A liberal friend writes that, okay, so all religions are crazy, and the Muslims are, too.

He is wrong, of course.  All the great religions -- the ones that have grown over thousands of years -- have had periods of violence and war.  All the great religions except Islam have given up war and now practice peace.  That's the big difference.

Ninety percent of Muslims today may be peaceful, but they tolerate in their midst an explosive minority who can cite the Koran on violent jihad to convert the whole world.  Islam is only 1.4 billion out of 7 billion people on the planet, so the arithmetic, contrary to liberal defeat-mongers, does not favor Islam.  It favors tolerance, with the ongoing spread of Christianity (in China, Russia, and Africa), the existence of the State of Israel providing self-defense for the first time in two millennia to the Jews, the worldwide spread of Buddhism Lite (it's rarely real Buddhism) and Vendantist Hinduism (again, the McDonald's version).

If that's true, what's the fuss all about?  Why worry about 9/11, the Blind Sheikh, the Iranian madcaps, and now Egypt's Brother Morsi?  Because liberals are historically ignorant, arrogant, and stupid, and they are happy to surrender and be lied to on behalf of neo-fascism of the nuclear Muslim variety.  With suicidal Western policies, the new rise of religio-fascism with nukes could well succeed.

It's our nation and the Western Enlightenment that are at stake, and so far our leftist parties have happily betrayed their countries for money, oil, and power to beat domestic enemies.  When British PM Gordon Brown was campaigning for re-election last year, a nice lady asked him whether Britain's suicidal socialist immigration policies were not a little bit too much.  Brown, a truly dreadful ideologue, got back in his armored Bentley and was heard to tell his buds that "she's just a racist."

That is objectively mad, and it reflects the national suicide the socialists have brought to England and all European nations.  The fact that politicians in Europe are routinely bought off by Saudi oil billionaires shows how decadent and corrupt they have become.  Muslim radicals know perfectly well how corrupt and morally feeble we are. They test us and see it every day.

The problem is not that "all religions are violent."  That is sheer, unadulterated historical nonsense.  The Jews had a war against the Romans leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in 72 CE.  Christians fought the Crusades against Muslim invaders of Europe from the south and east, and Protestants fought Catholics until 400 years ago.  The Hindu Bhagavat-Gita is about a warrior's dilemma: can I kill my cousins in war without losing my spirituality?  That was some 2,500 years ago.  The rest of the world has seen plenty of religious war, too.

But all in the remote past, except for Islam.

Modern warfare is about secular pseudo-religions.  The mad nationalism that almost killed Europe since 1800 was purely secular, and it went very nicely with the killing and persecution of Catholic priests, not to mention persecution of the Jews.  It started with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French Revolution, the Terror, and Napoleon, who invaded nearly all of Europe for the glory of France.  That was nationalist imperialism, and it was proud to say so.  Napoleon started two centuries of revenge wars between France and Germany, including the Franco-Prussian War and World Wars I and II.  It was a purely secular, nationalistic madness.  Then the Russians covered up their historical imperial ambitions in the language of Marx and Engels and created a new ruling class to exploit the worker.  The Soviet workers said, "What is capitalism?  It is the exploitation of man by man.  What is socialism?  It's the opposite."  It was a bitter joke against their tyranny, which was, of course, just another secular power-grab with a truly mad ideology that some American liberals still claim to admire.

The last two centuries have seen little religious war, and mostly secular mass killings.  The Nazis were not religious, contrary to liberal superstitions, but a fantasy-driven creed mixing every secular madness (including nudism and astrology) in the same maelstrom.  They proclaimed themselves to be nationalist, racialist, and socialist, and they meant all three in a murderous way.

The whole liberal complaint about religion is two centuries out of date -- except in the case of radical warlike Islam, where it is all too timely.  The liberal answer to Mohammed is Marx, one reactionary extremist from the Arabian desert of thirteen centuries ago against another one from the Prussian Empire of 1848.  Mohammed and Marx both agitated for world-conquering imperialism, and dumbed-down libs think that the Marxist mass-murdering ideology is "progressive."

Obama was raised in a militant anti-Western group of seething leftists.  Those are the people he tells us he picked to be his friends and allies in college.  Those are the radicalized Democrats who brought him to power.  But because they look at the world upside-down -- imagine any acrobatic posture that fits -- they call themselves "progressive" when they are utterly reactionary -- throwbacks to a miserable pre-modern past.

Obama is therefore a radical reactionary who talks Hope and Change and acts according to the Bible of 1848, the Communist Manifesto, which rose out of the Prussian Empire where Marx grew up.  It is nothing but European imperialism of the worst kind, as Obama implicitly acknowledged when he slyly gave his first big international speech to the "Citizens of the World!" from the Prussian Victory Monument in Berlin.  These people love sly symbolic "up yours!" gestures, and that location and speech were filled with sly leftist word games.

If liberals are frighteningly ignorant and arrogant, Obama is even worse.  He is a deeply confused man, who is so stuck in his inner cult of Valerie and David and Michelle that he can't think outside that box.  His environmentalism would kill off all the blessings of the Industrial Revolution.  He is anti-scientific, not pro.  The Marxists told the world they were "scientific" for more than a century, while all their scientific predictions turned out to be wrong.  Some science, Marxism.

Obama represents the third or fourth wave of Marxism, in which the left forges an alliance with the biggest medieval throwback ideology in the world: desert Islam, as propagated by oil-fueled Wahhabi imams; Iranian Islam, which conquered the civilization of Persia and set it back so far that it has never recovered, now run by the Armageddon sect of the Twelvers; and yes, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, we now have the ur-fascists of the Muslim Ascendancy, the Muslim Brotherhood, in control of Egypt.  Who else do you think staged the assault on the U.S. Embassy?  In a police state, there are no spontaneous takeovers of great power embassies.  There are only government-run phony demonstrations.

Welcome to the great Islamic fallback to the truly horrific past.  Turkey is now ruled by a "neo-Ottoman" party.  Syria is deep in a civil war between Shi'ites and radical Sunnis, in which there are no good guys at all.  Iran is close to nuclear weapons, and when that happens, nukes will spread all over the unstable Arab world.

Thank you, Mr. Obama.

Obama has not been a naive bystander in this process of massive cultural regression, in which countless millions of women have been locked up in their homes, unable to even walk outside without a male family escort.  At every step in the last four years Obama hasn't hesitated to make everything worse, because Obama is a Leninist -- a third-world Marxist, as he tells us with overweening pride in Dreams from My Father.  His bio-dad was a Kenyan third-world Socialist, too.  Lenin's famous maxim was that you have to make things worse to make them better by taking over in a crisis and controlling society.  Obama is trying to do exactly that.

That is why Obama is a radical reactionary.  No "progressive."  Obama thinks the Egyptian fallback to the miserable past is a good thing.  It's an "organic revolution," as he told Hillary when they had their fight in the White House during the U.S.-aided overthrow of Hosni Mubarak.

Noam Chomsky came out the other day against Obama, saying he was worse than Bush and McCain, which we could have told him four years ago.  Chomsky is a nasty piece of work, another professor who spent his life perverting college kids to hate their country.  But he is an old-fashioned leftist, not the whacky postmodern variety (which he hates).  So he understands well enough that Obama is not his kind of leftist.  Obama is Malcolm X brought to life.  He is a leftist reactionary.

Said Chomsky:

If the Bush administration didn't like somebody, they'd kidnap them and send them to torture chambers. If the Obama administration decides they don't like somebody, they murder them.

And to really, really hurt a guy, Chomsky said Sarah Palin is right about Obama.

"I don't usually admire Sarah Palin," Chomsky said, "but when she was making fun of this 'hopey changey stuff,' she was right, there was nothing there."

Chomsky thinks Obama didn't go far enough, of course.  And like the mind-locked radical he is, he fails to understand anything except his own inner cult.  Still, Chomsky may discourage a few left-of-left-wingers from voting in November.

At a time of mass delusion, you take what you can get.