“This is the very essence of political correctness. It serves as a means to conduct the psychic decapitation of any potential who might seek to unify Americans on the basis of shared religion,culture or race. Americans were to be kept fragmented by this radical individualism and subjected to a national condition of cognitive dissonance, meaning massive confusion over beliefs and values. Then america could be treated as one psychopathic ward and controlled accordingly.”

Their jihadist imperative to spread their deen by the sword is that which needs to be ‘feared’ or at the very least serve as a cause for concern. Islam need not be banned but, so long as jihadism remains its primary tenet, it must be viewed through the lens of realism and hence be under intense scrutiny. The military does not have to place a blanket ban on all Muslims but on those, like Hasan, who repeatedly and vociferously proclaim their affinity for jihad and disdain for America. Those ought to be excluded and, indeed, they would willingly exclude themselves, as Hasan attempted to do by appealing to be discharged.

“If knowledge is a weapon – maybe we should use it, and learn that Muslims are more ideologically aligned with conservative principles than any other people group out there – include in that their disdain of the preemptive war doctrine – a favorite outlet for islamophobic pseudo-conservatives.”

Mene, while you are right to demand the application of knowledge (and history) to the issue, Islam is not all that ideologically aligned with American conservatism. For instance, is theocracy conservative?

“So now the Marxist senior officials support Islam? Hmmm. I’m not really seeing that translate in reality. How exactly is this so?”

I presume it is through the preferences of both groups for ‘permanent revolution’.

So senior officials should have expressed fear of Islam? On what basis is Islam to be ‘feared’? According to Christianity (apparently the target in the cross hairs here) what is it that casts out fear? Frankly I’m a little tired of baseless fear-mongering. What are your solutions – ban certain religions in America? Expel all Muslim citizens? Cage them?

If knowledge is a weapon – maybe we should use it, and learn that Muslims are more ideologically aligned with conservative principles than any other people group out there – include in that their disdain of the preemptive war doctrine – a favorite outlet for islamophobic pseudo-conservatives.

“The Ft. Hood killings raise an interesting question: why would Marxists of any variety come to the support of Islam? ”

So now the Marxist senior officials support Islam? Hmmm. I’m not really seeing that translate in reality. How exactly is this so? They continue to bomb their homelands – to a greater extent under Obama; they continue to profile them collectively here in the USA; they promise not justice, but CONVICTION in upcoming trials of their alleged (and tortured) masterminds; they continue unwavering support with guns and bombs and sanctions against a generations old refugee camp cram packed with unarmed civilians…

So how are these Marxist’s coming to the support of Islam?

I’m going with Webster Tarpley’s assessment on this Ft. Hood thing – its the only thing out there that has any ring of objectiveness to it.

Just think about this statement: “…When Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik government in Hungary in 1919, one of his first acts was introducing sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that destroying traditional sexual morals would be a major step toward destroying Western culture itself…”

Sexual education is a step toward destroying Western culture ? From my point of view, any one holding the opinion that Western values need to feed on ignorance to survive does not have a very confident appreciation of Western culture.

Surely, our Western way of life need not rely on ignorance, vindictiveness, and xenophobia to flourish.

For the same reason that there has been no objection to the debasement of the currency over the past century. Some may have welcomed the federal reserve due to the aspirations of politicians and their constituents that can come fruition under a fiat dollar. Perhaps, likewise, there are residual benefits to accepting PC while not being of the aggrieved groups that PC stands to benefit.

“[PC] was designed with the specific intent of bringing about Western Civilization’s downfall….”

Perhaps/regardless, but how then do you then explain what can seem Western Civilization’s fairly if not greatly welcoming embrace of it?

But PC does not mean “political civility”, it means “political correctness”, a construct rife with cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism, as Lind has amply demonstrated, was designed with the specific intent of bringing about Western Civilization’s downfall and ushering in the dictatorship of the proletariat by the “transvaluation of values”. Against this background, it is clear that PC actually undermines the “political civility” which you hold in such high esteem.

Such civility is urgently needed in a world where people of different creeds and cultures are intermingling like they have never done before. There is really no choice but to use that approach if we want decent people from all sides of national and religious divides to reach out to each other to ensure a peaceful world order.

In my view, there is really no other alternative.

No, our society ought not be willingly blind to those that obviously seek to do it ill–namely, jihadists, who would still be attacking us even if we reached the pitch of PC. Pantagruel, what would you have done if you witnessed Hasan’s powerpoint presentation wherein he explicated in vivid detail what he thinks of infidels?

Any movement can dissolve into silliness, and on many campuses in the 80s and 90s there was lots of PC silliness. A little silliness is a small price to pay for a more just society.

A few millenia….of wars, invasions, pillage, and more recently, environmental destruction.

Would it not be time to try something new? Like doing what Christians believe Jesus asked:

“…Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..”

(He did not say “…Do unto others as they do unto you..” )

You wrote “…no society ought to be willingly blind…”

Agreed, but blind to what ? I say no society should be blind to …the futility of mistrust, and to the power of civility and respect.