A Pinnacle of Self-Destruction

Alexander Maistrovoy, a journalist with the Russian-language Israeli newspaper Novosty nedely, offers this guest-essay, which has been published previously at Canada Free Press and Islam Watch.



A pinnacle of self-destruction
by Alexander Maistrovoy

Can a tango of a murderer and a suicide be considered “The Clash of Civilizations”?

It is difficult to say the clash of which civilizations Samuel Huntington meant. Those who think he wrote about Islamic civilization on the one part and the West on the other part, make a mistake. There is no such conflict, it is inherently impossible. The events of the latest decades show that the civilizations in question are far from clashing. On the contrary, they co-operate and complement one another.

Any conflict assumes that both parties have ideological oppositions, pride, courage, and desire to fight. If one of the parties has neither principles, nor will to resist, or at least aspirations to survive, the conflict does not exist. There is a simple absorption of one civilization by another, a kind of submission or assault. The situation becomes even more hopeless if one of the parties not only obediently submits to an aggressor and tyrant, but meets the conqueror with readiness and enthusiasm.

Can there be a conflict between a sadist and a masochist; hatred and self-hatred; aggression and self-flagellation? Certainly not. Such pairs complement one another ideally.

It is difficult to find more hatred of the West, than in the West itself. Listen and read what the representatives of the Western elite — academicians, novelists and show-business stars — say, and you will find no difference in their ideas and those of the leaders of Taliban or “Al Qaeda”. Do the judgements of Tom Hayden differ from those of Mukdata al Sadr? Is Noam Chomsky or Susan Sontag different in their statements on the USA from Mullah Omar? Sean Penn hates America as strongly as the Islamists do.

“Washington prepares genocide in Afghanistan … The plan is ready, and will be carried out even if it causes the destruction of several million people within the next several months. But it excites nobody.” It was told shortly after 9/11. By whom? Perhaps, by Bin-Laden or Ayman Zawahiri? No, it was told by Noam Chomsky, a liberals’ idol on both sides of the Atlantic.

Who described 9/11 as a “natural result of culture of violence, hunger and brutal exploitation”? It was a Nobel Prize Laureate Dario Fo. Who enthusiastically, with certain ecstasy and voluptuousness, wrote after the bloody orgy: “America, now it’s your turn to understand how ruthless hatred can be!”? It was neither Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nor Nasralla nor Bashar Asad. These words belong to a popular British short-story writer Martin Louis Amis.

Here is the statement of a French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, one of the pillars of Postmodernism: “It was ‘Al Qaeda’ who did it but we had longed for it”.
– – – – – – – –
And what about professors? Could the rhetoric of Osama Bin-Laden be compared with triumphal delight of Dr. Richard Berthold from University of New Mexico after 9/11: “Anybody who blows up the Pentagon gets my vote.”

David C. Hendrickson, a professor at Colorado College, compared George W. Bush to Stalin. Poor Stalin … A refined sadist and pathological murderer, he would turn in his grave if he heard the professor. To be compared to Bush, who had not managed to destroy a handful of badly armed terrorists in Baghdad for five years. If Stalin’s Red Army had occupied Baghdad, not only terrorists, but Baghdad itself would have stopped their existence in a week’s time. And not a single one of the present liberals would! have uttered a word of protest. The reason for it is: they admire force, and Stalin was the embodiment of force.

The weak-willed politics of the present Western leaders is just a number of attempts to appease aggressors. It is the reflex of servility and worship of force that impregnates the cultural establishment of the West.

The liberals’ passionate hatred of their own civilization reminds us of revolutionaries — communists and anarchists of the beginning of the last century — and their hatred of capitalism. At first sight we observe a certain ideological continuity. However, the initial impression is deceptive. Lenin, Trotsky and their followers had quite distinct political aims: firstly, full “redistribution” of property and its transfer it to the new “proletarian” elite; secondly, the world revolution and world supremacy. The first task was completely fulfilled. All of the czarist Russia elite: aristocracy, nobility and merchants were either killed or expelled. Stalin came close to the fulfillment of the second task. However, the inconsistent economic policy and the systemic crisis which struck the former USSR prevented the realization of this grandiose plan.

What are the aims of the Western liberal elite? They are none. There is no need to expropriate anybody because, contrary to the Russian marginal-revolutionaries, they belong to the ruling establishment. As for the second purpose, their dominant position allows them to effectively and successfully promote liberal values to the most gloomy and musty corners of the modern world. Instead they consistently and purposefully destroy foundations of their own civilization, support the most ominous forces which dream of the destruction of a free society.

There is one more essential moment. Revolutionaries of the beginning of the 20th century were representatives of national minorities (Jews, Germans, Poles, Latvian, Georgians, Chinese). They despised Russia and Russian culture because they themselves were considered to be men of the meaner sort. On the contrary, the Western liberals are hundred-per-cent Americans, Englishmen, Frenchmen and Spaniards who according to the logic of things have no reasons to hate their countries and wish their destruction. Nevertheless, they are afflicted with desire to see their culture writhing in agony at the feet of triumphing Islamic fanatics and ordinary gangsters and demagogues like Hugo Chavez and his kind.

So, we see a case of causeless, self-destructive hatred. This senseless and absolutely irrational self-hatred could be explained by only one thing: the suicide syndrome characteristic of cultures in their last stage of dying. In lack of ideals, vital forces, and even instinct of self-preservation they surrender themselves to barbarians, with flattering and even masochistic humility give themselves up to rough and despotic conquerors.

… When Alaric entered Rome, he was amazed by a great number of Romans who like Germans wore bearskins and worshiped German idols. Rome had submitted to barbarians long before it fell into their hands. There’s a paradox in the fact that Alaric, Theodoric, and other German leaders did their best to preserve the heritage of ancient Rome. However, one can never expect the same from future conquerors of the West.

If you wish to understand the essence of post-modernism read Michel Foucault, a French historian and philosopher. He wrote: “The death of God does not restore us to a limited and positivistic world, but to a world exposed by the experience of its limits, made and unmade by that excess which transgresses it.”

The West comes back to a starting point of the human being’s existence: chaos, senselessness, boundless permissiveness. According to all laws of dialectics, such a system cannot exist for long time. Chaos requires suppression, a ruthless supervisor, a despot who will cruelly return human beings to their bounds. It will be fanatical Islam, and the Western elite is eagerly waiting for it. So the words of Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams about the inevitability of Sharia Law in Britain seem quite natural.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


Shall we see a true conflict of civilizations? Maybe, yes. Possibly, fast developing, dynamic India, and powerful China complete with other Far East “dragons”, and Russia restoring its role of the “Third Rome” can resist the arising Islamic Caliphate. Probably also splinters of the Western Christian civilization will remain in Australia, New Zealand, some countries in East Europe or Latin America. But for the West it will be of no importance…

32 thoughts on “A Pinnacle of Self-Destruction

  1. Listen and read what the representatives of the Western elite — academicians, novelists and show-business stars — say, and you will find no difference in their ideas and those of the leaders of Taliban or “Al Qaeda”.

    This should stand as one of the most searing condemnations possible of Western Liberalism.

    What are the aims of the Western liberal elite? They are none.

    A more concise explanation of the Left’s philosophical malaise cannot be found. This is the unending existential ennui that so plagues its vapid devotees. Life, without reason of any sort.

    Probably also splinters of the Western Christian civilization will remain in Australia, New Zealand, some countries in East Europe or Latin America. But for the West it will be of no importance

    However lamentable it may sound, I think you sorely underestimate the galvanizing effect a truly horrific large-scale terrorist atrocity might have upon the American public.

    Even were the sheep not to look up, our military still possesses sufficient love for this great nation that they might act unilaterally and respond in kind, or better, to our attackers.

    I would have to witness such a grim spectacle first-hand before I could ever believe that America will go silently into the night, regardless of what the White House Whore intends.

  2. Concerning Constitutional solutions:

    Zenster, I appreciate your fleshing out of your theory of military intervention. I agree that it would be constitutional, and is possible. However, the federal Government now does so many things that are unconstitutional, I doubt that the “Magic Paper” of the constitution will save us, people must have a plan to do so.

    The great weakness of the Right is that it fails to plan to de-power and defeat its enemies (change the world in a proactive way). Instead it determines its goals based on issues, rather than outlining the cause (major objective) and then supporting the issues and goals that will make the cause a success.

    For generals to pull it off, they need a certain level of support. Another thought– How do you know that America will suffer an WMD attack first? Why not attack some small peacenik Western country first ( and see what we do)? Your strategy seems to assume that the jihadists will be stupid enough to walk into our trap. It is not impossible, but I question whether putting all of one’s eggs into the basket that “our foes will rush into our trap” is a sufficient strategy for saving the West.

    Another factor: One reason that the Soviets didn’t nuke us was that they were afraid of dying, but another reason was that they thought they would conquer the West by infiltration anyway, in a few decades.

    How exactly does a WMD attack on America futher the establishment of the Caliphate anyway?

    When Qaddaffi and Yusuf al Qaradawi are saying things like “Is it necessary for the Islamic conquest of Europe to be by the sword? No! This will be a peaceful conquest!!” Do you think that Jihadists aren’t listening, or that they can’t put two and two together?

    The Oil won’t last forever, so the Islamists want to get Jizya from the West to stay alive. Why destroy something if you can conquer it without a fight in “a few decades”.

    I suggest you read the books I mentioned. I look forward to seeing your recommended reading list.

  3. The sole goal of the Left is to Destroy “western Imperialism”, which they think caused the collapse of Communism.

    Hey Leftists, be careful what you wish for– When “western Imperialism” is gone, YOUR IDEAS will be in THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY, for they are “western”.

  4. One more question:

    Zenster, has the following possible future scenario ever occurred to you:

    In 2050, we will have quantum computers, Inter-languages translating phones (One calls me in China, I pick up the phone, he speaks in Chinese and I hear him in perfect English) , and intelligent robots in the cities of Europe; which will exist alongside the beatings, stonings, amputations, and decapitations of Shariah; in provinces of the Eurabian Caliphate such as The Grand Emirate of the Netherlands, the Sultanate of Britainistan, the Sultanate of Swedenistan, and the Sultanate of Andulsia? And that the capital of the Eurabian Caliphate will be either Londonistan or Rome, with the quantum computers, intelligent robots, and language translating machines visible on the streets??

  5. Watching Eagle, please consider posting this off-topic reply in its original thread. The Baron and Dymphna are pretty generous about keeping active threads open for “the duration”.

    It would be far more constructive to have all inquiries and replies in a single repository. Do rest assured that I will be happy to respond there.

  6. Watching Eagle: In 2050, we will have quantum computers, Inter-languages translating phones (One calls me in China, I pick up the phone, he speaks in Chinese and I hear him in perfect English) , and intelligent robots in the cities of Europe; which will exist alongside the beatings, stonings, amputations, and decapitations of Shariah...

    Please forgive my insouciance but I have a difficult time believing that Islam, in its current form, will be any sort of world power, much less even in existence, in “2050”.

    My only answer to your question involves whether Islam is even capable of adopting the advanced technologies you predicate in your question.

    Hell, Saudi Arabia can barely deal with camera cell phones (three different links). Auto-translation telecom systems that permit phone sex regardless of native tongue (so to speak), will hardly be received any better.

  7. Watching Eagle: Hey Leftists, be careful what you wish for– When “western Imperialism” is gone, YOUR IDEAS will be in THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY, for they are “western”.

    NOW, you’re talking, Tiger!

  8. Even if they conquer Europe without much violence, there will be blood shed later. Large amounts of blood. Kuffar blood. They might want to preserve as much of our infrastructure for economical reasons but those who built it, they care nothing for. Once Europe is fully conquered, when it all is a done deal, they have nomore need for the kuffar. There will be genocides on a scale thatt would make Hitler, Stalin and Mao blush in comparison. All people that are of no use to them will be ruthlessly slaughtered. The rest will be either forcibly converted to mahoundism or reduced to slave labor only. America probably stands a better chance to survive than us. We are probably already lost. The mahoundians hasn’t taken over formally and officially yet but in reality they already rule over Eurabia.

  9. “We are probably already lost. The mahoundians hasn’t taken over formally and officially yet but in reality they already rule over Eurabia.”

    Yes, consider what they have achieved with low numbers under 10% of the population thanks to the magnification of their power by Western elites who thrive on the stench of any totalitarianism.

    The result is that complete Muslim lame-o’s, small time stumblebums and thugs are allowed to strut about Dodge raping and vandalizing while the Left ties up any non-complacent authorities or citizens in PC shackles.

    Chief dhimmis like Obama hate the societies they now rule and are devoted to destroying. They are more concerned about the rights of captured Muslim terrorists than of American conservatives.

    The USA is not far behind Eurabia and Obama may singlehandedly put the United States ahead in the dhimmi sweepstakes. He’s already announced that America does not consider itself a Christian nation and that it is one of the largest Muslim nations (obvious wish fulfilment, as neither statement is true yet).

    What may turn out to be the major difference is that perhaps 40% of Americans will not be willing to go quietly and they are the ones who are armed. The percentage of Europeans who are kicking up a fuss is miniscule and all they have is rocks. Their police and military are already weakened or co-opted into PC pods who will follow government orders to neutralize rebellious citizens, whatever it takes.

  10. Go and watch Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino” and tell if it isn’t an allegory on the state of Western civilisation and its (lack of) future.

  11. laine, I don’t know if you are familiar with Alex Jones and NWO conspiratists like him. Some of that stuff like the FEMA camps give me the creeps. Like they are already prepared for the coming genocide. But then again, at least you have one advantage. You have guns. All we have to defend ourselves with is baseball bats and kitchen knives at best while the muslim thugs have guns. The only citizens with arms are the hunters and they’re not many enough to save us all. I think it is delibarate that they don’t allow us to own firearms. They just want it to be easy to round us up when it’s the right time. I haven’t heard about similar camps as the FEMA ones over here but I guess there are secret camps anyway. After all, we ethnical natives are still a majority and they need death factories so that they can decrease our numbers as fast as possible and as comfortable for themselves, the elite that is. As white ethnicals we are all that they hate with western civilisation, we represent capitalism and imperialism and must thus be annihilated for the greater good of their new communist islamic utopia. You can’t make ommelette without cracking a few (million) eggs.

  12. As those 68-ers conquered the West without one shot, anybody else to do the same.

    But there is also a global harmony:

    The West has to wait until the leftist generation dies out, the same is valid for Iran, Iraq, China and many other places.

    Those people are sick beyond repair.

    From time to time we should be able to test, whether those guys are dead enough, as they do in Iran every day right now. The Western and ME or Chinese collaborators are maximum silent about it. But Iran is a real hope.

    As a protestor said on aljazeera:

    “We are not Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.” But that much is beyond comprehension of the classical Western anti-jihadi. The leftists are correct in their silence about it in the West not joining any Iranian demonstration – they clearly defined their preferences long ago. But what about us?

    It is a shame that aljazeera gives much more space to them than anybody in the West.

    The Iranians are the only folk on this planet, who decided to rather die than renounce their quest for freedom.

    The non-leftist Westerners do not like to see it. They prefer to focus on a marginal figure Moussavi to have an alibi and sort of satisfaction from their preconcieved wisdom.

    By crushing Uighurs China does a favour to the West showing clearly all those islamic regimes willingness to collaborate with them and care zero for “muslims”.
    Just keep your power. It is a slow erosion of their anti-Western rhetorics in process. Note it and use it as an argument 100%. Their acute head-aches come from concept of democracy, not really from the West.

    Iranians declared already “death to Islamic republic” and have switched also the islamic concept to shaheed-e-democracy. Martyrs of democracy.

    Sometimes you like to be slow in understanding – like in crumbling of USSR.

  13. Correct: anybody else can do the same.

    Those leading leftists in the West are quite old. But followed closely by a school/university generation, which is as much clueless – now they are around fifty.

    Compare it to the Baatist generation in Iraq or pseudoleftist mullahs in Iran. How old are the communists in China or Vietnam?

    The next generation has very different views. They may be still silent, but they numbers are huge.

    Focus on them. Try to study them.

  14. “Yes, consider what they have achieved with low numbers under 10% of the population thanks to the magnification of their power by Western elites who thrive on the stench of any totalitarianism.”

    Because at 10% they always bug “the other”.

    Compare this to the formidable opposition they face whem they reach more than 25% like in Bosnia/Serbia, Macedonia or Montenegro…

    I really think the United States is worst off.
    It really is about demographical replacement. All Western European countries are still more then 85% European, right?

    And in Europe, we feel that this is our land – wether one’s leftist or right wing we think this way. We only diverge in *what to do* with our land.

    This is a very powerfull process that can lead to a continental-scale “Reconquista” any time in the future.

    America, on the other hand, is already two thirds or three fourths white. It’s white population continues decreasing, and more important than that, there’s no thinking pattern that can lead to America make a “Reconquista” in the future.

    According to American dogma, everybody has the same right to that land. There’s not a people who owns the land. But a “community”.

    It’s pretty much the difference between soft Nationalism and soft Patriotism but it is still there.

    ———————————

    And Czechmade, what do you suggest “we” to do regarding Iran?

    Let it go man…

  15. Afonso,

    simple, first pay attention.

    Once surprized by the current events, it is to late to do the homework. Whatever you may think now must be 100% clueless.

    Western sovietologists – overpayed and highly esteemed – were absolutely clueless in the end.
    Now we do not have even that.

    Analyzing the Only party speeches did not bring much over decades. There was some mute understanding and balance between the party bosses and those specialists. Later on – those people had no trouble to start making business with the local communists. A high treason never studied or mentioned anywhere.

    Now the West being even more clueless and minding for ever good business first will more or less indirectly support the common Iranian regime. Obama made the best out of it – playing a complete pro-regime clown just few weeks before the uprising. There may be some clashes in the media and democracy-for-democracy shows, but basically our politicos do not care.

    The Iranian community in the West did not believe in a change either. Now they do. At this stage they want separation of religion and state. But the events might bring them much further.

    Then we have to push with them – avoiding silly compromises and recycling thus islam in future as we do so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. As it was done with the ex-communist leftist ideology in ex-communist countries recently.
    We payed dearly for the “velvet revolution”. An absolutely silly imported media notion.

    Given the amount of the regime violence in Iran now and before, it might be easier to push to the end. Our knowledge of the totalitarian islam should be combined with their knowledge and yield clear strict results: No islam at all in the West AND Iran.

  16. I think the Martin Amis quote is wrong. It sounds like Amis himself was paraphrasing a common Muslim response to 9/11.

    Amis has gone as far as saying that he sometimes feels that Muslim will have ‘to feel some pain’ before they realise that they cannot behave with impunity in the West.

    Richard

  17. While I am outraged by the arrogance and intolerance of the Islamist agenda, I believe that there are non-political obstacles to the spread of Islam. The most populous Islamic country is Indonesia, but Muslim’s failed to convert the natives of Borneo and Bali because of their love for pork. I seriously doubt if Islam will eradicate beer, bacon, BLT, and the holiday ham from Western civilization. Also, women in the West will never accept second tier status, as Muslims are discovering even with their own.

  18. I’d like to comment on a couple of different sentences in the main article:

    “So, we see a case of causeless, self-destructive hatred.”

    There’s a definite cause for all of this mess, as I am starting to explain in my blog. On the other hand, if you wish to understand the essence of the Islamists’ hate read this article by Robert Godwin.

    “Probably also splinters of the Western Christian civilization will remain in Australia…”

    I wouldn’t be so optimistic… Recently I became furious with a couple of white Australian administrators in the English Wikipedia. For politically-correct purposes they removed the whole section which recounted infanticide in the past by aboriginals. (Since such practices demonstrate that Westerners were far less barbarous than aboriginals, the denial of aboriginal infanticide by whites is closely related to the understanding of Western self-hatred, as shown in the discussion linked in the last paragraph of this blog entry.)

  19. Important Points:

    Zenster, I checked your links and it proves the point I was trying to make.

    You said,

    “Please forgive my insouciance but I have a difficult time believing that Islam, in its current form, will be any sort of world power, much less even in existence, in “2050”.

    Islam will not exist in 2050, or at least not be a world power??? Islam has existed for 1387 years, and please note The 3rd. Jihad is expanding.

    Listen ALL of you fellow readers– based on the sum total of my study on The 3rd. Jihad, the world I described is EXACTLY WHAT ALL THE TENS OF MILLIONS UPON TENS OF MILLIONS OF JIHADIS ARE WORKING TO TURN INTO REALITY.

    ‘Infidels’ will likely have invented these technologies by then. The point is that Islam will not stop technology, but that technology WILL NOT STOP THE THIRD JIHAD. The goal is to get the West to submit to the Oasis Code (Shariah) I should have mentioned in the scenario that the “morality police” will be patrolling the streets of Europe as well.

    You also said,

    “My only answer to your question involves whether Islam is even capable of adopting the advanced technologies you predicate in your question.”

    Islamists have been exposed to all of our existing technologies, but it has NOT ‘westernized’ them. On the contrary, they are using Western Technology and tactics to defeat the West (by gaining endless concessions).

    By the way, the year 2050 is significant, for Ali Musa, an American Imam in Washington, D.C. has stated that America will become an Islamic State by 2050.

    If ‘secular progressives’ are not removed from power, I find it very hard to believe that THE WEST WILL EXIST, MUCH LESS BY ANY KIND OF WORLD POWER in 2050.

    My prediction (based on current trends) is that the accomodation of Shariah in the West will become the chief ‘Progressive’ social issue in public debate in 10-15 years. (Other issues will be ‘pushed to the margins’).

    Robin Shadowes is absolutely right. The “secular progressive” governing class will be LIQUIDATED WHEN THE EURABIAN CALIPHATE IS ESTABLISHED. They will try to milk the West of Jizya. In “the golden age of Islam”, muslims were a minority, and they assimilated the technology of the dhimmis (Assyians, Indians, Copts, Persians, Spanish, etc) into their society and claimed them as “Muslim inventions”. They also discouraged conversions, since they wanted to maintain their tax base (Something the ‘secular progressive’ governing class doesn’t have the sense to understand).

    Laine is also right. I thought Islamization would not affect America a year ago, but with Obama I’m not sure anymore.

    </