By Erik Rush
"We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen."
Al-Qaeda commander and spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, referencing the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto; Adnkronos International News Service (AKI), December 27, 2007.
Lest I wind up standing back-to-back with actor Will Smith tomorrow morning defending myself against flying produce (Smith is taller, so I might not fare too badly), I’ll insert the disclaimer here: My personal, moral and religious values preclude a belief that any ethnic group is inherently superior or inferior to any other.
That being said, periodically I find it necessary and useful to state that such values do not preclude a belief that a particular culture might be inherently superior or inferior to another, and this is precisely the comparison I am making as regards Western culture versus the retrograde Indo-Arabic culture that spawns the mentality and social convention we glimpse in radical Islam.
True, the West and Western-influenced cultures do produce our share of sick freaks, however one cannot compare the body counts generated by one Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones or even Aum Shinrikyo to that of radical Islamists worldwide or the primal, inhuman barbarity that is the hallmark of so many of their atrocities. Islamic extremists around the globe are currently averaging one People’s Temple-sized massacre each month, according to a cross section of media outlets, both reputable and questionable.
Benazir Bhutto, like many heads of state, particularly in the Third World, was no saint. Though definitely a cut far above her craven killers, this wasn’t Gandhi getting gunned down. In addition to the charges of corruption that plagued Bhutto during her tenure, the former Pakistani prime Minister was party to the repression of religious minorities in Pakistan. As is the case with many foreign politicos America has supported (and perhaps should not have), being an open advocate of cooperation with the West was Bhutto’s chief appeal. It was widely expected that her pro-Western stance would result in a government more cooperative and less duplicitous than that of the Pervez Musharraf regime.
This brings us to the likely course that might have been taken by the Bush administration and whichever administration follows. Was the hope that Bhutto would have immediately allowed NATO forces into northern Pakistan to wipe out Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives – as opposed to sucking another $10 billion in American taxpayers’ money out of the invertebrates in high office as did Musharraf? The scenario is indeed reminiscent of that in Egypt, where a "cooperative" Sadat replaced the anti-West, anti-Israel Gamal Abdel Nasser, with Bhutto being an avatar of the former. As long as the U.S. aid dollars kept flowing, Sadat was willing to come to the table with Israeli leaders. It bears mentioning that he too was gunned down for his political coziness with the West.
America cannot bribe the whole world into "playing nice," although many Western politicians and globalists think we can. If this sort of foreign policy strikes the reader as profoundly stupid, that’s because it is. For some reason, the West has a habit of employing such doctrines (profoundly stupid ones) in order to forestall clashes which seem inevitable to the lay observer, and which result in protracted global conflagrations (as opposed to transitory hostilities) as a result of inaction (or indecisive action) on the part of the West.
In the case of radical Islam, the establishment media conveniently skirts the magnitude of the Islamofascist problem. In the Sudan, 2.2 million people, mostly Christians, are dying slowly in concentration camps at the hands of Islamic militias who to date have killed tens of thousands of Sudanese. Al-Qaeda has even made inroads into Africa. Civil unrest, promoted by radical Muslims and allowed to fester into a full-scale and intractable insurgence in the southern Philippines and southeast Asia was apparent since the late 1990s, although it began long before then. Among the thousands of kidnapping, rape and murder victims of these thugs who claim Allah was an American missionary couple and most notably of late included the slaughter of Buddhist monks at Myanmar in Burma. I could easily go on…
Another key point that has been poorly analyzed by the press: "Radical Islam" is not monolithic. As evidenced in Iraq, sects not considered to be part of the global jihad have no compunction toward killing and persecuting one another. This is the way it has been in the Islamic world for centuries, and what we in America have to look forward to if we deny that elements of this religion are fundamentally incompatible with our culture, and therefore inassimilable.
The aforementioned lack of decisiveness on the part of the West that has served to embolden these cultural ubermenschen has its roots in one place: The political Left. A cursory study of history is all that is required to confirm the rot which began with Karl Marx and spread to putrefy first Russia, then much of Europe and parts of Asia, Africa and South America. In the United States, the "struggle" to bring about a socialist or communist model of government has been ongoing since the days of the Bolsheviks and Jack Reed. The degradation of America’s cultural fiber, the advent of moral relativism and the Orwellian representations of the press and far-Left politicians have been initiated by design in order to further this end.
As a result, Europe and the Americas have become overrun with intellectually pathetic milquetoasts, lambs for the slaughter by elitist secular-socialist gangsters in government.
It’s ironic that a nation – ours – which used to be unashamedly Christian also used to be intelligent enough to take prudent action against its enemies, even when that meant the regrettable tragedies associated with collateral damage. Now, a U.S. soldier on active duty overseas cannot accidentally bump into a civilian at the bazaar without it appearing on the front page of The New York Times; we legitimize manifestly criminal organizations like The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and are admonished by dull-normal entertainers to tolerate or even embrace our enemies’ point of view – regardless of the fact that our enemies have sworn to utterly destroy us and our way of life no matter what we say or do. The employment of this relativism in putting backward cultures on a par with America’s is ironic, an intellectually dishonest conceit and a dangerous example of false humility.
Cavemen emerged from the caverns in which they had dwelt since the seventh century, and the culture shock melted their brains. Are we expected to abide and endure their unformed primitive social paradigms and their antisocial reactions to the world that passed them by?
I think not.
All of which begs the proverbial question: If we abandon all restraint and show our enemy no quarter, are we not then in danger of perceiving him as the subhuman creature he perceives us to be, and "becoming what we behold?"
The answer: Only if we have hatred and bigotry rather than prudence in our hearts. If we objectively examine the extremes of our enemy’s philosophy, it simply comes down to an issue of self-preservation. The homeowner ought not be expected to pause and examine the motives of an armed home invader when he or she has the means to defend themselves, nor should the camper consider the legal ramifications of taking down the bear that’s about to rake his ribcage open with one swipe if he or she happens to have a rifle at the ready.
The individual who believes America is not entitled to that – at least – is a damn fool.
Erik Rush is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.