Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Islamism Must Carry a Price

Islamists are sworn to make war on the West, to drive out freedom and democracy, replacing them with the mandated tyranny of Islamic law.They declare all laws and all nations that do not originate or abide by Islamic law to be invalid. And they reserve the right to make war on them by any means necessary, from the political to the economic to the terroristic. And yet it might surprise many people to realize that most Islamists are not haggard fanatics living off dried goat meat in caves. Instead many of them are doctors and lawyers working in major American and European cities, they serve as advisors to Western politicians and write newspaper columns. Their organizations are treated with respect and given veto power over the policies of governments whose existence they reject.

And that in a nutshell is the trouble of it all. Because Islamism should carry a price, instead it only carries rewards. Islamists in Europe and America do not actually have to be isolated hermits working out of a few ghettos. Instead they are able to gain all the benefits of the West, from advanced degrees to high paying jobs to political recognition, while maintaining their hatred for the West.

The results are inevitable. The investigation of a CERN physicist for contacts with Al Queda, and a Glasgow doctor and dentist attempt to carry out an airport car bombing. These are not the alienated or disenfranchised immigrants, a description that the press routinely uses to try and turn the perpetrators into victims. No, some are even European born. Rather what they are are Islamists who blended successful lives in the society of the infidels, with their own religious fanaticism. And they were able to do that because tolerance for Islam eliminated any barriers and obstacles to being both Islamists and middle class professionals.

The question is not a casual one, because in reality most terrorism stems from the sons of the middle and upper class. The immigrants in the ghettos may riot, toss molotov cocktails at the police and rob and rape-- but it tends to be the university graduates who actually join up with international Muslim terrorist groups and begin planning attacks. Traditionally the middle class has always provided the upper ranks of terrorist groups, and it is no different with Islamist terrorists.

The lead 7/7 bomber, Mohammad Sidique Khan was a university graduate. The lead 9/11 terrorist, Mohammed Atta, was the son of a lawyer and a graduate student. Neither of them were oppressed and hapless immigrants. By contrast they had mastered the rules of their host countries, and used that to their advantage. Had they been living on the margins of society, they would have posed comparatively little threat except in the way of petty crimes. Instead their education and their ability to insinuate themselves into the lives of their target nations made them far dangerous than they normally would have been.

Tolerance for Islam, means that Islamists do not have to choose between Islamism and having the trappings of a successful Western life. They can have both, dipping their feet in specially installed foot baths, praying for the death of Jews and Christians in break rooms converted into prayer rooms, working in foodless environments during Ramadan... and plotting and scheming with no one the wiser until it all blows up on some busy day and the bloody results wind up splashed all over the TV news.

France has come the closest to trying to force Islamists to choose one way or another with the Burka ban. And it has naturally resulted in an ugly backlash, because Islamists do not want to give up the privileges they came to Europe for, they want it all and feel entitled to take it all. They see imposing Islamic law, first on fellow immigrants and their children, and then on the nation and the continent at large, as a binding religious duty. And thanks to the tolerance of the same legal and political system they are sworn to overthrow, nothing stands in their way.

Meanwhile Turkey's Islamist regime is pushing to join the EU, despite feeding hate toward the infidels and the rise of Islamism at home. The Islamists in Ankara want the economic and political advantages of EU membership, even as internally they continue to reject the rule of law, targeting their secularist political opponents and striving to recreate Turkey as an Islamic state.

Erdogan and Gul are no different than the American and European Islamists who conduct their war against the civilized world under the cover of politics. Except they are not circling a parliament or a few elected representatives, but steering an entire nation into the darkness of Islamism... and consciously providing a model for European Islamists to do the same in France and England, in Belgium and Sweden, and all around. And their model is based on the premise that Islam can be combined with all the benefits of Western life, so long as Islam is in the forefront every time.

When treason prospers, none dare call it treason. When Islamism prospers, none dare call it what it is, an elementally fascist movement, overseen by cunning politicians and fixers and manned by prosperous professionals, who happen to believe that their host societies must be subjugated to the will of Allah. European and American tolerance has removed every obstacle to Islamism, thereby inherently promoting it. After all if the aspiring Pakistani or Syrian student does not have to choose between the material prosperity of a Western life and the religious fidelity of an Islamic one, he will easily choose both. And we have seen where that path leads already. To a burning car at Glasgow Airport, to bombs in backpacks and airplanes passing low across New York City.

And still worse yet it paves the way for the subjugation of the free world under the hobnailed boot of the Prophet of murder and slavery, by the graduating classes of every university of the free world. And that is exactly what will happen, so long as Islamism does not carry a heavy price. A heavy political price and a heavy economic price. Treason prospers, so long as none dare call it treason because of its very prosperity. Crime pays, so long as measures against it go unenforced. To defeat Islamism, its host nations must insure that it is no longer a paying proposition, that it is not tolerated and that it becomes an economic, political and career ugly albatross around the neck of every Muslim and Muslim nation that practices it.


Anonymous said...

Bravo....Thank you again for your most truthful and insightful post. I pray one day You choose to become an elected official and set the world straight.

Lemon said...

Good post.

Keli Ata said...

Great post once again.

True. People expect the terrorists to be raging immigrants much as most people expect rapists to be frothing at the mouth with their eyes bulging out. Most of these plots do require education and a degree of sophistication and assimilation that most Americans can't wrap their minds around.

They're the same sort of people who would ask how Nazis could be responsible for their atrocities when they were educated and had such love for Bach and other classical music.

The highly educated terrorists in our universities are "hiding" in plain sight. The have prestige so few will suspect them of anything, money to implement their acts, and the uncanny ability to mortgage their emotions.

They're not impulsive like, say, the suicide bombers in Gaza. The high level terrorists can wait for the right moment to strike, which makes them extremely dangerous.

Not to say I don't worry about all the prison inmates who are being converted to Islam by Imams with terrorist ties. It almost seems as though these Imams are building an army of grunts or henchmen.

Will48 said...

Keli - Actually, Bach sounded not right as a choice composer for the Nazis, so I did a little search for "Nazi approved music".

An article "Music approved of by Nazi Germany" says,

"According to Hitler and Goebbels (Hitler's second in command), the three master composers that represented good German music were Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Wagner, and Anton Bruckner."

"Hitler identified himself with Beethoven as possessing ... heroic German spirit."

Not Bach, Beethoven. And Wagner, of course.

As for the article, the main question remains still, as it always was, whether it is Islamism or the Islam itself that is the Free World's enemy. Do we seek to subvert Islam's subjects into believing there is a moderate Islam (many of them believe so today) and they don't have to join the "struggle" of their radical brethren - or is it an illusion and we will thus just dilute our efforts and counter-propaganda message with which we have to bombard the enemy populace, to render it (the enemy) less potent.

One example we already have, to go by: Israel. In their quest to find the "moderate" "peace" partner, Israel has severely restrained its counter-message. Not much of the truth about the PLO and its manufactured "people" came out of Israeli propaganda channels, if ever there were any.

We all know the answer as to whether this was beneficial, or detrimental to Israel's image in the world today.

Michael said...

Is there a difference between Islam and Islamism? And how can you treat them differently in policies of a country? I know Muslims who are good German citizens and just want to pray in a mosque, where there are nice Imams who do not preach hate.
Where do you draw the line, or would you ban Islam in General?

Keli Ata said...

As the motto goes: "Who Dares, Wins." We're not willing to take any dares and assert our rights. The Muslims are bold as brass, so they're winning.

The terrorists have taken that motto to heart, it seems.

Sultan Knish said...


regardless of what was approved by the Nazis, Bach actually was anti-semitic and Beethoven was philosemitic

Sultan Knish said...


the difference is between Muslims who want to impose their religion and way of life on others, and those who do not

Sultan Knish said...


exactly. And the more we pull back, the more they advance their agenda

Will48 said...

Michael - as Sultan said, the difference is whether they "strive" to impose their political domination on you (us).

Islamism is supposed to mean "a political movement to install Islamic political rule" in a particular country first, or the whole world eventually.

Islam is supposed to be a religion about fiery hell for unbelievers and bordello paradize for those who "submit". Only problem is, it has this notion of Jihad - the "strife" to impose the rule of Islam everywhere.

So the jury is still out, whether there IS an Islam without Islamism. As history teaches us, not a big chance for that. When the Islam is weak it lays dormant, but then when it gathers strength it's back to its roots - roots, because Jihad conquest was how it started in the first place.

Maybe you've heard about this great and bloody Wahhabi revolt, which left scores of "unbelievers" dead. After it was crushed, TWO clerics were allowed to go on and teach their version of Islam, after they promised to be peaceful and not to call for violence anymore.

That's how the Deobandi movement was preserved in India, and after just a bit more than a century the whole region is in the grips of madness once again and they strive now to overtake the AfPak area, under a new name of Taliban.

Now how's that for a lesson of history.

Will48 said...

Sultan - thanks, I didn't know that.

But I was more talking about what their music inspires. There's even a saying that Nazism was made possible by the early 19th century romanticism, you know - all this mushy "feelings" stuff as opposed to the clear rationalism of the 18th - even in its most abstract and heavenward-oriented spirituality.

Sultan Knish said...

Yes I know what you're saying, and Beethoven certainly was a German nationalist, if he had lived in the 40's though, he would have either been a refugee or shot.

But the Nazis certainly piggybacked on such art

Keli Ata said...

That's very interesting about Nazi-approved music and who music was used as a tool of the Nazis. Kind of creepy though how Wagner's Wedding March from the opera Lohengrin has become so mainstream that few people even realize it's his work.

Walking down the isle to Wagner? Just plain creepy if you ask me. Knowing a composer's history does change the way you view the music.

Sultan--I was ignorant of the motto "Who Dare Win" until a couple of nights ago. I was watching--what else--another PBS documentary on thr raid on Entebbe. Apparently that was/is the motto of the IDF unit the freed the hostages. Also the motto of several other elite military units in the world.

Terrorists indeed have adopted the principles behind it. Interesting to learn through the documentary though that Bibi's brother Yoni was killed at Entebbe. He must be so conflicted emotionally having to make "peace" deals with the Palestinians.

I couldn't help but wonder if that gave him pacifist leanings or more of a who dare win leanings or conflict over the two. I feel for the man.

Also, was surprised that so many Israeli political leaders today served in the IDF during those times when Israel was known (for lack of a better phrase) as a kick ass country. Americans for a few years after 9/11 adopted the old 1980s cop show Hill Street Blues motto "Let's Roll."

What in the world has happened to the US and Israel?

Michael said...

So the way out of the islamist problem for Europe is to ban Islam alltogehter?

Will48 said...

Gee, I don't know Michael. Why won't you propose your own solution? Make a choice, tell us what you think, you know.

(unless you're a troll, which seems ever more likely).

DP111 said...

Islamism must carry a price. Fine. However, the real problem is the demographic one.

Let us suppose that we exacted a heavy price to those who carried out "Islamism". As a consequence of which, the Islamists pulled their horns in.

Let us suppose further the situation, that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, as a consequence of the high price of carrying out Islamism, accepted the call to clean up their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the Jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes, and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK and the USA will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam. War is deceit after all, as Mohammed himself taught.

Islamic ideologues take the long view - in several decades or centuries, or more. It is only right that we as well consider options keeping in mind Islam's long-term goals.

Sultan Knish said...

The demographic question is a valid one, but cutting off Islamism by deporting those aligned with radical mosques and reducing immigration to a more sustainable level, would allow the situation to stabilize, instead of constantly worsening

DP111 said...


As a first step, it is the right approach, but do realise that as long as Muslims live amongst us in significant numbers, there will be terrorism from within, and continuous demands for Islamisation, each feeding the other, for ever and a day, or till Islam is reformed.

DP111 said...

Sultan wrote: and reducing immigration to a more sustainable level, would allow the situation to stabilize, instead of constantly worsening.

Reducing immigration to a sustainable level is impossible, as immigration coupled with natural growth spells doom. It is not just reducing immigration but reversing it, is what will stop the Jihad from within. In fact even a slight negative growth will totally kill the Jihad from within.

Michael said...

Is it so inconceivable that someone didnt come up with his own sollution to a difficult problem? I learned a lot from the articles on this site and I wonder what practically to do with these insights.
In his article Sultan Knish writes that Islamism must carry a price, but it sounds more that Islam must carry its price. My questions are directed to this difference.
In my own Blog I duscussed with Moslems about this question, but they assured me that their religion was peaceful and that they dont want to harm anyone. can you also make these people pay a price for their religion?
As a Jew living in Jerusalem, I am not very impressed by Islam and I feel threatened by it, but I really have no idea what to do with it.

Sultan Knish said...


a sustainable level means a level in which islam does not expand to crowd out the native population

the numbers on that would essentially require the elimination of Muslim immigration entirely and when combined with deportation of those belonging to islamist mosques or who have committed fraud or assorted crimes, would move into negative numbers

Sultan Knish said...


the key question here is survival. If Muslims were in truth, rather than in blog comments, willing to live at peace with others, as most people in the world are, we would not be having this conversation.

But the fact that Muslims are in conflict in every place in which they are the minority, from china to the Philippines, from India to Israel, etc... demonstrates that its followers are for the most part incapable of coexisting with others.

Will48 said...

Michael - sorry for loosing my temper this way. It was uncalled for.

But the problem is real and sore. It is sore because we are people of conscience (I'd like to think that we are) and it hurts to treat others as liars and scheming murderers. But REALITY seems to force us into this way.

And we should never ever deny REALITY.

I've no doubt many people who were born Muslim just block out the Jihad teachings of their faith, or are unaware of it. But what are we to do, if they seem to not be the ones calling the shots in the 1.5 billion world's Muslim Nation.

It is only natural, too. Moderate masses usually follow those on top in any social order, out of inertia or fear (or both). And the most fierce fanatics have tendency to cause the most fear in the rest of population.

Take the Fallacstinian population for example. If you were in Israel in the 80s (and all the more in the 70s) you probably saw many of them who wanted nothing but coexistence, and codevelopement (IOW: jobs).

And just who the hell rules over them now?

The right solution would be to examine true beliefs of each individual, to see if they support the Jihad ideology, and if so, treat them as an enemy. For that we need to have truth machine. It is in development in Israel right now, but for it to be used widely in political context like this is still unrealistic and unfeasible (this may change though).

The easy solution is to treat them all the same way as the worse among them; but it is inhumane. It is also counterproductive, for there might be our allies among the disillusioned among them.

But we are not all-powerful. We don't have an army of millions of robots whom we could spare in order to not cause any collateral damage in counter-terrorism operations, like in Gaza for instance. We do what we can.

It is important to DO what we CAN really, to not turn into monsters.

But the monsters of today's Islamism may not leave us any choice.

For example, I think Israel should make a nuclear strike at Iranian nuclear installations NOW, an attack of about 20 missiles, to be repeated after year or two if they repair the sites. It is the only viable option today, simply because Israel is not strong enough, like the US are, to do the conventional attack.

(if Israel does have a bomb, that is, and it wasn't just one long hoax all these years).

In general, I have only two demands on Islamic societies: one, to not attack us in the Free World (i.e. no dawa of jihad) and two, freedom of emigration for anyone of their subjects who wants to leave Islam. We should give them shelter, but only to those who truly want to leave Islam (alternatively, if we are powerful enough, Islamism).

But this is all fairytales really, as if we had a solid non-penetrable defenses and so could leave them to their devices, behind the new Iron Wall. This may yet come true, after a bloody war which would bring them back into their beloved 7th century once again. Those left alive, that is.

Will48 said...

Another demand I would like to see Free World make on Islamic societies - if it is powerful enough that is, after Islam suffers a decisive defeat and retreats into radioactive sands or some such - is total freedom of information for its subjects.

People have the right to believe in anything they want, but they don't have a right to limit others' access to information to make up THEIR OWN MIND.

This is because I regard FREEDOM OF THE THOUGHT as the value most high, and the next two are DO NO HARM and NO COERCION.

If we have enough power to enforce these principles inside the backward societies of iZlam, we should. Of course the West is far from that ideal either, as yet.

DP111 said...

Sultan wrote a sustainable level means a level in which islam does not expand to crowd out the native population.


However one must keep in mind, that as long as there are significant numbers of Muslims living amongst us, there will be continuous demands for sharia this or that, there will always be terror plots germinating from within the city walls, and there will always be fatwas whenever Muslims feel that their religion/prophet has been insulted. The last will lead to threats of violence. All this is the natural culmination of having Muslims, regardless of whether they pose an existential threat or not. It leads to loss of freedom of speech, and eventually freedom of thought.

I feel sad that this has happened. Not many attractive options left if we wish to secure a free future for future generations.

Anonymous said...

Very informative, realistic and true article.
Another aspect is:

The British writer and social debater Kenan Malik (born in Idia, left-wing) published in April 2009 his book "From Fatwa to Jihad": "The succession after the Salman Rushdie-affaire."
He is warning us that Salman Rushdie's critics are about to win the war of culture. When Rushdie's book was published he was supported by most liberals, Many liberals still support it, in principle, but they argue that cultural respect have to be/must be shown.
The problem is that if everybody should be allowed to talk freely in an open society, in a democracy, then it is impossible not to offend some people some times. The demand today that one has to show cultural regard has come to a bad end: criticism is (soon) no longer allowed.
There are many examples today of: Fear or Respect? People have been murdered, books have not been published, museums have denied to set up certain exhibitions, Geert Wilders was denied to enter GB and a great deal more.

Elly Sorensen
It would be nice in case we could connect via Facebook. I can't make my open ID work!

Sultan Knish said...

...and there are specific people whose values are too important to offend...

I hope google implements facebook connect soon on blogger

Post a Comment