- Special Sections
- Public Notices
Gentle reader, a few days ago we were reading a book published some years ago the title of which presently escapes us, when we encountered the phrase, “The free world.” Upon reading this phrase, it struck us that this phrase which was once so frequently used, both orally and in writing, has become virtually obsolete.
This is probably because of the current popularity of the concept of “globalism”, which has rendered it unfashionable to entertain concepts whereby the world is divided into segments of various sorts However, to accept this “one world” view is carrying wishful thinking to absurd extremes, for the divisions are just as deep today as they were at the time when the concept of “The free world” was popular, it’s just a new cast of characters, and a new source of division.
In the former times, the principal division was drawn between the democracies and the dictatorships, particularly the communist dictatorships, led by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with its satellite dependencies. The democracies, led by the United States of America, was principally made up of North America and western Europe. The remaining states were usually referred to as the Third World, or the unaligned nations.
But now we’re all supposed to be one great big happy family, however, one need only listen to or read the current news to see that it’s not so, but it is politically incorrect to recognize the deep divisions in this “One World.”
So what if China is a Communist dictatorship? As long as corporate America can make money from trading with China no one is supposed to notice how the country is governed, nor the subjugation of Tibet and other victims of their system — just keep the profits rolling in and everything is hunky-dory.
If you’re an old-timer who still remembers the days of Japan and its Greater Southeast Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, you’re not supposed to recall it, nor the similarities with present day China.
Unfortunately, the movers and shakers of our present global-thinking universe are ignorant of anything that happened before the beginning of the present century, and misread most things that have happened since the beginning of this century. Thus any analysis they might undertake starts out with false premises, and misapplication of inapplicable principles.
So that there may be no misunderstanding of our position, we might tell the reader of a conversation we had at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union. We were talking with an otherwise bright and intelligent individual who was virtually jubilant about the fact that in the lengthy dual between the USA and the USSR, America had won. He was speculating about how serene our national life was going to be now that we no longer had to protect ourselves from the threats of this strong antidemocratic adversary, as we had been obliged to do for the preceding three-quarters century.
We, of course, joined him in his delight, but we felt obliged to issue a caveat and thus predicted that the Middle East and the Muslim states would very soon move up to challenge our national security just as strongly and just as fanatically as had the vanquished Soviets.
And so it has come to pass.
For as long as the world’s powers had faced off against each other, neither the democracies nor the dictatorships had paid much attention to the geographic area known as the Middle East, and with the exception of the Iranian drama centering on the Shah and the Ayatollah, they had paid scant attention to the people of the area. But, after the Soviet fall, focus began to shift toward the Middle East and the other Muslim countries, and the Israeli yeast added to the fomentation and the irritation.
And so, here we are, with our longest-lasting war just about to wind down, but our Afghan troubles not yet resolved. And our Iraqi adventure, fresh from its cost in blood and treasure, continues to fester, ready to explode at any time in a fresh outbreak of hostilities, which will inevitably cause us more trouble.
A tally sheet of potential trouble spots would have to include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria, with other African nations waiting in the wings. Presently quiescent but with an ominous quiet are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, ]Jordan, Algeria ,Tunisia and various smaller states in and around North Africa and the Persian Gulf.
We are sure, percipient reader, that if called upon you could immediately identify the common thread (or possibly common fuse would be a more apt description) that ties all these trouble spots together as Islam. However, there are many of our fellow citizens who are unable or unwilling to recognize, or admit, that Islam is a force inimical to democracy, or the people of the free world.
We would not be misunderstood, there are countless adherents of the Islamic faith who are fine folks — compassionate, charitable, concerned, decent, intelligent and tolerant. But, unfortunately, these are not characteristic traits of all too many of their persuasion.
Most of the world’s religious faiths arose from non-belligerent roots, but not so Islam.
From its very inception, while Mohammed was still formulating the tenets of this religion, he was simultaneously wielding his sword and shedding the blood of those who would not submit to his teachings.
Militancy and forceful teaching at the point of sword or scimitar has been a basic precept of Islam. Its spread from the neighborhood of Medina and Mecca to the gates of Vienna and the mountains of northern Spain and Southern France, to the shores of the Adriatic and southwestern Asia was by force of arms, not the persuasion of sweet reason.
One need only to consider the controversy surrounding the word Jihad, and the confusion amongst the faithful as to just what the word means and what action it entails to understand why its adherents represent a clear and present danger to all us non-Muslims.
But, in the West we have been so indoctrinated with the concept of Freedom of Religion, that we will not allow ourselves even to entertain the concept that this group, who claim that Islam is not only a religion, but the only true religion, constitute a threat to all other religions and believe that they as adherents to the only true religion, are entitled to eradicate all non-believers as heretics and blasphemers.
It is often preached from the mosque that we should be killed, preferably by stoning or beheading. Just think of how many have been slaughtered for “insulting Islam” like happened in Pakistan just a few days ago. Thus, as we see it, we in the West, the free world, must fight this Islamist doctrine just as strongly, just as forcefully as we ever fought the doctrines espoused by the fascists, the Nazis, or the Communists.
We have one advantage in this struggle, in that the Islamists are themselves divided so strongly: Shiite hates Sunni; Sunni hates Shiite; Both hate Kurds, Druse and various other sects and divisions.
It would not be unreasonable to impose what the French call a Corilon Sanitaire around this entire region to isolate them and let them fight it out among themselves, but keep us out of their conflicts. Getting their oil is not worth the price in blood.