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.