The Word That Wasn’t There

Yesterday, upon the air,
I heard a word that wasn’t there.
It wasn’t there again today,
I wish that it would go away…

(With apologies to Hughes Mearns)

In his report yesterday on the latest OSCE conference, Henrik Ræder Clausen included this summary of a dominant meme among ideological leaders in the West:

Panel members stressed the importance of not calling the Islamic State the “Islamic State”, for doing so could give the impression that Islam motivates people to war, terrorism and other crimes.

The avoidance of the I-word seems to have become a fixation in the revolving-door world of NGOs and state functionaries, particularly in Europe. It’s as if all the participants have been mysteriously hypnotized, and now wander around glassy-eyed, muttering the phrase “nothing to do with Islam” over and over again, their repetitive chant forming a background susurrus at every international function where important people assemble to hand down momentous policy decisions.

A notable example of the mindset may be found this handout from the OSCE Vienna meeting:

The four terrorist outfits shown in the chart are composed of different ethnic groups, operate in geographically separate areas, represent disparate cultures, and speak a variety of languages. The only thing these groups have in common is the word that wasn’t there.

When required to identify a common ideology, Western bien-pensants prefer to discuss “extremism” or “radicalization” — modifiers with no substantive objects. If cornered, they may refer to “Islamism” or “radical Islam”, but never plain old unmodified ISLAM.

It seems that a prerequisite for receiving funding from any government agency or charitable foundation is the absolute refusal to consider Islamic political ideology as an explanation for anything bad that happens in the world.

You can’t say that, old chap. It just isn’t done.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The Causes of Terrorism chart is based on a report entitled “Global Terrorism Index” from The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP). The featured quote is taken from page 3:

While drivers of terrorist activity are often complex and multidimensional, there are several generalised and significant socio-economic correlates of terrorism. Countries with higher levels of terrorism were found to have three statistically significant factors:

  • Greater social hostilities between different ethnic, religious and linguistic groups, lack of intergroup cohesion and high levels of group grievances.
  • Presence of state sponsored violence such as extrajudicial killings, political terror and gross human rights abuses.
  • Higher levels of other forms of violence including deaths from organised conflict, likelihood of violent demonstration

The usual suspects are trotted out: socio-economic factors, ethnic and linguistic differences, etc. “Religion” is mentioned, but nothing specific — even though only ONE religion is significant in any of the major terror attacks chronicled by IEP.

The full report does refer to Islam, however. In the forms “Islam”, “Islamic”, or “Islamist”, the word occurs 113 times, and “Muslim” appears 20 times. The descriptions are what you’d expect from an organization that wants to avoid “Islamophobia” at all costs. For example, on pp. 2-3:

The majority of claimed deaths from terrorist attacks, 66 per cent in 2013, are claimed by only four terrorist organisations; ISIL, Boko Haram, the Taliban and al-Qa’ida and its affiliates. Variations of religious ideologies based on extreme interpretations of Wahhabi Islam are the key commonality for all four groups; however their strategic goals are not necessarily the same. To counteract the rise of religious extremism, moderate Sunni theologies need to be cultivated by credible forces within Islam. The current political context underscores the importance of moderate Sunni countries and not outside influences leading such a response. One such example was the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies led by Shaykh Abdallah Bin Bayyah in March 2014 which brought together 250 Islamic scholars to promote a unified peaceful response to the current violence issuing a Fatwa in response to ISIL.

“Moderate Sunni theologies”? What are those? Where are their mosques, their seats of learning, their manifestos, their books of jurisprudence?

In point of fact, there are no “moderate Sunni theologies”. There are only soothing words spoken into microphones in non-Arabic languages directed at foolish, gullible Westerners who long to be told that Islam is OK, and everything will be fine. The Muslim Brotherhood long ago figured out what our elites want to hear, and make sure to lay it on thick at every available opportunity.

The report continues in a similar vein at eye-glazing length for 94 pages, with 81 endnotes — including one for our old friend, the International Centre for the study of Radicalisation and Political Violence.

There are numerous professional-quality charts, graphs, maps and tables to help readers visualize the problem of terrorism without thinking about Islam. The various statistics and references provide copious data on everything except the word that wasn’t there.

As Major Stephen Coughlin has repeatedly pointed out, there is no hope of grasping the nature of the problem as long as a pre-determined “narrative” continues to delimit what may be observed, thought, and said. There are strict boundaries on what may be identified as the “root causes” of terrorism, and Islam lies outside of them. The only plausible factor held in common by all the major terrorist groups and incidents has been ruled off the turf in advance.

During the panel discussion at OSCE Vienna last week, the speaker insisted that the Islamic State not be referred to as the “Islamic State” because it wasn’t Islamic. A Middle Eastern woman on the panel said, “Yes, the truth can constitute hate speech.” — and the moderator concurred.

We are required to understand reality through the prism of a model that distorts the reality it seeks to explain by using nested layers of abstraction. Add to this the fact that one of the primary purposes of the model is to systematically not mention that which is the object of the model, and we have an even greater distortion made complex because of it. But the complexity is due solely to an abstraction superimposed on top of another abstraction of those things that might initially have been explained in real terms. We take something obvious, turn it into a riddle, and then wrap it in a mystery inside an enigma.

In contrast, imagine what a normal, fact-based analysis of the situation would look like. To begin with, all the studies indicate that Islam is divided into two groups: the “moderates” and the “extremists”. How are those groups distinguished from one another?

Each follows a religious doctrine it calls “Islam” and identifies itself as “Muslim”.

Each reads the same scriptures — Koran, hadith, sira.

Since all the groups described are Sunni, each observes Islamic law as laid out in one of the four principal schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

In order to understand the possible differences between “moderates” and “extremists”, we would have to study Islamic legal doctrines, which are derived from the Koran, the hadith, and the sira. After several years of patient research, we would have gained the sense of what a devout, observant Muslim must do in order to meet the requirements of Islamic law — among which are instructions to fight the unbelievers until they submit or are dead, and to kill anyone who leaves Islam. There is no disagreement among the scholars on mandates such as these.

We would thus be drawn to the inescapable conclusion that the “moderate” Muslim merely professes the religion of Islam, while the “extremist” acts on it. That’s it. Otherwise they are the same.

A further layer of complication might be added by the discovery that Islamic law permits the believer to lie for the sake of his faith, and mandates lying if the cause is mandatory. That tells us that when the “moderate” speaks his soothing words to us at the microphone, he may in fact not be telling us the truth.

Just before the conference in Vienna, IslamOnline published a fatwa issued by the European Council for Fatwa and Research — an organization that has been associated with the Muslim Brotherhood — that says apostates (even in Europe) should be killed. A member of the audience wanted to know: Would the OSCE condemn such extremism and radicalization here in Europe?

The question was never answered.

When I came home last night at three
The word was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn’t see it there at all!
Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

17 thoughts on “The Word That Wasn’t There

  1. Another graphic example of how the false thinking that all cultures aspire to the same ideals is completely blinding everyone who has been raised under such a blatant lie and whose own faulty thinking i.e. not being able to grasp or just refusing to acknowledge, due to their employment, the world and the many differences between cultures as it actually is.

    Those who stand for nothing will accept anything!

  2. How come there wasn’t such a concerted effort made in the cases of those states present and past, such as The German Democratic Republic (formerly East Germany) and The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (currently North Korea)? Are or were they not disparaging the word Democratic by including it in their names? They weren’t democratic by any stretch of the imagination. Why wasn’t there a concerted effort to ban its use as we are currently doing with the word Islamic? Weren’t they anti-democratic or un-democratic? The Mohammedans seem to be a special class of pampered prima donnas.

    While Obama insists that Islamic State is un-Islamic or has nothing to do with Islam, he doesn’t shy from associating Christianity with injurious actions done by the West.
    For reminder’s sake, here is a quote from one of his recent speeches:

    “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ…”

  3. “Would the OSCE condemn such extremism and radicalization here in Europe?
    The question was never answered.”

    This must have been one heck of a panel!
    Seems like our team got steam rolled from the get go…
    I’m not sure how much there is to discuss with a “panel” that won’t condemn the murder of apostates.
    However, ESW, Major Conghlin and Mr. Clausen are good operators.
    Next time you will trap them where they lay… I am sure of it.

    • No way we were steamrolled 🙂

      Sure, the cards were systematically stacked against us, that was clear from the agenda and the invitees, but given our forces, we caused unexpected amounts of trouble. The first evening was the clearest, the full day was also not so flattering for the panelists.

      It was very unclear how the ‘bridge-building’, ‘dialogue’ and ‘women & youth participation’ were expected to bear any relevance to the theme “Security Days”. Asking for facts and requesting real science on the topics at hand was met with deafening silence. But when people openly walked out on the closing remarks of the second day, it was clear that the rigged panel was nowhere close to winning the game.

      We had fun, again, and will have more in the future 🙂

    • Let me add that the game was so obviously rigged that it required only a very simple “Hey – the emperor has no clothes!” to make it clear. It wasn’t all that difficult. And I have video, but little time to process it.

  4. Its a little tricky to get your head around…we have Islamic groups that have (nothing to do with Islam)…fighting other Islamic groups..that have (nothing to do with Islam)..and together they are fighting the kuffir because he wants (nothing to do with Islam).
    The mind boggles..

  5. Is there a typo here?

    “If cornered, they may refer to “Islam” or “radical Islam”, but never plain old unmodified ISLAM.”

    • Yes, there was an “ism” in there that got lost somehow. I’ve just put it back. Thanks for catching it.

  6. You could blame all of the violence on Satan, the other word that is missing. After all, Islam is his religion. His adherents must kill, steal, and destroy (especially Christians and Jews) just as he does to be acceptable in his sight.

  7. This phenomena resembles a collective social version of disassociative memory disorder. I wonder if these people have any idea how disturbed they seem.

    • Insanity is the accepted Islam norm. Affirmatively supported by an even more insane mindset.

  8. The CAUSES OF TERRORISM poster says
    “[C]ountries with higher levels of terrorism were found to have three statistically significant factors:
    [1] [four subfactors (conjunction is “and”, not “or”)]
    [2] [three subfactors]
    [3] [four subfactors]”

    The term “statistically significant” has a particular meaning (that the probability p of the outcome being due to chance alone is <.05). Were the calculations by which p was computed shown? I doubt it; the term "statistically significant" was probably used for flavoring, not meaning. It is amusing that "perceptions of criminality" (whose perceptions of whose criminality?) cause terrorism.
    Judging from these excerpts, this is a thoroughly worthless document.

  9. What will it take to correct this massive delusion that Islam is OK and that it is only the exceptions, the criminals, and the freaks that are causing the terror?

    A few more spectacular attacks that Islam admits to?
    A few more seized thousands of documents that outline their planning?
    A few more apostates that describe this ‘religion’ in its bald, fundamental, true roots and foundations.
    A few western leaders who are authentic Muslim scholars and historians?
    Having Islam win and take over your country?
    Having your body buried in sand with your head uncovered and then having your neighbors throw rocks at your head?
    Having people take you to the roof of a tall building and push you off?
    Watching your four year old have someone sawing his head off?
    Having your wife beaten and castigated because she left the house alone?
    Living in a culture that lasts hundreds of years in sharia? …where nothing new or creative or scientific or artistic ever happens and your day is interrupted by constant prayer to a moon god? …and you have to witness the most cruel public punishments?
    Will some of these heal your delusions or are you hopeless?

  10. I think the islamic invasion of the West has been a spectacular success because the ruling elite LET IT HAPPEN. I don’t know exactly why but I suspect a desire to crash and trash western civilization as we know it and replace it with something else. The purpose of Islam towards the west and pretty much the entire world has been fairly obvious for the last 2 decades or so and yet a conspiracy of silence went into play allowing their plans to take root. I don’t understand it at all. Now they (Muslims) are pouring across the Mediterranean into Europe. Untold millions of unemployable, unproductive young men and women who consider the nation’s of the Western nations merely as war booty, just waiting for the taking at the right time. Worst of all, they have friends in high places such as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and many European capitals. Only God can save Europe and America now but you have largely turned away from Him. That’s a real problem. I pray y’all can fix that or else, all is lost. The Islamic hoards WILL show no mercy and worst of all, time is running out.

  11. Mohamadan or Islam cropped up as reaction to claimed superiority of Juidaism the chosen ones and Xinity. Arabs were more Jahil superstitous irrational and barbaric so it became more murderous and lasting than Juidaism and xinity. If the murder cult Islam is to be defeated, its foundation, Judaism xinity Bible etc have to be amended or banned, then only Quran Islam Barbarism can be finished

    • I disagree. There is more than one way to skin a pig…

      Islam is ascendant at the moment ONLY because of oil. When oil disappears (and the West continues to devise alternative fuels) then Islam will sink back into the desert from which it arose.

      1. Islam is a fatalist, nihilistic ideology. Everything happens according to Allah’s will. With that as a foundation, forging ahead with scientific research and development isn’t nearly as likely in an Islamic tyranny. That’s at the meta-level of curiosity-killing.

      2. At the level of the family and the individual (and those can not really be separated except for the sake of analysis), the cruel, sadistic tribal nature of Islam’s judicial rulings kills off the most precious gift any culture has: its children. In Muslim law, babies and children are allowed to be used as sexual objects as long as you don’t inflict serious damage. At best, that view of the young human organism creates adolescent and grown-up monsters (leaving aside its brutal view of women). These brutalized children are all suffering from some form of Developmental Trauma Disorder. The outcome is children who grow up lacking impulse control and an ability to focus. All children need protection from their own immature systems, never mind the predators in their midst. But many Muslim children don’t live in a safe enough environment to explore, to express their curiosity, to learn from experience. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s first autobiography (however true it may or may not have been) is a good outline on several levels for how to ruin a child. There are other accounts by ex-Muslims of their sad childhoods lived at the whim of cruel adults. It is this factor, not anything inherent in their DNA, that accounts for their low achievements in later life.

      Islam is a vast human waste.

Comments are closed.