A Mess O' Contessas

Aren't we "lucky" to live in such "enlightened" times? Back in the bad old days of the Cold War, had a Ruskie parked a car full of explosives in a busy precinct of New York City, people would have been up in arms--literally--and it's likely no one would have rushed to defend the poor, poor Russian, who'd supposedly suffered financial setbacks, and who, being Russian, was the victim of so much "bigotry"--"Russophobia".

Today, of course, Americans are much more considerate of and attune to the "feelings" of enemies bent on their destuction. Here's Diana West on one of these squishy sensitifs:

"(T)here was a part of me that was hoping (the Times Square bomber) was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country," said MSNBC host Contessa Brewer. Of course, she inadvertently revealed there was a part of her that strongly suspected otherwise.

But that tiny voice of reason, Brewer and her peers seem to believe, is from the dark side. Brewer explains: "There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent" -- jihad! -- "to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way" -- people who believe in jihad! -- "or come from certain countries" -- that is, countries that practice Sharia and promote jihad! -- "or whose skin color is a certain way." This last bit, a non-applicable race card, works like a last-ditch sympathy-trigger. "I mean," she said, "they use it for justification for really outdated bigotry."

Welcome to your world, where self-defense is bigotry, and thus worse than death by fireball, axe or vaporizing over the Atlantic.

This is as ridiculous as it is obscene. There is no "bigotry" in understanding jihad as the engine of Islamic supremacism driven by the imperative to spread Islamic law (Sharia). Our leading lights shrink from this basic truth lest its clean logic wither the fuzzy, cultural-relativism-based universalism that orders our society.

There's only one possible conclusion: fuzzy, cultural-relativism-based universalism makes one stupid and renders one incapable of seeing what's what, and therefore incapable.

In her new book, The World Turned Upside Down (a must-read), Melanie Phillips cuts through the fuzzy, cultural-relativism crap:

Conversation with many Muslims in the West today has no correspondence with reality or rationality. The dialogue proceeds on two separate planes with no intersection between them, because the Islamic mindset is governed by a closed thought system that cannot acknowledge anything beyond its own inverted structure.

The absurdity of its circular logic is exemplified by the common complaint that Muslims are wrongly associated with terrorism, a complaint backed up by the threat of violence if the association persists. This amounts to declaring, in effect: "Say one more time that I'm violent and I'll kill you." It proves the charge that is being denied. And while bad behavior by Muslims is denies, that very behavior is imputed to its victims, in a kind of psychological projection of forbidden characteristics that is a staple of Islamic discourse. Islamists declare war against the West, but then accuse the West of trying to destroy the Islamic world. Some Muslims vow that they will have nothing to do with "unbelievers," but then the "infidel" world is accused of "Islamophobia" if it objects to Muslim prejudice or hostility.

In this they are aided inestimably by the Contessa Brewers, who, idiotically, can't see that Martin Luther King's civil rights message has absolutely nothing to do with the need to defend oneself and one's civilization from totalitarian jihadis.