Does disaster represent our only hope?

Mentally normal Westerners—like me, for example—look at a photo like this and think that it portrays something utterly alien and antithetical to everything we are. At the same time, all kinds of leftists, liberals, libertarians, paleo-libertarians, Randians, neoconservatives, and mainstream conservatives look at a photo like this and think: “Ooohh, these are people who long for freedom and equality! These are people who will enrich our culture and advance our economy!”

The photo appears at the beginning of an article by another mentally normal Westerner, Arnold Ahlert, at FrontPage Magazine. Ahlert is burdened with a tragic insight: the West is so deluded about the benign nature of Islam and Muslims, that perhaps the only thing that can wake it up is hideous disaster:

If the result of the Egyptian democracy movement results in Muslim Brotherhood gaining control of the government–with acquiescence of the Egyptian people–freedom in the Western sense will be nowhere to be found. If the people willingly trade a secular dictatorship for a religious one, it will be a terrible development for the West in every respect but one:

We will be forced to admit that substantial numbers of Muslims, perhaps even a majority, do not embrace Western values.

Such clarity may be the only bright light in an otherwise darkened sky. If the uprisings occurring in the Middle East result in democratically elected religious tyrannies which openly express their hatred of the United States and their desire to destroy Israel, perhaps those long deluded into believing ideas such as terrorism is a “law-enforcement problem,” or that massive Muslim emigration into Western countries is little cause for concern, or that Western accommodation to Muslim sensibilities must proceed without hesitation, will be snapped out of their delusion….

Perhaps those who have long tut-tutted the idea that we may be in the midst of a civilizational struggle will have the blinders removed from their eyes.

Here is the whole article:

In Search of the Moderate Moslem World

As the crisis in Egypt continues, Western nations are faced with a conundrum of their own making: how does one simultaneously demand that Arabic nations abandon their “7th century” mentality, best represented by oppressive, often totalitarian regimes, even as one knows the current uprisings against such regimes will likely produce results utterly antithetical to Western interests? At this juncture, perhaps the best the West can hope for is clarity.

For the last ten years, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have worked mightily to convince the American public that the “overwhelming majority” of Muslims are “on our side” with regards to the global war against terror. Yet if that were truly the case, then why has it been necessary to prop up autocratic regimes throughout the region for decades? With respect to Egyptians, a June 2010 Pew opinion survey reveals a decidedly different set of sensibilities: 59% of Egyptians back Islamists while only 27% back modernizers; there is 50% support for Hamas, 30% for Hezbollah and 20% for al Qaeda. 95% of Egyptians would welcome Islamic influence in their political arena.

If Hosni Mubarak’s removal hands Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most virulent Islamic terrorist organizations in the world [LA replies: This is incorrect; as is well known, the MB in recent decades has avoided direct involvement with terror. Far from being “one of the most virulent Islamic terrorist organizations,” it is not even included in the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.], the Obama administration will be roundly criticized for sitting back and “allowing it to happen.” Already columnists in Israel are characterizing the administration’s wait-and-see policy as a “knife to the back.” Perhaps it is. But in one respect, such a policy is hard to distinguish from that of a Bush administration which sat back and allowed Hamas to gain control of the West Bank via a democratic election. [LA replies: Of course Hamas gained control of Gaza, not the West Bank.] Thus, while one can criticize the current administration for a certain level of naivete regarding reality, the idea that an American administration embraces democracy per se, irrespective of the outcome, is hardly new.

Where both administrations have faltered has to do with the idea of believing that democracy and freedom are interchangeable terms, and that the definition of freedom is a commonly understood concept which cuts across cultural boundaries. If the result of the Egyptian democracy movement results in Muslim Brotherhood gaining control of the government–with acquiescence of the Egyptian people–freedom in the Western sense will be nowhere to be found. If the people willingly trade a secular dictatorship for a religious one, it will be a terrible development for the West in every respect but one:

We will be forced to admit that substantial numbers of Muslims, perhaps even a majority, do not embrace Western values.

Such clarity may be the only bright light in an otherwise darkened sky. If the uprisings occurring in the Middle East result in democratically elected religious tyrannies which openly express their hatred of the United States and their desire to destroy Israel, perhaps those long deluded into believing ideas such as terrorism is a “law-enforcement problem,” or that massive Muslim emigration into Western countries is little cause for concern, or that Western accommodation to Muslim sensibilities must proceed without hesitation, will be snapped out of their delusion. Perhaps phrases like “man-caused disaster” and “overseas contingency operation” will be tossed on the ash heap of history where they belong. Perhaps an Israel completely surrounded by enemies will awaken Jewish liberals in both countries to the utter bankruptcy of their multicultural and morally relative fantasies.

Perhaps those who have long tut-tutted the idea that we may be in the midst of a civilizational struggle will have the blinders removed from their eyes.

No one in their right mind yearns for a clash of civilizations. But for far too long, Western nations have largely dismissed the idea as neo-con warmongering, or the “politics of fear.” Those who have sounded the warnings are “Islamophobic.” Many Westerners simply cannot convince themselves that so-called radical Islam and moderate Islam may be one and the same thing, and that Muslims who are genuinely pro-Western are not only not the majority, but not even a substantial minority of the world’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam.

Despite such a possibility, many in Europe and America are thrilled with the prospect that a West which traded stability for democracy, even when such a tradeoff was the only practical reality, will reap a whirlwind of its own making. Comments at many websites reveal the fantasies of anti-Semites convinced that the march of Arab democracy spells doom for Israel. Again, while such thinking is contemptible, it too reveals clarity: substantial numbers of Europeans and Americans view their own culture with contempt. It is a contempt premised on the idea that a lack of perfection is tantamount to utter corruption, and that if everything isn’t worth saving, then nothing is.

Such talk is cheap and one need only remember the gut reaction of the overwhelming majority of Americans and Europeans immediately following 9/11 to know it. That was the day when the theory of Western comeuppance gave way to the reality of it. The West could be forgiven for not recognizing the enormity of Islamic discontent then. We have no such excuses now, especially if the Middle East continues on its present trajectory, one day at a time, while the whole world watches.

We can hope for the best possible outcome, but we must prepare for the worst, even if that means preparing for a worldwide war. We must begin recognizing we’ve spent the last ten years hoping that what we’d like to believe about the majority of Muslims is likely nothing more than wishful thinking. No one truly knows what the majority of Muslims think. Maybe not even Muslims themselves. It is by their deeds that we shall know them. In that sense, who finally gains control in Egypt, if democratically elected, will speak volumes.

Clarity may not be much. But it’s far better than self-inflicted, politically correct delusion.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

You write:

At the same time, all kinds of leftists, liberals, libertarians, paleo-libertarians, Randians, neoconservatives, and mainstream conservatives look at a photo like this and think: “Ooohh, these are people who long for freedom and equality! These are people who will enrich our culture and advance our economy!”

Yes, they will enrich our culture, by ritually flogging each other on the streets of our cities. Little did we know how impoverished our culture was, before we saw such freakish spectacles!

Greg W. writes:

You wrote:

“At the same time, all kinds of leftists, liberals, libertarians, paleo-libertarians, Randians, neoconservatives, and mainstream conservatives look at a photo like this and think: “Ooohh, these are people who long for freedom and equality! These are people who will enrich our culture and advance our economy!”

Wait. You mean, diversity is NOT strength? That’s what my neighbors, friends, kids’ teachers, dentists, daycares, college professors and military have always told me (even after Hasan murdered our soldiers at Fort Hood): Diversity is strength! Of course nothing could be further from the truth. If one cannot understand that a country is defined by its similar culture, heritage, and people along with tangible borders and not by abstracts like “civic culture” (whatever that means) and “rule of law,” then they may be surprised in 30 to 40 years when America is nothing but a “polyglot of squabbling nationalities” as Teddy Roosevelt said.

People who say that we need to import 3rd world immigrants perpetually in order to enrich OUR culture and advance OUR economy are nothing but enablers of the replacement of whites in America, which is the end goal right? If whites mass-migrated to African countries and threatened to replace the natives, it would be called genocide. When it’s done to America and the West, it’s called diversity.

Leonard K. writes:

The article you quote contains an error:

” … allowed Hamas to gain control of the West Bank … “

It’s Gaza, not West Bank.

You have already corrected another error regarding the MB. I am not certain that there are no more errors—the article in general is sloppy.

LA replies:

Right, I’ll fix it. That he believed that MB is “one of the most virulent terrorist organizations,” and that Hamas gained power in West Bank rather than Gaza shows he’s not on top of the issues. But he’s had two recent pieces that despite their flaws, had a certain power, that’s why I posted them.

And these errors got by FP’s editors as well.

Ron L. writes:

There are none so blind as those who are willfully blinded by ideology. A disaster may wake some up, but not all. September 11th was preceded by Khobar Towers, the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole attack. Yet the administration of George W. Bush was the most Islamophilic administration before the U.S. elected a communist born a Muslim. Many neoconservatives still believe that the Muslim world will become a liberal democracy, despite the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and the evolution of Turkey into an Islamist state.

Truth will not be heard nor reality seen by the elites who have internalized liberalism above all else and the masses who are exposed to nothing else.

March 2

LA writes:

A reader wondered whether it is really true, as I state in an interpolated comment in Ahlert’s article, that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization, let alone, as Ahlert puts it, “one of the most virulent Islamic terrorist organizations in the world.” I’ve appended to that comment the fact that the MB is not included on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. Organizations on that list include Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al-Shabaab (a Somali group which currently controls parts of that country), Lashkar-e Tayyiba, Palestine Liberation Front, Liberation Tigers of Tamil, Shining Path, and Continuity Irish Republican Army. The Muslim Brotherhood is not on the list.

On the subject of the MB and violence, Wikipedia writes:

The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state.” Since its inception in 1928 the movement has officially opposed violent means to achieve its goals. Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor, calls it “conservative and non-violent,” The Brotherhood condemned terrorism and the 9/11 attacks, but whether or not it has ties to terrorism is a matter of dispute. The Brotherhood’s nonviolent stance has resulted in breakaway groups from the movement, including the Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya and Al Takfir Wal Hijra. Osama bin Laden has similarly criticized the Brotherhood, and accused it of betraying jihad and the ideals of Sayyid Qutb, an influential Brother member and author of Milestones. [See original article for links.]

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 01, 2011 04:01 PM | Send