Until the advent of materialism and 19th c. dogma, Western Civilisation was superior to anything Islam had developed. Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam. Proof of this resides in the 'modern' world and the unending political-economic and spiritual poverty of Muslim states and regions. Squatting on richer civilisations is not 'progress'. Islam is pagan, totalitarian, and irrational.
It will take 2 or more generations and a lot more warring.
by Ferdinand III
Hegel’s Republican ideal of peaceful, commercially-focused, democratic states, never engaging in war but only beneficial exchange, is of course a false illusion. But one Hegelian idea, premised on Laissez-Faire and market dynamics is true. When economies flourish, discontent declines. In the long-war against Islam, economics is as much a key weapon, as is military strength. In fact, both are needed, to drag pagan Islamic ideology into the “Broad Sunlit Uplands” of reality, of the 21st century.
Pew research just published an interesting poll. It appears that for most Muslims, Bin Laden and extremist Wallabbi- fascism are viewed negatively. The tactics of Al Qaeda and like minded Islamic radicals are rejected by a small plurality of Muslims interviewed by Pew in over 20 Islamic states. Homicide bombings, indiscriminate slaughter, blood (without the toll, tears and sweat), and dogmatic hate appear to be in growing disfavor within Islamic society. According to Pew, Bin Laden’s (or Al Qaeda’s) approval rating has cascaded by over 35%. What gives?
Polls are loathsome creatures but with Islam, any good news refracted by ordinary people, must be met with some level of happiness and curiosity. Could Pew’s research, buried on page A9 of the New York Times be confirming the “neo-con” (post-paleolithic man) concept, that exogenous change, is the only way to reform a pagan construct, mired in totalitarian trappings, control, and inhumanity?
But wait you say, puzzled and skeptical. Isn’t Bush’s Iraq venture a failure? The alphabet media says it is. Isn’t Western new-imperialism immoral? The educational system says so. Isn’t Islam moderate and the west capricious, which foments Muslim violence. The U.N. and the New York (Islamic) Times feels so. But what if the Marxists and chattering Islamo-philes are wrong? What if external pressure, military resoluteness and in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nascent beginnings of political and economic freedom, is what is right? What if the much maligned, derided and scorned “Bush Doctrine”, is actually correct?
Maybe Pew research is on to something. Poverty does not cause terrorism, nor even crime. The reverse is obviously true however. Pre-emption, even given its failings and risks, has its benefits. Look at it this way India with British institutions, 200 million Muslims and a global supply chain industry is largely peaceful. Computer programmers, not suicide bombers proliferate. Economics trumps ideology. China, a communist conundrum has embraced limited but vibrant economic reforms. Human Rights? As a middle class continues to develop, “rights” and other minutiae of Democratic-Republican-Constitutional life, will continue to accumulate. In both China and India, economics trumps ideology. Indian socialism, a la Ghandi (a tiresome figure), along with Chinese communist “exceptionalism” are dead. Human impulse, economic incentives, and the “drive to thrive”, have taken over. Islam needs such irrational or at least irreligious exuberance. This is what Pew’s research is signifying.
Like many people, I have “moderate” Muslim friends who live in Iran, Egypt or anywhere-stan (who doesn't say that?). What do these people want? If they are sane, urbane (radical Islam is foremost a question of rural ignorance), and partially educated, it will be the same as you or I – life, liberty and the pursuit of a 45 inch LCD TV. If you don’t bring up the Jews, imperialism or Bush, these “moderates” in Islam are not radically different or preternaturally disposed to irrational violence as the average pop-culture loving, pot-bellied Westerner. In short economics, safeguarded by Neo-Con American Imperialism might be the best hope for saving Islam- from itself.
Arab-Islamic Imperialism is of course a bloody, immoral and truly absurd disaster. A military victory over Islam- in Iraq and elsewhere- is mandatory but economics is also key. Bush’s Iraq project, wherein Iraq and other Arab-Imperialist dominated States, form a free-trade area is intelligent- but fraught with political issues. What do you mean, roar the Arab-Muslim elite (known as the “Arab street”), by suggesting free trade or Jewish-American subversive tactics (by helping the average Muslim). This is counter to Allah, and Islamic theory. So they opine.
The market can only grow within a lawfully, peaceful, and understood State system. Economics will flourish best under a Western-styled system. The average Muslim, who is not ignorant, nor uneducated, knows this. The question then becomes, how can we turn the greater Arabian Empire, (managed by the Koran which is Imperialist Arabia's great export) into another India?
The U.N.? More dialogue? More guilt? More “root causes” and self-loathing? Conspiracy theories? Of course not. Economic freedom for the Islamic world mandates exogenous change. Muslims want this. Pew research validates this. For all his considerable failings reality vindicates Bush. Or how else do you promote economic freedom with backward, autarchic regimes, if not through war and reconstruction?
