I left a shorter comment on this subject on Sultan
Knish’s May 13th column, “Schrödinger’s
Jihad
.” I decided to expand my remarks on the issue, after having quoted
Daniel Greenfield from an email on Schrödinger’s Cats in my May 9th column, “Islam:
An Ideology of Lethal Absurdities” on Rule
of Reason
and Capitalism
Magazine
.
“The media is howling that a bunch of cartoonists
in Texas were irresponsible for sketching Islam’s dead warlord,” wrote Daniel
Greenfield in Schrödinger’s
Jihad
. This is not surprising. The news media has been virtually taken over
by the left. Academia is now basically a leftist indoctrination program. Even science
has been appropriated by the left (e.g., the attacks on global-warming “deniers”).
The news media howls, college teachers perform lobotomies on the young, and
scientists toe the line in order to get government “research” grants, or are
silent in order to keep their jobs.
Greenfield wrote:
What
keeps the lie alive is another paradox. Call it Schrödinger’s Jihad. The more
famous Schrödinger’s Cat is a paradox in which a cat in a sealed box with
poison that has a 50 percent chance of being released is in an indeterminate
state. It is neither dead nor alive until someone opens the box.

In Schrödinger’s Jihad, the Muslim terrorist is in an indeterminate state until
some Western observer opens the box, collapses his wave function and
radicalizes him. The two Muslim Jihadists were in an indeterminate state until
Pamela Geller and Bosch Fawstin and the other “provocateurs” suddenly turned
them into terrorists in a matter of days or weeks. It didn’t matter that Elton
Simpson, one of the Garland terrorists, had already been dragged into court for
trying to link up with Jihadists in Africa.

Every Muslim is and isn’t a terrorist. He is both a peaceful spiritual person
who is eager to embrace our way of life and a violent killer who can be set off
by the slightest offense. Like the cat in the box that is neither dead nor
alive, he is both violent and peaceful, moderate and extremist, a solid citizen
and a terrorist. He does not choose which of these to be or to become; we
decide what he will be.


The Jihadist paradox is that the Muslim terrorist is always defined by what we do, not by what he does. (Emphasis mine)
And what lie is Greenfield referring to? That the
violence of jihad is committed only by a tiny number of Muslims, also known as “extremists”
or “radicals,” that their deplorable actions have nothing to do with Islam,
nothing to do with its fundamental doctrines, nothing to do with the numerous exhortations
in the Koran and Hadith to commit violence on non-believers and members of the
opposite Islamic sect, and that the “extremists” and “radicals” have “misinterpreted”
those exhortations to mean something they don’t.
And to top that off, many current Islamic spokesmen
have “condemned” such violence, echoing the blandishments of the Western news
media, practicing a taqiyya so subtle
that you could call it a taco, that
is, speaking from both corners of one’s mouth in practiced ventriloquism (but don’t
call it verisimilitude, that would be
a negative, unconstructive judgment).
ISIS? The Taliban? Al-Qaeda? Boko Haram? They’re as
good-intentioned as the Salvation Army and Doctors Without Borders.
Reality is what they all want it to be thanks to
the grips Immanuel Kant and Georg F. Hegel have had on Western culture for about
two centuries. The grip was tentative in the 19th century; reality was being
enjoyed by most men during the Industrial Revolution. The works of Kant and
Hegel were just playthings of philosophers; it kept them occupied with ideas
that could never in a thousand years seep into Western culture and poison its ideational
water table.
Now the grips are around our throats and their
thumbs are firmly fixed over our laryngeal prominences. Kant said that we can’t
know reality because our senses warp and distort the “real” reality and so we can’t
“know” its nature and causes. So, it is permitted to fantasize about reality. Hegel
said that reality is always in a flux in its progress or evolution towards a “perfect”
reality that transcends reality and the evidence of our senses, and that
includes man and his social institutions. So, it is permitted to see what isn’t
there.
The principle of cause and effect therefore can be
stood on its head; at least it sits strangely and awkwardly in the heads of the
news media, academia, and scientists; effects lead to causes. There are no
prime movers, there is only a kaleidoscope of effects interacting with each other,
and if we turn the tube long enough and with the tactile sensitivity of a
lock-picking thief, the maelstrom of numberless pieces will someday, somehow
fall into a pattern we approve or are comfortable with. In this topsy-turvy
universe, freedom of speech is an “effect” that will compel Muslims to become
ineffable “causes.” Ergo, it is necessary to blame the speakers for any
violence, and not the killers who resort to violence to punish that “effect.”  
Greenfield observed in his signature sardonic style:
The
real threat is not from the terrorists, it’s from the truth.

When we tell the truth, people die. The truth turns Muslims into terrorists
while the lies soothe them back into non-existence. Underneath all the academic
terminology is the dream logic of wishful thinking. If we believe that Islam is
a religion of peace, it will be a peaceful religion, and if we accept the
reality that it’s violent, then it will become violent. Islam does not define
itself. We define it however we want. Our entire counterterrorism policy is
based around the perverse ostrich belief that Islamic terrorism is a problem
that we create by recognizing its existence. If we ignore it, it will go away.
Those poor, victimized killers; they’re only
killers because of our distorted perceptions of them. If we didn’t pin “Kick Me,
I’m a Killer” signs on their backs, they wouldn’t be killers; that is, if we didn’t
apply the Law of Identity to them, they wouldn’t be what they are, but
something harmless and benign. If they rape your daughters, behead your sons,
turn automatic weapons on your neighbors, and torture your pets, that’s only because
you’ve called them nihilists and homicidal maniacs who ought to be extinguished
before they extinguish you. You’ve hurt their feelings, offended their belief
system, mocked their most precious symbols, and provoked them into retaliatory
action. Now, if you didn’t provoke them, they wouldn’t resort to violence. People
like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders must be gagged for
their own good, because they just don’t realize that an Islamic terrorist is
merely the powerless pawn of his belief system, bereft of volition and malice.
And, about that violence: How do you know your daughters have been raped,
your sons beheaded, your neighbors mowed down by AK-47’s, and your dogs
tortured and maimed? Those are just negative, judgmental labels arbitrarily and
maliciously appended to actions that may very well be humanitarian, missionary
work by distraught, Muslims struggling to keep to their faith. Jihadism, after all, means “struggling.”
Ergo, the tautology goes, a terrorist is not a
terrorist, but a warrior for peace, who just wants to be left alone to practice
his creed. And the best guarantee of being left alone to practice his creed is
to shut people up, with either violence or lawsuits. Just don’t tick him off, or
“provoke” him, or open his Pandora’s box.
The New York Times on May 6th, three days after the
aborted attack on Pamela Geller’s Draw Mohammad art exhibit on May 3rd in
Garland, Texas, opined in an editorial, “Free
Speech vs. Hate Speech
”:
There
is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify
murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make
this clear to their followers….
Those
two men were would-be murderers. But their thwarted attack, or the murderous
rampage of the Charlie Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the
barbaric killers of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly
Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event. These can serve only to
exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel.
Some
of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that
they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see
how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of
devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event,
to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.
Pamela Geller, says the New York Times, is just
grandstanding her Islamophobia in an exercise of “hate speech.” Pretending that
she’s expressing her right to criticize Islam is just “hogwash.” However, criticizing
murdering terrorists for practicing the core tenets of their faith in order to
silence criticism in the name of freedom of speech, well, that’s not hogwash,
but just regrettable confusion, and our name is Schrödinger.  Where are my rose-tinted glasses? I hear
mewing in that box. Let’s open it – responsibly, and not rush to hasty
conclusions should we pull a Bullwinkle and yank a
terrorist out of the box!
Well, if we keep saying that the predatory lion we
yank out of the box is actually a Peruvian
llama
, it sooner or later will be the “truth.”
That is the tautology of Bedlam governing the news
media, academia, and science. And the arts. And politics. So, is it any wonder
that suicidal madness seems to be governing the course of the West?

And
did you know that we’re all from Saturn’s moon Titan, and need regular
injections of methane to stay alive, administered to us in our sleep by Nurse Ratched?