Is This Another Crusade?
Readers are (as usual) thanked for their patience in waiting for Part III of the WTC-attacks Special Bulletin. Nothing revolutionary here, but perhaps our brief (though perhaps not sufficiently so!) discussion of "Islam vs. the West" will go some ways toward bringing some clarity and common sense into an aspect of the Sept. 11 events which has wholly lacked both of those qualities since then.
We hear a lot about "Islam vs. the West." What is most disturbing is that the same mantra comes at us from all sides, and is repeated by sources both suspect and credible. Bin Laden has, not surprisingly, called for a general assault by his Muslim followers on "Jews and Crusaders" which translates, in simplistic terms, into a cry for war with "the West." The American and Israeli press (both predominantly Jewish) has, of course, called for an all-out war against those who challenge "Western values" and attack Western-style "freedom and democracy." And within Catholic circles, some "conservative," some "traditional," the claim is made that we are experiencing the start of a third-millennium "rise of Islam," which, of course, must be stopped by "the West."
The problem is that each of these perspectives lacks either a basic foundation in the Truth or a consideration of the full picture. Bin Laden's call to attack the West lacks a supernatural geo-political perspective because it is concerned ONLY with defending the rights, albeit in some cases legitimate, of Muslim states. The media perspective is faulty because it equates the West with the Enlightenment, secularism, and materialism. And the analysis put forward by some Catholic parties is flawed not so much in itself as in what it leaves out of consideration ' Judeo-Masonry.
By Way of Introduction
Commentary on the geopolitical situation of 2001 can be neither complete nor sufficient if it fails to take into account the Jewish Nation. The temporal power that the Jews have achieved since, picking a somewhat arbitrary date, 1789, is both pervasive and relatively unchallenged. Some readers will doubtless call this extremism, anti-Semitism, and, God-forbid, some strange brand of Nazi fanaticism. On the contrary. It is simply a fact. The forces of high finance, government, and the media have been in largely Jewish hands for some time now; we should therefore expect that the direction in which the world is guided by those forces (or at least in which those forces attempt to guide the world) largely corresponds to a generally Jewish aim.
Bear in mind as well that none of this is to rule out profound and sometimes violent disagreements between members of the numerous factions of Judaism, nor is it to forget that "world Judaism" and "world Jewry" are not at all the same things, given the fact that depending upon who is asked, what makes someone Jewish is anything from their religious persuasion, to their ethnicity, to their nationality, to the religion or ethnicity of their maternal parent.
Nevertheless, the relative unity of this "Jewish aim" is apparent, verifiable and factual. The aim is clear from the famous and yet rather disturbing statement found in the Jewish World of February 9, 1883: "The great ideal of Judaism is 'that the whole world should be imbued with Jewish teachings, and that in a universal Brotherhood of nations ' a greater Judaism in fact ' all the separate races and religions shall disappear." It is as clear from the fascinating statement found in Antisemitism, by the French Jew Bernard Lazare "The nineteenth century witnessed the last effort on the part of the Christian state to retain its dominance. Antisemitism represents one phase of the struggle between the feudal state, based upon unity of belief, and the opposite notion of a neutral and secular state, upon which the greater number of political entities are at present based. The Jew is the living testimony of the disappearance of that state which had its foundations in theological principles'the entrance of the Jew into society marked the destruction of the State, meaning by State, the Christian State." A century later it is no less clear, and we see it in the pride and sarcasm with which Leon Wieseltier, writing for the New Republic in March of 2000, recounts for us the destruction of the essential principle of Christian law and Christian government ' which he terms the Church's "holy alliance with the state&quo> < by the politics of his co-religionists: "'it is worth recalling that it was modern politics, liberal politics, secular politics that dissolved this unholy association of religion and power." As Fr. Fahey so eloquently put it in The Mystical Body of Christ and the Modern World, commenting on the Jewish World article above-cited, the Jewish program "is a challenge to the Catholic Church to a duel to the death." And on the natural plane the Jewish program seems to be winning.
It is with this fact as background that the events of and following 9-11 should be viewed. And it is an essential background for our own interpretation of the claims made by various and sundry parties that we are witnessing, or perhaps should witness, another war between Islam and the West.
Let's take the claims of each of those parties in turn.
I. Bin Laden's War
The media has drawn our explicit attention to the fact that bin Laden is attempting the PR stunt of the millennium: turning U.S. retaliation for terrorist acts into a provocation of the entire Islamic world. Is he really? Or is are his speeches and statements to be expected, bearing in mind two facts: 1) he is perhaps, based upon his rhetoric, an honest, albeit ruthless, Mohammedan who, unfortunately for us, is willing to translate what he believes into unconditional action, and 2) he is NOT a Catholic who is able to see the world through a supernatural light; his vision is, rather, darkened by Islam, which as an obvious consequence divides for him the world of right and wrong, justice and injustice, good and bad, into the simple and straightforward categories of Muslim and infidel.
It is important for us to bear in mind, as we listen to the snippets of bin Laden's rhetoric that are allowed to sift through the media filters, these two absolutely essential facts about the man behind the long beard and camouflage vest. For his demands are not as irrational and "militant" as we are led to believe, regardless of how they MIGHT be enforced. Note that we say "might" because it is the U.S. that has decided that bin Laden orchestrated the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. To our knowledge at this point, none of this evidence has been shared with anyone in an international legal forum (such as the International Criminal Court, which seems so attractive to the world community when the criminal has committed a crime against a nation other than the U.S.), nor has it been convincingly demonstrated to the public just who or what was in fact responsible for the attacks. Not to mention that we are of the firm suspicion that the U.S. Government and/or the Mossad (the Israeli secret service) are not altogether innocent of some degree of complicity (we'll never know what degree) in these tragedies.
Don't fall into the trap of taking this as an apology for bin Laden the man and his alleged methods. God forbid. We don't know him, and what we do know of him is filtered through the communications empires of our avowed enemies, as is what we know about Milosevic, Hussein, and others. He may be a fanatic. He may believe in things that others consider unpalatable. But in the sensitive, PC third millennium, those things are not crimes, or at least aren't supposed to be if you belong to the right victim-group. ACTING on them may be, but that's a different subject altogether.
Regardless, assuming that bin Laden did direct the massacre of those in the WCT and the Pentagon at the time of the attacks, is it accurate to assume that his goal was to slaughter as many non-Muslims as possible in an attempt to settle a several-hundred-year-old score with the Christian West? Would it make sense to say that he represents the incarnate plague of the West now that Communism has disappeared (sic) and Islam is coming back to life?
The thought doesn't stand up to scrutiny, neither in light of the facts nor in light of common sense. Taking common sense first, would he not have done better poisoning NYC's water supply? Would it not have been more efficient to incinerate a stadium full of 100,000 infidel sports fans? More economical to spread anthrax in the D.C. Metro? No, the WTC and the Pentagon were targets for their political significance as symbols'but of what?
More scrutiny. A building, two buildings, for that matter, are not necessarily symbols of antagonism towards Islam. But the Pentagon is certainly a symbol of U.S. foreign policy and of all of the military actions carried out in the name of the U.S. government. And the WTC is certainly a symbol of the center of International Finance (after all, it's not the U.S. Trade Center), which we can be sure bin Laden associates in his mind with Zionist and American Jewry ' and he really wouldn't be wrong in doing so, anyway. His aim (assuming it was both HIS action and HIS aim) was to strike at the heart of what he sees as evil in the world ' the oppressive, interventionist foreign policy of the U.S. which has made, for him, a disaster of the Middle East, and the sponsorship of that policy by political and financial Zionism, headquartered in Tel Aviv.
Our common-sense analysis gels strikingly well with actual statements that bin Laden has made. His rhetoric is, of course, peppered with reference to Allah and Mohammed, as we might expect. After all, he's a Muslim, and as someone who does not abide by the modern notion of the separation of religion and politics, he has no compunction about invoking his god in a diatribe about what's wrong with the world. When the west was really the West, we used to do the same thing. But just because he invokes Allah and his prophet doesn't mean that he's advocating the slaughter of all non-Muslims or declaring war on the infidel simply because of their infidelity, regardless of how convenient it is for him to be accused of so advocating. Rather, he mentions specific grievances for which he demands specific remedies. And regardless of what kind of inhuman, desperate acts he is allegedly willing to carry out in order to obtain redress, it is in the interest of the safety of this country's citizens as well as in the interest of justice to examine his demands and perhaps even fix some of what's broken ' not because bin Laden says so, but perhaps just because it's the right thing to do.
Indiscriminate killing of civilians, as in the cases of Hiroshima, Dresden, Iraq, Serbia, etc., is unjustifiable. Because bin Laden points it out (or even allegedly does it) doesn't change that fact. America's military presence in Saudi Arabia is, to proud Arabs (with whom those with some sense of natural justice can sympathize), a sick political joke ' because of the "convenient" circumstances that brought it about (it is fairly common knowledge that President Bush (Sr.) dispatched Ambassador April Glaspie to visit Saddam Hussein with a letter and a "wink and a nod" telling the Iraqi leader that it was OK to invade his smaller neighbor, which precipitated the Gulf War and supposedly necessitated our stationing of troops there). The answer? We should simply come home, leaving our military to defend our nation and not everyone else's. Bin Laden pointing THAT out doesn't change THAT fact either. And the one-sided policy of the State Department toward the Israeli occupation of Palestine is hardly worth comment. Bin Laden is right on that score.
References to these classic examples ' the American occupation of Saudi Arabia, the blind eye toward Israeli atrocities, and the starvation of half a million Iraqis ' are what routinely make up the substance of bin Laden's and the Taliban's statements, which range from an interview that he gave to ABC back in 1998, to his recent statement on Oct 7, as well as the Taliban government's statement of 24 Sep. For those who would suggest that these statements are merely "excuses" for them to call for a general Muslim crusade against the "West," we would say: "read the texts." References to Islam by both bin Laden and the Taliban are incidental to their real complaints ' mere rhetorical window dressing.
The most openly religious statement of his Oct. 7th broadcast reads, "'These incidents divided the entire world into two regions - one of faith where there is no hypocrisy and another of infidelity, from which we hope God will protect us." An expression of Muslim faith? Sure. A call for jihad? Not unless it's a secret code that none of his audience will pick up except for fellow militants. The rest of all of his public statements is a list of straightforward grievances and demands: get out of Saudi Arabia, and stop supporting Israel; neither of which can rationally be equated with a call for the extermination of all non-Muslims.
The religious content of the Taliban's statement is of the same vein. It demands that the U.S. "release Islam, which it has taken hostage in a spiritual form'A good example of Islam as a hostage is the present situation which they (the Americans) have created in Afghanistan. They want the end of the Islamic order; they want to create disorder, and they want a pro-American government." Regardless of the fact that the Taliban is an Islamic government and sees "order" in Muslim context, the demand that they make is a demand for freedom ' freedom to run their own internal affairs. That such a demand is construed as a call for jihad against the west is illustrative not of Islam's militancy but rather of what the masters of the media can gain by such an assertion (more on that later).
This is not to say that Islam is not a threat to the Christian West, what little of it is left. Nor is it to say that the Taliban has created a warm and inviting atmosphere in Afghanistan (though who could object to forbidding TV and the internet?). Nor is it to say that a coherent and integral Islam does not pose a danger to Catholicism, with its doctrinal (if erroneous) purity, its vigor, and its intolerance for any religious persuasion other than its own.
But those attributes of Islam are, these days, dangers more to the Christian missionary who proposes to convert the Afghan to Catholicism, and in an indirect (yet serious) way they are a danger to all Western societies that have immigration policies that are so lax that even Muslim anti-pluralists are welcome in pluralist society, thus paving the way for the spread of Islam through propaganda and procreation rather than the scimitar and the crescent.
On this head we would do well to bear in mind the statement made by an influential Muslim at an official meeting on Islamic-Christian dialogue: "Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you." But this is a far cry from conceding that a fervent Muslim demanding the religious and temporal liberation of his coreligionists and countrymen from real injustices is tantamount to him demanding an Islamic, military conquest of Belgrade. Besides, NATO took care of that on behalf of the KLA back in April of '99. That such action did little to appease bin Laden lends credence to the suggestion that he's not looking for U.S. intervention on behalf of Islam but rather an end to said intervention altogether, along with the defeat of Israel which without the U.S. military and the American State Dept. would not exist.
II. Which West?
Various and sundry neo-cons, peaceniks turned hawks, and unapologetic lobbyists for Israel are in a bit of a predicament these days. They defend Pluralism because, essentially, it ensures that the West won't ever again ("never again!") become Christendom. Islamic immigration furthers that aim. Yet they demand the destruction of "radical Islam" because it isn't pluralist, and because it represents a credible threat to Israel. But in order to facilitate the destruction of radical Islam they must either demand that the West rise again to confront its Islamic enemy, or, more subtly and far less accurately, they must paint the so-called sponsors of militant Islam as terrorists who are "enemies of freedom and democracy" and who oppose "our Western (read Tel Aviv's and New York's) way of life," and who must be routed by the WW-II-esque forces of Democracy and liberation.
The question then becomes, which West is it that the media masters and political figureheads continuously refer to? Certainly not the Crusading West of Pope Urban II and St. Louis IX, neither of whom were particularly pluralist in temperament. No, if the "west" is to defend itself from the enemies of "its way of life" if must be the west created by intrigue, wars, and financial manipulation, manipulated by the Rothchilds and the Roosevelts, and inspired with anti-Christian philosophy, masquerading as Enlightenment. A west which promised us freedom from fascist terror, but which gave us freedom from Truth and freedom from real values, and which gave to capitalist tyrants and Bolshivek sympathizers unrestricted freedom of conquest.
My how the tables have turned. 500 to 1000 years ago the Catholic World, at times on the verge of near extinction, defended itself from militant Islam which the Turks brought from the East and were nearly successful in implanting into the heart of the West. That was an Islam which certain Jews were happy to aid in an effort to disrupt and ultimately demolish Christendom. Walsh gives us a glimpse of several of these in his masterful Philip II, including Joseph Nasi, Jewish banker of Constantinople who pushed for the Turkish attack upon Christian forces which culminated in the Battle of Lepanto, and Joseph Mendez, Nasi's successor as unofficial leader of world Jewry in the 16th century, whose scheming continuously supported an alliance of the Turks with England in order to ensure Spanish defeat, and ultimately did so at the hands of Elizabeth I of England.
Today Islam is a side-note to a larger cry for national sovereignty and freedom in Iraq and Palestine, and in many of the Arab nations generally ' a cry which is inconveniently accompanied with a reminder of just who it is that is depriving these nations of their independence. And thus the agents of the ever-expanding pro-Zionist "global" world in which we are all to live have no choice but to marshal the forces of the non-Catholic, materialist west, whipping them into a white-hot frenzy over "western freedom and democracy," to launch them on yet another crusade ' this time a crusade to defeat those who have wished for the destruction of the Zionist west, rather than the Catholic one.
The spin masters of the "west" are at great pains to show that its enemy is not "Islam." But there is an inconvenient coincidence that the spin-masters continue to try to avoid, disavow, or "interpret" out of existence. That fact is this: with the exception of the Legion Bulletin and a few other independent Crusaders, the only publicly-identifiable religious group in the world which routinely denounces Zionist oppression, at the hands of either the US or Israel, is the Islamic world, whether it be the "radical" fringe or the "moderate" Arab states. Thus the political struggle takes on religious overtones almost by accident, as the Muslims rally not around bin Laden's alleged call to exterminate the infidel but to liberate Palestine.
As we noted above in our quick look at bin Laden's speech, this call is often colored with Muslim rhetoric. Hardly a surprise.
1. Bin Laden's and the Taliban's conception of right and wrong, justice and injustice, good and bad, is essentially tied to his religion. (Ours used to be too.) Expecting him to denounce injustice without a religious overtone is typical only of a secularist perspective.
2. Most of the Arabs who find what bin Laden says to be compelling are Muslims as well. Their conception of justice, as well, is necessarily Islamic. And they are sufficiently outrage by what they see to be a complete white-wash by the international community of Israeli and American terrorism that they are interested more in what bin Laden says is wrong with the world than troubling their consciences over whether or not civilians can be legitimately killed in a struggle against militant Zionism. Which brings us to'
3. Most of the Arabs in #2 find Israel itself obnoxious at best, tyrannical and genocidal at worst. They are, therefore Israel's enemies. And if apologists for Israel want to eliminate Israel's enemies, they are confronting all of the individuals and governments in #2.
All of this amounts to a fairly coherent denunciation by the Establishment of ' if not an outright war with ' one identifiable group: call it the Arab world, or Islam, whatever; the fact is that these are Muslims who, besides being adherents of an absolutist religion, are conscious of natural rights and justice, and are simply a public nuisance ' an eyesore ' for Uncle Sam and Zion.
Meanwhile, to convince us that the multicultural, multi-religious, mushy, distinction-free world is in tip-top shape, united behind Geo. Bush and Ariel Sharon in its fight against the enemies of civilization, a mind-numbing mental balancing act is required. We are told that "moderate" and "rational" Arabs will distance themselves from bin Laden and Co.'s fanatical rhetoric, and that a coalition of well-intentioned opponents of terrorism is formed and healthy. Meanwhile, the moderate Arab world is NOT rejoicing on cue over the U.S. attacks, and it finds bin Laden's statements only TOO truthful. The moderate Arab world that isn't towing the party line thus becomes what we all secretly know but cannot say ' a public, more-or-less consistent and coherent opponent of Israel and its servant, the US of A. But these "moderate" Arab states cannot be collectively denounced as a single enemy of Israel, religiously and politically united, because to do so would not only blow the coalition to bits but it would look awfully like a declared war on a coherent anti-Zionist ideology which oftentimes expresses itself in Islamic terms'a semblance which must be avoided at all costs. Walking the line between "pluralist orthodoxy" on the one hand and the overt elimination of the enemies of world Jewry on the other is an intellectual and ideological stunt which challenges all but the most well-trained Talmudists.
A PR Campaign of Massive Proportions
The full-court Press is on to ensure that the world knows the truth about the attacks on the WTC, the U.S. response, and the reaction that both provoked. Friedman, in a usual stroke of brilliance in a September 21 OpEd in the JYT (or, rather, the NYT ' sorry), suggests that Arab criticism of Israel and tacit endorsement of bin Laden's criticisms of the geopolitical situation is merely cover for the dirty laundry of the Arab regimes:
"'these Arab regimes, feeling defensive about their Islamic crackdowns, allowed their own press and intellectuals total freedom to attack America and Israel, as a way of deflecting criticism from themselves."
Hmm. Freedom of the press and of academia. But isn't oh, never mind.
The result of these scandalous freedoms?
"'a generation of Muslims and Arabs have been raised on such distorted views of America that despite the fact that America gives Egypt $2 billion a year, despite the fact that America fought for the freedom of Muslims in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo, and despite the fact that Bill Clinton met with Yasir Arafat more than with any other foreign leader, America has been vilified as the biggest enemy of Islam."
Perhaps the fact is that these critics of Israel and America see right through the American support of puppets and playthings like Mubarak and Arafat who are supposed to be obedient chess pieces in the U.S. management of Middle-East politics. And that they see through the "liberation" of Kosovo for the attempt that it was merely to demolish Serbia and bring Milosevic before the ICC ' and that American support of the Marxist/terrorist KLA was fickle and superficial, as our complete reversal in Macedonia has proven. No, the thinking Muslims and Arabs are under no misconceptions when it comes to American friendship and American commitment to writing the wrongs of Middle East politics. After all, how does the elimination of Milosevic and aid to Egypt remotely affect the occupation of Palestine and the starvation of Iraq's civilian population? Only Friedman and his ilk would expect it to pacify righteous anger'an anger that is no less legitimate merely because it is often seen by the Arabs in the religious context of Islam vs. its enemies.
Safire is even more to the point that his moderate comrade in his October 8 NYT tirade. Though he concedes the limited and specific nature of bin Laden's aim, "'his terms for our surrender: the removal of Jews from Palestine and the end of America's interference with Iraq," he equates those aims with all brands of Middle Eastern fanaticism, (not the least of which is the liberation of Palestine and the preservation of sovereignty in Iraq!): "'because the interests of Middle Eastern terrorists are clearly the same, no longer can the world separate his Al Qaeda cult, the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah and the P.L.O. warring on Israel, and the center of world terror in Baghdad run by Saddam Hussein."
Then comes the masterstroke of disinformation, even after he suggests (believe it if you can) that the U.S. destroy the "Taliban radio towers broadcasting hate and step up our local-language broadcasts of anti-fanatic truths(!)"; he equates the ending of Israeli occupation of Palestine with opposition to democracy and human rights (obviously Safire hasn't read his Israel Shahak, his Israel Shamir, or his Jack Bernstein!): "The stated purposes of the terror network are (1) to drive any manifestation of democracy and human rights, such as Israel, out of the Middle East and (2) to free the avatar of totalitarian savagery, Saddam Hussein, from Western sanctions. These are not mere street-acclaimed goals adopted to gain fundamentalist adherents; these are steps to gain weapons of mass destruction by which to intimidate and dominate the world." Perhaps a Rabbi could explain for us how advocating the liberation of Palestine is actually opposing human rights, and how releasing Iraq from sanctions is akin to domination of the world. Safire gives Hussein a little too much credit perhaps? Or is the aim to turn legitimate grievances into "fanaticism" such that the only legitimate aim is the brotherhood of a "greater Judaism" and a rebuilt Temple?
The Jews are even less subtle, if it can be imagined. In the October 10, 2001, Jerusalem Post Internet Edition ("Israel vs bin Laden in information war" by Herb Keinon), forwarded to us by one of the Zundelsite's Z-Grams, the lines in the sand are drawn very clearly: "The attacks on the US were not the result of any specific US policy, but rather because of what the US represents. The attacks are part of the war that fundamentalist, undemocratic forces have declared on the enlightened, democratic world." Again, a masterstroke of propaganda (they've had a lot of practice): the sinister machinations of those advocating the right of return for people expelled from their homes in the West Bank are termed "undemocratic forces," while the forces of enlightenment are riding forth on a crusade for justice and freedom by making the big rocks of Afghanistan into little rocks. Note the skillful evasion of a reference to any confrontation between the Islamic world (which does have its place in the politically correct smorgasbord, as long as it's in the context of immigration and tolerance for all the world's religions) and the Zionist world (which doesn't exist ' there are merely forces of "democracy").
Lest some of us have a hard time swallowing the notion that the good guys are simply democrats helping the world maintain its freedom, and the plots of Israel are irrelevant, there is Norman Podhoretz to the rescue! In his smashing OpEd in the Wall Street Journal, we are told that "just as the fervent wish of the Arab world to wipe the Jewish state off the map derives not from anything Israel has done or failed to do, but rather from its existence alone, so we are hated not because of our policies but because of who and what we are."
That makes perfect sense both in light of what we are told America stands for ' freedom ('does the phrase "I hate freedom" have any real meaning?? Is the notion even remotely credible???), and in light of the fact that America just coasts along minding its own business, casually and upon-request-only helping the impoverished and oppressed nations of the world. Of course. It makes perfect sense.
Not Everyone's Buying It
The Muslims, or, rather (sorry), the Arabs, are not. The most glaring problem with the whole fantastic scenario is that there is an incessant clamor from the East about just what Israel and its American client are up to. In a display of a surprising lack of cooperativeness, the Arab world does NOT cry out with one voice for the slaughter of the infidel. "Soldiers of Allah sally forth to do your duty in extermination of the American infidel" is NOT a cry that is routinely heard from Muslim governments and academic institutions.
No, the protests and professorial comments and political communiqu's are all fairly intelligent, rational critiques of America and Israel and their politics abroad. And that unfortunate rational candor gives the lie to both heads of the two-headed Zionist myth: 1) the Arab world IS more or less united ideologically (at least in terms of ends, conceding the heated debate over means), and the great political divide between bin Laden's politics and Egyptian/Saudi politics doesn't really exist; and 2) those in favor of the U.S. getting a rather humiliating wake-up call and/or opposing the obliteration of Afghanistan rarely call for an end to democracy or the elimination of freedom ' rather, they voice their specific and limited views rationally and calmly ' a strange phenomena for alleged "fanatical opponents" of "our way of life."
What is certainly most disturbing to the good guys is how even the clean bad guys talk. It would be one thing if it were just the radicals in the street; but it's not. It's the politicians, the professors, the businessmen. There is a strange consistency between the demonstrations in the street and the silence of Middle Eastern governments.
The street scene was sketched ever-so-briefly by a VOA wire on 12 October:
"'Several thousand Palestinians staged anti-American demonstrations in the West Bank Friday, including in Ramallah and Nablus. Many chanted their support for Osama bin Laden and vented their anger against U.S. President George W. Bush, describing him as the "father of terrorism."
"'Tens of thousands of protesters, including some government ministers, took to the streets in Iran. In Tehran, marchers carried placards denouncing the U.S. action as fororism. Others declared their willingness to join a jihad (war against imperialistic terrorism) against the United States and its allies. The Iranian government has denounced terrorism, but is also critical of the American action.
"'There was heavy police presence in Cairo as about 5,000 people demonstrated after Friday prayers at the city's Al-Azhar mosque. In Lebanon, several thousand people took to the streets in the northern city of Tripoli to denounce what they called the U.S."aggression."
"'In Saudi Arabia, prayers were held in support of Afghans and to denounce the "enemies of Islam," but they made no direct mention of the U.S. and British attacks. In the Syrian capital, Damascus, an imam denounced terrorism, but said that terrorism cannot be fought by waging wars that destroy cities and kill women and children.
"The Associated Press reports that in one mosque in Baghdad, the imam and worshippers broke down in tears. The imam spoke of a crusade against Muslims, led by America. He also accused the United States and Britain of playing games as they destroy cities and kill people."
Strangely enough, these evil, undemocratic, repressive regimes have governments which are remarkably in tune with the sentiments of the people. An 8 October NYT article by Fawaz A. Gerges gives an indication of the political sentiments of the Arab "upper class" strikingly similar to those protesting:
"The Bush administration has made extraordinary efforts to show that the war that began Sept. 11 will not be a battle between Islam and the rest of the world'
"a conference in Beirut on how Arabs and Muslims should respond to the campaign against terrorism. Present were leading political activists and politicians representing the broad spectrum of public opinion in the Muslim world. Despite the efforts of President George W. Bush to allay the fears of Arabs and Muslims by stressing that the United States will wage a relentless war on terrorism and its state sponsors, not on Islam and its adherents, the American message seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. Liberals, leftists and Arab nationalists sounded as suspicious of American war aims as the representative from Hezbollah.
"Most participants claimed that the United States aims at far more than destroying Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization and toppling the Taliban regime. These representatives of the Muslim world were almost unanimously suspicious of America's intentions, believing that the United States has an overarching strategy which includes control of the oil and gas resources in Central Asia, encroachment on Chinese and Russian spheres of influence, destruction of the Iraqi regime, and consolidation of America's grip on the oil-producing Persian Gulf regimes'
"Many Muslims suspected the Bush administration of hoping to exploit this tragedy to settle old scores and assert American hegemony in the world'
"Compounding the discrepancy between American and Middle Eastern perspectives is a genuine skepticism about the culpability of Muslims in the terror attacks. Engrained suspicions raised by Muslim opinion makers reflect deeply held sentiments among the general public.
"Many Middle Easterners with whom I spoke advanced conspiracy theories to explain what had happened. A Christian director of a Western bank in Beirut claimed that only 'international Zionism possessed the means and the will to undertake this hideous act.' These nonsensical (sic!) views are held by both the man on the street and some in the intelligentsia'
"Those individuals who did accept the culpability of the Arab perpetrators usually drew a comparison between the terror attacks on America and shortsighted, unjust American policies that have alienated and antagonized most of the rising social classes in the region. In short, they believed America has reaped what it sowed'
"Most of the participants, who represent the pulse of mainstream Muslim public opinion, strongly cautioned their governments against joining the American coalition on terrorism and warned that people would oppose any sustained military assault on a Muslim country, including Afghanistan."
And in the corridors of power the sentiment is still much the same; where it cannot be expressed there is in its place a deafening (for the Zionists) silence (from a 9 October NYT article by Neil MacFarquhar):
"'Saudi Arabia, for example, said nothing. After its weekly cabinet meeting, the government issued a statement that ignored the situation, but praised the United States for focusing renewed interest on the Palestinian question.
"'The cabinet voiced hope that efforts must be increased to end the blockade on the Palestinian people and to stop the killing they are being subjected to by Israeli forces so that a Palestinian state may be established with Jerusalem as its capital,' the statement said.
"'The mood in some private conversations was dark, with some Saudis expressing resentment that the United States was training so much firepower on a battered country in the hopes of getting one man. 'It's a huge imbalance of power,' said a university professor, asking not to be identified because of the government's clear distaste for the issue. 'They won't achieve anything with such an act except making people more furious.'
"In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak, another leader walking the tightrope between his American backers and a sullen population, stayed mum'
[Until later on, when he was quick to explain to editors and senior journalists of the Egyptian press, according to an AP wire from Oct. 14, in "recalling his talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday': 'My message was clear. We should not let Sharon kill and destroy, and that's why you see that there are attacks against me in the Western press accusing me of dictatorship.
"'The true dictatorship is in Israel, where the verdicts of the judiciary are not implemented and human rights do not exist,' Mubarak said'"]
"The lone official comment came from Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, whose comments at a gathering at the American University in Cairo appeared aimed at both appeasing Washington and the streets. 'Egypt stands in solidarity with the United States in the fight against terrorism,' he said, adding later, 'But the Afghan people have suffered enough and deserve not to be subjected to more suffering.'
"There were small demonstrations at several universities. At Al Azhar University, students chanted, 'There is no god but God, and Bush is the enemy of God.' The repeated statements that the United States was not seeking a war on Islam or against the Afghan people did not seem to be penetrating very far. Oman also allowed a rare demonstration, with several hundred students from the Colleges of Islamic Law and Administration Science marching in the capital, Muscat, chanting anti-American slogans.
"Jordan has banned demonstrations for much of this year because of boiling sentiments over violence in the Palestinian territories, but the reaction there was also one of inter. 'Such acts are blind because the U.S. does not have any specific or strategic targets,' said Mahmoud Kharabsheh, an independent member of Parliament, dismayed about the lack of published evidence against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. 'If the U.S. possessed concrete evidence, it would have disclosed it to the world in order to convince them that they are the perpetrators. But what happened is only a cover for a crusader attempt to conquer the Arab and Islamic world.'
"'Syrians condemned the United States for not taking stronger issue with violence perpetrated by Israel and also for not seeking greater international approval. 'Such operations should have been launched under the umbrella of the United Nations,' said Muhammad Aziz Shukri, a professor of International Law at Damascus University."
A Hollow Ring
In light of this rather convincing demonstration of Arab resolve, the assurances from Z.O.G. officials that the U.S. and its allies are not at war with the Islamic world are hardly convincing, in that the Islamic world represents a fairly coherent opposition to the JWO (sorry'rather, the NWO) and therefore falls under the umbrella of those targeted as "fanatical enemies of civilization." Tony Blair's feeble attempt to shift the focus to the fact that "Decent Muslims, millions of them in European countries, have condemned these acts of terrorism in New York and elsewhere in America with every bit as much force as any of the rest of us" (NYT Oct 9 by Alan Cowell) is irrelevant; what the Arabs are on about is not the use of terror as a weapon, but the underlying injustices that encourage the would-be terrorists. Blair has conveniently skirted that issue, and no doubt will continue to do so. His handlers have no intention whatsoever of letting him address the issue, because the war for civilization is not a war for universal civilization but for "enlightened," capitalist anti-civilization.
Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of the U.S. State Department's attempt to forge an "anti-terror coalition embracing all civilizations, " not just the West," (from the 15 Sept. NYT) is manifest most especially in its policy toward Syria. Let the following article tell the full story (from the NYT, October 9, 2001 by Douglas Jehl).
"If policy were as simple as rhetoric, the United States and Syria might be at war.
"'As a matter of policy, Syria harbors groups that have been identified as violent and have been accused of terrorist acts'
"The groups serve as an arm of opposition both to Israel and to Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, whom Syria and many of the groups it shelters have long opposed.
"The events of Sept. 11 seem not to have changed the balance in Syria. Ahmed Jibril, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Command, perhaps the most violent Palestinian faction based in Syria, says he is not uneasy, nor is he sorry about what happened in New York and Washington. It was time, he said, that Americans learned a lesson. The Syrian government has done nothing to restrain him, even in light of the terrorist attacks on the United States.
"In an interview Mr. Jibril, now 63, said, 'I don't feel sad at what happened in New York and Washington.' 'The American administration used to say that there are certain rogue states. You used to be proud of your democracy, and you visit the polls and you feel proud of your democracy. But if you would make ballot boxes in all the countries of the world and ask the people to name who are the rogue countries in the world, you would find that almost a majority would name the United States as the first rogue state.'
"Officially, Syria defends Mr. Jibril, and others like him. Even unofficially, there is no sense here that a government so well acquainted with what the United States calls terrorism is inclined to change its spots.
'The Americans say either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,' said Adnan Omran, the information minister. 'That is something God should say.'
"In public statements in recent days, the Syrian government has said it regrets the attacks on American civilians. It has said it is willing to join others in the antiterror fight.
"But senior Syrian officials, including the foreign minister, Farouk al- Sharaa, have called in turn for other countries to halt what they have called Israel's use of terrorism in putting pressure on its neighbors.
"Syrian officials say the United States has made no specific requests for cooperation since Sept. 11. If Americans are preoccupied now with terrorism, Syrian officials say, it would be wise to look to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which many in the Middle East regard as a spark in the current crisis.
'Fighting terrorism has to know its roots and causes,' Mr. Sharaa told reporters here the other day.
"'There has been no indication that Syria or the groups harbored here had any role in the attacks on the United States. Most of the groups in Syria that the United States calls terrorist have said their target is Israel, not American citizens.
"Other groups who have headquarters here, including Hamas and the Palestinian branch of Islamic Jihad, have been similarly aloof, if not unapologetic. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas was included in a recent executive order from President Bush citing sponsors of terrorism with international reach. The decision caused some controversy among branches of government.
"Maher al-Taher, a senior official of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, said 'Syria knows we are fighting for a just cause, and Syria knows the difference between terrorism and resistance.' Mr. Taher, whose group broke off from Mr. Jibril's years ago, added, "We hope that the American stand is like the Syrian one.'
"To the Syrian government, as well as for these groups, the distinction is vital. While the United States labels them terrorists, the groups housed in Syria regard themselves as freedom fighters, with a target, Israel, that both the groups and their hosts regard as legitimate."
And there's the rub. This patchwork coalition will not long last while it accepts the cooperation of, and thus fails to condemn, a nation which puts its political money where its mouth is by tacitly supporting the militant enemies of Israel. But no hypocrisy is too much when we are attempting to achieve the impossible: hold together a pluralist international coalition of Arab states in an effort to defeat an organization that fights, albeit with unlawful and reprehensible means, for a goal which many of the coalition-member states fully support. Running the world sure is a tricky business.
Leave it to the neocon Amen corner to inject some clarity into the discussion. The real aims of the Isreali masters of the State and Defense Departments can always be seen lurking behind the scenes in the editorial offices of the neocon press. Recently, Mr. Kristol and about 40 other neo-con notables published an open letter to President Bush. They "fully support [his] call for 'a broad and sustained campaign'..." ' emphasis on "broad." Their targets include Iraq, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria (ah yes, there it is!) should they "refuse to comply," as well as the Palestinian Authority. The Wall Street Journal further expands their target list to include "Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria," not to mention "parts of Egypt." National Review, between breathless entreaties to "End Iraq," also advocates "Ending a few recalcitrant terrorist-friendly regimes in the Middle East," while Kristol's own Weekly Standard targets "any group or government inclined to support or sustain [terrorists] in the future."
What we are looking at clearly ' at last ' is the attempted destruction of Israel's enemies and the silencing of organizations and regimes that speak a little too much truth about modern-day Palestine for their own good.
III. What the Catholics Are Saying
As is the unfortunate case within the Catholic Church today, various and sundry disordered and confused voices attempt to speak for what was once the united and authoritative voice of hundreds of millions of Faithful. Since the promulgation of the document Dignitatis Humane at the Second Vatican Council (which purported to make the religiously pluralist state the norm of society, as being most consistent with man's nature (sic)) marked the Church's sanction of the awful experiment known as modern civilization, She has been largely absent from the scene of serious, enlightened, politically savvy commentary on the world situation. She has, horrible dictu, become little more than a nicely robed fan club for everything modern (and the robes aren't even that nice any more). As a result the commentary from Roman authorities on the events since 9-11 falls somewhat short of enlightening.
The Pope, John Paul II, of scandalous Koran-kissing fame, was reported by his Secretary of State to have immediately expressed his hope that "this incredible and desperate act would lead everyone to reflect on the anti-human, anti-Christian nature of violence, of all violence, which leads to nothing." His hope was furthermore that "the Lord [would] give peace to tormented humanity at the beginning of this third millennium, which we hope will be a millennium of peace and not hatred." So much for PAX CHRISTI IN REGNO CHRISTI. And what of the underlying causes of the unspeakable horrors? Evidently they too were unspeakable.
Meanwhile, we have the usual assurances from the authorities committed to inter-religious dialogue that "This is not a religious war." Thus indicated Bishop Anthony Theodore Lobo of Islamabad-Rawalpindi according to a Zenit dispatch of October 12, 2001. "Now more than ever, we must seek dialogue between the religions and look into the causes of injustice that fuel violence and terrorism," he continued. Now, this is either NOT a religious war, making religious dialogue largely irrelevant or at least unnecessary, or it IS a religious war, making that dialogue more essential and timely that ever. If he was referring to Judaism and Islam, he might have a case. A discussion about the racist policies mandated by the Talmud for non-Israeli citizens in Palestine might be good place to start. But we cannot help but suspect that he was uttering a meaningless platitude; or worse ' he was suggesting that somehow the Christian West must redouble its efforts to be at peace with the Islamic world. If he stopped to listen to Arab/Muslim grievances, which we have glanced at in some detail above, he might get the sense that it is not the Christians who should be on the hook for making peace with the Muslims.
The following day, a detailed Zenit wire report of October 13, 2001 busies itself with a lengthy consideration of whether or not bin Laden's "ideology" is representative of Islam or merely of fanaticism. But the consideration fails miserably to take into account bin Laden & Co.'s stated goals. There may indeed be a very interesting internal Islamic debate over whether suicide and/or attacks on non-combatants is justified in warfare, but can the entire "ideology" of bin Laden be reduced to this one question? The question of MEANS (lawful ones vs. unlawful and unconscionable ones) is very different from the question of ENDS. But the question of ends is left out of focus entirely: the "ideology of Osama bin Laden's followers 'is no more intrinsically linked to Islam or Islamic civilisation than Pearl Harbour was to Buddhism, or Northern Irish terrorists are to Christianity.'" The implications are to be expected: 1) bin Laden's ideology is obviously a simple and straightforward defense of/advocation of attacks on non-combatant civilians, no more, no less ' a fact which conveniently obviates the need for us to dwell on the uncomfortable demands he makes of the U.S. and Israel, and 2) the program of inter-religious dialogue can be preserved, since it is a question of a dialogue between Christianity and a peace-loving, reasonable, "moderate" Islam.
The same reductionism applies in reverse when the object of the attacks is considered. In an interview with self-styled moralist George Weigel, from the same wire, the interviewee states that "The perpetrators of these acts of mass murder understood themselves to be involved in a war ' against the United States and, more broadly, the West." Obviously the West is incarnate in the Pentagon and the WTC. Furthermore, Weigel evidently expects us to believe that there is a West left to attack, and thus one left to defend. But what world order is being defended as we pound away at Afghanistan? Will the nations of Europe and America spontaneously recover their Faith after bin Laden is blown to bits by a smart bomb? The Catholic "this-is-Islam-vs.-the-West" apologists would have us believe so.
The Conservatives Are Just as Bad
There is a camp of these apologists mixed in among very traditional Catholic circles, as well, and it's a mixture which we here at the Legion view with the utmost of suspicion. Suspicion because the fervent, sincere, traditional Catholics are the ones who are supposed to possess the divine light of Faith with which to interpret the sings of the times in light of the great struggle between God and Satan, between the Light and the Darkness, between Good and Evil. As Fr Fahey says at the outset of his long volume The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World: "The events of our age, as of every age, are, in the last analysis, the results of man's acceptance or rejection of the Divine Plan for ordered human life. They are, therefore, the consequences of the application to action of the ideas of what is order and what is disorder, which have been held by different minds. Accordingly, the appreciation of these events and of their consequences for the future must be based on what we Catholics know by faith about the order of the world'"
We would expect, therefore, a fairly profound and accurate analysis from any body professing the "traditional" faith.
Leading the pack of those within traditional Catholic circles who see America's New War as the defense of the West from militant Islam is the American TFP (Tradition, Family, and Property). Their comment on recent events reads:
"Militant Islam believes it has a chance to strike a blow at the remaining edifice of Christian civilization'"
"The terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon have escalated the conflict. They have proven to militant Islam that it has the outreach to have a profound historical impact that could just possibly win'
"We must face up to the fact that this is'an attack on the Christian world at a time when it has been weakened to an almost unimaginable degree by secularism and moral decay. But our world is still worth fighting for. Its foundation is sound and one could even say holy. It is what remains to stand on after centuries of internal and external assaults. It is time then to face reality, consider uncomfortable facts, and prepare for a long, directed struggle. This is not merely a "policing action," but perhaps a clash of civilizations."
A few very simple observations suffice to detail our profound disagreement with such a stance.
1. The current and historical mortal enemy of Christian civilization is Judeo-Masonry. There can be no doubt about this fact from an analysis history, both recent, and that which dates from the time of Our Lord. Islam is a sideshow, albeit a powerful and vigorous one, to the main drama. It has been a tool of Jewry and may in fact be so in this case.
2. There is nothing to suggest that bin Laden, assuming he is the guilty party ' or whoever is responsible for the attacks of 9-11 ' considered the attacks to be an assault on the West, insofar as it is the uniquely Christian West.
3. As we've said here before, even the most superficial analysis of the targets of the attacks would suggest that the U.S.-dominated world political and financial order was the object of attack. Hardly strongholds of Christianity.
4. In truth, there is no longer a Christian West to attack. To suggest that the US of A is the last bastion of Christian civilization is a sad mockery of the truth. It has been a greater Israel for many years; the rise of Hollywood, Wall Street, the Fed, and Roosevelt's State and Treasury departments assured that.
Now, it's one thing to be wrong; it's another thing to be misleading. The TFP's analysis of the situation may very well be factually incorrect but made with the best of intentions. So be it.
On the other hand, such a conclusion is so far off the mark that we may be permitted a hint of suspicion.
1. The Jews are saying the same thing that the TFP is saying. The Jerusalem Post called this an attack on "enlightened civilization," and the New York Times of September 15th opines that these attacks were symptoms of a larger "hatred of the United States and Western culture [which] is seeping into a broader spectrum of the world's disaffected populations." Anytime the Jews are defending the "west," it is a west that Christians should think twice about defending'and should in fact be positively afraid of.
2. Equating the US of A with the Christian West, aside from being erroneous, is a propaganda stunt of disturbing proportions. The US has never been a bastion of Christendom, given its pluralist society and its religiously neutral constitution. Implying that America is the last outpost of Catholic Europe blurs dangerously the essential, and otherwise obvious, distinctions between the "West's" traditional defense of personal property and the US's scandalous promotion of unrestrained capitalism as the only alternative to the Communist menace; the distinction between the "West's" traditional defense of natural rights and freedoms with the US's obstinate elevation of the rights of man above the rights of God. And it implies that the Statue of Liberty deserves a place alongside the statue of Our Lady as a legitimate defender of Christendom, despite the former's status as a symbol of the Revolutionary deification of man and his will.
3. The thought that the U.S. government is mounting a defense of Christianity and Christian culture is mind-boggling. The President, his cabinet, our "lawmakers"; one and all have assured us that this "crusade" is a crusade for freedom, democracy, and tolerance. Can it be imagined for a moment that Geo. Bush has anything in his mind remotely close to the "armed defense of the Christian West?" When the coming battle is pitched as an eradication of evil, that evil is hardly militant opposition to Christianity. If anything, the evil to be eliminated is exactly the contrary: militant opposition to Israel and the materialist, enlightenment ideology it has inspired.
Even if It Were True
The "West" has been so decimated by multiculturalism, religious pluralism, and materialism that it could not mount a credible defense of itself against Islam even if it tried. Leaving aside its sheer military power, the defense of the West would require a coherent ethic, a vision, a grasp of the Truth in order to sustain a campaign against an enemy with a comparably powerful vision and doctrine. The west has long ago abandoned any commitment to such a doctrine, in the name of freedom.
The ideological obsession with tolerance and freedom (the particular virtue which the Taliban lacks!) is at an all-time high, and somehow it is posited as the antidote to the events of 9-11. "The ideal of liberty at the core of America's greatness '" intoned the Archbishop of Canterbury in London on Sept. 15, "the liberty symbolised by that statue emerging unscathed from the pall of devastation ' was founded on a noble community of values in which we are proud to share. Values like tolerance and compassion, justice and mercy. Values at the heart of the Christian faith and also of other faiths." The archbishop's tolerance (sic), however, is a tolerance of anything and everything, without regard to right or wrong, true or false, good or evil; it is hardly a source of strength and cultural vigor required to confront a militant Islam, should such a confrontation ever become necessary.
Practically speaking, the example set by American society is both as hypocritical and as useless in the supposed confrontation with Islam that is headed our way. Government officials were falling all over themselves immediately after 9-11 to remind Americans that "Vigilante attacks and threats against Arab-Americans will not be tolerated," insisting that such behavior goes against the "very principles and the quality of freedom on which our nation was founded" (cnn.com, 17 Sept.). Stress over the 9-11 attacks was melted away in the multi-religious and obviously NOT Christian ceremonies which popped up all over the land: "...At the same time, there have been a growing number of interfaith religious services bringing together Christians, Jews, Muslims and others. The events have been intended to emphasize spiritual common ground within religiously pluralistic America, and there have been more of them than at previous times of international crisis" (NYT 14 Sep 01). And the nation's commitment to the defense of Christianity can be no better illustrated than in the demand put forth by the ACLU at the beginning of October that Breen Elementary School in Rocklin, CA, remove a "God Bless America" sign; they contended that "the words broadcast 'a hurtful, divisive message'" (By Ryan McCarthy, The Sacramento Bee, October, 6, 2001). The school's eloquent defense of the sign bodes well for America's Christian resolve in defending itself from the coming Muslim hordes: "It's simply not a religious expression," said Phillip Trujillo, a lawyer representing the Rocklin Unified School District. "It's instead a patriotic expression." Ah yes. Patriotic. What a magnificent defense of the Faith of our crusading ancestors!
Of course, dear Mr. Trujillo shouldn't be blamed. He's a victim of history. The United States' a-religious foundation made compromise with militant Islam quite easy, as far back as 1796.
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ' as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ' and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
(Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. Translation: Barlow, that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.)
No, the only harmony which was interrupted between the United States and a foreign government over religious opinions was that between America and England before the Revolutionary War, and the offending opinions were those of the one True Faith. The opinions were complained of by American colonists in 1774, in a statement lamenting the passage of the so-called "Intolerable Acts" included in the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, October 1774: "Also the act passed in the same session for establishing the Roman Catholic Religion, in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger (from so great a dissimilarity of Religion, law, and government) of the neighboring British colonies'To these grievous acts and measures Americans cannot submit'"
And some have the audacity to maintain that G.W.Bush is leading the successors of Catholic Europe into another crusade against Islam. What a scandal.
Defense of Something Other Than the Christian West
Talk is cheap. And despite the fact that Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, got himself into hot water by remarking that the West should conquer the Islamic world with the force of its civilization, we should be under no illusions that Signore Berlusconi meant anything like what we have in mind when we refer to the Christian West.
The background: "'in a briefing to journalists, [he] praised Western civilization on Wednesday as superior to that of the Islamic world and urged Europe to 'reconstitute itself on the basis of its Christian roots''"
So far so good
"As it designs a strategy against terrorism, Mr. Berlusconi said, the West should trust in the supremacy of its values.
"'We should be confident of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it and guarantees respect for human rights and religion,' he said. 'This respect certainly does not exist in Islamic countries.' The West, given the superiority of its values, 'is bound to occidentalize and conquer new people,' Mr. Berlusconi said. 'It has done it with the Communist world and part of the Islamic world, but unfortunately, a part of the Islamic world is 1,400 years behind" (by Steven Erlanger NYT Service September 27, 2001)
Ah yes, widespread prosperity and respect for religion. Except that widespread prosperity, under the mantle of Berlusconi's west, does NOT translate into the widespread ownership of property, and respect for religion translates rather into an irrational respect for ALL religions such that the respect owed the True Religion is submerged in a mass of pornographic, materialist, immoral, it's-all-just-about-free-speech sewage.
No, Mr. Berlusconi, the values of your west are not superior. The values of our Catholic West are. But let's not put ourselves under any illusions. The values of the Catholic West were long ago abandoned by the bankers and the bureaucrats who now manage your west, and who ensure that the old West, with its supernatural truth and even its natural law, remains a thing of the past.
In a strange (but perhaps NOT coincidental) twist of fate, it is the victims at the heart of the Zionist empire who continue to maintain a grasp on a fundamental natural truth, the application of which was once the glory of Catholic Europe. Podhoretz, of the Sept. 20, 2001,WSJ, of course, laments the fact that some have the audacity to teach such a truth to impressionable young children (and may God bless them for it), and merely discounts it as more fanatical Muslim criticism of "civilization;" the words ring only TOO true, however: "'The same textbook [published by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Education] sums up one item of the [Arab] indictment [of the west]: 'Western civilization, in both its branches ' the capitalist and the communist ' deprived man of his peace of mind, stability and noble human examples whom he can respect, when it turned material well-being into the exemplary goal'his money leading him nowhere, except to suicide.'"
The Voice of Experience
We would have done well, and we would still to well, to heed the words of a serious Catholic on the ground in Iraq, who perhaps attempted to send the "west" a warning about continuing in its murderous policy. Muslims are entitled to natural justice, it would seem, no matter who their leader is or what the New World Order thinks of him.
"BAGHDAD, Mar. 2, 2001 (FIDES/CWNews.com) ' In a provocative interview with the FIDES news service, the spiritual leader of Iraq's Catholic population warned that the United States and Great Britain are risking a new outbreak of violence in the Middle East by continuing harsh sanctions on Iraq.
"Patriarch Raphael I Bidawid, the head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, spoke to Fides shortly after bombing raids on February 16 and 22. These most recent raids caused 2 deaths and injured 20 people. In the past 3 years, 323 people have been reportedly killed, and thousands injured, in air strikes by American and British planes enforcing a 'no-fly zone' in Iraqi air space ' a policy set by those two countries without any UN mandate.
"Religious leaders in Iraq have frequently complained that international sanctions on their country ' set in place to punish the regime of Saddam Hussein ' have in effect punished ordinary citizens, causing widespread poverty and hunger. The Vatican, too, has repeatedly criticized the sanctions.
"The vast majority of Iraq's 20 million people are Muslim, but there are approximately 1 million Christians. Of these, roughly 80 percent are members of the Eastern-rite Chaldean Catholic Church.
"The following is the text of the FIDES interview with the Chaldean Patriarch:
FIDES: Your Beatitude, what is your reaction to the recent bombings in northern Iraq?
PATRIARCH RAPHAEL I BIDAWID: I have no words with which to condemn this use of force against the weak. During the Second World War the allies accused the Nazis of using the right of force. Now the US and Britain are using force against the people of Iraq. They proclaim principles of humanity and human rights, but where do they apply them? They must realize that we Iraqis too have the right to life and dignity.
The Vatican, France, Italy and Russia have condemned the use of force and we ' the Church of Baghdad ' do the same.
FIDES: The American Secretary of State is visiting Israel; Bush and Blair will meet at Camp David. What is your forecast for the Middle East?
PATRIARCH: I am afraid that if the USA and Britain continue this way, the whole of the Middle East will be set on fire. This escalation of violence on the part of USA and Britain can push Iraq to retaliate out of desperation. The whole of the Arab world is now against the Americans and the British, and ready to commit violence against the USA and Britain in their own countries'The more Saddam is maltreated, the more he is applauded...think of the common good which peace can give to all, us and you. If we do not resume dialogue the ghost of a war is not improbable and we risk new chaos."
It seems that in the case of the Patriarch, his religious sense enhanced and confirmed his common sense. For many of us, our desire for a clean fight ' one between the "good guys" who represent everything comfortable, flashy, and exciting about the modern world, and the "bad guys" who simply fail to "modernize" and obviously resent us for our industrial, financial, and political strength ' obscures our vision of the true struggle that lies ahead. It is indeed a struggle against "evildoers," but the evil of bin Laden is a side note to a much larger, more powerful, and better-entrenched evil.
It is a struggle of liberation from the tyranny of immorality, the tyranny of capital, corporate industrialism, and materialism, and the ultimate tyranny of mindless pluralism which succeeds only in suppressing the Truth and in speeding us on our way to "a universal Brotherhood of nations ' a greater Judaism in fact ' [in which] all the separate races and religions shall disappear."
The race-less, religion-less, value-less, and truth-less universal brotherhood has marshaled all the PR forces at its command to defend itself, and to turn a brief (intentional?) financial setback into unrestricted triumph. "This is a Religious War,"screams Andrew Sullivan in the headline to his October 7th article for the New York Times Magazine. The subtitle gives us an all-too-clear indication of just what he means: "The Osama bin Ladens of the world ' like the leaders of the Inquisition and others before and after them ' demand that all embrace absolute faith. Individual faith and pluralism were the targets Sept. 11, and it was only the beginning of an epic battle."
God grant that this pluralism may be defeated ' a pluralism which is a poor disguise for the triumph of Judeo-Masonic will ' and that the clear light of the Faith may shine brightly. But that won't happen unless we put ourselves, and others, on guard ' on guard against insidious attempt to dismiss and distort the truth in the wake of the chaos of 9-11; on guard against attempt to turn the WTC and the Pentagon into icons of "individual faith" and "freedom;" and on guard against the attempt to turn opposition to bin Laden into a vindication and defense of the west's public, institutional apostasy.
by John Sharpe
Mr. John Sharp is the Editor of The Legion of St. Louis.
To be continued