Tag Archives: totalitarian Islam

Facing facts

Facing facts

There is a consensus that Islamic terrorism is now the greatest threat to America’s peace and stability. [Some few would demur; that it takes a close second place to current economic stagnation.]

Yet within that consensus there are two distinct attitudes about what is the defense against this menace. One calls for a continuing, debilitating but long-term campaign to destroy the terrorists. The other calls for an all-out, immediate strategy to destroy the terrorists and their sanctuaries. These two approaches cross party lines, although Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton despite her inheritance of the Obama Administration and its avoidance of foreign commitments tends to fudge that approach. Donald Trump bombastically takes the later route although he has been less than specific just how he would succeed. And so in fact, the two approaches cross party lines and often other ideologies.

For many, too young to have been in on its origins, the successful but long war against Communism is only vaguely appreciated. Sven F. Kraemer has recently published what may not be an easily readable text but the best compendium of data on the long campaign to resist Soviet-led Communism’s attack on European and American societies. “Inside the Cold War from Marx to Reagan” is, indeed, a bible for those interested in learning how much the conflict entailed. And perhaps no one other than Kraemer is more qualified to compile it, the son of a famous anti-Communist strategist, and himself a veteran of many critical government posts from which the fight was observed and led.

Will the fight against Islamic terrorism be that kind of long and tortured conflict that ultimately destroyed Communism as Kraemer documemts? Obviously it is the answer to that question which dictates the current two approaches to the problem.

There is evidence in historical analogies that the current resistance to Islamic fanaticism current drive into Western societies is a repetition of earlier struggles. The totalitarian political concept of Islam [“surrender”, indeed as its Arabic word signifies] coupled with religious mythology and moral concepts borrowed from Jews and Christians, has been repelled by the West before. But earlier Islamic efforts to overwhelm the other cultures were led by armies. This time, there is the threat of a doubled-edge weapon: an ideological assault on a Christian world which has lost its faith through its own institutions, and by a vast wave of Moslem migrants filling the empty spaces left by falling Western birthrates.

Furthermore, the West is disarmed by its attempt to give Islam irrational ideological tolerance in the open forums which are the essence of modern democratic societies. When in 2016 Pope Benedict XVI tried to reassert the valid arguments critical of the foundations of Islam, there was a torrent of negative controversy and even abuse from the elites. Benedict’s critics refused the basic argument that it matters whether God is essentially ;ogos (Divine Reason) or voluntas (Pure Will), which is from where Moslems approach their godhead. The first understanding facilitates civilization development, true freedom, and a complete understanding of reason. The second sows the seeds of decline, oppression, and unreason.

To sling the epithet of “Islamophobia” at those who argue for such fundamental differences between the Moslem culture and the West’s intellectual inheritance is to not only misunderstand the argument, but to threaten the security of our world.


The history of history

Historians cheat. Mostly, they reconstruct the story of our past as a straightforward narrative with a beginning, middle, and sometimes even an end.
What they don’t usually tell us is that a great deal more was going on than that single narrative of events– and, sometimes they have to flip back and pick up another strand instead to straighten it out.
That’s why at the moment, there is little that the historians can do to help us sort out the enormous chain of events which is deciding the future of the world and of the U.S. For the world is in the throes of vast developments, as perhaps it always is, which will profoundly affect the future of all of us.
About all we can do is to be as clearheaded as possible about the various candidate strands for our attention,
So here goes:
• Islam, a totalitarian religion which borrowed heavily from both Judaism and Christianity in its inception, but which always aimed at a dictatorial political regime with an international monopoly of power, is on the march again. Its earlier attempts to overthrow European civilization– with all the West’s borrowings from various ancient origins– were defeated when victorious European armies withstood armies of invaders. This time, however, the threat of Islamic totalitarian dominance is more subtle: It radical elements seek to overthrow European and the scattered free societies elsewhere by exploiting their greatest moral asset but greatest vulnerability, openness and freedom, through terrorist attacks. It remains to be seen whether the absence of a unified Islamic command will undermine their thrust.
• The longest period of general peace and stability in Europe’s history is threatened by a new aggressive power, Vladimir Putin’s Russian state. What had come to be accepted as international norms– that no international boundaries would be breached by force– is now at risk. Because Putin’s regime is close to failure on all counts—economic, political and moral– it is a greater threat since because he has so little to risk he may be seduced into a more and more adventurous strategy. The most successful alliance in history, the North American Treaty Organization [NATO], which had insured that era of stability is now being put to its ultimate test. Already there is a falling away of some members, belying the underpinning principle of one for all and all for one. As in the bitter past there is the temptation for some to choose short-time accomodation over principal and endanger the system.
• Pres. Barak Hussein Obama has set out to transform an American Republic which had not only been the torch of liberty for its brief 200-year existence but increasingly the guardian of stability for the rest of the world. He and his supporters belong to an American political minority that for a half century have believed the Republic’s founding principles were not immutable but subject to change with the vast industrial and now technological revolution. A part of their program is to withdraw American power, especially at a time of its weakened state because of domestic economic malaise, from the role it has played in giving the world a Pax Americana since World War II. However amateurish and incompetent they have shown themselves to be, it is too early to know whether they have wrought their will and the world will be a permanently different place after their departure.
• The arrival of the digital age has changed the nature of the world economy and presented new challenges to all its various societies. Even more than the industrial revolution of three hundred years earlier, it has shown how ingenuity can not only satisfy the basic needs of human beings but provide an increasing leisure for longer-lived individuals. The skills for using leisure at its most sophisticated level may be harder to develop than the application of the new digitalization to problems of livelihood. “Bread and circuses” takes on new meaning in this environment.
• The decline of institutionalized Christianity and religious faith in general, in the Western world removes a basic construct of its civilization. So far no new belief system has arisen which provides an equivalent rationalization for a moral and legal system which has seen it through a thousand-year progressive advance. In fact, self criticism and self-doubt have become a fixture of modern societies– often, of course, providing the basis for self-improvement but as often so nihilistic that they are destructive of stability. The healthy skepticism that religion gave the human ego now gone tends to reward unadorned narcissism and hubris. Without that deflator, too often the ambitions of the society as a whole and individuals in power lead to disaster.
While these huge developments are moving on their individual tracks, they are, of course, interfacing with one another with increasingly difficult to predict interactions. For example, Putin’s aggressive thrust is being countered internally by the rise of an Islamic threat to the Russian state. Its declining population forces him to rely more and more on an army of Muslim military recruits while armed radical Islam gnaws at the southern reaches of the empire and its largest minority, a restless Muslim Tatar population, demands identification. On the other hand, Putin’s brazen aggression in Ukraine is being enhanced as it is sucked into the power vacuum created by Obama’s “transformative” strategies. And Moscow’s growing challenge to other parts of the former Soviet empire will be likely the test for the future of NATO.
Living in dangerous times as the Chinese curse goes means we as individuals are caught up in forces far beyond our control or even out understanding. There therefore may be no lessons of history and we are on our own.

Islam is the problem

The worship of Mohammed’s followers throughout their history has rarely constituted a religion of peace, contrary to repeated statements by leaders in the West – above all Pres. Barack Hussein Obama. These have been made in their pursuit of trying to defuse the current crisis, but nevertheless are now a part of the problem..

One might stretch to argue that Mosses, founder of Judaism, had a “battlefield commission”. But neither Jesus, Gautama nor Confucius, leaders or founders of the several other great world religions, advocated violence. Nor were they soldiers as was Mohammed, the messenger who carried the word of Allah to his flock.

Furthermore, virtually all Muslims accept that in his last decade of what may be a largely legendary life, he pursued that career with ferocity in the destruction of his Arabia peninsular enemies, most notably the contemporary Jewish tribes who refused to accept his new religion. The history of Islam is inseparable from its attempt to conquer alien societies and turn them forcibly to its belief. That code demands – unlike the other great religions today – unquestioned obedience to a legal as well as a moral code of contradictory but supposed God-given dictums from the Koran and the accumulation of practices in the hadith, pronouncements and activities surrounding Mohammed the man.

Again today, as repeatedly in the past 1500 years, the West is fighting off a campaign of Muslim fanatics to overtake and replace its Judeo-Hellenist-Christian- civilization. Rather than massive armies at the Tours battlefield in the 8th century or at the gates of Vienna in the 16th and again 100 years later, this time the attacks are continual thrusts at the ineludible vulnerable “soft targets” of modern open societies.

As incomprehensible as it is to Westerners and non-Muslim societies of the East, these fanatics are willing to die so long as they can bring pain and disaster on their targets. It is, as some Muslim fanatics have proclaimed proudly, that the rest of the world loves life and these psychotics worship death.

When the leaders of the whole world – not excluding both Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian Liberation Organization Mahmoud Abbas – came together in Paris for a demonstration of unity of purpose against this new threat to humanity, there was a missing figure. It was no accident, as the Communists would say, that Obama was not there among the leaders of most of the civilized world.

In a tortured and benighted view of the world’s issues, Obama apparently believes that outreach to the Muslim fanatics through Islamic state leaders – including the mother hen of all the contemporary terrorists, the insidious Muslim Brotherhood – will appease the tiger. His closest advisers make desperate attempts to convince the rest of the world that the great mass of Muslims are innocents. True enough, but that they will [the “good”Germans with the Nazis or a dozen other historical instances] bring down the militants is highly questionable. .

Obama rides this tiger not only in great peril to the country he leads and to the world in general, but at the risk of his own role in history. Calling a blatant attack at Ft. Hood by a twisted mind – a psychiatrist indeed! – “workplace violence” not only distorts the real meaning of the incident making it impossible to deal with it, but this refusal to name the crime makes it difficult to meet out the modest reparations to the survivors.

In the same vein, by not identifying the current worldwide campaign of terrorism – now into its second decade – as an outgrowth of Islam itself, he and his advisers make it impossible to understand it and mobilize to defeat it.

At the United Nations, instead of a straightforward attack on the origins of this violence to all civilized society, Obama was busy warning against any attack on the sanctity of Mohammed’s name. [A documentary producer who had the audacity if however clumsily to challenge the relationship of Islam to the wave of terrorism still is serving a prison sentence, part of the design to obscure the martyrdom of four Americans at the hands of terrorists at Benghazi.] Nothing plays more into the lying of Muslim fanatics in dealing with their fellow citizens; they can carefully site elements of their dogma which sanction deceit in their professions of innocence with nonbelievers.

Any attempt to take on the long awaited need to bring the religion of Mohammed to a test of modernity and contemporary morality is denounced. Earlier attempts were abandoned after a bitter debate in Andalusia, Spain, in the late 12th century when Ibn Rushid [Averroes], ironically sometimes called “the father of modern Western secularism”, was defeated in his efforts to find a synthesis of Hellenic, Judeo-Christian and Islamic values. Ironically Averroes contributed mightily to Western religious and philosophical thought. But his Islam retreated into the thousand-year bowels of a totalitarian conformity that imprisons it to this day. Those who call for a constructive new debate are quickly denounced as “Islamophobia” – even when they come from acknowledged scholars such as the eminent modern philosopher, Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger.

It remains to be seen if Muslim leaders will rise to join Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi who recently pleaded with Islamic clerics to examine their game. He argued Moslem “thinking” had stymied, that concepts “we have sacralized over the years” are “antagonizing the entire world”. In practical terms of a hard-bitten military leader of the largest and most important Arab nation, he argued that it is not “possible that 1.6 billion people [a reference to the world’s Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live”. He warned that Egypt [or the Islamic world in its entirety] “is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

Again, it is no accident that the Obama Administration’s relations with the al-Sisi regime hang by a thread while it has continued to court the likes of Turkey’s increasingly Islamicist Pres. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan [and with a lesser and lesser degree of success]. It also continues to bemoan the fall of al Sisi’s predecessors, the discredited Muslim Brotherhood. [Alas! That is also true of Hillary Clinton with her own close connections to the Brotherhood leadership through her principal aid, Huma Mahmood Abedin.].

Recognizing Islam’s relationship to the Muslim terrorists is critical if the U.S. and the world is to defeat this aberration before it destroys Western civilization through its steady depredations, always forcing restraints on our liberties in order to defend ourselves.