QED

The Bafflegab of the West’s ‘Dhimmi Wits’

Apologists and rationalisers, who constitute almost all of the political and media class, prefer to keep the focus on ISIS as the model of ‘bad Islam’, rather than the broader creed of 1.8 billion from which the seeds of mayhem are scattered. Don’t they ever wonder at the difficulty of naming a Muslim-majority society which boasts internal harmony and doesn’t trouble its neighbours?

The West is almost completely saturated with “Dhimmi Wits.” This term is self-explanatory, I think. Unfortunately, I can’t claim authorship. I need to confess to flagrantly purloining it from the brilliant Religion of Peace website. It is too good and apt to be confined. Incidentally, do visit the site. Among heaps of information and statistics about the religion of supremacism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination, discord, hate and war it contains this gem:

Finally, please don’t send us a death threat unless you’re serious about carrying it out. The editor is tired of hearing from wimps who are all talk. In the event that you do want to submit a death threat, we have a special form for that. 

The Australian gave more space last week to someone who seems to be on the right side of the argument yet inevitably fails at the final hurdle and joins the inglorious order of Dhimmi Wits. This time it was Jason Thomas who teaches risk management at the Swinburne University of Technology. His emphasis was on dealing with violent terrorism. Fair enough. And I thought at one point that he’d got it. Listen to this:

The only way this [terrorism] can occur is for a web of supporters and sympathisers to continue to believe that the non-violent dimension of Islam is compatible with Western democratic values. It is not. As T E Lawrence said: “Rebellions can be made by 2 per cent active force and 98 per cent passively sympathetic.”

Then we get to his remedy and everything falls apart in a blither of jargon. I will spare you the full account and summarise. Basically, we have to conduct Einstein-like thought experiments on what the borderless Islamic threat looks like and to employ “asymmetric tactics…to deeply penetrate and destroy the movement from within.” Hardly believable? That’s exactly right. Academic bafflegab at its most iconic.

Terror comes out of Islamism, but Islamism is a product of Islam. Islam has 1.8 billion Muslim adherents and rising. Penetrate that if you can. Sure, you can cut one head off but given time it will grow again and, in the meantime, there are plenty more. Hydra doesn’t do it justice and, when I look around, I can’t see Hercules in the wings.

Consider all the hype that surrounded ISIS, as though it defined the problem. Get rid of ISIS, vintage 2013, and all will be well. Never mind the fourteen uninterrupted centuries of Islamic conquests, incursions and terrorism that went before. But you must see the trick.

The Dhimmi Wits, making up almost all of the political and media class, liked to focus exclusively on ISIS. That way they attempted to blinker you and me from focusing on the religion of 1.8 billion, which will forever continue to seed mayhem. Find a Muslim majority society which has internal harmony and prosperity and which doesn’t trouble its neighbours. Hard, isn’t it?

There is only one bulwark against Islam and its offshoots, Islamism and terrorism, and that is the nation state. In the distant past Christianity played a part. But the Crusaders are long dead and the churches and their leaders are impotent and besotted with the Dhimmi-Wit pursuit of interfaith dialogue. What amusement that must cause the imams.

Of course, the pantywaists went into a meltdown when Donald Trump said that he was a nationalist. Well, nationalism is the last stand against Islam. There is nothing left. Islam thrives on crossing borders. It always has. By open conquest or now, predominantly, by Hijrah (insidious conquest via immigration). Transnationalism, globalism, open borders, idiots waving “refugees are welcome” signs; these are all invitations to come and subjugate us.

But nationalism means more than having secure borders – deciding who will come in and, critically, who will be kept out. It defines who we are, our culture, our institutions, how we deal with each other. I am Christian and am never shy about proclaiming it. But my first port of call when asked about my identity is to say I am Australian. Australia gives me my living, my security, the wellbeing of my family. That is worth fighting for. Don’t ask me to fight for the world unless we are attacked by Martians.

We need something to fight for. The opposing forces are fighting for Allah. That has always proved to be extremely powerful. We in what was Christendom need to fight for our way of life and, now that profaneness has taken its toll, that means fighting, as applicable, for Australia or America or Hungary or Britain. Forget Continental Western Europe, unless they regain their nationalism, which Monsieur Macron so despises, they will lose the fight.

A survey taken in Israel, reported in the Jerusalem Post (27 September 2017), is instructive. It found that 60 per cent of Israeli Arabs had a positive view of the state of Israel. This figure is unlikely to be exaggerated. The tendency among Arabs, one would think, might be to express the opposite view. Also, just a guess, maybe most Arab citizens of Israel would not want to be ruled by Hamas.

To steel our resolve and counter the Dhimmi Wits, we need just a taste of what Israeli Arabs face if the state of Israel were to fall. Imagine how awful it would be for most of them. Let’s use our imagination a little more. Imagine how awful it would be for our granddaughters if the religious rules which govern the lives of those in Islamic states were enforced on them. To paraphrase Hugh Gaitskell, British Labour Party leader in 1960: As nationalists, we have to fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the country we love.

14 comments
  • Julian

    Keep up the good work Pete.

    And may many more hear such true words.

    Cheers,
    Julian

  • Rob Brighton

    The call to arms, such as it is contained herein will fall on deaf ears leading to our political masters continuing down the road of delusion encouraged by the MSM et al, useful idiots one and all.
    Without policies that acknowledge Islam’s incompatibility with Australian mores, there can be no turning back from our lemming-like trajectory.
    Eventually, people will tire of it all, tire of the violence and will respond in kind. It will take a long time, years of abuse will have to be borne before a reaction comes forward, when it does the violence will be savage.
    So we write to our local members fruitlessly, we speak to our family and friends warning of the future and bear the charge of bigotry in the hope that violence can be avoided but I fear it cannot.
    The first to act will be fighting not only Islamism but also fellow Australians, they will be branded as terrorists themselves and be gaoled, brother against brother.
    Islamists continue to provoke a reaction, its what they think they want, and they will get it and when they do, they will regret it.

  • brandee

    How does Japan avoid Mohammedan terrorist attacks?

  • whitelaughter

    Brandee – Japan does not avoid these terror attacks. The claims that they do are decades out of date.

  • en passant

    whitelaughter,
    Please prove your statement.
    “To say Japan has not had their problems with Islamic terrorism would be explicitly incorrect. Japan has lost a number of civilians to terrorism, all murders committed in the name of Islam. To say that Japan itself has not been the victim of Islamic terrorism, *would* be correct. There have been no direct attacks, or outed plans of attack, by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists on any Japanese asset, personnel, or infrastructure within the Japanese Home Islands (nor, to my knowledge, any *outside* the Japanese Home Islands, either; civilian targets of opportunity only).”
    Japan allows no Korans and no islamic immigration

  • Steve Theodore

    Thank you, Pete Smith, for your articles critiquing Islam and its incompatibility with Western values. I agree with you wholeheartedly. The ideology of Islam is a very clear and present danger. I enjoy reading your stuff.
    However, you’ve piqued my curiosity with your reference to the ‘survey’ apparently showing that 60 percent of Israeli Arabs have a ‘positive view’ of Israel.
    Are these Arabs, living in Israel, Muslims? If that is so, does this imply that Islamic ideology can be ‘tempered’?
    Is it possible that exposing Muslims directly to Western values can lead to a change in their “Islamic mindset’?

  • Peter Smith

    Steve, the Arabs surveyed are citizens of Israel. I am not sure that the results of the survey show that Islamic ideology can be tempered. It probably shows that Arab citizens of Israel know that they have a much better life than they would under Palestinian / Hamas rule. You can find any number of Muslims everywhere who prefer Western life. Unfortunately, their religion and culture, and the fanatics and the mobs it creates, eventually win out. You only have to look at, say, Egypt or Turkey or Iran fifty or so years’ ago compared with now. Islamic scripture is a bottomless poisonous well.

  • Steve Theodore

    Fair enough. You’d have to admit, nonetheless, that it is a very ‘anti-Islamic’ thing to do for a Muslim to have a ‘favourable view’ of Islam. Perhaps there is hope for them yet.

  • Steve Theodore

    My apologies. I meant to to say “that it is a very ‘anti-Islamic’ thing to do for a Muslim to have a ‘favourable view’ of Israel”.

  • Steve Theodore

    I suppose what I am asking you, in a nut-shell, is if you think it is worthwhile exposing a ‘certain amount of Muslims’ to Western culture and values in the hope that it will lead to a dilution of the ideology. Is it worthwhile allowing a certain number to become a part of our culture in the hope that they will, eventually, become more ‘tolerant’? I’m not an intellectual. And not too erudite. But I wonder if the consequence of shutting them out completely from Western culture would be an instance of us doing ourselves a disservice.

  • Steve Theodore

    Perhaps we could inoculate each other?

  • Les Kovari

    ” Is it worthwhile allowing a certain number to become a part of our culture in the hope that they will, eventually, become more ‘tolerant’?”. Can a venomous snake be tamed and kept as a house pet? The degree of difficulty is about the same in both cases – I think.

  • Peter Smith

    Les, you pre-empted my comment.

  • Jody

    If you don’t think this is absolutely shocking and an affirmation that the critics of non-discriminatory immigration got it right first time then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. I find this ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING.

    https://www.spiked-online.com/video/we-must-have-the-right-to-mock-muhammad/

    Brendan O’Neill is the only person calling it out. He says the traditional paradigms of Left and Right have collapsed and we are witnessing the worldwide rise of the censorious, finger-wagging, self-righteous EDUCATED classes who are non-aligned. The Left has been the traditional party of authoritarianism re-badged as what is good for us. Now there are no dividing lines. We can see this played out in our own parliament with the rise of the so-called Independent; these people are NOT libertarian, but comprehensively indoctrinated specimens from our education system. In fact, the rise of the educated class of monothinkers is now the plague of the western world. I don’t know how conservatives can deal with this since these types now infect their own ranks.

Post a comment