I've just signed a contract with Regnery Publishing for a new book, tentatively entitled Stealth Jihad: How the Islamic Agenda Is Advancing Without Guns and Bombs. It is set right now to appear in November. All I have to do between now and then is write it.
Islamic experts in the Pentagon -- fired at the insistence of high-ranking Muslim officials for refusing to sugarcoat the truth about Islamic jihad. The ACLU allying with Muslim groups to make war on public celebrations of Christmas. Presidential candidates advised by Muslims who tell them to soft-pedal anti-terror efforts. American citizens sued for reporting suspicious behavior by Muslims in airports. Accommodation of Muslim religious practices in public places, at taxpayer expense. Muslim cab drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, and Muslim checkout clerks refusing to handle pork products -- and even Bibles (they’re “unclean”). Islamic charities funding violent jihad -- abetted by non-Muslim politicians anxious to court Muslim constituencies. Islamic advocacy groups silencing all those who dare speak about these issues -- with the willing complicity of a clueless leftist mainstream media.
It’s all part of the stealth jihad: initiatives to advance the jihadist agenda not by means of guns and bombs, but through a series of initiatives designed to acclimate Americans to downplaying anti-terror initiatives, accommodating Muslim practices, and making special exceptions for Islamic law -- while being cowed by cries of “bigotry” into dropping all resistance to these phenomena. The result? An America completely subjugated under Islamic law -- just the way Osama bin Laden wants it.
Stealth Jihad will lay bare all the many ways in which this undercover jihad is advancing, and call upon Americans to resist it -- before it’s too late.
Excellent title, Robert.
I hope it makes it all the way through to publication.
Looking forward to it.
...leave it to the Muslims to give you so much material to write a book on ...a book! or two books!, or three books!, OR four Books....and they continue to give you examples, photographs, speeches, they provide bodies, rubble, weird personalities and so much hate and much more....now if we can get everyone to read and study them......
...and Muslims hate it when the Infidels know the truth about Islam...
Let's get 100 copies to our senators before it's too late.
... Sharia-law banking/contracts
... bogus hate laws to suppress free speech
... litigation terrorism
Well, the one thing I have learned is that they don't need a central leader or military because the koran gives them all the battle tactics they need in order to grow. This is why it is so insidious - they gain a foothold via the claim they are a 'religion' and then use our laws against us, whine that they are victims and demands increase. Then the idiots that appease them never learn from the past idiots, but just blindly go their merry way helping muslims gain a bigger foothold.
The mainstream media is not clueless. They are on the other side. Look at the AP writers from Iraq and Iran: Mr. Salaheddin and Ali Akbar Dareini. It's like Mr. Frederick the Great Aryans Are Superior reporting from the Normandy invasion in 1944 for the allies.
The Muslim Brotherhood Project has control over the sitting president, the second at the Pentagon in charge of force modernization, every major legal system, the UN, the entire Left, nearly every major presidential candidate, and the mainstream media.
We've got feuding bloggers.
It's actually funny, in a we're completely screwed, how did the Baby Boomers destroy western civilization so quickly, end of histor(ians) sort of way.
I am up to page 228 of 333 of Major Coughlins "To Our Great Detriment". If it weren't for the fact that he is leaving under questionable circumstances, this paper would have never come to my possession. So that is a good thing.
I think your stealth jihad book will be a good one. There have been several times reading Major Coughlins paper when I sort of started getting dizzy and felt like I was falling off a cliff, that is the depth of understanding he brings to the table.
Mike
Alternative title suggestions:
"Can you Smell the Jihad?"
"Jihad Sans Bombs"
"Invasion of the Islamic Body Snatchers"
"Would You Recogize Jihad if it Walked Right Up to You and Spat in Your Face?"
"Jihad Through Democracy"
"Jihad Just the Same"
"Jihadists in Suits and Ties"
"Philistines Upon You, Samson"
Stick it up here Robert and we'll proof read it for you!
Excellent idea. Daniel Pipes has written a lot about "Peaceful Islamism" and how it may be more dangerous than the more overt violent jihad.
The Islamic womb is one form of non violent jihad. The whole Euro/Arabian Axis that Bat Ye'or writes about in Eurabia is surely part of the stealth jihad.
If you can't see it or hear it you might recognize the smell of oil behind the stealth jihad of Jimmy Carter, James Baker iii and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
One last alternate title suggestion. It's similar in concept to "stealth" but I think it implies something more:
"The Discreet Jihad"
Please include a section on how Islamists are writing and/or "approving" our childrens' history textbooks. Many of us are in the difficult situation of proving to teachers and principals that the state-approved textbook is full of deception, misstatements, and outright prosetylization.
I forgot to mention HAMAS backing down Disney's notoriously litigous corporate intellectual property attorneys. Now of course nearly every major bank is partially owned by Saudis or other Gulf Arabs. So sharia finance will undoubtedly be forced on average people, go go with the da'wa in public schools.
We're fighting them over there, but established a sharia legal system anyway. And we're losing over here. At least Bush was openly humiliated by the Saudi king over oil prices. That's GWB's legacy, protecting the Saudis from his stillborn "doctrine."
Your endeavor deserves, not only encouragement, but, no false piety here, serious prayer for good counsel.
We've witnessed too much moral ambiguity, people pleasing, lemmingization and government cowardice over the past few years, from the Coughlin Case, 'Professor Sami', the Columbus, Ohio, School Committee, not to mention oppostion to REAL ID or UN Commissions determining who would be US Refugees.
References to stupidity and perfidy should be of equal balance.
And the toughest nut of all will be getting "We, The People" to face up to our own culpability.
I don't know how you do it . . .a book a year!
This book could raise awareness and bring this discussion to the table during the American '08 election cycle if released earlier - say, in September or October.
Uphill battle. Our own leaders have succumbed. We've gone from 'you are with us or you are with the terrorists' to Islam is a religion of peace to 'anti-islamic activity' to no mention of Islamic Jihad or Islamists AT ALL in the State of the Union address.
This is not a winning trend. Think about it.
Also, if the Dems take the white house, anti-islamic activists will have more rights than you. Infidel.
Sie sind der MANN, Robert.
Ahhhh, the non-lethal forms of Jihad:
* 6th Pillar Jihad (omnipresent implicit threat of personal ruination, injury, murder, etc.)
* PC Jihad (hate crime legislation, self-censor or you lose career advancement, etc.)
* Demographic Jihad (children born of 4 wives, 3 of them presneted to the social workers at the local County Welfare Dept. as single mothers)
This latest Spencer book will be an opportunity to plumb the squalid depths of Moslem behavior operating under the guidance of Mohammed's Self-Powered Islam Perpetuation Machine.
Robert
To the extent possible, please make it cover worldwide issues, such as demographic Jihads in Lebanon, posthumous conversions in Malaysia, expansion of Muslim percentages in Western Europe, Israel, India and elsewhere. Don't just make it about the West. Add to that worldwide threats that undermine freedom, such as threats of violence curbing the movements of a Taslima Nasreen, or a film by Geert Wilders.
This should be in addition to the cultural inroads that are being made in the West - be it the acceptance of burqhas, increase in honor killings, installation of Muslim prayer rooms and footwash basins for wudu, legal jihads such as the burqha-ed swimmer in Gothenburg or the Bushra Noahlawsuit against Sarah Desrosiers.
My $0.02
Well, you have written the preface and conclusion so far ;) or the jacket cover.
No doubt, they will provide additional material over the next several months to put in the book. I keep seeing in my mind the concept of a thousand knife or pin pricks being done on the non-Islam world. They are like the Borg in Star Trek, 'resistances is futile'.
Vote jihad...Immigrate in large numbers...multiply in large numbers...capture the vote...vote muslims into office...where there is strength and numbers, there is Shari'a. In the US, who or what will or can stop this process...it's the American way...
I think that Americans are overall - lazy. And we have a group of nincompoops that appease the muslims.
What will it take to wake them up?
An attack against us - one that the government will be unable to hide. Like for instance, no one is making a peep about all those fires that were set in the LA basin. Two downed electric things (I forget what you call them), and about a dozen other fires started also. While weeks earlier we got the threat from Al Qaeda.
Why is the government not saying ANYTHING more about the fires or the threats that we got? Are the widdle muzzies making sure they keep quiet? Making sure they let our politicians know they are the victims? poor widdle muzzies.
Celsius
"Stick it up here Robert and we'll proof read it for you!"
No, No! D'Souza will steal it, then like Dr. Frankenstein create a monster...
"Stealth Moderate Muslims: How Robert Spencer and Britney Spears prevented me from finding moderate Islam!"
"Stealth Jihad will lay bare all the many ways in which this undercover jihad is advancing, and call upon Americans to resist it -- before it’s too late."
I fervently hope that you'll also show us Europeans how to resist it!
Unlike what you may hear in the media or what you hear from European politicians - we've woken up to the threat as well, and most ordinary people know very well that our way of life is in danger - not by bombs so much as by creeping, administrative dhimmitude, imposed on us by those who ought to know better.
Going to pre-order as soon as there´s an amazon page for the book.
Robert,
I just want to thank you for writing this important book, which cannot come soon enough. The stealth jihad is perhaps even more frightening than terrorism, in many ways. It is certainly the hardest to identify and fight. But even worse than stealth jihad, I think, is the most insidious of all evils...post modernism.
Can'r wait to get a copy. I hope it does some good, but I'm not that all optomistic.
When I consider that Americans appear all set to put a Clinton or Obama in the White House, it's freightening.
I wonder how such a critical issue will receive the attention it demands. It seems that this book, and others of its kind, are destined to fill an important niche, and I hope it is heavy with authoritative sources, but most of all, I hope it sparks a reaction and controversy.
Stealth Jihad: I wonder if the sense would be the same if the subtitle were The Islamic Fifth Column and Its Enablers--you see, the intended subtitle, How the Islamic Agenda Is Advancing Without Guns and Bombs is quite long, doesn't quite capture the sinister menace of our problems, and may not, perhaps, capture the whole essence of the book; what subtitle could?
Moreover, violent jihad and non-violent jihad are not, after all, mutually exclusive; to think otherwise is to think that jihad is either "good" or "bad." Both expressions of jihad go hand-in-hand, work in tantem, and one supposes the other. If this weren't true, then there might not arguably be, from an Islamic standpoint, a need for jihad as qitaal at all.
I think the working subtitle fails to convey that the book's focus is the opposite side of the same coin, rather than distinctly different or another kind of coin altogether.
Cannot Wait, this could be your most important book to date.
How about 'The Closet Jihad'
Robert,
My prayers are with you, and I hope that the Lord Jesus gives you strengh and wisdom to blow the wistle on this "slow islamization" of the western world.
Don't forget the litigation angle. They're getting darn clever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWq5QsZLCrg
And the OIC attempts at the UN to clamp down on freedom of speech of course.
I think this is an excellent idea. The last piece in the jigswaw, to join up the dots between the terrorists and the 'moderate' Muslims, who give the nod to political Islamism, even if they are not actively involved.
When it comes to "Stealth Jihad" than noting how the word "islam" or "Islamic" were no where to be found in POTUS 2008 SOTU address.
"Stealth Jihad" is the form of jihad waged by the so-called "moderate" Muslims. It's a form of al-Taqiyya.
Spencer's new book can be a useful corrective to all those people out there who only see a problem when Muslims explode, and who don't see all the more insidious Daw'a and the non-lethal injustice Daw'a would bring in Shari'a.
However, just because there are dunderheads out there who obtusely think at the polar extreme ("only explosive terrorism is the problem"), that doesn't mean we should err in the opposite direction and suppose that the "stealth jihad" does not, in many subtle ways, depend upon violent jihad.
I thus have to agree with John C above:
"violent jihad and non-violent jihad are not, after all, mutually exclusive; to think otherwise is to think that jihad is either "good" or "bad." Both expressions of jihad go hand-in-hand, work in tandem, and one supposes the other...
I think the working subtitle fails to convey that the book's focus is the opposite side of the same coin, rather than distinctly different or another kind of coin altogether. ."
Muslims generally belive you can fight jihad in three ways: combat, financing combat, and by supporting the mujahideen with your tongue. That's a helpful thing to remember when you see what's going on in the world today.
cantor -
well said.
You and john c are onto something - and so is our regular poster, 'Frank', with his continual repetition, for the benefit of every newbie to this site, of the point that Islam permits and habitually practises Deception, which makes it not merely a religion of War, but a Religion of the Lie.
I have begun to conclude that the veil and the mask are the symbolic visual key to what Islam is about. Hugh's onto it with his repetition of Chaucer's phrase about the traitor, 'the smiler with the knife under the cloak'.
Let's hear John Quincy Adams, one more time, writing in 1829:
"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute;
the victorious may be appeased by *a false and delusive promise of peace* [MY EMPHASIS];
and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat:
but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective.
*The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force*".
Or, as we are beginning to see, by both together, judiciously alternated.
Islam appears to be very, very good at creating confusion: which, for M Scott Peck in his book about human evil, 'People of the Lie', was one of the key markers of real, thoroughgoing evil, in a person or a group.
Luckily, people like Bat Yeor and Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom are unconfused and unconfusable. Oriana Fallaci was unconfused.
A great idea Robert.
If you want to see stealth Jihad in operation and in full flow come to Britain. Just this evening I was watching "Desi TV" an asian-only programme run by the BBC (who else) and paid for by the taxpayer. The subject was the UK wide smoking ban. This ban affects the sheesha bars (arab smoking houses) in the UK. No smoking means no sheesha. Just to listen to the disingenuous arguments of the people interviewed shows the stealth jihad at full tilt. The underlying attitude of these people was that this is "part of their Islamic/Arab culture and should be exempt in multicultural Britain". The multicultural card is played time and again. You could see the supremacist attitude in their arguments. They use the multicultural card in this way at every turn. But, and this is the poser: If you are so proud of your Arab culture, and want to wrap yourself in arab culture, why not live in an Arab country? I am proud of my culture, I can't imagine any reason why I would choose to live in another country and expect them to change their culture to suit me? Unless my intention was to impose my culture on them.
What is so obvious to me and to many others is that Arab/Islamic culture creates countries that do not accept other cultures (look at Saudi Arabia), so why should they be allowed a say in the way my country is run, just because we dish out passports like water?
Stealth Jihad, coming to a country near you.
Keep up the good work Robert.
dumbledores,
*The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force*".
"Or, as we are beginning to see, by both together, judiciously alternated."
Yes, but this addition of peacefully stealthy jihad is only necessary for Muslims to the degree that they are too weak to wage war against the vastly superior West; they waged military and paramilitary jihad for almost a solid 1,000 years against all sorts of polities, from India to Spain (including against the West when the West had not yet so amazingly progressed). This notion of "stealth jihad" sans military, I would maintain, is rather new in Islamic history, and reflects the fact that certain Muslims are finally getting their excrement together to try to brainstorm a way to reverse the unprecedentedly abysmal inferiority to which the astoundingly superior West has abased them over the past three centuries.
Beyond this necessity, there is also the unprecedented opportunity that Western PC MC provides, in having opened its doors to millions of Muslims and having opened its mind not only to let the empty winds whistle through but also to "embrace" all cultures as simultaneously relativistically equal but also as better than the evil white West.
In the Middle Ages, while Muslims yearned for centuries to capture Constantinople but continually failed, there was no Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism dominant in Byzantium for clever Muslims to take advantage of: they just had to hunker down, keep attacking at the frontier, and patiently wait and pray and listen to hadiths about how it is their destiny to someday conquer that great city. And that worked for them, largely because the military-technological disparity was not so great between the Byzantines and Muslims that the latter could not, given patient centuries, reach the capability to conquer the former (the former also suffered from the attrition of periodic attacks on its frontiers and the slow eating away of its outer provinces by Muslim armies).
But the military-technological disparity between Muslims and the West today is a thousand times larger than it was between Muslims and Byzantium in the Middle Ages. And the cleverer Muslims know this, while the dumber ones just flood into a West too stupid to limit them, their hearts and minds formed accordingly by the cleverer clerics and other pundits in the meaning of their Western lives as a kind of jihad that is their right as Muslims.
Another title for the must get list, look forward to learning more from the effort.
Dear Robert,
Please consider a subtitle such as this:
STEALTH JIHAD: How Islamic Supremacy Advances Through "Peaceful" Subterfuge
The Islamic Agenda = Islamic Supremacy
Is Advancing (passive voice) = Advances (active voice)
KEY POINT = Through Subterfuge
Without Guns and Bombs = "Peaceful"
Yours sincerely,
John
PS:
"Peaceful"--thusly--also alludes subtly to your previous book's title, Religion of Peace?
Gotham cheers as Batman rides again.
Robert
I second John C's proposed alteration to the title descriptor (doesn't sub-title imply translated dubbing from another language?)
Robert - great idea, and great supporting comments above! Go for it!
Robert,
It would be nice if you could dedicate your new book to Dougie Hooper and his Merrymen, without whom, the book would have been much more difficult to write.
Vee:"Excellent title, Robert.'
Certainly is. Snappy. Succinct.
Don't forget Muslim immigration! And, please everyone, don't wait for Robert's book in November to simply read about it. Each of you can find a niche in which to work in your own way to head off the calamity.
At Refugee Resettlement Watch we are just a couple of ladies doing research on that aspect of Muslim immigration, and we have learned so much. But, there is so much more to do. Please consider starting a research blog of your own. Dig through documents, read newspapers, talk to people,and post your research.
We need information on the entire immigration program, please just pick one portion of the elephant so that we can ultimately identify the whole thing!
..book title?..
...ISLAM....(shhhhhhhh...you are not supposed to know)....
PPS:
The gerund phrase, "Is Advancing" DOES accurately convey today's state of affairs--my suggesting "Advances" is an attempt at economy of expression.
Robert,
This quite possibly will be your most important book and contribution to the war of wills. This is the war that is in danger of being lost because it is not understood or exposed for what it is, and therefore, it creeps along unheeded and unconfronted. Do your absolute best to make it clearly understandable by everyone who values their own culture. Make them see how that culture is being usurped from within. Make them want to resist at every level. Godspeed.
Robert:
I strongly believe that 'Stealth Jihad' warrants its own website. Most people, even anti-Islamic folk, aren't yet on this wavelength but need to be for many important reasons.
Please consider it (or at least providing a separate "Stealth jihad" section on this site).
Looking forward to ordering the book...
Can't resist including this insightful post, even though the marshmallow anti-jihad thinks Fjordman is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. The issue is Multiculturalism.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
“Let Them Eat Kebab” — The New Marie Antoinettes
by Baron Bodissey
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
Admiral Horatio Nelson may have guided the British naval fleet to a famous victory at the Battle of Trafalgar, but he faced a far tougher foe during celebrations to mark its 200th anniversary. Organizers of a re-enactment of the sea battle in 2005 decided to bill it as between a “Red Fleet” and a “Blue Fleet”, rather than Britain and its French and Spanish adversaries, describing it as a re-enactment of “an early 19th century sea battle.”
Trafalgar, in which the British Royal Navy saw off a combined Franco-Spanish fleet off the southern coast of Spain, marked a crucial defeat for Napoleon’s sea power. Nelson himself fell during the battle. Apparently, we now live in the age of the Borderless Utopia and the Brotherhood of Man, and shouldn’t be too hung up on Spain, England, France or other irrelevant historical details. It’s just rude. Maybe soon, we will hear that WW1 or even WW2 was fought between the Yellow Team and the Blue Team. We wouldn’t want to insult anybody, would we?
The incident is part of a broader trend of re-writing history. Partly because of immigration, the British government appointed a commission on the future of multiethnic Britain. It concluded that “Britishness” had “systematic, largely unspoken, racial connotations.” The report said Britain should be formally “recognized as a multicultural society” whose history must be “revised, rethought, or jettisoned.”
In the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering stated that school textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam by experts overseen by the European Union and Islamic leaders. He said textbooks should be checked to ensure they promoted European values without propagating religious stereotypes or prejudice. He also suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee.
Timothy Garton Ash is considered a world-class expert on Europe’s future, and he refers frequently to his participation in glamorous-sounding international conferences. Bruce Bawer notes that Europe’s political élite has become extremely insulated from the people, and unwilling to address the problems that people are worried about. He thinks Garton Ash is typical of this élite. He distrusts national patriotism but adores the EU, writing about the need for a factitious European patriotism (“flags, symbols, a European anthem we can sing”) to encourage “emotional identification with European institutions.” Why does Europe need an EU? Garton Ash’s answer: “To prevent our falling back into the bad old ways of war and European barbarism.” Among his suggestions is that Europe encourage “the formation of an Arab Union.” He makes no mention of Arab democracy. Imagining “Europe in 2025 at its possible best,” he pictures it as a “partnership” with Arab countries and Russia that would extend “from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok.” But still, people claim that Eurabia is a conspiracy theory…
Mr. Carl I. Hagen of the right-wing Progress Party criticized the choice of a foreign citizen to head Norway’s immigration agency. “There should be no doubt about the loyalty to the native country and the connection with the Norwegian people, such as history and traditions, or the fact that you should look after this country’s interests. If you’re an immigrant from another country, with family and roots elsewhere, this could during conflicts raise questions about where your loyalty lies,” said Mr. Hagen.
Jonas Gahr Støre, Foreign Minister from the Labor Party, said Hagen’s statements were “bordering on racism.” Eva Joly, Norwegian born French magistrate, known in France for her tireless crusade against corruption, is now working as special adviser to the government in Norway. “To assume that nationality or citizenship have anything to do with being suitable [for a job] is a very old-fashioned way of thinking. We are no longer thinking in national terms, but in European or global terms. It is a duty to employ people from other countries,” said Joly. She has got both Norwegian and French citizenships, but considers herself European.
The director of Norway’s immigration agency, Manuela Ramin-Osmundsen, arrived in the country in the 1990s. Upon accepting the job as heading the country’s day-to-day handling of immigration, she vowed that it would become more open with those seeking residence permission in the country. As it turned out later, the agency (UDI) was in fact so “open” that it had been virtually running its own, private immigration policy. UDI violated both the law and political directives when it granted residency permits to nearly 200 Iraqi Kurds during the fall of 2005, even though not all their identities could be confirmed and some had criminal records. A commission that probed the controversial permits blasted the former head of UDI, and his successor, Ramin-Osmundsen, resigned.
Is it “xenophobia” if Norwegians, who make up less than a tenth of a percentage point of the world’s population, worry about being overwhelmed by immigration? As American writer Gore Vidal said in a lecture: “Liberal tradition requires that borders must always be open to those in search of safety or even the pursuit of happiness. But now with so many millions of people on the move, even the great-hearted are becoming edgy. Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species.”
Jonathan Friedman, an American living in Sweden, mentions that the so-called Integration Act of 1997 proclaimed that “Sweden is a Multicultural society.” Notes to the Act also stated that “Since a large group of people have their origins in another country, the Swedish population lacks a common history. The relationship to Sweden and the support given to the fundamental values of society thus carry greater significance for integration than a common historical origin.”
The Act thus implicitly states that the country of Sweden doesn’t have a history, only the various ethnic groups that live there. Native Swedes, who have shaped the country for centuries, have thus been reduced to just another ethnic group in Sweden, with no more claim to the country than the Kurds or the Somalis who arrived there last Thursday. The political authorities of the country have thus erased their own people’s history, without staging any public debate about this. I have read that Muslim immigrants in Sweden say that Sweden doesn’t have a common cultural or religious heritage; it’s just made up of different groups tied together by the use of a common language. It is thus “racist” to even talk about how “we” should integrate “them,” since there is no “we” to begin with.
Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the Social Democratic Swedish government, is worried about “the public’s lack of faith in politicians.” Yet the same Orback said during a radio debate that: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” It sounded almost too crazy even for Sweden that a minister could say something like this in public, so I checked with several independent sources, and apparently, he really did say this.
This is a government that knows perfectly well that their people will become a minority in their own country, and yet, is doing nothing to stop this. On the contrary, they are actively working to achieve this result. Has this ever happened before in human history, that the leaders of a nation are working to erase their own people and their history, and present this as an act of tolerance? No wonder some Swedes say that there is a war against Swedes going on: A physical war waged by Muslim immigrants, and a cultural and legal war waged by their own political élites.
Following threats from Muslim hardliners, some of the largest companies in England were afraid to display the English national flag during the football World Cup. In Sweden, a man was attacked and nearly killed for the crime of wearing clothes with his own national flag while Sweden was participating in the World Cup. Sweden, of course, has the same Christian cross in its flag as does England, and apparently, some “Multicultural youths” found this to be an intolerable provocation. The 24-year-old man was run down by a car in the city of Malmö. According to the police, he was wearing some clothes with Swedish national symbols on them, and this “provoked some emotions.”
Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city, is set to become the first major Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority. The wave of robberies the city has witnessed is part of a “war against Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers with immigrant backgrounds on why they are only robbing native Swedes. “When we are in the city and robbing, we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” “Power for me means that Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.”
In Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, a Mr. Hans Hauge wrote an essay about Multiculturalism. “We are being told every day that Denmark has become a Multicultural society. This is a fact, it is said, and there is nothing we can do about it.” “It is not a question of something that the population has decided politically, it just happened. It is a bit like the industrialization or the modernization. It happens while we are asleep.” “We have to get used to it.” “Nobody could predict when the [Berlin] Wall fell. Nobody could predict the Muhammad [cartoons] crisis.”
According to Hauge, one thing we do know from history “is that it always moves from “multi” to “mono.” A Multicultural society is a sign of the last days before a new “mono” sets in. Multi is always a sign of destruction.” “We can thus be sure of the fact that we are moving from a multi-religious to a mono-religious society. The movement is always from many to one, but we don’t know which one.”
I agree with Mr. Hauge on the second part. A Multicultural society is only temporary. Sooner or later, we will return to a new mono-cultural society. This will happen either through the division of the previously coherent territory into new, mono-cultural enclaves or through the takeover by society as a whole of the most forceful and aggressive of these competing cultures.
The Multicultural ideology is malignant because it fragments society into separate, cultural ghettos, a kind of apartheid. We’re living in an age dominated on one hand by cultural relativism in the West, and on the other hand by aggressive Islamic intolerance, No Truths vs. One Truth. Is this just a coincidence, or is it possible that the vacuum of nihilism and moral indifference is provoking an aggressive counter-reaction? If so, Multiculturalism promotes totalitarianism rather than tolerance.
Of course, it is possible that Multiculturalism never was about tolerance to begin with. For some, it was about vanity. “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s most open-minded of them all?” It’s a beauty contest for bored, Western intellectuals who use immigrants as a mirror to reflect their own inflated egos, a sport where they can nurse their vanity in the mistaken belief that denigrating your own cultural heritage is a sign of goodness and lack of prejudice.
However, there are others who understand perfectly well that Multiculturalism is only temporary, and use it as a means to further their own ideological ends. They use Multiculturalism and massive immigration as a battering ram to smash the Old Order of Judeo-Christian nation states to pave way for a New Order, be that a pan-European super-state or the global dictatorship of the proletariat. Creative destruction, in other words. And this is where I strongly disagree with Mr. Hauge, who thinks Multiculturalism “just happened,” an accident of nature. I don’t know; much of it sounds pretty man-made to me.
It is true that the traditional system of nation-states will be challenged in the 21st century. Part of the challenge is indeed posed by impersonal forces of technological globalization. However, Multiculturalism is probably more a deliberate result of ideology than an accidental result of technology. The settlement slash invasion by millions of Muslims in major European cities was a direct result of secret behind-the-scenes agreements made by EU authorities, as documented in Bat Ye’or’s work on Eurabia, and it was widely cheered by Leftist intellectuals.
The Internet makes borderless communication easier, yes, but that’s not the major problem. The major problem is that millions of people are moving physically across the borders due to an intentional government policy of erasing the borders of Western nations.
If massive immigration is the inevitable result of technological globalization, how come Japan hasn’t been overrun by millions of Muslims the way Western Europe has, or how come a country such as Finland has received a lot fewer immigrants than neighboring Sweden? Why is Multiculturalism “inevitable” in Sweden or Britain but perfectly avoidable in Japan? Could it be that it has been decided by certain powerful groups, and that this Project is hidden from public discussion by saying that it is “inevitable” and that all those who oppose it are “racists,” anyway?
The political élites are involved in a Project — for it is a deliberate, organized project — to dissolve the nation states of the West. It is a coalition of several groups: Leftists, who hate the capitalist, Christian West in general and are influenced by Marxist ideas about the nation state being an obstacle to international liberation. However, there are also centrist and even so-called conservative groups participating in this. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the author of the awful EU Constitution, is considered a conservative politician, who however has an enormous contempt for the intelligence of ordinary people and never cares to hide this fact.
There is another group, whose members are convinced that the nation state is the cause only of wars and trouble. I suspect former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl belongs to this group. And finally, we have perhaps the largest group: Opportunists who just mind their own business and follow the lead of the other groups. They have good jobs on an international basis and no longer feel any close attachment to the nation states they are supposed to represent.
I call them The New Marie Antoinettes. The old Marie Antoinette, 18th century Queen of France, was famous for the quote “If the people have no bread, then let them eat cake,” although some claim she never actually said this The New Marie Antoinettes would probably have said “Let them eat kebab.” They think cries for national sovereignty is an old superstition among common people, and are actively dismantling the nation states of Europe through massive immigration, Multiculturalism and supranational institutions, primarily the EU.
They never asked for permission to do this, and have never even mentioned this Project in public. The creation of this new entity, Eurabia, is the greatest act of treason in the last two thousand years of Western history, and has almost brought Europe to its knees. Western political élites seem to think that we now live in the “global” age, and that any sense of attachment to your nation state or even your civilization is silly and “old-fashioned.” This is now creating an unprecedented gap of trust between the people and their leaders, which in Europe in particular is now so large that it could soon threaten the foundations of our democratic society. Can our countries survive when the people who are supposed to protect and serve them no longer believe in the very institutions they are supposed to represent?
One blogger suggested naming this Project The Great Deconstruction, a name I like. Earlier generations lived in the Age of Reason, we live in the Age of Deconstruction, where our Universities and institutions are more interested in deconstructing and breaking down all of our cultural heritage than in defending it and passing it on to our children.
It is noteworthy that Marie Antoinette, more than 200 years after she was guillotined at the height of the French Revolution in 1793, has become a national obsession, the subject of books, magazine articles, films, even chocolates and perfumes. “I love my country but we’re in a terrible mess,” said Claude Dufresne, a historian, referring to the rioting in the immigrant suburbs, the economic stagnation and the seeming inability of French politicians to offer solutions. “Under the circumstances, the past seems all the more glorious and brilliant.” The fascination with Marie Antoinette also reflected “nostalgia for what we have destroyed”, he added. In a similar vein, Evelyne Lever, author of a biography of Marie Antoinette, said the public related to her because of the extraordinary tragedy that she suffered: “She went from being almost a goddess in the palace to being dragged on to the scaffold.” At the same time, Marie Antoinette represents the end of an era, “and that is exactly what we are living through now, the death throes of a particular system”, said Lever, referring to suggestions that the institutions of France’s so-called Fifth Republic are exhausted and in need of renewal.
Roger Scruton, in a speech given in Belgium, noted that “buying and selling of citizenship, often to people who think of it purely as a right and never as a duty, is common throughout Europe. The political élite sees nothing wrong in people collecting passports as they might collect memberships of clubs.” “Members of our liberal élite may be immune to xenophobia, but there is an equal fault which they exhibit in abundance, which is the repudiation of, and aversion to, home.” This, attitude, which he calls oikophobia, is “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours’.”
The person who suffers from this state of mind repudiates national loyalties and “defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed from on high by the EU or the UN, and defining his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community. The oikophobe is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of oikophobia that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe.”
“The ordinary people of Europe are now deeply anxious about their future. And when people are in a state of anxiety they pose a threat, both to themselves and to those whom they fear.” “If the liberal élite will not discuss the matter, and continue to put all blame for the growing anxiety on the xenophobia of the indigenous population while ignoring the oikophobia which is an equal contributory cause, then the likely long-term effect will be a popular explosion, and one from which no-one will benefit, least of all the immigrant communities.”
Serge Trifkovic, author of Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won — in Spite of Ourselves, puts it this way: “At the root of the domestic malaise is the notion that countries do not belong to the people who have inhabited them for generations, but to whoever happens to be within their boundaries at any given moment — regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions.” “A further evil fallacy is the dictum that we should not feel a special bond for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but transfer our preferences on the whole world, “the Humanity,” equally.” “Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands more than any others, and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil.” “The refusal of the elite class to protect Western nations from Islamic terrorism is the biggest betrayal in history.”
I have noted before that the European Union is a throwback of to the pre-democratic era, the creation of a new aristocracy. It looks like this new aristocracy has the same grip on reality as Marie Antoinette and the pre-revolutionary French élites. Never mind the gang rapes, the embassy burning or the suicide bombings. Think of all the good things Muslim immigration is bringing us, the culture, the food. If the people don’t like sharia, let them eat kebab.
It’s easy to crack jokes about this, but the situation is in fact quite serious. Europe is being overrun by barbarians, and Europe’s political élites are spending all their efforts implementing a Frankenstein’s monster Constitution in the face of popular resistance. I smell a pre-revolutionary era that’s about to end. Let’s hope we can avoid Robespierre and the Reign of Terror this time.
Now, we have the blogosphere, the virtual guillotine. We don’t chop the heads off stupid people, we just chop the heads off stupid people’s ideas. Maybe the world is making progress after all.
The problem is that if, or rather when, we get civil wars in Western Europe due to Muslim immigration, the front lines will not necessarily be between Muslims vs. Infidels or even Natives vs. Immigrants. There is a cultural and ideological civil war going on in the West that, combined with some Islamic fanaticism, could lead to physical civil wars. The battle is between those who believe in traditional Western values and nation states and those who believe in Multiculturalism, the UN, international law etc. The last group, which is especially dominant on the Left but which has penetrated deep into the Right, thinks that national sovereignty is at best redundant, at worst evil and “racist.” Many of them will genuinely believe that those who reject Muslim immigration are evil, racist bigots, and some of them may side with Muslims to fight for their own ideological project. There is no call for unity against the Islamic threat because our leaders no longer believe in childish notions such as “civilizations” or “nations.”
Global warming is man-made and must be fought at all costs. Multiculturalism, however, and the settlement of millions of Muslims in our largest cities “just happened,” a bit like a hurricane. Still, the fact that the very same people who have eagerly championed Multiculturalism are now distancing themselves from the Project and claim that “it just happened” is an indication that they know the experiment has failed and is about to collapse.
So far, our liberal élites have been more effective in breaking down the Old Order than in making a New Order. Their “creative destruction” could turn out to be much more destructive than creative. Instead of a new pan-European identity we will see a temporary return to some very old tribalism. I hope I’m wrong, but I fear that I’m not.
To deliberately misquote Robert Spencer:
"It's all part of the stealth communism: initiatives to advance the Red agenda not by means of guns and bombs, but through a series of initiatives designed to acclimate Americans to downplaying anti-communist initiatives, accommodating socialist practices, and making special exceptions for communist viewpoints about law -- while being cowed by cries of "reaction" into dropping all resistance to these phenomena. The result? An America completely subjugated under communism -- just the way Stalin wants it."
Déjà vu?
That said, after spending about 5,000 hours improving my French in an excellent Muslim forum (Mejliss), I agree with most of Robert Spencer's views about Islam.
Furthermore, I had enormous fun recently in a Chinese intellectual forum (97renven) politely making a moderator look like an idiot: she is a fervent supporter of Karen Armstrong.
However, I would differ from Mr. Spencer in that I do not consider Muslims to be a threat to Western civilization. Sure, they are a nuisance with their terrorist/jihadist activities. However, we are not talking about the Soviet Union here. They neither are a serious military threat nor are they in any sense intellectually persuasive.
Let me put it this way: there are four modern languages that a serious intellectual needs to know nowadays. Arabic, Persian, Indonesian and Turkish definitely are NOT among these languages.
To deliberately misquote Mao, "In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe that Jihadists/terrorists are nothing but paper tigers."
Respectfully,
Stephen唐士明
P.S. If anybody bothers to reply to me, my apologies for the delay - I am in quite a different time zone than the States and cannot reply until tomorrow
Stephen,
1) Muslims bent on conquest may indeed be a "paper tiger" with respect to their practical ability to actually conquer the West.
2) However, that does not mean that individual Muslims and commando units of Muslims will not try to further their supremacist expansionism -- and even in merely trying, unsuccessfully, they can wreak horrific damage and slaughter, using any variety of flavors of WMDs (suitcase nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, etc.).
The problem of #2 is further amplified by the fact that the ideology motivating these all-too potential Muslim guerillas is
a) trans-national in recruitment and in ambition
b) extraordinarily able to camouflage amongst -- and often receive various degrees of support from -- masses of "harmless", passive or even "moderate" Muslims
c) unusually fanatical (as fanatical as the Japanese in the 30s and 40s, if not more so)
d) the fanaticism energized by a supremacist expansionism that
e) has a long and rich history & tradition going back to Mohammed 1400 years ago, and that
f) has a powerful and stark doctrine of Us vs. Them, dividing Mankind into Muslim and Infidel, and dividing Earth into the Dar-al-Islam (the sphere of Islam where Islam has become dominant) and the Dar-al-Harb (the sphere of war, where Muslims have to keep fighting until they can subdue this part of the Earth, piece by piece, under the domination of Islamic rule).
To re-cap:
1) Because Islam is astronomically inferior to the modern West, its potential for success in achieving its goals is minuscule and probably non-existent.
2) However, that does not mean that they will not in their fanaticism try to succeed; and in the mere activity of trying, their ability to inflict horrific casualties on us is no "paper tiger" at all.
Cantor,
I agree with most of your above statements.
However, actually the terrorists are a blessing in disguise. Were it not for the September 11 attacks the United States might well be in a cold war with "Red" China - with the potential of mutual nuclear destruction that this would entail.
The Chinese have their own indigenous Muslim problem. Sensitive subject: such statistics are a state secret, but I would guestimate that there are about 50 million Muslims in China.
I have been to Hui forums - where the language of the Jihadists/terrorists is almost the same as in radical Islamic forums in the West. I would advise you stay away from the Olympics this year - in this particular case, the problem is not the Hui but the Uighurs.
Having common interests with the United States, the Chinese have gone so far as to provide translation officials for the interrogations in Guantanamo. The United States will possibly be providing security during the Olympic games. Thus, both countries are diverted from confrontation with each other and can channel their aggressiveness towards a MUCH weaker enemy - international terrorism. As such, Bin Laden plays a useful role in promoting world peace.