The massacre

What shall we call the event, this mass murder of 12 military personnel and wounding of 31 others by a Muslim U.S. Army major and medical doctor at the nation’s largest military base? The Fort Hood Massacre? The Muslim Massacre? Hell, why not get right to the root of the issue and call it the Liberal Massacre? Because it’s liberalism that tells us that we must not exclude or discriminate against any religion, including the religion that mandates our destruction. It’s liberalism that tells us that we must be equally open to all cultures and peoples, including the people who are under a sacred obligation to subjugate and kill us. And it’s liberalism that tells us that all humans must be equally welcomed, honored and respected by us, no matter how incompatible, alien, and hostile to us those humans may be.

Here’s a simple, commonsensical test to help us grasp the difference between liberalism and non-liberalism. Would Charles Martel, who drove an invading Muslim army back from France, have commissioned Muslim officers in his army? Would King Jan Sobieski, who defeated the Muslim Turks at Vienna and gave Europe 300 years of safety and freedom from Islam, have allowed Muslim doctors to enter his headquarters and move about at liberty among his men on the eve of deployment for battle against Muslims? Of course not. Because Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski were not liberals. They knew that Muslims were the enemy who intended the conquest and Islamization of Europe. They knew that there was a difference between us and them.

Nidal Malik Hasan—
Army major, medical doctor,
mass murderer, Muslim

But liberal society allows Muslims by the millions to immigrate into its bosom. Liberal society gives Muslims full liberty to practice their religion here. Liberal society trains Muslims in its elite institutions to be doctors and engineers. Liberal society inducts Muslim men and officers into its armed forces. And liberal society prohibits any negative statement about Islam.

And thus we arrive at the sickening but unquestioned phenomenon—one of the supreme symptoms of liberalism—that in their reactions to this massacre, officials and media uniformly use passive, de-personalized language conveying the idea of a disaster without an agent who caused the disaster, the language of people tying yellow ribbons around trees:

“tragedy” (McCaffrey); “a horrific outburst of violence (Obama); “shocked and saddened … today’s outburst of violence … My heart goes out to their loved ones” (Kay Bailey Hutchison); “a terrible tragedy … stunning” (Fort Hood commandant Cone).

But how could they use other than passive language (“saddened”) and de-personalized and non-judgmental language (“tragedy”) to describe a mass murder—really a military style assault—by an Army major and medical doctor named Nidal Malik Hasan? What are they supposed to say? That we have an enemy within, that this enemy is Islam, and that we will not be safe or free until this enemy is removed from us? Since they can’t say that, being liberals, the only available language to them is the liberal language of meaningless, causeless catastrophe, and of our own helplessness to do anything about it.

And what is the alternative to such weakness, cowardice, dishonesty, and dishonor, and the suicidal danger into which they are leading us?

To speak the truth.

I wrote in August 2006:

This is the unchangeable reality…. We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorists attacks and inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in the West in any significant numbers…. The unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore—inevitably—actual terrorists as well.

This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.

The enemy are among us, in America, in Britain, in the West, and will remain so until we remove them from the West and indeed from the entire non-Muslim world. As extreme as this sounds, it is a no-brainer. There is no other solution. All other responses to this problem add up to meaningless hand-wringing. The hand-wringing will go on FOREVER, along with the terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks, until we take the ONLY STEPS that can actually and permanently end the threat.

- end of initial entry -

Richard W. writes:

So, the shooter at Ft. Hood was a Muslim. This is the second incident of “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” in the U.S. Army, the first being the grenade attack in Kuwait in the lead up to War in Iraq.

The liberal devotion to “tolerance” as the highest ideal is in fact a very pagan belief. Like the pagan gods of the Aztec and Mayan tribes, it requires regular blood sacrifice to be satisfied. Today a dozen American servicemen, yesterday a 15 year old girl attending her prom, tomorrow, perhaps a mid-sized American city.

Still, we are assured by the high priests that if we failed to make these regular sacrifices things would be worse, much worse. We would be intolerant.

Some anthropologists believe the fall of the Mayan civilization had much to do with the people becoming tired of the endless demands of the high priests for sacrifices. Eventually they just moved as far away from the temples as they could get. They stopped believing that the regular progression of the seasons required beating hearts to be ripped out of the chests of humans.

U-haul statistics say some Americans are doing the same. Separating themselves from the states and cities that most embrace the absurd liberal priests. Moving away from the forced integration that brings with it violence, crime and sudden Jihad killings. Still, as a society the liberal gods are firmly in place in our key institutions. Our schools, our military, our universities, our periodicals.

Perhaps there is some hope that the religion of tolerance and liberalism falls, and that we regain our senses. Perhaps society again becomes “judgmental,” “intolerant” and “discriminatory” and our citizens can regain an expectation of safety and order. That we regain our ability to have standards, rules, and reject those who flaunt them.

I doubt it, but I still hope.

Roger G. writes:

Am listening to Mark Levin and Mark Davis trying to deal with this from a right-liberal perspective.

Davis emphasized that he doesn’t want this to redound on decent moderate Muslims, who are trying to lead their religion into the 21st century.

Charles T. writes:

There is a picture of the shooter at Fort Hood. His picture is at Debbie Schlussel’s blog. Multiculturalism is literally killing our countrymen.

This really p***** me off. About a year and a half ago, I told my representative at a town hall meeting that we must stop all Muslim immigration to this country. He responded by saying that America’s Muslims were different, they were assimilating. I told him, no, that is not true, and cited Dearborn, Michigan as my example. He agreed Dearborn was a problem . He is a conservative who likes to talk like a liberal, or vice versa. He will be hearing from me tonight via e-mail—I will be reminding him of our public conversation. [LA replies: If you want your representative to hear from you, e-mail is not the way to go.To have even a remote chance that he or a top aid of his will read your letter, it has to be a physical, non-electronic letter.]

P.S. I understand from other news sources, that there were two other shooters who were apprehended.

Chris C. writes:

It is already being disseminated through the MSM that one of the main reasons for Maj. Hasan’s rampage and murder of 11, and wounding of 31 was caused by “harassment based on his middle eastern ethnic heritage,”,this from an interview this afternoon on Fox news of this terrorist’s “cousin,” who also described him as a “good American.”

What’s to be said here? Liberal progressives can never admit that this was an act of terrorism by an enemy of the West, that he should have never been in the U.S military, and so the blame for his rampage must go where it always goes: to us, the West, and our “racism.”

How repulsive this is becoming.

LA replies:

There is it: the response of liberalism to a mass murder by a Muslim U.S. Army major is to be more welcoming, more open, more apologetic to Muslims. Thus it will continue to be, as long as liberalism is in charge.

Hannon writes:

What you wrote on this was excellent. I want to send it to some family but I don’t think they could handle the Full Monty (without gloves, face shield, etc.) but I think just the first paragraph will do.

This terrible and infuriating event got me thinking about just what it would take to disturb the psychic (false) security of liberals to the point of “getting it” when it comes to Muslim violence. Would it require murderous mayhem literally every single day for months on end, or even years? This is silly to contemplate, at least in the United States under current conditions. But the current level or rate of attacks is too sedate to rile any but the most extreme of right wing bigots, the establishment would have us believe, yet we should certainly not wish for increased violence in the hopes that others will finally “get it.”

Death by a thousand cuts, which the Muslims employ among a wide range of other tactics, will not help swing more people to the right in a timely manner.

So what would create the change in public perspective we need to survive? Eliminating the generic depersonalization used by the media would be a good start. I am not convinced that even a mind-numbingly horrific event, such as a nuclear attack on one or more American cities, would convince the current regime and it pod associates that controlling Islam is the key to the solution. As a “global participant” we are that far gone, though not all of us by any means.

Also, on ABC (Gibson) they highlighted the fact that Fort Hood has had the highest casualties of the wars combined: 500 in Afghanistan and Iraq. But they fail to present comparable per capita data for any other base, so it is really useless. Of course casualties are high. It is our largest base!

Jonathan L. writes:

Some grimly funny comments on The New York Times News Blog’s coverage of massacre:

Mpls Hat Minneapolis November 5th, 2009 1:58 pm

Sad. We need strong gun control, period.

squandernblunderbush long island November 5th, 2009 1:58 pm

Guns.

Again.

Then again, these liberals probably did realize that this atrocity occurred on a military installation, making their take-away moral lesson on it even “funnier.”

Ray G. writes from Dearborn, Michigan:

Before Muslims started immigrating to our country in large numbers, we never had such “jihadi” type attacks. We never had fathers committing “honor killings” of daughters. We never had soldiers mass murdering other soldiers here in this country.

In other words, immigration has brought Islam to our shores. Are we any better for it?

Ferg writes:

A republic that relies on an all volunteer professional military always ends up recruiting from its own enemies. The republic’s own citizens are too comfortable to make the sacrifices necessary to man the ramparts. The army of Rome became almost completely barbarian in its make up. When I was last on active duty with the U.S. Army there were a dozen men from foreign lands in my company who were there primarily as a fast track to permanent residence and citizenship. They felt no loyalty to the U.S. Army, it was a job and a back door into the country. Some of them declared their hatred of the U.S. openly.

This incident is far worse than any I have ever heard of before, but it is of natural causes. Natural to what this country has become over the last forty years. If we are to have practicing Muslims in our military we can expect this kind of violence to continue and to increase. Worse, we are training them in our best methods and techniques. It is not well known in this country but most of the IRA killers in Ireland got their training in the British Army or Marines. The answer to this is two fold and unpleasant, bar Muslims from the service completely, remove those who are there, and reinstate at least a limited draft. Do not recruit foreign citizens into our military, not even Canadian or Mexican. Of course, as long as the U.S. is in the grip of liberal utopian nirvana, none of this will happen.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 05, 2009 07:44 PM | Send