Tuesday, August 20, 2013

For the umpteenth time...


For the umpteenth time, here at this blog and elsewhere in the Blogosphere (including most frequently in Jihad Watch comments), I try to iron out the kinks of complexity that seem to adhere like static cling to the aggrieving, infuriating conundrum -- Why is the West persisting in being myopic to the danger of Islam?

Some commenter at Jihad Watch recently observed, in regard to the travesty of the Fort Hood jihadist trial:
"Our legal system cannot even mention the motivation and goals of global Islamic terrorism, because it might offend the perpetrators."
This is correct, but is deficient in nuance.  To note that our mainstream society is motivated by fear of offending the perpetrators is to gloss over three important ingredients in the stew that has made this mess we're in:
1) the demographics of our enemy -- their great numbers (hundreds of millions) and geographic dispersal (spread out in nearly every country on earth)
2) the racial complexion of our enemy -- the vast majority of them looking ethnic reflecting the wonderful diversity, or rainbow or mosaic or tapestry, which constitutes the bulk of the Islamic demograhpic (reflecting the historical fact that it expanded its influence mostly throughout regions that have come to be known as "Third World")
3) taking our Western virtues too far -- building upon and augmented by 1 and 2 above, the Western reflex to recoil from judging guilt by association, from assuming guilt before innocence, and from committing the crime of "generalization".
The virtues mentioned in 3 above are generally speaking good virtues, and their cultivation reflects well on Western culture; however, anything good can be taken to excess, and when there is a mountain of evidence and an ocean of dots screaming for connection that would lead any reasonable mind to readjust the priorities of these virtues in order to recognize a higher priority -- defense of our societies from a pernicious project of deadly sedition as bad and as dangerous, if not more so, than were Communism and Nazism -- then the stubbornly obtuse persistence in maintaining these virtues as our ultimate priority becomes a grotesquely morbid fit of irrationality all the worse because it has come to be thought and felt as morally superior.
Furthermore, this process of irrationality, as I mentioned, is built upon 1 and 2 above, powerfully augmenting the monstrous logic of PC MC -- for when a PC MC regards and contemplates Muslims, he sees a sea of ethnic people of wonderful diversity, and this immediately triggers the hot buttons of the PC MC fear of being racist -- a real phobia unlike the false phobia of "Islamophobia", and a phobia that trumps everything else. Remember what our silver-haired general Casey said about Fort Hood when the smoke was still clearing and the wounded were still writhing on the ground: that if in our response to this we damaged our respect for "diversity", that would be worse than the massacre itself. This astounding (but, alas, unsurprising) degree of morbid irrationality, reaching into the augustly silver-haired temples of our highest General for God's sake, cannot be glibly explained by ineptly casual locutions of "those damn liberals" or even worse, darker spasms reaching for a conspiracy theory of one flavor or another. 
The true greatness of the West demands a subtler more complex explanation, which I have tried to sketch out above.  For the umpteenth time.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Gen. Casey said what he said because he's a politician in a uniform. He serves at the pleasure of SecDef and POTUS. Your opinions must always reflect the ruling regime's agenda if you want to keep your job. Just ask Shinseki who got cashiered for contradicting military decisions regarding Iraq in the Bush era.

Gen. Casey couldn't say anything else or his career would have been over with in a less than a hour. Ideally he should have, but he put his balls in a lockbox and threw away the keys a long time ago.

Now if a Bush was in charge, Casey wouldn't have to worry about PC/MC so much. He could make comments like Gen. Boykin did in several speeches, which mortified the Left.

But even Bush was no great shakes when it came to Islam. Frankly he was a disaster.

And yes politics do play a role. Lefties are far more intolerant of criticism of Muslims than the Right. I would say to the point of going apeshit on those who do. Just ask Robert about his reception on college campuses.

The point is, his comments were entirely predictable given the regime he serves. That regime has made it abundantly clear Islam and Muslims are not the enemy to the point of firing people within the government who say otherwise.