The Resistance to Truth – Part 1

I am constantly smacked in the face by this country’s determination to deny the truth. It has not always been this way. I can remember being a kid and being told the story of how a boyhood George Washington admitted to chopping down a cherry tree, even though he knew his father would punish him. The point of the story, though I have since heard it isn’t true, was to instill in young people one of the core values of this country – honesty. And it was key that George Washington was the protagonist of the story.

Here was a guy that embodied all of the attributes that exemplified the very archetype of the revolution-era American. He was a genuine war hero, but he was also a cultured gentleman. Most importantly, he was viewed as utterly incorruptible. He had a set of core beliefs and morals that could not be swayed by other personal interests. Indeed, had Washington not been convinced to endorse the constitutional convention when it was on the brink of falling apart, the United States of America might never have managed to come together. There were factions with differing agendas that needed an objective leader to bring consensus among them. George Washington was that leader. All parties knew they could trust him to put the interests of the country above all else. And they could trust him because the truth meant something to George Washington. As a kid, it was taught to mean something to me.

Though my path to the present has seen occasional experimentation with truth as a matter of convenience, I have come to realize that it is precisely inconvenient truth that makes the concept so valuable. That, I am convinced, is a notion that is in need of serious revival these days. Take, for example, this terrorism problem. The patrons of the politically correct society have effectively erased the inconvenient truth of the situation from the drawing board. The facts are as follows:

1. The vast majority of terrorists on the planet are Muslims.
2. We are unaware of any serious threats to our security being continuously articulated by non-Muslim organizations.
3. Muslims can, for the most part, be demographically profiled such that significant proportions of the general population can be considered unlikely to be Muslim.

These three facts are unfortunate, but they are facts nonetheless. Now, when we recognize them and commit to accepting truth no matter what, we have the proper conditions to formulate an appropriate response. That response is very clearly that we have to focus the lion’s share of our threat detection endeavors on individuals that fit the Muslim profile. Once again, this is unfortunate, but it is also the most expedient course of action, especially considering the consequences of failure.

But there are those who reject this course of action because they feel that it will be offensive to Muslims. They are correct, and this is as it should be. They should be offended that individuals who identify themselves with Islam would dare conduct themselves in a way that deviates so far from its peaceful teachings. They, too, have truth to accept - the simple fact that they need to get their house in order.

Who will be the Muslim’s that typify the religion in the years to come? Will it be the fanatics? If it is, the peaceful Muslims will be met with increasing enmity from the rest of the world’s inhabitants. In short, things have no hope of getting better for them – sooner or later, the PC police will be shoved aside by angry mobs. The bottom line is simple - if the peaceful Muslims will exemplify the religion, it will be because they took a stand against the most insidious among them. Truth, in this case, is their only chance. The resistance to it is the real impediment to progress. Alas, this always seems to be the case...