Friday, August 12, 2016

Moderates and Radicals in Islam and the Left

The core strategic problem we face is two conflicts with two ideologies that operate subversively until they are in power. That is, instead of stating their agenda openly, Islam and the left operate as false fronts maintaining a friendly moderate image while pursuing a far more radical agenda.

The distinction between moderates and radicals is at the heart of the debate about Islamic terrorism. Much as it used to be at the heart of the debate about Communism and its fellow travelers. Everyone will concede that there are indeed radicals, if only ISIS and Stalin. What they will deny is the extent of the complicity and, more significantly, the fact that the radicals were pursuing the same ends as the moderates, an Islamic Caliphate or a Communist dictatorship, only more rapidly and ruthlessly.

The thing that must be understood is that moderates do not disavow radicals. Rather they bridge the gap between the radicals and the larger society, justifying their ends, and eventually their means, while pretending to disavow them. Radicals reject any dialogue. Moderates emphasize dialogue.

Moderates will verbally reject the means with which an end is pursued. Accordingly they will reject terrorism. They may even claim to reject the ends, such as an ideological dictatorship, but they will, in good fellowship, ask you to accept their premise which inevitably leads to the acceptance of both the ends and the means.

For example, moderates on the left and in Islam will ask you to accept that terrorism is caused by American foreign policy. Once you have accepted this premise, then you have partially justified terrorism and paved the way for accepting an "Arab Spring" that eliminates the consequences of American foreign policy by properly Arabizing and Islamizing the governments of the region.

Likewise, if you accept the premise that Israel's presence in its '67 territories is driving terrorism, then you have signed on to everything from BDS to the destruction of the Jewish State.

If you concede that crime and violence are driven by class and racial inequities, then you accept that the only way to end this "class war" is massive taxation and wealth redistribution through government intervention that addresses the root cause.

That is not the way it seems to most people. And that is why the "moderate" strategy works so well.

Once you have accepted the moderate definition of the root cause, you will inevitably be forced to accept the radical remedy. This is true across a spectrum of lower level policies. For example, accept that homosexuality is genetic and gay rights become the inevitable and inescapable outcome. That is how the root cause defines the outcome. And this is how moderates achieve radical goals.

Moderates convince you to accept their premise of the root cause. Then they argue for sensitivity to the radicals whose motives have suddenly become understandable. Finally they argue for a settlement in which a compromise is reached that will allow the radicals to achieve a moderate version of their ends.

The Muslim Brotherhood takeovers of the Arab Spring are an example of a compromise to avert Islamic terror aimed at creating a Caliphate. The ultimate outcome is the same, but the moderates dress it up as a kinder and gentler alternative.

And this is the core strategic problem that we face.

The radicals are not any kind of serious physical threat. We could destroy ISIS easily if we chose to unleash our full force against them. The same is true for every single Islamic terror group in the world. And, for that matter, their state sponsors too.

The real threat is always the subversion of the moderates. The challenge then becomes the need to expose the false facade of the moderates. This leads to a push-pull struggle. The moderates cry that they are being unfairly victimized by hateful people. There are shouts of red-baiting and McCarthyism, profiling and bigotry. Their critics are paranoid and unhinged. The moderates even assert that there is something ugly and "Un-American" about asking them to account for their agenda.

And this is really the core argument made by the two allied subversive ideologies. It is "ugly" to expose their views, to quote them, to bring them to the surface. It is intolerant. It's not the way that respectable people should behave. And the moderates, who pose as respectable people precisely to play on the weakness of the middle class for being respectable, understand that this is the ultimate weapon.

Respectable people do not accuse the friendly Imam on the block of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood or promoting Jihadist texts. They do not accuse the cheerful teacher in the school whom everyone likes of pushing anti-American views on her students. That is not respectable behavior.

And moderates, who pretend to be respectable, excel at pushing the respectable shame button.

It doesn't matter if it's true. It's ugly to discuss it. That is respectability simplified. It's much better to talk about how much we have in common, to speak about how we can unite and make the world a better place. And the moderates have plenty of ideas in that regard. All of them involve accepting their premise of what the world's problems are and how they can be improved by a series of proposals that would culminate with mass tyranny and murder.

There are actual moderates of course.

The majority of those on the left aren't harboring secret plans to build gulags. They would find the idea horrifying. Likewise many Muslims in Western countries don't support Islamic terrorism.

They are moderates, but only in the sense that they have not yet signed on to radical ideas. Not in the sense that they would fight and oppose them to their very last breath. They are mostly moderates out of a lack of conviction rather than a surplus of it.

Subversive organizations operate through incremental radicalization. The average American liberal of twenty years ago would not have supported half of what he vocally advocates for today. Even Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage when they ran for office. In a few years they moved from opposing a policy to threatening to prosecute those opposed to it. That is how the left works.

Obama and Hillary always had a consistent position. The leadership of the left had one. It was the ordinary rank and file liberal who might have been in the dark until the whistle was blown and the herd stampeded toward the next policy abyss. A year ago those same liberals might have felt uncomfortable with the notion of men using the ladies room. Today they would fight a civil war for it.

The process operates the same way across a spectrum of policies. The left keeps its more moderate followers in the dark about its real goals. Then once the stampede begins, the moderates who derive their sense that they are good people from following the ideas of the left, quickly fall in line.

The same is true of Islam. Plenty of Muslims would not be happy with an immediate transition to ISIS. But plenty are willing to back the more incremental attempts to build a Caliphate through political Islam in Turkey or through the Muslim Brotherhood. Their moderation, like that of many Germans in WW2, consists of an unwillingness to know what dirty deeds are being done.

The moderates bridge this gap both for their rank and file, and for the outsiders who have to be fooled into accepting their premise in order to accept their ends. Their greatest weapon is respectability. When cornered, they insist that they are just nice people who want to make the world a better place. And their critics are bigots, nasty people, who don't want everyone to get along and spread disunity.

And doesn't everyone just want to get along? Isn't that nicer and better? Isn't it a good thing that there are passionate young people who want to make the world a better place?

The chief ally of the moderates is this sort of middle class respectability. The moderates paint their critics as radicals who have no solutions. When in fact they themselves are radicals with a final solution. And yet combating this sort of happy talk remains our greatest challenge.

Yet it is also a passing challenge.

Middle class respectability is a function of a sense of security. When that sense of security begins to implode as a society experiences chaos, the middle class stops clinging to respectability.

And then the real conflict begins.

We may well be approaching that phase. Economic decline and Islamic terror are leading to a radical break with respectability. We are entering a radical age in which the moderates take off their masks and radicals of various stripes gain great influence and openly recruit for their cause.

This will be a shattering experience for many. It will be a very ugly one in many ways. And yet the only way to avert it would be to expose the false moderates who are driving this process for what they are. And this is exactly what those who have the most to lose from a radical rise refuse to do.

None of this is a new phenomenon. History is repeating itself.


bluecollar said...

"They are mostly moderates out of a lack of conviction rather than a surplus of it." This is Truth. I've been saying this for years. Well said, Daniel Greenfield

Anonymous said...

In culture and politics, simplicity is best. Trying to keep up with many issues of injustice, inequality, opinion, scandal overwhelms a citizen trying to run his life, health, job, family. There are so many camels shoving their noses into the tent.

As government grows, opportunistic factions have so many ways to manipulate it in their direction. Our elected representatives are mostly not keeping their pledge to preserve our freedom.

Our government should be in charge only of protection from enemies, running the courts.


Infidel said...

Blindingly brilliant article.

Some of the Germans during WW2 were delusional rather than unwilling. I remember the story of a German girl who was stunned to find that the Russians didn't like Germans, when the Russian army arrived in her small town.

That is perhaps my main thing, trying to understand delusional thinking and misperception, or at least one of my main things.

Joe Katzman said...

The core question in your post is answered within your post.

" They may even claim to reject the ends, such as an ideological dictatorship, but they will, in good fellowship, ask you to accept their premise which inevitably leads to the acceptance of both the ends and the means."

Which means that what such premises demand isn't just total rejection. That keep the initiative in enemy hands. The premise requires *replacement* with a competing premise, which is itself intrinsically hostile to the enemy project and has wide appeal.

Backed up by policies that serve to create popular and hard-to-tamper-with *infrastructure* for the competing premise.

These ideas apply very universally, but let's get parochial for a minute. Think about factions within the Jewish community in these terms, and include relations with outside groups in the equation...

Anonymous said...

Brilliant...once again. Those also on the inside can be more of a threat than an outside.

Also, Daniel, I hope you don't support either of these fools running for president. I haven't discerned your intentions from your articles here and FPM besides not supporting Hillary.

AesopFan said...

"Middle class respectability is a function of a sense of security. When that sense of security begins to implode as a society experiences chaos, the middle class stops clinging to respectability.

And then the real conflict begins."

Check out the cartoon with the caption, "We ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet."

Anonymous said...

This is the final push of the Communists to take over the government. They've been struggling for decades to overthrow our Constitutional government. If you think they're going to conform to the honest results of a mere presidential election, you're out of your mind.

The 2008 presidential election was actually a coup: a communist won the White House. Our last chance to get the them out of office relatively peacefully was in 2012, but Romney blew it: the Republican party failed to realize what was actually at stake. Now, the only thing that will get the Left out of the White House is direct confrontation.

Prepare for direct confrontation.

And tell any of your friends who intend to refrain from voting this year to come to their senses, and vote for Trump. Donald Trump is the only candidate in the entire galaxy standing up for the continued existence of our constitutional republic.

If the Left wins, this is the last meaningful vote you're ever going to have. There isn't going to be a 'next time" for you to vote for someone more conservative and less flawed than Trump. The USA will be like Chicago, where you can vote for the Marxist of your choice.

Ricardo Kalinka said...

While much of what you say is true and reflects a basic human inability to reason which has been well documented by cognitive psychologists, I have a real problem with the issue of US foreign policy. During Vietnam, I was an avowed patriot, assuming that our leaders would do nothing that wasn't in our best interest. I volunteered for service in 'nam - and in the best tradition of the military was sent everywhere but - and after getting out debated folks at college on the importance of our actions there. It wasn't until I was older that I began to notice a pattern of conquest which originated in ancient times and continues until today: Those nations or tribes with sufficient power generally abuse that power to their own selfish ends. As I became aware of this disquieting reality, I more closely examined our various actions and inactions since WWII. Very, very uncomfortable awakening. The crazy Left is not entirely crazy. They may plead for peace irrationally - peace is not part of the human paradigm - but they are regrettably quite correct when they malign the US and our outrageous conquistadorial history. Whether you look at our overthrow of the Western-leaning, popularly elected Mossadegh in the '50's (and the ultimately dire consequences thereof), or the outrageous overthrow of Guatemala's government and the mass murder and oppression of native peoples there so United Fruit could have free land and cheap labor, or any number of other violent, oppressive, unjustified acts of our pseudo-democratic republicapital power structure, even with all the other horrific and unustified accusations of the crazyLeftwingnutcases, this is a painful and terrifying reality. When you point out radical Islam's horribly destructive impact on the world, you fail to note that the West is only a couple of hundred years ahead of them, having only recently stopped burning witches and killing people who spoke unpatriotically. Let me remove that last idea, since whistleblowers are still being punished for trying to establish justice. And the small chronological distance between Islam and us is made smaller by the reality of our terrible abuses of power against people for whom we hold no regard. Notice that in any news report of violence abroad, there is always a huge emphasis on American victims and a considerable lack of interest in any others.
While the Left seems to be compromised by wildly irrational hostility to reason, they aren't entirely wrong when they criticize our propensity to violent aggressions against the rest of the world. That bears some serious examination if we really desire that real justice become a characteristic of our national interest.

Dennis Latham said...

The left has to go, period, or the country goes into Civil War. The terrorists are terrified of Trump and so are the illegals. He's got money already and that makes him dangerous to them and the DC cartel. They don't know what he will do and that makes him viable. In fact, everyone fears him except people who don't want their country changed into some Third World cesspool. As far as I'm concerned there are no moderate Muslims. Those who don't promote terrorism to get their ends will be forced to follow the terrorists or be killed by other Muslims. That's the way it is. In the end the Crusaders will slaughter or drive back all of them if they continue to take away freedoms. History repeats itself.

careyrowland said...

This is a sobering message, Daniel, but it has the ring of truth to it.
The "history repeating itself" loop is exponentially intensified by media grids that are hyped-up on digitized technology. Bad things (or good) can happen in the blinking of an eye, or touch of a keystroke. If your thesis is correct, moderates like me will have no time to deliberate over the radical changes. We'll have to revert to: When all else fails, pray. Shalom. Will we be praying when the trains come for us?

Edward Cline said...

The nub of Daniel's fine article is, "'Moderate'" Muslims speak with forked tongue."

Unknown said...

You have to hand it to the Left, they have made dissent a crime. We are uncivilized if we insist on education for our children or call out a lie. You must be P.C., which they control, or you are a barbarian and uncouth. Political Correctness is rewarded with esteem and congratulations. People love to feel morally superior, and don't care if it is true or not. It takes pain to bring them to their survival sensibility, and the Left's excesses bring the pain, sooner or later. Angela Merkel has demonstrated how it works, but some idiocy is fatal, and sometimes the pain comes too late.

al Rassooli said...

Spear of Jihad

Most of humanity is ignorant of Islamic scripture such as Quran and Hadiths that are the foundations of Sharia (Political-theological-economic-legal-social Islam) and are thus completely deceived by Muslims and their apologists that Jihad is a spiritual struggle to commune with Allah the god of Muslims (NOT the same as the God of the Bible).

Most Germans were not NAZIS but this did not prevent the slaughter of 55 million people.
Most Russians and Chinese were not Communists but this did not stop the extermination of 90 million people.
Just as no one ever heard of or read about Militant, Radical, Extremist or Moderate Nazis or Communists, Islam and Muslims are not different. There are NO shades in Islam.

According to Muhammad’s Quran and Hadiths, Jihad (warfare) is mandated upon his followers and is the foremost pillar of Islamic belief.
Al Baqara 2.216: “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.”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.50
"The Prophet said, 'A single endeavour of fighting in Allah's Cause {Qital fi Sabil Allah} (Jihad) is better than the world and whatever is in it.'"

Sahih Muslim Hadith 4631
"I heard Muhammad say: … I love that I should be killed in Allah's Cause [Jihad]; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again.'"

Jihad comes in two forms:
War Jihad: Hamas, ISIS, BokoHaram, suicide bombers and all other Muslim terror groups.
Stealth Jihad: So called Moderate (or silent majority) Muslims.

The best analogy is the SPEAR. The Tip of the spear are the War Jihadis and the Shaft are the Stealth Jihadis.

The Stealth Jihadis (80% of Muslims) are the ones who provide the War Jihadis (20%) with Weapons, Finance, Shelter, Intelligence, Propaganda, Misinformation, Disinformation, Deception and Lawyers.

Separately neither the tip nor the shaft is deadly but together as a spear they are a lethal weapon of war.

In fact without the Stealth Jihadis, War Jihadis would NOT exist.
In a nutshell: Jihad = Islam and Jihadis = Muslims

IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!

Tom McLaughlin said...

Greenfield writes: "Once you have accepted the moderate definition of the root cause, you will inevitably be forced to accept the radical remedy. This is true across a spectrum of lower level policies. For example, accept that homosexuality is genetic and gay rights become the inevitable and inescapable outcome. That is how the root cause defines the outcome. And this is how moderates achieve radical goals."

Indeed. The left is constantly "defining deviancy down" as Moynihan put it fifty years ago. There's no limit to how low they will go. There's no bottom. We're at the point now where moderates accept that homosexuality is natural but male and female are "assigned" arbitrarily.

It's helpful to continue identifying those who pull the strings and grease the skids, people like Soros and the late Saul Alinsky.

It would also be helpful for the right to recruit Jon Stewart equivalents to satirize the left. There would be no shortage of material.

D. said...


Mr. Cohen said...

PLEASE help SUE the terrorists in court:

www dot IsraelLawCenter dot org

www dot TheLawFareProject dot org


Anonymous said...

Let's examine our situation. Our enemies, the Left and Islam, continue with moderate and radical tactics. The moderate tactics have eroded our society's very ability to know and understand the nature, actions, motives and identity of these enemies. Most important, we don't value the core merit and rationale of a free, optimistic, and dynamic culture. We are inundated with grievances from petulant, disaffected losers. This is all according to the moderate stealth plan.

Can we please set aside this dangerous squabbling? The highest goal of every American is preserving our most exceptional republic. Communism and Islam deserve our utmost enmity. They need to be annihilated without delay or remorse.


James Hampson said...

This is quite depressing to's clearly true, though, which is why it's so depressing. We've got to just keep fighting radicalism with intellectual and moral truth.

Unknown said...

WOW! My faith is based is on Judaeo/Christian ethics so the bible quote " being hot or cold in the last days OR i will spit you out is relative". I get what most people have commented. The main point is not to be apathetic, ,on the fence, and lazy about our responsibility to do our unique best to help our Heavenly father . The war starts with myself over coming my selfishness and only then can i have the confidence to make a better World. Daniel you are helping me by writing such an articulate article. God Bless You !

Mr. Cohen said...

Can Jews learn something from Captain Kirk?

Captain James T. Kirk said:

“We do not negotiate with those who threaten our lives or the lives of others.”

SOURCE: Star Trek: Savage Trade (chapter 17, bottom of page 303) by Tony Daniel, year 2015, Pocket Books, New York, ISBN: 9781476765501 ISBN: 1476765502

PLEASE help SUE the terrorists in court:

www dot IsraelLawCenter dot org

www dot TheLawFareProject dot org


Anonymous said...

Moderate muslims' slogan in FOX news:
'see something, say something:
you can save innocent lifes'
Everyone is happy now...just an inconvenient question, could you please define innocent?
In other words, out of the three Muzzie-Bros tennets
'koran is our constitution, jihad our way, martyrdom our desire'. How many does a moderate espouse? just one, maybe two, the three of them?

Anonymous said...

u r right, but the right is no different, the right in israel always opposed a palestinian state and now they all support it. just means EVERYONE IS GETTING MORE LEFT that includes left AND RIGHT.

Kufar Dawg said...

If there are muslims who don't support islamic terrorism they certainly don't do anything to ameliorate its effects. I have yet to see a muslim (spit) anywhere donate a single riyal/dime/Euro to the families of the victims of worldwide islamic terrorism. Likewise, I don't see any muslim groups anywhere trying to stop the legalized slavery practiced in the islamic slave states of Mauritania, the Sudan and Niger -- aside from theatrical gestures.
If there are "good" muslims why not "good" nazis? After all, most nazis had nothing to do w/the Holocaust and just wanted to work hard and support their families (cough, choke, gag).

Anonymous said...

According to Hillary Al Clintone, Mr. Trump is unfit for office. Well… if you ask any liberal (leftist with money/power) who would be fit apart from him/herself the answer is none. Every liberal thinks him/her to be irreplaceable i.e. sensible enough to keep the kids from hurting themselves (school teacher syndrome). They know ‘diversity’ brings up conflict only sophisticated souls like theirs can manage, you know muslims and christians/jews, blacks and whites, anglos and Hispanics, rich and poor…

gstarr said...

The answer is very simple.....................never, never, never, never ever accept the premise.

Anonymous said...

Bravo Daniel!
You once again detailed in a clear and concise manner the S.O.P.'s of the various S.O.B.'s intent on world domination!

Anonymous said...

"Middle class respectability is a function of a sense of security. When that sense of security begins to implode as a society experiences chaos, the middle class stops clinging to respectability."

Yes. As chaos spreads, ordinary people (your moderates) turn to whomever promises to restore order. Restoring order usually requires some nasty means and those means will eventually become acceptable. Already happening in Europe.

Post a Comment