Friday, June 23, 2017

The "Swump"

Image result for creatures from the black lagoon

Despite Trump's campaign promises and hopeful rhetoric about the problem of Islam (e.g., when he told CNN that “Islam hates us!” which, while not an ideal way to phrase it, communicates more desperately needed truth than thousands of pronouncements & ejaculations of other Western politicians over the years), it seems that on this most exigent issue he has been slowly, but steadily sinking in the quicksand of the D.C. Swamp (whose ultimate source is the River that runs through the entire Mainstream West -- De Nile).

H.R. McMaster

Former military officer (see his pic looking like a no-nonsense right winger, proudly sporting fruit salad on his chest), who as Trump's National Security advisor, has said such preposterous things as that Islamic terrorists are “un-Islamic” and that mujahideen are “not religious people”.

John F. Kelly

Retired General of the Marine Corps, appointed by Trump to be head of Homeland Security, who recently said that mujahideen have “corrupted the whole concept of Islam as a religion”.

 James Norman Mattis [links in the description below]

Another retired Marine Corps General, and appointed by Trump to be Secretary of Defense, Mattis has said that al Qaeda terrorists “defame Islam”.  Diana West aptly nicknames him James “World Order” Mattis, and in her discussion also quotes Andrew Bostom analyzing the dismaying ignorance of Mattis on Islam.

It looks like one step forward for Trumpkind, and -- for America and the West -- two giant leaps back to the see-no-Islam policy of the sixteen long post-911 OBushma years...


Note that all three are not Leftists; further evidence that the Problem of the Problem is not merely a problem of Leftists.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Eric Voegelin disappoints...

Related image

Eric Voegelin (1901-1985), an Austrian-German philosopher who fled Nazi Germany and eventually landed in America, wherein he made his home for the rest of his life, was a philosopher of history; but he was so much more than that description might conjure up to the layperson.  His writings affected me deeply in my youth, and I went on to devour all his books and journal essays -- at least all I could track down.  One that had eluded me all these years was titled, "Hitler and the Germans", a series of lectures he gave in 1964 to students in the Arts Faculty at the University of Munich, Germany.  I finally got around to tracking it down on the Internet, and found a free pdf file of it (though this particular pdf is incomplete, I managed to track down a fuller file of it that supplied the missing chapters; though they -- I regret to say -- had no effect on my titular "disappointment").

It's amazing to contemplate that only 20 years prior to these 1964 lectures in which Voegelin, before an audience of German students and professors, searingly castigates not only Hitler and the Nazis but also German society for enabling their horrors -- he had to suddenly flee his own country of citizenship because the Nazi authorities were hunting him down, with the likely end of an execution or harsh imprisonment (his crime was to stand up for a Jewish colleague at the college where they both taught).  His German wife, Lissy, whom he had married a few years before, stayed behind, but luckily was able to escape also, and reunite later on with her husband Eric in London (Voegelin recounts how when he dined with Lissy and her parents, their dining room wall had a portrait of the new German hero of the people, Adolf Hitler).

At any rate, I avidly awaited delving into these lectures.  And I was not disappointed most of the time; indeed, as usual when I have read Voegelin, I was delighted and enriched at nearly every turn by his scintillating perspicacity.  Then I made the mistake of remembering the related problem of Hitler and Christianity vs. Hitler and Islam.  I already knew, from tracking down various quotes from Hitler's "Table Talks" that, contrary to the politically correct paradigm, Hitler was not "a Christian" in any meaningful, substantive sense, but only one on paper, so to say.  In fact, those remarks recorded in the "Table Talks" indicate that Hitler despised Christianity, while he admired Islam.  A couple of my previous essay go into this:

Hitler and Islam

Definitive Hitler quotes

So as I was reading along, and my eyes alighted upon the subtitle, "Hitler's Views on Religion" (part 16, pp. 124-128), I thought to myself, surely, in this small subsection, Voegelin will at least allude to Hitler's hatred of Christianity and admiration for Islam.  Alas, that was not to be.  Instead, Voegelin goes on at length in comparing Hitler's flavor of Christianity to some modern deformation of it popular in Germany among the "petit-bourgeois" liberals (while in his later chapters 4 and 5, "Descent into the Ecclesiastical Abyss: The Evangelical Church" and "Descent into the Ecclesiastical Abyss: The Evangelical Church", respectively, his concern is only to poke and prod with his surgical scalpel the various diseased tissues of modern Western -- mostly modern German -- Christianity).  Most, if not all, of Voegelin's analysis struck me as spot-on; which made the odd lacuna of a complete absence of any mention at all of Hitler's contempt for Christianity and admiration for Islam all the odder -- particularly as Voegelin in his overall discussion of his subject sees fit to consult the "Table Talks" numerous times as useful.  How he could actually write a subsection entitled "Hitler's Views on Religion" and utterly omit Hitler's contempt for Christianity and admiration for Islam rather caught my breath at the time.  The most generous assumption one could make to explain this strange lapse in Voegelin's otherwise laser-like analytical eye would chalk it up to the general amnesia about Islam that has so curiously affected so many 19th and 20th century intellects of the West.  The fact, however, that some did not forget how pernicious Islam is -- among them John Quincy Adams, Mark Twain, Carl Jung, and most notably Teddy Roosevelt -- makes it more difficult to excuse someone like Voegelin.

I've been disappointed by Voegelinians before on this subject, but never Voegelin himself.  I suppose there is some small cold comfort in the fact that it was a sin of omission, not commission...

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #16: "Mountain of Data" Part 3...

Continuing my series on the mountain of data available out there indicating a problem of Islam so bad, it is systemic and metastasizing, with a trajectory leading to the reduction of our beautiful (but, of course, imperfect) Western civilization to a general breakdown of order and infrastructure, zones of killing fields, random civil unrest and violence, and a crippling (if not paralysis) of the economy.

WARNING:  I use the F word a couple of times in brief fits of understandable frustration and fury at the stupidity of the West.

Links for part 1 in which I discuss the various types of Mohammedan pathology (viz., animal torture) other than terrorism proper:

Islam: Up Close and Personal

Denmark: Extreme cruelty to animals in Muslim ghetto: heads pulled off cats, kittens cut up and intestines pulled out

And scroll down to the "Postscript" in my essay Allah, the Evil Demiurge?

Finally, a Google page of my various "Lake Mobegone" essays, which again I discuss in this podcast.

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #14: "The Mountain of Data" Part 1...

My 14th podcast.  This one nearly 10 minutes long.

Discussing the long list, or mountain of data, about the problem of Islam, and whether it's useful for our purposes "in the Counter-Jihad" in our protracted, frustrating project of trying to wake up our fellow Westerners to that problem of Islam.

One essay (among many I could adduce) relevant to this:

Mt. Jihad Watch

And now, ladies and germs, my fourteenth podcast:

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

The two Mainstreams diverge (again...)

I've written quite a few essays this past year or more on this topic.  The "two Mainstreams" I refer to in my title are the broader Western Mainstream, which persists in its neurotic myopia concerning the problem of Islam, and the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, which persists in its incoherent tension between cultivating a tough, no-nonsense, alarming awareness of that problem of Islam while harboring a nougaty soft underbelly about that same problem.  And the "divergence" between them is, in a nutshell, located in the former Mainstream's anxiety about protecting the vast majority of Muslims from a white Western "backlash" while the latter Mainstream completely ignores the problem of Muslims altogether, concentrating only on the problem of Islam.

If my memory serves me well, my first such essay was titled, The Counter-Jihad still isn't getting the main point.  Since then, my readers could consult this Google page (likely an incomplete list) of similar essays since then, as I have refined my point.

Of course, no one "in" "the Counter-Jihad" has shown any signs of rectifying this problem (much less of having noticed my essays analyzing it).

The other day, I noticed, on that bastion of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Jihad Watch, yet another sign of the symptom:

Philippines: Catholic bishop worries that jihad massacres will stir up “anti-Muslim sentiment”

Naturally, Robert Spencer and all his loyal supporters concentrate only on the "jihadists" who are in the Philippines (as in dozens of other locations around the globe) spearheading the Jihad of the Sword and ignore the related problem of all the Muslims who are ostensibly not doing any violence at all. And because they do this, it's open season for them to mock and verbally attack this Catholic bishop for his stupidity and naivety -- thus conflating the "jihadists" with all the ordinary Muslims who are ostensibly not doing or supporting the violence, without ever explaining why they conflate the two (much less attempt a cogent argument making the case for being generally anti-Muslim).  It has become clear to me that the various people in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream -- whether of the leadership or the rank-and-file civilians of the movement -- are either afraid of painting all Muslims with a broad brush or actually recoil from that because of latent PC MC reflexes they harbor in their hearts and minds.

Now, I wouldn't mind it if the Counter-Jihad Mainstream ignored this related problem as often as it does if it also at other times made clear its position on the dreaded "A" word -- namely, all Muslims.  Rather than make its position clear on this, the  Counter-Jihad Mainstream routinely avoids adverting to it at all, and offers in its place only random statements here and there reflecting an incoherent mish-mash of sentiments.  If that's not bad enough, I have had the unpleasant experience of being verbally attacked, mocked, and ostracized in various zones of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (most notably, the Jihad Watch community of Spencer and his loyal supporters) whenever I have assertively pushed this topic into logical clarity, either by asking them, in various ways, what the difference is between a putatively harmless Muslim and a "jihadist", or by affirming that we, the West, need to deport all Muslims from the West (not merely the wild-eyed "jihadis" among them).

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Western Colonialism and Jihad

Recently on Jihad Watch there was a report that may be relevant to a 2008 essay I published here, Islam Redivivus and Western Colonialism.  That essay dealt with interesting implications that Western Colonialists (or at least some of them) consciously tried to limit the ability of Muslims under their widespread administration from networking with other Muslims in distant locations -- perhaps because they (the Western Colonialists) understood that Muslims have a cultural inclination and apparatus for trans-national networking in order to foment jihad rebellion.

The Jihad Watch report notes:

Egyptian historian: Occupiers “tried to secularize Islam, and thus to eliminate the notion of Jihad from Islam”

Again, this is interesting, though inconclusive.  It would be an excellent Master's or doctoral dissertation topic for some budding history student; though in our time, in thrall as it is to the Great Inhibition, such an open-minded student would be hard pressed to find any faculty willing to mentor him in this endeavor.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #13: "Is it possible to vett Muslims at all...?"

Rhetorical question, of course.  See a couple of my Hesperado essays on this:  Betting on vetting: Muslim Roulette as well as Whack-a-Mo vetting -- relevant to my main theme of this podcast, commenting on this editorial remark by Robert Spencer.  (Also see this Google page of my many essays spoofing Garrison Keillor, "the news from Lake Mobegone", which I discuss in the first half.)

Listeners will note that my relaxation into the medium continues, and I'm actually beginning to have a bit of fun (oh no!).

Here's Podcast XIII:

Friday, June 09, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #12: "Geronimo Akbar...!!!"

My twelfth podcast.  This one about eleven minutes long.  As faithful listeners will be able to tell, I'm relaxing into my podcasts, this time with lurches into subtly goofy humor here and there.

Links mentioned in my podcast:

Jihad Watch article on the jihadist preacher living in Michigan who incited the London Muslim

Various articles on the "Rabbit Pack" at Jihad Watch comments:

Nettles & Nits: From the Jihad Watch comments archives...

An "Angemon Watch" or a "Fessitude Watch" continued...

Au revoir, Jihad Watch...

Counter-Jihad Mainstream deficiencies (again...)

And now, for Hesperado Podcast XII:

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #11: "More on the phenomenon of Denial"

Another 14-minute-plus podcast.  Continuing my thoughts on the phenomenon of Denial in the context of the problem of Islam.

One link I promised therein was a link to a list of my essays analyzing, among other things, this phenomenon of Denial in the broader Western mainstream, dominated culturally by PC MC (Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism):

A partial list of my Hesperado essays on the Problem of the Problem

Another link I promised is to one of my essays that discusses well the "Rabbit Pack" -- a high-school-clique-cum-lynch-mob of hall monitors who, so to say, patrol the halls of Jihad Watch comments to make sure their soft approach to the problem of Islam is maintained (by, among other things, attacking commenters like me):

Signs of intelligent life on Planet Jihad Watch
(also note the comments field -- particularly my comment to "Anonymous" (actually the blowhard softie, "Philip Jihadski" aka "Joe Blow") and the comment by reader Richard James)

And now, without further ado, my eleventh podcast:

Tuesday, June 06, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #10: "Thoughts on Denial"

This one is egregiously long; some 18 minutes.  As my verbosity knows no bounds (and as the subject matter is unavoidably complex), there will be subsequent parts in the near future.

A couple of links to essays relevant to some of my meandering thoughts:

Islamic History in a Nutshell (or Cookie)

Various essays on the "Rabbit Pack" of Jihad Watch comments

Saturday, June 03, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #9: "Verbose Postscript"

Over 14 minutes long, but what the hell; the West is toast anyway (London Bridge is Falling Down...).

The link I promised in the podcast:

The Cinematic Counter-Jihad

Friday, June 02, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #8: "House of Canards"

My 10-minute discussion of the 5th season of the Netflix TV movie, House of Cards, starring Kevin Spacey and Robin Penn-Wright, in the roles of the President and the First Lady as evil white right-wing Southern Republicans.

As I promised in the podcast, I here link (see below the podcast) previous essays I've written here on various TV shows or movies that impinge upon the problem of Islam.


Excellently crappy television: Oz, The Unit, and 24

Jihad of the Red Pen


"Spooks": Counter-every-kind-of-terrorism-except-Islamic

MI-5, 7/7, 9/11, 3 or 4,000 at Ground Zero: It's about numbers



And speaking of House of Cards, I just noticed this by Diana West:

Watched a couple of minutes of the "#MarchForTruth"  in New York City, one of a series of "nationwide rallies demanding action on possible Russia collusion," as the organizers put it. It seems to be drawing the kind of people who used to deny "Russia collusion" to the death, even if its name was Alger Hiss.

But some things never change: they're still pushing the rest of the "commie" program -- the glories of state-run health care, the shame of white privilege, the evils of Donald Trump ... who, by pulling out of the Paris Accords, has emerged as the biggest threat to that same communist/Marxist/progressive/globalist/Alinskyite/socialist program since Ronald Reagan. Not that we discuss such things in such terms.

One of the rally speakers was House of Cards writer Beau Willimon...

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #7: From "Deplorable" to "Disappointed"

This one's a few seconds over 9 minutes.

A link I mentioned is one to the fine blogger, Logan's Warning, whose latest essay is a nice take-down of one of Trump's trusted security advisors, General McMaster (and if the reader sees the one and only comment to that essay, it's by moi, and therein I provide a link to Diana West's excellent reaction to Trump's Riyadh speech).

Friday, May 26, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #6: "Trump is perfect and can do no wrong?"

A little over 7 minutes.

I examine the question: "If Trump is perfectly Islamo-savvy, and if the West is a thousand times more powerful and sophisticated than the Muslim world is, why did Trump, when he addressed the Muslim world, speak blatant falsehoods, such as praising Islam to the skies and claiming that all those level-lidded Mohammedans in his audience actually want to work with us to stamp out 'extremism'...?"

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #5: "Same old same old..."

This one's a little longer than the first four podcasts.

Two links apropos of the podcast:

Diana West's sane and rational reaction to Trump's speech.

By contrast, Robert Spencer's preposterous claim (approvingly echoing Trump) that there exist "decent Muslims who seek to protect human life", necessarily attached to the clear and obvious implication that their existence is viable (i.e., numerous enough to make a difference and provide hope for the world's precipitous decline into a global revival of Islamic Jihad).

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Hesperado Podcast #4: "Is Trump that stupid? Or is he uncommonly clever?"

Concerning Trump's speech to the Muslim world he gave this week in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

A 6-minute podcast focusing on one of the many disappointing phrases in Trump's speech.

(It helps if the reader listens to the first three podcasts, all of them revolving around Trump's speech and all approximately as short as this one, if not shorter.)

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Hesperado podcast #3: "Intermission"

3 minutes.

The Diana West link I promised (her excellent -- though not perfect -- response to Trump's Riyadh speech).

Monday, May 22, 2017

Hesperado podcast #2: "WW3 could be started with a typo..."

Like WWI ("the Great War"), which some historians argue was catalyzed by (among other more obvious incidents, like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand) the variances in train schedules across Europe.  Of course, my somewhat tongue-in-cheek title implies that we are not already embroiled in World War 3; but that's a whole other kettle of fish I've already dealt with in detail here before.

The typo in question was in the "full text" transcript provided by Jihad Watch the other day -- which, silly me, I trusted to be accurate.  Listen to my second podcast (link below) for the full skinny.

Transcript from Jihad Watch:

Of course, there is still much work to do.

That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.

Transcript I transcribed 15 minutes ago, from the video of Trump's speech:

Of course, there is still much work to be done.

That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamisists [sic] and Islamic terror of all kinds. We must stop what they’re doing to inspire, because they do nothing to inspire, but kill. And we are having a very profound effect, if you look at what’s happened recently. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.

(Whoever did the transcription provided at Jihad Watch needs to get a job...)

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Hesperado podcast #1: "The Swamp meets the Desert"

What do you get when a Swamp meets a Desert?  A mirage.

This first Hesperado podcast concerns the recent speech by President Trump delivered in the maw of the lion's den, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to the Muslim world.

I hope to have more podcasts in the near future.  Each one should be no more than 5 minutes long, and my earnest intent is to make them far shorter than that (this first one is 4 minutes and 7 seconds).

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

"Leftists" aren't the only pro-Islam Westerners

I've always noted that Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch tended to fixate on "Leftism" as the primary, if not only, culprit for the Problem of the Problem (the primary problem being Islam, of course; the secondary problem being the West's persisting myopia about the primary problem).  But I've had the distinct impression that this fixation of his has become stronger in recent years.

This week, during his visit to Iceland and after his speaking engagement while out in a restaurant in Reykjavik, Spencer was poisoned when someone slipped some kind of drug into his drink.  As Spencer recounts it:

...after the event, when my security chief, the organizers of the event, and Jihad Watch writer Christine Williams, who had also been invited to speak, went with me to a local restaurant to celebrate the success of the evening.

At this crowded Reykjavik establishment, I was quickly recognized. A young Icelander called me by name, shook my hand, and said he was a big fan. Shortly after that, another citizen of that famously genteel and courteous land also called me by name, shook my hand, and said “F**k you.”

We took that marvelous Icelandic greeting as a cue to leave. But the damage had already been done. About fifteen minutes later, when I got back in my hotel room, I began to feel numbness in my face, hands, and feet. I began trembling and vomiting. My heart was racing dangerously. I spent the night in a Reykjavik hospital.

Spencer goes on to speculate astutely that it was probably the seemingly friendly greeter who was the poisoner -- not only because he was closer by, but also because his friendliness would be an obvious ploy to get closer and not arouse suspicion (one cannot help think of the excruciatingly related problem of friendly Muslims vibrantly teeming -- and growing -- throughout our Western societies).  Or perhaps the two greeters -- the seemingly friendly one and the obviously hostile one slinging the F word at Spencer -- were in collusion: the latter distracting Spencer and his friends (and bodyguard), the former taking advantage of the distraction to slip in (another relevant similarity to our broader problem with Muslims, where we (including the Counter-Jihad) become distracted by the Bad Cop Muslims (or even some of the Good Cop Muslims who are too transparent to be genuine) while ignoring the deeper cover and stealth jihad of the Better Cops (e.g., Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, Asra Nomani, etc. etc., et al. qaeda...).

Skip ahead, after the hospital and contacting the police, Spencer's description continues:

Iceland is a small country. Everyone knows everyone else. And so as it happened, I was quickly able to discover the identity, phone number, and Facebook page of the primary suspect, the young man who claimed he was a “big fan.” I don’t intend to call him. Icelandic police will be contacting him soon enough, if they haven’t done so already.

Now here comes the part of Spencer's description where his fixation on "Leftists" seems irrational:

However, I did look at his Facebook page, and as I expected, I saw nothing that might indicate that he really was a “big fan” of my work, or that he held any views out of the mainstream — which is, courtesy of Iceland’s political and media elites, dominated entirely by the Left. [bold emphasis mine]

Let's isolate that bolded part:

I saw nothing that might indicate that ... he held any views out of the mainstream. 

This statement, and the tenor of the entire piece by Spencer (and countless other editorial introductions he has penned at Jihad Watch over the months and years), implies that Spencer believes the Mainstream is Leftist.  That's one way to explain our surreal situation where nearly the entire West is bending over backwards to anxiously avoid being "Islamophobic" -- but I see that as being a variation of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" (see my essays on this problem, The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy as well as No True Scotsman, redux).

It implies, among other things, that no non-Leftists exist who are PC MC (Politically Correct Multi-Culturalists).  Thus, any time we happen to encounter an otherwise non-Leftist thinker or pundit who shows that he or she swallows and regurgitates the PC MC memes like a goldfish swallowing water and blithely blowing bubbles, we must automatically assume they must be a "Leftist" -- even if otherwise, they aren't.

Or, we could apply Ockham's Razor rather than recklessly cutting Gordian's Knot, and contemplate whether there is not a deeper, broader, more complex problem afoot in the West that has spanned not only decades, but centuries.

For one thing, how would we explain a Michel de Montaigne, philosopher and statesman who lived in the 16th century long before there even existed "Left" and Right", nevertheless articulating PC MC with startling similarity to the "Leftists" of our time?

And that's just one out of scores of examples I've come across over the years.  Another is the Voegelinian society of Academics -- diehard Reagan supporters and anti-Communists in fidelity to the philosophy of their mentor, philosopher Eric Voegelin.  And yet for all that, repeating many of the PC MC shibboleths, as I have documented on my blog.  I mean, when a Counter-Jihadist irritably blurts out that Republican General & President Eisenhower and Republican businesswoman and later VP pick for the 2016 Presidential race by none other than the Republican heartthrob Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, are "Leftists" -- since both of these conservatives indeed praised Islam to the skies -- you know something has broken down with the terminology here, and people are not adjusting their paradigm lenses to take in a sociopolitical reality that has shifted outside of their horse-blinkered perspective.

Not to mention the tangy irony that Robert Spencer himself seems to harbor deep PC MC reflexes when he anxiously avows that he is "not anti-Islam" and "not anti-Muslim" and to boot, expresses sincere belief in the viable existence of "reformer" Muslims.

Now -- back to the Icelandic would-be assassin:  Certainly, to actually poison a leading "Islamophobe" like Spencer is an act of going above and beyond the call of PC MC duty, indicative of an ideological fervor more ardent than the typical PC MC (despite what Spencer apparently believes, all too common throughout the West).  So on that basis alone -- the violent act perpetrated against Spencer to frighten or silence him -- the assailant could reasonably be said to be actually Leftist (since Leftism is a more virulent form of the more diffusely decaffeinated PC MC).  But to point to the assailant's Facebook page and note that he did not hold "any views out of the mainstream" as though that were confirming evidence of his Leftism...  that just shows that Spencer has a grievously simplistic understanding of PC MC, the fashionably dominant worldview throughout the West that continues to defend Islam and in various ways to penalize those who are trying to sound the alarm bells about Islam.

Further Reading:

Neither Left nor Right, but Ambidextrous

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Pot shots at the Counter-Jihad Mainstream

The American Heritage dictionary (an unremarkably normative English dictionary) lists two definitions for "pot shot". Only the second one explicitly characterizes it as a criticism "without careful thought", whereas the first definition merely emphasizes that it is "easy" to do.

And, unfortunately, all too often those in the mainstream leadership (not to mention their civilian followers) of the still unorganized "Counter Jihad" make it all too easy to get cogent jabs in.

Today's pot shot, against the éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Robert Spencer, creator and ongoing steward of Jihad Watch, a bastion of that second Mainstream (the first being the broader Western mainstream) as ringing and stately as the R.M.S. Titanic must have been as it began its marvelous and much-ballyhooed voyage out across the North Atlantic.  Spencer's headline is like a duck in a barrel for my potshotgun (trusty ol' Bessy Lou) -- to one, at least, who has undergone the paradigm shift from Islam to Muslims because he is, unlike Spencer, actually anti-Islam and anti-Muslim:

"US form used to screen immigrants doesn’t ask about ties to groups such as al-Qaeda or the Islamic State" 

The preposterousness of this headline leaps out at the reader, for it clearly implies that we should vet Muslims by asking them if they have "ties" to al Qaeda or ISIS!

Let's walk this through, shall we?

Scene: A roiling, percolating mass of Muslims waiting at the processing station on Ellis Island to be vetted so they can waltz into New York City and thence to the rest of America if they so desire.

Vetting Officer: clipboard in hand:  "Mr. Abdul... Han..."

Muslim:  "Hanafi ibn Mohamed, sir".

Vetting Officer: "All right Mr. Hanafi, I'll need to ask you a few questions before you can go to the papers processing area."

Muslim: "I weel tell you everything you want, I want to be brocessed, I love America!"

Vetting Officer: "Okay, Mr. Hanafi.  First question:  Do you have any ties to Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Hamas, Al-Nusra...?"

Muslim:"Of course not, sir!  I have no ties to any terrorist organization. I am a beaceful Muslim, I love America!"

Vetting Officer:"Next question: Have you had your flu and cholera shots in the last year?"

Muslim: "Yes sir!"

Vetting Officer:"Do you have documentation of that, Mr. Hanafi?"

Muslim: "My cousin does, he will be arriving here tomorrow!"

Vetting Officer:"Very well, here's a slip for you to bring back before the end of the week, so we can validate your immunization papers."

Muslim: "Thank you so much!  I love America!"

Vetting Officer:"All righty, Mr. Hanafi, third and last question:  Pepsi or Coke?"

I.e., the West is doomed.

Further Reading:

Still Incoherent After All These Years (cont.)...

Friday, May 12, 2017

Counter-Jihad Nougat: "Mmmmmm, Mainstreamy..."
In my last essay, Tough nougat, I noted how a long-time Jihad Watch reader and commenter thinks the problem of Islam is, sure, a bad thing (that's the "tough" part), but ultimately it seems clear he thinks it will plateau -- or already has plateaued, or is essentially a stable phenomenon: another "New Normal" (the sweet nuts & nougat under the soberly no-nonsense Counter-Jihad analysis).  I.e., he doesn't think the problem of Muslims pursuing their goal of Islam is a systemic, metastasizing problem that will destroy us unless we do something about it.

Before I even took my first sip of coffee this morning, I saw that Robert Spencer apparently agrees with that reader.  Editorializing breezily on a Jihad Watch report titled "UK: Muslim mother and daughter in court for jihad knife attack plot", Robert Spencer wrote:

The UK continues to treat each of these jihad attacks and plots as if they were separate and discrete incidents of criminal activity. British officials, like officials all over the West, never address the root causes — and so they will be dealing with jihad activity for generations to come.

The bolded part indicates that, in Spencer's estimation apparently, this is "As Bad As It Gets" with Islam in the West.  Basically a New Normal that will be really, really bad, sure, but not so bad that we have to worry it would ever actually, you know, destroy our societies.

Wow, I wish I were as sanguine as the Counter-Jihad Mainstream is about this problem!  I could sleep better at night and enjoy our Fukuyama Future without the shadow of our civilization's death brooding over my shoulder...  No wonder Spencer is smiling all the time in photographs.

Further Depressing Reading:

Various essays on this Google page on the "Counter Jihad Mainstream".

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Tough nougat

Tough and maybe not so sweet, but still chewy and, more importantly, far rosier than he thinks.

I refer to a Jihad Watch commenter who's been writing comments there for years as far as I can tell, one "John A. Marre" (if that's not his real name -- and why on Earth would he put his full real name in? -- kudos for having an authentic ring).

Here's what he wrote in a recent comments field attached to a recent report by Pam Geller for Jihad Watch on a fatal shooting by Muslims of a Delaware state trooper and subsequent shooting standoff with cops ("Delaware State Trooper shot to death by Muslims reciting the Qur'an"):


It’s not possible to be optimistic about the future. The future will be a constant series of murders by Muslims, who then get to be sanitized into lone wolves, domestic terrorists, workplace shooters and random attackers.
The current president isn’t doing anything about it.
The entire media and democrat party is actually on the side of the Muslims, protecting them every step of the way, and not caring one bit about the innocent people murdered by the Muslims.


The bold emphasis is mine, because to me, that's the most important part of the comment.  It sounds tough and bleak, doesn't it?  I maintain that it's actually, comparatively, a rosy outlook on the future.  Comparatively -- compared with what a mountain of data and an ocean of dots screaming to be connected indicate about three things: 1) what Muslims intend to do; 2) what they are capable of; and 3) how comprehensively naive the entire West is about #1 and #2.

Now, to be sure, I'd have to sit down (literally or figuratively) with John A. Marre and ask him some follow-up questions.  But from what he said (and he had a chance to clarify when he wrote that comment), it sounds like he thinks our future is just one of "more killings" from Muslims.  No indication from his gritty description of anything either systemic about this future violence, nor anything metastatic.  Indeed, his emphasis on it being "constant" literally precludes metastasis.  I mean, our future, the future of any Western nation, is one of "more killing" by various criminals and psychopaths; and while some people may lament that our brave new world is going to the dogs compared to the "good old days", most people just kind of accept this grudgingly, and with as much distraction as possible from dwelling on it, as the New (or the Ongoing) Normal.

Nothing John A. Marre said about Muslims would lead anyone to think the future problems of violence with Muslims is going to be anything radically, game-changingly, different.  Just one more messy, horrid problem to add to our plate of the New Normal of our dizzyingly, digitally accelerating Future.  A Western Future apparently not essentially different from the ultimately optimistic future Fukuyama predicted pre-911 as the world was fast approaching the looming "Y2K" with almost comical concern  Sure, a post-911 Fukuyama Future will have the added problem of the odd exploding Muslim here and there as we're trying to get from point A (the Starbuck's) to point B (Whole Foods) to point C (picking up our kid from soccer practice) to point D (a consultation with an Apple tech guy at the shopping mall) to point E (our dental checkup with our nice friendly Iranian Muslim hygienist)...  But the odd exploding Muslim here and there (or the odd stabbing Muslim, or shooting Muslim, or Muslim ramming his vehicle into random crowds) while of course a horrible nuisance, will just be in the long view a hiccup of a New Normal on our bumpy ride on the Exciting Superhighway of our Future.

The John A. Marres of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream have not, apparently, thought of how those three factors I noted above --

1) what Muslims intend to do; 2) what they are capable of; and 3) how comprehensively naive the entire West is about #1 and #2

-- could be horribly, dreadfully, catastrophically Abnormal -- in the sense of your stomach sinking with clammy dread as you contemplate the end of Western Civilization as we know it.

Indeed, I never get the sense that any Jihad Watchers view it this way (other than those who transmogrify the problem from one of Islam into one of the "Real Problem" of some nefarious cabal of Dastardly Leftists or those few who envision a non-Denominational Christian Eschaton right around the corner to mop up Muslims).

How, my reader may ask, are Muslims going to end Western Civilization as we know it?  An answer to that question requires two things:  1) a familiarity with the aforementioned mountain of data and ocean of dots-to-be-connected; and 2) some reasonable, open-minded imagination.

Every which way but loose, over the years on this blog of mine and in several other places online, I have answered that question a thousand times.  The simplex answer for now is this:

Over the coming eight decades of this 21st century, it's going to get horribly worse, because Muslims ultimately intend our destruction, because their religiously scripted fanaticism is unimaginably (for our Western culture) obsessive & determined -- crucially augmented by taqiyya deception to confuse us into thinking "they're not all doing that" -- and because, tragicomically, we (including even most of those in the budding Counter-Jihad) are that naive, that we will continue to let them deceive us.

Monday, May 08, 2017

Bitter coffee on the morning after...

Le matin après, âpre matinée...

at Le Café Macron on a leafy boulevard of the Champs Délaissés...

I speak of what has come to be known as the collective French suicide, the still-birth (if not abortion) of what could have been the dawn of a Counter-Jihad of Le Pen...

An editorial today at the reliable (i.e., unlike Robert Spencer, actually anti-Islam) French site, Riposte Laique, had some appositely jaded remarks on this tragicomic opéra bouffe.  The writer, Charles Demassieux, mentions the phenomenon that likely tipped the balance for this travesty, the "Generation Macron" -- i.e., young airheads (and their doting, envious elders) who naturally are saturated with PC MC (politically correct multi-culturalist) values; a generation their Left-leaning parents have told are the most beautiful and can do no wrong, as long as they rejoice in a life without restraints, and in a world without borders.  

A generation which, like its Left-leaning forbears going back as far as the 1960s and 1950s (cf. the monumentally yeoman work of Bat Ye'or documenting decades of building a "Eurabia", going back at least to the post-WWII years), sees nothing wrong with an increasing Islamization of France, of the West, of the world.  Not only nothing wrong, but positively virtuous.

And speaking of that post-War generation, the PC MC that has become dominant throughout the West took different forms, with varying contexts, in different parts of the West.  In America, Vietnam became one major lens by which the fanatical solar rays of Enlightenment became focused and then generalized; for France, this process began to devolve a couple of years earlier, with what is antiseptically known as the "French-Algerian Civil War", the French Vietnam, which in actuality was a ferocious Jihad waged by Algerian Muslims, torturing, raping and massacring not only their own fellow Muslims (of course) but most especially the French Colonials in Algeria who had cultivated a life and a society there, reflecting the 150-odd years of the colonization by France of that Islamic hellhole, bringing at least a measure of civility and civilization to a demographic too diseased by Islam to ever fully grow up, even under the benevolent tutelage of the civilized French.

Speaking of diseased demographics, we have the French themselves, the majority of them (as with the majority of the West) ironically diseased by that neurosis that refuses to see how diseased Mohammedan society is and how superior by comparison we are.  A refined sense of humility and self-deprecation is one thing, a virtue to be sure; but not when it has "evolved" so far it actually serves to enable those who hate you and are killing you and planning to kill many more of you until they drag you down to their hell on earth (or, when not killing you, are cleverly lying about it).

This all reminds me of an old essay I wrote virtually a decade ago, What's left of the Left, reflecting on one of the pillars of the modern French Left, Bernard-Henri Lévy.  Writing for that reliably squishy-soft publication of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Frontpagemag, Peter Berkowitz summed up what makes Lévy great in the eyes of the mainstream, but what we who have lowered our rose-colored opera glasses to see more clearly the strutting and fretting upon the stage, makes him symptomatic of the mass neurosis of the Age:

To belong to the left is to have inscribed in one’s mind indelible images of brave men and women standing firm against the varieties of injustice.

The events — the French capitulation to the Nazis that goes under the name Vichy, the Algerian War, May 1968, the Dreyfus Affair — serve as a litmus test. A man of the European left, particularly of the French left, Lévy maintains, cannot be other than appalled by France’s World War II collaboration with fascism; ashamed of France’s brutal efforts in the 1950s and 1960s to maintain control of Algeria; exhilarated by France’s young men and women’s repudiation in May 1968 of authoritarianism in politics and culture; and, looming over all, still scandalized by the turn-of-the-century Dreyfus Affair, in which the wrongly accused Jew was sacrificed to the interests of the state, tradition, and religious prejudice.

Notice how the illustrious list of virtues smoothly elides the ethical horror at collusion with Hitler with the "shame" of defending civilization against the ferocious Algerian Jihad (the ISIS of its day), with the monstrous implication that the two are not polar opposites.  What has happened to an otherwise cultured and bright intellect that can no longer see (or never saw to begin with) that in fact, to oppose Hitler is also to oppose Islam?  That contorts the truth to such an inverse of itself that surely Orwell and Alice in Wonderland are revolving in their afterlives?

As I wrote nearly ten years ago:

Lévy is hardly alone in this: the memory of the Algerian War of the mid-20th century has become, for France, the PC MC equivalent of America's "shame" about Franklin Delano Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-American citizens during WW2, and America's "shame" about Vietnam. I.e., it is a non-negotiable axiom of PC MC in France to decry and feel shame about what the French had to do in Algeria. A man of consummate reflection and intelligence, such as Lévy, apparently cannot even accomplish the elementary operation of thought of which any sophomore should be capable: to consider the context and the nature of the enemy that is the principal feature of that context. The French colonization of Algeria was the best thing that happened to that Islamic hell-hole. For the century and a half that France ruled Algeria, that Islamic hell-hole finally saw glimmers of social, legal, political and technological progress. 

I then went on to discuss why it was that France's beneficent rule over Algeria began to fall apart in the mid-20th century, mainly to do with the post-War exhaustion and the broader disintegration of Western Colonialism that was already underway, probably reflecting the sea change in consciousness, the paradigm shift that resulted in the sociopolitical dominance of PC MC throughout the West, which now is stronger than ever, albeit running on the fumes of delusion like some Fukuyamish, neo-retro-Yuppie coke addict who can't face the fact that he's getting old and that perhaps he should pause, take a breath, and respect the past of his elders rather than continue accelerating into the manic-depressive Future that in its juvenophiliac dementia self-righteously believes it can fuse the breathless advances of digital technology with an obligatory (and ultimately narcissistic) "respect" for the most dangerously retrograde culture (Islam) on the planet.

While Lévy now and then over the years has been somewhat commendable for his ability to cut through a certain layer of PC MC bullshit about the Third World and Islam, his hangover about Algeria reflects the underlying reason why not only the Left, but nearly the entire West, cannot rationally think about, and act against, the metastasizing global menace of an Islam Redivivus.


Speaking of Fukuyama and Bernard-Henri Lévy, about ten years ago Jihad Watch had a lengthy report and Spencerian analysis of some symposium the two had (shudder), under the theme, "What Our Obsession with Islam Is Costing Us".  Spencer's report (the reader must go here and then scroll down to find it) noted the added irony that although Lévy was so egregiously soft on Islam even Spencer had problems with it, that didn't stop Muslims from threatening him with death.  Amongst the choice bits of nougat in Lévy's croissant noted by Spencer were his naive view that Muslims can (and even must) reform their own Koran in order to save us from their Islam; and his view that "Islamist" extremism is a modern phenomenon fueled in one way or another by Western forces.

I also noted in my old essay I linked above about this old Jihad Watch report that "if the reader scrolls down the Jihad Watch article linked above, they will find this informative comment about how Lévy stupidly befriended and supported the Bosnian Master Jihadist Izerbegovic (in addition to supporting the Bosnian Jihad in general)."

Unfortunately, not only does that link no longer work, but even trying to get to that old comments field through the "Wayback Machine" has proven fruitless -- thanks to Robert Spencer's tech genius, Marc, for making it either laborious or impossible for researchers to examine archived Jihad Watch comments of yesteryear.  Way to go, Robert and Marc!

At any rate, I'll close this dismal post out with a final quote from my old essay, which naturally is still (indeed, with a vengeance) relevant ten years later, followed by a wash down my throat of the bitter froth of the last of my triple decaf jihadaccino (if not also -- Garçon! -- a bracing shot of cognac):

Someone as intelligent and well-informed as Lévy does not become this stupid by inexplicably vacating his brain: this (and innumerable other similarly infuriating examples that could be adduced throughout the West) can only be explained, as I have reiterated tirelessly in dozens of essays over the past two years at The Hesperado and Jihad Watch Watch, by a complex psycho-socio-cultural sea change in consciousness by which the West has come under the mainstream dominance of a new worldview, a new paradigm -- Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC).

Thursday, May 04, 2017

Still Incoherent After All These Years... (cont.)

In Australia, apparently, an Islamic cleric criticized "radicalization" and was reviled by fellow Muslims for doing so.  Or, as the Daily Mail of Australia had it:

“‘May God curse you, you pig, you dog’: Islamic leader Sheikh Mohammad Tawhidi abused by Muslims as he walks down the street in Sydney,”

In one of his breezy editorial remarks on this, leave it to Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch to be unable to avoid the twitch of the Wrong Instinct:

Whether Tawhidi is sincere or not, it is noteworthy that publicly opposing “radicalization” and the imposition of Sharia in Australia gets him curses from his fellow Muslims there. 

Au contraire, there is no "whether" about this (and even worse, Spencer's headline -- "May Allah curse you, you pig, you dog" says Muslim to imam who opposes jihad terror -- clearly implies that Sheikh Tawhidi is "opposed to jihad terror").

If the West does not cultivate a rational prejudice against all Muslims -- and consider Muslims like Sheikh Tawhidi here to be trying (and apparently succeeding) to do a Good Cop/Better Cop taqiyya spin -- it will be eventually destroyed by Muslims before this 21st century is over.  The one place in the Universe for this rational prejudice to begin to spark and gather momentum, you'd think, would be the Counter-Jihad.

Not as long as influential leadership muddies the waters with incoherent rhetoric, like Spencer does; and not as long as his devout following utters nary a peep about it.

Only one Jihad Watch reader in the comments section (one "Benedict"), as far as I can tell, had the appropriate reflex:

Should our sympathy lie with Sheikh Mohammad Tawhidi – ?
Don’t be deceived and don’t let Muslims play both sides of the fence. Islam in all its editions is a permanent source of strife and contention and ultimately murder and mayhem!

Further Reading:

Take a stroll and a scroll downward on this blog here, where nearly half of the essays over the days, weeks, months, and years document the incoherent nougat of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

Still Incoherent After All These Years (cont.)...

In the wake of a recent report on how the UK government had just arrested three more Muslim women in a terror raid, Robert Spencer just the other day wrote with robustly no-nonsense determination:

The British authorities recently admitted that they’re making daily jihad terror arrests. Daily. This should show any sane person that their approach to this problem has been drastically wrong.

This, from a Counter-Jihad Mainstream analyst who nearly ten years ago solemnly averred on Jihad Watch:

I am not "anti-Islam."  

And then in the same editorial proceeded to aver with equal seriousness, albeit with slightly different (and slightly tortured) wording, that he is not anti-Muslim, either.  Here's the extended quote which clearly reveals this stance:

It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology....Am I "anti-Muslim"? Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? My correspondent thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."

In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But I make no apologies: it is not "anti-Muslim" to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary.

(And notice how Spencer, for good measure, shows by his first sentence there that he buys into the specious PC MC logic, that to be anti-Muslim is to "hate" them.)

And to add insult to injury, Spencer in subsequent months back then, in various Jihad Watch comments threads, gave various Jihad Watch readers grief and stonewalled them with sophistry for their sincere, mature and intelligent probing of this most curious stance of his.  Extended transcripts I published years ago document this, here and here.

Spencer has never contradicted this in subsequent years -- by, for example, officially publishing the words: "What the hell was I thinking!!!?  Of course I'm anti-Islam and anti-Muslim!  [FACEPALM] My deepest apologies for the confusion all these years, dear readers...!!!" (from the Don't Hold Your Breath Department...).

Nor, naturally, have any of his adoring fans (other than those brave souls of yesteryear, documented in the above-mentioned links) bothered to call him on the carpet for this egregiously soft, not to mention incoherent, stance of his.

Further Reading:

This Google page of many more instances of me over the years expending my time and labor banging my head against the wall whilst re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Friday, April 28, 2017

Still Incoherent After All These Years...

Of Peter Beinart, writing for The Atlantic an article that "claims that conservatives want to restrict the religious freedom of Muslims", Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch accuses him of "spectacularly poor reasoning".  Actually, Beinart is being more coherent than Spencer is.  Spencer is trying to have his cake and eat it too -- his cake of being a Fearless Leader of the Counter-Jihad, whilst eating too his refusal to condemn Islam and to condemn Muslims as agents & enablers of Islam.  Spencer robustly criticizes Islam all day long, 24/7, and has done so for  years, but maintains that he is not thereby opposing Islam or Muslims.

Thus, Spencer's bold rebuke of Beinart:

Beinart should beware, as he commits himself to the proposition that all opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression constitute a desire to restrict Muslims’ religious freedom. Would he, then, agree with attorney Mary Chartier that to prosecute those who mutilate girls’ genitals is restricting Muslims’ religious freedom? That would open the door to a host of other exercises of Muslim religious freedom that Beinart might not find so appealing.

I am sure that many of Spencer's fans disagree with him on this; they know that it would be a good thing for the West to "restrict Muslims' religious freedoms", because they know -- having had Spencer himself as a teacher for the past decade as he has been amassing a mountain taller than Everest of data damning the Islam of all Muslims -- that the religious freedom of Muslims facilitates and enables the dangerous evil of Islam.

Why would any sane person (i.e., any lover of liberty and human rights) not want to restrict the religious freedom of a religion as pernicious and perilous as Islam?

Shame on Spencer for continuing to push his incoherence, and shame on his sycophants society for not calling him on the carpet for it.

Further Reading:

Counter-Jihad Mainstream Gumbo (particularly the links at the end)

You'll Thank Me Later

Monday, April 24, 2017

A laboratory of the Counter-Jihad (Jihad Watch comments)

The main reason I rifle through Jihad Watch comments pretty much on a daily basis is because I believe it affords the reader an insight into the state of the Counter-Jihad (such as it is) -- and, given that Robert Spencer is solidly representative of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, an insight into not only that Mainstream as well, but the relationship between that Mainstream and the broader demographic pool of Counter-Jihad Civilians haling from all over the world.

Rarely when I dip into a Jihad Watch comments field roiling with over 100 comments do I come away encouraged by what I consider to be the most important instinct for the West to cultivate as this 21st century unfolds, imperiled as never before by a revanchist Islam: a sense of zero tolerance for all Muslims. Much more often there is reflected in Jihad Watch comments an incoherent stew of various thoughts and feelings based rather on the diametrical opposite of such a zero tolerance -- indeed, an underlying, indirectly expressed anxiety about avoiding such a zero tolerance, in incoherent tension with a growing sense of horror about the metastasizing Islam of those Muslims one is so anxious to avoid condemning "with a broad brush". This anxiety reflects, in turn, the retention to varying degrees, among the Civilians of the Counter-Jihad, of the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism of the broader Western Mainstream.

Today's lab experiment involved the complex combination of the following chemicals:

1) Islam (specifically, the Islam that Jihad Watch readers should know by now, educated as they have been over the years by Robert Spencer himself, not the various Islams of the confused Western Mainstream)

2) A Muslim apologist communicating inaccuracies (let alone outright falsehoods) about Islam.

3) That Muslim apologist being a young female who seems sincere.

4) That young, seemingly sincere female Muslim apologist being a Nobel Prize winner because, ostensibly, she has been fighting for school education for young female Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

5) The commenters being more or less "in the Counter-Jihad", though a coherent sense of what that means continues to elude us. This being, in fact, the crux of the lab experiment: to see what kind of chemical compound this "Counter-Jihad" is, when combined with the other chemicals listed above.

Test Results:

The results were worthy of a Jerry Lewis movie, I'm afraid. An incoherent mess of chemicals short of a laboratory accident.

The primary chemical in the experiment is the young, seemingly sincere female Muslim apologist Malala Yousafzai -- the famous Poster Child for Well-Meaning Muslims We Westerners Are Obliged to Feel Sorry For and Help Against the Tiny (or, for the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Large) Minority of Extremists Who, In Twisting Their Islam, Are Endangering the Majority of Moderate Muslims Like Her.

Instead of condemning her with rational prejudice as a Muslim we must reasonably assume is doing taqiyya to defend her indefensibly monstrous mainstream Islam, we see various Jihad Watchers, including many who swagger around comments with tough anti-Islam rhetoric, exhibiting an incoherent mess of useless chemicals:

IQ al Rassooli

"Malala is either very STUPID or the usual Muslim DENIAL about their depraved CULT of Muhammad"

Wow. IQ al Rassooli seems incapable of assuming that Malala is knowingly supporting what we know to be an evil, hateful, intolerant, fanatical, and dangerous Islam. Instead, he lurches in the direction of explaining away her Islamopologetics with Stupdity and/or Denial. Perhaps his robustly manly anti-Islam temperment melted into mush when he saw that Malala was a girl.


"I vote denial. And the denial is abetted by every “It’s a religion of peace, and they will kill us if we say otherwise” politician and clergyman out there.

How staunchly anti-Islam of you, Anne.

Next we see the notorious Jihad Watch Softy, mortimer, about whom I've written before. Even these limp-wristed criticisms of Malala by IQ and Anne aren't soft enough for old mortimer:


"Malala is well-meaning. SHE JUST WANTS GIRLS TO GO TO SCHOOL. PLEASE STOP MALIGNING MALALA. Let her blather about Islam. She is clueless about the JIHAD DOCTRINE. Malala doesn’t want to learn what Islam is. Real Islam is inconvenient to Malala’s purpose of getting girls to school."

Along with his anxiously sincere PC MC instincts, mortimer apparently can read minds too -- most importantly the minds of Muslims like Malala.

Next came a brief diamond in the rough, leavened by the salt of the earth, sarcasm:

Jack Diamond

"She meant well donating her prize money to Hamas (UNRWA)."

The next commenter, Waltg, then goes into greater detail about this, but has to equivocate, suspended in agnosticism:


"There is always the possibility that she knows full well that she’s spouting unadulterated B.S., but she engages in taqiyya….permitted deceit (lying) to advance the cause of Islam. Or….she could be blinding herself from the truth…which, if she was to face it head-on would require her to reject Islam entirely…if she possesses any integrity. Regardless….untruths like those she’s propogating should always be challenged."

On one important level, there is no "regardless" to the matter: the mealy-mouthed "ifs" buttressed by the "shoulding" and "coulding" and "woulding" which pepper Waltg's argumentation effectively reduce to a quivering mass of equivocating jello what should be a boldly no-nonsense intolerance we should be cultivating, based on a rational prejudice against all Muslims.

Next, Carolyn types out what seems to be yet another potent condemnation -- effectively ruined by her penultimate sentence:


"Could anyone tell me one thing this girl did to help girls in the Muslim world go to school other than say it? She went to her father’s girls school, got shot in the head, was taken to England to get the best medical care, which is not available in barbarian Pakistan and is now living on donations and guarded every minute of the day. She is very fortunate that those people whom Islam wishes dead were available to take care of her.

The Nobel Prize has become a joke. It was given to Jimmy Carter as, so one of the judges said, a “Kick in the knee” to the US. Obama got it for things he might have done in the future but he accomplished nothing except damage to this country. This silly girl got it because she was shot. BTW stating the truth is not maligning anyone,."

By insulting Malala as a "silly girl", Carolyn effectively lets all the air out of her Counter-Jihad tires. A Mohammedan fanatic who is doing Jihad of the Tongue aided by a global megaphone of all the mainstream media backed up by and the United Nations and her Nobel Prize, is hardly merely "silly". And haven't the namby-pamby Jihad Watchers ever wondered why virtually the entire Western Mainstream, besotted as it is with PC MC, praises Malala and never accuses her of "bigotry" or "hate" or "Islamophobia"?

Once in a while, a typical disappointing Jihad Watch comments thread will have a refreshing surprise, a suddenly bracing gust of fresh air which barely keep me going as I limp across this desert of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream. Thus one "martin" whom I don't know from Adam:


"Get stuffed [martin says to mortimer!] ] she has lied from day one over here. She spits on the help we have given her and lies, lies and lies. A very deceitfull but typical muslim."

Amen, martin!

Wouldn't you know it, along comes "SDN", a softy as bad if not worse than mortimer, who actually thought that IQ al Rassooli was "hating" Muslims:


"I won’t attack her intentions. I’m not in her mind so I won’t make any vote on this. When it comes to Islam if we are to make thoughtful, legitimate criticisms like Robert did we should avoid making malicious anti-Muslim generalizations like yours."

Typically for a Counter-Jihad Softy who blusters about as a Counter-Jihadist, IQ al Rassooli protests:

"I do not generalize since you cannot REFUTE a single one of the adjectives I used about Muslims You are obviously very comfortable with Muslims GENERALIZING their HATRED for every human being who is NOT a Muslim ... Every Muslim is the Eternal and Mortal ENEMY of every Infidel/ Kafir/ non Muslim on Earth"

Now, the reader might think that his IQ's last sentence quoted above seems to exonerate him from the charge of being a Softy, eh? The only problem with that is what he said earlier about Malala, which I quoted up top:

"Malala is either very STUPID or the usual Muslim DENIAL about their depraved CULT of Muhammad"

I call that the "release valve" of the Counter-Jihad Softy Pretending to be Tough about Islam: if innumerable Muslims are "very stupid" or "in denial" they are not then in conscious, willful enmity against us. Logically then, such Muslims (and how many of these are there, and how does IQ know which ones they are distinguished from others?) are only our "mortal enemy" by accident, not on purpose.

IQ is then high-fived by a couple of Jihad Watchers, then along comes another who concludes that Malala must be "stupid", followed by yet another:


"Not very bright.maybe she knows if she tells the truth she’ll be killed."

Yes -- anything but the horrible conclusion that this seemingly sincere, soft-spoken young female actually consciously hates us as Unbelievers due to her Islamic programming. The Stupidity Elf, buttressed by the Timidity Elf for good measure (I refer to Hugh Fitzgerald's "Esdrujula Elves").

Thank Allah, this was followed by another breath of fresh air:

Michael Ray

"Malala is a notable public figure. It is her job to lie for islam. It is her means of jihad."

Amen, Michael Ray!

Of course, mortimer, lurking in the wings, had to swoop in and anxiously correct this waft of a reasonable breeze:


"No… she just wants girls to go school. She knows very little about Islam. She’s trying to make friends of the jihadists, but I believe that’s pointless."

Then, responding to mortimer's asinine retort... what do you know... another breath of fresh air! That makes three so far -- rather amazing, for Jihad Watch comments:


"She’s old enough to read and understand. Are you saying that she’s never read the Qu’ran and Hadiths? As a public advocate for Islam, she must be accountable. She is the perfect victim that allows idiots to believe there are good Muslims and bad ones; Muslims follow Islam which is always evil. Don’t apologize for the apologist."

Amen, StacyGirl!

At this point, a Jihad Watcher I remember from the past, "TheBuffster", had to weigh in to protect Muslims from our rational condemnation:


"I agree that Islam is evil. But it isn’t true that all Muslims follow Islam. If you read a lot of apostate testimonies you’ll find out what a variety of former Muslims believed about their religion when they were Muslim. You’ll find that a lot of people who consider themselves Muslims haven’t read the Koran and know even less of the story of Muhammad’s life. They have a hodge-podge idea of what the religion is about. Some know more than they want to know and engage in a lot of evasion and denial. Now, we could say that a person who follows a set of beliefs that are incompatible with the Koran and the Traditions of Muhammad isn’t really a Muslim in any meaningful sense, but I’m sure a good many such people are counted as officially Muslim when we’re told there are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world."

TheBuffster's argument sounds like a nice theory; only problem is, we don't have the luxury to be speculating on the basis of such a sweepingly generous generalization about untold millions of Muslims. Speaking of ol' Buffster, I recall an exchange I had with her a couple of years ago, when I was rolling up my shirtsleeves and getting embroiled in Jihad Watch comments myself. After she posted (as usual) some anodyne tripe that subtly gave innumerable Muslims a way out from our rational condemnation, I responded (under the nickname "voegelinian"):

"An open mind on general principle is a good thing; but about some things, the more reasonable and prudent thing to do is adopt a closed mind. Example: the prospect of an “Islamic reform” in numbers and influence large enough to solve the problem of Islam.

"There is no evidence for such a reform — only a tissue of hope, benefit of the doubt, Wilsonian vision, and varying degrees of PC MC. With someone like Hirsi Ali, we may reasonably include to the tissue of this pretty scarf we are weaving some psycho-cultural residues of the effects of Islam on her mind. This tissue has no evidence to back it up: it only makes an inductive inference based on the same data we more grimly pessimistic realists use: that bloody, smoking, fiery mountain of data — or rather volcano of data — which the Muslim world keeps churning out; a volcano that is getting worse, not better. Sure, on this same mountain of data there appear verdant slopes of green — multitudes of Muslims Who Just Wanna Have a Sandwich grazing seemingly peacefully, and here and there among them cunning wolves disguised as Moderate Shepherds (e.g., Maajid Nawaz); but is it asking too much that at least this tiny, beleaguered, rag-tag group of people otherwise known as “the Counter-Jihad” adopt a robustly jaded posture with regard to the ostensibly hopeful green slopes, flowers & snow that is supposed to distract us from the bloody, raging, fiery volcano as plain as the noses on our faces?"

And I note that I appended a P.S. to my comment:

"I.e., there is no need to read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book in order to conclude that she is dead wrong about Islamic reform. The Counter-Jihad should adopt as a matter of principle carved in stone that an Islamic reform is not only impossible, it is an idea actually indirectly enabling the stealth jihad."

Back to the regressive present.

Next comment, Don Foss, moves in to add some more protective layering to poor little Malala:

Don Foss

"I almost always agree with you, Mortimer. I watched two documentaries on Malala. Close to 2 hours total. Never saw her once pray or get into the qur’an... Only in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize did she mention Islam and Muhammad, and I got the strong impression people got to her and used her as a tool to try to ease the kuffars worries and concerns about Islamic doctrine. As far as her comment, I believe she is only being used as a tool by outside Islamic organizations."

To this wild (and generous) speculation, our old friend gravenimage chimes in:


"Even nominal Muslims feel the need to whitewash Islam for the Infidels. We see this all the time."

What are "nomimal Muslims"? And even if we could define them coherently, how would we know which Muslims are actually "nominal" and which ones are only pretending to be "nominal"? It's 2017, and a veteran Counter-Jihadist like gravenimage is still using a term like "nominal Muslims" with a straight face, not realizing it is no less ridiculous than "moderate Muslim"?

Moving on: Even a seemingly strong comment like this one from "ermom" is way too generous:


"TAQIYYA, Malala. Shame on you. The cognitive dissonance this abused young woman exhibits is amazing."

We reasonably assume that ermom is finding it necessary to inject cognitive dissonance and "shame" there because she can't compute how a young seemingly nice and sincere female could possibly be a conscious, sincere supporter of evil Islam.

Next up, the ill-named "RationalVoice" pipes up with a load of pap worthy of the PC MC mainstream:


"Malala is a good person, I can sense that, but she would be, even if she had no religion at all. She is one Muslim I would be happy for her to live in the UK as long as she likes but Malala come on this site and explain to us the terrible hate filled instructions in the Qur’an and the other Islamic texts which are so shocking to non Muslims throughout the World."

Then we have Westman:


"I hope Malala has a security detail to protect her from the Muslim “brothers”. Her innocent ignorance speaks well for her character yet places her at risk."



"I don’t doubt that sweet little Malala actually believes everything she says. But as the article points out, she is just plain wrong."



"She is young. She doesn’t realize the truth."

Actually, she's 20 years old.

Then another momentary waft of fresh air:


"Ma-La-La-Land disinformation for Useful Idiots."

Amen, Peter! Then, alas, the room gets stuffy again:

Guy Macher

"A silly young woman, surrounded by sycophants... why do Western leaders listen to this ignorant and stupid Muslima?"

By emphasizing her supposed "silliness" and "ignorance" and "stupidity" one is effectively evacuating any positive ideological content motivating her to be doing her Jihad of the Tongue. Way to go, Counter-Jihad Mainstream...

Then from the "oh good grief" department:


"Malala looks kind of kind, but gosh she is stupid. Muhammad never advised his followers to “go around killing people… Sounds like she has never read the quran. Claiming then to be a true muslim is ludicrous."

(And Ren got an "exactly", no less, from another commenter...)


"Malala is not a bad person, merely delusional."

Then, the same commenter who exactlied Ren above followed up with something that would seem to contradict that softness (these Counter-Jihad Softies do it all the time; they seem to have a state of mind of constant cognitive dissonance, vacillating from no-nonsense toughness to wishy-washy incoherence, created by the tension between their growing horror of Islam and their persisting fear of condemning all Muslims):

Asma Sultana

"Another moderate Muslim! Taking opportunity from the world and playing the victim card as all the Muslims are doing. I was sympathetic to her, but no more. She is old and educated enough to fathom the truth, to know Islam her own religion. It took me only 13 years to feel disgusted about Islam. ... Malala: if you know how to read, then read Quran once again before you open your mouth! I feel pity for you now!"

A clue into Asma's softness may be that she herself is an ex-Muslim (and so too, I believe, is the aforementioned Jihad Watcher, "IQ Al-Rassooli"); I've found many of them suffer from a peculiar subcategory of the asymptotic condition (a rather detailed glimpse of one episode of my experiences with them may be gleaned from my participation back in 2009 in a discussion forum revolving around the CEMB -- the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain; the reader will readily see how those Muslims have no problem robustly attacking Islam per se, but suddenly get very testy and gingerly when the focus goes to the Muslims who are propping up Islam all over the world).

Waltg weighs in again:


"Ultimately….there really is no such thing as an “extremists muslim” or a “moderate muslim”….all there is….is “observant muslims” versus “non-observant muslims”..."

But this is a distinction without a difference. This way to taxonomize Muslims into "observant" and "non-observant" is just another way to do the same thing that the "extremist/moderate" taxonomy does -- only with the supposed advantage that it's avoiding the speciousness of believing in "moderate Muslims". The problem is that it's glossing over our most formidable difficulty: we can't tell the difference, on a macro scale (the only scale that matters to the safety of our civilization in the long run) between any Muslims. Or has the Counter-Jihad suddenly forgotten about the horrendous problem of taqiyya and stealth jihad, and the monstrous fanaticism driving them...???

One good instinct I noticed from gravenimage, when she intervened to correct "Bsrat" who pontificated about Muslims based upon his apparent ability to mind-read millions of them:


"When u get brainwashed from a young age reading the Qur’an in Arabic but never understand the true meaning of what’s been thought and is expected of every follower. Even the scholars don’t agree on the interpretation of what’s written in the Qur’an and to top it off there are authentic and weak narations where does it stop. Malala is no different to all the Muslims and others who like to pass islam as a religion of peace, Muhammad is the perfect example when he raped a 9 year old.surely nothinh good can come out of this kind of person. Islam is just a borrowed religion and based on Arabic culture."


"Bsrat, most Muslims understand all too well what their foul creed demands. That’s why so many Muslims support Jihad."

However, when in the next breath, someone named "Val" went further with nonsense about Malala, gravenimage's response was not as bracing a splash of informed cold water as it could have been:


"I feel sorry for Malala. Such a confused person. She is correct to pursue an education but not in a satanic madrassa where she was apparently brainwashed in the past. I hope that she will study Muhammad’s behavior intensively for the rest of her life. No need to even read any of Muhammad’s meaningless utterances. Muhammad’s behavior will inform Malala as to who Muhammad was a messenger from."


"Her father’s school is pretty secular–by Pakistani standards, at least…"

At this point, three Jihad Watchers -- Demsci, Jack Diamond, and Waltg -- embark upon a lengthy and complex discussion of the heart of the matter. However, even their robust tackling of the issue with supposedly PC MC blinders off curiously avoids the elementary solution of zero tolerance against all Muslims, and reflecting this, they studiously avoid the problem of how ostensibly, the vast majority of Muslims in the West are not doing anything bad or illegal. The problem of Muslims in general (in the West and anywhere in the world) is known by inference, after digesting a mountain of data and connecting an ocean of dots. But robust, no-nonsense Jihad Watch Softies ignore that and talk as though they can leap over that problem. And it is Demsci's anxious concern which apparently reveals why this is so -- his concern, namely that the West develop at some point (hopefully soon, but of course, unlikely given the general saturation of PC MC throughout the West) his solution to what he thinks the problem of Islam is:


"[The Koran is] a recipe for disaster, in this case, of one religion only, Islam, and not of any other religion. And clinging to this disastrous religion in a democratic nation, THAT is what we must hold Muslims accountable for. But only in a mild way, so as to get a majority in parliament to do at least this much."

Of course, Demsci puts it in terms of trying to persuade our PC MC majority to begin doing something substantive against the danger; but his advice founders on two accounts: 1) the PC MC majority's main objection is to institute any measures that would effectively punish what they consider to the vast majority of harmless, innocent Muslims, and they would be able to see through Demsci's attempt to be partially lenient on those Muslims. More importantly 2) we have no way to distinguish between harmless and dangerous Muslims on the macro scale, and the only way out of that is to drastically reduce (if not totally deport) the population of indigenous Muslims in the West, and enforce that.

Et cetera.

To recap: Malala said:

“The Prophet never advised his followers to “be impatient and go around killing people.”

[Incidentally, note the bit of kitman there -- the "be impatient" part -- to which one could judiciously add that yes, Muhammad also advised his followers to be judicious about their jihad; i.e., to be deceitful and feign patience, in order to better destroy an enemy currently stronger than Islam.]

Moral of the Story:

The proper lab test results should have been, not over 100 comments of Counter-Jihad civilians wringing their hands, scratching their heads and trying to find ways to absolve Malala, but rather one comment: "Ho hum, another lying Muslim."

Followed by 30 or so comments simply saying "Yup".

Or if some of them wanted to add some useful information about why we should never trust any Muslim and why this means they all need to be deported from the West (and there is looming right over their left shoulder a veritable mountain range of data they could choose from to bolster such a position), preface it by "I don't really need to add this information, but for the benefit of those strange, and strangely common, Westerners who remain stuck at various stages of uncertainty & denial about just how monstrously bad the problem of Islam is..."

The dismaying thing is that apparently, many if not most "in the Counter-Jihad" are those strangely common Westerners.

The fact that the "lab experiment" failed (and it fails nearly every day, in one way or another, over at Jihad Watch), shows how far the Counter-Jihad baseline is from where it should be. It's 2017 for God's sake. Will the counter-Jihad be futzing around like this in 2027? 2037? 2057? 2077? 2100? Apparently most of them don't see this as a problem, because for them, the survival of the West is not at stake, because that survival for them is not connected to the exigency of a zero tolerance against all Muslims.