Even in Brussels, blame the victim by David C. Stolinsky, MD

Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Friday, April 1, 2016

In the United States, we play baseball. In the United Kingdom, they play cricket. But everywhere, people play blame-the-victim. Anyone can play — no skill or knowledge is required. It’s easy to play — there are no rules.

Most of all, it’s satisfying. It makes us feel good about ourselves while doing absolutely nothing. It relieves us of responsibility to do anything for the victims, or even to feel sorry for them. It makes us feel superior to them without having to demonstrate superiority. It makes us feel safe without having to do anything to make us safe.

Animal attacks

This generation was taught to respect animal life more than human life. When joggers are attacked by mountain lions, or when pet dogs and cats are carried off by coyotes, someone is sure to say, “They were here first.” In fact, the coyote’s range has increased markedly since Coyote with "legitimate grievances"humans arrived. In fact, in many places we were here before they were — for example, New York’s Central Park. In fact, single-celled organisms were here first. Everything and everyone else is an invader.

Some time ago, a colleague told me that she had driven her son to school for early-morning band practice. Coyotes were roaming the schoolyard, so parents kept their kids in the cars. Then teachers began arriving, and they too remained in their cars. Finally the coyotes decided to saunter away, and everyone entered the school. The coyotes — not the teachers, not the students, not the parents — were in charge. If we allow wild animals to take charge, can civilization continue? Can we even call ourselves civilized?

Criminal attacks

When we hear that a man was robbed at gunpoint, we tend to ask, “What was he doing in that part of town?” When we hear that a woman was raped, we tend to say, “I’ll bet she was wearing skimpy clothes and going to cheap bars.” When we hear of domestic violence, we tend to speculate, “There probably were three families living in one apartment.”

True, we can reduce our risk of violent crime by avoiding dangerous situations. But some people can’t — they are forced by circumstances to live or work in high-crime areas. Our response should not be to feel superior, but to work to reduce the crime rate in all parts of town.

Besides, our risk is only somewhat less. Domestic violence and home-invasion robberies occur in the “best” parts of town. Thoughtful people would search their own hearts for the bitterness and anger that can be the basis of violence, rather than sit in smug self-righteousness while looking down on the violent “others.”

If we live in upscale neighborhoods and work in prestigious office buildings, we may feel no need to own a gun. But that does not give us the right to tell those who must live or work in high-crime areas that they cannot own a gun. Lack of empathy for the less fortunate is a lousy qualification to be called “liberal” and “progressive.” It sounds a lot more like elitist and snobbish.

Terrorist attacks

When news broke from Brussels of the bombing of the airport and subway station, I wondered how long it would be before talking heads began blabbering about the terrorists’ “legitimate grievances.” I didn’t have long to wait.

Barely a day had passed after the terrorist attacks when liberal pundits began blaming the Belgians. It was their fault that many Muslim immigrants failed to assimilate and become good Belgians. It was their fault that the immigrants didn’t accept European values. No, it wasn’t the immigrants fault for refusing to become Belgians, and on the contrary insisting that Belgians adapt to them.

Belgium is barely larger than Massachusetts and has a population of only 11 million. If we can explain away terrorism against so small and inoffensive a nation, we can condone terrorism against anyone, anywhere. Moral compass? We don’t need no stinkin’ moral compass. We’re progressives!

If we blame the victim, we absolve ourselves of responsibility to identify the guilty, much less to blame the guilty, and even less to punish the guilty and prevent a recurrence.

Some anti-American fanatics blamed the office workers in the World Trade Center for their own deaths on 9/11, comparing them to “Nazis.” Even if the stockbrokers had been committing financial shenanigans, what about the hundreds of maintenance workers and visitors, not to mention the firefighters and police who died rescuing others? Were they “Nazis,” too?

Equally illogical were those who blamed all Americans for 9/11. We “brought it on ourselves” because of our “meddling” foreign policy. According to this theory, Muslims are justified in crashing airliners filled with passengers into buildings filled with workers, if the Muslims disagree with our foreign policy. History shows that this notion is absurd. Muslim hostility began centuries ago and is based not on our current foreign policy, but on the fundamental incompatibility of Muslim and Western cultures.

But the notion is also racist. For decades, Americans have been irritated by French foreign policy. Yet no one suggests that this would justify our crashing Air France airliners into Paris office buildings. Mexicans suffer from widespread poverty and government corruption. Yet no one expects Mexicans to blow themselves up in airports, hotels, nightclubs, and pizzerias.

Of course not. Americans and Mexicans are far too civilized to commit such atrocities to avenge their “legitimate grievances.” After all, everyone has “legitimate grievances.” I know I do. But something restrains us from mass murder. It’s called a conscience, based on good values. Obsessing about “legitimate grievances” while ignoring values is getting us blown to pieces in airports and subway stations.

But what about Muslims? Do they have such touchy hair-triggers, and so little self-control, that a policy with which they disagree turns them into homicidal maniacs? Really? People who believe that are racists. They, not the workers in the Twin Towers, resemble Nazis. They are so eager to blame the victims and exonerate the terrorists that they fail to realize the racist implications of what they are saying. If we wish not to be racists, we will treat everyone alike. We will demand the same behavior from Muslims that we demand from everyone else – disagree, fine; argue, okay; insult, if you must; but threaten or employ violence, never.

It’s not a problem of race or national origin — it’s a problem of values, in this case based on religious beliefs. If we and the Europeans continue admitting many thousands of immigrants whose value system allows, and even demands, murdering those who disagree, then our days as free nations are numbered. But instead of doing anything effective, we waste precious time playing game after game of blame-the-victim.

Blame-the-victim is a really entertaining, satisfying game:

● It requires no exertion, so it pleases the lazy.

● It requires no skill, so it pleases the clumsy.

● It requires no knowledge, so it pleases the ignorant.

● It has no rules, so it pleases the undisciplined.

● It requires us to do nothing to increase our safety, but merely to feel safer.

● All it requires is egotism, which elevates us above the victims — not by real achievements, but merely by imagining ourselves to be superior.

● All it requires is lack of empathy, which allows us to attribute imaginary faults to the victims. So we need not feel sorry for them, much less try to help them or to prevent future victimization.

● All it requires is subconscious admiration for predators, whether they are ordinary criminals, terrorists, or wild animals. Some people envy their ruthlessness and strength.

● All it requires is subconscious fear of being like the victims. Some people despise their vulnerability and weakness.

● All it requires is moral idiocy, which prevents us from distinguishing terrorist from activist, aggressor from defender, guilty from innocent, predator from prey, or criminal from victim.

● All it requires is apathy in the presence of evil. And that is easiest of all.

What a deal! Where else can you find a game that is so satisfying, yet so easy to play? Plus it’s really cool, in both senses. It’s popular with the trendy, self-anointed “elite.” And it demonstrates cold indifference to the problems of the innocent and the vulnerable.

Written by David C. Stolinsky, MD

Dr. Stolinsky is a retired medical oncologist and co-author of Firearms: A Handbook for Health Professionals, published by The Claremont Institute. For other articles written by Dr. Stolinsky, check out our search feature on this website.

The photos used to illustrate this article appeared in the original article posted on www.Stolinsky.com, on March 26, 2016. Copyright ©2016 Stolinsky.com.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (5 votes)
Comments on this post

Obama's Motives in Ignoring terrorists' motivation

The article is quite accurate in detailing the "blame the victim." However, what is their reason for ignoring the obvious and so often stated motivation of the killer in order to blame the victim?

Obama has clearly demonstrated his love of Islam throughout his presidency. From his denial of Muslim terrorism, to his immediate defense of Islam after every one of their murders of us, to his anger at Republicans instead of the Muslim terrorists, to his giveaway of $1.5 billion of American taxpayer dollars to a Iran, whom even the US State Department acknowledges is a sponsor of terror to the freeing of billions more in the scandalous Iran dirty deal, to his “Arab Spring” aiding Muslim terrorists who hate the US to overthrow Gaddafi, to the pullout of American forces that allowed ISIS to take much of Iraq and Syria by aiding Muslims there who hate us and have murdered Americans in Bangladesh and so many Europeans across that continent; Obama has shown is adoration of all things Islam. Moreover, allowing ISIS to exist over there ensures the motivation for so many Americans traveling to join their army of demons or remaining on US soil to kill us here. Dropping an occasion bomb every two weeks is not waging war.

Yes, Obama surely loves Islam, even when it kills us.

When an Islamic terrorist murders 49 Americans in Orlando, the motivation recorded by 911 operators, overheard by hostages, and with his postings on the internet are ignored. Obama called it: “an act of terror and hate,” while ignoring the motivation of the reason for the murders, which the killer had made so abundantly clearly.

To Obama the religion that taught the murderer to hate and kill the victims naturally had nothing to do with the murders of 49 Americans. Note that it took 13 years for Obama to let go of the illusion of “workplace violence” being the cause of the Ft Hood murder of 13 victims by an avowed Muslim terrorist, and even then in December 2015 he still only acknowledged the act of terrorism, not the motivation of Islam. Rather, Obama and the Democrat media blame the tool used and ignore the stated motivation of Muslim terrorists in San Bernardino, Orlando, Little Rock, Oklahoma, Tennessee, although the killers themselves told us their reason for their murders.

In any crime committed wherein the criminal tells you his motivation, records his motivation, commits the crime on tape and before many witnesses; this confession of the crime, recording of the crime, and act of the crime provides ample proof beyond any reasonable doubt, except to those who seek to purposefully deny the proof.

In July this year when a black racist murders 5 white Dallas police officers, his own racist rants witnessed by police officers on the scene and stated by the black police chief of Dallas are ignored by Obama and this obsequious press, as are Micah Johnson’s devotion to racist groups advocating violence against whites and/or police, such as nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party. The same thing occurred in Baton Rouge when another racist, Gavin Long, murdered 3 police officers, two of whom were also white. He too had expressed devotion to the racist Nation of Islam and Black Nationalism.

Murdering anyone because of their race is wrong. Obama immediately grasped this when the racist Roof murdered 9 innocent church members who probably would have helped the young man, had he not murdered them. While pushing his gun control theme, Obama understood and acknowledged that race was involved in his speech to black members of the church. This same racial motive eluded the befuddled Obama in both Dallas and Baton Rouge. But the victims were white in the latter cases.

About the Dallas shootings Obama stated “It’s very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter. I’ll leave that to the psychologists and people who study these types of incidents.” In Baton Rouge Obama again could not ascertain “the precise motivations of the killer,” despite the killers in both cases stating the exact reason for their murders.

What drives people to blame the victim? (1) This diverts from the real culprits. If one is sympathetic to Islam, as President Obama has so clearly demonstrated himself to be, this approach mitigates damages done by the actual guilty Muslim terrorists. Remember, for over 7 years of his presidency, Obama has repeatedly told American citizens that the people who say they kill us in the name of their religion before they kill us are not killing us in the name of their religion. This is totally nonsensical, yet it will be repeated as though it were legitimate by the lapdog media.

After the Dallas murders by the acknowledged racist Johnson, Obama blamed the police. “Police departments will acknowledge that, just like the rest of us, they are not perfect; that insisting we do better to root out racial bias is not an attack upon cops.” This statement was made right after the attack upon cops. But it is their fault, I guess, since Obama pronounces the same police department headed by a black police chief and whom were attacked by a black racist are really at fault due to their “racial bias.” Note that Obama never acknowledged the “racial bias” of the murderer here or in Baton Rouge. Obama, like many of the media, diverts attention away from the motive of the murderer when he is like one of them: black, Muslim, or a radical leftist (Bill Ayers).

(2) Liberal guilt. I think at the root of the majority of blame the victims is liberal guilt. When the victim is white and the guilty not white, then poverty, the gun, incarceration, the gun, or even white people themselves somehow to blame due to some “collective” guilt, "white privilege, or some other made up diversion. Anyone or nearly anything can be blamed, except for the actual criminals who committed these horrendous act. These good liberals have bought the propaganda preached by the radical leftist professors and disseminated by the left winged media.

There are likely more motivations that will continue to be ignored for crimes, which have not been discussed, but I rest my case here at present.

Islam and progressives

Dido (GOPUSA): Liberal-progressives are so hateful of America that they are willing to capitulate and submit to Islam than return our country to the traditional roots and the ideals of the Founders.

I can understand their cowardice and attempted betrayal to the Soviets during the cold war so that in their tortuous thinking a generation ago they were willing to be “red rather than dead,” since their ideology led there.

But with Islam it is the complete opposite; yet they are willing to go there and accelerate the demise of the West with their undying hatred of America!