Sunday, March 25, 2012

Islamic Jihad: Hurry Up or Wait?

“The difference between the "radicals" and the “moderates" is that the radicals want to engage in genocide even while they are a minority, while the moderates want to wait until they are a majority. The radicals are satisfied with killing a few Hindus, Christians, Jews, here and there. The moderates want to wait and kill millions. Neither are our allies. Both are our murderers.”

So wrote Daniel Greenfield in his Sultan Knish column of March 21st, “The New Nazis,” in response to the murders of a rabbi and three children in Toulouse, France, and to the murders of the French paratroopers by Mohamed Merah. He likens, and not for the first time, Muslim jihadists, their agenda, and their tactics, to those of the German Nazis. He ended his column with:

“The old Nazis marched in at the head of an army. The new Nazis bought a plane ticket. The old Nazis had to get by the French Armed Forces and the Royal Air Force. The new Nazis are welcomed in and anyone who says a word otherwise faces trials and jail sentences. The old Nazis deported Jews to camps. The new Nazis kill them right in the cities. And the killing will not stop until the Muslim occupation of Europe comes to an end.”

Greenfield is right. I would liken Islam to an ideological Black Death that must be faced up to by politicians and intellectuals. There's no such thing as a "benign" Islam. It is a death-worshipping ideology from top to bottom. And the only way to emasculate it is to repudiate it in its entirety.

The Black Death or the Bubonic Plague invaded Europe in the 14th century chiefly through Europe’s seaports. Ship rats carrying the Oriental rat fleas and passengers and crews of merchant vessels already infected by the fleas called on these ports and transmitted the disease to populations. The plague wiped out between 30 to 60% of Europe’s population over the course of two centuries, chiefly because no one knew what caused it or how to fight it. Beginning in 1346, it crept across Europe until by 1353 it had decimated all of Europe including a goodly portion of Russia. The Mideast was also stricken; many vessels calling on Italy, France, and England originated in the Black Sea. It would recede, then return many times over the centuries with diminishing potency, until the last outbreak of it in the early 19th century. The only nation to escape the Black Death’s first wave was Poland, which had no seaports, and Iceland, which had relatively little contact with Europe.

The Black Death was not welcome to Renaissance civilization. Political and religious leaders did not rationalize away its presence or its causes. They may have prayed for relief, or called it God’s vengeance, or perhaps blamed it on witches, but whatever they said, was said in ignorance of the causes. Suddenly, the plague was there and city streets filled up with the dead and diseased.

And today, just as suddenly, Europeans have noticed that their city streets were filling up with the living, walking, and arse-lifting dead, an invasion of them by invitation of their governments and often by the citizens themselves. The living dead wish to be accommodated in all things, which means gutting the cultures they migrated to and transforming them into replicas of the cultures they left behind.

I make no bones about my hatred of Islam. It isn’t the Rotary Club, or the Moonies, or any other harmless cult. Islam is as much a collectivist ideology as are socialism and communism and Nazism, and like those secular brands, its primary aim is total domination of their adoptive societies to the point that those societies become wholly Islamic. To submit to Islam is to voluntarily lobotomize oneself in favor of a ghostly authority and an iconic “prophet” who was basically a thug and a killer. Muslims submit to it, and expect all those around them to submit to it, or to defer to them.

Islam is the Black Death of modern times. It completes with secular totalitarianism. Its carriers are Muslims, who arrived by countless planeloads at the invitation and encouragement of western governments and proceeded to procreate and begin a process of insulation. At first these governments believed that Muslims would assimilate into the cultures they were migrating to, as though they were Christians of one sect settling into a country dominated by Christians of another sect. However, they were not Catholics settling in Lutheran Germany, or Episcopalians starting over in Catholic Italy.

There is no middle ground. There is no “reforming” Islam. Just as there is no “reforming” Nazism, or Maoism, or Stalinism. Islam is not a “buffet” religion; there is no picking and choosing which of its imperatives to adhere to, and which to disregard. The creed demands one’s full allegiance and obedience in every aspect of one’s private and public life, all one’s waking hours. That many Muslims do not live “by the book” is irrelevant. It’s their creed in whose name violent jihadists commit atrocities, and stealth or cultural jihadists corrode or corrupt Western social and judicial norms like bagworms consuming a tree’s bark, which means the death of the tree. The “silent majority” of Muslims dare not or care not to speak against the actions of their more zealous religious colleagues.

"Radical" and "moderate" Muslims aren't about to “reform” Islam to make it “tolerant” of other creeds or more palatable to their adoptive cultures. So that task must be accomplished by those who will be its ultimate victims, either as dhimmis, or corpses. The penicillins of multiculturalism, “diversity,” “tolerance,” “sensitivity,” moral relativism and plain political expediency are what have allowed the plague to kill so many and make significant inroads in Western civilization. It's time those who value that civilization to adopt the same "in your face" tactic as the violent and stealth jihadists have adopted. That will mean identifying Islam as a killer ideology. Period.

In his review of Abigail R. Esman’ Radical State on Family Security Matters, Patrick Donleavy noted:

“It would seem that the very strength of Holland’s democracy and tolerance became an Achilles' heel when it came to dealing with Muslim immigrants arriving from non-democratic, Islamic fundamentalist regimes.” [Italics mine]

The problem is that the Netherlands, like the U.S., has “democracy.” Democracy is mob rule. Should the Muslims achieve an electoral majority there, or even a significant minority – then The Netherlands is finished. As will be any other European nation that boasts both “democracy” and a Muslim population whose adults don't believe in condoms or contraceptives or self-restraint. Their “planned parenthood” strategy is to breed like rabbits with the aim of swamping indigenous populations with their numbers.

The antidote to “democracy” is a republican, limited government that upholds and respects individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, all concepts antithetical to Islam and any other species of collectivism. This is what the Founders intended. They abhorred democracy. Democracy means that the majority can nullify one's rights and seize one's life and property, and abridge one's happiness at will. This is what successive American administrations have been doing under the guidance of the Democratic Party, abetted by a politically bankrupt Republican Party. So, until Europe discovers the principle of individual rights, it is doomed to thrash about combating Islam without knowing what political system would make it impossible to conquer Europe. Banning burqas in France isn't going to prevent such a conquest.

The Economist ran a story on Mohamed Merah that is typical of mainstream media reporting of the killings. Unlike many other publications, It actually employed the term “Muslim” but with cautious qualification to underplay the Islamic motivation in the killings: Merah was segregated from his Muslim calling and branded as a “lone wolf”:

Yet the number of Frenchmen returning from al-Qaeda camps with such high-level training is only “in single digits” reckons Fran├žois Heisbourg, of the French Institute for Strategic Research. Isolated French Muslims, radicalized in Islamist training camps, have been foiled trying to mount terror attacks in France before.

Once the candidates resume their campaigns, Mr Sarkozy may emerge strengthened. Having flown straight to Toulouse after the school shootings, he has done a skilful job of being statesmanlike and solemn, yet in touch with the national mood. His Socialist rival, Fran├žois Hollande, has also sounded the right note, but from the shadows. Marine Le Pen, the far-right National Front candidate, may also benefit. She spoke out this week against confusing Muslims with fundamentalists, and denounced those who had at first accused her of being implicated for having fuelled racial divisions in France. “Putting real problems on the table in no way justifies the spread of Islamic fundamentalism,” she declared. The real issue, she added, was that such fundamentalism in France had been “underestimated”. [Italics mine]

Even Marine Le Pen, who is campaigning against Sarkozy on an anti-immigration and nationalist plank, found it politick to temper her words by claiming that Muslims shouldn’t be confused with Islamic fundamentalists. Which misses the point that Islam is inherently radical and can’t be divorced from its inherent fundamentalist tenets. That is, Merah’s motivations can’t be excised from Islam. What is already radical cannot be radicalized. One may as well deny that spaghetti is a form of pasta.

Merah wasn’t a “lone wolf” sociopath like Andre Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer. Merah was not acting out an episode of Sesame Street, but rather the imperatives of the Koran. He went to Afghanistan for jihadist training. His brother was a probable accomplice in securing Merah the weapons he used and stockpiled in his apartment. And the further the French authorities delve into Merah’s background and actions, the more they will find links to the “leaderless jihadist” network and Islam.

The Associated Press also commits the same error. Rewritten to excise any mention of Muslims and Islam, the original Associated Press article read:

PARIS - Authorities investigating France's deadly shooting rampage have released the mother of the Islamist fanatic blamed for the killings but were questioning his older brother to determine whether he served as an accomplice, officials said Saturday.

Police are trying to determine whether 23-year-old Mohamed Merah had any help in carrying out the execution-style murders of seven people that have shocked France and refocused attention on the threat of radical Muslim terrorists. Police say there is evidence to suggest that his brother worked as an assistant. [Italics mine]

The usage of the terms “Islamist fanatic” and “radical Muslim terrorists” is an instance of denial that a Muslim’s criminal action has anything to do with Islam. “Islamic fundamentalism” is a redundancy. One’s life is not jeopardized by “fanatical” Catholics or imperiled by “Mormon fundamentalism” because one isn’t asked by fanatical Catholics or Mormon fundamentalists to defer to their beliefs or even respect them. But such deference (and submission) is routinely required of non-Musims by Muslims and organizations such as CAIR, the ICNA, the MSA, and other Islamic front organizations.

I was reminded of an early episode of Star Trek, in which Captain Kirk and his crew land on a planet governed by 1930’s period gangsters, whose “bible” is a history of 20th century organized crime and whose customs and practices are followed to the letter by the society. It was an amusing episode written around an incredible premise.

And that reminiscence caused me to recall the ending of Francis Ford Coppola’s first Godfather movie. While Michael Corleone, acting as godfather of a son of a gang member he has had executed (his sister Connie’s husband), is attending the solemn baptism of his godson, on his orders rival gangsters are violently wiped out across the country.

That powerful, cascading sequence of scenes may be taken as the essence of Islam. There is no fundamental difference between Michael Corleone’s loyalty to the tribe and his concept of “family honor” and demands for respect, and that boasted of by Muslims. That is what panicked politicians and “moderate” Muslims must grasp here and in Europe before any progress can be made against the war declared and waged against the West by Islam. No compromise is possible between Islam and its utter and complete repudiation.

This is a philosophical conflict, and not merely a “religious” or political one. Islam’s spokesmen seem to know or sense this. Our “protectors” do not. The Mohamed Merah’s of Islam are in a hurry. The “moderates” are counseling patience.

We are their enemies. We are targeted for destruction or subjugation by both groups. Whether one views the Islamic incursions as a form of the Black Death, or as the corrupting influence of gangster government, the West must identify its enemy before it can be successfully opposed.

8 comments:

madmax said...

Ed,

This essay is excellent. But it begs a question. You have identified that Islam is evil and that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. You have also identified that the danger to Europe (and eventually America) is the presence of Islam which was brought there by immigrating Muslims.

OK, so now here is the million dollar question. What do we do now?

I am going to hit you with what Larry Auster hits Mark Steyn with. Steyn constantly complains about Islam but he never takes a stand on MUSLIM IMMIGRATION or the presence of Muslims in Western nations. Should Islam even be allowed to exist in America? Should Muslims be allowed to enter in America? And should we make start a deportation process to rid ourselves of the Muslim presence that is already here?

All these questions are legitimate and need to be answered. They also need to be answered with the way most Objectivists view individual rights; ie as a suicide pact. Never once in the last 1l years has ARI ever even addressed the subject of Muslim immigration. IMO that is pure corruption as Muslim immigration is the FIRST question that needs to be addressed NOT war policy as pretty much every O'ist foolishly focuses on.

You've come along way Ed. I hope you go further and deal with the folly of allowing a Muslim presence in Western nations at all and the absolute necessity of removing that Muslim presence.

Edward Cline said...

Mad Max: Will reply later.

Edward Cline said...

Mad Max: Yes, the column begs the question: what’s next? I haven’t sorted that out in my mind yet. And I haven’t really come a long way, as you remark. I’ve always questioned ARI’s “official” stance on immigration, both Mexican and Muslim, that stance being to open the borders to all comers. I would endorse that position with the proviso that first the welfare state must be abolished. Otherwise, the locusts would swamp us. And for the welfare state to be abolished, the government must be evicted from the economy and from the realm of personal liberties. No, ARI hasn’t really tackled the Muslim immigration problem; it’s almost as though it doesn’t exist to them.

As for how to rid ourselves of Muslims, that’s a tall order, as well. The best policy would be to make being here as uncomfortable as possible, which would mean forbidding them to practice their creed’s worst aspects – beginning with honor killings and restraints on non-Muslim speech that criticizes or mocks Islam. Governments and companies should stop accommodating Muslims in the way of prayer times, foot bathes, public (audible) calls to prayer, and even removing Islamic holidays from calendars. No time off for Eid or Ramadan or any other Islamic “festival.” Don’t like it, lump it, or go back to where those things are observed. If individual rights were strictly recognized and protected, the U.S. would automatically become an utterly hostile environment for Muslims (and also mooching Mexicans). I’d present them with an ultimatum: repudiate Islam, or go home. And if they’ve become citizens, warn them that the first time there’s a violation of individual rights, damn the Islamic culture and religion, the action will be treated as a legitimate crime.

It’s difficult enough to have to face the prospect of the secular statism of Obama and the Democrats. Islam presents an entirely different beast. I don’t pretend to have all the answers as to how to get the country out of the fix it’s in.

revereridesagain said...

I'd like to second both madmax's and Ed Cline's questioning of what I consider to be the totally out-of-context open borders policy advocated by ARI. That the U.S. is a welfare state which attracts freeloaders is an objective fact which must be corrected before any such open immigration policy can be rationally adopted. Allowing admission of non-apostate muslims, i.e., devotees of a powerful religious cult sworn to the destruction of all of Western civilization (by violence if "necessary), is indeed nothing short of a suicide pact. How they miss this seemingly obvious point is beyond me.

It's been my observation that most people will not take the difficult steps to correct a situation until its most dire consequences are staring them squarely in the face. That's not likely to change in the case of this latest Islamic conquest offensive. People don't need another 9/11 -- they need another Pearl Harbor, complete with the stunning realization of being outnumbered and outgunned by a ruthless militant empire, and the gut-level understanding that failing to correct that imbalance will result in conquest and/or death. Americans have not had that experience for 70 years. How many generations is that?

Ed's right that muslims qua muslims should be made as uncomfortable as possible. In other words, if you want to be accepted in America, ditch the ideology that commands you to destroy America and substitute your dark age raghead rules for our constitution. There may not be much to hope for out of the coming election, but if we are fortunate enough to at least remove the Muslim Marxist currently disgracing the office of POTUS, every advantage should be taken of any easing of the current hyper-pc climate of multiculturalism to put pressure on these Islamic invaders to stop demanding special treatment, and on politicians and other officials to stop accommodating them. The resulting screeching, whining, and demonstrating should serve as a useful irritation to the clueless and encouragement to the rest of us to keep the pressure on.

A recent commentor on another blog either arrogantly or sarcastically laid out a litany of the pervasive infiltration and co-opting of our institutions by muslims. It is on the same level as (and intertwined with) the Marxist infection that brought us the Obamullah. It may be even harder to eradicate due the pernicious effect of anti-"Islamophobia" propaganda and the superstitious reluctance of too many people to push back against any religion. So any green light on that effort should be seized upon with gratitude and glee.

Neil Parille said...

Mr. Max and Ed,

"Begging the question" means assuming what needs to be proven. It doesn't mean raising the question.

-Neil Parille

Tad M Jones said...

Given the declining state of western culture ie in the US the acceptance of pc attidudes codified antidiscrimination laws, how can individuals act in an ad hoc fashion to make muslims unwanted? Can a landlord refuse to rent based on religion, or can a shop owner refuse service based on religion(or ideology)?
Would it be possible to use states' rights jurisprudence, by having some state or states rewrite or add to their constitutions language to allow the recognition of the right of free association?
Culturally the climate seems more dire than when Miss Rand herself wrote on such issues.
I refuse to believe the course is inevitable, but it is becoming harder to even glimpse a flicker of light at the end of the tunnel.

Edward Cline said...

Tad M. Jones: To answer your questions;

Yes, you could refuse to rent to or otherwise trade with Muslims for any reason one chose, or for anyone for any reason. It needn’t be on an ad hoc basis. Though organizing others to participate in an ad hoc boycott of Muslims would be very difficult.

No, I don’t think resorting to a states’ rights tactic would do any good. State constitutions are generally a mess. And if one could by chance have such a “free association” amendment inserted into a state constitution, there would be a host of federal laws that would attempt to override it, either “legally,” or by extortion, e.g., withholding federal highway or welfare funds of one kind or another.

Yes, the culture and political climate are much, much worse than they were in Rand’s time. This is most evident when one sees how the Supreme Court justices have questioned the viability of Obamacare.

madmax said...

Excellent comment Ed. And you too riverridesagain.

Neil,

You're right. My bad.