Civilization Or Not? The West Must Decide

Ours is a time of social upheaval and seismic paradigm shifts. The world is changing before our eyes while we Westerners sit still, seemingly lost in the belief that our passivity will somehow bring peace.

On our televisions, reports of beheadings, stonings, and suicide bombings regularly fill large portions of a news hour that was not so long ago devoted to car accidents, train wrecks, and market fluctuations. Islamists are steadily marching upon the West with conquest in their eyes, and little has been done to stop or even to slow them down. All the while, renowned institutions, press outlets, left-leaning politicians, and university professors are stepping on themselves to assure us that radical Islam and the West can co-exist, but reality seems to argue for another conclusion altogether.

The horrible truth is that our passivity is a form a suicide, both individually and culturally. And the alternative to Western Civilization, at this point in time, is no civilization at all.

In other words, it’s not like our choices are between our civilization and their civilization. Rather, our choice is between a 21st century anchored in Western Civilization’s strength – which is founded upon law and liberty – or a 7th century draconian society in which might makes right, women are second class citizens, and freedom of speech is as non-existent as are Bibles in Saudi Arabia.

Let’s face it—the “Arab Spring” has given way to a brutal winter, where Islamists whom President Barack Obama cheered, and in some cases helped (Libya), are setting up new governments in which Sharia law will be predominant. What this means is that they’ve traded the yoke of men who were either tyrannical or egomaniacal, for governments that could prove even more brutal. (In Egypt the truth may be that the Muslim Brotherhood simply wanted Hosni Mubarak ousted as a means of creating a vacuum they can fill.)

By the way, in Egypt the Islamists are now killing Christians in the open, And in Libya, Gaddafi’s death portends the establishment of truly Sharia State.

In Tunisia, which just held elections President Obama described as an “inspiration,” an Islamist party led by Sheik Rached Ghannouchi gained majority.

For anyone not familiar with Ghannouchi, on the eve of the Gulf War in 1990, it was he who said: “We must wage unceasing war against the Americans until they leave the land of Islam, or we will burn and destroy all their interests across the entire Islamic world.” He also said, “The greatest danger to civilization, religion, and world peace is the United States Administration. It is the Great Satan.”

Only a fool fails to see the dichotomy between the Islamists and Westerners.

Yet, for those who are slow to admit the truth, there are other examples that can be added. For instance, in north-eastern Malaysia, “hardline Islamists [are] mulling a suggestion to impose whipping and jail terms as penalties for divorcing without valid cause.” And in Saudi Arabia, where Islamism appears rampant, people are beheaded for a wide variety of causes, all of which ultimately come to back to the Islamist’s laws. Most recently, a video of the beheading of an alleged practitioner of “sorcery” has appeared, as well as one of a 54 year-old woman being beheaded for killing a man who was abusing her.

The atrocious nature of these things is magnified by recent videos of a young Iraqi girl being stoned to death for falling in love with a boy whose Islamic religion was not the same as her own. (And I didn’t even mention the numerous Westerners who were beheaded with dull knives instead of sharp swords during the last decade.)

What harmony can exist between such barbarism and the West?

But sadly, although these examples represent only a handful of innumerable others that could be provided, the Islamists will quickly have their apologists in the West. Worst of all, many of those apologists will be leftists who are female—university professors and such—that refuse to see what their own end would be were they to fall into the hands of the Islamists.

And what makes this even worse, is that for every reported Islamist-led attack on human life that takes place in countries like Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, or Saudi Arabia, there seems to be an equally large number of attacks on freedom of speech and of religion that are carried out in the court of public opinion throughout the West. For example, right now in the city of Detroit, Michigan, “Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations…says a Christian prayer summit to be held at Ford Field [on Nov. 11] promotes anti-Muslim sentiment and is warning local mosques to step up their security.”

While there is absolutely no evidence that the prayer summit is going to be anti-Muslim, but plenty of evidence that it isn’t, Walid is using the event to cast Christians in a light that makes their right to free speech less valuable than his own. And while this is anti-Western, generally speaking, it is specifically anti-American, as the Bill of Rights protects speech even if that speech is disagreeable or repugnant to the hearer.

In the most surreal turn of events imaginable, Walid has actually called on the heads of local mosques to “maintain security at all entrances, and make sure to notify the police immediately if suspicious persons congregate on mosque property." In other words, the exercise of free speech by a group that is Christian rather than Muslim is seemingly being used by Walid to justify fortifying mosques in the Detroit area.

Yet the majority of Westerners sit silently. Too worried about giving offense to realize they’ve just been offended, and that their most fundamental of rights—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.—are being attacked at this very moment.

Perhaps Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General of the United States (2007-2009), put the situation most clearly when he said the West’s fight against “Islamism…[is] handicapped…by the refusal…to acknowledge the goals of our adversaries.” He then succinctly described those goals as “essentially political” ones that “involve the recreation of an Islamic caliphate and the imposition of Sharia law over as broad a swath of the world as possible.”

The citizens of the United States and Europe have to make a choice and stand by it—do they want civilization or not? If they do, they have to enter into the arena of ideas and make an unflinching defense of Western Civilization. If they don’t, they are dead while living, and an embarrassment to the posterity they could have had.

what tv

What TV channels do you receive? There are plenty of channels about cooking, relaxing, the bible, trash, gay, big brother, jungle camp etc. So, you are not obliged to watch crime and violence documentaries about countries you never will visit. Take it easy, man.

Collaborators or Traitors?

"the Islamists will quickly have their apologists in the West. Worst of all, many of those apologists will be leftists who are female—university professors and such—that refuse to see what their own end would be were they to fall into the hands of the Islamists."


Apologists is a sanitized word for people who literally are conspiring with the enemy.  Collaborators at the very least, traitors at the worst.


While the author frets about the ultimate fate of the apologists at the hands of Islamists, he should fear more their fate by their fellow countrymen.



Islam as a Gnostic strategy

Political and intellectual elite (specially left-wing) in fact hate occidental et christian civilization, because they are gnostics. Gnosticism (much has been said about it in this blog) wants to destroy anything emerging above chaos: any order, any civilization is deemed bad and doomed to destruction.

The more brilliant a civlization is, the more sinful it is, and the more it deserves to be destroyed.

Gnostics promoted during years marxism and communism (and lot of them still do), but it finally failed. They also promoted sexual revolution (destruction of morality), modern art (destruction of beauty), ecologism (destruction of science and progress), and now also Islam, which during centuries has proved to be a constant enemy of Western world.

Extremely rude and violent, Islam has never brought anything else than ignorance and stagnation of morality and science. Muslim contributions to progress of knowledge has been extremely weak, and almost equal to zero in Science and Technology.

There is no doubt that an islamic Europe and America would instantly cease to bring anything to progress.

And that's exactly what it's wanted : for gnostics, turning Western to Islam is the best way to bring the most and brilliant civilization ever to ashes.


Co-existence of civilization and its negation

"renowned institutions, press outlets, left-leaning politicians, and university professors are stepping on themselves to assure us that radical Islam and the West can co-exist" -  The previous generation was likewise being assured, throughout the pre-WWII decade, that the so-called enlightened West and the only slightly less enlightened Hitler's Germany could live together in peace. Didn't the Foreign Office instruct British athletes to give the Nazi salute at the Berlin 1936 Olympics so everybody could co-exist the better? Wasn't Czechoslovakia carved up and forced to disarm by Britain and France so she could co-exist in harmony with her fascist neighbour? Winston Churchill, the man who did more than anybody else in the 20th century to save our civilization, called mankind "unteachable from birth to death."  

The West? Islamists?

What is this "West" or "Western Civilization" that must decide? Isn't it, and hasn't it always been, nothing more than an imaginary group order? Those peoples stated to belong to this "West" do not experience it as something real. There are no generally accepted philosophical, religious, legal, cultural or geneological delimiters to give substance to the notion that these disparate peoples are somehow definable as a social or intellectual entity that is somehow organized into history as a force for action representative of some sense of oneness.

Ok, so there are some people upset that others called "Islamists" are out to get them, but get who? The "Islamists" do not seem to know. All "Islamist" depictions of the "West" are notably naive. They are chasing after windmills. 

But then, who are these "Islamists". Are they not also an imaginary group order? They claim to be believers in "Islam", an Arabic word meaning "submission to Allah". But everywhere they reveal themselves as discontent with Allah. They are upset, for example, the Allah gave women brains and therefore act to prevent women from using their brains. They are upset that Allah would allow Jews and other "infidels" to exist to the point of feeling that they must eliminate what Allah has let be. And, they use brainwashing techniques to fortify their resolve - such techniques as group acknowledgement that Allah demands what they believe Allah demands, while crouched on "prayer mats" five times each day.  

So, there you have it. The whole action world of moderity is nothing more than the acting out of parts in a novel, parts believed by the participants to be their lives.

gunners and believers

One might wonder what organisation will destroy the world at best: the histeria of the gun owners of America or the religious fundamentalist crime sects all over this planet. The youth believes in zombies and vampires - maybe there comes a third flow. Or, but that's a naive hypothesis, mankind comes back to reality.

@ kappert

You forgot the enormous responsability in the downwards equalisation process of the socialist/marxist "believers".

@ AWR Hawkins

It has absolutely nothing to do with the "European and US citizens".

The pro-Islamic decisions of the West are the sole responsability of the political "leaders" of the West.

The socialist dogma's have led those "leaders" to the conclusion that all human beings are the same, and all they need is a unified "culture" to solve all problems.

That idiocy is now ruling the Western thinking.

The West has and is eliminating all bullwarks against islamic extremism, Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Bashir al Assad, Saleh are all secular, moderate muslims, fighting muslim extremism. Algeria has already fought the islamic extremist GIA with the loss of 200.000 lives. GIA has now a new life with the arms supply from Libya. Algeria is now threatened with a new television channel from London, financed by the Qatari emir, and managed by the son of Abbasi Madani, ex-leader of the extremist FIS of Algeria.

Those dictators and military rulers, as muslims, know that democracy is impossible in a muslim society.

For some reason the Western geniuses have decided that a muslim society is just like a European society, all you need to do is "install democracy".

It won't happen this century and the problems will be magnified, while our financial system is collapsing.

In short our so-called "leaders" are a bunch of idiots "leading" us nowhere but against a massive wall of economic disaster and political turmoil.

I am saying this since years and intelligent people are still answering me with semantics about "dictators" and "democracy".

No islamic country has ever known democracy and all islamic countries have been ruled by dictators throughout their history.

The only exception were the new countries Pakistan and Bangla Desh, which didn't have the burden of historic dictatorships.

Pakistan has been ruined by the US/Saudi/Indian interference and is now an effective dictatorship by the military, and Bangla Desh is trying desperately to keep their democracy afloat under the control of a few families. 

If the West wants to safeguard themselves they have now an enormous task in front of them after demolishing the moderate islamic structures, and distributing sophisticated weapons systems to the islamists.

Basically they have only one option, stay at war with the islamists since they obliterated the moderates and put the extremists in charge.