More on the Death Cult

William R. Hawkins has one of those essays up on Front Page Magazine which I profoundly wish that I had written myself. Emphisis indicated by bold type is mine:

. . . rather than dwell on how Islamic fundamentalism is able to motivate suicide bombers and insurgents, it is more important to look at whether American civilization can still motivate resistance to such assaults. Has liberalism already so weakened society’s will to fight back that even leaders and soldiers committed to do so cannot succeed?

British historian Jeremy Black, looking at Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, described a “bellicose society.” One in which “killing was generally accepted as necessary, both for civil society– against crime, heresy and disorder– and in international relations. War itself seemed necessary....it was natural as the best means by which to defend interests and achieve goals.” There was also a strong sense of “glory and honor” among the elites, and “by modern Western standards, a large percentage of males served in the military.” This Europe was expanding across the globe and would dominate world affairs for 500 years. It would also produce the United States as the offspring of imperial ambitions.

It is against these values that liberalism has struggled for centuries, its success corresponding with Europe’s decline. It is seen in both domestic and international issues. It is not just today’s Democrat Party leaders who oppose every new weapons system and embrace every disarmament agreement. Historian Heinz Gollwitzer, looking at the 19th century, found “Left-wing liberalism, in so far as it was doctrinaire, put up a strong fight against armaments and power policies, the acquisition of non-European territories, the establishment of naval bases and, above all, the retreat from its economic principles.” Those principles became increasingly socialist. The British scholar Bernard Semmel has argued that liberals advocated expanded welfare programs “against the alternative use of available tax revenues for armaments.”

[Snip]

It is clear that the objective of liberal policy is not to be more effective, but to uphold liberal values. If this means losing a war, so be it. It is better to accept defeat than to adapt to the needs of an illiberal world.

[Snip]

In contrast, Islamic fundamentalists harken back to the glory days when Moslem armies swept across the world from Spain to India, and Mohammed himself approved the razing of villages and the beheading of opponents. They inhabit {and enshrine) the kind of bellicose society that liberalism has done much to bleach out of America. The result is that despite having brave soldiers armed with high-tech weapons who win every pitched battle, American society teeters on the edge of military collapse from a lack of will to do what is needed, on a large enough scale for a long enough period of time, to defeat Islamic militants in any theater of current combat.

Militant Islam’s war against the West is not just normal, it is perpetual. If campaigns of conquest are not possible, then ghazi (raiding) warfare is to be conducted. This is more than mere “terrorism.” It is the tradition of weakening bordering communities by attrition until conquest is possible. That the London plotters were from Pakistan, whose theater of conflict is Kashmir, on the Indian frontier of Islam, indicates that they see a world war, not a struggle limited to Gaza, Lebanon or Iraq. Many Moslems have been recruited into extremism while living in the midst of liberal societies (like London), having found their surroundings decadent and corrupt. Thus liberalism’s much vaunted ideals of tolerance and passivity are seen by foes as a lack of honor and strength.

You really should go read the rest.

Left-liberalism is a death cult. Those who embrace it are suffering from a form of suicidal compulsion. Like the degenerate gambler, the alcoholic or drug addict or the woman who clings to a savagely abusive relationship even when family and friends would provide her a way out the end result which they truly seek is self destruction.

That the leftists most dearly held desire is to die is a matter of absolutely no consequence to me. The world would be vastly better off without them. After all do we really need more idiotic performance “art”, shitty poetry, interpretive dance or “documentaries” like Fahrenheit 911?

But that the leftists want to take me and mine with them is unacceptable.