Supporting Terrorist Values

In the 1930s, left-wingers in the West loved to criticize the “bourgeois, bloody regimes” of Western governments for their false facade of democracy and for exploiting workers. But one thing gave them away as blatant hypocrites: They never uttered a word of condemnation for Soviet leader Josef Stalin who during the ’30s slaughtered millions of his own citizens.

During the ’60s, the left condemned the United States again — this time for the Vietnam War. Leftists arbitrarily picked who were the sinners and who were the victims, forgetting the crucial fact that North Vietnam attacked South Vietnam. The other thing the left conveniently ignored was that the Viet Cong was infamous for its savage cruelty toward the enemy as well as civilians.

Likewise, human rights activists have a long list of grievances against U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan, but they are conspicuously silent about the Taliban’s atrocities.

At first glance, this does not seem to be a problem. The West survived those who admired Stalin, and it will survive those who admire Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born Islamist fundamentalist who publicly encourages terrorist attacks against the United States and other targets.

Nonetheless, there is a disturbing trend. In the past decade or so, we have seen the emergence of  “infantile humanitarianism,” which has become the dominant ideology of  a powerful force in society and on the global arena — nongovernmental organizations and the global bureaucracy.

Palestinian militants are a vivid example. In nearly every conflict between them and Israelis, most international organizations side with the militants.

We see a similar trend among European bureaucrats, which are ready to give Muslim immigrants everything — homes, money, education and loans — without any expectation that they should work for a living in return.

Soon, however, these immigrants start feeling like second-class citizens. Then a few decide to bomb the London subway, run out into the streets of Dutch cities celebrating the bombing of the Twin Towers, perform clitoral circumcisions on their young daughters on their kitchen tables and then proclaim that radical Islam is the only hope for humanity. At that point, the bureaucrats throw up their hands and respond: “Please tell us what else we can do to help you? What other social programs do you need? How much more money do you need to make ends meet?”

International organizations are always trying to find new ways to justify their existence — and continued government financial support for their expenses. As a result, a natural law has emerged under which every conflict that these organizations attempt to resolve never seems to end. This guarantees that they will always remain in business.

The main threat facing modern society is not terrorism, rogue leaders such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other dictators. The main threat is the false moral doctrine created by the bloated bureaucracy of international organizations that are driven by a hypocritical and infantile humanism.

According to this doctrine, free societies have no right to use military force to defend themselves against terrorist attacks, while every radical from Osama bin Laden to Ahmadinejad is free to spread terrorism across the globe. This doctrine justifies the radicalism of terrorist groups as “the rightful display of their traditional values” and condemns any military response to terrorism by democratic nations as “imperialist aggression.”