Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Drinking the previous coffee, fighting the previous war.
"35,000 jihadists now present in the UK, almost two full World War II divisions" so Robert Spencer informs his readers on Jihad Watch. What about the other two million, 700 thousand plus Muslims in the UK (total population of Muslims in the UK, at least 2,786,635)?
How do we know they are all not "jihadists"? Is Spencer relying on the UK government to be able to discern which Muslims are jihadists and which are not? And what is a "jihadist" anyway? A practitioner of Jihad, one would assume. And what is Jihad? Spencer seems to think, or certainly is massively communicating to his audience, that a jihadist is a front-line soldier -- with the implication that any Muslim who is not on the front lines (driving a vehicle over innocent people in the street, stabbing people, exploding in public places, etc. -- but not including "crime") is therefore not waging jihad. It's as if all his former years of warning us about the stealth jihad have been replaced by a warning only of jihadists (or, sometimes for an Arabic twang, Spencer writes "jihadis" without the Western t). And aren't there a multitude of forms of jihad, many not involving any overt violence at all? And aren't they all needed, in order to enable far worse violence in our future?
Without that 1) broader, more complex and deceptive tissue of non-"jihadi" Muslims practicing their various forms of stealth jihad; and without 2) our Western naivete and phobia of Islamophobia -- #2 massively reinforced by #1 -- all the divisions in the world composed of the Minority of Extremists would be unable to do much more than pose a minor security risk for the indefinite future.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
In a notice about two Muslims in Texas who joined ISIS, Robert Spencer writes:
Arman and Omar Ali, Muslim brothers from Texas who became devout in their observance of Islam and then joined the Islamic State (ISIS).
First of all, Spencer can't know whether or not they "became devout" without have a mind-reading machine. He's inferring that from the fact that they joined ISIS. This implies a cluster of things: that Islam leads to (or better yet, is) dangerous fanaticism, since increased devoutness to it leads to joining ISIS; and that increased devoutness is, apparently, functioning as Spencer's back door to the Radicalization Meme.
The Radicalization Meme, in turn, implies that Muslims who are not "radicalized" are not of concern, or should be of less concern, than the "jihadis". This in turn implies that not all, perhaps even most, Muslims are "jihadis" -- which in turn implies that "jihad" is only violent. What happened to the Stealth Jihad which in the old days Spencer used to mention every other time he mentioned "jihad"?
Our first inference -- that Islam leads to (or better yet, is) dangerous fanaticism -- would set up a paradox for Spencer's perpetually elliptical rhetoric about the problem of Islam -- since not only would he have to disavow his statement that he is "not anti-Islam", it would also imply that all Muslims are already "radical" (with their apparent diversity explained through a knowledge taqiyya and a diversity of forms of jihad).
The Civilians of the Counter-Jihad will likely never get any straight talk from Spencer on these important questions, since the Civilians don't seem to care to ask them of him.
Monday, December 11, 2017
In the wake of the latest New York City attack by Muslims, Jihad Watch reports that a Sikh who happens to be an Assistant Professor in the Department of Religion at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas (and Senior Religion Fellow for the Sikh Coalition, whatever the heck that is) tweeted an anxious appeal to protect "brown people".
"Historically," the Sikh professor says, "attacks like these have been followed by violence against innocent brown Americans."
Then Robert Spencer writes:
Here is still more in the Left’s endless quest to portray everything as a racial issue.
No, not everything. Islam. And since when is a Sikh a "Leftist"? The term "Leftist" applies only to Westerners, as it is a sociopolitical, cultural deformation organically grown in the West. A non-Westerner may put it on like an overcoat and sport it around town, but that doesn't make him a "Leftist".
A much more appropriate, and historico-culturally accurate term for this Sikh professor would be dhimmi, since we know that Sikhism developed in a context of relentless, horrific attacks and oppression by Muslims on non-Muslim Indians in the Asian subcontinent over centuries of unspeakable brutality. Anyone who derives from this ancestral holocaust and still defends his people's enemy is clearly crippled, psychologically and culturally, by the Stockholm Syndrome of dhimmitude. But no; Spencer ignores all this and leaps straight for the Leftist jugular. This is yet another example of Robert Spencer seeing only Left. I hope he doesn't do that when he's being tested with the eye chart at his next optometrist's appointment...
Sunday, December 10, 2017
"That coffee chain sells toxic coffee that has already killed thousands of people -- but I'm going to write an essay about how the music they play in their shops is atrociously cheesy 90s pop..."
Hugh Fitzgerald, the Poet Laureate of the Counter-Jihad (or at least he used to be, until for some inexplicable reason after he returned from a long mysterious hiatus from Jihad Watch, he changed his literary style), recently penned a long essay about how, pace the mainstream Western media, Jerusalem's significance to one of "the three Abrahamic faiths" -- Islam, natch -- is much less historically substantial than its significance to Judaism and Christianity.
The problem with Hugh's essay is that it's arguing about the wrong thing (or as I put it years ago, "It's the Violence, Stupid"). If Muslims weren't killing people -- escalating in their murderous violence as part of a perennial, expansionist supremacist blueprint to ruin all civilizations in order to make their fanatical, flawed, evil and toxic regime supreme -- then this issue about whether Jerusalem has equal or less significance to Islam than to the other Two Faiths would be academic.
In fact, if Muslims were behaving like the members of any other religion on the planet instead of killing people, torturing people, oppressing people, plotting horrific terror attacks all over the place, rioting at the drop of a hat over cartoons, treating women like shit, enslaving people, raping people, violating the chastity of countless underage girls and boys, and then adding insult to injury by lying to us about all of the aforementioned -- most in the West would extend the favor to Muslims of saying, "Hey you guys, sure, we get it -- you have a tradition that makes you think Jerusalem is a vital holy city in your faith: Go for it! We support you! We'll make room for you!"
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
I watch (and read, and analyze) Jihad Watch pretty much on a daily basis. I suppose this has happened before in its 14-odd-year career, but I've never noticed it before. A report that was up a couple of days ago has vanished into thin air.
It was a report on a female British activist Jayda Fransen who, along with members of her party Britain First (dubbed "far right" if not "fascist" no doubt, by the Orwellian media) has done things like walk through Muslim neighborhoods in various locations in England (e.g., Luton, a town north of London) carrying crosses -- and for this (along with giving public speeches in which she expresses her appropriate outrage at what Muslims are doing in England), she has been arrested and faces prison and/or stiff fines for "hate speech". She recently became world-famous for being the source of the tweet which Trump retweeted and for which, of course, the entire Cosmos lambasted him.
So there was a notice about this on Jihad Watch a couple of days ago; and now it's vanished. Naturally, Spencer is too busy jet-setting around promoting his book to bother to write a note (or have one of his underlings like "marc" his tech wizard write a note), briefly explaining why to his loyal readers who support him by buying his stuff and making him the counter-jihad celebrity he has become.
Monday, December 4, 2017
A recent Jihad Watch report relayed this headline:
Pakistan: Video shows civilians aiding jihadis screaming “Allahu akbar” while murdering 13 at college
Robert Spencer editorialized:
“We can’t say for sure whether or not it was an inside job. But yes, there are some people in the footage seen guiding the terrorists.” Certainly there is no shortage of jihad sympathizers among Pakistani civilians. And why is that? Because they realize the Islamic justifications for what the jihadis do.
The fly in my frappaccino was the phrase I bolded: “they realized.” Somehow, I don't think the fanaticism of a Pakistani Muslim rabble, inculcated over a lifetime of a sociocultural process of intricate inculcation steeped in the complex madness of Islam, involves any form of “realization.” One reasonably smells here in Spencer's phrase the telltale hint of the flawed “radicalization” meme (along with the implicit, corollary meme, “Muslims must be like us deep down, until outside forces adventitiously radicalize them”).
Sunday, November 26, 2017
Editorializing on a recent report of a Muslim out of New Jersey (probably yet another in a long line of black converts to Islam) who goes by the colorful name of “Mr. Supreme A. Allah” -- and who was charged with “murder, felony murder, robbery, carjacking, unlawful possession of a handgun, possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, and conspiracy to commit murder” -- Robert Spencer, less squirrelly than usual in this regard, just came out and blurted:
This story has nothing to do with jihad, as far as I know...
If this could not be clearer than the sky on a cloudlessly blue, sublime summer morning that Spencer understands jihad in a very limited way, I don't know what else to say. (See my previous posting -- "I'll have an asymptoticcino, please..." -- on Spencer's myopia to that subtype of jihad we could (and should) call the jihad of criminality.)