Eidelberg Report – Tamar Yonah Show, INR – December 11, 2006 Updated

Democracies cannot win a protracted war in an era in which their opinion makers have been indoctrinated and emasculated by the university-bred doctrine of multicultural moral relativism.

This relativism, which inclines liberal democracies to pacifism, corrupts 75-80 percent of American social scientists. These academics provide the experts of our policy makers and decision makers, as well as the mandarins of the mass media. Whether studying journalism, political science, sociology, psychology, etc., they have been taught there are no objective standards by which to determine whether the way of life of one individual, group, or nation is intrinsically superior to that of another. All lifestyles are morally equal. Hence there are no moral grounds for preferring the American way of life to the Islamic way of life.

This is a denial of evil. By denying the enormity of evil, relativism fosters sentimental humanism. This humanism underlies the strategy of “post-heroic” warfare, which would not only avoid casualties to your own troops, but also to avoid killing enemy civilians.

One would have to impose censorship on the universities and the media to conduct a war-winning strategy against Islamism and its global jihad.

Let me quote Nonie Darwish, that gallant Egyptian writer who immigrated to America in 1978 and has lectured around the world since 9/11. In her book, Now They Call Me Infidel, she refers to an authoritative Muslim leader who brazenly said this to Christians: “Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you” (p. 144).

Darwish discerns how Muslims exploit the freedom of speech of liberal democracies to spread Islamism on university campuses where Muslim student organizations freely preach Islam, obscuring its history of despotism. She notes, moreover, that liberal professors are equally if not more radical than any imam in a radical mosque. And most mosques, she warns, preach anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and jihad.

Darwish, the daughter of a famous shahid, but educated by Christians as well as by Muslims, writes that “In the Muslim world there are no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims; all are Muslims” (p. 135). Moreover, “there is nothing America or the non-Muslim West can do that will meet with gratitude and appreciation…. To the contrary, good deeds of non-Muslims toward Muslims only deepen their sense of dependency and inferiority … [and resentment]”

Darwish deplores the media, especially CNN, which has contributed, she says, to Arab hatred by regularly criticizing America. The media, she argues, have failed to inform the public that the 9/11 attack was an attack not only on America. It was an attack by the haters of civilization. Yet the public, and even college students, are largely misinformed about this culture of hatred. A huge PR campaign, supported primarily by Saudi money, has spread across U.S. campuses selling Islam as a religion of peace. But that’s exactly what
President Bush told the nation the day after 9/11!

As I wrote in New York nine days after 9/11, democratic America lacks the concepts and perseverance to win the war against Islamic Jihad. I’ve mentioned the dispiriting influence of relativism. Add the fact there are some 150 billion Muslims on this planet. Daniel Pipes estimates that 10 -15 percent (or 150-225 million) support jihad. Robert Spencer reports estimates of more than 50 percent.

To win any war, one must be ruthless. The compassionate Abraham Lincoln understood this, which is why he was so frustrated with timid generals until Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman came on the scene and ravaged the South to win the Civil War. Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this, which is why Dresden was napalmed. Harry S. Truman understood this, which is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized. Today, when Israeli generals go abroad, they face the threat of being indicted as “war criminals” for having defended their country against Arab terrorists! They are shouted down as “war criminals” at American universities.

Higher education has eroded American resolve. Contrast the following. A CNN poll just days after 9/11 showed that 76 percent of Americans said they would support military action against al-Qaeda even if it meant 5,000 troops would be killed. Today, 56 percent are resigned to the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and less than 10 percent supports military action to prevent that deadly outcome.

Why don’t college students know that a nuclear Iran could dominate the Middle East and the oil resources of the Persian Gulf? Why don’t they know that a pacifist Europe, already Islamized, would succumb to nuclear blackmail? Why don’t these student know that the loss of Europe would wreck the American economy and radically curtail the scholarships and funding on which the education and careers of these students ultimately depend? Why this ignorance or indifference?

Multicultural moral relativism erodes the American people’s confidence in the justice of their own cause vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism. Like the mandarins of BBC, those of CNN, ABC, NBC, USA Today, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, choke on the word “terrorism.” The same may be said of Barack Obama. This is not all.

Moral relativism has degenerated into “moral reversal.” The clearest example of this metamorphosis is the media’s coverage of the war between Israel and the PLO-Palestinian Authority. Whereas the victim, Israel, is portrayed as the villain, the villains, the Palestinian terrorists are portrayed as the victims. This moral inversion is conspicuous on university campuses, where Israel has been demonized.

But what is singularly significant, without denying the pivotal role of the race card, multicultural moral relativism prompted the large percentage of academics that voted for and facilitated the dovish Obama presidency. It should also be emphasized, however, that by curtailing American military power, Obama has promoted international anarchy.

Meanwhile, Obama has fostered a “culture of American self-hatred,” the inverse, ironically, of Islam’s culturally-induced hatred of all infidels!

Self-hatred, which is typical of the American Left, has influenced Hillary Clinton, whose mentor was the anti-American radical Saul Alinsky. Clinton’s goal in the 2016 election was to further the program – really the treachery of Barack Obama. Recall that his slogan in the 2004 presidential campaign was CHANGE, which signified nothing less than his sinister ambition to de-Americanize America. This corresponds to the “G’D damn America” malediction of his guru pastor Jeremiah Wright, a patron of the Left.

Hence we may thank the unrefined and very American Donald Trump, a political outsider, for bringing America back to its senses by relegating Hillary to the political wilderness, which the forthright Mr. Trump might inelegantly refer to as a political outhouse.☼