U.S. government erasing the word “terrorism”

While the EU bans the words “Mrs.,” “Miss,” “Madame,” “Mademoiselle,” and “statesman,” the Obama administration has eliminated the word “terrorism.” In her public statements, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, has replaced the word “terrorism” with “man-caused disasters.” As she explained to Der Spiegel, “That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” Diana West discusses.

By the way, I notice that Der Spiegel is now called simply Spiegel. Did they make the change in order to remove the masculine article “der”?

Also, look at the photo of Napolitano in the Spiegel interview. She is the very model of the modern female bureaucrat.

- end of initial entry -

Adela G. writes:

You write: In her public statements, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, has replaced the word “terrorism” with “man-caused disasters.” As she explained to Der Spiegel, “That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Leaving aside feminists’ glee that terrorism, presumably including that committed by female suicide bombers, will now be described as a “man-made disaster”, I see an underlying problem I find very worrisome.

Modern liberalism seeks to remove any traditional notions of Western morality from the discussion of non-Western peoples. Thus by describing an act of Islamic terrorism, which is intentionally designed to provoke terror in its victims, in the same morally neutral terminology as that used to describe any other man-made disaster, such as the accidental collapse of a man-made bridge, which unintentionally provokes terror in its victims, Napolitano has conflated malfeasance and misfeasance. The element of intent, necessary in establishing guilt, has thus been effectively neutralized. From now on, terrorism, like the collapse of man-made bridges, will be something that, regrettably but unintentionally, just happens.

As if that weren’t bad enough, then she says she wants to “move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” What an irritatingly stupid tautology. If a risk does not inspire some degree of fear, there is no point in preparing for it. Conversely, to prepare for a risk is to acknowledge that it inspires some degree of fear.

What a useful idiot this creature is. Too bad she’s not working for our side.

Adela G. writes:

You write:

“Also, look at the photo of Napolitano in the Spiegel interview. She is the very model of the modern female bureaucrat.”

Female? I see only androgyny in that photo.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 18, 2009 11:31 AM | Send