Wednesday, July 13, 2016

My autobiography relating to "waking up" to the problem of Islam 

Prior to 911, I did not take much notice of Islam. I was peripherally intrigued by "oriental" literature set amorphously in various Islamic ambiances -- mainly the fiction and travelogues of 19th century writers Théophile Gautier, Pierre Loti, and Gustave Flaubert, as well as the literally fabulous 1,001 Arabian Nights (most of which I pored through in its first Western translation, into French (Les Mille et Une Nuits), by the French Orientalist whose career straddled the 17th and 18th centuries, Antoine Galland) -- but part of the fascination was its far-fetched quality, both in space and in time: who knew such fanatical ardor and atavistic violence would make a concerted comeback in the 21st century? (Well, a few souls who knew Islam well predicted something like an Islam Redivivus: e.g., Snouck Hurgronje, even with his preposterous idealism about Muslims; and more grimly lucid, Hilaire Belloc.) 

I recall in about 1999, nosing around in recondite books and dictionaries in the college library, my surprise when I saw essentially the same word for "foreigner" -- ferengi -- in an old Siamese-English dictionary and in a modern Kurdish dictionary. I recalled at the time from previous history classes that there was historically an "Islamic corridor" running from the Pacific to the Atlantic (a "corridor" both geographic and cultural), though I was only dimly aware of the militant expansionism that made that possible, and even less aware (thanks to my Western education) of the colossal scale of the violence and intellectually stultifying supremacism perpetrated by Muslims following their Islamic blueprint over the centuries.

A blueprint that we see, to our increasing alarm, has remained virtually unchanged into our own century.

For the first year immediately following 911, I participated in a discussion forum dedicated to the philosopher Eric Voegelin, where the comments were abuzz with the incident and its aftermath, as well as another philosophy discussion forum, "The Examined Life". When I reviewed those old comments of mine recently, I was struck (not to toot my own horn) at how fast I had progressed, so early, along the learning curve. Within six months of 911, I was already raising the question, "Is Islam itself directly related to this attack and other terrorist attacks around the world?" And I found a curious reflex among the other commenters for finding ways to intellectually shut down the directionality of the question, without even pursuing its implications with an open mind (let alone with actual research into mainstream Islamic texts).

At any rate, at some point -- probably late 2002 or early 2003 -- as I was surfing the Net, I kept coming across links to a website relatively new at the time. One thing that caught my eye was the format -- the presentation of one story or event after another relating to Islam, punctuated with salty commentary by someone, apparently the editor of the site, whom later I would come to know as Robert Spencer. Over time, I got hooked, and kept coming back.

Jihad Watch is like a running AP or UPI newswire -- bringing to readers one story after another relating to the dangerous pathology of Islam. For the first few years, it was divided into two "Watches" -- Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch: the former relating generally to the pathology of Islam, the latter relating generally to the pathology of Westerners who remain myopic to the former. A few years ago, Spencer merged the two into one.

What has dawned on me over many years of reading Jihad Watch (and actively -- yea, voluminously -- participating in its comments threads) is that it is more than merely a "running AP or UPI newswire": For the regular and attentive reader, it is a mountain of data about the pathology of Islam, in all its myriad grotesquely fanatical violence. Indeed, it is more than a mere mountain: its collective horror and terror which it documents grows daily, weekly, monthly. It is a veritable volcano of the evil lava of Islamic data from around the world, growing larger and taller as the years ago by, building upon the historical tectonic plates of its bloody conquests of yore, and those in turn growing out of the subterranean, chthonic madness of the Hellish cult spawned in the Arabian desert 1400 years ago.

At some point this metaphor of Jihad Watch as a "mountain of data" inspired me to write an essay on that aspect, followed by a subsequent essay:

Mt. Jihad Watch

More years of mountainous growth

Readers who are fairly new to Jihad Watch, or who are fitful readers only now and then, will not have not experienced the full catastrophe that impresses itself upon a person who assimilates a relentlessly daily diet -- over weeks, months and years -- of the gruesome, insane and outrageously alarming words and deeds of Muslims all over the world. 

This dynamic or phenomenon of the experience of the sheer litany of Islamic horrors impressed me as a meme in and of itself; so I embarked upon producing a few essays cheekily modeled after Garrison Keillor's "Lake Woebegone" monologues (tweaking that to "Lake Mobegone"): I count seven essays I did on that theme, located on this Google page.  That series began back in December of 2011 with an essay spoofing Keillor's "news from Lake Woebegone" -- and never knowing I would continue over the years with several more installments.

For those regular readers who stand on the ever-mounting peak of Mt. Jihad Watch, the full magnitude of the exigence of a zero tolerance of all Muslims is becoming increasingly clear, and we have grown wearily impatient with the various ways with which our fellow Westerners -- even many who claim to be something resembling "anti-Islam" -- try to avoid the rational condemnation of Islam itself, and of all Muslims who enable Islam.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Objective Caution vs. Subjective Caution

(In the following analysis, I use the term "conservative" to denote merely a person who proceeds in his analysis of the problem of Islam conservatively -- meaning he errs on the side of avoiding assuming the worst.  In this context, the word "conservative" is not meant in terms of partisan politics.)

Should we not err on the side of objective caution rather than subjective caution...?  Objective caution would be to assume the worst about a problem; subjective caution, on the other hand, is the conservative virtue of avoiding an "extreme" reaction to a problem, and thus patting oneself on the back for being so "prudent" and not as "alarmist" as the one who would lurch into assuming the worst about a situation.

The argument for exercising objective caution rather than subjective caution in this horrifyingly special case -- viz., the problem of the global revival of Islamic jihad -- revolves around the potential for the worst one can see in the data.  The conservative's subjective caution takes that potential into account, but gives undue weight to the fact that it is not yet a fact, but is only a potential; and since none of us know the future, let's not "get carried away" with our proactive reactions.  (Other motivations may well be operative in the conservative's mind, such as a lurking asymptotic anxiety not to be "bigoted" and "prejudiced".)

The concerned civilian, on the other hand, takes seriously this potential, and realizes that casuistry is not always a virtue -- that, in sum, the horror of the potential (which includes a diverse panoply of factors indicating the problem of Islam is unique and cannot be softened by comparison with other problems we would superimpose upon it) is a sufficient cause to motivate us to act as though the potential is real, even if its reality will be unfolding over a complex and protracted trajectory over many decades.

Indeed, the complexity and duration of that trajectory, incidentally, is one factor that lulls the conservative into his relative calmness about this civilizational train wreck we are suffering in this 21st century.  While I have many times chided the "Chicken Littles" of the Counter-Jihad (those who, when one tells them that one thinks the West may well fall to Islam in about 80 years, say at by the end of this century, respond with frantic hyperventilation, "But we don't have decades!  The sky is falling NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!"), one doesn't want to relax our alarm too much and treat this horrendous problem as though it's some kind of grand Bump in the Road we can over time assimilate in our civilizational digestive tract, eventually to pass out of our colon with finally a suitable bowel movement after a few decades of constipation and ominous gastrointestinal rumblings along the way.

Monday, June 13, 2016

The obtuse blunderbuss, "joe blow" at Jihad Watch comments

In a recent comments thread attached to a Jihad Watch report on the Ontario ghazi -- "Orlando jihadi's coworker complained about him, company did nothing because he was Muslim" -- "joe blow" (aka "Philip Jihadski" in days of yore) trampled in with his obtuse boots when he saw one commenter reasonably post a gripe about "PC" (Political Correctness).

Important note: My most recent nickname at Jihad Watch comments was "Fessitude" -- before I was banned at the behest of the Jihad Watch comments lynch mob (see my essay Au revoir, Jihad Watch, for further details).

So here's the blowhard, "joe blow", weighing in with his obtuse foot in his mouth:

Nope. Sorry to disagree, but that’s the Fessitude Delusion at work.
Agree or disagree with me, but I have another theory.
It’s not PC! People don’t even know what that means, to tell the truth. What, possibly, could be considered “correct” when it comes to politics? The answer is, “nothing”.

No…what’s killing us is simple. It’s Moslems and Islam.
Enough with the supposed PCMC crap.
That’s it and that’s all!

What's amusing about this beet-faced, hamfisted ejaculation is that, as one scrolls down through the remain 70 comments, one finds commenter after commenter ignoring this simple-minded advice from "joe blow" and instead, reasonably complaining about... guess what -- you got it, "PC".

Let's take a gander, shall we? (I have bolded the relevant portions for emphasis.)
    • Time to drop a little Confederate flag into the tricky muslim’s car and turn him in….IF you think they are stalking you and may do you harm.
      Nothing gets you fired faster than a Confederate Flag.
      Just kidding but if some muslim was the somebody doing the stalking thing to me, I would think it was time to move-on FAST. ‘CAUSE nobody on the planet in charge of anything is going to go against a muslim ’cause the news media might call them , OH heaven forbid : a racist , a bigot or a Nazi. OR a REPUBLICAN.
      The police are PC and so are the employers.
  1. And from the PC point of view, now we have a proof that he was simply “unstable” and that has clearly nothing to do with ISIS and even less with the religion of…
    • And if someone would have listen the 50 people would not be dead. The political correctness is the worse that could have happened in this country. Vote TRUMP 2016.
      John Spielman says
      According to the PC police, it’s better to let people be SLAUGHTERED than to be accused of ” islamophobia”
      • Yes, remember what the US’s Military’s top officer General George Casey said after the Fort Hood jihadist massacre, ” And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
        13 dead at Fort Hood, but worth if for diversity’s sake. 50 dead in Orlando is unlikely to change our minds since nearly 3000 on 9/11 did not either.
      • Sadly probably not. On comments sections you incredibly still have people blubbering: “b.bbb..but what about the crusades?.bb..bbbut what about Timothy McVeigh….b..bbut there’s violence in the Bible……. ad nauseum. Hopelessly in denial about islam, they’d still be denying it even as one of them had a knife at their throat. I still think even Lara Logan doesn’t get it (the reporter who was violently gang molested in Cairo’s Tahrir Square a while back)
      • Dean says
        • Political correctness let his parents in the country. PC gave him the job. PC gave him a gun license and the special training. PC stopped the FBI probe. PC kept most of is detractors silent. PC prevents any coherent public debate about Islam and the invasion problem. PC focuses the minds of the most likely target like the LGBT community from even thinking about the risk of the invasion and along with the savage religion, PC killed most of these people.
    • I blame the politicians in the US for last night, the San Bernardino incident & Fort Hood both parties NOBODY that believes in Sharia Law nor the Quran should be allowed in the US & I do not care if you was born here The Quran & Sharia Law run counter to the Constitution This slimebag was questioned 3 times by the FBI & permitted to purchase guns same as that creep in California with the Butt ugly Wife This is what happens when PC is allowed to outweigh commonsense both Democrats & Republicans are so scared of offending these Creatures that Decent people get the short end of the stick if you believe in Sharia Law & The Quran GET OUT OF THE US
    • MP says, you are absolutely right, I ask myself every time this savages harm someone in the world, why, why people, political parties and governments allow Muslims to have all types of preferences, why is so much fear of offending muslims? Why?
      notoislam says
      • BHO has been the one to put aside documentation and proof of any threatening Islamic behavior.
        Preventing Robert from instructing any and all about the dangerous ideology of FILTHY ISLAM.
        PREVENTING ALL MILITARY FROM protecting themselves ( Bush’s stupiid rules of engagement)
        Using PC to cover for reporting on Islam -and the Mosques and Imams –it goes on and on and it sickening.

    • Dean says
      • From A to Z the whole story has politically correctness written all over it along with the general ignorance of the public because of the PC oppression of any rational debate about the savage ideology and the savage invasion. The Europeans have been silenced and herded into submission so it is probably too late for them but hopefully things like this and exposure of what is happening over there will wake up Americans before it is too late. The movement propelling Trump and his successful branding of the Islamic/Muslim problem is a late start but may have come soon enough. There is enough history for the military to overcome the leftist’s tinkering with their culture but its extent is alarming.

    • Let us try to get something that ails this nation rethought. Political correctness is a European accommodation because the EU believes that Islam and the many Christian faiths that Europe has neglected, can live in peace together. PC is killing my country, though!
      That “live in peace” is all BS, it can’t happen, not with Islam in the picture. Case in point: Israel & Palestinians. The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity…..where peace may be secured. If it isn’t for a few feet of land in one place, it’ll be in another, after all Israel is so darned large a territory. Maybe that’s why Palestinians took to digging tunnels, surface land in that neighborhood is so minimal.
      About Palestinians, there’s more: They really don’t want peace, the only thing they know is scheming against Jews, because all the Palis have are orders from the koran against Jews. Other than terrorism, the Palis are a feckless lot. Islam has not even invented a better clothes pin in more than 700 years!
      When they have a medical emergency, who do they go to? I’ll bet it’s Jews they go to for healing. But, Palestinians cannot heal their souls, which are dedicated to stabbing folks in their backs.
      Frankly, there was a time when I really thought they wanted peace and a two-state solution. But, it’s really that they want a one state solution…after Israel is completely destroyed, and I think these Israelis would put up one helluva fight, and that would be too much for Islam, despite its size.

    • Political correctness kills.
      Concluding Thought: 
      What the obtuse "joe blow" doesn't get in his bag-full-of-rocks brain is that when people in the Counter-Jihad complain about "PC" (or my refinement of this, PC MC -- Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism), they are not, of course (which anyone with half a brain can see), directly adverting to the Primary Problem -- Islam -- but rather to the Secondary Problem (what I have called "the Problem of the Problem") -- namely, the persisting myopia in our mainstream West to that Primary Problem of Islam.  And it is this persisting myopia that for 15 years now since 911, has been inadequately dealing with the metastasizing danger of Islam. 

      And that is indeed something to complain about.  But not so, according to the childishly dense and belligerent "joe blow".


My dusty old unabridged Webster's dictionary (1913) has probably thousands, certainly hundreds, of words not found in modern dictionaries.  One of them is ghazi, which they define forthrightly (and incorrectly, politically) as:

Among Moslems, a warrior champion or veteran, esp. in the destruction of infidels; a fanatical slayer of infidels.

Sunday, May 29, 2016


Room title suggestions:

Speech as Free as humanly possible

Free Speech Free Spirits

The Lost Art of Conversation

Guiding Philosophy:  Free Speech

I. No Topic Nazis

No “topic compulsion” – i.e., nobody is under any obligation to “stay on topic” when they come up to mic.  The idea is that two “dangers” which “topic Nazis” are always afraid of (either (1) an “olkee” will start to dominate the room with his blatherings; or (2) the flow of the conversation between a few mic chatters will be disrupted) will be organically sorted out in the end by two factors:

1) time limits

2) other on-topic chatters who, by their collective presence & participation on mic, will outweigh any stragglers who try to divert or go against the flow.

And if #2 doesn’t materialize, that is the fault of the chatters in the room not participating enough.  Don’t make it cause for inhibiting free speech.

II. Garden paths are nice.

Also, I think meandering conversations that go off on tangents and stray off topic are often interesting.

II. No obligation to "debate".

Please to God, let’s not have a manic obsession with “Debates” as a part of the room philosophy.  Let’s try to cultivate an appreciation for Conversation and Discussion that is not necessarily dictated by “debates” and formal “arguments”.

III. Room Rules:

Time limit: 3 minutes (I recommend the admins can adjust the time limit during certain times where an extended conversation between many chatters on mic seems to warrant extending it, or reducing it).

Dottable offenses:

Excessive spamming/scrolling

Mic jumping

Death threats (I recommend that the death threat has to be explicitly in the form of “I am going to kill you” -- as opposed to “I dream of the day when I can kill you” or “I have a wish that I could kill you”)

That’s it: nothing else.  All other speech & expression is allowed.  Any admin who dots for more than this will have his hat taken away (either then, or if he does it a second time).

Bouncing/Banning offenses:

These are the same as the dottable offenses – but only if the chatter keeps doing it too many times (3 times is the charm?).

Nothing else should warrant a bounce or a ban.


We positively encourage chatters to insult the admins, to lecture them on how badly the room is being run, and to disparage their family members, and generally to mock & attack the room!

And again the rule applies:  if chatters would find such insults tedious or offensive, the best medicine is to get up on the mic in large numbers and offer something different and better!

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

A plea to the readers of Jihad Watch comments -- by “Fessitude”

(Note: if you don’t want to slog through all these paragraphs, please skip down to the “Conclusion” -- but also note the first sentence of the third paragraph.)

Reasonably assuming there are many readers of Jihad Watch comments (knowing that probably thousands, if not tens of thousands, if not perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people read Jihad Watch, and among those numbers surely some hefty portion must dip deeper in from the headlines, and from the stories, into the comments threads); and knowing that therefore the individuals swimming around here far exceed in numbers the “Peanut Gallery”, I hope and trust that some of these nameless, numberless readers might take notice of a dismayingly regular phenomenon here (at Jihad Watch comments) and help me out.

(Note:  my term “Peanut Gallery” denotes a select group of long-time Jihad Watch commenters (Angemon, gravenimage, Mirren, Champ, Wellington, Western Canadian, joe blow, PRCS, DFD, JayBoo, mortimer, and a few others) who have formed an irrational in-group which, like all in-groups, puts its in-group above other concerns (even the concern for which they formed!), and as part of that dubious priority cultivates an Us-vs.-Them paranoia & hostility about outsiders (defined as such by their in-groupthink + their in-group behaviors), such as myself.  One feature of their in-group behavior has been to ignore what Angemon has been doing -- or, on the odd chance they deign to notice (usually as a result of my losing patience with Angemon's pestering & bullying and blurting out some comment about him or them), they invariably move in to chide me, not him.  A natural (and naturally irrational) behavior from in-group members, defending their in-group.)

What I’d like help with is this pest named “Angemon”.  He is one of those long-time Jihad Watch commenters of the aforementioned “Peanut Gallery”.  His modus operandi is to zoom in to pester me practically whenever I post a comment here.  From March to the end of May of this year, for example, he has zoomed in to pester me over 100 times -- where every one of my comments he has zoomed into nitpick has not even mentioned him.  And he has been doing this for nearly two years.

Why is he doing this?  If he were just a pest or garden-variety troll, I wouldn’t care that much.  He is obviously obsessed with some flaws in my position & outlook on the problem of Islam.  Since my position & outlook reflects a harder stance against Islam, one reasonably assumes his obsessive objections are in defense of a softer stance -- which in my book translates into a softer stance in favor of Muslims.  

The third feature of Angemon’s nuisance -- aside from 1) the insane number of posts needling me (and their detailed voluminousness on average), tantamount to an obsession; and 2) their objection to the harder stance on Islam -- is its complex sophistry.  Long ago, when he was first getting into this, I made the mistake of getting entangled with his posts, spending time & trouble defending myself.  It didn’t take long for me to realize that his posts are insanely complex feats of sophistry that multiply his initial misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, red herrings, strawmen, and other logical fallacies into bewildering and annoying ravels of tangles -- and that getting involved with them in an argument soon devolves into getting lost in the rabbit hole of his obsession, because he just keeps on bouncing back with ever more tangles of sophistry, like an “Energizer Bunny”.

And the pièce de résistance that makes Angemon such an insufferable nuisance for me is that nobody in Jihad Watch comments seems to care about this going on.  When they are not obliviously swimming by like the Angemon/Fessitude entanglement (all Angemon’s doing) is some useless wreck on the ocean bottom, they once in a blue moon chime in to attack me, not him.


So, long story short: I am appealing to any reader to please do me a favor, at least once (or twice, or more…?):  Firstly, please read through an Angemon objection to any of my comments -- and there are plenty to pick from; you won’t be able to swim through Jihad Watch comments for long without bumping into an instance where I post a comment that doesn’t mention Angemon at all, advocating my harder stance on Islam, and then sure enough, there’s Angemon pinning himself to my underside, like some mad parasite.

Secondly, kind reader, please do the following:

a) if you happen to agree with Angemon, please paraphrase his attempted argument -- sans the mean-spirited sophistry he seems incapable of laying aside


b) if you disagree with Angemon, please help a starving beggar out with a drop of water or scrap of bread or a couple of farthings and post a comment indicating why you disagree with Angemon (for which, toothless and in rags, on my knees in this wasteland of Jihad Watch comments, I would bless God and thank thee…!).

Further Reading:

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Miguel de Unamuno

Quotes from Unamuno:
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith.

Life is doubt, and faith without doubt is nothing but death.
If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says nothing.
It is sad not to love, but it is much sadder not to be able to love.
Man dies of cold, not of darkness.
Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself.

֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍