Winston Churchill use the above words prior to World War II to describe the menace of Nazi Germany in an effort to spur Great Britain and the world to action. I think the phrase is appropriate in describing the menace of the modern world that is radical Islamism. Much as in the case of Churchill, there are far too many people who simply refuse to see the threat and contend that the solution is to withdraw to our own shores and turn a blind eye in the hopes that it will all just go away.
Even after the events of 9/11, the Madrid bombing and the recent bombing in London and even after repeated statements by these monsters as to their intentions there seems to be a lack of will on the part of many to do what is necessary to preserve our civilization. Make no mistake, no less than the literal preservation of our civilization is what is at stake.
I'm out of town at the moment and rather consumed with some annual recurrent training, but I felt compelled to blow off some steam after reading two excellent pieces; one by Christopher Hitchens and the other by David Horowitz. For readers who may not know, Hitchens is a self proclaimed liberal who experienced something of an epiphany on 9/11 and David Horowitz is a former 60s left-wing radical whose epiphany came back in the 80s which led him away from the left and to conservatism. Hitchens is a British atheist, Horowitz is the son of Russian Jewish immigrants who were active in the Communist party.
While these men come from vastly different backgrounds and have written extensively on the subject before, these two particular pieces serve as companions to each other. Hitchens concentrates on the implacable enemy that is Islamism and Horowitz discusses the dangerous apologists in the American left that aid and abet the Islamists.
The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work
of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance
of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.
Friday night I was watching my friend Alan Colmes, who is a decent
liberal but doesn't like the war. The guest on Hannity & Colmes was Kevin
Danaher, husband of Medea Benjamin and a leader of the indecent left that unlike Alan wants us to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel to the enemy force. Danaher and his wife who are leaders of Global Exchange and Code Pink and Iraq Occupation Watch, the campaign to dissuade American youngsters from serving in our country, are at work day and night to cripple our lines of homeland defense, from the protections afforded by the Patriot Act to the military forces who are keeping our enemies at bay in the field.
The discussion on Hannity & Colmes was about the violence of the anarcho-marxists who were raining rocks on the G8 meeting in Scotland which the terrorist bombs were designed to disrupt. In other words, they were conducting violence to parallel ends. The rocks they were throwing were large enough to kill a man. Danaher, who is a leader of the global anti-capitalist left that staged the attacks would not condemn the rock throwers but was smart enough to disapprove violence in the abstract or the violence of "both sides" - which he knew meant nothing. It was his people who were attacking. To condemn those defending themselves in the same breath is to propose that they become defenseless, which is exactly his plan.
Colmes was frustrated because he understood that Danaher's position, as he was arguing it, was suspect but since Danaher was against the war Alan wanted to coach him to do better. "Look," Colmes began, "I agree with your agendas, but....."
No he doesn't agree with Danaher's true agendas. Alan Colmes doesn't have the foggiest notion of who Kevin Danaher is or what his malicious and deadly intentions really are. Liberals like Alan Colmes have up to now protected the anti-American left by pretending that it is all a game. People who denounce the President as Adolf Hitler and America as Hitler's Germany are "foolish" and don't really mean it. Well actually some are not so foolish and do.
This is the lesson of London: Take the hostile force within your country and within your political coalition seriously. It's not a game anymore.
This is something I learned in my years on the left. All too often, people mean what they say. Make no mistake, those who talk revolution and war against our country are quite capable of acting on their talk of aiding and abetting those who are already at war and want to kill us. When the day comes that they step over the line and translate their words into action, they will do it with the best of intentions: to make the world a better place. That is the reason they are so dangerous. Like Mohammed Atta who did it for Allah, they will do it for a noble cause.
We need to accept the simple fact that to see this conflict as merely a difference of opinion is to doom our side to failure and our way of life to ruin. All opinions are not equal, especially in matters as grave as this.
Are we so enamored with words like "diversity" and "understanding" that we would actually substitute understanding for self preservation? This is question that has faced us before, consider the words of Patrick Henry in 1775 which seem somewhat apt:
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
We made the proper choice then, I can only hope that we can make the proper choice now.
Well, as to the question of whether we would actually substitute understanding for self preservation, Cliff May at The Corner reports that it would appear that the BBC has decided to do just that:
The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday..........The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments". Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.
I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry, I really don't.