Recently, I cautioned my fellow Americans against falling for the notion that the so-called “Islamic State” is among the gravest threats, or any threat, that the United States had ever encountered.
I noted that if the hyperbolic cries of politicians and their media propagandists in both parties so much as remotely resembled reality, then we’d have long ago witnessed at least two phenomena that, as of the present moment, remain conspicuously, indeed, painfully, absent from the current discourse.
First, at long last, we would have jettisoned the Politically Correct labels—“Islamo-Fascism,” “Islamo-Nazism,” “Islamism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamic extremism,” etc.—that we invariably assign to Islamic terrorists in favor of a signifier that does not imply that Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the like are deviations from true Islam. I suggested that we resurrect the term, “Mohammedanism,” that was once used by Westerners as a matter of course as a designator for Muslims. Muhammad, after all, established the precedent for Islamic violence generally, and beheadings specifically, when he delivered Islam its first victory over his opponents by decapitating, en masse, 700 of them.
Secondly, if the professional chatterers on talk radio and elsewhere really believed that ISIS is “coming for us,” then you would think that they would spare not a single occasion to demand an indefinite halt to all immigration, both legal and illegal. This should strike all people with an IQ above four as a no-brainer: If you are concerned about rapists and murderers entering your home, then wouldn’t it dawn upon you that the most rudimentary step that you should take first is to make sure that your doors and windows are locked? You certainly wouldn’t allow strangers to sneak into your home on the assumption that it isn’t likely that they are all murderers and rapists.
But not only do these same people refuse to call for a moratorium on all immigration; they have regularly called for “comprehensive immigration reform”—what the intellectually honest call “amnesty,” as sure fire a way to guarantee an increase in illegal immigration.
In both of these instances, it is clear that for all of their squawking over the “imminent” threat posed to us by (first Saddam Hussein, then Al Qaeda, and now) ISIS, the Chicken Littles are more fearful of violating the protocols of Political Correctness than they are fearful of Islamic terrorists. The fear of being branded as “racist” toward people of color, whether the latter are Middle Eastern Muslims or Hispanics, is greater than their fear of being killed by Mohammedans.
And they are at least as fearful of being charged with harboring “racism” against American blacks.
As I write this, it has been 24 hours or so since word broke that a Muslim man beheaded a woman in Oklahoma. Had this occurred thousands of miles away in another region of the world, neoconservative commentators would be citing it endlessly as further proof that we are at “war” with Islamic terrorists who we must destroy at once. The President would be delivering but another speech to the nation on how he plans on bringing the perpetrators to “justice.”
But it happens right here on American soil, and suddenly it isn’t nearly as big of deal. There is no talk of “war,” no nationally televised speeches, no talk of “destroying” anyone. However, there is a reason for this double-standard:
Alton Nolten, the murderer who beheaded a woman, stabbed another, and shot a third person before being shot and subdued by his boss, was black.
And he was a black American, at that.
Yet, to my knowledge, no one in the media or in Washington who has covered this event has spoken to its racial component.
This omission, though, is glaring, especially considering that, in America, the overwhelming majority of American born Muslims are black. Moreover, for decades, black American Islamic organizations—the Nation of Islam is a prime example here—have been known for their propensity for violence, even murderous violence (Malcolm X is the most famous victim in this regard). As any law enforcement agent, and certainly any corrections officer, can attest, this reputation is richly deserved, for it is not by accident that the most feared group in the American prison system today is not any of America’s most notorious street gangs or organized criminal networks, but the Black Muslims.
If Islamic terrorists are the face of “evil in our time,” the gravest threat of our lifetime, as we are being lead to believe, then shouldn’t we be at least talking about the phenomena of black Muslims? That black converts are sold on (the American brand of) Islam in no small measure because of its anti-white, anti-Jewish, and anti-American rhetoric supplies that much more reason to at least explore what connection, if any, there is between the violence of black Muslims here and the violence of Muslims overseas.
And now that a black American Muslim has actually beheaded another American—during a time when ISIS is beheading Westerners abroad—in a world in which it is sincerely held that Islamic terrorists pose the greatest danger, one would think that an inquiry into the possible intersection of these species of religious and racial violence would be launched.
That it has not, and most likely will not, is further proof that the hype over a “war” on ISIS is just that.
The fear of Political Correctness is apparently greater than the fear of “Islamism.”