No War for Oil, but Surrender for Oil? But, of course.

The fiasco currently unraveling in Britain regarding the release of the Lockerbie bomber seems confusing at first, but then again it really isn't. If you keep in mind that the post-modern Left would like to release bad guys (i.e., Guantanamo Bay) and/or not prosecute them (i.e., Bill Richardson or the Black Panthers intimidating voters on Election Day) while putting in jail those who would fight evil (i.e., CIA agents whose second hand smoke may have offended jihadi sensibilities), then you start to understand.

In is out. Yes is maybe. No is yes. Right is wrong. Down is up. If not, change the definition of "up". What do you mean by "is" up, any way?

The words have new meaning, you say? Yes, and the rules have changed. Rather, the rules are not there. The post-modernists have absconded with all the foregoing.

We recall the furiously righteous indignation of the Left at the thought that America would invade Iraq "for oil". Never mind the absurdity of the charge (when do we get that Iraqi oil, any way?); the larger point was that it is a dastardly crime indeed to fight ... to risk innocent lives ... for mere profit.

Now, with the pathetic, public implosion of the Labor government via the Megrahi matter, we see that to the post-modern Left, it's perfectly okay to surrender for oil -- that is, to get something of monetary value in exchange for the release of a mass murderer.

So, if we understand correctly, the problem is not that an act is done for oil, but rather it is wrong to fight bad guys for oil. But doesn't surrendering to or appeasing evil risk innocent lives? Neville Chamberlain comes to mind. But never mind. Got it. Giving in for oil is is fine.

This is where post-modern thinking and situational morality leads -- into a deep and dark abyss. Cultures awash in such thinking are in grave danger, as is Europe today. Not surprisingly, murderous jihadis have emerged from their caves and unapologetic Islamists are on the march. As a shark smells blood in the water, they sense cowardice in the air.

Europe, and in truth much of the West, has wanted to be rid of the shackles of old traditions and faith for some time. Judeo-Christian ideas about God, country, duty, honor, and such, are well, so very ignoble and common. How can a thinking culture be weighted down with such klunky artifacts as it speeds toward a better day?

However, the problem with such thinking is that the virtues needed to fight evil and preserve a way of life -- courage, loyalty, justice, and perseverance, to name a few -- spring from a culture that at least respects the faith and unchanging values that made it great.

Courage is a moral virtue. Why would one man risk his life for others unless there was something beyond his continued existence on this earth that mattered?

The post-modernists say that there are no "metatruths", or some such gobbledygook. In other words, nothing is innately special, right, eternal, or unchanging. Simply put, the rules change as situations change. Not just some rules (certain ways of behaving do change, by necessity over time), mind you, but all of them are on the table. Yes, all rules are subject to change or cancellation, and without notice. Thus, doing something for oil is now good, you see, because our betters wish to do a good deed for a purportedly dying terrorist. Compassion is good in this case, of course.

And by the way, you puritannical dinosaurs, do not concern yourselves with the irrelevant moral indiscretions in the Left's preferred leaders. And please step aside while the opposition is vilified for the same, or even less severe, conduct. Lying is okay to advance the greater good of providing the people with "basic fundamental rights", whatever those are in the minds of the relativist, by the way ... and so on.

Confused? Don't be. Remember, they make the rules, and the rules change when necessary to expand or maintain control. And there is no truth outside what an individual declares for himself. Sounds rather authoritarian, doesn't it? But wait, I thought authority wasn't absolute. Indeed, post-modern authority is maintained by power rather than by moral authority and/or the consent of the governed.

When each man or woman is utterly without moral constraint, each day is a bet against the chance that one doesn't have to encounter some one stronger than him in a dark alley. But eventually, the law of probability kicks in and he meets that some one and perishes.

When post-modernists assume control of an organization or government (which, by definition require adherance to standards to survive), then all under their charge are at risk. After all, who says that one person or group's right to assert a standard is superior to another's? And what is the reason for fighting, rather than seeking "peace", with jihadis? Unmoored post-modern thought takes away the reason to live -- or die -- for anything beyond one's personal comfort, peach and affluence. Human beings are mere predators and prey.

The post-modernists have made inroads in America, as evidenced by the election of Barack Obama. However, they still have a steep hill to climb here.

Indeed, they can have my Bible (and my keyboard) when they pry my cold, dead fingers from them.