Daily Kos sides with Islamic supremacists who want to extinguish free speech and oppress women and non-Muslims

"Loonwatch.com is a blogzine run by a motley group of hate-allergic bloggers to monitor and expose the web’s plethora of anti-Muslim loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists."

It's interesting that Loonwatch does not list who the actual people are who run it. My guess would be some Muslim group which is hiding behind its anonymity.

There is a lot of information on the site, so there must be some organizational structure to it, even a loose one. Does anyone know who funds the site?

It is truly amazing that these types would be all over smearing the Pope for example, but are in awe of Islam. It has to be pure ignorance and prejudice. Have they ever visited JW or read Robert's articles or books? Seems highly unlikely - and if they did, then all they have to do is cite the offending words. Ain't happening though - there is no incriminating evidence to flag. And Robert has repeatedly denounced racist and white supremisism at every turn.

I think that people assume that Muhammad was some type of Dalia Lama meets Mother Theresa, and the fact that it's more like Vlad the Impaler meets Joe Stalin would be too much for them to handle. If they only understood that Islam = Nazism + "Don't even think of questioning us, because God said so" then they might find their leftist sensibilities offended and respond accordingly. Again, ain't happening.

When the other side throws out insults, you know they've no argument.

The left is brain-dead and in league with the Islamists.

So those who are exercised about something they call "Islamophobia" (see here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014986.php
and here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013771.php) turn out to be past masters at "satirizing" and "poking fun"? Show us the glint on the stell of their rapiers, their stilettos, their bare bodkins.

While waiting for their examples, examples produced by those who, just like George Bush, apparently think, as they look around the world, that there is absolutely nothing about Islam to give one pause, to consider that just perhaps Islam may not be"a religion of peace" and of "tolerance" but might, perhaps, require a little more looking into.

Meanwhile, while we wait for examples of those rapiers, those stilettos, those bodkins, with their glinting wit, we can while away the time finding, in the archives of the Department of Satirizing and Poking Fun, stuff that grownups might agree is metal more attractive:

Fitzgerald: MESA NOSTRA Contest

Readers of JihadWatch are aware that MESA Nostra is the professional organization in which, in order to become a uomo d’onore, or a donna d’onore for that matter, no kneecaps need be broken, no nightclubs broken up, no trucks hijacked, no girls put on the streets, no cocaine contraband prescribed by “los medicos” of Medellin be distributed. No, there are only two requirements to become a Made Man in MESA Nostra. The first is easy: you must view the entire Middle East through ideological blinkers, in which Islam scarcely matters, and in which, whatever happens, Jihad-conquest and dhimmitude will be ignored, so that contemporary expressions of millennium-old doctrines, attitudes, impulses will be interpreted without the slightest reference to those doctrines, attitudes, impulses.

That is content.

There is also form.

What would Shakespeare have been like had he not forced himself to squeeze his dramatic verse into the Elizabethan doublet of iambic pentameter? Or Spenser, without the Spenserian stanza? It is not only writers in Elizabethan England who found such constraints productive. How impressive that 20th century French writer who managed to produce a novel without using the letter “e,” or that other one who composed a series of works based on a single device: the beginning and the final sentences of whatever he wrote were phonetically identical, though semantically wildly different, and he assigned himself the writerly task of beating a plausible path through the overgrown jungle of language, a path that led ineluctably from that first sentence to the same-sounding, but different-meaning, last sentence.

Many of those in MESA Nostra may not realize it, but they are akin to Shakespeare and Spenser, Georges Perec and Raymond Roussel. For them it is not a question of verse-forms, or lipograms, or homophonic puns. Their self-imposed constraint consists in limiting their scholarly lexicon to fewer than fifty nouns, and two-dozen verbs. They harness these exhausted nouns, these over-worked verbs, and put them to work, no matter the subject. No matter the subject.

Thus the prose produced by one member of MESA Nostra will sound remarkably like that of another. Here we mean the enthusiastic, full-throated members of MESA Nostra, those whose interests do not stray very far from “Iraq” and “Palestine” and “colonialism” and “empire,” and the obvious ring-changing variants: “occupied Iraq/Palestine,” “Iraqi/Palestinian people,” “Israeli colonialism,” “American empire.” Many members of MESA Nostra membership have a deep and abiding personal and professional interest in these matters, as they do in little else. They can do no other.

But a few members of MESA Nostra are members-in-name-only, who remain different in mental makeup, and distant from the bureaucratic intrigues, the political tendentiousness, the anti-American,anti-Israel, anti-Western themes and variations. These “non-member” members do not write about the “construction of Palestinian identity” nor the “(de)construction of Israeli identity.” Rather, they write about “The Methods of the Mudaddithin,” or “Ephraim of Edessa,” or “Xavier de Planhol and Agricultural Desolation in the Berber Heartland,” or “Yemeni Jews as Chattel Slaves” or “The Destruction of the Coptic Churches of Upper Egypt,” or “Schacht, Jeffery, Gottheil: Three Masters of Morningside Heights” or “Arabic but not Quran’ic: The Evidence of Numismatics” or “Twelver-Shi’ism in Mevlevistan” or “Ibn Battuta, the Rihla, and the Destruction of Hindustan” or “Why There Was No Arab Copernicus or Vesalius: An Inquiry” or “Aisha and Marriage in the Islamic Republic of Iran” or “Quran’ic Memorization and Comparative I.Q. Levels in Post-Independence India” or “Sir William Jones and the Re-Discovery of India” or “The Role of Hadrami Traders in the Muslim Conquest of the East Indies” or “The Story of Thomas Pellow” or “Indo-Persian Miniatures of Jihad-Conquest in the British Museum Collections: A Catalogue Raisonee” or “Table-Talk of a Mesopotamian Judge: A Critical Edition” or “Book-Binding at the Abbasid Court” or “The Role of Hungarian Converts in Ottoman History” or “The War Within Islam: Universalist Claims, Arab Supremacist Doctrine” or “The Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya and Pacta Sunt Servanda: Muhammad and Grotius on the Law of War and Peace” or …well, you get the idea. But these are not the people whom we have in mind when we discuss MESA Nostra at JihadWatch. We are talking about the other kind.

And it was with that other kind in mind – the card-carrying careerists, the blurb-and-reference swappers, the runners-for-office, the risers-high, the much-interviewed, the solemn dispensers of wisdom to the unwary, the True Believers – that we created the MESA Nostra Contest.

The contest is simple. Below is a single paragraph, itself consisting of a single sentence, transparently written in Mesanostran. Contestants are asked to identify the author.

“In conclusion, I feel that this work of analysis, by focusing on the implications of the phallic hegemony of Wehrmacht-helmeted Israeli troops and their supporters throughout the American empire, both equally unappeasable in their demonstrable need for “the Other,” does what in a quasi-heuristic sense it was intended to do, as it manages to break away from all Eurocentric approaches to discourses of postcolonial subalternity, or even of meta-alterity, and comes so subversively close in its disjunctive interrogation of the counter- or, more exactly, anti-mimesis which is inherently essential to Mesopotamian or indeed to Cairene, Abbasid, Jordanian or Palestinian thought for, as a native of (Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, Islamabad, Ramallah, Teheran, etc. – choose one) and hence a non-European, I am of necessity self-assigned to that category of people best placed to perform such a mission of interrogating all postcolonialist as well as narrativised specificity, but of equal necessity, not as one obviously intent on de-undermining or rather meta-determining the poststructuralist or post-postmodern universalism, with its customary relativised discourse analysis which seldom lends itself to anticipatory prolepsis, but on the other hand my critique is quite meta-consciously deeply para-rooted within, as well as up-rooted out of, and obviously from, Western thought with its inalienably alien constructions of meta-identity and hypersexuality, which necessarily give rise to post-essentialism which, in a larger sense, serves merely to violate all the strategic critiques of hegemonic historiographical constructions of essences, whether of the Orient or of scholars who deny the self-referentiality of all postcolonialist essentializing.”

The prize for the first correct entry emailed to director@jihadwatch.org will be a nicely framed copy of Professor Hamid Dabashi’s celebrated Poem in Prose to Edward Said, which you may read now by googling “Hamid Dabashi” and “Edward Said.” For many, that will be prize enough.

[Posted by Hugh at January 27, 2005]

Dr. Spencer,

I am enthusiastically pleased to see that you are as well versed in the sources of the "leftists" within our government (which are just throwbacks to early 20th century progressives/eugenicists), as you are with islamist theology!

Thanks, and thanks once again, Sir.

As a former member of DailyKos, there are few things you need to know about its members.

1) Most kossies are militant atheists and self-loathers who hate their country and most of its people and harbor a near violent hate of Christians in general.

Oh if you think the posts at Jihadwatch are venomous they are nothing compared when the Kossies go on Christian pogrom.

And don't get them going on the PNAC'ers - they start sounding like Al-Sadr on the Jews. In short they also have a strong anti-semitic strain.

2) They are not FDR style Democrats at all. Don't even consider them Democrats but hardcore leftists and radicals who will embrace any and all anti-American and anti-Western movements.

BTW this is why the Democratic leadership ignores these creepy little asshats when it comes to legislation. Sure they play to the clowns during election time and then wisely ignore them once in office.

As to their support of Islamic fundamentalists. They are like most Leftists in that they see anyone who hates the West and particularly the U.S. as a ally. And no matter how horrific that new ally is they will side with them against critics.

This is why Kossies don't care that Islam promotes honor killing of wives and daughters, female genital mutilation, murdering apostates, the imposition of shariah on one and all, killing those who critique Islam, etc.

Y9u know, Alinsky was right. Ridicule is "man's most potent weapon." next to of course (as e.e. cummings of underwood fame would say) god and guns and bombs and stuff like that.

To leftists, disagreeing with them and their ideas is "hatred." Adducing hard facts to support a contrary logical argument is "misinformation"--it's cheating! What really matters is feeling good, striving to replace reality with utopia by any means, spouting the party line in every utterance, and destroying the personal lives and livlihood of all who stand in your way. Speech is free as long as you always agree with them and praise them.

Gee. Now that I read over what I just wrote, I see that I have also just descibed attitudes of the Mohammedan cult! No wonder leftists and Mohammedans get along so well.

I just took a look at Loonwatch, and learned that Robert is a "fake scholar", while Hugh is a mere "proxy". Too bad, Hugh, you'll just have to work harder it you want to make it to fake-scholar status.

Thanks for the link to LoonWatch! ( http://www.loonwatch.com/ ). Perusing LoonWatch was depressing, but it's interesting to observe how the stories and commenters employ the same talking points, epithets, insults and jargon as other Leftist sites. Most of the comments are supportive of the stories, which seem to be fixated on the efforts of Robert and other anti-Jihad workers. There's a place on the site to submit links to stories, so it would be interesting to see what happens if the same stories that appear here are submitted to LoonWatch. To those here who might be of a similar mind, how about joining me in carrying the battle to their turf?

Devon Moore at the Daily Kos, August 24:
"The anti-Muslim blogosphere is a cesspool of some of the most vile hatred and misinformation on the internet."

The real cesspool of vile hatred and misinformation is Islam itself. One does not become part of the cesspool by pointing out the existence of the cesspool.

Hugh at August 25, 2009 1:30 PM.

Reading that made my head hurt, Hugh. Now I have to take a nap to recover.

Seriously, your reading list (“The Methods of the Mudaddithin,” or “Ephraim of Edessa,” or “Xavier de Planhol and Agricultural Desolation in the Berber Heartland,” or ...) whetted my appetite. While I'm perfectly capable of tracking them down myself, if you by chance have full references (publisher, title, year, etc.) readily available would you mind posting them? It would save a lot of duplication of effort for those who might similarly be predisposed to actually reading them. Thanks!

James Martel at August 25, 2009 12:22 PM

I, too, was unable to uncover who the owner/keeper of LoonWatch is, despite spending a little time poking around. Like you, however, I assume it must be a Muslim, certainly an apologist. It's a slick site, so there must be money behind it.

For one, they aren't defensive, instead they satirize and poke fun at the lunacy that is Islamophobia such as: blaming every negative piece of news from the Middle East on Islam, calls for nuking Mekka, the stereotypes of the subjugation of covered women, evil Muslim cells lurking around the corner, leftists colluding with Muslim terrorists, etc.

While Devon Moore and his friends at Loon Watch yuck it up at Robert Spencer's expense, their friends the mujahideen continue to wage their jihad across the globe, killing infidels and not-orthodox-enough Muslims and executing apostates. Again we see the insidious evil that is manifested among the multicultural dhimmi Left.

So is the Loonwatch run by dailyKOS or are they just promoting it?

As for those unable to find the owner of it. Often a secondary strategy is to use textual searching to find text matches on other places on the net where a person identifies themselves. I've found people this way, especially when they use an unusual phrasing.

Give it a try, sometimes in a few hours you can with 99% accuracy identify who wrote the copy for the site.

For example on the loonwatch site the odd phrase "rambunctious underworld" is used only by two other people on the net.

Some movie writer called Erik Henriksen and on a blogger site http://www.nostalgiaforinfinity.com/?p=208

I've not read their stuff to see whether there is an ideological connection, but I don't think so.

Human beings follow patterns and these betray their identities on the net. I don't have time right now to do an extensive search, but I figured out one radical Muslim this way and reported him to the CIA.

Oh ... last comment on this.

I think this sites is really good news for the anti-jihadist movement. It means that we are making such an impact that our enemies must try to discredit us.

Calling people "Loons" is an attempt by one power structure to discredit another (ie Foucault). It means that we are gaining enough power to warrant being slandered. Keep up the good work Robert. You are a solid scholarly voice in a sea of cowards.

Sorry to be a pest, but one more post:

From an article by Garibaldi I googled "ignorance coupled with hate" which is used on DailyKos by dr. tunafish. Googling "dr tunafish" gives as myspace page of Timmy Payne. Next I would start looking at Timmy Payne pages to see if someone fits the ideological profile of the writer. Often once you start reading someone's other writing, you can tell who a person is. The person uses quite flamboyant expressions and likely has some philosophical or political education.

This might be a dead end, but I'd spent a while evening following this method and after 7 or 8 dead ends found people.

Sorry, I neglected to address the arguments supporting her "cousin" claim. She claims a common ancestor from the 1700's based on a "family tree" made by someone else. Pretty flimsy stuff, even if the "family tree" could be substantiated.

Very clever, Mr. Spencer. Placing the Ibrahim article complaining of "westernizing" islamic principles immediately next to the article regarding the Daily Kos defending islam. Kos actually "westernized" islam in order to support it. Very clever, indeed.

One of the fundamental incoherencies of the Leftist logic in defense of Islam concerns their use of the Tu Quoque (or rather Ego Quoque, since the "Tu" in their case is themselves -- though that involves another hornet's nest, namely, their Western Anti-Westernism, whereby in many ways they try to disenfranchise themselves from their own West which they perceive to be more or less evil).

Anyway, the incoherency of their use of Tu Quoque reveals how the logic breaks down on at least one key stress point (there are undoubtedly others as well):

1. We point out to the Leftist the bad aspects of Islam.

2. The Leftist responds with the Tu Quoque: Other religions (namely, Christianity) is/has been/has the everpresent potential to be more or less just as bad.

3. However, in other contexts, the Leftist vilifies Christianity.

4. #3 tends to contradict #2 because the Leftist tends to use #3 to exculpate Islam.

5. Thus, if #3 exculpates Islam, then Christianity must also logically be exculpated. So why don't Leftists exculpate Christianity?

6. Classic case of Having-Your-Cake-and-Eating-It-Too. If the Leftist insists on attacking Christianity, he must at the very least attack Islam to roughly the same degree. But he rarely does. Why is that? This leads us to the labyrinth of Reverse Racism and the Noble Savage -- a whole other pandora's box...

Why Leftists insist on defending Islam, an intolerant, misogynistic, retrograde, anti-art, anti-intellectual, anti-freedom, imperialistic theocratic tyranny, is damned curious.

They either see this as a way to harm their present political foes~ who are more honest about the dismal dogmas of Mohammadism~ (even though the anarcho-liberal appeasers thereby encourage a far more dangerous and rapacious and implacable foe in the future) or, to use their own puerile formulation, they are loons.

I see them as kind of grotesque, hypocritical and vacuous chimaera, incorporating the worst of both traits: a short-sighted and suicidal stupidity about their own survival melded with a kneejerk joy in opposing anything that does not swallow their puerile multiculti illusions.

It wasn't surprising at all to find out the following about the individual that penned the piece in defense of mahoundian supremacism on the DailyKos, Devon Moore (if the sheer weakness of her arguments weren't enough to make her claims in defense of mahound-worshipping laughable):

- "I am an aspiring scholar of Islam and Muslim societies."

- "I believe in: allah (the imaginary) and its (not his) messenger" (mahound, the child-molesting, lying, gang-rapist, genocidal lunatic and mass murderer, whose character traits epitomize human perfection from an inbred bedouin savage perspective.)

As to the relationship between Loon Watch and the Daily Kos, thd only salient fact is that they're both loony.

"Loonwatch" is apparently run by people who defend an ideology whose core text (the Quran) requires that non-Muslims be punished in this world and that "Allah" will burn and torture non-Muslims in the hereafter for eternity. No one at Loonwatch acknowledges, much less tries to oppose, the deeply hateful and prejudiced views.

"Loonwatch" uses a tabloid style of presentation and deals on a superficial level, relying primarily on name-calling, labeling, insults, bigotry, stereotypes, etc.--i.e., everything they claim to criticize in the various anti-jihad/anti-sharia activists they target.

"Loonwatch" focuses its criticism on predominantly "right-wing" people, most (not all) of whom have some level of religious belief in Christianity of Judaism. Why the special focus on these particular groups? Do the criticisms of Islam that Robert Spencer (a Christian) makes qualify him, by their criteria, as a "loon," while the same criticisms of Islam made by prominent atheists and ex-Muslims do not qualify the latter as "loons"?

The Quran states three main reasons why non-Muslims reject and criticize Islam, i.e., because they are (1) stupid, (2) "ill" or diseased, or (3) evil. It seems the people behind Loonwatch take on the same assumptions in their approach. I could be wrong though. Let's ask: What do the people at Loonwatch (and Devon Moore) consider to be acceptable and appropriate criticism of Islam? Their responses or non-responses to that question would be informative.

Thanks "Proud_Kafir7908". It does seem that Devon Moore is playing victim while promoting and defending Islamic ideology.

Apologies. Correction to my above post: "Christianity or Judaism"

profitsbeard,

"Why Leftists insist on defending Islam, an intolerant, misogynistic, retrograde, anti-art, anti-intellectual, anti-freedom, imperialistic theocratic tyranny, is damned curious."

It's not curious in the sense of baffling. It's clear: they do it out of their #1 value: Reverse Racism.