Chertoff tells DHS never to say “Islamic”

This story comes from WorldNetDaily:

Citing recent internal memos, Department of Homeland Security employees complain their boss Michael Chertoff is hamstringing counter-terror operations with pro-Islamic political correctness.

They say headquarters has cautioned officials not to describe Islamic terrorism as Islamic and to respect Islam as a “religion of peace.”

“It’s constantly drilled into us that Islam is not the enemy, and that the terrorists are merely a minority of ‘extremists’ distorting Islam,” said one official who wished to go unnamed.

DHS Secretary Chertoff set the tone in a staffwide memo last year, when he described as “extremists” the two dozen Muslim terrorists who plotted to blow up 10 airliners over the Atlantic. Unlike British authorities, Chertoff did not mention the religious motivation of the terrorists. Nowhere in the one-page memo were the terms “Muslim” or “Islamic” used. [cont.]

The appalling news here is not that Chertoff won’t call the enemy “Muslims”; we understand that. It’s that he won’t even refer to the enemy as Islamic extremists. Though all these extremists are Muslims acting in the name of Islam, Chertoff will not allow any references to that vitally important fact. How can he defend us from our enemies if he won’t allow his department even to mention their identity and their motives?

Hey, all you pro-Bush, anti-Islamic extremism warriors out there, do you still think your Leader is leading us in a war against Islamic extremism?

Unfortunately, even as the Bush team are lost in their illusion that they are fighting a war against Islamic extremism, anti-Bush conservatives are caught in the illusion that they are fighting a war against the forces that prevent us from fighting a war against Islamic extremism. Evidence for this is seen in the fact that the WND piece repeatedly characterizes Chertoff’s suppression of truth as “political correctness,” instead of what it really is: the liberal prohibition on saying that there is anything unassimilable, objectionable, or dangerous about any minority or non-Western group. That prohibition is not some extreme or marginal or atypical aspect of liberalism, as is implied by term political correctness; rather it stems logically from the core liberal belief in the basic equality of all human beings regardless of their cultural and religious background, a belief shared by the great majority of conservatives. So, for conservatives to keep saying that the thing that prevents us from defending ourselves from our enemies is not liberalism but the bogeyman “political correctness” requires no thinking on their part, it costs them nothing, and it accomplishes nothing, since it leaves liberalism, which is the real problem, unchallenged. By contrast, for conservatives to say that the thing that prevents us from defending ourselves from our enemies is the liberal belief in equality and non-discrimination would require the conservatives to think, and it would cost them something, because it would set them against the sacred beliefs of our liberal society. But it would also accomplish something very great, namely that for the first time they would be opposing liberalism in reality, instead of going through the eternal shadow-play of opposing liberalism.

By the same token, for conservatives to recognize that our adversary is Islam rather than “Islamic extremism” would require them to think, and it would cost them something. But if would also accomplish something very great, namely that for the first time they would be prepared to defend the West in reality and not in a dream.

- end of initial entry -

Larry G. writes:

I think we’re a lot closer to seeing conservatives agree that Islam is the problem than we are to seeing conservatives abandon the core principles of liberalism. With the former one can imagine a concrete set of actions that can be taken, but the latter is like asking a fish to imagine life without water.

If conservatives are to abandon “the core liberal belief in the basic equality of all human beings regardless of their cultural and religious background”, then with what principles do we replace it? A priori discrimination based on race, religion and ethnic origin? Liberals would immediately say, “See! We told you! They want to bring back Jim Crow!” They might have a point. Some say “repeal anti-discrimination laws”, but again, with what would they be replaced? We know that those laws have gone too far, but we also know there were valid reasons for enacting them.

If society is like a house, then the framework of our house is liberal. Replacing that framework with something else while still living inside the house requires a detailed plan, or the whole ediface will collapse in ruin. If there is such a plan, I’m not aware of it.

LA replies:

Larry makes a good point. But there is a misunderstanding here coming from the fact that I failed to be consistent with my own previous statements of this issue. I should have worded my point more precisely and said, “if conservatives abandon the liberal belief in the supremacy of the belief in basic equality of all human beings …” As I’ve often said (here, for example), I am not seeking to eliminate liberalism altogether. I am seeking to eliminate modern liberalism, which says that all discrimination must be destroyed, and I am seeking to eliminate liberalism’s current position of supremacy. The liberal principles of equality, freedom, and non-discrimination must cease to be our ruling principles, as they have been since the mid-20th century, and be subordinated to conservative, traditionalist, and national principles. For example, under the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, the liberal value of non-discrimination trumps the good of the nation and its culture. If people come from a culture that is totally unsuited for America, they still must be allowed in, because non-discrimination rules. I’m calling on America to return to the pre-1965 regime when the requirement that there be a cultural and historical affiliation between the immigrants’ culture and America had priority over the requirement to avoid discrimination. The same principle could be applied in one area after another. As for the panoply of post-1960 anti-discrimination laws, such as the anti-employment discrimination measures in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we don’t need to replace them by anything. We just need to get rid of them.

Thus I am not calling for the demolition of the entire house of America. I am calling for the demolition of the regime of modern liberalism. And the alternative to such a regime is not some utopian fantasy. Rather, the elements of it are part of our tradition and history, part of us, prior to the ascendancy of modern liberalism in the mid 20th century. To establish the key understandings of a regime that would replace the liberal regime we only need to rediscover and re-articulate well-established understandings and practices from the past in light of our more recent disastrous experience with modern, radical liberalism.

In this connection, I’m reminded of Deuteronomy 30:11-15:

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.

John D. writes:

Terrific essay!

“To establish the key understandings of a regime that would replace the liberal regime we only need to rediscover and re-articulate well-established understandings and practices from the past in light of our more recent disastrous experience with modern, radical liberalism.”

It seems to me that a missing word in this sentence is successful, which in itself would produce other questions.

American Traditionalist values and understandings are superior to those of modern liberalism in that they were effectively tried and true from the beginning of the country’s inception through and up to the appalling 1960’s, having brought about common desirable results for the strengthening of Nationhood.

But rediscovering those traditionalist values would undermine modern liberalism’s desire for it’s “Brave New World” and it’s idea of equality for even the world’s most undesirable.

How can we possibly rediscover and re-articulate those understandings which we as traditionalists deem previously successful when modern liberalism and it’s powers that be regard these traditionalist understandings and practices as America’s past failures?

I sometimes fear that the only way to fight modern liberalism is to allow it to run it’s caustic course to it’s logical end, which would ultimately mean the unqualified destruction of the West.

LA replies:

The grim possibility raised by John in his last paragraph is discussed by me in this year-old blog entry, which by coincidence I re-linked today.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 10, 2007 09:47 PM | Send