Glibly immoral. That’s how I describe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, on the subject of How To Make The World Right For Decent People™. Where Clinton would tolerate atrocities committed by our enemies against us and our allies, Trump would have America commit atrocities of our own. Neither of them see the immorality of their approach because they are immoral people.
Now follow me through the deep dark tunnels of the forbidding cave called “philosophy.” I know it’s frightening, but come along, and read to the end to see where this is going. I assure you there’ll be more blood than a Quentin Tarantino double-feature.
We will start with Clinton and her logical Chinese finger traps dealing with radical Islam.
Clinton would continue Obama’s National Apology Tour, touting views exemplified by activists like Shaun King writing about how ISIS members aren’t Muslims.
They weren’t attacked because they love Jesus or Taylor Swift. They were attacked by ISIS because the men who make up ISIS are evil and hell-bent on carnage and destruction. Another suicide bomber detonated himself on Monday in Medina, Saudi Arabia, at what many consider one of the holiest sites in all of Islam — The Prophet’s Mosque — where the Prophet Muhammad is buried.
These men aren’t Muslims. They have no regard for Islam.
This argument is based on the old admonition frequently quoted by respected author and apologist Ravi Zacharias: “Never judge a philosophy by its abuse.” Therefore, if ISIS is killing Muslims in Baghdad and Medina, their killing of Americans can’t be due to some adherence to actual Islam.
I’ll concede that argument–partially. I am no Islamic scholar, but I’m willing to admit that ISIS abuses Islam. But that doesn’t make them not Muslim. With Christians, Clinton and her liberals want it both ways: Christianity is a religion of hate when orthodox Biblical instruction is held on homosexuality and abortion. But Christians who hold those views are also perverting liberals’ depilated version of the Bible, so they’re not really “doing what Jesus would do.”
They conveniently ignore the bits in the Quran that call for homosexuals to die, and for jihad against infidels, using a sword. They also ignore the bits in the Bible about love, forgiveness and eternal life only through obedience to Christ (who tells us to love our neighbor, not kill them). The result is carnage.
In that vein, Clinton, along with Obama, “freed” Libya from strongman Muammar Gaddafi, resulting in four preventable American deaths, only to hand it over to ISIS, who aren’t Muslim according to their logic, yet kill thousands of Libyans in the name of Islam. Confusing, isn’t it?
Now on to Trump.
Trump wants to handle ISIS like Saddam handled his enemies, or how Mussolini handled Ethiopia and Libya. One of the things that both Trump and his admirer Vladimir Putin probably respect is how Josef Stalin handled enemies. One Quora writer speculated on how Stalin would deal with ISIS.
Stalin would send his men into the nearest town threatened by ISIS then murder every man, woman, and child he found living there. He would also send his agents abroad to hunt down any family members who left the village as well as people who may have spent time there on business. When ISIS entered the city, they would only find a pile of bodies and a sign waiting for them saying: Любители (Amateurs)
Of course, that would be an atrocity.
It’s an atrocity, just like suicide bombing is an atrocity, or slitting the throat of a teenage American girl in her sleep in Israel is an atrocity. People like Max Blumenthal, scum of the earth, defend atrocities by Palestinian terrorists. Trump advocates killing families of ISIS members.
Neither of the two candidates could find a moral argument with both hands, a flashlight, and a map of their behinds. As a result, I predict that, short of a miracle where neither Clinton nor Trump becomes president, the next four years will be the most atrocity-filled years the earth has seen since World War II.
As Nietzsche correctly predicted, when history itself loses meaning; when morality, God, and faith are wiped away by political expediency, then atrocity always results. (Nietzsche predicted that the 20th century would the bloodiest in history, which of course came to pass.)
Nietzsche predicted that it would be well into the 21st century before Western thought fully confronted the crisis of nihilism. It would thus far appear that he was correct. Western thought since the Enlightenment has attempted to compensate for the loss of the old faith by replacing the discredited Christian worldview with new faiths and new pieties. As these have become increasingly difficult to justify within a framework of rationality and a belief in inevitable “progress,” Western intellectuals have increasingly retreated into the irrational. This is illustrated by the curious phenomena of the present efforts by Western intellectual elites to embrace postmodernism, with its accompanying moral and cultural relativism, while simultaneously embracing the egalitarian-universalist-humanist moralistic zealotry popularly labeled “political correctness” and espousing with great piousness such liberal crusades as “human rights,” “anti-racism,” “gay liberation,” feminism, environmentalism and the like. Such an outlook, which combines extreme moralism in the cultural and political realm, complete moral relativism in the philosophical or metaphysical realm, and at times even falls into subjectivism in the epistemological realm14, is fundamentally irrational, of course. That such an outlook has become so deeply entrenched indicates that Western intellectuals are desperately working to avoid a full confrontation with the crisis of nihilism.
There you have it, the anode connected to the cathode to complete the circuit of nihilism. The immoral, politically correct, egalitarian-universalist-humanist-moralistic zealotry of Clinton and the Democrats and the immoral nationalist dreams of Trumpism meet where apology met atrocity.