"I'll have an unrealistic cup of coffee, please..."

A leitmotif Robert Spencer indulges in:

Editorializing on this headline -- "New York City jihad bomber is now recruiting for jihad in prison" -- Spencer remarks:

Nothing is done with jihadis in prison to try to change their jihadi mindset. To attempt any such thing would have been “Islamophobic.”

Au contraire, my counter-jihad frère: In fact, nothing should be done with jihadis in prison or elsewhere in the West -- except deport them from the West.  Or does Spencer honestly believe that jihadis can be deprogrammed? 

Good Coffee, Bad Coffee

"BC" wrote of UK Muslim columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who, Jihad Watch reported today, says Christmas is “Islamophobic”:

She used to write a lot of sense about Muslims in UK and she got a lot of abuse as well but then she seemed to lose it. 

So while Yasmin was writing "a lot of sense about Muslims", our stalwart Jihad Watch reader "BC" had, apparently, no problems with her and even found her viewpoint salutary -- until she "seemed to lose it".  How about we never trust any Muslim in the first place?  Too tall an order, I guess, for many (if not most?) in the Counter-Jihad...

"Bus your own table, please..."

As I've been saying for years (but nobody seemed to listen), Muslims have been elevated to the top of the Aggrieved Ethnic Minority/Leftist Cause Célèbre Food Chain -- such that when any other ethnic minority or cause célèbre (e.g., gays, women) comes into conflict with Muslims, the former are thrown under the bus to protect the latter (the Mother of All Others, Muslims).

Yet another confirmation of this when recently Jihad Watch posted stories about how one of Robert Spencer's main collaborators & colleagues -- one Christine Williams-Douglass -- a black female writer from Canada (would that be "African-Canadian"...?) was thrown under the bus by the Canadian government to placate Muslims:

"Christine Douglass-Williams fired from Canadian Race Relations Foundation for writing for Jihad Watch"

"Canada: Hamas-linked Muslim group crows, government mum on firing of Christine Douglass-Williams from race board"

P.S.: It's ironic, given that Douglass-Williams is markedly soft on Muslims, exemplifying yet another phenomenon I've been calling attention to over the years (and nobody has seemed to be listening): the "damned if you do/damned if you don't" dynamic.

Good Coffee, Bad Coffee, Better Coffee... hmmm, hard decision there...

But what's the better coffee going to cost me...?

A recent headline on Jihad Watch:

UK: Muslims threaten to kill Muslim boxer for putting up a Christmas tree 

From the story:

“Amir Khan and wife Faryal Makhdoom receive death threats for putting up a Christmas tree,”

The Muslims who threatened Amir and his wife Faryal are, of course, the Bad Coffee/Cops/Muslims.  The interesting question is whether Amir and Faryal are Good Cops, or Better Cops.  That depends entirely on whom they fool -- the broader Western Mainstream, so easy to fool? Or the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, less easy (but, alas, not at all impossible) to fool?  Whichever demographic Amir and Faryal's behavior fools, the fooling consists primarily in the effect their valiant action to put up a Christmas tree (made even more heroic by receiving death threats) will have: tending to reinforce  our decent Western disinclination to cultivate a rational prejudice against all Muslims.

And as long as that rational prejudice is, in myriad ways, many of them quite subtle -- but all involving Muslims who just wanna have a sandwich and coffee -- inhibited, Muslims will continue to have a good chance to realize their dream of destroying "Rome" (i.e., us).

Coffee for thought...

Jihad Watch headline:

Oklahoma: Muslim who beheaded coworker gets death penalty 

Robert Spencer opines:

This is just what Alton Nolen wanted (which is not to say that it should not be done). He “justified his actions based on his reading of the Quran.” The Qur’an promises Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (9:111).

Better than the death penalty would have been to deport him as soon as he converted to Islam (along with all the other Muslims in the West).  But no, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream refuses to push the Meme of Total Deportation. 

"I'll have a schizoccino, please -- oh, and also a cake I can have and eat too..."

Of the thousands of examples of the schizophrenia of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism throughout the West over the years which one could serve up, I saw yet another this morning, pregnant in this headline at Jihad Watch:

Canadian Senate passes bill to remove mention of “barbaric cultural practices” from law banning FGM... 

The frothy schizophrenia with which this headline is brimming must be palpated.  The Canadian Senate, anxious to protect Muslims, 1) prohibits the use of the phrase “barbaric cultural practices” from a practice that, because it is self-evidently horrible (female genital mutilation), it otherwise anxiously hastens to remind its citizens has nothing to do with mainstream Islam and with the vast majority of Muslims who are decent moms and pops like the rest of us; but 2) in this very prohibition's motive to protect Muslims, it is clearly telegraphing a direct connection between Muslims and the banned practice of FGM.

"I'll have a single Decapuccino, please..."

A Jihad Watch headline from a while back:

Italy: Muslim migrant slits non-Muslim’s throat... 

Did the Muslim merely "slit" the Italian's throat, or did he actually behead him (or try to behead him, as with the assassinations of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam and Lee Rigby in London)?

That would be a good assignment for the Counter-Jihad: Make a tally of all the times the mainstream media have reported a beheading as a far more anodyne "slit his throat" or "cut his throat" or just "kill" in a generic sense.

Such euphemisms would be the Kuffar form of Kitman -- telling part of the truth, but not all of it.  It's true that when a Muslim beheads someone, he is cutting and slitting (and slicing and dicing).  But that's not all he's doing; and the gruesome act and its horrifying result are qualitatively significant and distinct from what it involves (viz., cutting and slitting).

What lovely topics Islam brings to mind on a pleasant wintry morning as we sip our coffee...

Drinking the previous coffee

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.

"I'll have a Radicalized Espresso, please..."

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 having a mind-reading machine.  Or does he assume, after the jihadi-fact, that they must be devout?  Our whole quandary with regard to Islam is that we need to determine before Muslims explode that they are "devout".  Or better yet, just use rational prejudice to assume they are already, by the mere fact that they self-identify as Muslims.  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 Muslims are "jihadis" (perhaps even most are not) -- 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 our knowledge of taqiyya and of the diversity of flavors 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.

"Sikh, and ye shall find..."

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.  It's mostly Islam that Leftists racialize (and that surely is our chief concern).  And it's not merely Leftists who indulge in this racialization of Islam -- innumerable non-Leftists throughout the West also wring their hands about the possible "bigotry" and "racism" involved in condemning Islam and the Muslims who promote it (and how many Muslims don't promote it...?)

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...

"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!"

"Garçon, where is my croissant, s'il vous plaît...?"

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.

"Waiter, there's a fly in my coffee..."

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”).