Sunday, January 14, 2018

Signs of intelligent life spotted on Planet Jihad Watch...

Our old nougaty friend, Christine Douglass-Williams, has been double-virtue-signalling again.  A recent story on Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch (of which she has been a frequent contributor for the last couple of years at least) she editorialized upon --

Austria: First newborn of 2018 is Muslim, drawing “racist abuse” 

-- elicited the usually sparse incidences of a high IQ (Islamic Quotient) from the Jihad Watch Readership, though there were a couple that provided drops of water to the parched lips of an actually Anti-Islamic visitor dying of thirst as he crawls across the Spencerscape.

In this Part I, I will interject my comments in square brackets and italics to the analysis by a member of the Leadership in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, the egregiously asymptotic Christine Douglass-Williams (CDW).  In a subsequent posting, I will present Part II, examining the 130+ comments from the Readership. 

Part I. 

Christine Douglass-Williams (CDW) editorializes on the problem of the flood of Muslim immigrants.

“In today’s world, critical thinking is in short supply, which includes differentiating between varying circumstances. [good start: begin with an unremarkable truism everyone can agree with, as a segue to your more controversial nougat to come]

“For example, it is prudent to oppose unvetted immigration that excludes the essential principle of a two-way street approach to immigration. [Um, no it's not prudent to oppose "unvetted immigration" because that implies vetting of Muslims is feasible.  What would be prudent is to oppose ALL Muslim immigration; but CDW is far from affirming that ]

“This does not mean one is racist or “Islamophobic” to promote a two-way street. It spells logic. [Firstly, the only "logic" here is CDW's logic of vetting, which is based on three closely related, disastrous presumptions about the problem: 1) that we are capable of discerning the difference between harmless Muslims and dangerous Muslims; 2) that the problem of the danger of Muslims following their Islam is not a sprawlingly complex and massively unwieldy phenomenon of sheer numbers & bewildering diversity; and 3) that the ultimate danger is not the ongoing sporadic terrorism, nor the pressures to inject Sharia into our societies, but rather the protracted strategy to infiltrate the West sufficiently over time (likely at least 100 years from now) in order to be able to destroy it with terrorism and related paramilitary violence.]

It is also not racist to oppose political Islam, Islamic supremacism and jihad; this should be a given for all who enjoy Western freedoms. [CDW is purveying the terminology of dysphemism -- here, "political Islam" -- a rhetoric one would think the Counter-Jihad would have shed long ago, along with its respect for its chief purveyor, the appallingly asymptotic Daniel Pipes. This rhetoric implies, and reinforces, the disastrous notion that Islam itself is okay, and that only truncations of it that we create ("political Islam", "radical Islam", "Islamism", etc. ) are the problem]

“Unfortunately, there are Muslim groups (such as CAIR and its allies) that are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas terrorist financing. They push a victimology agenda that claims that any criticism of Islam, however justifiable, [notice how CDW reverts back to plain old "Islam" -- what happened to "political Islam"...?] must be seen as “Islamophobic.” The case of baby Asel Tamga provides a opportunity for these charlatans to employ their bogus victimology agenda yet again. As far as they are concerned, to point out global atrocities, abuses of women, murders, efforts to delegitimize and obliterate the state of Israel is “Islamophobic.” [CDW doesn't realize she's playing the same game CAIR is: what CAIR is worried about is that pointing out these horrible things about Islam (and of course about certain Muslims putting Islam into practice this way) necessarily leaves open the question of all the Muslims worldwide who self-identify with the same Islam motivating these horrible things.  The only way asymptotics like CDW can try to do an end-run around this is by anxiously virtue-signalling whenever they criticize Islam, to hasten to remind their audience that they are not against most Muslims; but PC MCs can tell this comes off as disingenuous because incoherent -- unless asymptotics like CDW (and her colleague Robert Spencer) can specify how they can square the circle of condemning Islam and raising alarms about Islam in our society, while at the same time not condemning most Muslims and not raising alarms about them. Instead of specifying coherently this problem, asymptotics like CDW (and her colleague Robert Spencer) try to weasel out of it through dysphemisms ("political Islam", "radical Islam", "Islamism", etc. ) or parsing sophistry on a par with particle physics (as when Spencer has tried to argue how he is "not 'anti-Islam"")  -- when they are not anxiously denying they are condemning, effectively by clear logical implication, most -- if not all -- Muslims.]

[And speak of the Devil, the asymptotic twitch of virtue-signalling, CDW just can't control her need to virtue-signal: ]

“Now for the case of the Muslim parents who gave birth to Austria’s first newborn of 2018. Congratulations, and may this new child be a blessing to the nation of Austria, fostering integration, harmony, human rights and the like. To attack this couple and levy abusive language against them because of their coreligionists’ misdeeds is atrocious, and undermines the real efforts to battle the sinister forces of political Islam and its Islamic supremacist bullying of Western society. [Here, CDW lays it on so thick, it becomes odd that only a pitiful handful of commenters brought it up (see Part II)]

“Still, there are legitimate concerns about the Islamization of Austria and Europe in general, as represented by this birth, the hijab of the mother, etc. Europeans and North Americans are becoming frustrated with the stifling of legitimate voices warning about Sharia expansion, and the penalizing of the same. [Yet again, we get a glimpse of what asymptotics like CDW think the primary problem (the problem of Islam) is, exactly.  Apparently, the primary problem is the expanding osmosis of Sharia, rather than the future threat of violent destruction of the West's physical and social infrastructure (the only way Muslims will realize actual full-blooded Sharia (the only Sharia there is), as opposed to the kitman Potemkin village of partial Sharia calculated to fool Westerners (who still number in the vast majority throughout the West) into thinking Sharia is "diverse" and becomes magically delicious when instituted in the West).  No wonder CDW and asymptotics like her are so relatively sanguine about Muslims, even while they incoherently sound the alarm about the Islam of those Muslims]

* * * * * 

Meanwhile, the article from the mainstream media (the Independent) which was the springboard of CDW's editorial remarks is riddled with dubious reportage. I will only analyze one example.

After the birth of this Muslim child in Austria, the Independent reports that "[a] deluge of racist and hateful comments followed on social media..."   Do they prove this? Of course not. The article goes on to beg the question: "A photo of the family was shared on Facebook and a rash of racist comments followed among the thousands of well wishes." Notice that the "deluge" has dwindled down to a "rash".  Also, we know well how PC MCs tend to exaggerate and distort what constitutes "hateful". The article concludes this claim with this: "One social media user commented: ‘The next terrorist is born.’ Another person wrote: ‘Does the woman have cancer? Or why does she otherwise wear a headscarf?’ "

Only one comment directly implying the baby is a future terrorist.  The second comment adduced there is not "hateful" since opposing the hijab is not hateful.  Surely, if there were a "deluge" (or even a "rash") of truly hateful comments, the Independent could have bolstered its argument (and its journalistic credibility) by quoting at least ten or twenty of them, all as seemingly bad -- or how about worse enough to be uncontroversially, actually hateful? -- than the one about the "next terrorist is born".

To be continued, with Part II (reader comments at Jihad Watch)...

No comments: