Tuesday, June 02, 2015


“I loved Eliot on sight.

“Isn’t there some other word you could use?”

“Than what?

“Than love.

What better word is there?”

Eliot did to the word love what the Russians did to the word democracy. If Eliot is going to love everybody, no matter what they are, no matter what they do, then those of us who love particular people for particular reasons had better find ourselves a new word. He looked at an oil painting of his deceased wife. For instance—I loved her more than I love our garbage collector, which makes me guilty of the most unspeakable of modern crimes: Dis-crim-i-nay-tion.
God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, by Kurt Vonnegut, p. 86

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

In his report of the latest incident of attempted lawfare by a Muslim(a) who is alleging discrimination at the hands of a United Airlines stewardess and pilot (as well as bigotry from nearby passengers), Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog formulates a sentiment that at first glance seems robust:

“Now, strictly speaking, it wouldn’t be discrimination to deny a Muslima an unopened can whilst allowing, say, a Hasidic rabbi to take one. It would be simple prudence, a sound counter-terrorist policy.”

That depends, however, on whether one’s definition of discrimination defaults to the politically correct definition: “Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice”—so deeply woven into our culture as to have become officially #3 in the American Heritage English dictionary (though, of course, refreshingly absent from the halcyon 1913 Webster’s definition).

If one refuses to presume the politically correct definition and instead presumes the saner definitions—“1. The act of discriminating (further clarified by looking up discriminating to find “Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive”)” and “2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment”— one sees that to profile Muslims qua Muslims is, in fact, to be discriminating in the finest, aptest, most exquisitely incorrect sense.

Granted all of the above, however, one could go further and say that even the politically correct definition—“Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice”—comports just fine with our security concerns.  For indeed we should be treating and considering Muslims as a class or category rather than as individuals. We should be prejudiced against them—in the sense of pre-judging them to be a security risk on a macro scale simply because their culture of taqiyya and terrorism in the service of a supremacist expansionism energizing an actual violent war they are waging against us now, coupled with their numbers, and with the complexity of our societies given our bustling freedoms and cultivation of diversity, all render our security needs incapable of the fine-tuned casuistry that would try anxiously to treat each Muslim as an individual.

Incapable, that is, if we focus on the exigencies of our #1 priority: in the coming years and decades, protecting our societies from horrific terror attacks that are part of an ongoing war which Muslims in their current global revival of Islam are waging against us. 


Egghead said...

To my understanding, there is NO 'revival' of Islam. Islam is Islam is Islam - and Islam is always a sinful destructive ideology.

There IS a concerted attack on Western Christian civilization by racial and/or religious Jews who full well understand exactly how to use Islam and leverage Muslims against the West.

It was interesting that Pamela Gellar gave a television interview where she said that she has a whole 'army' protecting her. Which 'army' would that be?

Hesperado said...

To my understanding, there is NO 'revival' of Islam.

What I mean by "revival" is a concerted effort to try to extricate themselves out of the complex cat's cradle of the drastic geopolitical nadir they had sunk into beginning after the 17th century -- a nadir caused by two factors:

a) the centuries-long running down & exhaustion of their parasitism on dhimmis and dhimmi culture, by the 17th century leading Islam to be running on fumes, with no ability (then) to be siphoning off of the Kuffar as they have been since the mid-20th century

b) the spectacular ascendancy of geopolitical power and influence of the West at about the same time, 17th century, increasing exponentially with each passing century after that.

It's only been since the early to mid-20th century that a concatenation of factors (including the West's colossal stupidity) has slowly been coalescing to enable Islam *pragmatically* to revive their original -- and essential -- desideratum of global jihad.

Egghead said...

One word: Morocco. Morocco as described in the book entitled White Gold.

Muslims only ever succeed until they murder everyone who could 'help' them. Then, being wholly unable to sustain a civilization without outside 'help' and resources, Muslims decline.

It is only Muslim control of oil - and the rest of the world allowing Muslims to control oil - that enabled Muslims to get traction for Islam in the West.

But, as Zenster used to say before he was banned from commenting at GoV, the West controls the food bought by Muslim oil - and Muslims importing food is really Muslims importing the water that it took to grow that food. Zenster used to say that the West should value our water at equal to or more than what the Muslims value their oil.

Instead, the West overvalues oil and allows Muslims to enter the West and use oil money to buy or control Western land that simultaneously buys and controls the political system in the West.