A day doesn’t go by when some left-wing journalist or academician pontificates on why we are fighting a war against the Islamists. They twist their beliefs in every which way to meet their predetermined vision of reality.
They are stuck in what Thomas Kuhn labeled a paradigm. Now, paradigms are very useful because, as a sort of world view, they help us make sense of the world we live in. But paradigms not only define reality – but confine it as well. That is to say, when facts arise, those that fit nicely into the paradigm are accepted and challenges that don’t fit the paradigm’s world view are discarded as irrelevant.
In other words, if all you have is hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The nail in our case is the war against Islamic-fascism and a good example of this type of carpentry thinking is an article by Sam Vaknin. In an attempt to pound the nail of Islamic-fascism into his liberal world view, he tries to equate Islam with liberal democracy with the same old tired Leftist arguments of victim hood, moral equivalency, and the non-existence of right and wrong, good and evil.
At first, his definition of the threat we face is correct.
“Islam is not merely a religion. It is also - and perhaps, foremost - a state ideology. It is all-pervasive and missionary. It permeates every aspect of social cooperation and culture. It is an organizing principle, a narrative, a philosophy, a value system, and a vade mecum.”
So far so good.
“Militant Islam is, therefore, not a cancerous mutation of "true" Islam. On the contrary, it is the purest expression of its nature as an imperialistic religion which demands unmitigated obedience from its followers and regards all infidels as both inferior and avowed enemies.”
But then he reaches for that ideological hammer.
“The same can be said about Democratic Liberalism. Like Islam, it does not hesitate to exercise force, is missionary, colonizing, and regards itself as a monopolist of the "truth" and of "universal values". Its antagonists are invariably portrayed as depraved, primitive, and below par.”
It gets even better. First he plays the victim card.
“Moreover, the misbehavior of some countries - not least the United States - led to the legitimization of terrorism.”
He then poses the question, “Would you rather live under sharia law? Don't you find Liberal Democracy vastly superior to Islam?”
“Superior, no. Different - of course. Having been born and raised in the West, I naturally prefer its standards to Islam's. Had I been born in a Muslim country, I would have probably found the West and its principles perverted and obnoxious. The question is meaningless because it presupposes the existence of an objective, universal, culture and period independent set of preferences. Luckily, there is no such thing. “
No such thing of objective right or wrong? Good or evil? Has this man heard of the Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights?
Then finally he hammers in the equivalency nail.
“This is not a clash of civilizations. Western culture is inextricably intertwined with Islamic knowledge, teachings, and philosophy. Christian fundamentalists have more in common with Muslim militants than with East Coast or French intellectuals.”
I see. Fundamental Christians are the same as Islamic terrorist. And this guy writes and publishes books.
He then takes a passing swipe at nationalist and shows his true colors as a socialist globalist in the vein of George Soros.
“In other words, I regard militant Islam as a catalyst that will hasten the transformation of the global power structure from unipolar to multipolar. It may also commute the United States itself.”
Ah!! The EU and French dream! We can see how well that dream is playing out right now in Europe - high taxes, high unemployment, and a Muslim immigrant population that would rather dominate than assimilate.