First there was the shameful unwillingness of the West to curb Muslim anti-Semitism at the UN conference on racism at Durban, South Africa in early September, 2001. Then, a few days later, other Muslim extremists visited unprecedented atrocities upon New York, Pennsylvania and Washington.
Were the two connected? My mother would have had no trouble seeing the connection. After all, she would have said, if you give scoundrels an inch, they’ll take a mile. She was right: We did and they did. In any event, by allowing the Muslim world to parade its anti-Semitism essentially unchallenged at Durban, the West showed, once again, that it was a cringing, toothless tiger, unwilling or unable to defend itself.
Those several acts of cowardice by the Infidel West arguably encouraged Muslim extremists to carry out their evil deeds on September 11, 2001, a day and an event to be known thereafter as 9/11.
Although the proceedings at Durban were truly shameful, it is the opinion of “experts” that the atrocities of 9/11 were so shocking that our way of life will undergo changes so profound as to make our immediate past look like ancient history. And, despite my ingrained sceptic’s filter, I believe that to be true.
For example, before 9/11, threats to our national security were usually associated with friendly foreign countries which, in the unlikely event of war, would surely abide by the rules of the Geneva convention. We also felt well protected by two very large oceans and forbidding Arctic ice, as well as by the protective embrace of a mighty but friendly neighbour to the south.
However, on 9/11, Geneva was ignored when a handful of non- descript Arab civilians, motivated by hate, and armed with not much more than their own wits, and the “assurance” that Allah would look kindly upon their martyrdom, scared the bejesus out of us by visiting death and destruction on New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. We realized then how vulnerable we were to an apparently inexhaustible supply of religious fanatics willing to sacrifice their lives as they sought ours.
Consequently, we can no longer ignore the unpleasant facts of life. For instance, when some nut says he hates us, we should assume he means what he says and intends to kill us if he can. Therefore, we must now re-evaluate a host of assumptions that have heretofore gone unchallenged, especially those generated by the contemptible notion of political correctness (PC).
“PC” can be defined as a method of social control which attempts to suppress critical thought. Its effect is to convert our critical faculties to mush. At the banal end of the scale, it manifests itself in the suppression of a perfectly good word like “fisherman” in favour of the gender-neutral “fisher”, a word that has nothing to do with people fishing. In fact, my dictionary defines “fisher,” as a weasel-like animal that likes fish.
Further up the scale, “PC” shows up in expressions such as “We must not be judgmental.” Although this is intended to be an invitation to virtuosity by not being critical (after all, “Only God can judge”), it is in fact a fraud, a call to avoid using our critical faculties.
According to this fatuous dictum, we should not be critical of scoundrels like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung or Osama bin Laden.
Further along are those who insist that, although you may have solid evidence to support your argument, it is by definition invalid since it is not supported by their omnipotent ideology. They are followed closely by others who insist that any solution short of the perfect is unacceptable. For instance, they see no point in shooting the alligators that are snapping at their butts since the proper long-term solution is to drain the swamp.
And then we have the really silly. For example, some insist that those who do evil should be pitied and coddled rather than condemned and punished; because their mothers fed them pablum instead of oatmeal. Others advance the absurd notion of historical “victim-hood” to explain the disadvantaged status of some groups despite the abundance of evidence that discredits their silly arguments.
According to these intellectual cripples (cripples is a politically incorrect word), minority racial, ethnic or linguistic groups, females, homosexuals, left-handed people, as well as those suffering from flaming hemorrhoids, are victims of our white patriarchal society and are hence deserving of generous financial recompense.
This certainly was the claim at Durban, of some descendants of black American slaves. Interestingly, their posturing has disappeared since 9/11, as if shame or common sense had trumped their avarice.
However, “PC” reigned supreme in the immediate post-9/11 period when American authorities decided to honour the firemen who had worked so valiantly at ground zero, some losing their lives in the process. To do this, they commissioned a statue to reproduce the famous photo of the firemen who had raised the American flag on the rubble at ground zero.
Although the firemen in the photo were all white, the authorities decided to have the statue depict one as black and another as Hispanic. Although blacks and Hispanics should no doubt be honoured for their contribution to ground zero heroics, why is it necessary to do so with a lie?
Then, we have the truly bizarre. The idiocy of “PC” reached its shameful apogee in the wake of 9/11 when the apostles of “PC” whined that it was not fair that our increased security precautions focus on young men of Middle Eastern mien, even though the terrorists responsible for 9/11, as well as those who directed or supported them, were/are all Arabs. In order to be fair, “PC” would have us focus as much on improbable suspects such as Norwegian grandmothers.
In the same vein, remember when US President Bush insisted that “Our beef is with Islamic terrorists, not with Islam.”? Although his claim was obviously politically motivated, I unfortunately see no evidence to support such a restrictive conclusion at this time.
Consider the facts: (1) The terrorists and their directors were/are all Muslims from the Middle East; (2) They claimed to be guided by the will of Allah; (3) The events of 9/11 produced joyous celebrations in the “Arab Street” throughout the world; (4) Muslim religious leaders, even those in the West, denied Islamic complicity in these atrocities, or qualified their criticism with canards describing these awful acts as the inevitable consequence of misguided American foreign policy in support of Israel.
Clearly, until Muslim religious leaders get off the fence and offer unequivocal condemnations of 9/11, we have every reason to be suspicious of Islam itself. And, to those who wail about such a politically incorrect stance, I offer but one suggestion: to put up or shut up!
Finally, political correctness can be lethal. Because influential bleeding hearts insisted that American spies have the morals of choir boys, legislation was enacted during the Clinton administration to prevent the CIA from hiring informants with criminal records or questionable human-rights dossiers. Since informants are normally recruited from the scum of society, this legislation effectively deprived the CIA of useful employees.
It was no surprise then that the CIA had no prior knowledge of the kamikaze attacks of 9/11. Although hell would have frozen over in the pre-9/11 period before that legislation was even criticized, I believe it was amended within a very few days of the attacks; with scarcely a peep from anyone. The CIA can now hire any scum they deem capable of doing the job. If other politicians have not the courage to do the right thing because it is the right thing, I hope they at least use the cover of 9/11 to bring common sense to bear in all areas heretofore dominated by counter-productive political correctness.
Although the obstacles are great, I am hopeful that the fallout from Durban and 9/11 will make life increasingly difficult for the “politically correct”. And, wouldn’t that be wonderful? But remember, it won’t happen without active intervention by all people of common sense and good will.
I suggest that, when you next hear someone spouting politically correct nonsense, challenge him to prove his case. And don’t forget, it is considered good form among the politically incorrect to simply tell him to stuff it!