As mentioned here previously, I recently agreed to be interviewed as a part of a British university research project on European populism. After I requested that the researcher define the term “far-right”, he decided to remove it from the question. The removal of the term left no undefined “loaded” words or phrases in the questions, so I began writing my responses.
That was the same day the riots began in Stockholm. A few days later Fusilier Lee Rigby was beheaded on the street in Woolwich. Those two incidents — which obviously bear on the academic research being done into the rise of “Islamophobia” — caused me to postpone further work on the answers until the crisis abated.
I finally finished my replies today, and have sent them off to the researcher. Writing them was a time-consuming task, but an interesting one, given the context: a research project at a major university funded by Multicultural Progressive money and almost certainly intended to arrive at a predetermined Progressive Multicultural conclusion.
There is no way to “win” this encounter with the academic establishment, no matter what I might write. The political-academic game is rigged, and has been for a number of decades. The conclusions in the final report might as well have been written before the questionnaires were sent out. In broad outline, we all know what the report’s authors will say about the dangers of violent “far-right” “xenophobic” “bigoted” “extremists”. We have good reason to expect that this paper will help justify the continuing crackdown on “Islamophobia” and become yet another nail in coffin of our civil liberties.
So why bother answering the questions at all? As I explained in an earlier post, my goal is to force transparency on the process. Policy-makers will eventually see the results of this research, but here at Gates of Vienna they may find a record of how it was done. Here they will see the questions and answers that helped generate the conclusions reached in the research.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
My goals in answering these questions were twofold: (1) to respond clearly and truthfully, and (2) to avoid the traps that had been set for me.
The questions were divided into three sections, and Section B — “Politics, Society and Youth” — was the most interesting, because that was where many of the traps were laid. The most obvious pitfall was the question which had originally included the phrase “far-right”, and concerned our “promoting a counter-jihadist narrative that in turn promotes violence”. It is one of those questions that leave you one down, no matter how you answer it.
Aside from leaving a blank response, what was to be done? Read my answer to see the strategy I took.
Other potential traps included a question about which political groups I “feel most distant from” and which I “feel closest to”. To take that bait without swallowing the hook demands tact and finesse.
The reader is invited to read the rest of the questions and spot some of the other traps. They are all a reminder — as if we needed any — that we must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
The entire questionnaire is below, with my answers in full.
Section A — Political and social biography
| Q: | How did you come to be involved with the Gates of Vienna (GoV) site? |
|
| A: | My wife was devastated by the death of her daughter in the spring of 2003. The following year I suggested that we take up blogging together, as a possible way to help her pull out of her depression, despondency, and general angst. She had always had an interest in and talent for writing, and I thought it would be a way for her to utilize her skills while focusing on something new. I knew that engaging her intellect would likely help her emerge from the slough of despond.
We had both followed the political aftermath of 9-11, and had noted the fecklessness that characterized much of the American government’s response. We agreed that if we were to start blogging, the resurgence of Islam would be our topic. I suggested that she take on the pseudonym Dymphna, who was the patron saint of lunatics. That idea caught her fancy, and sealed the deal. I finally set up the blog in October 2004. Until I was laid off in 2006, Gates of Vienna was more her operation than mine. However, she has chronic fibromyalgia, and as her condition worsened, I took on more and more of the responsibilities. Eventually it became a full-time occupation. |
|
| Q: | Have you always been interested in the issues discussed on GoV? Was there any specific event, organisation or meeting that made you want to get involved? |
|
| A: | I have been interested in the resurgence of Islam since I first read Among the Believers by V.S. Naipaul back in 1981. I realized then that a collision between Islam and the West was inevitable, and I estimated that it would become critical in thirty to forty years’ time, resulting in some sort of major conflict.
In the years that followed, I would occasionally recall Mr. Naipaul’s prescient writings whenever radical Islam popped up in the news, such as the arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan by the CIA in the late 1980s, or the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, or the Khobar Towers bombing in 1995, or the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. But it was the attacks on September 11th, 2001 that reactivated my intense interest, which eventually turned into the full-time job I have now. |
|
| Q: | What is your role within the site and with respect to other contributors? Do you actively commission work? Do you edit the work that comes in? Do some contributors have seniority or is it more collaborative? |
|
| A: | As I mentioned in my answer to the first question, my wife’s condition has forced her to withdraw from many of her former activities on the blog, so that all roles are now pretty much filled by me. I read the email, collate the tips for the news feed, respond to complaints and suggestions, and put up most of the posts.
We have a number of guest essayists whose work is crucial to our blog — Fjordman, Takuan Seiyo, Paul Weston, El Ingles, Seneca III, and a number of others. It’s my job to coordinate with them, edit their work, and publish it on the blog. On rare occasions I will ask one of these writers to contribute a topical essay on an important issue currently in the news. Mostly, however, I just publish what they choose to send me. I do commission translations, however. Presenting translated material that is not available elsewhere in English is part of our core mission. To that end I have acquired a list of volunteer translators who are willing to work on relatively short notice. We can generally handle French, German, Italian, Dutch, Spanish, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, and Hungarian without much problem. We can also arrange for Russian and a number of the less commonly needed languages, but getting the translation may take more time. Dymphna still handles much of the correspondence and arranges for some of the guest essays. She also writes occasional posts, concentrating mostly on American topics. Yes, some contributors have “seniority”, in the sense that their work has appeared on Gates of Vienna over a longer period of time, and is much appreciated by our readers. But material is expedited or postponed depending on its relevance to current issues, or lack thereof, and not based on its author. And yes, I edit everything that appears at Gates of Vienna unless it is part of a block quote. No one’s prose escapes my gimlet eye. Fortunately, our contributors mostly approve of any changes I make to their texts. We have no serious disagreements. |
|
| Q: | Have you ever participated in other political organisations such as political parties, movements or protest groups? How do they compare to GoV? |
|
| A: | No. We’ve been to a couple of Tea Party events, and I’ve attended several ACT! For America conferences, but Dymphna and I are not members of any organization except the Episcopal Church. |
|
| Q: | Do your friends and family know about your work on GoV? If so how do they feel about it? |
|
| A: | Yes, my immediate family knows about what I do. Mostly they are indifferent, and the more conservative-leaning among them are supportive.
The same is true for most of my friends. I generally avoid discussing the Counterjihad with my Progressive friends, although some of them are aware of my activities. |
Section B — Politics, Society and Youth
| Q: | What are the most important aims of GoV? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A: | These are the components of our mission:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q: | How do you feel about politics more widely in the US and Europe? What do you think present governments are getting right or wrong? What do you think they should do differently? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A: | It would take too long for me to express fully my opinions about the current political paralysis that exists in the United States and Europe. Suffice it to say that the main problem is this: the electorate has no real choice among the major parties on the ballot presented to them. On issues that they feel strongly about (as indicated by opinion polls), such as mass Third World immigration, all the major parties implement policies that run directly counter to popular sentiment. In this sense, democracy has become dysfunctional.
The few parties that dare oppose the elite consensus — for example, Schweizerische Volkspartei and Partij voor de Vrijheid — are demonized and marginalized by the governing parties and the press. Most countries do not even have such options; their voters are forced to choose among the same old traditional Left/Right parties that act in lockstep against the will of the people. Whether “they” — the traditional parties — should do anything differently is irrelevant. They are structurally incapable of doing anything differently, given the entrenched corruption and special interests that control the existing system. New parties, together with new ways of publicizing their policies, are the key to real change. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q: | Which political groups do you feel most distant from and why? Which other political groups do you feel closest to and why? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A: | The political groups that I feel the most distant from — if they may be called “political groups” — are the huge unelected and unaccountable trans-national bureaucratic entities such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, etc.
The groups I feel closest to are local elected bodies, such as the Board of Supervisors in my county or the Virginia state legislature. These bodies may be more easily held to account by the voters than the federal government, or the UN — which cannot be held to account at all. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q: | What characteristics do you think a politician should have? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A: | I’m afraid that any answer to this question would only run up against the old paradox that was pointed out by our Founding Fathers. They were unable to resolve the contradiction, and so am I.
To serve the people well, a politician must lack any lust for power, be devoid of avarice, and have no desire for vainglory. Unfortunately for the governed, such citizens are unlikely ever to seek political power, let alone to win it. Those who thirst for power — the corrupt, the greedy, the psychopaths — are the ones most likely to attain it. The best a society can hope for is to build enduring political structures that can check the worst excesses of such people and limit the damage they cause. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q: | What role do you think young people can play in society and politics? Why do you think this? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A: | I must make a distinction here between the role that young people should play, and the role that they are likely to play. Those are two very different things.
Ideally, young people would be well-educated and carefully trained by their elders to participate in politics and civil society during their maturity. Unfortunately, this is not the case today: education has become a sad travesty of what it once was, and consists mostly of political correctness and indoctrination. As a result, young people, due to a natural idealism combined with lack of experience, tend to support the most foolish, short-sighted Progressive policies. It must also be noted that young people are the most likely group to engage in political violence. This is especially true of young Third World immigrants. Since this latter group is rapidly becoming predominant in most major Western cities, political issues are increasingly being decided by stone-throwers and the wielders of Molotov cocktails, which is hardly the ideal form of political and social participation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q: | Do you think political participation (however you want to define it) is important? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A: | Political participation is crucial. However, our polity would be better served if only those who are thoughtful and well-informed were to participate.
Much of the current political debacle was caused by the participation of millions of people whose understanding of political issues, such as it is, comes from five-second sound bites and paid political commercials on television. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q: | What are/have been the obstacles to your political views and practices? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A: | None, because I only write about my views, and edit others’ writings — I make no attempt at direct action. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Q: | GoV has been criticised in the past as promoting a counter-jihadist narrative that in turn promotes violence (see attached report: Kundnani, 2012: 6). Do you think this is a valid or fair criticism? How would you respond to claims like these? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A: | This question is a version of “Are you still beating your wife?”
That is, it presents the person interviewed with a lose-lose situation — no matter how he answers the question, he is put on the back foot, forced to be defensive, and somehow looks guilty. The best way to answer is to pose a series of counter-questions:
Most Progressives, if forced to attempt an honest answer to any of these questions, would find themselves in the same unpleasant quandary that I would if I attempted to answer yours. The simple and obvious answer is, of course, that non-violent persons or groups who do not advocate violence, do not incite violence, and earnestly desire to avert violence can never be said to “promote violence”. Only those who advocate, incite, or commit violent acts may be held responsible for violence. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Section C — Media and communicative practices
| Q: | What sources do you rely on for information on politics and society? Which newspapers, websites, magazines, TV programmes and social networks do you prefer and why? |
|
| A: | My wife and I do not own a television, so we acquire no information that way. Nor do we read magazines or printed newspapers.
I read news sites eclectically, depending on which headlines catch my eye. Like many other bloggers, I rely on the Drudge Report to point out interesting news. I am not on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media. Dymphna runs the Twitter account for Gates of Vienna. Our posts are automatically tweeted through it, and she likes to add tweets of her own. Given my eye ailment (macular degeneration), which limits what I can do online, I acquire most of my information from what people send me via email and skype, or tell me over the telephone. |
|
| Q: | How do you communicate your ideas and views? Do you use other media as well as the main GoV site e.g. social networks or email? |
|
| A: | Besides the blog and Twitter (as mentioned above), I communicate via email and skype text. I also appear occasionally as a guest on radio programs, generally on Blog Talk Radio, but very occasionally on broadcast radio. |
|
| Q: | What do you think makes ‘effective’ communication, and do you think your communication effective? |
|
| A: | In my line of work, effective communication is defined by speed and reach; i.e. how rapidly and how broadly any given meme propagates.
In addition to revenue, the legacy media measure effectiveness via traffic and ad clicks (on the web), circulation (for newspapers and magazines), and the size of the audience as determined by Nielsen ratings or similar services (for radio and television). Among monetized blogs and specialty websites (such as those that carry paid ads or charge a subscription fee), effectiveness is presumably measured by revenue. In an all-volunteer non-monetized enterprise such as ours, different measures are required. Traffic (the number of visits and page views, as recorded by a traffic counter) is not a sufficient metric on its own, since content may be borrowed and republished (mirrored) without giving credit or providing a link to the original source. We are sometimes able to track the spread of a published meme through various sites, using searches for a unique phrase or other similar means to spot the flow of the article, video, or image through different mirrors. This, combined with site traffic, provides the best way to determine our effectiveness. Using such metrics, we are sometimes extraordinarily effective, while at other times we are hardly effective at all. The Internet is a capricious medium. |
|
| Q: | Who do you think of as your audience? |
|
| A: | Our audience generally consists of intelligent and well-educated people from all over the world who read English fluently. They are usually disenchanted with the legacy media, skeptical of what their governments tell them, and interested to learn more about Islam from a source that is not hobbled by political correctness. |
|
| Q: | Do you, or have you ever, tried to influence young people (<25) specifically, with your writing? |
|
| A: | No, not really. I’m too old to be able to communicate effectively with the young (not counting my son, who fortunately understands my old-fashioned ways). I don’t watch TV, download music, use cell phones, send texts, tweet, post on Facebook, etc., so that I share virtually no means of communication with young people.
Despite these crippling disadvantages, I find that many young people — some of them quite well-informed and well-educated — read our blog. This is greatly heartening. |
|
| Q: | Who decides what you publish, and how do you decide? Do you ever disagree? |
|
| A: | My wife and I decide together. We rarely disagree, thank the Lord. |
|
| Q: | How is GoV funded? |
|
| A: | What funding Gates of Vienna receives comes entirely from small individual donations made by readers during our quarterly fundraisers. This, however, is not enough by itself to keep the blog going, so I eke out a meager existence by doing sporadic computer programming on contract, and by editing books, as well as articles for Dispatch International.
Even this is not sufficient to keep us alive, so we have gradually been drawing down our savings since I was laid off seven years ago. |
|
| Q: | What sort of relationship do you have with journalists the ‘mainstream’ media organisations? |
|
| A: | Almost none. Ever since the Oslo massacre in 2011, various newspapers and TV outlets have attempted to contact me (or Fjordman, through our email address). I’m aware of the near-universal hostility they feel towards us and our mission, so I rarely reply to their emails, and never give legacy media interviews. |
|
| Q: | GoV has a comments section, is this regulated at all? Do you have acceptable use standards or an editorial line? How is this enforced? |
|
| A: | Yes, we moderate comments, demanding that readers accede to our published guidelines, which are that comments must still be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. A full definition of those terms is provided at a link supplied in the header of the comments form.
People may generally say what they like, provided that they stay on-topic, avoid personal insults and incitement, and refrain from using obscene language. If a comment stays mostly within the guidelines except for an obscenity or two, I sometimes redact out the naughty words and then publish it. If a comment contains a lot of violations, and has little or nothing to contribute to the discussion, I delete it entirely. Long-time commenters have internalized these rules and act accordingly, which makes for civil, lively, intelligent, and interesting discourse in the comments. |
Previous posts about the British University research project on European populism:
| 2013 | May | 19 | Promoting a Counter-Jihadist Narrative | |||
| 21 | The Nature of Political Violence |
Masterfully done, Baron.
I think you’ve done very well. I hope the end result will be made public so that we can see just how the process affects the outcome. I hope they’ll be more honest than that fraud Hansen at NASA was with his data…
Baron Bodissey,
Curious how the ‘researcher’ does not evidence the slightest concern that he might be snarled in group-think.
It is group-think that animates the modern lock-step multi-cultural political adventure.
It is of decisive importance that essentially ALL of the democratic institutions in the West have been financially numbed by the parasite collective.
For, at the end, the only economic engine of islam is parasitism of the infidels.
As history shows, once this dynamic runs out of blood, the ummah relapses into a basal economic state.
Such was the fate of the Ottomans.
The importance of Middle Eastern liquid energy has peaked.
From this day forward potable water and fresh food become trade dominant.
That such is so is confirmed by the Chinese purchase of America’s largest porker. The inevitable wind down of the corn to ethanol mania must make corn to pork a blow-out winner.
The inefficient market; you’ve got to love it.
Candor, critical analysis, intelligent thoughtful coherent comment, realism, the echoes of education, love of history, perseverance, humility, love of country, love of culture, love of humanity……..Bravo Baron………..
Regards Don Laird
Dogtown, Crankville County
Alberta, Canada
“I’m still learning lessons……….damn!!!!……………”
Amen. Society is losing their critical thinking skills mostly due to intellectual laziness.
I enjoyed reading this Q&A passage. Honest pertinent and concise responses. I’m curious to see what the British research project writers do with it. Should we stay tuned…….?
Thanks for the nostalgic reminder of of the years of your very fine website, GOV.
The current programmed mind unfortunately simply cannot compute “politically correct” in the way you and I would, Ned.
The Progressive ear only hears “correct” (“right”), and that is that; the word “politically” disappears for them.
The more effective and accurate term, one that reveals the ACTION of political correctness, is “submission”.
Try to think of a case where political correctness is not submission. I can’t. Submission is the accurate term. It may be one of our glaring problems; yes, just using the wrong word here.
Our problem is that we submitted instead of following our morals and culture. Through our submission, (think Bush, McCain, Romney, Cameron), they have us right where they want us.
The term “politically-correct” is also flippant to the bureaucrat ear, so very easily dismissed. It is a joke term. Progressives play hard ball and will not bother to compute subtle emotions.
The action we take is we”submit” to the rule of increasing totalitarian-socialist state and the megastate. “Politically correct” is a term where we lose and they win every time it’s used.
“Do you, or have you ever, tried to influence young people (<25) specifically, with your writing?"
This question tickled my spidey senses. UK Government to implement new anti-radicalization programs, or so Ive heard.
Looks like the progressive elites are going to ratchet up the assault on free speech of conservatives, patriots, white Europeans, nationalists, and most likely Zionists…..tackling "extremism" instead of focussing on Islam where the focus belongs. Just as everyone is hassled by the TSA in the US, even little old Swedish grandmothers. To protect the adherents of Mohammad, and themselves from charges of Islamophobia, racism, profiling, and so on and so forth.
And so it goes…
Well one. Blessings upon you all.
I have left a bit in the tip cup–I wish I could do more.
Peace.
Excellent replies.
Well done, Baron! Very tricky questions.
Fascinating. Really enjoyed the inside view of how the blog operates. How anyone can view such work as offensive is beyond me. It is like someone reporting a fire being charged with arson.
I just hope that you haven’t been too open about how you operate so as to be infiltrated by a T-1000 or a Bamabot.
Blessings from across the pond.
Very impressive answers. I always enjoy reading your analyses.
I wonder how he will wriggle out of the straijacket you got him in…
Well done.
I figure they will foam at your reply to the last section B question…
(This was a spontaneous reaction. Looking forward to reading the rest)
Baron, I think your replies are superlative. I’m probably being a bit slow, though, because I cannot see any useful purpose in the questionnaire; it appears to lead nowhere, as though the random thoughts of a dilettante.
John —
The purpose of the questionnaire is to draw me into an apparently neutral, factual discussion about our blog, and about blogging in general. But interspersed with the innocuous questions are “gotcha” questions which are intended to lure me into exposing my “far-right” political opinions, which may then be selectively quoted to advance the research project’s predetermined conclusions.
Avoiding stepping in those traps is what made my participation in the project entertaining and useful. It’s always fun to hone my fencing skills when dealing with Progressives.
Baron, I think your fencing skills are excellent or better. Your writing skills are superb. Your thinking skills are superb. Your mastery of vocabulary and sentence structure evokes admiration and delight in me. And a temptation to envy.
On another note, it is sad and galling that your savings are diminishing. Maybe I can give more.
You have answered all questions splendidly. I think there is a trap in the following qustion in Section A.
“Have you ever participated in other political organizations such as political parties, movements of protest groups?” There would be no trap in this question if the word “other” is deleted.
Why? Isn’t the Episcopal Church a political goup?/ (be calm, I’m an episcopalian, Wash DC diocese) sarc off
It depends on where you live as to whether the ECUSA is a political group or not. When the current Presiding Bishop had her official photo taken after her investiture I was surprised to see how much she resembled Ghaddaffi – a little less crazy around the eyes.
On being received into the Episcopal Church twenty-five years ago (it was twenty-five exactly on Mar 19th, St. Joseph’s feast day), it warmed my heart to see how like it was to the Roman Church I was leaving. For many years, the Baron and I were active on the diocesan level, mainly serving on the Small Church Commission. But we gradually became disenchanted as the annual Diocesan Council Meetings devolved into fights about sexuality and race. So predictable and tedious that we quit attending and retreated to our small parish. I don’t think the Bishop even bothers with his Annual Visitation anymore – a break with Canon Law no doubt but neither side cares. Except for some doctrinal differences (which are important to the people who care about them) it’s difficult to tell the Episcopalians from the Methodists. That was always the case, but it particularly true now.
I may return to my roots. Or maybe not. It’s not always possible or even a good idea to go home again, or to rummage in the toy box for one’s lost childhood saints. However, I continue to enjoy the spectacle of the One, Holy Catholic etc. Even when the spectacles are grave misdoings, they are worth reporting. And I like the rosary, especially now that they’ve ascertained it induces theta waves. But so does yogic meditation. Ain’t nobody got a lock on the truth. Or Truth. At least not any truth I aspire to. The Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, and the Pater Noster cover what to do. The Three-Fold Blessing covers our experience. And the two-fold commandment subsumes it all if you’re in a hurry to catch the bus.
A reader from Down Under requested that we post this comment:
When they say they’re researching “European populism”, that must be code language for “groups or ideas that do not conform to or follow the official politically correct narrative preached by the establishment”.
The most interesting thing about the escalating conflict between the west and mohammedans (and multiculti immigrants in general) is the various reactions it is producing, and is increasingly going to produce, amongst the indigenous populace, young and old. Especially as many of them have to deal with the cognitive dissonance produced by the widening gap between the suicidal and absurd politically correct mantras that have been shoved down their throats and the reality they witness around them everyday.
An interesting reaction is that of youth group Génération Identitaire in France, about which a very interesting article can be read at Dispatch International.
A smaller-scale reaction can be seen in the shopkeeper who printed Obey our laws, respect our beliefs or get out of our country” on t-shirts — naturally [the] PC (politically correct) Plod cracked down on him.
Another interesting effect of this conflict is that it is forcing Europeans to study or revisit their history (especially past conflicts with mohammedans), and to look with renewed respect at the incredible cultural patrimony bequeathed to them by their forefathers.
As for the term “islamophobia”, Pat Condell pretty much demolished it in his short video with that title. I think that ultimately this conflict is going to lead to a renewal of the west, not its demise.
————————————
Addendum from Dymphna:
Here’s one of Condell’s Islamophobic videos
He’s been covering this subject for quite a while now. The first one I saw seems to date from six years ago. It would be interesting to follow the development of Condell’s thought in the time he’s been posting on all things Islamic. Of course, he doesn’t limit himself to Islam’s cultural damage – his incisive rhetorical style lends itself to a broad variety of subjects.
In coming generations, at least where pockets of civility still remain, I can well imagine the theses which will be written about Mr. Condell’s intellectual development.
Hey D – Thanks for the link to Pat Condell’s rant on Islamaphobia. The problem with clicking on these links is that I end up “tubing” for hours sometimes…
Off your link I watched several segments of Christopher Hitchens who, by any measure, is anti all religions. It was very interesting to see him face off against Ibraham Hooper, an Islamic apologist. I am so sorry that Mr. Hitchens is now gone because he could just bury anyone he came up against…
I think that ultimately this conflict is going to lead to a renewal of the west, not its demise. – From the Aussie
What’s left pf European Christendom, certainly will have jettisoned the garbage from the Left and reaffirmed their self worth and right to exist, without apology. A rebirth, if you will. A return swing of the pendulum of guilt and self doubt. Think Israel for the Jews.
But there is certainly going to be massive damage and struggle between here and there.
“Radical” Islam?
Yes. Also known as “political Islam” or “militant Islam”, as opposed to “dormant Islam” or “inactive Islam”, perhaps.
Like a virus that is dormant or virulent, depending on the circumstances.
With the important distinction that when one is talking about Islam, “radical”, “political” and “militant” are redundant qualifiers, whereas “dormant” and “inactive” are not.
So why use a redundant qualifier in this context?
Well, I don’t agree with you. What may be called “radical”, “political”, or “fundamentalist” Islam describes the subset of all Muslims whose practitioners are devout and who adhere most closely to core Islamic scriptures.
“Dormant” or “inactive” Muslims don’t particularly care about following the core scriptures — often they are even unaware of what they say. However, they usually don’t object to what the fundamentalists do, at least not publicly, because that could be fatal for them.
All of Islam is dangerous. But its “radical” adherents are considerably more dangerous than its “inactive” adherents.
I find the distinction useful and important, and will continue to employ the relevant adjectives in what I write.
One condition lies beneath:
Political Correctness serves the people a twisted view of the World. Misinformed voters cannot vote rationally. PC means the end om Democracy.
Political Correctness simply is an early phase of totalitarian politics such as, fascism, communism, nazism or islamism.
The bottom base of Democracy is decency. When the “establishment” accepts such indecency towards some elected politicians, that you illustrate daily, Democracy is degenerating.
You provide an opening to truthful information for people around the globe, which is of historical significance.
You are admirable !
Pingback: DANIEL GREENFIELD: THE WEEK THAT WAS PART 2 | RUTHFULLY YOURS
Why get so defensive about the violence question? Why not just say something like, “We abhor violence and always denounce it in the strongest terms. Any attempt to link us with violence would represent a transparently moronic reading of our writings.”?
I think Violence is a key point here, and at some stage violence is inevitable,BUT, if it is at all possible for this colonisation to be defeated from the ballot box, it will save a huge amount of bloodshed. Here in Israel our sons and daughters are actively fighting in the West Bank and elsewhere, stemming the tide of Islamic encroachment. But western politicians have their minds beffudled by Oil Revenues and their share of the cut. Instead of supporting us they prevaricate, such that London is now more dangerous than Sderot.
One must admire the way that Islam has marketed itself; as a religion of peace, representitive of a golden age of humanity. This is a barefaced lie that has been swallowed hook line and sinker, why? because the establishment have other agendas which need Islamic violence to further their objectives, they also want a violent response and are painfully aware that they are not getting the response they require, hence the need to find out why. I suspect that they want to know what buttons they have to push to turn on the violence so that they can retaliate in force with martial law etc.
Or else why the bullets and the tanks?
Well yes violence is inevitable, but once in starts, there will be nothing the govts will be able to do to stop it, the choice the average soldier is going to be given is, fire on your own or fire on the 3rd worlders? Which one are they going to light up? Armies have always had the nasty habit of siding with their own when push comes to shove and frankly this is what our govts vastly underestimate and which they greatly fear.
BnC —
Two reasons:
1. Because that is a form of defensiveness, and I refuse to be defensive. It displays weakness and reduces my effectiveness.
2. The question is a trap. It’s important to expose the process at work here, to reveal the intended trap. If I can point out the nature of ruses such as this, others may be able to avoid putting their foot into the same kind of bear trap.
Pingback: Baron Bodissey | John C. Wright's Journal
Pingback: Steynian 471rd | Free Canuckistan!
The answer to the ‘close or distant’ trick question was masterful. Hit the scoundrels with extreme literalism.
A suscessful columnist and essayist was once asked why he preferred to write for a particular magazine.
‘It’s the one closest to my house,’ he said.
Very wise and lucid answers, Baron.
I pray for Dymphna’s health as well as your eyesight.
Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » From Gates of Vienna: What We Do and Why We Do It
It’s abundantly clear from G of V, JihadWatch and Clarion Project that Western Govts. are taking steps to hush up criticism of radical Islam. Why are they so lily-livered? Fear of outraging the ‘Ummah’? Craven in the face of suicidal attacks on politicians and editors, as we’ve seen in Holland, Denmark, Japan, and recently in Woolwich, by crazed Islamists?
As defenders of freedom have often said, ‘we have nothing to fear but fear itself’. There’s a global war afoot and we’re slowly losing. Churchill would turn in his grave.