YEAT’S “ROUGH BEAST”* IS ISLAMOSTAN
Jay B. Gaskill
The jihad terror game is intended to shake up conditions in the middle East until a single Pan-Islamist state can emerge; this vision contemplates a nuclear armed, oil funded Islamist world power, one fully capable of intimidating the West.
To achieve this grand vision, all non-cooperative governments within and without the region must be overturned or neutralized.
I will be calling this super-power-to-be Islamostan@, and its driving purpose will be the establishment of The Islamist Imperium.
World weary Europeans seem all too complacent at the prospect. Even to some Americans the possibility of a large Islamist state might once have seemed less than apocalyptic. But the following factors changed everything:
September 11th, 2001. The virulently anti-Western, anti-Israeli, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish Islamist ideology is strongly entrenched in Saudi Arabia where it is held in check only by the corrupt royal family, and deeply embedded in Pakistan where the moderate leanings of the current government rest on a single pro-Western figure against whom there have been failed assassination attempts. Iran’s ruling mullahs (the country’s proto-democracy having been hijacked by these extremist clerics) enjoy access to nuclear bomb-making technology and the funds to buy more. Millions of disaffected, rootless, humiliated Islamic males are available as willing foot soldiers in a jihad against the West and its putative puppets in the region. For them, this will be “jihad-as-therapy”, a potential vindication for failed lives, a failed economic system and an otherwise discredited ideology masquerading as a major world religion.** With the recent exception of the new governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, the moderate and/or pro-Western rulers in the region are perceived as illegitimate. The Western European countries who are in the direct line of fire are disabled by a combination of circumstances both political and psychological; they include the massive infiltration of large Islamist sub-populations that refuse assimilation, and a set of current governments infected by a multi-culturist mindset, seemingly impotent to decisively address the threat.
A seventh factor might have ensured the eventual triumph of the Islamist Imperium.
But the jihadist’s catastrophic miscalculation on 9-11-01 rocked the American mindset and changed government policy.
But for that shock, this country’s foreign policies might well have been dominated by isolationists in the tradition on WW II’s German sympathizers. Instead, the architects of the Islamist Imperium now face an awakened American administration, zero tolerance for terrorist-harboring regimes, and a proactive campaign to seed the region with moderate democratic regimes.
I grant to the critics of the current administration a certain measure of wisdom born of prudence and caution. But the very notion that we might retreat into isolationist complacency belies the very nature and gravity of the threat.
We find ourselves as if projected by a time machine to pre WW II Europe at the very birth of the Third Reich, yet armed with the knowledge of what might unfold if the train of events is not stopped.
The Islamist Imperium must not be allowed to succeed.
As it happens, history has given this nation, whether in coalition with like minded allies or not, all the resources and intelligence needed to defeat this mindless jihad and to guide events in a more benign direction. The question at hand is whether we can retain the will for the long term.
Our failure would allow the birth of a new multi-state tyranny with the power to nuke American cities at will. Its rulers would belong to a fringe sub-culture that calls suicide murders “martyrdom operations.”
Peaceful co-existence? It would make the cold war seem like a cake walk.
- The current unholy jihad was eerily presaged in a vision of William Butler Yeats, (1865-1939) who was a poet, a Celtic Mystic, and (as is now painfully apparent) also a prophet. As he wrote in his poem “The Second Coming”:
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
… somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
… what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
@ Should the Islamist extremists ever adopt this name, beware: That event will have signaled the achievement of a pan-tribal, pan-ethnic unity based on Islam. The suffix, “stan” is derived from the Persian term for nation; as the Middle East “street” knows all too well, Persians aren’t Arabs!
** I am not one of those critics of the Islamists who is willing to discredit the entire corpus of Islamic religious thought and practice because some fanatics have taken up arms against the civilized world. But the embedded differences are serious. Recently, Monsignor Walter Brandmüller, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, gave a speech honoring the birth of Pope St. Pius V . As Brandmüller put it: [The] “biggest difference between Christianity and Islam” stems from its view of human nature. “[T]he concept of the equality of all human beings does not exist, nor does, in consequence, the concept of the dignity of every human life.” The Islamic view holds to “a threefold inequality: between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, and between freeman and slave.” In this schema, the man “is considered a full titleholder of rights and duties only through his belonging to the Islamic community” [and] “The most irrevocable of these inequalities is that between man and woman, because the others can be overcome — the slave can be freed, the non-Muslim can convert to Islam — while woman’s inferiority is irremediable.”