The Old World Order VS The New World Order

In his commentary, Islamic Extremism May Save Western Civilization, Mark Glenn draws an interesting conclusion: the Arab/Islamic world is equated with the Old World Order and the Western/"Christian" world is equated with the New World Order. One would assume that this means that the Arab/Islamic world is backwards and stagnated, while the Western/"Christian" world is forward and progressive. Glenn begs to differ.

Glenn's assertation is that the Arab/Islamic view is one of traditional family values, that which Christianity once stood for but only does so now as political advantage and not from a religious standpoint. Glenn suggests that the Christianity of the Western world says one thing while it's actions proves another: Christians say they support family values and yet they support Bush whose own father heralded the New World Order; furthermore, Bush has not made a firm stand against non-family values: homosexuality, pornography, or sodomy.

Although I do not fully agree with all of Glenn's arguements, what I did find interesting is how he explains our (the Western) involvement in the Middle East and why we are so determined to create a pro-Western base there. He states that the Arab/Islamic world is the only roadblock for the New World Order. So long as there is one region fighting to maintain traditional values, then the New World Order cannot be complete. Glenn also summizes that if the Arab/Islamic world manages to defend itself and hold back the Western movement, then Christians will have the Arab/Islamic world to thank for preserving the very values they pretend to cherish.