How “Islamophobic” is Michel Houllebecq? He has said: “The Koran turns out to be much better than I thought, now that I’ve reread it — or rather, read it. The most obvious conclusion is that the jihadists are bad Muslims … an honest reading will conclude that a holy war of aggression is not generally sanctioned, prayer alone is valid.”
Perhaps Houllebecq skipped over these passages:
2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:34: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”
4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”
5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”
8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, “˜I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers” hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!–
8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”
9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”
9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”
47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”
“A Muslim-run France? Novel sparks Islamophobia row,” by Tony Todd, France24, January 4, 2015:
France most notorious and internationally best-known novelist Michel Houellebecq insisted Saturday that his new book “Submission”, which envisions a future France ruled by a Muslim government, is not a far-right racist scare story.
What race is Islam again? I keep forgetting. And why is standing up for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law “far-right”?
“Submission”, which is released in French on Wednesday, has been the subject of intense debate in recent weeks, particularly for its portrayal of Islam.
In 2001 Houellebeck [sic] described Islam as “the stupidest of all religions”, a position he has since vocally distanced himself from.
Has Islam changed since 2002, or has Houllebecq?
But his latest book has stirred criticism from all quarters and been attacked widely by the French media and on social media. France’s Muslim community accuse the author of inciting Islamophobia in a country with Europe’s biggest Muslim population.
Leading the barrage is Laurent Joffrin, editor-in-chief of left-leaning newspaper Libération, who argues that the novel “will mark the date in history when the ideas of the far-right made a grand return to serious French literature”.
“This is a book that ennobles the ideas of the [far right anti-Europe and anti-immigration] National Front (FN) party,” he added.
Not so, said philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, a member of France’s prestigious Academie Française, who described Houellebecq as a man, “with his eyes wide open and who is not intimidated by political correctness”.
Profound changes to French society
“Submission” is set in 2022, at the end of a hypothetical second mandate for unpopular Socialist French President François Hollande, who is beaten in the first round of a presidential election by far right National Front (FN) leader Marine Le Pen and the fictional Mohammed Ben Abbes, who leads France’s first “Muslim Fraternity” party.
The French electorate, wary of seeing the FN take power, vote for Abbes, a Muslim moderate whose election provokes immediate and profound changes to French society.
Women change the way they dress and leave the workplace in droves to look after families, solving France’s unemployment problem, while the book asserts that the resulting increased conversion to Islam kills freedom of thought in an increasingly patriarchal society.
In a long interview with France Info (in English on the Paris Review), Houellebecq insisted his novel was not right-wing “provocation”.
“I accelerate history, but no, I can’t say that the book is a provocation—if that means saying things I consider fundamentally untrue just to get on people’s nerves,” Houellebecq said. “I condense an evolution that is, in my opinion, realistic.”
“Yes, the book has a scary side. I use scare tactics,” he added. “Actually, it’s not clear what we are meant to be afraid of, [white far-right] nativists or Muslims. I leave that unresolved.”
‘A Muslim party makes a lot of sense’
And while Houellebecq freely admits that his vision of a future France is “not very realistic” because Islamic political unity in France “is the most difficult thing to image”, he insists that Muslims are dangerously unrepresented in mainstream French politics.
Muslims, he says, are “very far from the left and even further from the Green Party” while “one doesn’t really see why they would vote for the right, much less the extreme right which utterly rejects them”.
“For those reasons, it seems to me, a Muslim party makes a lot of sense,” he said.
Houellebecq, best known in the English-speaking world for his 1998 novel “Atomised” and his 2001 “Platform”, a story about a French couple who create a sex tourism business in Thailand that falls victim to Muslim terrorists, said he had read the Koran while researching his latest novel.
“The Koran turns out to be much better than I thought, now that I’ve reread it — or rather, read it,” he said. “The most obvious conclusion is that the jihadists are bad Muslims … an honest reading will conclude that a holy war of aggression is not generally sanctioned, prayer alone is valid.”
Don McKellar says
Is Michel Houllebecq lying on purpose? Is Michel Houllebecq drunk? Is Michel Houllebecq hopelessly delusional to the point that he has lost his reading and comprehension skills? He’s one of these, maybe all three. The evidence presented against his ludicrous statement presented in Robert Spencer’s post above is an avalanche of truth from which nobody can escape. What colour is the sky on Michel Houllebecq’s planet?
Tradewinds says
I agree. What happened to his intellect? He reminds me of Ionesco’s play, “Rhinoceros.” One day Houllebecq will be converting to Islam. He’s already a propagandist.
mortimer says
‘No True Scotsman’ again.
‘No True Muslim’ is a jihadist, even though the Koran, hadiths and Sharia law all say it is an obligation.
“Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.” (K.2:216)
Lesley says
I think it’s reasonable to say that Houllebecq is afraid for his life.
Islam_Macht_Frei says
Remember Molly Norris.
cronk says
The man is a intellectual fraud and liar and looks like a cast member of the “Walking Dead”.
Just look at what happened when we turned Iraq over to the Shia. They started murdering gays, secularists, emo’s, Sufis and Christians. That’s the Muslim approach to diversity – get rid of it.
Go back a bit further and see how the Ottoman Turks treated the people in the Balkans. It was nothing short of nightmarish.
A take over of France by Muslims would end in the genocide of the French people, starting with the intelligentsia, academics, the political class, militant atheists, feminists, sexual deviants, artists, etc.
KrazyKafir says
This dhimmi stooge is exactly why the west has such a substantial embedded fifth column today.
Wellington says
This French turkey is not doubling down but rather dumbing down. One should get wiser with age. Isn’t happening with Michel Houllebecq.
Jay Boo says
Wellington, Maybe instead of his watered down Islam, he should have carefully written an allegory of Islam using a violent supremacist Judeo-Christian cult as cover to get it past the fanatic Liberal critics.
The critics would have been so eager to applaud an attack on Judaism and Christianity that they would have completely overlooked even the most obvious reference to Islam and Muhammad until it was too late and had already become an underground best seller.
Wellington says
Your suggestion, Jay Boo, proceeds on the assumption that this French intellectual (and God save us from French intellectuals who have gotten almost nothing right over a very long period of time now, suffering from prolixity and tediousness as they do) really knows what he’s talking about. To put it mildly, yours is quite an assumption. Remember, this French turkey thinks that “The Koran turns out to be much better than I thought….”
My suggestion: Never count on this man for what really matters. Never. He is utterly unreliable, especially where the preservation of liberty is concerend, which, btw, the French did an exceedingly bad job of during the French Revolution and thereafter. The Americans did revolution so much the better. After all, France after its revolution got Napoleon. The Americans, by contrast, got Washington. Case closed I would argue.
Jay Boo says
Yes he actually said “The Koran turns out to be much better than I thought….”
I can’t imagine anyone saying such a strange thing with sincerity.
I agree he is not a good candidate for such a task as I mentioned and I was being a bit facetious.
I can’t help wondering though if he actually believes what he said or if he is so conditioned to bark for a biscuit to get published that he is willing to compromise his own beliefs and water down Islam to the dilution needed to pass the PC sniff test. Either way he is a mess.
Wellington says
“Either way he is a mess,” so writes Jay Boo. I would only add that this would serve as a fitting and highly accurate epitaph for sundry French intellectuals over the past century or so and eventually for so many of the future French dead among this “distinguished” group, like this turkey who is the subject of this article.
God save us from Islam. And God save us from French intellectuals who, among other miscarriages where simply being human is concerned, suffer from way too much angst and unnecesarry complexity. Whatever’s the matter with the world, it’s nothing Islam or the French intellectual class can fix. If this isn’t a given, then nothing is a given.
Am I showing my Anglo-Saxon and anti-Islamic bias here? You betcha’. And proud of it I am, though in the interest of full disclosure, I would far, far, far rather have the French intellectual class survive than have Islam survive. After all, life is full of gradations of wrongdoing, now isn’t it?
Jay Boo says
Wellington said,
“French intellectuals who, among other miscarriages where simply being human is concerned, suffer from way too much angst and unnecesarry complexity.”
—————————
Totally agree
Wellington have you ever watched any French with English subtitled films where French intellectuals endlessly debate about the meaning of life just to hear the sound of their voices while you scream “where is the plot?”
French intellectuals can analyze why a worm enters an apple on a given day but can’t tie their shoes.
Champ says
Exactly, Wellington! ..great comment
Angemon says
I believe this is the reason behind Mr. Houllebecq’s apparent change of heart and spouting of PC nonsensical mainstays.
Mirren10 says
I’d never heard of him before, so did a quick google.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Michel_Houellebecq?o=2802&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com
He seems to be a typical member of the ‘intelligentsia’, and seems to be all over the place.
Basically, I think he’s just a silly enfant terrible, who lives to shock.
“The Koran turns out to be much better than I thought, now that I’ve reread it — or rather, read it,” he said.”
Well, that’s telling, isn’t it ? His comprehension skills don’t seem to be up to scratch.
Arthur says
Mirren10,
I agree with you! Controversy sells books and the money goes into his pocket. He undoubtedly loves the attention. He antagonizes all sides enough to get them curious about whether he is for or against when he probably doesn’t give a whit to begin with.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
MIrren, I too looked him up, just to find out how the hell to pronounce “Houellebecq”.
It’s pronounced “WELL-beck”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Houellebecq
says he was born near Madagascar, the home of exotic species.
Jay Boo says
I followed the link provided by Mirren10 as well. His ‘Early Life’ according to the link mentioned also that he lived in Algeria as a child and had a grandmother who was a communist.
It said that he wrote a novel called Plateforme and that there were:
accusations against Houellebecq by several organisations, including
France’s Human Rights League,
the Mecca-based World Islamic League
and the mosques of Paris
“The novel’s depiction of life and its explicit criticism of Islam, together with an interview its author gave to the magazine Lire, led to accusations against Houellebecq by several organisations, including France’s Human Rights League, the Mecca-based World Islamic League and the mosques of Paris and Lyon. Charges were brought to trial, but a panel of three judges, delivering their verdict to a packed Paris courtroom, acquitted the author of having provoked ‘racial’ hatred, ascribing Houellebecq’s opinions to the legitimate right of criticizing religions.”
duh_swami says
I read Quran and discovered it is a dark and evil fairy tale whispered into the ear of a psychotic Arab by an incoherent angel named Gabriel…I reread it, and reread it again, and it is still a dark and evil fairy tale.
I hope you are having a miserable birthday Mahound, wherever you are.
Tradewinds says
Dante has Muhammad in the eighth circle of Hell as a “Sower of Discord.”
Artie says
Houellebecq is just another clueless lemming.
Champ says
“Jihadists are bad Muslims”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What fictitious nonsense! …jihadists are *devout* muslims.
Isabella says
This French author wrote in 2001 that Islam was the stupidest religion. I wonder if this French man was not offered a big amount of money to write an Islamfriendly novel.
Really is this guy preparing the French Non-Muslims to their Kuffar condition in a few years. I can read French so I am curious to read that book.
Bezelel says
The reading of many books has made him mad or he’s planning a political career.
(corrected spelling)
Sam Hawkins says
All becomes much clearer if you view the author as a performance artist.
Ragai Mitry says
Possibly, he was just bribed, the old fashioned way, with lots of cash. I believe there is a lot of that going on with the “academics” and journalists. In France, look for Qatari money being involved. In UK, mostly Saudi Arabian money.
Kangi_nunpa says
And I thought the French would be good at this…
“Elements from the feared Jean-Paul Sartre Brigade, or ‘Black Berets’, will be parachuted into the combat zones to spread doubt, despondency and existential anomie among the enemy. Hardened by numerous intellectual battles fought during their long occupation of Paris’ Left Bank, their first action will be to establish a number of pavement cafes at strategic points near the front lines. There they will drink coffee and talk animatedly about the absurd nature of life and man’s lonely isolation in the universe. They will be accompanied by a number of heartbreakingly beautiful girlfriends who will further spread dismay by sticking their tongues in the philosophers’ ears every five minutes and looking remote and unattainable to everyone else.”
http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/exis.htm
Arthur says
Robert Spencer,
Thanks for the handy list of Koran verses. These are worth memorizing.
mortimer says
Houllebecq claims prayer is valid alone in Islam, but is it? What do Islamic texts say?
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 46: Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “The example of a Mujahid in Allah’s Cause– and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause—-is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah GUARANTEES that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 52: Narrated Sahl bin Sad:
The Prophet said, “A single endeavor in Allah’s Cause in the afternoon and in the forenoon is BETTER than the world and whatever is in it.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Abi Aufa:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Know that Paradise is under the SHADES OF SWORDS.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 80i: Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah’s Cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the ‘killer who also get martyred (In Allah’s Cause).”
The vilest of creatures says
He is a smoker, so much so that he can’t even be photographed with out his cancerous habit.
Shows right there he is an idiot and nothing he says should be taken seriously. He’ll be dead of lung cancer soon anyway.
profitsbeard says
Mohammad said that anyone who leaves the Muslim religion should be killed.
That’s a Death Cult, ~whatever else it poses as.
How you can say anything good about a faith that preaches sanctified murder escapes me.
It seems immoral to whitewash something this loathsome.
Or suicidal.
G179 says
He has not read the Koran. He probably skimmed through a few random pages, only to discover this book is extremely boring, self repeating, badly phrased and disorganized. It takes a real intellectual with strong will power to actually understand the extent of deceit, obfuscation of truth and bending of moral values this book is soaked in.
Matthieu Baudin says
I suspect you are right, that he hasn’t read the entire Koran. He may have felt that as a busy writer he had more useful ways to spend his time. It is important that people tell the truth about their familiarity with the Koran because otherwise they are misleading us in a time of real crisis. I have read the entire Koran, slowly and diligently. It was much worse than I’d anticipated, an unrelenting violent rant with very little respite. The closest book to it in venom, style and force that I’d read previously was Mein Kampf and I don’t make the comparison lightly. Some of the commentary by others in this column has been directed against French Intellectuals in general. Perhaps the intellectuals who have the most to answer for are the leading French Postmodernists, especially Foucault and Derrida, as it’s these two who have trashed the idea of progress in a modern world and elevated the status of ritualized authoritarian societies thereby paving the way for a growing accommodation and acceptance of Islamic norms and violence.
Salah says
“…the fictional Mohammed Ben Abbes, who leads France’s first “Muslim Fraternity” party.”
Muslim Fraternity? as in … Muslim Brotherhood???
After being kicked out of power from Egypt and Tunisia, after being classified as a terrorist organization in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the Muslim Brotherhood thugs have nowhere else to go. Soooo….they turn to Europe, especially France and the UK. (I didn’t mention the USA because they’re already in the WH.)
If I were to write a book about the futur, I would write something like this:
“The day will come when we will find more freedom in the Middle East than in the West.”
Or…
“Islam flourishing in the West and dying in the Middle East.”
Jay Boo says
“Muslim Fraternity? as in … Muslim Brotherhood???”
Good catch Salah
As far as your book though, —
“The day will come when we will find more freedom in the Middle East than in the West.”
Or…
“Islam flourishing in the West and dying in the Middle East.”
— Despite your over exuberance that Islam and the West will completely reverse roles, it would likely have to stay in the fiction isle.
Salah says
“— Despite your over exuberance that Islam and the West will completely reverse roles, it would likely have to stay in the fiction isle.”
Yes…for now!
Things may change in a few decades though. Christianity is growing in the ME, it is rapidly disappearing in the West.
Fanch says
Looks like pure provocation, in order to provoke more he just puts up a smokescreen. In this pre-release interview he says many other interesting things, he insists on Islam having nothing to do with race, when he says that he doesn’t see any major inconvenient in Islam, he then concedes that maybe women should think differently. He says that the classical liberal values and culture looks like they dying, but that catholic christian values seem very strong to him, stronger than ever (I believe he is talking about human-rights type charity and self hatred, not sure, we should ask him to be certain), and that among the various western countries he has visited, France seems to be the only one showing a will to survive (this subject is raised in answer to questions about Eric Zemmou’s bestselling book “Un suicide français”, A French suicide, widely reported as being “islamophobic”) .
Everything looks like a bomb thrown right in the middle of the public debate, I guess he loves the attention.
Michael Copeland says
Michel Houellebecq (the surname is the French spelling of the English name Welbeck) could exchange views with Sebastian Faulks, author of “Birdsong”.
“It’s a depressing book. It really is.
It’s just the rantings of a schizophrenic.
It’s very one-dimensional….
There is also the barrenness of the message.
It has no ethical dimension.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208629/Author-Sebastian-Faulks-risks-Muslim-fury-describing-Koran-depressing-rantings-schizophrenic.html#ixzz3NsVTwR14
Will says
IMHO he is sitting on the fence pretending to lean on the Islamic side but hopes to capitalise on his anti Islam thesis and sell his book to the wakening haters of Islam : greedy but gutless
Buraq says
Next step? Deathbed conversion. Clown! As a Frenchman he should know the saying, ‘the more Islam changes, the more it stays the same’.
Nasdaq7 says
He can focus on the rest, we will focus on those text.
Ahlawanig says
I second Lesley. It’s more than reasonable to think he said this on purpose, maybe out of fear, maybe out of desire for an easy success. It’s so much easier to make a semi-offense rather than go for it at once.
I think none who reads the Qur’an once and judges it rightly and understand its nature will change his or her mind after rereading it EXCEPT if the second translation is biased.
Happiness to y’all.
voegelinian says
This recent interview with Houllebecq sheds more light on the apparent paradox:
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/02/scare-tactics-michel-houellebecq-on-his-new-book/
We may remain baffled by an intellectual who at one point seemed to be anti-Islam then later seems to evince spasms, tics & reflexes of PC MC, only if we are unaware of the problem of the asymptotic point of view. This is a term I coined because I noticed a phenomenon that needed explanation, but for which no current terms seem adequate — that phenomenon being the apparent paradox of a person who, by virtue of the fact that he is self-identifying as a member of the Counter-Jihad, must be free of PC MC, yet who, nevertheless, manifests occasional spasms, tics & reflexes of PC MC. To better understand the phenomenon, one has to imaginatively psychologize. It helps to keep in mind the principle that PC MC is not some evil factor or some thoroughly ridiculous inanity (as so many in the Counter-Jihad glibly assume, thereby ineptly trampling over a subtly complex issue); i.e., the reason the Counter-Jihad individual retains a degree of PC MC is not necessarily for any bad reason, but rather because apparently he finds certain values appealing and also feels afraid of betraying certain principles (most of this occurring semi-consciously, not with full awareness). With regard to Islam, the chief value and principle of PC MC that exerts itself, of course, revolves around issues of racism and bigotry, including respect for the Other and a consequent dislike for xenophobia.
At first, I assumed this must be a rare occurrence – this phenomenon of Counter-Jihad individuals showing signs of PC MC in their behavior. Over time, I became dismayed with how relatively common it is in the Counter-Jihad, and how it subtly seems to affect the stance (however vague the stance may be overall) of the the individual so affected – indirectly (or sometimes quite directy) informing both their diagnosis of the problem, and their prescriptions for solving it.
At any rate, it shouldn’t surprise us that Houllebecq manifests these signs. Once we understand the asymptotic phenomenon, the apparent paradox is dissolved — or, rather, we see why there is a paradox in the first place: the Counter-Jihad individual was incoherent from the start, trying to have his PC MC cake while eating too his self-defined freedom from PC MC through his seemingly robust anti-Islam stance. The most common form this paradox takes (and its psychological resolution) is in a specious and facile (but no less psychologically compelling) distinction between Islam and Muslims. When, however, the asymptotic is confronted with the consequences of his ultimately incoherent logic, he begins to squirm and go into the pretzel contortions we have become familiar with coming from PC MCs, Leftists, and Muslim apologists.
Aside from all this, there is one nicely juicy part of the interview where Houllebecq nicely skewers his sincerely moronic (i.e., PC MC) interviewer on the nonsense of the term Islamophobia and on the nonsense of “cultural racism”.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“asymptotic point of view. This is a term I coined because I noticed a phenomenon that needed explanation, but for which no current terms seem adequate”
So it’s another of your “look at me, I fixed fixed something that was not broken to begin with” moments. Duly noted.
“as a member of the Counter-Jihad, must be free of PC MC”
Who made you the admission checker of the Counter-Jihadi movement, and why should being a counter-jihadi require anything more than a) knowing what jihad is, and b) countering it?
“To better understand the phenomenon, one has to imaginatively psychologize.”
Those seem to be your core issues: imagination and psychological speculation.
“ It helps to keep in mind the principle that PC MC is not some evil factor or some thoroughly ridiculous inanity (as so many in the Counter-Jihad glibly assume”
Could you give names and examples of these “so many”? Otherwise, it seems like you’re using weasel words for the sake of bolstering your e-reputation. Not that I’m saying that they are part of your “imaginative” scenario, it’s just that you’re the only person I can remember constantly bringing up PC MC in the CJ movement, negatively or otherwise.
“The most common form this paradox takes (and its psychological resolution) is in a specious and facile (but no less psychologically compelling) distinction between Islam and Muslims. ”
See, that’s where your ramblings cross from “ego masturbation for the sake of getting your daily fix of narcissistic supply” to “Wayans Brothers parody character”. There IS a distinction between islam and muslims. Islam is an ideology with a set of rules, muslims are people who claim to adhere to said rules. Notice that I said “claim to adhere” – there’s no assurance that anyone who calls himself a muslim knows all the rules or is willing to abide by them, but that’s a matter for another time.
I’m sure that anyone in the CJ movement who tried to spread the word about islamic ideology to others less informed went through something like this: you say “islam mandates such and such” and get a reply along the lines of “no way, I know these really nice muslim people, you’re a racist/bigot/xenophobe/right-wing extremist/etc”. Notice that I said “tried to spread the word about islamic ideology to those less informed”. That automatically excludes voegelinian. Voeg spends his time attacking and deriding counter-jihadis using the same kind of tactics the left-wingers uses to attack an deride counter-jihadis – making gratuitous hit-and-run attacks when the recipients of his hate aren’t there to defend themselves, spreading false info about JW regulars, lying about what they say, cherry-picking their posts, or parts of them, whether or not they were directed at him or even on the same discussion, to build an elaborate imaginary tennis match where he pretends to address and defeat their arguments, creating a blog dedicated to criticize JW contributors and commentators, etc. If his behaviour tells us anything (and I don’t see why it shouldn’t) then voeg has no business in calling himself a counter-jihadi.
Anyway, moving on.
I say that voeg gets it all wrong: the problem is not that people are making a “specious and facile” distinction between Islam and Muslims, but the exact opposite: people can’t distinguish between islam and muslims, and any criticism of islam (ideology), no matter how well funded and how many islamic sources you quote from, is perceived as an attack on muslims (individual human beings). And I say this based on first-hand, real world experience, not on “imaginative psychologizing”.
Finally, this one is a doozy:
“Aside from all this, there is one nicely juicy part of the interview where Houllebecq nicely skewers his sincerely moronic (i.e., PC MC) interviewer on the nonsense of the term Islamophobia and on the nonsense of “cultural racism”.”
The same Houllebecq who, in the paragraph before, was portrayed as a textbook case of asymptotic PC MC, divided between having his cake and eating it, is now a stalwart paladin in the crusade against PC MC, and managed to “nicely skewer[s] his sincerely moronic (i.e., PC MC) interviewer on the nonsense of the term Islamophobia” even though he was doomed to make a “specious and facile (but no less psychologically compelling) distinction between Islam and Muslims”.
If there’s anything to be derived from Houllebecq ‘s shifting, inconsistent stance on the islam and jihad issues is that he either doesn’t know or doesn’t care, and trying to pretend that he’s an example of a counter-jihadi, like Voeg did, is not only an insult to counter-jihadis in general, but also a textbook example of the strawman fallacy. As Wesley Snipes puts it, “Some motherf***ers are always trying to ice skate up hill”.
voegelinian says
Ah good, we have an asymptotic (Angemon) taking the time and trouble to respond in detail to my little comment about the asymptotic phenomenon. This should be interesting (no doubt the lack of self-awareness will be rich…).
***
voegelinian posted:
“asymptotic point of view. This is a term I coined because I noticed a phenomenon that needed explanation, but for which no current terms seem adequate”
So it’s another of your “look at me, I fixed fixed something that was not broken to begin with” moments. Duly noted.
***
Worthless dismissal & insult without any attempt at a counter-argument. Typical of the peanut gallery of which Angemon is a dues-paying member.
***
“as a member of the Counter-Jihad, must be free of PC MC”
Who made you the admission checker of the Counter-Jihadi movement, and why should being a counter-jihadi require anything more than a) knowing what jihad is, and b) countering it?
***
Typical obtuseness from Angemon. The elementary logic (not to mention the mountain of data out there over the years informing that logic) which escapes him is that the perspective of PC MC is precisely what causes the mainstream (which is dominated by that perspective) to minimize & whitewash the problem of Islam — in a thousand ways which Robert Spencer has documented over the years every which way but loose (but apparently not enough to get through the thick skull of Angemon). So if PC MC whitewashes & minimizes the problem of Islam, it stands to reason that someone graduating on the learning curve of waking up to the problem of Islam will progressively free himself from that PC MC perspective vis-à-fucking-vis the problem of Islam.
***
“To better understand the phenomenon, one has to imaginatively psychologize.”
Those seem to be your core issues: imagination and psychological speculation.
***
Yes, we all know that imagination is bad. That explains a lot about Angemon’s obtuseness.
***
“ It helps to keep in mind the principle that PC MC is not some evil factor or some thoroughly ridiculous inanity (as so many in the Counter-Jihad glibly assume”
…you’re the only person I can remember constantly bringing up PC MC in the CJ movement, negatively or otherwise.
***
Therefore I must be wrong, eh? I’m not sure I can withstand this superlative counter-argument Angemon is so deftly deploying.
***
“The most common form this paradox takes (and its psychological resolution) is in a specious and facile (but no less psychologically compelling) distinction between Islam and Muslims. ”
…There IS a distinction between islam and muslims. Islam is an ideology with a set of rules, muslims are people who claim to adhere to said rules. Notice that I said “claim to adhere” – there’s no assurance that anyone who calls himself a muslim knows all the rules or is willing to abide by them, but that’s a matter for another time.
***
Ah, now we get down to brass tacks, where my argument touched on a nerve, since Angemon has shown signs of a bleeding heart soft spot for Muslims (i.e., residues of a squishy nougaty PC MC deep within his ostensibly no-nonsense anti-Islam stance). First, I didn’t say there is no distinction between Islam and Muslims. I was adverting to the distinction made by the asymptotics — a specious and facile distinction, which serves the purpose of deflecting our diagnostic prescriptions away from Muslims who are trying to kill us onto some abstract ideology. If we focus our attention on the latter, we (lead ourselves to believe that we) don’t have to make hard choices about what to do about the former (e.g., deportation). Then for good measure, Angemon adds that other increasingly common meme among the asymptotics, the substitute for the now failed and justly ridiculed concept of the Moderate Muslim — the Muslim who doesn’t know his own Islam: “there’s no assurance that anyone who calls himself a muslim knows all the rules or is willing to abide by them”.
***
I’m sure that anyone in the CJ movement who tried to spread the word about islamic ideology to others less informed went through something like this: you say “islam mandates such and such” and get a reply along the lines of “no way, I know these really nice muslim people, you’re a racist/bigot/xenophobe/right-wing extremist/etc”. Notice that I said “tried to spread the word about islamic ideology to those less informed”. That automatically excludes voegelinian. Voeg spends his time attacking and deriding counter-jihadis using the same kind of tactics the left-wingers uses to attack an deride counter-jihadis – making gratuitous hit-and-run attacks when the recipients of his hate aren’t there to defend themselves, spreading false info about JW regulars, lying about what they say, cherry-picking their posts, or parts of them, whether or not they were directed at him or even on the same discussion, to build an elaborate imaginary tennis match where he pretends to address and defeat their arguments, creating a blog dedicated to criticize JW contributors and commentators, etc. If his behaviour tells us anything (and I don’t see why it shouldn’t) then voeg has no business in calling himself a counter-jihadi.
***
Angemon is so full of shit here. Anyone looking at my blog (essays posted there since 2006) will see scores of essays that are not “attacking” the CJ at all, but are analyzing the problem of Islam and history. Secondly, there’s nothing wrong with internal criticism of a movement. It’s healthy and conducive to quality control. Angemon’s attitude is fascistic and obtuse on this matter. Thirdly, Angemon’s accusation of me as resembling a Leftist in tactics is rich, since he himself resembles a Leftist fascist in his attitude, and in the content of his anxiety to protect Muslims.
***
I say that voeg gets it all wrong: the problem is not that people are making a “specious and facile” distinction between Islam and Muslims, but the exact opposite: people can’t distinguish between islam and muslims, and any criticism of islam (ideology), no matter how well funded and how many islamic sources you quote from, is perceived as an attack on muslims (individual human beings). And I say this based on first-hand, real world experience, not on “imaginative psychologizing”.
***
Here, Angemon is worried about what the PC MC mainstream thinks of the CJ — if we focus too much on Muslims, they will accuse us of “attacking Muslims”. So what? Why should we worry about stepping on the hypersensitive toes of the PC MC mainstream and let them dictate the Conversation? Secondly, the distinction or non-distinction between Islam and Muslims depends on context. When we are examining the dangers posed to our societies, then the distinction is specious and facile if it’s over-emphasized. Ideas don’t explode; books don’t behead people; a hadith won’t stab someone. Muslims inspired by ideas, books, and hadiths will kill people, however. Certainly, in other contexts and other levels, the distinction is relevant (and painfully elementary & obvious). But one suspects Angemon belabors the distinction primarily because of his squishy nougaty center of PC MC. And as I have analyzed concerning the asymptotic psychology, what makes them unique is that it is precisely their ongoing autodidactic appreciation for the horrors of Islam that increasingly sets up a psychological pressure in their hearts & minds, because their progressive Islamo-awareness is increasingly in conflict with the values they retain from PC MC (the usual constellation of values I mentioned in my original comment above, revolving around an anxious concern to avoid “racism” and “bigotry” and “hate” — to be distinguished from those same words without the sneer quotes that denote their perversion into something neurotically irrational, perverting the genuine and authentic concerns civilized people have with racism, bigotry and hate without the sneer quotes — a distinction, needless to say, which the PC MC (and the asymptotic to a lesser degree) has become incapable of making, precisely because of his neurosis).
***
Finally, this one is a doozy:
“Aside from all this, there is one nicely juicy part of the interview where Houllebecq nicely skewers his sincerely moronic (i.e., PC MC) interviewer on the nonsense of the term Islamophobia and on the nonsense of “cultural racism”.”
The same Houllebecq who, in the paragraph before, was portrayed as a textbook case of asymptotic PC MC, divided between having his cake and eating it, is now a stalwart paladin in the crusade against PC MC, and managed to “nicely skewer[s] his sincerely moronic (i.e., PC MC) interviewer on the nonsense of the term Islamophobia” even though he was doomed to make a “specious and facile (but no less psychologically compelling) distinction between Islam and Muslims”.
***
Here once again Angemon displays his obtuse inability to try to carefully understand his interlocutor — whether out of his sheer obtuseness or whether out of his puerile hatred for me (or likely some mangled combination). My whole point of using the term “asymptotic” is that it is NOT synonymous with PC MC. How that excruciatingly crucial point eluded Angemon is breathtaking to behold.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Worthless dismissal & insult without any attempt at a counter-argument. ”
A counter-argument can’t exist without a argument. All you did was say “I coined this term because there was no term adequate”. I guess this establishes you can’t tell an argument from your own ego masturbation.
“Typical of the peanut gallery of which Angemon is a dues-paying member.”
And here the first example of voeg’s “lack of self awareness”: he claims I insult and dismiss what he wrote without attempting a counter-argument and then proceeds to dismiss what I said and insult me without any attempt at a counter-argument.
Considering the caliber of the JW regulars voegelinian labels as members of the “peanut gallery”, I’ll take his snide remark as a badge of honor. You see, voeg has the habit of trying to denigrate those who openly disagree with him on something, no matter how small and petty. The people voeg “relegates” to the peanut gallery are JW regulars with a superb history – if we were to check posts we would see that those people have not dozens but hundreds (and for the longest regulars thousands) of posts rebutting muslim trolls and islamic apologists, educating neophytes and suggesting RL actions. Voeg, on the other hand, prefers to spend his time attacking them, not only on JW but also on his blogs. But hey, a man has to have priorities, right?
“ The elementary logic (not to mention the mountain of data out there over the years informing that logic) which escapes him is that the perspective of PC MC”
And you know a lot from the PC MC perspective, right? With all the time you spend fantasizing about them. Sorry, not fantasizing, “imaginatively psychologizing”.
“ in a thousand ways which Robert Spencer has documented over the years”
The same Robert Spencer you spent years criticizing and who, in several occasions, had to specifically address you to let you know you were getting what he meant wrong?
“So if PC MC whitewashes & minimizes the problem of Islam, it stands to reason that someone graduating on the learning curve of waking up to the problem of Islam will progressively free himself from that PC MC perspective vis-à-fucking-vis the problem of Islam”
This retort makes no sense. Voeg talked about “Counter-Jihad individuals showing signs of PC MC in their behavior”, not about someone graduating on the learning curve of waking up to the problem of Islam, whether or not they were “asymptotic PC MC”. It’s like he can’t even keep track of what he writes – not a good sign.
“Yes, we all know that imagination is bad. That explains a lot about Angemon’s obtuseness.”
You not only seem unable to distinguish reality from imagination, but also thrive in making long inferences based on assumptions. This is also the second example of voeg’s lack of awareness – he claimed I insulted and dismissed what he wrote without attempting a counter-argument and once again he proceeds to dismiss what I said and insult me without any attempt at a counter-argument.
Now, the next part requires context. Voeg wrote:
“ It helps to keep in mind the principle that PC MC is not some evil factor or some thoroughly ridiculous inanity (as so many in the Counter-Jihad glibly assume”
To which I replied:
“Could you give names and examples of these “so many”? Otherwise, it seems like you’re using weasel words for the sake of bolstering your e-reputation. Not that I’m saying that they are part of your “imaginative” scenario, it’s just that you’re the only person I can remember constantly bringing up PC MC in the CJ movement, negatively or otherwise.”
Voeg decided to ditch most of what I wrote and focus on this bit:
“…you’re the only person I can remember constantly bringing up PC MC in the CJ movement, negatively or otherwise”
and replied with:
“Therefore I must be wrong, eh?”
But not without adding:
“I’m not sure I can withstand this superlative counter-argument Angemon is so deftly deploying.”
This is brazenly dishonest, and illustrative of voeg’s slimy tactics. Who are the “so many” he mentioned? Chances are, they don’t exist – voeg is making stuff up as he goes along, adding bits here and there in order to make him look god, and any attempt to examine his statements are met with strawmen and derision.
“Ah, now we get down to brass tacks, where my argument touched on a nerve, since Angemon has shown signs of a bleeding heart soft spot for Muslims”
This is standard voeg garbage – if all else fails, accuse the opposing party of having a soft spot for muslims. Notice that there’s no counter-argument to what I said (cue in lack of self-awareness), it’s just a one-size fit-all reply meant to denigrate Counter-Jihadis and try to pound them into silence. Notice that it’s the bizarro version of CAIR’s cries of “racism” and “islamophobia” – like i said, voeg is no stranger to leftist tactics.
“First, I didn’t say there is no distinction between Islam and Muslims. I was adverting to the distinction made by the asymptotics — a specious and facile distinction, which serves the purpose of deflecting our diagnostic prescriptions away from Muslims who are trying to kill us onto some abstract ideology.”
In your personal opinion, is there a distinction between islam and muslims?
“Then for good measure, Angemon adds that other increasingly common meme among the asymptotics, the substitute for the now failed and justly ridiculed concept of the Moderate Muslim — the Muslim who doesn’t know his own Islam: “there’s no assurance that anyone who calls himself a muslim knows all the rules or is willing to abide by them””
This is another example of why voeg couldn’t debate his way out of a wet paper-bag. First, he fails to give any evidence that all who call themselves muslims actually know all that islam ordains. There’s no minimal score in a written test or quiz required to convert to islam, all you have to do is pronounce the shahada in front of a muslim, or be the son of a muslim father. That is particularly evident in western converts: muslim clerics often entice converts by “adapting” islam to tailor the tastes of each recipient. You like science? Well, the quran contains scientific facts. You like miracles? The quran is a miracle. You’re into women’s rights? Muhammad was a champion of women’s rights. Since voeg used Mr. Robert Spencer while appealing to authority, I shall quote from Mr. Spencer’s book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades)” (please don’t sue me, mr Spencer 😀 ):
Secondly, the idea that a muslim who doesn’t know all that islam mandates is a substitute to a “moderate” muslim is so ridiculous that could only come from voeg’s attempts at mischaracterization.
Thirdly, and I know I’ve said this, but voeg seems to have a hard time accepting facts, there’s nothere’s no assurance that anyone who calls himself a muslim knows all the rules or is willing to abide by them. Voeg tries to ridicule this notion, but offers no counter-argument. Ergo, another of his “lack of self-awareness” moments.
More from voeg:
“Angemon is so full of shit here.”
And speaking of “lack of self-awareness” moments…
“Anyone looking at my blog (essays posted there since 2006) will see scores of essays that are not “attacking” the CJ at all, but are analyzing the problem of Islam and history.”
See, this is disingenuous. He knows very well he created a blog called dedicated to criticize JW contributors, and he’s not denying it because, well, he can’t. He’s trying to reword it – he’s not “attacking JW contributors”, he’s just “analyzing the problem of islam and history”. For example:
or
Clearly not attacking JW contributors and commentators, just good, old fashioned “analyzing the problem of Islam and history”!
“Secondly, there’s nothing wrong with internal criticism of a movement. It’s healthy and conducive to quality control. ”
Except when it comes to criticizing your “criticism” (which I guess it’s a code-word for “I know better than you and if you disagree with me I assassinate your character”), in which case it’s just “oh yeah? well, you’re full of shit and you protect muslims!”.
“ Angemon’s attitude is fascistic and obtuse on this matter.”
And you’d know a lot about fascism, right voeg?
“Thirdly, Angemon’s accusation of me as resembling a Leftist in tactics is rich, since he himself resembles a Leftist fascist in his attitude, and in the content of his anxiety to protect Muslims.”
As I stated before, voeg likes to throw the accusation of “you’re protecting muslims” around like leftists with “racist” or “islamophobe”. What he expects I’d let pass is that he doesn’t touch my argument about what happens when someone in the CJ movement tries to spread the word about islamic ideology to others less informed. In a clear thuggish fashion, it’s either side with him or being accused of protecting muslims. Of course, he doesn’t exactly say how I am protecting muslims, and believing that absurdity requires one to be completely ignorant about the content of my posts and my stance. But reality and facts never stopped voeg before, like that time he tried to claim I was a pro-muslim troll:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/france-muslim-driver-ramming-pedestrians-while-screaming-allahu-akbar-was-absolutely-not-an-act-of-terrorism#comment-1165985
Notice that he called me that for pointing out that he was deriding counter-jihadis (like I mentioned he did), but apparently I’m the “Leftist fascist” for calling it as I see it. Oh well…
More from voeg:
“Here, Angemon is worried about what the PC MC mainstream thinks of the CJ — if we focus too much on Muslims, they will accuse us of “attacking Muslims””
And, of course, voeg engages on another strawman. Here’s what I said (as opposed to what voeg claims I did):
“no matter how well funded and how many islamic sources you quote from, is perceived as an attack on muslims (individual human beings).”
See? I’m not worried about anything, I’m merely stating a fact – you criticize islam, less savvy people think you’re criticizing muslims. That voeg needs to lie about what I said is very revealing about his character and tactics.
“So what? Why should we worry about stepping on the hypersensitive toes of the PC MC mainstream and let them dictate the Conversation?”
Clearly voeg has not been paying attention to the conversation. Here’s how things work: if you say “islam” and people hear “muslims” they’re not being “hypersensitive”.
“Secondly, the distinction or non-distinction between Islam and Muslims depends on context.”
No context needed. Islam – ideology. Muslims – people who claim to follow islam. That will never change, no matter the “context”.
“When we are examining the dangers posed to our societies, then the distinction is specious and facile if it’s over-emphasized. Ideas don’t explode; books don’t behead people; a hadith won’t stab someone. Muslims inspired by ideas, books, and hadiths will kill people, however. Certainly, in other contexts and other levels, the distinction is relevant (and painfully elementary & obvious).”
So basically, according to you, given the right “context”, there’s no difference between a book and a human being.
“But one suspects Angemon belabors the distinction primarily because of his squishy nougaty center of PC MC.”
That “one” being you, and we’ve seen how accurate your “suspicions” have turned out to be…
“And as I have analyzed concerning the asymptotic psychology”
No, no, no. You didn’t analyze, you “imaginatively psychologized”. C’mon man, consistency!
“ what makes them unique is that it is precisely their ongoing autodidactic appreciation for the horrors of Islam that increasingly sets up a psychological pressure in their hearts & minds, because their progressive Islamo-awareness is increasingly in conflict with the values they retain from PC MC (the usual constellation of values I mentioned in my original comment above, revolving around an anxious concern to avoid “racism” and “bigotry” and “hate” — to be distinguished from those same words without the sneer quotes that denote their perversion into something neurotically irrational, perverting the genuine and authentic concerns civilized people have with racism, bigotry and hate without the sneer quotes — a distinction, needless to say, which the PC MC (and the asymptotic to a lesser degree) has become incapable of making, precisely because of his neurosis).”
Huh? That was all you could come up with in your “imaginative psychologizing” session? Predictability is bad for comedy, you know?
“Here once again Angemon displays his obtuse inability to try to carefully understand his interlocutor — whether out of his sheer obtuseness or whether out of his puerile hatred for me (or likely some mangled combination). ”
Add another one to voeg’s “lack of self awareness” counter.
“My whole point of using the term “asymptotic” is that it is NOT synonymous with PC MC. How that excruciatingly crucial point eluded Angemon is breathtaking to behold.”
And, once again, voeg sets up a strawman. Whose fault is it if he can’t make up his mind on whether to denigrate or eulogize Houllebecq?
In any case, what I said still goes: if there’s anything to be derived from Houllebecq ‘s shifting, inconsistent stance on the islam and jihad issues is that he either doesn’t know or doesn’t care, and trying to pretend that he’s an example of a counter-jihadi, like Voeg did, is not only an insult to counter-jihadis in general, but also a textbook example of the strawman fallacy. As Wesley Snipes puts it, “Some motherf***ers are always trying to ice skate up hill”.
P.S.: Can any JW regular show me if voeg ever dedicated such a faux elaborated reply to muslim trolls or islamic apologists? I remember seeing longer, more elaborate replies from him, but aimed at JW regulars with the intend of deride and denigrate them, however I’m drawing a blank when it comes to him replying to muslim trolls and islamic apologists. One would expect that someone whose insults revolve around “you’re a pro-muslim troll” or “you’re protecting muslims” to have no qualms about facing muslims and islamic apologists head on, so his lack of replies is conspicuous.
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Secondly, the distinction or non-distinction between Islam and Muslims depends on context.”
Now wait just a goddamn minute voeg. You told me before that “Islam is not a person that can ethnically cleanse anyone. But its minions of Muslims are.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/germany-man-stabbed-in-head-and-back-for-shouting-merry-christmas-in-muslim-dominated-area#comment-1171153
So which way is it?
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Angemon is so full of shit here. Anyone looking at my blog (essays posted there since 2006) will see scores of essays that are not “attacking” the CJ at all, but are analyzing the problem of Islam and history.”
Ok voeg, I’m going to call your bluff. Why don’t you link us to the “scores of essays analyzing the problem of Islam and history” in Jihad Watch Watch?
voegelinian says
Quoting me:
“So if PC MC whitewashes & minimizes the problem of Islam, it stands to reason that someone graduating on the learning curve of waking up to the problem of Islam will progressively free himself from that PC MC perspective vis-à-fucking-vis the problem of Islam”
Angemon responded:
This retort makes no sense. Voeg talked about “Counter-Jihad individuals showing signs of PC MC in their behavior”, not about someone graduating on the learning curve of waking up to the problem of Islam, whether or not they were “asymptotic PC MC”.
Of course, I’m not talking about one or the other in isolation, but about both as opposite parts of a process. Since Agemon apparently is only fixating on one or the other and seems incapable of seeing the whole process of which they are centrifugal vectors, the analytical locutions I use don’t make sense to him.
1) PC MC minimizes and whitewashes the problem of Islam.
2) Someone educating himself about the problem of Islam progressively wakes up to the problem, and as he does he, he undergoes a process of freeing himself from the PC MC paradigm.
3) Some people who undergo #2 continue to harbor residues of PC MC in their minds, preventing them in varying degrees from completing the process.
What exactly and precisely all this means – what the process is, what PC MC constitutes, what freeing oneself from it entails, what it means to be unable to completely free oneself due to varying degrees of a retention of PC MC – is of course not an exact science but is subject to degrees of subjective opinion and relative factors, to be discussed in a reasonable and fair conversation; of which, evidently, someone like Angemon is incapable (whether out of obtuseness or out of hatred, I don’t really give a fuck).
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Since Agemon apparently is only fixating on one or the other”
Perhaps that has something to do with your insistence in jumping form one to another without rhyme or reason.
“1) PC MC minimizes and whitewashes the problem of Islam.
2) Someone educating himself about the problem of Islam progressively wakes up to the problem, and as he does he, he undergoes a process of freeing himself from the PC MC paradigm.
3) Some people who undergo #2 continue to harbor residues of PC MC in their minds, preventing them in varying degrees from completing the process.”
If your behaviour tells us anything is that anyone who disagrees even with the smallest comma of what you say gets invariably labeled as an “asymptotic PC MC”.
Your method of coping with people disagreeing with you is not to check facts or even agreeing to disagree. You handle criticism or disagreement by describing a fictional, although logical sounding, “transition” to tell yourself that you’re the only sane person and that everyone who criticized you, or disagreed with you, is suffering from a fictional mental illness that just so happens was coined by you. That’s why you use weasel words like “so many”, or to why you act like a spoiled child if JW regulars don’t side with you. Your world would crumble if you had to acknowledge you’re not the Adonis you tell yourself you are. And the proof of that is that you always fall back to “asymptotic PC MC”, like you just did.
“(whether out of obtuseness or out of hatred, I don’t really give a fuck).”
I’m sure you don’t – is your right hand holding out on you? You know, this whole “hatred” meme you’re trying to push is nothing more than projection – perhaps you hate me but I don’t hate you. I pity you though. Must be hard having to tell yourself everyday that you’re right and everyone else is wrong, and that if you attack, and deride, and insult others enough maybe they’ll like you and come to your aid when you’re attacking and insulting and deriding other users – who just rarely, if ever, happen to be muslims trolls or islamic apologists.
So voeg, I called your bluff. Where are the links to the “scores of essays analyzing the problem of Islam and history” in Jihad Watch Watch, a blog you created to attack JW contributors and commentators?
Angemon says
Just a small addendum: if everyone in JW were to have voeg’s self-righteous, know-it-all attitude then the CJ movement would be quite a barren and desolate place. Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Dr. Sennels, Raymond Ibrahim, and all other contributors, past and current, make a smashing job of explaining things as they are in a way accessible to neophytes, PC MC or not. There are also several JW regulars like Wellington, Champ, gravenimage, Mirren10, Stephanie, Philip Jihadski or Salah (and I’m certain I’ve left out several big names, and I apologize for that) who take time that could be spent with their friends, or family, or hobbies, not only to share their knowledge and experience those less knowledgeable but also to counter pro-islamic trolls and peddlers of doubt who try to muddy the waters and stomp criticism of islam through, for example, the bigotry of low expectations, or suggesting it’s “racist”, or bringing up the crusades. I honestly can’t think of a time where voeg explained someone something using islamic sources to back his assertion or tackled an islamic apologist or a muslim troll, despite the recent increase in numbers. It seems that with him it’s either full sycophancy or full despite and derision.
TH says
He may not like Le Pen and her FN party, but his thesis coincides with hers and it will be a useful arm for her in the next presidental elections. She states the Hoande and Sarkozy are more of the same, just like the Tories and Labour in Britain. The supposedly moderate European right has sold out on its principles and bought into the left’s positions.
Jack Holan says
The author is more on target than he realizes. He should shorten the time-line by half. The fact that the Muslim community feels empowered enough to come out and demonstrate against the larger society; their natural birth rate and immigration numbers they are set to eventually take over. By silencing negative expression regarding İslam, if the they us stealth entrance into municipal councils and national advisory positions to leaders of all parties and their continued aggressive, public protest/rioting.
İf France does not immediately wake up they are cooked. After supporting & writing drafts for the PA/Hamas( Hamas recognized terrorist group) to be a State at the UN is more worrisome.