Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (8)
In “The Weird Beards Are Winning” (18/2) I said that identifying the enemy is an essential precursor to developing a winning strategy. By the way, I am not using the perpendicular pronoun to claim any revelatory insight. It is not revelatory. It is the bleeding obvious. How is it possible to defeat an enemy you are too intimidated to name?
Islamism is the enemy. World domination is its goal. Yes, I know, that’s been mostly tried in movies. But it has been tried in real life too. And here we go again; despite the witless wishing and hoping on the part of our effete political elite.
Islamism is a fanatical ideological movement which draws its inspiration directly from a literal (not an invented) interpretation of Islamic scripture. It is pursuing its goals on two fronts. First, by way of terror and militancy to gain ground and intimidate Muslims into allegiance (join us or get your head cut off is a powerful persuader aimed at 1.6 billion Muslims). And, second, by way of politicking, preaching and populating to weaken and collapse the fabric of Western civilisation.
Attention! This is an important message to all those of us who believe they are making some telling point by saying that ISIS forces are killing more Muslims than Christians and Jews. Of course they are. There are more of them in the vicinity; and the game plan is to cow the rest. Don’t worry, don’t feel left out, our turn will come.
Take an optimistic leap; assume that our leaders begin seeing the bleeding obvious. What could and should be done to defeat Islamism? Hopefully that decision point will be reached before it becomes too late and the West’s own defeat looms.
A first thing not to contemplate is a war lasting 100 years, as per the assessment of former Australian army chief Peter Leahy. If it is to take a century, we — Western civilization — will lose. Only religious fanatics have that kind of resilience. And that is quite apart from the power of demography.
Muslim populations are growing relatively rapidly. Pew Research forecast the Muslim population of the world to grow at twice the rate of non-Muslims in the period from 2010 to 2030. The Muslim population in France over the same period was forecast to grow from 7.5 to 10.3 per cent of the total; in the UK from 4.6 to 8.2 per cent and in Germany from 5 to 7.1 per cent. How robust theses figures are I don’t know but they appear to be conservative in assuming a steep decline in Muslim fertility rates. Once you go beyond 2030 conjecture largely takes over.
Different fertility rates and immigration levels can radically change the outlook. However, it isn’t hard to construct scenarios which would see Muslims forming the majority in the UK, in Germany and in France in fifty years’ time, never mind in one-hundred years. But more to the point Muslims have proved to be squeaky wheels. They need far short of a majority to make themselves heard and have disproportionate influence.
As Raphael Israeli puts it: “Muslims of Europe today, varying from 5 to over 10% of the population of each country, have already made an impact in domestic politics in their country of shelter” (Muslim Minorities in Modern States. These aren’t the kinds of migrants to simply busy away making themselves as wealthy as they can in their new lands of opportunity. Representative bodies with political agendas grow like Topsy. Clearly, they have already succeeded in creating a rift between Europe and Israel and, by doing that, between Europe and the United States. It is not hard to imagine a time when as Mark Steyn writes America [is] Alone.
The question is how to defeat Islamism, and quickly. Of course, I don’t know the answer. But when has that stopped me? And, in a sense, faced with a crisis to which our political leaders appear oblivious, it might be incumbent on us all to give the matter thought. Here is my go at it. At least, as I see it today.
Islamism has to be fought abroad and at home. A total war is called for. The war abroad is simpler in concept than at home. I suggest it would have two components. First, a standing coalition of air, sea and ground forces led by the United States would root out and kill Islamic militants and terrorists immediately they raised their ugly mugs. Second, military and international aid to, and trade with, Middle Eastern and North African countries would be made absolutely contingent on their governments clamping down on any growth of Islamism.
The war at home would need to be more nuanced. It is time to broach a difficult subject. Islamism has to be in the West’s cross-hairs not Muslims. Muslims living in the West must be treated equally and with exactly the same consideration as shown to people of other faiths and to those of no faith. At the same time, we must recognise that many moderate and peaceful Muslims are potential fodder for Islamists. The question is how these two imperatives are brought together and handled.
I suggest that an essential step would be to severely restrict further Muslim immigration. This would mean excluding many good people who would undoubtedly contribute to the national life of their destination countries. However, it takes only a few to cause enormous damage and to lead others astray. It is simply not safe to go on inviting Muslims into tolerant societies when they have allegiance to a faith that has, through the ages, been a wellspring of intolerance. Tolerant societies are by definition ill-equipped to deal with intolerance.
A second essential step would be to adopt a ‘broken windows’ approach to Islamic extremism. Public financial support, including taxation exemptions, would be totally withdrawn from any institution — mosque, school or charitable organisation — which allowed extremism (as defined) in words or deeds to flourish for more than half a second.
A third step would be to cancel the passports and deport those with foreign citizenship who exhibited Islamic extremist behaviour.
A fourth step would be to tighten up those aspects of the welfare system which reward cultural practices inconsistent with societal norms, such as de jure or de facto bigamous relationships. This might also save public money but that would be an incidental benefit.
To those who think that these steps discriminately profile Islamism, well, they are right. If Presbyterianism were ever to turn intolerant and violent we should profile that too.
A great fifth step would be to revive a sense of patriotism and pride in national life. Unfortunately, in all Western countries the schools, the universities and the mainstream media have been largely taken over by national apologists. It is a pity about that. It makes us weaker in the face of an Islamic foe which believes in its superiority and, ironically, with so little to feel superior about.
I am sure that better and more complete strategies to defeat Islamism could be developed by those with expertise in such matters. The problem is that Obama and company seem only to have a Mr Micawber strategy that something will eventually turn up. Well, if we are not careful, the something that will turn up is men in baggy black outfits carrying butchers knives and blow torches.
P.S. The above steps might be avoided by finding jobs for budding terrorists. This suggestion comes courtesy of US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf.
The most powerful tool would be a strengthening of the Christian church. This is the real enemy of Islamism and therefore its most potent adversary. But the churches don’t seem to have any spine in the matter, and they’ve allowed postmodernism and Darwinism to consume their logic and theology without a struggle. But if I were a politician I’d be talking to the churches and suggesting that they lift their game, and asking what I could do to help. And if any more battles are fought overseas, send in the missionaries after the armies.
I flirted with mentioning a Christian spiritual revival as an important bulwark against Islamism but thought it was even more unlikely than any revival in national pride. Sad to say. Peter
Pgang
you are thinking within the square. And to some degree so are you Peter.
you both look to the past and past values to defeat Islamic extremism.
I’d suggest we in the west continue with our great liberal traditions. We can adapt to change. We always have done. That has bought us to where we are and it has seen off all of the challenges to our way of life.
Christ led to change. The great philosophers led to change. The enlightenment led to change. The industrial revolution led to change.
The great medical and technological advances of the 21 century led to change.
Today the technological changes will lead to greater changes. We can create body parts from a few cells and a 3D printer. We can sent things into space without needing rockets or aircraft. Robots are accentuating our advances.
Islam and the other ancient religions merely drag everyone back to the past.
Even madmen cannot stifle nor will overcome our development.
Where Islam will waste people we will deploy machines.
Our civilisation needs recognize our strength, protect it and foster it.
Our strength is our ability to change adapt and grow.
None of the ancient religions can do that. Christianity will do as it has usually done since the enlightenment. Recognise its basic rile and apply that. The current Pope is part of that process if renewal.
Islam cannot survive except in the most backward of societies.
Our best chance is to not become backward and that includes not looking backward for the past to produce our ultimate victory.
Keith Kennelly, your comments seem to indicate that you have no idea about the nature of Islam. Your advice that we should simply carry on being good Christians would appeal greatly to Muslims generally, whether radical or peaceful, while steadily gaining ground by the force of arms in the Middle East and by out-breading the indigenous populations of their host countries in the western countries. Naive, passive confidence in our invulnerability is foolish, to say the least. As for counting on the influence of the current Pope to save us, forget it! He is a Marxist bleeding heart with pitifully poor grasp of reality. Among other things, he believes the nonsense called Human Induced Catastrophic Climate Change. Enough said.
Bill Martin.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revonutionary act” comes to minmd.I feel Dr Ben Carson in his book “One Nation” addresses some of the issues mentioned above with good answers. I also would recommend his prayer breakfast speech with Obama in attendance.
Bill
The last thing I suggest is to carry on being good Christians.
I suggest we continue on with our traditions. Only one of which is a religion which, has one or two golden rules, but which tends to adapt as with all our other traditions.
Islam will lose relevance. What we are seeing is its death throes. The fundamentalism of the Saudis, ie Wahabism, the rivalry of the two sects, and the ancient tribalism cannot survive the influence and growing sophistication of the West.
The civilisations of Christianity and Islam have always clashed and the resources of each were relatively equal. Swords and armour, then rifles and artillery.
Now Islam isn’t confronting a religion it is confronting a highly sophisticated civilisation of which religion ie.
Christianity, is now only a small part.
Cheers
Keith, I ardently hope you are right saying that Islam is in its death throes. Sadly, though, demographical realities, particularly in Europe, indicate otherwise. If present trends continue – and they are likely to accelerate rather than decline – major European countries will have a majority oh Muslim populations sometime during the current century and with aggressive assistance from oil-rich Muslim countries, will elect islamist governments. Certainly, the deadly rivalry between the various flavours of Islam will come to Europe as well, so that they will be murdering one another in an expanded arena, but that is of no comfort. The process described is being greatly assisted by “enlightened, progressive” thinking by hordes “useful idiots”, continuing to insist that Islam is a religion of peace and terrorism is a perverted version of Islam. No lesser dignitary than Angela Merkel reportedly stated recently that “Islam belongs to Germany”. Still, let’s hope you are right.
Regards,
Bill.
I have posted my thoughts on the Islamic threat to civilisation before. For those who have not seen them:-
It is not Islam per se that must be fought but its totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can be secular, as seen in extreme leftist political entities such the Nazis and Communists, or it can be religious as in the theological totalitarianism of Islam. Secular totalitarians killed around 100 million people last century.
To date the theological totalitarians have killed far less in comparison, mainly due to their incompetence and the lack of means rather than their lack of desire. We in Australia have been very lucky so far, even though our security forces have been quite competent, the biggest thing that has saved us from far worse atrocities than we have already experienced has been the incompetence of those who would commit terrorist acts. From David Hicks through to Monis they are all noted more for their ineptitude than their malice even though they all harboured considerable hatred to our freedoms and the Western way of life.
Theological totalitarians are harder to overcome than secular totalitarians because, unlike most secular totalitarians, they are not afraid of death. In fact many of them even welcome it. This makes it extremely hard if not impossible to reason with them or do any sort of negotiation with them.
To my mind Christianity has never been totalitarian in its basic philosophy or its social/political goals even though Joseph Ratzinger [retired Pope Benedict] supposedly once said ‘the best antidote for political totalitarianism is ecclesiastical totalitarianism’. However being aware of Blaise Pascal’s dictum that ‘Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction’ has made me think that atheism does has some positive aspects.
I would never trust totalitarianism of any sort, but most especially not that of Islam. Mad mullahs with atomic weapons may cause a new ‘dark ages’ from which civilisation and mankind may not survive.