Thursday, February 23, 2017

A recent headline from Jihad Watch, relaying a report from Mailonline, a mainstream news outlet from the UK:

Muslim from UK blows himself up outside Mosul for the Islamic State

Robert Spencer's editorial remarks:

The key question here is this: where did Abu Zakariya al-Britani learn his understanding of Islam? From anyone in Britain? If so, who? Are British authorities looking into this? Or are they waving away the question with the all-purpose dodge that Abu Zakariya al-Britani was “radicalized on the Internet”?

 What does Spencer mean, "where did Abu Zakariya al-Britani learn his understanding of Islam?"  Is Spencer implying that there exists, among Muslims, an understanding of Islam that does not condone the Jihad of the Sword in a context of the perpetual war Muslims believe they are in, "defending" themselves from the Harbis who, by refusing to submit to Allah and His Prophet, continually offend Muslims, thus necessitating that Muslims fight back to stop this rampant crime of Unbelief and Fitna?

Nobody, apparently, in the Counter Jihad Mainstream (CJM) dares to ask Spencer such a question.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

The problem is not Muslims, but only 'jihadis'...?
Expanding on a recent headline from the news in Australia --

"Australia: Islamic State jihadi Khaled Sharrouf first to lose citizenship under anti-terrorism laws"

-- Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch wrote:

There. Was that so hard? The idea that these enemy combatants should be welcomed back after they have joined up with an entity that has repeatedly declared that it is at war with the West is beyond absurd, but it is the prevailing view in Europe and North America. 

What Spencer doesn't note is that it's also the prevailing view in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.

Members of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream -- whether leadership or civilians -- only manage to proudly distinguish themselves from the broader Mainstream West by patting themselves on the back for being oh so robust in their condemnations of Islam.  But when it comes to recognizing that it is Muslims who put Islam into action, that this "action" involves not only front-line terrorism but also the diverse & amorphous stealth jihad, that this stealth jihad in turn involves diverse tactics of taqiyya, and that adherence to Islam constitutes perpetual sedition and warfare against the rest of the world (lasting 1,400 years and now undergoing global revival after a short period of weakness) -- members of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream fail to develop the logical conclusion of their growing knowledge of Islam.

That logical conclusion is that any and all Muslims, by virtue of the nature of their Islam, cannot be citizens of any polity that does not reflect total submission to Allah and His Prophet.  Therefore, all the Muslims upon whom the West has, in its ignorance of Islam, disastrously conferred citizenship, never really had that citizenship in the first place.

I.e., there is no citizenship there to "strip". The only thing that needs to be stripped is the West's PC MC framework, by which a Muslim can preposterously become a citizen of a non-Islamic polity.

Note that Robert Spencer can be so bold because of the way he frames the issue: this was a 'jihadi' from whom Australia stripped citizenship; not just a garden-variety Muslim who just wants to have a sandwich.  About that latter problem, Spencer, and the rest of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream have, apparently, nothing to say, so intent are they on skirting this very substantial point.

And as long as they do so, they will be talking past the broader Mainstream of fellow Westerners -- whom we need to persuade if our civilization is to last beyond this century.

Further Reading:

Relevant previous essays.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Uzay Bulut: A new addition to my blogroll, or just another "Better Cop"...?

According to the brief bio on one of the venues Bulut writes for, Arutz Sheva, Bulut was "born a Muslim".  Whether she has since become an apostate, however, they leave unanswered.  Meanwhile, her bio at Gatestone Institute is even less helpful:

Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara. She holds a master's degree in media and cultural studies at Ankara's Middle East Technical University.

However, the byline of one of her articles at Gatestone Instintute published back in 2015 offers a tantalizing bit more, but still no definitive cigar:

Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.

I.e., she could be "born and raised a Muslim" yet now be an apostate.  This is not trivial quibble: it cuts to the heart of whether we ought to trust her.

From a brief sampling, the list of her articles at Gatestone Institute appears to be a good general source of the problem of Islam in Turkey (and, occasionally, elsewhere in the Muslim world and in the West).  I haven't yet detected any asymptotic memes in her writing; however, if she is a Muslim, one would have to assume she's doing "Better Cop" stealth jihad.  This doesn't mean that her articles aren't useful, since part of the strategy of the "Better Cop" is to tell at least half the truth.  And if one is judicious and has a keen eye for the various modes of taqiyya, one need not dispense with the fruit of her labors.

Ah, I see here, in an article she wrote in 2015 -- The Most Inexcusable Crime in the Muslim World -- she extolls Malala Yousefzai, about whom even many in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream seem appropriately suspicious.  Otherwise, the article is quite useful.

And lo and behold, in another article -- The Difference between Islam and Islamism? -- she expresses an apparent (and exquisite) fusion of the asymptotic meme with taqiyya, speaking of "...the thin, fragile line between Islam and Islamism -- or between progressive Islam and radical Islam."

On the other hand, in yet another atticle -- Sexual Slavery: "Nothing to do with Islam?" -- Bulut consistently refers to "Islam" as the culprit of her analysis, not "Islamism".

Finally, in her article -- The West's Dangerous Enchantment with Islam -- she runs through some typical PC MC memes.  Let's see how she answers a couple of them:

"What you are seeing is not the real Islam; Islam has been hijacked."

The problem with this view is that Islam actually does teach that a woman is worth less than a man. Many teachings in Islam are misogynous -- from wearing veils; requiring four male witness to prove rape; issues of inheritance; court testimony; rules of marriage; rules of divorce and remarriage; a man's "right" to marry up to four women and then beat them, and so on.

Though she's only focusing on the treatment of women in Islam, elsewhere she has indicted Islam for being supremacist, martial, fanatical, and xenophobic.

Her answer to another PC MC shibboleth, however, is not as good:

"Not all Muslims are the same. There are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions."

First of all, thank you very much for this genius discovery. But how can it help reduce the Islamic violence around the world?

Of course it is true that there are many good Muslims, whose values do not follow Islamic teachings verbatim, but also include humanitarian values. They do not wage war on other religions or try to bring them under submission to Islam. In the eyes of jihadis or Islamists, however, who live by the harshest interpretation of most doctrinaire Islamic teachings, such a quality makes them "bad Muslims."

Her answer completely ignores the problem of stealth jihad, and its attendant problems, taqiyya, the False Moderate, and the Hijra emigration into the Dar-al-Harb in preparation for an epochal conquest of the West.  These factors explain innumerable Muslims who while appearing to be harmless, are actually enabling the Jihad; and they do so in a variety of modes, including the mere appearance of being a harmless Muslim -- which, in turn, includes the cleverest stealth jihadist of them all: the Better Cop who "feels our pain" about how bad Islam is, thus lulling us into a vague acquiescence to the fait accompli of continued Muslim penetration into our societies, in the rose-colored hope that most of them are "lax" or "secular" or "ignorant of their own Islam" or "MINOs" ("Muslims in Name Only"), if not even as cool as Uzay Bulut and all of her fellow Better Cops are (Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, Asra Nomani, Tawfik Hamed, Irshad Manji, etc.).


To answer my titular question, I guess I will do both: put Uzay Bulut on my blogroll, and add her to my list of Better Cops.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

American Indians: one PC MC meme among many

It's not so much American Indians themselves that constitute a PC MC meme; it's American Indians in the mind & mythos of the modern West that becomes the meme.  And right off the bat, the Western reader will no doubt feel an ever so fleeting frisson of anxiety at the politically incorrect term, "American Indians", rather than the politically correct "Native Americans" (or, in Canadian and Australian parlance, "aboriginals", one-upped by the more unctuously correct "First Nation" peoples).

The meme in question is fairly simple:  American Indians -- indeed, native (or "indigenous") peoples of any non-Western land anywhere in the Third World -- were lovely people harmonious with Nature until the evil white Christian Europeans came along to ravage them and despoil their precious ecosystems.

It is, of course, an exquisite irony that the most industrious producers and purveyors of this meme over the decades have been Westerners themselves -- that being, of course, the paradox of PC MC.

I was reminded of this meme -- part of the larger memeplex of PC MC, made up of many interlocking memes, all ascending to the most magnificent meme of all, the superiority of Muslims over the rest of Mankind -- when I was browsing through the useful You Tube channel of The Rebel Media (founded by Ezra Levant).  I found one particular video there about disturbing murder statistics among female "aboriginals" of Canada.  The reporter, Marissa Semkiw, notes in her introduction:

"Between 1980 and 2012, nearly 1,200 aboriginal females went missing or murdered.  Over the same 33-year period, over 6,500 women, in total, were murdered.  Again, every one an outrage. And while the number of murders for the total population has gone down over the last few decades, the trend line of aboriginal murders hasn't followed.  The result is that aboriginal women are overly represented in all murders.  16% of all murders in Canada are perpetrated against aboriginal females -- a significant over-representation.  This is undeniable.

"So what do we know about these murders?  Well, the RCMP released an extensive report last year.  Here's a startling fact that you probably haven't heard in the media coverage. 90% of these women knew their killer; 50% were related to them.  Nearly 30% were murdered by their husbands; another 33% were murdered by another family member or boyfriend; and 30% murdered by an acquaintance.  In fact, only 8% of the offenders of aboriginal women were strangers.  But what are facts, when outrage is at play?"

At this point in the video, Marissa Semkiw segues to a round table from the mainstream Canadian media station, CTV, between an overweeningly Guilty White host (one of the CTV talking heads, Robert Fife), and a panel of Canadian Indian women. Fife begins the discussion by referring to what the Minister for the Status of Women said "that a large part of the problem lies with indigenous men -- that it's ... the men from the aboriginal communities who are responsible for the violence against so many First Nation women, and yet, we have the case of Robert Pickton, and I'm assuming in your case [he gestures toward one of the Indian women on the panel], it wasn't aboriginal men who did this [he's "assuming", eh...?]. What do you have to say to that...!!!????"

One member of the Indian panel, Beverly Jacobs, a cousin of a murder victim, takes the softball he tossed her way and runs with it:

"Well, I think that's really disrespectful; it's disrespectful to the families of missing and murdered indigenous women, because... we don't know who the perpetrators are."

It's "disrespectful" to point out the fact that so many murders of Canadian Indian women are committed by fellow Indians?  It may be highly embarrassing, and it may interfere with their anti-white propaganda narrative; but it's far more disrespectful to the victims for these Canadian Indian activists to willfully turn the spotlight away from the actual problem, of some serious dysfunction in Canadian Indian societies, just so they can exploit some mileage for their grievance-mongering.

At this point, Rebel Media's host, Marissa Semkiw asks:

"What about her claim that we don't know who the perpetrators are?  The solved rate for female aboriginal murders is 88% -- by the way, virtually the same solved rate for murdered non-aboriginal women.  By and large, we know who the killers are.  They were caught."  

While Marissa goes on to note that RCMP statistucs do not include the ethnicity of the perpetrators, she rationally factors in the statistics we do know, with which she began the piece -- namely, that aboriginal women are overly represented in all murders.  16% of all murders in Canada are perpetrated against aboriginal females -- a significant over-representation.  

And that:

90% of these women knew their killer; 50% were related to them.  Nearly 30% were murdered by their husbands; another 33% were murdered by another family member or boyfriend; and 30% murdered by an acquaintance.  In fact, only 8% of the offenders of aboriginal women were strangers.  

How likely is it that husbands, boyfriends, family relatives, and acquaintences of all these Canadian Indian female victims of murder were non-Indian white guys?  The way that grievance-mongering minority activists (both Indian and white in this context) describe the problem, however, they make it sound like white people are routinely and rampantly attacking Canadian Indians.  And in the aforementioned CTV panel discussion, the anxiously guilty white host, Robert Fife, made sure to bring up the luridly notorious white serial killer, Robert Pickton, who has served as a distraction for the grievance-mongering industry (since so many of his female victims happened to be Indian females all too often hanging around in illicit areas of the seamier parts of Vancouver), whereby the percentage of unsolved murders of female Indians is often explicitly tagged to Pickton, as though that less than 8% of the total of murders of female Indians somehow outweighs the 90% that were perpetrated either by a husband, a boyfriend, a relative or an acquaintance.

Thus a minority's grievance-mongering activists throw their own people under the bus in order to capitalize on the West's anxious White Guilt.

Another Better Cop: Umar Lee

Umar Lee may not be as famous as Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, or Irshad Manji (or even Asra Nomani or Tawfik Hamid), but fame and a conspicuous careerism aren't the only vehicles for the stealth jihad.  Merely being a Muslim who, by affecting to be "moderate" and who pretends to be appalled by Islamic "extremism", can have its own ripple effect in society (as long as the Muslim in question communicates these taqiyya memes in his virtual and non-virtual lives), conducive to fostering a vague and complex confusion in the minds of the Unbelievers as they continue to grapple with the problem of Islam, reinforcing in subtle ways their own psychological inhibitions about cultivating a rational prejudice against all Muslims.   

Thus we have Umar Lee, apparently a perpetual student, expressing dismay back in 2013 at the uglier side of Islam.  For example:

“We can talk about the grievance industry, CAIR, etc., trying to hype up the threat of Islamophobia. Islamophobia is very minor. You want to talk about religious bias? You convert to Christianity in Saudi Arabia, you’re murdered. You convert from Islam in so many Muslim countries, it’s the death penalty. Why are Muslim societies so afraid of missionaries? Why are Muslim societies so afraid of freedom of speech? Why are Muslim societies so afraid of the Gospel? Why are Muslim societies so afraid of the message of Jesus Christ? If you believe Islam is the truth, why don’t you believe Islam can compete in the marketplace of ideas? Obviously you don’t, or you wouldn’t kill people that convert to Christianity and put missionaries in jail.”

This was when he announced with fanfare that he was leaving Islam -- only to flip-flop shortly thereafter and announce that, in fact, he was returning to Islam.  But that long quote above is a good example of what I call the "Better Cop" -- saying all the right things and sounding all the right notes that would make the typical Counter-Jihadist swoon in admiration and pat Umar on the back and sincerely wish him all the luck to continue on his path to the truth, etc.  The thought that this deeper seemingly anti-Islam rhetoric could be feigned for taqiyya purposes -- precisely to fool the Counter-Jihad and lull them into an acquiescence that accepts an indeterminable, innumerable number of Muslims to continue to come into the West -- doesn't seem to occur to those in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.

Three years before that, in 2010, Umar was perhaps less self-disciplined, and hadn't realized that a better way to wage stealth jihad was to go into a deeper cover; and so he was not so adept at preventing Mohammedan wardrobe malfunctions.  I.e., his mask slipped:

As samu alaikum. I normally ignore apostate kufar like you who are seeking to make a quick buck selling their islam is bad tale for white liberals to eat up. I will not go on and on here about your yuppie kafir ass and your ignorance and neocolonial mentality. What is provoking this email is when i learned you challenged ibrahim hooper, an old man, to a wrestling match. I am calling your kafir yuppie ass to a fight with no rules and we can do this at any number of masjids. Of course my prefernce is to do this in yemen, somalia or pakistan where instead of fighting i could cut your neck with the sword of islam and watch you squeal like a bitch like daniel pearl. 

This screed was a public letter to another Muslim whom he deemed to be takfir.

So, fast-forward to 2017, Umar Lee seems to have been perfecting his Better Cop mask so that there won't be any slippages.  He attended a private lecture of Professor Jonathan Brown, a convert to Islam who holds a distinguished Chair at Georgetown University.  Brown was reported on Jihad Watch as having given this lecture in which he actually defended slavery, sex slavery, and underage marriage as being sanctioned in Islam.

At the time, Umar Lee jihad-of-the-penned a brief article in which he expressed his "shock" at what Prof. Brown avowed.

As I pointed out in a comment I contributed to Umar Lee's little blog, there's one little problem with Umar Lee's reaction:

Umar Lee’s dismay at Prof. Brown’s positions is salutary, but there’s only one little hitch: Prof. Brown is merely reiterating what Prophet Muhammad said and did, according to the Sunna. The only way out of this corner Umar Lee has painted himself into would be to reconstruct a Muhammad markedly different from the mainstream Muhammad documented by the Sunna. The only problem with that, in turn, is that it would be an extremely minuscule and heterodox aberration from the mainstream Islamic norm, with no significant effect on the dominant Islamic memes that have been plaguing the world for centuries and are now undergoing global revival, increasingly threatening various parts of the world. The effect it and Umar Lee’s modern Western protestations are likely to have, however, have nothing to do with the Muslim world — and everything to do with lulling Westerners into thinking that there abounds in the world a viablly large demographic of peaceable Muslims (like Umar Lee) with modern Western sensibilities.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Islam and Mary the Theotokos: Another note on the Satanic element in Islam

I've written a few essays on a "Satanic element" in Islam.  To fend off the literalists (who abound in our modern times among both Christians and agnostics/atheists) at the pass, I would quote in this regard a caveat I wrote in the introduction to my first piece on this (Islam and the Psychology of Satan: The Tragicomedy of Hell on Earth) back in 2009:

"A caveat to the reader: I embark upon this meditation from the perspective of an imaginative agnostic, not as a follower of Christianity or any other religion. My years of having informally studied the history of Western religions and Judaeo-Christian theologyalong with the symbology of mythopoetics of the philosophers Eric Voegelin, Simone Pétrement and Paul Ricoeur, as well as the historian Jeffrey Burton Russell and the anthropologists Mircea Eliade, Henri Frankfort and Thorkild Jacobsenwill have doubtlessly helped me here and informed this little exercise in many ways, some obvious, some subtle. Furthermore, I refract my meditation through a Christian lens, so to speak, for the cogent reason that Islams theology is really an anti-theology based on repudiating Judaeo-Christian theology and supposedly correcting it."

A collection of my previous essays on this topic may be found on this Google page.

Today's essay adds yet another intriguing piece to the puzzle, the Mary of the Gospels; and I remind the reader that in this series, I am looking at Islam through the lens of Satan's psychology.

First, let us consider Mary, and what she means to orthodox Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox):  She is revered as the Mother of God, as the Theotokos (a Greek coinage in the Patristic period, literally meaning "God-birthgiver").  Throughout Patristic and Medieval Christian history, she represents the pinnacle of motherhood and womanhood, and as such, second to Jesus Christ, her son, as a human mediator for mankind.  The paradox that Jesus is her son, and He is her God, is beautifully captured throughout the Patristic period and the Middle Ages in pictorial and sculptural art, song and poetry.

Since I have my eye out for the context mentioned above (interpreting Islam as crypto-Satanic), one certain verse of the Koran struck me as relevant in this regard.  As Wikipedia puts it succinctly:

In Qur'anic verses 21:91 and 66:12, Allah says that he breathed into Maryam's vagina in order to conceive Isa.

(For those who still don't know, "Maryam" is the Islamic way of rendering Mary, and "Isa" is Jesus.)

Especially the second verse (66:12) explicitly presents this:

And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. 

Now, the Arabic word translated with such gingerly decorum by Marmaduke Pickthall (a 19th century British convert to Islam) as "was chaste" is also translated as "her chastity" which is more accurate, since the Arabic word is a noun, not an adjective.  The Arabic word is farj, which properly translates as "vagina" (or in our more genteel past, her "pudenda").  The other crucial word there is "therein" (we can already see how incoherent it is to say "We breathed therein" when there is no preceding object into which "We breathed"),

A more honest and accurate translation is by Edward Henry Palmer -- also a 19th century British Orientalist, as was Pickthall, but having the decisive advantage of being a non-Muslim:

And Mary, daughter of Imran, who guarded her private parts, and we breathed therein of our spirit and she verified the words of her Lord and His books, and was of the devout.  

I.e., the Koran there is saying that Allah (the royal "We") blew "our" spirit into Mary's vagina.  To get back to my original point, then, I have recently read this from the perspective of Allah being Satan.  In essence, what's going on in this verse from this perspective is that Satan, knowing well how the accursed Christians revere Mary, thought he would insert (pun intended) a verse to get back at the Christians by saying he defiled her in the most outrageous manner -- essentially sexual molestation (if not rape) dressed up as some kind of divine intervention (and if the reader consults my other essays on this topic, he will see my argument of how Islam represents a master stroke by the evil genius Satan to construct a world religion purporting to worship God but actually worshiping him).

Well, today I see an essay by Raymond Ibrahim on Jihad Watch -- Muhammad's Sexual Fantasies of the Virgin Mary -- that sheds further light on this.  Ibrahim cites not only a hadith but also the teachings of a modern Muslim cleric who both basically say that Mohammed was looking forward to Paradise, where he will have sex with Mary -- and Ibrahim adds the telling point that Muslims have used this as a way to insult and humiliate Christians.

In this context, it is worth noting that Ibrahim provides an oddly mild defintion for the Arabic word involved here:

(Note: the Arabic word for “marriage” denotes “legal sexual relations” and is devoid of Western, “romantic,” or Platonic connotations.)

While Ibrahim is correct that the Arabic word -- nikah --  "is devoid of Western, “romantic,” or Platonic connotations" -- he is strangely softening the meaning of it.  From what I've heard from Arabic speakers, nikah is the Arabic equivalent of our "F word".  So that's what the hadith and this cleric are saying -- that in Paradise, Mohammed will get to f*** Mary.

This not only impugns Mary's honor with the sick joke that is Islam; it directly and perniciously contravenes orthodox Christian Mariology, attested at least as early as the 4th century A.D., by which Mary is proclaimed to be aeiparthenos: ever-virginal. 

Friday, February 10, 2017

The Alt-Counter-Jihad

It's about time for an Alt-Counter-Jihad.  After all, there's an "Alt Right" and an "Alt Media".  And like those latter two, an Alt-Counter-Jihad is needed to redress deficiencies in an existing order -- namely, what I call the "Counter-Jihad Mainstream".

I've been thinking about this for quite some time, but only recently did the name for it hit me.  In the comments thread of a You Tube video on the ominous movement in Canada for a law against "Islamophobia", I saw among those comments a refreshingly bold expression of the very heart of what would be the Alt-Counter-Jihad, by someone who calls him (or her)self "Freedom Versus Islam" --

You cannot oppose Islam without opposing Moslems. All Moslems must be held personally accountable, for their continued allegiance to this violent, savage ideology. If you are anti-Islam you must be anti-Moslem. Otherwise you are a hypocrite and a coward.

Guardians of the status quo of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream continue to husband their avoidance of the Problem of Muslims; meanwhile, they think they are oh-so robust and politically incorrect when they focus all their energies on the Problem of Islam.  A typical example of this type is a long-time commenter on Jihad Watch (that bastion of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream), one "PRCS".  I've found PRCS to be quite good when he's focusing on the canard of locutions like "radical Islam" or "radical Islamism" or "extremist Islam" etc.   These locutions tend to insulate Islam itself -- mainstream Islam -- from criticism, let alone the condemnation it deserves.  And PRCS has been good about pointing this out in many comments at Jihad Watch over the years.  However, he doesn't seem to comprehend how this sets up an inconsistency or an incoherence with regard to Muslims.

In brief, the incoherence is laid bare by examining the latent logic:  If we say, as PRCS rightly counsels, that we should stop using locutions like "radical Islam" (or worse, "radical Islamism") and just boldly articulate our condemnation of Islam full stop -- that would logically entail that we are condemning mainstream Islam, the Islam of all Muslims.  How do we then avoiding condemning all Muslims?  Well, I've noted before how the Counter-Jihad Softy manages that.  Of course, he doesn't do what the PC MCs of the broader Mainstream do -- they posit that the vast majority of Muslims are fine and dandy because the Islam they follow is fine and dandy, and that the "Extremists" among them -- a Tiny Minority -- are somehow "twisting" Islam to suit their own extremist purposes.  The Counter-Jihad Softy of course doesn't avow this.  Instead, he opts for a complicated, and never clearly articulated taxonomy of Muslims which basically ends up in the same place.  All those Muslims out there (a vast majority? a slim majority? it's never specified) who would be exempted from our policies that would protect our societies from Islam are vaguely deemed to be "lax Muslims" or "Muslims in name only" or "Muslims ignorant of their own Islam" or "Muslims afraid to come out of the closet" or (my favorite) "Muslims who are citizens of our country" and therefore magically harmless.

For a more thorough analysis of this, see my recent essay, The Psychology of the Counter Jihad, yadda, yadda...

Of course, one important psychological and cultural facet to this attitude of the Counter-Jihad Softy who dominates the Counter-Jihad Mainstream is their insistence on treating Muslims as we treat any other members of any other religion or ideology: Innocent until proven guilty.  These Softies apparently haven't really digested the horrifying mountain of data about Islam (including the disastrous data of taqiyya) to see that Islam is a special case, unique in the world.

Perhaps it's time for an Alt-Counter-Jihad to form.

I won't hold my breath, however (since not only is the broader Mainstream hostile to such a movement, but so too, it seems, is the Counter-Jihad Mainstream itself).  So, don't mind me; II'll just be over here, as usual, rearranging deck chairs on the H.M.S. Titanic...

Take it away, Merle and Willie...

Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Mainstreams confusion

Jihad Watch comments sometimes provides a kind of laboratory of chemical reactions between the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (dominated by the outdated, soft approach on the problem of Islam) and the broader Western Mainstream (dominated by PC MCs with an even more outdated, and even softer approach on the problem of Islam).

This was rather markedly demonstrated by a recent comments thread attached to an article about a Muslim demagogue in Canada whose recent public rant delivered to thouisands of Muslims gathered to hear him included such jeremiads as the following:

We must break down the borders that keep out migrants and refugees. We must tear down the prisons and the detention centers.

We will seize the farms and the factories. We must become the enemies, so that in this city everyone can live with food, shelter, dignity.

We must become the enemies that sow terror in their hearts so that laws like C-51 shredded away.

We must celebrate our way of life, what they called barbaric cultural practices on our streets and in our homes until their way of life dissipates under our feet

Such demagoguery is daringly close to being an incitement of Islamic sedition, yet still a razor's edge this side of being clear enough for the typical PC MC or Leftist.  The Jihad Watch comments section in question had such a typical specimen, by the name of "James Baron" who, in the past couple of days, has been a busy beaver fending off the Jihad Watchers left and right of him.

What I found interesting was that this character, James Baron, was trying to oppose the Jihad Watchers and their supposed bigotry by standing his ground on the old "tarring all Muslims with the same brush" argument.  Unfortunately, the Counter-Jihad Softies who seem to make up the vast majority of Jihad Watchers have no way to confront this argument head-on -- because, in effect, they seem to agree with their opponent on that point.  Where they run afoul of coherence is where their increasingly learned opposition to Islam logically leads to an open-ended condemnation of all Muslims.  But, being deathly afraid of "going there", they stand their ground at various places short of that.  Hence their incoherence.

And the black humor ensues.

As it has for the last Allahdamned 16 years.

This is not to say that the Counter-Jihad Softies in the civilian battalion never do anything of worth.  Two notable attempts to knock some sense into this James Baron character were quite good -- by one "jayell" and by a longtime Jihad Watch regular (and Librarian for the "Rabbit Pack"), one "dumbledoresarmy".  Their mounted attacks on James Baron's argument were quite substantive and cogent -- on the level of the Problem of Islam.  However, when it comes to addressing the Problem of Muslims (directly related to the Problem of Islam), their commentary not only failed, but begged that question which the Counter-Jihad Mainstream has avoided for 16 years, and continues to avoid to this day.

This painfully scintillating point was glimpsed in one exchange between our PC MC character, James Baron, and one of the Counter-Jihad Softies (and a member of the "Rabbit Pack"), one "PRCS", whom we've met before:

James Baron:  There is a long, rich history of Muslims living in peace in Canada. Sorry. I will never, ever hate the way you guys do. 

PRCS:  Islam is defined by its texts, not by the degree to which individual Muslims comply.
There is no Qur’an “lite” for squeamish “moderate” Muslims.
The peaceful Muslims you refer to are cherry picking passages from Qur’an and Sunnah.
Islamic State “fighters” are not.

Notice how PRCS is focusing on (if not shifting to) the problem of Islam, and making it sound like that doesn't mean a problem of Muslims; and even appears to concede the viable existence of harmless Muslims.  Meanwhile, James Baron is focusing on all the Muslims who are not exploding, shooting, stabbing, or running people over in trucks; and neither PRCS nor the entire Counter-Jihad Mainstream has anything to say about that, to allay the concern of the broader Mainstream, that a focus too vigilant upon the Problem of Islam has dangerous tendencies to spread out in an open-ended way to target any and all Muslims.  Were the Counter-Jihad Softies who dominate the Counter-Jihad Mainstream to think carefully about this, they would realize that they can't forever put off the problem of all Muslims nor pretend it doesn't exist just because they don't face it.  Meanwhile, the James Barons of the West (who continue to dominate socially and politically) intuit that something is hinky with the Counter-Jihad when, with one side of its mouth, it keeps massively implying that in order to keep our societies safe, we must suspect any and all Muslims equally, while with the other side of its mouth it keeps assuring the James Barons of the West that it is not painting all Muslims with a broad brush, but only fixating on the problem of Islam itself.  The James Barons of the West can see that this implies an inconsistency, if not a contradiction.  They say to themselves, semi-consciously:  "If the problem of Islam is as bad as these Counter-Jihadists say it is, then it would have to flood outward in an open-ended way to embrace, if not engulf any and all Muslims, since according to them, they do taqiyya and follow a culture of deceit, sedition, supremacy, and invasion."

Were these two mainstreams to address each other head-on, rather than with sideways maneuvers, they would begin to see clarified the actual point of difference between them:  The Counter-Jihad Mainstream believes (or rather, should believe) that, in order to save our societies from destruction in the future by Muslims, we must err on the side of suspecting all Muslims (which logically entails policies that reflect this).  The broader Mainstream, on the other hand, believes that for moral reasons anxious to avoid collateral damage against countless innocent Muslims, we must err on the side of incurring a certain amount of deaths and destruction at the hands of the Radical Extremist Salafist Islamists (indeed, Sam Harris -- a member of the broader Western Mainstream who is trying to be Counter-Jihad at the same time -- recently effectively articulated this).

As I've said countless times before, until the Counter-Jihad can confront the problem of Muslims head on (which includes the problem that we can't posit a viable demographic of harmless Muslims with a certitude sufficiently reliable to be relevant to our #1 priority, the safety of our societies), and make up its mind on where it stands -- with a serious Counter-Jihad that has digested the full horror of an open-ended Muslim problem, or with the broader Mainstream anxious to protect "non-Islamic Muslims" -- we will be talking on different pages of the problem with the Westerners we need to persuade, if we don't want our civilization to perish in the next century.

Monday, February 06, 2017

The taxonomy of the Homo Islamicus

Any taxonomy that erects a category of a harmless Muslim as a viable demographic relevant to our #1 priority, the safety of our societies, is flawed.

Harmless Muslims may indeed exist out there, somewhere; but unfortunately, we do not have adequate means to vet them on a macro scale sufficiently for our #1 priority — the safety of our societies.

That means that pragmatically speaking, we must adopt a rational prejudice against all Muslims. Thus, the only taxonomic breakdown of Muslims that reflects our horrible quandary as a global revival of Islamic Jihad metastasizes and spirals out of (our) control, is the following:

All 1.5 billion Muslims may be divided up into two categories:

1. Muslims who are killing us.

2. Muslims who are lying about the killing.

We may further break down each of the two, to wit:

1a. Muslims who are plotting to kill us.

1b. Muslims who are materially enabling 1 and 1a.

1c. Muslims who have shown, in words and in deeds, to support 1, 1a and 1b.

2a. Islam apologists who go out of their way to propagandize in various media.

2b. Muslims who may not be that active in propaganda, but who respond to comments and questions about Islam with the typical talking points used by 2a.

2c. Muslims who seem nice and friendly, or just unremarkably ordinary (“just wanna have a sandwich”) who haven’t uttered or written any propaganda memes only because they haven’t been prompted to (and so the gullible Westerner assumes they must be harmless), whose role in the global jihad is that special form of jihad, the "Jihad of Just Being Here" (see my explanation of this here).

Then there's that special category that seems to have been a relatively recent addition in the last couple of years:

2d. Muslims who pretend to be concerned and aghast at the extremism and violence roiling out of the Muslim world — such as Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, and that fella who tried to sneak into Jihad Watch under the wire this past week, Zakaria Fellah — Muslims who “feel our pain” yet, when push comes to shove, end up retailing the same memes, just with a new glib spin on them to try to fool us in the Counter-Jihad (and often, unfortunately, they get away with it).

These are the “Better Cops” who have come along precisely because they realize that the standard-issue garden-variety “Good Cops” can no longer work among those in the Counter-Jihad who have wised up. Unfortunately, as I say, many in the Counter-Jihad who have built up rational resistance to the “Good Cops” remain vulnerable to the soothing wiles, the sweet taqiyya in their ears, from these “Better Cops”.  (Indeed, the aforementioned Maajid Nawaz has been assiduously at work for years focusing on Counter-Jihad analysts such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, and above all, Sam Harris -- and his main goal evidently has been to persuade them that there is a viable #3 category of Muslims, who constitute a Silent Majority of apparently non-"extremist" non-"Islamist" Muslims (their numbers or location, let alone any means to vet them, is, of course, never pinned down, but only held out as a vague hope) whose existence will save us from the problem their Islam is causing the world.  Disquieting comments from Sam Harris in recent times indicate that Sam believes in this mythical third subspecies of Muslim not so much because they actually exist (and anyway, their viable existence cannot, in any case, be reliably demonstrated), but more importantly, because, as he put it, "the alternative is grim".)

I would hope the reader notes that all this fine-tuned breakdown does not appreciably detract from, nor soften in any way, the starkly sober and bleakly gritty realism of the primary breakdown of 1 and 2.

Saturday, February 04, 2017

“Be simple answerer, for we know the truth.” — King Lear, Act 3, Scene 7

Hugh Fitzgerald, formerly Vice-President of Jihad Watch, has been posting a series there of late, based on Muslims who are going around disingenuously asking people to "Ask Me Anything".  Hugh, with cheeky wit, proposes that we Infidels take advantage of this and confront these Muslims prepared with our knowledge of Islam -- pretending to be nice and polite, but hoping to trip up those sophists with the truth.

Hugh's idea is good in theory, but oddly unrealistic.  At least two commenters on the Jihad Watch thread pointed this out (yes, there can be, at times, Signs of Intelligent Life on Planet Jihad Watch).

A long-time veteran of Jihad Watch comments, one "miriam" (an ex-Muslim from Iran) posted a long list, reproducing Hugh's questions we should pose to these Muslims, and putting in the likely prevarications and tap-dancing which those of us who've had run-ins with Muslims over the years now, all too well, would ensue.  Here's a brief sample (correcting his typos):

As an ex Muslim, let me tell you how the ” I am Muslim ask me anything" would answer to thse questions. 

1. What is the meaning of Jihad?
In Farsi they tell you Jihad kon! Means to make an effort. So Jihad is an effort!!

2. Why are Christians and Jews required to pay the Jizyah to Muslims?
This one they tell you that was the way it was centuries ago and it is no longer ib exitance.

3. Why does it say in the Qur’an that Muslims should not take Christians and Jews as friends, for they are friends only with each other?
It does not say anything like that in the Koran,
4. It says in the Qur’an that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2.256). If there is no compulsion in religion, then why are people who leave Islam threatened with death?
Anyone can convert. They are right about this because in America we do not threates converts.

5. Why did the Ayatollah Khomeini lower the marriageable age of girls to 9?
Not because Muhamad f.. her,, but those days pedophilia was common.

6. What is the surest way for a Muslim to get to Heaven?
Be kind to people.

7. Why did Muhammad attack the Jewish date farmers at the Khaybar Oasis?
Not because the Jews told him to f…off, but because it was simply a matter of war at that time.

And so forth.  Miriam was only offering typical rejoinders which a Muslim would pull out of his kitman-bag; many others are likely, and have been done in like situations.

Another commenter, one "billybob" (not sure if he's a veteran commenter at Jihad Watch) was even more on point:

Well done miriamrove. I read your piece after I made my comment below. What you are saying is exactly the kind of thing I have run into in the forums when debating with Muslims. These people will cheat and lie as fast you can can blink an eye


If it were only that easy – ask the questions and back them up with the appropriate quotes and the Muslims melts into a pool of butter…
In reality, he’ll fire back … “You are taking that verse out of context”. “That comes from a weak Hadith”, “Only in time of war, sanction by the State”, “…but the Old Testament says…”, “Show me where that verse is. It’s not in the Quran”. “…but the translation from Arabic is faulty. That word really means “peace””.
Do you really think they will cave in that easy? …or at all?

Not only is billybob spot on, he only touched on the tip of the iceberg.

Don't get me wrong -- Hugh's idea, in theory, is good.  But it requires a lot more than he counsels in his breezy way.  Hugh hints at what is needed, in his introduction to his piece:

You should come prepared with a few dozen questions, to which you possess the answers, with the relevant supporting passages from the Qur’an or Hadith or Sira easily retrievable from your smartphone or notecards. 

Yes, a good idea -- but way too lightly put.  What the Counter-Jihad needs (if it ever wants to get its act together) is the development of a comprehensive Manual of Anti-Taqiyya -- which, perforce, would be an Anti-PCMC Manual, since our proper audience for our war of ideas should be our fellow Westerners who continue to be deluded in complicated ways about how problematic Islam is.  The Counter-Jihad needs to develop an Anti-Islam/PCMC App, so that every concerned civilian becomes armed with the truth, and thus deputized in this multifarious war of ideas.

Such an app, of course, needs to be comprehensive -- and this means, most importantly, capable of anticipating the sophistry, the leaps in logic, the red herrings, the straw men... in short, the dizzying array of logical fallacies which the typical Muslim and the typical PCMC-besotted Westerner will deploy whenever their challenger probes too deeply with knowledge of Islam.

Further Reading:

TMI (Too Much Information, Too Much Islam)

We don't need 1,001 "Islam 101"s

Thursday, February 02, 2017

Jihad of Le Pen: Better Cop (French style)

And of course, the Better Cop Muslims wouldn't stand a chance to succeed in their ultra-sly taqiyya, were the West -- including the Counter-Jihad -- not filled with bumbling Inspector Clouseaus.

Karim Ouchikh is Algerian, apparently an adult convert from Islam to Catholicism, according to this interview -- and a citizen of a globalist, cosmopolitan France. 

However, it is disquieting that he would want to partner and/or help promote Yacine Zerkoun, a young up-and-coming Algerian Muslim, who -- qua being a Muslim and no other fact is necessary -- we must assume is slyly insinuating himself in stealth jihad into the conservative movement in France as a supporter of Marine Le Pen, and who slyly pretends to be concerned about the immigration problem, but deftly massages into the Body Public the message:

"We should simply ask populations of foreign origin to assimilate, not to leave the country."

("On demande simplement aux populations d’origine étrangère de s’assimiler, pas de quitter le pays.")

In a recent interview with the mainstream French Counter-Jihad site and movement, Riposte Laique, Ouchikh was quite long-winded about sundry problems of France under the sun except Islam; and then when they asked him point-blank about Islam, his long-winded answer continued to blather on in generic terms and only mentioned Islam once, fleetingly, and vaguely.  Buried somewhere in his long answer, he proposed the kind of abstract & limp-wristed responses, dressed up in robust rhetoric, which we see often in the CJM (Counter-Jihad Mainstream):

"It should be agreed -- and first and foremost by the immigrant populations -- to sincerely respect the bedrock of nationalism.  In other words, France should reaffirm, without prevarication, its categorical refusal to enter blindly into a multiculturalist society..."

("...doit donc consentir, – et, au premier chef, les populations immigrées – à honorer sincèrement ce socle identitaire. En d’autres termes, la France doit affirmer, sans atermoiement, son refus catégorique d’entrer insensiblement dans une société multiculturelle...")

And in this context, sounding a note sure to warm the cockles of any self-respecting conservative Frenchman, with an implicit tip of the beret to Marine's father, Jean-Marie (if not ultimately back to the great De Gaulle):

"France should reconnect with its historic role as a balancing power, equally capable of opposing all global hegemonies -- Atlantist or Islamist."

(",,,la France doit enfin renouer avec sa vocation historique de puissance d’équilibre, capable aussi bien de s’opposer à toutes les hégémonies planétaires, atlantiste ou islamiste.")

Notice the sly equivalence there between Islam and America, appealing to the anti-American biases of the French right and linking those with their increasing alarm at Islam.

Further Reading:

The ponytailed Muslim

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Philip Haney's lapse in logic

Philip Haney has struck me as an uncommonly astute analyst of the problem of Islam.  His recent essay on the "Road Map" of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), however, suffers from one particular lapse in logic.

At least, it appears so.  Perhaps Haney didn't intend what I infer from his words; but that inference seems the most reasonable one to draw.

The main import of his essay I find no fault with, and respect it as a crucial warning of what we already should have been assuming about the organizational structure, and aims, of American Muslims.  In short, Haney has examined a recent public statement by AMJA and has, through his knowledge of Islamic culture and texts, decoded its partially veiled language.  And the message of this "Road Map" published by AMJA is that Trump's victory constitutes a "calamity" for worldwide Muslims (including, of course, American Muslims who -- despite the Counter-Jihad Softies -- do not become suddenly moderate and magically delicious just because they happen to be American).

This "calamity", apparently, as Haney analyzes, necessitates Muslims to ramp up their violence, or shift gears, or switch tactics; it's not clear. In this context, at any rate, the problem with Haney's analysis enters when he seems to make assumptions about stealth jihad.

For example:

With the unexpected election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President, America has reached an historic crossroads vis-à-vis our domestic and foreign counter-terrorism and immigration policies. As will be seen as we walk through the Roadmap’s text, the AMJA regards the election of President Trump as a disruptive calamity – a potentially devastating setback – in its multi-generational strategy to promote Islam, and relentlessly integrate (not assimilate) the core principles of Shariah law into mainstream American society.

The problem comes in at that last part of his last sentence, describing the AMJA/Muslim Brotherhood goal:

...its multi-generational strategy to promote Islam, and relentlessly integrate (not assimilate) the core principles of Shariah law into mainstream American society.

Haney makes it sound like he's arguing that, had not Trump provoked this "calamity", Muslims in America would have continued chugging along with their Plan A, which was to insinuate Shariah law into the fabric of America, and in that way, eventually conquer America by transforming it into an Islamic state (which, perforce, would be a state fully practicing Shariah law).  So far I have no serious disagreement with Haney -- other than the Shariah part.  For it also sounds like Haney thinks that Muslims can actually, without violence, transform America into a fully Shariah-compliant Islamic state.

As I've argued before, this makes no sense -- if we take into account what full Shariah means.  Full Shariah entails numerous laws that are crimes on the books of American law now (and not only America, but the entire West) -- not to mention that most of Shariah, fully enforced with its mask off, would be repellent to the vast majority Westerners, including the majority of PC MCs and soft Leftists.  For this notion to be plausible -- that Muslims could slowly, by "Shariah creep", transform America into a completely Shariah-compliant nation without violence -- would mean that some 295 million Americans would eventually come to accept, for example, chopping off hands for theft, and execution for blasphemy, adultery, and apostasy.  If this is what Haney is implying, one wonders what planet he's on.

So, we must massage & adjust Haney's description here of the "Road Map" of the AMJA/Muslim Brotherhood and its shift in strategy.  I.e., it's not that its Plan A -- its multi-generational strategy to promote Islam -- would have avoided using violence; it's only that the large-scale violence that would be a necessary phase of that multi-generational strategy could and should be put off for many decades.  And the only logical reason for this is that Muslims realize that if they were to try large-scale, systemic violence in America before that distant future, before they are ready (i.e., before they have amassed sufficient numbers throughout America and enough among those numbers will have infiltrated throughout all our key sociopolitical institutions) it would be too soon.  It would provoke the majority of Americans -- including most PC MCs and soft Leftists -- to finally wake up and smell the Arabian coffee and shut down Islam once and for all (not meaning, of course, "killing all Muslims" but rather implementing policies of immigration cessation as well as deportation).

Thus, Plan A's goal is not really about weaving Shariah into the fabric of American society, but only about Muslims digging into our society long and deeply enough, so that at some future date (perhaps 50 or 100 years down the pike), their ability to implement large-scale, systemic violence throughout America will be theoretically devastating enough to reduce our country to a general state of breakdown.  The weaving of Shariah during this long "incubation" phase thus would not be an actual implantation of Shariah in our culture (I explained why already above), but would be merely a vehicle for the deeper penetration of Muslims and of their Islam into our society. 

And, of course, there will always occur -- in tandem with the seemingly harmless assimilation of the majority of Muslims -- seemingly random terror attacks, to continue to unnerve and drain our society, and exacerbate our perverse inclination to provide more, not fewer, concessions to Muslims (the pattern we've already seen throughout the West in the past 15 years).

If this recent change in strategy, as promulgated in veiled terms by this "Road Map", really constitutes a Plan B, it is reasonable to suppose that it doesn't mean a shift to implementing the large-scale, systemic violence in America which heretofore they had realized had to be put off for 50, maybe 100 years. To repeat: the only plausible reason why it had to be put off -- America's staggering superiority over Muslim strength -- has not changed with Trump's ascension to the White House.  If anything, this astronomic asymmetry in military and paramilitary capability has only increased (because, of course, part of military superiority involves will and resolve, rationally based in a Sun-Tzu-like knowledge of the enemy; which is precisely what a Trump shift makes more likely, if it continues to progress).

If I were a Muslim strategist given this predicament, what would I do?  Under the circumstances of this "calamity", the most rational thing to do would be to redouble the course of Plan A, all the while counting on the deeper stealth jihadists, the Better Cops, to continue fooling those on the right including even the Trump supporters -- and even including the leadership of the Counter-Jihad.  For there remains among those demographics throughout the non-Left of the West considerable psychological aversion to progress in their anti-Islam education to the logical conclusion -- the dreaded A word: namely, that we must reasonably assume that all Muslims are equally suspect.  And this can be used as a wedge by the Muslim strategists for further, deeper infiltration by stealth Muslims.  Meanwhile, of course, there would continue to bristle and crackle periodic, sporadic Islamic violence including terror attacks here and there, but always below a certain threshold in terms of quantity, incidence, and quality -- so as not to wake up the sleeping Lion.  And as I argue below, this threshold may well have been raised higher, rather than lower, due to this "calamity".

This "modified Plan A" would take perhaps more patience, and a bit of luck (i.e., inshallah, Allah's mercy); but, given the overwhelming power disparity that remains between Muslims and America, there isn't much choice.  Now, this is assuming the Muslim strategists are capable of being rational on this level.

However, there is an X factor in this dawning Trump Era, and that is the massive anti-Trump hysteria of the Left, aided and abetted by their pusillanimously PC enablers on the right.  And this irrational hysteria tends, more often than not, to conflate the virtue of opposing Trump with the virtue of "not being bigoted" against Muslims.  In this sociopolitical climate,  I don't see this as significantly altering the "modified Plan A" (unless, of course, the Left and their cowardly conservative enablers devolve into some kind of violent revolution, which would possibly provide Muslims an opportunity to accelerate their timeline).

Indeed, the pressure maintained by this anti-Trump opposition will likely serve to reinforce the latent PC MC in the Trump camp, as well as in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream -- because, as I conjecture, they seem to be limited by a psychological tendency closing their minds to a Zero Tolerance of All Muslims; and whenever data hits them square between the eyes that should wake them up to this Zero Tolerance, they have a curious tendency to redouble their resistance to opening their minds to it.  I.e., deep down inside, they have not yet exorcised their instincts of PC MC.  And, part and parcel with this, as we have seen, whenever the PC MCs and/or Left accuses the pro-Trump camp and/or the Counter-Jihad of  "painting Muslims with a broad brush", the pro-Trumpers and/or the Counter-Jihad Softies -- rather than boldly articulate why the dreaded A word is rational -- instead anxiously hasten to assure everybody that this accusation of criticizing "all Muslims" is baseless.  This, as I said, would be the wedge for the ongoing, deeper cover stealth jihad in the ensuing decades.

All this, if accurate, bodes well for the Muslim strategist who realizes that, given the overwhelming superiority on all levels of the Kuffar nations around them, Muslims cannot suddenly switch to a Plan B, since the kind of comprehensive violence by Muslims generally that would entail would only wake the sleeping Lion, who would put out their lights upon awakening.

Thus, the only real "calamity" a Trump Era augurs for Muslims lies in the possibility that Americans would grow increasingly suspicious of Muslims and would thus concretely hamper their ability to continue to infiltirate in stealth over the coming decades.  If Muslims have been closely studying us, they would realize that even a Trump Era (including its unofficial Counter-Jihad wing) has deep reserves of PC MC with regard to Muslims, which can be exploited in ways similar to the way PC MCs and Leftists can be manipulated through Western White Guilt -- only with subtler and cleverer taqiyya.

In this context, it would behoove Muslims to exercise more self-control and scale down the violence and terror attacks, to continue their deep burrowing into the tissues and organs of our Body Socio-Politic, in order to sow the seeds of an ability in the distant future -- say 50 to 100 years -- to take off their masks and begin large-scale, systemic violence against us in earnest.

Further Reading:

"It's kind of a psychosis..."

P.S. to my "Logic of the Stealth Jihad"

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Trumping the argumentum ad Hitlerem fallacy

The argumentum ad Hitlerem fallacy involves demonizing one's debate opponent (or the person or cause supported by one's debate opponent) by comparing them with Hitler -- without, of course, backing that comparison up with an argument based on facts.  It has occurred to me that there's an Orwellian twist going on here, where the very same people and sub- (or super-)culture indulging this fallacy are the ones exhibiting the un-fallacious, and all-too real, danger.

I've often pondered, as many people over the decades have, the question of how a relatively sophisticated, progressive society like Germany in the 1920s could have succumbed so horribly to Nazism.  With the rampant anti-Trump hysteria this past year into the present, this is the first time that question is no longer a safely historical one for me (and for all of us), but dismayingly alive -- and, as I said, acutely ironic, in an Orwell-must-be-spinning-in-his-grave sort of way, given the Hitler comparison the anti-Trump people draw either explicitly or implicitly.

I intend to complete my reading of a very important work in this regard, Hitler and the Germans, a series of lectures given in 1964 by my favorite philosopher, Eric Voegelin, at the University of Munich.  From my reading of the first 20 or so pages (it's 273 pages), Voegelin is, among other questions, directly addressing and analyzing this one; and I'm confident it will help me illuminate its foreboding resurgence in our time, in the counter-intuitive form of the motley collective of the anti-"racist", anti-"fascist", anti-Trump movement.

It all reminded me of a You Tube cartoon film that came out I believe a few years ago. called "AntiRacist Hitler".  It's about Hitler somehow coming back in our time, and realizing quite adroitly that for him to regain his old power anew, what he has to do is re-package himself as "anti-racist" because he sees that his type of demagogic power base is best represented by the new social justice warrior demographic (i.e., the very same demographic that has been fulminating & frothing at the mouth against Trump).

It's a deliciously droll and yet broad satire at the same time, only 10 minutes. I highly recommend it.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

The Counter-Jihad still isn't getting the main point

Jihad Watch reports this headline:

Germany: Muslim migrant killed "infidel" landlady, scrawled Qur'an verses on wall

Robert Spencer then adds this trenchantly snippy editorial remark:

Remember: if you think this is reprehensible, you’re a racist, bigoted “Islamophobe.”

This misses the point, the central point in my estimation, of the problem of the problem -- the problem of the West's myopia to the primary problem, the problem of Islam.

The majority of PC MCs -- who continue to reflect the worldview of the entire Western mainstream -- don't call you a racist, bigoted Islamophobe merely because you think this atrocity is reprehensible.  They will call you a racist, bigoted Islamophobe if they suspect that your condemnation of atrocities like this leads you to "paint all Muslims with a broad brush" -- which would mean, among other things, that all Muslims are somehow tied to, or enable, or support, or sympathize with the Islam of the terrorists that are increasingly plaguing the world.

The Counter-Jihad continues to tap-dance around this particular, important point.  As long as it does so, it will be speaking past the Western mainstream it is supposed to be trying to educate.

Further Reading:

Various essays on the "paradigm shift" which I argue the Counter-Jihad needs to -- but has so far -- failed to do.

Monday, January 23, 2017

Debbie does Boston

Debbie Schlussel's review of Patriot's Day -- the new blockbluster Hollywood movie about the Boston Marathon razzia -- is disappointing: Minor caveats aside, she gave it a thumbs up, in terms of the Counter-Jihad.  As for whether it's a good movie irrespective of the Counter-Jihad, that's another matter (to me, it wasn't that great as a thriller action movie, but rather rolled like a slightly better-than-average TV movie).

Since the movie is about arguably the second worst Islamic attack on the U.S. (though a good case can be made for the Orlando massacre, in which the Muslim involved killed far more people), the Islam angle, one would think, should be central -- at least to a lucid Counter-Jihadist like Schlussel.  And yet, she announces her review with this asseveration:

I expected this to whitewash Islam. It doesn’t.

Well, that depends on several things:  1) what constitutes "Islam"; 2) what constitutes "whitewashing"; and 3) the literacy of the critic about both the problem of Islam and the problem of the problem -- namely, the problem of the West's persisting myopia to the problem of Islam.

We'll see how Debbie fares as we continue this analysis.

Concerning the Kevin Bacon character, a high-ranking FBI agent, Schlussel says:

The film also shows the disproportionate concern that then-Boston FBI Special Agent in Charge Richard DesLauriers (he was Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI before that) had for Muslims and the usual fictional, non-existent “backlash” against them. DesLauriers (played here by Kevin Bacon) doesn’t want to call the Marathon bombing a “terrorist attack,” because he says it will harm Muslims. Then, when his agents and other law enforcement personnel locate the bombers’ mugs on video, DesLauriers doesn’t want to release the photos to the public for quick help in identifying and locating them, wasting valuable time and costing more lives. Again, he’s worried about putting Muslims under suspicion. (After all, the two brothers who did these attacks were not Muslim immigrants, but native-born Christians, right?) The photos were only released after someone on the team leaked them to FOX News and the network went with them. DesLauriers vowed to find the leaker, seeming more intent on that than actually finding the terrorists. Kudos to Peter Berg for showing us the FBI’s deadly political correctness.

Debbie seems to be reading into this scene.  Sure, it shows DesLauriers being anxious about his concern not to imply a general dragnet of Muslims, but he does add "We'll be crucified!" -- which could be his awareness of what a politically incorrect hot potato that would be.  Also, from what I saw of that scene, DesLauriers isn't balking at publishing the photos because, as Debbie claims, he doesn’t want to call the Marathon bombing a “terrorist attack” -- but rather because the photos, if it turns out the perps are Muslims, will imply a generalized implication of any and all Muslims.  And this pivots to the point of the problem of the problem:  PC MCs like DesLauriers have no problem robustly fighting against terrorism per se; they only have a deep problem with fighting terrorism in such a way that it hints at connecting Muslims -- especially any and all Muslims -- to terrorism.

As for DesLauriers' higher concern to go after the one who leaked the pictures to FOX news, Debbie's interpretation is debatable: to me, he's just angry in the heat of the moment, since everything else about his character in the movie implies he's on the same page in his central concern to catch the terrorists.  Interestingly, what Debbie leaves out of that scene is the single most important line of the movie, when after DesLauriers says of the pictures -- "They don't even look like prototypical jihadists!" -- the character John Goodman plays, Commissioner Ed Davis, shoots back:  "What does a 'prototypical jihadist' look like?  Do you have a picture?"  The import of that retort, however, is not developed in the movie at all, even though arguably it's probably the most significant aspect of the whole problem of terrorism, of which the Boston Marathon attack was but one of all too many examples in our time.

The import of that retort leads to the open-ended problem of the alarmingly systemic nature of the Islamic fanaticism that directly inspires and guides the global metastasis of terrorism in our time.  If one educates oneself on the problem (which would include the devastating sub-problem of taqiyya) and follows the logic, one concludes that any and all Muslims are, at best, suspect, and that comprehensive vetting on a macro scale is nearly (if not utterly) impossible.  The logic continues, when we would contemplate what we need to do to protect our societies from this metastasizing problem of terrorism.  The problem of this problem, however, involves a mass neurosis (if not a mass psychosis) of Denial throughout the West about the direction of the logic following our education on Islam.  This Denial is as much a fear of how horrifyingly open-ended the problem is, involving hundreds of millions if not 1.6 billion Muslims, as it is an anxious fear of our own potential for white Western "bigotry" and "racism".  (Often, it seems that the latter fear is more powerful, psychologically, in the hearts & minds of PC MCs, than is the former fear.)

Debbie goes on to note:

(FYI, DesLauriers is now employed as Vice President of Security at the Penske Corporation in swanky Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. If what is in this movie is true, Richard Penske and his minions aren’t safe in this dhimmidiot’s hands. Since DesLauriers appeared here in the Detroit area to promote this movie, I can only assume he’s proud of his portrayal in the film as putting Muslims first before America’s national security, which probably cost the MIT police officer his life.)

She doesn't seem to consider that DesLauriers proudly attended that movie promotion event because he saw nothing wrong with the portrayal of him in the movie -- because the movie doesn't damn him as much as Debbie, reading into it, thinks it does.

One of Debbie's caveats about the movie is on point:

There are a couple of other things I could have done without. When the Tsarnaev brothers are about to leave to the Marathon to wreak their carnage, Dzhokhar hesitates, asking his brother, “But what about Martin Luther King, Jr.?” PUH-LEEZE. As if that ever happened. There’s no evidence of it, and we don’t need a movie to soften his image and act as if he’s down wit da civil rights struggle. He’s a cold-blooded, black-hearted mass murderer. Nothing less.

However, she doesn't critically mention another moment in the movie that seemed embellished -- when the older brother, Tamerlan, after he has carjacked the hapless Chinese guy, Dun Meng, starts pontificating about how 911 was a conspiracy done by the U.S. government to make Muslims look bad.  The problem is that I haven't been able to verify that from several news stories about the Chinese guy and his role in the film, nor from the complete transcript of Dun Meng's testimony in the trial.  It's possible that the director, Peter Berg, found out that extra detail from his four hours of talking with the Chinese guy -- but I haven't seen any verification of that.  My educated suspicion is that Peter Berg added that in. Why do I think that? Aside from the fact that there's no evidence I've found to indicate that that bit of dialogue was accurately verbatim in terms of what the Chinese guy reported, it's reasonable for us to assume that Muslims know that 911 was a jihad attack and are proud of it, but they lie about that when they talk to Westerners.  That moment in the movie conveys the impression that Muslims like the Tsarnaev bothers, whose anger was driven to attack Americans, actually sincerely believe that 911 was concocted by the U.S. government to make Muslims look bad.  This then conveys to the viewers that Muslim terrorists sincerely believe in the propaganda they routinely spew out -- namely, that they are angry about the West "attacking" them in the Muslim world and lying about them, and thus they are driven to lash back.  However, if the Muslim Tsarnaev brothers were alone with their carjacking victim, it's highly unlikely that they would feel the need to continue doing their taqiyya in that circumstance -- and we already reject the supposition that Muslims sincerely believe 911 was not done by Muslims and are only lying about it in opportune circumstances (which would not plausibly be driving around with their solitary terrified carjacking victim in the dead of night).

About the elder brother's wife, Katherine Russel, an airheaded white woman who married a fanatical Muslim, Debbie writes:

In fact, there's are a couple of scenes in the movie that does what I did, but the mainstream media still won’t: showing that Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, widow of jihadi Tamerlan Tsarnaev was in on the whole thing. We know she was, but she’s been painted as some sort of innocent victim. Not in this film. In fact, she lectures an interrogator about how her participation in the plot that murdered several and wounded hundreds, is just a matter “balancing” the “duties” of being an Islamic wife.

Yes, the movie does paint the wife in a markedly suspicious way, but Schlussel is exaggerating a tad.  The movie ends the interrogation with the FBI agent played by Kevin Bacon saying that his gut tells him she's guilty.  But nothing in the interrogation proves it.  The interrogation is nicely hostile, but not decisive.  Apparently, the director/producer Peter Berg didn't bother to learn the damning evidence about her which should have moved him to make the scene more definitive.  As it stands, the audience could come away thinking she was fooled by her romanticized conception of the Islam she converted to (amplified by her love for her husband) into a hazy, vague enablement of his jihad plans.

Debbie's final sentence of her review:

Other than that, though, I thought the movie did a very good job of telling a story–a real-life story–and not lying about who did it and why.

I responded on her blog:

"Did the movie say that the Boston Marathon jihadists were Muslims (the who), who did it because they were following the fanatical dictates of mainstream Islam, the same mainstream Islam of all Muslims (that would be the why)? If the movie didn’t explicitly and centrally document & dramatize both this how and why, then it lied."

She responded to me:

The movie made no attempt to hide that they were Muslims and acknowledged that they were and that she, the wife, was a “wife of a Muslim.” 

Here, Debbie demonstrates an incomprehension of the problem of the problem -- namely, that the PC MC West distinguishes Muslims into a tiny minority of "radical Islamist extremist Salafists" on the one hand, and the vast majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism, on the other hand.  (Note too how Debbie ignored the crux of my qualification of "Muslim" -- to wit: "Did the movie say that the Boston Marathon jihadists were Muslims ...who did it because they were following the fanatical dictates of mainstream Islam, the same mainstream Islam of all Muslims...?") So if a PC MC movie can't avoid mentioning the fact that these central perps were Muslims (because in fact they were), that doesn't even begin to approximate being honest about the problem of Islamic terrorism -- unless the film delves into this problem by dramatizing the problem of Muslims in general (by, among other things, developing -- which it doesn't -- the one good line of the movie I mentioned above:  "What does a 'prototypical jihadist' look like?  Do you have a picture?").  To fail to do this is, in fact, propaganda by omission.  Also, the movie has many long scenes of the two Muslim jihadists in their interactions with the Chinese guy whose car they carjacked -- but not once did director Peter Berg have them say, as the Chinese guy in fact testified in court:

Meng testified that as Tamerlan drove him around, the now-deceased suspect told him: “I'm Muslim. Muslims hate Americans."

See also the complete court transcript of the Chinese guy's testimony.

Also see my two comments to a reader, (named "Nobody") below in the comments section, for more details that flesh out my argument in my essay here.

Instead, director Peter Berg lays it on thick with how bad the two were, and how they threatened and terrorized the Chinese guy with a gun -- all in vaguely general ways that any hardened violent criminals would do.  With zero religious (Islamic) references (except the specious blather about 911 being a US conspiracy).  Similarly, Peter Berg failed to include the key detail provided by the Chinese guy, that much of the time he was in their presence, they were speaking a foreign language:

Meng testified he could not understand the brothers, who were speaking in a foriegn [sic] language.

Continuing with Debbie's response to me:

The movie was about that day and the few following days when they tried to catch the guys behind it. The movie made no pretense about any of that and it was true to the chain of events. 

Here, Debbie resorts to the argument that the movie was only about the immediate attack and apprehension of the perps.  Well, sure.  But that doesn't let the movie-makers off the hook for failing to include the centrally Islamic motivations and behaviors of those perps (rather than parenthetically and tangentially showing details that indicate those motivations and behaviors -- see the numerous links I provide below substantiating this; and I only provided an incomplete list).  I stand by my assertion: Because the movie failed to show things like, for example, the Muslim Tsarnaev brothers and the white convert wife (and the mother and mother-in-law and sister, for that matter) going to mosque, praying at least once -- or how about having them freaking mentioning "Allahu akbar" or "Muhammad" or "Qur'an" or "Islam" even once out of their mouths -- it lied about the central point of the attack America suffered in Boston in 2013.  Instead, Peter Berg slyly plays up the seemingly Westernized behavior of the Tsarnaev brothers. One example of this is during their carjacking of the Chinese guy, two glaring instances of which I mentioned above.

You’re never going to get what you want from Hollywood. 

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't intelligently complain about what they produce about the problem of Islam.

This is pretty close and far better than most others. 

The locutions "pretty close" and "far better than most others" don't mean that it's satisfactory and that we shouldn't intelligently complain.  A piece of shit wrapped in fancy paper and doused in perfume may be "far better" than a stream of sewage let loose into a nice home, but it's still a piece of shit.

The movie did NOT lie. It appears that you did NOT even see it, since you incorrectly wrote that the woman who interrogated the wife was a Muslima, and the movie makes clear she wasn’t and was just pretending. 

Nope.  I saw the movie.  It does not "make clear" that the interrogator is not a Muslima.  At best, it remains ambiguous.  All she does is take off her hijab when she leaves the interrogation room.  That's hardly proof that she's not Muslima.  Doesn't Debbie know about the countless Muslimas in the West who pretend to be assimilated by not wearing a hijab?  What other "proof" do we have of her not being a Muslima?  She seems to drop her vaguely Middle Eastern (or African) accent later in the interrogation and after it; so there exist no Muslimas in the West (working for the US government and Homeland to boot) who don't have accents?  And again, the movie at no point shows the interrogator say "I am not a Muslim" nor any of her colleagues say the same.  Why is Debbie being this specious on this point?

Another sly (or ignorant) thing the director, Peter Berg, does in the movie is make it seem like the young hip college roommates/friends of the Muslim terrorists were just hapless pot-smoking punks; however, several of the links I provide below indicate otherwise about at least a couple of them.

I end this essay with links to just a few stories from Jihad Watch (which relays reports from other mostly mainstream news sites) of information relavant to this which the director of Patriot's Day, Peter Berg, to his ignorant shame, ignored in the making of his film about this major Islamic attack on America:

Boston marathon jihad murderers' mom: Americans are terrorists my son is the best

Boston marathon jihad-murderers' mother-in-law: Islam was his obsession

Boston marathon jihadis' mom: US will pay for my sons and the sons of Islam

Boston marathon jihad mass murderers' sister: "I have people I know, people that can put a bomb where you live"

Boston marathon murderer had Qur'an quotes, jihad material on his computer

Boston marathon jihadi's sister avoids jail by admitting she misled police

Washington state Muslima suspect of funding jihadis called Boston marathon jihad bombing a blessing

Boston Globe: Muslims at jihad-terror-tied Islamic Society of Boston reassured after Boston Marathon jihad massacre

Feds searching for friend of Boston marathon jihad murderer: alarming jihad imagery posted online

Imam of Boston marathon jihadis' mosque apologizes to Islamic State

Boston marathon jihad murderers' friend convicted of lying to the FBI

Friend of Boston marathon jihad mass murderer found guilty of hindering FBI investigation

Boston marathon jihad murderers' friend wire $71,000 to people in six countries using false names

Friend of Boston marathon jihad bombers attacked FBI agent after agreeing to give statement about his involvement in jihad murders

City of Boston gave subsidy to Boston marathon jihadists' mosque

Boston marathon jihad murderer: I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger

Before Boston bombing, Tsarnaev's wife searched for "wife of mujahideen"

Boston marathon jihad bomber was "very, very religious", gave friend Protocols of the Elders of Zion

New Bedford Massacchusetts: Two Muslims from Kazakhstan arrested, associates of Boston marathon jihadis

The FBI could have stopped the Boston marathon jihad bombing

Boston jihad bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev: "I'm very religious"

Boston Muslim who had Islamic rebirth shoots two police officers

Imam at Boston jihadis' mosque: "Islam literally means a practice of peace"

Oklahoma beheader's mosque once led by Imam of the Boston jihadis' mosque

Orlando jihadi pledged allegiance to ISIS mentioned Boston jihadis in 911 call

Boston Islamic center with ties to multiple jihad terrorists hosts interfaith call for peace

Support for al Qaeda jihadis preached at New England's largest mosque

Accomplice? Boston jihad murderers' widow refused to cooperate with FBI

Cousin: Tamerlan Tsarnaev went to Russia looking for jihad

Boston jihad murderer Dzhokhar Tsarnaev posted video calling for jihad in Syria