Friday, June 22, 2007
Considering “Jihad Watch Watch”
I began this blog only a little over one month ago, and I’ve written over 30 essays so far.
As my two introductory essays laid out, the principal aspect about Jihad Watch which this blog was conceived to be “watching”—i.e., noting and analyzing—was its failure to appreciate the problem of PC Multiculturalism in its proper nature and scope and, closely related to this, its persistent error in alluding to PC incorrectly (when and where it deigns to mention PC at all), which tends to have the effect of causing more damage than simply ignoring PC.
In my 30-odd essays to date, it seems that I have explored pretty much every nuance and permutation of these particular faults at Jihad Watch, and I am not sure the benefits of continuing from this point on in basically repeating myself sufficiently outweighs the benefits of closing up shop.
Or maybe they do outweigh them.
Aside from the fact that I consider the principle of this blog to be of paramount importance in our War of Ideas on the Problem of Islam (which, as I have said numerous times, becomes more importantly and exigently a War of Ideas on the Problem of Western PC)—or, rather, stemming directly from that fact—, there is a secondary, technical fact about blogs which impinges upon their communications role: a blog that is allowed to become inactive by its blogger soon recedes into even further obscurity under the oceanic currents and crosscurrents of the Internet than it already tends to suffer. The only way to try to stay afloat in this world wide ocean is to keep posting, at least once or twice a month, and preferrably more often. So for that reason, if for no other, I might well continue repeating myself here at Jihad Watch Watch—particularly whenever Robert Spencer or Hugh Fitzgerald couch their myopia in particularly vivid and egregious manner; and they rarely fail to supply such for very long.
Another virtue to re-presentation and repetition: The patient and interested reader who tries to read all my essays here—even, preferrably, in sequence from beginning to the present—will experience a kind of layering complexity to the tissue of ideas presented along with an intellectual malaxation, in the subtly varying and tweaking repetitions in the presentations, of that complexity. The full picture of the problem of PC will then, hopefully, emerge, with its proper texture and density there for teeth to sink into. Such a reader, it is hoped, will graduate from elementary questions and disagreements (if any) about the problem of PC, to upper levels where the nexus between intellectual analysis and the brainstorming for pragmatic solutions can really begin to be joined.
To vary the theme here, however—and thereby to keep up my own interest—I will likely introduce separate problems about Jihad Watch which I have noticed over the roughly two years I have been reading and commenting there. These problems are:
1) The regard—or lack of sufficient regard—for its reading and commenting population.
2) The religious—and specifically Christian—bias that lurks now and then, not only in its head, Robert Spencer, but also as a significant current in its ever-present, ever-attendant reading & commenting population.
3) The problem of where Jihad Watch stands with regard to the evil and danger of Islam, and with regard to directly subsidiary questions, such as: Is a reformation of Islam possible? Can we, and do we, trust certain Muslims (however few they seem to be in numbers) who seem to be on our side in grappling with this global problem? Is Islam itself evil and dangerous, or is its evil and danger a peripheral, marginal, or somehow detachable chunk from its corpus—i.e., a chunk whose detachment would not entail the destruction of the body (let alone that such detachment is even feasible)?
Of these three, I would say #3 is the most important to be “watching”, but I have yet to touch on it here on this blog. My recent essays about the Barna survey—and some of the comments my essays triggered—did touch on #2, but only peripherally. As for #1, I have on a couple of occasions on this blog discussed it—but those essays became embroiled in a controversy (of which only this vestige remains) caused by the apparently (or so it seemed to me in my imperfect estimation, which could be incorrect) psychotic umbrage taken by their central figure who had become for me emblematic of one nodus of the problem of which #1 treats and who had therefore become useful for me to present under analysis; though I found it meet to delete those essays after the freakishly irrational and chillingly vituperative storm they aroused (or so it seemed to me in my imperfect estimation, which could be incorrect) in said figure.
So, in summation, we shall see what will become of “Jihad Watch Watch”.