While Obama uses his UN speech to reiterate that Islam is a religion of peace, word comes of the beheading of a French tourist by jihadi terrorists in Algeria linked with the Islamic State (ISIS). In Oklahoma a black American suspect in a murderous attack, was reportedly a recent convert to Islam According to co-workers, he was zealous to the point of trying to convert others. As the story goes, his rampage came after he was fired from the food distribution plant where the attacks occurred. Before being put down he carved off the head of his first victim and commenced to stab another. In the context of this report we read another that says Obama “has ‘widened the loopholes’ that Islamic State and other extremist fighters could use to enter the United States.”
Obama denies that we are at war with Islam. But it’s pretty obvious that many of the people determined to make war on us are in some way or another motivated by, or connected with Islam. Perhaps it was just a coincidence that the suspect in the Oklahoma workplace beheading (God knows I never thought to write that phrase in earnest) took pains to hack off his victim’s head. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the repeated examples of those who had recently become his co-religionists; or with an Islamic religious leader’s call to Muslim jihadis to start killing innocent non-Muslims throughout the world.
You can, of course, count on Obama faction apologists in the elitist faction media to point out that beheading has been quite common in non-Islamic countries. They will eagerly inform you that it was once a common method of execution in European countries. Of course, the mindlessly illogical format of much of today’s media debate and discussion makes it hard for people to focus on the fallacy of comparing the punishment inflicted for a capital crime to the systematic slaughter of people whose only crime is that they refuse to embrace Islam.
Such punitive slaughter of recalcitrant infidels has been a normal part of the way Islamic imperialists make war since the first conquests of the Prophet and his heirs. All the authoritative sources of Islamic doctrine make it clear that refusal to convert to Islam is a crime; and that Muslim conquerors are commanded either to make tax slaves of the recalcitrants, or to summarily execute those who refuse to pay the tax. As I noted in a previous article, such executions were treated as an honorable part of the Islamic warrior’s profession. Solemn celebrations accompanied the act of submitting Sacks of severed heads were submitted to the Sovereign or his representative, with solemn celebration. Those who did so received special robes and other marks of distinction.
To be sure, such grisly trophies of victory and conquest were not confined to the Islamic world. But the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment bears witness to the fact that the purposeful display and celebration of trophies of grisly death has for some time been rejected as a “normal” feature of punishment or warfare, in the countries Islamic jihadis now identify as their special targets. Why then do people like Obama and the leftist sycophants who apologize for his every word, want to imply that the revulsion against this feature of the Islamic way of war must be tempered by the some false sense that “we all do it”? Should we temper our abhorrence for the contemporary practice of human slavery simply because it was once commonplace throughout the earth?
Perhaps the leftists urge to temper outrage against the grisly terrorist practices of Islamic imperialism has something to do with the fact that the latest examples of similar mayhem outside the Islamic world have come, on a breathtakingly massive scale, from governments who reveled in the socialist label in much the same way as brutal jihadi fighters revel in the name of Islam. Many elitist faction leftists (and covert collaborators who pretend to be “conservatives”) display supercilious contempt and hostility toward the American Revolution’s principled implementation of “limited government.” They willingly trace the roots of their politics to the French Revolution, and the socialist or communist revolutions that came after it. Though they pretend to hate the holocausts produced by right-wing socialists (Nazis, Fascists), they are nowhere near as clear in their condemnations of those produced by the Soviets, the Maoists, and the leftist guerrillas of Southeast Asia and the Western Hemisphere.
As you reflect on this remember what became the great symbol of the French Revolution, the one that was, as it were, the mother of all the rest. It was the guillotine, an instrument for assembly-line beheadings. It was used to procure a supposedly more humane and certain death for thousands of hated “aristos”, including whole families of men, women, and children, many of whom were guilty of no crime except their claim to noble blood. Pretend if you like that this has nothing in common with the Islamic fanatics who butcher those who will not embrace their dogma. But it was perpetrated with a similar religious zeal, in the name of an idol of Liberty before whom baskets of heads were celebrated were celebrated the same passionate joy as the sacks laid before the Sultan’s Grand vizier.
Tragically, new generations of Americans have emotional expectations more inured to such grisly celebrations of violence than we would like to admit. In the more and more lovingly explicit violence of contemporary video games and movies, the young can accustom themselves to the physical and moral insensibilities that inures the mind and spirit to an expectation of violence, until only the bodily shock of first-hand experience remains to be endured before the proceeds of violence cease to be paid in terms of any emotional toll at all.
The same may be said of an indoctrination that strikes closer to home, the one whereby we proclaim the doctrine of “abortion rights” that dulls our sense that doing violence to those with whom we have the closest individual human ties crosses the line into unbearable evil. When mothers celebrate the murder of their own offspring as a rite of freedom and deliverance, why should we expect our posterity to feel any even modestly invincible aversion to the murder of strangers under the color of law and the stern requirements of “history”?
Long ago, in the wake of the 9-11,, I saw the deep connection between the spirit of terrorist atrocity and the atrocious effect the perpetration of legalized atrocity must have on America’s moral heart and soul. “The evil that we fight,” I said, “is but the shadow of the evil that we do.” The worst effect of that overshadowing may not be that we become, ourselves more open to the perpetration of heinous wrongs (though Abu Grahaib cautions against carelessly assuming that it will not). Rather the greatest danger may arise from our sense of the darkness betokened within us by our tolerance for atrocity in thought and virtual action. This may prospectively weigh us down with a burden of bad conscience, which makes us more susceptible to the specious assertion of moral equivalence between ourselves and those who attack us. So we fall prey to the demoralizing conviction that we are similarly disposed to sin, and so must apologize in some way, rather than simply defend ourselves against the evil that threatens us.
Is it by the hand of God that we now suffer under the supposed “leadership” of a man more than happy to feed and encourage this burden of conflicted conscience? Or is it the purposeful intent of the forces working to divert us from our rightful indignation, so that we may be more vulnerable to failure in the quest to defend and perpetuate our decent way of life?