PC MC TV, rinse and repeat

Not to worry, my dear 7.5 readers, I haven't succumbed to either the corona virus, or to the much worse pandemic, the Coronomaniac Panic.

Today's posting is just a note about a common, and irritating subset of the Problem of the Problem of Islam.  I'll quote what I wrote in an essay here (PC MC TV) back in November of 2018:

. . . a recent Jihad Watch story reminded me of an old annoyance of mine -- namely, the prevalence of softballing / whitewashing the problem of Islam on cable series, television shows, Netflix shows, and various movies over the years.  

(In that essay I linked to a few of my previous postings on this subtopic.)

The other day, Jihad Watch posted a story on how a new Netflix series, "Messiah" (when did books, movies and TV shows eliminate the article "The" from their titles, exactly...? I'd guess some time in the 1990s; but I digress...) was supposedly cancelled because people complained about its supposed anti-Islam bias.  First of all, I highly doubt a mainstream venue like Netflix would produce or even promote any show or movie that had the slightest hint of anti-Islam bias. Secondly, given the hypersensitivity of PC MCs (cleverly exploited by Muslims), it's highly likely the complaints were not about any actual, existing anti-Islam bias in the series, but only such wrongly perceived.  At any rate, I avoided the show like the Corona Virus, reasonably assuming it was going to be riddled with subtle subtexts of anti-Christian, pro-Moderate-Muslim bias.  I might be interested now to take a look at maybe the first episode or two, just to see if I'm right about it.

The main point of my posting today, however, is not the main subject of that Jihad Watch article, but rather what one Jihad Watcher said in a comment there, one "Rufolino" who, as far as I can tell from looking up a few of his previous comments, is a middle-of-the-road Counter Jihadist, neither overly nougaty, nor extraordinarily robust: firmly planted in the "Them Damn Muzzies and their Infernal Islam" middle.  Here was his comment:

Moslems are not the good guys in the brilliant tv series “Homeland”. In fact I was continually astonished at the hard realism of most of this story about Islamic terrorism and the West. Made me wonder how it even got made. 

Now, "Homeland" is another mainstream show I have avoided, because I don't want to go through the annoying pain of having to watch subtly manipulative propaganda pretending to present a robustly anti-terrorist show while masquerading subliminal messages of tolerance for Muslims (joined at the hip, of course, with intolerance for any critical intolerance of Muslims).  I find it hard to believe Rufolino about this show.  I would only try watching a couple of episodes in order to gather evidence showing how Rufolino is gullibly naive and can't even detect the subliminal propaganda with which PC MC fare is laced.

If the reader wants to know why I say this, he should consult an older posting (Low Caffeine, Low Expectations) I wrote about just this phenomenon -- concerning another otherwise fairly robust anti-Islam person who yet showed signs of gullible naivety in the form of detecting robust anti-Islamness in the mainstream (specifically, in the Netflix documentary Manhunt: The Search for Bin Laden) when it's not really there. 

Indeed, it was the Jihad Watcher to whom "Rufolino" was responding (one "Christopher Watson") who I think hit it more on the mark:

After watching American series for many years the ‘innocence’ of the middle-eastern characters is constantly rammed down our throats. Whenever arab characters are depicted they are always the good guys or working under cover for the CIA or the FBI.

Frank Gaffney & Diana West on the Swamp

Off and on over the years (and recently here), I've ruminated about the "conspiracy theory" thought process and logic.  Provisionally, I'd say there are three types of postures with regard to "conspiracy theory":

1) full-blown believers

2) partial, tentative believers in some conspiracies

3) skeptics/disbelievers.

(I would situate myself as uncomfortably vacillating between #2 and #3.)

Each of these three categories, we could add, in turn has subtypes & flavors.

When it comes to "the Swamp" and/or "the Deep State", it seems among the believers there are some who are #1 and some who are #2.  Representatives of the #2 subtype sound more moderate and reasonable, of course; but there seems to be an interesting paradox whereby the more moderate and reasonable your approach is, the less coherent is your end product, so to say.

Today I just note (and perhaps minimally examine) some remarks made by Frank Gaffney and Diana West -- both of whom strike me as situated somewhere between #1 and #2.  I'll just cherry-pick from a recent conversation they had:

At one point, Frank mentions the "enemy within phenomenon" and makes this interesting observation:

...in particular the more open, the more free the society, the more they're able to operate almost in the open… 

On the face of it, he's got it exactly backwards: in fact, the more free and open the society, the more the enemy within has to hide what it's doing. What Frank may be trying to say is that the freedom and openness of a free and open society gives an enemy within certain types of opportunities to operate: However, what Frank is missing is that these opportunities are forced upon the enemy within as the best he can do under severe limitations that limit what he'd really like to do (i.e., take off the mask and wield brute totalitarian control out in the Stalinist sunshine, so to speak). 

This curious misstep in Frank's thinking may provide a clue into the "conspiracy theory" thought process and logic. Rather than keep his focus on the severe limitations the non-Swamp reality imposes upon the enemy within, Frank seems to be inverting that reality and perceiving the enemy within's limitations on his power as evidence of his power.  This of course is liable to the odd incoherence I palpated provisionally in my above-linked essay, whereby the conspiracy-theorist never seems to ask (and then unfold the logic of the question) why it is that the enemy within doesn't just take over, already. What's stopping them?  If this frank question were pursued in good faith and rigor, it would lead the thinker to a serious reassessment of the "conspiracy" or the "Swamp" or the "Deep State" (or other symbolic equivalents).

A serious reassessment doesn't mean one has to dismiss the whole "enemy within phenomenon" Frank adduces; but it does mean one might have to figure out what the actual nature of that enemy within is.  What characterizes the conspiracy theory logic the most, perhaps, is an irresponsible suspension -- if not outright avoidance -- of the question: Why is the enemy within not just liquidating all its opposition?  Instead, they focus on all the nefarious things they claim the enemy within is doing -- a mishmash of

1) things they are doing;

2) things they might well be doing; and

3) things they could be doing but for which there is no evidence and only speculation.

Now, there is a problem with limiting the analysis strictly at #1 and not permitting any consideration whatsoever of #2 and #3 -- just as there is a problem with too promiscuously entertaining #3 in a way that through artful rhetoric and slippery data (if not mostly dots to be connected) irresponsibly merges speculation with fact.

The navigation of 1-2-3 needs to pay constant attention to the overall contours of the Enemy Within -- first of all, by acknowledging that we don't know what those contours are; and from there, responsibly proceeding by factoring in how the Enemy Within seems to be limited in its powers; and from there, asking why -- why in such a way that palpates those contours as much by the Enemy Within's limitations on its powers as it does by what we impute those powers to be.

I get the sense from reading and listening to Frank & Diana that, more often than not, they are not following this general rule of thumb I've outlined; and in fact, tend to indulge a speculative rhetoric indicative of a nebula of ambiguity based upon avoiding key aspects of this rule of thumb.

To be continued...

At the Corona Cafe...

As this global pandemic of panic has unfolded these past few weeks, I was heartened to see various video clips of Dr. Drew (this one, for example) counseling a calm and rational approach to this new virus and condemning the mainstream media for its "unconscionable" reportage fanning the flames of panic.  Every time I would look at the New York Times, for example, it was plastered with headlines and bylines of lurid yellow journalism, clearly fomenting rhetoric of panic.  I tentatively, and reasonably, concluded that this new virus was being weaponized by the Left-leaning mainstream.  To what end?  Apparently at that huge juicy orange target they've been frothing at the mouth about for years now, Donald.

This doesn't mean that every Leftist venue & organ out there indulging in this rhetoric has the conscious intention to use that rhetoric in order to help bring down Trump.  It seems to be a combination, typical of the Left, of a sheeplike lockstep echo-chamber conformity on the part of many if not most, and, on the part of perhaps a (small?) minority of more extremist Leftists, a more deliberate attempt to weaponize the epidemic.

There is a mirror-image oddity on both sides concerning the partisan angle:  On the Left, you'd think they would recoil from the obvious implications which a Pandemic Without Borders has for their cherished borderless globalism; and yet, with seemingly heedless abandon they have plunged into that rhetoric and continue fanning its flames which, one would think, can only result in an eventual blowback on their dream of a global promiscuity of transmigration.

Meanwhile, most conservatives seem to be cultivating a healthy skepticism about the vertiginously apocalyptic dimensions of a virus gone viral.

And yet, on the flip side of the partisan wars, I was surprised to see Nick Fuentes (supposedly to the right of the Alt-Right) on his Twitter page tweeting various memes about the virus which sounded the alarm in ways not much different from the Left-leaning New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, etc. etc.  For example, Nick recommends three Twitter accounts as "Best Twitter Accounts to follow the Coronavirus Pandemic", and when one consults those three, one finds them decidedly on the side of pandemic panic rhetoric:

Mar 12

Best Twitter Accounts to follow the Coronavirus Pandemic:

@Coronavirus_Guy

@MisterAntiBully

@DeItaOne

One wonders what Nick's motive could be; perhaps he is slyly co-opting the panic because he sees its potential for undoing the globalist agenda of Third-Worldizing the West...?

All that said, I don't know how mainstream "9News" from Australia is, but at least one page they had on the virus seemed level-headed.  However, a cursory look at their front page today indicated the now conventional purple prose on the border of hysteria.

Contradictory Decaf...?

An interesting exchange in the comments thread of a recent article on that bastion of Counter-Jihad Decaf, Jihad Watch:

Otter says
Mar 13, 2020 at 10:04 am

With all this barbarity which is inflicted by Islam and Muslims upon which ever country they happen to reside in, or have a foot hold, India is at the forefront of this global scourge Mark my words, this is only a prelude of what lies in the future. India is going to be torn apart by the same barbarians whenever they have descended around the world. And the most astonishing thing is that the people believe exactly the opposite what the truth is. Thank you Ms Singh for your accurate piece. The world is slumbering into a disaster of unmanageable proportions. The combination of the left and Islam is unbeatable. I wonder if there is any element of luck in how this ideology keeps on successfully propagating itself.

Reply
Savvy Kafir says
Mar 13, 2020 at 1:50 pm

The combination of Islam and the political left is NOT unbeatable. Not if we begin fighting back effectively. That push-back has not even begun. At some point, enough freedom-loving people on the political right, along with a few on the left (I consider myself a progressive, for the most part) will understand that we are in a fight for the survival of Western Civilization, and we will do whatever it takes to defeat the Muslim invaders and their PC allies. Whatever it takes. I, for one, would rather die fighting than watch the West become Islamized. No war in history was fought for better reasons than this. It’s time for people to begin viewing this conflict as the global war that it is, and begin preparing for the inevitable. Because of the collusion of terminally-PC “progressives” and “liberals” with the Muslim invaders who intend to spread Sharia and become our overlords, I don’t see how this conflict can be resolved without open warfare – insurrections and civil war, throughout the West. Too many people on the Regressive Left will simply NEVER give up their articles of faith regarding Islam, cultural relativism, the “evils” of the West, etc. Too many of them will simply NEVER look at the evidence objectively and apply logic and reason to this issue, because they have been too thoroughly indoctrinated. And, since they control the mainstream media, and the mainstream media sets the agenda for most politicians, they are making it impossible to save the West via the democratic process. And their control of public schools & universities, which have become PC indoctrination centers, will only make the problem worse in the coming years. But we MUST save the West — ALL of the West — no matter what it takes. It’s far too early to call “Game over!, when the real push-back has not even begun.

Reply
James Lincoln says
Mar 13, 2020 at 3:16 pm

Savvy Kafir, An excellent and informative post. My compliments.

Reply gravenimage says
Mar 13, 2020 at 5:44 pm

Good post, Savvy Kafir. We need to keep telling the truth.

What's interesting about this is a nexus of two closely interrelated things:

1) The Jihad Watcher "Savvy Kafir" (who is, I would say, a mid-level Jihad Watcher, neither a grizzled veteran like the Rabbit Pack, nor a green newbie) effectively says that the only way to save the West from a "Leftist"-enabled Islam will have to be outside the democratic process -- which means only one of two things (or a combination of both):

a) a popular (and, perforce, violent) revolution that overturns existing Western governments

or

b) a fascist coup or declaration of martial law by existing Western governments, abrogating many if not most (or even all) of our legal freedoms.

2) Aside from a relative Jihad Watch newbie ("James Lincoln" who as far as I can tell from a Google search, has only been commenting on Jihad Watch for approximately one year), we have a long-time and illustrous veteran Jihad Watcher (one "gravenimage", one of the most active members of the aforementioned Rabbit Pack) granting her unalloyed, unreserved approval of this (and, closely related to this, we have the absence of any other veteran Jihad Watchers -- whether Rabbit Packers or not -- moving in to chastise or at least correct Savvy Kafir's ominous declaration).

Meanwhile, Big W and I have been upbraided countless times (including by the Rabbit Pack -- both positively and negatively by the absence of any of them coming into defend me or Big W) over the years for calling for the deportation of Muslims from the West, with the eminent Rabbit Packers "Wellington" and "PRCS" chiding us for advocating the "impossible" given the U.S. Constitution (as if it's a suicide pact).

A Rabbit Pack Postscript:

Some good examples of what I'm talking about from older essays:

Example 1 (the commenter "voegelinian" was moi; the Rabbit Packers here are "gravenimage" and "Angemon")

Example 2 (mostly about "Philip Jihadski" a prominent Rabbit Packer and his unhinged defense of nougaty softness about Muslims, and the unconscionable aversion of responsibility in this regard by another eminent Rabbit Packer, "Wellington")

Example 3 (a lot about two eminent Rabbit Packers, "Angemon" and "Mirren")

Example 4 (a good overview of the Rabbit Pack)

The Big W: R.I.P. (Roast In Peace)

As I noted in my first installment in this sort of series (Bye, Bye, Big W...), I can't think of a good reason why Robert Spencer and his tech genius "Marc" had apparently seen fit to ban the commenting presence of our old friend The Big W (other than their hairtrigger hypersensitivity which, of course, is not a good reason).

And in the second installment (Ruminations on the passing of "The Big W"), I reported just how extensive was this action taken by Robert and Marc against Big W -- not only apparently banning him now, but retroactively deleting all his comments on various Jihad Watch articles going back months...!  As of yesterday, I had noted that this anti-Big-W frenzy reached back only to August of 2019, apparently, and left his comments untouched at least in May (I could find no records from June or July [EDIT: I have now determined that Marc's banning of Big W goes back as far as June of 2019]).  Let us check now to see if Marc hasn't continued his cane-cutting rampage with his virtual machete further back in time...

Well, so far, so good.  As of now, Big W's comments remain in a May 19, 2019, article on Jihad Watch (an article I discuss at length in the 2nd installment, in fact).

At any rate, a clue I had hitherto neglected may be in the comments on one of the two threads I pinpointed in my first installment, involving a character who calls himself "Liatris Spicata" whom years ago I recall tangling with on Jihad Watch comments (I could only find these two for now, in which my nickname at the time was "voegelinian").  In the previously alluded more recent Jihad Watch comments field, "Liatris Spicata" guy brought up some preoccupation he had not only generally with Robert's heavy-handed and often arbitrary censorship of Jihad Watch comments, but specifically with a dispute the two of them had had years ago about Middle Eastern Christians (specifically "Melkite").  Apparently, from what I could glean, this "Liatris Spicata" fellow's position is that we should sympathize with the dhimmitude we see among Middle Eastern Christians (now and in history), insofar as living under Islamic rule can be brutal and we shouldn't expect all or most Middle Eastern Christians to be superheros or saints.  While Robert did deign to lower himself to participate in the comments fields of his lowly fan base (he used to do this quite often, a decade ago, but nowadays practically never), he of course didn't share any statements disclosing his poker hand (he's always on guard, it seems); rather wielding his sophistry rapier left and right to fend off "Liatris Spicata" on more general terms.  At a certain juncture there, when I checked back on that growing and interesting dispute, I saw our old friend Big W weigh in, effectively on the side of the point being made by this "Liatris Spicata" person -- to wit, that he could understand how and why Middle Eastern Christians would swallow their pride and their conscience, since they're only human in fact, and the rule of Muslims, far more nightmarish than any Jim Crow laws even, could make even a good man break and compromise.  Perhaps this was the final straw for Robert?  He didn't want this kind of notion spreading?  It would be ironic if so, since Robert is otherwise so nougaty about the problem of Islam and, more appositely, of Muslims.

The other possibility lies in the more on-topic issue of that thread which dealt with Michelle Malkin -- and since that thread was centrally related to Nick Fuentes, it dealt with the problem of Jews and anti-Semitism.  I noticed Big W lodge at least 2 or 3 comments expressing a reasonable concern, let us say, with the problem of Jewish Leftism (closely related to the problem of the self-hating Jew); but also he seemed to be reluctant to condemn Nick Fuentes out of the box and seemed to counsel at least some guarded skepticism on the matter.  Perhaps that was the straw for Robert (and for Marc, who is himself a Jew who is soft on Muslims -- at least the Muslims his grandfather says are okay because they drink beers and seem to like dogs...).

Ruminations on the passing of "The Big W"

As I noted yesterday in a posting here (Bye, Bye, Big W...), it appears that Robert Spencer's tech genius-cum-henchman, "Marc", has deep-sixed our old friend, The Big W.

I said this in the basis of Big W's wholesale disappearance from two unusually large and very recent Jihad Watch comments threads, days after I know for a fact Big W had lodged at least 10 or a dozen comments apiece in each of those threads.

Well, this morning, while still on my first cup of coffee, I thought I'd dive back into earlier Jihad Watch comments threads and take a look-see.  Doing a Google advanced search, specifying "thebigw" on the Jihad Watch site, I have tentatively determined (as of today) that "Marc" has extirpated our old friend's horrific presence on Robert's hallowed pages only back to about August of 2019:  I.e., one August thread that showed up on the Google page as having "thebigW" had nary hide nor hair of our old friend once the reader clicks on it and goes in to look; however, two threads from May of 2019 did in fact contain his winsomely robust presence.



And that screen shot only represents the top half of a Google page, of which there are many pages following, all with evidence of Big W's past contributions.  Notice that entry from May 19, 2019, which records someone angrily addressing our old friend:

"thebigW: What the hell are you talking about?..."

That happened to be another old friend, one "Wellington", whom I've had many occasions over the years -- here at this little ol' blog, as well as on my wheezingly halcyon flagship The Hesperado -- to analyze for his asymptotic twitches.

Since that was memorialized in May of last year, and as I say, Robert's tech genius "Marc" apparently hasn't yet gone back that far to purify Jihad Watch of the soiled presence of The Big W, let's take a gander at the fuller exchange, shall we...?  Actually, I just revisited that thread, and the exchange is much longer, and involves also another old friend of ours, one "gravenimage" (about whom I've also written many times here and on The Hesperado) -- too long to post here, but I will log it over on my companion reservoir, Resource for The Hesperado (and I better do this quick, before "Marc" continues on his Big-W-cide rampage, perhaps going back month by month, and not yet having reached May of 2019, with his bloody scythe...)

Aside from the responses Big W made in that thread to Wellington and gravenimage pussyfooting around Big W's reasonable allegation -- namely, that even valiant Counter-Jihadists on Jihad Watch prevaricate in mealymouthed ways about the problem of Muslims -- I note in rummaging around that Big W actually did take the trouble to answer, a few days later in another Jihad Watch thread, "The Beer Mat Scheme That Went Awry Part 2":

thebigW says
May 26, 2019 at 12:52 pm

There’s one for Wellington, what Westman said: “Like casual Christians, the casual Muslim is likely to only have a shallow understanding of the doctrines” when Wellington dared me to find any Jihad Watchers who aren’t against all Muslims. How can you be against Muslims who are only “casual” and only have a”shallow understanding” of Islam? An’ why is this Westman guy assuming Muslim society has to be like modern Western Christian society, specially in a way that’s in their favor? I’ll keep an eye out for more (which I see every damn day IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER) https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/05/poll-finds-overwhelmingly-that-islam-is-unwelcome-in-germany#comment-2101561

And then on May 31, in a thread attached to the Jihad Watch article, "Glazov Moment UK Police Escort Muslim Mob to Attack Tommy":

thebigW says 
May 31, 2019 at 2:45 pm 

“It seems most Muslims only give lip service to Islam. ” – that mortimer guy 

Then we have that Wellington feller from another post: 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.” 

Well, if ol’ mortimer thinks “most Muslims only give lip service to Islam” then OBVIOUSLY he’s ok with Islam in the West (unless ya think Muslims in the West (“most” which = MILLIONS) is different from Islam in the West, LMAO. thebigW says May 31, 2019 at 2:47 pm and by the way, this mortimer guy made that SWEEPING statement about “most Muslims” (= millions) just because they didn’t join ISIS–as if that’s the only kind of jihad they’re waging against us. Looks like the stealth jihad of Muzzies is working–on people like mortimer. 

And by the way, if the reader carefully & conscientiously reads through those threads, he will note that, tellingly, neither Wellington nor gravenimage answer Big W's last word, which essentially vitiates their initial (and midstream) complaints against him.  After Big W delivers his effective rebuttals at the end, Wellington and gravenimage utterly vanish from sight; apparently hoping no one will notice their arguments failed (and they're probably right: no one will notice).

P.S.: And then there was the esprit d'escalier I had here on The Daily Decaf back in June of 2019.