Commentary upon two thought provoking articles

By Frank Maguire

On October 23rd, I read two articles which prompted me to comment: "National Pusillanimous Radio," by Wall Street Journal writer John Fund; "Multiculturalism: Political Correctness Run Amok," by Ken O'Connor, who writes for RenewAmerica.com. My intention is not to diminish but to augment.

The first "stopper" in Fund's article: Fund wrote, "Mr. (Juan) Williams took pains to warn Mr. O'Reilly that all Muslims shouldn't be tarred as 'extremists,' any more than all Christians should be blamed for the murderous action of Timothy McVeigh."

I have no recollection of McVeigh claiming that he was a Christian, or that Christianity had anything to do with his murderous assault. Is it Fund's assumption that because McVeigh was a citizen of the United States, with an Irish name, that he must be a "Christian." And, as far as I know, McVeigh was not a known member of any terrorist group (although, some investigators have reported that McVeigh was witnessed in association with at least one Middle-Eastern accomplice) which claimed religious — not "Christian" — ties, like the IRA. Neither did the IRA nor any other organization ever declare themselves to be accomplices in McVeigh's bombing.

Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ can not, ever, believe that they are directed to murder and to be justified in actions that kill innocents. If McVey believed that those whom he murdered were, somehow, enemy combatants, then McVeigh was either an uncontrolled maniac or an evil-controlled murderer. The jury chose to believe McVeigh to be a murderer who strove mightily to escape the punishment for his heinous crime.

Further, Fund uses Juan Williams' remark that "all Muslims shouldn't be tarred as 'extremists,'" in his defense of Williams against NPR. My response to this is that I don't consider every non-Jewish Semite (the Arabs are Semites, so calling them anti-Semites is an oft-made error) Arab to be a Muslim. But when someone talks like a Muslim and "walks" the Muslim walk, then unless I have clear evidence to the contrary, I presume that the person is a Muslim. So, what is a Muslim?

When someone tells me that he or she is Muslim, I find it only reasonable to assume that he or she is a disciple of their prophet Mohammed, and that he or she regards the Quran to be the holy book of the religion of Islam, to be faithfully followed in respect to the teachings of the Quran and the Haditha of their Prophet.

Yes, I do know that Muslims have "denominational" differences and that they kill one another over religious interpretations in re fundamentals of Islam. But such behavior is most certainly not in the realm of "moderate." If you pick sides in their internecine slaughter, is your side the "moderate" side?

I confess to having a great deal of trouble with those in our government who claim to believe that fundamentalist Muslims are not the real Muslims, and that "moderate" Muslims are. Of course, many of our political leaders declare a preference for "moderate Christians," whatever that strange, synthetic category might be. Perhaps it is the "moderate Christian" preference to leave "Creator" out of our nation's mission statement, the Declaration of Independence?

Fund's article focuses on the comparative reaction to Jesse Jackson's admission in his 1993 address at the Operation Push convention in 1993 where Jackson told the audience "There is nothing more painful for me at this stage of my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." Fund follows this with "The fear(s) — (of both Jackson and Williams, I assume Fund means) may not be rational." This was a second "stopper."

Why does Fund see the need to hedge? One who feels a reason (that which has "reason") for fear is rational if that person believes, from knowledge and experience, that he/she has reason to fear. It is, in fact, irrational to declare that the fears of someone else, who believes his or her fears to be rational, seem to Fund to be irrational. It begs a question, "What fears do you have that you consider to be rational?" It would be entirely unreasonable for me to declare your fears irrational just because I don't suffer trepidation over those things that you fear. Even if we share the same fears, you will react to them in your way and I in mine.

Fund also shows some naïveté when he writes "By NPR's logic, the network should have banned Jackson from its airwaves." Fund seems to miss the reality that the NPR ideological-propagandists are not interested in logic that is integrated. The reality is that Progressivist Propaganda has a "logic" of its own. It is rightly called pragmatic-utility in the Grand March toward a Glorious Future.

Fund IS correct in using "pusillanimous" in his title, a word that means "cowardly." Juan Williams, the "Fox" Black is an easy target. NPusillanimousR knows that hunting for Jesse the J. is akin to hunting a Grizzly with a slingshot. A very unhealthy thing! (By the way, WSJ has its own pragmatic prerogatives.)

I recall a comment, apropos, by Marxist stage and screen writer Bertolt Brecht that the essential purpose of theatre is to "educate," cum sufficient entertainment to keep the audiences' attention. Brecht, who lived his later years in East Germany, where he was regarded a hero of the Marxists-Leninists, has a memorial-statue still standing. NPR is, in my opinion, true to Brecht's axiom.

I augment Ken O'Connor's typically excellent commentary with my augmentations. Ken writes, the "utilitarian approach to immigration" of Germany, "in the 1950's and the 1960's" was considered pro-tem — that the permitted and solicited immigration of workers into Germany would be ended "when they (the workers) were no longer needed."

I find that alleged understanding to be unlikely. Trouble is, that if the "temporary" workers produced increased production and material wealth, the logical result would not be to send the workers home, it would be to keep them and to increase their numbers. And this is exactly what has occurred in Germany and other European Union nations. Their economies are now dependent upon "immigrant" labor.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said that multiculturalism has "utterly failed," and that she wants to make major changes, is going to have to contend with the Globalist Marxists who have re-secured considerable power in Germany. Her chances of effecting major change are slim to none. This reality applies to all the nations that comprise the European Union.

One further observation! It is much more accurate to refer to the so-called "immigrants" as emigrants. Those who left their homelands to enter Germany, and other European Union nations, emigrated from their homelands where there were inadequate circumstances for them. They emigrated to places where they saw greater personal opportunity.

We, in America, have a situation where many of the "illegal immigrants," who risk much and pay much to illegally enter the United States are economic- émigrés from Mexico, and Central America, because their nations do not provide labor opportunities for their citizenry. Though I sympathize, I hold absolutely to the properly understood Constitution, and to the Rule of Law. Illegal means illegal.

Amazingly, there are those in our nation, including officers of the court, who would have us believe that "Illegal" is illegal. It is increasingly clear that millions of America citizens are prepared to make certain things eminently clear to politicians and bureaucrats who hold this position.

© Frank Maguire