let her blather about Islam. She is clueless about the JIHAD DOCTRINE. Malala doesn’t want to learn what Islam is. Real Islam is inconvenient to Malala’s purpose of getting girls to school."
Along with his anxiously sincere PC MC instincts, mortimer apparently can read minds too -- most importantly the minds of Muslims like Malala.
Next came a brief diamond in the rough, leavened by the salt of the earth, sarcasm:
"She meant well donating her prize money to Hamas (UNRWA)."
The next commenter, Waltg, then goes into greater detail about this, but has to equivocate, suspended in agnosticism:
"There is always the possibility that she knows full well that she’s spouting unadulterated B.S., but she engages in taqiyya….permitted deceit (lying) to advance the cause of Islam. Or….she could be blinding herself from the truth…which, if she was to face it head-on would require her to reject Islam entirely…if she possesses any integrity. Regardless….untruths like those she’s propogating should always be challenged."
On one important level, there is no "regardless" to the matter: the mealy-mouthed "ifs" buttressed by the "shoulding" and "coulding" and "woulding" which pepper Waltg's argumentation effectively reduce to a quivering mass of equivocating jello what should be a boldly no-nonsense intolerance we should be cultivating, based on a rational prejudice against all Muslims.
Next, Carolyn types out what seems to be yet another potent condemnation -- effectively ruined by her penultimate sentence:
"Could anyone tell me one thing this girl did to help girls in the Muslim world go to school other than say it? She went to her father’s girls school, got shot in the head, was taken to England to get the best medical care, which is not available in barbarian Pakistan and is now living on donations and guarded every minute of the day. She is very fortunate that those people whom Islam wishes dead were available to take care of her.
The Nobel Prize has become a joke. It was given to Jimmy Carter as, so one of the judges said, a “Kick in the knee” to the US. Obama got it for things he might have done in the future but he accomplished nothing except damage to this country. This silly girl got it because she was shot. BTW stating the truth is not maligning anyone,."
By insulting Malala as a "silly girl", Carolyn effectively lets all the air out of her Counter-Jihad tires. A Mohammedan fanatic who is doing Jihad of the Tongue aided by a global megaphone of all the mainstream media backed up by and the United Nations and her Nobel Prize, is hardly merely "silly". And haven't the namby-pamby Jihad Watchers ever wondered why virtually the entire Western Mainstream, besotted as it is with PC MC, praises Malala and never accuses her of "bigotry" or "hate" or "Islamophobia"?
Once in a while, a typical disappointing Jihad Watch comments thread will have a refreshing surprise, a suddenly bracing gust of fresh air which barely keep me going as I limp across this desert of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream. Thus one "martin" whom I don't know from Adam:
"Get stuffed [martin says to mortimer!] ] she has lied from day one over here. She spits on the help we have given her and lies, lies and lies. A very deceitfull but typical muslim."
Wouldn't you know it, along comes "SDN", a softy as bad if not worse than mortimer, who actually thought that IQ al Rassooli was "hating" Muslims:
"I won’t attack her intentions. I’m not in her mind so I won’t make any vote on this. When it comes to Islam if we are to make thoughtful, legitimate criticisms like Robert did we should avoid making malicious anti-Muslim generalizations like yours."
Typically for a Counter-Jihad Softy who blusters about as a Counter-Jihadist, IQ al Rassooli protests:
"I do not generalize since you cannot REFUTE a single one of the adjectives I used about Muslims You are obviously very comfortable with Muslims GENERALIZING their HATRED for every human being who is NOT a Muslim ... Every Muslim is the Eternal and Mortal ENEMY of every Infidel/ Kafir/ non Muslim on Earth"
Now, the reader might think that his IQ's last sentence quoted above seems to exonerate him from the charge of being a Softy, eh? The only problem with that is what he said earlier about Malala, which I quoted up top:
"Malala is either very STUPID or the usual Muslim DENIAL about their depraved CULT of Muhammad"
I call that the "release valve" of the Counter-Jihad Softy Pretending to be Tough about Islam: if innumerable Muslims are "very stupid" or "in denial" they are not then in conscious, willful enmity against us. Logically then, such Muslims (and how many of these are there, and how does IQ know which ones they are distinguished from others?) are only our "mortal enemy" by accident, not on purpose.
IQ is then high-fived by a couple of Jihad Watchers, then along comes another who concludes that Malala must be "stupid", followed by yet another:
"Not very bright.maybe she knows if she tells the truth she’ll be killed."
Yes -- anything but the horrible conclusion that this seemingly sincere, soft-spoken young female actually consciously hates us as Unbelievers due to her Islamic programming. The Stupidity Elf, buttressed by the Timidity Elf for good measure (I refer to Hugh Fitzgerald's "Esdrujula Elves").
Thank Allah, this was followed by another breath of fresh air:
"Malala is a notable public figure. It is her job to lie for islam. It is her means of jihad."
Amen, Michael Ray!
Of course, mortimer, lurking in the wings, had to swoop in and anxiously correct this waft of a reasonable breeze:
"No… she just wants girls to go school. She knows very little about Islam. She’s trying to make friends of the jihadists, but I believe that’s pointless."
Then, responding to mortimer's asinine retort... what do you know... another breath of fresh air! That makes three so far -- rather amazing, for Jihad Watch comments:
"She’s old enough to read and understand. Are you saying that she’s never read the Qu’ran and Hadiths? As a public advocate for Islam, she must be accountable. She is the perfect victim that allows idiots to believe there are good Muslims and bad ones; Muslims follow Islam which is always evil. Don’t apologize for the apologist."
At this point, a Jihad Watcher I remember from the past, "TheBuffster", had to weigh in to protect Muslims from our rational condemnation:
"I agree that Islam is evil. But it isn’t true that all Muslims follow Islam. If you read a lot of apostate testimonies you’ll find out what a variety of former Muslims believed about their religion when they were Muslim. You’ll find that a lot of people who consider themselves Muslims haven’t read the Koran and know even less of the story of Muhammad’s life. They have a hodge-podge idea of what the religion is about. Some know more than they want to know and engage in a lot of evasion and denial. Now, we could say that a person who follows a set of beliefs that are incompatible with the Koran and the Traditions of Muhammad isn’t really a Muslim in any meaningful sense, but I’m sure a good many such people are counted as officially Muslim when we’re told there are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world."
TheBuffster's argument sounds like a nice theory; only problem is, we don't have the luxury to be speculating on the basis of such a sweepingly generous generalization about untold millions of Muslims. Speaking of ol' Buffster, I recall an exchange I had with her a couple of years ago, when I was rolling up my shirtsleeves and getting embroiled in Jihad Watch comments myself. After she posted (as usual) some anodyne tripe that subtly gave innumerable Muslims a way out from our rational condemnation, I responded (under the nickname "voegelinian"):
"An open mind on general principle is a good thing; but about some things, the more reasonable and prudent thing to do is adopt a closed mind. Example: the prospect of an “Islamic reform” in numbers and influence large enough to solve the problem of Islam.
"There is no evidence for such a reform — only a tissue of hope, benefit of the doubt, Wilsonian vision, and varying degrees of PC MC. With someone like Hirsi Ali, we may reasonably include to the tissue of this pretty scarf we are weaving some psycho-cultural residues of the effects of Islam on her mind. This tissue has no evidence to back it up: it only makes an inductive inference based on the same data we more grimly pessimistic realists use: that bloody, smoking, fiery mountain of data — or rather volcano of data — which the Muslim world keeps churning out; a volcano that is getting worse, not better. Sure, on this same mountain of data there appear verdant slopes of green — multitudes of Muslims Who Just Wanna Have a Sandwich grazing seemingly peacefully, and here and there among them cunning wolves disguised as Moderate Shepherds (e.g., Maajid Nawaz); but is it asking too much that at least this tiny, beleaguered, rag-tag group of people otherwise known as “the Counter-Jihad” adopt a robustly jaded posture with regard to the ostensibly hopeful green slopes, flowers & snow that is supposed to distract us from the bloody, raging, fiery volcano as plain as the noses on our faces?"
And I note that I appended a P.S. to my comment:
"I.e., there is no need to read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book in order to conclude that she is dead wrong about Islamic reform. The Counter-Jihad should adopt as a matter of principle carved in stone that an Islamic reform is not only impossible, it is an idea actually indirectly enabling the stealth jihad."
Back to the regressive present.
Next comment, Don Foss, moves in to add some more protective layering to poor little Malala:
"I almost always agree with you, Mortimer. I watched two documentaries on Malala. Close to 2 hours total. Never saw her once pray or get into the qur’an... Only in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize did she mention Islam and Muhammad, and I got the strong impression people got to her and used her as a tool to try to ease the kuffars worries and concerns about Islamic doctrine. As far as her comment, I believe she is only being used as a tool by outside Islamic organizations."
To this wild (and generous) speculation, our old friend gravenimage chimes in:
"Even nominal Muslims feel the need to whitewash Islam for the Infidels. We see this all the time."
What are "nomimal Muslims"? And even if we could define them coherently, how would we know which Muslims are actually "nominal" and which ones are only pretending to be "nominal"? It's 2017, and a veteran Counter-Jihadist like gravenimage is still using a term like "nominal Muslims" with a straight face, not realizing it is no less ridiculous than "moderate Muslim"?
Moving on: Even a seemingly strong comment like this one from "ermom" is way too generous:
"TAQIYYA, Malala. Shame on you. The cognitive dissonance this abused young woman exhibits is amazing."
We reasonably assume that ermom is finding it necessary to inject cognitive dissonance and "shame" there because she can't compute how a young seemingly nice and sincere female could possibly be a conscious, sincere supporter of evil Islam.
Next up, the ill-named "RationalVoice" pipes up with a load of pap worthy of the PC MC mainstream:
"Malala is a good person, I can sense that, but she would be, even if she had no religion at all. She is one Muslim I would be happy for her to live in the UK as long as she likes but Malala come on this site and explain to us the terrible hate filled instructions in the Qur’an and the other Islamic texts which are so shocking to non Muslims throughout the World."
Then we have Westman:
"I hope Malala has a security detail to protect her from the Muslim “brothers”. Her innocent ignorance speaks well for her character yet places her at risk."
"I don’t doubt that sweet little Malala actually believes everything she says. But as the article points out, she is just plain wrong."
"She is young. She doesn’t realize the truth."
Actually, she's 20 years old.
Then another momentary waft of fresh air:
"Ma-La-La-Land disinformation for Useful Idiots."
Amen, Peter! Then, alas, the room gets stuffy again:
"A silly young woman, surrounded by sycophants... why do Western leaders listen to this ignorant and stupid Muslima?"
By emphasizing her supposed "silliness" and "ignorance" and "stupidity" one is effectively evacuating any positive ideological content motivating her to be doing her Jihad of the Tongue. Way to go, Counter-Jihad Mainstream...
Then from the "oh good grief" department:
"Malala looks kind of kind, but gosh she is stupid. Muhammad never advised his followers to “go around killing people… Sounds like she has never read the quran. Claiming then to be a true muslim is ludicrous."
(And Ren got an "exactly", no less, from another commenter...)
"Malala is not a bad person, merely delusional."
Then, the same commenter who exactlied Ren above followed up with something that would seem to contradict that softness (these Counter-Jihad Softies do it all the time; they seem to have a state of mind of constant cognitive dissonance, vacillating from no-nonsense toughness to wishy-washy incoherence, created by the tension between their growing horror of Islam and their persisting fear of condemning all Muslims):
"Another moderate Muslim! Taking opportunity from the world and playing the victim card as all the Muslims are doing. I was sympathetic to her, but no more. She is old and educated enough to fathom the truth, to know Islam her own religion. It took me only 13 years to feel disgusted about Islam. ... Malala: if you know how to read, then read Quran once again before you open your mouth! I feel pity for you now!"
A clue into Asma's softness may be that she herself is an ex-Muslim (and so too, I believe, is the aforementioned Jihad Watcher, "IQ Al-Rassooli"); I've found many of them suffer from a peculiar subcategory of the asymptotic condition (a rather detailed glimpse of one episode of my experiences with them may be gleaned from my participation back in 2009 in a discussion forum revolving around the CEMB -- the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain; the reader will readily see how those Muslims have no problem robustly attacking Islam per se, but suddenly get very testy and gingerly when the focus goes to the Muslims who are propping up Islam all over the world).
Waltg weighs in again:
"Ultimately….there really is no such thing as an “extremists muslim” or a “moderate muslim”….all there is….is “observant muslims” versus “non-observant muslims”..."
But this is a distinction without a difference. This way to taxonomize Muslims into "observant" and "non-observant" is just another way to do the same thing that the "extremist/moderate" taxonomy does -- only with the supposed advantage that it's avoiding the speciousness of believing in "moderate Muslims". The problem is that it's glossing over our most formidable difficulty: we can't tell the difference, on a macro scale (the only scale that matters to the safety of our civilization in the long run) between any Muslims. Or has the Counter-Jihad suddenly forgotten about the horrendous problem of taqiyya and stealth jihad, and the monstrous fanaticism driving them...???
One good instinct I noticed from gravenimage, when she intervened to correct "Bsrat" who pontificated about Muslims based upon his apparent ability to mind-read millions of them:
"When u get brainwashed from a young age reading the Qur’an in Arabic but never understand the true meaning of what’s been thought and is expected of every follower. Even the scholars don’t agree on the interpretation of what’s written in the Qur’an and to top it off there are authentic and weak narations where does it stop. Malala is no different to all the Muslims and others who like to pass islam as a religion of peace, Muhammad is the perfect example when he raped a 9 year old.surely nothinh good can come out of this kind of person. Islam is just a borrowed religion and based on Arabic culture."
"Bsrat, most Muslims understand all too well what their foul creed demands. That’s why so many Muslims support Jihad."
However, when in the next breath, someone named "Val" went further with nonsense about Malala, gravenimage's response was not as bracing a splash of informed cold water as it could have been:
"I feel sorry for Malala. Such a confused person. She is correct to pursue an education but not in a satanic madrassa where she was apparently brainwashed in the past. I hope that she will study Muhammad’s behavior intensively for the rest of her life. No need to even read any of Muhammad’s meaningless utterances. Muhammad’s behavior will inform Malala as to who Muhammad was a messenger from."
"Her father’s school is pretty secular–by Pakistani standards, at least…"
At this point, three Jihad Watchers -- Demsci, Jack Diamond, and Waltg -- embark upon a lengthy and complex discussion of the heart of the matter. However, even their robust tackling of the issue with supposedly PC MC blinders off curiously avoids the elementary solution of zero tolerance against all Muslims, and reflecting this, they studiously avoid the problem of how ostensibly, the vast majority of Muslims in the West are not doing anything bad or illegal. The problem of Muslims in general (in the West and anywhere in the world) is known by inference, after digesting a mountain of data and connecting an ocean of dots. But robust, no-nonsense Jihad Watch Softies ignore that and talk as though they can leap over that problem. And it is Demsci's anxious concern which apparently reveals why this is so -- his concern, namely that the West develop at some point (hopefully soon, but of course, unlikely given the general saturation of PC MC throughout the West) his solution to what he thinks the problem of Islam is:
"[The Koran is] a recipe for disaster, in this case, of one religion only, Islam, and not of any other religion. And clinging to this disastrous religion in a democratic nation, THAT is what we must hold Muslims accountable for. But only in a mild way, so as to get a majority in parliament to do at least this much."
Of course, Demsci puts it in terms of trying to persuade our PC MC majority to begin doing something substantive against the danger; but his advice founders on two accounts: 1) the PC MC majority's main objection is to institute any measures that would effectively punish what they consider to the vast majority of harmless, innocent Muslims, and they would be able to see through Demsci's attempt to be partially lenient on those Muslims. More importantly 2) we have no way to distinguish between harmless and dangerous Muslims on the macro scale, and the only way out of that is to drastically reduce (if not totally deport) the population of indigenous Muslims in the West, and enforce that.
To recap: Malala said:
“The Prophet never advised his followers to “be impatient and go around killing people.”
[Incidentally, note the bit of kitman there -- the "be impatient" part -- to which one could judiciously add that yes, Muhammad also advised his followers to be judicious about their jihad; i.e., to be deceitful and feign patience, in order to better destroy an enemy currently stronger than Islam.]
Moral of the Story:
The proper lab test results should have been, not over 100 comments of Counter-Jihad civilians wringing their hands, scratching their heads and trying to find ways to absolve Malala, but rather one comment: "Ho hum, another lying Muslim."
Followed by 30 or so comments simply saying "Yup".
Or if some of them wanted to add some useful information about why we should never trust any Muslim and why this means they all need to be deported from the West (and there is looming right over their left shoulder a veritable mountain range of data they could choose from to bolster such a position), preface it by "I don't really need to add this information, but for the benefit of those strange, and strangely common, Westerners who remain stuck at various stages of uncertainty & denial about just how monstrously bad the problem of Islam is..."
The dismaying thing is that apparently, many if not most "in the Counter-Jihad" are those strangely common Westerners.
The fact that the "lab experiment" failed (and it fails nearly every day, in one way or another, over at Jihad Watch), shows how far the Counter-Jihad baseline is from where it should be. It's 2017 for God's sake. Will the counter-Jihad be futzing around like this in 2027? 2037? 2057? 2077? 2100? Apparently most of them don't see this as a problem, because for them, the survival of the West is not at stake, because that survival for them is not connected to the exigency of a zero tolerance against all Muslims.