"It's a kind of a psychosis..."

That was Philip Haney's sober conclusion, in an interview with Alex Jones back in May of 2016.

I've written about the fine analyst Philip Haney before, in two essays:

Better Cops Watch: Oh irony of ironies...

and

Frank Gaffney's gaffe.

In this interview with Alex Jones, he said the following:

"We've been handcuffed by rules of engagement to the point where we're virtually... it's almost impossible to do our job..."

At this point, Alex Jones pipes in with typical insinuations of conspiracy theory:

"Why do you think that's being done?  I mean, for me, it's beyond political correctness.  Why would Europe let 5 million of these people in, in the last three years?  This is suicidal."

Haney replies, perhaps wisely not taking the bait to go down the conspiracy logic, and keeps to the problem of the problem which, if it's not a conspiracy, points to deep dysfunction and disablement in the capacity of Westerners to reason about an alarmingly growing threat:

"Yes, it's a kind of a psychosis.  Natan Scharnsky has a premise that's very true: 'If you lose your identity as a person or as a nation, you will die.  You cannot function if you lose your identity.'  And that's what we're on the verge of doing, if we're not careful."

Alex Jones again, now ostensibly contradicting a conspiracy theory:

 "We don't have an identity, except political correctness, that's just a bunch of... mindless fluff!"

Then Haney again:

"Well, I would like to recommend the listeners to go to the 2012 FBI Touchstone document, their training guidelines, where in paragraph 1 it says that even though an individual is affiliated with a known terrorist organization, you are basically not allowed to assume that that person himself might be a terrorist."

Of course, the "psychosis" -- or, rather, mass psychosis -- isn't merely about America's intelligence community being outrageously remiss in pursuing the danger of Islam, nor merely the way Europe and the UK have been handling the Mohammedan invasion in the last few years, but rather the full catastrophe of politically correct multi-culturalism rendering the entire West disabled in the face of a global revival of Islamic Jihad, and strangely incapable of thinking and talking about this issue without going through contortions of logic and pangs of anxiety over being "bigoted" and "racist".

To get back to the first quote above --

"We've been handcuffed by rules of engagement to the point where we're virtually... it's almost impossible to do our job..."

-- unfortunately, it seems that Donald Trump is not discriminating in his selection of his Cabinet between those who seem to be tough and blustery (General "Mad Dog" Mattis) and those who have a surer handle on the problem of Islam as it actually is.  About Trump's choice of Mattis for Defense Secretary, there have been three critical analyses, by Andrew Bostom, by Debbie Schlussel, and by Diana West.  West, in particular, points to how Mattis in terms of his history and military culture seems to be deep into the disastrous COIN rules of engagement which have hamstrung the American military for the nearly 15 years of the OBushma administrations, transforming it virtually into a globalist enablement of a pan-Arab Spring.

At any rate, The approximately 19-minute video interview is very good, and I recommend it for my readers..