Is it wrong to say that I love Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? (Even if I love the cat here more?) It is, because Iran is responsible for the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq (and Afghanistan); he and his country are killing Americans, and he has said publicly that there’s not a thing America (i.e., Booosh) can do about it. But that’s not why I’m tempted to love him; for his dressed down look: suit with no tie, open shirt, his rakish beard and five o’clock shadow? - no, that’s nothing in my affection in comparison with the way he sticks it to Western liberals. If I were an Islamist, this guy would be my superhero: he is on the cutting edge of showing up all that is stupid, hollow, waffling, effeminate, and plain weak in our dying Western culture. Islam is on the offensive (“Iran now has 6,000 centrifuges”), as Hilaire Belloc not so long ago predicted. That’s part of the reason why I have always supported the war in Iraq: taking the fight to militant Muslims, somewhere, anywhere, is better than sitting on our duff at home.

Now if there are Muslims out there who want to live in peace with their Christian and Jewish brothers in a happy pluralist society, that’s great. I have no gripe with them and I’m not suggesting that we take the fight to them. But they cannot claim to speak for Islam or, for example, for 40% of Muslim students in Britain who favor the imposition of sharia law upon all Muslims living in the UK. Those are the Muslims whom I am talking about, and the Muslims who are making things happen around the world, mostly by killing people, but other times by playing the political game and forcing one concession after another from Europe and America.

But what can those living in Europe, even if they were willing, do? Since their population is more and more Muslim each day, it doesn’t look good for Europe in the long run. I’m not sure that there is anything that can reverse that process. White Europeans first abandoned the Catholic Faith and then the natural law; now they must lie in the bed that they have made. But as a stop gap measure, they ought to cease concessions (e.g., the “Archbishop” of Canterbury endorsing sharia for Muslims in the UK) and, wherever possible, require integration. This will be painful for them, though, because it requires them to believe, first of all, that the white man’s civilization has something in it worth fighting for. Practical considerations will, in the end, convince them - you know, when they lose their gay bars and beaches and pornography at every corner shop.

Please God, in America, we won’t have to face the next few years of Islamic expansion with Barack Hussein Obama at the helm. Wouldn’t that be ironic! He laid out his pansy approach to the great war with Islam in his speech in Berlin:

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

I’ll give John R. Bolton the last word. In response to these lines, Bolton wrote in the Los Angeles Times:

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn’t see all these “walls” as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that “walls” exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

Tearing down the Berlin Wall was possible because one side — our side — defeated the other. Differences in levels of economic development, or the treatment of racial, immigration or religious questions, are not susceptible to the same analysis or solution. Even more basically, challenges to our very civilization, as the Cold War surely was, are not overcome by naively “tearing down walls” with our adversaries.