The Western delusion about Islam, still in the driver’s seat

(See my parallel between Bush’s “We can end Muslim extremism by liberating Muslims” policy and his “We can end illegal immigration by letting in all illegal immigrants” policy.)

We need to recognize the terrifying reality that there is not a single person in a leadership position in the contemporary West who is capable of thinking truthfully and coherently about the facts of human existence—and particularly about that part of human existence called Islam. This is because Western elites are, to a man and woman, liberals. It doesn’t matter whether they’re Democrat or Republican, Tory or New Labor, UMP or Socialist. They’re all liberals, meaning that they believe in universal human equality as the fundamental reality of this world, which, if it is not manifested at this moment, is nevertheless readily achievable by human action. Therefore they believe that there are no differences between human groups that really matter. If some foreign or minority group has an irreconcilable difference with us, the elites will not see it. They will believe the difference stems from some factor that is extrinsic to the group itself, and thus fixable, not from a factor that intrinsic to the group and thus not fixable.

The general term for such extrinsic, fixable problems is “root cause.”

Thus Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in a speech in Singapore in early June:

On the negative side of the ledger, I think we have not made enough progress in trying to address some of the root causes of terrorism in some of these societies, whether it is economic deprivation or despotism that leads to alienation.

So it turns out that Gates, who is responsible for leading America in our “war on terror” or whatever we’re calling it this week, and who is supposed to be a smart man, knows nothing about the core sacred doctrines of Islam which order Muslims to make war on infidels until the whole world comes under the power of the Islamic community and Islamic law. He blames Islamic extremism not on Islam, but on causes that are extrinsic to Islam, causes which it is in our power to fix.

Gates, however, is not completely out to lunch. He continues:

One of the disturbing things about many of the terrorists that have been caught is that these are not ignorant, poor people. These are educated people, often from professional families. So dealing with poverty and those issues is not going to eliminate the problem, but it certainly can reduce the pool of people prepared to give their lives for this cause.

So Gates, unlike a big-L liberal, recognizes that poverty is not the cause of Islamic terrorism after all. But he says that we have to fight poverty in the Muslim world anyway. Why? Because liberalism is the ruling belief system of our society and he automatically accedes to it. Whatever his passing doubts about the liberal view, he remains in thrall to it and will not challenge it.

Thus, notwithstanding the never-ceasing hysterical war cries of the pro-Bush conservatives that we are in a war on “radical Islam” or a war on “Islamo-fascism” or a war on “terror,” we are not in any such war. We are in a war on “poverty.” We are in a war on “despotism.” We must end poverty and despotism for a billion Muslims. And as long as Muslim terrorism still exists, meaning, as long as our Muslim enemies are waging war on us, we must blame ourselves for “not making enough progress in trying to address some of the root causes.” Confronted with an unappeasable enemy, we imagine that the problem stems from our failure to be sufficiently generous and compassionate toward him.

This is because a corollary of liberal equality is that any absence of equality is the fault of the better-off group and can only be solved by the better off group, through ever renewed efforts at friendly outreach, democratization, improving education, and ending poverty. Notwithstanding everything we have learned about Islam in recent years, this is the belief universally subscribed to by the leaders we elect and it remains totally unopposed in mainstream political debate.

We—the nations of the West as represented by our elected and appointed leaders—are idiots. It’s a wonder we can even feed ourselves.

- end of initial entry -

Peter H. writes:

Gates said: “So dealing with poverty and those issues is not going to eliminate the problem, but it certainly can reduce the pool of people prepared to give their lives for this cause.”

What a compelling vision for the future of our dealings with the Middle East! That’s something I can really get behind! Let’s see if I have it straight: we spend untold billions of dollars and sacrifice who knows how many American lives to “reduce the pool (emphasis added) of people prepared to give their lives for this cause.” Reduce the pool by how much, I wonder, since he just told us that many terrorists are not poor or uneducated, so this prescription is not really a solution at all.

While disheartening, this statement from someone like Gates isn’t surprising. That he is one of the leaders in this struggle gives me very little confidence that we’ll ever head in the right direction in dealing with this problem as long as the current group is in charge.

Ben W. writes:

The statement by Robert Gates, that “it is economic deprivation or despotism that leads to alienation” is pure Marxism. “Alienation” is specifically a term Marx took from Hegel for his own version of the dialectic of history and coupled it together with “economic deprivation” (the underclass).

How comforting to know that our leaders have bought not only into liberalism heart, soul and mind but into strands of Marxism running subconsciously through liberalism.

James W. writes:

Islam aside, the disconnect between the elites and the public is greater by far than I have ever seen it.

The immigration assumptions in the Senate are illuminative. Few expect anything from Democrats—not even Democrats—but the remarkable lack of understanding among Republican politicians is illustrated through the Presidential race. Decent men, for the most part, but clueless. As many truly disparate people as I speak to, a landslide would result were a candidate to run on a program of

1) First, control the borders. Whatever it takes, we will do it, and immediately.

2) End Muslim immigration, except under very special circumstances.

3) Eliminate major Cabinet departments—Education, Energy, and Fatherland Security at the very minimum, and downgrade others that obviously do not belong at Cabinet level.

Were I king I would add many more, but this act alone could conceivably change the perceptions and momentum in what could be done.

Security begins with firing great numbers of FBI and CIA and forming a responsive culture at these agencies, not by adding another unresponsive bureaucracy. Leadership and management.

4) Permanent tax indexing, and tax cuts.

5) Ending the automatic annual spending increase built into the budget.

5) Ending our association in the U.N. and moving it out of the United States.

I believe Hillary is absolutely unelectable. The better people know her the more troubled they are by her. And those are her friends.

The next President will be picked in the Republican primary. He will head a divided government of enemies. What he runs on is what he will get, a la Reagan, and nothing more. The Republican party needs time to change its cast of characters. I expect it may.

We see Fred Thompson figuring out what he needs to do to fill unmet needs. That is not impressive. But he is correct in that they are unmet.

It’s a turnkey operation and no one to turn the key. Remarkable, really

LA replies:

That’s a fascinating summary of the political situation by James W. “A turnkey operation and no one to turn the key.” Terrific.

Daryl writes:

One of my favorite new sayings I use is this: “We don’t have a political problem, we have a Muslim problem.”

What I mean by this is none of the problems can really be explained by foreign policy or Israel. Even if Israel never existed, Muslims would not be pro-Western. Muslims fight Hindus, and surely Hindus have nothing to do with our policy in the middle-East. Surely Israel is part of the solution, not part of the problem, and Islam is what needs to be “wiped of the map,” not that I support “spreading democracy” or any of Bush’s policies. Muslims are not capable of democracy. They need a dictator to secularize them, because they are simply incapable of being normal when left to their own devices.

LA replies:

“They are incapable of being normal when left to their own devices.”

Quote of the week!

Mark Jaws writes:

You called our noble and brave Western leaders idiots and then remarked that it was amazing that we could feed ourselves. Not really. I am sure you realize that the farmer ABSOLUTELY MUST deal with the world as it is. He must fertilize, he must plant, and he must water. In farming there is no room for platitudes, wishful and unrealistic thinking, and Utopian pipedreams. All the Koombayas in the world won’t grow you a plant unless you first prepare the soil and plant the seeds. In other words,the farmer’s head must rest squarely upon his shoulders.

The liberal politician on the other hand, guaranteed a steady flow of other people’s money, can afford to live in the dream world all the while suffering from cranial-rectum displacement. Take away the steady stream of money—and that day of reckoning is coming with retiring Baby Boomers—and I am sure the liberal politicians will unstuck their heads and begin to see the world as it is, with all of its inequalities and unpleasantries.

LA replies:

Mark Jaws’s point is correct. However, it’s also the case that if a society goes crazy enough, it won’t be able to feed itself. Look at Zimbabwe.

Also, sometimes I like to alude to literary lines without spelling out where they come from, but this may not be fair to all readers. “It’s a wonder we can even feed ourselves” is not about agriculture. It is the last line of Bob Dylans’ “Idiot Wind” from his great 1975 album Blood on the Tracks, the last chorus of which goes:

Idiot Wind
Blowin’ through the buttons of our coats
Blowin’ through the letters that we wrote.
Idiot Wind
Blowin’ through the dust upon our shelves.
We are idiots, babe
It’s a wonder we can even feed ourselves.

Ben W. writes:

You quote from Bob Dylan’s “Idiot Wind”:

Idiot Wind
Blowing through the dust upon our shelves.

Interesting how in Dylan the 1960s wind (“the answer my friend is blowin” in the wind”) becomes the 1970s wind (“idiot wind … blowin” through the letters that we wrote”). The knowing wind (where the answers are) becomes the idiot wind that blows through our answers (“the letters that we wrote”)! The times they do a-change …

LA replies:

Elegant point. But of course Dylan had given up his early Sixties belief that there are knowable answers long before 1975. He had given it up in 1964 when he wrote:

Good and bad, I defined these terms
Quite clear, no doubt somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now.

Howard Sutherland writes:

Hey, I got it—but then I listen to Blood on the Tracks several times a month.

This is superlative thread. Lots of wisdom here.

LA writes:

I wrote:

And as long as Muslim terrorism still exists, meaning, as long as our Muslim enemies are waging war on us, we must blame ourselves for “not making enough progress in trying to address some of the root causes.” Confronted with an unappeasable enemy, we imagine that the problem stems from our failure to be sufficiently generous and compassionate toward him.

It’s the same with Bush’s immigration policy. Paraphrasing the above, Bush’s immigration policy could be characterized as follows:

As long as Mexicans are entering the U.S. illegally, we must blame ourselves for not admitting enough Mexicans legally, so that they wouldn’t have to come illegally. Confronted with a mass invasion of our country, we imagine that the problem stems from our failure to led the invaders enter our country at will.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 13, 2007 08:26 AM | Send