Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Jihad by the Numbers

In his masterful second volume study of Hitler, Hitler, 1936-1945: Nemesis, Ian Kershaw discusses a phenomenon called "working towards the Führer," in which every Nazi Party organization, member and office automatically, with little or no prompting or prodding by Hitler or his inner circle, worked to realize the ends and policies articulated by Hitler before and after he rose to power in 1933. It was automatic, because to disagree with or have reservations about a single, even minor aspect of Nazi ideology was to court reprimand, censure, dismissal, or even death. Agreement with those ends and policies was nearly a secondary motivation behind any Party member's actions. He was compelled to act, regardless of the consequences. The ideology commanded it, and the Führer's will and vision were irresistible, because there was little or no self to resist them.

As Party members who disagreed or expressed reservations were dismissed, or abandoned the Party, fled, committed suicide, or were murdered, monsters of the first rank filled the vacuum to formulate and enact policies that more completely "worked towards the Führer," monsters such as Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Göring, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and Joseph Goebbels. When all the checks within the Party against total irrationality in domestic and foreign policies were removed or fell into disrepute, total irrationality took over totally.

But the average Party member strived to satisfy Hitler, regardless of how minor or major the action and regardless if it stood to be acknowledged or rewarded. To be a true, loyal, above-suspicion Nazi meant the near total surrender of one's ego, mind and self, and to substitute them with Hitler's own.

Of course, an Ellsworth Toohey might say that the joke was on the rank-and-file Nazi: he would claim that Hitler was essentially selfless, and that what little mind Hitler possessed was founded on what he thought his followers and "the people" wanted and expected of him as prophet and dictator. Ayn Rand, in The Fountainhead, describes that phenomenon through Toohey:

"...A world of obedience and of unity. A world where the thought of each man will not be his own, but an attempt to guess the thought in the brain of his neighbor, who'll have no thought of his own but an attempt to guess the thought of the next neighbor who'll have no thought - and so on...around the globe. Since all must serve all. A world in which man will not work for so innocent an incentive as money, but for that headless monster - prestige. The approval of his fellows - their good opinion - the opinion of men who'll be allowed to hold no opinion. An octopus, all tentacles and no brain....An average drawn upon zeroes...." (1).
It is no accident or fluke of history that Islamists - Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, Saudi Wahhabists, the whole ménage of Islamists and jihadists -- admire both Hitler and Nazism. Their hatred of Jews and Israel is merely one facet of that pathology. As Nazism required the complete submission of the individual to Party ideology and an unthinking, unwavering deference to Hitler, Islam requires the complete submission of the individual to Islam and an unthinking, unwavering deference to Allah and Mohammed. Islamists have long recognized that both the method and the ends of Nazism were in complete agreement and practical accord with their own. The "mechanics" of a functioning Islam differ in no fundamental way from the "mechanics" of a functioning Nazism or any other brand of total collectivism, as described by Toohey above. (2)

(One historical note: Kershaw points out that Hitler once entertained the idea of solving the "Jewish Question" by helping to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, where all German and other European Jews would be forcibly "relocated" and presumably - hopefully - perish in a wasteland of desert and hostile Arabs. He dismissed the idea because he feared that such a state could possibly become a political adversary dedicated to destroying Germany. Historically, the ironic joke is on Hitler. He destroyed Germany and the Jews turned the wasteland into a productive, prosperous garden.)

With that in mind, here is a set of significant statistics forwarded to me by a friend. It charts the progression of Islamic jihad, both soft and hard methods, whose purpose is to establish a global caliphate, especially in the West.

It begins by stating:

"Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system."
I would disagree. It is definitely a religion and a political system combined. Any attempt to "separate" mosque and state would emasculate Islam. I have argued this point in past commentaries and will not dwell on it here. And cults, if not opposed by reason and kept by it on the far fringes of a civilized society, have a tendency to become religions that may become state policies. Ecology was once a "cult." Today we have the Environmental Protection Agency.

It goes on to state:

"Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components."
Or a mask, or a ruse. But no one should doubt how seriously Islamists and Muslims in general take the religious component. Islam is a barbaric but fully integrated system, perhaps more lethally integrated than was Nazism.

"Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'"
I would defend anyone's right to believe in Islam. The question is: How could one truly practice Islam without declaring jihad on others? After a Muslim has won the "internal struggle" or jihad within himself, the next step is to wage it against all others. To refrain from that part of jihad is to risk the accusation of being a slacker or pseudo-Muslim. From the first stage to the last, all such effort constitutes "working towards the Prophet and Allah."

"When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agreed to 'the reasonable' Muslims demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source: CIA: The World Fact Book, 2007).

"As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country it will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone...."
Here is where it becomes interesting. Note throughout the exponential scale of Islamic influence as the percentage of Muslim population per country increases. Comments in square brackets are my corrective interjections.

  • United States: 1.0

  • Australia: 1.5

  • Canada: 1.9

  • China: 1.0-2.0

  • Italy: 1.5

  • Norway: 1.8

  • "At 2% and 3% they [Muslims] begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs."
  • Denmark: 2.0

  • Germany: 3.7

  • United Kingdom: 2.7

  • Spain: 4.0

  • Italy: 4.6

  • "From 5% on they [Muslims] exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal ("clean" by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves - along with threats for failure to comply (United States)."
  • France: 8.0

  • Philippines: 5.0

  • Sweden: 5.0

  • Switzerland: 4.3

  • The Netherlands: 5.5

  • Trinidad & Tobago: 5.8

  • "At this point, they [Muslims] will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, or Islamic law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

    "When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris - car burning). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam, Denmark - Mohammed cartoons, murder of Theo van Gogh)."
  • Guyana: 10.0

  • India: 13.4

  • Israel: 16.0

  • Kenya: 10.0

  • Russia: 10.0-15.0

  • The one anomaly in this set of statistics is Israel, which has not experienced uprisings and threats of violence. Its Arab or Muslim population enjoys equal political rights with Jewish Israelis. The suicide bombings and rocket attacks that have killed hundreds have been perpetrated by outsiders.

    "After reaching 20% [of a population] expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
  • Ethiopia: 32.8

  • "After 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:"
  • Bosnia: 40.0

  • Chad: 53.1

  • Lebanon: 59.7

  • "From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and jizya, the tax placed on [conquered] infidels:"
  • Albania: 70.0

  • Malaysia: 60.4

  • Qatar: 77.5

  • Sudan: 70.0

  • "After 80%, expect state-run ethnic cleansing and genocide:"
  • Bangladesh: 83.0

  • Egypt: 90.0

  • Gaza: 98.7

  • Indonesia: 86.1

  • Iran: 98.0

  • Iraq: 97.0

  • Jordan: 92.0

  • Morocco: 98.7

  • Pakistan: 97.0

  • Palestine: 99.0

  • Syria: 90.0

  • Tajikistan: 90.0

  • Turkey: 99.8

  • United Arab Emirates: 96.0

  • I question the inclusion of "Palestine" in this set. "Palestine" simply means space occupied by stateless "Palestinians" in Gaza and the West Bank, and is the name of the state which Islamists wish to replace Israel, once it is destroyed. Turkey, after decades of having a secular, non-religious government, is beginning to turn "religious," and seems to be yearning for the kind of Muslim government that cleansed the country in 1915 of non-Muslim Armenians in a genocide that predates the Holocaust.

    "100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' - the Islamic House of Peace' [more correctly, dar-al-Islam, or Land of Islam]. There is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim."
  • Afghanistan: 100.0

  • Saudi Arabia: 100.0

  • Somalia: 100.0

  • Yemen: 99.9

  • "Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

    "'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.' Leon Uris, The Haj.

    "It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average[s] would indicate.

    "Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat."
    Hammond's book is sponsored by the Frontline Fellowship, a Christian organization, and the book itself was published by Christian Liberty Books. The Frontline website contains several endorsements of the book by clerics and missionaries. The quoted paragraphs above were "adapted" from Hammond's book (by whom, is unknown), and not very professionally. The statistics themselves were compiled by the CIA and used in the book.

    The first paragraph of the Frontline ad for the book reads:

    "Dr. Peter Hammond's new a fascinating, well illustrated and thoroughly documented response to the relentless anti-Christian propaganda that has been generated by Muslim and Marxist groups and by Hollywood film makers...."

    For a detailed exposé of Islam's Marxist affiliation - as distinguished from its symbiosis with Nazism - see Daniel Pipes' "[The Islamist-Leftist] Allied Menace," of July 15.

    So, regardless of the book's Christian orientation, the statistics Hammond uses to cite the various Muslim populations in each country can be taken as reliable, as well as the prefatory remarks before each set of percentages. There is certainly a demonstrable and observable corollary between a country's Muslim population and the influence it begins to have or has had on its government, politics and culture.

    The Islamists are coolly "working towards the Prophet and Allah" as shown in the numbers above. Meanwhile, our policymakers appear to be a succession of compliant, pragmatic, non-judgmental zeroes blindly working towards the conquest and extinction of the West.

    (1) The Fountainhead, pp. 667-668, Plume-Penguin Centennial Edition.
    (2) "During the 1930s, Palestinian Arabs under the leadership of the Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, had embraced a great deal of Nazi ideology." From Denis MacEoin's "Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2008.


    Joe said...

    Ed, this is valuable info... The direct correlation between the percentage of Muslims in any given population and the incrimental growth in related problems is about as convincing as anything I've seen. That along with your drawing parallels to the Nazis' self perpetuating ideological selflessness should make this plain to anyone.

    I wonder how many people actually "get" it when confronted with this type of stuff?


    guftafs said...

    Thanks for the interesting summary.

    Wonder what explains Israel as anomaly.

    The solution has to be to cut off the hydra's head, that is to destroy the Iranian regime and any other regime thereafter with ambitions to spread unreformed Islam.

    madmax said...


    This was another well written and informative post. But I have a question related to it. These statistics are often raised by Conservatives who use them to ultimately stress one thing: namely the importance of restricting immigration. In fact, they use these statistics to assert that open immigration in general is unrealistic and harmful and that Muslim immigration in particular must be completely eliminated. Some even go further and assert that the US should start a planned program of deportation of all Muslims.

    My question is how to reconcile these statistics and what they imply with Objectivism's stance on open immigration? If we let in more Muslims we too will have the problems Europe has. I don't have an answer for this. On one hand I recognize Islam as the worst of the Monotheistic religions and an enemy of civilization. But Islam is carried through by individual Muslims. Do Mexicans have the right to emigrate here but not Muslims? Immigration is one of the hardest topics for me to reconcile with Objectivist political theory.

    Roxanne said...

    Very enlightening, this part of Kershaw’s book, Ed. Thank you for writing about it.

    "As Party members who disagreed or expressed reservations were dismissed, or abandoned the Party, fled, committed suicide, or were murdered, monsters of the first rank filled the vacuum to formulate and enact policies that more completely “worked towards the Führer,” –

    Isn't that happening already in the US? Certainly in the Democratic party, most decent people, who believe that the US is worth defending, are gone. In the Republican party, the same phenomenon is happening at a slightly slower pace. In general, most decent people want nothing to do with politics- as the issues are solely about which regulations to enact, and whether to end economic freedom on this or that issue this year or next week. The government ignores or debates about its sole justifying purpose: our physical defense from enemies! Decent people who used to do be in the government, stopping the more vicious, irrational legislation and regulations, encouraging and advocating rational acts of the United States self-defense against our enemies, are leaving or are gone. And so 9/11 happens: the result of many instances of legislative, judicial and bureaucratic irrationalities, all placed in the way of the minority of souls who still believe it’s worthwhile and their responsibility to defend the United States.

    People are looking to the government for help. The government is in very dire straights. It will be up to us to demand rational actions from those in the government. That will require a significant minority be self-educated about the issues, be willing to talk about and advocate for those issues, and hope we don’t get jailed for doing it while we’re at it.

    Rp said...

    Thanks Ed for those wonderful Islamphobic insights. Speaking the truth should definitely earn you a fatwa. Watch your back, we need your rants and warnings and great reporting of the imminent collapse of Western civilization. Keep up the good work, but how ‘bout finding something inspiring or at least something which has a glimmer of optimism about it. I can't find Galt's Gulch and the economic/political news is so depressing I sure could use something uplifting from someone as smart as yourself. I wonder, are all Objectivist just angry, or does individualism make for poor social interaction with others who are not always as rational or self-assured as Howard Roark?

    Edward Cline said...

    Thank you all for your comments above. RP: Yes, I too would like to discuss something inspiring or uplifting, and, believe me, I search for positive things to write about. But, some matters need my immediate attention. I receive tons of fan mail for the novels, and that's inspiring enough for me.

    Ed Cline

    Mike said...

    Nice projection there, RP. Most Objectivists go about their lives not much differently than the rest, though I contend that many are in fact HAPPIER by not feeling saddled with the guilt of religion or the self-hate of leftism. Ed's particular expertise is political writing, and the issue he now examines through rational analysis leads inevitably to the conclusions he has articulated. To dismiss it as "Objectivist anger" is as blind a shooting of the messenger as anything I've ever seen. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt with you, apparently.

    Dan said...


    Regarding the quote, “Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.”

    I'd add that this is the Christian author's/publisher's attempt to defend religion. It’s an attempt to distance themselves from a religion with a similar ideological heritage as their own.

    Ed said...

    Note for RP: On second thought, your comments are a bit hostile and very ambiguous. I don't "rant," I'm not an "Islamaphobe," and, for your information, I have received threatening notes from jihadist wannabes. No, not all Objectivists are "angry"; some are just more alert and worldwise than others.

    Mike: Thanks for your comments on RP's.

    Madmax: I confess I'm at sixes and sevens on the immigration issue, as well. The "Official" Objectivist position is for open immigration. However, technically and actually, we're at war, whether or not the State Dept. and Bush and Company, Pelosi, Kennedy, et al. realize it. Hugh Chavez, for example, has allowed Islamists to operate a special camp in Venezuela to train jihadists to pose as Mexican legal and illegal migrant workers. During WWII, the U.S. did not have an "open" immigration policy (in fact, the U.S. refused to accept most Jews trying to escape Europe). So, it's a "Sophie's Choice" conundrum. If the U.S. was a free country that respected individual rights, then open immigration would be a rational and just policy. At the moment...observe the mess.


    madmax said...


    Thanks for your response. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has some confusion regarding immigration. I agree with your conclusion, if America were a free and rational country, immigration would not be the problem that it is. But with America in the state it is, the situation truly is a mess.

    madmax said...

    "I'd add that this is the Christian author's/publisher's attempt to defend religion. It’s an attempt to distance themselves from a religion with a similar ideological heritage as their own."

    This is exactly right. Anti-Islam Conservatives are mostly Christian Apologists. Take for example Robert Spencer. His latest book has the title: "Religion of Peace, Why Christianity Is and Islam Is Not." The title tells you all you need to know.

    Rp said...

    Dear Ed,

    I wish to apologize for my comments. I was trying to inject a little humor into what I intended as a compliment about your post. From your first response, I figured you had gotten the joke about the irrational response any discussion of the facts about Islam can produce among Muslims. It’s a serious matter of course, and I should have kept it serious.

    No, you don’t rant. I selected that word as a transitional term from the joke to the compliment because rant is what a jihadist might use when characterizing your post. I was being serious about my concern for your safety. Hopefully you document and report any threatening notes to the authorities, and you do “watch your back”. I respect and enjoy reading your work. Maybe if I had also mentioned and thanked you for your books (of which I have all but the latest in my library) you would have realized I was not being disrespectful.

    I get the put-down about angry Objectivists and deserve it. I can put my foot in my mouth obviously and do not pretend to be nearly as “alert or worldly wise” as you. Thank you for at least being a little tactful and helpful rather than totally alienating and disrespectful ― which is no way to win respect or influence thinking.

    Again, I apologize. I’m really sorry if I offended you in any way. Stay safe, keep up the good fight, and laugh when you can.

    Respectfully yours,

    mark said...

    Dear Ed,
    there is a thing in your post I have not understood i.e., which is the real muslim percentage referred to Italy. In fact, in the post, are reported two percentage for Italy.

    Thank you.

    Ed said...

    Mark: Good question, which percentage, 1.5 or 4.6, truly reflects Italy's Muslim population? Since posting this commentary, I haven't been able to access the CIA site that contains the percentages, so I can't say which. I would surmise it would be the larger figure, since Italy is often the destination of Muslim "boat people" crossing the Mediterranean from North Africa. And considering the prefatory remarks before the 4.6 figure, that Muslims begin to exercise damaging influence on a Western country's government and culture, I'd go with the 4.6, as well. Remember that the late Italian journalist, Oriana Fallaci (who was in NYC on 9/11 and wrote damning indictments of Islam, worldwide and in Italy) was charged with offending Muslims in Italy and if she'd returned (other than in a coffin), she would have been tried and probably imprisoned (aside from having to have her life protected fatwa fatheads angling for the reward money). That's a measure of how far gone Italy is.

    RP: Apology accepted. May I suggest that you clue readers in that you're being humorous. I've made the same error -- being humorous but forgetting that my hearers may not have the same context -- so, you're not alone in that respect. I imagine everyone does that at least once in their lives.

    MadMax: Another factor in an argument against "open" immigration to the U.S. is the welfare state, which is just as big a draw as the chance to work. Back when there was no welfare state, most immigrants came to make a new start as free individuals (all except the criminally minded). This factor is overlooked or down-played in most Objectivist arguments I read or hear about open immigration.


    madmax said...

    "Another factor in an argument against "open" immigration to the U.S. is the welfare state, which is just as big a draw as the chance to work."

    I agree. Many Objectivists argue that immigrants can't get welfare benefits for 5 years after becoming a citizen. But they can get free health care and free education. That is significant. Also, there are the victimless crime laws which attract as you say the criminally minded. Today, drug dealers can make more than hard working people albeit with alot more risk. The phenomenon of Mexican gangs is not deminimus.

    It seems to me that open immigration in the context of an *advancing* welfare state infected with the cancer of multicuralism and during a time of war against a vicious Borg-like force such as Islam is borderline suicidal. But I'm sure the debate will continue.

    Seerak said...

    I am also not 100% set with the principle of open immigration, and I say that as a fully legal immigrant myself. My main concern is simply this: if we don't screen at the border, how do we determine who is and isn't an incoming criminal/disease carrier/enemy combatant?

    In my view, someone who is outside the country seeking to enter, is not yet legally inside the geographic area where a country's laws apply -- a legal space I call the "civil order", where civilian -- as opposed to military -- law prevails. Among other things, this space is defined by the fact that police have the legal power to wield force, while military personnel are civilians.

    Outside the civil order, however, it is different. The role of the military is to secure the civil order from outside threats and incursions. By the nature of what they do, they have certain powers and prerogatives that the police properly do not.

    Among them is variable application of the "guilty until proven innocent" premise -- that is, the military can and should have the power to demand "who goes there?", and to unilaterally determine, to its satisfaction, whether a person is a friend or foe.

    In times of war or serious external threat, this function can extend all the way to closing the borders, barring entry (if not exit) to all who do not meet stringent standards and checks. In times of peace, and/or at borders with friendly and stable nations such as Canada, the border can be completely open -- but the military would retain the prerogative to secure that border if circumstances in Canada were to change in a threatening manner.

    Among other things, my idea would mean that the Border Patrol and other such functions should be conducted under the auspices of the military, not the civilian authority -- as the latter only has the power to act within the civil order.

    So unless I've made a mistake somewhere, the role of the military would necessarily include the prerogative, under objectively defined criteria, of border checkpoints under certain circumstances, and other prerogatives (such as detaining people pursuant to "friend or foe" identification) which the civilian police power would never have. So, border checkpoints and the exclusion of suspicious individuals as an aspect of security can be legitimate; however, once someone has passed muster, they have the right of entry will all protections due them under the civilian law.

    madmax said...


    You are the first Objectivist I know of to suggest that the military be in charge of border control. I have to think about it more but that seems to me to be the right approach, especially in a time of war. I also wonder how much scrutiny should be given to Muslim immigrants and even further, to Muslim aliens and citizens given that one phase of this war is cultural; ie cultural Jihad in the various ways that Ed has discussed in his many posts on the subject.

    Conservatives make the argument that "libertarianism" (and they clump Objectivists together with libertarians) is incapable of defending a nation because full freedom would lead to disaster. And some open immigration arguments I read seem to support that. But I wonder if that is because many open immigration arguments are based on a rationalistic understanding of rights and freedom. I think it needs to be understood and stressed that a fully rational cultural would not be a suicidal one. Reason and freedom are not impractical. Thanks Seerak for showing this.

    narayanan said...

    Where does India fit into this data analysis with about 20% muslim population?

    Ed said...

    Narayanan asked where India fit into the picture with his cited 20% Muslim population. Well, the CIA reported 13.6%. I can't explain the difference; I didn't calculate the percentages, the CIA did.