The Cult, Part II

In my last post I tried, inadequately I'm sure, to identify The Cult in our country today that centers around the idea that members of our military are inherently the best moral specimens of our society and that all the killing and dying attendant with their job is done "for us", specifically to "protect our freedoms".  In my mind that is a venal, cynical, and disgusting lie.

I hope now to illuminate another Cult, or perhaps a tributary of the one I wrote of earlier.  This dynamic was illustrated by the medias' differing responses to two grieving parents of American war dead, Mr. Khan and Ms. Smith.

Mr. Khan's son died on behalf of the American State (not the American people, not "us") after the American State invaded an Arab nation which had not attacked the United States, overthrew that Arab nation's dictator, stood by while that Arab dictator was lynched, and then stood by as that Arab nation descended into a nihilistic abattoir of torture, forced human migration, beheading, and child murder which has proceeded to seep into Europe and the United States. 

Ms. Smith's son, on the other hand, died.....oh, wait.  Same thing.

But the treatment of the grieving parents was most decidedly not the same thing.

Why was Mr. Khan treated as a prophet, a moral exemplar, a tribune of all that is just, while Ms. Smith was treated as a harridan with an axe to grind, a vaguely sympathetic yet hopelessly misguided wretch?

The answer lies in which presidential candidate's behalf each of these poor souls was speaking.  Mr. Khan spoke for Hillary Clinton.  Mrs. Smith spoke for Donald Trump.

Imagine the boundless perversion of Mr. Khan speaking on behalf of Mrs. Clinton.  Mrs. Clinton voted to send his son to his death. Mr. Trump's sin, in Mr. Khan's eyes, was that he has proposed freezing Muslim immigration into the United States.  Naturally he focused on the possibility that, had Mr. Trump had his way, Mr. Khan's son may never have been an American.

But what about the mirror image of this argument?  What about the idea that, had Mr. Trump had his way, Mr. Khan's son may still be alive, blessing Mr. Khan with decades worth of grandchildren and restoring stolen memories?  And the Muslims Mr. Trump is concerned about are not the Muslims typified by Mr. Khan's son, but the Muslims typified by the man who blew himself up in order to kill Mr. Khan's son.

I should take a moment here to stipulate that I am not defending Mr. Trump. who I find to be one of the most indefensible cretins to ever sully our national stage, but Mr. Trump's sins do not imply any virtue on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, a point which seems to be lost on Mr. Khan.

While Ms. Smith criticized Mrs. Clinton mercilessly, that criticism was not entirely unwarranted.  What is truly bizarre to witness, however, is the mainstream media opining that while Ms. Smith's critique of Hillary was hyperbolic and in poor taste, Mr. Khan's critique of Mr. Trump was some sort of revelation.  Let's take a deep breath and accept this fact: the only commonality between the deaths of these two young men that has any relevance to this specific discussion is that Hillary Clinton supported both of these wars.

The root of the media's fawning over Mr. Khan is this: it allows them to virtue signal, to feel self-righteous, and to preen about how great America is.  It goes something like this: "Mr. Khan's story proves that America loves Muslims.  After all, we let this Muslim man immigrate here, and then we let his Muslim son go kill other Muslims on our behalf, before being killed himself! USA! USA!"

But what about the several American soldiers of the Muslim faith who used their training and their station to slaughter other American soldiers and civilians, both in the theater of war and on the homefront?  Are the parents of children killed by Muslim-American soldiers invited to speak anywhere?  Don't hold your breath.

And how much more sympathy and acclaim would Ms. Smith have garnered were her son a Muslim-American who died "for his country", rather than just a boring white American who died "for his country"?

The media was so enamored of the narrative of a Muslim who died for America that they willfully ignored two relevant facts:  First, the Muslim in question died in the commission of killing Muslims.  Second, the woman who the aggrieved parent of this Muslim was endorsing was part of the machinery that sent this Muslim to his death.

Hillary Clinton's policies, and those she has endorsed and voted for, have led to the deaths of at least one million Muslims.  Donald Trump's proposed policies, which he will ever enact even if elected, have hurt people's feelings.  What does it say about our media that they insist that the masses should be more outraged by the latter than the former?