The real reason behind ISIS: Part 3

So, if the reader has digested my first two parts (each one fairly brief), it's time for the punchline:

ISIS wasn't formed primarily in order to actually renew the Caliphate, nor to destroy the West and conquer the world through its relatively piddling -- albeit horrifying -- attacks and beheadings. It was mainly formed to accelerate the mass immigration of Muslims into the West.

Only Muslim idiots would think they could topple the West by starting up a fly-by-night Caliphate. As tempting as it is for the Counter-Jihad to think that “them Muzzies are backward, retarded savages”, that's not the reality our intelligence services have reported over the decades. For a certain number of Muslims, the front-line mujahideen and their command structure (which of course includes innumerable Islamic scholars and clerics), there is operative what I call “fanatical intelligence” which endows them with a ruthless lucidity about how to get terror done, without questioning their primary motivation (the will of Allah and His Prophet, of course) -- whether in the short-term or in the long-term. And with my ISIS thesis in this multi-part series, I am here talking about the long-term, decades in the future.

Intelligently realizing that the West is currently too massively sophisticated and powerful (and socially healthy, though the Muslim fanatic will not be able to fully appreciate why social health confers and maintains power) to be toppled by Muslims, the intelligently fanatical Muslims then develop an elaborate, grand End Run around the problem of this formidable fortress called The West. And this entails a steady, massive infiltration of sheer numbers of Muslims into the West over decades of time, mostly pretending to be peaceful.  What ISIS managed to do in a few short years was create a situation throughout the Middle East and North Africa of an ongoing migration crisis, impelling hundreds of thousands -- yea, millions -- of Muslims to pour into the West like major tributary rivers after dams have been broken.

Of course, Muslims had been immigrating in large numbers prior to ISIS, but the sheer quantity wrought by the ISIS debacle radically game-changed the situation, enabling a startling increase, with no slow-down in sight.  This wouldn't have succeeded (and wouldn't continue to succeed, with no end in sight to the success), needless to say, had the West been rational -- which means, uncorrupted by politically correct multi-culturalism.

And Muslims would have had to be unusually stupid not to see that the West, for a good many decades going back at least to the 1960s (and only increasing with each passing decade, especially -- perversely so -- after 911), has for whatever reasons become extraordinarily susceptible to politically correct multi-culturalism, such that it (the West) continues to hand them (Muslims) on a silver platter the conditions enormously conducive for their Stealth Jihad.

It is Western politically correct multi-culturalism that creates the conditions whereby a certain increase in Islamic terror actually, and perversely, stimulates the West to bend over even further in respect for Muslims and their Islam.  Were it not for the massive factor of Western politically correct multi-culturalism, Muslims would have to figure out another way to do their grand End Run around the unavoidable fact of the stupendous asymmetry between their military capability and ours.  But in fact, Muslims do enjoy this enormous advantage given to them by the intelligently stupid West. Perhaps Al-Azhar will convene a clerical conference to pass a new fatwa declaring that a 6th prayer be added to the five daily prayers:

“O Allah, how perfect You are and praise be to You. Blessed is Your name, and exalted is Your majesty. There is no god but You.  We thank you for blessing us with such a colossally stupid Enemy who is actually allowing us in grand and broad ways to infiltrate their miserable House in order to pave the way for their eventual destruction!!! Subhana Rabbiyal Adhim! Allahu Akbar!”

See part 4.

The real reason behind ISIS: Part 2

In my previous posting -- The real reason behind ISIS: Part 1 -- I concluded with these three paragraphs (the third paragraph being the single, ominous word "Yet"):

...if Muslims can't finalize their Jihad against the West now, how would they be able to in the future? Short answer: By transferring enough millions of Muslims into the West to settle in, lay down roots, and burrow in deeply into the various interstices of our societies such that at some future date -- I would say probably no sooner than 100 years from now -- they will be able to rise up and engage in a massive, broad, diffuse campaign of violence.  Sort of an "Intifiada to end all Intifadas".

Why wait 100 years? Simply because they realize the time is not right: they don't have the numbers yet, and they don't have the depth of penetration throughout the West.

Yet.

An important -- if not crucial -- part of the description of the Muslims streaming into the West (with no end in sight of the flood of near Biblical -- or Koranic -- proportions) is that the vast majority are coming here not in order to perpetrate terror attacks in their lifetime (or even in their children's lifetime, or even their grandchildren's or great-grandchildren's lifetime). They are here to pave the way for the day when they will be able, feasibly, to unleash terror on a general level without getting stopped. Obviously, since the West remains massively superior to Muslim capabilities, Muslims will have to bide their time. Given that, the best way for Muslims to keep our guard down is for most of them to "behave", pretending to just wanna have sandwiches. Given that the entire mainstream of the West agrees that the vast majority of incoming Muslims are harmless, their ultimate plan is going swimmingly.

See part 3.

The real reason behind ISIS, Part 1.

In an essay here on this blog in early October of last year, I quoted Robert Spencer:

"...given the policies of the Macron government regarding mass Muslim migration, and the stigmatization, demonization and persecution of everyone who dares to oppose the Muslim migrant influx, before too long jihad terrorism won’t be necessary anyway, any more than it is in Saudi Arabia."

And I observed:

"This observation of Spencer's is wrong on so many levels, I won't have time to unpack them all here.  Perhaps the main flaw is his clear implication that Muslims will be able to achieve their Islamic goal of successfully thorough Islamization of France (and, by logical implication, the thorough Islamization  of any Western country more or less as stupid as France in this regard, and that's still most of them) -- without massive, widespread, and intense violence tantamount to frank warfare (though probably resembling paramilitary guerrilla warfare through to its bitter and chaotic end)."

I didn't add in that context, but will now, the salient point that the only reason why Muslims aren't moving into their next phase of Jihad -- violent Jihad on a scale sufficient to overpower the entire West -- is because they must realize they don't have the capability. Yet.

Then, back in October of 2016, in an essay I wrote on my old blog The Hesperado -- titled "Apparently the Constitution is a Suicide Pact..." -- I quoted one "Wellington", a typical Counter-Jihad Toughie-On-The-Outside-But-Nougaty-Soft-On-The-Inside, who deposited the following sweet-smelling turd in Jihad Watch comments:

Let's face it, the vast majority of Muslims in America, confused human beings though they are (on this I know we can agree), do not commit any ACTS which are prosecutable. 

And I answered, at the time:

"Apparently, these past 13 years of reading Jihad Watch have failed to impress upon Wellington the uniqueness of this asymmetrical world war we are in.  That rather revealing off-the-cuff remark of his reflects what I would call the State Dept. Counter-Terrorism Expert Analysis Protocol of the Eternal "Whack-a-Mo" Initiative.  Which will only work to save us if the problem of Muslims following their global revival of Islam is not, in fact, systemic and metastasizing.  Is Wellington so sure he'd like to bet that it isn't?"

So if Muslims can't finalize their Jihad against the West now, how would they be able to in the future? Short answer: By transferring enough millions of Muslims into the West to settle in, lay down roots, and burrow in deeply into the various interstices of our societies such that at some future date -- I would say probably no sooner than 100 years from now -- they will be able to rise up and engage in a massive, broad, diffuse campaign of violence.  Sort of an "Intifada to end all Intifadas".

Why wait 100 years? Simply because they realize the time is not right: they don't have the numbers yet, and they don't have the depth of penetration throughout the West.

Yet.

See part 2.

The Self-Hating Jew

On my old blog, The Hesperado, I wrote a couple of essays on this odd phenomenon of the "self-hating Jew".  At the time, I didn't know about an article that had been written years before (2010) on Front Page Mag, The Pathology of Jewish Anti-Semitism, an illuminating exploration with a lot of information to back it up.

One crucial question which I didn't really bring up, and the author of the article linked above -- Steven Plaut -- didn't either, is whether the Jewish phenomenon of PC MC/Leftism is significantly different than the broader PC MC of the West, which includes various Christians, atheists, and agnostics. I have tentatively concluded that there is at least one difference: Jews who are not PC MC and who therefore recognize the exigent problem of Islam tend to be more delicate and gingerly about calling out their fellow Jews who defend Islam. Sure, there are instances of Jews like the author Steven Plaut who do, but they are few and far between. Christians in the Counter-Jihad, on the other hand, are far more willing to condemn fellow Christians who defend Islam; ditto for atheists, or agnostics, or Hindus in the Counter-Jihad

Speaking of Ayaan Hirsi Ali...

No, that's not Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the pic above; it's just some nice, friendly hijabbed Muslima from Ayaan's home country.  But it could well be one of the hundreds of millions of Muslims whom Ayaan incoherently implies are harmlessly not much of a problem (while also implying sort of the opposite -- hence the incoherence).

In my previous posting, I ended with this sentence:

And don't get me started on Ayaan.

The linked name there leads the reader to a Google page with some of my older essays touching on the subject of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's analysis of the problem of Islam -- particularly good and meaty is the 3-part series examining her and Sam Harris, titled "Sam and Ayaan" (see part 3 which has links to parts 1 and 2 in the first parapgraph).

I recently came across an interesting review of one of her recent books, The Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Moement and How to Counter It. The reviewer is one Andrew Harrod, and I had occasion to speculate about his Counter-Jihad Cred in the second part of my analysis of a new book at the time by frequent Jihad Watch contributor, Christine Douglass-Williams -- yet another in a long line of Counter-Jihad folks who seem to have a built-in resistance to making the paradigm shift from "Islam is the problem" to "Muslims are the problem" (this inability then exerting an effect on their conception of Islam as a problem, such that Islam invariably gets split into Two Islams, one the source of the problems, the other relatively benign and to be protected from our criticisms lest by critiquing it too much, we begin to oppose Muslims in general -- a conclusion the Counter-Jihad Mainstream dearly wishes to avoid).

Harrod's review reveals that indeed Ayaan is constructing a Two-Islams model as she analytically grapples with the problem of Islam.  That Ayaan also seems to equivocate on it, incoherently, does not really console, since the damage of the rhetorical effect is done, promoting and reinforcing our collective inability to move forward in the aforementioned and above-linked paradigm shift.

Speaking of Jordan Peterson...

A continuation of my recent posting.

When you go to Jordan Peterson's Patreon page, there are various notes alerting readers of his upcoming activities. In one of them from 2017, a "Note as of May 22", he wrote:  

"I also plan to start a series of conversations with moderate Muslims about the possibility of developing a bridge between that faith and the fundamental beliefs of the West. That will start June 1 with a discussion with Ayaan Hirsi Ali."

Where is this "series of conversations with moderate Muslims"?  We're already into January of 2019.  I see nary hide nor hair of it.  He did add that they will start with a discussion with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. As far as I can tell, that's the only thing yet available in his new project of "discussions" about this problem.

I don't know if I'll watch the whole thing; it's frustrating to have to endure Peterson's OCD tendency to articulate every damned nuance of every facet and angle and aspect of every damned point (at various times during these seemingly interminable clarifications by Peterson, one sees Ayaan on the other camera feed listening patiently, nodding and going "mm-hm" at certain junctures while Peterson drones on).  Peterson's style as a rhetorician is the oratorian equivalent of a neurotically fastidious bachelor who spends 37 minutes every morning making his bed through a meticulous process of smoothing out every last of the 417 creases in the fitted sheet, then the flat sheet that goes over that (while dutifully tucking in every corner and/or flap that needs folding), then the duvet atop the sheet, the plaid blanket over that, and finally the bedspread. And he's only getting started.  After making sure his bed is perfect, he has 1,001 other things to adjust throughout his day. One can almost see Peteron's brain gears working as he levers his thoughts and the nexus between his thoughts and his speaking mouth in order to try to maneuver a large, complex car into a difficult parallel parking spot in the most economical way, but without sacrificing his obsessive-compulsion for making sure every last jot and tittle is adequately represented.  

And don't get me started on Ayaan.

More thoughts for a rainy day and coffee: "The Counter-Jihad is grinding its gears..."

In my first installment, I wrote:

The Counter-Jihad won't be able to go forward with what should be its #1 priority -- waking up fellow Westerners (who abound all around us) to the problem of Islam -- until it demonstrates the connections between "terrorism" and mainstream Islam.

And the rest of my posting proceeded to jump the gun, so to speak, without addressing an indispensably foundational question:

What exactly is this "problem of Islam" we would be waking up our fellow Westerners to...?

Until we in the Counter-Jihad (hopefully someday to became an actual, coherent Anti-Islam Movement) come to an agreement on what that problem is, precisely rather than vaguely, we would be dithering half-cocked -- albeit industriously -- with our pants down around our ankles, so to speak.

My answer to this most basic question... hang on, let me get a second cup...



My answer to this most basic question seems to vary significantly from what everyone else in the Counter-Jihad seems to believe. I say "seems" twice because no one in the Counter-Jihad, to my knowledge, ever actually spits out what they think the problem is with Islam, exactly. In their rhetoric, it remains vague and indirect, and all too often connected to a "Real Problemerism" (i.e., that the problem "really" is not Islam and Muslims, but rather some indistinctly and incoherently diabolical cabal of Westerners pulling all the strings of our miserable lives).  My answer I've never articulated comprehensively in one essay, and I doubt I'll be able to plop it on the table here right now in the fullness it deserves. For now, I'll ruthlessly summarize it in these stark terms, a hot shot of black coffee:

The problem of Islam is that it motivates 1.5 billion Muslims to want to destroy our societies and to plan that destruction through a combination of stealth deceit and violence. The various tactics of stealth deceit continue to be necessary only because currently Muslims are unable to destroy us, given the stupendous superiority of the West on all levels (economic, military, technological, scientific, social). This elaborate stealth deceit over many decades (I roughly estimate 100 years) will enable Muslims to destroy our societies violently. This doesn't mean they will have successfully "conquered" the West at that future date, only that they will have brought us to ruination, reducing the West to vast zones of killing fields, disorder, dislocation, and a general breakdown in infrastructure, where survival of Westerners who haven't been massacred by that time will have become a more or less desperate and precarious proposition, hiding from roving gangs of Muslims where more coherent Islamic rule has been unable to establish itself amid the chaos & ruins.

This is the future to which not only those in the broader Western Mainstream, but also those in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, both the Leadership and the Readership, have through their incoherent logic consigned the lives of their great-grandchildren's grandchildren.

Thoughts for a rainy day and coffee: "The Counter-Jihad is grinding its gears..."

I've probably thought about this too much over the years. I won't go into all the ins and outs of the problem today. Back in the day, on my now retired blog The Hesperado, I analyzed this problem every which way and loose -- including my 10-part series that "took the temperature of the Counter-Jihad" (for links to the first 9 parts, see this essay; and for part 10, see this posting).

For now, I'll share a recent realization I had.

The Counter-Jihad won't be able to go forward with what should be its #1 priority -- waking up fellow Westerners (who abound all around us) to the problem of Islam -- until it demonstrates the connections between "terrorism" and mainstream Islam.

How can it do this?  It can't be definitively proven, of course; it can only be indicated with evidence that is relevantly direct on a case by case basis (even if it remains necessarily indirect as the basis for inferring the generalization).

Here are some of the more significant cases which the Anti-Islam Movement (if it existed) could prepare through proper research and present with verifiable evidence:

1. The 2003 keynote speech to the O.I.C. given by Mahathir Mohamed, the Prime Minister of Malaysia (served 1981-2003, and is currently Prime Minister again)

Brief Exposition:

The key facts about this case that need explication would be the following:

a. What is the O.I.C. and what is its significance?  Demonstrate its significance for mainstream Islam.

b. The fact that a Prime Minister of Malaysia (already deemed to be relatively "moderate") evidently reflects mainstream Islam (moreoever, one re-elected and currently holding office).  Add more information to bolster these two claims.

c. The contents of the keynote speech given by Mahathir Mohamed, beginning with seeming moderation, and segueing into a nearly Hitlerian crescendo of anti-Jewish paranoia.

d. The standing ovation given to Mahathir Mohamed's speech by those in attendance (being the political and religious representatives of all 57 Muslim-majority nations of the world).

2. The speech or sermon given by Sheikh Qaradawi in which he says that Hitler was doing the work of Allah and that, Allah willing, Muslims will finish Hitler's work.

Brief Exposition:

The key facts about this case that need explication would be the following:

a. The contents of that speech/sermon, reported and translated at Memri.org.

b. The mainstream credentials of Sheikh Qaradawi, including his popularity in the Muslim world (which, unfortunately, is increasingly interpenetrating our Western world).

3. The alarmingly (yet unsurprisingly) supremacist and expansionist rhetoric of Syed Maududi.

a. The content of that rhetoric, with a source by a mainstream historian (Efraim Karsh).

b. The mainstream credentials of Syed Maududi, including the strong approval given his standing as a mufassir (exegete of the Koran) by Ingrid Mattson.

c. Establish the mainstream credentials of Ingrid Mattson, Canadian convert to Islam, including her résumé as former President of ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and continuing teacher at Hartford Seminary for the accreditation of all Muslims in North America who wish to become chaplains in the military and in the prison system.

4. The alarmingly (yet unsurprisingly) subversive and seditionist letter sent officially by a leader of the AMJA (Association of Muslim Jurists of America) to members of that organization.

a. Establish the mainstream credentials of the AMJA (I've seen them, and they appear massively solid, though regrettably I failed to take screen shots -- see below).

b. Present the contents of that subversive and seditionist letter sent officially by the AMJA leadership to its membership. Here's where deep problems within the inchoate Anti-Islam Movement (inchoate because it doesn't yet exist) show cracks. This extremely important document only came to light years ago (and even then only in the tiny community of the Counter-Jihad) through the translation from the original Arabic into English by one guy, the anonymous blogger who ran the "Translating Jihad" website. The drastic problem here being that for a long time (months? years?) that "Translating Jihad" website has been down, and the crucial posting in which he (or she) translated that AMJA document can no longer be accessed.  I have sent emails to at least four different people/organizations who have in the past relied on the "Translating Jihad" website.  Only one of them responded to me with a "sorry, I have no idea how to help". The other three, including Frank Gaffney and Andrew Bostom, have failed to respond to me (it's been a month since I emailed Bostom -- or rather since his friend Diana West promised me she would relay my email to him; and I just checked the date on the email I sent Frank Gaffney's organization, Center for Security Policy:  July 9, 2018, over 6 months ago!!!).

c. This basic level of dereliction in the Counter-Jihad is bad enough; but even if we could restore the "Translating Jihad" translation of the AMJA document, the translation itself would have to be independently verified, and the original Arabic published alongside the English translations. Furthermore, the first point (the mainstream credentials of AMJA) was in great part described in that AMJA letter, or at least in that posting (I'm unclear, since I don't have a screen shot copy, whether the copious information in that posting concerning the membership of AMJA was a part of the letter, or a part of the research by the "Translating Jihad" guy to add to his translation). That too should be independently augmented.

Conclusion (for now):

Many more cases -- demonstrating the connection between terrorism and mainstream Islam -- could be, and should be, adduced, and worked on.  Does the Leadership care about these matters? Evidently not. They seem more intent on pursuing the Counter-Jihad as a cottage industry, or business; and in the process, cultivating an industrious melange of ill-organized mountains of vital information mixed with an incoherent strategy; a strategy whose basic raison d'être, it seems, is to hope that, after doing this enough and for a long enough time, something useful will stick on the wall.

Jordan Peterson: Tough on "Post-Modernism", Soft on Islam

Here's an essay I wrote back in May of last year.  As Peterson seems to be a work in progress, he may (or might have already) changed for the better on this issue (or for the worse).  Some day I may delve into it again.  (Note: When I describe Peterson as over-indulging in "paradigmatic thinking" I mean what I have more recently developed by the term "axiomatic thinking".)

Jordan Peterson: Tough on "Post-Modernism", Soft on Islam

Gold in them thar hills

In the comments field of a recent Jihad Watch article (on the new Congressmuslima, Rashida Tlaib, swearing in on a Koran), our new (soon to be old) friend Big W left another nugget of gold -- or a promissory note telling people where the real gold is.

thebigW says 
Jan 6, 2019 at 1:16 pm 

Where did Hugh Fitzgerald get that quote from? 

“It was written in their Koran, (that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.” 

That ain’t the quote i’ve seen. What I saw was 

“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” 

Yup, ol' Big W is right -- again. For details, see my old essay on my now defunct blog The Hesperado:

I Struck Gold! Second Addendum to Primary Sources 101

I note I wrote that essay nearly 10 years ago, even then noting that Hugh Fitzgerald, among many others in the Counter-Jihad, were either getting the quote wrong, or citing inadequate primary/secondary sources for it -- or both.  It was already impermissible for the Anti-Islam Movement to be so sloppy back then, let alone now.

God Bless You, Big W!

Once again, Big W knocks one, if not out of the park, at least way over the outfielder's head, allowing 2 men on base to run home (if only the Counter-Jihad Softball Team played the deadly serious game without tripping all over themselves half the time...).

Anyway,our new friend Big W seems to be aware, with an appropriately critical eye, of the "Leftist meme" I've analyzed many times on The Hesperado (and before that, Jihad Watch Watch). What is this Leftist meme, you ask? You could consult some of those analyses I've written over the years, including this one.

Or if you're lazy, just let Big W describe its essence. First he quotes someone in the Jihad Watch Chorus (where this meme rings out practically every day from various commenters), and follows with his characteristically perfunctory and spot-on observations:

• thebigW says

  Jan 6, 2019 at 12:42 am

  
  “The sheep will be of no help to us as things progress. Indeed they are human shields, sacrificial lambs, an obstacle that the non-left west will encounter everywhere.”
  
  I would say the non left West mostly disagrees with us here at JIhad Watch or just doesn’t know about most of this and doesn’t really care and if you bring up the issue too much to them (non left West guys and gals) they tune you out or look at you like you’re weird. So what I’m saying is the Leftists wouldn’t have the power they have if it weren’t for the fact that most of the non left West is clueless.
  

What's wrong with this picture...?

 

"Texas: Women harassed for speaking out on Muslim preacher’s misconduct allegations" -- so a recent Jihad Watch report informs us.

Robert Spencer begins this posting with an apparently key quote from one of the female victims of this Muslim "preacher":

Said Laila Alawa, one of Khan’s accusers: “The reality is, speaking out as a woman can cost you your reputation, your job opportunities. It’s an insanely deep fear that we’ve taught our young women time and again with all the rhetoric around modesty and hijab. If you’re being told over and over that it’s the woman’s responsibility to be chaste, women are going to internalize it as their fault if they get harassed.”
[Note: "Said" is the Muslim woman's first name, not the English verb "Said"]

After this quote, Spencer inserts a pregnant pause in the form of a paragraph space, with the succinct impact of one word indicating his agreement & affirmation.

Yes.

After that, and a picture of the Muslim "preacher" (are there any Muslim "preachers" per se? Or are they not more accurately termed "clerics"?) sporting a ridiculously Amish or Abrahamic-Lincoln beard-with-no-moustache, Spencer launches immediately into reproducing the story as reported by a venue called "BuzzFeed" (which Wikipedia tells us is "an American internet media company based in New York City. The firm is a social news and entertainment company with a focus on digital media and feminism"):

“Women Are Being Harassed For Speaking Out About A Muslim Preacher’s Misconduct Allegations,” by Hannah Allam, BuzzFeed, September 29, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Once you get past the shirtless selfies and the “sugar daddy” boast, the scandal surrounding Muslim preacher Nouman Ali Khan is a rare window into how difficult it can be for Muslim communities to deal with claims of misconduct by leaders, especially when women are involved. 

Khan is a conservative, Texas-based teacher whose lively Qur’an lectures draw hundreds of thousands of fans to his stories blending modern-day scenarios with strict interpretations of scripture. He disapproves of men and women shaking hands, promotes marrying young, and chides Muslims who wear “skintight” clothes. Shocking claims that he abused his power to pursue relationships with women set off a nasty battle over how to handle allegations of religious leaders behaving badly. 

Last week, the accusations — along with screenshots of text messages and photos allegedly sent to women by Khan — portrayed him as an undercover ladies’ man who violated the rigid moral code he advocates.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

1. It's a story not about a Muslim victimizing non-Muslims, but rather a Muslim victimizing other Muslims (in this case, the female Muslims who attend his "sermons" -- and the story is clearly siding with the women and portraying them as sympathetic victims of this Muslim cleric's hypocritical violation of his own "conservative" values and "rigid moral code".  Such internecine Muslim-on-Muslim attacks are only useful for us as specimens of the pathology of Muslim society so we "in the Counter-Jihad" can try to wake up our fellow sleepwalkers snoozing in deep De Nile.  They should not be used to reinforce our prevailing PC MC axiom that there exists a viable demographic (probably the majority) of harmlessly, assimilable Muslims (and by "viable" I mean one which can be reliably verified).

2.  Then we have the reporter's language throughout, here and there subtly massaging in the normalcy of the Muslim "community" in America.  This scandal, she says, is a rare window into how difficult it can be for Muslim communities to deal with claims of misconduct by leaders, especially when women are involved.  

3.  Not only is it implied that Muslims are a "community" woven into the fabric of American societies, but also that many (most? the vast majority?) are normal decent people who oppose this "conservative" extremism and the hypocrisy attendant upon it.

4.  Notwithstanding the implication in the article of a broad base of moral decency amongst Muslims, the reporter also implies it is extraordinarily difficult for all those decent Muslims to do the right thing -- though the reporter never explains how this intimidation by a tiny minority could exert so much successful influence on the vast majority.

5.  Let's back up here to note yet another thing wrong with this picture -- the name of the reporter: Hannah Allam.  Clearly it's an Arabic last name, juxtaposed to a Western-sounding name (although "Hannah" is a Hebrew name originally from the Old Testament, it has since become an unremarkably normative name for Western, mostly white, females).  Thus Robert Spencer, and by extension the Counter-Jihad, is relying upon a Muslim reporter for a spin which, as we see from the first four flaws in the picture, subtly slips in between the lines the Good Cop/Bad Cop split -- thus reinforcing our already difficult-to-exorcize reflex to want to help the decent Muslims whom we assume exist in large numbers (many? most? the vast majority?).

This reflex, if it is not reversed, will be the primary reason for the doom of the West as we know it, and its reduction into vast zones of killing fields, rampant violence, and a general breakdown in social order throughout the West -- all made possible by four factors:

1) The fanatical desire and blueprint in Islamic culture motivating the destruction of all societies that do not submit to Allah and His Prophet.

2) The ability to implement a sufficient quantity & quality of violence in the West in order to finally bring us down, after about a century of planning.

3) The sufficient quantity & quality of this violence will be primarily through a concatenation of terror attacks of varying degrees of magnitude, ranging from small-scale "lone wolves" to small commando units roaming around, to medium-sized attacks, to spectacular attacks using chemical, biological, or suitcase nuke WMDs -- attacks as bad as or worse than 911 -- and made possible by the depth and breadth of penetration into our societies of more and more Muslims in the coming decades.

And, last but not least:

4) Western Islamophobophobia.

“Get your coffee & donuts at Big W's No Nonsense Cafe!”

When it was only once or twice that I'd mention this relatively new commenter on Jihad Watch -- one "thebig_W" (whom I fondly call "Big W") -- I'd link down to a previous posting here that mentioned him for the first time. Now I've mentioned him so many times, Flo is getting jealous; so for now I'll tell any interested readers to just take a stroll down through, oh, say the last baker's dozen of postings to find other reasons why I like this guy's take on Islam.

Big W may not be deeply learned in the subject of Islam, but he seems to have the right instincts about it (possibly the most important thing for us to cultivate, in terms of averting the catastrophe that may well befall the West by the time this century winds to a close), and he's generally pithy about it.

Today's gem went down with as much pleasure when I read it this morning as a glazed chocolate donut and a swig of Joe.

The topic was a report that the New York City police have -- either officially or unofficially -- augmented policing certain communities, apparently ones with high concentrations of Muslims, with a "Muslim Community Patrol" apparently including their own cars.

So, responding to another reader, Big W quoted him, then added his two cents:

“Even if only over a few blocks, they are establishing a micro-enclave of the Dar al-Islam.” 

All Muslims everywhere outside of the Dar al-Islam are doing that. All of them in different ways (and most of them obviously are getting away with it because most of us can’t face this fact) 

Those two cents are solid gold.

Surgeon General warning: "This decafeinated coffee might not prevent you from falling asleep."

In a recent posting on Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer boldly goes where it's safe to go, boldly supporting the Australian government's decision to strip the citizenship of an "Australian" Muslim who had joined ISIS:

All free nations should do this as a matter of course, but the suicidal British and others have instead welcomed them back. They joined an entity that has repeatedly declared that it is at war with their home countries. That should have been taken as a renunciation of citizenship.

And sure as rain follows a gay pride parade, our new friend "Big W" points out what should be the counter-jihadistically obvious:

thebigW 

says Dec 29, 2018 at 2:01 pm 

What’s the difference between ISIS and Islam? Yeah they are different, Islam can fool people (or make us fool ourselves) into thinking it’s not a condition for deporting. 

I.e., if there's no (relevant) difference  between ISIS and Islam, why not do the same thing to any and all members of the latter group what Spencer boldly advocates for members of the former?  Obviously, as we have seen many times, Spencer prevaricates on this issue, clearly implying that there is in fact a relevant difference -- such that, specifically, Muslims qua Muslims are not problematic to remain (and continue to aggrandize) in the West.

"Where's the Big W...?"

Recently, I commended a fellow who goes by the moniker "thebig_W" -- a new (or apparently  new) member of the Counter-Jihad Readership (defined as such, at minimum, by lodging comments on various discussion forums and/or social media sites -- pre-eminently Jihad Watch, followed by the Front Page and Gates of Vienna sites).

The link above leads to a posting on Jihad Watch and to Big W's bold dressing down of Robert Spencer. I kept checking back to see how other members of the Readership reacted to Big W's comment.  Surely, they must agree, right?  Wrong.  Even though the posting aroused over 70 comments, the only responses to Big W were from our old friend "gravenimage" insisting counter-factually that Robert Spencer is not being fooled by stealth jihadists, even though Big W showed, through the simple examination of Spencer's own words, straight from the horse's mouth, that in fact it does seem that he evidently is being fooled (or is lying).

Interestingly, we see among those comments linked above a pro-Islam reader, one "lebel", making the interesting claim, in response to Big W, in effect that Robert Spencer is only pretending to be equivocating on the problem of Islam so he can have "plausible deniability". I've often wondered if Spencer is doing that, sort of the Counter-Jihad version of the Stacy Keach character in the movie American X. But I tend to think Spencer actually has an underbelly of nougat about the whole problem. Either way, Spencer's rhetoric, I maintain, is putting the brakes on the much needed cultivation of rational prejudice in the West.

Over at the Gates of Vienna blog, a commenter named "leCanadien" posted the following, I would say, rather common sentiment in the Counter-Jihad. It was his follow-up comment to requesting of another Civilian of the Counter-Jihad Readership a link for the beheading video of the two Scandinavian girls recently butchered by Muslims in Morocco:

Never mind. Please do not post the link to the video of the beheading.
I saw it. Now wish I had not.
It is very disturbing to see such brutality against young innocent people.
I think though that it is necessary viewing for any one who believes islam is peaceful and not a threat to us.

leCanadien's conclusion at the end exemplifies one of the shaky pillars of the "problem3" -- the problem of the Counter-Jihad as it grapples inadequately with both the problem of Islam, and with the secondary problem of the West failing to deal with the problem of Islam.

Namely, an inflated sense of optimism and, related to that, an unrealistic appraisal of what it takes (or would take) to wake up Western Denialists (who abound all around us).

What leCanadien doesn't fully appreciate is just how deep and complicated the Denial is. Here's what the typical carbon-based oxygen-breathing Westerner with opposable thumbs will do upon watching that beheading video:

"Oh that's terrible! Those murderers show how bad the Tiny Minority of Extremists are who don't represent the mainstream Islam of the vast majority of nice Brown Muslims Who Just Wanna Have a Sandwich; and because of that, I'm worried now that all those dangerous far right white supremacists in the West will try to use this video to tar all Muslims with the same brush and have a backlash against them with hate crimes!"

I.e., the last 18 years of the glacially growing Counter-Jihad trying to educate our fellow Westerners has achieved practically nothing.

Put Big W's coffee & donuts on my tab!

Our new friend Big W just gets better and better in his comments on Jihad Watch.



Commenting on a Jihad Watch posting featuring Robert Spencer's latest batch of nougat, our new friend Big W quotes Spencer --

“There are indeed Muslims who are “driven by an ideology” and other Muslims who “practise their own religion in their own way with their own family and their own friends,” that is, Muslims who are bringing Sharia to the UK and advancing the cause of political Islam, and those who are not. ”

-- then drops this devastating bomb of a precisioned surgical strike:

I beg to differ. All Muslims are advancing the cause of Islam (for one thing because it’s the same damn thing as “political Islam”). A lot of Muslims are just doing the advancing in ways that seem okay, and one way to see how successful they are is the fact they’ve fooled Robert Spencer into thinking they’re not advancing “political Islam” (same damned thing as Islam).

The only question I have for Big W is: glazed, powdered or plain? With donuts, I suspect he knows as well as I know, it makes a difference; but with Muslims, pace Robert Spencer, it don't make a damned bit of difference.

(Except, of course, to the diverse strategy of jihad we reasonably assume Muslims in various ways are enacting.)

Mmmmm... nougat!

Back in the spring of last year, I wrote a useful analytical overview of Robert Spencer's nougat.

The key to the puzzle

Nougat is my technical term for varying degrees of tasty, chewy softness about the problem of Islam. Some forms of nougat are less coherent than others. Spencer's nougat is probably the least coherent in the Counter-Jihad. The reader who clicks on the above link, carefully reads my essay (and follows the links therein to carefully read more) will begin to see why I say that.

My second sort of boring not necessarily very informative podcast now available!!!

My 0.5 readers can catch it here:

Daily Decaf 2

"Better Cops" means better coffee & donuts!

As I've said many times, I've written a whole slew of essays over the years about the "Better Cops" phenomenon (Or "Better Mo" as I've sometimes tongued in cheek).  One of the more interesting and in-depth postings I composed was titled "Better Cops in the Trump Era" which I wrote back in February of 2017.

Whenever I've gone looking for older essays of mine on this subject, I've tended to bypass this one because, since I'd forgotten the details, the title made me think it was super-specific, regarding the Trump context. On re-reading it recently, I see it's an excellent introduction and analysis of the phenomenon generally speaking, with detailed examinations, relative to the inept views of various readers of Jihad Watch, of two specimens of the genre, Shireen Qudosi and Asra Nomani.

I was going to post this anyway, as part of my intent to use The Daily Decaf as, in part, a venue for re-publishing particularly good essays from my now defunct blog The Hesperado.  But Flo's Diner is offering a two-fer today, since I noticed recently the Jihad Watch Readership once again -- for the umpteenth time -- dropping the ball on one of these Better Mos, a Muslim cleric from Australia otherwise known as the "Imam of Peace" (whom we've met before on The Daily Decaf -- and if you have a time machine, later in time in a posting in May of 2019) who has been making a show of how "reformist" and "moderate" he is.  And never mind that the Leadership -- Robert Spencer in this case -- also dropped the ball, as he so often does in these more nuanced matters.

The Jihad Watch Readership dropped the ball in two ways: 1) by three of them either praising this Better Mo (or giving him the benefit of the doubt); and 2) by not speaking out (i.e., typing out) comments of appropriately devastating suspicion of this "reformist" cleric.  Only one Jihad Watch reader did so, our new friend "Big W":

thebigW says
Dec 16, 2018 at 4:54 pm

[Big W quotes a Jihad Watch regular here, "Walter Sieruk"]

“It’s an awful vicious thing to do as to call for the death of a man who is only engaging is an unrealistic goal of “reforming Islam.” That imam who wants to reform Islam might, very much, be sincere in his quest of the to have a “reformation of Islam” is not actually possible, it’s an action of futility but that to no excuse or reason to kill him.”

[Then Big W says]

That ain’t the issue, the issue is why does this so called “Imam of Peace” Tawhidi still support the same ideology that justifies him being killed? And why doesn’t this Tawhidi guy explain how he disagrees point by point with the fatwa (probably because he can’t). 

God bless you, Big W!  Have a glazed donut and a cuppa joe!

Meanwhile, the other two Softies, one "Angry Aussie" and one "Lynda Hynes" had to virtue-signal in favor of this Brown Person, Imam Tawhidi.  "Angry Aussie" in particular really laid it on thick:

Angry Aussie says
Dec 16, 2018 at 7:30 pm

Imam Tawhidi is the real deal. He is not a fraud. He is highly intelligent and respected by most Australians that know him or know of him. Of course the terrorist types don’t like him. 

I have met and spoken with Imam Tawhidi. He is sincere. He is also very aware of flaws in scripture relied on by many as being accurate. 

The world needs people like Imam Tawhidi. He doesn’t want sharia law in Western nations and speaks out against it and the rapid islamisation of the West. 

I like him because he is in a position to influence the thoughts and minds of young Muslims. If he abandoned his robes, he would have less impact on people. Authorities don’t listen to any of us now, but they do listen to him. 

He is the only Imam in Australia that I would back. 

Tawhidi thinks very logically. He is quick witted and very funny. He is Shia, which is why the Sunni call him a fake. He is very well educated, unlike the Sunni that wake up one day and decide to be an imam. 

After reading this steaming pile of horseshit, one wonders what exactly Angry Aussie is "Angry" about.  Not, evidently, the Islam & the Koran & the Mohammed whom his Favorite Cleric adores and affirms and supports (and routinely lies about by brazenly implying that his "reformism" is not monstrously contradicted by that same Islam, Koran and Mohammed) -- the same bloody Islam, Koran and Mohammed which motivate and inspire all the jihad and terrorism and oppression Angry Aussie no doubt is angry about.

Meanwhile, all "Lydia Hynes" did was give a warmly firm thumbs up to Angry Aussie's steaming pile of horseshit, adding a bit of cowshit garnish of her own:

Lynda Hynes says
Dec 16, 2018 at 11:12 pm

Well said, ‘Angry Aussie’. Imam Tawhidi is genuine and courageous. His somewhat unusual interpretation of Islam is perfectly compatible with Western values and democracy. If they were all like Imam Tawhidi, there would be no need for Jihad Watch! 

And of course, none of the other Jihad Watch regulars saw fit to chime in to set the record straight and articulate what should be the Counter-Jihad norm by now: a rational prejudice against all Muslims.

As I said up top, a healthy antidote to this nonsense my readers will find in my older analysis of Better Cops like this "Imam of Peace" (which I'll relink here for those too lazy to lift their little finger in order to hit the "PgUp" key on their keyboards).

Flo and the guys at the No Nonsense Diner on Highway 72 wish you all a Merry Christmas!

The Holy Family

A painting by Jan Breughel the Elder (1568-1625), depicting Mary and Joseph with their child, along with many cherubim in attendance around the holy, wholly other yet as intimate to us as this; unseen to the gimlet eye of science, yet evidence from faith and art.

"Hey Flo, get 'Big W' another cup of Joe!"

I'm beginning to like the cut of Big W's jib. Who is this feller, you ask? He's a relatively new commenter on various Jihad Watch comments threads who seems to cut through the camelcrap and point out the essential core of the problem (however that problem happens to permutate at the time, given the different contexts of different reported incidents relating to Islam).

The actual spelling of his nickname is 'thebigW'. One can do an Advanced Google Search specifying the Jihad Watch website and type in that name exactly, and that will yield most (if not all) of his comments over however much time it's been since he first arrived there. (It helps when a nickname is so unusual it can be zeroed in on in a search.)

So Christmas came early when I saw a recent comment by ol' Big W, doing something the veteran regulars there have been too afraid to do for years -- namely, boldly reprimand Robert Spencer for an egregious lapse in his Counter-Jihad Cohones.  In a recent posting on Jihad Watch, Spencer was taking a conservative pundit, Ron Dreher, to task for his airheaded optimism about American Muslims.

As the Jihad Watch headline ran:

Rod Dreher: No need for “anxiety” about Islam in US, for “America will turn Islam into Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” 

Robert Spencer's gaffe came purt near right out of the box:

Are there secular Muslims in the United States? Of course. 

Woah Nelly, Bob. Are you that anxious to Double-Virtue-Signal...?

Luckily, our new friend Big W was there to point out, with a refreshing blast of common sense, what should be the obvious:

thebigW says

Dec 21, 2018 at 5:06 pm

“Are there secular Muslims in the United States? Of course”

with all due respect Robert Spencer, that’s bullcrap. There might be Muslims who’ve fooled you into thinking they’re “secular” but that’s sadly a different story.

Yo, Flo! Another cup of coffee for Big W here -- real coffee, not that semi-decaf crap they sell over at Bob's Diner!