Elon Musk’s ambition to bring "civilization" to Mars has long been public knowledge, but fewer realized until recently that his vision involves specifically "Western civilization." Especially his statements, as the wealthiest oligarch on earth who assumes the role of the guardianship of the Western civilization against what he calls "the woke mind virus" over the last couple of years, have been an indicator of that.

The reactionary movement against the so-called woke ideology had already gained significant traction with many people. And as every reactionary movement needs its intellectual vanguards, this one had it in the person of Jordan Peterson, who came to prominence as the champion of "Western values," which, according to him, were founded upon the Western civilization’s "Judeo-Christian heritage." Initially, Peterson’s position seemed to many, especially and ironically to those in the non-Western world, to be reasonable and indeed refreshing. And it was a position that many people – and again, especially those in the non-Western world – thought was in diametric opposition to what the West itself, with its institutions, was trying to impose upon the non-Western world. This confused picture led to the strange situation in which someone like Peterson, who believes tacitly in the supremacy of the West, conveyed a message that resonated with many people across the non-Western world.

Thus, the anti-woke movement grew in popularity. And perhaps the final nail in the coffin for "the degenerates" was Musk’s acquisition of Twitter.

Yet, what is especially important about all of this is that it resurrected the narrative of the "Clash of Civilizations" – a concept introduced into political discourse by Bernard Lewis in his 1990 article "The Roots of Muslim Rage" and later turned into an entire theory by Samuel Huntington.

The anti-woke movement of which the likes of Peterson and Musk have been fanatical devotees, at its initial stage, had found its enemy within that same civilization that it professed to defend. After all, the so-called woke ideology was born in the West. At the current and crucial stage, however, that same reactionary movement is finally directed against the enemy, namely the non-Western world (and the Islamic world in particular). In fact, this accounts for the obsession that the defenders of Western civilization have with the nebulous term "Judeo-Christian heritage," which was originally designed, especially in the aftermath of World War II, to promote solidarity between Jews and Christians. For, by utilizing the notion of "Judeo-Christian heritage" as the foundation of the Western civilization, these crusaders exclude the Islamic tradition, which, incidentally, reintroduced the lost wisdom of ancient Greece to Europe – a contribution arguably more essential to the Western civilization than any alleged "Judeo-Christian" foundation. The exclusion is intentional: Rather than referring to Abrahamic values, they emphasize a "Judeo-Christian" legacy to designate the Islamic tradition as "the other."

Of course, none of this is grounded in the reality of culture or history. I need not attempt a detailed refutation of Huntington’s thesis of "Clash of Civilizations" here, as this has already been done by numerous scholars who are better able to do so. What I shall do, however, is point out a recurring trend. And for this, I shall go back to the roots.

While both Lewis and Huntington admit that the hatred of the Islamic world toward the West stems in part from the latter’s destructive policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, they do not find this explanation sufficient. Lewis writes in this connection that "when these policies are abandoned and the problems resolved, there is only a local and temporary alleviation." Of course, he conveniently underplays the gravity of the consequences of those policies, and he dismisses the facts on the ground altogether, i.e., that those policies have never been truly abandoned.

To prove his point that what he calls "Muslim rage" is not merely a result of the policies of the West but a permanent sentiment that has historical roots, Lewis contrasts the differing attitudes of the Islamic world toward the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the latter of which was even more supportive of Israel and more confrontative against the Arab states in their early years. Lewis contends, of course, that if it were all about the policies of the West, this wouldn’t have been the case. Yet he forgets one significant factor, which amounts to a refutation of his whole argument: Regardless of their "civilizational affiliations," people tend to direct their anger at the global hegemon rather than coincidental actors that may have played a certain unfavorable role at a certain period. It is not only the peoples of the Middle East but much of the global population that harbors disdain for the U.S. for this very reason.

Toward the end of his article, Lewis writes: "This is no less than a clash of civilizations – the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both." Here, the focus on the "Judeo-Christian" heritage, in view of the preceding considerations, is instructive. According to Lewis, the Islamic world is not only revolting against the destructive policies of the West but instead rivaling against its "Judeo-Christian" heritage. After all, as Jordan Peterson and company insist, Western civilization is founded upon that heritage.

Huntington followed Lewis' footsteps, arguing that the next global conflicts would be between civilizations. He maintained that "differences in culture, that is, basic values and beliefs," would be a central source of global conflict. One of those basic values and beliefs that supposedly form the Western civilization, which is destined to clash with the Islamic civilization according to Huntington, was democracy, and it was Huntington himself who complained paradoxically in the very same article about the spread of democracy in the Arab world: "In the Arab World ... Western democracy strengthens anti-Western political forces."

In a cautious move, Huntington conceded that states within the same civilization may also enter into a conflict. Yet, he argued, such conflicts are unlikely to be as intense as conflicts between civilizations. His prime example for this was the lack of serious conflict between Ukraine and Russia: "If civilization is what counts, ... the likelihood of violence between Ukrainians and Russians should be low." Of course, we know by now that this is far from true. And not only this particular example: Many conflicts in Africa seem to go unnoticed, for example, where the clashing sides belong to more or less the same civilization, if, of course, Huntington would regard theirs as a civilization at all, given his condescending attitude.

When Huntington predicted that "the next world war, if there is one, will be a war between civilizations," he was not merely presenting a facts-based analysis. Instead, he shifted attention from the Soviet Union to the Islamic world as the chosen enemy. Bear in mind that his article appeared not long after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which meant the end of the "clash of ideologies," so to speak. With the defeat of the communist threat, the West could now mobilize its destructive force against the "Islamic threat." Some were more enthusiastic about this change in policy than others. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu wrote a book in 1995, shortly after Huntington’s article, where he rejected the thesis that "the roots of Arab-Islamic hatred of the West" is "a contemporary phenomenon, the result of Western support for the Jewish state." He simply echoed Lewis and Huntington when he claimed that "the enmity toward the West goes back many centuries, remaining to this day a driving force at the core of militant Arab-Islamic political culture." The communist threat was dealt with, and now was the time to listen to Netanyahu and focus on the Islamic threat. Hence the war on terror.

Fast forward to today, and we see a familiar pattern. After a long war on terror, the West’s attention had shifted back to Russia. However, those who preferred a clash of civilizations, primarily against the Islamic world, did not like this. For it was both a waste of resources and a distraction from the real threat, namely "militant Islam." It is quite remarkable that, early on in the Ukraine-Russia war, it was the Israeli prime minister at the time, Naftali Bennett, who revealed for the first time that Boris Johnson sabotaged a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia that had been reached in Istanbul. It was as if the Israeli establishment wanted the attention back on "Clash of Civilizations," which had certainly proved more productive for their agenda.