Featured Post

Some Toronto Imagery

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Contemporary Western Society Is The Real Suicide Cult

Those who sanctimoniously denigrate Islam as a Death Cult or Suicide Cult point to some of that religion's tenets regarding jihad, and the supposed rewards for 'martyrdom' in the hereafter which encourage extremists to imagine death preferable to life.

However, if you compare western culture as a whole to Islamic cultures over the last two decades, it is abundantly clear that the west, and not Islam, is the one that has become dedicated to self-eradication.

Suicide bombing may poll moderately well worldwide among Muslims, yet in reality only a very, very tiny percentage of Muslims think highly enough of the practice to strap on explosives and fragmentize themselves, hoping to reassemble and deflower 72 virgins in the Great Beyond.

Notwithstanding the numerically insignificant few who blow themselves up, neither suicide nor lack of confidence are Islamic cultural flaws. Islam, as a culture, is self-affirming to the extent of exaggerating its achievements, and is supremely confident in its merits, righteousness, and ultimate conquest of the world.

On the other hand, we in the West, as a matter of cultural norm, have adopted institutional practices designed to belittle ourselves, denigrate our highest achievements, disparage our military strength and service, curse our cultural values, and appease anyone who finds us offensive.

No Islamic society is that suicidal.

Islamists are building armies and honoring those who are willing to die for their beliefs, while we mock and insult those among us brave enough to risk their lives in service of our values.

Madrassas throughout Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and dozens of other Muslim-majority countries, as well as Saudi and Iranian-funded Islamic schools in the west, aren't teaching their children that Islam is decadent and oppressive and needs reform, as we are in western education. They're teaching their children that they are vastly morally superior to the decadent west, and that the spread of Islam throughout the world is the only true way to achieve justice.

Islam's leaders also have the wisdom to take the long-view, which is vastly strategically superior to the shortsightedness of the west.

The leaders of Islamist terror movements like ISIS, Hamas, al Qaida, Hezbollah and the Taliban don't tell their followers that if they fail to achieve all their goals in a few years, then they should cut and run. Their timeline for success isn't in months, or years, or even decades. They are looking ahead in terms of generations and centuries.

To win in conflict, whether it be military or cultural, nation building is essential. If, at the end of World War 2, the western allies had not dedicated enough resources and determination to the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, a Nazi Fourth Reich and a resurgence of Imperial Japanese militarism almost certainly would have emerged from the vacuum left behind. It took years of perseverance to ensure that the victory over the Axis powers in the Second World War was not undone and even today, 70 years later, there are still dozens of US military bases in Germany and Japan.

But after a total military victory in Iraq that cost less in western human lives than a couple of bad hours in any single major battle in World War One, our stupidity and lack of foresight has led us to abandon Iraq to totalitarians. That's because we became impatient that after all of ten years, during which the US allowed Iran to exert major influence there, Iraq didn't miraculously turn into a Swiss-style democracy .

This should surprise no one.  While the questioning and reform of society in order to correct injustices is laudable and something we must pursue, we have morphed into a culture that fetishizes self-deprecation, self-criticism and self-destruction for our perceived sins. This coincides with the adoption of a moral relativism that can endure no serious criticism of any culture except our own.

Islamists are forcing Yazidi women to become sex slaves and are raping them in the thousands, and our "Social Justice" activists cannot bring themselves to utter a single negative word about the religious ideology that drives the barbarian hordes of ISIS.  But when the fictional character Sansa Stark is make-believe raped on the medieval fantasy TV show Game of Thrones, our Social Justice Jihadists literally become insensible with rage and take it as proof that hatred of women is pervasive in our society.

The difference between Islamic suicide bombers and western Social Justice Jihadists is that the suicide bomber is killing a few people to serve the aims of his society, whereas the typical Social Justice Jihadist is trying to tear down our society to improve his or her own personal self-esteem.

We in the west live in the wealthiest, most equitable, most technologically and socially advanced civilization in the history of the world. We act like there's no way that civilization could move backwards.  Yet history teaches it can.

Romans in the Fifth Century thought exactly the same way as people dominating cultural and educational policy in the contemporary west.. The Western Roman Empire, prior to its destruction, became a multicultural society that allowed its military prowess to deteriorate, while surrounded by supposedly backwards Goths, Vandals and Visigoths who determinedly built their forces for generations following their defeats by the armies of the great Caesars. Roman leaders became so overconfident in their own superiority and ignorant of the lessons of history that they weakened the empire to the point that made its downfall inevitable, while thinking that if they were 'nice' to their enemies, they would leave Rome alone.

They didn't. The barbarians conquered Rome and it took the world over a thousand years to regain the technological and cultural advancements that the Romans had achieved.

As the Visigoths and Vandals sought the destruction of Rome, Islamists seek the destruction of the decadent western infidel culture. And our western, so-called "Social Justice" activists are doing everything they can to suppress criticism of those who want to conquer us.

So which is really the "Suicide Cult?"


Unknown said...

Two points:

1) We were much more interested in stopping Japan and Germany falling into the Soviet orbit after the Second World War than we were a "a Nazi Fourth Reich and a resurgence of Imperial Japanese militarism." By May of 1945, almost everyone in those countries of military age was very conveniently dead. It's telling that Berlin was primarily defended by men over 40 and boys under 16.

2) We didn't "abandon Iraq to totalitarians." We did what the democratically elected government of a sovereign state wanted us to do, which was leave.

If then-Prime Minister Maliki was desperate to have U.S forces stay in his country, he wouldn't have allowed the issue of legal immunity kill a renewal of the SOFA, which the united States was obligated to have under international law. Remember, sovereignty was returned to the Iraqis in the spring of 2004 and elections were held in the fall of 2005.

I keep hearing asshole Republicans and Fox News types say that "Obama could have gotten a SOFA if he wanted to" without ever offering ideas about how he could have done that.

Maliki and his Iranian allied partners in the State of Law Coalition very much saw their interests as lying in a mass purge of Iraqi civil society and especially the military, which is why the Sunnis haven't resisted ISIS at all.

3) As for the contention that "the US allowed Iran to exert major influence there", I'm not sure what other choice it had. Bush and (as it turns out, particularly) Cheney determined that Iraq had to be a democracy after Saddam. Since 60% of the country is Shia, it stands to reason that they would want a Shia government. Problematically, any Shia capable of governing had spent the previous thirty years in Iran, having been forced into exile there during the Iran-Iraq War. Christ, even Cheney's ubermench, Ahmed Chalibi was subsequently arrested for collaborating with Tehran.

In the end, Iraq is a country by and for fuck-ups. We made terrible, terrible mistakes there, but ISIS is ultimately their responsibility and their creation.

Fighting a war for people who won't fight it themselves has never worked out in our favour. Ask the Vietnamese.

Richard K said...

This is not all on Obama's plate; Bush deserves as much of the blame for not having a sane post-war strategy in place. But as the current Commander-in-Chief, Obama has the current brief, and he's failed miserably.

And yes, leaving a government incapable of defending itself and not establishing the foundations and infrastructure required for a democracy is indeed abandoning it to totalitarians. That kind of work takes decades and we have a political establishment that freaks out if something doesn't happen in months.

Everything else you wrote only makes sense if you buy into the PR bullshit that Gulf War 2 was a war of "liberation. " I agree, that only works if the country in question wants to be liberated. Iraq didn't want to be liberated any more than Nazi Germany nor Imperial Japan. (Italy was an easier case, since they actually did want to be liberated from fascism.) Germany and Japan had to be convinced of the merits of democracy, and before that, they had to be convinced they actually lost a war. Both require substantial investments of time and resources required for a complete cultural makeover. We live in times where the US is unwilling to do that.

Unknown said...

Bush and Obama spent $25 billion training and equipping the Iraqi Army between 2005 and 2011. It's not that they were incapable of fighting, they didn't want to. Granted, a lot of that had to do with Maliki's purge of the Sunnis from the military and replacing them with incompetent Shiite lackeys. That's a problem in that the Sunnis were Iraq's officer class going back to the British. Purging the Sunnis from the Iraqi Army would be like kicking the Sikhs out of India's.

Again, the United States was not granted a SOFA that immunized their personnel from Iraqi law. They refuse to operate anywhere without that. And keeping forces there without a SOFA is effectively a reoccupation of the country, and therefore fucking illegal. Besides which, the American people had their fill of that toilet, which goes a long way in explaining how Obama got elected in the first place. Approval for the war went as low as 30%, which even Vietnam never did.

Sadly, the "PR bullshit" about the war being about liberation was the official policy of the United States government. It was right up there with WMD and rape rooms. Bush certainly wasn't shy about say so. If you really want to get scared, read his Second Inaugural. He wanted a whole lot more freedom to go around. I'd also point out that a number of our friends thought people like me were racist because I was saying at the time that democracy wasn't for everybody.

So here's the question; if the Iraqis aren't going to fight these fucking people (and they aren't), and the other Arab regional powers aren't going to do it (and they aren't), and we don't want Iran doing it (which we don't), then who?

If you're suggesting that we do it, understand that that will take a minimum of 100,000 troops and decades of occupation. If we turn Sunni areas "liberated" from ISIS over to Baghdad, they'll just create the conditions whereby we have to go back in three years and fight a new Sunni extremist group. I'm certainly not looking forward to being the air force and army of a government that can't stop persecuting its own minority. And I can't imagine that the Sunnis would be thrilled with our version of "liberation" either.

What happens when we win?

The smart folks should seriously start to consider dusting off the Biden-Gelb plan.

Richard K said...

Yes, that's right. It takes lots of troops and decades of occupation. It also means that we write their constitution for them, as we did in Germany in Japan, then stick around to make sure it takes hold, as we did with Germany and Japan.

The alternative is exactly what happened, we let them have some "elections" without having established the institutions or security necessary for a functioning democracy, then declare victory and say "Mission accomplished, you're on your own now." Of course things fell apart.

We have a stable democracies in Germany and Japan because we were dedicated to making sure they happened and put the years and resources there. And guess what? It takes a lot more than 12 years.

If the US isn't interested in doing that, fine. But that means that the problem is going to come back over and over and get worse each time. In the long run, it costs less to spend a lot and do things right than to spend less doing things wrong, but then have to spend it over and over again until you finally do get it right.

Unknown said...

The more I read and understand about the region, the more inclined I am to go the other way. Neither the United States or the Middle East is better off for America's 70-year misadventure there. They would be wise to develop their energy independence and go back to their pre-1941 practice of ignoring everything between the eastern Mediterranean and China's western border.

Why does anyone believe that the U.S is ever going to "fix" Mesopotamia when it can't get Detroit right? What has the United States gotten out of the region, other than cheapish gas and 9/11?

I'm of a mind that they should cut off financial and military aid to everybody in the region, get the fuck out, and let them work out their own problems. After dumping tens of trillions of dollars into a sinkhole for seven decades, it might just be worth a try.

Unknown said...

I'd also quibble again with your analogies regrading Germany and Japan.

If I remember correctly, the formal occupations lasted seven and eight years, respectively. The military presence thereafter was designed primarily to deter Soviet aggression.

the circumstances were also a bit different from Iraq. German and Japanese society were destroyed and almost every male of military age had been killed. And the reform of both societies wasn't as profound as you suggest. De-Nazification in Germany really only affected the top levels of the party, and Japan was allowed to keep its emperor and deny that it had committed any crimes against humanity at all. MacArthur really didn't want the demilitarization of Japan, the Japanese did. Getting nuked twice will do that to you.

Germany and Japan were also natural countries with generally homogeneous populations, which isn't true of Iraq. The best comparison to Iraq is Yugoslavia, where genocide was the natural result of freedom. Separate the component parts of an unnatural country and you mostly preclude the violence of a natural disintegration, which is essentially what we've been seeing since 2004.

Another major problem with reoccupation (and with the Germany-Japan) analogy is Iran, which will exploit the massive troop presence next door the same way the United States did against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Richard K said...

The type of isolationist approach you want is what allowed Hitler to conquer all of Europe, and would have let him keep it had Pearl Harbor not happened.

Right now, Iran is flexing its muscles all over the middle east, and if your approach is taken, we'll be conceding it to them.

This all goes back to my main point, which is that by letting this happen, we're going down a suicidal path. But maybe if we're really nice to the Iranian crocodile, he'll eat us last. Of course in the meanwhile, we're becoming so weakened as a society by political correctness and institutionalized self-loathing, like Obama's American unexceptionalism, someone else will probably beat them to it.

Unknown said...

Actually, that's not what allowed Hitler to conquer Europe. French and English pacifism and demilitarization after the First World War did that. And even if Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was a fatal mistake. He made several of those. Going for Moscow instead of Baku doomed him forever, regardless of what the Americans did.

The period between VJ Day and 9/11, of binary superpowers is, I believe, a historical anomaly. Prior to World War I, alliance systems were much more common and created a balance of power that largely (but not always) prevented truly devastating wars. Because the United States proper wasn't bombed into rubble, it became the de facto economic and military default power of the West.

As we're now seeing, those days are largely gone. The U.S was incredibly lucky that the Cold War bankrupted the Soviet Union first. As it is, Washington's foreign adventures are financed by the Chinese, a condition that cannot hold forever.

More importantly, the American people don't have the character for the kind of wars that are being proposed. they're fantastic when they can take Grenada in a weekend, but if body bags starts coming home in significant numbers, the political support evaporates, as was seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Jesus, the Americans were driven buggy by the friggin' Philippines!

Balance of power geopolitics van work just as well in the Middle East as they do anywhere else. Want to contain Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia are more than capable of doing it on their own. But as long as the U.S is there with money and troops, neither will make any sacrifices to further their own interests.

And ultimately, that's been the biggest problem everywhere. Foreign leaders can sit back and say "Why should I make difficult financial, military and moral decisions when the United States will do it for me."

I wouldn't describe myself as an isolationist, but I have been re-evaluating things like cost/benefit ratios and vital national interests. The Middle East doesn't come on the upside of either.

gama said...

From Afghanistan to Zanzibar, vast swatches of humanity are forcefully submitted ,in varying degrees, by backward , pernicious and vindictive divine laws...... sharia-is-sharia-is-sharia , sacred to all Muslims .
“Islam is a “supremacist socio-political system” that “will not coexist in the same place as democracy.” “Islam is a system that Allah revealed to dominate all other religions,”........ Western political and judicial structures: they must fall. They must give way to Islam. There will be no governance but Islamic governance. This must be the case, because Allah has decreed it so..... this MSM { Main-stream-Mindset } is why Islam will accept, is accepting ISIS’s pernicious sharia!
Do not expect MSM { Main –Stream-Muslims } to protest and demand a renaissance , or vociferously demand for an ideological reformation that would ultimately DIVESTS itself of SHARIA and the JIHAD to implement it , the pot of fools gold that comes with the implementation of sharia drives the zealotry .Revival of Islam conference are all about implementing sharia the glue that binds all those submitted souls. Islam is the final revelation for all mankind for all eternity ~!?!

Unknown said...

I'd like to correct an earlier troop figure I tossed out there earlier. I said 100,000 which, upon further reflection is ridiculously low.

ISIS' stronghold isn't in Iraq, it's in Syria, so we'll need to straighten that out in a way that defeats them without letting Assad or the al Nusra Front win. So, on top of fighting ISIS, we'll also need to go at it with the Syrian Army, Hezbollah and the various al Qaeda offshoots there. Then we'll have to occupy the country until we find a coalition acceptable to the Saudis, Turks, Jordanians and Israelis.

If you want to limit the action strictly to Iraq, which would be like putting a band-aid on a bullet hole, you'll have to make its borders with both Syria and Iran air-tight. 130, 000 troops during the 2003-'11 war left those borders abandoned, so just doing that will probably take at least 200,000-300,000 soldiers.

Then you need an actual combat force, which will have to be significant. What we've seen from the bombing campaign (and should have been the most predictable thing ever) is that when you hit them in rural areas, they retreat to the cities, where we can't bomb without killing a ton of civilians.

That means the very worst kind of war - urban, door to door fighting, which the U.S hasn't engaged in since the Second World War. If you assume that an offensive army should be 3-1 against the defenders (a handy military rule of thumb), that will require about 90,000 combat troops.

Then you need to staff, base, supply and feed all the fighting soldiers, which also usually operates on a 3-1 ratio. Suddenly, you're looking at about half a million troops, or roughly what was needed to evict Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And that's just for Iraq. You'll need a whole lot more if you're going be thorough and clear out Syria, as well.

Is that at least theoretically possible? Yes, but it stresses the ability of the United States to do anything anywhere else. So, if Boko Haram started hitting Western targets in Nigeria or Putin went ape in Ukraine or (God help us all) the Baltics, reacting to it would have to wait indefinitely.

There's something that the GOP-Fox News talking heads don't understand. They want the United States dealing with multiple large conflicts at once. If you pay attention to them, you start to realize that they want the force capability to police from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush mountains, up into Ukraine and the Baltics, on top of the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula. That's a military capability and potential mission readiness that the United States had in the 1950s and '60s, when the military was several times larger than it is today.

At some point, people would have to start talking in a serious way about a draft and pretty dramatic tax increases.

Mr Bilderberg said...

It was a mistake not to redraw the borders of Iraq after the war. A partial Kurd nation, and separate the Sunni/Shite nations. Then we would have one or two stable nations today.