It seems there is a contradiction sliding into much of Hitch's writing about Islam, one that seems anecdotally to be shared. Hitch can not make up his mind -- are the Muslims evil hordes of "rage boys" who will overwhelm our defenses? Or are they paltry crowds of pathetic agitators who are overcovered by "the media" and who don't speak for their nations? It would seem kind of hard to have it both ways, yet many people try very hard. On one hand we are alarmed with talk of a "clash of civilizations", and then the same people turn around and claim that these 'rage boys' are little more than media-savvy soccer hooligans.

This bifurcation is hardly new. I once suggested that its modern manifestation grew out of the evangelical influence on the Republican Party. Listen to a typical TV preacher. One minute he will be warning you that Satan is a powerful figure who is destroying society and will snatch your soul. The next, he will mock Satan as more of a fool than a threat -and easy mark for the "Godly" armies of the believers. Quite a contradiction, the enemy is both A)powerful and dangerous and B)weak and discredited. The preachers try to have their cake and eat it too. You are in danger, and must team up with me! But then you'll be easily saved!

I would suggest that "rage boys" have existed in one form or another for ages. They are not usually "representatives" of their societies, but rather bellweathers. They are the violent/activist tip of larger, but more mundane, bodies of political thought and action. As an example, I would suggest looking at the "Busing riots" that convulsed many U.S. cities in the 1970s. The men with pipes and stones were a violent vanguard of a more-widely felt viewpoint that nonetheless didn't engage in rioting (and had "day jobs" to go to, etc.) Politicians had to be very careful about how they talked about his violent minority, however, because they understood that there was a much larger minority (or even majority) who might not be rioting, but who nonetheless sympathized with the ostensible goals of those who so publicly displayed their rage.

This is not new. For every abortion protestor who was arrested for chaining him/herself to a clinic door, there were oodles more who were content to write modest checks from the safety of their homes. "Hippy" anti-nuclear chanting is a fringe activity, to be certain, but the NIMBY effect that swells beneath it is a force well understood by politicians. One might be tempted to simply ignore the "sturm und drang" of the 'rage boys', but after them, the deluge.

These contradictions are essential to neocon chest thumping and fear addled hysteria. You see it daily and manifests itself all over the place.

The mortal threat/powerless-fringe dichotomy is central to conservative pathology. For instance: liberals. Sometime according to the neocons, liberals are on the verge of destroying America with their commie cells and treason, other times, liberal are fringe moonbats, powerless, feckless, disgraced and in decline.

There relationship with the idea of government, is equally, um, complex. To say the least.

"But our media regularly make the assumption that the book burners and fanatics really do represent the majority, and that assumption has by no means been tested. (If it is ever tested, and it turns out to be true, then can we hear a bit less about how one of the world's largest religions mustn't be confused with its lunatic fringe?)"

Does the above ring a bell? Hitch clearly recognizes the issue that the slow class calls a "contradiction."

If you read Hitch's columns on a regular basis you'll see him fall on both sides of the issue. Does Hitchens consider himself a part of "our media" that "regularly make the assumption"? One could argue that "that assumption" HAS been tested, regularly, in the inability of most violent/radical Muslim groups to lead popular overthrows of governments.

The contradiction lies in demonizing Islam in general as radical and violent, yet claiming that radical and violent Muslims don't speak for Islam. Offhandedly admitting that there may be two sides to an issue does not answer how someone can apparently argue one or the other as is convenient. Politicians (and some pundits) are more than happy to admit that there are issues. They just don't like being pinned down on them.

Demonizing Islam in general as radical and violent, while claiming that radical and violent Muslims don't speak for Islam, isn't a contradiction. Islam has no central authority recognized by a significant majority of Muslims, therefore, noone speaks for Islam. This doesn't prevent Islam from generally being very much like those who claim membership. In fact, it would surprising for it to be otherwise.

Any honest observer will note, no matter how prevalent violence and unreason may be among Muslims, and how very encouraging Islamic writings are of such things, that not all Muslims are completely at peace with those ideas. An easy way to do that is to observe that the rage-boys of the world have zero credibility as representatives of Islam.