southchild

The Bali Bombings have served to clarify the nature of the enemy in the War between free, democratic civilizations and Islamic fascism. Islamist way or no way, by Mark Steyn, boils the conflict down to its essence: Fascism will not coexist with freedom. The fascists do not attempt to disguise this fact or their intent, rather it is the West in it’s oh-so-enlightened sophistication that utterly fails to understand this simple reality. Steyn writes,

I found myself behind a car in Vermont, in the US, the other day; it had a one-word bumper sticker with the injunction “COEXIST”. It’s one of those sentiments beloved of Western progressives, one designed principally to flatter their sense of moral superiority. The C was the Islamic crescent, the O was the hippie peace sign, the X was the Star of David and the T was the Christian cross. Very nice, hard to argue with. But the reality is, it’s the first of those symbols that has a problem with coexistence. Take the crescent out of the equation and you wouldn’t need a bumper sticker at all. Indeed, coexistence is what the Islamists are at war with; or, if you prefer, pluralism, the idea that different groups can rub along together within the same general neighbourhood. There are many trouble spots across the world but, as a general rule, even if one gives no more than a cursory glance at the foreign pages, it’s easy to guess at least one of the sides: Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one’s views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact.
…
So even Muslims v (your team here) doesn’t quite cover it. You don’t have to have a team or even be aware that you belong to any side. You can be a hippie-dippy hey-man-I-love-everybody-whatever-your-bag-is-cool backpacking Dutch stoner, and they’ll blow you up with as much enthusiasm as if you were Dick Cheney. As a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden put it in 2002, explaining why they bombed a French oil tanker: “We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels.”

And therein lies the problem: We don’t recognize the true nature of the threat. But why not? The fascists speak plainly, unusually so in the history of fascism which is one of an ideology hiding behind lies and “doublespeak”. Have we lost our ability to see? This reminds me of a Chico Marx quote, “Who you gonna believe — me or your own eyes?” We don’t seem to believe either which is the definition of denial. Steyn continues,

No problem. In our time, even the most fascistic ideologies have been savvy enough to cover their darker impulses in sappy labels. The Soviet bloc was comprised of wall-to-wall “people’s republics”, which is the precise opposite of what they were: a stylistic audacity Orwell caught perfectly in 1984, with its Ministry of Truth (that is, official lies). But the Islamists don’t even bother going through the traditional rhetorical feints. They say what they mean and they mean what they say. “We are here as on a darkling plain …” wrote Matthew Arnold in the famous concluding lines to Dover Beach, “where ignorant armies clash by night”.

But we choose in large part to stay in ignorance. Blow up the London Underground during a G8 summit and the world’s leaders twitter about how tragic and ironic it is that this should have happened just as they’re taking steps to deal with the issues, as though the terrorists are upset about poverty in Africa and global warming.

It’s time to wake up, folks, and see the threat for what it is.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 5th, 2005 at 1:39 pm and is filed under General, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.