Extreme Unction of the West — Clarification
In a recent discussion in this space, I waxed indignant over the inability of our popular leaders, both political leaders and opinion makers, to admit that the Jihadists with whom we are currently at war are Islamic and not Christian. They regard it as impolite, nay, as hateful, for anyone to mention the religion and the religious motives of the Fort Hood mass assassin, for example. This provoked a remarkable reaction — roughly half the comments in my comments box not only affirmed the Politically Correct position, that we are not at war and dare not admit we are at war, but expressed the fear that the Christians were about to shred the Constitution and impose a theocratic dictatorship on the United States. (In all fairness, 1. the other half of the comments were sane; 2. most comments came from the pen of one or two readers.)
Because I was writing a screed, and not a reasoned philosophical position, I did not even try to qualify my statements, or to be all that clear. I sort of assumed the kind readers would know what I meant. The unkind readers would not understand me even if I qualified my statements, so I saw no reason to try. But this cavalier attitude of mine caused me to offend unwittingly more people than I meant to offend.
Upon reflection, when I doff the robe and beard of a philosopher to don the hairshirt and rope-belt of a prophet on a Jeremiad, I should actually make it clear where I myself stand on the issue.
Let me, Socrates like, ask any reader willing to answer a set of questions:
1. If the choice were between forced conversion of members (including peaceful ones) of the Islamic religion and the death of the West, are we all agreed that we would prefer the death of the West? I am not saying this is the choice: I am merely asking which is of a higher priority in your value structure.
2. If the choice were between using nuclear weapons on an Islamic city and the death of the West, are we all agreed that we would prefer the death of the West? I am not saying this is the choice: I am merely asking which is of a higher priority in your value structure.
3. If the choice were between expelling members (including peaceful ones) of the Islamic religion from sensitive positions in the government and the military, and the death of the West, are we all agreed that we would prefer the death of the West? I am not saying this is the choice: I am merely asking which is of a higher priority in your value structure.
4. If the choice were between an increased level of security and scrutiny toward members (including peaceful ones) of the Islamic religion at airports and other sensitive spots, and the death of the West, are we all agreed that we would prefer the death of the West? I am not saying this is the choice: I am merely asking which is of a higher priority in your value structure.
5. If the choice were between admitting that we are at war, and that Islam is the enemy, and the death of the West, are we all agreed that we would prefer the death of the West? I am not saying this is the choice: I am merely asking which is of a higher priority in your value structure.
6. Is a theocratic dictatorship imposed by Nehemiah Scudder a greater current threat to the West than the current possibility that Western governments, such as in Great Britain, will give Sharia Law and de facto “terrorist veto” over Western law and policy?
I am assuming most Americans and those who live by classical liberal ideals would answer ‘Yes’ to the first question — it is better to die than to impose on man’s freedom to worship. I am assuming all Catholics and most men of good will would answer ‘Yes’ to the second question — it is better to die than to use indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction, since civilian targets cannot be spared. Question three is where we will start to see a difference between Right and Left opinion. Question four is where we will start to see a difference between Left and Far Left opinion. Question Five is where we will see the difference between Far Left and pure lunacy. Question Six is where we will see the difference between pure lunacy and the nameless mental condition of someone whose brain was long ago eaten by Azathoth, the demon-sultan who bubbles and blasphemes at the center of infinity, while the blind, dim, and tenebrous Other Gods dance and lurch awkwardly to the indescribable music of a cracked flute held in nameless paws.
My concern here is not whether His Most Catholic Majesty King Ferdinand of Spain, will expel the Paynims from Andalusia, or that Fr. Torquemada of the Holy Office will examine those who pretend to convert. No: I am not at this time advocating the forced conversion of the heathens via atom-bomb. (For one thing, I do not think it necessary at this time, and for another I think it self-defeating.)
What I am advocating is an end to PC, which started as a parlor game but is a poison now proved deadly to us. I am advocating pursuing the war at least as vigorously as what Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR would have approved, not hindered by the niceties of, say, the Viet Nam war or the First Gulf War, which were improperly pursued due to lack of commitment.
My concern is that those who fear King Ferdinand are so eager to flee him that they rush into the arms of Azathoth, and lose their minds: not only are they answering Yes to question one and two, they are answering Yes to question five and six.
My concern is that, in rhetoric at least, our leaders and opinion-leaders cannot distinguish between legitimate and common-sense acts of war carried out against enemies in wartime, and acts of discrimination leading to an overthrow of our Constitution.
My concern is with their logic. Nothing in the postchristian Politically Correct position (which is, Cultural Marxism) must or would change in the present case if the Fort Hood shooter had ignited a suitcase nuke rather than used a firearm. My concern is that even in the shadow of the mushroom cloud, the Politically Correct crowd would lecture us, and tell us Islam is the religion of Peace, and that Christians are the sole and only threat to the Republic.
I do not think anything, anything is going to shock these PC enemies of sanity back to reality. Some people do die of their vices. Some gamblers do lose their whole fortunes; some drunks die of drink. Some nations die of their vices also. Some people die of suicide. Some nations also.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
