Friday, October 20, 2017
Jihad Watch the other day reported an undercover operation, so to speak, conducted by a mainstream UK TV station, whereby they sent a white Englishwoman out into a Muslim neighborhood to learn what it's like to be a Muslim. In order to facilitate the cover, they tinted her skin brown and added a prosthetic to make her nose look bigger (and of course added a hijab head covering).
I note that only two of the Jihad Watch comments even advert to this aspect of the story, which not only was headlined in the Jihad Watch report, but is also arguably the #1 reason why the PC MC-dominated West continues to placate Muslims, rather than condemn them for their Islam.
While those two Civilians in the Counter-Jihad at least noticed this most important factor, they seemed unduly surprised by it, as though it's not massively dominant throughout the West.
Similarly, a long-time Jihad Watch regular, "Angemon" (whom I dub the "Energizer Bunny" of the Counter-Jihad and member of the "Rabbit Pack" of Jihad Watch regulars) many moons ago seemed strangely incognizant of this factor, and added that to his long list of reasons to pester me in Jihad Watch comments incessantly for months if not years.
Thus, a typical complain I lodged there (under the nickname "voegelinian") two years ago:
Thursday, October 19, 2017
In a recent Jihad Watch notice about a Muslim in Boston, Daoud Wright, found guilty of a plot to behead Pam Geller, Robert Spencer writes:
Why did Daoud Wright want to behead Pamela Geller? For the Sharia crime of drawing Muhammad. And in response, instead of standing for the freedom of speech, Western political analysts, including “conservatives” such as Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham, condemned Pamela Geller for “provoking” Muslims. Those people have no idea what’s at stake, or how seriously the freedom of speech is being challenged today.
Conspicuously absent from that paragraph is the name of Donald Trump -- surely as important, if not an even more significant "conservative" to stand on the wrong side of the Garland attack (not only because Trump went on to become President of the United States, but also because he has been one of the few of an already minuscule number of conservatives to show signs -- albeit ambiguously deviating lately -- of being on the right side of the problem of Islam).
Spencer's omission is even odder, considering how back in January he made no bones about Trump's error:
I am no fan of Trump. After he denounced our free-speech event in Garland, Texas, last May, which was attacked by Islamic jihadists, it is not at all clear that Donald Trump understands the jihad imperative or the war against free speech, or is at all equipped to counter them. When violent jihadis commit murder to prevent people from drawing Muhammad, to desist voluntarily from drawing Muhammad is to reward violent intimidation, and encourage more. When Trump said, “They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas doing something on Muhammad and insulting everybody?,” he was revealing that he did not grasp that essential point, and was willing to acquiesce to Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech.
Monday, October 16, 2017
Today on Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer proudly features himself arm in arm with Steve Bannon, one of those conservatives with a no-nonsense swagger that triggers in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (both Leadership and Civilians) a free pass to use retrograde rhetoric on the problem of Islam.
Bannon, reports Spencer,
...said in 2016 that I was “one of the top two or three experts in the world on this great war…against fundamental Islam.”
To which we, outside the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, ask:
As opposed to non-fundamental Islam...?
You won't find that question in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream. Which is why I have dim hopes that the Counter-Jihad in general (passively pushed and pulled by the tide of its Mainstream, whose influence remains unquestioned by a hapless Civilian body) will be able to do its primary job -- to wake up its surrounding Western Mainstream before Muslims succeed in destroying our civilization.
And if we few outliers in the Counter-Jihad have to explain to its Mainstream why the rhetoric of qualifiers and dysphemisms is crucially important to avoid when discussing the problem of Islam (and of all Muslims), that just goes to show how infirm & illiterate its Mainstream is.
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Jihad Watch headline:
"Virginia man gets two years prison for lying to FBI about friend’s ties to the Islamic State"
Robert Spencer then writes:
Michael Queen appears to be a convert to Islam, as he says: “I’m never going to throw a Muslim underneath the bus to try to do the right thing,”
That is not a reasonable supposition, since there are millions of non-Muslim Westerners who are sufficiently deformed by PC MC so as to lead them to the reflex spasm of virtue-signalling which this Michael Queen fellow exhibits.
And not all of them are "Leftists" as Spencer has many times implied. Indeed, that's the problem with PC MC: the Leftist worldview wouldn't enjoy the sociopolitical traction it commands were it not for the non-Leftist majority in the West being deformed by PC MC.
Friday, October 13, 2017
As I sip my Venti...
My vent is not new, but harks back to 2014, when after (to toot my own horn) I supplied an interesting post chock-full of interesting facts and insights, one of the "Rabbit Pack" (one "dumbledoresarmy" from Australia) had to chime in to chide me. Good times, good times...
(Note: my nickname at that time was "voegelinian".)
voegelinian says November 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Queen Rania [of Jordan] could well become the Muslim Princess Di — with her looks, charisma and her international human rights activities over the years (look over her Wikipedia bio, detailing a long list of ostensibly impressive deeds (deftly interwoven with the subtly and distractingly colorful chatoyance of Muslim concerns (e.g., “Queen Rania stated that she is not opposed to women choosing to wear the Islamic veil hijab by their own volition as long as it is not compulsory….”), accolades and honors) — if she had a good Jewish publicist and agent perhaps (I hear Ari Gold is available and taking on new clients). At first glance, I assumed she must be the princess-daughter of Queen Noor, another blonde babe (who looked like actress Lindsay Wagner); but now I learn that, of course, the new ruler of Jordan since King Hussein died of cancer in 1999 must be a male heir, and thus Queen Rania is an unrelated female (though, on second thought, given the Islamic penchant for inbreeding, I suppose it’s not unlikely that these Beverly Dunebillies could be marrying a second cousin or two).
One can surmise that, like father like son, the King of Jordan, Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein (who took over in 1999 when his father died), likes white looking blonde babes. His father not only married a blonde American beauty, Elizabeth “Lisa” Najeeb Halaby (born 1951 in Wash. D.C.), who went on to become the aforementioned Queen Noor in consort with her hubby habibi King Hussein, he had also married Muna al-Hussein — an Englishwoman formerly known as Antoinette Avril Gardiner (and the mother of his son the present King of Jordan, husband of Queen Rania). And while Queen Noor was a blonde American babe, she too was the progeny of Idiot White Western Females marrying Muslim men — specifically, she was the daughter of Najeeb Halaby, a Syrian born in Dallas, Texas in 1915 (!!!) whose Syrian Christian father (so Wikipedia tells us) emigrated to Texas in 1891 — and Doris Carlquist (Swedish descent — i.e., no doubt a blonde babe; divorced her in 1977). Her father Najeeb wasn’t just any old Syrian habeeb — he grew up to be an aviator, airline executive, and government official. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Truman administration, before being appointed by John F. Kennedy to head the Federal Aviation Administration; then following that he had a successful private-sector career, serving as CEO of Pan American World Airways from 1969 to 1972 (and more distinguished and lucrative stuff after that, including advising Saudi business ventures, etc.).
Aside from the gossip-magazine detail of this typically Arabic male penchant for the blonde babe that we see in the royal history (and, of course, of the disturbing penchant some white Western females evidently seem to have for the swarthy Arab male, blithely airheadedly, recklessly — yea traitorously — unaware (at best!) of the ghastly problems of their Islamic culture), there remains the Six Million Dollar Question: How did it come about that a Syrian Christian immigrant to the U.S. spawned a Muslim queen of Jordan (who, as Jihad Watch archives attest, has promoted Islamic evil in her own way — i.e., she has merely been a good mainstream Muslim)? A clue to the answer may be had in the Wikipedia bio of her father, Najeeb Halaby: Halaby’s paternal grandfather was Elias Halaby, provincial treasurer or magistrate in Ottoman Syria, who also came to the U.S. in 1891.
I.e., Najeeb’s grandfather was a Dhimmi.
dumbledoresarmy says November 20, 2014 at 7:41 pm
Mate. You seem to be assuming that any identifying-as-non-Muslim person from a Muslim country – even if they plainly identify as a Christian – IS a Muslim and must be treated as such. Dhimmi or dhimmified, yes, some of them are; but a dhimmi is still NOT A MUSLIM. A dhimmi is someone whose forebears, for generations, endured HELL – centuries of grinding oppression and abuse – rather than take that final soul-destroying step into the Void and say the Shahada. A western non-Muslim woman who marries a Syrian Christian or a Lebanese Christian will get married in a *church* not a mosque and her kids will be baptised in a *church*. They will go to Sunday School, if the family is practising, *not* a madrasa. That ain’t Islam and you can’t tell me that it is. And dhimmitude is a problem, yes, but I don’t see it as an incurable diseas or unbreakable curse. It *can* be shaken off. It can be rejected; as Fr Gabriel Naddaf is showing us right now, in Israel. If someone’s faith is in the Biblical God rather than in the monster allah, then that someone can – if other non-dhimmi Christians know what they are doing – be DE-dhimmified. (That, presumably, alas, didn’t happen in the case of Elias Halaby; which is tragic). Of course, since *you* don’t believe that the Biblical God, the YHWH of the TaNaKh, is anything other than some sort of comforting illusion or delusion and not capable of or interested in doing *anything* in the here-and-now with actual people’s lives, you assume that exorcism and spiritual deliverance don’t happen and can’t happen. The likes of Mark Durie, who have much more experience in these matters than you do, know that it *can*. I assume you would prefer that every last Christian in the middle east be ignored and abandoned to be sadistically mass murdered down to the last man, woman and infant by Muslims, than that they be given refuge in the Western or wider non-Muslim world? You view these threatened-with-genocide people as nothing but “plague dogs”?? Read Mark Durie’s The Third Choice – and the other book “Liberty to the Captives” – and learn something.
voegelinian says November 20, 2014 at 11:45 pm
Two words: Stockholm Syndrome.
voegelinian says November 21, 2014 at 2:16 pm
God this dumbledoresarmy pisses me off. How dare she elaborate obtusely on the premise of an utter lack of comprehension for the problem of dhimmitude, after all these years she’s spent digesting Jihad Watch.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
A Jihad Watch Civilian poses the following reasonable thought process concerning the seemingly baffling nature of the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock:
It's clear from multiple studies that people become less violent as they pass a certain age, and violent urges tend to either diminish or just are not acted out when people get into middle age and beyond. There are personality traits linked to criminal behaviour, this is established, and the force of these “negative” traits weaken with age. Most violent offenders are relatively young…and more are male. Testosterone is thought to be one component as well, and it decreases with age. I can cite multiple references to support these conclusions; they aren’t merely my conclusions, but the consensus.
Now, these are general truths, and apply to most people. I realize this might not apply to Stephen Paddock as a person. He might have some kind of dysfunction. He might have testosterone increasing with age due to glandular problems. Highly unlikely! But possible. That in itself would manifest in other aggressive behaviours though Any kind of chemical change, be it substance abuse or malfunction bodily systems, would manifest in signs and behaviours. No one noticed anything odd about him. Still. He might be a total outlier. I might be wrong.
However, just examining the facts we do know I have to observe that for a man in his sixties to do something on this scale, especially with no former indications, something is very, very odd. It just does not fit. Very strange indeed. It flies in the face of all predictable data.
I would say that something happened to change the course of his life. Something unforeseen, and fairly recent...
If the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM) had better lines of communication amongst their Leadership (i.e., in this case, if Robert Spencer hadn't burned his bridges with Debbie Schlussel years ago), they could compare data and do their principal job in the CJM of informing the growing nucleus of people who are not being well informed by the mainstream on this most exigent issue. In a recent posting, Schlussel reported the following:
Neighbors say Paddock and his girlfriend were “gone” for six months, last year. Where did they go? With whom did they meet? You can’t rule out that maybe they met with jihadists or learned about the precepts of Islam during that trip. I’ll bet you the FBI has no idea where Paddock and his consort were for those six months, just as they still don’t know where the San Bernardino terorists, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, were for 20 to 30 minutes between their terrorist attacks and their trip to the 72 virgins in December 2015.
Monday, October 2, 2017
On Jihad Watch today, Hugh Fitzgerald resurrects that old bugbear of Jihad Watch, Mustafa Akyol (who, being a Good Cop Muslim, is easy to attack -- unlike a Maajid Nawaz or a Zuhdi Jasser -- by Counter-Jihad Mainstreamers like Hugh).
I fondly recall voluminous Jihad Watch comments threads where a "friend" of Robert Spencer elaborated at great length defending Mustafa Akyol along with his patron, the sinister Fethullah Gulen. That friend called herself "Morgaan Sinclair" (and, of course, claimed it is her real name). She proceeded to devolve in subsequent comments fields so outrageously, she was apparently banned -- as was I, for understandably lashing back at her after too many of her flagrant defenses of Muslims (including among other things, her vilification of Serbians defending themselves against Islamic jihad) in tissues of maddening logic.
Here's one example of many of Morgaan Sinclair's shenanigans. Scroll down, and pop some popcorn to go along with your coffee. (Note: my handle back then was "remote control".)
So Hugh in the article linked above in my first paragraph is shining a harshly skeptical light on Mustafa Akyol's claims to be a Muslim "Reformer". Why is Mustafa Akyol any more suspect than any of the others in the long list of supposed Great Brown Hopes (i.e., Muslim Reformers) paraded before Jihad Watch readers recently by Robert Spencer's colleague, Christine Williams?
More importantly, why is this kind of question not asked on Jihad Watch by the Leadership and by the Civilians? Why is it only left to me on some obscure nook and/or cranny of the Internet to raise it?