I know a guy -- I'd say he was a "member of the Counter-Jihad" (or better yet, "of the Anti-Islam Movement"), except that since there's no actually coherently organized "Counter-Jihad" (or "Anti-Islam Movement"), he can't really be a member of it -- whose screen name on the Paltalk chat venue is "SamHuntington" (named after the writer of The Clash of Civilizations) and whom I've known for years to be, generally speaking, quite tough on Islam. At the same time, over the years I've also noticed now and then various disquieting signs of nougat (i.e., soft spots) here and there in his discourse about the problem of Islam, possibly significant enough to undercut his overall toughness. Or possibly not. I'm still not sure where my friend Sam stands, given these soft spots.
Either way, these signs do indicate a more general problem in "the Counter-Jihad", where such signs, depending on the individual -- and depending on various consensuses involving decision-making for the group (such as it is) -- can and seemingly do indeed undercut a tough stance vis-à-vis the problem of Islam. This -- need I add? -- is particularly disquieting, given that "the Counter-Jihad" is the only area of sociopolitical consciousness leading to action in the entire West where a tough stance has a chance of growing (and from there, helping to awaken the rest of the West).
At any rate, today's posting focuses on one type of soft spot, and that is the nougat of low expectations. In this case, the low expectations refers to Sam's ebullient praise of a mainstream documentary that is supposed to be spot on about the problem of Islam. The documentary is featured on Netflix -- Manhunt: The Search for Bin Laden -- and is based on a book (roughly the same title) by journalist Peter Bergen.
Since this series about which my friend Sam raved and swore it had no soft spots in its treatment of the central issue (Islamic jihad) is based centrally on Peter Bergen's book, and since Peter Bergen is featured in the series, I figured that, short of actually watching the whole series, finding out who this Peter Bergen fellow is would go a long way toward vetting the series and seeing if my friend Sam was being accurate.
Well, on Peter Bergen's webpage, we see a new(er) book he is advertising, titled, with conspicuously suspicious bravado, United States of Jihad (with clever typography showing the word "America" superimposed diagonally by "Jihad"). The brief descriptions and blurbs sound good -- robustly anti-Jihad, right? -- and no doubt my friend Sam would be impressed by them, until he puts two and two together and connects the dots.
For example, knowing what we in the Counter-Jihad know about our Western mainstream and how it routinely whitewashes Islam and in various ways punishes (including among other appalling things, ostracizing and character assassination) critics of Islam that in their politically correct estimation go too far -- i.e., don't limit their criticism/condemnation to the Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Twisting the Lovely Religion of Peace Followed by the Vast Majority of Muslims; Muslims Who, As We All Know (thanks to Imam Affleck), Just Wanna Have Sandwiches -- it makes no sense that they would praise a book on Jihad in America that violates the dominant politically correct paradigm. And if my friend Sam thought about it, he would agree, I am sure, that if the West doesn't transition to a new frame of mind & culture whereby it actually supports -- rather than punishes -- a violation of this politically correct paradigm, it doesn't stand a chance to defend itself in the long term from the threat of Islam.
So how then on Allah's Green Earth could this Peter Bergen guy get so many effusive accolades of praise from the Western mainstream? If his Islam criticism dared to be one inch outside the Politically Correct Reservation, it makes no sense and would be virtually impossible for him to garner such praise. This is not even to mention that Netflix, the venue for the series based on Bergen's other book, is solidly mainstream. So ask yourself: Do you think Netflix would ever in a million years dare to air (let alone showcase and promote) a series featuring and fully supporting Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Bill Warner? I don't either.
Examples of the Western mainstream's praise of Bergen's book are on his webpage. Here are a couple of screen shots:
The rest of the page, which my second screen shot cuts off, is a reproduction of a long New York Times review which praises Bergen's book, without a hint that Bergen might have committed the thought crimes of Islamophobia or bigotry or racism (charges routinely leveled at most of the Counter-Jihad analysts who remain outside the pale of the mainstream West, never reviewed or mentioned at all unless in passing to be demonized with such epithets).
Not only are all these praises coming from solidly mainstream Western sources (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, TIME magazine, Washington Post) and one Islamic media outlet pretending to be part of the Western mainstream (Al Jazeera America), but one of the two New York Times notices of praise comes from a guest review penned by none other than Janet Napolitano, who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under Obama (2009-2013). There's no way in hell that she, or any of these other reviewers (and their politically correct editors and publishers granting them their imprimaturs) would possibly praise a book about Jihad in America that wasn't unacceptably soft -- by Counter-Jihad standards, that is.
