Two phrases in need of elimination
(See also the follow-up to this article, entitled “A cornucopia of reminders.”)
This is from the Times of India
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday expressed deep shock over the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, saying that the incident is a “reminder” of the common dangers faced in the sub-continent.Is there not something deeply wrong with a culture in which, when mass murder occurs, political leaders and pundits immediately describe it as a “reminder“—as though the most important thing about a monstrous crime is not that it’s a monstrous crime, but that it leads us to a thought process about some other issue? This is the abstract and unreal mind-set of liberalism, which, as we can see, has taken root in India as well as in the West.
Another word that ought to be dropped in these circumstances is “cowardly.” Obviously, there is nothing cowardly about a Muslim being willing to die in the act of killing his enemies, which according to the Koran is the holiest act a Muslim can perform. The recourse to the word “cowardly” is another symptom of liberalism. Liberal politicians don’t want to call the perpetrators of these crimes “enemies” or “evil,” since liberalism prohibits the recognition of the existence of enemies and evil. So they call them “cowardly,” which makes the speaker sound tough and determined, when in fact he is only being absurd.
One of the most characteristic things about liberalism is the moral poverty it inflicts on those who follow it.
Calling a terrorist act a “reminder” is similar to saying that people are “shocked” by its occurrence—liberals, as I’ve often noted, are constantly being “shocked” by a reality they refuse to recognize. Both phrases suggest that people don’t really believe that terrorism exists, so they require the “reminder” to “shock” them back into the realization that it does. The subtext is: this event forces us once again (for the nth time) to think about this problem that we don’t want to think about, or rather it forces us to declare how important it is for us to think about this problem that we don’t want to think about.
By contrast, a society that actually recognized and was facing the reality of jihadism and terrorism would not speak of a terrorist act as a reminder, because it would already be involved in opposing the jihadists and making war against them. Do you think that when the Japanese sank a U.S. destroyer in the Pacific in 1943, American leaders and journalists said that this was a “reminder” of the fact that we were in a war?
LA wrote:LA replies:
How can he be stunned? A massive suicide explosion narrowly missed killing Bhutto on October 18 when she returned to Pakistan, killing 136 people and injuring 450.Jeremy G. writes:
Being “shocked” allows liberals to maintain in their own minds the false belief that there is no important difference between Muslims and non-Muslims. Liberals don’t have the power to hide these savage acts from the public (like they hide the reality of black on white savagery). Liberals adamantly refuse to notice a trend or a correlation between particular people and violent acts (if they are perpetrated by non-whites). That would be discrimination or would provide a basis for discrimination. I suppose the more savage the act, and the more difficult it is to blame the act on whites (your first law of majority-minority relations), the more shocked liberals have to be to compensate. If a white person were to blow up a crowd of blacks (or even if a noose was found hanging somewhere on a university campus), the liberals would be on the offensive. But what can liberals do in the face of non-white savagery? They can either blame whites or be “shocked.”LA replies:
Right. So the “I’m shocked” syndrome can never come to an end, as long as liberalism rules. It is the way liberals deal with a reality that contradicts liberal beliefs.Alan S. writes:
Jeremy G. is right in his assessment of liberal reaction to the Bhutto assassination. Left liberals will be “shocked” over the Bhutto assassination. While right liberals/libertarians/Paul supporters will blame America, which is a variation of blaming whites, for the assassination.LA replies:
I’m not sure. It seems to me rather that right-liberals and the more moderate left-liberals will be “shocked,” while harder-line left-liberals, paleo-libertarians, and Paul supporters will blame America.Tim W. writes:
No matter how “shocked” people are by the Bhutto assassination, they’ll forget about it all too soon.LA replies:
Granted the phenomenon you’re talking about, and that it has its roots in a lack of true values, let me take the other side of the question:Paul K. writes:
I don’t follow Pakistani politics, but I have been aware of Benazir Bhutto for at least 15 years, and her death saddens me. Not just for its geopolitical implications, but because of her intelligence, dignity, courage, and beauty (stunning beauty, in her youth). I wasn’t particularly moved when Princess Diana died—though beautiful, she was too vain and frivolous to have much respect for. But Bhutto seemed like a wholly remarkable person and the world has few of those to spare.LA replies:
(Paul K.’s comment spurred me to put together a new post summing up the New York Times’ coverage of Bhutto.)David B. writes:
Your post about the Indian Prime Minister’s comment about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto “reminded” me of how many times I have seen that phrase used by a liberal. For example, the Simpson criminal trial verdict prompted liberals to say that “it was a reminder of the anger blacks have for the brutal mistreatment they have received from the police.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 27, 2007 06:31 PM | Send