Who's Crazy?

Was Hitler crazy? He certainly believed in bizarre contra—factual conspiracy theories, had a deep interest in the occult, and is believed by many historians to have so ineptly and arbitrarily handled German military strategy and weapons development that he turned quite possible victory into defeat for the Third Reich.

Does it matter whether or not he was technically insane? Probably not. Judge him by his actions.

The same approach should be taken with those who seek to slay Jews, Americans, and infidels in the name of Islam. 

This week saw yet another incident of a young Muslim male traveling to a location where Jews can be found, and attempting to murder them. Omeed Aziz Popal, who drove his vehicle into pedestrians in San Francisco and Fremont, was quickly diagnosed by nearly all the media  as a lone, insane young man, a paranoid schizophrenic who had been previously hospitalized. Eyewitnesses who reportedly heard him say 'I am a terrorist' were all but ignored by San Francisco media, save for KTVU, Channel 2, the local Fox affiliate.

A pattern has been established for such incidents. Investors Business Daily today lists some items of recent memory:

— a Muslim immigrant from Pakistan went on a shooting rampage at a Seattle Jewish center. After coldly and deliberately shooting six women there, suspect Naveed Haq announced, "I'm a Muslim—American; I'm angry at Israel."

— the hit—and—run rampage last spring at the University of North Carolina in which another angry Muslim lashed out at infidels by hitting nine people with a big SUV he'd rented for the occasion.

— The Beltway snipers were Muslim converts who admired the 9—11 hijackers. They said their goal was to "terrorize" Washington. One wrote in his diary: "Islam. We will resist. We will conquer."

— the Muslim immigrant from Egypt who fatally shot two at Israel's El Al ticket counter at LAX


In all these cases, perpetrators were dismissed as deranged, and no terror dots were connected by the media. Officials have proceeded on the basis of theories of isolated acts of madmen.

No doubt part of this is due to what Patrick Poole calls 'kafir—phobia' — the suspicion that Americans are so prone to outbreaks of bigotry and violence that any identification of an Islamic basis for the acts would find innocent Muslims hanging from lampposts at the hands of mobs of drooling Christians and Jews.

A secondary motive is the defense of the multiculturalist agenda. Thus, we find San Francisco Chronicle star columnist C.W. Nevius turning Popal's rampage into a celebration of diversity.

It would be easy to see the tale of a crazed SUV driver who mowed down more than a dozen pedestrians Tuesday in San Francisco and Fremont as another outburst of seemingly random violence in a scary world. But there's another side to the story.

It is about the people on the streets of San Francisco of every race, ethnicity and background who rushed out of offices, apartments and cars to help the pedestrians struck down. They were mechanics from Hayes Auto Repair, nurses from UCSF, a drywall installer from the Western Addition and many others we will never know. [emphasis added]

The column managed to avoid printing Popal's actual Islamic—sounding name, but did use the acronym SUV three times, as if the vehicle (presumably of American manufacture) were the guilty party worthy of note.

Anyone who goes out and attempts to murder strangers is probably insane, in one sense or another. It is certainly not normal or rational behavior in mainstream American culture.

But what if a culture or subculture glorifies such individuals? What if, within such a group, it is considered quite rational behavior, in that it gains access to heaven, virgins, and glory?

Multiculturalists take it as a matter of faith that all cultures are equally valid, and that a diversity of cultures is a good thing. The last thing they would want to do is establish a system of cultural imperialism, in which the Anglo—American tradition, founded in the Judeo—Christian heritage, is granted normative status.

So if some of those celebrated diverse cultures produce numbers of people who believe that it is noble to slay strangers in the name of their faith, by multiculturalist standards, who are we to stand in judgment? Indeed, who are we to call them crazy?

Draw your own conclusions as to who, exactly, is really crazy?

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker.

Was Hitler crazy? He certainly believed in bizarre contra—factual conspiracy theories, had a deep interest in the occult, and is believed by many historians to have so ineptly and arbitrarily handled German military strategy and weapons development that he turned quite possible victory into defeat for the Third Reich.

Does it matter whether or not he was technically insane? Probably not. Judge him by his actions.

The same approach should be taken with those who seek to slay Jews, Americans, and infidels in the name of Islam. 

This week saw yet another incident of a young Muslim male traveling to a location where Jews can be found, and attempting to murder them. Omeed Aziz Popal, who drove his vehicle into pedestrians in San Francisco and Fremont, was quickly diagnosed by nearly all the media  as a lone, insane young man, a paranoid schizophrenic who had been previously hospitalized. Eyewitnesses who reportedly heard him say 'I am a terrorist' were all but ignored by San Francisco media, save for KTVU, Channel 2, the local Fox affiliate.

A pattern has been established for such incidents. Investors Business Daily today lists some items of recent memory:

— a Muslim immigrant from Pakistan went on a shooting rampage at a Seattle Jewish center. After coldly and deliberately shooting six women there, suspect Naveed Haq announced, "I'm a Muslim—American; I'm angry at Israel."

— the hit—and—run rampage last spring at the University of North Carolina in which another angry Muslim lashed out at infidels by hitting nine people with a big SUV he'd rented for the occasion.

— The Beltway snipers were Muslim converts who admired the 9—11 hijackers. They said their goal was to "terrorize" Washington. One wrote in his diary: "Islam. We will resist. We will conquer."

— the Muslim immigrant from Egypt who fatally shot two at Israel's El Al ticket counter at LAX


In all these cases, perpetrators were dismissed as deranged, and no terror dots were connected by the media. Officials have proceeded on the basis of theories of isolated acts of madmen.

No doubt part of this is due to what Patrick Poole calls 'kafir—phobia' — the suspicion that Americans are so prone to outbreaks of bigotry and violence that any identification of an Islamic basis for the acts would find innocent Muslims hanging from lampposts at the hands of mobs of drooling Christians and Jews.

A secondary motive is the defense of the multiculturalist agenda. Thus, we find San Francisco Chronicle star columnist C.W. Nevius turning Popal's rampage into a celebration of diversity.

It would be easy to see the tale of a crazed SUV driver who mowed down more than a dozen pedestrians Tuesday in San Francisco and Fremont as another outburst of seemingly random violence in a scary world. But there's another side to the story.

It is about the people on the streets of San Francisco of every race, ethnicity and background who rushed out of offices, apartments and cars to help the pedestrians struck down. They were mechanics from Hayes Auto Repair, nurses from UCSF, a drywall installer from the Western Addition and many others we will never know. [emphasis added]

The column managed to avoid printing Popal's actual Islamic—sounding name, but did use the acronym SUV three times, as if the vehicle (presumably of American manufacture) were the guilty party worthy of note.

Anyone who goes out and attempts to murder strangers is probably insane, in one sense or another. It is certainly not normal or rational behavior in mainstream American culture.

But what if a culture or subculture glorifies such individuals? What if, within such a group, it is considered quite rational behavior, in that it gains access to heaven, virgins, and glory?

Multiculturalists take it as a matter of faith that all cultures are equally valid, and that a diversity of cultures is a good thing. The last thing they would want to do is establish a system of cultural imperialism, in which the Anglo—American tradition, founded in the Judeo—Christian heritage, is granted normative status.

So if some of those celebrated diverse cultures produce numbers of people who believe that it is noble to slay strangers in the name of their faith, by multiculturalist standards, who are we to stand in judgment? Indeed, who are we to call them crazy?

Draw your own conclusions as to who, exactly, is really crazy?

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker.