This afternoon I had a skype discussion with one of our German translators (listed as “A” in the transcript below) about the categorical misrepresentation of the nature of Islamic jihad by the authorities in Western countries:
|A:||Baron, I think that once, when some talking head or politician was telling us that one is more likely to die from a fishbone than from terrorism, you explained the difference between these two events. I think you used a mathematical or scientific expression.|
|B:||Hmm. It might have had to do with intentionality and agency; I don’t know. Struck by lightning is one of the comparisons they like to use: “You’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to experience a terrorist attack.”|
|As if jihad were an act of God, rather than the act of Satan let loose upon the Earth.|
|They always compare terrorist acts with things people have no control over, like tornados and lightning and earthquakes and so on. I think it’s to try to subliminally wipe out the idea among the public that jihadists act with agency and intentionality, and instead make them into something akin to a natural catastrophe, something that can’t be predicted or prevented.|
|A:||One of the fundamental flaws in the arguments they always make, I think, is that they ignore it is not either-or; it is one more risk added. As my friend who smokes tells me: “So what? You have a risk too; you could be run over by a car!”|
|B:||The tornado just touches down; lightning just strikes; the bomb just explodes. No one can stop it. No one can say why it happens.|
|B:||As if jihad were an accident, right?|
|A:||In Germany they like to compare it to people choking on fish bones. Which annoys me, because I choose to eat the fish (or not). Or, I choose to wear flip-flops when I get on a ladder to clean the window, so I know the risk and I take it and it is my fault when I break my neck.
An afterword: Propagandistically speaking, our political leaders are currently attempting to mould popular perceptions to remove the idea that there is any discernible cause behind Islamic terror attacks. If the process is completed successfully, we will be unable even to think about the causative agents that unleash jihad upon us.
From the point of view of the Powers That Be, this is a necessary manipulation of public awareness, because (a) millions of Muslims must be imported into the West to make up for the population shortfall, and to act as lytic agents breaking down national identity; and (b) the nature of Islam — i.e. its imperative to wage jihad — is useful to employ as a conditioning agent, thereby producing a docile population.
We are meant to see jihad as something inexplicable and irresistible. It may be possible to placate Muslims somewhat to improve our chances, but the idea that jihad can be prevented, resisted, opposed, or stopped must remain impossible to contemplate.