Skip to content

Psychobabble vs. Doublethink: It’s 1984 in 2009’s War with Islamofascism

November 18, 2009

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.”

-Winston Smith, George Orwell’s 1984

In this clip from last Saturday’s Fox News Watch Judy Miller chides the left for their “psychobabble”-as-reporting, then immediately jabs the right for examining what motivated Nidal Malik Hasan to shoot 50+ people at Fort Hood rather than engaging in the “psychobabble” which she decries.

On the right you have another phenomenon which is this insidious slide from Major Hasan as a Muslim into criticizing and fears about Islam as a religion and I think we had to be … we saw a little of that, enough of that in the media to be very concerned this week.

If the reporting on Fort Hood has taught us anything, it is that “politically correct journalism” is an oxymoron. This was an interesting segment, particularly for its discussion of Shepard Smith’s coverage of the massacre, on which I remarked as I was liveblogging it that, “[Shepard Smith] refused to say the shooter’s name, which mattered not by 6 pm, when Baier came on.”

Her point seems to be that identifying Islamic terrorism as “terrorism” is accurate, but identifying it as “Islamic terrorism” is dangerous. Now, I never went to J-school, but I’m pretty sure that “why” is still one the Five Ws which comprise complete reporting on a subject.

To not examine the “why” is to fail as a journalist, yet, Judy Miller condemns reporters for examining it in this case, perhaps because the answer to the question of why Hasan shot all those people is too uncomfortable to confront.

Kirsten Powers‘ assessment that he was crazy seems to be a case of projection, as it was with Hasan’s superiors who acted upon their baseless delusions about Islam by sending him to Islamic REACT lectures to learn about the “true” (i.e., safe) Islam which they imagined existed because doing so was less scary than confronting the ugly truth about jihad which Hasan had tried desperately to impart to them in his class presentation about jihad, during which he more than made the Islamic case against the US Army well in advance of 11/05.

He stressed the importance of full submission to Sharia for Muslims and the duty of jihad against those who attack Muslims. What may have been the only point in his presentation which was not crystal-clear was that he seemed to not regard Muslims who reject Sharia as true Muslims, and therefore as legitimate targets, which is probably why he felt conflicted about his deployment. Whether he was to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he would have been with an army which was there fighting on behalf of Muslims against Sharia.

He was crystal-clear about Allah’s stance regarding those who fight against Muslims.

[Koran 60.08/Slide 40] Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with [those fight Muslims]: for Allah loveth those who are just.

He explained, with Koranic citation, his obligation as a Muslim to fight defensive jihad against the kafir, and that the only way around that required initiative on our part, not on the part of Muslims. We are given three options, per Islamic dogma: (1) stop fighting all wars against Muslims (slide 42); (2) convert to Islam or accept dhimmi status and pay a tax (slides 43-44); and (3) happen to be around when the end of times comes and go to Hell.

Nidal Malik Hasan had no problem examining or discussing openly and honestly the Islamic roots of terrorism, yet, for journalists to do the same is somehow verboten. Miller even acknowledged that Hasan yelled “Allahu ackbar!” during his shooting spree and that this gives us a strong indication as to his motivation, but she nonetheless cautions against inspecting the motivation itself.

It is here that Miller employs classic doublethink by “hold[ing] simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, [using] logic against logic, to repudiat[ing] morality while laying claim to it.” Either Islam mandates violent jihad against kafirs or it does not. Answering the question of “why” is not dangerous or something about which we should be “concerned.” Refusing to do so is. Violence against kafirs comprises fully 61% of the Koran. Ignoring this fact will not make it go away. Confronting it is the only way we can win either the civilizational war which was declared on us or the two physical wars in which we are currently engaged.

We are engaged in a war against violent jihadists. Does Judy Miller think the Taliban have different Korans from all the other Muslims? Her criticism is akin to someone condemning the Nazi invasion of Belgium in 1940 while cautioning against making inferences about what may motivate the Nazis or making generalizations about their ideology.

My advice to Judy Miller would be to follow her own advice and not make generalizations about Islam as a religion because doing so is really of no use to us kafirs. Instead, she should examine Islam as a political doctrine, because that has enormous implications for all of us, none of them good. She can start with the Koran, 61% of which is political doctrine, and maybe move on to Hasan’s lesson on Islam, which should also be required reading for all kafirs.

Political Islam is, after all, what we are fighting against in Afghanistan. It is what separates our (Muslim) enemies from our (Muslim) allies. Just as there are moderate Muslims but no moderate Islam, so Islam is political, but not all Muslims are political Muslims. Were that not the case we could have never won in Iraq. Once you realize that, Islam is not so scary and neither are Muslims. Until we can all do that, we will never be able to identify our enemy. Not understanding what makes our enemy an enemy in the midst of a civilizational war is far more frightening than anything in the Koran, many of whose scariest parts were detailed in Hasan’s class presentation.

In fact, Islam is a lot less scarier in a post-Iraq-War world because that and other events in recent years have demonstrated that we really do have several crucial factors working in our favor: (1) Muslims are human, (2) Sharia is diametrically opposed to human rights, therefore, (3) on a human level, almost nobody wants to live under Sharia, (4) we know for a fact that we can appeal to Muslims on human grounds, get them to fight along with us against political Islam, and win, so (5) our Muslim allies really can outnumber our Muslim enemies. Five years ago we were only certain of the first two.

To acknowledge that a terrorist screamed “Allahu ackbar” as he shot people at a military base but refuse to acknowledge that political Islam motivated him to do so is classic leftist doublethink, which is at least as bad as “psychobabble” because it also carries with it the pretense of ethics and acts as a substitute for intellectual analysis.

Advertisements
14 Comments
  1. John Davidson permalink
    November 18, 2009 9:07 pm

    Everytime the Democrats have occupied the White House, the terror threat re-surfaces. Jimmy Carter allowed Iran to hold over 100 citizens hostage knowing he wanted his legacy as a pacifist to follow him, but it only became a pattern in his party and a detrimental factor of things to come. President Clinton could not pull the trigger on bin Laden late in his tenure, Now we got a guy bowing all over the place, saying, “excuse me’ while his buddy gives the terrorist a new target. Even FDR waited until our enemies bombed Pearl Harbor before taking action.

  2. John L Work permalink
    November 19, 2009 5:39 am

    Excellent expose’ of the ongoing application of Orwell’s ideas in actual practice within 21st Century American journalism.

    I followed along in agreement with this essay until the next to last paragraph:

    “(1) Muslims are human, (2) Sharia is diametrically opposed to human rights, therefore, (3) on a human level, almost nobody wants to live under Sharia, (4) we know for a fact that we can appeal to Muslims on human grounds, get them to fight along with us against political Islam, and win, so (5) our Muslim allies really can outnumber our Muslim enemies. Five years ago we were only certain of the first two.”

    I agree with assertions 1 and 2.

    (3) There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world who do want to live under Sharia and believe it should be established throughout the world as supreme law. Robert Spencer has posted poll results from throughout the Muslim World establishing that this jihad movement is not driven by a “small minority of extremists.”

    (4) The Koran and the hadithe forbid Muslims from forming true alliances or friendships with Infidels. As a matter of doctrine there is no such thing as “Political Islam”. There is just Islam, with governance, religious doctrine and civil law all rolled into one package. Any fighting we can (and should) get Muslims to do against each other will be along Shiite vs. Sunni divisions, not because they in any way believe in Western style democratic principles and freedoms.

    5) Therefore assertion number 5 is subject to question and scrutiny.

    • November 19, 2009 6:35 am

      Very good points, John. Making a distinction between Islam and political Islam is meaningless. Islam is the fusion of 7th century politics and theology. You can peel this onion all you want. It’s still onion.

  3. Michaelle Maloney permalink
    November 19, 2009 7:13 am

    Exactly Chris!!

  4. PRCS permalink
    November 19, 2009 7:59 am

    The term ‘political Islam’ is another deceitful attempt to convince nervous unbelievers that the Shari’ah is not part their Muslim neighbors’ Islam; to convince them that those neighbors practice a kinder and gentler Islam.

    The Shari’ah is an inseperable component of Islam, and our Muslim neighbors–their protestations to the contrary–are fully aware of that and is the reason they cannot and will not publicly renounce and denounce jihad.

    Every Muslim American, from the nicest to the most militant, including those serving in the military, is living a lie; believing as they do–even if only casually– in a system, a complete way of life, that is both antithetical to democracy and demonstrably incompatible with our constitution.

    Islam–as it’s written–has no legitimate place in the U.S.

    Ma and Pa America need to understand that and I believe the Hasan trial will help make that clear.

    • Kalifornia Kafir permalink
      November 19, 2009 12:52 pm

      “Every Muslim American, from the nicest to the most militant, including those serving in the military, is living a lie; believing as they do–even if only casually– in a system, a complete way of life, that is both antithetical to democracy and demonstrably incompatible with our constitution.”

      Exactly. American Muslims live/believe their own form of doublespeak:

      – they know and do not know that Islam seeks to convert the kafir and control all nations,
      – are conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies knowing that while the Koran and Hadith might advocate violence, it should be viewed “contextually” and is capable of being modernized
      – to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, that shariah would be more just and equitable than Western law if only it can be separated from its traditional, tribal implementation
      – to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, insisting that (1) America wrong to fight in the Middle East, and (2) Hasan was correct in not wanting to go to Afganistan and fight against fellow Muslims, but that he violated the rules of subtlety and etiquette by shooting up an army base
      – to believe that democracy was impossible due to history and ethnic pride but that infecting a democratic nation (UK, France, USA) with their retrogressive beliefs and systems would not rip democracy to shreds
      – to forget whatever it was necessary to forget then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed by behaving like a modern in the new home yet wearing the traditional mantle of piety when visiting the mosque or the old country

  5. November 19, 2009 9:48 am

    HOW TO PREVENT FUTURE NIDAL HASANS

    We have read with concern the many signs Major Hasan provided which would indicate an unstable and potentially dangerous frame of mind. Our concern is that those who actually saw and heard the signs and those to whom the signs were reported did not act upon them. From Hasan’s contact with a radical imam, to the initials SoA (Soldier of Allah) on his business card, to his comment that he was a Muslim first and a soldier second – there is no doubt the signs that he was potentially dangerous were there for all to see.

    Furthermore, he was under surveillance by two Terrorist Task Forces, one with Department of Defense oversight and the other with FBI oversight. So why wasn’t he stopped?

    The answer is quite simple – The military does not have an objective and culturally neutral system that collects information and evaluates it to determine the degree (or level) of aggression an individual is displaying, nor has it people who have a clear responsibility to observe and report this information within an objective system nor a team who is responsible to evaluate it and respond. The military does not have the AMIS solution and it desperately needs it! Major Hasan has illustrated out vulnerable we are, learn more about the problem and the solution by reading our Blog: http://Blog.AggressionManagement.com

  6. peachey permalink
    November 19, 2009 12:43 pm

    Unfortunately the desire to incorporate muslims (diversity) into the military has placed the integrity and readiness of the military at grave risk. Islam is Islam is Islam. There are no moderate Muslims. You either follow the Koran and Hadiths or you don’t. If you don’t then you are not a Muslim as Islam is a “fused” philosophy that solidifies religion, life principles, education, diet, financial structure and government. This is almost inconceivable to Progressives that view their powers of persuasion, capitulation, and multiculturalism as the antidote to the violence that is the core belief of Islam. Like oil and water, life with Islam is never possible within a democratic society or in religions different from Islam as everything outside of Islam is blasphemous and needs to be conquered and destroyed. Understanding the Islamic philosophy is not difficult or complex. The direction of the military to incorporate the tolerance and multicultural factor needs to be examined closely for it’s origins and goals. Forcing diversity is an incredibly insane move by our military while ignoring the obvious threat resulted in the deaths and injured at Ft. Hood. How many Muslims fly bombers? fighter jets? work at nuclear or chemical development positions? These are the questions that need to be immediately answered.

    • JE Tabler permalink
      November 19, 2009 4:18 pm

      It’s not about incorporating Muslims. It’s about incorporating Arabs for racial quotas. They can’t ask about recruits’ religion under existing law. Both the military and law enforcement actually recruit Arabs, although they do show a definite preference for Muslims. I believe there’s a hidden hand working here, but I don’t know what it is, because unlike in academia, where a similar situation exists, it is far less clear who is pulling the strings or on whose behalf they are pulling them.

      http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/11/militarys-arab-student-visa-racket.html

      There’s not supposed to be diversity in the military, anyway, hence uniforms, marching in unison, etc.

      • peachey permalink
        November 19, 2009 5:10 pm

        Your observation is correct. Today on the FOX web site it was noted that goverment agencies and military are advertising specifically for Arab-Americans. This is both curious and concerning because the motivation is unknown and appears devious at best. I can see the CIA or FBI interviewing applicants but not actively placing ads. Most good and qualified people will apply and interview. Scrounging around seems stange.

  7. Truthteller permalink
    November 20, 2009 5:24 pm

    Of course one should ask ‘why’ something happened. Someone should have told that to Rudy Giuliani after 9/11, when a reporter asked him to speculate on the causes of the terrorist attack. Giuliani tartly responded that ‘to ask why is to justify the World Trade Center attack.’ Oh really?!?!

Trackbacks

  1. New Post on NewsReal
  2. SPRINGTIME FOR PSYCHOBABBLE ON TERRORISM | RUTHFULLY YOURS
  3. Organizing for America: Palin is ‘dangerous.’ PS: send money. « NewsReal Blog

Comments are closed.