America lies torpidly beneath a consoling, yet leaden blanket of illusions, made all the more inviting by the mythology which has grown up around - or, rather, has been imposed by representatives of the dominant liberal elite - the history of her post-WWII period. According to this mythology, America was a nation which was conceived, not as the expression of a distinct and settled culture, albeit a restless one, but as a promise of the future; and that future, moreover, was cruelly deferred for a significant segment of the population, deferred, that is, until liberals awakened the conscience of the nation and roused her to realize that future. And we might well acknowledge that, despite the grotesque "unfurling of history" quality of the liberal narrative, that there was a terrible contradiction and injustice that begged for rectification.
Yet, America did not seem to rest content, having at least acknowledged a troubled history and moved to redress it. To the contrary, the liberal narrative laid hold of her authoritative institutions, if not the hearts of the people, and that glorious promise of the future cast ever-darkening shadows over the present, and even as Americans adjusted their habits to correct those perhaps now outmoded, showed it as little more than a collage of injustices. American history was now a litany of abuses and perfidies. Perhaps her essence was no more than this. At the heart of this emergent image of the republic, or at least near to its heart, was the notion that much injustice resulted from the drawing of distinctions, and the actions that followed upon such employments of reason.
In fine, the ideal of nondiscrimination was enshrined as the cornerstone of the new public orthodoxy; it was not sufficient that America had at last extended that honourable principle of equality before the law to those previously excluded from it on grounds of race; no, the doctrine held that discrimination was the postulation of differences where none existed - and as all men were dogmatically held to be alike, one transgressed not merely by stating that there were differences among men, but by causing them to appear different by means of unjust social structures, institutions, and conventions. Differential outcomes could no longer prove difference, only discrimination.
What this has to do with the jihad is, I trust, obvious. Our nation, to the point of stultification, imposes upon itself a risible regimen of conventions intended to harmonize the orthodoxy with the stubborn fact of the jihad. We suffer under a routine of airline security at once intrusive and feckless, born of the assumption that terrorist threats, statistically, are as likely to emanate from any one community as any other; we have all read of the horror stories. Our leaders, whether elected, appointed, or self-nominated, intone pious untruths regarding a great world religion corrupted and betrayed by a faction of innovators, who may even be under the spell of the ideologues responsible for the evils we confronted in the Good War. History is whitewashed by ideology; untruth is a condition of our way of life. Those same leaders offer representatives of an American front organization, a lobbying outfit with historic and, through the persons of some members, ongoing, ties to jihadist organizations, previews of our security procedures. Officers of this organization assert their intent to supplant our republican form of government, and this is apparently subsumed under the freedom of religion. One could continue indefinitely in this vein. We wish to assimilate something religiously, culturally, and historically sui generis to a universal pattern, a unique threat having a specific quality, and a specific intensity, to the types of threats which always lurk behind the wall of civilization.
This, perhaps above all other reasons, save the fact of jihad itself, is the reason the legal defining of jihad as sedition is imperative. Nothing is more enervating, more inhibiting, more confining and ultimately self-destructive, than the presupposition of our policies and rhetoric, namely, that the terrorist threat emanates from all groups without distinction. If a "religion of peace" has been hijacked by a few fascist-inspired ideologues, then the threat of religious terror can come from any confession; there will be fanatics in any faith, and so all are alike. If the threat is indistinct as to its origins, we must worry equally about Mohammed, Son of Jihad, and a group of left-half-of-the-bell-curve white supremacists out in the Northwest. If anyone can be a terrorist, then we must regard even grandmothers, nursing mothers, and nuns as potential security threats in our airports.
This, I submit, we all know not to be so. And it is time that our representative institutions declare the deliberate sense of the people to be that we will have no more of these untruths, and by a rational discrimination between threats, and between threats and non-threats, to direct the executive and the security apparatus to deploy resources accordingly. We must forcefully, and by specific actions, repudiate the ideology of nondiscrimination, which leaves us to joust with mental projections instead of concrete realities; this must begin by acknowledging the methods and objects of our enemies, and correctly classifying them: as sedition.