Some time back, I recall that Juan Cole was popular with the cool kids of the chattering skull circuit. I don’t recall why or even the exact dates. I just recall that the more fashionable writers at the time felt it necessary to discuss Juan Cole. I want to say it was in the Bush years, but I could be mistaken. It does not matter anyway.

The other thing I recall about him is that I did not get why everyone was slobbering over him. That happens a lot with me. Even with those with whom I am sympathetic. The cool kids will be in love with some new chattering skull and I just don’t get it. In some cases, the new skull strikes me as derivative and stupid. All I remember about Juan Cole is that I did not find him interesting.

Anyway, this is floating around after the Paris attacks. People keep posting it, but no one says why or draws any conclusions from it. Maybe he is coming back in style again.

The horrific murder of the editor, cartoonists and other staff of the irreverent satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, along with two policemen, by terrorists in Paris was in my view a strategic strike, aiming at polarizing the French and European public.

The problem for a terrorist group like al-Qaeda is that its recruitment pool is Muslims, but most Muslims are not interested in terrorism. Most Muslims are not even interested in politics, much less political Islam. France is a country of 66 million, of which about 5 million is of Muslim heritage. But in polling, only a third, less than 2 million, say that they are interested in religion. French Muslims may be the most secular Muslim-heritage population in the world (ex-Soviet ethnic Muslims often also have low rates of belief and observance). Many Muslim immigrants in the post-war period to France came as laborers and were not literate people, and their grandchildren are rather distant from Middle Eastern fundamentalism, pursuing urban cosmopolitan culture such as rap and rai. In Paris, where Muslims tend to be better educated and more religious, the vast majority reject violence and say they are loyal to France.

Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.

Steve Sailer has been having fun with the backlash trope. Anytime non-Occidentals behave poorly, the Left rushes forth with warnings and concerns about the backlash. The fact that no one alive has ever seen a backlash, only the front lashes, is what Sailer is mocking.

I’m fond of saying that fanatics see only that which confirms their fanaticism. Disconfirmation is either ignored or jammed into the mythology in some way. The fear of the backlash is how the Left shifts the focus from the bad behavior onto their preferred enemies. “Let’s not talk about the shooting. Let’s talk about those beastly provincials who will surely use this to cause trouble.”

Cole’s is taking this to a whole new level by fashioning an imaginary conspiracy by Muslims to incite the normal people of France to do what, well, you know, what they secretly dream of doing. C’mon, don’t play dumb. If you’re a white guy you know you secretly dream of getting the trains running on time again to the camps. You know!

It is a bizarre inversion of reality from these guys. Good behavior by the core population is proof of a secret longing to murder the fringe population. On the other hand, the fringe population actually murdering the core population is proof of nothing at all. It is just an isolated incident.

I must say, I am impressed by the mental gymnastics here. It would be easy to dismiss it as mendacity on stilts, but we’re dealing with true believers. Unlike the Muslims shooting up the city, Western fanatics are convinced they are Turing machines, processing the data of reality with flawless logic. It’s why the Muslims fear them so much. They know a dangerous fanatic when they see one.