Why Daniel Greenfield is Wrong about the Moral High Ground


In terms of raw intelligence and moral distillation of current events, Greenfield is not only the best writer on freedomoutpost, but among the best in the world.

Greenfield is a genius. But Greenfield’s most recent article is not his best work. While Greenfield’s insight into the irony of how it can be that Islamic terrorism nonetheless manages to win hearts and minds is characteristically keen here, Greenfield’s conclusion betrays an allegiance to the very multicultural tripe he criticizes.

Greenfield states:

The father of an Israeli soldier told his son after he was called up for duty that he would rather visit him in prison than visit him in the cemetery. “If you are fired on, fire back.” That is good advice not just for that young man, but for his entire country, and for the civilized world. It is better to fire than be fired upon. 

Whatever the marketing effect Greenfield gains by putting a hypothetical Israeli father on the pedestal, this story is sugar-coated death. “Fire first and ask questions later” loses both the moral ground and the souls of its adherents. Our conflict is not about bullets, missiles and suicide vests, but about Islam.

Another good Muslim mother. Sick no?

If we can recover a sense of natural law and unalienable rights, Islam will collapse.

The Cultural Opacity of this Time

Greenfield is much too smart to be an overt multiculturalist, but the disease of functional atheism that has dominated so many other Jews is manifesting itself in Greenfield.

Greenfield’s conceptual problem is that he is not thinking of what can be. Greenfield does not think far enough outside of the multicultural box.

Because there are too few Geert Wilders or William Churchills in this world (alas, Churchill has left us several decades ago), it can indeed be hard to see the political possibilities.

Indeed the agnostic Bill Warner reveals that despite Christians being the greatest victim of Islamic terrorism, no Christian institution has the courage to name Islam for the killer that she is. In other words, the universal cowardice of our Christian institutions dampens our political and moral vision.

These are painful words for me to write. While I am a committed Christian, I have left institutional Christianity. The bushel upon it has become quite opaque.

Named one of the best Palestinian mothers by Palestinian TV, a good Muslim mother celebrates her Muslim daughter’s suicidal terrorist death

When Christian institutions went politically multicultural and abandoned even the cause of persecuted Christians by the Islamic sword, it became harder for all to see the political possibilities of what can be. It becomes difficult to imagine courage and compassion working synergistically, when one does not have leaders to exemplify such character.

The Problem Defined

What is going on with Israel’s security? What is the problem? This must be answered before solutions like Greenfield’s are entertained.

The global political instability lies with two ideologies: a humanistic (agnostic) multiculturalism on the one hand, and Islam on the other.

Islam is about killing non-Muslims and about celebrating Muslim terrorists who, though killed in the process, get a sure place in paradise where they collect on their 72 brown-eyed virgins. This is Islam in its doctrinal mean. While this may be the demographic extreme of Islam, in many “Palestinian” areas, this is also Islam revered in its sociological mean.

Now let us ask, “How is it that the religion of terrorism, finds so much support in the mainstream multicultural media?”

The answer is found in the lament of poor “Palestinian” children killed by the “evil” Israelis.

The media are enabling the Islamic doctrine of jihad. From the media, one does not learn that “Palestinian” Muslims do not mind their children being killed nearly as much as they mind Israel’s existence. The Koran sanctions the loss of these children for the greater “good” of removing that wealth creating non-Islamic state that embarrasses the poverty and backward nature of neighboring Islamic countries.

By lamenting the collateral casualties of war, the multicultural media weighs the unintentional killing of more numerous Palestinian children to be more grievous than the intentional killing random of less numerous Israeli citizens. This is the problem. If this is the political construction of Israel, then Israel is doomed.

Greenfield’s conclusions only makes sense if one consents to operate under the rules of multiculturalism/political correctness.

Republican politicians, like George Bush and Condoleezza Rice, who said, “I imagine that it’s not the dream of Palestinian mothers to see their children become suicide bombers” – are part of the problem. Obama is all together another piece of work.

While an IDF blog, notes the problem, the solution evades Israel’s polity and the functionally agnostic (sociological) Jewish worldview.

Let go of multiculturalism and a new vista will appear.

The Solution

What needs to be challenged is the Islamic doctrine itself, the doctrine that inspires parents to have their children function as suicide bombers. We need to force the media to answer the question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?” If this answer is not exposed—let alone the question unfurled to accost the treasonous mainstream media—the West’s very existence is jeopardized.

Of course, during the first round of this debate, Muslims and Multiculturalists will quote verses like Koran 5:32. But even a decent critic of Islam can expose the context of this verse—as well as that of the more peaceful, but abrogated Meccan and early Median verses. But by the second round, the defender of the West needs to understand Islam well enough to win the debate without going to the third round.

Ultimately, it will be necessary to defend principles like, “Good parents don’t raise their children to be like Mohammad.” Defend this, Mr. Greenfield, and Israel is secure.

Presented properly, the media will carry the truth.

Perhaps the best way to jettison multiculturalism is to study natural law. America’s founders could write about what is “self evident” from “Nature and Nature’s God.”

I recommend that Greenfield (and all reading this) likewise adopt the language of natural law.

Greenfield ends his article saying “It is better to leave the moral high ground to those who worship the romance of endless bloodshed and defeat. It is better to lose the peace and win the war.”

But it is never good to concede the moral high ground. Cede that ground and we cede our humanity. The byline for the movie BraveHeart says, “Even man dies, not every man really lives.” The way to live is to, like the chivalrous prince, be willing to jeopardize our necks to rescue the princess.

To put it another way, in the terms of another Jew, 

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:25,26)

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.