The suicidal paradigm we’re stuck in—and the life-giving alternative

President Bush’s honoring of the holiday of black nationalists who hate America is benign and harmless folly compared to the madness of promoting the creation of a sovereign state for the benefit and empowerment of people who support the use of mass terrorism against us. The Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin reports:

A poll published this week and reported in Palestinian newspapers found that 65% of Palestinians “support Al-Qaeda actions in the USA and Europe.”

Religiously-motivated Al-Qaeda attacks against those referred to as “Infidels” have killed thousands of Americans and Europeans. Why would the Palestinian population so overwhelmingly support the murder of Christians?

For years, the Palestinian Authority religious leadership has been presenting its war against Israel’s existence as merely one part of its global Islamic war being fought against the Christian-Jewish West. Just last month, a PA TV religious leader, during a televised sermon, included this prayer for the killing of all Infidels: “Destroy the Infidels and the Polytheists! Your [i.e. Allah’s] enemies are the enemies of the religion…! Count them and kill them to the last one, and don’t leave even one.” [Suleiman Satari, PA TV, November 18, 2005]

Given the character and beliefs of the Palestinian population and their leaders, how can Bush continue talking up the Palestinian cause, insisting that a Palestinian state is the only way to go, making a Palestinian state a transcendent goal of U.S. and world politics? And how can the rest of us see such a goal as remotely acceptable? It’s because we can see no alternative to a Palestinian state as the solution to the Israeli-Arab problem, just as we see no alternative to Muslim democratization as the solution to Muslim terror and fanaticism, and just as we see no alternative to assimilation as the solution to the growing Muslim presence in the West. We see no alternatives to these hopeless and counterproductive policies because we are stuck inside the conceptual and spiritual box of liberalism, which tells us that all people are basically like us, that all their differences from us can be bridged, all their animosities against us assuaged, all their dysfunctions cured, if only we try hard enough to make it so. If instead of remaining in the liberal box we thought non-liberally, pre-liberally, traditionally; if instead of seeing only the supposed equal rights and moral sameness of all humans everywhere, we saw the concrete reality of distinct civilizations, religions, and peoples and the need to stand up for our own civilization and people, then new understandings and new paradigms would open up to us. Instead of striving forever to give birth to the hideous and totally unworkable curse of a Palestinian state, we would begin to see the necessity, the justice, and, yes, the practicality of removing the Palestinians from west of the Jordan. Instead of trying forever to “democratize” the Muslim world and cultivate Muslim “moderates,” we would see the necessity, justice, and practicality of isolating and containing the Muslim world. Instead of trying forever to assimilate Muslim immigrant populations in the West, we would see the necessity, justice, and practicality of initiating the steady out-migration of Muslims from the West.

The civilizational policies I propose will seem absurd, unworkable, and evil to most people today. But they only seem that way because of the falsifying filter of liberalism through which we perceive the world. In the real world, which is not a fantasy but the world as it truly exists and as we would start to see it once we freed ourselves from the liberal hypnosis, the strategy of civilizational defense is moral, practicable, and commonsensical. Discrimination in defense of our own civilization is no more evil or (to anticipate the objection of the neoconservatives) “multicultural” than the discriminations every person makes in his daily existence between that which is suitable to his way of life and that which is not. Liberalism tells us that while discrimination may be acceptable in the private and personal sphere, it is totally unacceptable in the social and political sphere. Traditionalism returns us to the pre-modern, timeless truth, based in nature and nature’s God, that discrimination has its place in the social and political sphere.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 26, 2005 07:53 PM | Send