We spoke here the other day of "the upswelling of racial, ethnic and religious hatred against Muslims and Arabs we will now see in many quarters" following the Ft. Hood shootings. Arthur Silber points us to some of the poisonous first fruits of this sinister harvest, written by a "respectable" journalist in a "respectable" publication: former Wall Street Journal maven, Tunku Varadarajan, now an executive editor at Forbes.

Varadarajan's putrid tract works the by-now familiar trope of our thoroughly modern hatemongers: it pretends to decry the "dangerous" potential for racist violence and pogroms even as it encourages and exacerbates the fears, lies and hatred that engender such eruptions. Here, for example, Varadarajan wrings his hands in a great show of pondering thorny questions:

How to address the threat posed by the fact that, of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in our midst, there are a few (perhaps many more than a few) who are so radicalized that they would kill their fellow Americans? Must we continue to be neutral in handling all people from different groups even though we know that there are differential risks posed by people of one group?

Obviously, these are not real questions. They are weasel-worded assertions: Varadarajan already damn well believes we should not "continue to be neutral" in "handling" Muslims. But because there is a deep strain of cowardice in all racism -- the quaking fear of the Other, whose differences disturb the racist's own shakily-held sense of identity -- Varadarajan is too scared to say this outright, and so he puts it in the form of question.

As for addressing the "fact" of the horde of murderous Muslims "in our midst," and other "questions" that Varadarajan raises in his attempt to spread division and strife, Silber nails this "nauseating, unforgivable and potentially lethal racism" to the wall:

...there is the usual pretense of "even-handedness" and fairness, and the standard attempt to convince the reader that the author is merely being "objective." The writer seeks to assure us that he is proceeding with great care and with all due deliberation. But the fundamental dishonesty involved escapes the mask at a few points, as it almost always inevitably does. Note these sentences in particular: "How to address the threat posed by the fact that, of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in our midst, there are a few (perhaps many more than a few) who are so radicalized that they would kill their fellow Americans?" Just how many more than "a few"? That sounds as if it might be a lot of Muslims. Are you scared yet? Are you even terrified? That's the purpose of this kind of formulation. If you're looking for a target to assuage your feelings of victimization and your terror, the writer has very thoughtfully provided one.

And consider this: "America differentiates itself on integration from Western European countries, which are far more cringing and guilt-driven in their approach. But can the American swagger persist if many Americans come genuinely to view Muslims as Fifth Columnists?" The sleight-of-hand here is deeply repellent, and I consider it close to impossible that it is not fully intentional. The author is arguing: "Now, I'm not saying Americans would be right to come to that conclusion. Of course, I don't think that Muslims are Fifth Columnists. But can't you see how many Americans might think that, and understandably so? After all, perhaps many more than a few Muslims will kill us, just like Hasan did!" And be very sure you appreciate the unstated, but necessarily implied, conclusion: "We'd better do something before it's too late!"

Varadarajan's article is already being quoted favorably around the blogosphere, again by "respectable" names, people who appear on TV, in the New York Times, and in other venues where the "serious" gather to chew the blood-flecked cud of empire. Reading and listening to their febrile utterances, one gets the distinct impression that, deep down, there is something in them that very strongly wants to see "the rabble" launch anti-Muslim pogroms. They seem to crave it as some kind of catharsis, even as they fear that such an explosion of raw hatred might spin too far out of control and threaten their infinitely cozy life of creature comforts. And so they push forward, then pull back a little; they dance right up to the edge, careful to use their little weasel-worded "questions" to avoid any blame should, god forbid, anyone out there ever act on their clear implications.

But you can see it in their eyes, you can feel it in their prose: they want it. Just as so many "respectable" people wanted to see a mass slaughter of Muslims in Iraq, even though most of the Establishment knew that the stated reasons for the war were bullshit.

They even admitted as much, as Silber showed in an earlier essay, one of his most powerful pieces: "The United States as Cho Seung-Hui: How the State Sanctifies Murder." I urge you to read the whole piece for a much deeper and broader elucidation of many of the forces, inner and outer, that not only drive the vomiting-forth of sneaky hate pieces like Varadarajan's, but also the murderous arc of American foreign policy as well.

But on the subject of our Establishment's desire for cathartic violence, even against innocent people, Silber provides copious examples, including this one:

To return for a moment to the determinative role played by feelings of vulnerability, victimization and humiliation and by the desire to reassert one's own power by means of violence, even if it is violence directed against people who have absolutely nothing to do with the actual source of one's grievance, I offer what is probably a familiar additional piece of confirming evidence. Here is Thomas Friedman, writing in June 2003:

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there — a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world.

Consider the genuinely monstrous sentiment behind these statements: a cold-blooded willingness -- no, eagerness -- to countenance the deaths of thousands of innocent people. We "could have" hit Syria or Saudi Arabia for 9/11, slaughtered multitudes of innocent people; but, as it happens, we hit Iraq instead. One or the other; who cares? Or as Strelnikov, the fierce revolutionary in Doctor Zhivago, says when he is upbraided for carrying out a reprisal on the wrong village: "What does it matter? A village betrays us, a village is burned. The point is made."  (For more on the Establishment mindset of mass murder, see The Genocidal Fury of Thomas Friedman.)

Now it seems it is no longer enough for these rear-echelon he-men to see Muslims killed and repressed abroad. Especially now that the United States has been humiliated by not one but two "rag-tag" insurgencies in the Arab-Muslim lands it decided to "hit." Now it seems we must turn our attention to "the enemy within." Now we must find ways to "handle" American Muslims, we must no longer be "neutral" in addressing the "threat" they pose to us all.

After all, says Varadarajan, Muslims are "the most difficult 'incomers' in the ongoing integration challenge" which America has always faced -- since the days when European Christians "ethnically cleansed" the continent of its original inhabitants. Muslims are particularly difficult to assimilate, you see, because "their religion is founded on bellicose conquest, a contempt for infidels and an obligation for piety that is more extensive than in other schemes." Yes, this is the kind of howling historical ignorance that passes as "respectable" comment in reputable journals. (For an overview of at least one other religion with a record of bellicose conquest, contempt for infidels and extremist piety, Silber provides a couple of primers here and here.)

Naive ass that I am, I have to admit that I did not expect the upswelling of poison to hit the mainstream so quickly after the Ft. Hood shooting. I thought we would see a period of frothing on the fringes before these racist tropes were openly accepted by "respectable" figures -- much as with the Bush torture program. In that case, our elites first denied that torture was taking place (even as their fringe acolytes were cheering it on and calling for more); then grudgingly admitted that it did take place, but only as a much-regretted last resort in a handful of cases; until finally we reached the present situation, where think-tankers, columnists, lawmakers and ex-vice presidents openly champion the use of torture as a positive boon.

That process took years; but we are almost there already with the "enemy within" trope, mere days after the shooting. Anything and everything that emerges about the shooter will now be grist to this vile mill, with its products distributed immediately by our most serious media venues.

As the man said: It is not nor it cannot come to good.

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Sean O'Neil said:

... the process has begun -- now all Muslims will be re-described by American Culture as murderous thugs. the point, of course, is to deflect and distract from the ongoing murder conducted by America, Inc. on the global stage, both on its own and through its handmaidens (private "security" contractors; Israel). the message implied: ......................... Americans may do something someone would call murder, but it's more properly called spreading democracy. Muslims can only murder, and it's always cold-blooded. ........................... That's the story being told. Will most Americans investigate on their own, and decide on their own? Will they befriend an Islamic person? Or will they let "the media" tell them what to think? We know the answer. We've watched it play out since 9/11/2001.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Jimmy Montague said:

Everything that happens in the world -- Everything that happens in the world always gets twisted into a need for more laws to make more crimes illegal and more cops and more troops and more money for law enforcement and for national defense. If a reindeer farts in Lapland, that fart was caused by Muslim terrorists who capture the gas and use it to manufacture bombs for use in Somalia. Things like that. You know what I mean. Ain't it strange how it all works out?

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Truth Excavator said:

..... The scary thing is that calls for a muslim purge within the United States military from the reactionary and crusading right will only intensify, despite the fact that many soldiers are unconvinced of the threat from 'the enemy within'. And the fact that this type of discourse is being tolerated by the mass media shows that the prejudice against Islam will become even more popular. It's just the nature of the beast - endless days of this guy's picture being shown on television, with connotations of terrorism, and muslim ties, will produce an unavoidable fear against Islam. Even if the pundits state that there are no valid connections between Hasan and extremist Islam, it doesn't matter, because the image will stick in the half-conscious public mind. It is just sad.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Grandma Jefferson said:

Another Convenient Pretext: Kristallnacht, redux.... And when do we start herding them into camps? Because that is what is being called for here, and you can look for that drumbeat to ramp up continuously now. Lieberman, never a man to miss the moment for pimping his Zionist masters, already called for a Congressional "investigation" of this "terrorist" act. And, after all, the Japanese were "interned" during WWII, just to "keep the people safe" until we could nuke their old country into peace, so we already have precedent established. Or do we just gas them? As we all know, "things have changed since 9/11" and those innocent times of the old war, when we just locked people in camps, without necessarily starving and torturing them into madness and death are long gone. Whatever we do, we know the despicable moronic cowards and sheep who comprise the bulk of the citizenry here will watch, and applaud, and feel so much "safer", especially if millions of those evil infidels and their women, children, old, young, and sick are dragged away in the night to parts happily unknown. We live in interesting times, watching the collapse, not just of empire, but of civilization itself. Nothing will stop it, least of all the imbecilic cavemen who are pleased to call themselves "citizens" of the light of Democracy. I'm here every day, but am without words to comment on the madness that is engulfing the world, and us all. Thank you Chris, for your incomparable work, and unflagging dedication, to being the scribe of the end of the world as we all knew it.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +6

yankee 30 said:

... I would like to remind Mr. Varadarajan(an Indian immigrant)of an incident that took place on September 15, 2001, when one Frank Roque shot dead Balbir Singh Sodhi(an Indian immigrant) at his gas station in Mesa, Arizona. Frank Roque was reported to have shouted "I stand for America all the way" as he was arrested. Balbir Singh Sodhi was a Sikh and wore a turban. But, you know, whatever, they all look kinda the same, don't they? BANG!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +1

druff said:

	i wonder... what the political viability of internment camps would be at this point. if such a proposal were introduced. whaddya think? 44% of america in support? 54%?
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

... druff -- they're already built, and detention w/o habeas corpus is already in use. How many have complained about Ehren Watada (the most "newsworthy" of those held w/o proper detention process)? Jimmy's correct, everything is used as pretense or justification for a new scheme of legal and regulatory clampdown. Grandma Jefferson's correct, it's another Kristallnacht in the works. The frequency with which our Govt continues to emulate the Weimar Republic's 15-year long shift to the Third Reich/Nazi regime is almost surprising.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +1

ralph said:

... And the American people pay little or no attention to stuff in the WSJ or on Michelle Malkin. That is both good and bad, but what you choose to ignore it. Not one of the five people I heard on this subject (desk man at condo, taxi driver, pretzel vendor, office manager and gym attendant) had any collective hatred of Muslims or any interest in camp-like measures against them. You're building the usual straw man on this subject.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: -2

Chris Floyd said:

... Well, Ralph, it's not the desk man at the condo or the gym attendant who has the power to, say, pass internment laws or institute racial profiling. It's not the taxi driver who has a huge national forum where hatred can be amplified -- and reach those who, unlike your five folks, ARE hankering to hate somebody, collectively or otherwise. It's not the office manager who can chair Senate committees and call for Gitmo to stay open, etc. I'm not building a straw man -- I'm simply pointing to the dangerous implications that can follow from the high-profile hatemongers -- and the long-term, corrosive impact of fostering such an atmosphere. As I noted before, we've already seen this happen with torture -- once considered a heinous crime reserved only for Nazis and Commies, but now routinely lauded by high officials and Establishment mandarins.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +1

fred mendus said:

unprovable assumptions how is Hasan's act any different than any other act that is done for reasons the perpetrator cannot justify? for myself i do not believe respect need be given to people of any stripe, sect, race, group, etc. etc. who are operating on "faith". i am unwilling to give any more slack to any of these followers of the "abrahamic religions" who are tearing apart the western world. the "moderate" believers are only providing cover for the whackos. from the "hidden hand" of the market, to "revealed truth", people need to stop accepting unprovable assumptions.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +0

ralph said:

... CHRIS Would most Americans stand by, as did most Germans, if the worst scenarios of the hatemongers were enacted? Probably. Today, much of the right-wing "mongering" is as much theater as ideology or even passion. As with old Joe McCarthy--he didn't give a damn about Communists, it was a game. People suffered and our elites, in the corridors of powr and in the media, are still playing the game--pro-or con--because almost all substantive matters--political philosophy or other--are scorned or beyond reach. But people will suffer. The Right has an answer, your worst expectations, the Left offers...? Can't reach the Anmerican people with the mildest forms of humane socialism. Our mindset is one of business, of greed, dreaming of wealth, of rescues by Jesus, all but adult or independent thinking and enlightened self-interest. The corporations have done one of the most brilliant jobs of preparing us for "Fascism With a Friendly Face." And almost all of America played along. And the Jihad, even if waged by a segment of Muslims, will make it so much easier to get there. The last pieces of a political philosophy we had was that of FDR, and it died with LBJ. Since then a faux Left vs Right theater, and Americans watch (MSNBC vs Fox). Muslim bashers here, Jew-haters over there, both of them might turn out to be the winners, and most of the rest of us the losers. As always.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 11, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

	... Oh Boy. Say hello to O-Bot Ralph. In Ralph's world everything bad is the fault of Rethugs. Ralph worships FDR, a man who was as big a war profiteer as Prescott Bush. Luckily for Ralph, in his mind war profiteering is okay when done by Democrats. It's all about the tribe with Ralph. I think it's an unsubtle irony that the word "ralph" is slang for puking.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 11, 2009
Votes: -2