Follow by Email

Friday, February 27, 2015

A Historical Framework for Ending Islamic Chauvinism


I realize the title of this post is a bit verbose, but it's really the most precise heading for what I want to say. I've spent a lot of time, years actually, pondering the parallels I'm about to describe here. After the events that have occurred since September 11, 2001, I don't see much of an alternative to the course of action I am about to lay out here. I don't relish the thought of these actions. They involve the deaths of thousands. They would result in the demise of a culture and a major world religion. And yet, to preserve all that is noble and true, I fear no other end is possible.

You see, Islamic chauvinism is becoming dangerous to the continued existence of the West. Those of you self-loathing liberals out there might see this as a good thing, yet consider what would replace us. Indeed, the very culture that permits you to question its superiority and express those doubts is the one that will die if it does not defend its existence. Western culture is unique in this way. Precisely the attributes that make it superior also make it difficult for us to admit its superiority. Western culture is unique in its open-mindedness. It is unique in the quality that allows for critical self-evaluation. The culture of the Muslim world does not permit criticism of its tenets. The Communist cultures of the world, China, Cuba, et al, punish through legal sanction criticism of a Statist value system. Those nations that permit and even encourage self-criticism do so inasmuch as they have absorbed the ideas and values of the West.

I introduce the topic in this way because we will never take the steps necessary to defend our liberties, our way of life, unless we recognize that it is worthy of drastic steps to defend it. We once recognized this, and were committed enough to destroy entire cities and terminate an entire religion to protect ourselves. We need such determination again.

Peace is never achieved without total victory. Such a victory is not merely political or the result of a treaty. It is psychological. It is the breaking of the will of the enemy, total and absolute domination of one society by another. It is achieved by the vanquishing of one party by the other. Only then will the conquered people be malleable enough to submit themselves to the will of the conqueror. For the self-doubting West, such a result is borderline anathema. Yet history demonstrates, over and over, that such is the case.

Let us use the defeat of Japan as an example. I was discussing this topic with a friend of mine, Hiroyuki Okano. He explained to me that the overwhelming defeat of Japan in World War II had the additional consequence of disproving the religion of Japan. Under Shinto beliefs, the emperor was a god. He was literally divine, a descendant of the sun god. As such, he was considered all-powerful. The Japanese, in this sense, worshiped Japan itself, personified in the emperor. After the decimation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the promise that Tokyo was next, the emperor was forced to submit himself to the will of the United States. By so doing, he admitted his fallibility, which proved that he was not all-powerful, that he was a mere mortal instead of a divine being. That tenet of the Shinto religion was destroyed. Shinto survives in cultural celebrations and traditions, but it is no longer chauvinistic. Nobody in Japan believes that the emperor is infallible. That aspect of their culture and religion was destroyed with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Islamic world has a very similar perspective to what Japan had at the onset of World War II. Foreign peoples were seen as filthy, inhuman enemies whose destiny was to be forcibly replaced by Japan. The same mindset exists in Islamic fundamentalism. It is all or nothing. Resistance to conquest is seen as the equivalent of violence against the religion. When the West resists invasion, it is portrayed as a new Crusade. Of course, such a perception ignores the very real geopolitical causes of the Crusades, which began with an Ottoman invasion of Byzantine territory. Even in that context, then, it was the West resisting conquest, even if the participants in the Crusades did commit some extremely vile atrocities against the residents of the lands they were ostensibly trying to free.

The only outcome I see that would result in a lasting peace and security for the West and our culture is massive destruction inflicted upon the Muslim world, a destruction never before seen. Nations that support or condone terrorism within their borders or as proxies for their political agendas will have to be virtually obliterated. We must force the Islamic world to sue for peace under any conditions necessary. We must demonstrate irrevocably that God is not on their side, that He does not accept the notion that Islam should be used as a weapon. ISIS-infested lands must be incinerated; pinpoint strikes via drones are not having a significant effect. The Muslim world must be crushed, its spirit and will broken. Yes, I am speaking of nuclear weapons.

We have foolishly robbed ourselves of the neutron bomb, which was a very merciful alternative to conventional nuclear weapons. A neutron bomb kills everything it touches, but leaves little radioactive residue to affect survivors. It decimates military targets within a limited area, much less than a conventional warhead, meaning that it could be used to destroy political and military targets within a 2.5 mile radius while leaving surrounding areas unscathed. Such a weapon would be ideal in the fight against militant Islam. ISIS troops and leaders could be vaporized while those under their oppression could be spared. Such a path would be both sufficiently forceful and the most moral alternative.

I do not wish to suggest that I see atomic warfare as a good thing. War is never good, but a sometimes necessary evil. However, it is vastly superior to having Western civilization replaced with a barbaric Ninth Century culture that sees women as chattel and enforces its religious zealotry with a death penalty. These are rapidly becoming our only realistic alternatives, as much as we may wish otherwise. I, for one, appreciate the value of our culture sufficiently to defend it no matter what the cost. Those who would criticize this post do not, period. I suppose that is their right and, ironically, a side-effect of the superiority of our culture.

Before you lambaste this post, please take the time to think unemotionally and realistically about its actual content. What I suggest is indeed horrifying. It is also necessary. Sadly, if history has taught us anything, the two are not mutually exclusive.