Transcript of Discussion between Cornelius and Hesperado
Note: the author's name of any particular comment comes at the end of his comment. The following extraction preserves one other commenter's comments, "Davegreybeard", since he became part of the discussion toward the end. Also preserved are a couple of comments Cornelius made to others toward the beginning of the transcript.
Also note: One problem that seems to recur in the responses of Cornelius to me is his misapprehension of what I am writing, and therefore often of my actual positions distinct from his straw men of them. A second problem is his inability to defend certain claims with sufficient argumentation -- most notably, his claim that the Spencer quote is not sophistry. A third problem appears near the very beginning, where Cornelius tries to have his cake and eat it too, re: objecting universally to the use of the term "subhuman" as applied in any sense to Muslims by Jihad Watchers, while at the same time when nailed down to face certain Muslim behavior that is arguably "subhuman" (beheading three Indonesian girls, as I cited) he appeals to a delimitation of his stricture as only applying to when the term paints all Muslims with a broad brush. When I pointed out that by his own words he had already transgressed that delimitation by objecting to the term in any circumstance whether limited to a few Muslims or applying to all Muslims, he never responded. This dialogical behavior is indicative of Cornelius's approach, and provides insight into why his later more complex exchanges with me broke down on the back of poor argumentation and logic on his part, with emotionality escalating in proportion to logic diminishing.
Here follows the transcript:
Roxane,
I really DO get your point. I've often been amazed at the extent to which Charles Johnson over at LGF obsesses over the ideological purity of the anti-Jihad and the conservative movement, rather than concentrating on the evil perpetrated by the Islamo/Left.
Unlike Johnson, I don't give a damn about creationists, or whether or not a Belgian nationalist once attended a far-right book show. Like you, I care about fighting and winning against our real enemies.
But I'm an individualist. I march to the beat of my own drum, and I answer to the call of my own conscience. I choose carefully with whom I associate and why....and I'm certainly not going to fight one sociological evil by embracing another (even if, as you rightly point out, their respective threats to humankind bear no resemblance).
I simply can't countenance expressions like "sub-human" when referring to other human beings. Right or wrong, it's just the way I'm wired. But you and Mrs J are certainly right, it's not for me to tell others what they can or can't say; that's up to the webmasters here.
It's just now dawning on me that perhaps my time here at JW is coming to a close. I've tried - not always successfully - to avoid the inclination to just vent, and have made the effort to offer up positions - sometimes controversial - that stimulate discussion and the search for solutions. I've enjoyed my episodic discourse with Hugh, even allowing for the occasional acrimony.
Most of all, I cherish the work of Robert Spencer, who provides us with an example that I myself just don't have the internal fortitude to follow; someone who has put himself out on the front lines of this struggle without the comfort and safety of anonymity. The man is an inspiration.
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius,
When Muslim human beings, in seeking to do "something good for Ramadan", behead three little Indonesian girls and toss their headless bodies in a ditch, those Muslim human beings have effectively become subhumans.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
MrsJ,
"if someone is acting in an evil way, wouldn't it then follow that they are, in fact, evil?"
I would expand that to include all those who continue to support the system through which those who act evil derive their inspiration and their enablement to do those evil acts -- i.e., effectively all Muslims who support Islam (and what Muslims don't support Islam? and how would we know they really don't?).
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius,
I agree with you and with Josephine. Calling people "subhuman" and "cockroaches" etc. is obviously (to some of us, anyways) unacceptable in the realm of intelligent and ethical discourse, and only hurts the Jihad Watch project and causes headaches for Robert.
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius,
"of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, I'm sure that among them are thousands if not millions who are better human beings than I."
Insofar as all Muslims support the evil, dangerous and grotesquely unjust system Islam, the best of them are at the very least unconscionably ethically negligent, while innumerable others among them are worse to the degree that their passive enablement of that evil, dangerous and unjust system becomes more consciously defined.
Closely related to this ethical problem, we have the strategic problem that the continued enablement by all those hundreds of millions of Muslims of this global system that is increasingly threatening the free world with terrorist plots whose plotters one can reasonably assume are trying their damndest to acquire WMDs of one flavor or another (biological, chemical, radioactive) -- that continued enablement no matter how passive and "ignorant" it might be, nevertheless serves to empower that system and helps to maintain its worldwide reach, its social networking, and its relative respectability as a "world religion" of "moms and pops like the rest of us" -- and thus its dangerousness to us.
So no: of course not: among the total population of Muslims, there are not "thousands if not millions who are better human beings than" you -- even if we assume the best of any individuals among that number, they fail by their support, no matter how passive it might be, of that evil, dangerous, and grotesquely unjust system called Islam.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Hesperado,
The quote was not "Muslims who behead Indonesian school-girls are sub-human"...it was "Muslims are sub-human".
...
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius,
The quote was not "Muslims who behead Indonesian school-girls are sub-human"...it was "Muslims are sub-human".
I know, but you have gone on to articulate a rejection of the term universally.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius,
I second the comments above of gravenimage.
You and
Case in point, the “subhuman” quote and your commentary.
Firstly, there is a world of difference between noting subhuman BEHAVIOR as opposed to classifying a whole category of human beings as “subhuman” – some here seem confused at the distinction.
Secondly, the act of classifying a group of people as “subhuman” and the connection back to the Third Reich is right on target. By definition “subhuman” is irredeemable.
It is this classification of the Jews by the Nazis that gave them license to commit all manner of horrors, among them genocide and using them as “lab rats” for medical experimentation.
So I wonder if anyone here, after careful reflection on the comments above, really feels it is justified to classify all Muslims as “subhuman”. Are they really all irredeemable?
Many brave and articulate apostates prove otherwise.
Hang in there buddy, there are a few of us out here with our own drums also.
Posted by: Davegreybeard [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Davegreybeard,
"Firstly, there is a world of difference between noting subhuman BEHAVIOR as opposed to classifying a whole category of human beings as “subhuman” – some here seem confused at the distinction."
Cornelius himself confused them. He wrote:
"I have a problem with the word "sub-human" in ANY context."
So he is ruling out the legitimacy even of speaking of subhuman behavior.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Dave,
...
It's not only the use of dehumanizing words like "sub-human"...it's people who are so ideologically rigid that they've branded me MC/PC (a very real insult in my world-view) because I happen to support Iranians demonstrating against their oppressive government...and Muslim moderates in Algeria and elsewhere fighting to the death against Sharia groups. There is a mindset here that is uncompromisingly antagonistic to every Muslim in existence, regardless of their words and deeds. I don't happen to feel that it's realistic and/or helpful in furthering our ultimate goals.
But I don't take for granted that I couldn't be the one who is wrong on this. I just need some time to work it through in my head.
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius wrote:
"It's not only the use of dehumanizing words like "sub-human"...it's people who are so ideologically rigid that they've branded me MC/PC (a very real insult in my world-view) because I happen to support Iranians demonstrating against their oppressive government...and Muslim moderates in Algeria and elsewhere fighting to the death against Sharia groups."
As far as I remember, I was the only one who complained about not only Cornelius, but most others here for supporting the Noble Iranian People who Are Muslims and Who follow Mousavi the Evil Snake But Who Happen to Wear Blue Jeans So They Must Be All Right.
I.e., as far as I could tell, the majority here at JW were on Cornelius's side! If anyone should start feeling depressed about JW and need to take time out to "think", it would be ME, not Cornelius!!!
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Well buddy, maybe you SHOULD take some time to think. I've been reading your blog today...and came across "DAMN" among other things.
You blast Robert for advocating something with little chance of success...a clarion call for Muslims to repudiate the worst features of their doctrine...and then you go on to advocate something even less remote. You actually believe the
You actually believe this is a realistic proposal?
At least Robert's clarion call for repudiation, however unlikely to resonate among the enemy, carries a moral message that won't be lost on the fair-minded. Were he to share in your advocacy of a medieval mass expulsion, he would disappear into the great din of inconsequentiality (where you and I reside, my friend) and forfeit the impact he's currently having in the world with his almost daily appearances at universities, seminars, in the media, etc.
I give you kudos for even attempting to find solutions to incredibly vexing problems...and I don't necessarily object to them out of ethical considerations. It's their implausibility that makes them borderline comical.
Who knows though, historical processes can be accelerated by circumstance. I don't discount the possibility that there may come a day after some mega-terror event, when your mass-explusion scheme may become conventional wisdom. Should it happen, we'll all celebrate you as a visionary.
Until then, I'll offer some unsolicited but constructive criticism...I'd consider going back to the drawing board if I were you (which is, by the way, what I'm about to undertake).
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
should read: "more remote"
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius,
Before you go back to your “drawing board” I cannot help but offer some unsolicited observations and opinions of my own.
I believe we are on course to a worldwide conflict, quite possibly as horrendous and bloody as WW II – except it will last far longer. As with all conflicts of such magnitude there will come brutal murder and atrocities - on both sides. We have seen the blood lust flow strong in our enemy, but we are not immune from this fever. As you have noted, if you watch and listen very carefully, you can see its beginnings – ever so faintly.
So once again our fragile ship of civilization is about to sail into the maelstrom. If we are to prevail, a brave and stalwart crew is needed on deck to deal with the furry of the storm. Yet more is required to prevail or all will be lost – moral ballast, to right our craft when a heavy blow “rounds her down”. Those that provide this ballast must be just as unyielding and clear of purpose as the frenzied crew above.
Posted by: Davegreybeard [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius,
"You blast Robert for advocating something with little chance of success...a clarion call for Muslims to repudiate the worst features of their doctrine...and then you go on to advocate something even less remote. You actually believe the
You actually believe this is a realistic proposal?"
I've already integrated that problem into my arguments on my blog. I don't claim to be infallible or omniscient, but I have taken the trouble to present an argument, and expect those who take issue with it to present actual counter-arguments, rather than heaving emotional boulders of polemics.
"At least Robert's clarion call for repudiation, however unlikely to resonate among the enemy, carries a moral message that won't be lost on the fair-minded."
I've also addressed the problem of the moral dimension.
"Were he to share in your advocacy of a medieval mass expulsion, he would disappear into the great din of inconsequentiality (where you and I reside, my friend) and forfeit the impact he's currently having in the world with his almost daily appearances at universities, seminars, in the media, etc."
While I grant he has a toehold on the edges of the mainstream, he is not inside, and unfortunately in our sociopolitical world, that's all that counts.
However, as I have also argued on my blog -- even if he incrementally, over the next decade or two, inches his way closer inside the outer margin of the mainstream and climbs up to a place slightly less damned than, say, Ann Coulter, this still raises the problem of what will be happening during the meantime -- millions more Muslims relocating within the West, while the West is with achingly slow readjustment coming around to listen to Spencer: this will change the problem from what we have now: if at that point the West begins to entertain the mild measures recommended by Spencer, it will be a bandaid against a raging limb needing amputation. And in fact, such half-assed measures taken at that point will likely serve to inflame the increased millions of Muslims within the West and cause even more potential for violence, riots, insurrections, more terrorist attacks including random sudden jihad syndromes -- and as a consequence measures we will have to take which will make my D.A.M.N. seem downright humane.
Better, I say, for us to work for the more logical reconfiguration for the long-term, rather than the half-assed one that remains incoherent and sincerely "ethical" but bloody reckless.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Dave,
You're presupposing that we'll go out with a bang and not a whisper. I make no such assumption.
But this is one more reason I need some space from Jihadwatch (and I'm not referring to you here)...I'm weary of the literal eagerness so many at JW have for a cataclysmic show-down with Islam. I'd surely rather fight than surrender, but the ideal solution is not world war, but to facilitate revolutionary change in the Islamic world, by any and all means at our disposal.
My argument with the appeasers is even more pronounced. Their mistake is not that they want peace per se, but that their solution, the continued mass validation of Islam as a belief system, is in fact the greatest IMPEDIMENT to the long-sought but elusive societal reformation the Islamic world so desperately needs. I'm not suggesting here that Islam as a religion can be reformed. Our challenge is to help Islamic societies evolve away from the literalism that is at the core of its dysfunctionality.
It's an improbable outcome, but certainly no less so than suggestions that we quarantine the Muslim world (at a time when we're still dependent on fossil fuels and with non-Muslim entities like China, Russia and the EU eager to fill the void created by our departure)...and medieval mass expulsion schemes that will likely betray our own constitutional prerogatives and possibly bring about a civil war.
Don't get me wrong...I'd be pleased to see the Muslims go, every last one of them, but I just don't think there's a chance in hell it will ever happen.
Hesperado,
You're basically saying that lessor solutions won't even get under way until it's too late demographically, so let's advocate the most extreme solution now, with the expectation that when things finally implode, the groundwork will have been laid. An interesting theory, but one I can't subscribe to, simply because of its implausibility.
And however insignificant you may believe Robert Spencer's position is in the realm of mainstream respectability, I happen to feel he's making a very real splash, reaching young minds at the university level, enlightening government security experts, law enforcement officials and even military planners, and occasionally appearing on Foxnews to reach the uninitiated.
Finally, the moral question involved is not necessarily geared to Muslims (although that is a component). As things stand today in our own sociological environment, advocating mass expulsion schemes is a one-way ticket to political oblivion. We need Robert where he is.
Again, kudos for your efforts. Keep burning the oil, but I urge you to at least ponder alternatives. Realistically, your plan has little chance of ever being implemented. A mind as logical as yours surely must be entertaining a plan B.
Cornelius
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius wrote:
"...the ideal solution is not world war, but to facilitate revolutionary change in the Islamic world, by any and all means at our disposal."
Such a revolution would be the bloodiest, messiest and most dangerous revolution in the history of the world.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius also wrote:
"It's an improbable outcome, but certainly no less so than suggestions that we quarantine the Muslim world (at a time when we're still dependent on fossil fuels and with non-Muslim entities like China, Russia and the EU eager to fill the void created by our departure)..."
I don't envision the West being willing to set mass deportation in motion until at least 50 years go by, but probably not before 100 years. By then, the fossil fuel problem re: dependence upon Muslim oil, will have likely been solved.
"...and medieval mass expulsion schemes that will likely betray our own constitutional prerogatives..."
Not if the danger is perceived as great enough, and having certain unique features that logically require mass expulsion.
"...and possibly bring about a civil war."
That depends upon the state of the public consciousness at that time. It seems likely that if the West will have evolved to a point where mass expulsion is seriously considered as an option, the surrounding public will be largely on board -- with exceptions that always pertain, though not necessarily rising to the threshhold of internecine insurrections. Only 50 years ago, the American public was overwhelmingly supportive of interning American citizens and their public pressure was one factor persuading a slightly grudging FDR to go ahead with that most unremarkably rational decision that was not ruled un-Constitutional then by the Supreme Court, nor ever has been since. The only thing that has changed in the intervening years is that the Supreme Court of Political Correctness has evolved. If such a sea change in consciousness can evolve into mainstream dominance in 50 years, it can devolve in another 50 years or so. And there is every reason to reasonably suppose that various outrageous expressions and actions by Muslims, along the way, will facilitate that devolution, or rather revolution -- revolving back to our former sanity.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius:
"As things stand today in our own sociological environment, advocating mass expulsion schemes is a one-way ticket to political oblivion. We need Robert where he is."
As I've said before, Spencer doesn't have to stand on the rooftops and condemn all Muslims and advocate their mass expulsion. All he has to do is not recommend, nor editorially imply recommendation of, concrete measures that would undermine the evolution toward the mass expulsion policy. I.e., I favor Spencer keeping his day job, which he does excellently, but I do not favor him going out on the moonlighting limb where he's on less secure footing. I think he can do the former without having to do the latter. Indeed, the former is what he does most of the time anyway. His ongoing tack of simply adverting to what is wrong in the Islamic orbit and tending to refrain from making pronouncements upon Islam itself and Muslims qua Muslims is fine -- as long as he consistently sticks to it and doesn't say other things out the other side of his mouth under his second hat that tend to contradict that tack and render his overall analysis incoherent. Unfortunately, he continues to do the latter.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
CORNELIUS: "...the ideal solution is not world war, but to facilitate revolutionary change in the Islamic world, by any and all means at our disposal."
HESPERADO: "Such a revolution would be the bloodiest, messiest and most dangerous revolution in the history of the world."
RESPONSE: Not necessarily.
---------------------------------------------
HESPERADO: "I don't envision the West being willing to set mass deportation in motion until at least 50 years go by, but probably not before 100 years."
RESPONSE: By your own calculations, it may be too late by then. In 50 years, Muslims will have near majorities in
In short, your timetable doesn't bode well for success, at least as it pertains to
------------------------------------------------
As for Spencer, I don't think you're allowing for any sort of nuance in his approach, which is - if I may be so bold - what I perceive to be one of your principle shortcomings as a strategist. For example, on your blog, you quote Spencer as writing...
"I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...” "
YOUR RESPONSE: "What this means is that Spencer thinks that the interpretations of the fanatics DO NOT reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition."
RESPONSE: That's not necessarily what it means at all. Spencer is denying a quote that has been falsely attributed to him; it doesn't mean he believes the opposite.
Hesp, Robert lives in the real world. He has to choose his words carefully to maintain his bonafides so that he can continue to reach a mass audience. I think he's done pretty damn well in not having compromised his integrity or his beliefs in the process.
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius:
"
It's a dictatorship that tortures people. It avoids violence in the sense of conflagrations by imposing violence and threat of violence in the sense of tyranny (the only way that secularism has been able to thrive in any Muslim polity, btw).
"But even if you turn out to be right, I'd rather the battleground between modernity and Islam be fought in Dar ul Islam instead of the West."
That will be increasingly untenable, the more millions of Muslims penetrate into the West. In fact, it's pretty much untenable now, given the number of Muslims in the West, if a "revolution" of that global import began to catch fire.
HESPERADO: "I don't envision the West being willing to set mass deportation in motion until at least 50 years go by, but probably not before 100 years."
RESPONSE: By your own calculations, it may be too late by then. In 50 years, Muslims will have near majorities in
MY RESPONSE: You are imagining non-activity and non-evolution during those 50 years. Rather, it will be a process of growing crystallization, not 50 years of nothing and then a sudden decision. Secondly, the West is light years more sophisticated and superior to Islamic culture. When the time comes, even with 40% Muslims, it will be doable. It could have been much more easily doable sooner, and far less bloody, but it will be doable when the West wakes up. The only thing stopping the West is its ignorance. Once it wakes up, it will be lights out for Muslims. The end game will be the only rational option then. I just think that working toward that end game so that it dawns on the West sooner, rather than later, is more practical. Even sooner, it will still be much later than it should be -- but is that an argument for allowing it to be as late as possible and therefore as bloody and messy as possible?
YOU: For example, on your blog, you quote Spencer as writing...
"I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...”
YOU QUOTING MY RESPONSE: "What this means is that Spencer thinks that the interpretations of the fanatics DO NOT reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition."
YOUR RESPONSE: That's not necessarily what it means at all. Spencer is denying a quote that has been falsely attributed to him; it doesn't mean he believes the opposite. Hesp, Robert lives in the real world. He has to choose his words carefully to maintain his bonafides so that he can continue to reach a mass audience.
MY RESPONSE: I appreciate you adducing actual evidence from my argument to present your counter-argument. You have presented here a turgid bundle of complications that have to be painstakingly picked apart.
First, the Spencer quote you cite is clear sophistry. "I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...” Okay, so he has never "stated" that in so many words. The point is, does he or doesn't he believe it? And has he, or hasn't he, made numerous statements that logically lead anyone of a fair assessment of statements to conclude that he does?
More to the point for us -- why hasn't he stated such an unremarkably true opinion -- especially given the mountain of evidence he himself amasses on Jihad Watch that indicates the reasonablness of such an opinion?
In one of your layers of points turgidly bundled up you indicate a reason why: Robert lives in the real world. He has to choose his words carefully to maintain his bonafides so that he can continue to reach a mass audience.
So which is it? His quote is coherent despite other things he says and the mountain of work he is doing that goes against it? Or it's sophistically calculated to maintain his bonafides?
Frankly, I don't want to defend a West that has to rely on transparently incoherent flim-flam and card tricks and sleight-of-hand to maintain bonafides. Emperors with no clothes on cuts both ways. At the very least, I would hope Spencer just maintains a strategy where he won't need to deploy such shoddy maneuvers.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Nothing turgid about my response...it was brief and to the point. Spencer denied a quote that was falsely attributed to him. Why is that so hard to understand?
Furthermore, my guess is that while you maintain your sterling ideological purity from the comforting anonymity of your blog, you probably don't go around at your day job (if you have one) openly expressing such opinions to your peers and superiors. Robert doesn't have such a luxury. He's out in the open...and must conduct himself accordingly.
You seem to want ideological purity from Iranian demonstrators, purity from Robert, purity from one and all...and anyone who doesn't measure up to your vaunted standards is a sophist or PC.
Meanwhile, speaking of turgid, follow your paragraph starting with "You are imagining..."
The rampant speculation culminates in the hyperbole that "it will be lights out on Muslims." This confidence hardly conforms to existing trends. I see the great probability of an opposite outcome...of an aging, barren
Furthermore, while the West is indeed "light years" superior to Islam, it is not necessarily more "sophisticated," at least pertaining to this great struggle. Just compare the effectiveness of Muslim interest groups in their adroit exploitation of our legalisms and openness...with our own inept, deluded attempts to comprehend and relate to Muslims.
You're an obviously intelligent man, Hesperado...and the most intelligent thing you've written on this thread is that you "are not infallible or omniscient". Perhaps you could further develop the practice of such wisdom and humility. Don't judge Robert and your other contemporaries too harshly; they're fighting an uphill battle, doing the best they can under extraordinary circumstances.
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius,
"Nothing turgid about my response...it was brief and to the point."
It was brief, but it had complications enfolded within it -- hence my use of the word "bundle". I teased out the two most salient ones:
1) the role of the apparent sophistry of Spencer's quote and your continuing avoidance of it,
2) apparently contradicted by your appeal to Spencer's supposed tactic of maintaining bonafides with PC MC, an appeal apparently calculated to save the sophistry you otherwise seem to avoid acknowledging.
"Spencer denied a quote that was falsely attributed to him. Why is that so hard to understand?"
This once again establishes #1. I've already articulated the sophistry of Spencer's quote, and your defense of it only reinforces that sophistry, in defense of it, while simultaneously ostensibly denying it even exists (though, again, this denial seemingly contradicted by your argument for the merit of the "bonafides" tactic).
"Furthermore, my guess is that while you maintain your sterling ideological purity from the comforting anonymity of your blog, you probably don't go around at your day job (if you have one) openly expressing such opinions to your peers and superiors. Robert doesn't have such a luxury. He's out in the open...and must conduct himself accordingly."
This is irrelevant to our discussion. A person can be brave, but still mistaken in one or more points of their methodology. Conversely, another person can be cowardly, but correct in one or more points of their methodology. Why is it necessary for me to point this elementary logic out to you? It seems that reason is breaking down in your conduct in this discussion, since you don't strike me as so stupid you would fail to comprehend such elementary logic.
"You seem to want ideological purity from Iranian demonstrators, purity from Robert, purity from one and all...and anyone who doesn't measure up to your vaunted standards is a sophist or PC."
Whether I want purity from others besides Spencer is irrelevant to whether or not any given critiques I have of his methology are valid. Again, I must point out points of elementary logic in this discussion.
"Don't judge Robert and your other contemporaries too harshly; they're fighting an uphill battle, doing the best they can under extraordinary circumstances."
Anybody and everybody can benefit from criticism. The point always is whether or not any given criticism is cogent, then valid. And that has to be discussed with actual arguments, in a spirit as dispassionate as possible open to any and all criticisms that show themselves to be maturely proffered -- not fended off by bodyguards protecting the perimeter of their idol.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
1) The "sophistry" you attribute to Spencer is a form of projection...you've filtered his answer through the prism of your own world view. Robert has been consistent on the issue at hand. He's never set himself up as judge and jury regarding the morality or even the defining content of Islam, his method has always been to establish that those committing violence in the name of Islam are using its foundational texts to justify said violence.
HESPERADO: "A person can be brave and still mistaken on one or more points of their methodology. Conversely, another person can be cowardly, but correct in one or more points in their methodology."
RESPONSE: In other words, you're saying "[even though I can't practice what I preach, I'm right in the abstract]."
Until you've walked in Spencer's shoes, i.e., until you've put yourself out their publicly in the service of the cause, your criticisms are flaccid and hollow.
Meanwhile, no response to paragraphs 5 and 6?
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius said:
“You're presupposing that we'll go out with a bang and not a whisper. I make no such assumption.”
My assumption is that Jihadis of one group or another will attack
There was mention of the decision to inter the Japanese. This did not spring from rational thought – it was born of fear. Any decision to inter or deport Muslims will spring from that very same emotion.
So it is a very fine and genteel discussion you are having with Hesperado and I do appreciate the way you both articulate your points of view. As far as it goes, I tend to favor your arguments.
But change the game just a little bit, such as suicide bombers simultaneously hitting 3 targets on the same day in the
I am not eager for a “cataclysmic showdown with Islam” but I have a crystal clear appreciation for the fact that at least several million Jihadis will die to make that happen – and I do believe they will get their wish.
Posted by: Davegreybeard [TypeKey Profile Page] at
"his method has always been to establish that those committing violence in the name of Islam are using its foundational texts to justify said violence."
Unforunately, if accurate about Spencer, it makes him no different from those who forever distinguish the "extremists" who are trying to "hijack" the foundational texts, from those who are using those foundational texts for good -- for it only says they are "using" those texts to justify bad things; it says nothing about whether those texts actually justify them. Not only those foundational texts themselves, but the mountain of evidence Spencer has provided, as well as referenced from the studies of countless other wise men and women whether scholars or brave ex-Muslims, throughout the years, pointing to Muslims in the news today, in the last few years, and throughout centuries of history with millions of dead people in the wake, indicates otherwise so monumentally and fundamentally, it is a searing travesty to continue to mince words about this.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 20, 2009 2:30 AM
Dave,
I think your prognostications are much more plausible than Hesperados. A mega-terror event in the next decade may indeed transform the equation...although 9-11, as bad as it was, did little to alter the formal discourse about Islam, shrouded as it is in misconceptions and PC, though admittedly, it certainly DID alter public perceptions (repressed by the media) AND the geo-political landscape (two foreign invasions).
I see the 50-100 years timetable for the expulsion scheme as entirely improbable; the demographic tide - at least in Europe - will be irreversible by then. If Hesperado's method is to have any chance of success, it will have to occur within 20 years.
I'm not any more capable of predicting the future than anyone else. Both of you guys could end up being right.
Your central point Dave, that the Muslim penchant for mass bloodletting will facilitate policies considered unthinkable now, is a legitimate one. My hope, slim as it is, is that Darul Islam can be brought (kicking and screaming no doubt) into the modern age without a cataclysmic war.
But I'd certainly prefer war than surrender. I love freedom...as a concept AND as a way of life. I want to see it survive for my descendants.
Meanwhile, I concede that Robert Spencer IS constrained by what he can and cannot say. But this is no fault of his own, it is the culture we live in. He should be praised for skillfully pushing the envelope as far as he has...instead of castigated for not pushing it all the way and burning his bridges.
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Hesperado,
You are picking at nits my friend, all the while missing the logic of Spencer’s strategy. When you say:
“Unfortunately, if accurate about Spencer, it makes him no different from those who forever distinguish the "extremists" who are trying to "hijack" the foundational texts, from those who are using those foundational texts for good -- for it only says they are "using" those texts to justify bad things; it says nothing about whether those texts actually justify them.”
You are both wrong and have completely missed the point of what is occurring.
It is one thing for a person to present facts to prove a point and then hammer it home by stating that same point – which is what you would have Spencer do. It is quite different for one to present facts that lead to a certain conclusion; yet scrupulously avoid stating that quite obvious conclusion. It is a tactic that is elegant in its purity in that the listener is in no way contaminated by the beliefs or prejudices of the speaker – and the speaker thus cannot be accused of guiding the listener to (in the case of Islam) a horrendous conclusion.
When you say that Spencer is “no different from those who forever distinguish the "extremists…" you have strayed very far from the truth. The people that speak of “Islamic extremists” NEVER shed light on the subject by presenting the actual texts and tenets of Islam.
Spencer, as we all would agree, does a tremendous job of educating the world as to the true nature of Islam. What he does NOT do is ram his own conclusions down your throat.
Posted by: Davegreybeard [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius latterly wrote:
"The "sophistry" you attribute to Spencer [in the quote "I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...”] is a form of projection...you've filtered his answer through the prism of your own world view. Robert has been consistent on the issue at hand. He's never set himself up as judge and jury regarding the morality or even the defining content of Islam, his method has always been to establish that those committing violence in the name of Islam are using its foundational texts to justify said violence.”
This is ostensibly vitiated by what Cornelius formerly wrote when, after quoting my exegesis of that Spencer quote -- "What this means is that Spencer thinks that the interpretations of the fanatics DO NOT reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition" -- he wrote:
“That's not necessarily what it means at all. Spencer is denying a quote that has been falsely attributed to him; it doesn't mean he believes the opposite.”
First of all, my exegesis did not reveal that Spencer “believes the opposite”: my exegesis uncovered the meaning of his statement by simply translating the negatives into positives. When someone says “I have never stated that abortion is bad” -- what is the point of such a statement other than that they do not believe that abortion is bad? It is pure lawyer-like sophistry to try to maintain that such a statement doesn't mean what is plain as the nose on one's face, by insisting on the strict superficial import of the semantics, while disingenuously affecting to deny their obvious implicit meaning.
The only possible point of such a statement is revealed by Cornelius’s exculpatory explanation for why Spencer would formulate something like that:
“Hesp, Robert lives in the real world. He has to choose his words carefully to maintain his bonafides so that he can continue to reach a mass audience.”
I.e., when he makes a statement -- "I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...” -- that any reasonable exegesis would translate as meaning that in fact he has “never stated” that because he does not believe it, he can then fall back on Cornelius’s sophistical defense that “well, what I strictly said here is that ‘I never stated’ -- that doesn’t mean I don’t believe it” in order to placate both the PC MCs who would cast him into the outer darkness from his already sub-Ann Coulter position, and the Anti-Jihadists like Cornelius who are obviously easily placated and whose easy placation finds an implicit satisfaction in the likelihood that Spencer didn’t really mean what his words obviously imply.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Davegreybeard,
"It is one thing for a person to present facts to prove a point and then hammer it home by stating that same point – which is what you would have Spencer do."
No, I've already stated above that "As I've said before, Spencer doesn't have to stand on the rooftops and condemn all Muslims and advocate their mass expulsion. All he has to do is not recommend, nor editorially imply recommendation of, concrete measures that would undermine the evolution toward the mass expulsion policy."
"It is quite different for one to present facts that lead to a certain conclusion; yet scrupulously avoid stating that quite obvious conclusion. It is a tactic that is elegant in its purity in that the listener is in no way contaminated by the beliefs or prejudices of the speaker – and the speaker thus cannot be accused of guiding the listener to (in the case of Islam) a horrendous conclusion."
The speaker in fact can be thus accused, and Spencer gets accused of that practically every day of his life. When a person like Lawrence Auster, for example, devotes 60% of his time and energy putting up photos of black criminals and publishing stories of black murderers and rapists, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that he is clearly implying that blacks are more violent than whites and that this is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed through social attitudes, public policy and laws. The difference with Auster, however (in this regard at least), is that he doesn't pretend through using meticulously elegant disingenuity that he does not in fact believe what is clearly implied by his mission. He makes no bones about it, but articulates clearly that blacks in terms of degree present a social problem that should be remedied only by segregation.
But as I implied above, there is a third tack to take aside from these two binary choices -- either hide your implications in plain sight behind "elegant" disingenuity that anybody of basic intelligence can see through, or boldly stand on the rooftop and proclaim the implication: and that third choice is to avoid saying things that cause such problems. Thus, Spencer should never have said "I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...” In that context, his interlocutor didn't even ask him whether he had said that; his interlocutor merely implied it indirectly -- so Spencer gratuitously offered that up and made it more visible when he didn't have to. A tactical mistake that can't be covered up by his acolytes coming along afterward and trying to convince people that the Emperor in fact has clothes. Now, let us hypothetically (but not improbably) imagine a scenario where Spencer is in a public debate with some Islam apologist, and that apologist turns to Spencer and asks him point-blank: "Have you not stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...”?" Spencer could in that kind of moment say "No, I have not," and leave it at that. But what if the apologist has an ounce of cleverness and intelligence -- which, again, it is not improbable to expect will arise some day? If he does have an ounce of cleverness and intelligence, he will pounce back with the obviously logical follow-up question: "Ah, ok, Mr. Spencer; but do you think that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...”?"
At this point, I can recommend a way for him to navigate, without tap-dancing in overly transparent disingenuity. He can answer diplomatically:
"Well, from my studies of the foundational texts of Islam, as well as the writings of various Muslims throughout the ages up to the present, supplemented by the writings of various scholars on the subject, it is my opinion that interpretations of the fanatics do reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition -- but I do not necessarily expect anyone to accept my opinion as truth merely on my word alone, and rather expect at a minimum that they will try to familiarize themselves with the same evidence I have studied and come to their own conclusion."
Back to Davegreybeard:
"When you say that Spencer is “no different from those who forever distinguish the "extremists…" you have strayed very far from the truth."
I didn't say that "Spencer is no different from those who forever distinguish the 'extremists'." I said that if Cornelius's exegesis of Spencer is accurate, then Spencer would be no different from those who forever distinguish the extremists (from the non-extremists).
"The people that speak of “Islamic extremists” NEVER shed light on the subject by presenting the actual texts and tenets of Islam."
There are a few who do blatantly, like Daniel Pipes, who believes the majority of Muslims are not only not bad people, but are our only salvation from the problem their Islam is causing us. And yet Pipes remains a part of the Anti-Islam (woops! I mean Anti-Jihad) Movement -- as that Movement is informally and officially defined by its elites, that is. And then there are the others who do so continually by implication (such as for example Brigitte Gabriel, who is always so careful to delineate the problem as "radical Islam" and "radical Islamists").
cf. http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/09/asymptote-vs-asymptote-new-york-times.html
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Well Hesperado, I think we've taken this thing about as far as we can go.
My final thoughts:
1) You abandoned all discussion about the improbability of your timetable, in particular the supposed sociological awakening that will render "lights out on Muslims" at the very time when Muslims will have achieved their status as a majority or a near majority in western Europe. You best fine tune that timetable of yours.
2) You neglected explaining your own discrepancy between word and deed. I've mostly found abstract truths to be empty phrases when they aren't translatable into reality. When you've gone public AS YOUR REAL SELF with your very justifiable animus towards Islam, your criticism of Robert will not wreak of hypocrisy the way it currently does.
3) If someone accuses me of saying "abortion is bad"...and I've never said it, even if I believe it and have implied it in my written or spoken words, I have the right to deny the accusation. I have the right to ownership of my own words, and zealously maintaining that right is a part of basic human integrity. Robert would be a fool to let his detractors set his agenda...or even worse, to choose his words for him.
Listen man, you're a good guy, most definitely fighting on the right side of the issue. But it makes little sense to devote yourself to excessive criticism of erstwhile allies like Spencer, Pipes and Gabriel, rather than to concentrate on the enemy (the Islamo-Left). Even though you and he operate on far different latitudes of the political spectrum, your approach reminds me of Charles Johnson, who prefers to attack fellow Republicans whom he feels are not sufficiently "enlightened"...than concentrating on the Democrats who are literally destroying our country.
I'm not going to be so proud or egotistical that I won't continue to consider your arguments here. I hope you'll do the same.
Thanks for the discourse.
Posted by: Cornelius [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Cornelius, it's getting tedious to try to have a discussion with someone who doesn't read what I've already written.
Posted by: Hesperado [TypeKey Profile Page] at
Hesperado,
Unfortunately, it is YOU who are tedious.
Try a very looonng look in the mirror, man and “reflect” on it. Then:
Try to focus on your enemies, not your friends.
This will be better for you - though you may not know it at the time.
Posted by: Davegreybeard [TypeKey Profile Page] at
posted by Hesperado at 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home