Monday, August 06, 2012

"I'd like to buy a mega-mosque for Marvin Gardens..."

About a comment that a long standing Jihad Watch reader, Kinana of Khaybar (KK) (and then some guy I've never seen before (or since) on Jihad Watch -- "Juan" (my Hispanic gardener who had a fling with my ex-wife?) -- wrote on Jihad Watch, I wrote:

As cogent as Kinana Khaybar is on the other points of his argument, I think he (and Juan) are strangely underestimating the sophistication and superiority of the West vis-a-vis the invading Muslim hordes. The West isn't some natural landscape that the Muslims will simply overrun given enough time. As Muslims continue to press closer their demands, things will change, and the West will be provoked, and this provocation will be a protracted, complex process.

I.e., Muslims in their attempt at conquering the West are not simply overrunning some backward Third Water waterhole like 9th century Indonesia -- nor even 15th century Byzantium which, as comparatively great as it was, cannot hold a candle in terms of sophistication on all levels to the modern West. But, in the minds of Kinana and Juan, they may as well be.

In impetuous response, KK's spastic elbow responded:

Hesperado continues with more false attributions...

Then he quoted one sentence from my comment I posted on Jihad Watch:  

"I think he (and Juan) are strangely underestimating the sophistication and superiority of the West vis-a-vis the invading Muslim hordes." 

Upon which he reiterated:  


First of all, KK is cherrypicking. Second of all, "false" is not the correct word to use here, even if he disagrees. I didn't write: "KK believes in X"; I wrote (to paraphrase the pertinent gist in this regard): "I think KK is underestimating X". At worst, this would be a matter of my impression being deemed to be mistaken or incorrect or inaccurate. After properly characterizing my flaw as such, then, KK would then have to present an actual artument -- if he wants to persuade his rational audience, that is -- showing how my impression is actually mistaken or incorrect or inaccurate. Now that we have that mess on aisle 9 mopped up, let's proceed to the meat and potatoes of the problem KK has created with his impetuously anxious riposte. 

KK had gone on to write:  

I believe the West is as sophisticated as all get-out and is overall better than any other culture. 

However, my argument was not based on an impression that KK did not think, speaking in broad generalities, that the West is sophisticated -- even as all get-out -- but that in his concerns about the threat of expansionist Muslims, he did not, apparently, include one important feature of the civilizational sophistication of the West: namely, that it has evolved strong and healthy societies whose strength and health are not the simple virtues of some strong and healthy farm community in 18th century Finland defending their homestead from a pack of wolves but which, rather, reflect a complex richness of superiority on all levels of both technical and sociopolitical infrastructure -- and that, given that, Muslims in their long-term goal of conquest of the West will not be able to traverse from point A (as they are now throughout the West) to point C (actual conquest), without going through the stage of point B. 

It is at the moment of transition from point A to B where the theoretical problems arise as we conjecture about the future. And by "moment" I don't of course mean an instant in time, but a pivotal juncture in history, which may take decades to unfold. During this moment of the transition from point A to point B, it is my reasonable conjecture that 

1) Muslims will press their issue of aggrandizement within the West in ways that will be more vividly aggressive and intrusive than heretofore, and that all their speech and actions heretofore have enjoyed the fudge factor of ambivalence, whereas when they begin to press their issue of aggrandizement past a certain point, they will perforce behave in ways (including violence that qualitatively and quantitatively will make 911 seem like a fireworks display in a parking lot, as well as including beheadings in broad daylight on the streets of Paris, London, Toronto, Las Vegas, etc.) that will arouse the West -- including the majority of fence-sitters and non-Left PC MCs -- from its torpid myopia; and that 

2) as intimated in my final phrase in #1, the West will be roused as it had not been roused before; and that, once roused, it will begin to join action against Muslims. 

At that point, it will be too late to follow KK's sound pre-emptive advice of stopping immigration and deporting most Muslims in any clean and orderly way -- for at that point, there will devolve a breakdown, and military & police actions will necessarily become involved. This moment, of 1 + 2, will then likely initiate a concatenation of events that will devolve into something tantamount to more or less generalized civil unrest and insurrection from the Muslims, and forceful violent counter-reactions from the West. (And, of course, as part of the mix, the non-Muslim West will not be perfectly unanimous in its self-defense, but will likely go through some internal dissensions and disagreements, if not a few cases of outright treason). 

We can call this concatenation of events a #3 after 1 and 2. My argument rests on the reasoned assumption that a #3 is inevitable, given that both 1 and 2 are reasonable assumptions; and given a trust that the West is sophisticated in the sense that it will not let #1 go on steamrolling into conquest of the West by Muslims without putting up a concerted fight. 

#3 then links up to a #4 -- another reasoned assumption: namely, that once the West is roused to see the problem and to fight back (helped enormously by Muslims no longer able to control themselves and dropping the mask en masse as they smell blood and think the time is ripe for them to really make a go for outright conquest, rather than continue their long game plan of deception combined with tactically minimal terror attacks here and there), the West will -- and will be able to (given, remember, its sophistication, astronomically superior on all levels to Muslims by comparison) -- do what it has to do to finally put out the lights of Islam and its agents, Muslims. 

(My perpendicular argument which I've been articulating for ages here and on my blog is that, were the West to wake up now, rather than to wait until it's ridiculously almost too late (remember, I say "almost" too late), the West could by deporting Muslims ASAP (where "as possible" of course must deal with the obstreperously obtuse reality of Westerners yawning and stretching and squinting in the soft morning sun in their comfy PJs as they slowly wake up to their house on fucking fire) pre-empt that cataclysmic crisis coming up like a preposterously massive train-wreck. But, if the West, as is likely, given most indications of the continuing resilience of PC MC, does wait until it's almost too late, then it will have to deal with Muslims in much more horrific ways -- you know, approximately like we did to the Japs and Krauts in WW2.)

Now, I said I would deal with the "meat and potatoes", and I saved the filet mignon for last: In his original post to which I responded (triggering KK's subsequent complaint about me supposedly making "false attributions"), KK wrote: 

Islam is rapidly increasing in size, strength, and fervor in the West, while Western civilization is rapidly declining and weakening. Muslim populations are youthful and strong, non-Muslim Western populations are old and weak. The continuation of these trends if not countered by powerful opposing forces, policies, and actions will probably result in Muslim majorities by the mid to late part of this century, which will probably involve the imposition of sharia law on the remaining non-Muslims. In the meantime, life for non-Muslims in the West will continue to become more and more dangerous and precarious. 

Then, a little later, wrote: 

Since it is also highly improbable that those in positions of power will ever adopt any significant form of policies (1) and (2), the Islamization of the West to the point that sharia becomes the law of the land in several major Western countries by mid- to late-century is practically assured due to factors a-f, above. 

KK's a-f factors may be summarized thusly: 

a-b -- demographic disparity: Muslims growing in population in the West, Westerners dwindling 

c -- Islam and its Muslims are not reforming, but showing signs of becoming more virulently un-reformed 

d -- Westerners are doing little if nothing to counter a-b-c, while more often indirectly facilitating a-b-c 

e -- Western MSM is pro-Islam 

f -- Western academe is also pro-Islam, and both e and f greatly influence (negatively, obviously) the West's intellectual capacity to respond to the problem of Islam.) 

And now for the money quote from KK:  

Regardless of what Soderin et al. think, Canada, most of Europe, and Russia will probably become Muslim-majority and under sharia law by the later part of this century, unless the powerful Islamic demographic and ideological trends are opposed.

We have a choice: We can either A) Act soon and take the relatively harm-reduced options of cutting off Islamic immigration and deporting (or otherwise encouraging the exit of) large numbers of Muslims from the West, or B) We can accept that the West will be under sharia with a Muslim majority in several decades time, and that massive numbers of non-Muslims will be slaughtered, raped, tortured, terrorized, plundered, subjugated, and enslaved in the process of Islamization, and that our civilization will be erased from history as Muslims complete their process of conquest. 

So, the problem with KK's position as I see it (and now I'm articulating it in more detail than in my too brief former comment), is that, after rightly assessing the various factors of the problem of Muslim aggrandizement in the West (which, of course, already rightly assumes their unique evils and dangers), and after rightly assessing current and ongoing Western myopia ineffectively dealing with this aggrandizement, KK assumes that, unless the West soon takes the forceful actions of "cutting off Islamic immigration and deporting (or otherwise encouraging the exit of) large numbers of Muslims from the West", the West will be taken over by Muslims. 

In laying out his projection this way, KK appears to be ignoring the reasonably expected possibility I described in my #2-#3 above. But, as I see it, Western sophistication, while it may involve many other qualities, also involves the fact that Westerners, even after letting Muslims get away with penetrating their aggrandizement further, will not let them get away with this process after a certain point where the evil, injustice and danger of Muslims becomes clear as it has not yet become clear due to the fog of PC MC. 

And "not letting them get away with this" means that generalized insurrection and civil unrest will devolve, concomitant with Western counter-measures, leading to something resembling a civil war (except that the Enemy in this case will not be Western, but will be a foreign virus inside our Body Geopolitic). 

And, consequent upon the first point which KK is apparently ignoring, he is also apparently ignoring the reasonably expected possibility that the West will win this coming "civil" war.

Of course, it is highly likely that the whole thing will be a horrible bloody mess, and a lot of the horror and blood and mess could have been avoided were we the West to follow KK's prescription -- cutting off Islamic immigration and deporting (or otherwise encouraging the exit of) large numbers of Muslims from the West -- but that doesn't mean, as KK apparently thinks it means, that not following his sound prescription will lead us and force us automatically to go straight to Islamic Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Take a Card, and Give Up Your Hotels On Marvin Gardens and Park Place.


For the record, I published all of the above (sans a couple of minor editorial tweaks) on that Jihad Watch comments thread in question, and KK had nothing cogent to say in response (though he did respond); which any intelligent reader can see for himself -- and I welcome any of the latter to try to make a case here for any misunderstanding I might be argued to be laboring under.


In a surreal morphing of the situation, Kinana whines about how I'm ruining his experience (and speaking for them, everybody else's) in Jihad Watch comments threads -- meanwhile, of course, multiplying his mischaracterizations of my arguments and positions with monstrous red herrings, straw men, and other logical fallacies.

Then from on high -- literally, as he notes he's on a plane whilst doing so -- with amazing alacrity Robert Spencer leaps into a thread already at that point moribundly archived to console Kinana, practically palpably petting him on the hair of his head and saying "There, there, my little child..."  Then, dismissing me as a "clown" he promises he will ban me "ASAP" -- once his plane touches the tarmac.
Then, since that time (approximately a day ago), after he complained that he doesn't have enough time to do productive things and that I am somehow to blame for his lack of time, Kinana proceeds to concoct monstrously obsessive posts (like this one) supposedly documenting how maniacal and inimical to Jihad Watch I am.  My ripostes may be found here, and one I particularly like, here.  After quoting his complaint about a previous comment of mine in which I took him to task for mischaracterizing tendentiously (one of dozens of things he has mischaracterized about me) my participation in a project with him and two others to construct an anti-Islam manual --

"If you want to continue this pointless discussion, I suggest you do it on your blog. I'm not interested, and Jihadwatch doesn't need this."

-- I responded:

I'm not the one continuing this madness. I thought you didn't have time, and that you needed to do something productive with the time you have. Why don't you start doing that and leave me alone.

Let's hope to Allah he does; though I fear we are dealing with someone unstable who will not listen to reason.


Traeh said...

My guess, before I saw this explanation of two alternative futures (your account of your prognosis and your account of KK's), was somewhere in between: that there would be civil wars in parts of Europe; but some nations in Europe would not have civil wars and would Islamize more or less gradually, by demographic change and a continuation of the current generalized drip-drip of Muslim intimidation and brutality. Some places would match what you've presented as KK's model; other places would match your model of the future. Such civil wars as did happen would have some success in creating pockets of Europe where Islamization is stopped. Europe would end up divided into pockets of Muslim states and secured non-Muslim states. That state of affairs might then continue a long time.

And yet all of that is I suspect too much of a straight line extrapolation from the present. I expect other factors, not much anticipated, will make the whole scenario completely different. The ever-accelerating development of technologies -- both those of destruction and of creation, though they are not neatly distinguishable -- is changing the world with increasing rapidity, to the point where it looks like some sort of techno crisis is looming up out of the not too distant future. The peak of the crisis could take various forms. There could be a breakdown and collapse of modern civilization; or if not breakdown, then such a profound transformation, that all bets are off as to most current assumptions about the future. Islam might somehow virtually disappear, or become so non-functional in the new setting as to be no threat. The one thing I find hard to see in the future is that Islam will ever succeed in completely conquering the world.

Traeh said...

We have to keep in mind Indonesia and other Islamic states outside the Middle Eastern heartland. Indonesia, though not a liberal democracy, is also nothing like Saudi Arabia. For the same reasons that Indonesia resists full Islamization -- or has done so -- Europe, even if the population becomes majority-Muslim in fifty years, might tend in a sort of Indonesian direction. Freedoms would certainly be lost, but it would remain quasi-liberal, like Indonesia. In that case, civil wars would be less likely and less common -- Islamization would be so gradual that fewer radical Western reactions would ever be provoked. It would the scenario of the frog in the pot of water that gradually heats to boiling. The frog would fail to react until too late.

Traeh said...

I said in my second comment that "it would remain quasi-liberal, like Indonesia." I'll qualify that by saying that it could for a protracted period remain quasi-liberal, long enough that by the time it is no longer liberal, a strong non-Muslim reaction would be impossible: it would be too late because of demographic dominance by Muslims.

Hesperado said...

Traeh, thanks for responding.

I think you are underestimating Western sophistication by assuming that Europe is so easily "Balkanizable" as to be vulnerable, even in patchwork manner, to Islamic take-over.

Only the less Western parts of Europe may arguably comport with your predictions -- i.e., some of the outlying Eastern European nations; but not classical Europe: UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Greece. And of course, not North America, nor Australia and NZ.

The countries that may succumb, even if only in part, are not so coincidentally less Western and therefore less sophisticated.

Champ said...

Hi Hesp ...

Also, Kinana of Khaybar felt it necessary to post a 6 year old comment of mine, but he took that old comment completely out of context, revealing a lack of character on his part.

Yes, I made that comment over 6 years ago, but since then I have come to respect and admire your formidable contributions on Jihad Watch, and have demonstrated said support for more than 5 years now! Yet KofK failed to make mention of my long standing support, and only conjured up that one old comment in an effort to somehow make it relevant for today - but of course that old comment isn't relevant, since the record clearly shows MORE support over the years, than not. Hey one comment made over 6 years ago does not eclipse over 5 years of support and friendship. No way! KofK should be ashamed of himself for attempting to mislead readers, since he and everyone knows that you and I have become friends SINCE that careless comment over 6 years ago.

Take care,

Hesperado said...

Hi Champ,

Thanks again for your great support over the years. It was never in question, as you know. Hey, check out my little cheeky comment I put at the end of that thread.... :)


Champ said...

Ahaha!!!! ...that was hilarious!!

You have a gift of making good humor out of other's nasty and unreasonable comments!!

Bravo! ...thanks for the belly laugh :-D

Hesperado said...

Thanks Champ, glad you liked it -- I thought that thread needed a little levity after KK had weighed it down so much with his obsessiveness.