Real Problemer rhetoric

If Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin aren't "in the Counter-Jihad", nobody is.  Tommy of course long ago earned his anti-Islam bonafides and Counter-Jihad cred by suffering ignominy and various forms of punishment meted out by his own British government for the "crime" of trying to wake up his fellow citizens to the disaster of Islam being infused into his society, chiefly through the agency of Muslims. His colleague, Peter McLoughlin, wrote the excellent book Easy Meat, a scrupulously footnoted and dispassionate work of journalism (and all the more devastating for being so) covering the decades of Muslim rape gangs in the UK.

Together, they penned a book about the Koran, which I have not yet read, but plan to.  Titled Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam, their book has been banned by Amazon and Ebay.  On perusing the promotional website put up by Tommy and Peter, a couple of key descriptions indicate their book is not merely about the Koran and Islam, but also about what I have called "the problem of the problem" -- namely, the problem of the West not grappling adequately with the primary problem of Islam.  However, I am tentatively dismayed at how emphatic is the rhetoric there clearly implying what I have called Real Problemerism.  As I put it in an essay I wrote on The Hesperado back in August of 2017:

I admit that "Real-Problemerism" is a cumbersome coinage; but I only use it because I can't find a good alternative, other than conspiracy theory.  I hesitate to use the latter because it has a tendency to lurch off the rails into unwanted territory.  At any rate, the "real problem" to which my coinage alludes is the belief that behind the problem of Islam lies a deeper, "real" problem -- some Dastardly Cabal of Evil Leftists (and/or a host of other supposed synonyms, including "Globalists" and "cultural Marxists" and "Gramscians" and.... etc.).

(Sometimes, I've noticed, that "and... etc." veers off into the broad parking lot outside the ballpark of Judaeophobia; but that's another kettle of fish to fry another day...)

So let's see what Tommy and Peter describe their book to be saying about the problem of the problem (bolded portions added by me for emphasis):

...the book ... proves that throughout the 20th century your rulers knew all about Islam being an ideology glorifying terrorism and hatred of the other.  Yet in full knowledge of this fact, the ruling class invited millions of followers of Islam into the West. 

And, elsewhere on their site, more fully:

QUOTE:

The first 100 pages of Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam demonstrate that, prior to 9/11, all the expert opinion in the West said:

• the Koran is a garbled mess
• the Koran cannot be understood unless it is in chronological order
• Jihad meant killing for Islam (not some "inner struggle")
• Mohammed switched from preaching peace (the early Koran, in Mecca) to preaching thieving, murdering, slave-taking (the later Koran, in Medina)

After proving that this is exactly how Islam was understood in the West in the centuries leading up to 9/11, McLoughlin & Robinson then show the lies about "the Religion of Peace", a lie disseminated by Pope Francis, by President Bush and President Obama, by Hilary Clinton, and by British PMs Blair, Cameron, May. This Grand Lie turns the entire understanding of Islam upside down.

END QUOTE

Even not having read their book (yet), I can say definitively that when they say "in the West" they don't mean everyone.  As I have documented in several essays I wrote on The Hesperado -- exploring the question "When Did PC MC Begin?" -- what we in the Counter-Jihad in these post-911 years suffer daily having to hear and read, the insufferable politically correct multi-culturalism all around us in our sociopolitical culture, did not spring up out of nowhere newly minted on 911.  Those essays I wrote find pretty much the same ideas & attitude going back throughout the 20th century and even back into the 19th century.  And further back, my detailed analysis of the great 16th century statesman and philosopher Michel de Montaigne shows those ideas (while not adverting to Islam, still the same mental illness that grounds our general hip-deep De Nile about Islam) as far back as the 16th century.  Among my many essays on this phenomenon, for example, this note quotes one 20th century Western scholar on Islam, J. Spencer Trimingham (whose Wikipedia bio shows him to be a solidly mainstream academic who published his studies throughout the 1940s, 50s and 60s on the specialty of Islam in Africa):

Islam in contact with the Africans is characterized by a series of gradations which act as insulators passing on Islamic radiation gradually to animist societies... Islam thus does no violent uprooting but offers immediate values without displacement of the old.

No doubt Tommy & Peter found and documented various Westerners who accurately reported what we know about Islam (that it's a violent and hateful creed of fanatical world conquest by violent means), but that by itself doesn't ground & warrant their further inference that these Westerners, in their full knowledge of how pernicious Islam is, for apparently nefarious purposes wanted Muslims to inundate the West.  This would be the Real-Problemerist lurch into the explanatory vacuum, explaining various effectively pro-Islam/pro-Muslim policies in the 20th century (which Bat Ye'or has documented in her book Eurabia, 2005) as part of a diabolical program by our "leaders" (and "elites") to... do what, exactly?  If our evil Western elites know that Islam is a deadly seditious ideology calculated by its Muslim proponents to destroy our societies and replace them with Sharia, what's in it for the Western elites?

Or could it be that this massive Western Islamophilia we have seen -- not only post-911 but also pre-911 -- is a complex mess mostly explained by starry-eyed, politically correct idealism anxiously wishing to avoid "racism"?

It is true that the further back in time one goes, the more likely one will be able to find refreshingly incorrect condemnations of Islam (my introduction to a superb quote on the matter by Teddy Roosevelt discusses this); but the reasonable conclusion one draws from this -- particularly after noticing how many thinkers and writers of the past were expressing what we think of as PC MC sentiments on Islam -- is that the problem is not that PC MC only exists now and didn't in our past; but rather that at some point in time (perhaps by the 60s or 70s) it became culturally dominant throughout the West, and that this cultural dominance reflects a logical, albeit diseased, development out of pre-existing tendencies latent within the healthy organs & tissues of our civilization.