Wolfgang von Skeptik

Slouching Toward Dhimmitude

MIKE CAKORA OF THE American Thinker implicitly questions why even conservative media has ignored John Kerry’s frightening pledge of unilateral disarmament (see my October 1 commentary) and goes on to explain just why the bunker-buster nukes Kerry wants to relenquish are such a vital part of America’s post-9/11 arsenal. The link to Cakora’s essay is here. I post it mainly because Cakora’s arguments in favor of the Bush Administration’s glow-in-the-dark bunker-busters are the most lucid presentation I have seen anywhere of the compelling military necessity of such weapons. Hence I would urge the piece be read in full. Of course I am also delighted someone else finally agrees with what I concluded (and still believe) was the most important revelation of the entire debate: the extent to which Kerry’s foreign policy would be dictated by long-discredited pacifist ideology.

However what Cakora does not address is the curious silence from pundits of the right, which he mentions in his penultimate paragraph and only in passing. I believe I know the real reason for the silence – and it is an ugly one indeed – but before I make that point, there is another relevant link below, this to a Fox News investigative story that broke Friday but was conveniently obscured by the trifecta of mass-media political “correctness,” the rightest penchant for speaking no evil of Bush, and simple post-debate happenstance. But the Fox expose’ was nevertheless the most important news of the day and of the weekend, for it reported yet another example of the Bush Administration’s sneaky pandering to Islam: that Bush’s officials have defiantly re-appointed a terrorist-connected Muslim to an important intelligence post in the Department of Homeland Security – never mind the fact the appointee (predictably, a protege of Grover Norquist) is credibly accused of lying by omission, thus to conceal the damning truth of his past when he filled out a personal-history questionnaire required for security clearance. The report on this developing scandal is lengthy and detailed, but once again I cannot over-emphasize its read-in-full importance. Particularly since – in context with a number of other alleged Bush “blunders” that are ever-more-undeniably expressions of administration policy (especially the ongoing obstruction of the armed pilots program, the parallel opposition to local Civil Defense mobilization, and the air-travel outrages bravely revealed by Annie Jacobsen) – the Fox disclosures suggest the Bush Administration is every bit as much a deliberate appeaser as a Kerry-cum-Neville-Chamberlain Administration promises to be.

While Norquist’s machinations are specifically (and by his own assertion) an attempt to build a united Republican front of Christian fundamentalists and American Muslims – seemingly disparate elements who are potentially united by their common desire to suppress individual liberty and repeal women’s rights – the Bush Administration’s more general policies of Muslim-appeasement are probably not so Machiavellian at all. I suspect they are instead a tactically smart but strategically appalling GOP response to the American public’s growing unwillingness to defend itself – whether against local criminals or international terrorists. (See, for example, “A Nation of Cowards,” a tremendously controversial essay in support of the Second Amendment.) This work’s relevance here is that the United States today is nearly the antithesis of the nation that fought World War II, so much so that America’s metastasizing cravenness is the real gorilla in the political living room. In turn this is a measure of the mostly unacknowledged success of the feminist revolution. Its three decades of ongoing classroom and mass-media brainwashing were intended to destroy “patriarchy“ -- American liberty and Western Civilization -- and have stolen from us a precious legacy of knowledge, thoroughly subverting the ancient, uniquely Occidental principles that enabled our greatness. Craven cowardice has thus been elevated into a virtue, chiefly through emphasis of pathological selfishness euphemistically described as the doctrine of “the personal is political.”

The most disturbing consequences of the resultant climate of moral imbecility were first revealed via William Bennett’s Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT) web site, which published a post-9/11 poll of U.S. college students showing that – if resumption of a military draft were forced by national emergency – 60-some percent would refuse to obey lawful orders to serve. Unfortunately the poll is no longer available on the AVOT web site – a disheartening act of censorship probably intended to counter the maliciously false draft-resumption rumors spread by the Democrats – but subsequent data samples (available here, here, here and here) support the original poll’s conclusions and suggest the “hell-no-I-won’t-go” attitude is widespread, especially among the Afro-American and Hispanic communities. Alas, it is but a short leap from “hell no” to “better dhimmitude than death” – dhimmitude the Arabic term representing Qur’an-sanctioned victimization by Muslim conquerors – a condition fatal not only to the American ideal but to all human principles of liberty and freedom, quite possibly forever.

Here of course is the probable reason no conservative pundit has taken Kerry to task for pledging what amounts to creeping pacifism: no one on the right wants to take the chance that a forthright discussion of Kerry’s disarmament plan might further energize the incipient national impulse toward dhimmitude reflected in the draft studies, thereby unintentionally handing victory to Kerry. And, yes, I write this damning judgement fully cognizant of the epic skill and bravery of our armed forces – but also painfully aware that the selfless courage of our service men and women no longer represents anything like the driving mindset of America. Apparently (if the above polls are to be believed), this nation’s courageous majority will soon be naught but a memory. The implication is that Islam’s ultimate triumph -- with all the unspeakable horrors of a global caliphate -- is inevitable. I can only pray this hypothesis is wrong.

Nevertheless, at least as far as I can see, the only real advantage offered by President Bush is his refusal to submit U.S. foreign policy to the veto of Paris – that and my fervent hope his administration’s constant and ongoing pandering to Islam (including the bans on profiling and the proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants) will end abruptly after he is re-elected. I also hope a second Bush administration might halt the growing cravenness of the American public – but on that score (particularly given the state of deliberately deceptive mass media and legacy-thieving public education), I am increasingly pessimistic. Even so, a Kerry Administration would be many times worse.

As I have said before, this election offers the U.S. electorate a truly abysmal poverty of choice that is certainly unprecedented in the history of this nation’s military crises and is probably without equal in our entire national history. What is also without peer is the media’s self-imposed silence about the nature of the Islamic threat – a silence dictated by victim-identity politics, ideologies of moral equivalence and, most of all, matrifascist hostility to American liberty and Western Civilization. Unfortunately for the American public, it is a defacto censorship that protects not only the plotters and would-be tyrants of the Left, but often the schemers of the Right as well: note especially the near-absolute embargo, imposed by the dictates of political correctness, on coverage of the Bush Administration's two-faced stance toward Islam. Which merely intensifies our national crisis – a crisis of stolen legacies, failed will and breathtaking leaderlessness. No matter who wins this election, its aftermath may be the last wake-up call we get.

Posted by Loren at October 4, 2004 02:14 AM