The Transoms of Our Minds (Dear Caroline version)

(On March 18, 2008, Barack Obama gave his now-famous speech on race relations. On the other side of the world, also on the 18th of March, Caroline Glick of Jerusalem Post fame posted her assessment of Obama's speech. She spoke of her own childhood in Chicago, was fairly critical of Obama and considered his distancing himself from the reverend with the big mouth a case of "too little too late." But she also notated a speaking event where she walked out until it was her turn at the podium because the guy speaking was a xenophobic bigot intent on painting all Muslims with the same brush. Her post may be read here. It was because of these words by her that I opted to send along a critique I wrote of an article of hers titled "Jihad's Campus Collaborators" that was published in the Jerusalem Post in February of 2007. I am reprinting below my as-yet unanswered letter to her along with my accompanying article on xenophobic tendencies and their potential energy.)


March 19, 2008


Dear Ms Glick:

Reading your columns from time to time, the fact that I might not always agree with your perspective is without fail trumped by consistently being more informed in the process. Your column yesterday, however, was particularly moving. Specifically, your conduct with respect to how you handled the speaking engagement in Dallas. It is because of yesterday's column that I have decided to send you a piece I wrote last year in response to another of your columns, one that was also quite affecting.

Your article "Jihad's Campus Collaborators" was sent my way by an uncle who had recently reviewed it with a former squadron mate soon after its initial publishing. A reply back to my uncle morphed into an article of its own, and is reprinted below. I took exception with the presentation that those cited by you that go on shooting sprees here in the US are possibly part of some larger, interwoven if undeclared community that has its foundations in triggers in the brain inherent once the Muslim faith has been internalized; that it may be as simple as viewing Islam as some serotonin reuptake inhibitor. While there is obvious truth that belief systems, once believed, can pave the way for an endless parade of abhorrent conduct, it's up to what's left of us in the sane community to arrest the problem as much as we are able, and a start might be acknowledging that a) people of all flavors just snap sometimes, and b) in this country they have remarkably easy access to firearms.

I would have had nothing to write if the "message of jihad being so strong" cited in your article was then followed with any of the countless examples available throughout the Middle East on a daily basis. To notate this potential energy here in the US, however, becoming possibly kinetic once "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" ensues, is lacking if we ignore the prevalence of automatic and semi-automatic weapons as extreme potential energy itself. As an example, the piece I'm sending your way was written about a month before the Virginia Tech shootings. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the headlines would have been slightly different if that unstable Korean kid was instead named Mohammad. Whether in shopping malls or institutes of learning, examples of males going meshuga with firearms are being replenished monthly, and with religion generally having nothing to do with it (here). What is noticeably absent from the reporting is the immunity provided gun makers, an immunity signed into law in 2005.

The following is a bit critical, and perhaps our similarities end somewhere between us both being born to Jewish parents here some four decades ago and only one of us making aliyah sometime after. I hope not.

I thank you in advance for your time.




The Transoms of Our Minds


March 11, 2007

It would seem to be the most obvious of logic, even in an often highly illogical world: If Johns Hopkins wouldn't regularly provide a forum for Christian Scientists, or if the Army Corps of Engineers would decline consultation from the Flat Earth Society, why would any self-respecting college president allow a microphone in the hand of a Holocaust denier? And yet, as Caroline Glick's recent piece in the Jerusalem Post amply reminds us ("Jihad's Campus Collaborators"), this form of "tolerance" for divergent beliefs is, more and more, an acceptable attitude with those at the university level. Educated people are permitting its proliferation, and calling attention to this sad fact cannot be understated. But what of the way we shine light on this growing trend, with the obvious objective being one of eradication?

As a recurrent theme in the article, the "battlefield of ideas" is of utmost importance; to be sure, it's perhaps the most important. Could we improve upon the way Ms Glick has presented our collective (read: any and all sane individuals') viewpoint - our "battlefield" in this global matter? I think so. I think the transition used from not investigating the seeds for potential terrorist acts germinating in the UK Muslim community to the tragedy of US college campuses allowing time for revisionist speakers by way of citing the individuals in the manner chosen for the article was a poor segue. So much so, in fact, that the age-old question popped into my head while assessing her choice of words: Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the Jews? There are ideas sewn into the tenor of the article that should be examined with this in mind.

Let's start from the introduction of US home-grown terror prospects.

Adding Sulejman Talovic to the list of those bent on doing Allah's bidding seems to be a stretch at best. An examination of both spree killings and planned assaults by crazed gunmen in the US, while containing obvious anti-Semitic behavior in some cases, has only one truly common thread in all these personal "jihads," namely: easy access to high-powered weapons. Including unstable individuals such as Naveed Afzal Haq, who along with Derrick Shareef and Sulejman Talovic are the names listed as groundwork for exploring the possible existence of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," strikes me as an argument already setting out on loose footing unless a sympathetic target audience is expected. This is not to say Shareef's assertions of what he was willing to do on Allah's behalf should be discounted (although that's all he appears to have done on Allah's behalf), but that claiming, "As was the case with Talovic and with Naveed Afzal Haq, who murdered one woman and wounded five during hi s shooting rampage at the Seattle Jewish Federation last July, the media and federal authorities have hushed up and failed to investigate the jihadist motives..." is redirecting around the simple fact that these were angry, unstable humans with firearms, and by all accounts, not crossing off any checklist on the way to a few dozen virgins in the way so many malleable psyches in the Muslim world continue to accept as legitimate. If only requiring a surname's association as grounds for a symptom, the inclusion of Beltway sniper John Muhammad would appear to follow suit. Or, if religion is to be held blindly responsible for unconscionable acts, perhaps we should consider whom Jesus would bomb (in Northern Ireland).

Indeed, if we are able to open up our comprehension of the word "jihad" and consider this a Muslim description for aspects of the human condition, such as types of struggle in the eye of the beholder, or analogous to the almost unimaginable horrors wreaked upon women and children under the useful umbrella of the word "crusade," then an honest argument becomes possible. (Full disclosure: I'm one that considers both The Crusades and any rationale for jihad incontrovertible proof that religion just poisons the human skull, in the process excusing great swathes of corpses left in its wake.) The JPost article appears to sidestep this high road altogether, but in a refined manner that borders on sleight of hand. Again, taking factual data from the Policy Exchange report (though implying something quite different from the conclusion of the PE report's executive summary), then using examples that do not at all appear consistent with indoctrinated, brainwashed mentality from some far away madras: using two examples of males who simply snapped - one looking for Jews and one in Utah - and including another male who merely ran his mouth, all before deftly introducing the concept of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," as a suggestion thrown into the fray as a possible means of an explanation.

Here the article makes a right-angle turn that should be reconsidered: in the space of just three short paragraphs, it explains the facility with which law enforcement might use this syndrome as a case closer to avoid cumbersome investigative work, and by the third paragraph has decreed the obvious place for such "...serious empirical study" is at the university level. Perfectly rationale assertions. It's the paragraph between that is a bit of a deal breaker:

"IT IS hard to know what to make of this view. Perhaps there is something to it. Perhaps the message of jihad is so strong that young Muslim men can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings after the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation perhaps."

This is unfortunate. In fact, this compromises an otherwise well stated article, if only the onus of the article were the absurdity of all owing anyone to go forward with revisionist history under the aegis of tolerance and equal time in an institute of higher learning - an argument that should be made until the practice of allowing these people time on college campuses is eradicated due simply to the basic tenets of human evolution. Like eradicating smallpox, because we can. However, in an effort to stay on message with the power of ideas, the JPost article briefly descends into powerful, xenophobic "transoms" of its own before bouncing back to the sensible need to call attention to what's happening on campus for the remainder of the article. In the context of a couple short sentences an entire sixth of the Earth's population is now being considered to be such pliable, witless sub-humans that their males have a Pavlovian response to ". ..the message of jihad [being] so strong that [they] can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings...". Instead of saying that the reference to shooting pregnant women is a reference to a deranged individual who appears to have nothing more to do with al-Qaeda than the Manson Family shooting pregnant women (or Charles Whitman or the kids at Columbine or American white power youth who are willing to shoot Jews if available, but can be equally "inspired" at a moment's notice to drag a black man from a pickup until he partially disintegrates), we are told that, "...[perhaps] the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation...".

And perhaps injuns can't drink and perhaps nigras can't be left alone with white women. Why such cavalier invective? This type of analytical thinking would seem to have come from the script of "Birth of a Nation." Again, unfortunate.

So should we consider that little children can be taught horrible things by their elders to the point where their chromosomes almost seem affected and there is no consciousness of humanity in carrying out terrorism? There's no need to consider that, as it is in fact legion throughout the Muslim world. But what of "the message of jihad being so strong" that some are intellectually powerless when the figurative wand of that Tinkerbell (in a burkha) taps he or she on the head? The Japanese once instilled this "noble" mindset into their fighting ranks, washing it down with sake and methamphetamine, and with some success. This isn't ancient history. Was it easier to regard the Japanese as yellow insects? Yes. Are Japanese people yellow insects? No. Is it easier to regard Muslims as having a predisposition to sub-human tendencies?

Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the US?

Well, it is hard to know what to make of this view, too. Perhaps it is good for Israel, depending upon what one's interpretation of what Israel is in the real world. Writing from the US, I only feel it acceptable - and just barely at that - to offer long-distance observations with regard to Israel, not pronouncements.

One observation: A few paragraphs later in the JPost article, the International Solidarity Movement is mentioned, it's sponsorship of "...weekly riots against the security fence in Bil'in and in Hebron, where its protesters throw rocks at IDF soldiers." If the past is any indication, this generally doesn't work out in the Palestinians' favor. Why should we expect anything different here if the emphasis on confrontation is thinly-veiled, if at all? Talking about appalling conditions in the world is not the same as appealing to revisionist history or encouraging the subjugation of independent thought in impressionable minds so that wanton violence makes sense, and allowing any fraction of this to transpire at the university level in a society claiming culture is reprehensible behavior. Since Hebron was mentioned, though, what of Baruch Goldstein's experience in Hebron, and the fact that it took an act of the Knesset to dismantle the shrines testifying to his martyr-like holiness? How in the world can that be good for Israel, glorifying that psychopath? Did he, too, succumb to "Sudden Jihad Syndrome?" Are those that condone like behavior other SJS candidates as well? Or are they just a bunch of assholes?

Though Ms Glick primarily (and correctly) states that the current levels of tolerance for hateful speech on college campuses are only aiding the enemies of the West, leaving an ancillary "maybe" out there with regard to the prospect of all Muslims falling under a murderous spell if the stars are aligned just right is counter intuitive to achieving results humanitarian, rather than militaristic. If one's posture is of bellicosity, then it could not be more intuitive to regard entire populations as incapable of being little more than savages. It produced a visceral reaction just reading the piece, knowing the potential energy in all humanity to do unconscionable things to one another once some justification has been acquired. A justification that excuses behavior on the grounds that others are less than human.

It seems as though once someone is beneath you, turned sub-human and compartmentalized in the recesses of your mind, a great many things become possible.

In closing, I wish to present three examples of perspective toward conflict resolution that should be considered:

(i) The Policy Exchange Executive Summary, from which the article's initial figures were extracted, has as its closing summation the following:

"We argue that the government has to change its policy approach towards Muslims. It should stop emphasizing difference and engage with Muslims as citizens, not through their religious identity. The 'Muslim community' is not homogeneous, and attempts to give group rights or representation will only alienate sections of the population further."

It goes on to make more sense, and can be read here after downloading the pdf:

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/Publications.aspx?id=307

(ii) 60 Minutes aired a segment on March 4, 2007 on the power of the Internet in Islamic extremist circles. Like allowing the advocating of violence a forum on a college campus, these trends (actually, tactics) should be infiltrated and dismantled whenever possible:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/02/60minutes/main2531546.shtml

(iii) In the spirit of furthering the desire for conquest in the "battlefield of ideas," the following publication by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the sort of writing that all children, Muslim and otherwise, should have as required reading:

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25318/pub_detail.asp

Finally, what are "we" (in the world) without relentless self-examination? I would submit that we are dangerously close to being no better than "they", if not already there in some respects. Perhaps an article telling us that the sky is falling is not the most responsible message. We (in the US) have had some propaganda-fueled terrorism experience, and before 9/11. It was courtesy of the Ku Klux Klan. Also, those affiliated with the Aryan Nation have done their part whenever possible to lower the quality of American life. Given our First and Second Amendment rights, the Tom Metzgers and David Dukes are allowed to speak repeatedly without imprisonment, and the Tim McVeighs and David Koreshs are allowed to amass weapons like some of us buy groceries. And while most in this country do fall in line with the "Eye for an Eye" mentality, indicting all white Christians as a means of eradicating the Klan probably won't fly. My conclusion is that indicting all Muslims isn't such a hot idea either. True change for the better would start with following the money, specifically on two fronts here in the US: the gun lobby and the Saudi Arabian lobby.

But that's another article, far more lengthy.


Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.