"I'll have a Triple Moderate Jihadaccino please..."

“We see what is happening in Sweden, in Britain, and in France. We are experiencing now the fear that you have experienced for decades.”

And Robert Spencer opines:

The same fear, emanating from the same cause. Israel is on the front lines of the global jihad. Anyone who understands the nature, magnitude, and goal of that jihad will stand with Israel.

Does Spencer, or anyone in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream understand the nature, magnitude, and goal of the Jihad?  Just because someone says they understand it, doesn't mean they do.  Then we have the problem that Spencer has never sat down to actually describe what he thinks defines those three facets of the primary problem of Islam.  His sycophantic followers just trust him implicitly (and besides, they too seem to indulge impoverished, unimaginative conceptions of those three facets).

Just one point for now, since I want to keep these coffee shots short and bittersweet:  The Islamic terrorism we have seen to date throughout the West, and that continues to bubble as in an ongoing cauldron with the heat being slowly turned higher and higher, is not itself calculated to topple or/and unravel our civilization, if by those effects we imagine a concurrent, present, short-term intention.  They are calculated to produce a protracted effect that will slowly alter the course and nature of our Western societies -- not so that we succumb to "Sharia creep" (as so many in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream suppose), but rather, so that we continue to do nothing as Muslims infiltrate ever more deeply into the fabric of our societies.  The ultimate goal being to foster the ability at some distant point in the future (100 years or more, pace the Chicken Littles of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream) for Muslims to be able to finally destroy our Western civilization with rampant bouts of violence including a concatenation of WMD attacks in scores, if not hundreds of cities, that will make 911 seem like a picnic. 

False Dilemma much...?

In the comments field of a recent Jihad Watch article, one "Westman" (a veteran commenter as I recall, and if not an active member of the Rabbit Pack, at least a figuratively dues-paying member and -- no surprise -- an asymptotic) wrote the following:

I can agree, without reservation, that Islam is the “mother lode of bad ideas” yet that is not sufficent reason to declare that EVERY Muslim is a danger to Western civilization.

Notice how Westman is taking the crux of the whole issue by the horns -- the problem of Islam vs. the problem of Muslims.  Let's read on:

On what basis do you equate Islam, the ideology, and all Muslims, as individual persons, to be one and the same? Are Christians all one and the same? Could we excuse ourselves if we told Christians they are all like Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, or the Westboro Baptist church?

Oh dear, how did an Equivalencist get into the Counter-Jihad Mainstream?  Easy, since there isn't really an Anti-Islam Movement of any coherence. And so Westman botches that crux, and nobody in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream sets him straight.

I have no problems with Muslims who reject Sharia and teachings that conflict with freedom; just as we recognize that Protestants who reject Catholicism are still Christians. 

I too have no problems with Muslims who reject Sharia and  teachings that conflict with freedom; except for the minor inconvenience of taqiyya.

Frankly, if we judge all Muslims to be adherents of Shariah there are no solutions left to maintain Western civilization but war and genocide.

Woah, Nelly.  Since when are those the only two choices?  Time and time again, I see Counter-Jihad Mainstreamers (whether of the Leadership, or Civilians like Westman) set up this false dilemma, as if the D Word -- closely related to the A Word -- didn't exist, or Must Not Be Spoken.

Read what the non-veteran commenter, "Maxine", says (responding to Westman's preposterous hope in the Great Awakening of Muslims), which prompted Westman's anxious need to defend Muslims.

Naturally, none of the Jihad Watch regulars or veterans paid attention to this most crucial disagreement between Westman and Maxine (and heaven forbid they should actually step in to stand with Maxine's sound instincts).

"A decaf with caffeine, please..."

What maple leaf is Red other than a dying maple leaf? (-- a Jihad Watch reader)

Perusing the comments field of another Jihad Watch article this morning with this headline -- Canada: Man jailed for “no more Muslims” graffiti --  as I sip my triple-moderate jihadaccino served up by a barrista terrorista at a local Starbucks, I wondered whether any of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream civilians commenting there (including the veterans of the Rabbit Pack) would remember their fixation on how the problem is Islam, not Muslims.

Naturally, none did.  It was almost as though they had never staunchly defended that flawed, incoherent trope for years, often attacking me (when I used to swim along with the rest of the school of fish in Jihad Watch comments threads) for unpacking the ill logic of it in favor of the more coherent (but less Politically Comfortable) anti-Muslim position.

One of their incoherencies being their implied assumption that the West can "ban Islam" (or, even more preposterously, simply make Islam a social pariah in the West) while leaving the millions of Muslims already here (and the millions more likely to arrive while the Western Mainstream is stubbornly resisting the slightest hints of anything remotely critical of Islam) intact and in possession of all their legal rights we accord them.

Another "Better Cop" Muslim whizzes by most Jihad Watchers

A Jihad Watch report of a Muslim reported by MEMRI to be (ostensibly) denigrating Muslims while praising Jews.

The rhetoric of this particular Muslim, Iraqi Shia cleric Salam Al-Askar, on the surface sounds good -- avowing that Muslims have become a "headache" for the world while Jews built themselves up after the Holocaust to be respected by the world through their contributions to science.  On closer inspection, however (to those who always smell a rat with any seemingly nice rhetoric from Muslims), his words turn out to be veiled rhetoric concealing with its kitman standard-issue Islamic supremacism and Jew-hatred.

The Jihad Watch commenters are mostly clueless, induliging in red herrings.  One commenter, Jack Diamond, came the closest to calling out this particular Muslim cleric:

Yes, Muslims, be more like the Jews so you too can create bombs that terrify the world and win its respect. That is the Jewish achievement? The power to “make the world kneel at their feet” (not their moral example, not the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization). “Make the world kneel at their feet” is a ridiculous phrase to apply to the Jews, of course, but a meaningful one to Muslims in their understanding of how the world works, why Israel came about, and what their own goal should be. 

It sure was a short-lived “kneeling” considering how how quickly Europe turned against Israel in favor of Eurabia.

Indeed, the Muslim cleric's "respect" for the Jews is cleverly tied up with their invention of the atom bomb which then caused the world to "kneel" at the feet of Jews.  This dovetails with the infamous rant of the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahatir Mohamed, not only spoken in 2003 as the keynote speech of the annual convention of the international Muslim organization the O.I.C. -- but also receiving a standing ovation from the audience of worldwide leaders of the 56 nations included as Muslim or Muslim-signatory (with large populations of Muslims).  His rant, in a nutshell, was that Muslim nations need to re-prioritize their economies in order to devote most of their time and money to developing weapons.  Why? To fight the dastardly Jews, who with their demonic powers are hell-bent on trying to destroy Islam.

Ironically, the nearly ever-present Jihad Watch commenter (and member of the Rabbit Pack), one gravenimage, compliments Jack for his post, but then several hours later wrote:

I hope Salam Al-Askari stays safe from his coreligionists, now that he has told the truth about Muslims.

This indicates that gravenimage hasn't put two and two together -- that Al-Askari is doing taqiyya in order to advance Islam -- or she wouldn't have gone out of her way to "hope" for his safety.

Where's David Wood when you need him...?

Sipping my morning coffee, I was greeted by this lovely Jihad Watch headline:

VIDEO: Muslim “refugees” go on sex assault spree at church festival

If only David Wood (that Christian Wildersian who, a friend informed me, unfriended multiple Christians from his Facebook page who supported Trump's candidacy because he opposed Trump's limited ban on Muslim immigration) had been there, to evangelize these children of God so that they might open their hearts to the Gospel (preferrably  before, not after, they sexually assaulted these three women -- or girls? the report is not clear).

Or if David somehow hadn't been able to do that, at least he could have intervened when the Muslims aggrandized into a snarling mob and began physically attacking the Christians at this outdoor fair.  David could have reasoned with those Mohammedans with love, and called upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, Son of God, to cease their violence and heed the word of God. Surely, the power of the Lord -- and of David's calm and impeccably logical demeanor -- would have defused the situation, no?

P.S.:

On a related note, I wonder how many of David Wood's Christian friends (if not David himself, and perhaps Robert Spencer too) are Christian Real-Problemers like this guy who posted on Wood's Facebook page:

Manage

Anwin Mathew I am beginning to realize the west tolerates Islam because it is a useful tool in its geopolitical ambitions. Using agents of chaos to commit violence that is useful to you. Jesus said my Kingdom is not of this world. The vision in the old testament of Daniel of a rock not touched by human hands which fills up the entire world.....

LikeShow more reactions

 

18 · September 20, 2016 at 2:53pm

Not only that, Robert...

Jihad Watch reports that the Islamophiliac Pope Francis invited the head of the Muslim World League to the Vatican. Robert Spencer has a long introduction citing sources showing the Muslim World League's long-standing connections to Islamic fanaticism and jihad (the dangerous kind of jihad, not the non-existent warm & fuzzy kind of jihad).

One of those connections involves the enormously popular (in the Muslim world) Sheikh Qaradawi:

At their first International Islamic Conference on Dialogue in Mecca in 2008, the MWL invited Yusuf al-Qaradawi to speak. During his speech, he said he would “never sit with Jews on one platform and never hold dialogue with those Jews who have committed injustice against us and support Israel.”

Robert could have -- should have -- mentioned perhaps the most damning fact about Qaradawi -- namely, that he is on record promulgating to his fellow Muslims the chilling words that Hitler's Holocaust against the Jews was "...divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

Is Trump "radical" enough...?

Jihad Watch reported Trump's U.N. speech, in which he actually remembered (after a long McMastered amnesia) the problem facing not only America, but the world -- "radical Islamic terrorism".

Only one Jihad Watch regular (one "PRCS") makes it a point to criticize any such instance of softening the problem by adding suffixes ("-ism") or, as in this case, qualifiers like "radical".  I fully agree with PRCS; however, knowing his commenting output on Jihad Watch rather well, I find it ironic that his vision would be so clear on this one important point, but blurry on other equally important points -- such as that 1) we are at war with Islam even though we don't realize it; and 2) all Muslims concretize and enable the problem of Islam.

At any rate, let us read a little exchange in that Trump thread:

[QUOTE]

PRCS says September 19, 2017 at 11:53 am

No Muslim on the planet follows or practices “radical” Islam, as there’s no such thing. They practice Islam. I do hope that at some point–soon–our leaders will have the courage to just tell the truth. Do they really believe our Muslim allies are “the good Muslims” and that so-called extremists are “perverting the faith”? I know what DJT says about Islam is a vast improvement over BHO’s nonsense, but c’mon–can anyone on his staff explain the difference between “radical Islamic terrorism” and the regular version?

Reply Jay Boo says September 19, 2017 at 12:06 pm

Unfortunately PRCS, Trump already gets slandered in the news media just for adding ‘radical’. I guess I won’t need to add (extreme left ) at JW when describing the news media because that is a given.

Reply PRCS says September 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm He’s slandered for many things. But you and I know the terms “radical” Islam and “radical” Islamic terrorism are nonsense terms which whitewash the real deal. The Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Center towers weren’t practicing “radical” Islam and the public needs to be told the unvarnished truth. Soon.

Reply tim gallagher says September 19, 2017 at 8:09 pm

PRCS, I much prefer people who pull no punches and just say that Islam is barbaric, violent and evil (all of it, not just “radical” Islam). But I wonder if political leaders have to take into consideration that saying that “politics is the art of the possible”. That is they can’t just say things that are too blunt (even if truthful) and which won’t carry the vast number of people with them. They can’t be too far ahead of public opinion. Maybe they have to gradually get to the point of telling the whole truth. I have the feeling Trump loathes Islam, all of it, just as much as most of us who comment at Jihad Watch. Nevertheless, I certainly much prefer the people who are blunt and completely truthful about Islam’s fundamentally evil nature. People such as Robert Spencer and John Quincy Adams in the past, and lots of others.

PRCS says September 19, 2017 at 8:40 pm

tim, I agree to this extent, my friend. It’s been 16 years since Muslims flew planes into the World Trade Center towers. And 30,000 or so attacks have been carried out by violent jihadists around the world since. IMO, our “leaders” have been getting to the point of telling the whole truth way too gradually. 

[END QUOTE]

It's that last part I bolded that is the crux, indicating that PRCS (anymore than most Counter-Jihad Mainstream Civilians) doesn't get that the main reason the broader Western Mainstream -- including mavericks like Trump -- is slow in waking up is because the majority of the Ordinary People all around them are more or less equally slow, because nearly every damn body in the West is in thrall to PC MC.  Our leaders will be able to speed up their learning curve immensely if at least a critical mass of the people they represent wake up.

How to get that to happen, is the rub.

The external ray-guns of PC MC...

A Civilian in the Counter-Jihad, commenting on a Jihad Watch article about how the recent London Tube bomber was known by the police who did nothing about him, expresses a typical plaint:

The people of the West have to regain the pride in themselves, they have so much doubt in their culture and losted their beliefs. The PC has been hammer[ed] into them by the MSM and their so call[ed] leaders for too long.

Implying that PC MC is some external force inflicted by the Dastardly Elites on Ordinary People.  This commonly held trope in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream reinforces a complex misunderstanding of the Problem of the Problem (where the primary problem is, of course, Islam, and the secondary problem of that problem is the West's persisting myopia about Islam).  This secondary problem is predominantly a complex sociocultural & psychological phenomenon of a gradual paradigm shift in worldview over the past one or two centuries, resulting in the mainstream dominance of PC MC throughout the West, including almost every damn body (even, I've found to my irritation, among many in the Counter-Jihad itself).

Since the main point of the Counter-Jihad is to wake up the broader Western Mainstream from its Rip Van Winkle snooze; and since the best way to wake it up is to know what it's actually doing and why; such fundamental misunderstanding will not help.

Christian Wilsonianism, revisited

On the untimely death of Nabeel Qureshi at age 34 of cancer, an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity many years ago, according to this Jihad Watch notice.

Nabeel Qureshi seemed to be a sincere convert to the Love and Life of Jesus Christ.  However, the reflex impulse to think that his case -- of a Muslim who escapes the spiritual Gulag of Islam to join the Land of the Living -- is viably commonplace, or could become so, is, alas, to be unwittingly enabling the stealth jihad.

Chief among those unwitting enablers in this regard are the starry-eyed Christian Wilsonians like David Wood who, in a form of evangelical virtue-signalling, make it a goal in life to convert Muslims to Christianity (note: in that linked essay, I argue the better term is Christian "Wildersians" but I'd rather have the reader take the trouble to read that essay rather than assault him with an opaque jargon term here).

This impulse on the part of David Wood, and countless other Western Christians (even the ones who don't know, as David Wood does know, how pernicious Islam is), in turn subtly fosters & facilitates the increasing immigration and ongoing presence of Muslims within the West, in the hope (if not expectation) that a critical mass among them will convert to secularism (Wilsonianism) or the Gospel (Christian Wilsonianism). I've seen indications that Robert Spencer is, at best, a sympathetic supporter of this doomed enterprise.

What this starry-eyed impulse does is reinforce our inability to cultivate zero tolerance against all Muslims.  And that inability will eventually allow Muslims to destroy our civilization.

"The Jihad of Criminality"

Jihad Watch reported this:

Danish government on Muslim migrant crime: “Worst situation since 2nd World War”

The Jihad Watch team member who put that post up, Nicolai Sennels, adds:

"The rule of law is imploding in Denmark as “low-tech jihad” and migrant gangs take over the streets. The Danish government should not be surprised. But it appears to be. Thousands of incidents involving loosened wheel bolts on cars, large rocks or cinder blocks thrown from highway overpasses, and thin steel wires strung across bicycle paths meant to decapitate unsuspecting cyclists, is spreading a growing sense of horror among the Danes."

This would be a specific local manifestation of what I have called the "Jihad of Criminality".

The Counter-Jihad Mainstream: Still soft and incoherent after all these years...

"I'll have a triple decaf, triple moderate Jihadaccino..."

Not only soft and incoherent; but arrogantly incognizant of how and why they remain soft, and evidently imagining themselves to be robustly oh-so no-nonsense about the problem of Islam. Two Jihad Watch comments veterans, "PRCS" and "Wellington" (also members of that high-school-clique-cum-lynch-mob, the Rabbit Pack), weigh in on a comments thread about the recent terror attack in London, leaning their veteran weight against the temerity of some newbies daring to suggest the West ban Islam:

PRCS says:
September 15, 2017 at 1:31 pm

1. Because, in the U.S., the First Amendment prevents that. 2. Whether here or abroad, it can’t be “banned” from the minds of a billion+ people. 3. Destroying every copy of the Qur’an–everywhere–isn’t going to happen. 4. It’s not going to be banned from the Internet. A better approach, if you will, is to help our friends and neighbors learn the truth about Islam’s teachings.

Wellington says:
September 15, 2017 at 2:40 pm

I completely agree, PRCS. Banning Islam is not the right approach. Rather, properly identifying Islam as the one major religion which is spiritual fascism and thus a mortal enemy of freedom (much as Nazism and Marxism are, except these two are examples of secular fascism) is the correct way to proceed. Exposure, not banning, should be the imperative of imperatives here.

Hesperado says:

I would ask PRCS and Wellington the painfully obvious question that they left conspicuously unaddressed:

"Okay, let's say a comprehensive education effort actually succeeded in enlightening the majority of our fellow sleepwalking Westerners about how pernicious Islam is. Then what? How would this mass enlightenment about the problem of Islam change our behaviors, vis-à-vis Islam -- and vis-à-vis the Muslims who, by putting Islam into practice, make it a concrete problem for us?"