What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Burn in hell Osama

With the American bullets that felled Osama bin Laden, we might perhaps conjecture that a Jihadist age has come to its end. It was an age of discovery for the West — the brutal discovery that Islam was not dead by only quiescent through the late decades of modernity. The instability of profound spiritual energy coupled with extreme material privation could not last. The insult of the infidel West’s prosperity and the Dar el-Islam’s backwardness bred a resentment that burst forth with the terror of September 11. But that terrible razzia could never be followed or even imitated. It remains, nearly ten years later, singular.

Hard men like those who brought down this legendary Captain of Jihad have made the large-scale, spectacular razzia nearly impossible for the Jihad. Long may they succeed at the same.

Really closing this chapter of this ancient struggle, however, will demand careful thinking and above all historical thinking. It will demand a recognition about the extraordinary historical duration of the Jihad’s threat against free nations and free peoples. It will demand a realization, as I have said many times, that when dedicated, enterprising and resourceful men are making war against you in the name of their religion, you are embroiled in a religious war.

This realization has eluded many Americans for a decade. As I wrote seven years ago:

We have spent nearly three years trying to develop a suitable euphemism for religious war — and it has not gone very well. We have declared war on a method of warfare. We have declared war on a tendency within a religion, or . . . a tendency within all religions. I suppose next we shall declare war on a tendency within a method of warfare, or a method within a tendency. Some have even argued that we ought to declare war on a moment in time, namely the “premodern.”

September 11, in a word, exposed the modern West’s extreme confusion about history and religion, and extreme forgetfulness about the old antagonist of Islam’s holy warriors.

The Jihadist pressure has morphed in the last ten years. The big, spectacular razzia is not much open to them anymore; only the smaller-scale outrage like Ft. Hood. But more importantly, in various places in the West, Islam is poised to be the de facto source of legislation and enforcement and justice in the community. From the Parisian suburbs that are said to be “no-go” for the police, to neighborhoods in Scandinavia where sexual assaults on local women by Muslims go unreported and uninvestigated, to Dearborn, MI, where several Christians have been jailed for public activities obviously protected by the Constitution: the ancient dhimmi compromises are strongly in evidence all over the West.

Success in this next age will require clarity about the nature of the Islamic doctrines with which we can have no fellowship, as a people, a nation, a structure of law and mores, as a country, under God, indivisible. The doctrine of holy war, which pronounces all unbelievers the legitimate targets of treacherous violence, and all infidel political forms deserving of treason and sabotage designed at overthrow; the doctrine of holy subjugation, Jim Crow for infidels, which so arranges the social state as to inflict upon the subject unbeliever humiliation and oppression: these are wicked and intolerable doctrines that have no place in America, or in any free land. It is high time our law reflected this.

Before that, of course, our public mind must reflect it. We Americans have got to come to grips with this being a permanent and protean threat.

And above all a moral and religious one.

Comments (16)

Hard men like those who brought down this legendary Captain of Jihad have made the large-scale, spectacular razzia nearly impossible for the Jihad. Long may they succeed at the same.

While I agree that one must fight the good fight, I am also aware of the Biblical comment that those who touch tar will get soiled. There must be, finally, something that separates our position from theirs that will be seen by all of the world. I would be infinitely sad if, in fighting against the infidel, we ourselves become more brutish in the process. We live in a paranoid world and yet, I see no trace of either fear or paranoia in the lives of the early Christians, who certainly faced deaths more swift and brutal than most of us face, today.

Does the battle go to the hard men? Those willing to be relentless? This is a battle for eternal Truths. 9/11 was an insult to eternal Truths and while we fight for those Truths, we fight to a certain victory. Yet, I cannot be happy knowing that we are a Country that, even now, is teetering on falling away from some fundamentals of that eternal Truth. If we would be strong, if we would be hard, if we would be relentless, let us be relentless in our pursuit of the Good and the True. We must show these to the world, for by these will we be judged.

The Chicken

A small town can organize quickly. I just received this e-mail from the Chamber of Commerce:

Tonight 8PM or dark at Library Park there will be a quiet time of remembrance for all those who lost their lives and family members at the hands of Bin Laden. Please bring your flashlights. Thank You, etc.

Which seems appropriate. Along with prayers to bring American forces home already. Ten years in Afghanistan. That's surreal.

It sure is surreal, Jeff. We did a lot of things in "response" to September 11th; not a few of them were futile and foolish.

Not that I'm into numerical signs or anything, but I just realized that 5/2/2011 could be re-written as 5+2+2+0/11 = 9/11. A totally coincidental and manufactured result, to be sure.

The Chicken

Paul, I like the title of your post. Yep, that's where that satanic anti-christ is at right now, and man, he must be ticked that there's no 72 virgins waiting for him! ROTFL! On the serious side, you're right that our fellow Americans don't understand what we are fighting. That understanding will only happen when we turn back to the Christian faith. Pray that it happens soon, so we can win this war once and for all.

Paul, I like the title of your post. Yep, that's where that satanic anti-christ is at right now, and man, he must be ticked that there's no 72 virgins waiting for him! ROTFL! On the serious side, you're right that our fellow Americans don't understand what we are fighting. That understanding will only happen when we turn back to the Christian faith.

Hmm. I thought it was obvious that anyone who adheres to the Christian faith would see "ROTFL" as an inappropriate response to the idea of the damnation of a soul.

The "big, spectacular razzia" is not open in the West. But, its in full force elsewhere. Think of Nigeria, Sudan and much of Indonesia.

P.S. something inside me rejects the idea of rejoicing over someone's eternal fate in hell i.e. the title of this article. At its heart it is a military victory and a human tragedy that reflects the broken and sinful world we live in.

The euphoria generated by the news of Bin Laden's death is premature. This is a Muslim Hydra we're thought to be fighting.

Public rejoicing at this turn of events has more to do with revenge than victory, I think.

Mostly in agreement here. A couple of things, though:

1) "Burn in hell Osama."

Only God has the right to say this. Coming from human lips, it's an expression of vengeance.


2) "The insult of the infidel West’s prosperity and the Dar el-Islam’s backwardness bred a resentment that burst forth with the terror of September 11."

Our presence in *their* backyard + backward Islamic doctrines were the two necessary conditions for the deep resentment that "burst forth with the terror of September 11." "Western prosperity" had relatively little to do with the cultivation of said resentment. Our foreign policy is what added fuel to the flames of deep-rooted Islamic hatred and directed that drunken conflagration of religious hatred towards us in particular and at that particular moment in time. Certainly, the ultimate goal of Jihad (subjugation of the world under Islamic rule) has been, is, and always will be pursued by pious Muslims regardless of whatever we and other Western countries say or do, but the fact is, we are increasing its rate and its power via our misbegotten adventures in the Middle East and North Africa. We aren't doing ourselves any favors. I say we get out of those hell-holes and focus on combating the stealth jihad here at home.

The ancient dhimmi compromises are strongly in evidence all over the West.

The difference between the modern dhimmi compromise and its ancient manifestation is that the latter was brought about by the military defeat and surrender of Jews, Christians, and others who were then left to the mercy of Muslim rulers (some benevolent, some indifferent, most harsh and ruthless toward Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians), while the modern dhimmi does so not from military defeat, but from his own self-imposed religious and cultural defeat (i.e. since Christianity and Western civilization are nothing more than a collected history of intolerance, racism, imperialism, sexism, homophobia, etc. we must atone by submitting ourselves and our culture to all that is not Christianity and not Western).

Thus, when I see Christian bishops in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, or Pakistan excusing Islam or blaming America or Israel for Islamic violence, I know they have little other choice but to appease their Muslim overlords in hopes to buy a little security for their people. On the other hand, when I hear Christian bishops and pastors in America and Europe peddling Islam and enabling the enemies of Western civilization I know they do so purely out of choice, and as such have no excuse for their despicable actions.

Paul,

What is your reaction to the revelation that it was enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding, which I recall that you consider torture and thus morally prohibited, performed on Khalid Sheikh Muhammad which gave us the intelligence which made Bin Laden's elimination possible? How does consequentialism fit into the picture? I'd be interested in hearing as well other reader's reactions who feel similarly about waterboarding.

It does not surprise me. I do not doubt that some of the information extracted from waterboarded subjects will be useful. I do not doubt that waterboarding is sufficiently terrifying to break many men.

What I strongly doubt is whether it can ever be justifiably employed.

How much of our country's intelligence work is compromised by its integration with illicit actions, and especially illicit actions against prisoners, is not a happy subject to ponder. It seems to me that much of the activity of intelligence in modern nation-states bears this stain. I doubt that the Cold War or Second World War lacked for harsh treatment of captured spies and subversives.

What is more worrisome to me is the positive embrace of torture that has sunk in among many on the Right.

"What is more worrisome to me is the positive embrace of torture that has sunk in among many on the Right"

The Fox types seem to be looking at the whole thing as one big vindication of waterboarding, etc. Consequentialism indeed.

Just turned up a nice quote from one whose views on the subject ought to matter:

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause, for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”

- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

"What is more worrisome to me is the positive embrace of torture that has sunk in among many on the Right."

That is suggesting that torture has been rejected at some point. If it has, it had the lifespan of a mayfly.

The Left (in America) receives less blame for this particular sin inasmuch as they are busy colluding with the enemy. After all, the Left is known most for its intent upon harassing, harming, beating, killing, butchering, and humiliating their own countrymen first and foremost. Were it within their means, I assure you many horrible, horrible things would be done to the Koch brothers if the Left were the likes of Al firmly in charge.

"Were it within their means, I assure you many horrible, horrible things would be done to the Koch brothers if the Left were the likes of Al firmly in charge."

Maybe so, since we all know that the Left can be quite hypocritical about such things. But this does not mean that it's ok for conservatives to support its employ.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.