How the Right abandoned the resistance to jihad

I'm sorry that your confreres on the Right treat you (and Pamela inter alios) like a paraiah. Even so, do assure me that this isn't just about whether or not to hurl gratuitous insults and to heap abuse against Islam qua Islam (I so much rather prefer to insult and abuse Islam deservedly, and in wholely legitimate self-defense--after all, I didn't start this open-ended Cosmic War).

@Robert --Yours meekly, (signed) --Lackluster Nebbish.

Hi Robert! OT.
I frequent an Iranian web site the is associated with the Ayatollah Khamenei. it is called Shaionline. their double standarsa are what makes it fun! their hatered af the Wahabis and the saudi government is legendry. today though there was an article about Sun News and Micheal Corin. apparently Mr. Corin dressed up in a Burqa on his show!!! the owners of the web site are up in arm!!!!!!!!!!!!
M

Can you name someone prominent on the left who will tell the truth about Islam and the global jihad?

what?
M

Obviously there is no one on the Left who's willing to tell the truth about Islam.

The recent case of Eric Bell offers a good example. If the individual is truly interested in the subject as Bell was, the truth of Islam hits them right between the eyes. Staying with the Left then become unmanageable mentally; in time it become unthinkable.

When you seek the truth it become so evident that you can no longer abide the Left. The Left and common sense have never been on speaking terms. Ergo, moving toward the Right becomes unavoidable.

"Can you name someone prominent on the left who will tell the truth about Islam and the global jihad?"

I think Arthur's point is that we can't name anyone prominent (i.e., mainstream and respectable in polite company) on the right, either, who will tell the truth about Islam and the global jihad.

Also, if you're narrowing your standards to people outside the mainstream, I wouldn't characterize Spencer (nor Hugh Fitzgerald, nor Pam Geller, nor Ayan Hirsi Ali, nor Pim Fortuyn) as "right wing" (even if one or more of them may be conservative on an issue or two). Indeed, there are quite a few folks on the hard right (and also not limited by having to kowtow to the mainstream) on many other sociopolitical issues, who suddenly reveal they are quite soft on Islam when that comes up for discussion; if only because they have absorbed the general multiculturalist bias that anxiously wishes to avoid, to an irrationally excessive degree, "bigotry" against any group perceived to be non-white and/or non-Western.

This is not to deny that the Left (both hard and soft) is markedly Islamophiliac; but that doesn't get the right (nor the centrists, nor the comfortably apolitical) off the hook for their dereliction of duty in this regard -- a dereliction that gives widespread traction to the Left which the Left wouldn't otherwise enjoy by which to keep tilting the West away from Islamorealism.

Arthur wrote: "It has nothing to do with Left vs. Right. It has to do with intelligent, courageous, & honest vs. stupid, uninformed, spineless, morally bankrupt, and dishonest...."

I guess I wonder LemonLime, in the age of Obama, how can an Obama-supporting leftist (to me Mr. Obama is evil) be anything other than stupid, uninformed, spineless, morally bankrupt and / or dishonest to one degree or another? I know Obama-supporters. I've told them I believe Obama is evil or that he is an anti-Semite, etc.

I prefer speaking of conservative (not paleoconservative or neoconservative but historic conservatism) rather than the right or "right-wing." You and Pamela do not have to convince me about the moral bankruptcy of much of contemporary conservatism. I wrote so many angry missives about former President George W. Bush's repeated lies about Israel and Islam, the readers wearied of it, though they are not as defensive and protective of Bush as they were when he was president. Maybe because we see the bitter fruit.

I expect the left (contemporary liberals) to lie about Islam, Israel, etc., I do not expect conservatives to lie about Islam or Israel as Bush and other conservatives did and still do. I often ask, is it any wonder only seven years after the Muslim-terror attacks in Washington and New York, Americans elected a dangerous Muslim-born president with deep sympathies for the world of Islam? Americans were repeatedly lied to by conservatives and the president of the United States for seven long years post 9/11. I am not saying the public does not prefer being lied to rather than deal with harsh truths. That's another matter.

How do you see it?

IMO, we should not discount the effect that the education system has had on the withdrawal of Righties from the Counter Jihad. In the 10+ years since 9/11, Islamophilic propaganda has inundated textbooks and classrooms.

Think about this for a minute! 10 years is half a generation! Now, when I try to discuss the threat of Islam with my students, who are comparatively few because I teach groups of homeschoolers, I get "the fish-eyed stare." This stare is a recent development -- over the past four years or so.

This comment is not to be construed as approval of or and excuse for the aforementioned backing off of discussing jihad!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You are right to not construe people who allow themselves to be propagandized by lies. This was the excuse many Germans gave after the second world war. But there were Germans who somehow did not allow themselves to believe the lies, who listened to BBC, etc. The truth is out there. How much more in a relatively free society like this one? Is there any reason to allow oneself to believe lies or to be indoctrinated by wicked people?

We lost sight of the ball when we allowed Muslims into the National Cathedral just after 9/11 to tell us lies about Islam.
*****************

Who's "we"? The Episcopal Church in the USA is a Leftist church. The only reason nobody knows it is because the Episcopal hierarchy is falling over itself trying to live down its decorously conservative past (back in the 19th century)--which lives to this day in "lich-rich-ah" and old films.

I'll address a few others, including Wildjew, about former President Bush. In fairness to a lot of people out there, Left and Right, 9/11 was the first time in their lives that they really had to pay attention to Islam. Maybe they should've thought a few things over during the Iranian Revolution, or when people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar were coming out of the woodwork in Afghanistan, but back then, there was still a Soviet Union to fight; and it still seemed as if a range of ideologies ranging from logical positivism to Marxism-Leninism would continue there steady advance. It was possible to dismiss the gathering forces of Islamic resurgence under the contemptuous label "*Ugh!*fundamentalism!"

Also, Dubya Bush's remark about Islam as "a religion of peace" had all the marks of an ad hoc remark by someone who simply thought he had much bigger issues to deal with than the way some of his family's oil business associates prayed. He campaigned thinking the USA could avoid nation-building efforts of the sort that had panned out so badly in Somalia and the Balkans, and focus in on domestic matters. Dubya Bush probably grew up thinking something like, "Nobody's mean to Jews or Catholics anymore, so why should we think ill of Muslims?" Probably the bulk of us who grew up with the odd Circassian, Tatar, South Asian, Iranian, or Arab family down the street grew up with the same suburban civility mindset.

My guess is that if you could sit down and chat with the ex-President today, you'd probably find that since 9/11, he--like so many of the rest of us--has also found out a lot more about Islam than he originally hoped to find.

"Dubya Bush's remark about Islam as "a religion of peace" had all the marks of an ad hoc remark by someone who simply thought he had much bigger issues to deal with..."

Sure, maybe the first 17 times he said it, I'd forgive him. But not after the 117th time.

Not to mention inviting a cleric whose Arabic name means "Sword of Islam" (Saif al-Islam) into the Pentagon to deliver an Iftar prayer (against his enemies = us, of course) -- when that cleric should have been tackled and manacled rather than feted and fawned over.

This truly is a two-front war. One front: Islam. Second front: Anyone in our own society not fighting on, or inhibiting our fighting on, front one.

Very true; however, it should be kept in mind that probably most of the latter category are represented by individuals who are not malicious nor fully rationally conscious in this regard. That said, there may come a time when the analogy of a buffoon innocently, but still dangerously, blocking with his fat ass the doorway to saving a house on fire -- where merely asking him politely to move aside doesn't penetrate his skull -- will become all too acutely pertinent.

Yes, she is lying. I have never sent any email of any kind to Jennifer Rubin, much less this one. A reporter contacted me about this and asked her for comment -- if a story comes out, it will likely clear the air.

____________________________________________________________

I am sorry to see this. I've been reading her blog for several months. She's been a strong, consistent supporter of Mitt Romney. I took her to task when after the December 10 Iowa debate, she wrote:

"His press secretary had lamely suggested earlier in the day: “Gingrich supports a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which will necessarily include agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over the borders of a Palestinian state. However, to understand what is being proposed and negotiated you have to understand decades of complex history - which is exactly what Gingrich was referencing during the recent interview with Jewish TV.” But of course he was not being complex or nuanced; he was being provocative and, if we are to believe he might be president, irresponsible."

I guess by Speaker Gingrich saying the Palestinians are an invented people and later in the debate, he said they are "terrorists" dedicated to Israel's destruction (which they are) that is being provocative; however when Governor Romney told a gathering of donors in Jerusalem Monday, their (the Jewish people's) culture is part of what has allowed them to be more economically successful than the Palestinians, that is not provocative or irresponsible.

I do not have a problem with either Gingrich's or Romney's statements.

The Washington Post apparently has invited a few "right-leaning" journalists to blog so that, like CNN (who hired Erick Erickson) and other far left news groups, WaPo can appear fair and balanced. George Will and Charles Krauthammer also write for the Post. They had to fire a few of these bloggers apparently. Now they have Rubin, a social moderate / liberal and a national security conservative.

I've got to say from personal experience, some of the readers / posters on Washington Post can be vicious. They keep me on my toes. Many simply despise conservatives and especially Islamophobic conservatives. I think Washington Post calls Rubin's column "Right Turn." Most of her left-leaning readers also despise her, regularly calling on the Post to fire her. That is why I am disappointed with this tweet above. She had better learn who are her friends and who are her enemies.

I used to cut people some slack on this point too, reasoning that many people simply don’t know about this, and they’re being pervasively lied to about it by virtually everyone with a mantle of authority. After all, I’m not perfect. I didn’t start learning about Islam until a short time after 9/11. Before then, I was completely ignorant on the subject, so I gave people the benefit of the doubt.

However, I’m past that point now. I mean, c’mon… at this point, ten years down the line from that attack, after all the consistent carnage, misery, and failure we’ve witnessed and endured day after day, year after year, how could any reasonable person still believe that Islam has nothing to do with this. Even if someone has never opened the Quran in their life, common sense would tell them that this ‘religion of peace’ stuff is nonsense. At this point, if someone is still clinging to the “religion of peace hijacked by a few extremists with most Muslims being perfectly normal ‘moderates’” meme, it can only be because they are either corrupt, or, for some cowardly or cognitive dissonance-related reason, are actively trying not to acknowledge the reality of things. And I don’t forgive that. At this point, as far as I’m concerned, the expiration date for ignorance being a valid excuse is long past.

Don’t get me wrong, I still engage such people and bombard them with facts and truth. But inwardly I don’t cut them any slack in terms of where the battle lines fall. I know what side they’re on. Every person has to choose.

Wow, I'm not as alone as I thought I was !

Been thinking about this for a long time. And scrolling down I was curious to see who first would mention Saudi oil money?

And it was Vlad !

Surely the oil lobby being in bed with the Saudis must lie close to the heart of this?

I'd also like to suggest to Kepha that really I think the associations between the oil lobby and the Whahabi's are a lot deeper than just "the way some of his family's (Dubya) oil business associates prayed."

The Bushes, for instance go back as far as Ibn Saud himself, from GB Sr. to Prescott Bush to George Walker. That's a long association and if they weren't aware of what the religion meant they sure shoulda been.

So I can't help wondering. All the while Arab Oil money is vast and Saudi Arabia supplies 65% (?) of the world's oil... how much traction is likely to be made?

I can't weigh in on Weasel Zippers. I only read the site when it comes up infrequently in the course of my daily reading, which is not nearly enough, due to business constraints. Michelle Malkin lost me after she honored the late Bob Novak an outspoken foe to Israel / friend of the Palestinian jihadists.

out of context,

As tempting as your stance is, and as profoundly inclined as I am toward it, I feel I must resist its pull so to speak, because it draws in its train certain assumptions that constitute so sweeping and serious an indictment of so many in the West (and by extension of great parts of Western culture and institutions), I am moved to seek another explanation -- though hopefully I wouldn't do so irrationally after sufficient evidence has undermined my apperception in this regard.

I.e., to explain Western myopia to the problem of Islam, we must rule out malice and ignorance -- not as partially contributory factors, to be sure, but as sufficiently massive causes; else there would not be much worth defending and saving about the West (unless we posited some elect of 144,000 to survive a coming apocalypse). Until I see persuasive evidence otherwise, then, I prefer to see a complex psycho-sociocultural explanation (Quantum Ignorance, as I have styled it) for the myopia; along with a hope which the West contains within it by which this will go out of fashion as relatively quickly as it came into fashion over the past 60-odd years.

Since you were interested in a previous comment I took the time to put into writing some things I've wanted to say for a long time, my third comment in this blog I think,
"Afghan policeman murders three civilian training advisers, two American and one British"
here
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/afghan-policeman-murders-three-civilian-training-advisers-two-american-and-one-british.html

It's clear to me that this is the way to go but I get little feedback and I get the feeling that following the facts to their logical conclusion leaves everyone aghast at what must be done, i.e. basically to put the anti-Islam policy into writing and have it declared the solemn policy of the US.
It's a policy that could easily be put into a few sentences but it would get the same shocked and appalled reception as Reagans "evil empire" speech.
Still, it's the right thing to do, it must be done and the Islam problem can't be solved until it's done.
We can't beat Islam by being on the defensive and resisting on the margins, we need to make the argument that Islam is evil and must eventually vanish and that this must be the central policy of our country, of the West.
With this clear and simple declaration all the details of what must follow will fall into place.

Brandon

you wrote - "By the way, where is dumbledoresarmy? I haven't seen comments by her lately".

Not to worry. I look in most days, though I sometimes don't post, if I feel others have already said all that needs to be said. If I were ever to become seriously ill, say, I would get my husband to mention it to Mr Spencer to pass on to the community.

If you don't see me posting it doesn't mean I'm not lurking, and reading.

Also, every now and again there are evenings, or whole days, when assorted obligations mean I have to leave the computer turned off.

Thank you for your concern. (I do keep a weather eye open for your posts as well, as also for those by many other 'regulars' both old and 'newer').

BTW - All of us 'old regulars' do look out for each other. I, for example, have been wondering where someone called 'Kaffir Kanuck' is...and there was also a guy from Alaska who used to do brilliant postings, who has been silent for over a year now. I'm worried about *him* because he did have a heart attack at one point (he vanished for awhile, went to hospital, had treatment, then reappeared and told us about it; but months ago he simply...vanished).

If you find a given poster sufficiently interesting and trustworthy, get in touch outside of the forum: for example, I correspond privately with 'Gravenimage'.

Further, I encourage jihadwatchers who come from the same country - e.g. British, Canadian, Australian, and from European countries - to get in touch with each other *outside* of this forum, while exercising due and proper caution of course. PJG and I - both Australians - occasionally talk or email *away* from jihadwatch. One of my reasons for advising this is so that - if jihadwatch were (which heaven forbid) cease to exist - people who have met here can still talk to and encourage each other and brainstorm ideas and continue the struggle.

And join a local/ in-country Resistance to Islamisation group so you are doing *something* concrete where you are.

Lol.Bookmarked! :)

"if jihadwatch were (which heaven forbid) cease to exist - people who have met here can still talk to and encourage each other and brainstorm ideas and continue the struggle."

And they can always find each other on other blogs -- luckily there are a few more beside the paltry few Spencer and Geller mentioned; if, that is, the cooties of a blog like mine can be stood. I wouldn't mind at all my blog being used, in such a -- Allah forbid -- dire situation, as a way-station, so to speak.

Thanks, OOC.

The problem with an explanation like yours is that were we to substitute just one thing for another -- a White Power group instead of Brown Muslims -- all these problems and obstacles throughout the West would vanish instantly, and nearly everyone would be on the same team.

The fear of an irrationally construed "bigotry" is the #1 explanatory factor going on here (with, of course, other important, but subsidiary, factors in play as well; which shouldn't obscure our view of the primary one).

Wildjew,
You said:

The truth is out there....

I couldn't agree more.

But I have lost and continue to lose clients because I discuss Islam.

The group that I work with is conservative, one might say "Christian Right," to a certain extent, anyway.

They STILL turn off -- most of them.

Because I speak out, this household's income is way down because my husband is disabled (brain hemorrhage in 2009 at the age of 59) -- below poverty level, in fact. So, I've put my money where my mouth is. Not to condemn other counterjihadists, but how many are taking a financial hit like this and STILL soldiering on.

Maybe it comes down to this in part: "Our of sight, out of mind." As long as planes are not being flown into buildings by jihadists, ostriches abound. Ostriches abounded before 9/11, you know.

Short attention span? The obscenity of Americas attention span is a f-ing disgrace! It's like 9/11 never happened. The Muslim Brotherhood is this decades new cuddly teddy bear in the eyes of politicians and the public. It's insane!

All people have to do is f-ing READ!!!

I'm not a genius. I'm not the "sharpest knife in the drawer". As a matter of fact I often refer to myself as just a "dumb-ass construction worker". I was kicked out of the eleventh grade for fighting. But (and the following is underlined) I Can Read!!!

I've got a Summarized Sahih Al-bukhari. In the front of it is an article on Jihad by Sheikh ,(long friggen name), Humaid. It's a blueprint for war! Period. I've got a copy of Reliance of the Traveller. Their "Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law" for Christ's f-ing sake! In there, in black and white, it tells you it's okay to kill your children. And people who stop believing. And people who don't believe. And Buddhists. And on and on and on. I've got the Holy Koran "with English Translation and Commentary" by Maulana Muhammad Ali. Published by one of the genuinely "moderate" Muslim Sects. Yet in there is the Islamic plan to take over the world! All these idiots have to do is read Slavery, Terrorism and Islam by Peter Hammond to get the skinny on Muslims and their love affair with mass murder. In an afternoon they can find out where most of the sedition even started: "Ivory Towers on Sand" and "The Professors". And of course Muslim Mafia or even "The Haj" by Leon Uris to figure out once and for all the truth about the scam that is the Palestinian "right of return".

Here are just a few books in my library and "to get" list:

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family by Stephen Baskerville

The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers

It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom by Andrew P. Napolitano

The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land by Andrew P. Napolitano

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws by Andrew P. Napolitano

A Nation of Sheep: (Title is self-explanatory) by Andrew P. Napolitano

Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History by Andrew P. Napolitano

One Nation Under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty

Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey A. Silverglate

Plunder: How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation

Snitch: Informants, Cooperators & the Corruption of Justice by Ethan brown

Mean Justice: A True Account of Prosecutorial Misconduct by Edward Humes

No Matter How Loud I Shout: A Year in the Life of Juvenile Court by Edward Hume

The Government Racket: Washington Waste From A to Z by Martin L. Gross

Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain-Dead Politics Are Selling Out America by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

The Emperor Wears No Clothes: Cannabis and the Conspiracy Against Marijuana by Jack Herer

These aren't even my "Muslim" section.

This country isn't just in trouble. It's in a death spiral.

"Mr. Wood's video exposing the lies on ABC's 20/20"

A link would have been nice. No offense.

Always On Watch,

yes, discussing Islam even with close family and friends often has a price.

I was quoting unsavoury bits of the Quran to some family members who are convinced and strongly believing Christians, and I was angrily accused of speaking "propaganda". "Propaganda" on whose behalf was not explained, but the topic was closed and will remain closed. I am the patient recipient of their continuing Christian "propaganda", but critisicing Islam is closed down.

Here it has by and by been succesfully impressed on everyone that whose who oppose and resist Islam and jihad most likely are extreme right-wingers, the closest thing to Nazis you can get. Helped by the fact they most often are right of centre and conservatives.

You wrote: "The one person who comes to mind is Bill Maher. He is an unabashed leftist (gave $1 million to Obama), but look at his videos on YouTube re Islam, and you will find that he says virtually the same things as Mr. Spencer....."

Maybe you are right about Maher but there is a disconnect there. It seems to me there needs to be a little consistency. Obama is the most Islam / jihad / shariah - friendly president yet, bar none. I couldn't bring myself to vote again for Bush in 2004. How can Bill Maher be credible on Islam when he supports Obama?

Steffen,
Here it has by and by been succesfully impressed on everyone that whose who oppose and resist Islam and jihad most likely are extreme right-wingers, the closest thing to Nazis you can get.

Not all who oppose Islam are extreme right-wingers. Is that element present? Yes.

But, somehow, the Left gets a pass about the extremists in their midst. The old double standard is ever in play. **sigh**

Larry, your reading list is commendable.
I think all politicians and public officials should be required by law to publish their reading list ( epigrammalog ).
The KORAN should be at the top of the required reading list for all politicians.

If I knew that a politician who rolls over and advocates for Islam had not even read the Koran I could dismiss his views out of hand.
I suspect that the position of most politicians has more to do with who's paying them than with an INFORMED judgment about what's best for the people they represent.
I can't imagine that any politician could read the Koran and not be adamantly opposed to Islam.

...Thanks....very, very well said.

This octogenarian Bush supporter....still, right now.... thinks that we saw the civil, well mannered...don't smirk, that actually used to mean something...Bush of the well educated Eastern Establishment (not necessarily "Liberal" at all)......while being born inside Texas,and sounding like a Texan, he remains the issue of his patrician parents.

I rolled my eyes at the thought of his startling public appearance at that prominent mosque on Massachusetts Avenue in the District after 9/11.

Also, I was bursting with pride at the sight of him at the site of the collapse of the World Trade Center.

However, and this is a very large however for me, I can
vividly remember our visceral nationwide fury at the Japanese...we called them "Japs" at the time, immediately after and all during the remainder of World War Two, for their sneak attack on us at Pearl Harbor.

We were then genuinely united....all of those Roosevelt haters set aside their their loathing and the Nation literally "pulled together". Don't smirk at that thought either....it was genuine. We were literally "patriotic" then. That's lost now.

Alas, we've lost all of that unity. Lost it. Completely. The horror of that Muslim sneak attack on New York and Washington has incredibly (to my mind) been forgotten and lost by our lethally shortened modern "attention spans".

The direct parallels between these two sneak attacks, and relatedly, the direct parallels associated with Soviet infiltration and subversion starting in the 1930's, and the exact same strategy and tactics being used and amplified by our Muslim enemy today are shockingly (to my mind) lost to the American Public.

Until we, as a Nation, publicly accept that we, as a Nation, are indeed at war with Islam and their Muslims, we stand an excellent chance of losing this war of civilizations....no less. They repeatedly remind us that we are their enemy. We won't absorb this.

This should be literally shocking....but....we permit ourselves to languish in this nauseating "political Correctness" and "multiculturalism".

I wish to hell that we'd wake up.

CMG.

"This video (over 2 hours but WELL worth watching) will, in part, explain exactly why there truly never was and is not now any "Christian foundation" or "Christian core" to this nation."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I just started watching this. America's founders (most of them) were more like Jews than anything else, thank God. Don't you think grom? Unlike the Puritans, Increase and Cotton Mather, they were not Christian Fundamentalists who embraced the Christian bible uncritically, the virgin birth, church creeds, blind faith, etc. Thomas Paine was a radical non-conformist. Maybe Jefferson had more in common with Paine than most. I don't think Paine is representative of the founders. Washington might have accepted some of Paine's revolutionary ideas but Washington was no Thomas Paine.

Thanks for your reply, Charles. I'm near sixty, and was raised by parents who remembered Pearl Harbor.

Also, when 9/11 happened, a part of me desperately wished to be young and physically fit. Guess why.

I'm not entirely unhappy with Bush's outreach to both domestic and foreign Muslim opinion following 9/11. While the Ummah is united in its contempt for the Kufr, it was not and is not united in praise for Osama Bin Laden.

Re the visceral hatred of the Japanese in WWII, my father, who was heartbroken after he was rejected as too old for service (he was of German and Austro-Hungarian Jewish heritage and really wanted to strike a blow at you-know-who); and my Norwegian-heritage mother (Gud hville henne) was just a tad uncomfortable that my wife's senior uncles and father served as conscripts in the Imperial Japanese Navy during the war (they're Taiwanese--and, BTW, came from a family that thought retrocession to China in 1945 righted an historic wrong). But my father (alov hasholom) also remembered an era in which prejudice against Jews was very widespread, often visceral, and sometimes directed at himself.

Because of this, I'm actually not that displeased with Bush's ad hoc and clumsy efforts to reach out to domestic and foreign Islamic communities in the wake of 9/11. Both he and our people showed that our hatred was focused on Bin Laden's associates and allies, not on all Muslims per se.

The thing that appalls me is the persistent Leftist talking point that somehow, hostility to the USA is always because of something we've done rather than considering the possibility that there just may be some who hate us for what we are. It can't get through to our Leftists that people like Mao Zedong viscerally hated Western concepts of liberty and limited government; or that our sexual revolution disgusted Seiyyid Qutb and continues to disgust large parts of the Islamic world (which, in turn, comes to think that the sexual revolution is all there is to us).

But I do not condemn former President Bush for trying to defuse a willy-nilly hostility to any and all Muslims.

Yes. Envy hates accomplishment.

Nix that. I'm being platitudinous.

Larry wrote, with understandable exasperation:

"I've got a Summarized Sahih Al-bukhari. In the front of it is an article on Jihad by Sheikh ,(long friggen name), Humaid. It's a blueprint for war! Period. I've got a copy of Reliance of the Traveller. Their "Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law" for Christ's f-ing sake! In there, in black and white, it tells you it's okay to kill your children..."

Unfortunately, data like that (and there is a mountain of it, in various multifarious permutations) is not sufficient to establish the unavoidable lacunae which renders our inference about Islam (& Muslims -- at least to those of us alarmed about Muslims too not just the abstract inert entity "Islam", pace the Kephas of the Counter-Jihad who tend to be fastidiously disinclined to be too anti-Muslim lest they get "racist" cooties) vulnerable to counter-arguments by people anxious to exploit any possible chink they can find in our argument.

I.e., just because we can point to Bukhari hadiths as containing pernicious and seditious material, that in and of itself does not establish the connection between that particular ancient text and the ideas and actions of Muslims today, nor of the nature of Islam today vis-a-vis its ability to motivate and inspire Muslims. Between the datum of Bukhari hadiths and Islam/Muslims today there is a gap, which can only be filled with a very spotty connection riddled with holes. This applies also to any other given datum (whether the Koran, whether tafsirs, whether any particular flamingly seditious sermon; etc.). Though the sheer quantitative weight of so many data, lined up one after another, would seem to become transformed into an actual connection to bridge the lacunae in our argument, unfortunately, it does not -- unless, of course, we artificially whittle the problem down, pace the Kephas of the Counter-Jihad, sufficiently such that it doesn't require that much data.

The actual data of pernicious and seditious Muslims today invoking Islam is forever vulnerable to explanations that, to one degree or another, can be resolved down to a version of the TMOE (Tiny Minorty of Extremists) -- logically bracketing out the vast majority of Muslims from censure, let alone any actions we may want to take against them for our proactive self-defense (like stopping immigration, let alone deportation).

Our case rests on reasonable inference; not direct proof. Unfortunately, thus, the war of ideas is more complicated than the simplex formula --

Jihad Watch data about Islam --> Western recipient --> anti-Islam epiphany.

There remains a complex cultural, mental and psychological "filtration mechanism" so to speak, in the heart and mind of most Westerners, that intercepts the data we bring to them, runs it through a complex wringer, and excretes out the other end 1,001 excuses for Islam and for the Muslims who enable Islam (i.e., all Muslims). And, unfortunately, we will continue to have to figure out ways to do end-runs around, and/or carefully meticulously dismantle, that filtration mechanism, the PC MC paradigm that is dominant and mainstream throughout the West (not just among "Elites", but among Ordinary People too -- the anecdotal evidence of commenter "Always On Watch" is just one example of millions one could adduce I am convinced).

This is not counting the Kephas of the Counter-Jihad, who, because they already define the problem not terribly differently from the PC MCs anyway (i.e., simply a somewhat wider version of the TMOE), can construct a better case, since the problem they define is smaller and more manageable. Just because, however, their artificial truncation of the problem remains too broad for the comfort of PC MCs, and they can affect to complain about how marginalized they feel from the mainstream, that doesn't mean they earn our bonafides as sufficiently, robustly anti-Islam/anti-Muslim.

Arthur, I wonder what Maher thought of Bush's efforts to white wash Islam. Do you know?

Arthur wrote:

"Mr. Spencer has been marginalized because he did not use the most effective strategy in promoting his position. Somebody in his position has to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL with regard to every word he uses."

Has he now?

You'd have an easier time convincing me that Islam is a religion of peace than to try to convince me that Bill Maher is courageous or that liberals can be of any assistance in the anti-Islam movement.

It is entirely due to liberalism that Robert Spencer is demonized to any degree or by anyone, since speaking the obvious truth, compounded with the oodles of daily supporting evidence should not require a politically correct tap-dance to profess, at least in a sane world.

I also read WZ, and believe he is just as anti-jihad as you. He's obviously not as deep into the Koranic info, and he's more into war porn and vocally anti-abortion, as I'm sure you know. If he is more popular in readership it may be because he's more entertaining or less demanding intellectually, not because he's soft on jihad.

In fact I believe he's a bit of a male chauvinist which may appeal to a Conservative audience, stating such things as rape victims should be denied abortions because otherwise women will claim to be rape victims, etc. But he eventually backed off that when informed by readers how wrong he was. IOW, he had to be informed how inhuman and cruel to women his opinion was.

If chauvinism and a personality conflict (maybe he's offended by Pamela's overt sexuality and flirtatiousness) is the reason he doesn't like Pamela he's not likely to say it. He'd find something else, anything, even it if appears irrational.

Regarding the bigger issue of those on the Right, I think most people in the public eye are more careful about not wanting to attack Islam/Muslims because of the principle of not judging people as a group. The public doesn't really care that much about Islam and don't want to spend the time and energy to know about it. As long as Muslim Americans agree to behave as American citizens there's no problem or any desire to stigmatize them.

That said, I very much appreciate your work, not because I think it's balanced or fair to all Muslims, but because it's presenting information that is vital and not otherwise available.
It's really a blessing not just for the West but for Muslims of conscience.

Anyway, that's my take. Best regards, J.

Larry wrote, with understandable exasperation:

"I've got a Summarized Sahih Al-bukhari. In the front of it is an article on Jihad by Sheikh ,(long friggen name), Humaid. It's a blueprint for war! Period. I've got a copy of Reliance of the Traveller. Their "Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law" for Christ's f-ing sake! In there, in black and white, it tells you it's okay to kill your children..."

Unfortunately, data like that (and there is a mountain of it, in various multifarious permutations) is not sufficient to establish the unavoidable lacunae which renders our inference about Islam (& Muslims -- at least to those of us alarmed about Muslims too not just the abstract inert entity "Islam", pace the Kephas of the Counter-Jihad who tend to be fastidiously disinclined to be too anti-Muslim lest they get "racist" cooties) vulnerable to counter-arguments by people anxious to exploit any possible chink they can find in our argument.

I.e., just because we can point to Bukhari hadiths as containing pernicious and seditious material, that in and of itself does not establish the connection between that particular ancient text and the ideas and actions of Muslims today, nor of the nature of Islam today vis-a-vis its ability to motivate and inspire Muslims. Between the datum of Bukhari hadiths and Islam/Muslims today there is a gap, which can only be filled with a very spotty connection riddled with holes. This applies also to any other given datum (whether the Koran, whether tafsirs, whether any particular flamingly seditious sermon; etc.). Though the sheer quantitative weight of so many data, lined up one after another, would seem to become transformed into an actual connection to bridge the lacunae in our argument, unfortunately, it does not -- unless, of course, we artificially whittle the problem down, pace the Kephas of the Counter-Jihad, sufficiently such that it doesn't require that much data.

The actual data of pernicious and seditious Muslims today invoking Islam is forever vulnerable to explanations that, to one degree or another, can be resolved down to a version of the TMOE (Tiny Minorty of Extremists) -- logically bracketing out the vast majority of Muslims from censure, let alone any actions we may want to take against them for our proactive self-defense (like stopping immigration, let alone deportation).

Our case rests on reasonable inference; not direct proof. Unfortunately, thus, the war of ideas is more complicated than the simplex formula --

Jihad Watch data about Islam --> Western recipient --> anti-Islam epiphany.

There remains a complex cultural, mental and psychological "filtration mechanism" so to speak, in the heart and mind of most Westerners, that intercepts the data we bring to them, runs it through a complex wringer, and excretes out the other end 1,001 excuses for Islam and for the Muslims who enable Islam (i.e., all Muslims). And, unfortunately, we will continue to have to figure out ways to do end-runs around, and/or carefully meticulously dismantle, that filtration mechanism, the PC MC paradigm that is dominant and mainstream throughout the West (not just among "Elites", but among Ordinary People too -- the anecdotal evidence of commenter "Always On Watch" is just one example of millions one could adduce I am convinced).

This is not counting the Kephas of the Counter-Jihad, who, because they already define the problem not terribly differently from the PC MCs anyway (i.e., simply a somewhat wider version of the TMOE), can construct a better case, since the problem they define is smaller and more manageable. Just because, however, their artificial truncation of the problem remains too broad for the comfort of PC MCs, and they can affect to complain about how marginalized they feel from the mainstream, that doesn't mean they earn our bonafides as sufficiently, robustly anti-Islam/anti-Muslim.

Very true. You might add Hispanic illegal immigrants to the group of PC protected groups.

This is where coming from the Left gives someone an advantage because you understand the sensitivities more and are less defensive about them. Yes, it's not fair that Christians can be attacked, but so what? White Christians have enjoyed advantages which other groups have not. That doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of PC, but there's no point in getting defensive about how unfair it is. Turn the other cheek and keep telling the truth.

Even with the stupidity of PC, that still doesn't make attacking all the members of any group OK, even Muslims. It's not easy to be neutral but if you remind yourself from time to time that Muslims are just people and what you are opposing are a set of beliefs and actions you save yourself from internalizing their negativity.

'Arthur' , you've popped in here a few times over the short-few years I've been commenting, if I remember rightly, generally with the same condescending tone, and I can't help but think that you have some personal gripe with Mr Spencer. .

Jamadagnii,

"Very true. You might add Hispanic illegal immigrants to the group of PC protected groups."

Yes, any group perceived to be (whether accurately, or not) as an "ethnic minority" has gained an excessive degree of deferential treatment from the mainstream through the rather recent dominance of PC MC in the West.

But this deferential treatment is not monolithic -- it has an internal pecking order as well: and since 911, by a perverse paradox, Muslims have become the #1 Ethnic Minority to be "respected". This development is not entirely illogical: it follows Lawrence Auster's "Law of Majority/Minority Relations" which, to paraphrase, is roughly this:

The more and worse that a perceived ethnic minority misbehaves, the more the majority bends over backwards to placate them (and to find the blame, somehow, in themselves, not the misbehaving minority).

And since Muslims misbehave astronomically worse than any other group on Earth, they benefit from the perverse logic of this "Law" the most.

"This is where coming from the Left gives someone an advantage..."

Sure, the Left is most guilty of this problem -- but again, were it not for the passivity or at times lukewarm collusion of the majority of Conservatives, Centrists, and the Comfortably Apolitical, the Left's influence on the mainstream West would not enjoy the traction it does in fact enjoy. The ball, and the blame, is squarely in the court of the Conservatives, Centrists, and the Comfortably Apolitical; not the Leftists.

"Even with the stupidity of PC, that still doesn't make attacking all the members of any group OK, even Muslims."

Who's mentioning "attacking" Muslims? All I want to do is defend my societies from them. And no one is going to tell me to soften that stance because of a shred of deference to any Muslims, I don't care how big their friendly smiles are, I don't care how blue their Western jeans are: I must reasonably assume them all suspect, for the safety of my loved ones, my friends, my fellow citizens. How many times must the simple principle be repeated -- There is no way for us to tell the difference, with sufficient reliability, between the harmless Muslims (even if they exist) and the deadly Muslims?

And I don't care if you're the Queen of England, I'm not going to put "diversity" and "tolerance" before the lives of our men, women and children -- no matter how much those abstract values may make me feel all warm and fuzzy and like a better person (or a better Christian).

Arthur wrote:

"I am saying that he should have stuck to facts only, no adjectives or labels. He should offer no opinions of his own, but let the listener formulate his own opinions."

What an absurd critique. No opinions? No labels? Are you implying he report on Muslim activities like your brethren in the liberal media, whereas Muslims are not labeled as such, but rather referred to as "a Connecticut man", "French national" or "east-Asian" or any other term to disassociate Muslims from Islam that the media is willfully complicit in doing?

By that statement, you are essentially arguing from the point of view a liberal, whereas Spencer has stated no inaccuracies in his work, but his "opinions", which really aren't opinions at all or informed ones at worst, are what has "marginalized" him and rightfully so.

Like I said, you have a bteer chance convincing me that Islam is a RoP than to convince me that liberals like yourself have any value to add to this cause.

And the "hidden insanity" of Muslims in the U.S. is anything but hidden. It's right there for all to see, though verboten to speak of under the liberal hammer of polititcal correctness.

The advantage of coming from the Left in this debate is simply the willingness of the Left to be sympathetic to the angst of minorities, even if their victimization status eventually is self-enforcing and unproductive. That's the point I was trying to make there, that the Left comes from a position of generosity of spirit towards those less advantaged, the higher moral ground.

The Right tends to be less sympathetic towards those who have less, and thus are called out as racist. It's a rhetorical weapon. Verbal attacks back and forth.

My question is why does the Right appear so hard headed and unsympathetic towards disadvantaged minority groups and yet behave so cowardly in confrontations with the pernicious threat of Islamic supremacism? This is the point that Pamela Geller makes in her article.

It's almost like the deeply entrenched Conservative base are so accustomed to having power and position they simply can't tolerate the possibility of losing it. The thought of that is simply too frightening so they accommodate the enemy. Especially since the enemy has great wealth, appeasement is the preferred path for both sides. How many Muslims shop in Paris, London, NYC, and Rodeo Drive, LA? Lots and lots.

In the final analysis, the Right are corrupt cowards whereas the Left are simply self deluded fools.

I heartily concur, London Jim. 'Arthur' posted lengthy, sententious, and condescending screeds when the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque was going on, sniping and sneering. But we have yet to hear anything about what *arthur* is doing against jihad. And since he's a blowhard, I'd conjecture, *precisely nothing.*

"My question is why does the Right appear so hard headed and unsympathetic towards disadvantaged minority groups and yet behave so cowardly in confrontations with the pernicious threat of Islamic supremacism? This is the point that Pamela Geller makes in her article."

The Right has absorbed a lot of liberalism over the past 50-odd years. PC MC is no longer a Leftist monopoly: it's the dominant mainstream worldview of the majority of people throughout the West on all points of the political spectrum and all stations of life socially.

One example: Reflecting on his 8 years as President, George Bush remarked that the "worst moment of his presidency" was when Kanye West admonished him for not caring about black people. That was the worst moment of his entire presidency...!

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017791.html

Even the subset of right-wingers who tend to be less forgiving to ethnic minorities with regard to a variety of sociopolitical issues tend to treat the problem of Muslims -- at best and not all that often even going that far -- on the same plane; but since the problem of Muslims has unique features other ethnic groups don't have (no other ethnic group belongs to a relatively unifying ideology of 1.3 billion spread out all over Earth in nearly every country, and no other ethnic group is generating problems that rise from mere crime to behaviors that tend to be more in the sphere of paramilitary sedition), this stubbornness on the part of these certain right-wingers has no other reasonably inferred source than that they don't want to be "bigoted" against 1.3 billion people all over Earth. For, were these certain right wingers to logically translate their supposed no-nonsense stance toward minorities and rationally ratchet it up to meet the unique demands which Muslims, unlike all other ethnic minorities, arouse, those certain right wingers would have to go (in their own minds) too far into the Dark Continent of actual racism. So they recoil and, at best, simply regard the problem of Muslims on roughly the same plane. There is only a very small (if not tiny) minority of "ultra=right" people who are positively unapologetically racist, and so wouldn't have a problem condemning Muslims en masse for mainly racial reasons -- which, needless to say, is not only ethically wrong, but pragmatically and grievously irrelevant.

......Re: your....

"Anyway, that's my take. Best regards, J."

That particular "take" is a very smug, disdainful, and condescending "take".

....compounded by.... "Best regards, J."

Arthur wrote:

"When I used the term "label" I was not referring to a word like "Muslim". I was referring to words like "leftist propaganda tool", "thug", "blowhard", "sniping", etc. Some of these appear in comments about me above."

Spencer's reference to Ahmadinejad as the "thug-in-chief" of Iran for example's sake, does nothing to offset the substantiating argument that Ahmadinejad, who routinely calls for Israel's destruction, and essentially associates everyone against the Iranian regime as beholden to Jews in general. To be forced to refer to him consistently as anti-Semitic or anti-Israel is far too restrictive and you are not the arbiter of proper English prose. In addition, the labels of you were not levied against you by Spencer and your attempt to connect the two is a red-herring.

In addition, Spencer's very limited and accurate use of invective's are usually reserved for "prominent figures" as you referred to or to people who have directly attacked Spencer himself.

Arthur wrote:

"By the way, I post about Islam frequently under different names on very prominent websites, where I am very easily remembered. I post devastating facts only, with detailed citations. NOT ONE PERSON, either liberal or conservative, makes any attempt to refute my facts."

Your fallacious appeal to authority aside, I notice that you did not provide a single moniker that you referred to, even though they are all assumedly anonymous. Also, you appear to make a distinction without a difference between you and Spencer in that regard, although I'm sure your credentials and commitment to pinpoint accuracy are impeccable as well.

Arthur wrote:

"I disagree about your point that Muslim insanity is not hidden."

You can disagree, but high-profile acts of violence in the US committed by Muslims, including the "hidden" attack on 9/11 seem to adequately counter-argue that point.

Spencer-
"..And as for “Islamic extremism,” recent jihad plotters include Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; Nidal Hasan, the successful Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer; Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/robert-spencer-which-is-worse-jihad-terror-or-islamophobia.html

So, what you have conflated is the term hidden for the proper term which is obfuscated. Yes it is true that almost all mainstream media (almost all left-leaning btw) obfuscates, not the acts of the Muslims themselves, but their consistent correlation to Islam.

Arthur wrote:

"I have found the same thing at dinner tables with a large group of professionals (including both conservative and liberal)."

This statement is irrelevant but your assertion is not surprising, especially amongst liberals, but may I suggest you find some alternate groups of friends to dine with?

In summation, with your claims of possessing a clearer and better perspective on the subject over Robert Spencer based on your supposed, prominent writings by someone, somewhere, is a wholly unsubstantiated assertion at this point.

Your opinion that Spencer's writing style, offering his informed opinions, has somewhat hurt him is also assertion at this point. Spencer has written thousands of articles and has yet to be caught-out with a career-ending comment that you allude to. I challenge you to find one.

Besides offering Bill Maher to put forward your original argument against the left-right distinction, which really was your only concern in my estimation, you've done nothing to render that distinction invalid.

In fact, your accusation that Spencer's writing style has marginalized him is to commit the same egregious assault that the subject blog is accused of in this very thread. You either wittingly or unwittingly lend credence to the very obfuscation you simultaneously lament about.

That is odd in my opinion. How about a little background on your other monikers on the other sites. I for one am quite interested in what you have to say.

Here is my platitudinous perspective: I doubt I'll ever be able to wade in or out of this flap; I am always in awe of the ever-expanding horizon of the universe of ideas, this Kaleidiscopic interaction between concepts and personalities--I'll always be reminded of my own limitations and finiteness. I'll engage in this contest with existence if I can, I won't withraw from it, because it's the moral imperative of that existence.

What I mean to say, simply, that to even describe, say, this comments thread is to find that I am a blind man among many, who can only perceive part of the elephant present, not the whole of it. I want to encourage my fellows here with whatever trite observations I have to share. [Gee, I wonder what ancient Greek sage comes to mind, some metaphor about dicerning shadows on the wall of a dim cave?]

Best wishes to all I meet here.

--Drop the "among many"; you guys are too sharp for me, you probably have at least one more eye than I.

"Discerning," that is.

Well, if I offended Robert in any way I certainly didn't intend any disrespect by using the words "take" or "best regards."

@Arthur,

That was an expected response by you.

You owe me nothing, as I owe nothing to you. I do find it quite peculiar that a commenter who openly stated here in this forum on this very thread, about their commenting prowess under other names at other sites, (again assumed anonymous pseudonyms), would be so reluctant to show off their formidable wares.

Do you have a reply to that, besides calling me unintelligent?

Thanks in advance.

I'm with you here, Kephas.

Hey, my friend, remember old times? Remember our how the fur flew then?

Indeed, brother.

Good to hear from you.

I hope that you are heard from, and heeded--as need be. The Great Helmsman surely needs to consider your views to correctly chart our course.

Hmmm. Seeing what you do to my name, are you also someone who has studied the Koine Greek and Aramaic languages?

No, sir. Just a layman's awareness of the development of language, and an overview of history and ages past and present. Uncle, I just confused your Aramaic nomme de plume with the Greek tranliteration of that canting name, Cephas.

No, sir. Just a layman's awareness of the development of language, and an overview of history and ages past and present. Uncle, I just confused your Aramaic nomme de plume with the Greek tranliteration of that canting name, Cephas.

That was an unintentional double posting, as well. Human cognition is pretty frail, ain't it?

Anyway, I know kappa in the Greek alphabet, but I hardly have a clue as to its equivalent in the Aramaic or Syriac, except by their affinity to Hebrew.

I'm going to my dictionary's Table of Alphabets, now, Gamal.