LAZINESS, THE FINAL ACT OF DEFIANCE

THIS QUOTE I FOUND online reminds me of an old acquaintance, actually an adversarial but devoted peer who once touted this childish philosophy of the Left with great gusto and resolve. This fellow, whom I have grown to respect in relation to his own spirited struggles, is only somewhat reformed, but has shown he is much more lenient towards reality than I witnessed in those thunderous 1990s which were just plain dreadful, so out of gratitude I'll spare him the disturbance of mentioning his name...

I think I've heard someone else mention this term in this context, but from now on I'm going to use a new name for the European dhimmi-elites: "Eloi", the post-human race from the HG Wells story, The Time Machine. They didn't work, they didn't fight, they didn't build, and they didn't believe in anything but their own immediate, lazy pleasure. They really only had one problem—they were food for the underground-dwelling Morlocks.

—Boston Patriot

This "Right To Laziness" has always been fraught with danger as Wells points out, but my friend and others still voice the dream.

STOP THE JIZYA NOW!

Hugh Fitzgerald complains rightly that America should not be footing the bill for the ummah, not with all the money they have in their coffers, and especially not when bucked up by a pernicious ideology that calls for and works toward the death of the West, by any means necessary. These nations, mislabeled "allies on the war on terror" are nothing of the sort. But please read on. Despite the crushing debt load we are carrying to help bring civility to these regions dominated by totalitarian Islam, our ignorant or outright dhimmi leaders continue to betray our American future for a ridiculous pittance in their own pockets today. Stop this obscene and civilization-crippling jizya now! Fitzgerald's article:

"Gulf oil producers are expected to earn a record $562 billion in 2008…"—from this news article.

That nearly $600 billion is just this year's take. And it just counts the Gulf Arabs, not other Muslim states with plenty of oil dough to make mischief—think of Iran, or Libya. Since 1973 alone (there was plenty coming in before that, even though the real bonanza had not started for the likes of Saudi Arabia) the Muslim oil states have received—by now—about eleven billion dollars. They have done nothing, and they do nothing, to deserve this money. No hard work, no clever entrepreneurial ideas. They simply sit on top of it.

And they are supposedly loyal to fellow Muslims, so one would think that they would share that wealth. But of course they don't. Or rather, some of the rich Arabs and Muslims "share" the teeny-tiniest amounts for very specific purposes. For example, sums are raised to supply a little money to those paladins of the most immediate neighborhood Jihad, the suicide bombers in Israel. But save for one or two ostentatious transmittals of money—say, to Hariri's party in Lebanon—there is no sharing of wealth with poorer members of the Umma. Instead, the rich Arabs have been able to inveigle the world into ignoring their incredible greed.

And Saudi Arabia, according to J. B. Kelly, has for decades carefully inflated its population numbers in order to lower the published per-capita income figures as well as to engage in a little froggy throat-swelling. The rich Arabs deflect calls for wealth-sharing within the Umma, and most amazing of all, they convince the Western world, that is, the Americans and the Western Europeans, that it is they who should be shelling out aid to Egypt, to Pakistan, to Jordan, to the "Palestinian" warlords and "authorities."

Egypt is not an "ally," no matter how often that noun is misapplied. It is a world center of antisemitism that ran on state television a series based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." It is a country that makes life hell for its Christian Copts. It is a country that runs diplomatic interference for the Arab regime in Sudan, all the while pretending to be "applying pressure" to it, and to utter, for Western ears only, an occasional cluck-cluck of fake disapproval. It is a country where the corrupt Mubarak, with his Family-And-Friends Plan, continues to batten on American aid shelled out by those whose notion of an Arab ally these days—the definition keeps shifting, but it is always a ludicrous one—is any country that is not openly allied with Iran and that does not call for Israel's immediate destruction, preferring the Slow Jihad as more certain and less dangerous to itself.

Why has Egypt, whose Muslim Arabs so dislike the West (even if they would delightedly flood into the West if they could), received $70 billion from the Americans and who knows how many more billions from Europeans, when the Saudis, the Emiratis (especially Dubai and Abu Dhabi), the Qataris, the Kuwaitis, are all dripping with gold, and the money just keeps piling up, with no end in sight, even as they buy up as much as they can, at firesale prices, American companies or American stocks or American real estate?

And then there are the billions shelled out for Afghanistan, a country which might better be handled through local proxies, who can deal as they wish with those whom we identify as enemies at far less expense, and with far less tensions caused among NATO members. They are in a much better position than Western forces to fight, and know whom to fight—while the NATO forces have yet again apparently been fooled into bombing an anti-Taliban group, thinking they were the enemy. They may not have American weaponry, but such weaponry is not really needed. Long knives against long knives, Tadzhik and Uzbek in the north holding fast against Pushtuns, Hazara armed sufficiently to protect themselves from the uber-Sunni Taliban, and so on, with shifting patterns of (most temporary) Western weapons drops and supplies.

And let's not forget Iraq, where the Americans removed a monster, and for five years have been moving heaven and earth to make Iraq a decent place—which means ignoring the inshallah-fatalism, and the victor/vanquished dualism, that Islam encourages and that helps explain why the American effort, no matter how prolonged, and no matter how many men, how much money, how much materiel is expended or rather squandered, will not succeed in building a different Iraq, something recognizably advanced and Western. If there were a million Mithal al-Alusis, it might happen, but there is only one, or at best, only a handful. And it is this that General Petraeus and the "counter-insurgency manual" colonels from Leavenworth keep forgetting, or rather never knew, because they haven't deeply felt what they cannot see—and Islam, in the minds of men, cannot easily be seen. You have to study it. You have to study the texts and tenets and then what Muslims have done with those texts and tenets over time and through space—how they have behaved toward Infidels. But you can't just "see" it. And that is why the Americans have now squandered nearly two trillion dollars in Iraq.

And what has Saudi Arabia done? Has it paid for the Sunni Awakening? Has it paid to keep the Americans somewhere in the area to help protect those Sunnis, or to protect Sunni regimes from Iran-sponsored Shi'a aggression? No, not a cent. And not only that, but it is only the Infidel states that have forgiven nearly one hundred billion dollars in Iraq's pre-2003 debt, while neither Saudi Arabia nor Kuwait has done so, and the Emirates have only done so in part. Why is that, do you think, that only the Infidels have cancelled in any major way the debt of a Muslim debtor state, and not fellow Muslim states?

Oh, we could go on, with a tour of the globe, showing how here, and how there, Infidels end up footing the bill. Who paid for relief in Muslim Aceh, in Indonesia? Not the Saudis. Who pays for Muslim relief everywhere? Not the Saudis, not the Kuwaitis, not the Emiratis, not the Qataris. No, it's always the Infidels.

This has to stop. There has to be screaming, all over the Western world, to demand that members of the Umma start showing their "loyalty" to fellow members of the Umma in ways other than giving grants to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. They have all the money in the world. The more they contribute to poor Muslims, the less they will have to conduct those well-financed campaigns of Da'wa and propaganda in the West, the fewer Western hirelings they will be able to hire, the fewer mosques and madrasas spewing hate they will be able to build all over the West.

Why is the State Department, why is Congress, why is the President himself incapable of demanding that others, fellow Arabs, start paying us back for our efforts everywhere to make things better in Iraq and Afghanistan? And pay us, as well, for the "insurance" policy we provide to oil tankers in the Gulf? There is no reason for the Americans to foot the bill for all that. It is the oil sellers who should be paying. And at the very least, why are all other oil-consuming nations off the hook—such as China—leaving America to finance and do the whole job?

It makes no sense. But then, so little of what is going on does. And because it is so absurd, most people cannot quite believe it and assume there is something behind it, some modicum of sense, if only we knew. We are, they think, being kept in the dark as to the real reasons for such on-the-face-of-it idiocy.

No, I'm afraid. That idiocy on its face is just that—idiocy.

THWARTING ISLAMIC SLAVERS

MUSLIM APOLOGISTS NEVER DISCUSS, or even mention, the fact that slavery has always been accepted in Islam, and therefore it remains perfectly licit, as long as the canonical texts are neither changed, nor received differently. They never mention, never allude to, the vast Arab slave trade. They do not apologize for it; why should they—there is nothing to apologize or feel guilty about, according to the tenets of Islam. The mortality rate for the black Africans taken by the Arabs was extraordinarily high. Why were the boys castrated far from the final market? Very high death rates. Specialist knowledge lowered mortality and reduced costs—on routes utilized by slave traders.

In "The Hideous Trade: Economic Aspects of the "Manufacture" and Sale of Eunuchs," Paideuma, Mitteilungen zur Kulturkunde, Vol. .45, pp. 137-160, Weisbaden, 1999, J. Hogendorn analyzes the economics of the trade in black eunuchs by African slavers. It made economic sense to castrate boys, between the ages of 4 and 10, because they seemed to survive the operation, and the long march, more easily. Furthermore, while the Maliki school of jurisprudence that prevailed in North Africa did not allow for the "mutiliation" of slaves, the local Arabs exhibited no qualms if such "mutilation" (i.e. castration) were to be performed elsewhere, and for them simply to be the buyers of the boys who had been gelded out of sight.

Hogendorn adduces evidence, supported by the observations of others, that the mortality rate was 90%, so that for every 1000 black Africans subjected to castration by the Arab traders, only 100 would make it to the Muslim slave markets, in Constantinopole, Cairo, Baghdad, Beirut, Riyadh, Jeddah, Mecca, Medina, and even Smyrna. Anyone wishing to research the vast Arab trade in black eunuchs should start with Hogendorn. Needless to say, neither Muslims, nor Muslim apologists, have anything to say about this enormous trade—try finding a word about it in all of John Esposito's dozen or so books, and you will come up empty.

The Arab slave trade was much mentioned by the Western press during the 19th century—Tippoo Tib, for example, was a notorious figure, who occurs in Stanley's reports on the Congo. There were many less-known Arab slavers as well. But this is a subject that needs to be investigated, perhaps most appropriately by those who are looking for under-investigated areas of world history.

Yet another fail to recognize the Arab slave trade, though the slave-trader Tippu was a major figure, for example, in Livingstone's reports from Central Africa. new book, based on the story of Thomas Pellow, an Englishman who was one of those captured, "converted" to Islam, and then managed to return to England, has just appeared on this very subject—"White Gold," by Giles Milton (Hodder and Stoughton). Here is the brief review by Philippa Nuttall, in the Times Literary Supplement (Nov. 26, 2004, p.33):

"The horrors of the black slave trade are well documented, but few people are aware that Europeans were also sold to work as slaves for the sultans of North Africa and their entourages. Giles Milton’s reading of unpublished journals and letters led him to uncover the amazing and shocking tale of Thomas Pellow. Stolen from his uncle's ship in 1715 at the age of eleven, Pellow was not to return home to the Cornish village of Penryn until twenty-three years later.

Between 1609 and 1616, some 466 English trading ships were seized and their crews forced into slavery. The corsairs of Barbary also launched hit and run raids around the coast of England. By the end of 1625, the mayor of Plymouth believed that at least a thousand of his townspeople had been kidnapped. The men were most often put to work from dawn to dusk, toiling away under the blistering heat on the Moroccan sultan Mulay Ismail's new palace, the largest construction project in history.

The sultan was not satisfied with forcing the slaves to work for him. He wished them to share in his religious beliefs, and frequently tried to convert them to Islam through torture. The women prisoners were forvcibly converted and sent to the harem. A particularly widespread form of torture was bastinadoing, whereby the victim is hung upside down so that his neck and shoulders rest on the ground. His ankles are then bound and he is whipped forty or fifty times on the soles of his feet. Pellow initially put up a strong fight. But after one particularly fearsome bastinado, he renounced God in favour of Muhammad. His intelligence and strength had already caused the sultan to single him out as a potential palace retainer; his conversion eased his appointment as guardian of the imperial harem.

As time passed, though never losing the desire to return to his homeland, Pellow began to have more in common with his captors than with his countrymen. He became fluent in Arabic, was made to take a wife " with whom he had a daughter " and was regularly sent into battle. He even took part in slave-gathering expeditions across the Dark Continent. After several failed attempts, he managed to flee his captors and returned to Devon.

The British government and its European neighbours proved singularly unable to coordinate and sustain an effort to free the slaves. It was not until 1816 that Britain finally declared all-out war on the trade and sent a fleet, captained by a distant relative of Pellow, to Algiers. The victory of Sir Edward Pellow's fleet led to the release of 1,642 slaves in Algiers alone, and persuaded the rulers of Tunis, Tripoli and various Moroccan cities that the era of the white slave was over.

Of course, the enslavement of blacks and whites was justified by the Muslim raiders because both the black Africans, and all the Europeans who were kidnapped over many centuries, both belonged to the Bilad al-kufr and were, in fact, Infidels. J. Willis, like Hogedorn a student of the Arab slave trade, notes in “Jihad and the Ideology of Enslavement,” in Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa, pp. 16-26, the attitude of the Arab slavers:

“As the opposition of Islam to kufr erupted from every corner of malice and mistrust, the lands of the enslavable barbarian became the favorite hunting ground for the “people of reason and faith” [that is, Muslims], the parallels between slave and infidel began to fuse in the heat of jihad. Hence whether by capture or sale, it was as slave and not citizen that the kafir was destined to enter the Muslim domain. And since the condition of captives flowed from the status of their territories, the choice between freedom and servility came to rests on a single proof: the religion of a land is the religion of its amir (ruler); if he be Muslim, the land is a land of Islam (dar al-Islam); if he be pagan, the land is a land of unbelief (dar al-kufr).

Appended to this principle was the kindred notion that the religion of a land is the religion of its majority; if it be Muslim the land is a land of Islam; if it be pagan, the land is a land of kufr, and its inhabitants can be reckoned within the categories of enslavement underl Muslim law. Again, as slavery became a simile for infidelity, so too did freedom remain the signal feature of Islam. And further:

“...in all the legal texts: "make jihad against the infidels, kill their men, make captive their women and children, seize their wealth .”

Thus, encumbrance was no sanctuary from the servile condition; with the elimination of the men, the net of enslavement slipped over the remnants of the kafir camp, round the women and children who became spoil in the path of Allah. The deiolgoy of enslavement in Islam then, becomes that ideology which seeks to repair the losses of jihad. Women and children are the diya [the compensation, fixed by custom and law], the jizya, the reparation and plunder for lives pledged in jihad. Hence again, spoil [ghanima] becomes a kind of compensation

There is much more in Willis, and in Hogedorn. These texts will appear in the forthcoming “The Legacy of Jihad” - a much-needed anthology of scholarship on Jihad and Dhimmitude, edited by Dr. Andrew Bostom.

But from this short note, on both the vast Arab trade in the enslavement of black Africans (and if the mortality rate for the eunuchs was 90%, then the numbers of Africans actually murdered even before they arrived at the Muslim slave markets of Mecca, Medinah, Cairo, Baghdad, Constantinopole, Jeddah, and so on, then given the millions and millions who were enslaved over many centuries until the Europeans, especially the British, managed to end the trade, was far greater than the number of victims of the Middle Passage, or Atlantic Slave Trade.

If we add to that the million victims of the white slave trade, discussed in the review of Giles Milton's “White Gold” which focuses on the life of Thomas Pellow, one can see that those who make claims as occurred during the U.N.'s almost continuous session of taqiyya by the likes of Seyyid Hossein Nasr and, even more scandalously because of all her talk about “freedom of thought” and "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" having their origins in Islam, an Orwellianism that beggars belief—one Azizah al-Hibri, a fulltime defender of Islam who cloaks her apologetics in an ostentatious pretense of somehow “fighting for women's rights” within an Islamic context (she needs to be raked over the rhetorical coals by some real "fighter? such as Azam Kamguian).

Perhaps a Kamguian-Al-Hibri debate can be arranged at the next meeting of the American Association of Law Schools, which is where, in the firt place, some years ago, someone on the Hiring Committee of the T. D. Williams School of Law must have urged her hiring, in the mistaken belief that the best person to teach students about Islamic law, of course, would be a plausible Muslim (it is more akin to hiring a KGB agent to give a course on the Soviet Union, given the impossibility for Muslims to let Infidels know the full truth about Muslim tenets or Muslim history " the Faith must be defended at all costs (taqiyya, kitman are the doctrines that religiously-sanction dissimulation "lying" to protect that faith).

And when Azizah al-Hibri maintained at the U.N.'s "Islamophobia Day" that Islam was always "peaceful? and "unaggressive," aside from the fact of conquest explaining the entire history of the spread of Islam " with the single exception of the East Indies, where Da?wa seems to have done the main work " there is, in the sanitized version of Al-Hibri's history, the great omission before the resumption of aggression in modern times, especially whenever the wherewithal was available, as it is now.

And that great omission consists in passing over in silence the black African slave trade by Arab Muslim slavers, supplying all the slave markets of the Muslim world, especially with young boys, usually between 4 and 14, gelded for their Muslim masters. And she forgets the hundreds of years, in which Arabs raided up and down the coasts of Europe, as far even as Ireland and in one recorded case, Iceland, looting, raiding villages, and taking back as slaves nearly one million white Europeans, of whom Thomas Pellow was one.

The scholarly work of Hogedorn deals soberly with the atrocity of "the hideous trade? in eunuchs, while J. Willis relates the African slave trade to the Islamic doctrines concerning Jihad fa sibil Allah " Jihad in the way of Allah " and the rightness of enslaving the kaffir, whose enslavement is the correct way for kaffirs, Infidels, to atone for their being Infidels in the first place.

The more you learn about Islam, the more detail you acquire, the less confused you become about the spectacle you see all about you, and instead of confusion, the mind comes to rest, as the Infidel Samuel Johnson once said, on the stability of truth. And the next time the assorted and fungible Al-Hibris and Nasrs of this world tell you that it was "the Crusades? or, in al-Hibri's case, "colonialism? which caused the Muslim world to become more aggressive out of its need to defend itself, raise the little matter of the trade in eunuchs, and how many blacks have been sent, over how many centuries, to stock the slave trade of the Muslim world.

And then mention Thomas Pellow, and the million Europeans kidnapped (and how many others were murdered in Muslim raids up and down the coasts of the Mediterranean, all the way to the North Sea), and their villages raided " hundreds of years before colonialism " which, except for Algeria, touched the Arab Muslim world only glancingly, and for a very short period.

The more you learn about Islam, the more detailed knowledge you acquire, the less confused you become about the spectacle you see all about you, here and there throughout the world. That confusion, which some in Washington and certainly many in the chanceries of Europe, still feel because they do not pay attention to history, and fail to recognize the immutable nature of Islam, which makes that 1400 years of history completely relevant today. Eventually, as that famous Infidel Samuel Johnson (who would not have lasted a minute under Islam) once said, the mind can only repose on the stability of truth.

That stability of truth is attained when we heed the evidence presented not only by our senses (what the news offers by way of Muslim attacks world-wide on non-Muslims, or the content of khutbas, or textbooks, or the rhetoric of the terrorist groups, or the taqiyya/kitman offered by the assorted Tariq Ramadans/Azizah al Hibris and their non-Muslim fellow apologists (Esposito, Sells, more than half the membership, and all of the officers, of Mesa Nostra), but by the articulate analyses from "defectors? or ex-Muslims" Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina come to mind.

And then there are the scholars who, because they were independent of universities, carried on their work unafraid, such as that pioneering historian of dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or. Those who continue, despite the mounting evidence, and despite the kind of scholarship that, for example, is used in this brief note (J. Hogedorn, J. Willis, Giles Milton) which can no longer be hidden from view, and will, in larger and larger amounts, be made available to the world of real scholarship and to the general public (neither of which seems too impressed, anymore, or too likely, any more, to be taken in by the Esposito-Sells-Ernst view of Islam, now seen as the offerings of carney barkers down on their luck).

Those who have been creating, and flogging, sanitized Qur’ans, those who have been playing the stuck record of Saidian thuggery and invective and the clichés about "colonialism” and, bien entendu, "post-colonial discourse,” are seeing their audience get up, virtually en masse, and leave the room.

Those who have tried to play various rhetorical cards such as the "creation of the Other by the West" (of course, Islam itself rests entirely on the need for "the Other" since it divides the world uncompromisingly between Believer and Infidel, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb) or the latest bait and switch called "islamophobia,” which is an attempt to create a name for a non-existent condition that is, baseless prejudice against Islam—using it to prevent intelligent critical scrutiny of the tenets of Islam, and of the history of Muslim treatment of non-Muslims wherever they have been subjugated, are losing ground and they know it.

Each day in the Sudan, or in Pakistan, or in Iraq, or in Egypt, brings fresh news of attacks on non-Muslims. Each day brings fresh news of attempts by Muslims in the West to make demands on the Infidels among whom they live, and whose societies they are intent on bending to their will, and their desires. Each day brings news of fresh attempts at intimidation, ranging from "religious hate laws” that are transparent attempts to keep non-Muslims from saying anything critical about Islam, to lawsuits to silence critics (as in Australia), to murder (as with Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh). Each day's news makes it that much harder for the Espositos and the Al-Hibris and the Tariq Ramadans to continue their work of apologetics and, where they are Muslim, taqiyya and kitman.

And each day brings closer the unearthing and the publication of more and more scholarship. Whether it is about the historic treatment of Zoroastrians (Mary Boyce), or about the Arab Muslim slave trade (Hogedorn, Willis, Giles Milton, and hundreds of others), whether it is the scholarship that has recently been reprinted for wide audiences (Schacht, Margoliouth, Sir William Muir), or new work on dhimmitude (the four volumes of Bat Ye’or, including the latest, "Eurabia” or Vahakh Dadrian on the Armenian genocide), or the forgotten articles of great Islamists found, assembled, and readied for publication (from Arthur Jeffery and Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, to Armand Abel, Georges Vajda, Bousquet,), or the growing body of scholarship by Indian historians on the fate of Hindus and Hindu civilization under Muslim rule (scholarship which must include not only K. S Lal and Sita Ram Goel, and Koenraad Elst, but also the work of V. S. Naipaul as a student of the "wounded civilization?), and there is much more.

It must be difficult to be an apologist for Islam, and wake up each morning, wondering what the news will bring, and how you will manage to explain it away this time. And it must be frightening to consult the catalogues of books that are about to be published, to see what is about to come out on Islam. Gone are the days of "Constructing Palestinian Identity” or other books focussing on the Arab jihad against Israel. Indeed, ten years ago, you could get away without using the word "jihad” and five years ago, you could still get away without doing much more than dismissing it with some reference to the "Greater Jihad” of mastering your own self. Two years ago, you could get away with not mentioning the condition of the dhimmi, or if you had to, mentioning laconically that Christians and Jews were offered favored treatment as "Protected Peoples” et cetera, and leave it at that.

Why, even a half-year ago, the worst you could expect would be whatever Bernard Lewis was offering, and he was, a year ago, the nemesis of Esposito. But too many people have seen what is wrong with Bernard Lewis as well " not least because his failure to see the full horror of Islam, even as he warns (more privately than publicly) about the threat of Europe's islamization, a reflection not of stupidity but, very likely, of the desire to maintain his position with fan clubs in Amman and Istanbul, and his own forays into policy, with his support for the Oslo Accords, and his seeming belief that Iraq was a suitable place to enter into the folly and misallocation of resources that this "Light Unto the Muslim Nations” project has become, draining men, material, money, morale, and attention from the much larger problem, the world-wide and endless problem of Islam and the Jihad.

And the scholarship produced, or unearthed, and the day's daily Jihad-and-Dhimmitude news, makes it harder and harder for the apologists to continue. They may save their livelihoods (though Georgetown really, for its own sake, and own reputation, ought to sever the connection with Esposito)—That's what tenure will do—but Mesa Nostra is unlikely to have the power, or command the respect, or above all be able to attract the government money, that it once did, and still hopes it can manage to inveigle from an increasingly skeptical, not to say hostile, public and government.

But, to go back to Muslim Slavery, Black and White—think of those young black eunuchs, for every thousand gelded, only one hundred survived the long march to the Muslim slave markets. And think of Thomas Pellow, and the million other Christian Europeans kidnapped (and how many others killed during Muslim raids) over more than 500 years of aggression, by sea, of Muslims against Western Christendom and against the Kaffir, who as a Kaffir, merited enslavement.

And the same texts remain, and are received in the same way, by the vast majority of Muslims. And there seems to be no way to change them, no one and no group, with the authority to do so, or the ability to get Muslims to accept those changes, whether in details of the sira, or in the assignment of different hadith to the categories of “strong” and "weak” hadith, or to the most difficult text to touch—the Quran itself.

And that is the problem. And there is no solution.

THE TRAITOR CLASS

Here is a riveting talk in Europe given by Serge Trifkovic at the Antijihad Conference in Vienna on May 10-11, taken from Gates of Vienna.

The Bellicose Augur is running this speech because Serge understands that the real enemy is the dhimmi amongst us, amongst us as traitors. The speech was given on Vienna, May 10, 2008.

"Europe today is a powder keg," Otto von Bismarck remarked , "and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal."

I am not going to waste your time tonight with yet another treatise on why Islam is not the Religion of Peace, Tolerance, Compassion, etc, etc. We are beyond that. Had America agonized, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, whether Shinto was actually OK but only Bushido was bad, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere would be going strong to this day. Among reasonable people, unblinkered by the dicta of political correctitude, the real score on Muhammad and his followers is well known. It has been known for centuries. That score, however, no matter how calmly stated and comprehensively supported, invariably elicits the howls of "Islamophobia" from the neoliberal elite class.

AN EMINENTLY POSTMODERN LITTLE PHOBIA

In the way of an introduction, let us therefore look at the formal, legally tested definition of that word, the latest addition to the arsenal of postmodern "phobias." It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based here in Vienna. ("Orwellian" is a worn-out adjective, but it simply has to be used in connection with this particular institution.) The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of "Islamophobia" all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and "Other."
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Discriminatory practices and Muslims' exclusion from mainstream society are advocated.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. As it happens...

1. That Islam is static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an internal, orthodox critique of jihad, sharia, jizya, etc. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, "Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action." A century later his diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are "distorting" Islam; the would-be reformers are.
2. That Islam is separate from our Western, Christian, European culture and civilization, and "other" than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if Europe eventually succumbs to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.
3. Whether Islam is "inferior to the West" is a matter of opinion, of course. That Islam cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative, and attractive human society is not. Whether Islam is "barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist" is at least debatable; but that many of its tangible fruits are so, is all too painfully visible.
4. Islam is seen by so many as "violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism" not because of some irrational "phobia" in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because (a) of the clear mandate of its scripture; (b) of the record of its 14 centuries of historical practice; and above all (c) of the timeless example of its founder.
5. "Islam is seen as a political ideology," and it should be seen as one, because its key trait is a political program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready and eager to spill blood. This makes Islam closer to Bolshevism and to National Socialism than to any other religion. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by "the Other," i.e. non-Muslim societies and cultures, is implacable hostility and violence, or violent intent.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand; they should be understood. Its chief "criticism" of the West-and of every other non-Islamic culture or tradition-is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.
7. A priori hostility towards Islam should not be "used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims." Quite the contrary, an education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting - not because it is an intolerant "religion," but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the values of the West.
8. And finally, while anti-Muslim hostility is not a priori "natural or normal," the desire of non-Muslims to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is "natural and normal"; but the elite class is actively trying to neutralize it.

As the demand for Sharia-based communal self-rule is made with increasing frequency in the banlieus of Paris and the grim West Midlands council estates, Europe's elite class is ready to throw in the towel. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner—a Christian Democrat—sees the demand as perfectly legitimate and argues that sharia could be introduced "by democratic means." Muslims have a right to follow the commands of their religion, even if that included some "dissenting rules of behavior": "Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say 'this isn't allowed'! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy…"

GUILT-RIDDEN FELLOW-TRAVELERS

Such inanities are light years away from Winston Churchill's warning, over a century ago, that "no stronger retrograde force exists in the world" than Islam:

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Even Churchill's prescience could not envisage the possibility that the invader would find his fellow-travellers at No. 10, Downing Street, at the European Union headquarters in Brussels, and in dozens of chancelleries and palaces across the Old Continent. Their joint efforts are helping change the face of Europe. The cumulative effect is not in doubt: by 2050, Muslims will account for over one-third of "Old Europe's" young residents. Millions of them already live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host country, toward which they have a disdainful and hostile attitude.

The elite class responds to such hostility with calls for ever-greater inclusiveness. Giuseppe Pisanu, Berlusconi's former minister of the interior, responsible for controlling the country's borders, thus declared five years ago that the high fatality rate of North African illegals on the high seas en route to Sicily was "a dreadful tragedy that weighs on the conscience of Europe." His view was paradigmatic of the utopian liberal mind-set. If "Europe" should feel shame and guilt that people who have no right to come to its shores are risking their lives while trying to do so illegally, then only the establishment of a free passenger-ferry service between Tripoli and Palermo—with no passport or customs formalities required upon arrival, and a free shuttle to Rome or Milan—would offer some relief to that burdened conscience. And Sr. Pisanu is supposedly a man of the "Right"!

The tangible results of the leaders' moral decrepitude are devastating. A century ago, Sr. Pisanu and his class shared social commonalities that could be observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, Biaritz or Paris, depending on the season. Englishmen, Russians, and Austrians shared the same outlook and sense of propriety, they all spoke French, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their national traditions, the permanent vessels in which Weltanschauung could be translated into Kultur. Today's "United Europe," by contrast, does not create social and civilizational commonalities except on the basis of wholesale denial of old mores, disdain for inherited values, and an overt rejection of "traditional" culture. It creates the dreary sameness of "antidiscriminationism" and "tolerance."

Such weakness breeds contempt and haughty arrogance on the other side. Take Tariq Ramadan, who calmly insists that Muslims in the West should conduct themselves as though they were already living in a Muslim-majority society and were exempt on that account from having to make concessions to the faith of the host-society. Muslims in Europe should feel entitled to live on their own terms, Ramadan says, while, "under the terms of Western liberal tolerance," society as a whole should be "obliged to respect that choice."

If such "respect" continues to be extended by the elite class, by the end of this century there will be no "Europeans" as members of ethnic groups that share the same language, culture, history, and ancestors, and inhabit lands associated with their names. The shrinking native populations will be indoctrinated into believing-or else simply forced into accepting-that the demographic shift in favor of unassimilable and hostile aliens is actually a blessing that enriches their culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies. The "liberal tolerance" and the accompanying "societal obligation" that Tariq Ramadan invokes thus become the tools of Western suicide. "No other race subscribes to these moral principles," Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, "because they are weapons of self-annihilation." The weapons need to be discarded, and the upholders of those deadly "principles" removed from all positions of power and influence, if Europe is to survive.

THE PATHOLOGY OF THE ELITE CLASS

It is in the inability and unwillingness of the neoliberal elite class to confront the grave threat to our civilization that Western Europe and North America most tellingly certify that they share the same cultural chromosomes. In 1938 Hilaire Belloc wondered, "Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world which will shake the dominion of Europeans-still nominally Christian-and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?"

Seven decades later, the same traits of decrepitude are present in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States, including both the primary cause, which is the loss of religious faith, and several secondary ones. Topping the list is elite hostility to all forms of solidarity of the majority population based on shared historical memories, ancestors, and common culture; the consequences are predictable:

* the loss of a sense of place and history among Europeans and North Americans;
* rapid demographic decline, especially in Europe, unparalleled in history;
* rampant Third World (and in Europe, overwhelmingly Muslim) immigration;
* collapse of private and public manners, morals, and traditional commonalities;
* imposition of "diversity," "multiculturalism," "sensitivity"; and
* demonization and criminalization of any opposition to any of the above.

The end-result is the Westerners' loss of the sense of propriety over their lands. Before 1914, both the West and the Muslim world could define themselves against each other in a cultural sense. The neoliberal elite insists on casting aside any idea of a specifically "Western" geographic and cultural space that should be protected from those who do not belong to it and have no rightful claim to it. The elite insists that our countries belong to the whole world.

We face an elite consensus that de facto open immigration, multiculturalism, and the existence of a large Muslim diaspora within the Western world are to be treated as a fixed and immutable fact that must not be scrutinized. That consensus, I contend, is ideological in nature, flawed in logic, dogmatic in application, and disastrous in its results. It needs to be tested against evidence, and not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.

In addition, a depraved mass culture and multiculturalist indoctrination in state schools and the mainstream media have already largely neutralized the sense of historical and cultural continuity among young West Europeans and North Americans. By contrast, the blend of soft porn and consumerism that targets every denizen of the Western world has not had the same effect on the Muslim diaspora in the West. The roll-call of Western-born and educated young Muslims supportive of terrorism confirms that failure.

The loss of a sense of place and history experienced by millions of Westerners follows the emergence of two sides of the same coin: a neoliberal post-national hyper-state in Europe and the neoconservative "benevolent global hegemony" in the U.S. epitomized by the demand for an ever-growing NATO. These two mindsets, seemingly at odds, are but two aspects of the same emerging globalized universe, two sides of the same coin. The neoliberals advocate multilateralism in the form of an emerging "international community" framed by the United Nations and adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with the EU acting as an interim medium for transferring sovereign prerogatives to a supra-national body; the neocons prefer to be the only cop in town. Both share the same distaste for traditional, naturally evolving societies and cultures.

The revolutionary character of the multiculturalist project is revealed in the endless mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality, the formula now elevated to the status of the post-modern Philosopher's Stone, the force that moves the linear historical process forward, towards the grand Gleichschaltung of nations, races, and cultures that will mark the end of history. Race, Gender and Sexuality have replaced the Proletariat as both the oppressed underclass (hence the cult of the non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual victimhood), and as the historically preordained agent of revolutionary change.

Classical Marxist political economy found the dynamics of revolution in the inevitable conflict between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat that has nothing to sell but its labor and nothing to lose but its chains. Latter-day Marxist revolutionaries go beyond dialectical materialism, however, by introducing a wholly metaphysical concept of victimhood and an array of associated special-rights claims that have worked such wonders for Islam all over the Western world. Majority populations of "old" Europe and America, in this insane but all-pervasive paradigm, are guilty of "oppression" by their very existence, and therefore must not protest the migratory deluge, let alone try to oppose it: that is "racism.".

The fruits are with us already. Gibbon could have had today's Antwerp or Malmo in mind, or Marseilles, or Huddersfield, when he wrote of Rome in decline, its masses morphing "into a vile and wretched populace." On present form, within a century the native Western majorities will melt away: "child-free" is a legitimate yuppie lifestyle term, on par with "fat-free" and "drug-free." But whereas the threat of extinction of an exotic tribal group in Borneo or Amazonia—let alone a species of spotted owl or sperm whale - would cause alarm and prompt activism among neoliberal elites, it is deemed inherently racist to mention the fact that Europeans and their trans-Atlantic cousins are, literally, endangered species.

There will be no grand synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization, between the West and Islam. Even the ultra-tolerant Dutch are beginning to see the light, pace Geert Wilders, but they are hamstrung by guilt-ridden self-haters and appeasers, whose hold on the political power, the media, and the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, and obscene. If Europe is to survive they need to be unmasked for what they are: traitors to their nations and their culture. They must be replaced by people ready and willing to subject the issues of immigration and identity to the test of democracy, unhindered by administrative or judicial fiat.

If the coming war against jihad is to be won, the first task is to start talking frankly about the identity and character of the enemy and the nature of the threat. The obligation to do so is dictated by morality no less than by the need for self-preservation. "If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles," says Sun Tzu. Well, we know the enemy. We know his core beliefs, his role models, his track-record, his mindset, his modus operandi, and his intentions. We also know his weaknesses, which are many, above all his inability to develop a prosperous economy or a functional, harmonious society.

The main problem is with ourselves; or, to be precise, with those among us who have the power to make policy and shape opinions, and who will reject and condemn our diagnosis. Having absorbed postmodernist relativism, certain only of uncertainty, devoid of any faith except the faith in their own infallibility, members of the Western neoliberal elite class treat the jihadist mindset as a problem that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself. The result is a plethora of proposed "cures" that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from terrorism as snake oil is likely to cure leukemia.

Abroad, we are told, we need to address political and economic grievances of the Muslim impoverished masses, we need to spread democracy and free markets in the Muslim world, we need to invest more in public diplomacy. At home we need more tolerance, greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the minorities that feel marginalized. The predictable failure of such cures leads to ever more pathological self-scrutiny and to ever more morbid self-doubt. This vicious circle must be broken.

BREAKING THE DEADLOCK

The deadlock on the Somme in 1916, or at Verdun a year later, could not be broken with the ideas and modus operandi of Messrs. Haig, Foch, Cadrona or Hindenburg. It could have been unlocked, however, had Lidell-Hart, de Gaulle, or Guderian held the old guard's ranks and positions. Winning a war demands "knowing the enemy and knowing oneself," of course, but it also demands "thinking outside the box." This cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.

Let us therefore start our specific policy recommendations with the complex and emotionally charged issue of "human rights" versus national security.

DEFINING ISLAMIC ACTIVISM

Instead of seeking a ban on all Muslim immigration right away, which is not a realistic goal at this moment, Western anti-jihadist activists should campaign for changes in immigration legislation of their home countries to include clauses that would exclude Islamic activists before they come, and have them deported if they are already infiltrated into the country.

This demand needs to be made acceptable and attractive to a wide cross-section of the electorate regardless of political and ideological preferences. Therefore it should be focused on the Islamic activists' threat to the neoliberal values themselves:

* Discrimination against other religions (with special emphasis on the rising European phenomenon of Islamic anti-Semitism), outlooks (inc. atheism) and lifestyles;
* Discrimination and violence against women (esp. wives and "disobedient" daughters);
* Discrimination and violence against homosexuals;
* Threats of violence in any form and for whatever alleged "offense" or "insult" (e.g. drawing cartoons, making documentaries, writing books);
* Apology or justification for all of the above.

It is essential to focus on the despicable acts themselves, and then drawing the direct line to the commands of Islam's scripture and its founder, rather than doing it in reverse, as some well-meaning but politically less astute anti-jihadist activists do.

This definition of Islamic activism would be a major step in the direction of denying actual or potential jihadists a foothold in Europe and the rest of the West. In the U.S. the broad model is provided by the old 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, the McCarran-Walter Act), mandating the exclusion or deportation of any alien who engaged or had purpose to engage in activities prejudicial to the public interest or subversive to national security. "Ideological" grounds for deportation were on the US statute books until 1990, when they were repealed by Congress. After the Russian revolution foreign communists were singled out for deportation. One night alone in January of 1920, more than 2,500 "alien radicals" were seized in thirty-three cities across the country and deported to their countries of origin.

DENYING CITIZENSHIP TO ISLAMIC ACTIVISTS

I submit to you that all Western countries need laws that will treat any naturalized citizen's or legally resident alien's known adherence to an Islamist world outlook as excludable - on political, rather than "religious" grounds. It is politically feasible to articulate the demand that citizenship of a democratic Western country should be denied to all Islamic activists.

In the United States a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath, "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." A declaration of this kind, of not a solemn oath of allegiance, is expected from naturalized citizens in most European countries.

For a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts an "infidel," i.e. non-Muslim document or law as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of apostasy par excellence, punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the "secular" legal code with which it coexists; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah's authority on the basis of his revealed will - and for as long as they remain infidel, both Europe and America are illegitimate. So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith? Because he is practicing taqiyya, the art of elaborate lying that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of Jihad. (Or else because he is not devout enough and confused, but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point he will rediscover his roots.)

AUXILLIARY MEASURES

Those who preach or promote jihad and advocate the introduction of sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner that adherents of other totalitarian ideologies had been treated in the free world during the Cold War. It will be a long and hard struggle to open the eyes of legislators and legal regulators that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to Western values and institutions, but it can be done. Other necessary measures would then follow, but to that end anti-jihadists should start articulating and advocating them now:

1. Seek zero porosity of the borders. Preventing illegal immigration is a desirable objective per se; in the context of stopping terrorists it is mandatory. No anti-jihadist strategy is possible without complete physical control of borders. This is an issue on which a majority of the electorate of each and every Western country will agree - much to the chagrin of the liberal elites. Anti-jihadists should insist that all illegal immigration is a major security threat and that it can and should be subject to the letter of the law, and not to the suicidal dictates of the "human rights" lobby.
2. Demand mandatory cooperation of state agencies at all levels in identifying, registering and apprehending illegal immigrants and in assisting in their deportation - starting with those from nations and groups at risk for terrorism. It is a curious phenomenon in most Western countries that at various levels of state administration (e.g. welfare officers and social workers) and law enforcement (e.g. police forces in major cities) we encounter varying levels of tolerance, and even encouragement, of illegal immigrants' continued presence in the community. Again, this demand for simple compliance with the law by tax-funded public officers would be politically popular.
3. Discard the irrational ban on "profiling." Not all Muslims are terrorists, of course, but all transnational terrorist networks that threaten Western countries' national security and way of life are composed of Muslims. It is time to accept that "profiling" based on a person's appearance, origin, and apparent or suspected beliefs is an essential tool of trade of law enforcement and war on terrorism. Just ask the Israelis!
4. Subject the work of Islamic centers to legal limitations and security supervision. All over the Western world, Islamic centers have provided platforms for exhortations to the faithful to support causes and to engage in acts that are morally reprehensible, legally punishable, and detrimental to the host country's national security. They have provided shelter to the outlaws, and offered recruitment to the leaders.
5. Treat affiliation with Islamic activism as grounds for denial or revoking of any level of security clearance. Such affiliation is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government (e.g. immigration control, airport security). Presence of practicing Muslims in any of these institutions would present an inherent risk to its integrity and would undermine morale.

Acceptance of these proposals would represent a new start in devising long-term defense. The proposed measures recognize that we are in a war of ideas and religion, whether we want that or not and however much we hate the fact. They reflect the seriousness of the struggle. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep condition that the West is on its last legs. The success of its demographic onslaught on Europe enhances the image of "a candy store with the busted lock," and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for self-perpetuation is indeed in peril.

CAN THE CANDY STORE WITH A BUSTED LOCK BE SAVED?

The above proposals are not only pragmatic, they are morally just. They will elicit the accusation of "discrimination" from the self-hating segments of the elite class, even though no such label is applicable. Targeting people for screening, supervision and exclusion on the basis of their genes would be discriminatory indeed, but doing so because of their beliefs, ideas, actions, and intentions is justified and necessary. Orthodox Islamic beliefs, ideas and intentions as such pose a threat to the European civilization, culture, and way of life.

The elite class rejects this diagnosis, of course, but among reasonable, well-informed citizens the debate must be conducted on terms liberated from the shackles of the elite class. Geert Wilders certainly shows the way. We should act accordingly, and never, ever be afraid of causing controversy. That means being subjected to the threat of legal proceedings by the neoliberal state—or to the threat of death, by those whom the neoliberal state continues to protect to the detriment of its own citizens.

Western leaders did not agonize over communism's "true" nature during the Berlin air lift in 1949, or in Korea in 1950, but acted effectively to contain it by whatever means necessary. Yes, back then we had a legion of Moscow's apologists, character witnesses, moles and fellow-travelers, assuring us that the Comrades want nothing but social justice at home and peaceful coexistence abroad. They held tenured chairs at prestigious universities and dominated all smart salons, from London and Paris to New York. They explained away and justified the inconsistencies and horrifyingly violent implications of the source texts of Marx and Lenin. They explained away and justified the appalling fruits: the bloodbath of the Revolution, the genocidal great famine, the show trials and purges, the killing of millions of innocents in the Gulag, the pact with Hitler, the works.

Today their spiritual heirs in politics, the academy and the media establishment act as Islam's apologists, character witnesses and fellow travelers. They flatly deny or else explain away, with identical scholastic sophistry and moral depravity, the dark and violent implications of the source texts, the Kuran and the Hadith, the deeply unnerving career of Muhammad, and centuries of conquests, wars, slaughters, subjugation, decline without fall, spiritual and material misery, and murderous fanaticism.

NIL DESPERANDUM!

Some eighty years ago Julien Benda published his tirade against the intellectual corruption of his times, The treason of the intellectuals. For generations prior to the 20th century, Benda wrote, members of the Western intellectual elite ensured that "humanity did evil, but honored good." The "Treason" of the title occurred when they gave up promoting lasting civilizational values in favor of short-term political preferences. Benda wrote at a time when fascism, nazism and bolshevism dominated Europe's scene. Today the "treason" of the elite class takes a different form. It upholds the allegedly universal values of multiculturalism, inclusiveness and antidiscriminationism to the detriment of the particular value of our civilization and all its fruits. The propensity of the elite class to the betrayal of our culture remains the same, however.

The fact that normal people don't realize the magnitude of the problem works to the advantage of the people like Solana, Soros, Blair, Prodi, or Hillary Clinton. Their ideas, which but two generations ago would have been deemed eccentric or insane, now rule the Euro-American mainstream. Only a society inured to the concept of open borders can be unblinkingly told that Islam is good and tolerant, that "we" (the West) have been nasty and unkind to it over the centuries—remember the Crusades!—and that "terrorism" needs to be understood, and cured, by social therapy that is independent of Islam's teaching and practice.

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 in time—regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions. The resulting random melange of mutually disconnected multitudes is supposed to be a blessing that enriches an otherwise arid and monotonous society.

A further pernicious 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. Such notions have been internalized by the elite class in America and Western Europe to the point where they actively help Islamic terrorism. In America the process has been under way for decades. By 1999 then-Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott felt ready to declare that the United States may not exist "in its current form" in the 21st century, because the very concept of nationhood—here and throughout the world—will have been rendered obsolete.

A generation earlier such uttering from a senior government official would have caused a scandal. By the end of the 20th century such declarations bothered only the unsophisticates who persist in assuming that the purpose of what Dr. Talbott was doing at the Department of State was to ensure the survival, security and prosperity of the United States within the international system, rather than its eventual absorption by the system. But his was an exultant prophecy, not an impartial assessment. The ideological foundation for Talbott's beliefs was stated bluntly: "All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary." To the members of his class, all countries are but transient, virtual-reality entities. Owing emotional allegiance to any one of them is irrational, and risking one's life for its sake is absurd.

The refusal of theWestern elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history. It is rooted in the mindset that breeds the claim that "force is not an answer" to terrorism, that profiling is bad and open borders are good, that "true" Islam is peaceful and the West is wicked. The upholders of such claims belong to the culture that has lost its bond with nature, history, and the supporting community. In the meantime, thanks to them, the quiet onslaught continues unabated, across the Straits of Gibraltar, through JFK and O'Hare, Heathrow and Schiphol. Far from enhancing diversity, it threatens to impose a numbing sameness and eradicate the identity of target-populations, to demolish their special character and uniqueness.

That supporting community, the real nation, is still out there, in North America and Europe alike, working and paying taxes and grinning and bearing it. When it is told of Islam's "peace and tolerance," it grumbles about someone's stupidity or ineptitude, but it still does not suspect outright betrayal. The betrayers, meanwhile, promote an ideology of universal human values, of a common culture for the whole world. They may not even realize why they abet Islam. For all the outward differences, they share with the mullahs and sheikhs and imams the desire for a monistic One World. They both long for Talbot's Single Global Authority, post-national and seamlessly standardized, an Ummah under a fancy secular name.

Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands and nations 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. They are our enemies and jihad's indispensable objective allies.

The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, has every intention of continuing to "fight" the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.

It is up to the millions of normal Europeans and their American cousins to stop the madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity, and to make room for the post-human, monistic Utopia spearheaded by the jihadist fifth column.

This crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.

If you enjoyed Serge Trifkovic's speech, you will want to read his book, Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won—In Spite of Ourselves. The book expands on the material in his speech and presents a clear and straightforward account of the Islamic jihad that our intellectuals and media ignore at the peril of Western civilization. His common sense solutions can be implemented successfully, given the will to do so.

Trifkovic, an editor at Chronicles Magazine, is an excellent writer, political analyst and strategist who needs to be more widely read, especially by our local and U.S. government representatives.

INTERVIEW WITH BILL WARNER (PT.2)

WASHINGTON—Welcome to part two of a riveting interview with laudible Bill Warner—the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com This interview was conducted by Jamie Glasov As we mentioned in thesend-up to part one of this interview, this, my friends, is serious reading material. Check your facts, if you doubt these, one by one, but please be certain of your sources. Analyze them as you would your mortgage papers. This is a war that begins with information, and disinformation is the primary tool of the enemy. Change your perspective from one of ignorance to that of an informed kafir citizenry. It is time, not only to love thy enemies, but to correct them as well..

FP: Give some advice as to how we can improve our organization.

Warner: Ok, let me lay out a theoretical organization devoted to attacking dhimmis.

We must organize as political activists. This can take a thousand forms, but since this is a Web article, let me suggest one possible form of war—personal educational attacks on dhimmis.

Organization: Wild Dog Team (must have a coordinating website).

Situation: a university professor of Middle East studies writes a puff piece about Islam in a large newspaper.

Response: A Wild Dog member posts the article to the Wild Dog target page. If this dhimmi writer has been attacked before, there is a historical record. (Assume this has been going on long enough that an email directory has been prepared for the newspaper staff and the University Middle East studies and the University Administration.) Other Wild Dogs sign up to do a pack attack.

A project page is created for this attack. The project page has some suggested ideas for attack lines. Each of the members writes a letter and sends it to the email list of the professor, the newspaper editorial staff, the University department and University Administration. The team member also posts his letter to Project Page. This lets other Pack members coordinate their letters and not duplicate.

The Library: The Wild Dogs Web page has a library of “best letters” so that cut and paste can be used for letter writing.

Tone: no personal attacks. Use facts of the doctrine and history. These letters are not to insult, but to educate. Shame works, use it.

Repetition: Each time the professor writes another letter or the newspaper publishes another dhimmi article, the Pack attack continues. Individual dhimmis can be influenced over time by knowledge, pressure and shame.

This is all doable. We have a lot of talent, but we are not organized.

Here is another organization idea: we kafirs have many Web sites. We need a communication network for our Web site owners. There are ideas, projects, strategies and tactics we could share and develop, and have a channel to advance some ideas.

We must make being a kafir a point of identity and pride. Call yourself a kafir in all relations with Muslims. We are the Free, free of Islam. Muslims are the slaves. We must make the word dhimmi a stinging, shameful rebuke, a punishing insult that hurts.

So I can’t make it any clearer and I need to shout:

Kafirs must organize and be politically active against the dhimmis.

FP: Let me switch over to some Christian apologists for Islam out there. They trying to make Islam seem right. There are also those Christians who oppose Islam but they are scared to come out. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

Warner: These are all manifestations of dhimmitude based upon ignorance and fear, the terms of surrender to Islam. Such people are not capable of defeating political Islam nor doing battle.

Jamie, I have been to some of the most outrageous Christian events. I have seen evangelical Christians stand up and defend Islam based upon what an imam told them. I know graduates from prestigious divinity schools say that a dhimmi was protected by Islam (warm and fuzzy) and the that Islam is a “brother Abrahamic faith”.

Some evangelicals admire Islam, because Muslims are so Puritanical and relentless in their public faith. Other Christians are jealous of Islam. Christians are reflexively attacked by the media and the intellectuals; mocked for their beliefs and given short shift for Christianity’s role in forming our civilization. You couldn’t even get the intellectuals to criticize Islam when they murdered and raped innocent school children in Beslan, Russia. Government, universities and the media fall all over themselves to “respect” and not “offend” Islam. Some Christians look at that and are wistful. This can lead to a kind of admiration. Islam may be like the Mafia, but they get respect.

Then you have the main line churches like the Episcopalians and Methodists. They compete with the Leftists to be the most tolerant and understanding dhimmis.

Christianity’s main problem in dealing with Islam is seeing it only as a religion. Therefore, they want to defeat Islam by conversion. Christians point to a few converts and say, “See it works.” The only problem is that more Muslims are born or immigrate than convert. Christians must do the math.

Christians are ignorant about Islam and don’t know how to use Mohammed for their benefit. If you know the life of Mohammed, you can use his brutality, enslavement of kafirs, deceit, and bigotry to attack Islam. The best strategy is to use the knowledge about Mohammed and the Koran to first cause the Muslim to become an apostate and leave Islam. Then they can convert the apostate to Christianity.

Christianity is the best, and maybe the only, chance we have of defeating Islam. Just earlier I said that our main problem was organizational. Christians have that solved and have, many times, exerted social and political pressure. Christians bring a certain mass to the solution. Just imagine what could happen if Christian intelligence, communications, organizational skills, morale and capital could be brought to bear. Christianity must realize that this is live-or-die as a civilization and there are only two choices—war or annihilation. See Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and North Africa for what an annihilated Christianity looks like.

It is time for Christians to learn the truth about political Islam’s history and doctrine. Protestant Christianity invented universal education. They must repeat this. This time they must educate themselves about the factual truth about Islam.

Now let’s deal with “scared to come out” part of your question. I know of both Christians and Jews who are afraid to speak about Islam at their church or synagogue. This lack of candor and honesty means that there are congregants who do not know that there are others feel just as they do. Silence has replaced honesty in both Christianity and Judaism. Both Christians and Jews are ruled by a desperate ignorance. The topic of Islam is forbidden to be discussed when ministers and rabbis get together at organizational meetings.

FP: What about the Jews?

Warner: A large portion of Jews are in a state of denial. When Islam comes up, their first instinct is to move from Islam to their irritations with Christianity. The vast majority of Jews don’t know Sira from syrup and think that Hadith is a Scottish dish. So they prove their “tolerance” by making apologies for Islam.

The true nature of Jews and dhimmitude is given in detail by Andy Bostom’s book, The Islamic Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (to be published in May, 2008). I am sure there is a rabbi somewhere who knows what a dhimmi is, but I have never met him.

Jews are the oldest and supreme dhimmis. They actually write propaganda for Islam. Bernard Lewis and Ruven Firestone are dhimmi sycophants of the highest order. They transform dhimmitude into an elitist Islamic Golden Age. And, of course, since Muslims are a minority in America, Jews would not want to be caught dead being bigots by opposing political Islam. So, the dhimmi Minnesota Jews helped vote in the first Muslim US Congressman whose supporters yelled “Allahu akbar” over and over again at his victory celebration.

There is no way to save Israel without understanding the jihadic nature of the Palestinians. But Jews must be willing to study political Islam to save Israel.

I am harsh in criticizing Christians and Jews because we cannot win without them. It is time to reverse a 1400-year history of deliberate ignorance and face the truth about the doctrine and history of political Islam. In the war to defend ourselves against political Islam, the Christians are like the regular army. The Jews are like the Marines. We need the intellectual power and influence of the Jews.

Jews and Christians could unite on a project that could save us. There is an enormous historical suffering in the Tears of Jihad. This material has never been collected. Jews have experience in documenting the Holocaust. They could work with Christians to collect and record the suffering. There is both old and ancient history to be collected and cataloged, along with the suffering of those alive today. This history must be preserved.

We can see we face an up-hill battle when it comes to unifying Christians and Jews to war against political Islam. It was Mohammed who said that Christians are endless divided and Jews have hearts harder than rocks. The actual task of attacking dhimmis is not so hard. It is assembling the army that is hard. Can evangelicals feel sympathy for the suffering of the Orthodox and Catholics? Many Jews don’t like the fact that they have to accept help from Christians for Israel. Historically Catholics have bad blood with the Orthodox. The first instinct of any Christian when they meet another Christian is to notice how they disagree about doctrine—endlessly divided. In the face of these divisions, we must assemble an army and prove Mohammed wrong.

We haven’t even talked about the secular kafirs. Kafirs are a quarrelsome lot and never seem to be happier than when they argue with other kafirs about politics. But the simple fact is that if all kafirs don’t unite against political Islam, Islam will unite them all when their descendants bow down and face Mecca at the call to prayer.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you.

Read it all.

INTERVIEW WITH BILL WARNER (PT.1)

WASHINGTON—What a treat we have for our readers, today. This is serious reading material, folks. Check the facts, if you doubt these, one by one, but please be certain of your sources. Analyze them as you would your mortgage papers. This is a war that begins with information, and disinformation is the primary tool of the enemy. Change your perspective from one of ignorance to that of an informed kafir citizenry. It is time, not only to love thy enemies, but to correct them as well.Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Jamie, thank you for inviting me.

FP: I would like to discuss the issue of dhimmis today. Let's begin like this: who are the dhimmis? And what different kinds are there?

Warner: Dhimmis begin with Mohammed. He was the world’s supreme master of making others submit to his will. Mohammed had the insight into the human psyche that all human beings have a genetic disposition to submit to the will of the group and higher ranked individuals.

We like to think of ourselves as individuals who can make decisions and freely execute them. Mohammed’s insight was into the submissive side of being human. To survive as a civilization we must allow others to dictate what we do to some extent. As an example, we all submit to the idea that we stop our car at the red light. We submit to society’s rules. We are not completely free, but a member of society. If we did not have this “pack” gene, we could not survive as a species. We must be able to work together. There is no way to survive alone.

In short, all humans have a beta gene, a submissive gene, as part of our DNA. But a beta needs an alpha. Mohammed was history’s supreme alpha male.

Previous religious leaders and philosophers approached humanity with the idea of freeing the individual from fear. Mohammed did not try to free humanity, but to make humanity a slave to Allah, the god of fear. So he “revealed” the ultimate alpha—Allah. Under Allah, all humans come to their fulfillment by being Allah’s slave. But since Mohammed was the only “prophet” of Allah, to obey Allah was to obey Mohammed. Islam is submission to Allah/Mohammed.

In his early phase in Mecca, Mohammed only talked about religious slavery to Allah/Mohammed. The Koran promises the use of violence in Hell after death. The Koran of Mecca has 67% of its text devoted to how the kafirs (unbelievers) must submit to Allah/ Mohammed.

Then in Medina, Mohammed’s message became political, and he became violent without limits towards kafirs. Mohammed made all the Jews of Medina submit to him by robbery, murder, war, assassinations, rape, torture, executions, exile and enslavement.

After he had subdued all of the kafirs in Medina, Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar. By now he realized that you could make more money from a live kafir than from a dead one. Kafirs can be enslaved, but the slave option has a disadvantage. Slaves have to be managed and be near at hand. So Mohammed created the dhimmi. The dhimmi agrees to live in a world that is dominated by Islam in all public areas. A dhimmi is free from Islam only in his own home. Law, customs, art, education, the media, government, speech and every thing in public space is Islamic. In addition, the dhimmi has to pay a tax to Islam called the jizya tax. In Khaybar the jizya tax was 50%.

The key psychological technique is that the dhimmi is to be humiliated in all possible ways. In effect, the dhimmi is halfway between freedom and slavery, a semi-slave.

Mohammed’s power structure was now complete. His first division of humanity was into believer/kafir. Then he refined kafir into dhimmi and slave. Humanity became divided into Muslim, kafir-slaves, kafir-dhimmis and kafirs.

As the Islamic conquest rolled over the kafirs, the dhimmi was the perfect tool of subjugation. After Islam conquered a country, for instance Egypt, the Muslims were the top dogs in the politics, but the Christians could keep their religion. However, they had to live without legal protection or civil rights. All public space was Islamic. The dhimmi could be insulted, abused and had no recourse. They had to pay the jizya tax. The dhimmi were cattle on the Islamic ranch, but could attend their church or synagogue.

FP: What happened to the dhimmis under these conditions?

Warner: The insults, humiliations and taxes wore the dhimmis down. What happened over time was that the dhimmis converted to Islam. It was easier to avoid all this pain and become a Muslim.

In the 20th century, Islam became so weak that the full dhimmi status was dropped. But if you meet and talk to Christians from the Middle East today, you will find that the centuries of dhimmitude have produced, in many cases, a personality similar to an abused wife. It is very sad to see how subjugated a personality can become.

There is another kind of dhimmi—kafirs who become apologists for Islam, fear and defer to it. So we have two types of dhimmi—the subjugated dhimmi who is under the political power of Islam and the apologist dhimmi who seeks Islamic favor.

FP: I see, so two kinds of dhimmis.

Warner: Exactly, the word dhimmi has two separate meanings—a subjugated dhimmi is persecuted and the apologist dhimmi helps the persecutor. The context determines which dhimmi we are talking about. One dhimmi is to be pitied and helped; the other dhimmi needs to be educated. But the apologist dhimmi is the key to defeating Islam.

Our civilization is under attack by political Islam. It is the intent of Islam to do this country what it has done to every country it has invaded—annihilate our civilization. This annihilation is the goal of political Islam for a simple reason. Annihilation is the process of Islamification. We must understand that Islam is a totally separate civilization from ours. The civilization of Islam is anti-everything in our civilization. As an example, our ethical system has at its core the Golden Rule and is a unitary system. We have one set of ethical rules for all possible groups. Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs.

Kafir logic is based upon Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them must be false. Islamic logic is dualistic. The Koran establishes the logic of Islam. The Koran of Mecca contradicts the Koran of Medina, but since both Korans are perfect, both sides of the contradiction are true. Dualistic logic allows two contradictory “facts” to be true at the same time. Islamic logic is built on contradiction.

Allah is the god of duality and submission. Islamic civilization is based upon the principles of duality and submission. Our civilization is based upon the principles of unitary ethics and unitary logic.

FP: Right, ok, so our civilizations are completely different. We have nothing in common and our basic values are completely opposed to one another.

Warner: Jamie, this may be an extreme statement, but I am honestly unable to find even one issue on which Islam and the kafir culture agree.

Not one.

We have nothing in common. Since the Islamic civilization opposes us on every issue of art, politics, gender, education, the media, free speech, ethics, logic, family, and entertainment, it is an inevitable that the change would annihilate our civilization.

Mohammed agreed to a compromise with the kafirs once in the infamous Satanic verse when he compromised about prayer and the native Arabic gods. The Sira records that the act of compromise was the biggest mistake he ever made. After that, Mohammed never agreed with kafirs and never, ever compromised again. Total submission—annihilation—was Mohammed’s way.

There is no happy compromise that can be worked out with Islam. This is not because we are intolerant, unfeeling or stupid. As an example, the word kafir is the worst word in the human language. There is not one positive or neutral aspect to kafir. Allah loves Muslims and hates kafirs. What is the compromise that will let kafirs and Muslims live together harmoniously?

FP: Understood. So who are our enemies?

Warner: We have two ideological enemies—the far enemy, Islam, and the near enemy—the apologist dhimmis. The apologist dhimmis preach that a compromise exists.

Now think about how the near enemy works. It is Islam that demands that Muslims write the “official” history of Islam that will be taught in the kafir schools. But it is an ignorant textbook committee of dhimmis that say, “Yes, only Muslims can write the official version.”

So our history courses never report the disaster of the loss of kafir culture in North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Hindustan. It is the dhimmis who decide the history, Islamic studies and Middle East departments and pass on lies as truth. It is a dhimmi government of America who has decided to base all of its policies on what the imam says. Islam knocks and we open the door and invite them in. Whatever Islam wants, the school board, textbook committee, zoning board, politician, educator, and media reporter gives them in order to be seen as tolerant.

Dhimmis roll over for all Islamic demands on our civilization. Dhimmis are aiding and abetting implementation of Sharia inch by inch. We are losing the war of annihilation due to the dhimmis, not the Muslims. It is not that Islam is so strong, but that we are so weak. We are weak because we are ignorant.

Who do you know—politician, professor, minister, rabbi, artist—who has read the Sira (the life of Mohammed) or the Koran? The heads of the FBI, military and the CIA have never given the slightest hint that they understand the doctrine or history of political Islam. All of these kafirs are dhimmis because they don’t know Islam.

The place to win the war of annihilation is to attack the near enemy, the dhimmi. Forget attacking the Muslims. That is useless.

FP: So what is the best way to wake up the dhimmis or, if they refuse to wake up, to defeat them? Tell us a bit about possible grand strategies.

Warner: The key to waking up the dhimmis is with two kinds of knowledge—history and doctrine. Our dhimmis suffer from wanting to do the right thing and they think that the right thing is to help the victim. And Islam always claims to be the victim. Dhimmis love a good victim story.

We need to tell the history of the real victims—subjugated dhimmis, the Christian Arabs, Egyptian Copts, the Armenians, the African slaves, the Hindus, and the rest. We need to tell our apologist dhimmis these victims, the story I call the Tears of Jihad.

The Western historical mind is schizophrenic. We have an enormous missing history. What’s missing is not the problem, the problem is that we don’t even know it is missing. I like to ask devout Christians, “What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in the book of Revelation?” Most Christians don’t know how Greek Christian Anatolia became Turkish Islamic Turkey. Buddhists don’t know how Afghanistan became the ground zero of Ghandarvian Buddhism. Jews are in denial about their role as dhimmis in medieval Islamic history. North Africa used to be Greek and Roman. How did it become Islamic?

They all became Islamic with an invasion where the kafirs became subjugated dhimmis. Over the next centuries, all the dhimmis converted. The dhimmi is a halfway point to submission to Islam.

All of these civilizations were annihilated. It is the purpose and history of Islam to annihilate all kafir culture. But the enormous tragedy is that the history was annihilated as well. We don’t even know that such history exists, never mind what it is. Almost no kafirs ever refer to this non-history of annihilation.

How big is this non-history of annihilation? The total killed over a 1400-year period is about 270 million. That is the biggest single source killing in the history of the world. The history of the death of those 270 million is the Tears of Jihad. Each and every one of these people was killed for only one reason—they were kafirs.

FP: This was civilizational annihilation, right?

Warner: Yes, and it was a two-step process. The jihad crushed the kafir political structure and set up the natives as dhimmis. Centuries later, the kafir culture is annihilated because dhimmis always submit over enough time. Dhimmitude is a temporary state that leads to submission.

We must learn the history of the Tears of Jihad and present it to our dhimmi culture. Because it is not just that our leaders are dhimmis, but with the help of the media and education, our entire culture has been dhimmified. So the history of the subjugated dhimmi must be taught.

This is a major problem, for the Tears of Jihad history has been suppressed. The suppression did not occur because of some left or right wing cabal, but due to our own revulsion about the history. The history of the jihad and dhimmitude is so shameful and humiliating that we do not want to know. The kafirs totally lost everything that was in their culture. The language, art, customs, names, literature, legal systems, history—everything. When you go to Egypt, where is the living civilization of the pharaohs? When you go to North Africa, what happened to the Greek, Roman and Christian civilization? Annihilated.

But there are bits and pieces of the destruction of ancient kafir cultures that can be found, if you search. But you won’t find this history in the universities. The universities teach a beautiful lie of the glorious conquest of Islam and the “Golden Age” that followed.

We don’t teach this shameful and humiliating history of the deaths of Tears of Jihad for another reason. If we understand the past, then we understand that it is happening today. We don’t want to know it because that would mean we have to do something. We are like the man who suspects that his wife is cheating on him, but doesn’t want to know, because if he knew he would have to act. Ignorance is a good enough reason to do nothing.

But we must teach the apologist dhimmis the history of the subjugated dhimmis. The brutality of dhimmitude is too much to dismiss. The deaths of 270 million are too many to ignore. And what is worse, 210 million of these dead kafirs are “people of color”. Even your uber-liberal dhimmis can get upset at the suffering of “people of color”.

Not only can we save our culture by knowing what happened to other kafir cultures, but also we would pay a moral debt to the dead. Until we acknowledge and remember the 270 million dead, they will have died in vain.

FP: Is there another front of attack on dhimmis?

Warner: Yes, the second front of attack on dhimmis is to use the doctrine of political Islam. It seems that every dhimmi has a Muslim friend or at least has read an article that says that the “real Islam” is peaceful, blah, blah, blah. Well, we no longer need the doctrine of political Islam interpreted for us by a “good” Muslim or the New York Times. We can go straight to Mohammed and Allah and see what they say. That is the entire purpose of CSPI’s books, as well as many others such as those by Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer, is to expose the doctrine of political Islam.

You can’t go to a university to learn about Islam. The professors are the chief dhimmis and teach about Sufi poetry, Islamic architecture or modern political theory about the Middle East. But, the Web is filled with good sources on the doctrine of Islam found in the Trilogy—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). This material is scandalous. Mohammed was involved in violence on the average of every six weeks for nine years. The Koran talks about the kafirs as if they are the lowest scum in creation.

Not only is the political doctrine of Islam violent and hateful, but its results, the Tears of Jihad, are the worst single cause of suffering and the largest annihilation of people in human history. The story of the persecution of the dhimmis is dreadful. Mohammed was a violent and bad neighbor. This is all true and documented in fine detail by Islam.

All of the facts of persecution and doctrine of suffering are available to kafirs. So what? How can we force this material to be known? How can we deliver this ammunition? And to what target?

Our target must be the near enemy—the dhimmi, the apologist and enabler of Islam. Notice I said—the dhimmi, not the media, not the universities, not the government. We do not have the financial or political power to attack organizations.

But think about it. In every case, there is an individual involved. They may be the writer, the congressman, the professor, but their name is attached. We have to attack the specific dhimmi. By attack, I mean to invoke war, but this is an ideological war. Remember our ammunition is the doctrine and history of political Islam. We deliver that ammunition as best we know how.

While we are at it, we should also attack the dhimmi’s support network. If they are a newspaper writer, we also attack the editors and others who support or administer the writer. We attack the specific person and their network.

A lesson from the predators: a big cat kills in about 10% of its attacks. A wild dog pack kills about 90% of the time. Do the math. The wild dogs are organized, the big cats aren’t. We are too much like the big cats. We have to learn how to attack in packs.

We have very strong propaganda material. The kafirs have the best books, the best thinkers and the best Web sites. Islam has money, organization and a 1400-year head start so they are winning. Where we are tragically weak is in organization (including organizational money).

Read it all.