“Support the West Not Islam,” were the highly contentious words on my sign. These words got me in constant, interesting and vital arguments with those on my side. Cordoned off by police barricades, my side was the one supporting Israel's retaliation for constant rocket attacks.
I made the sign as none of the ones our organizers distributed mentioned Islam. The signs simply addressed Israel and Hamas. Our signs failed to educate people about the clash of civilizations. They gave no reason for supporting Israel. If the conflict is just one nation against another, the West has no stake in this fight. Obviously, the Israelis’ cultural roots and values align them with the West. The Islamic world backs Palestine. Sides exist.
Two young ladies gave me an interesting challenge. They claimed their Muslim friends were not against the West and I was alienating and defaming their friends by carrying the sign. I also have a nominally Muslim friend from whom I fear no terrorism. But she supports the West precisely because she does not take Islam seriously. The vast majority of Muslims do no harm. But that reflects laziness, not fidelity to their faith.
Someone barged in to our conversation, “Then why aren’t they here?” It was a rhetorical question, but one that packed a punch. When push comes to shove, even my good friend is on the Palestinian side.
Subtly, culturism does not posit that one side is right and the other wrong. Obviously both groups believe in their side. It is actually pathological for people not to believe in their side.
With rare exceptions, Muslims will support Muslims and westerners should support westerners. Love it or hate it, this is just the culturist nature of the world. Sides exist.
Read the whole thing over at John's website.
3 comments:
John, good on ya. As people begin to see the enemy named, the more thoughtful among them will begin to question the pro-Islam propaganda. There are varying shades of this in all conflicts: in WWII probably more Americans spoke of the enemy as the Nazis and the "Japs" than as the Germans and the "Japs". Yet it was the Empire of Japan that declared war on us, and we were at war with the political ideologies of both nations, manifested in those who fought against us. With Islam it is more difficult because it more identifiably a religion as well as an ideology. (How many Westerners in WWII were fully aware of the importance of Shinto and Bushido in motivating the Japanese?) We are constantly told to "respect" Islam qua Islam.
The identification of core beliefs of a major world religion as fueling a war against the West is traumatic for most people. That's why I hold that full awareness will not happen until the violence affects people directly and continuously enough that they are compelled to identify the enemy in the name of survival. At this juncture it is more comfortable for many Americans to, in effect, side with the enemy. No one is lobbing rockets into their back yards, their kids aren't being blown up on their way to school, the tourists in the Ritz aren't being tortured and shot, no one has flown jetliners into office buildings for, oh, 7-8 years now, so electing a president with the middle name "Hussein" and a Muslim background doesn't even faze them.
All this will likely change radically over the course of this year. We will need every single awake and aware person in this country, and that will require encouraging them to think with a swift kick in the intellectual pants. Naming the enemy is one of those kicks.
What's a war if you can't criticize and vilify the enemy's ideology? Good work, John!
I really like John's message. There ARE sides. The only "side" neutrality leads to is suicide.
Post a Comment