The P3 of Low Expectations

P3 refers to the tertiary problem -- the problem(3) of the problem(2) of the problem(1) -- where problem 1 is the primary problem of Islam; problem 2 is the problem of the mainstream West inadequately dealing with the primary problem; and problem 3 is the problem of the Counter-Jihad inadequately dealing with the aforementioned two problems.

Each of these three problems has many facets and levels.  One facet of P3 is the feature of my posting today:  namely, the low expectations of "the People" of the West all being on the side of the Counter-Jihad (as opposed to those dastardly "leftist Elites") -- and more broadly, the low expectations of anyone who sorta kinda says things that sound vaguely anti-Islamic.

So recently on Jihad Watch, there was this headline that gushed:

Poll finds overwhelmingly that Islam is unwelcome in Germany

-- and immediately went on to note that the poll had found 95% felt this way.

Wouldn't you know it, but our old friend "the Big W" was on hand to pop their overly optimistic balloon:

thebigW says
May 19, 2019 at 3:21 pm

I bet the callers are only against “Islam” in Germany, but are okay with millions of *Muslims* in Germany. Same damn DISCONNECT I see here on these pages of Jihad Watch all the damn time, like you can have one and not the other.

After this bracing salvo, of course one of the "Rabbit Pack", one "Wellington", had to chime in with his demurrer:

Wellington says

May 19, 2019 at 3:52 pm

thebigW: What the hell are you talking about? Who here at JW is fine with Muslims in a Western nation but not OK with Islam in a Western nation? The burden of proof is now on you. Please explain yourself.

Then that other member of the "Rabbit Pack", one "gravenimage" chimed in to help explain:

gravenimage says

May 19, 2019 at 5:20 pm

I cannot, of course, speak for thebigW, but I think what he means is that while Germans rationally understand that Islam is a threat, that many of them don’t think that most Muslims want to impose Islam on them, and so are fine with continued Muslim immigration.

Big W then responded, more in-depth than I've ever seen:

thebigW says

May 20, 2019 at 3:12 pm

yeah, what gravenimage said “Perhaps he is angry about some saying they hate Islam but not Muslims–but I will not speculate any further here.” –not just put that way but in a lotta other ways, the same damn idea. and one way I can think of is to show that you ain’t against ALL Muslims being here. Once ya start makin’ exceptions, you got no good reason to be any more special than a typical bozo outside Jihad Watch who only thinks the “extremists” are the problem.

I can’t get the evidence for this now, it’d take me like hours, but I know I’ve seen it, and I ain’t imagin’ it, and it’s insulting to tell me most of y’all ain’t doin’ it all the damn time. (well “all the damn time” is an exaggeration, but even just “a lot” would be way too much)

Wellington of course barrels forward, not really getting Big W's point:

Wellington says 

May 20, 2019 at 3:38 pm 

thebigW: Here’s my take: I hate the KKK but it does not mean I hate every ignorant KKK member. I hate anarchism but it does not mean I hate every anarchist. I hate Islam but it does not mean I hate every Muslim. I detest socialism but it does not mean I hate every socialist. Do I think all such people are confused human beings? You betcha’. But one can sometimes hate the sin without necessarily hating the sinner. Or is it you position that hating Islam (or anarchism or Neo-Nazism or Marxism or the Ku Klux Klan or socialism et al. REQUIRES one to also to hate all adherents of a malevolent or stupid ideology? I trust you see my point and I trust you see why I objected to yours.

Big W then wisely zeroed in on Wellington's use of the Leftist term "hate":

thebigW says

May 20, 2019 at 7:34 pm

Wellington, who said anything about “hate”? Not me.

Wellington, stubbornly obtuse, stomps ahead:

Wellington says

May 20, 2019 at 8:43 pm

thebigW: Whether “against” Islam or “hating” Islam, what is the difference? You used the word “against” and then asserted that people in Germany are “against” Islam but OK with Muslims, ditto for JW commenters. You went on to use the word “disconnect” to describe this alleged discrepancy.

I challenged you to prove that people in Germany and more especially here at JW are OK with Muslims but not with Islam. You have not done this.

Let me be clearer. I despise Islam but this DOES NOT MEAN I am OK with Muslims being here in America (or any Western nation). Yes, I do not despise all Muslims, though I do some, but I do think that ALL Muslims are confused human beings.

In the final analysis, an ideology must be judged on what it says and NEVER on the basis that some adherents of the ideology in question do not fully implement its tenets. If it is a putrid ideology, as Islam surely is, then those who adhere to Islam completely are themselves also putrid. But those who are Muslims but don’t fully adhere to the Islamic theological blueprint, a blueprint inimical to liberty, for whatever reason—cultural Muslims, lazy Muslims, ignorant-of-their-own faith Muslims, etc.—are not putrid, only pathetic, a nuisance, confused, etc. But this DOES NOT TRANSLATE into being OK with such Muslims?

Are you getting any of this?

Big W's response was a fine example of focusing in on the crux -- which, even if he had not clarified it from the beginning, he was now, and so Wellington would have no good excuse for ignoring the clarification:

thebigW says

May 21, 2019 at 4:38 pm

“Whether “against” Islam or “hating” Islam, what is the difference? You used the word “against” and then asserted that people in Germany are “against” Islam but OK with Muslims, ditto for JW commenters.”

Well ya left out two words I said –

“I bet the callers are only against “Islam” in Germany, but are okay with millions of *Muslims* in Germany”

the two words “in Germany” and by extension “in the West”. To “be ok” with that means the opposite of mustering all your words, thoughts and energy into the message that they (ALL Muslims) should NOT be “in” our lands. That’s what I see in a lotta different ways some clear some between the lines that ain’t “in” the West —or in Jihad Watch (enough). ALL damn Muslims, including the “beer drinking” “dog loving” ones marc’s granpa says are A-OK–

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/05/mohammad-tawhidi-the-imam-for-peace#comment-2099759

(and see my comment below his)

And what Big W links to is the comment by "marc" (whom we mentioned in a recent posting here) talking about Muslims we apparently don't have to worry about, who drink beer and like dogs.  And as Big W scathingly points out, that measure of a good Muslim would have let the Muslim terrorist of the Nice, France attack sail right on through -- which of course speaks to Wellington's initial challenge to prove this kind of softness is on Jihad Watch. Well, Big W showed it was, in the mouth of a vaunted Jihad Watch member, marc, who is not just some vagrant commenter, but has been for years Robert Spencer's main tech person and contributor of articles on Jihad Watch.

And guess, what, over 48 hours later, and no response from Wellington. [UPDATE: Now it's over 72 hours, and still no response from Wellington. We can reasonably assume he won't ever respond, but in the unlikely event he does, I will report it on this blog.]

"Barista-Terrorista, I'll have a triple decaf Counter-Jihadaccino -- and make it asymptotic, please, my doctor told me I need to double-virtue-signal more..." (Part 2)

Readers should consult Part 1 for details about what I mean by "asymptotic" and why I say Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch is so (indeed, as I noticed years ago, he sets the gold standard).  As I wrote some 10 years ago (in a comment to a reader on my old blog, The Hesperado):

I have noticed that Hugh has gotten closer and closer to the holistic position, yet still remains not quite there: above all other analysts, Hugh most epitomizes the exact meaning of my term "asymptotic", which means, in my rather loose rendering, "getting closer and closer but never quite arriving." In recent times, Hugh seems to hover about a razor's edge away from crossing over to the holistic position. Such a phenomenon is almost more curious than the ones who are further, and more comfortably back in the middle zone of asymptotic analysis, and makes one wonder even more pressingly why he doesn't just make the leap -- which in his case should be a rather casual step that shouldn't strain any muscles or break a sweat.

I should hasten to add that this was 10 years ago; in recent times (I can't date it precisely), I've noticed Hugh by minute increments shrink back from that "razor's edge" (i.e., decrease his opposition to Islam); a logical movement when one considers the dynamics of the asymptotic psychology (which I analyzed a bit in a posting nearly 2 years ago on The Hesperado -- see "Cognitive Dissonance", but scroll down some, or search for "asympt").

This is Part 2, where I examine the 100+ comments attached to Hugh's article where he seems to be giving a thumbs up to the "reformism" of Imam Tawhidi.

As I noted in Part 1, our old friend "The Big W" posted quite a few comments there, more than usual, and also as usual, every one of them is spot on.  And of course, with one solitary exception (from a commenter whose name I've never seen there before), no other Jihad Watchers took note of what he said, nor registered their approval.

Let's start by reproducing his comments all together, from among the comments field of that Jihad Watch article by Hugh on the supposedly "reformist" Muslim from Australia, Imam Tawhidi:

thebigW says 
May 16, 2019 at 5:02 am 

this Tawhidi snake ‘s taqiyya is working at keeping most of y’all’s reflexes soft against ALL Muslims. Your [SIC] his main target, and ya don’t even know it.

thebigW says 
May 17, 2019 at 11:28 pm 

Yep, as long as he follows MOHAMMED, Tawhidi can’t have his cake and eat it too (well he can if we let ‘im, and most of us are)

thebigW says 
May 17, 2019 at 11:36 pm 

“May be this Tawhidi is sincere, I don’t know, but as the situation is now, we can not trust anybody, but he came out with much more to try a better side than most people dare to come out with..” 

 That’s exactly what this snake wants you to think, he wants you to doubt and relax your vigilance, you guys INSIDE the Counter-Jihad. And it’s working, from what I can tell.

thebigW says 
May 17, 2019 at 11:41 pm 

Yep, these “reformer” Muslims are deployed to soften up the only part of the West that’s wisin’ up to Jihad, the Counter-Jihad (and for the most part, seems to be working). There’s over 100 comments here. 100% of ’em (including Hugh the writer) should be condemning this snake for his taqiyya. But notice they ain’t.

Then after our old friend "gravenimage" (a veteran Jihad Watch commenter and crossing guard & hall monitor of that high school clique-cum-lynch mob of the RSSS (Robert Spencer Sycophants Society) hastened to note of Imam Tawhidi -- "He is under constant death threat from more orthodox Muslims." -- Big W riposted appositely:

thebigW says 
May 17, 2019 at 11:57 pm 

Just ’cause other Muslims wanna kill him, don’t make him on our side.

thebigW says 
May 17, 2019 at 11:59 pm 

“Nothing this man [Tawhidi] says makes sense!” 

Member what Judge Judy says: “If it doesn’t make sense, it’s probably not true”. God bless her!

And speaking of gravenimage, she just had to comment that Tawhidi "probably is" "sincere", which Big W nicely knocked down:

thebigW says 
May 18, 2019 at 12:11 am 

“My main problem with Imam Tawhidi is that even if he is sincere–and he probably is–that he intentionally or not presents a false “moderate” Islam to Infidels.” 

you must think he’s pretty dumb that he can’t see what you and a lot of us Infidels can see. If he can’t see he’s presenting a false moderate version of Islam, he’s not just dumb, he’s got a brain injury. “and he probably is” sincere . LOL. you can’t see his taqiyya works — on YOU (and marc)

And speaking of "marc" whom Big W mentioned parenthetically, he's not merely a reader of Jihad Watch; he has been Robert Spencer's main tech person for the tech issues of Jihad Watch for at least several years (and as I noted on my previous blog, he was instrumental in getting me banned at least once from Jihad Watch). Of late, marc has been commenting more and posting more articles (from pretty much zero back in the day). A better glimpse into marc's psychology vis-à-vis the problem of Islam could not be had than this comment he made on this very thread we are examining:

marc says 
May 17, 2019 at 9:58 am 

I have a few friends who are muslim, from my childhood (a very long time ago) in London UK, they are cultural muslims, all are very clear on my zionist views, and are supportive to varying degrees, a couple have been to Israel as tourists, none would go to mosque unless they were dragged to some family event, they all pass a test my grandfathers taught me nearly 50 years ago, they all like dogs and will share a beer with me. they don’t all lie to their families about their non-observance. They obviously all reject scripture fully, but will still call themselves muslim at times, probably for their own safety. [bold emphasis added]

And wouldn't you know it, Big W noticed and deposited a zinger:

thebigW says 
May 18, 2019 at 12:21 am 

“they all pass a test my grandfathers taught me nearly 50 years ago, they all like dogs and will share a beer with me.” 

Well, Mohamed Bouhlel would pass your grandfather’s test, before he went on to mow down over 90 people in France. 

Mohamed Bouhlel, if readers would recall (and they should), was the Muslim who massacred over 80 people (and wounded over 200 more) in one day while they were celebrating Bastille Day (July 14) in the beautiful southern France town of Nice.  And how would Bouhlel have passed marc's grandfather's test...?  Read my posting from 3 years ago -- "Another smiling face..." -- and learn.

In Part 3, I'll examine comments on that thread by other Civilians of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Readership.

An "Asymptotic Watch"...?

I've noticed many of my recent postings over the last couple of months involve noticing, picking apart, and critically analyzing the asymptotic twitches, tics, reflexes and spasms of Hugh Fitzgerald, frequent writer for that bastion of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Jihad Watch (see my posting from May 1 -- "Asymptotic analysis (again)" -- for an explanation of the term, and further links therein elucidating even more).

Not the least of which my immediately preceding two-part postings below this one. While I was drafting and then publishing those two postings, my attention was distracted by a possibly even more important insight into Hugh's asymptotic tendency, an article also on Jihad Watch whereby Hugh practically showcases one of the up-and-coming "Better Cop" Muslims -- a Muslim perhaps even oilier (and therefore even "Better") than the more famous Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, and Irshad Manji -- the so-called "Imam of Peace" who resides in Australia, Mohammed Tawhidi.

I've spoken before about the "Better Cop" phenomenon; as in a recent piece from April 9, where I alluded to

....the various levels and facets of the jihad, including of course taqiyya deception, and the phenomenon of what I have called the "Better Cop" Muslim (also see this Google page).  The "Better Cop" Muslim's whole schtick is to seem to be criticizing his own Islam and to be "feeling our pain" about the whole problem far more daringly than most Muslims; and the primary purpose of this schtick is not to fool the broader Western Mainstream (already readily fooled by the standard-issue garden-variety "Islam is a religion of peace! We are against terrorism! We love Coca-Cola!" Muslims of the "Good Cop" persuasion) -- but rather, precisely, to fool the still minuscule, but growing (albeit at a snail's pace) Counter-Jihad.

Also significant is that this article on Mohammed Tawhidi by Hugh has racked up 114 comments, more than the previous one I examined in my above-mentioned two-part posting.  Notable among the comments are several by our old friend "the Big W", characteristically depositing no-nonsense zingers here and there with pithy (if a bit hamfisted) bombast.  Indeed, we've had occasion not too long ago (April 29, in fact) to note Hugh's discomfitting deficiency of skepticism for this so-called "Imam of Peace", and now Hugh seems to have outdone himself.

Let's see what Hugh has to say about Tawhidi first, before we dip into the comments.  I will bold for emphasis, and insert my commentary in square brackets. Before we get started, here's the spoiler, the conclusion with which Hugh ends his article:

I think he’s said, and done enough, to earn our– what’s the usual phrase?– “cautiously optimistic” trust.

This conclusion reveals the whole point of his article to, as I said above, showcase this Muslim for the Counter-Jihad; but precisely to what end, Hugh, of course, never quite says, except what would be reasonable to assume: namely, that we should consider Tawhidi to be a sign of hope for Muslims to "reform" sufficiently over time such that it will help manage the problem their Islam has been causing up to the present and foreseeable future.  Given everything we know (or should know, by now) about Islam, this would seem to be a wildly unrealistic and reckless optimism, no matter how "cautiously" it is framed.  And Hugh of all people should know better -- which only highlights the peculiarity of the asymptotic phenomenon.

Okay, back to Hugh's introduction of his Great (albeit Cautiously Optimistic) Brown Hope. Again, I will bold for emphasis, and insert my commentary within square brackets:

Mohammad Tawhidi is well-known as the “imam for peace” who urges fellow Muslims to support Jews and Christians, rather than join or defend those Muslims who attack them. He not only defends Israel, but insists that “Palestine is Jewish land.” He warns Christians to wake up to the Muslim peril in the West. Some think he seems too good to be true. Is he? Tawhidi recently was interviewed by the Christian Broadcasting Network here “We are all brothers in humanity before brothers in faith,” Tawhidi told CBN News. “Tawhidi is a third-generation Iranian-born Muslim from Australia and author of The Tragedy of Islam...

[Tawhidi is a Shia Muslim, which could well offer an insight into how he's likely doing taqiyya with his whole Better Cop schtick -- i.e., everything he is "warning" about in terms of "radical Islam" pertains not to Islam per se, but to Sunni Islam, the inveterate enemy of the Shia Muslims. A textbook example of kitman (that style of taqiyya whereby the Muslim tells part of the truth, while concealing the falsehood connected to that half-truth). Here's one quote of Tawhidi Hugh provides uncritically which could well fit right into this kitman tactic:

“When we come to the West and try to warn the governments and intelligence agencies about what is happening, about the people we fled from, we have this new political correctness agenda that tells us that oh, we are the racists, we are the ones who are traitors and the extremists need to be understood and embraced.”

The “extremists” he is slyly referring to without saying so being, of course, the Sunnis who hate Shias like him; while gulls like Hugh take him to be talking generally about Muslims.]

“He uses his Twitter and Facebook accounts to warn the world about the growing dangers of radical Islam.”

[That dysphemism, “radical Islam”, apparently comes from the media outlet CBN, but it's no doubt ironically on the nose, insofar as we in the Counter-Jihad should know by now that this particular dysphemism is a sly way to protect mainstream Islam. Of course, Hugh said nothing about that in his piece.]

Tawhidi has viewed with alarm the refusal of Christian leaders to recognize the danger of Islamic “extremists”; he is no doubt thinking especially of Pope Francis, with his absurd remark about how “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”

[Here Hugh goes out on a perilous limb of mind-reading Tawhidi with reckless generosity, when in fact the precise opposite is what we should assume about Tawhidi -- that, in other words, he would not only not be "thinking of" Pope Francis, but would, in other deftly placed contexts slyly articulate in fact the same thing as what Hugh quotes Pope Francis as saying; for what else could we reasonably suppose Tawhidi stands for -- as a Muslim himself who affects to be for peace and justice and love -- than for, as Pope Francis put it so elegantly, an “authentic Islam [which = Shia Islam] [based upon] the proper reading of the Quran [being] opposed to every form of violence”...?]

So many people in the West are affected by quite-unnecessary feelings of guilt toward Islam, insisting that islamocritics like Tawhidi “are the racists,” though we keep being reminded that Islam is not a race.

[There, Hugh seems blithely unaware of that skillful Better Cop tactic Tawhidi is evidently deploying, of incurring the charge of "racism" from the politically correct Western mainstream, in order thereby to earn double-virtue-signalling bonafides, leading to Counter-Jihad cred, from the Counter-Jihad.]

Political correctness protects extremist Muslims, while condemning the moderates who criticize them.

[Holy Toledo; did Hugh actually just use the term moderate without sneer quotes and without adding that it's a preposterous meme intended to lull the West into accepting Islam into its societies?  Let me check his unclear typography and see if I can disentangle what are his words, the media's words, and Tawhidi's words...    Well, I just checked, and apparently those are Hugh's words, and there's not a sign of critical sarcasm anywhere in the vicinity (not to mention that the whole damned piece in which this meme is ensconced overwhelmingly indicates a sincere, not a sarcastic, usage of the meme).  No doubt not one of the 100 plus Jihad Watch commenters will protest. We'll see in part 2...]

Back to me now, outside of square brackets.

I won't slog through the whole article, however. We only need to cite such a breathtakingly egregious display of gullibility from Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch as this one:

The first week in May,Tawhidi was in Canada taking part in ceremonies commemorating the Holocaust. He tweeted: @Imamofpeace “ I flew to Toronto to light the candles of #YomHashoah2019, with over 20 faith leaders, at the first multi-faith commemoration of the Holocaust. May the rest of the world stand in solidarity with the Jewish People. Thank you to the @CanadianFSWC on this historical achievement.” This sounds heartfelt, rather than another example of Muhammad’s insistence that “war is deceit.” 

Has Hugh lost his freaking mind...??? And why aren't the Civilians of the Jihad Watch wing of the Counter-Jihad Readership holding his feet to the fire on this?  I haven't yet dipped into the comments in earnest, but I won't hold my breath...

We learn in the very next passage Hugh quotes that this seemingly pro-Jewish stance is obviously not a reflection of Tawhidi's Islam:

“This is rather a remarkable transformation for a Muslim who reportedly just a few short years ago had very different view of Jews. “Five years ago, I used to curse them,” Tahwidi admitted. “Today I am standing in solidarity with them.” 

Hugh, as much as the mainstream media he's getting all this from, seems blithely incurious about why Tawhidi had this profound change -- not to mention nobody will ask Tawhidi how he can "stand in solidarity" with Jews if his own Islam (including the Koran) tells him to hate them.  When, for example, Tawhidi writes (on Twitter) that --

“For many years we have been lied to {that} ‘the Jews are the enemy, kill them’... ”

-- is he saying the Koran is lying? He would have to, since the Koran is filled with hatred for the Jews in dot-connecting tandem with injunctions to fight and kill those who promote the fitna, fasad, and shirk which, according to the Koran and mainstream mufassiroon [Muslim exegetes of the Koran], the beliefs of Jews and Christians constitute.  Knowing this, as all of us by now in the Counter-Jihad should know, Hugh blithely ignores this problem and gives Tawhidi his blessing:

His abandonment of antisemitism seems deeply felt. 

Alas, we're not quite done with Hugh's torturously inconsistent gullibility which continues to afflict us a little longer:

Some people wonder if he can possibly be on the level, given that his teacher in Iran, Grand Ayatollah Shirazi, has standard anti-Infidel views. Tawhidi says he certainly held such views in the past, but no longer does. 

But nowhere in the text following after that bolded sentence does Hugh seem to care in the slightest why Tawhidi changed so radically, and how he could, given that he continues to defend Islam -- the very same damned Islam which enshrines "such views" which Tawhidi claims to have sloughed off.. 

Then there's this:

“Tawhidi applauded President Trump this week [in the beginning of May] when his administration announced plans to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terror organization. Such a designation would make the Muslim Brotherhood and its partners vulnerable to harsh economic and travel sanctions imposed by the US. “The Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized extremist terrorist organization on this planet,” Tawhidi told CBN News. 

Of course Tawhidi is opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood -- the Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni, and Tawhidi is Shia.  Does Hugh take time out of his glowing review of Tawhidi to point this out to the Counter-Jihad readers he is supposedly educating? Of course not.

I will get into the 100 + comments in Part 2.

Further Reading: 

The “Great Brown Hope” springs eternal

Saudi Doody (part 2)

In my first part, Howdy Arabia, I discussed the asymptotic weak spot of Hugh Fitzgerald, a famous (in Counter-Jihad circles, that is) member of the Leadership of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.

As I noted at the end of that posting, Hugh himself responded to our friend "the Big W" who had posted essentially a rough-and-ready salvo against Hugh's gullibility with regard to a Saudi Muslim who affects to be disturbed by the unremarkably Islamic Jew-hatred of his fellow Muslims.  Here again was Big W's finely blunt comment:

What in hell is Hugh talkin’ about? He thinks this Muzzy ain’t lying? He’s obviously lyin’, there ain’t no “positive aspects” in the history of Islam from Day Freaking One. “Muslim-Jewish relations” like beheading hundreds of Jews and raping the wives of Jewish men they slaughtered? I’d like whatever Hugh is smokin’.

And here is Hugh's passive-aggressive response. Bolded portions are added by moi, with my commentary in square brackets:

Hugh Fitzgerald says
May 9, 2019 at 5:31 pm

“I’d like whatever Hugh is smokin’.’

I don’t smoke. Not a puff, of nicotine or marijuana, ever. I drink, very occasionally, a half-glass of wine with dinner. That’s it.My mind is unaffected. My main vice is reading Webster’ 2nd. That does affect my mind. I am sorry that I have infuriated people –people I like –with this piece, the second in two days where I have shown what a credulous dope I am when it comes to these taqiyya-tossing Saudis. How can I be taken in so easily? I still think that these people should not be instantly dismissed, as they were not dismissed by Yigal Carmon and other editors/and translators at MEMRI.
[As the reader can see, Hugh never quite explains why he "still thinks" this.  And as for the MEMRI staff, they never used this to try to justify a gullible receptivity to this Saudi Muslim; they were merely doing their job of documenting significant ejaculations from Muslims. It's up to their audience to interpret them; and Hugh in his article lunged in the wrong (gullible) direction.]

Shobakshi’s piece was not written to fool the Unbelievers but intended for fellow Arabs...
[Hugh has no way of knowing that -- even if Shobakshi had explicitly said so, since the Islamic culture of taqiyya ruins our ability to be certain about any given Muslim saying anything we may find encouraging]

...whom he is trying to convince that their “obsessive Jew-hatred” is both idiotic and disgusting. He has nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to lose, from making such statements. 
[Well sure, this Muslim has "nothing to gain" if one utterly discounts the function & value of the Better Cop taqiyya (whose success, incidentally -- with exquisite irony -- is on display here through Hugh's own sincere defense & justification of his own gullibility)]

I am taking his remarks at face value. 
[Obviously, Hugh; but the pertinent question is why?]

He is trying to construct a narrative that will allow for the possibility of some Muslims not hating some Jews. 
[Well, Hugh doesn't know that this Muslim is "trying to construct" this narrative with the same intention Hugh confers upon him -- except by "taking his remarks at face value"; and he hasn't yet explained why he's doing this.  Unless, perhaps, Hugh's next sentence offers us a clue into his own asymptotic psychology...]

It’s worth a try. 
[Ah, I see.  But why is it worth a try?  It would only be worth a try if we underestimate both the depth & extent of taqiyya, and the perniciously deadly nature of the Islam this Muslim self-identifies with.  Apparently, Hugh, one of the luminaries of that bastion of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Jihad Watch, thinks that the putative, ostensible goal of a Muslim to reverse what is profoundly mainstream, traditional, cultural and institutional in Islam -- namely, Jew hatred -- is a viable endeavor from which we should withhold our reasonably scathing skepticism.  And other than our friend "Big W" none of the other members of the Readership on Hugh's article -- i.e., the Civilians who commented -- seemed to have any problem with Hugh's shocking gullibility.]

Howdy Arabia

So much for the "Daily" in my blog name.  I took a look at how many postings I've put up here, and recently, it certainly ain't daily. January was pretty good: 23 postings. But after that there's a precipitous decline. February: 14; March: 6; April: 4.  But as I said back in August of last year in the posting that began my second life (after my soul left my body after "something snapped" back in November of 2015):

"I like the sound of The Daily Decaf..."

To which I added;

"...and also it refers to the daily attempts -- whether concerted, conscious, or semi-conscious and incoherent -- by our Western Mainstream and by the Counter-Jihad Mainstream -- to whitewash the horrible, toxic coffee of Islam we need to wake up to and smell."

Speaking of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, I've written a lot about Hugh Fitzgerald -- a chief writer at that bastion of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Jihad Watch -- and his odd asymptotic twitches.  Indeed, if the reader just scrolls down from this posting, he will bump into at least two previous postings recently involving Hugh. Sometimes it becomes a fun puzzle game, when I see a new Hugh Fitzgerald article on Jihad Watch, to read it and spot the asymptotic swerve that, by now, seems inevitable.  But most of the time it is aggrievingly annoying.

A recent Hugh piece -- A Saudi Denounces “Obsessive Jew Hatred”; Allah Commanded Us To Love And Respect Jews -- was no exception, and involved that particular, peculiar linchpin by which his asymptotic tendency is triggered; namely, the Better Cop Muslim.  In this case, the Better Cop Muslim is the "Saudi" of Hugh's title, who recently made a show of castigating his fellow Arabs for being too anti-Jewish, and in this context insisting (with breathtaking -- but, alas, unsurprising -- chutzpah) that Islam provides no fertile soil for such Jew-hatred.  Moreover, in citing this Saudi Muslim approvingly, Hugh is also committing the related sin of "relying on the Traveler".

And wouldn't you know it, our old friend "Big W" was on hand to shine his inimitably blunt and incisive light on the problem:

thebigW says 
May 9, 2019 at 4:29 pm 

[quoting Hugh's approval of this "Saudi" Muslim]

“we ought to publicize that person, in the hope that others may emulate his example.” 

“But his sympathetic view of Jews, shown in his emphasizing the positive aspects of Muslim-Jewish relations in early Islam, should not be ignored.” 

What in hell is Hugh talkin’ about? He thinks this Muzzy ain’t lying? He’s obviously lyin’, there ain’t no “positive aspects” in the history of Islam from Day Freaking One. “Muslim-Jewish relations” like beheading hundreds of Jews and raping the wives of Jewish men they slaughtered? I’d like whatever Hugh is smokin’.

And this isn't the first time Big W took on Hugh; see, for example,  Let's see Hugh and Big W arm-wrestle!

Since I read that several days ago, I hadn't checked back until now and see that Hugh's article has accured a whopping 72 comments, a remarkable number for a typical Hugh article.  I'm almost afraid to dip in, for fear that I would find innumerable Jihad Watchers taking issue with our friend Big W if not attacking him for having the temerity to say anything negative about their sycophantically esteemed Hugh.  But what the heck, I will dip in and take a look-see.

Well, well, well: I see that Hugh himself actually responded to our friend the Big W...!

To be continued...

Bosch

No, today's posting is not about Harry Bosch, nor about Hieronymous Bosch, but rather the only other Bosch I know of, Bosch Fawstin.  And speaking of the asymptotic reflex (as I was in my previous posting), Bosch Fawstin is another analyst in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (winning first prize at the Garland, Texas Mohammed drawing contest back in 2015, infamously attacked by two Muslim terrorists who were, praise Allah, neutralized by one man, Garland police officer Greg Stevens, whose cool heroism is described at this article) who seems to have the asymptotic tendency.

When about a week ago I saw a Bosch Fawstin artlcle on Jihad Watch directly pertinent to this issue of asymptotic analysis, I braced myself for frustration and irritation.  And wouldnchya know it, after several paragraphs of unremarkably cogent observations, he just had to have that Tourette's tic at some point in his argument.

Bosch's argument, as I said, starts out good with -- for example -- a boldly robust salvo like this:

I’m sick and tired of hearing people, and not only lying leftists, refer to the Islamic enemy’s ideology by endless terms, ALL in the name of Not saying the actual name of the Islamic enemy’s ideology, Islam.

And develops this particular thought with salutary logic, such as this:

The only difference between “Islamism” and Islam is three letters, but it’s those three letters that some people use in order to obfuscate the fact that the actual ideology of the Islamic enemy is Islam, and not some alleged deviant form of it. Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy’s ideology as: “Islamic Fundamentalism,” “Islamic Totalitarianism,” “Islamic Extremism,” “Islamofascism,” “Political Islam,” “Militant Islam,” “Bin Ladenism,” “Islamonazism,” “Radical Islam,” “Islamism”, etc.

But then, wouldn't you know it, he reveals the fault-line of the asymptotic inability to take this insight to its logical conclusion; and that fault line lies with that aspect of Islam which the Counter-Jihad Mainstream seems to studiously avoid: the problem of Muslims.  Thus Bosch:

And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam.

With a wearied reminder, I note the old ground I've covered long ago on my retired blog The Hesperado, along with the bones of dead horses thereon littered:

Are all Muslims jihadists?

What's the difference between a "Muslim" and a "Jihadist"?

"Not all Muslims are jihadists..."

The problem is not Muslims, but only 'jihadis'...?

A shift from Islam to Muslims

And that last linked essay in turn pivots to my many essays of yore calling for a "paradigm shift" in the Counter-Jihad.

Asymptotic analysis (again)...

In my previous posting -- Our "Reliance" on the Traveler (again) -- I noted the asymptotic tendencies of Hugh Fitzgerald.  There was another Jihad Watch article after the one I looked at in that above-mentioned posting, a 4-part article in which Hugh examines some PC MC bozo in the broader Western Mainstream (one Glenn K. Beaton).  In this article, Hugh just can't help blurting out asymptotic phrases, like:

“Twenty-five percent of Muslims in America are reported to no longer be Believers; are they still being counted, or do they count themselves, for safety’s sake, as Muslims?”

Hugh might protest that he was merely couching it as “reported” and as a question; but the point is, we have to train ourselves to stop indulging these questions that imply that it's viably relevant to conjecture about vaguely significant demographics of Muslims who are not advancing the Jihad -- for the simple reason that we cannot discern the difference, with reliability sufficient for the purposes of our society's future safety on a macro scale, between the harmless Muslim (who may well exist in large numbers) and the Muslims who are in myriad ways (including through the deceit of pretending not to be) advancing the jihad.  This principle, which I just articulated, seems absent -- or at best, seriously impaired -- in Hugh's ratiocinations by which he works out various problems radiating out of Islam and the broader Western Mainstream's ineptitude with same.