Dear Progressives,
There was a debate some time ago in which I expressed a commonly-understood truth, that terrorism today is more likely to come from an Islamic source than, say, a Christian source, or a Jewish source. My Progressive opponent proceeded to use the “not all Muslims” defense, and accuse me of bigotry for assuming that all Muslims are terrorists even though, of course, I never claimed any such thing.
It’s a rhetorical technique that grows tiresome from overuse. When you use a generalization about Islam, you will be attacked for applying the generalization to individuals even when you haven’t done so. But it’s not a principle, either. Many of these very same Progressives will loudly proclaim “Yes All Men” when discussing “Rape Culture” or other Radical Feminist fairy tales. So it is a rhetorical trick that they will use only when it benefits them.
Mark Steyn tells us of a Muslim man who expressed a positive message to his Christian patrons. The man was killed not long after by his own coreligionists.
In the spirit of the season, Asad Shah, a Glasgow newsagent and a “devout Muslim”*[see update at the foot of the page], decided to send out an Easter greeting on his Facebook page:
GOOD FRIDAY AND VERY HAPPY EASTER, ESPECIALLY TO MY BELOVED CHRISTIAN NATION X! BISMILLAH…
Let’s Follow The Real Footstep Of Beloved Holy Jesus Christ (PBUH) And Get The Real Success In Both Worlds xxxx
Less than four hours after this ecumenical greeting, Mr Shah was savagely murdered outside his shopby his co-religionists:
This is a very sad event. I expect that Mr. Shah was rewarded by a just and caring God, and that his murderers will find their “reward” in a very different place than they expect.
Most of us conservative-minded folks understand C.S. Lewis’s message about those who do good deeds while extolling a name which is evil:
Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.
Islam is a religion full of hateful, violent things. It contains a streak of political supremacy in it, a command to spread by the sword. But some, as the character of Emeth in The Last Battle, will do good and be righteous nonetheless. Christ will be in their hearts even if they do not realize it as such. Yes, I know I am treading on theological matters, and I usually avoid going too far into that. But I’ve always believed that God knows his own.
So Progressives, enough already. We’re not stupid, okay? We know full well, and probably much better than you do, that there are good people in any faith, and in every part of the world. My own family was saved from genocide by a Muslim Turk who paid for the family to escape to America. I hope (and expect) to meet him in the life to come, too.
When we talk about immigration, the refugees, and Islamic terrorism, don’t be so naive, Progressives. Do you think we don’t know the price of our positions? We know that some of the refugees are genuine. Of course, we also know that others are merely seeking welfare monies, and still others are active agents of destruction. We do not, and will not, trust you to screen them. You are too soft to make the tough decisions. You melt at the first sign of tears. You apply blanket victimization to everyone, and sweep their crimes under the rug because it makes you feel all tingly inside.
Progressives, you don’t really understand conservatives. You believe us to be racist bigots because you are racist bigots. You spend your lives overcompensating for this. Secretly, you do not want Muslim neighbors, or black neighbors, or Latin neighbors. And when you feel guilty about it, you project this guilt on us. We want to be left alone, above all else, but you cannot abide this. You must foist your social justice delusions upon us.
We are a practical people, us conservative folk. If you show us that a Muslim is good, righteous, peaceful, and able to assimilate our culture and values, we will welcome him. It’s never been about that. The problem is that you have demonstrated the opposite. You brought millions into Europe, and now you reap the whirlwind of terrorism, rapes, crimes, and politically correct bologna like suggesting German schools should stop serving pork.
You didn’t make your case, Progressives. You proved yourself wrong. And then you say to us “you are racist if you don’t want more of this!” No, Progressives, you are blind and stupid if you cannot see why we don’t want it. If every Muslim was like Mr. Shah, or the man who saved my family, we would value them more than we value you.
But, sadly, in the world we live in they are the exceptional individuals, and the generalizations still hold true at a meta-level. Muslims are not assimilating in large numbers. There are too many terrorists and criminals coming in with them. And, as it has been for nearly 1,500 years, Islam continues to have bloody borders and religious violence at a level far greater than Europe had even in the middle of the Crusades.
We conservative folks wish it were otherwise. But we live in the real world, Progressives, not the fantastical utopia you have constructed in your minds. We live in a fallen world, where hard choices must be made, where people must sometimes be turned away because you cannot help them, or because the risk to your own is too great to bear.
What good will be done when the West is gone, and the Islamic world is still eating itself? What will humanity’s future be like when you are gone, victims of an Islamic world that hates you as much as it hates us? You seem to think that you will be rewarded for your double-dealing, for your treachery, and for your blindness. But if we fall, you will go with us.
And then the whole of the world will be given over to the service of Tash. Is that what you really want?
Whenever you hear that “Not all Moslems think alike” meme, I suggest pointing out, or rather asking, “And in which ways do all the significant schools or Islam and Islamic jurisprudence think alike? For example, which school says you shouldn’t hang gays? Which school says a woman’s testimony in court is worth more than half a man’s? Which school says you can legislatively overturn the mandates set forth in the Quran? Which school forbids slavery? The answers are none, none, none, and none.”
“The Seljuk Turks have invaded Anatolia! What is our response?”
“#NotAllMuslims! These are not true Muslims! They are cowards who use Islam as cover. Terrorism has no religion. #PrayForByzantium.”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeK5kETW0AQLp9A.jpg
It’s sort of a paradox. (As so much of human life is a paradox.) There are vast differences between different Muslim groups and even more between individuals, however the Colonel is certainly correct that there are similarities of attitudes and culture and theology that are consistent even between the moderate and secularized and the violent zealots. Or as I’ve heard very well explained… the moderates in any belief system may not do or believe what the radicalized do and believe but they feel vaguely guilty about their lack of devotion. It’s a human thing.
But understanding human things and *rightly* pointing out that the terrorism that we’re dealing with is Islamic… not just something else with some religious mumbo jumbo wrapped around it… pointing that out does not imply “All Muslims” to anyone who doesn’t actually lump people together by groups and treat them all the same.
There is no insult to Islam in pointing out that ISIS is Islamic except and unless All Muslims. There’s no insult to the moderate and secularized Muslims who are victimized by ISIS in pointing out that ISIS is Islamic except and unless All Muslims. The only way that identifying ISIS as Islamic and condemning and insulting them becomes a group defamation is if, in actual fact, one Muslim represents all Muslims.
And the result of this fear of insulting All Muslims is that we dither and enable and practically prop-up these toxic throwbacks to the stone age and in doing so leave the moderate and somewhat secularized (even if they feel vaguely guilty for their lack of devotion) out for the carrion crows.
This is the *opposite* of being good people. And all for the sake of language policing.
And therein lies the chief difficulty of trying to reason with a Leftist on this. Generalizations have utility on a meta-level. Where, say, Westboro Baptists are merely irritating assholes, Islamic terrorists are a clear and present danger. Leftists equate them because both are religious extremists. But this is a mistake. Their threat priorities are mixed up.
So where you see Christian extremists, you might think “oh not THOSE guys again,” you would think something very different when presented with Islamic extremists. This is perfectly rational behavior.
By equivocating the two with fuzzy language, Leftists more or less cede control of the Islamic world to the extremists. They refuse to do anything about Islamic extremism unless, I suppose, we were to repress Christianity also (in order to be fair — fairness being, of course, the most egregious Progressive delusion of them all).
Very few people (and none that I’ve met) seriously believe that all Muslims are bad people. The common argument I see is that a sufficiently large percentage are bad, and those that are bad are a serious, violent threat, whereas bad Christians and Jews are simply irritating. So why take the risk by importing Muslims in large numbers? It’s a rational argument.
Of course, rational arguments can also be made against it, too, especially if someone had a decent screening process to weed out the bad ones. But that’s what I’m trying to get at here. Progressives don’t want to have these arguments, these debates. They don’t want to talk about it. They want to suppress the conversation because it makes them feel all tingly inside to oppose some imagined, evil right-wing racists, or whatever.
And the price of not discussing the issue rationally will be paid in blood, by innocents, killed in the name of Allah. That’s truth, whether people want to hear it or not.
One suggestion: there is less than zero progress in today’s (self-named) “progressive”. How about calling a spade, a spade? They’re liberals; they’ve always been liberals; and today they’re morphing toward liberal socialism/communism. JMHO, but I despise their self-imposed, narrative-tweaking, word choices.
But even the term “liberal” has been appropriated through their control of the culture. Liberal in the classical sense would have meant someone who is (roughly) what we would call a Libertarian today.
But they took the term and twisted it.
We can call them what Tom Kratman calls them, namely Tranzis, or Trans-national Progressives. Or we can go to the root of the problem and just call them Marxists.
They do want to “progress” mind you, it is simply that they view progress as going in the opposite direction of sense
Progs, and throw in the vile often enough so they always hear it, said or not.
IT occurs to me that “Not all Progs” might make an effective meme.
…have defective amygdala. (triggly, hitlery)
…are perverts (weiner)
…are moonbats (pelosi)
all with an appropriate picture.
tactical out-grouping.
Just a thought. I don’t have the tools.
Only around 90%, if I’m being charitable ;).
It’s high, no question. Mostly due to smug mindlessness. Even up here in the woods, sigh. The in-laws qualify.
Fortunately, trigger the prog is my favorite new game, and so easy to play.