To answer the headline, here's my brainstorming on what idea, exactly, whose time has come:
1) The most immediate implication is to withdraw from the global war on terror. Uncle Paddy has been saying for some time now that it's futile. Given the expansion of wahhabist islam, like he points out is happening in Morocco, we're on the losing imperialist side. Perhaps fair?
2) Since Islam is high between Morocco and Pakistan, cede all terroritory, including and especially the western nation Israel, to the jihadists? For the sake of stability?
3) This is more tinfoil hat territory, but I'll say it: time for white Europe to convert to Islam? Is that what he's getting at? The muslims are in favor of the noble idea of merging mosque and state, therefore they are better than us, so we should join them?
4) Adopt a pre-Vatican II style government, so that the muzzies will not attack us? At least be less decadent, so that the caliphate will eat us last? No thanks, Paddy.
It's a damn good thing the Europeans didn't follow this approach a few centuries back. You cannot withdraw from this battle, because the Islamists will eventually bring it to you in your own country - in fact, they already have.
"Islam is peace."
-- GWB, 9/01.
Paddy has the gift of gab and no realistic answers as usual.
His third party kind gave us Carter and Clinton.
I don't read that into this particular essay.
It is disappointing that Patsie validates the "blame others for our own dysfunction" worldview of arab islamics.
The interesting aspect of this essay is the highlighting of the radicalization of the arab world. The radicals will have to follow up on their rhetoric, the death cult will do what it has done consistently for the last 1400 years, and we will be forced settle this once and for all -- Asian and Western civilization against arab/Islamic barbarism.
Islamic nihilism makes any of the fluff put out by Marx and the post-modernists look like kindergarten story time. The arab/islamic culture is not and never will be ready for prime time. No matter how messed up we get, failure against the grand masters of dead end ideology is pretty much out of the question.
Get real and answer Pat's question. Pat pointed out a problem for the West. Do you think the best army on earth will stop an idea? Ideas e.g. Communism can be defeated by other ideas. Neither the Jewish or the Christian religion has been wiped out by 4000 years of armies.
Pat, thank God those fine folk from 1938 didn't listen to your kind, else you would have written that article on something called a VolksWriter.
Islam's biggest flaw is that there is no such thing as "Islam" in the sense that the "mosque" and "state" can be reunited. Pat incorrectly portrays this as a clash between Islamic and Western civilizations, when in fact there is no place in the world today where one prominent Islamic civilization exists without being involved in a constant, ongoing conflict between multiple sects of Islam. The future of a state reconnected to Islam is not one of peace, stability, or anything remotely resembling virtue and spirituality. The more likely scenario is one that is currently being played out in the West Bank and Gaza, where two different Islamic elements (Hamas and Fatah) are engaged in a simmering conflict that will pretty much gaurantee that the place remains a Third World sh!t-hole for a thousand years.
Islamism is not as popular as its cheerleaders in the west like to pretend. Mubarak allowed them to contest a tiny number of constituencies, while excluding the more popular reformers, so that anyone who hated him would vote for them. Now he can turn to the west and say, "stop pressuring me to reform or it will only get worse". As long as the mosques are the only independent organisations in Arab countries, there will be support for the jihadists.
But if you open up to real democracy, everything will change. And that is the process that is taking place now. Arab countries are, slowly, reforming. Despite Pat Buchanan, John Kerry, and all their allies suggesting that there will be civil war in Iraq and jihadism will win, the facts on the ground are against them.
So what is his solution? Last time I heard, it was to build a wall on our boarders. Does he have another solution?
What a crock - this is from the populist, Ross Perot school of politics. Spend all your time whining about the problem (as you see it), then ask what is being done to solve the problem. But nowhere do you propose a concrete solution. This is the current Demoncrat strategy - whine about the mean, awful Republicans, but don't offer ANY specific solutions.
If you offer solutions, people might actually analyze them and point out where you are wrong. Someone should ask Pat what he thinks we should do - but I am afraid he might write another article (knowing that no one will actually implement whatever he suggests).
As usual Patty is full of it.
You really have to wonder if he has ever been out of the country except on carefully orchestrated "tours"
At least be less decadent, so that the caliphate will eat us last?
The Wahabist considered the church socials in 1930's Colorado to be decadent.
It's puzzling that a dedicated, traditional Catholic as Pat Buchanan seems to be expressing admiration for Islamic militancy. We can justifiably take the West to task for its secularist, moral decadence, but that, I think, is used by the Islamists as an immediate excuse, and in no way does it justify the brutality of terrorism. I can be more Catholic than the Pope, but an Islamist will still consider me an "infidel" whose life is worth nothing if I don't follow the tenets of Mohammed and the Koran.
Only because the world's last superpower is holding its d*** in its hand and not really fighting. And that's only because of our puke liberals. If we ever cut lose on the muzzies, God (the real God, not Allah) help them.
And is it just me, or is Pat back on his meds again? This article almost made sense.
Capitulation or death are the options militant Islam offers the West. Assuming most Americans prefer a third way, the answer to the problem seems obvious: Adopt retaliatiatory ruthlessness as our governing foreign policy. Those who will never love us will at least grow to fear us.
While most would today recoil from proposals to answer a future 9-11 with, say, the erasure of Tehran, such reservations will evaporate with the next act of mega-terrorism in the U.S.
I'll say this: there is no such thing as time coming for an idea which is provably wrong, no matter how many people may temporarily believe it.
Islam utterly depends on the idea that there is such a thing as prophets and prophecy within our age of the world. That is provably false.
The last real prophet died around the time of Zechariah, something like 2500 years ago depending on whose ideas about chronology you subscribe to. Anybody claiming to be a prophet in 600 AD or anywhere close to that is a BS artist. The long version of that story is found in Julian Jaynes' "Origin of Consciousness" which can still be found in paperback at book outlets.
Prophecy involved using the human mind in a way which ceased to be possible long before the time of Christ. The only two remaining vestages of that antique paradigm for the use of the human mind are schizophrenia and hypnotism.
He managed to get surprisingly far into the essay before he started blaming the Joooos. It must have been a tremendous strain on the poor man.
I do not understand why every single non muslim religious leader is not touting the invalid beginnings of the religion of the plagarist pedophile.