HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025033.jpg

FP: You write about how we like to talk of “Good Muslims” and how we are always on the eternal search for “moderate” Muslims (Khatami, Mousavi, Abbas, etc), while we stress how the “extremists” are the real problem and how “f ew” they really are. All of this is connected to the Control F actor. Enlighten us.

Siegel: The Control Factor seeks to have us feel in control of the situation. The easiest way to do this is to simply minimize the number of potential enemies. We have been lectured for years about how Islam is a “religion of peace” and that the violence we see (remember that we have already improperly limited the problem to violence) is the product of a small number of “crazies” (remember Hillary Clinton’s 50,000) who have distorted Islam. I call this the “Peaceful Muslim Disclaimer” as virtually everyone in the press and government has been bullied into making some statement of the kind to silence those who will pressure them that they are “Islamophobic” and Islam is being attacked. (These are the Islam hustlers who operate on the same principles that black race hustlers so effectively used to extort concessions over the last six decades or so).

Nobody has done any real work to support this proposition, nor is it clear exactly how it would be tested. My view is that the grammar “Islam is x” is itself problematic because Islam has expressed itself throughout history in a variety of fashions. It is more useful to talk in terms of how seriously engaged with Islam, the Koran and other texts, a Muslim is. What is significant is how Muslims today are using Islam and most of those who are in power either throughout a large territory or within a small community tend toward, if not fully advocate, the very supremacist ideas that we try to tell ourselves are reserved for the few ”extremists.” Presumably most Germans did not wish to see all Nazi atrocities carried out but in the end they fell in line because they had to. Those our politicians and press call the “extremists” are in one sense more accurately the “good” Muslims who ar e following their Islamic beliefs dutifully.

FP: Tell us how Western shame and guilt play into all of this.

Siegel: One of the dirty little secrets the Control Factor preys upon is that if we believe we control something we can comfort ourselves that we can change it. Remember the horror film- the threat has one purpose and that is to destroy you. You can not change it, talk it out of it, teach it alternatives or otherwise. That is what makes it so inherently frightening. If we can convince ourselves that we caused the threat to act the way it does we can maintain the secret hope that we can change it. Consequently, there is a tremendous attraction to blaming ourselves for the Islamic Enemy’s behavior. And we see this power in our readily accepting responsibility for terror- because of our occupation, our greedy quest for oil, our failure to extend a hand of “engagement,” Israel’s building settlements, our making videos that defa me Mohammed and so on. Again, the relationship is defined by the enemy blaming us for his actions and our accepting such responsibility.

Shelby Steele has written brilliantly about what he calls “white guilt” and outlines how whites during the 60's and thereafter were pressured into a transaction whereby in order to re-obtain a sense of moral authority they accepted blame for the condition of blacks and behaved as if guilty. Blacks were able to extract great concessions and whites were able to view themselves as morally restored and redeemed. At a certain point, however, the behavior takes on a life of its own and the narratives become deeply embedded in the culture and, as we can see today, difficult to uproot.

Western guilt is an extension of Steele’s notion. President Obama’s confessionals to the Arab world admitting that America has made “mistakes” and was not born a colonial pow er express this same tendency to appease through guilt. Hillary Clint on’s “reset” with Russia conveyed the same submissive request for a more acceptable response. In being guilty we presume the other party will recognize our contrition and respond in like kind. One of the Control Factor’s most devastating moves is employed- presuming the other is just like us and will respond the way we would. This is frequently how an enabler justifies his continuous support for an addict. The problem, however is that our Islamic Enemy is NOT like us and will not respond in like kind. Rather, as we repeatedly refuse to learn, appeasement invites more abuse from an enemy. This becomes the ”game of guilt;” it tends to expand to greater and greater consequences. Paradoxically, psychological defenses tend to create the very outcomes they seek to eliminate and it is no different here. It is a game we love to play but, unfortunately, the game gives us no rules for how to end it.

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025033