Keeping with the new direction of the Curious George books, a sequel to It’s Ramadan, Curious George has been announced. The proposed book cover is shown below:
Ockham’s Razor – Since October 2001 – by Scott Kirwin
Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category.
Keeping with the new direction of the Curious George books, a sequel to It’s Ramadan, Curious George has been announced. The proposed book cover is shown below:
I found out about the shooting in Orlando while I was out of town. I watched on my smartphone as the body count doubled, and the major news outlets avoided using the term “Islam”. The “Religion-That-Must-Not-Be-Named” continued so when President Obama spoke and pushed banning guns as the solution, choosing to ignore the so-called Religion of Peace’s role in the slaughter.
How many people have to die before liberals admit they are wrong about Islam?
I avoided social media until today, but as I expected my mostly liberal friends followed the President’s lead, focusing on the type of rifle used instead of the terror ties, the shooter’s father’s belief that g-d will punish the gays, or that he attended a mosque where a visiting Imam preached gays should be executed.
As an ex-liberal myself I recognize the change is tough. 9-11 was the moment that I understood I had a choice: I could continue believing the fantasy that Islam wasn’t the problem, or I could accept the evidence to the contrary. 3000 people in 3 locations within 2 hours was enough evidence for me, and for weeks afterward I struggled with changing a lifetime of beliefs to fit the post-911 reality.
I saw the posts by ex-lovers and friends-for-life, and struggled with how to respond. Europe has some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet yet they didn’t stop full auto AK-47s from being used by Islamists to kill non-believers there last year. The recent attack in Brussels airport used bombs, which I would point out are also illegal in Europe. I didn’t point out that if banning works, why are people dying of heroin overdoses in my county? Liberals seem fixated on the AR-15 as being an “assault rifle” yet used a picture shared from Huffington Post showing an AR-15 that had been photoshopped into having an impossibly short (and illegal) barrel. And no mention of Islam anywhere.
I shut the site down. What’s the point in opening up myself to harassment from people who honestly don’t know what they are talking about? Few have ever fired a gun and I doubt that only a handful know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto. If I’m going to be beaten up online I’d prefer it to be done by someone who at least knows what they are talking about. I’m too scarred from previous attempts to try to educate these people and help them change their minds. If 50 dead gays won’t do it, I’m not sure what will.
Accepting that the threat isn’t from an inanimate object but a twisted idea in the form of world religion is pretty daunting. Blaming a scary looking gun is so much easier than blaming a world religion yet refusing to do so is like a drunk looking for his car keys under a street light because that’s where he can see them. It’s magical thinking that has no bearing on reality. So you ban AR-15s, how would that have stopped the Charlie Hebdo or the Bataclan Theater attacks in Paris? There’s a whole airplane missing in the Mediterranean and another that was blown out of the sky over the Sinai, how would the ban stop that? And what about the two men kissing that set him off. Should we ban that? How far down the slippery slope do we go before we realize we’ve realized we’ve traded freedom for security and gotten neither, to paraphrase Ben Franklin?
“Enough with the obfuscation. The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion.” The “islamophobe” behind those remarks? Liberal Daily Beast writer Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim who recognizes “(j)ust as we encourage others to actively denounce racism wherever they see it, so too must we actively denounce Islamic theocratic views wherever we find them. Enough with the special pleading. Enough with the denial.”
It’s been said that conservatives think that liberals are idiots while liberals think conservatives are evil. The silence after these terror attacks, the refusal to see them for what they are and to accept the clear motives of the attackers at face value, and the usage of the carnage to further their own political agendas instead of preventing attacks (how can you stop it if you can’t even name it?) not to mention the promotion of gun-free buildings and the disarmament of the public isn’t stupid, it’s evil.
How many people have to die before liberals admit they are wrong about Islam?
It’s evil that liberals support flooding the country with people who follow the religion of a 7th century warlord then blame guns when they decide to kill in the name of their religion. It’s evil that liberals call anyone who questions the tenets of that religion an “islamophobe”, equating the questioning with a form of racism. It’s evil that liberals seek to turn gays into martyrs for their cause by disarming them and forcing them to rely upon the police, often the same homophobic force that arrested them for indecency and sodomy and raided their hangouts just a few years ago.
And that’s why liberals are evil.
In a prior post I wrote about the attachment of the word “phobia” to terms to describe those who dislike other groups, e.g. Islamophobia or Occidentophobia. “Phobia is commonly defined as “a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no real danger.” Tell the Belgians and Parisians that their fears of Islam are irrational and that it poses “little or no real danger.”
We don’t apply the term “cancerphobia” to those who worry about the disease because if you live long enough it is likely you will come down with it. Being afraid of cancer, especially if you have smoked in your life, isn’t irrational. So I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Europeans are irrationally afraid of Islam when they suffer terrorist attacks, and while more than half of the Muslims surveyed believe the West is at war with their religion.
The usage of such an attachment is based on the notion we can trace back to the writings of Erasmus who believed that ignorance was the base of all conflict, and that if both sides learned about the other they would stop fighting. So the term Islamophobia makes sense because under this assumption people fear Islam because they don’t understand it and don’t know Muslims. Once they learned about Islam and befriended Muslims they would no longer fear them.
This is comforting because it places the power to change in the hands of the person fearing Muslims and Islam. Muslims don’t have to do anything. It is up to us to learn about their ways and as we do they will learn about us and see that we aren’t so bad and stop wanting to kill us. This is the intellectual equivalent of a battered spouse who believes she controls her abusive husband. If she understands him and loves him even more he will see she is a person worth loving and will stop beating her.
But an outsider knows such a situation ends in one of two ways. Either someone leaves or someone dies.
The Danish writer who coined the term Occidentophobia to apply to Muslims who hate the West fails to recognize this deadly assumption. We don’t talk about Judeophobia – we talk about anti-Semitism. We don’t call Klansmen African-Americanophobes, we call them racists. Islamic terrorists aren’t ignorant about the West. They know who we are and they hate us anyway. So using a “phobia” term is misleading. And limiting their hatred to the Occident ignores terror attacks elsewhere in the world.
Jihadis aren’t at war with the West, they are at war with the modern world and everything it stands for: gender and sexual equality, personal liberty, economic freedom, and the separation of church and state. Their true goal is to reverse Time and bring the world back to the 7th Century as it was when the Prophet Mohammed ruled Arabia. This isn’t irrational fear of the West but a rational hatred from the Islamic perspective of modern life and everything associated with it.
This hatred is so expansive that I can’t think of a word that accurately captures it. It’s a hatred of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, of Science and Reason itself. It’s a hatred of all 4/5ths of humanity not Muslim, and the fraction of Muslims who are heretics (like the Shi’a). It’s a hatred of all world history prior to the birth of the Prophet, which is why the Taliban blew up statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan and Isis destroyed Roman temples in Palmyra.
But just because there isn’t a word to sum it up means we should make do with one like Occidentophobia. It’s always better to have nothing than something that misleads, as this term surely does.
Dutch writer Leon De Winter has an interesting article at Politico.EU which compares European attitudes towards Muslim migrants with Muslim migrants attitudes towards the West. In the process he coins a new term: Occidentophobia to “expres(s) a refusal to accept the essential concepts of life in the West,” in short a hatred of the West and all it stands for. It’s an ugly term in many ways. Occident is an antiquated term and phobia is an abused term thanks to the term Islamophobia which De Winter is trying to counter. Phobia is commonly defined as “a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no real danger.” Tell the Belgians and Parisians that their fears of Islam are irrational and that it poses “little or no real danger.”
But De Winter does make a case against those particularly on the Left that seek to “blame the victim” – the West – for hatred expressed by Muslims towards it. He cites a December 2013 study by Professor Ruud Koopmans of the Berlin Social Science Center ,“Fundamentalism and out-group hostility (PDF).” The study interviewed 9,000 people throughout Europe. Some key slides from Koopmans’s study appear below.
The first slide combines answers from three questions: “Christians [Muslims] should return to the roots of Christianity [Islam],” “There is only one interpretation of the Bible [the
Koran] and every Christian [Muslim] must stick to that”, and “The rules of the Bible [the Koran] are more important to me than the laws of [survey country]”.
The next question: “I don’t want to have homosexuals as friends”, “Jews cannot be trusted”, “Muslims aim to destroy Western culture” (for Christian natives)/“Western countries are out to destroy Islam” (for Muslims).
De Winters writes Occidentophobia “expresses a refusal to accept the essential concepts of life in the West. Young men like the perpetrators of the Brussels attacks have refused to embrace the social codes of Belgian life. They were raised on the idea that their religious ethics trump the ethics of the infidels (close to non-existent, in their eyes, in any case).”
The survey supports Michael Totten’s conclusion that Europe has done a poor job of integrating their Muslim minorities, and allowing these attitudes to fester. “There are five times as many Muslims in the United States as there are in Belgium, but the United States is not a hotbed of homegrown Islamic extremism. We’ve suffered some acts of terrorism since 9/11—the mass shooting in San Bernardino, the Boston Marathon bombing and the massacre at Fort Hood. If American Muslims and European Muslims were equally predisposed to jihadism, we’d experience roughly five times as many attacks. But we don’t, mostly because Muslims feel more at home in the United States than they do in Europe.”
De Winter concludes, “What did “we” do to “them”? We opened up our cities, our houses, our wallets. And in our secular temples of progress — our metro stations and airports and theaters — their sons are killing themselves, and taking our sons and daughters with them. There is nothing for which we need to apologize. “Occidentophobia” originated in the Muslim community. We need to demand they abandon it.”
Perhaps a better solution would be for Europe to remove the suicidal politically correct elite currently governing it in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. Then perhaps it could implement sensible immigration reforms based on politically incorrect facts such as collecting money from the state without working for it isn’t healthy for young able bodied men regardless of religion, and tell them that their recreating the societies in Europe they escaped from in the Middle East and North Africa will not make them happy.
But as Totten suggests with his Tom Wolfe quip “the dark night of fascism is forever descending on the United States and landing in Europe”, the European solution will likely involve jackboots and shaved headed thugs. Europe has suffered two large scale terrorist attacks in 6 months. At this rate it won’t take much to turn even the most open-minded and non-racist European into a tacit supporter of the far right.
What this should teach us in the US is that our own elite, which looks towards the European elite for its inspiration, needs to be resisted at every turn.
Take this article and substitute the words “gun owner” or “gun owning” for Muslim and Islam.
WASHINGTON — Cities across the USA are preparing for the next phase that inevitably follows a gun attack: anti-gun backlash.
Across social media, in public forums on college campuses, and even in mainstream political rhetoric from presidential candidates, anger over the deadly gun attacks in Brussels has spawned discontent and suspicion directed at gun owner groups.
The aftermath of an attack “is always a difficult time for gun owners in the United States,” said Nabil Shaikh, a leader of the Gun Owner Students Association at Princeton University.
“On Princeton’s campus, students took to anonymous forums like Yik Yak to comment that there are gun owners at Princeton who are radical and would therefore condone yesterday’s attacks,” Shaikh said. “These comments not only are appalling and inaccurate but also threaten the well-being of gun owning students.”
Unlike in Belgium and Paris following the November gun attacks, the backlash in the U.S. is not as confrontational.
Europe has seen occasional anti-gun rallies in Flemish cities such as Antwerp and Ghent. Some gun owner leaders have accused police in Europe of overtly targeting gun owning communities in lockdowns and raids of homes.
“The average gun owner still feels intimidated, still feels scared, still feels insecure.”
Khusro Elley, Chappaqua, N.Y.
Gun owner communities in the U.S. face opposition more in the form of rhetoric — but in an election year, such rhetoric can lead to sweeping change.
The Failure of Gun Control in Europe
Since March 2012 there have been 7 terrorist attacks in France involving illegal guns plus 8 more attacks using knives and guns, killing a total of 162 people and injuring 414. As Adam Taylor writing for the Washington Post noted a day after the recent Paris massacres, France has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe, yet “(d)espite these strict laws, France is awash in guns.” Taylor states currently the call for citizens to demand legal access to firearms for self-protection “doesn’t have much support in France,” but he doesn’t provide evidence for this so I’m left wondering whether the French feel the same after replacing Israel as the destination of choice for every jihadi with an AK-47.
Every gun control advocate bears within him or her three competing yet irreconcilable facts: Government prohibition is no guarantee of elimination – as verified by the presence of prostitutes and heroin in society. All citizens do not follow the law. The police/military cannot be everywhere in a free society. As a result of these facts people who follow the law and are made defenseless by the Law end up shot point blank at a rock concert in Paris where the attackers know they won’t face resistance.
It wasn’t always this way. Europe’s gun control frenzy only took hold after World War I, and has even been implicated as contributing to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany, a fact which the American Left vehemently denies. Prior to World War I even European men were expected to protect themselves and their families and to provide assistance to the State when threatened, a tradition that the Swiss maintain today.
Terrorism is at its core a very logical and rational process. Terrorists will always seek out “soft targets” that are undefended because terrorists are very poor at improvisation. They need predictability in order to achieve their aims of causing the most casualties with the manpower and materials at hand. An armed victim shooting back changes the calculus of the attack, as the unarmed victims of the Aug 2015 failed train massacre proved.
France, and Europe as a whole, has now reached a point where it must decide whether it is prepared to accept the deaths of its unarmed citizens – given that protecting every soft target from every Air France flight to every Jewish deli is impossible, or provide its citizens with the means of their own self-defense.
I am realistic. I fully expect there to be more attacks, many more dead before Europe awakens to the need to arm its citizenry and reverse decades of failed gun control ideology. I wish them luck in the meantime and hope that the French are the first to awaken from their self-imposed coma, stand up and fight back.
I’ve read many viewpoints about last month’s attack in Paris by jihadis, but one viewpoint I haven’t seen is a good explanation about where they got the guns. Contrast that to the US where it seems every shooting that makes headlines always ends up with Obama making a speech with the line “we must do something” about guns in the US. The liberals then gleefully try to paint every gun owner as the shooter’s accomplice.
France has some of the strictest gun controls in the world yet these laws haven’t stopped jihadis from getting a hold of fully automatic AK-47s (a very rare item here in the USA). It’s not just last month’s attacks. The attack a few months ago thwarted on a French train by American soldiers on vacation was with a jihadi wielding an AK-47. The Charlie Hebdo massacres and the Jewish Delicatessen massacres also were done by men with full auto AK-47s.
Gun owners have said that if you take guns away from legal gun owners only criminals will have guns and France is proof of that. Meanwhile the American gun-grabbing Left has moved on and is positively giddy over the so-called “Planned Parenthood Attack” (in which oddly enough no one at PP was killed). They now can demonize legal gun owners with impunity while ignoring the inconvenient truth of the abject failure of gun control in France to protect the French people.
I’ve recently returned from a long vacation in Rome Italy, a city that I had never been to and had only seen through the eyes of the great historians Suetonius, Livy and Cassius Dio. Recently I’ve become an otaku on all things ancient Roman, so it was easy for me to spend time walking in a city where every few minutes a piece of that history comes into view. Sure the major attractions like the Colosseum and the Forum are impressive, but so are smaller sites like the Theater of Marcellus, an ancient Roman amphitheater capped by Renaissance era apartments, and the Largo di Torre Argentina, ruins of 4 ancient temples that host a no-kill cat shelter.
While not an overpowering presence, Italian soldiers stood every few blocks bearing holstered Beretta 92FS sidearms and SCAR 17 automatic rifles. A fan of both weapons I resisted the urge to tell them how much I particularly love the Beretta line of weapons. Given their no-nonsense appearance it was clear to all, even idiot foreigners like me, that they were there for a purpose and were fully trained in executing their mission well.
But as I walked through the large crowd in St. Peter’s Square or the throngs the crowded between the Colosseum and the Forum, I knew danger wasn’t far away. Islamic State is as far away from Rome as Dallas is from New York City, and the chaos of Libya is only a short boat ride away. The security of Rome struck me as very fragile, and the government ill-prepared for the onslaught rising on not-so-distant shores. For 500 years Ancient Rome had no walls, and it was illegal to station soldiers within its boundaries. Instead the security of Rome was guaranteed by its legions stationed at the frontiers of its empire. The presence of the well-armed and trained soldiers was meant to assure visitors like me, but instead it made me realize just how endangered the city is.
Two days after my return the jihadis struck Paris.
I haven’t been to Paris, and really had no urge. For most of my life the contemporary French have struck me as a bunch of spoiled slackers. Over the past 14 years I have written several essays critical of the free-loading French, but the attacks weren’t on the French. They were on Civilization, the one that Augustus Caesar helped lay the foundation of, the one that so many Leftist intellectuals take for granted.
Fourteen years of living in a post-911 world and Civilization feels more under threat than ever. Rome was sacked in 410, 135 years after the Emperor Aurelian surrounded the city with walls. I’ve often wondered what the Romans must have felt as they remembered their former greatness and reveled in their past accomplishments but knew, instinctively knew that Darkness was closing in on them fast. The loss of allies, the presence of soldiers within the cities, the gradual decline in the power and pride of being “Roman”. With each passing day it must have seemed that society was getting more fractured, more incoherent and ultimately more disturbed.
I now have a pretty good idea.
14 years ago I bought an available domain name for Occam’s Razor, created a few HTML pages in the Dreamweaver editor, and figured out how to upload them, all because I felt that I had to express myself. There was grief and anger from the World Trade Center site, still a smoking heap of rubble and ash, and while my anger flamed white hot for the men who murdered thousands of innocents, they were not the focus of my writing and were incidental characters in my first published essay, “Rohrschach Test for the Left.” Instead that essay, and The (Occam’s) Razor that I slowly built around it, was inspired by the self-delusion and self-hatred of the politically correct Left that justified the attacks in the days immediately after the attacks.
Coming of age in the 1980s I was subjected to PC dogma in college, and watched it infect the Left that I identified with at the time and gradually change the American Left from a grassroots labor-based ideology rooted in classical liberal thought into an elitist derived identity-based movement we find today. This Left had little to do with the government programs that kept my family alive during the Depression or helped my father find a job after the War, but the draft-dodging elites of the 1960s who had prospered in the Ivory Tower and become ascendant by educating an entire generation of policy makers derived not from the working class but from the Bourgeoisie.
There was no shared experience between working class leftists like me and the leftists that controlled the college campuses at the time. They saw me as a “Reagan Democrat” and I saw them as arrogant, narrow minded fools who had been cocooned for so long from reality that they had no concept what the real world was like. The jump from America’s college campuses to the government by this elitist-derived Left was first attempted in Howard Dean’s candidacy of 2004, and was resurrected by his takeover of the DNC the eventually lead to the election of Barack Obama.
Obama is one of them. He was picked from Academia and pushed into increasingly higher levels of power by academics or their powerful acolytes in government. Obama represented them completely. For a group that is nearly all white but ashamed of their skin color (known euphemistically as “white privilege”) he was a minority. But unlike minority politicians like Jesse Jackson he had been educated by them and shared their belief that America is the root of all evil in the world, and that our nation could only be saved by a repentant America apologizing to the world for our sins, embracing our enemies, and dropping our allies who supported our evil doing.
Starting with his Apology Tour in 2009 Obama did just that, following it up with the “reset button” with Russia, an extended hand to Iran and rude gestures towards American allies such as the UK and Israel. He then let Iraq fall into Iran’s hands and ignored what he once called the “good war” in Afghanistan. He put into practice exactly the foreign policy the elitist Left had been demanding for years, using the power the Constitution grants to the Executive to achieve its aims, but was stymied by domestic opponents from putting into place their domestic agenda.
Today they control not only America’s campuses but they control our government, and worse, our military. If America is the root of all the world’s problems, why are the problems getting worse without American involvement? Shouldn’t they be getting better?
America is not the root of all evil in the world no matter how many books Chomsky writes or how many professors say it is so. America created a prosperity and peace unseen in the world since Augustus Caesar ruled 2000 years ago. Pax Americana was not perfect, but it did create an order that allowed smaller nations to prosper. The ranks of the world’s middle class grew under Pax Americana in ways that the average ancient Roman, 95% of whom lived in abject poverty, would marvel at. It also allowed the freedom of an elite to coalesce around an idea that would eventually lead to its demise.
Today a morally and economically bankrupt Russia invades any territory it desires without consequence. In the US a wealthy elite rigs the economic system against small business and the working class. A group of jihadis too radical for al Qaeda now hold sway over the very territory purchased through American blood a decade ago. Red-lines crossed in Syria and a “leading from behind” effort in North Africa results in failed states, creating a tsunami of refugees in Europe. China extends its territory and influence without constraint. A decade ago the sound of North Korea rattling its cage would have made the headlines. Today it barely warrants mentioning.
14 years ago I saw the enemy and it was us – or rather the Left that I had once considered myself part of. At the time I was determined but hopeful that 9-11 would shake the Left off of its anti-American foundation, but it didn’t. And the results are self-evident.
I’ll admit I am pissed. Leftist ideology was always so naive and lacking in detail. The world could have been so much better if we had kept the levers of power from them, but we failed and now everyone from the retiree living on a pittance thanks to near-zero interest rates to the Iraqi Christian trying to stay alive in her homeland pays the price.
Hamas had a meeting at the Four Seasons hotel in Doha, Qatar in which they called for resistance against Israel in all forms, without limit. Now the Four Seasons hotel chain may be facing prosecution for supporting terrorism. Perhaps they should change their name to Five Seasons, for Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall and Death to the Jews.
In a related note, Iranian Supreme-Double-Plus-Good Leader Ayatollah Khamenei stated Israel won’t exist in 25 years. I’m not sure about that, but I am sure that aged 76 Ayatollah Khamenei won’t exist in 25 years.
As a relocated resident of the South I’ve learned that native Southerners as a whole are decent and humble people, and I understand why they feel antagonized by the uproar over the Confederate flag. Since the church shooting in Charleston South Carolina that made the Confederate flag a symbol of hate in the eyes of many people, I can even sympathize with the urge of the locals here to show their Southern Pride by displaying the Confederate flag. These are good people, and they feel about the Confederate flag as many Irish-Americans do about the Irish flag. But one overreaction does not justify another overreaction and I’m getting kind of sick of wading through a sea of stars and bars whenever I go to local events, or being stuck behind a truck flying two of the flags behind it.
I was talking to my son and he had a similar idea: Get a pickup truck and fly the Rainbow flag alongside the Confederate flag just to see the reactions. After all one of the small towns nearby has a large lesbian contingent, so why not celebrate the confederate heritage of gay Southerners? But the locals have been pretty put upon this summer with the gay marriage ruling and the flag controversy, so they need a break. But the reaction would be interesting to say the least. Even better would be to run the social experiment in San Francisco. I’d bet we’d see more tolerance in any small North Carolina or Virginia town than we would in San Francisco.
On a related note while waiting at the mechanics for my car Matt Lauer was on the Today Show golfing with Caitlyn Jenner. The tag line at the bottom of the screen was something like Caitlyn talks make-up, dating and fashion or something like that.
Now as a libertarian I really don’t give a damn what Jenner does or what s/he wants to be called. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else I’m okay with it. In my time I’ve been around all kinds of people and even spent time at drag shows and “Diamond Nights” in Japan. Trans people don’t bother me as a rule, but there is something seriously creepy about Jenner. And it was made worse by Matt Lauer fawning all over him like some proud uncle at his niece’s bat mitzva or quinceanera.
Jenner is going to be 66 years old. I’d rather see him talking about keeping the squirrels out of his garden or how the senior discount at Denny’s just rocks out loud. But make up and dating? Maybe it’s just because I’m a generation younger than him but that just strikes me as inappropriate regardless of what bits dangle or don’t between his legs.
I have been a strong and consistent supporter of the LGBTQ-whatever community but even I’m getting sick of the attention the mass media puts on it. Being gay doesn’t make you a saint, and it sure doesn’t mean it’s okay for you to act like a pair of horny dogs in public. I don’t care what sexes you are, if the PDA gets out of hand I’m getting the garden hose. I know gays will have achieved true equality when everyone is as freaking bored with hearing about them as I am.
That would be the headline of The Guardian had its way, the British newspaper that’s so far Left it makes the New York Times look like The Wall Street Journal if the Journal was run by Fox News and staffed by the Klan. But the Daily Mail reports that two unarmed US servicemen stopped a Moroccan Jihadist firing an AK47 on a crowded train in France. The soldiers thought the guy was acting suspicious and heard the attacker rack and load his weapon in the train’s toilet, and they jumped him when he burst out firing. One soldier was injured although not seriously, as were two others on the train.
Just another day at the “office” for America’s best and bravest.
My Facebook news feed is filled with the excitement of today’s pro-gay marriage ruling by the Supreme Court. As someone who’s philosophy can be summed up as “happily married lesbians protecting their marijuana plants with a closet full of AK-47s,” I too am pleased with today’s ruling.
But a dose of perspective is in order.
Today 37 tourists were killed in Tunisia and an attack on a chemical company in France left one dead at the hands of radical Muslims. These radical Muslims do not support gay marriage. They much prefer dropping gays from great heights.
Many of today’s celebrants in the USA believe I am an Islamophobe because I see the threat posed to our way of life by radical Islam. That way of life includes the right of gays to live, let alone marry. They don’t appreciate that if an Islamic caliphate arose in the US and sharia law were imposed, they would be some of the first to die.
Sorry to ruin their buzz but this is the reality, and the sooner they stop waving their rainbow flags and set their minds to seeing radical Islam as the threat that it is the better.
I remember immediately following the 9-11 attacks everyone needed to fly the American flag. Suddenly they were hard to come by, even the flag stickers that people slapped on their cars to show their patriotism.
Today something similar is happening to the Confederate battle flag. Because of the Charleston Church attack people have decided to remove or outright ban the sale or display of the flag to show their anti-racism.
Both cases show the power of symbolism to the American psyche, and their meaningless outside of it. In the aftermath of 9-11 people felt they needed to do something to help, so they waved flags. Today a week after the church attack people want to do something, so they want to burn the Confederate battle flag.
The sudden appearance of the American flag didn’t damage al Qaeda, the perpetrator of the 9-11 attacks, and the removal of the Confederate battle flag from our society will not stop racism. Islamic terror and violent racism won’t succumb to such magical thinking no matter how well-intended the gestures may be.
Update: Reason.com, in “Massacres and Magical Thinking“, points out several examples of magical thinking in statements of the Left and Right.
One of the most troubling aspects of our culture, one that separates our time from those previous is the assumption that Evil does not exist. This assumption is rooted in the logic of moral equivalence that lays at the heart of current leftist thinking which views that all actions are a matter of perspective, that whether something is good or evil completely depends on the perspective of the individual.
Such a belief could only become widespread during a relatively peaceful and prosperous time after World War 2 after the evils of the Holocaust and Japanese militarism were exposed and defeated. In the post-war era bad things continued to happen to good people, but it was much easier to ignore them. Meanwhile “Nazi” as an epithet became so overused as to lose all of its power, and every murder has become a “holocaust.” As the horror of true evil fades into history, it has been much easier to deny its continued existence.
The success of Islamic State presents a challenge to the moral relativist. Mass media has made clear the nature of IS. Beheadings. Rape. Slavery. It’s difficult to argue Evil doesn’t exist when you have Twitter and YouTube trumpeting the latest atrocity. Of course that hasn’t stopped the Left from trying. Sen. Bernie Sanders blames Bush for Islamic state, which is ironic considering the entity didn’t exist until the beginning of Obama’s second term. Expect more rewriting of history instead of soul searching from the Left as Islamic State grows. It’s a lot easier and less-threatening to one’s belief system than facing the reality of IS.
Islamic State is the epitome of leftist nightmares although the Left is unaware of this because of its blindspot towards Islam. If Islamic State were a rising, land-owning Christian cult the Left would be using every means at its disposal to fight it and destroy it. But the Left continues to view Islam not in religious but in political terms, assuming that the basis of IS is political grievance with the West which the Left itself shares.
Islamic State draws its power and reason for existing straight from religious teachings centered on the Koran. They cannot be rational actors in the way the Left and their current standard bearer in the White House want them to be. It’s ironic that the ideology dedicated towards multiculturalism and seeing the world from different points of view cannot see the world from the Islamic State’s perspective. IS is on a divinely inspired mission, and consequently it sees the world in binary terms: the Righteous doing the will of god, and those standing in the way of the establishment of divine rule on earth.
But eventually one can ignore reality for only so long before it reasserts itself, and there is every indication that Islamic State has the means and the wherewithal to stick around and won’t be wished away. With each new atrocity it will become more difficult for the Left to maintain its worldview denying the existence of Evil. How will the Left handle it? Will it disassemble or will it drop much of the naive and morally bankrupt dogma at its core to reform around sound principles reflecting reality?
As an ex-Leftist myself, I’m not holding my breath.