What's behind America's politically correct 'love' of Islam?
This content has been archived. It may no longer be relevant
The second they heard about the Fort Hood massacre, millions of thinking Americans wondered in their gut: "Oh God, is this another crazy Muslim terrorist carrying out a one-man jihad, as has happened so many times before?"
And why, after the truth about Hasan became undeniable following his mass slaughter, does the government, as well as its mouthpiece the establishment press, agonize in their usual pathetic manner over what could possibly have motivated the Army psychiatrist to coldly, methodically murder 13 and wound 38 others?
Shortly after the attack, right on schedule, the FBI announced it wasn't terror-related.
According to the Washington Post, the problem was that Hasan was lonely. That's right, the newspaper's report, titled "The lonely life of alleged Fort Hood shooter,"
was subtitled: "'He was mistreated. He didn't have nobody. He was all alone,' says neighbor."
Why, after a Muslim commits a terrorist act, do authorities always announce almost instantaneously – before they could possibly know – that the attack was not terror-related?
Why do the news media always torture themselves and their readers with the most wildly improbable explanations in their attempts to avoid the obvious truth?
Before we answer these questions, lest you think I overstate the case, take a quick trip with me down jihad memory lane.
Remember the beltway snipers? In October 2002, Muslim convert John Muhammad along with 17-year-old Lee Boyd "John" Malvo paralyzed the Washington metropolitan area for three bloody weeks, killing 10 and critically injuring three others. But after their capture, most in the media were loath to focus seriously on Islamic jihad as a motive, despite the fact that Muhammad had praised the Sept. 11 hijackers and had threatened to commit major terrorist acts within the U.S.
Like alcoholics uncomfortable with facing the painful truth, the media retreated into comfortable denial. Their standard analysis of what made Muhammad tick included anything and everything except jihad. Thus, the Los Angeles Times offered up no less than six possible motives for Muhammad's killing spree, according to Daniel Pipes, an expert on militant Islam. They included "his 'stormy relationship' with his family, his 'stark realization' of loss and regret, his perceived sense of abuse as an American Muslim post-9/11, his desire to 'exert control' over others, his relationship with Malvo, and his trying to make a quick buck," said Pipes – "but did not mention jihad."
"Likewise," he adds, "a Boston Globe article found 'there must have been something in his social interaction – in his marriage or his military career – that pulled the trigger.'"
This see-no-jihad, hear-no-jihad, speak-no-jihad mindset has become standard operating procedure for the establishment press.
On July 4, 2002, a cab driver named Hesham Hadayet walked into the Los Angeles International Airport and shot two people to death before being shot and killed by a security guard. Despite the fact that Hadayet was Egyptian and that he had chosen the Israeli El Al ticket counter as the site for venting his rage, any suggestion that Hadayet was carrying out his own personal jihad was immediately dismissed.
"Investigators … believe that Hadayet was simply an overstressed man who snapped," reported the Los Angeles Times. "He was known as a quiet, observant Muslim," added the Times, which explained away the killer's virulent anti-Semitism by saying, "While Hadayet occasionally mentioned a hatred for Israel, [one former employee] saw it more as a cultural perspective on Mideast politics than an emotion that would fuel violence."
One of the worst air disasters in modern history, Egypt Air Flight 990 crashed into the Atlantic shortly after takeoff from New York in October 1999, killing 217.
Two and a half years later, the National Transportation Safety Board finally reached the same conclusion that virtually everyone else had immediately after the crash – that the plane's Egyptian copilot, Gameel El-Batouty, had cut power to the engines and intentionally sent the plane plummeting into the ocean, killing all aboard.
But the government panel declined to suggest a motive, except to speculate that El-Batouty might have "committed suicide."
Suicide? Pardon my French, but I think "mass murder" or "terrorism" would much better describe the wanton annihilation of hundreds of innocent people. Yet, despite the fact the copilot had calmly repeated over and over the Arabic phrase "Tawkalt" ("I rely on Allah") for almost a minute and a half during his deed – and that such behavior, according to the report, "is not consistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition" – federal investigators steered clear of suggesting jihad as a motive.
The U.S. government, not wanting to offend Muslim sensitivities, rarely mentions "Muslim" or "Islamic" when describing Islamic terrorism. For example, when a massive jihad plot to blow up 10 airliners over the Atlantic and kill thousands was foiled in 2006, then–Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff briefed his agency using only the word "extremists" to describe the plotters
– no mention of Islam. All of the two dozen would-be terrorists were Muslims.
So, why do we have this stubborn inability to come to grips with Islam?
Everyone attributes it to "political correctness," but I think it's time to move beyond that shallow, passé, near-meaningless phrase.
Do we dare admit what is really at play here? The truth is actually very simple.
We are afraid of Islam.
We are intimidated by Islam.
And because we are afraid of and intimidated by Islam, Islam is changing us – in two distinct and profound ways.
First, as is appallingly obvious, we're afraid to criticize Islam openly, for fear of having our head cut off or having a fatwa put out on us like the director of the new "2012" film,
or we're afraid of being sued by some of the very litigious Islamic organizations like CAIR, or we're afraid of being called a racist, extremist, hater or "Islamophobe" thanks to the tyranny of political correctness, or we're afraid of offending those in power and thereby risking our position, stature or other advantage. This reaction, while perhaps selfish and cowardly, is more-or-less conscious and strategic.
However, for some it goes much deeper: Being intimidated by Islam (or by anything, for that matter) actually causes some of us to mysteriously grow sympathetic toward it, to defend it, to side with it, even to convert to it. This unconscious shift in attitude, in response to fear of being hurt, is called the Stockholm syndrome, named after the 1973 Swedish bank robbery during which the four terrorized hostages sided with their criminal captors while disparaging the police risking their lives trying to save them.
We need to understand that a certain percentage of us, when we're intimidated and upset, start to emotionally gravitate toward and agree with whatever is intimidating us. Not just superficially, as a temporary tactic of placating a bully so he won't hurt us, but more profoundly, deep down in the inner sanctum of our being where our thoughts and feelings germinate and our loyalties bloom.
Intimidation – that is, causing others to react with upset and fear – is a fundamental principle of mind control, fully capable of causing the victim's loyalties to shift toward the intimidator, whether a schoolyard bully, gang leader, child molester, hostage-taking bank robber or Islamic radical.
"Political correctness" – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled "Thought Police") conceded this truth when it reported: "PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy."
Bottom line: We're intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought. Get it?
Most of the time, of course, this occurs below the radar of our own consciousness. We don't understand what's really happening. So we interpret our growing sympathy and affinity for whatever intimidated us as evidence of our loving, open-minded, enlightened nature. In reality, it's the result of craven weakness on our part.
The problem with Islam
Now imagine there's a religion, which we'll call "Religion X." Many adherents to "Religion X" live peaceful lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Whatever their religious doctrine is, they don't bother anybody.
But other adherents to Religion X believe – indeed, are taught by prominent clerics, including within the U.S. – that they must rule the world, and that the lord of their religion condones, even encourages, their killing those who refuse to convert to Religion X, or who leave Religion X.
So, one contingent of this religion we are inclined to allow freely to exist within our borders – indeed our laws and culture demand it. But virtually all Americans would rightly categorize the other contingent of the same religion as a murderous, mind-control cult that should be driven from our shores.
The problem with Religion X, then, is that it's really hard to distinguish one type of adherent from the other.
That's the problem we're having with Islam. Every time a jihadist like Hasan goes on a terrorist killing spree, invariably all who knew him say they were totally stunned, as he was always so "calm, cool and soft-spoken."
And yet there were warning signs, such that were we not blinded by our fears and cowardice, we would not merely have seen them, we would have acted
on them – and prevented last week's terrorist attack.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.
Hasan made these incendiary jihadist comments "in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington, D.C." during a talk on the Quran, according to the report.
And how did his fellow doctors respond?
Although they were horrified, "One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints," reported the Telegraph.
Are you with me? "A fear of appearing discriminatory" caused 51 brave American soldiers to be shot by an Islamist monster, 13 fatally.
This inordinate fear, implanted in us by the lords of politically correct attitude, the subtle brainwashers of modern, secular society, is to blame.
The evil of "political correctness" – the totalitarian manipulation of thought, foisted on us by twisted elitist sociopaths who hate America and everything our soldiers have fought and died for over the last two centuries, and continue to fight and die for – has to end. Now. It's over. This nation must rise up and defy the insane thought control that is destroying our country right before our eyes.
In America, a land of precious and unique freedoms, there exists a natural and healthy tension between our cherished First Amendment religious freedom for all Americans – including Muslims – and our paramount need to protect our country from infiltration, subversion and terror attacks by "true-believing" Islamic jihadists. This tension must be resolved by our striking exactly the right balance, but that balance can be achieved only when we first rise above fear and cowardice, and defy the treacherous PC mind-control culture that is poisoning our minds and crippling our national security.
One last point: If you really want to do something besides complain about the spread of Islamic radicalism in the United States – a level of infiltration already far more advanced than you can imagine – then make a donation to WND's legal defense fund. We are defending, at great expense, two people who most definitely are not
intimidated by Islamic radicalism: "Muslim Mafia"
co-author and former federal agent Paul David Gaubatz and his son Chris Gaubatz, who daringly penetrated the belly of the Islamist beast in the U.S. for six months, retrieved 12,000 pages of smoking-gun documentary evidence, reported their findings in the blockbuster book
(already the basis for new congressional investigations
) – and are now being sued by a terror-front group
that wants the evidence of its plots and misdeeds returned! We have hired the best First Amendment lawyer in the country, and we can and must
win this all-important fight, but it's expensive – so please help. OK?