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)...

Saturday, January 13, 2018

A Muslim academic in the West (i.e., a canny liar) was reported on Jihad Watch, as analyzed by Cinnamon Stillwell, to have argued the following:

“Speaking to a largely middle-aged crowd of about twenty [at Harvard University], Zia-Ebrahimi contended that both The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—a Czarist forgery published circa 1903 alleging that Jews were plotting world domination—and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis—a 2005 book by Bat Ye’or declaring the demographic and political transformation of Europe into “Eurabia”—employ conspiracy-theories that incite hatred for Jews and Muslims, respectively.

“In his introduction, Zia-Ebrahimi credited the late Columbia University professor Edward Said with having originated this link by comparing Orientalism to anti-Semitism. Acknowledging that the “Israel-Palestine conflict” has “cast a long shadow on these discussions,” Zia-Ebrahimi advocated viewing anti-Semitism and “Islamophobia” as “manifestations of racism” in order to transcend these “divisions.” He described one camp as having “a tendency to be friendly to the state of Israel” and a “problem with Islamophobia,” while the other considers “Israel a colonial state” and believes in “Islamophobia.” The way to overcome these differences, he reasoned, is “to show that Jews and Muslims have been racialized.”

The bolded part is the money quote.  Zia-Ebrahimi is correct that Jews and Muslims have been “racialized” -- but not in the way he's trying to spin it.  Indeed, it's the mirror-image opposite, through the funhouse hall-of-mirrors distortion of Islamic taqiyya in unwitting collusion with the PC MC of mainstream Western Useful Idiocy.

Here's how the actual “racialization” has occurred:  Muslims have become the #1 Ethnic Minority in the world; which means they enjoy the dynamics exposed & analyzed by Lawrence Auster in his “First Law of Majority-Minority Relations” -- further clarified by me.

Meanwhile, Jews have become racialized in the opposite direction, so to say, to become “Honorary Whites” -- that is, part of the only world community responsible for all evils of the world.  (The supreme irony that so many Jews participate in this distortion by their infection with Leftism only completes the travesty.)

Tuesday, January 09, 2018

Can't shake this Persian Flu...

The latest bout of Persian Flu (a peculiarly Counter-Jihad Mainstream malady) isn't the first time; it broke out at least twice before, most infamously back in 2009.  Back then, Diana West, Debbie Schlussel and Lawrence Auster were the only ones to see through it (since they weren't filtering their vision with rosy-green glasses), while Robert Spencer and Pam Geller swooned over the Freedom-Fighting Iranian People.

In 2009, as I noted here on my blog, only Diana West picked up on the important detail that the Iranian People revolting then weren't just some spontaneous conflagration of Liberty-Loving Iranians but were in fact in league with, if not led by, a canny & cunning Muslim cleric, Mohsen Kadivar.  Then, as now, Spencer seemed oblivious to -- or in willful denial of -- the backstage orchestrations of the "Movement".  So this week, Spencer posts a report indicating that, apparently, the Counter-Jihad's old nemesis, Former President Ahmadinejad was "reportedly arrested for inciting unrest against Islamic regime"

Spencer, naturally, dismisses this out of hand with sneering ridicule:

f true, this is ridiculous, an attempt by the Islamic regime to find a fall guy. Ahmadinejad was always a true believer, an Islamic hardliner, whose blood bled for Khomeini and Khamenei. It hasn’t been Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inciting the Iranian people to chant that they don’t want an Islamic Republic and to praise Reza Shah. But it is a certain kind of poetic justice that the regime that this man served so indefatigably and ruthlessly has now turned its fury upon one of its fiercest defenders.

First of all, Spencer is making undue mileage out of tweet-reports that the demonstrators were indeed opposing the "Islamic Republic" and wanting an "Iranian" one instead. Not only is there no indication this is the broad sentiment of this coterie of demonstrations across the Iranian map, we also don't know whether it means they are opposed to an Islamic Republic per se, or just this particular "Islamic Republic" of the current regime.  But of course Spencer runs with the ambiguity in his favor.  Ditto for the praise of Reza Shah. At any rate, even a Reza Shah was a Muslim who admired Muhammad, and so only of use to us in a ruthless calculus of a Realislamik.  Spencer's use, however, seems to run deeper into rapturously rosy prose for these Iranian Muslims -- indicating, among other unfortunate things, his diametrically wrong instincts when it comes to our exigent need, if we want the West to survive Mohammedan devastation before the 21st century is out, to cultivate a rational prejudice against all Muslims.

Saturday, January 06, 2018

More on the Persian Flu

More on the recent outbreak of the Persian Flu in the Counter Jihad Mainstream (CJM).

Robert Spencer's capsule history of modern Iran:

The unrest in Iran grew, and repressive measures from the shah only made matters worse. Finally, on January 16, 1979, after riots and numerous calls for him to go, a tearful shah and his family left Iran. On February 1, Khomeini returned to Iran after fourteen years of exile. He announced the formation of a new government, declaring: “This is not an ordinary government. It is a government based on the shari‘a. Opposing this government means opposing the shari‘a of Islam and revolting against the shari‘a, and revolt against the government of the shari‘a has its punishment in our law … it is a heavy punishment in Islamic jurisprudence. Revolt against God’s government is a revolt against God. Revolt against God is blasphemy.”

Notice how Spencer glosses a bit too breezily past the two points he can't escape without being ahistorical: the popular uprising against the Shah; and the wildly popular welcome to the Ayatollah Khomeini and the consequent popular support for the 1979 Islamic Revolution.  What are we supposed to think, that in the span of some 35 plus years hundreds of thousands of Muslims (i.e., Iranian People) magically secularized, out of the historico-cultural soil of a profound Islamization lasting over a thousand years?  Apparently this is what Spencer and the other CJMers believe, belying their affectations of being oh-so tough and cynical about Islam.

As the great Judge Judy (PBUHer) says:  “If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true.”  It doesn't make sense that a culture as profoundly Islamic as Persia/Iran could grow a mass demographic of Muslims truly moved by a thriving, anti-Islamic secularism, despite what Spencer's rapturously rosy prose this past week clearly implies (e.g., in editorializing on this headline -- Iranian protesters skirting Islamic government’s tech clampdown to continue their fight for freedom -- he gushed, “The desire for freedom can never be entirely extinguished from the human heart.”).

Monday, January 01, 2018

It's Persian Flu season again...!

Symptoms include not only sneezes, scratchy throat, fever, and a rash, but also delusions about the "Iranian people".

This flu does not merely affect the broader Western Mainstream, but has also infected the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM).

The flu began in the last week of last year only as a mild cold.  About the mass protests in Iran, Robert Spencer, the éminence grise of the CJM, wrote:

The protests were, at least initially, over economic troubles, not against the Islamic Republic as such, but to chant “Death to the dictator” is getting quite close to calling for an end to the Islamic regime. Before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran was a Western-oriented, relatively secular regime, and there is no reason why it could not be again.

Then, about this headline:

Iran: Hundreds of thousands of protesters shout “We don’t want an Islamic Republic”

Spencer's symptoms only got worse:

This is extraordinary, and could presage the return of some freedom to Iran, and its standing-down as one of the world’s foremost enemies of freedom.  

Another headline:

Iran: Tehran police say they’ll no longer arrest women for violating the Islamic dress code

And Spencer's Persian fever rose:

This is momentous: the first crack in the Sharia wall... Will American feminists stand with the Iranian women who have been bravely taking off their hijabs over the last few days? Not likely. In any case, we can hope that this is just the first sign of the regime’s weakness, and a harbinger of its impending demise.

About one of the alleged chants of the Iranian People  -- “Not Gaza, Not Lebanon, my soul for Iran.” -- Spencer writes:

They’re saying they want a government that will stop funding the global jihad and take care of its own citizens.

About another alleged chant of the Iranian People -- “Reza Shah, bless your soul!” -- Spencer writes:

Reza Shah was the Shah of Iran from 1925 to 1941 and the father of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah who was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Reza Shah admired Turkey’s Ataturk and set Iran on a similar path of Westernization and secularization. In chanting this, the protesters are emphasizing that they do not want an Islamic Republic.

Editorializing on this headline --  Iran: Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps opens fire on peaceful protesters, murdering five, injuring four -- Spencer writes:

A tragedy and an outrage. And to think this criminal regime has apologists in the West.

 Then, as the crisis got worse (Iran: After cops murder protesters, protesters set fire to police and security offices) and publishing this tweet --

Spencer's Persian Fever spiked, with the first signs of hallucination (believing hundreds of thousands of Muslims can be "freedom fighters" just because they oppose other Muslims):

The freedom fighters aren’t giving up easily.

(More to come... In the meantime, here's some bedtime reading for your bedrest...)

Friday, December 29, 2017

The Leadership and the Readership (part 2)

In part 1, I introduced the topic and discussed the broad brush strokes, which I won't repeat here.

Overall, we can say about the distinction between these two groups of the Counter-Jihad is that the Leadership seems to be more activist and seems to be "getting it done", while the Readership are largely passive, reading about (or YouTubing) the alarmingly systemic and increasing news about Islam.  As their Islamoliteracy grows year after year, to their increasing horror -- with a concomitant rise in their blood pressure in frustration (if not fury) at the ongoing myopia of our Western representatives in government, mass media, and academe -- the main measure of release the Readership seem to get comes in writing comments at various Internet websites and blogs (e.g., Gates of Vienna and Jihad Watch).

The alarming news about Islam which the Readership consumes is helpfully collated, organized, and often analyzed by the Leadership, since we cannot rely upon the mainstream media to do its job in this regard.  Thus the two above-mentioned counter-jihad sites, Gates of Vienna and Jihad Watch (there are many others, but these seem to be the most famous), regularly perform this service. In addition, the Leadership, as I mentioned, is out "getting it done" -- making speeches, being interviewed by media (rarely mainstream), participating in round-table panels, debates & colloquia, writing books that are noticed by quasi-mainstream figures (and/or rise up high on the New York Times bestseller list), organizing counter-jihad demonstrations & protests, and so forth.

What is guiding the Leadership's motives for getting these things done, and what are their short-term and long-term goals?  This remains unclear; there seems to be a vaguely "counter-jihad" sentiment, but little in the way of a concrete blueprint and specific details.  Rather, what prevails seems to be much inconsistency based on a semi-willful denial of the magnitude of the problem with regard to Muslims in general.  While most of the Leadership seem finally (after years of Daniel-Pipesian softness) to have evolved to a stance comprehensively critical of Islam itself (pace Robert Spencer's "I am not 'anti-Islam' " stance), they continue to indulge in an incoherent taxonomy of the problem of Muslims, always avoiding the crucial question of "how do we know a given Muslim is not part of the jihad against us?" and the logical response of rational prejudice against all Muslims that should ensue from our inability to answer such a question with any degree of comforting certitude.

One gets the sense that the Readership is more anti-Islam and more anti-Muslim than the Leadership; but they rarely express this in boldly explicit and clear terms; and when pressed on this (as I had done a thousand times over the years in comments threads at various counter-jihad forums, including the aforementioned two), more often than not they retreat and expose some kind of underlying nougaty softness which their normative bravado had been theretofore concealing.  So I guess at best, one could say the Readership, compared with the Leadership, tend to express a seemingly tougher stance, but no less coherent -- if not actually more incoherent, since the tougher one's rhetoric against Islam becomes, the more incoherent becomes one's overall position to the degree one retains an underlying nougaty softness about Muslims (this is the phenomenon of the "asymptotic" which I have discussed and analyzed many times).

As far as an overall plan, one may be excused for the cynicism of summing it up this way: The Leadership, remaining confused and incoherent about what its "counter-jihad" is doing and should be doing, continues to cultivate an amorphously buzzing cottage industry of critiquing and analyzing the bad aspects of Islam, meanwhile poking critical fun at the mainstream for its dereliction of duty. Part and parcel of this amorphously buzzing cottage industry are humanly understandable endeavors to garner more fame & money -- taking advantage, so to say, of the frustration & fear of its Readership.

The bulk of the Readership does not only find release in commenting on websites & blogs, but also in cultivating an adulation, one might say, of some of the Leadership (particularly Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has developed an increasing fandom).  By having a de facto Leader (or a Leader surrounded by, in league with, a pantheon of Leaders), the Readership can feel less impotent as they thrash amid the placid waters of the mainstream De Nile.  It's more or less an amorphous feeling with little concrete definition, since the counter-jihad lacks a blueprint and a plan. 

One would think, in this ongoing situation, the Leadership and the Readership would want to have a global Conversation, in the form of a virtual Town Hall Meeting, so to speak, facilitated by the Internet -- to take stock of the counter-jihad, see where we are, where we should be going, what we should be doing.  But no; 16 years after 911, and neither demographic seems interested.  Indeed, the idea doesn't seem to have even occurred to them. I'm the only Reader who has broached this subject, with repeated calls for same over the years -- with, naturally, zero response or signs of any notice at all.

Mostly, the Readership just proceeds on the same level, without a rudder, apparently hoping that if enough anti-Islam rhetoric is thrown against the mainstream wall by their motley Leaders, things will eventually stick there.  Meanwhile, deep down inside, a black foreboding is growing as they realize, even if only semi-consciously in tension with their resistance to cultivating a rational prejudice against all Muslims, that nothing short of total deportation of all Muslims from the West is going to save the West from ruin at the hands of the global revival of Mohammedanism's perennial jihad.

Thursday, December 21, 2017

The Leadership and the Readership (part 1)

The "Leadership" and the "Readership" is a good way to describe the overall demographics of the Counter-Jihad.  Because, however, the Counter-Jihad remains largely incoherent, there is often some crossover and a blurry line between those two categories -- not to mention that there are no formal "Leaders", even if there are individuals who function effectively as such in an ipso-facto-ish sort of way.

In a recent essay ("Let's Talk"), I set out my proposal that the #1 priority for the Counter-Jihad is to have a global virtual Town Hall Meeting -- to discuss what we are, what we are doing, what we are failing to do, whether we could be doing it better -- and I described that virtual discussion further:

"... it should be an open event, encouraging all Counter-Jihad Civilians to participate.  The mechanics of the process should try to give voice to these Civilians, as prominently, if not more so, than to the Leadership; since the Leadership has enjoyed a virtual monopoly of communication thus far -- with virtually the only competition from the Civilians being in the form of comments submitted into comments threads of various discussion forums (the most vibrant one, perhaps, being the comments threads attached to articles on Jihad Watch), or blogs hardly anybody reads (like, you know, that blog, what's the name of it, by that guy, what's his name... The Desperado or something...)."

The "Civilians" of my quote are, of course, what I mean by the "Readership".

Let's explore a little more who these respective groups are, beginning with the Leadership.  One useful way to see a list of likely candidates would be to trot out all the luminaries who have written encomiums for Robert Spencer's new book, Confessions of an Islamophobe --  Pam Geller, Michelle Malkin, Gavin McInnes, Bat Ye'or, David Horowitz, Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, Andrew McCarthy, Steve Bannon, Pat Condell, Bruce Bawer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders.  (An interesting, if not amusing, thought comes to mind on scanning this list of names: some of them don't seem to be, strictly speaking, "in the Counter-Jihad", or at best seem to have one foot in it while the rest of their body, so to speak, inhabits the broader Western Mainstream -- such as Steve Bannon, Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, and Andrew McCarthy; and other names come to mind as well in this regard, most notably perhaps, Sam Harris.  This is a further wrinkle to the phenomenon we are exploring here, but which we won't get into until part 2.)

And speaking of luminaries, we include Robert Spencer himself, of course -- the éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.  So much so, indeed, that some have assumed him to be, or have accused him of being, the titular Leader, the Grand Poobah of the whole Shebang (and of course Spencer has disingenuously deflected that with a grinning aww, shucks).

Not that I'm saying Spencer is in fact the Leader of the Counter-Jihad; though he is, in many ways, tantamount to it.  One reason why he's not in any clear, coherent, official sense is because of the persisting incoherence of the Counter-Jihad itself -- "still inchoate" as I used to say (prompting Spencer once to jab me with a snarky retort in the comments field of Jihad Watch long ago, as though he couldn't understand what I was referring to, back when he was not so busy jet-setting around the world that he couldn't descend to hobnob with the hoi polloi of his fan base).

Another reason may be gleaned from who is not on the list of rave reviewers of his new book.  As I've noted many times, Spencer has, over the years, burned many bridges (of course, it's always "their fault") with others who would be, or could be, or actually were, allies of his -- and of all of us who are concerned about the alarming danger of a global revival of Islam in our time.  Baron Bodissey and Diana West come to mind (and one wonders if Frank Gaffney isn't included, for the crime of his continued support of Diana West).

To quote from another essay I wrote, longer ago, nearly 10 years ago (!) -- "Leadership in the Anti-Islam Movement: Addendum 2 to the Prospectus":

"Individuals such as Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, anduntil recentlyCharles Johnson, come to mind. What makes these individuals leaders?
"First, it must be pointed out that not all of them manifest the qualities of leadership equally in degree or style. This is to a great extent a function of the movements lack of structure and protocol, by which such a definition would be more explicitly determined and implemented.
"Aside from evident talents and skills they all possess in varying degrees and flavors, the most general quality that embraces all the names listed above (and others that can be added to that list) is that they have a high degree (relatively speaking) of fame and influence. Using this criterion alone, we can say that leadership is not a simplex category or office held by one homogeneous class of individuals, to be contrasted with a second class designated as members who are non-leaders, but rather that there are levels or degrees of leaders. I.e., in this scheme, Spencer would exercise more of a leadership role than, say, Nonie Darwish, who in turn would be more of a leader than, say, Jamie Glazov of FrontPage Magazine. As we approach the low end of this spectrum, we shade off into individuals who are somewhat well-known in the Blogosphere (such as Fjordman and Lawrence Auster), and further down the food chain we have individuals who are virtually completely unknown (such as myself) who nevertheless maintain blogs on the issue and/or who otherwise try to engage in some form of activism of various degrees of significance and influence."

That descent down the food chain, as it were, harks back to a line I quoted previously, above:

...blogs hardly anybody reads (like, you know, that blog, what's the name of it, by that guy, what's his name... The Desperado or something...)."

Already, with the allusion there to that damned Hesperado, we have left the sphere of the amorphous Leadership zone and find ourselves suddenly in the more questionable neighborhood of the Great Unwashed -- the Readership.

The Readership, as distinguished from the Leadership, are in the eyes of some impatient cynics, not really "doing" anything; their highest activity, perhaps (setting the bar appropriately low in order to understand this demographic), consisting in blogging. In this regard, I quote further from that essay:

Below this level, as it were, are innumerable individuals who are as yet passive consumers of the movement, perhaps offering comments here and there on discussion forums and blogs, perhaps writing a letter to the editor or to their Congressman once in a while, but otherwise not actually doing anything. If the movement were crystallized into an organization, this last class, as well as those slightly above them who yet retain relative degrees of passivity, would be able to be utilized for the movement: this would help the movement, and it would give people who feel they dont have any role some concrete significance.

I can offhand think of degrees of Readership activism higher, in the pragmatic sense, than blogging:  One longtime veteran commenter in Jihad Watch comments fields I recall had made it an ongoing project of his to research, organize and print out concise brochures to pass out to various people out in the "non-virtual world".  Another longtime veteran I featured in an essay here on The Hesperado many moons ago -- one "CGW" who has done quite a bit to try to wake up fellow citizens and authorities in his home state of Minnesota to the disturbing increase of female genital mutilation practices introduced by Muslim presence there.  That said, the activity of blogging is not insignificant, and has its useful place, since our current phase of this war remains largely a war of ideas which involves a subtler, more complicated process than -- as most in the Counter-Jihad seem to think -- merely trying to get Information About Islam from the Counter-Jihad to the Vast Unawakened throughout the West who, once acquainted with that data, will have the scales fall from their eyes and be suddenly cured of their Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist bias.

More generally, I note a caveat from my essay I've been quoting:

This extrapolation of leadership degrees and the plotting of various individuals along its spectrum is not meant to be presented here and now as a definitive science; the placement of many individuals above or below others is to a great extent a subjective process, and people would reasonably disagree here and there. 

This ends part 1.  In part 2, I will get more into the juicy meat of both categories, the Leadership and the Readership.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Brother, can you spare a paradigm ...?
In a recent essay on Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald ably defends the Old Paradigm against Daniel Altman (any relation to the famous Leftist film director?), the editor for the solidly mainstream Foreign Policy magazine, who attacked Trump's re-tweets linking videos of, so to say, Muslims Gone Wild, branding Trump's action as a foreboding of Another Holocaust -- this time against the New Jews, the precious Muslims of the world.

As I say, Hugh performs his task of defending the Old Paradigm in an admirably by-the-numbers manner.  The only problem is that, to anyone who has thought long and hard about why the broader Western Mainstream persists stubbornly in defending Islam, it has become clear that the issue is not really Islam per se, but Muslims collectively.  The broader Western Mainstream instinctively recognizes this, while the considerably smaller Counter-Jihad Mainstream is still stuck going after Islam while avoiding the implications this has for Muslims in general.

Both Mainstreams have their flaws and incoherent weak spots. The broader Western Mainstream indulges in a quasi-willful denial of the systemic, metastasizing proportions of the problem of Islam; while the Counter-Jihad Mainstream indulges in a curious denial of how its own horrifying knowledge of the problem of Islam logically leads to the alarmingly open-ended problem of Muslims.

This latter flaw is implicitly present in the structure of Hugh's entire essay, but becomes increasingly clear as one reads along and, towards the end, bumps into this series of rhetorical questions brimming with frustration:

What is unfair about showing what some Muslims — a not inconsiderable number — are capable of doing? Would it be better not to show these things, in order to protect the image of Islam? Why do we want to protect the image of Islam? How does that promote a real, and not a dangerously illusory, peace?

We can see Hugh trying to juggle a prevarication of the systemic problem of Muslims with vague waves of the hand -- "...some Muslims -- a not inconsiderable number..." -- essentially trying to have his cake of an implied problem of Muslims and eat too a simultaneous attempt to whittle the problem down so that one may not be accused of leading to the very thought crime with which the editor of Foreign Policy is charging all who would defend Trump's re-tweets.

Now, it's not that the broader Western Mainstream denies there is a problem of sorts with Islam and with Muslims.  They don't deny it; but they leaven their concession with a tortured mess of incoherence and denial. Just how bad is this problem of Islam? How deep does it run? So it only reflects a relatively minor vein of "conservative fundamentalism" (which -- wink, wink -- "all religions have")?  And this in turn only produces the effects of a marginal number, a Tiny Minority of Extremists who are "twisting" Islam?  How "tiny" is Tiny?  One palpably senses the Western Mainstream responding to this problem of Islam like someone who insists on sitting on the lid of a giant cauldron which they know is threatening to bubble over with a fiery broth that will ruin the kitchen, if not the house, hoping that by trying their damndest to keep the lid on, the problem will remain just barely deniable, rather than explode into full view, destroying all chances of any further denial.  Meanwhile, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream continues to scratch its collective head in bafflement at this behavior of the broader Western Mainstream; but it's not that mysterious.  The broader Western Mainstream is anxiously, almost frantically one senses, trying to avoid the implications the problem of Islam increasingly reveals -- that an indeterminately vast number of Muslims are hateful, dangerous fanatics.

As I've argued before, the only plausible reason why the Counter-Jihad Mainstream avoids tackling this issue head-on is one of two things: 1) either the Counter-Jihad Mainstream individual in question is afraid of being condemned by the broader Western Mainstream for being a "racist" and an "Islamophobe", or 2) the Counter-Jihad Mainstream individual himself agrees with the broader Western Mainstream, that the problem is not all Muslims but only "...some Muslims -- a not inconsiderable number..." 

The key difference at that point between the two Mainstreams revolves around how many Muslims are the problem. Since we can never know the answer to this question, and since the danger of assuming any given vague number of Muslims are harmless traps us in a deadly game of Muslim Roulette, this difference of Mainstreams amounts to a kind of tango between two sides, each trying to outdo the other in its untenable Denial of the actual problem while at the same time pretending to be grappling with that problem more effectively than their dance opponent.

Saturday, December 16, 2017

Wow, part deux

Further thoughts on my recent post, Wow.

As I put it in a comment on Gates of Vienna nearly six years ago:

I guess I have more respect for my fellow Westerners than Baron and others here have. I'm not interested in saving a perpetual Kindergarten of idiots [or Sheeple] in league with an evil cabal of "Elites" -- if that is all the West is to you guys.

The reader can go to that link, and scroll along to find Baron Bodissey's response, then my responses, then his, etc.  At the end of the day, the sentence I quote above is the heart of the problem of the "Real Problemers" and the incoherence of their vision, finding coherent release only, perhaps, in a Gnostic view of the world where an ecclesiola in ecclesia, so to speak, forms a Remnant of the Elect who steel their eyes toward darkly gathering clouds on the horizon foreboding a Civil War between a tiny gathering of Good Guys reconstituting the rudiments of a new society (à la Lincoln, Reedus & McBride of The Walking Dead) amid the future chaos, against the forces of the Masses of Sheeple led by the neck by a Dastardly Cabal of Evil Elites.  Oh yeah, and the problem of Islam is somewhere in there, as an ultimately less important factor.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Best Cop...?,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg


As I've developed the term "Better Cop" over the years -- to distinguish the craftier, cleverer Muslim apologist from the standard-issue, garden-variety "Good Cop" who only fools the broader Western Mainstream but can't fool the Counter-Jihad as well as the Better Cops can -- I've noticed that some Better Cops seem better than others.  (Meanwhile, there is the less interesting because obvious "Bad Cop" about which I've not written much, until recently.)

Of course, "better" is often relative.  An Asra Nomani, for example, will be more likely to fool many in the Counter-Jihad than a Maajid Nawaz because she's a personable woman who doesn't seem to suffer from the off-putting narcissism of Nawaz; but on the other hand, that distinction for many others doesn't matter that much, since both are pretty much equally trusted to be sincerely trying to "reform" Islam.

If the reader wants a list of most of the latest Muslim apologists whose seemingly more moderate & secular cream has risen to the top to surpass the Good Cops, he can consult the latest book by the colleague of Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch, Christine Douglass-Williams, The Challenge of Modernizing Islam: Reformers Speak Out And the Obstacles They Face (see my two-part essay discussing the tortured mess of problems associated with this meme).

It has occurred to me, however, that the same dynamic that has (we reasonably conjecture) made the development of the Better Cop necessary -- to wit, the slowly growing nucleus of awareness in the West, expressed by the still amorphous coalescence of a "counter-jihad", that there's a serious (if not horrific) problem with Islam which cannot be papered over with the typical bromides of the Good Cops ("Islam means peace!" "We do not support terrorism!" "Jihad is an inner struggle!" "We love America!" "Don't be a racist!" etc.) -- would logically make necessary (in a "just to make sure they don't wake up" spirit) the development of an even better Better Cop: the "Best Cop".

I.e., as that still minuscule (albeit growing) part of the West called "the Counter Jihad" shows signs of increasing suspicion of some of these Better Cops whose sole raison d'être has been to soften up the Counter-Jihad to make sure it does not toughen up into a rational prejudice against all Muslims, along come Muslims (or even putatively "ex"-Muslims) to perform the same high-wire act, but even higher: Where the Better Cops try to foster a specious distinction between Islam and "Islamism" (the latter cleverly functioning as an effective insulation of the former from condemnation), the Best Cops, seeing they have precious little ground to continue any sort of disinformation since they affect to reject that distinction (between Islam and "Islamism"), realize the best they can do is to reinforce the general haze of uncertainty which is, so to speak, the last bastion defending against the dreaded rational prejudice against all Muslims.

For, if that rational prejudice is cultivated by the mainstream West (beginning with its Canaries-in-the-Coalmine, the Counter-Jihad), that will become the best, if not the only, chance of definitively cutting the Stealth Jihad off at the knees.  But if that Stealth Jihad is not stopped in time, it will enable a future Jihad of the Sword so horrific, so widespread, enabled by a Muslim demographic so deeply penetrated in the West, that it is likely to be the eventual ruination of our civilization -- a prospect, needless to say, devoutly to be wish'd by Muslims.

One interesting thing I've noticed over the years is that the Better Cops never go after the Good Cops -- nor do they go after other Better Cops.  The target of the Better Cops, when they are bothering to go after fellow Muslims at all (and that's only a small part of their kitman-bag), are the Bad Cops.  When for example a Maajid Nawaz (Better Cop) goes after an Anjem Choudhary (Bad Cop) at a public debate, it is transparent (to those with discerning eyes) that they need each other -- but more importantly, the Better Cop needs the Bad Cop, so that he (the Better Cop) can distinguish himself as a "reforming moderate" in the face of this almost clownish contrast who personifies a caricature of the "I weel keel you" extremist.  It's almost as though the Choudhary type Bad Cop is in on the game (though he doesn't consciously have to be for the game to work) -- though it is the same collusion (only better) that the Good Cop and Bad Cop ply.  Similarly, it seems that Better Cops avoid confronting Good Cops: Why haven't we seen Maajid Nawaz or Zuhdi Jasser (or any of the other Better Cops) go after Tariq Ramadan or Reza Aslan or Mustafa Akyol, three of the most notorious Good Cops?  Thus -- so our logic goes -- what distinguishes the Best Cop from the Better Cop is not only that their seeming criticism of Islam makes deeper cuts even than does that of the Better Cops, the Best Cop will also go after both the Good Cops and also even the Better Cops. 


This is all by way of introducing a possible candidate for "Best Cop" -- one Shazia Hobbs, who out of the blue this past week, has become a burgeoning contributor to Jihad Watch.  In her inaugural essay there, titled "Losing My Religion", she introduced herself to the Counter-Jihad Civilian Readership.  She discusses the difficulty of growing up in Scotland as the child of a mixed marriage between a Muslim Pakistani father and a Scottish idiot (i.e., her mother, who lost her head and married a Pakistani Muslim).  Shazia emphasizes the difficulties she's experienced have been emanating chiefly from Muslims, and she goes on to sound all the right notes, critiquing various pernicious effects of Islam.  What interested me was that nowhere in the essay did Shazia Hobbs explicitly disavow Islam or indicate that she is in fact no longer a Muslim.  The net effect of reading the essay (not to mention the title of her piece) may lead the reader to infer these things, but nowhere are they spelled out (much less explained).  For example, she uses at one point the phrase "...I was a Muslim..." but if the reader thinks about it, this does not rule out that she is still a Muslim (since contextually, she was describing her past growing up in Scotland).  Similarly, she describes her arranged marriage to a Pakistani man:  "I was forced to marry a man I met for the first time on my wedding night. I stayed in the marriage for three years until I found the courage to walk out. Walking out meant losing my family, extended family and the Pakistani community I had been part of my entire life."  She "walked out" of her arranged marriage and out of her family -- but did she walk out of Islam?  She doesn't say.  A more refined & rarified form of kitman? As we shall see, it is precisely this haze of uncertainty which is the very heart & métier of the Best Cop's tactics.

More importantly for the unique strategy of the Best Cop, unlike the Better Cops who never go after their fellow Better Cops (or even their lesser God Cop co-religionists), Shazia devotes her second essay on Jihad Watch, "Reforming Islam", critiquing the Better Cop Maajid Nawaz.  At first glance, it's a welcome roast of Maajid over the coals.  Much, if not most of what Shazia observes about Maajid is spot on.  That would be the point, if she were a Best Cop -- to wrap her ulterior motive in a comfortingly rich & thick pita wrap of zesty & tasty spices catered to the counter-jihad's taste.  Example:

Nawaz has set a rigid and uncompromising strategy which is entirely reliant on decoupling Islam from its evil “political” twin “Islamism”. Whether intentional on his part or not, this exploits Western liberals’ desperation, ignorance and gullibility to believe that Islam is inherently good and is being “misinterpreted” or at the very least is benign and merely in need of some nips and tucks by way of “reformation” [bold emphasis added]

Why is Shazia ambivalent about Maajid's motives?  If the Counter-Jihad is going to wake up the West to the problem of Islam, it's not doing its job if it reinforces our general haze about whether or not to trust a given Muslim.  Particularly with the tissue of suspect circumstantial facts surrounding Maajid -- facts Shazia ably describes (and there is more she does not mention) -- there should be no room for doubt.  We must reasonably exercise what I call rational prejudice.  No longer should we worry about "whether" Maajid meant this or that, "whether" he's still waging jihad (only now of the stealth variety) or "whether" he is just a vain narcissist who has good intentions, blah blah blah.  No: we damn him now, and stop scratching our heads about his motives.  The net effect of Shazia's critical analysis, however, is a strong but ultimately ambivalent case against Maajid, still leaving the door (and all the vents) open for the haze, and for a smattering of congenial "agree to disagree" responses from the still disorganized milieu of the Counter-Jihad.  Shazia's apparently strong criticism of Maajid earns her counter-jihad cred; meanwhile, her efforts to further the ambiguous haze helps to advance the stealth jihad's most important objective: to do anything it takes to dampen & defuse any signs in the West of an evolution toward a rational prejudice against all Muslims.

And what better way to do this than the best way -- to couch it in a vehicle that appears no-nonsense and tough against Islam, even to the point of one-upping -- yea, besting -- the better attempts by Maajid Nawaz to do the same!

[perhaps a Part 2 to come...]

Saturday, December 09, 2017

Bumping into intelligent life on Planet Jihad Watch

115 comments attached to a Jihad Watch notice about an American citizen who was sentenced to a seemingly Draconian & Orwellian sentence of 15 years merely for vandalizing a mosque in Florida (including -- horror of horrors! -- leaving bacon on the premises).

While the other 114 comments were futzing about with peripheral issues, only one solitary comment among them pierced through to express the Meme we "in the Counter-Jihad" should all be pushing, in order to advance an awakening throughout the West about the problem of Islam:

I want to see Islam be removed from the West. I want to see every Muslim removed from the West and pushed back to the Islamic world to live their miserable lives, without access to ours, to cause their trouble. 

Friday, December 08, 2017

The function of the "Bad Cop" Muslim

Muslim cleric: “Offensive Jihad means attacking infidels in order to conquer their countries and bring them into the fold of Islam”

That's a recent headline on Jihad Watch (only the 700,000th such headline in the past 13-odd years since Jihad Watch has been reporting on the growing mountain, or volcano, of the evil lava of data spewing & pullulating out of the Muslim world, increasingly spilling into our own world).

Over the years I've developed & discussed the concept of the "Good Cop" Muslim and the "Better Cop" Muslim -- the former, with his standard-issue bromides of "Islam is peace" and "we Muslims don't believe in taking innocent life" good enough to fool the broader Western mainstream, but not the slowly growing movement of awareness in the West ("the Counter-Jihad"), who, in order to be fooled, require a subtler, more sophisticated taqiyya: hence along come the "Better Cop" Muslims, like Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, Asra Nomani, Shireen Qudosi, Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, etc., et al. (qaeda).

While the intended audience for the Good Cop Muslims is the broader Western mainstream, these Better Cop Muslims have a different target: the Counter-Jihad.  And, alas, all too often the Counter-Jihad shows signs of being vulnerable to their oily wiles.  (Even the attitudes of "I'm not sure whether to trust Zuhdi Jasser, he just seems confused" (as Robert Spencer once put it preposterously, "his heart is in the right place") or "I'm not sure whether to trust Maajid Nawaz, he seems to be motivated by vanity" are signs that Nawaz and Jasser have succeeded at least in part -- sowing confusion in their audience and reinforcing the Counter-Jihadist's disinclination to cultivate rational prejudice against all Muslims.)

The "Bad Cop" Muslims, unlike their "Good" and "Better" co-religionists, are honest about Islam -- in effect saying "I weel keel you!".  The gold standard of this subtype would be the Muslim cleric squatting in Great Britain, Anjem Choudhary, who among other ejaculations of Islamic honesty, boasts that Muslims will some day "fly the black flag of Islam over 10 Downing Street".  The main function of "Bad Cop" Muslims, like the cleric featured in the headline above, is to be a contrast to the Good Cops (and to the Better Cops).  Naive & simple-minded folks in the Counter-Jihad (unfortunately they abound) think that by trotting out various Bad Cop Muslims they will help to wake up their somnambulant fellow Westerners.  What actually happens when the typical Westerner, whose heart & mind is pleasantly deformed by Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism, encounters a Bad Cop Muslim is that he immediately assumes that Bad Cop Muslim is just an "extremist Islamist".  And along with that assumption follows the axiomatic ejaculations, such as "that extremist Islamist only reflects a Tiny Minority of Extremists who are twisting Islam, and the vast majority of Muslims just wanna have a sandwich."

Thus, the net effect of the Bad Cop Muslim is to actually reinforce the view that there is no systemic, metastasizing problem of Islam.  The Counter-Jihad will likely never get through to the broader Western mainstream that in fact, the Bad Cop Muslims agree with their "Good" co-religionists, since the Counter-Jihad itself hasn't developed sufficient antibodies to the more refined Good Cops, the Better Cops.  Also, even if a typical Westerner grudgingly concedes that, sure, okay, there are extremist "aspects" (or "elements" as Robert Spencer has put it, elliptically) of mainstream Islam, there quickly follow rejoinders we have come to know all too wearily:  "But hey, all religions have extremist aspects; and anyway, the vast majority of Muslims  are moms and pops like the rest of us, just trying to get through the day working jobs to put food on the table for their kids; etc."  And the Counter-Jihad, as long as it avoids the paradigm shift -- from a problem of Islam to a problem both of Islam AND of all Muslims -- like the plague, has nothing to counter this camelcrap with.

Further Reading:

I've written many essays on this general theme.  See this Google page of a few of them for more details & analysis.

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

The Jihad of Criminality (example #148,327)

Above is a map of no-go zones in France.  As the blog The Conservative Paper notes:  They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count.

A little over a year ago, Jihad Watch reported an incident that on the surface seems like petty thuggery or criminality; but which on deeper reflection we must reasonably assume is just one of myriad, diverse ways in which Muslims are increasingly flexing their jihad in our societies -- one of thousands of reports over the years on Robert Spencer's website (not to mention on other sites, including various European ones) indicating that the problem is not merely Islam, but also Muslims, even though he doggedly, albeit elliptically, continues to deny this:

France: Muslims launch “incredibly violent” attack against two couples because the women were wearing shorts

While Spencer was just following the lead of the Telegraph article he was relaying, it turns out that deeper digging by French media uncovered this interesting detail, according to one of the chief victims of the Mohammedan attack:

“No one had shorts [on].  This is not what triggered the episode of gratuitous violence we suffered on Friday.”

Her description of that disturbing, terrorizing day:

We were having a family outing; we were returning from spending two hours roller-skating (for the gals) and cycling (for the guys). At a stoplight crossing, a youth verbally accosted me: "Hey, you're going around naked!"  I didn't understand. Then he addressed my sister: "Hey, you're nice!"

My sister was in a jogging suit, and I was wearing leggings with  knee-high socks, knee pads, elbow pads, and a cap. No shorts.

 My husband told him to mind his manners when speaking to us, that we are ladies. The youth -- who was with some other youths who were drinking and smoking joints retorted scornfully:  "These aren't ladies, they're whores!"

The French media source, Le Point, then noted:

The two young women were then jostled [by the youths] and their male companions, when they tried to intervene, were beaten with blows upon blows.

The female victim's testimony resumed:

I saw my husband on the ground, unconscious.  The youths were escalating, using barbed wire to strike our men.  My brother-in-law had intervened to put himself between.  There were a dozen that jumped him, to beat him.  You could see his head bouncing all over the place."

French text:

"Personne n'était en short. Ce n'est pas ce qui a déclenché la scène de violence gratuite que nous avons subie dimanche".

"Nous étions en famille. Nous revenions de deux heures de balade en roller (pour les filles) et à vélo (pour les garçons). Au niveau d'un feu, un jeune m'a interpellé: +Mets-toi toute nue!+. Je n'ai pas compris. Puis il s'est adressé à ma soeur: +Toi, t'es jolie+".

"Ma soeur était en jogging, et moi j'étais en leggings avec des chaussettes montantes, des genouillères, des coudières et une casquette. Pas de shorts".

"Mon mari lui a indiqué de mieux nous parler. Que nous étions des madames. L'individu qui était avec d'autres jeunes en train de boire et de fumer des joints a répondu en narguant: +C'est pas des madames, mais des putes+".

Les deux jeunes femmes sont alors bousculées et leurs compagnons sont tour à tour roués de coups en tentant de s'interposer.

"Je voyais mon mari au sol. Inconscient. Les gars prenaient de l'élan avec les grillages pour continuer à le frapper. Mon beau-frère est intervenu pour s'interposer. Ils étaient une dizaine sur lui. A le frapper. On voyait sa tête partir dans tous les sens".

Monday, December 04, 2017

Robert Spencer is either disingenuous or soft on Islam

I'm not sure there's a third explanation for his dogged (albeit elliptical) insistence that the monstrously mountainous problem of Islam has pretty much nothing to do with Muslims per se.

Concerning a recent notice on Jihad Watch reporting a Chris Wallace interview with Trump's senior national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, Spencer editorialized:

Wallace adds: “But his tweets were all about anti-Muslim — about Muslim violence, he was making it.” That he would buy into the establishment narrative that opposing jihad terror is “anti-Muslim” betrays a massive confusion on his part.

Au contraire, my dear counter-jihad-mainstream frère:  Wallace is actually being more logical than Spencer is.  Spencer is either pretending that Muslims (or most Muslims) aren't a problem and only Islam is, or he really believes this.  Either way, his mission in life obviously implies, to anyone with the elementary capacity to ingest & digest the mountain of damning data he has been reporting for some 14 years now, that Muslims are a problem and that any attempt to granularize Muslims into Harmless Muslims and Dangerous Muslims is essentially flawed.  The fact that Spencer won't concede this, but routinely denies it, only makes matters worse for any understanding that might be cultivated between the two Mainstreams -- the Counter-Jihad Mainstream and the broader Western Mainstream of which Chris Wallace and H.R. McMaster (and practically everydamnbody else in the West with opposable thumbs) are members.

Further Reading:

Various essays I've written about paradigm shift that never seems to happen "in the Counter-Jihad" -- particularly this one, Third piece of the puzzle.

Sunday, December 03, 2017

Cherry-picking is not always fallacious

I've written a couple of times about the new book by Christine Williams-Douglass, one of the evidently important colleagues of Robert Spencer and an important and frequent contributor to Spencer's Jihad Watch.  Her new book being a compendium of "Reformist Muslims" whom she describes and interviews and supposedly vets with tough questions (I'll be the judge of that, when I purchase it and read it in the hopefully not-too-distant future):  The Challenge of Modernizing Islam: Reformers Speak Out And the Obstacles They Face.  See my two-part discussion of the problems of the whole premise of that book.

For now, I have a tasty cherry for my readers.

"...I support this ancient-to-modern-day reformist movement..."

Those are the words of the above-mentioned Christine Williams-Douglass referring to a "reformist movement" of Muslims that she (and, alas, many others in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream) supposes exists.  Here is the larger, tasty muffin in which this plump cherry was nestled:

"One of the cardinal services of my book The Challenge of Modernizing Islam is that, after defending why I support this ancient-to-modern-day reformist movement, it educates readers about Muslims who posture as moderate, while they wage a campaign of war against those who report on the global atrocities being committed against innocent people simply because those innocent people are of another faith and belief system."

One can plainly see that the noxious cherry I plucked out is not contravened in the least by the larger, muffiny context.  And the worst part of this is that not one single Jihad Watch reader has raised a stink, politely but firmly demanding to know why Robert Spencer is countenancing and showcasing this steaming camelcrap on his supposedly boldly "Islamophobic" website.

Friday, December 01, 2017

The search for intelligent life on Planet Jihad Watch, cont...

A recent Jihad Watch notice about a French academic who recommends that France create an Islamic state within France in order to avoid civil war triggered an uncommonly large number of comments, 226.

Typically, only one commenter cut through the haze to voice the meat of the matter, one "SavvyKafir".  Alas, in a subsequent comment, he showed signs & symptoms of the asymptotic flu. (Cue the bromides: "Nobody's perfect"; "Perfect is the enemy of useful"; "We need to work together in a Big Tent"; "Don't rock the boat"; etc.  All true -- perhaps the West could put that on its tombstone in 2100, just before Muslims succeed in destroying our civilization...)

You can’t convert those hardcore Allah junkies; but you can deport them.  If you want France to remain a free & civilized society, you MUST deport them.


Prisons aren’t the answer. Mass deportation is the answer, if Europe is going to survive.

So far so good, right? My readers might say, "What's not to like, Hesp? Isn't that what youve been saying?"  Well, pretty much. But then SavvyKafir had to have an asymptotic twitch:

Any Muslim who is not happy living in a secular society where human rights are enforced should be deported.

So SavvyKafir would have us vet Muslims according to which ones are "happy living in a secular society where human rights are enforced"?  How would we determine such "happiness"?  And could not such "happiness" be feigned (cough, cough, taqiyya)...?

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

The search for intelligent life on Planet Jihad Watch

More often than not, it seems, Jihad Watch comments -- a good source to gauge the current state of mind of the Readership (as opposed to the Leadership) of the Counter-Jihad -- is an echo chamber of Robert Spencer sycophancy, salted and peppered with emotional ejaculations of little substance against "them Muzzies" (and, whenever anyone pops in there brave enough to disagree, ripples of lynch-mob deputy policing).  Previous installments in this series weren't quite this bleak, perhaps; but more often than not, Jihad Watch comments fields don't augur well for the still minuscule, but growing (at an excruciatingly glacial snail's pace) Counter-Jihad.

The numerous comments (109) attached to the recent notice of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's encomium for Spencer's latest book were no exception to this generally bleak landscape.  I.e., none of the readers, naturally, seemed to know or care about three disturbing developments with regard to Ayaan:  1) her friendship with -- and thus her lack of appropriate condemnation of -- the pseudo-"Reformer" snake-oil taqiyya artist, Maajid Nawaz, which is one likely reason why she has seemed to adopt the spurious distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism"; 2) her curiously misplaced concern about Vlaams Belang and Geert Wilders being as bad as "Islamists"; and finally, 3) her grandiose dream of Islamic Reform to solve the metastasizing global problem of Islam which Muslims are causing.

So anywho, of those 109 comments by the Civilian Readership of the Counter-Jihad, only one was of worthwhile substance -- short and sweet, written by some commenter I've never seen before there (it's usually the case that the better comments, rare as they are, come from outside the broad, don't-rock-the-boat consensus there (and certainly outside the "Rabbit Pack")).  The one sign of intelligent life was spotted as one "Cheer Bear Girl" who posted the following comment:

Islamophobia is an absolute nonsense term when you have knowledge of Islamic doctrine. Jihad is an essential teaching in Islam. Therefore reforming Islam is impossible.

I hope Cheer Bear Girl knows that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, being hailed all around her by the other 108 comments as the best thing since sliced falafel, has been working hard in various venues to push the ridiculous dream of Islamic Reform.  She's certainly not going to learn that important fact at Jihad Watch, neither by the Leadership nor by the Readership -- particularly as that ludicrous dream has been seriously considered by one of Robert Spencer's important colleagues, Christine Douglass-Williams.  

Sunday, November 26, 2017


I've thought a couple of times recently that perhaps Baron Bodissey is more nuanced than the Real-Problemers who seem to constitute most of his readership; but today on his blog, Gates of Vienna (which I have on occasion called the "Gates of Vienna Circle"), he definitively, officially outed himself:

In the title of this post I refer to “multiculturalization” rather than “Islamization”, because Islam is just one of [the] demolition tools chosen by the trans-national elites to deconstruct Western nations and cultures. 

Way to go, Baron, for shifting the spotlight off of Muslims onto the "Real Problem" -- the West.  (One wonders why he continues to call his blog "Gates of Vienna" -- which harks back to the existential threat of Muslims in the 17th century who were stopped from destroying Europe by European armies -- rather than some other title more conducive to his non- or para-Islamic focus.)

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Let's talk...

Every process has sequential steps.

Speaking of sequential steps, let's back up this delivery truck.  What "process" are we talking about?  Why, the process of "the Counter-Jihad".  And what is this process of the Counter-Jihad?  The process of it would be its activity -- and, of course, the purpose of this activity.  I propose the daringly controversial claim that the main, if not sole, activity & purpose of the Counter-Jihad (I'd rather call it the A.I.M. -- the Anti-Islam Movement) is to wake up the broader West of which it is a minuscule part.

Wake up the West to what?  To the problem of Islam.  What's the problem of Islam?  And how do we wake up the West?  And what should the West do once it has woken up?  And why isn't the broader West already waking up?  Why does it seem stuck in a surreal mode of whitewashing denial of this problem of Islam?

The questions I have teased out here, which bubble up naturally to the surface when even slightly probing this issue, are precisely what I mean by the title of my posting today -- and they reflect what I was getting at in my first sentence: The process of the Counter-Jihad, to be coherent and effective, must be sequential.  And the first step of that sequence is: We need to talk.

Well, not literally the first step, obviously.  Before we talk, we have to schedule a tea-time when it's convenient, as it were.  And a venue for this Kounter-Jihad Kaffeeklatsch, doncha know.  And what would be the subject matter, the agenda, of this talk?  And who is invited?  And how would this discussion proceed?

As to that penultimate question, it should be an open event, encouraging all Counter-Jihad Civilians to participate.  The mechanics of the process should try to give voice to these Civilians, as prominently, if not more so, than to the Leadership; since the Leadership has enjoyed a virtual monopoly of communication thus far -- with virtually the only competition from the Civilians being in the form of comments submitted into comments threads of various discussion forums (the most vibrant one, perhaps, being the comments threads attached to articles on Jihad Watch), or blogs hardly anybody reads (like, you know, that blog, what's the name of it, by that guy, what's his name... The Desperado or something...).

How it would proceed: a virtual Town Hall seems the ticket, given that we enjoy in these first decades of the 21st century an unprecedented technology for a global Town Hall -- the Internet.  What would be the procedural order of such a global Town Hall?  Well, already we can see that the "first step" would have to be preceded by organizational steps.  Perhaps influential members of the Leadership -- such as Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, David Horowitz, Baron Bodissey, Jamie Glazov, Sam Harris, David Murray, Andrew Bostom, etc. -- could lift their little fingers to begin to galvanize and get this going.  They could advertise it on their venues and politely push for it.  The first "pre-step" would be to propose a rough draft of the event, and solicit ideas about what the Civilians would like.  The second pre-step would be to plan a date to hold the First Ever Global Counter-Jihad Summit.

If only there were a venue on the Internet where people from all over the world already hold live conversations with each other -- simultaneously typing text to each other on the screen in real time, and taking turns to talk on the microphone (and, if they wish, to broadcast video of themselves).  Oh wait, there already exists such a venue:  Paltalk Chat.

[To be continued...]

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

The role of the Better Moes

As I wrote in part 1 of my 2-part series on the recent book on Muslim "Reformers" written by Robert Spencer's colleague, Christine Williams-Douglass:

Like all Counter-Jihadists who show themselves vulnerable to the wiles of the Better Cop Muslims, they pride themselves on remaining intelligently unfooled by the Good Cop Muslims, which allows them to have their cake and eat it to -- they can maintain their Counter-Jihad Cred while indulging their anxiety (rooted in their ethical narcissism) to avoid "painting all Muslims with a broad brush". 

For the umpteenth time, I will explain what I mean by the "Better Cop Muslims" (aka, "Better Moes").  First of all, the meaning of the term is relative to the similar term, "Good Cop Muslims" -- since the former are "better" than the latter.  Better, how?  Over the years, especially in the protracted, distracting wake of 911, various clever representatives of the Muslim world (increasingly expanding into our Western world) have popped up with protestations -- or rather assurances -- that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that it is "against terrorism".  Along with this basic message of honey comes a multitude of other preposterous falsehoods wrapped in deceptive half-truths (such as, to pluck from a keffiyeh one example of a thousand-and-one which one could adduce, that jihad is merely -- or (wink, wink) mainly -- an "interior spiritual struggle" when not merely the "struggle" to "make society better").

Now, this type of Muslim who has become more and more of a sociopolitical nuisance in our time only fools the broader Western Mainstream; he (or she) doesn't fool those who are "in the Counter-Jihad".  Since "the Counter-Jihad" is growing, albeit at an achingly snail's pace, it is reasonable to assume that Muslims who are worried that the West may eventually wake up in time to prevent them from destroying its great (but, of course, not perfect) civilization have realized that this growing awareness can't be fooled by the standard-issue apologetics-by-numbers taqiyya-dawa of the Good Cops.  And so, along the way, they developed a more daring taqiyya-dawa -- in short, a "better" sales pitch, in order to fool the savvier Westerners who ain't buying the Used Lemon of the Good Cops.

As I have discussed many times here (and the fine anti-Islam blogger at Logan's Warning has done similar work), the Counter-Jihad Mainstream has all too often shown signs of being fooled by the Better Moes.  This reckless naiveté runs the gamut from Frank Gaffney's gushing praise of Zuhdi Jasser; to Sam Harris's seemingly more reasoned partnership with Maajid Nawaz; to the "love" shown Muslims by Robert Spencer's colleague Jamie Glazov (whose own Counter-Jihad home has for years supported Muslims deemed to be our allies); to the ridiculously parsed doubt-cum-trust shown to "Reformer" Muslims by Robert Spencer's colleague, Christine Williams-Douglass (and Michael Devolin); to Spencer's own tap-dancing sophistry that forever holds an appropriate condemnation of these transparent snakes in abeyance (to protect his double-virtue-signalling?); down to the Counter-Jihad Civilians still scratching their heads 16 years after 911 and wondering "can we trust these Muslims? I'm not sure...Zuhdi seems like a nice guy..."

Why is there such a fertile soil of receptivity in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream to the new-and-improved sales pitch of these Better Moes?  As I said in my first two paragraphs above, which I will recap and expatiate upon here:

1) The Better Moes recognize there is a need to sell Islam to the West, as part of the Jihad of the Pen & Tongue (propaganda) -- a crucial part of the Stealth Jihad which, in turn, is a crucial auxiliary of the Jihad of the Sword which, as yet, has to remain cloaked, because Muslims are too weak militarily to engage in frank warfare against their perennial enemy (us). 

2) The Better Moes also recognize that there is the danger of the West waking up to the threat of Mohammedan intentions to realize their dream of destroying "Rome" (i.e., the West) -- and they detect this threat as located mainly in that area of the West (still minuscule, but growing, albeit still glacially and incoherently) usually referred to as "the Counter-Jihad".

3) Luckily for the Better Moes (and for the Muslims they stealthily represent and struggle for), the vast majority of the Leadership of the Counter-Jihad and perhaps the majority of Civilians thereof show abundant signs that they need to virtue-signal to the broader Western Mainstream in which they unavoidably swim and from which they evidently anxiously need approval (for more approval from them = more $$$ for Robert Spencer's new book) that they are "not bigoted" and "not racist" and "don't tar all Muslims with a broad brush".

4) With this anxious need so prevalent in the Counter-Jihad to avoid being "bigoted" against "all Muslims", the Better Moes swoop in and make a show of pretending to be deeply concerned about "Islamist extremism" -- i.e., they cleverly divide Islam into two parts, one part so small and disconnected from the massively larger whole of ordinary, mainstream Islam as to virtually denote something other than IslamBut (and here's the Better Mo but): not so small and disconnected that it becomes irrelevant to the concern of the Counter-Jihadists.  I.e., the Better Moes flirt with the seeming appearance of making deep critical cuts into mainstream Islam, even while gently massaging the crotches of the Counter-Jihadists' need to avoid tarring all Muslims with one brush, by exploiting terms that, while they cleverly imply a division of Islam into two, fall apart into incoherence when examined more closely.  (And naturally the Counter-Jihadists, anxious to avoid tarring all Muslims with one brush, refrain from examining the construct they share with their Muslim allies, the Better Moes)In short, the Counter-Jihadists desperately need to find decent Muslims to support, to show that they are not "bigoted" against "all Muslims" -- especially since long ago they have rejected the Moderate Muslim meme as untenable.  And in the Better Moes, the "Reformer" Muslims (or whatever other terms they want to use to substitute for the discredited Moderate Muslim meme), they find this Muslim ally.


So, in summation, the role the Better Moes play is to provide those in the Counter-Jihad a way out of their quandary whereby the logic of their intransigence against Islam logically leads to a condemnation -- via reasonable inferences from the mountain of data and ocean of dots they've familiarized themselves with -- of all Muslims.  They don't want to tar all Muslims with one brush (no reasonable person wants to do this), but the force of the data & dots pulls them there.  At the same time, the typical person in the Counter-Jihad (whether of the Leadership or a Civilian) apparently is loath to examine their position more closely on this, and would rather remain on a fuzzy, emotional, and largely incoherent level.  Along comes the Better Moe to save the day, to give them (to mix metaphors) the snake oil of a Cake they can have and eat too.