We No Longer Can Remain PC


I’ve no doubt that you’ve heard about the December 2nd attack in San Bernardino, California where two or possibly three Muslims went into an office Christmas party attacking people and killing them. The total count was 14 dead and 17 wounded. I’ve been watching this event as it has unfolded, and it has been as predictable as it has been tragic. I say it’s predictable because the actors in this great drama have, each and every one of them, acted just as predictably as we could expect.

That’s especially true for the greatest actor of them all, Obama. As to be expected, he’s politicized this event and tried to use it to further his gun control agenda, as if that would have made any difference. The criminals in this case have broken so many laws to accomplish what they did, and yet to the liberal left, the fact that they were able to get away with it means that we need more gun control.

Now, wait a minute, this took place in California. California is the most restrictive state in our country as far as gun control laws are concerned. The guns they used and the things they did, every bit of it was illegal. You can’t buy AR-15s in California anymore; you can’t buy normal 30-round magazines out in California anymore or what they call high-capacity magazines; you can’t buy those in California. They had pipe bombs. That’s illegal in all fifty of the states, but yet, the illegality of the event didn’t seem to stop the criminals from going through with what they had planned in the least.

But the liberals don’t understand that. They’re living in an academic sort of a world where they can look at things purely theoretically, as a bunch of Harvard professors sitting around a conference table, and since their decisions have nothing to do with reality, and their ideas have nothing to do with reality anyway, why not propose something that sounds good (i.e. gun control) even though gun control isn’t going to make any difference?

It may sound like I’m speaking a little facetiously here, and yeah I guess I am, but in reality, that’s the way these people are thinking. I look at Obama, and the things that he’s saying, and his reaction to this event, and he looks just like he’s sitting around some ivory-league table with a bunch of other liberal theologians, you might say, and they’re coming up with ideas to be implemented by reasonable people in a reasonable world where everything operates according to the law.

Of course, if we lived in that kind of world they could just repeal the laws of physics that allow guns to work, and then they’d really be happy because guns would no longer exist, and really, that’s what they’re after anyway. They don’t want guns to exist. They think by making a law that says people can’t have guns or can’t use guns, they’re actually going to make a difference when in reality, as we all know, all they are going to do is create more victims.

That’s clear by looking at the Paris massacre. Come on, instead of 14 they had 130 dead over there. Why? Because it happened in a gun-free zone. Shoot, if gun-free zones worked we wouldn’t have a single mass killing in this country because just about all of them happened in those famous gun-free zones. No, more gun control isn’t going to solve the problem. People control might solve the problem, but that means people being able to control themselves.

I’m not talking about the government controlling people because the only way the government can do that is to take away our freedom. No, I’m talking about people controlling themselves, people having self-control. But that is something that’s not very popular anymore. I look at the whiny little babies at the colleges that are complaining that they want their safe zones. That shows you how little self-control people have if they need something like that.

So let’s go back and look at the events. First of all, you’ve got a U.S. citizen, who is a Muslim, and who makes contact with a woman in Saudi Arabia, who is also a Muslim. Apparently, they fell in love (or at least that’s the theory that’s going around), and he returns back the United States with his fiancé on a fiancé visa so that they can get married. So far, so good, don’t see any problem there.

But then, according to testimony by family members, Syed, the man in this attack, became more devout in his religion. I have nothing against people of different religions being devout in their religion, but unfortunately with Islam, that usually means turning to violence so that they can further their religious goals, and that’s where we get all of these terrorists from.

Of course, that makes it sound a little like maybe she had something to do with him becoming more devout; maybe she’s the one that pushed him over the edge, and maybe she’s the one that pushed him to become a terrorist. We don’t know that for sure and unfortunately we are not able to ask them because they’re not around anymore.

But somewhere along the way this couple started collecting weapons, body armor, ammunition, parts to build pipe bombs, and they started getting ready to perform what we would call, what any reasonable person would call, an act of terrorism. That’s obviously things going wrong.

In order to do so, they had to buy AR-15s, which are illegal in California; actually, they’re not technically illegal, they’ve just made it more or less impossible to buy them because they have to have 10-round magazines that are not removable, and we all know the magazine on an AR-15 is removable, and the typical magazine is 30 rounds. Okay you can make a small magazine, but still, they’re removable.

Between Syed and his wife, they gathered up somewhere over 6,000 rounds of ammunition; they had 1500 rounds of that ammunition with them when they did the attack. They were obviously ready for a little bit of all-out warfare, and of course they started building pipe bombs, and I bet one of these days the FBI is going to find that they actually tested a few of those pipe bombs out in the middle of nowhere somewhere and nobody caught it.

In the process of all this, they had visitors; other Muslims who apparently had something to do with the process of buying the weapons, buying the parts, and the neighbors happened to notice that. While there is nothing wrong with Muslims having Muslim visitors, these neighbors got suspicious, one man in particular, but he never called the police, because right now the PC police would have branded him as a racist, and they would have castigated him publicly for his racial profiling of people who obviously, now we know, are terrorists.

So thank you PC police, we can lay this crime right at your doorstep. You had something to do with it.

While this is going on, Syed and his wife are living in California; he’s working for the government as a health inspector; they look to be living the American dream. They are not overly political; they don’t appear to be overly religious to their neighbors, their coworkers, although their family says they were very religious; they’re just living the normal life, and there’s really nothing to draw suspicion to them.

The day of the shooting, Syed’s office is having a Christmas party, and he shows up, just like everybody else in the office. Talks to a few people, he was apparently a fairly quiet man, so he didn’t talk to a lot of people. Spent some time there, and left the party early. Nothing to startle anyone, nothing to make it appear like anything was wrong. There’s no report that he had any arguments with anybody, or that he appeared offended by the idea of a Christmas party. He just showed up for a while and left, and then he came back, and they opened fire.

Syed and his bride were dressed in tactical gear wearing bullet-resistant armor, carrying AR-15s semi-automatics (not fully-automatic), a ton of magazines on them, and some pipe bombs.

The only reason the pipe bombs didn’t go off was apparently they made a mistake in wiring them to their detonator. So they shoot the place up, killing 14 people, wounding 17 others, left the pipe bombs, went back to jump in their SUV, and take off, and apparently, although we don’t know this for sure, tried to trigger the bombs and nothing happens.

It appears that the police knew, or at least strongly suspected, who perpetrated the crime rather quickly because they started looking for Syed, and they did in fact find him and his wife. The resulting shooting ended up with one police officer wounded, and Syed and his wife killed. Early reports said that there were two or three shooters, didn’t mention them being Muslim, didn’t mention names, didn’t have photos, all it said was there were two or three shooters that shot up this office party there in California.

From the very beginning, the liberal media started talking about them as being radical conservatives and trying to lay this crime at the NRA’s doorstep, but they were unsuccessful except in the minds of the unwashed who don’t bother listening to anything more than the first sound bytes anyway. And they’ll be calling this a crime of the radical right, of right-wing conservative, anti-government terrorists for probably a couple of decades, regardless of the truth. Of course, since when does the truth matter to those on the political left anyway?

Since this event, ISIS has come out claiming that these people were associated with them, It appears that the woman tweeted her devotion to ISIS just before the attack. That’s one of the parts that is truly predictable about this. ISIS has been talking about attacking us here on our home soil for quite some time now. They’ve bragged about having soldiers here in the United States, and it looks like they finally attacked.

Of course, like any other coward, all these other mass murderers, they did it in such a place where they knew they could get away with it. Two terrorists attacked in Garland, Texas not too long ago where they attacked that cartoon exhibit about Mohammad; offended by the exhibit. The only dead out of that event were the two terrorists, but in California the state is virtually a gun-free zone; so they attacked, and there are a whole bunch of dead, including eventually the terrorists.

It also looks like these two terrorists had planned on other attacks; they had another 4,000 rounds of ammunition back home. They had another 15 pipe bombs, if I’ve gotten the number correct, back there at home. Apparently, this was only the first attack in a series of attacks that they were planning. I guess they expected to get away with this one, get away with their lives, and then either immediately or later, do some other attacks.

That tells you a lot about how these people are thinking. They’re not thinking about lone attacks; they’re thinking about doing a series of attacks. They want to take out as many as they can. Of course, they’re terrorists. That’s to be expected of them.

But there’s a level of sophistication in this attack that we don’t normally associate with terrorism here… they didn’t expect to die. They expected to get away with that first crime and go on to commit others. Now, that’s very different than what we normally expect out of terrorists. Most terrorists are willing to sacrifice their lives, and as a matter of fact plan on sacrificing their lives.

In Paris, in the attack over there, there was a woman with an explosive vest on that tried to get into a stadium. When she couldn’t, she blew herself up out in the street. She didn’t kill anyone else; she just blew herself up.

Here we’ve got people going in with bullet-resistant armor on; a bulletproof vest expecting to get away with their crime and go on to commit others. That’s very different than what we typically expect, especially from Muslim terrorists.

If this is a sign of how the other ISIS terrorists are going to act, we can expect them to be harder to kill because it is going to require headshots in order to take them out; instead of being able to go for center mass. Bulletproof vests work pretty well against handguns, and that’s what most of us are going to be using against them. That puts us at a distinct disadvantage because they’re going to be armored, and they are going to be armed with rifles, whereas any of us who might try and defend ourselves against them are going to be armed with pistols and probably not armored.

That’s something to keep in the back of your mind and something to fit into your training. If you’re somebody that carries, you need to fit that into your training. Shooting from cover, finding cover, and accuracy all need to be part of your regular training, because if you’re going to have to go for headshots, you better have some good accuracy.

By the way, if you haven’t caught it, there have been a couple of sheriffs and police chiefs who have come out since this event saying very clearly to America, “Go armed.” If you aren’t armed, get armed. If you don’t have a concealed carry license, get a concealed carry license. If you don’t have a gun, get a gun. They recognize, the police departments and the sheriffs departments in this country recognize, that they can’t protect us, and they’re telling us to be prepared to protect ourselves, because they can’t do it for us.

I greatly appreciate their honesty in that I am sure they are doing everything they can, but they are greatly restricted by what the law allows the police to do. In actuality, you and I can get away with doing things that they can’t get away with doing.

So we need to be prepared. We need to be prepared to defend ourselves in case we find ourselves in this type of event. It can happen anywhere, and I think the fact that this particular event has happened is kind of opening the door, saying we can expect to see a lot more of it. Either copycats or others who are going to go ahead and say now’s the time; ISIS is going to win; we’re going to attack; we’re going to become part of this war; we’re going to attack the great cities in the United States, and do what we can to further our cause.

Of course, as long as Obama is in office, pretty much nothing is going to be done against them. They’re going to be able to get away with it.

Right now there are about 900 federal, I’m talking about the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, federal investigations of people suspected to have ISIS ties here in the United States right now.

Yet, Obama, who we know sympathizes with the Muslims, refuses to admit that there is a problem with Muslim terrorism. He refuses to admit that it even exists, let alone that it is here in the United States. I think he refuses because if he admits that it exists, he’ll have to do something about it, and he doesn’t want to.

Obama has made a lot of statements in a lot of different speeches talking about supporting Islam and supporting the prophet, and that if it comes down to it, he will side with Islam. Well guess what folks? He’s siding with Islam.

So as much as the police on the local and state level would love to be able to support us and help us out, the Federal Government’s hands are tied because the “Commander in Chief” (I hate using that title for him) refuses to let them loose and do what they need to do to put any sort of a stop to terrorism.

It’s a given fact that ISIS is sneaking terrorists in with these “Syrian refugees.” They have stated as much, and it has happened in Europe. They’ve come out in Europe, some of the attackers that were involved in the Paris attacks, they were “Syrian refugees,” and yet our government, our Commander in Chief, refuses to admit that they even exist.

So what does Obama do? How does he decide to deal with this? Obama decides it’s time to speak to the American people, and so he schedules a speech, and he goes on television from the Oval Office standing, instead of sitting for some reason (I’m not really sure about that, usually the President in the Oval Office will be sitting behind his desk, but he was standing at a podium instead), and instead of talking about terrorism, and instead of talking about renewing plans against ISIS, what does he do? He rebukes the American people and talks about taking our guns away from us to spank us.

According to the Constitution, the Federal Government’s number one responsibility is to protect the people, and you know something, he’s not doing it. I don’t know how bad it’s going to get, but I do know this: as long as Obama refuses to face the fact that there is Islamic terrorism in the world and Islamic terrorism happening here in the United States, we’re going to see an increase. Those people only understand strength; they only understand might, and here we are showing ourselves to be weak. Actually, our government is showing itself to be weak through the platitudes that Obama says and the support that he gives them. You can be sure that they will take that as an invitation to keep on attacking.

San Bernardino isn’t an isolated event, it’s just the first of a string of events. One of the scariest things about this particular event is the place it happened. It happened in San Bernardino. It didn’t happen in a big city. Now I know to those of us that don’t live in California, Southern California just kind of appears as Los Angeles; the whole thing is just one big city, but in reality it isn’t. San Bernardino is a fairly small city. It’s only 213,000 people. This is not a big city.

The expectation is that these events will happen in major cities; look at Paris. Paris was the capital of France; it’s the biggest city over there. It makes sense that they would attack there, but this is a small town. This is midtown America we could say. They’re attacking in small towns, 213,000 people. That means that these people are likely to attack just about anywhere. You’re not safe if you live in a small town; you’re not safe if you live in midtown America; there’s no place that’s safe.

Anybody who has studied terrorism at all would realize that makes sense. You attack a small town or a midsized town, and that’s going to have a lot more impact on the overall population of the country than attacking a big city. You attack a big city, and people in small towns are going to say, “Ah, I’m safe. They’re just going after the big city.” But when you start attacking smaller towns, midsized towns, now you’re saying, “We’re going to find you wherever you are.” That has a lot more impact than the other types of attacks that we’re used to seeing. That tells us there is going to be a change in the way ISIS is attacking.

For that matter, Garland, Texas tells us the same thing too because Garland was a small town. It’s just a touch larger than San Bernardino is. So this is a definite change in strategy, and I have to say, it’s a change in strategy that does not bode well for us.

Right now we’ve got several things going on in this country. This event, like all other shooting events, is polarizing the country. We’ve got the gun control crowd that’s looking for a new way to grab our guns, and Obama is supposedly looking at what he can get away with, and then we’ve got Donald Trump saying let’s close the doors to all Muslim immigration until the Federal Government can find a way to vet these people. Thank you Donald, at least somebody is speaking out in a way that makes sense.

Yeah, I understand that goes against American principles and yes, we are a country of immigrants, and yes we allow religious freedom, but there’s a huge difference between religious freedom meaning coming in and practicing your religion, and religious freedom meaning come in and kill people. We don’t allow Satanists to do human sacrifices, and yet that’s part of their religion, but it’s still illegal. Well, guess what? Terrorism is still illegal; it’s still murder, and we can’t just allow these people to come in and kill people indiscriminately in the name of political correctness or in the name of religious liberty.

As others have asked, how have we gone seven years from the Muslims taking out the Twin Towers and killing more than 3,000 people to now, when we’re afraid to offend them? We shouldn’t care the least about offending them or anybody else. If they want to come here, and they want to assimilate, and they want to be a normal part of society and become true Americans, then I’m all for them. That’s great, but I don’t see that happening; I don’t see Muslims like that.

What I see is angry, nasty people coming and trying to take over our country either by force or by forcing the political system. Either way, they’re trying to take over our country and either way, we should stop them. If our government can’t vet them and figure out which ones are the criminals and which ones aren’t before they come in the border, then we need to put a stop to them coming through our borders until we figure out how to be able to tell which ones are criminals, and which ones are fine.

Or maybe we need to take it a step farther than that, and find out which ones are going to assimilate in our society, and which ones are going to demand that our society change for them; because they’re just as bad. Maybe they aren’t killing people, but they are trying to destroy our society. Either way, they’re wrong. Either way, Islam is trying to do what Islam has already done, and that is conquer the people.

They are not here for any other purpose than to conquer the United States, and make the United States into one more Muslim country where either we all are forced to convert to Islam, we are killed, or we are forced to pay them taxes just for the right to be alive. Yeah, that’s what Sharia law calls for. If they want me to pay them taxes fine, I’ll pay them. I’ll pay them in lead, and they can come and collect whenever they want.



About Hedtke Online

As a consummate professional I quickly pick up procedures, and I am creative, alert and punctual. Not only am I resourceful in solving new and challenging problems, I am adept at generating conceptual possibilities and then analyzing them, providing forward thinking solutions. With a broad variety of experience, from computers to common carriers, including cross functional expertise in manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, corporate sales, as well as systems analysis, coding and management, I am able to draw from the skills acquired and apply them to solving problems in analagous situations. Recognized as a creative and effective strategic planner and problem solver, I devise notable enhancements that result in measurable benefits. I also am a team player who is good at providing exceptional customer service. Remember: Using your Head is the Key to solving any problem! *my quote* Specialties American Mensa admission 10/21/1988 meeting qualifying test criteria of at least 98% with the CTMM of 99%ile IQ 141. This also met criteria for The Top One Percent Society . A second test CATTELL B yielded a 95%ile IQ 143 qualifying for the International High IQ Society. Meyers Briggs characteristics of a ENTP with a focus on the future.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to We No Longer Can Remain PC

  1. This project of shielding Muslims from criticism is misguided in the extreme

    It is very common for liberals and multi-culturalists, who are great defenders of human rights, to vilify criticism of Islamic racism and terrorism. Even the CBC, Canadian bastion of human rights, went into full panic and attack mode when Robert Spencer visited Calgary. Leftists are worried that any critique of Muslims, however rigorous, scholarly, or true, might spark a backlash against Muslims or lead to Islamophobia. They try to deflect criticism of radical Islam by arguing that not all Muslims are terrorists, Muslims might be offended by the critique, Islamist terrorists are not really Muslims, or that we need to bring our communities together rather than tear them apart with criticism. While I strongly agree that criticism of radical Islam should not be racist or incite racism against Muslims in any way, I believe that this project of shielding Muslims from criticism is misguided in the extreme. While the intention of these leftists is to protect human rights, they have trapped themselves in an anti-humanitarian position of defending, protecting, and enabling Islamist crimes against humanity. I have argued with my fellow liberals dozens of times on this issue and they always take the position (without fully seeing it) that it’s more important to protect Islam from criticism than to protect human rights—than to protect people from Islamic terrorism. Here is part of my response to these liberals — to their untenable and dangerous position on this matter.

    “Why criticize Islamist racism and violence; shouldn’t we be bringing communities together?” I definitely agree that community building is job number one. Every community in the West should be reaching out to the local Muslim community to build relationships, community, and citizenship — and generally enrich the culture as a whole. This exchange goes two ways; we can learn from each other. But most importantly, we need to respect each other and learn how to live well together.

    Nevertheless, a second kind of project is equally important, namely, trying to understand and resist or oppose Islamist racism and terrorism. I would question the sanity of any person who does not agree with me on this point, i.e., anyone who believes Islamist racism and terrorism are ethically and morally acceptable, that they are welcome in Canada and the US, and/or should never be called into question.

    Not everyone, of course, is obligated to work on both projects (community building and opposition to extremism). Some people are more passionate about one than the other; some are better (more skilled) at one than the other; many don’t have time for both projects; some don’t have the courage to stand up against extremism… Nevertheless, in my opinion, we all have to acknowledge the importance of both projects. At the end of the day, regardless of the project one chooses to work on, we have to conduct both without racism. We want to understand and fight racism, not add to it.

    Here is where I might disagree with the liberals. I interpret Spencer’s work in this way. Spencer is focusing on the second project—analyzing and opposing Islamist racism and terrorism—and I am grateful for that. I am also inspired by his courage. (As you know, everyone who opposes Islamism gets death threats.) Spencer is not painting all Muslims with the same brushstroke; he is not generalizing to all Muslims; he never claims that all Muslims are terrorists. In the talk I attended, Spencer held a lengthy discussion about the diversity of the global Muslim community: from peaceful to Jihadi, from moderate to fundamentalist, from progressive to reactionary, and so on. His critique is clearly not racist, nor does it promote racism. Spencer is clearly fighting against racism. And criticizing racism is not racist. Criticizing racism is an obligation for those who believe in human rights. (I am using the word racism to cover racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination, including, genocide, ethnic cleansing, sectarian violence, violent Jihad, etc.)

    Spencer’s project is twofold:

    First, Spencer argues against racism and terrorism as violent, destructive, and unethical practices. Who could be opposed to this point of view except for the terrorists themselves? There is a point at which we have to agree that fighting Spencer on this point puts you on the side of the racists and terrorists.

    Second, Spencer is analyzing Islamist ideology. He is assessing where their views actually come from. There is so much propaganda and misinformation that this is actually difficult to do. The terrorists themselves argue that it is their religious duty to kill and subjugate infidels…and Spencer is assessing the truth of those claims. The terrorists are citing passages from the Koran and Hadith, and Spencer is checking to see if those passages actually exist.

    Sadly, Spencer (and dozens of other scholars) have found that the terrorists are not making it up. The passages from the Koran & Hadith the terrorists cite are actually there—they exist, they are real, and they are exactly where the terrorists said they would be. It turns out that it is their religious duty to kill and subjugate infidels, conduct violent Jihad, oppress minorities, promote racism, and the like. While most Muslims, fortunately, do not believe in or practice those particular aspects of Islam (Spencer speculates that many Muslims don’t even know about those passages), those discriminatory, racist and violent passages are in fact there in the religious texts and thus authentic possibilities of Islam.

    At this point, the liberals totally freak out. They argue that if you criticize the Koran, the holy book for Muslims, you are a racist. They argue: “You can’t attack a people’s holy book; attacking a religion is by definition racist (discriminatory).” What this argument misses entirely is that Spencer is only confirming what the terrorists themselves have said. Spencer didn’t put those passages in the Koran; he didn’t write the Hadith; he wasn’t even alive when the Koran was written/revealed. Obviously. Either the passages are in there or they are not. How could it be racist to study and report on those passages? Whether you like what the Koran has to say or not, reading it closely is a sign of respect, not racism. It is widely acceptable to publicly criticize reactionary passages in the Old and New Testament. But that same discuss with respect to Islam is unofficially verboten – by many liberals, western governments, and western media outlets.

    The service Spencer is doing for humanity is, first, helping us criticize racism and terrorism without being racist ourselves (he is teaching us to use scholarship, not insults); and second, helping us understand where Islamist racism and terrorism come from. Again, it turns out that it comes from exactly where the terrorists say it does. If you don’t like that, be angry with the terrorists and their sources of inspiration, not with Spencer.

    Liberals always raise the issue of not wanting to offend Muslims. On the surface this seems like a reasonable, sensitive, and ethical concern. I agree that we should not go around offending people, and that free speech should not be used in that horrid way (just because it is legal does not make it moral/ethical). But I personally don’t find this to be a problem at all. It is a complete non-issue — it is misdirection, a slight of hand, part of the terrorists’ propaganda war. Just ask yourself this: Which Muslims will be offended by criticism of racism and terrorism? The vast majority of Muslim are peaceful and don’t want racism and terrorism any more than we do. A peaceful Muslim, by definition, is a Muslim who opposes racism and terrorism. That’s what peaceful means – or should mean. In fact, many Muslims who are in Canada are themselves fleeing Islamist violence and oppression (and some oppression that is not specifically Islamic). The only Muslims who will be offended by a critique of racism and terrorism are the racists and terrorists themselves—a tiny minority of Muslims, and in fact, a group of Muslims who have already declared war on Jews and the West. You can immediately see how absurd this logic is when we apply it to other ethical issues. Two examples:

    First: We don’t worry about hurting the feelings of rapists when we study and criticize rape. The vast majority of men, who are not rapists, should not be offended when we criticize rape. In fact, we should expect that most men join women in standing up against rape. I certainly don’t want the women I love to be raped, and I would be incredibly disappointed and suspicious about a man who, whenever the topic came up, always and only says: “Hey, don’t worry, not all men are rapists.”

    Second: We shouldn’t care if we offend white supremacists when we analyze and criticize white supremacism. The vast majority of whites are not supremacists, and they shouldn’t be offended when we criticize white supremacism. The only people who are going to be offended by a critique of white supremacism are the supremacists themselves. Should we care about their feelings so much that we stop criticizing white supremacism? I assume that every rational person, even the liberals, would agree that the answer is a resounding “No.” Liberals criticize injustice all the time, including racism and discrimination.

    When we criticize Islamist supremacism (which leads to racism and terrorism), we have to do so directly, honestly, openly, without fear…and of course without racism—not all Muslims are supremacists; some supremacists learned to be racists as children (from their parents); Muslim supremacists, like white supremacists, are not lower forms of life (e.g., apes & pigs); their human rights should be respected… But their supremacism is morally repugnant—and I don’t care if that statement hurts their feelings.

    Note: My reference to “apes and pigs” is ironic: that is a racist slur against Jews that comes from Muslim communities—and Muslim leaders—all over the world. It is disgusting. What kind of person teaches their community and their children that other peoples are apes and pigs? Almost as sickening as this racism is that western intellectuals and governments are more freaked out about criticizing this racism than the racism itself. This is dishonest, cowardly, and highly offensive.

    In conclusion, we should not care too much about whether our legitimate political critique of Islamist racism and terrorism is going to hurt the feeling of the Muslims who have declared war on the West and the Jews. And I expect the vast majority of Muslims, who are peaceful, to stand en masse behind Robert Spencer, supporting his critique of violent and racist extremism that is committed in the name of Islam. There is copious discussion of the importance of reform in Islam. Robert Spencer is helping us understand why reform is important, what parts of Islam need to be reformed, and why we have to align ourselves with moderate Muslims. Again, this is work that the moderate Muslims themselves are already doing, and that western liberals have already accepted as important. And yet, they are still freaked out by people doing this work.

    Now, what happens if we take the position that we should not criticize Islamist racism and terrorism? In that case, we put ourselves in the terrible position of not being able to analyze, criticize, or defend ourselves from Islamist racism and terrorism. This is a contradictory position: if you are for human rights and against racism, then racism and terrorism need to be analyzed, criticized, and opposed. Silence is not a sensitive concession to the Muslim community, it is a capitulation to the terrorists—who, I might remind you, are far, far, far to the right of Bush and Cheney.

    I would say that I am in agreement with the liberals on the big issues: racism and terrorism are bad and community building is crucial. The big difference, as far as I can see, is that the liberals (including western governments and media outlets) are nervous about publicly analyzing and criticizing Islamist racism and terrorism. They are happy to criticize Western racism but extremely anxious about criticizing Islamist racism. I hope I have shown that this anxiety is irrational and untenable as a political position in a global, multi-cultural world—and that it also contradicts their own values.

    I would go even further by arguing that our community building should (as much as possible) encourage Muslims to stand up against Islamist racism and terrorism – in Canada, in Europe, around the world, and as visibly as possible at the UN. I hope we are in agreement about that, even if that is not work that the liberals have the stomach for.

    This issue, while uncomfortable and inconvenient, is one of the most important global political issues. Sectarian violence is killing tens of thousands of Muslims throughout the Muslim world; some Muslims communities are ethnically cleansing their minority populations; and Muslims are attacking Jews all over the world. Muslim leaders all over the world are encouraging racism and violence against Jews—as everyone knows. Regardless of the percentage of Muslims who hold these views (regardless of how tiny the minority), the racism and violence are real, destructive, and morally repugnant. I am grateful to Robert Spencer for trying to be honest about this issue (despite the personal danger), and frankly, I am disappointed that the local Muslim community did not come out en masse to his talk in Calgary to support him in combatting racism and terrorism. Islamist violence should inspire reflection and reformation, not useless, cowardly, and suspicious defensiveness.

    My only qualifier is that the motivation for this work must be ethical. If you are going to oppose Islamist racism and terrorism, you need to do it as a way of protecting human rights. Multiculturalism only works in conjunction with other fundamental ethical and political values, including universal human rights, freedom from discrimination, equal rights for women, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Freedom of religion should never extend to the freedom of one religion to oppress another. You have a right to practice your religion in any way you want, and wherever and whenever you want, but never at the expense of my rights and freedoms, never in a way that discriminates against and oppresses others. I will tolerate all of your values and peccadillos — but not racism and discrimination. That’s where communities have to the draw the line, and do so for the good of the community and its members. This will also be great for the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful. But take caution because it won’t be very nice for the terrorists.

    Joel Shapiro, Ph.D.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s