Hvorfor?

Da det muslimske ægtepar, pakistanske Syed Farook og Tafsheen Malik, begik massemord på en amerikansk julefest i det firma, hvor Farook selv arbejde, skulle man finde en forklaring. CNNs Erin Burnett foreslog at den kvindelige muslim måske led af en fødselsdepression. Og CNNs Gary Tuchman foreslog en enke til et af terrorofrene at det måske var hans egen skyld, kristent missionerende som han var. Council on American Islamic Relations fortalte CNN at terrorangrebet også var USAs skyld, med den førte udenrigspolitik in mente. Og sådan gik det til at det var en muslim der ved at argumentere for gengæld afslørede forbindelsen til islam for CNNs seere. På den amerikanske venstrefløj og blandt amerikanske muslimer var der forargelse over at medierne ikke havde respekteret Farooks massemyrdende kone Tafsheen Malik ved at vise et fotografi af hende uden hijab. Og mens de amerikanske universiteter analyserede teorierne frygtede man naturligvis et backlash.

Herhjemme advarede Poul Høi om ikke at være hurtig til at komme folk i “kasser og båse” og foreslog uden ironi at Syed Farook blev massemorder fordi hans barndom var ulykkelig med en drikfældig og voldelig far. Sammenhængen der viser at børn af alkoholiserede og voldelige fædre begår massemord antages blot at være sand fordi det er fra den samme kasse man forklarer al anden ondskab man ikke vil forholde sig til, og så var det vist konen Tafsheen Malik der fik ham til det. Med alle de børn af voldelige alkoholikere har Malik virkelig ramt en sekundær rekrutteringsåre.

Og så garnerer han sofisstisk med moralske betragtninger i psykologiske klæder som “Ingen massedrabsmænd er mentalt sunde”. Terror med politiske, religiøse, seperatistiske og sekteriske formål eksisterer altså ikke i Høis univers, hvis vi forstår mental sundhed i en klinisk forstand. Det giver ingen mening og sætningen er da også hentet i kassen for ondskab man ikke ønsker at erkende. Det er et moralsk udsagn som vi bruger om SS bødler, ISIS og lignende, men den tjener sproglig til at bakke Høis ide op. En tese han skyder i foden  når han som eksempel på Farooks integration i the american way of life skriver

Det følgende år indrykkede han [Syed Farook] en lignende annonce på et datingsite i Dubai, hvor han skrev, at han ledte efter en kvinde mellem 18 og 22 år, og hendes nationalitet og religion var underordnet.

Høi læser “nationalitet og religion var underordnet”, men overser at Farook ikke finder en kone i USA, men på et datingsite i Dubai! Med andre ord kan vi have en almindelig stærk formodning om at han ledte efter en araber som pakistaner og med religion mente at han ikke ville hænge sig i om hun foretrak Hamas frem for ISIS. Farrok havde fundet hjem førend han mødte konen.

Carsten Jensen mener modsat Høi ikke at Farook og Malik myrdede på grund af Farooks fars druk og vold. Han har sin egen kasse af forklaringer og den er fyldt med os andre end ham. Vi, som nationer, fører krige mod dem og det var os der startede. Mikkel Anderson leverer en anbefalelsesværdig nedsabling af Jensens realitetsforladte moralfortælling. Andersons centrale pointe begrænser sig ikke til Jensen, men er kardinal for hele venstrefløjens tænkning og skyld og ansvar

Dernæst fremsætter Jensen en af de sørgeligste travere, der altid hives af stalden, når vestlige venstreintellektuelle skal forsvare ikke-vestlig terror: ”Terroren har altid været den militært svage parts svar,” erklærer han.

Som nævnt udøver IS også rigelig terror, hvor de står stærkt. Men terror er et valg, ikke den nødvendighed, som Jensen vil have os til at tro.  Det er et valg, som intet har at gøre med, hvorvidt man er ”stærk” eller ”svag”. Den vilkårlige terror mod civile har altid været de totalitære og skruppelløses ”svar”, der så rigeligt også er blevet udført af ”de stærke”, hvilket Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler og en perlerække af andre fra verdenshistoriens rædselskabinet demonstrerer. Der er ingen automatik i, at en militært ”svag” part massakrerer tilfældige civile.

Desværre er de fleste af Jensens udsagn genfortalt af journalisten og jeg vil være varsom med at udlægge dem bogstaveligt, selvom om de er klassisk Carsten Jensen, som at anderkende ISIS ‘deres territorium’ uden at nævne folkemordene på de oprindelige indbyggere. Og fordi Jensen i store dele ses gennem artiklen fremgår de ikke klart hvor “vi” startede, da Jensen eksempelvis nævner Frankrigs for længst overståede Algier-krig uden at det fremgår som var der en direkte sammenhæng med nutidens civilisationskrig eller om det bare vare et eksempel på at det altid var “os” der starter.

Men et par enkelte af Jensens citerede udsagn fortjener måske et par kommentarer som overflødigt supplement til Andersons Jensenmassakre. For der er så mange besynderlige antagelser i venstrefløejens kasser så Informations journalist slet ikke mener at der skal følges op på et udsagn som “Islamisk Stat giver de unge mænds kamp en retning og et mål”, siger Jensen, som vælter danske unge mænd rundt i gaderne og uden mål og med halshugger tilfældige fodgængere. Eller, hvis det kun er logisk for muslimske unge mænd bare at være i kamp, var det så nu også os der startede? Hvem der startede bliver endnu mere forvirrende da Jensen fortsætter “Ekstremisternes våde drøm er, at typer som Søren Espersen får magten. Så har vi konfrontationen…”.

Men tilbage til San Bernadino og hvorfor det muslimsk-pakistanske ægtepar dog kunne finde på at kaste deres karrierer ud ad vinduet. Victor Davis Hanson leverer en fremragende diagnose i National Review af den næsten perfekte storm som muslimsk aggression og almindeligt kulturelt selvhad skaber

Why, then, is radical Islamism, so antithetical to Western values, still preached in American and European mosques? Do radical Muslims in the U.S. and Europe realize that if they had had their way, they would not have wished to emigrate to the U.S., given that it would resemble the homelands they abandoned? The worldview of Tashfeen Malik, if enacted, would eventually have turned San Bernardino into Islamabad; would Ms. Malik then have left it for Portland?

Why is ISIS apparently attractive to hundreds, if not thousands, of Western Muslim youth? Why is the FBI supposedly busy tracking down radical Muslims residing in America, who presumably came here of their own free will? Is it because the FBI is Islamophobic?

One obvious reason for these anomalies is a sort of paradox. The more a Muslim youth enjoys casual sexual hook-ups, easy access to liquor and drugs, and unapologetic secular indulgence, all the more the voluptuary feels he has betrayed his culture, religion, and very identity — and the more his eventual return to Islamic purity is likely to become extreme. No one forced Mohamed Atta and his band of killers to become Western sybarites. What made them slaves to their appetites was their very Islamic Puritanism, which turned what was commonly available into forbidden obsessions: the more taboo, all the more to be indulged in, and all the more to be regretted post facto and the indulgence blamed on others when passions are drained and probity returns.

Second, in many cases, the immigrant immediately asks upon arrival, “Why do they have so much here, while we have so little back home?” Do not expect him to cite everything from religious tolerance to consensual government to freedom and market capitalism — not when there is an accessible American dictionary of victimization, ranging from colonialism and imperialism to oil and Israel. The new arrival from the Middle East need not turn on Al Jazeera to be spoon-fed grievances, when he can listen to President Obama’s apology tours or Cairo speech or breakfast sermons about high-horse Christians and their millennium-old Crusades.

Third, we in America ask almost nothing of immigrants any more. We do not care whether they come legally and will obey the law once they’re here. We have no concern whether they can support themselves, or whether they will become wards of the state. One need only review the careers of Obama’s own immigrant aunt and uncle. We have no worries about whether they learn English. They can hate or love America, as is their wont. If an immigrant commits a crime against his hosts, we feel that we would commit a greater crime by sending our ungracious guest home. Is that why ICE released 36,000 alien lawbreakers in 2013 alone, preempting their deportation hearings, or why 347,000 criminal aliens are believed to be at large in the United States?

Citizenship as a cherished privilege has utterly vanished. So has any idea of gratitude. A hallowed notion of legality, of being more law-abiding even than native-born Americans, has disappeared among immigrants. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez — the five-times-deported illegal alien and seven times repeat felon who shot Kate Steinle to death in San Francisco — was only the most extreme example of what is possible under current immigration law and practice.

At no time did Lopez-Sanchez thank the United States for offering him a better chance than Mexico had — at least if repeatedly committing felonies can be see as a form of not offering thanks. We deduce that he believed things were better here than in Mexico or he would not have reentered the country illegally so many times. Lopez-Sanchez, like the Tsarnaevs, knew that the U.S. leaves immigrants alone, or perhaps, better yet, romanticizes their difference, and provides, if not a legal amnesty for their crimes, a psychosocial one.

Fourth, immigrants sense an identity-obsessed culture, where diversity, not unity, brings career dividends. A teen can cross illegally from the oppression of Oaxaca and almost instantly qualify for victim status and affirmative action on the bizarre theory that American oppressions have earned him compensation and reparations, as if he were psychologically damaged by America while he was in Oaxaca or will be in America if he was not in Oaxaca.

Hyphenation, not conformity, is preferred — and wisely so. Poor George Zimmerman’s “white Hispanic” troubles arose from his Americanizing his mixed-race identity rather than emphasizing a constructed otherness by calling himself the more authentic-sounding Jorge Mesa. A fight between Trayvon Martin and Jorge Mesa does not reach the White House, because it furthers no particular agenda; it’s analogous to the weekend toll in Chicago rather than a Ferguson teachable moment. Apparently, Zimmerman did not learn the lesson that an upper-middle-class prep-schooler named Barry Dunham, whose conniving African father had abandoned him, would have been a mere statistic. But as Barack Hussein Obama he became a unique example of diversity, with all its resonance.

At best, if a Muslim immigrant fully assimilates, to the point where, as is true of most Americans, he cannot easily be identified by his religion, or if his religion becomes incidental rather than essential to his public persona, then he is rendered just an ordinary American. Perhaps he even is in some danger of joining the unattractive majority not subject to special dispensation. At worst, he can become a sellout in the eyes of his local mosque and immigrant enclave. Emphasizing identity to its logical extreme wins rewards in today’s America. We saw to what insane lengths this has gone in the cases of the fabulists Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Warren, Shaun King, and Ward Churchill.

Finally, the Muslim shooter understands that so many of his hosts are naïve, ashamed of their own culture, unsure of their heritage, and prone to apologize rather than criticize. They would likely not call the authorities even if they spied preparations for terrorist activities — believing that being called a racist is worse than possibly allowing violence to ensue against the innocent. Note that Ms. Malik never thought that she might have to tone down her suspicious activities, because her neighbors quite magnanimously did not call the police.

Appeasement is a psychological disorder that affects both the appeaser and the appeased. The more exemptions are granted the offender, the more the grantor feels good about himself, and the more the offender loses respect for someone seen as weak rather than magnanimous.

2 Kommentarer »

  1. Tak. Victor Davis Hanson er helt præcis.

    Comment by Henrik True — December 16, 2015 @ 5:42 pm
  2. Ja, han er altid en fornøjelse at læse.

    Comment by Drokles — December 17, 2015 @ 6:18 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress