Cheerleaders for Evil
The invaluable Dr. Theodore Dalrymple reports in The Spectator that a Belgian journalist told him that his nephew of 15 years was stabbed in the throat by two young Ukrainian asylum-seekers and that for some days it was unknown whether or not he would live.
To my mind there was little to do but hope that the young man recovers and to throw the book at the thugs who stabbed him; there was, evidently, no question about their actions or their guilt. And indeed, the press reported the horror of the crime in perfectly reasonable ways.
But that being politically correct (read intellectually fascist) Belgium, the seat of that monstrous unelected European Union, the wet dream of all statists everywhere since the fall of the Soviet Union, it did not take long for the usual suspects to tell us that our perceptions were wrong and that the criminals are not properly understood.
According to Dr. Dalrymple, which is the nom de plume for Anthony Daniels, whose books are worth the price, after the press had reported this assault, two professors of the law faculty of the Free University of Brussels decided that this reportage was hysteria--it had the effect of "creating a fundamental dichotomy between them and us."
And that is a bad thing? Please tell me how that is not a good thing, that is, if you are not evil or complaisant to it, which is the same damned thing. Here are two murderous thugs who stab a teenager and nearly take his life, and reporting what they did is wrong because it might make us think that they are not like us. I do not like the implied insult that I am really no different from knife-wielding footpads
These criminologists, and they are just that, although one wonders if they are iatrogenic, have a problem with the idea that the stabbed boy is utterly innocent even though he was a passerby. It seems that this claim of his innocence strengthens the "polarization" between perpetrator and victim. If by polarization I assume that they mean that there is a difference between perpetrator and victim. There is a difference if you are not part of the problem.
Isn't this called blaming the victim? And isn't blaming the victim exonerating the perpetrator, lessening his, or their, responsibility for this murderous attack?
This is all of one piece with the braying of the liberal-left that we ought to understand the Islamofascists who want to kill us and who state forthrightly that that is their intention. And then who do everything in their power to do it, and make no bones about it either. The fact that they are murderers and thugs is to be glossed over--it is somehow the fault of the victims--read innocent people here--that people want to kill us, just as it is somehow the fault of the innocent youth that two murderous Ukrainians stabbed him without provocation.
A civilization which does not have the courage to condemn brutal behavior is not a civilization that can last long for it does not have the will to resist people set on destroying it. People who will not see evil cannot resist it and evil people, being excellent calculators of risk, know that perfectly well. During the days of the late, unlamented Soviet Union one airplane was hijacked and only one--the hijackers understood perfectly well that the Soviets were not hindered by Western ideas of police action and that the Soviets would not scruple to use any force needed to stop hijacking. And the hijackers understood that perfectly and went for softer targets. In this case the Soviets were less evil, mirabile dictu, than Belgian law professors.
Oh. Maybe they're brothers under the skin. I think I've got something there.
Braying jackasses like these criminologists are, with their sniffing statements, issuing an engraved invitation to the lowest forms of muggers and footpads to come to Belgium, where all is understood and there will be no dichotomy between victim and criminal. And it doesn't seem to have occurred to them that this stance makes all people potential victims.
These two law professors in Belgium, these two criminologists, are paid, a reasonable person would think, to understand crime with an eye to lessening it, but that presumes that criminology now is studied with the idea of lessening criminal behavior. If that is so, these people are traitors to the very idea of their profession.
If, however, criminology now means merely the understanding of crime, while taking a neutral moral view of it, then these people are the most useful of useful idiots. They are morally bankrupt cowards who do not have the courage to defend the very civilization which allows them to speak and to live and which they are sapping with every pronunciamento in which they bleat about "understanding" and "dichotomy" and "polarization"--all of which directly undermine the idea that there is evil and that it must be resisted.
The very liberal, in its original and good sense, idea of liberty and security of life and property is threatened by every word that issues from the mouths of morally bankrupt people like this. For people who will not resist evil are complicit in it. They are cheerleaders for evil.