Redux: The Age Of Quarrel

WHILE OFFICIAL WORD SEEMS to have gone out to both American and European press to make Islam look good, the more I scan the posts at Jihad Watch and read the essays of Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald, the more I am convinced that only a hard fact confrontational approach will prevail in this ongoing conflict with passive-aggressive Islam. That naÏve handmaiden of so-called moderation will not get the job accomplished. A large body of evidence has spoken loudly and clearly.

The current crisis with Islam is quite real and especially dangerous, and appears to have two immediate sources: 1) the oil revenues that fund the spread of the belief-system by an emboldened Muslim leadership touting Jihad and 2) the collapse of the USSR which had delayed a lurking jihad that for 70 years lay dormant after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

But now all infidel unbelievers, or kafir all across the globe, face a resumed war with the Islamic sleeping dogs, a war that has been ongoing for 1300 years, hostilities ceasing only when forces prove superior to their religious prime directive aimed at conquest and world domination.

During the 1970s and 80s there were many, usually on the intellectual left, who sought to appeal to "moderates" within the Soviet Empire, who urged no confrontation in word and deed with the obvious aggressive and totalitarian nature of the Soviet belief-system. They were in Western "peace movements" that were often funded by the USSR. The people who advised caution and moderation in confronting the Soviets did so for many reasons, but it all boiled down to "don't make them mad", "don't offend them" because "they only have different "values".

Yet folks like Solzhenitsyn advised a confrontation that would make the Soviets angry, and noted that in their anger, in their rage, the Soviets would reveal themselves and the nature of their belief-system. Thus the exile of Solzhenitsyn, the attempt to kill Pope John Paul, the attempt to crush Solidarity, the shooting down of the Korean passenger jet by the Soviets in 1983, and other ugly manifestations of Soviet rage, did much to bring down the regime. All of the items you mention are necessary to contain this insane Soviet-like belief system, including factual in-your-face-confrontation with the sick violence and intolerance of Muhammad and his belief-system.

Pope Rage, Cartoon Rage, Apostate Rage, and other asinine rages are ample signs to alert the West of this belief-system disease. Confrontation and the resulting rage would be useful and good. Solzhenitsyn was right about confrontation with regards to the former USSR. In-your-face-factual-truthful-confrontation-is the answer with Islam, too.

Moderates and apologists within Islam try to claim differently, by disassociation techniques, but with every invocation of the takir phrase "Allahu akbar" in the warzones of Iraq to the streets of Paris suburbs, the implication that the culprits think God will approve of their action or that their action does something to glorify God, the message is burned into the minds and hearts of the world that Islam is the root cause of these reveries. Of course, without looking into their minds, it's impossible to know if they deliberately mean these rants or if they are using a common phrase in their culture without thinking about what it means. But in their own words, to a Muslim, their religion is everything, including their God-given right to use force in subjugating infidels to the ends of the earth.

These apologists usually point to so-called Christian atrocities in Serbia or in the distant past to validate their points. Yet, it is quite evident that Western secular progressive cultures have done everything possible to distance themselves from their historical roots in Judaic and Christian thought and symbolism, and even this distancing is used by the jihadists to prove their notions of superior religiosity, and they certainly have no qualms in desecrating the traditions and icons of those religions, while screaming bloody murder at anyone who dares raise an eyebrow at theirs.

But let's be clear here, while I am not defending Christianity's "hollow" symbols, I believe that the West must stand up against the Muslim invasion using the power of its own traditions. From a fundamentalist biblical perspective, almost all of the so-called holy days are fabrications taken from traceable pagan sources, and would be quite foreign to the players of biblical times.

But leftist America is quietly embracing Islamic appearances while throwing off the far less toxic yoke of Christianity. This is a ridiculous and dangerous test of wills. Secularism in its own right cannot defeat the enemy if our own population feels uprooted from within. The radical left must be reeled in first, before its totalitarian and natural Muslim partners with its demands for Sharia law wherever they migrate can be stopped before it is too late.

SWORG - November 2, 2006

Top of page

Home | Site Kiosk | Scenewash Lobbies | LUXMACHINA | Bookskellar