• Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

A Pinnacle of Self-Destruction

E-mail Print PDF

Can a tango of murderous Islamists with suicidal Western leftists be considered a "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 do the Islamists.

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.

These words were spoken shortly after 9/11. By whom? Perhaps, by Bin-Laden or Ayman Zawahiri? No, it was told by Noam Chomsky, a leftists’ 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 and 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 Mahmud Ahmedinedzhad, 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 with Stalin. Poor Stalin… A refined sadist and pathological murderer, he would turn in his grave if he heard the professor. Compared Stalin with Bush, who had not managed to destroy a handful of badly armed terrorists in Baghdad in 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 leftists 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 reflection of servility and worship of force that impregnates the cultural establishment of the West.

The leftists’ 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 ‘system crisis’, which struck the former USSR, prevented the realization of this grandiose plan.

What are the aims of the Western leftist elite? There are none. There is no need to expropriate anybody because, contrary to the Russian marginal-revolutionaries, they belong to ruling establishment. As for the second purpose, their dominant position allows them to effectively and successfully promote leftist 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 destruction of free societies.

There is one more essential moment. Revolutionaries of the beginning of the 20th century were representatives of national minorities (Jews, Germans, Poles, Latvian, Georgians, and Chinese etc.). They despised Russia and Russian culture, because they themselves were considered to be men of the meaner sort. On the contrary, the Western leftists are 100% 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 the desire to see their culture writhing in agony at the feet of triumphing Islamic fanatics and ordinary gangsters and demagogues of 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 bears skins and worshiped German idols. Rome had submitted to barbarians long before it fell to 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 existence: chaos, senselessness, boundless permissiveness. According to all laws of dialectics, such 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 are 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…

Alexander Maistrovoy, a journalist with the Russian-language Israeli newspaper Novosty Nedely.
Comments (13)Add Comment
Who Is A Terrorist?
written by Philip Saenz , July 06, 2009
Muslims, who comply with Islamic Shariah Law, and stone Islamic women to death, are terrorists.

Muslim dads or Muslim brothers who murder their Islamist daughters in an honor killing are terrorists.

Muslims who hang Islamist homosexuals by the neck until dead are terrorists.

Old, depraved Muslim male sex perverts who legally kidnap little girls as young as seven years old, legally force these little girls to "marry" them, and then legally rape the little girls, are Muslim terrorists. These Muslims are also the scum of the earth.

Muslims who perform Female Genital Mutilation on Islamic little girls are terrorists. This Muslims are also sadists and sex perverts.

The Muslim Talibans who murder little Islamic girls who seek an education are terrorists.

The Muslim husbands who comply with the Islamic Shariah Law, and beat the daylights out of their wives are terrorists.

The evil Muslims who comply with the Islamic Shariah Law and chop off hands, feet, and gouge out eyes of petty thieves are terrorists.

The evil Muslims, who comply to Shariah Law, and who flog even old ladies for minor or no offense according to Christian standards, are terrorists.

Muslim males treating their women as second class citizens is a form of terrorism.

Only Muslims are suicide bombers and wicked terrorists.

Islam is terrorism personified, a killing machine, a deadly disease that should be eradicated, the sooner the better.


written by Hope , July 06, 2009
US or western world cant be defeated in direct war. Hope that osama type guys unite all the muslim lands and declare a open war, thats the best chance to save humanity.
The demogarphic , cultutal , dawa jihad is more dangerous.
Also fools inside the country are more dangerous than a stronger opponent.
The leftists and other muslim supporters should be given a one way ticket to pakistan, somalia and afghanistan.
Fight Now or do suicide later
written by EuropeLost , July 06, 2009
Each muslim getting entered in Europe through immigartion or getting birth or getting converted is not a citizen of europe but the seeds of the enemy. These muslims when they will have a critical mass will give zero respect to past benevolence of the hosts but will subdue the locals, kill there able bodied men, rape there women and will start a rein of terror.
A dark age is coming to europe in the form of Islam. there are 3 options now to europeans:
1. Convert to islam now, burn all museums, church, paintings and start curing your ancestors as jahilya.
2. Do suicide.
3. Teach your coming generation about dhimmitude and make them practice it by now.
4. Final and best option, unite and march to the street together and force the muslims out of europe finally. Support any politician who want to kick the butt of muslims.
written by vbv , July 07, 2009
The author is right. Civilisations compete and not clash or destroy each other. Take ancient civilisations of Greece,Egypt, Romans,Indus Valley ,Chinese,Incas,Mayan,Persian,Sumerian,BabThey did not have an agenda to destroy each other ,though they had fought for political supremacy ,they respected each others culture and traditions. Only the barbaric cults of islam and christianity has the history of destructions and mass genocides. Any proselytising cult cannot tolerate any other culture or tradition. The only modern example are the cults of communism/fascism wich are also totalitarian and bigoted like islam and christianity.So Samuel huntingto's 'Clash of civilisations' is a msinomer.
written by kmgy , July 08, 2009
--"Religion was started by wicked humans."--.--"Take ancient civilisations of Greece,Egypt, Romans,Indus Valley ,Chinese,Incas,Mayan,Persian,Sumerian,BabThey did not have an agenda to destroy each other ,though they had fought for political supremacy ,they respected each others culture and traditions."--Mr vbv you seemed indulged in double talk or distorted outlook. All the civilizations you mentioned had religion played an important and prominent role in their government. Your "all-religion-is-evil-mentality" had clouded your historical and personal perspective.
written by john , July 08, 2009
One of the regrettable features of education about Islam is that there is a strong contingency of right winged folks trying to make it a partisan issue.

Liberal thinking Americans are lumped together with Jihadists as threats to "the American way".

It's true that liberals may tend to want to think kindly about Muslims. It's true that liberal thinkers spoke after 9/11 against blanket condemnations of Muslims. It's true they also turned a critical eye to US policy, but it's also true that American policies can always use a critical eye, and the American conversation about Islam will not suffer because of dissenting voices.

In my opinion, educating people about Islam is a worthy cause. The message of this repressive and backwards set of superstitions, with ambitions to universal dominance, should be presented to the world with an objective stance.

Just now, the conservative wing of the US is floundering a bit for a message. Many of their economic and social positions have seemingly been soundly routed by recent history.

The task of educating folks about Islam seems a natural avenue for conservative expression, as feelings of nationalism and xenophobia can be seen as colors on their palette.

Yet, political polarization of this issue may work against the ultimate goal of educating the American public about Islam.

Perhaps the real issue is not left vs. right, but Islam against the world.

Outlets for education about Islam, such as this web site, might find that attempts to polarize the issue of Islam politically may ultimately shorten the reach of their message.

Dissenting voices strengthen a conversation. This web site, for instance, gladly accepts the foaming vitriol of Muslims offended by its message. It helps to know how rabid Islam is when criticized. It reinforces your message.

A strong position grounded in reality is not threatened by dissenting opinions. That's one reason Islam cannot tolerate dissent. Moving this important issue to the partisan struggle within American politics may not be constructive.

This article is in service to partisan struggle, and is not in service to the task of educating people about Islam.

If you let the right wing eat your purpose, you will no longer have it for yourselves, in my opinion, of course.

written by sillve , July 08, 2009
The leftists and other muslim supporters should be given a one way ticket to pakistan, somalia and afghanistan.

TOTALLY agree.
written by sillve , July 08, 2009
And yet for all their hatred of capitalism, you don't see them beating down a path to Cuba.
written by Non-partisan , July 08, 2009
"Yet, political polarization of this issue may work against the ultimate goal of educating the American public about Islam.

Perhaps the real issue is not left vs. right, but Islam against the world.

Outlets for education about Islam, such as this web site, might find that attempts to polarize the issue of Islam politically may ultimately shorten the reach of their message."

I agree with you. Too many of these sites that educate about Islam, end up being needlessly partisan. We need an objective site about Islam that is neither right nor left. What Islam is about is something that is important both to people on the left and right, and in between. They complain about people on the left not getting it about Islam but it doesn't seem leftist are welcome here. All that is achieved by articles like this is that sites like these look partisan, and makes people take what is said with a grain of salt. If they are so politically biased how unbiased is their analysis of Islam. If the real goal of this site is to educate people about Islam then leave the partisan attacks to politics. If you want to show where people on the left and right are making mistakes when it comes to Islam then do so without demonizing either side. Just the facts. Best way to reach the left is to show how Islam goes against what the left believes in and what Muslims are doing is not solely the result of colonialism or post-colonialism interference from the West. That jihad would still be going on even if history had been different.
to kmgy
written by vbv , July 09, 2009
Religion , I maintain is irrational and stupid. But christianity and Islam is the worst of all. Both are having extremely bad record of destruction of civilisations and cultures to impose their dogma and bigotry. Both are proselytising ,supremacist and exclusivist cults. They cannot tolerate a divergent view other than their own. Both together are responsible for crusades,jihads,wars,genocides, enslavement of people ,racist, intolerant,irrational. Both condemn everything other than their own adherents to an imaginery eternal hell. Both are responsible for millions of death and for instigating violence and wars. Today christianity wears a benign face since the world ,excepting the muslims , are by and large secular,science and knowledge has advanced a great deal ,and it has become difficult to coerce people to fall in line or fool them that easily as in the miedevial ages which was the golden age of christianioty when the popes word was the law. With this kind of idealogy , I find it funny that you accuse me of double talk and distorted view. It is you who has a distorted and prejudiced view as a devout christian.
To vbv
written by kmgy , July 11, 2009
Mr. vbv try to save some money and visit Europe, USA, Canada, New Zealand, or Australia where the majority of the population are Christians and experience firsthand these wonderful lands and see the difference compared to your native land or other non-Christian countries i.e. Islamic countries with the exception of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore.
written by Anon636 , July 11, 2009
They cannot tolerate a divergent view other than their own.

It seems you are the one who cannot tolerate anything but the sound of your own voice.

What was Pol Pots' religion? (1.5-3 million dead).
What was Mao's religion? (50-70 million dead)
What was Stalin's religion (50-60 million dead)
What was Hitler's religion? (30-40 million dead)

Oh, they were all good atheists.

written by John , July 12, 2009
A good point is being made here... extremism is available to people via their religion... or their politics.

Islam is both, and extremism is available through Islam.

It isn't reasonable to disavow politics just because politics is capable of creating extremism, just as we cannot ignore religion, or our capacity to be religious, simply because religion can facilitate extremism.

The Bible clearly advocates beating children, just as it advocates stoning gays and adulterers, yet peace loving Christians develop complex theological interpretations that are ways around the commands, and they avoid barbarism.

Muslims are also perfectly capable of finding ways around their scriptural commands and not killing infidels, disrespecting women, or victimizing sinners.

If there is a recognizable root of extremism, it may not be religion.... but obviously it must be something that religion and politics have in common.

I suggest it is the fact that nothing in political or religious theory can ever be proven or disproven.

It's all simply a matter of dogma.

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.


About the book || Reviews by: Steven Simpson | Abul Kasem | Prof Sami Alrabaa | Ibn Kammuna


'Islamic Jihad' in Bangla
Aasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."

Editor: M A Khan | Site design: Dan Zaremba
Founded on 20 November 2005


Sign petition:  Grant Imran Firasat Asylum in the USA


Proxy Server: To view blocked websites, use this: iwebproxy