as published on examiner.com
It is always fascinating when celebrities and politicians display their moral bankruptcy and pontificate about the supposed moral equivalency between brutal killers and American military actions or American justice (especially in times of war). It is amazing when they simultaneously bristle at the idea that they might indeed be showing hatred towards their country and its government. It’s almost as if they do not recognize the nature of their own beliefs. It is as if they do not grasp that appeasement and apologies to human evil empowers it. Say it ain’t so.
These moral traitors do not grasp that when we forget or ignore the distinctions between good and evil, we gloss over the nature of both. When this occurs we will always end up sacrificing that which is good for the sake of that which is not.
In Altruism As Appeasement, her brilliant analysis of the moral treason committed by many guilt ridden intellectuals, and the resultant mindset, Ayn Rand (inspired by a letter from a student she met at a lecture she gave at M.IT.) explained the method of thinking that leads to the many acts of moral cowardice on display this week.
In her article, Rand shows how many intellectuals, men and women who naturally are those who end up bucking trends and standing against prevailing wisdom, tend to develop unwarranted guilt over such acts of egoism and pride, in part due to societal acceptance of the ugly morality that is altruism. She argues (as does the student who wrote to her) that some resort to what the student calls the “compromise of the Liberal”. Rand said that those who make this compromise end up declaring “the brother hood of all men”, and will ignore the fact (recognized by most thinking persons) that individuals are not morally indistinguishable and that indeed evil people exist, and that they are not the spiritual brothers of the good.
Rand demonstrates that the compromise between the sanctity of one’s own mind and the desire for approval from others which liberals will often make (as do many conservatives) necessarily leaves them unable and unwilling to believe that there is evil in some people, and thus unable in turn to believe fully in the good. She argues that an individual who develops such a moral fog in his mind, seeking approval and sanction for what he knows to be his gifted intellect “surrenders morality…in order to be permitted to use his mind”. Such appeasement leads to “a bitter contempt for mankind” a”hatred impervious to reason”.
Such a contempt was on display loud and clear in the musings of Cindy Sheehan who, when faced with the moral victory of bin Laden’s death, is unable to believe it. She can only mutter about our “lying, murderous empire”.
Sheehan ignores the reality that our “empire” chose to fight and win two World Wars for Europe, it ended slavery in most of the world, and in the case of the bin Laden raid chose the riskier hands on, targeted approach over a much easier bombing run. It did so primarily to minimize the carnage,to ensure that only the designated targets would be taken out, and to establish certainty that indeed we would get bin Laden, and could prove it.
Demonstrating the contempt evident in every appeaser, Sheehan calls those who accept bin Laden’s death as factual: “stupid”. Her ramblings show that individuals who hate, who scorn ethics, and who deny the intellect of others in order to use their own are impervious to reason. They necessarily will project their hate and irrationality on their enemy, their enemy being anyone able to recognize truth from falsehood. Their enemy being any and all who proudly uphold the good against the evil, and who know full well the difference.
Less than 48 hours passed after the death of Osama bin Laden. The haters of the mind went on about the supposed inappropriateness of celebrating this thug’s death, comparing it to Terrorists trotting around American corpses. Less than 48 hours, barely enough time for the mass murderers body to go fully cold, and our former President was again targeted for smear. George W. Bush is of course a daily punching bag of the leftist cowards who see no difference between a fist and an argument, and he was once again placed on the same moral level as men and women who use civilians as shields and behead journalists for fun and profit.
Celebrating the fact that justice has been served shows an understanding that the appeasement of evil is the only means by which evil can grow. It is recognition that the good can and will triumph over the evil, providing the evil be recognized as such and destroyed — and that it ought to be.
The recognition of the difference between good and evil, the understanding that moral superiority exists, and the awareness of the powerlessness of evil when met with an uncompromising good are abstractions that, unfortunately, appeasers are unable to make. When individuals recognize and call out the evils of men such as bin Laden (and the cultures that create such men) and are willing to voice America’s moral superiority, it fills the appeasers with fear, along with anger and hate.
We had no less an intellectual and moral leader than talk show host cum philosopher Joy Behar suggesting that we appease our enemies by offering book deals instead of interrogation (or one would presume, bullets). We had a Liberal talk show host arguing once again that a President who ordered military actions in the Middle East seeking to stabilize the region (and who helped to create the only Arab run democratic nation in human history) should be met with targeting by Navy Seals.
We had a Michael Moore declaring that we’ve lost the war on terror because we adopted the Patriot Act. Moore seems to wish to argue that there is moral equivalency between the Patriot Act and the Al Qaeda manual, that the strapping of bombs to children is roughly the same as spying on those suspected of supporting the strapping of said bombs, and that killing 3000 people whose crime was to go to work in the morning is the moral equivalent of targeting the individual responsible for those deaths.
In a stark change of pace from the drivel, the fresh air of reason could breathed in the moral outrage of comedian Dennis Miller on Fox News’ the O’Reilley Factor. Miller articulated the basic premises of the rest of us and called out the loons. There are those who refuse to cave to intellectual lunacy and moral treason. In reasoned persons like Miller, and those who share his ethical premise, will be found the future saviors of mankind. This despite treasons that come from those who succumb to the compromise of the liberal.
The unconscionable tirades against supposed callousness and alleged American Imperialism, less than a week after President Obama and a courageous special team brought some justice to al Qaeda (and exposed the Pakistani Government’s treachery), are enlightening. These “oooh we suck so bad…., because we are so good” self loathing whines are a window into the souls of those who “cannot fathom, not that evil exists, but that good does — and that good triumphs when evil is allowed no sanctuary.”
Rational and moral people understand the moral imperative of meeting evil and brute force with the things that have efficacy against them – brute force and an uncompromising moral code.
Rational, moral people recognize that pride and celebration in the wake of this week’s act of justice and elimination of an evil are not displays of callousness, they are not a capitulation to the enemies ethics, and they are not acts possible to an “evil empire”.
This is so because only evil empires (and only irrational and immoral people) could believe that the murders of innocents sitting at their desks at work are noble acts or are willed by God, and that retaliation for said “noble acts of god” are war crimes.
The celebration of bin Laden’s death is not a failure of common decency, it is a proud display of it. It is an embrace of ethics and a proper display of pride in knowing what type of ethics are proper. It is a celebration of the fact that indeed we are better than bin Laden and al Qaeda, because we make distinctions between the good and the evil — and more often than most we choose the good. Our pride is justifiable because our nation’s existence is a repudiation of the morality of the scum who try to kill us primarily because we know it.
Hadenough US 
Leave a comment