Does Anyone Understand the Meaning of Treason Anymore?
With the latest news story on the Rosenberg case, news outlets and some bloggers have rushed in once again to try and exculpate the Rosenbergs as innocent victims of an overzealous justice system. This of course has been the usual defense for both Communist and Islamist terrorists and agents, their repackaging from perpetrators to victims part of the process of turning agents of pure evil into martyrs.
The quest to redeem the Rosenbergs cannot and is not separable from the quest to minimize the evils of Communism. The revisionism of the Rosenberg defenders is no different than that of David Irving, Pat Buchanan or any historical revisionist trying to redeem the Nazis by finding chinks in history's armor.
Anyone who objects to this analogy should go and dig in the frozen fields of the Gulags for the corpses of two generations of Jews brutally murdered by the Communists, or the remaining millions who were spared only by the chaos in the aftermath of Stalin's death. Those were the monsters whom the Rosenbergs, as loyal Communist party members served, and they deserve no mercy.
Had the Rosenbergs done nothing more than simply been members of the Communist party, they would have deserved to die for it. Can anyone seriously argue that that being a member of an organization responsible for the brutal murders of millions deserve anything less? The same thing goes for Nazis or for Islamists.
Right now many of the people reading this will be wincing at what I just said. It seems much too brutal and ruthless. After all we can't kill people just for joining a "political" organization. And that wince is a sign of just how much Communism has been legitimized and how the very idea that someone who works to overthrow the United States and murder its citizens should be somehow sacrosanct because his motivations are political or religious, has become sacrosanct.
When you dedicate yourself to mass murder by being a dedicated member of an organization meant to destroy that country, that country has every reason to execute you and no reason to let you go on living.
A political organization that seeks to end democratic rule and impose a tyranny, is not a political organization. It is a totalitarian organization seeking to achieve its objectives by political means. An organization that makes it clear that it has and will kill numberless amounts of people to fulfill its goals is a terrorist organization that must be destroyed, root, branch and leaf.
In case anyone has forgotten, Communism was a terrorist organization. Communists robbed, killed, set off bombs, assasinated politicians, assasinated political dissidents, suborned, assembled plans for the invasion of any country they were in, and the takeover of their legitimate governments. All of this was funded and organized by the USSR and it continues today in Latin America under the aegis of Cuba and Putin's Russia.
Communists like Nazis then and Islamists today, were a terrorist organization. Membership in the Communist party meant defacto membership in a terrorist organization whose goals were mass murder and mass slavery under their own tyranny. No member of such an organization had any right to live.
Yes some Communists were genuinely idealistic. So were some Nazis. So are some Islamists. What is idealism anyway and when does it cease to be noble? The Rosenbergs continued to be Communists well after it was widely known that Russian and Ukranian peasants and Jews had been killed in large numbers. Well after Hitler and Stalin had allied to carve up Eastern Europe into bloody chunks. None of this was a secret, most Communists however chose either to justify it or block it out. The information was available to make their choice and they made their choice. They chose evil.
The only arguments for letting the Rosenbergs go on living their vile twisted lives that placed love of Stalin above even their own children, come from fellow travelers or from the weak voices that argue that we should let a thousand terrorists go rather than risk inconveniencing one "innocent" terrorist. And they are the reason why in every war that manifests a fifth column, we quickly find ourselves on the defensive, while the terrorists and their smug lawyers find chinks wide enough to lead their clients through to freedom or lessened sentences time and time again.
We do not have a terrorist problem. Not in America, not in Europe, not in Israel. What we have is a treason problem.
If we did not have a treason problem, we would not have a terrorist problem. We would have a minor terrorist nuisance. A terrorist problem can only exist when there is a sizable fifth column or fellow travelers helping the terrorists accomplish their goals.
Today we not only do not condemn it, we treat it as legitimate political disagreement. I believe they shouldn't murder millions of my fellow citizens, you believe they should. Let's shake hands and go our separate ways. But no, it does not work that way.
There is nothing legitimate about it and we are left helpless before the enemy when we treat the enemy's intentions to destroy us, as being just as legitimate as our intentions not to be destroyed. Moral equivalency is a state which in nature or politics cannot endure. When you try to balance two opposing forces, one will surely come to outweigh the other. When we apply moral equivalence to our own right to exist in favor of the enemy's right to plan our destruction, then the balance tilts toward the enemy's view, so much so that millions of our own citizens will accept it as the right way.
And if you don't believe that, it is already the state of affairs in America, Europe and Israel, where loyalty oaths are considered an obscenity, but supporting and defending terrorists is considered a democratic virtue.
If anything the malingering and hesitation toward the Rosenbergs was a sign of an already rotted morale. The only evidence of guilt that is needed for such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg or Talia Fahima or their kind is the ideology they have committed to. When it comes to mass murder and national destruction, when the intent and participation is clear, so is the evidence and so should be the outcome.