Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Signs of intelligent life spotted on Planet Jihad Watch (Part II)

https://thumbs.imagekind.com/4180738_650/Martian-Terrain-I_art.jpg?v=1492597286 
Introduction:

In Part I, I presented the topic and analyzed the argument of a member of the Leadership of the Counter-Jihad, Christine Douglass-Williams (whose name I've probably misspelled in the previous part by switching the last two names). In this second part of my essay -- “Signs of intelligent life on Planet Jihad Watch” -- I want to reproduce dozens of comments (all 130+) from her recent report on Jihad Watch about Muslim immigration, but since it's too much trouble to try to extract the text from the morass of html codes here on this Blogger template, I will do so as is, leaving the formatting, and will interject my commentary in ALL CAPS within square brackets.

Part II. Readership comments

        • Gea says
I had read Koran, Hadith and Sira…and agree with EX-Muslms that Islam ITSELF is an IDEOLOGY which is worse than Nazism and should be treated as such…Islam does not belong to any country which respects liberty, justice and human rights of all individuals! Islam REALLY STINKS and is the ROOT cause of terrorism and violance nowadays…and rapes…
[DOES GEA KNOW THAT ROBERT SPENCER AND CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS DISAGREE WITH THIS IMPASSIONAED CONDEMNATION OF ISLAM (PARTICULARLY THE BOLDED PART)? ]
Yes, every Muslim adheres to an ideology which is supremacist, xenophobic, violent and hateful and whose founder and role model was a caravan robber, mass murderer, sex maniac, sexual slave taker, deceiver, rapist and pedophile – a man who stated that he had been commanded to kill infidels and who bragged that he had been successful through terror. 
[TERRY GAIN'S POINT HERE COMPLICATES THE ATTEMPTS BY ROBERT SPENCER AND CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS TO SAVE MOST MUSLIMS FROM OUR CONDEMNATION BY ONLY FOCUSING ON A TRUNCATION OF ISLAM ("POLITICAL ISLAM" OR "RADICAL ISLAM" OR "ELEMENTS OF ISLAM").  OR IS IT THAT SPENCER AND DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS WANT TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM BEING TOO MARGINALIZED BY THE BROADER WESTERN MAINSTREAM? IN THE MEANWHILE, THEY CONTINUE THEIR INCOHERENT TAP-DANCE OF DOUBLE VIRTUE-SIGNALLING TO BOTH COMMUNITIES -- THE BROADER WESTERN MAINSTREAM AND THE COUNTER-JIHAD MAINSTREAM -- LEAVING BY THE WAYSIDE THE CATASTROPHIC TRUTH OF THE MATTER (THAT WE CANNOT -- WITHOUT SOPHISTRY, WISHFUL THINKING, ANXIETY ABOUT BEING RACIST, AND IMPLAUSIBLE LOGIC -- REDEEM MUSLIMS FROM OUR CONDEMNATION) ]
Ms Williams begins her article with this obsequious statement:
“It is also not racist to oppose political Islam, Islamic supremacism and jihad; this should be a given for all who enjoy Western freedoms.”
[THANK YOU TERRY GAIN FOR BEING ONE OF THE PRECIOUS FEW ON JIHAD WATCH TO NOTICE AND CALL ATTENTION TO MS. WILLIAMS'S EGREGIOUS SOFTNESS ON THE PROBLEM OF ISLAM]
]Sorry Ms Wiiliams, I have great respect for you and I know you are under attack in Canada by the ignorant elite but all of Islam is political. What we are now experiencing is an invasion by an imperialist ideology which was spread by conquest. If we don’t put an end to the invasion we will have either submission or civil war.
We don’t need NO Go Zones and parallel societies in Canada.
Ban Muslim immigration now.
[INDEED -- ALL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION, SINCE WE CANNOT VET MUSLIMS AS ROBERT SPENCER AND CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS AND OTHERS IN THE COUNTER-JIHAD MAINSTREAM IMAGINE WE CAN]
Agreed. We all need to stop using modifiers such as “political” Islam, “radical” Islam, etc.
ISLAM is the problem, because it is inherently political & radical.
[YES SAVVY KAFIR -- BUT TOO BAD ROBERT SPENCER AND CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS DON'T AGREE WITH YOU]
And using those modifiers only confuses less-knowledgeable people, who assume there must be a “nice” Islam, as well as the Islam that brings us terrorism, misogyny, hatred for non-Muslims, political supremacism, endless warfare, and backward, xenophobic societies. There isn’t. There’s just Islam — which some Muslims understand better and take more seriously than other Muslims.
        • dumbledoresarmy says
Conor Cruise O’Brien nailed that one, twenty-odd years ago.
…And it is futile to say of those Muslims who faithfully follow those teachings today that their actions are “not intrinsically related to Islam”.
We are facing an Islamic revival….”.

[NOTICE HOW DUMBLEDORESARMY'S QUOTE FROM O'BRIEN SUBTLY LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN FOR A LESS THAN HOLISTIC TREATMENT OF THE PROBLEM. IF ONLY WE COULD FEASIBLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MUSLIMS "WHO FAITHFULLY FOLLOW" THEIR ISLAM AND THOSE WHO DON'T. BUT WE CAN'T. SO WHY MAKE THAT DISTINCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE? PROBABLY TO SIGNAL (VIRTUE-SIGNAL, THAT IS)] ONE'S PARTIAL CONDEMNATION OF SOME MUSLIMS, NOT ALL.]
If you were a Muslim who lived in the west and were asked if you supported terror, would you admit it? It’s like asking someone how often they have sex.[EXACTLY MY POINT -- ABOUT THE UNFEASIBILITY OF VETTING MUSLIMS. FURTHERMORE, THIS UNFEASIBILITY WOULDN'T BE THAT DREADFUL OF A PROBLEM IF IT WEREN'T FOR THREE FACTORS: 1) THAT THE PROBLEM OF MUSLIMS ROILING AND PERCOLATING THROUGHOUT THE WEST IS A MASSIVE, SPRAWLING, DIVERSE AND COMPLEX PHENOMENON; THAT THE ISLAM THAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE FOR ALL MUSLIMS IS FILLED WITH HATE, FANATICISM, AND AN IMPERATIVE TO SUBJUGATE ALL OTHER CULTURES AND KILL THOSE WHO RESIST; AND THAT THIS SAME ISLAM CULTIVATES TAQIYYA IN ORDER TO CAMOUFLAGE THE AFOREMENTIONED ]
Islam’s role model and perfect man was a terrorist. End of inquiry.
[INDEED. END OF INQUIRY -- NOT A NEVER-ENDING DISCUSSION WITH BOOKS WRITTEN FAWNING ALL OVER SO-CALLED "REFORMIST" MUSLIMS AND THEIR VISION FOR A WAY FOR US TO GET ALONG WITH MORE AND MORE MUSLIMS IN OUR MIDST]
      • StellaSaidSo says
The ‘first five babies’ born in some hospitals in Western countries are already Muslim. For every native British mother in a UK maternity ward, there are 10 Muslim mothers. The most popular boy’s name in UK is now Mohammed. The second most popular boy’s name is a different spelling of the same name. The terrorists may kill some of us directly, but it is demographic change which is ultimately the biggest threat to our civilisation. No ‘kufr’ has any reason to celebrate the birth of yet another potential enemy.
[YES, THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR CIVILIZATION -- BUT ONLY BECAUSE IT WILL ENABLE MUSLIMS TO KILL US IN THE FUTURE FAR MORE EFFICIENTLY AND CATASTROPHICALLY THAN THEY CAN NOW]
  1. StellaSaidSo says
The hijab is telling us that the newborn is not an Austrian, and never will be. 
[MY POINT EXACTLY ABOUT HOW MUSLIMS CANNOT BE ACTUAL "CITIZENS" OF A NON-ISLAMIC POLITY AND THAT IT WILL SPELL OUR DOOM AS LONG AS WE DON'T REALIZE THIS SOON ENOUGH -- A POINT THE RSSS AND RABBIT PACK HAVE ATTACKED ME FOR MULTIPLE TIMES (WITH THEIR ENERGIZER BUNNY, ANGEMON, LEADING THE CHARGE]
  1. mummymovie says
Excellent presentation, Christine- Very well written… once again.
It is a tightrope in which we walk in the Counter-Jihad movement, with the ugly, gaping pit of racism below us.
[NOW WITH MUMMYMOVIE WE GET THE COUNTER-JIHAD SOFTY WHO FRETS ABOUT OUR POTENTIAL "RACISM" -- THE CJM VERSION OF THE MAINSTREAM ANXIETY ABOUT "ISLAMOPHOBIA" AND A POTENTIAL "BACKLASH"]
And I know this is not the point of the article, necessarily, but it is hard to deny -judging from the hijab the mother is donning- that this newborn will indeed be entering a life of some degree oppression, courtesy of the islam her parents have embraced, or are very likely unwillingly living under the yoke of themselves.
    • mummymovie says
And alas- Let is rememeber that islam is not a race!
And whatever it is, it should be sent back under the rock from whence it crawled, and kept there.
The totalitarian ideology of islam has no place in the west. We are still free, and should remain as such.
STOP THE HIJRA
END REFUJIHAD
[CJM SOFTIES LIKE MUMMYMOVIE REMAIN INCOHERENT AS LONG AS THEY CONDEMN ISLAM AND WANT IT REMOVED FROM THE WEST -- YET DON'T WANT TO BE AGAINST MUSLIMS, WHO ARE THE CARRIERS AND ENABLERS OF ISLAM, WITHOUT WHOSE PRESENCE THERE WOULD BE NO ISLAM]
    • dumbledoresarmy says
Let us pray that baby Asel, as she grows, will do as ‘Hannah Shah’ – and others too! – have done in the UK, and as Mona Walters did in Sweden: **leave Islam**.
May baby Asel follow this kind of path, by the grace of the living and true God. May she be led out of the darkness of Islam, into the light of life. [ETC ETC. I.E., WISHFUL THINKING. DOES IT HAVE A PLACE IN THE COUNTER-JIHAD, GIVEN (IT NEED NOT BE ADDED) ALL THAT WE KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND THE CULTURE AND PSYCHOLOGY IT HAS SPAWNED AMONGST MUSLIMS?]
        • StellaSaidSo says
Spot on, Left.
In the West, the wearing of the hijab or variant is ALWAYS a political statement. Some mosques actually pay women to wear it. The hijab announces that the wearer’s first allegiance is not to the country [YES INDEED, HENCE MY POSITION THAT NO MUSLIM CAN BE AN ACTUAL CITIZEN OF A NON-ISLAMIC POLITY; UNLESS WE ARE PREPARED TO SAY THAT ANY MUSLIM WITHOUT A HIJAB, WEARING BLUE JEANS AND SMILING, MUST HAVE THROWN HIS OR HER ISLAM INTO THE WINDS TO JOIN OUR BRAVE NEW SECULAR WORLD...] that opened its doors to her, but to a supremacist ideology which forbids integration. It is a flag, a territory marker, a warning. Those who pretend that it is a harmless cultural artifact or a mere fashion statement are either ignorant about Islam, or lying.
  1. Honest Ali says
While it does not bode well for Europe, or Austria that the leader in births are the followers of Mohamed… the fact that people are hurling racist abuse goes to show that the average person on the street does not understand that Islam is an ideology, like Nazism… not a race.
This means that CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the OIC have been wildly successful in conflating the genocidal ideology of Islam with race [YES, AND PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT SUCCESS IS IDIOTS LIKE HONEST ALI WHO THINK THAT THERE IS ANY SERIOUS AMOUNT OF "RACISM" HAPPENING AMONGST WESTERNERS IN RELATION TO ISLAM -- SEE BOLD BELOW]. And they have been successful in covering up the fact that before Islam, all the races of the Orient were religiously diverse. Even Mecca and Medina were religiously diverse before Muslims used bloodshed, slavery, and genocide to force the conversion of the people to their evil ideology.
“The case of baby Asel Tamga provides a opportunity for these charlatans to employ their bogus victimology agenda yet again.”
Christine Douglass-Williams is absolutely right. When non-Muslims express racist sentiment and insults towards Muslims instead of legitimate criticism of the ideology of Islam… it plays directly into the hands of the bad guys. It strengthens the cause of Islam and weakens the cause of Liberty and religious diversity.
  1. Voytek Gagalka says
Bless this baby as it is innocent and has tabula rasa (clean slate) of mind and undeveloped yet potential. It will not stay clean forever and it is parents’ responsibility to “fill it in” with knowledge, value system, and morality. And only for outcome of that future upbringing and education she/he should be judged in the future, as well as their tribe and parental influence (bad or good), too. BTW, hysteria about “Islamophobia” caused all those negative (and stupid) opinions: once people are forbidden to analyze whole situation freely and objectively without being subjugated to penalties and “name-calling,” they will always resort to the lowest denominator and even violence [THERE'S THE FOREBODING THAT WESTERNERS WILL RISE UP IN VIOLENCE -- NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT; INDEED, QUITE THE OPPOSITE; AND ISN'T IT IRONIC THAT THIS IS THE ROUTINE CHARGE OF THE "ISLAMOPHOBIA" PATROL AMONG THE PC MCS...?] which will be always misguided and counterproductive. Don’t blame them: blame terrible state of cultural degradation PROMOTED and propagated by the left for their sinister goals!
  1. lebel says
Nothing to see here, this is standard jwatch type hate. Christine is unwilling or unable to see it for what it is. There are very very few people who truly dislike only Islam and not Muslims. Hate for Islam and hate for Muslims go hand in hand. We just have to look at the comments here.[THIS "LEBEL" CHARACTER IS AMUSING; HE MAKES HIMSELF INTO A NUISANCE ON PERHAPS THE SOFTEST COUNTER-JIHAD SITE ON THE INTERNET (EXCEPTING THAT EGREGIOUSLY SOFT SITE, FRONTPAGE) TO HURL ACCUSATIONS OF "MUSLIM-HATING"  INDEED, ONLY ONE COMMENTER AVOWED THAT HE HATES MUSLIMS, ONE "JAWSV"]
That’s OK, its not really their fault. The fault lies with Robert Spencer who encourage this indirectly and hugh fitzgerald and Raymond Ibrahim who encourage it directly.
    • JawsV says
Islam is the hate, lebel. They deserve to be hated, Islam and its murderous followers. I’ve detested Islam/Muslims since 9/11. Spencer has nothing to do with it. Capische? Or Trump.
Bravo to the truth-tellers Spencer, Hugh and Raymond! ISLAM IS THE HATE. That’s been known for 1400 years. The “religion of blood and war” as Churchill remarked (1899). It’s only the 21st century that whitewashes anti-Jew/Christian murderous Islam.[IRONICALLY, JAWSV UNSTINTINGLY & UNCRITICALLY PRAISES THREE OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE COUNTER-JIHAD MAINSTREAM WHO HAVE MANY TIMES, IN MANY WAYS, EQUIVOCATED ON A CONDEMNATION OF MUSLIMS (AND EVEN A ROUND CONDEMNATION OF ISLAM ITSELF, WITHOUT THE DYSPHEMISTIC QUALIFIERS LIKE "POLITICAL ISLAM", "RADICAL ISLAM", "HARDLINE ISLAM", ETC. ETC. !)...]
        • LeftisruiningCanada says
I said ‘sometimes’ and gave a reason why it might be that way.
Jaws linked his particular distaste for muslims/islam to 9/11, clearly making the connection between the teachings of islam and the acting of them out.
Personally i don’t “hate muslims’. I’ve spent so much time living with them in their own lands, and have been helped by them, that im not going to write off entire populations because they happen to be culturally muslim. It’s obviously not that simple.[AHA, HERE WE HAVE A SOFTY WHO COINCIDENTALLY HAS "SPENT SO MUCH TIME LIVING WITH" MUSLIMS AND HAS "BEEN HELPED BY THEM" -- I.E., HE'S EASILY FOOLED BY THEIR TAQIYYA]
Those muslims that don’t seek to behave like a 7th century wacko clearly aren’t in the same category.[HE'S CORRECT HERE -- THE MUSLIMS WHO BEHAVE LIKE 7TH CENTURY WACKOS ARE DIFFERENT -- THEY ARE NOT AS CAPABLE OF EMPLOYING TAQIYYA TO FOOL SOFTIES LIKE THIS GUY (OR, DEPENDING ON CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO); BUT JENNAH FORBID THIS SOFTY WOULD EVER STOOP SO LOW AS TO CULTIVATE A RATIONAL, LEARNED SUSPICION OF MUSLIMS]
Muslims ask us to see the distinctions there are, as we ask them to notice the differences between Christian denomications etc. I think on whole the posters at JW do that. If not, then ive found that it’s usually in relation to some outrage where anger overrides the restraint which marks the norm.
  1. JawsV says
“Now for the case of the Muslim parents who gave birth to Austria’s first newborn of 2018. Congratulations, and may this new child be a blessing to the nation of Austria, fostering integration, harmony, human rights and the like. ”
You’re joking, right? What’s “atrocious” is the Moslem invasion of Europe. This kid will be poisoned by Islam from the get-go.[WELL, WELL, WELL, FINALLY A SECOND MEASLY JIHAD WATCHER NOTICES THE EGREGIOUS NOUGAT OF ROBERT SPENCER'S COLLEAGUE, CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS...]
        • lebel says
Yes if a baby was born to a German couple I would not call it a future Nazi. That would be disgusting.
I’m not surprised at your inability to condemn this, we are talking after all about the object of your hate (All Muslim men, women and children)
        • gravenimage says
I did not say a “German couple”–I said Nazis. [DOES THIS LOYAL JIHAD WATCHER AND MEMBER OF THE RSSS REALIZE THAT ROBERT SPENCER HIMSELF REJECTED THE NAZISM ANALOGY ALTOGETHER, AND GAVE JIHAD WATCHERS GRIEF FOR DARING TO DISPUTE HIM ON THIS (YEARS AGO WHEN JIHAD WATCHERS WEREN'T SO TIMID ABOUT CONTRADICTING THEIR FEARLESS LEADER...?)]
  1. Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Seeing this through the lens of history helps to clarify: the “angry mob” will always have its way in the end. Ancient Roman politicians knew this well: never get the army or the “great unwashed” cross at you.
These angry outbursts are a warning sign to the politicians involved that things are going to get ugly if changes don’t take place. This came about, I believe, because the Austrian electorate feel unrepresented. You may consider the social media outbursts either ugly or appropriate – that’s your choice. But the “angry mob” is real and a powerful political force.[AGAIN, THE UNREASONABLE EXPECTATION OF THE SPECTER OF A WESTERN BACKLASH AGAINST MUSLIMS]
President Van der Bellen is an unschooled fool to wag his finger at it like it were a misbehaving schoolboy. He should take note that the electorate is fed up with the hijrah and want something effective done about it – now. The call to suppress these comments is even more foolish. Suppress the angry mob and it will go underground and its fury will grow even greater. Soon you’ll have chaos on your hands: lynchings, political assassinations, pogroms and even revolution!
    • LeftisruiningCanada says
Excellent summary.
    • StellaSaidSo says
Spot on, Flavius.
  1. UNCLE VLADDI says
Re: “To attack this couple and levy abusive language against them because of their coreligionists’ misdeeds is atrocious, and undermines the real efforts to battle the sinister forces of political Islam and its Islamic supremacist bullying of Western society.”
ER … what part of islam is NOT “political!”?
Saying “political” (or “radical” or “extremist”) “islam is bad!” only implies there are some other kinds of islam … when anyone who has ever risked opening a Qur’an to find out for them self, knows there is not. [HALLUJAH! A THIRD JIHAD WATCHER DARING TO STAND FOR A REJECTION OF THE SOFTNESS OF THE COUNTER-JIHAD MAINSTREAM! (MEANWHILE, FOR THE OTHER 127, MUM'S THE WORD...]
    • JawsV says
Douglass-Williams is a bit too PC for me. We have every right to be outraged that the first kid born in Austria in the new year is a Mohammedan.[THANKS TO JAWSV FOR REPEATING HIS OBJECTION I NOTED ABOVE (THOUGH HE HAS OTHER FAULTS, SUCH AS THINKING HE HAS TO "HATE" MUSLIMS; AND PRAISING SPENCER ET AL. EVEN THOUGH THEY STAND FOR AN EGREGIOUSLY SOFT POSITION]

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Signs of intelligent life spotted on Planet Jihad Watch...

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/krcc/files/styles/medium/public/201504/MERCURY.jpeg

Our old nougaty friend, Christine Douglass-Williams, has been double-virtue-signalling again.  A recent story on Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch (of which she has been a frequent contributor for the last couple of years at least) she editorialized upon --

Austria: First newborn of 2018 is Muslim, drawing “racist abuse” 

-- elicited the usually sparse incidences of a high IQ (Islamic Quotient) from the Jihad Watch Readership, though there were a couple that provided drops of water to the parched lips of an actually Anti-Islamic visitor dying of thirst as he crawls across the Spencerscape.

In this Part I, I will interject my comments in square brackets and italics to the analysis by a member of the Leadership in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, the egregiously asymptotic Christine Douglass-Williams (CDW).  In a subsequent posting, I will present Part II, examining the 130+ comments from the Readership. 

Part I. 

Christine Douglass-Williams (CDW) editorializes on the problem of the flood of Muslim immigrants.

“In today’s world, critical thinking is in short supply, which includes differentiating between varying circumstances. [good start: begin with an unremarkable truism everyone can agree with, as a segue to your more controversial nougat to come]

“For example, it is prudent to oppose unvetted immigration that excludes the essential principle of a two-way street approach to immigration. [Um, no it's not prudent to oppose "unvetted immigration" because that implies vetting of Muslims is feasible.  What would be prudent is to oppose ALL Muslim immigration; but CDW is far from affirming that ]

“This does not mean one is racist or “Islamophobic” to promote a two-way street. It spells logic. [Firstly, the only "logic" here is CDW's logic of vetting, which is based on three closely related, disastrous presumptions about the problem: 1) that we are capable of discerning the difference between harmless Muslims and dangerous Muslims; 2) that the problem of the danger of Muslims following their Islam is not a sprawlingly complex and massively unwieldy phenomenon of sheer numbers & bewildering diversity; and 3) that the ultimate danger is not the ongoing sporadic terrorism, nor the pressures to inject Sharia into our societies, but rather the protracted strategy to infiltrate the West sufficiently over time (likely at least 100 years from now) in order to be able to destroy it with terrorism and related paramilitary violence.]

It is also not racist to oppose political Islam, Islamic supremacism and jihad; this should be a given for all who enjoy Western freedoms. [CDW is purveying the terminology of dysphemism -- here, "political Islam" -- a rhetoric one would think the Counter-Jihad would have shed long ago, along with its respect for its chief purveyor, the appallingly asymptotic Daniel Pipes. This rhetoric implies, and reinforces, the disastrous notion that Islam itself is okay, and that only truncations of it that we create ("political Islam", "radical Islam", "Islamism", etc. ) are the problem]

“Unfortunately, there are Muslim groups (such as CAIR and its allies) that are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas terrorist financing. They push a victimology agenda that claims that any criticism of Islam, however justifiable, [notice how CDW reverts back to plain old "Islam" -- what happened to "political Islam"...?] must be seen as “Islamophobic.” The case of baby Asel Tamga provides a opportunity for these charlatans to employ their bogus victimology agenda yet again. As far as they are concerned, to point out global atrocities, abuses of women, murders, efforts to delegitimize and obliterate the state of Israel is “Islamophobic.” [CDW doesn't realize she's playing the same game CAIR is: what CAIR is worried about is that pointing out these horrible things about Islam (and of course about certain Muslims putting Islam into practice this way) necessarily leaves open the question of all the Muslims worldwide who self-identify with the same Islam motivating these horrible things.  The only way asymptotics like CDW can try to do an end-run around this is by anxiously virtue-signalling whenever they criticize Islam, to hasten to remind their audience that they are not against most Muslims; but PC MCs can tell this comes off as disingenuous because incoherent -- unless asymptotics like CDW (and her colleague Robert Spencer) can specify how they can square the circle of condemning Islam and raising alarms about Islam in our society, while at the same time not condemning most Muslims and not raising alarms about them. Instead of specifying coherently this problem, asymptotics like CDW (and her colleague Robert Spencer) try to weasel out of it through dysphemisms ("political Islam", "radical Islam", "Islamism", etc. ) or parsing sophistry on a par with particle physics (as when Spencer has tried to argue how he is "not 'anti-Islam"")  -- when they are not anxiously denying they are condemning, effectively by clear logical implication, most -- if not all -- Muslims.]

[And speak of the Devil, the asymptotic twitch of virtue-signalling, CDW just can't control her need to virtue-signal: ]

“Now for the case of the Muslim parents who gave birth to Austria’s first newborn of 2018. Congratulations, and may this new child be a blessing to the nation of Austria, fostering integration, harmony, human rights and the like. To attack this couple and levy abusive language against them because of their coreligionists’ misdeeds is atrocious, and undermines the real efforts to battle the sinister forces of political Islam and its Islamic supremacist bullying of Western society. [Here, CDW lays it on so thick, it becomes odd that only a pitiful handful of commenters brought it up (see Part II)]

“Still, there are legitimate concerns about the Islamization of Austria and Europe in general, as represented by this birth, the hijab of the mother, etc. Europeans and North Americans are becoming frustrated with the stifling of legitimate voices warning about Sharia expansion, and the penalizing of the same. [Yet again, we get a glimpse of what asymptotics like CDW think the primary problem (the problem of Islam) is, exactly.  Apparently, the primary problem is the expanding osmosis of Sharia, rather than the future threat of violent destruction of the West's physical and social infrastructure (the only way Muslims will realize actual full-blooded Sharia (the only Sharia there is), as opposed to the kitman Potemkin village of partial Sharia calculated to fool Westerners (who still number in the vast majority throughout the West) into thinking Sharia is "diverse" and becomes magically delicious when instituted in the West).  No wonder CDW and asymptotics like her are so relatively sanguine about Muslims, even while they incoherently sound the alarm about the Islam of those Muslims]

* * * * * 

Meanwhile, the article from the mainstream media (the Independent) which was the springboard of CDW's editorial remarks is riddled with dubious reportage. I will only analyze one example.

After the birth of this Muslim child in Austria, the Independent reports that "[a] deluge of racist and hateful comments followed on social media..."   Do they prove this? Of course not. The article goes on to beg the question: "A photo of the family was shared on Facebook and a rash of racist comments followed among the thousands of well wishes." Notice that the "deluge" has dwindled down to a "rash".  Also, we know well how PC MCs tend to exaggerate and distort what constitutes "hateful". The article concludes this claim with this: "One social media user commented: ‘The next terrorist is born.’ Another person wrote: ‘Does the woman have cancer? Or why does she otherwise wear a headscarf?’ "

Only one comment directly implying the baby is a future terrorist.  The second comment adduced there is not "hateful" since opposing the hijab is not hateful.  Surely, if there were a "deluge" (or even a "rash") of truly hateful comments, the Independent could have bolstered its argument (and its journalistic credibility) by quoting at least ten or twenty of them, all as seemingly bad -- or how about worse enough to be uncontroversially, actually hateful? -- than the one about the "next terrorist is born".

To be continued, with Part II (reader comments at Jihad Watch)...