Appeasing The Jihád Careerists

... [T]he United States is becoming as culpable as Europe, its liberal news media and college campuses willfully refusing to acknowledge the danger posed by radical Islam and opening their pages and seminars to those who seek the undoing of the very tenets that allow liberals — and everyone else — their freedoms[, and] refusing to highlight the Islamist threat while swallowing the claims of figures like Tariq Ramadan, a supposed moderate who ... is “a habitual practitioner of the Islamic art of taqiyya — which essentially means saying one thing in Arabic and another thing in English or French.

Now although the grandson of M. Hasan al-Banná’ would make a very notable convert to the ’Imámiyya, Dr. Bones, yet somehow it is easier to believe in a Big Management Party neocomrade [1] talkin’ ignorant nonsense rather than in M. le Dr. Ramadán having suddenly detected the infallibility of the Fourteen whilst thinking in either Arabic or Frankish.

The New York Times Company appears to have assigned Neocomrade B. Bawer’s phobic scribble to its ninth-best book reviewer [2]. This ploy is perhaps excusable, considering that B. Bawer despises poor old Aunt Nitsy in lockstep neocomradely fashion: "Bawer devotes much of his book to an attack on The New York Times for refusing to highlight" --and so on as already quoted. Of course it is absurd to suppose it possible to appease militant extremism, so Nitsy really ought to have lowered the heaviest boom available on Master Bruce. That would make quite clear which side she's on, even if it does not actually frustrate any of jihád careerism's knavish tricks. Flying one's true flag is not altogether a matter of expediency and cost-effectiveness, after all! Plus playing this game is a little tough on the customer who just wants to be told what is in the book.

In any case, our ninth-rater does not tell us exactly what the accused has said or written or thought in Indo-Germanic that he won't repeat in Semitic, or vice versa. And it's doubtful, at best, that he (Neocomrade S. Pollard IX) knows the true account of taqiyya to tell it, even if he did not mind embarrassin’ B. Bawer. Oh, well!

You had better read the whole megillah for yourself, Dr. Bones. It's a swell treat, but not quite good enough for me to swipe it in toto.

On the other hand, let me spoil your fun and reveal how it (the ninth-rate review) ends:

“Surrender” is, at times, hard going. In part that is because of the level of detail Bawer offers in support of his argument. But “Surrender” is hard going in another respect as well. Bawer is unquestionably correct, and that fact is quite simply ­- terrifying.

Happy days.

____
[1] Who says wingnutettes and wingnuts can never insinuate themselves into the ranks of the learnèd wikipædiatricians?

Bruce Bawer (born October 31, 1956 in New York City) is an American literary critic.... (...) His most recent book (2009) is Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom. Eliot Weinberger, one of the board members of the [National Book Critics] Circle, when he presented the list of nominations for the award, stated that Bawer's book was an example of "racism as criticism." Following that, the president of the Circle, John Freeman, declared that "I have never been more embarrassed by a choice than I have been with Bruce Bawer's When Europe Slept. Its hyperventilated rhetoric tips from actual critique into Islamophobia." Comments such as those from Weinberger and Freeman came as no surprise, as Bawer was expecting a considerable amount of criticism from politically correct officials, and responded by pointing out that he never criticized a race, only Islam as a political ideology.

[2] A surname to make one wonder irrelevant things, though its bearer is presumably a Brit:

Stephen Pollard, the editor of The Jewish Chronicle, is the author of Ten Days That Changed the Nation: The Making of Modern Britain.