In response to the Prime Minister of Australia voicing a common concern of the Western Mainstream -- the demonization or denigration of "all Muslims" -- Robert Spencer wrote recently:
"No one is actually seeking to demonize or denigrate all Muslims. I’ve been accused for years of saying that all Muslims are terrorists or terror sympathizers; no one has yet produced a quote from me to substantiate this claim, but it is nonetheless often made, because the claim itself is actually an attempt to discredit foes of jihad terror."
Spencer's position on this as a Counter-Jihad luminary would be tenable and coherent were the problem of the global revival of Islamic jihad truly a matter of a Minority (whether Tiny or Somewhat Larger than Tiny) of Extremists.
Since, however, there is a mountain of data out there (including an ocean of dots which for years many amateur sleuths and official analysts have been combing through to connect ) -- a mountain and an ocean Spencer himself has done a great deal to amass -- indicating that the problem of the global revival of Islamic jihad is systemic to such a degree that the reasonable response we would take for the safety of our societies in the coming decades would have to entail a suspicion of all Muslims. This is acutely so because of the culture of taqiyya in Islam and a multitude of indications of stealth jihad and the False Moderate.
The Counter-Jihad Mainstream, including Robert Spencer, seems to be afraid to "go there" and so instead of shining a light on the logic that would lead to the conclusion of a generalized suspicion of all Muslims, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream instead indulges in a paradoxical incoherence -- with one side of its mouth insisting it doesn't demonize all Muslims, and (to mix metaphors) on the other hand amassing data and dots that would lead any reasonable person to suspect all Muslims of collusion in the jihad that threatens to destroy our societies.
As long as the Counter-Jihad Mainstream continues this equivocation, its primary function -- to help educate and wake up its own broader West to the global revival of Islamic jihad -- will be hindered.
18 comments:
See here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3796920/Barack-Obama-says-citizens-remain-strong-days-years-come-wake-NY-NJ-bombings.html#article-3796920
In other news, Trump states that he has 'high regard for peace-loving Muslims.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797574/Trump-says-suspected-New-York-New-Jersey-bomber-probably-room-service-receiving-amazing-care-hospitalization.html
Gee, do you suppose that 'expel' means 'deport'?
Read to last paragraph of Karl Denninger's 'Enough' essay.
It's a true shame that Denninger canned his reader comments section (although I never commented there).
https://market-ticker.org
Gee. Do you suppose "Egghead" is a sock-puppet for Hesp? Sure seems like it, doesn't it?
So now we see the truth. In all actuality, Hesp/Bob/Fess/Lemon Lime is a Jew-Hater!
Who woulda thunk it, huh? Let's see if he allows this post, since he's deleted other posts of mine, when they got too close to the truth.
I'm beginning to think that Hesp is actually a Moslem, running a Jew-Hating game here.
Egghead, on your first comment, I've already said that in a recent essay (can't remember which right now), that all Muslims are in effect jihadists, because a) the raison d'etre of Islam and the realization of its ultimate goal is essentially jihad, and b) jihad is multi-faceted (for example, jihad of the pen and jihad of the tongue involve no violence) giving every Muslim an opportunity to wage it in myriad flavors. I even refer to the "Jihad of Being There" (or Being Here), whereby when a Muslim just plants roots in his emigre community (i.e., the West) and goes about the business of daily living in an ostensibly unobjectionable way, he or she is doing a form of jihad that slowly inculcates in surrounding Infidels the notion that Islam is and should be a part of the ordinary textures of our daily life in the West. Of course, one solitary Muslims immigrant can't do this; it takes a moving and expanding "village" to have the effect. And it has been happening with the West over the past 50 years, only escalating post-911.
Anonymous said...
Gee. Do you suppose "Egghead" is a sock-puppet for Hesp? Sure seems like it, doesn't it?
So now we see the truth. In all actuality, Hesp/Bob/Fess/Lemon Lime is a Jew-Hater!
... September 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM Delete
***************
No, actually Anonymous/Joe Blow/Philip Jihadski is my sock-puppet, and in "all actuality" I"m a masochist.
Hi Hesp,
You are SO powerful that you have your very own puppet show! :)
Have a great day!
An even more realistic example would have a pregnant lady FORCED to eat a bag of skittles where each skittle was painted with a different unknown amount of mercury - some a lot and some a little - but all of the mercury is additive and affects development of the future child in a drastically negative way.
Actually, best refinement to the skittles analogy I read today:
If you had a 5 gallon bucket full of skittles, and I told you there were 3 green ones that are laced w/ cyanide, what would you do?
Take a big handful?
Take a big handful and put the green ones back?
Throw all the green ones away?
Don't eat any realizing that even the red/orange/blue/brown ones could be choked on?
Hi Nobody,
Hope you're doing well. Yes that's a good variant on the analogy/metaphor. It all hinges on the problem of being unable to tell the difference between the poisonous items and the (conceded) non-poisonous items. There is now reigning throughout the West a profound aversion to regarding and/or treating the "non-poisonous" Muslims in any way that would hint of caution (let alone suspicion), even when lots of data leads us to do that if we want to protect our societies.
There is now reigning throughout the West a profound aversion to regarding and/or treating the "non-poisonous" Muslims in any way that would hint of caution (let alone suspicion), even when lots of data leads us to do that if we want to protect our societies.
One needs to accept only two things about Islam/Muslims, both of which are easy to prove: that Islam ordains that Islam can be imposed by violence and murder just as Muhammad himself did, and that Islam makes sacred all deception and lying in the imposition and extension of Islam.
Once accepted as true, and true they are, these two facts provide all the reason one needs to distrust, expel, and eliminate Islam and all Muslims.
That such a simple understanding is apparently beyond most of the people of the West, whether they are powerful or not, suggests a wilful blindness on their part.
Well Egghead, re: your comment of September 23, 2016 at 8:48 AM, one major implicit assumption of PC MC is that innumerable Muslims are watered down and decaffeinated in relation to their poisonous Islam -- just as (it is assumed) innumerable Western Christians have become watered down and decaffeinated over the past 200-300 years. So the connection between Muslims and Islam is implicitly severed. PC MCs of course don't maintain and pursue this claim with logic, but out of the other side of their mouths claim that there's nothing terribly wrong with mainstream Islam (or if there is, they say, increasing the wrinkles of their incoherence another notch, it will "evolve" and "progress" "just as Christianity has).
Yes, but Islam and Muslims are the same as ever whereas Christianity and Christians have, in fact, regressed and are continuing to regress to the sinful standard of Islam.
The failure to actively fight Islam is a de facto regression to the mean of Islam.
Christians shrug their collective shoulders about 'hate' speech codes that criminalize Christians and lead to bankruptcy, jail time, and forced 're-education' of Christians regarding religious beliefs.
Christians accept gay marriage and gay adoption that is being used to set the legal precedent for polygamy, child marriage, and cousin marriage which 'Christians' will also accept.
Muslim Obama has recently distributed new civil rights rules that codify job discrimination against Christians.
Next week, if Muslim Obama has his way, the worldwide Internet will be controlled by the United Nations which is controlled by Sharia adherent Muslim nations (57 states indeed as Obama clearly knew when he said it).
Again, whether people are Muslim, ex-Muslim, or non-Muslim, the failure to actively fight Islam is a de facto regression to the mean of Islam. The connection between Muslims and Islam is always explicit because Islam only exists when Islam is enlivened by Muslims.
So called 'moderate' Muslims are merely public relations people for so called 'radical' Muslims.
Just to elaborate on my last skittles analogy, the bowl of skittles implies immigrants, while the green ones are the Muslim immigrants. This was how Don Trump was implying it. The analogy does fall short in that it doesn't account for Muslim citizens who are just as, if not more, toxic. However, that's how that would map out.
Thanks for the clarification. I never read the original news story with the original analogy. I only read your comment here.
And yet, I believe that - and we can divorce it from 'Don's' analogy as named - I believe that my analogy stands on its own - especially regarding all immigrants being more or less poisonous to the United States at this point - mainly because of three interrelated problems:
1. The United States lacks an adequate vetting process for immigrants (as some of my relatives underwent at Ellis Island) and refugees because the United States greatly lacks Christian values at this time. The United States has ceded its refugee vetting process to the Muslim controlled United Nations which is calling immigrants refugees in order to contravene immigration law. Even immigrants who appear erudite and educated are often long term spies for hostile nations with hostile intentions. Even immigrants who appear Western are often raised with political, financial, and social values that directly contravene American and Christian values.
2. The United States allows immigrants and refugees to vote in a relatively short amount of time. Immigrants as a group vote for immigrant interests and vote against the interests of natural born citizens. Immigrants as a group participate in many forms of voter fraud. The real and fraudulent votes of immigrants deform and distort the voting process directly causing natural born citizens to effectively lose their vote.
3. The United States financially subsidizes most immigrants over their life times via social programs, educational grants, and social security. Even employed immigrants literally take good jobs from American citizens who may then need costly social programs due to lack of employment. The United States is 22 trillion dollars in debt, and it is clear that the United States is NOT in a position to extend 'Christian charity' to anyone else until the United States decreases its national debt. The high cost of immigrants is borne by natural born citizens who will be literally enslaved for generations by our national debt. But that's the point, isn't it, of fundamental change by those who hope - and actively work stronger together - to make Christian citizens into voiceless irreligious serfs?!
Egghead, that's a fair point. Even though I'm a legal non-Christian immigrant, I agree w/ your points above.
I believe there are 2 arguments - one being on whether to let in immigrants at all, and on what criteria, and the other being about whether to allow Muslims to be here. The question of Muslim immigration would fall within the intersection of these 2 sets. Your argument covers the question of immigrants - both Muslim and non-Muslim, while leaving the issue of Muslim citizens/permanent residents unaddressed, since deporting them would be unconstitutional - the way the constitution currently stands (Hesperado's past analysis of Japanese American internment camps notwithstanding).
The thing I like about the Trump campaign (and to a lesser extent, Carson's when he was running, but unlike others in the GOP primary) is that they are willing to, at various levels, name Muslims as the issue. The various qualifiers - radical, extremist et al was only added as an afterthought after the criticism, but their instincts are correct. On Breitbart, someone pointed out - we don't need gun control, we need Islam control. And as more outrages like the ones in San Bernardino, Orlando, New Jersey, Minneapolis, et al take place, it becomes harder for not only non-anti-Muslim Republicans to oppose this, it becomes harder for Dems as well - especially when a core group of theirs - gays - are the target.
Hi Nobody, Thanks for your insightful comments. I remember you. Please keep commenting here - as I enjoy thoughtful discussion. Check back on this thread tomorrow for my reply to your most recent comment. Thanks again.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/21/surprise-that-will-end-trump-globalists-registering-8-million/
Post a Comment