9/11 showed that Islamism, long a festering problem, may be a serious threat
to the free societies of the world.
Exactly how serious that threat is remains to be seen.
The communists killed 100 million people
and threatened the entire world with nuclear holocaust.
The fascists killed tens of millions, carried out large-scale genocide
and destroyed much of Europe.
So far the Islamists are not in that league, though their intentions clearly are.
But a worrying thing about the Islamists
is that they may not be deterred as the communists were.
They may just go ahead and nuke Israel or a western city,
and welcome their martyrdom.
Another problem is the minority, but still depressingly large, number of
jihadi sympathisers among Muslims in the West,
and the potential this has for starting some kind of awful Bosnia-style,
infidels versus Muslims, civil war in Europe,
in which innocent Muslims could suffer ethnic cleansing or worse.
Here are some nightmare, doomsday scenarios
and how likely I think they are.
Never forget the thousands of men, women and children
killed for no reason by Islamist religious fascism
in New York.
This is only a warning of what is in store for us
if the modern fantasy utopian movement of
is not utterly destroyed.
If Islamism is not confronted and utterly destroyed,
a nuclear attack against a Western city
will happen in the next few decades.
You can surrender all you like, appease all you like.
Address supposed Islamist "grievances" all you like.
Pull out of Iraq.
Pull out of the entire Middle East.
Stay at home.
But nuclear jihad will come.
The only way to stop it is to destroy Islamism.
Bad as 9/11 was, it made a previously unlikely nightmare scenario far more real:
If the terrorists had a nuclear weapon, they would clearly
use it immediately against a western city.
As soon as they get such weapons, they will be used.
Apocalyptic stateless terrorists
cannot be deterred, as terror states like the Soviet Union were.
And nuclear weapons continue to spread.
the butchers of North Korea
have nuclear weapons.
While their impoverished
people starved to death in a state-caused famine,
these butchers spent billions
to construct nuclear weapons to threaten the free countries
of South Korea and Japan.
And the aggressive, Jew-hating, fascist state of Iran seems to be next.
Who is going to stop every genocidal tyrant,
and murderous armed group on the planet
Only America tries to stop this.
The UN does nothing.
China, Russia and Pakistan help it along.
The rest of the world
will not take this issue seriously
until a western city is destroyed.
This has a terrifying study of
what a nuclear terrorist attack on NYC would be like.
Iranian terrorists detonate a nuclear bomb inside a truck in midtown.
He estimates about 3 million dead, and:
"In the span of less than one hour, the nation’s largest city will have been virtually wiped off the map."
Message from a Time Traveler
- chilling future essay by Dan Simmons, 2006.
"Israel is cinders. Eurabia and the New Khalifate is growing, absorbing what was left of the old, weak cultures there that once dreamt of a European Union. The Century War is not near over. Two of your three grandsons are now dead. Your remaining grandson still fights, as does one of your surviving granddaughters. Two of your three living granddaughters now live under sharia within the aegis of New Khalifate. They are women of the veil."
"Prior to 9/11, most Americans found the idea that international terrorists
could mount an attack on their homeland and kill thousands of innocent citizens not just unlikely,
As we approach the fifth year without a second successful terrorist attack upon U.S. soil,
a chorus of skeptics now suggests that 9/11 was a 100-year flood.
The idea that terrorists are currently preparing even more deadly assaults seems as far-fetched to them as the possibility of terrorists crashing passenger jets into the World Trade Center did before that fateful Tuesday morning.
As one attempts to assess where we now stand, and what the risks are,
the major conclusion of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission deserves repetition:
The principal failure to act to prevent the September 11 attack was a "failure of imagination."
A similar failure of imagination leads many today to discount the risk of a nuclear 9/11."
"my best judgment is that based on current trends, a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is more likely than not in the decade ahead.
In the judgment of most people in the national security community, including former Sen. Sam Nunn, the risk of a terrorist detonating a nuclear bomb on U.S. soil is higher today than was the risk of nuclear war at the most dangerous moments in the Cold War."
Above: The crudest
nuclear terrorist attack
would destroy much of historic Dublin.
A more sophisticated
nuclear terrorist attack
would destroy Dublin between the canals.
The largest bomb ever,
would wipe County Dublin off the map.
Our beautiful western cities are under threat from nuclear terrorism.
College Green, Dublin.
Picture dated 1817.
See full size.
At that time, there were 3 unfree countries trying to develop nuclear weapons:
Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
Hence the logical use of the term, the "Axis of Evil", focusing
on these 3
as the most immediate threat to civilization.
Since then, Iraq has been stopped,
Iran is still going full steam ahead, and
North Korea has, tragically, succeeded,
joining the previously existing
3 unfree countries with nuclear weapons:
Russia, China and Pakistan.
The Axis of Evil Redux
by Michael Ledeen, January 23, 2003
- celebrating both Reagan and George W. Bush
for speaking the truth to an indifferent world
- for being idealists
in the brutal, indifferent, amoral world of the UN.
It's an Axis and It's Evil
by Mark Safranski, 4 Mar 2002
- "Bush has rocked the world by telling an unwelcome truth that Western elites
have struggled for a decade to avoid acknowledging."
Leftists sneer at the Axis of Evil
and regard themselves as marvellously sophisticated.
But if these regimes are not evil, then nothing is.
If we cannot describe these regimes as "evil",
then evil has no meaning.
The mind of the left
- I understand very well the mindset that laughs at the Axis of Evil.
I regard it as an adolescent mindset, that understands
very little about the world.
Nuclear attack on the West
will mean the end of the Islamic world
The Islamists are playing with fire.
If their attacks go too far
- if there are WMD attacks on western cities
- if the west starts to feel an actual existential threat
- the Islamists may receive nuclear retaliation.
They really are playing with fire.
And no, saying that does not mean I want that to happen.
This is why this page is called "Nightmares".
The New Arab Way of War
by Peter Layton:
"there have been many instances in Western history where patience has been exhausted suddenly
and merciless, ruthless responses undertaken. The Arab way of war could yet reap this whirlwind
for the Middle East if attacks by assassins go too far. History suggests this line will not be known,
or even articulated, until after it is crossed."
by Victor Davis Hanson
- It is extremely difficult for America to fight this enemy
in this age of global news, but:
"In our present context, all our concern about American combat casualties would vanish
should there be another mass murder similar to 9/11. Like ancient man, postmodern man is hardwired to survive,
and thus really will use his full arsenal when faced with the alternative of extinction.
Should we lose the stock exchange or the White House, there would be almost no calls for restraint
against states that harbored or aided the perpetrators"
The "Belmont Club" by Richard Fernandez
has some analysis of
how the world will respond if there is
nuclear attack by Islamists:
Are suicide attacks the 'ultimate weapon'?
Islamism's features -
suicidal, cannot be deterred,
committed to our destruction no matter how we appease it
- are strategic weaknesses
because they force its enemies to engage in total war against it.
Unless it is defeated, Islamism will eventually
force some country
into using nuclear weapons against it.
- "The natural outcome of the kamikazes was the atomic bomb over Hiroshima.
Nothing else would do.
And the eventual reaction of nuclear-armed Israel, Russia and India
to the unlimited slaughter of their populations does not bear thinking upon.
And it will not be surrender, but rather something else."
Et in Arcadia Ego Sum
- Islamism forces its enemies to fight to the death,
since it explicitly tells them
they will die
if they surrender.
Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold.
Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam.
"A catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed"
[once Islamists acquire WMDs].
Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the 'Golden Hour' - the final chance.
"It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory
in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day
It follows that the War on Terror must not fail. Not if mankind is to live;
not if the Muslim world is going to survive."
"There is a proverb ...
“The clay pot should keep its distance from the iron kettle.”
in this respect, it is the non-industrial Islamic clay pot that is getting too close to the militarily advanced Western iron kettle.
Muslims think nothing of constantly antagonizing Western powers who long ago perfected industrialized warfare".
He wants Muslims to save themselves and end the 1,400 years of jihad before it is too late:
"Muslims will forever be cannon fodder for Islam’s eternal jihad. Until they realize this and rebel for once and all time against their warlord masters nothing will ever change."
was deliberately misinterpreted
as him wishing for this holocaust of Muslims
This is clearly
not the case.
Many, probably most,
Palestinians and Arabs
see the long-term plan as the destruction of Israel,
involving either killing all the Jews
or making them live under an Islamic totalitarian state.
But Israel now has nuclear weapons,
and nuclear attack on Israel,
or the imminent defeat of Israel by Islamic armies,
may lead to the nuclear destruction of
Mecca, Medina, Riyadh,
Baghdad, Najaf, Karbala,
and much of
the Islamic Middle East.
The Other "Suicide Bombers"
by Lowell Ponte, April 12, 2002
- Article on Israel's nuclear capability
says the Islamic dream of victory over Israel
is simply impossible.
When their backs are to the wall,
when the alternative is extinction,
Israel will use their nukes.
This Holocaust will be different, Benny Morris, Jan. 18, 2007.
- Morris' nightmare vision of a coming Iranian nuclear assault on Israel.
He thinks differently to Ponte.
He thinks Israel won't use their nukes until it is too late.
"The second holocaust will be quite different.
One bright morning, in five or 10 years, perhaps during a regional crisis, perhaps out of the blue,
the mullahs in Qom will convene in secret session
The orders will go out and the Shihab III and IV missiles will take off for
Tel Aviv, Beersheba, Haifa and Jerusalem, and probably some military sites,
including Israel's half dozen air and (reported) nuclear missile bases.
With a country the size and shape of Israel
.. probably four or five hits will suffice: No more Israel.
A million or more Israelis in the greater Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem areas will die immediately.
Millions will be seriously irradiated."
"Perhaps, after acquiring the Bomb, the Iranians will behave "rationally"?
But the Iranians are driven by a higher logic. And they will launch their rockets.
And, as with the first Holocaust, the international community will do nothing.
It will all be over, for Israel, in a few minutes - not like in the 1940s,
when the world had five long years in which to wring its hands and do nothing.
After the Shihabs fall, the world will send rescue ships and medical aid for the lightly charred.
It will not nuke Iran."
Israel Without Apology
by Sol Stern
- Israel's desperate struggle to survive -
especially in 1967 and 1973,
when Holocaust II nearly happened
- and the world didn't care.
The attempted Holocaust of 1967
- "Jordan and Syria were planning to cut Israel in half;
Jordan was planning to take out whole populations from Israeli towns and shoot them."
At Last, Zion: Israel and the Fate of the Jews
by Charles Krauthammer
- The Jews have taken an enormous risk in going to Israel.
Yes, having a state means that serious military power is now at last
in the hands of Jews.
But the downside is that millions of Jews
(soon the majority of the world's Jews)
are packed into a tiny area in one of the most dangerous parts of the earth,
surrounded by vicious enemies.
Maybe it would have been better for the world's Jews to simply have
gone to America.
But now that Israel exists, everyone must support it.
Now that a free society exists surrounded by enemy tyrants,
everyone must support it.
Krauthammer on the decision to establish Israel:
"It was the right decision, the only possible decision. But oh so perilous.
What a choice of place to make one's final stand: a dot on the map, a tiny patch of near-desert,
a thin ribbon of Jewish habitation behind the flimsiest of natural barriers ...
One determined tank thrust can tear it in half. One small battery of nuclear-tipped Scuds can obliterate it entirely.
To destroy the Jewish people, Hitler needed to conquer the world. All that is needed today is to conquer a territory
smaller than Vermont. The terrible irony is that in solving the problem of powerlessness,
the Jews have necessarily put all their eggs in one basket, a small basket hard by the waters of the Mediterranean."
Could the future be even worse?
Could Islamism, like the Soviet Union, get armed with thousands of nuclear weapons
in the 21st century,
and then, unlike the Soviet Union, use them?
If the West was going to go down,
if our very existence was under threat,
if the barbarians threatened to destroy everything we have achieved over
the last thousand years,
would we use our nukes?
I think we would have to, to survive,
and the moral blame would lie with the aggressors.
The psychological roots of anti-Americanism
by Victor Davis Hanson
- He suggests that the anti-Americanism of
the modern left
could really be,
in the worst, nightmarish case,
an early warning of the end of western civilization
and the start of a new (probably Muslim) barbarism.
He reminds us that our predecessor,
classical Greek and Roman civilization,
fell to Christian barbarism,
"[as] a result not of imperial overstretch on the outside but of something happening within that was not unlike what we ourselves are now witnessing.
Earlier Romans knew what it was to be Roman, why it was at least better than the alternative, and why their culture had to be defended. Later in ignorance they forgot what they knew, in pride mocked who they were, and in consequence disappeared."
How We Collapse
by Victor Davis Hanson,
on the endless criticism of the West
- "Western societies from ancient Athens to imperial Rome to the French republic rarely collapsed
because of a shortage of resources or because foreign enemies proved too numerous or formidable in arms
Rather, in times of peace and prosperity there arose an unreal view
of the world beyond their borders, one that was the product of insularity brought about by success
We should take stock of this dangerous and growing mindset - and remember that wealthy, sophisticated societies like our
own are rarely overrun. They simply implode - whining and debating still to the end, even as they pass away."
Memo to Osama
(and part 2)
- Richard Fernandez of the Belmont Club suggests how the west might fall.
"The desire for self-death is embodied in what is called the Left,
the unnamed shadow motivating the carnage of the last century."
"That leaves us with this tantalizing question. Having gone so far on September 11,
can we not go further? Will one more push topple the rock? The answer is yes,
but only if the push is sufficient and it leaves the Left which is the spirit of suicide,
in control. This latter condition is essential. The fundamental fact is that the triumph
of the Jihad must be momentarily preceded by the ascendance of the Left.
Only the Left will pick up the gun, put the barrel to the temple of the Western mind
and pull the trigger without hesitation. But their ascendance will only be momentary,
and I for one delight in imagining how we will kick them as they squeal
about their rights and their sexual entitlements once there is no one left to protect them."
- "The West is disgusted with itself; longs to die; yearns for condemnation. The job of the Faithful is but to put it out of its misery.
Standing offstage only by their implied presence is
the remnant of the West that that has not lost sight of love; that remembers its covenant;
that recalls "the starlight on the western seas."
That is whom the Jihad must defeat and all it must defeat."
Could history repeat itself?
The heart of civilization, the
Roman Empire (the West)
converts to weak, defenceless
Christianity (postmodern leftism)
and is ultimately sacked by the stronger, tougher
became the first Christian Roman emperor in 306 AD.
was the last non-Christian Roman emperor.
He temporarily reversed Christianisation.
After he died in 363 AD, Rome became permanently Christian.
Rome was sacked in 410 AD.
It was sacked by other Christians.
Rome had until then been safe and uncaptured by any enemy for 8 centuries.
One thing different between this war and World War 2
is the large number of enemies living in our home societies
- the minority, but still depressingly large, number of
jihadi sympathisers among Muslims in the West.
Under the right circumstances - such as mass hysteria after some
huge terrorist atrocity
- this has the potential for ultimately starting some kind of awful Bosnia-style,
infidels versus Muslims, civil war in Europe.
Such a war would likely:
(a) lead to the defeat and ethnic cleansing (or worse) of
Europe's innocent Muslims,
and: (b) lead to the end of European democracy
and the resurgence of old-fashioned ultra-nationalist European fascism.
It would be a disaster both for Muslims and for infidels.
It's the Demography, Stupid,
by Mark Steyn,
points out (as others have) that the Muslim birth rate in Europe is far
higher than the native "post-Christian" birth rate
(which is below replacement level).
Extrapolate for a century and more than one European country will become
Could much of Europe become Islamic (and hence unfree) in the 21st century?
Could the Muslim population of Europe finally end the centuries old experiment
in freedom and democracy?
Even large minority Muslim could end European freedom (not even majority):
analyses the 2005 Freedom House rankings.
Of the 46 Muslim majority nations
only 3 were ranked as Free.
But equally scary,
of the 16 nations in which Muslims were a large minority
(20 to 50 per cent of the population)
only 3 were ranked as Free.
Reasons why Europe may not fall
Steyn makes a good case, but I don't think Europe is doomed just yet.
Predicting the future by
extrapolating from current trends
has a long record of failure,
a notable example being the
global population crisis
that was supposed to have
happened by now.
may turn out to be another.
So what could prevent the end of freedom in Europe in the 21st century?
Here's a few possibilities:
The Muslim birthrate declines.
Muslim immigrants are unlikely to carry on indefinitely
with the same birthrate in prosperous Europe
as in their impoverished home countries.
has some counter-stats.
The Great Muslim Apostasy
begins in the West (it may already be under way).
For every young Muslim attracted by the austerity of jihad and sharia,
two more are attracted by sex, atheism and freedom.
European countries become more Muslim and "post-Muslim",
but it makes little difference.
Europe becomes more assertive.
Weak, "post-modern" Europe dies out
because it isn't having kids.
The stronger, more assertive elements in Europe
are, and so the future belongs to them.
In America, "red state" Republican voters have more children
than "blue state" Democrat voters,
which should mean America will get less blue over time.
Likewise in Europe,
left-wing, anti-American, postmodern, urban cosmopolitan Europeans
tend not to have children.
pro-family, pro-west, assertive Europeans
Hence, over time, Europe should become more like America, and hence more assertive
in defence of its freedom.
Europe gets serious.
Once Europeans see that sharia really threatens their freedom, they wake up,
and belief in multiculturalism vanishes overnight like communism.
Europeans ban all Islamic fundamentalist immigration.
Temporary ban on all Islamic immigration
until existing immigrants are integrated.
of all Islamist suspects (instead of surveillance).
Any expression of Islamic fundamentalism becomes illegal.
Anyone promoting sharia or Islamist ideas is deported.
European governments offer massive support for having children,
and financially punish the childless.
Europe gets irrational and fascistic.
Europe, the birthplace of modern industrial genocide,
descends into darkness again.
Europeans, the inventors of the western way of war
- the most deadly and effective way of war in the history of the world
- win again of course.
Ethnic cleansing of Islamic population.
thinks Islam will not triumph in the West,
but warns there could be European war first, in what he calls
The Clash of Fascisms.
If sharia is bad for infidels,
this could be even worse.
The Norway attacks
are a glimpse of this nightmare world.
It's not clear what's going to happen.
There are many alternatives to Steyn's future
of Europe under sharia,
just as plausible.
Unfortunately, not all of them are good.
Scepticism about extrapolations
expresses some healthy scepticism about extrapolations:
"if immigration to the US continued along the lines it did from 1880-1920,
America would be split roughly between Italians, Slavs and Jews.
Present trends almost never continue."
Although one could equally argue that just because
democracy has existed in Europe
for a while
doesn't mean it will continue to exist.
"The historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened
- even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity.
And Europeans won't even need to re-write "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with an Islamist theme
- real Muslims zealots provide Europe's bigots with all the propaganda they need.
Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe's Muslims.
When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened
- a few serious terrorist attacks could do it - Europe's Muslims will be lucky just to be deported.
Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time.
When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front
all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal.
I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor
and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari
to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims."
says, it is the Islamists who are the real oppressors in the housing projects,
the enemies of the law-abiding hard workers who want to contribute to France,
and above all the oppressors of women:
"These are French women, born in France, and abandoned to de-facto Islamic rule
in the country of their birth. It is their Islamist brothers, not French society,
that reduce them to second class citizenship."
The left can't stand the right's use of the word "intifada"
to describe the French Muslim riots.
They have always half-supported (or even fully supported) the Palestinian intifada.
The right, of course, regards the Palestinian intifada as a disgusting war on innocent civilians,
and they have no problem comparing the French riots to it.
To them, "intifada" is a disgusting word
- that is why they apply it to the French riots.
And it is also used to mock the European left
for their long support of the Palestinian intifada.
Now do you understand, we are trying to say.
The right is making the point that to many rioters,
this really is meant to be the start of a revolution.
That Europe's future could be like Israel, with suicide bombers in every European city.
Leftists think this is Islamophobic nonsense.
But why listen to me?
Many radical Muslims have claimed this.
For example, the Islamic socialist terrorist
Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya:
"According to Gaddafi the riots in the poor suburbs of Paris last year
were "only the beginning of the armed struggle of the Muslims against discrimination in Europe".
"Probably one day Europe will be subordinated to Islam", Col. Gaddafi claimed".
Other young thugs
(letting down their respective minorities)
have caused riots, without starting war:
I don't mean to pick on blacks, Latinos and Muslims.
It's just that,
apart from the strange case of
I'm not aware of any major life-taking riots by
whites, Jews or Asians (non-Muslim)
in the West in the last 40 years.
If you know of any,
let me know. (*)
Why classify the above riots by race/religion at all?
Because I am interested in what happened next.
I want to look at similar riots by groups in the past in the West
and ask did they lead to war or not.
And the answer is encouraging.
My point is actually optimistic. Despite the actions of young black thugs,
the majority black community did not support them, and they failed to start
Let's hope the 2005 French Muslim rioting is the same, and
will be seen as just an isolated event.
The alternative - that the future of Europe looks like Israel
- is unthinkable.
There is a darker possibility, though.
This could be the start of the long-awaited European intifada.
It is highly ironic that France's endless appeasement of (and even support for) Islamist extremism,
and its leadership of the "Axis of Weasels",
has gained it nothing,
any more than Hitler was really impressed by
To the young Islamists, the French are all infidels.
Appeasement does not gain respect from thugs, but rather is viewed as a sign of weakness.
I don't agree that it is
to see this happen to the Weasels of France,
after all of their treachery,
but I do think
has a point:
"I, for instance, do indeed think that the Euro-fada is a very good thing,
but not because I am disgusted by the French (even though I am). Civil war is coming to Europe.
The only question is whether it will be sooner or later, and
the sooner it happens
the better the chance that secular/Christian Europe will survive.
We were lucky that Al Qaeda attacked the Trade Center with airplanes,
instead of waiting until they had nukes. They woke us up in time for us to destroy them.
The Euro-fada is Europe's wake up call,
In response, the intifada will rise joyously throughout Europe. When all the Islamo-fascists
stand up as one and start marauding in earnest, Europe will finally fight.
The Islamo-fascists will have their AK's, their body bombs and their IED's:
no match for Europe's small but well armed militaries, who will kill every last one of them.
This is great news. The futures price for secular/Christian European survival just quadrupled.
So you see, it is not shaudenfreude. We are on France's side, even though France is not on ours."
Ultimately I think he is wrong.
Civil war is not inevitable (though I am realistic about the risks if Europe
avoids confronting Islamism forever).
But I think he is right to say that
Europe may wake up.
And that could be a very bad thing for Islamism.
And the sooner it happens, the better.
Europe waking up sooner will mean government-led action, tough laws,
increased intelligence, active deportation,
and a controlled, restrained crushing of Islamism.
Europe waking up later
will mean panic, pogroms, civil war, and attacks on innocent Muslims.
For the sake of the Muslims of Europe,
far more than for the infidels,
we need to stop Islamism now before it gets any worse.
French police themselves use the word "intifada" for the riots:
Muslims are waging civil war against us, claim French police, Oct 2006.
"Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada"
against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.
.. the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year".
Michel Thoomis of the Action Police trade union says:
"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists.
This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada,
with stones and Molotov cocktails."
Report on riots, July 2014:
"Un commissaire de police parle d'intifada parisienne".
Muslim youths riot in Amsterdam, Oct 2007,
after police shot dead a violent, and apparently Islamist, gangster who attacked them.
"Moroccan-Dutch residents of Slotervaart complained to reporters they were "sick and tired" of continuous "negative news reports" about fellow Moroccan-Dutch, adding they felt increasingly stigmatized."
"And what better way to counter those negative news reports than to riot and burn stuff?"
Let me remind you that I remain optimistic.
The 21st century, I believe, will see the
Islamic world change, not the West.
The West will remain free, and will export its corrupting freedom everywhere.
It is the Islamists whose world will be destroyed.
Public anger at Muslim protesters,
The Sunday Times, February 12, 2006
- A poll of the British public gives great grounds for hope.
Essentially, the left-wing, politically-correct mantra
that we must "understand" Muslim anger
is failing in the marketplace.
The great British
public can be trusted on this issue, as on so many others:
80% said the authorities show too much tolerance
of Muslims who urge extreme acts.
67% think this is because senior policemen such as
Sir Ian Blair
are too "politically correct".
Where foreigners stir up racial and religious hatred,
81% think they should be sent back to their own countries,
even if to do so would endanger their lives.
The West is a
and the pre-scientific tribal savagery of Islamism
stands no chance against it.
The West has seen off much worse existential threats than
the pathetic philosophy of Islamism,
and it will see off Islamism as well.
What Is Your Impression Of Islam?
Favorable - 19%.
Unfavorable - 45%.
And Islam's numbers have got a lot worse since 2002.
It seems that the more people find out about Islam, the less they like it.
As Atlas Shrugs
notes, "There was a time Americans never thought about these
[jihadi] atrocities or Islam for months,
years at a time. Now, not a day goes by where they are not, for one reason or another,
forced to think or hear about, the Religion of Peace. And frankly, they don't like it."
Maybe Islam should be afraid of the American street.
46 percent of Americans believe Islam encourages violence more than other religions.
The majority in
America, France, Germany, Britain and Spain
Iran will use its nuclear weapons against Israel.
Support for strikes on Iran may not be as weak as thought.
The majority in
Turkey, Jordan and Egypt agree (that
Iran will use its nuclear weapons against Israel).
Many of these of course would support such an attack.
Support for Israel has been rising
in America, France, Germany and Britain since 2002,
as people finally face the Islamist terror that Israel has faced alone for decades.
The vast majority who express a preference
support Israel in America.
The majority who express a preference now support Israel
and it is a draw in France.
Only in Britain does a majority support the Palestinians.
91 per cent said they associated Islam with oppression of women.
83 per cent said that Islam was dominated by fanaticism.
71 per cent said Islam was intolerant.
Asked if there should be a ban on the building of mosques in Germany
as long as the building of churches in some Islamic states is forbidden, 56 per cent agreed.
Funny, I wouldn't agree myself.
We shouldn't give up our religious freedom just because some
Middle Eastern hellholes deny it.
I'm in the liberal minority. How about that.
40 per cent said they would actually support
strict limits on the practice of Islam in Germany to protect the country.
I wouldn't agree at all.
I guess this proves my pessimistic
point that if the idealistic, neo-con war on Islamism doesn't succeed,
the alternative may not be simple Islamist victory.
It may be the rise of an older European
and a horrible European civil war
in which innocent Muslims, not Islamists, will suffer.
Support the war on Islamism.
It's the only way to stop
a war on Islam.
75 percent of Czechs have a negative attitude to Islam.
60 percent of Czechs are afraid of Islam.
A disturbing 75 percent of Czechs would ban the building of mosques
in the Czech Republic,
which would be an outrageous denial of religious freedom.
Again, as with the Germans,
I am well to the left of the Czech population.
73 per cent of Britons agreed that
"the West is in a global war against Islamic terrorists who threaten our way of life".
When asked whether Britain should change its foreign policy in response to terrorism
only 12 per cent said it should be more conciliatory,
53 per cent thought it should become more "aggressive"
and 24 per wanted no change.
Interestingly, this impressive hawkishness on the war
is combined with a lack of admiration for Bush.
Perhaps people are disillusioned with Bush because
he has done little since 2003 to win the war.
He has failed to confront Iran and Syria.
He has not even destroyed
minor thugs like al-Sadr.
Nothing succeeds like success,
and Bush looked like a winner in 2003.
It's time for another victory.
As Richard Waghorne
"How many of that majority are angry at the trans-Atlantic alliance precisely because they've not been assertive enough in the last three years? At least a substantial part, one would think."
The majority (52 percent)
of Europeans would support a military strike
to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The majority supported this in
18 EU member states including Denmark (68 percent),
Belgium (65 percent),
Sweden (65 percent),
France (53 percent)
and Britain (51 percent).
46 percent agreed in
More people in the UK are concerned about Islamic fundamentalism
than in any other EU country. 71 percent agreed with the statement that
"Islamic fundamentalism is a serious threat for our country", compared to an EU average of 58 percent.
Other countries where the majority agreed were
Germany (66 percent),
Spain (66 percent),
France (64 percent),
Italy (60 percent)
Sweden (56 percent).
42 percent agreed in
Islamism certainly has a fight on its hands, if things get more serious.
Survey, Aug 2008: 63 percent of Americans would approve of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites
if diplomacy fails to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis.
The BBC treat this group as if it is composed of respectable people
who should be listened to.
The British viewers' comments provide the only ray of light.
sort comments by popularity,
the fresh air of scepticism and common sense blows in,
and gives me optimism that there is hope for Britain:
"Is this a report that places the blame only on the West and absolves Muslims of any fault?
If so it is not worth the paper it is written on."
"Islam needs to progress to the 21st Century. That is the basic problem."
"One of the things that would need to be done is for Muslim nations
to stop persecuting their Christian minorities."
My favourite comment:
"I am not convinced that the rift can be healed,
and if it means the West has to compromise it's hard won values and liberties
I would rather it were not."
Why is it left to the viewers to provide scepticism like this?
Surely journalists should be in the business of scepticism too?
Still, if these comments represent the future of the British voter,
Islamism is doomed.
More good news:
The climate in Europe may be changing, and becoming more hostile to Islamists:
IERA are a dodgy Islamist group, so take the poll with a grain of salt.
Here it is anyway.
Non-Muslim Britons have very little knowledge of Islamic history.
Only 11 percent are negative about the Prophet Muhammad.
7 percent are positive. (They must be reading
81 percent are neutral or don't know.
If they did ever learn about Muhammad, they would be horrified.
Britons may not know Islamic history,
but they do have knowledge of Islam in the modern age.
59 percent agreed that "Islam oppresses women".
6 percent disagreed.
(The ones who don't read the papers.)
36 percent agreed that "Islam is outdated".
14 percent disagreed.
Only 30 percent are negative about sharia.
An incredible 64 percent are neutral. (Maybe they don't know much about it.)
A lunatic 2 percent of non-Muslims are positive about it.
They have no interest in hearing about another evidence-free religion that they will never believe in.
When asked would they like to hear more about Islam,
77 percent said they do not want to hear any more information about Islam.
I suggest that if they did learn more about Islam, they would be more negative towards it.
list of advisors
and other fanatics.
As Harry's Place says:
"I can't understand how the Guardian could have missed this important information."
The Guardian quotes IERA's Hamza Tzortzis talking about the survey
and how Britons need to be re-educated, or something.
Somehow they neglect to tell us that
Tzortzis has links with Hizb ut-Tahrir
and once said:
"We as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even of freedom."
Maybe the statements of people like Hamza Tzortzis
explain the hostility many Britons feel towards Islam.
Britons are screaming that there is too much immigration,
and too much by people who are alien to British culture.
48 percent of Britons believe immigration has a negative cultural impact.
This number is rising over time, not falling.
34 percent believe immigration has a positive cultural impact.
52 percent of Britons believe immigration has a negative economic impact.
This number is rising over time, not falling.
30 percent believe immigration has a positive economic impact.
75 percent of Britons want a reduction in immigration.
This number has increased since 1995, but even back then it was the majority.
It has been the majority ever since. Blair's Labour never cared or listened.
Only 3 percent want an increase in immigration.
51 percent of Britons want a large reduction in immigration.
A glimpse of the anger felt by millions of Westerners
that their freedom is threatened by primitive ideas from the third world.
Anti-sharia crowd at Manchester, Tennessee, June 2013, protests a threat to free speech made by
U.S. Attorney for Eastern Tennessee.
He was quoted
as saying that
online comments about Islam could be
a federal civil rights violation.
He needs to clarify fast
that all citizens have the right to criticize Islam.
He failed to do so here, and he deserved the hostile reception.
Much of Europe is in favour of banning the veil.
I am not.
I think it is simply wrong for the state to dictate how people can dress.
I think in a free society you should be able to follow any religion you like,
and dress how you like.
I may think you are a crackpot
(you have no right to demand that I "respect" your choices)
but in a free society you should have the right to be a crackpot.
But it seems much of Europe would consider legal restrictions
on things like the veil and the building of mosques.
I am to the left of most of Europe on religious freedom.
I would agree that anyone wearing a veil does not belong in the West,
and should ideally leave.
But that is not the same as saying they should be forced to leave,
or that the veil should be illegal.
Citizens v. non-citizens:
I would apply different standards to non-citizens.
I would agree that prospective immigrants wearing the veil should be denied entry.
I could also agree with banning the veil for tourists and visitors.
As an analogy, citizens should have the right to be nazis or communists.
But we would be mad to import any more nazis or communists.
And it would also be reasonable to block any visiting nazis or communists.
Likewise, citizens must have the right to be Islamic fundamentalists.
But we would be mad to import any more Islamic fundamentalists.
Only 33 percent of Americans support a ban, reflecting America's greater commitment to religious liberty.
Burka in London in 2010.
I do not think this should be illegal.
I do agree that she does not belong in the West.
I agree that immigrants wearing the veil should be denied entry.
Immigration should be reserved for people who support western values.
I agree that western freedom cannot survive if enough people who reject western values
are let in.
But having said that, once the error is made of letting her in, she should be treated with dignity, and should have the same rights as every free Westerner.
Every Westerner has the right to be a deranged lunatic.
I do not agree that, once the error is made of letting her in,
her dressing like this should be illegal.
These nightmare scenarios are real threats. But nothing is inevitable.
It is still 1933.
There is still time to stop all these nightmares from coming to pass.
We still have time to destroy Islamism while it is new and weak,
rather than wait until 1938 or 1939, when it is rampant and strong.
There is still time to strangle Islamism in the cradle.
The above scenarios - Western nuclear assault on the Islamic world,
resurgent Western ultra-nationalist fascism -
show the danger for all of us, not least for the Islamic world,
if we do not destroy Islamism now.
Everyone who believes in freedom and tolerance, including liberal Muslims,
must support the War on Islamism,
or risk the above scenarios coming to pass.
Henry Rochejaquelein, 1 Aug 2011, says the real victory will be to get the West onboard. After that, Islamism is doomed.
He says western self-hatred is weak - as weak and brittle and unnatural as communism.
Western self-hatred must end, but in a way that preserves humane liberal values,
not a fearful retreat into old-style ethnic nationalism.
"What we fight is something much more bizarre, unnatural and fragile than Islam: We are fighting Western dhimmitude, and the multiculturalism that enables it. It is not in fact natural for men of one race and religion to surrender their country to another. It is profoundly uncharacteristic of Frenchmen, Germans, Englishmen, Dutchmen, etc., to pervert their legal systems to suit the crude mores of alien colonists. ... It does not come naturally to feminists to cooperate with wife-beating, honor-killing polygamists, ... The psychological games such people are playing on themselves are surely exhausting - as wearisome, finally, as denying Stalin's terror famines and defending his purge trials proved to Western Communists. ... doublethink is not sustainable for the masses over the long haul. It cannot even endure forever among elites. Just as so many liberals "mugged by reality" turned into neo (or even real) conservatives, and so many Communists hit the breaking point and "flipped," so we will keep on reaping a steady stream of educated defectors to freedom's cause.
The sheer baroque complexity of the lies required to believe the dhimmi viewpoint metastasizes with every jihad attack ...
In the long run, it will prove as impossible for honest men to accept as the fabrications of Holocaust deniers, or the economics of Karl Marx. And as each such man wakes up, we will be waiting, to welcome him home."
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who do the following:
(a) Make threats.
(b) Accuse me of crimes.
(c) Comment on my appearance.
(d) Drag in stuff about me not related to the topic. (My professional career, my personal life.)
(e) Complain to my employer.
Yes, people do all these things.