How the war on terrorism may yet be won, in spite of ourselves
Boston: Regina Orthodox Press, 2006; 335 pp., $22.95 ISBN: 192865326X
Serge Trifkovic writes a calm and thoughtful tome… He is arguing that a significant number of people subscribe to militant Islam, and that such militancy is a natural result of following the actual teachings of Muhammad and the Koran. Until Islam undergoes a period of reformation or secularization, Westerners need to face the unvarnished truth about this ideology. It's a compelling, albeit frightening argument. If you want to wrestle with harsh truths rather than PC fiction, this book is a good place to start. -- Steven Greenhut, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Defeating Jihad review by Brian Mitchell
Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, October 2006
ome months before the invasion of Iraq, a well-known neocon stopped by my office to stump for war. It would all be very easy, he said coolly. We just needed to eliminate a handful of people in Saddam Hussein’s government, and all resistance would crumble. He was so casual about such dirty work that I was moved to ask, in the words of an old western, how many people in Iraq “needed killin’.” He shrugged matterof-factly and answered, “Two or three thousand.” Well, we’ve killed many times that, and still more come at us every day with the same idea of driving the infidel Crusaders and Jews from the land of Islam.
Ideas, after all, have consequences. Yet many books urging us on to an even wider war tell us less about the ideas of our enemies than about all the people who need killin’. When they do discuss ideas, they offer only ludicrously narrow refutations of terrorism or insanely broad attacks on traditional culture. Witness Michael Ledeen’s paean to “creative destruction” in Against the Terror Masters:
Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone… They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.
My good friend (full disclosure) Dr. Srdja Trifkovic is more precise, to say the least. In both his highly successful Sword of the Prophet and his newly published Defeating Jihad, he names one particular tradition, Islam, as the source of the problem. That is enough to get him jailed in half a dozen European countries, where ethnic insult is officially more offensive than mayhem and murder. In his latest work, however, Trifkovic actually advocates a saner and more humane stance toward Islam than the escalating clash of civilizations currently under way.
Instead of trying to root out every angry Muslim in Mesopotamia, Trifkovic advises a defensive war of exclusion at home and disengagement abroad, a strategy requiring less killing of Muslims but more candor about Islam. “The victory will come not by conquering Mecca for America,” he writes, “but by disengaging America from Mecca and by excluding Mecca from America.”
The problem with Islam is that the religion is essentially a political ideology, albeit one with a metaphysical base. “Politics is not ‘part of Islam,’ a separate sphere of existence which is then eventually amalgamated with Islam,” Trifkovic writes. “Rather, politics is the inherent core of the Islamic imperative of Allah’s sovereignty.”
The very word Islam means submission to Allah and sharia, an elaborate legal code based on the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad (Haditha). Sharia claims universal jurisdiction over believers and unbelievers everywhere. It requires unbelievers to submit to Muslim rule and believers to fight for that submission.
There is therefore no possibility of separating church and state in Islam. Indeed, there is no Islamic “church” at all in the Christian sense, no institutional structure of the Muslim umma or community besides the Muslim state. There is also no possibility of accommodating Islam to American democracy, for “Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical [to] American values and institutions.”
To meet the threat, Trifkovic recommends a strategy much along the lines of the American response to international communism. Abroad, the United States should oppose the spread of Muslim influence in the Balkans and Caucasus but not meddle directly in Muslim countries. At home, she should subject the Muslim presence to intense scrutiny, as she did the Communist Party in the early 20th century.
Here, Trifkovic does not mince words. He bluntly advises us that spying on Muslims in America is both “justified and necessary” and that mosques should have to register with the attorney general and submit to government supervision like any other “hate group.” Law-enforcement officials should not be discouraged from profiling Muslims, and Muslim Americans should not be granted security clearances. Muslims activists should be deported, whether citizens or not, and immigration of Muslims should be all but ended.
Trifkovic expects that most Americans would welcome such measures, and I suspect that he is right. The public has not been too bothered by revelations of warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, and a likely reason is that most people believe that the NSA is not listening in on average Americans but on Muslim immigrants phoning home.
There are a lot of things that are very popular with the people but absolutely impossible for their elected representatives, however, and a crackdown on Islam is one of them. It isn’t that Muslims are already so influential in America that our pols must pay them attention. Rather, our own political principles make it virtually impossible to define Islam as an alien influence.
If the “War on Terror” must be compared with the Cold War, we should see ourselves not as the hard-core anticommunists of the pre-McCarthy era but as the desperate Soviet ideologues trapped in their own failing system. Trifkovic himself makes the connection: The problem of centrally planned economy could not be solved because the solution remained outside the ideological parameters of the decision-making community. To consider capitalism as an option was illegitimate, as it would have demanded a paradigm shift that could not stop short of altering the system as a whole.
“The debate on Islamic terrorism in the United States has the same Soviet quality,” Trifkovic continues. “It rarely touches on the fundamentals of policy or history” but merely quibbles over possible applications of our obligatory assumptions. Judging by the long lines at airportsecurity gates, we can only conclude that our soviets are working harder to save our assumptions than to save our selves.
he first fatal assumption is the belief that religion does not really matter, that wealth and freedom can fully satisfy the yearnings of the human heart, and that people only need religion when they do not have iPods. Reasoning in this manner, we must conclude that Islam is not to blame for our present conflict, and pointing out that our enemies are all Muslim (and not all poor or uneducated or even Arab) is therefore divisive, unhelpful, and un-American.
A second assumption is that any conflict between Christianity and Islam is Christianity’s fault. Only historical ignorance and anti-Christian animus can account for this assumption, but our ruling elites lack neither. It is telling that the first major film to capitalize on post-September 11 passions (Kingdom of Heaven) depicted the Christians as the villains.
From these assumptions come liberal Europe’s odd tolerance of illiberal Islam and sense of moral obligation to Muslim immigrants. The combination amounts to a civilizational death wish, unprecedented in history. “No other race subscribes to these moral principles,” writes Jean Raspail, “because they are weapons of self-annihilation.”
The evidence Trifkovic adduces for this death wish is appalling. Shortly after September 11, British Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed Muslim leaders to 10 Downing Street to tell them, “What happened in America was not the work of Islamic terrorists, it was not the work of Muslim terrorists. It was the work of terrorists, pure and simple.” Imagine Winston Churchill assuring Oswald Mosley that the Blitz was not the work of German aviators or even Nazi aviators, but aviators, pure and simple.
Europe’s sympathy for Islam has deeper roots than most Americans might imagine. Enlightened libidos eager to cross the bounds of Christian morality were attracted to the legendary licentiousness of the harem and the Turkish bath. (Trifkovic reports that, in England, homosexuality became known as the “Persian” or “Turkish” vice.) At the same time, Islam itself was admired for its simplicity and austerity, in contrast to Christian weakness and decadence. Gibbon openly sympathized with the manly Muslim Turks against the effeminate Christian Byzantines caricatured in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-88), while Montesquieu assumed a Persian perspective to satirize French society in his Persian Letters (1721).
Trifkovic relates this early anti-Christian, pro-Muslim bias to the sympathy of such European leftists as Bernard-Henri Levy for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Jewishness of Levy and many other European intellectuals only adds to the left’s chronic Christophobia. Even amid a surge in attacks on Jews by Muslims in Europe, European leftists have preferred to point the finger at the usual suspects— “young, disaffected white Europeans, often stimulated by extreme right-wing groups,” according to Beate Winkler, head of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
Recently, in the wake of attacks in Europe by outright terrorists, European nations have taken modest steps to defend themselves. But simple demographics appear ready to finish what Europe’s feminist, multicultural, anti-Christian elites have started. Birthrates of Europeans throughout Europe are barely half of what is needed for replacement, while the Muslim population of Europe, now 50 million, is expect to double in 20 years. By 2025, Muslims will account for one third of all births in the European Union.
The situation in the United States is more hopeful. There are far fewer Muslims in America (less than two million), and there are many more Christians. Trifkovic writes that, in France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany, more people worship in mosques on Friday than in churches on Sunday, whereas over 80 percent of Americans still call themselves Christians. He does stress the negative, noting that Christians totaled above 90 percent in 1990, while the number of Americans professing no religion doubled between 1990 and 2000. It is true that nominal Christians raise non-Christians nowadays, but it is also true that committed Christians raise more children. Others have argued, on the basis of red-state population growth and recent electoral trends, that the country is becoming more Christian.
Unfortunately, we Americans have our own useful idiots eager to absolve Islam of any blame. There are the editors at Houghton Mifflin who (by my own count) tell schoolchildren ten times in a two-volume set that Muslims are “tolerant,” and ten times in the same set that Christians “persecute” people. There are the producers at PBS who do not question Muslim claims in the miniseries Mohammad: Legacy of a Prophet but make skepticism toward the central tenets of Christianity the basis of the documentary From Jesus to Christ. And there are the politicians (some actually in politics) whose only hope is to con us all, Muslims included, into believing that Islam is a religion of peace and that jihad is only for heretics.
It is an indication of how bad things are that Trifkovic himself at times adopts the rhetoric of the left to make his point, assuming for the reader’s sake that liberal democracy is good and religious discrimination is bad, then carving out an exception that justifies treating this one particular religion illiberally. “No court in a democratic country,” he writes, “should uphold the constitutionality of any measure targeted at a particular religion.” He goes on to say, in the same paragraph, that “the First Amendment should not extend to Sharia because of its inherently discriminatory nature.”
In the course of his book, Trifkovic moves from telling it like it is according to an older Christian understanding of the world to recommending a modern American rationalization of religious discrimination. He insists that Islam itself is “inherently seditious” but recommends action against only “Islamic activism,” defined as the political act of propagating, disseminating or otherwise supporting “Jihad”…, discrimination against Christians, Jews and other “infidels,” discrimination and violence against women and sexual minorities, anti-Jewish bigotry, sanction of slavery, etc.
Trifkovic knows, of course, that the Koran propagates all these things and that there can be no Islam without the Koran. His point seems to be that the Constitution empowers us to ban Islam because of its politics and not because of its religion. “We do not need new legal theories, or a different conception of the First Amendment,” he writes. “[W]e need an educational campaign.” He might be right about the law. As Justice Jackson pointed out, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and there is certainly no overestimating the willingness of American jurists, when provided enough political cover, to argue around inconvenient legal obstacles.
It seems to me, however, that a paradigm shift sufficient to get us honestly out of our ideological box would require us to admit that the First Amendment’s Anti-Establishment Clause is a large part of the problem. Any schoolboy can see that, if some religions are inherently seditious, a constitution tolerating all religions invites its own overthrow. Our educational campaign must therefore teach two truths: that Islam is seditious, and that the Founding Fathers were wrong. Teaching the former and not the latter will cause confusion and keep us thinking inside the box.
There is also the danger that the prosecution of “Islamic activism” alone, especially when clouded by the requirement of unrestricted religious freedom, will not protect us from “moderate” Muslims who disavow the seditious aspects of their religion only until they are too strong to oppose. Trifkovic indeed warns that moderates cannot be trusted because Muhammad’s doctrine of taqiyya sanctions dissembling for the sake of Allah. He also warns that nominal Muslims, when demoralized by Western culture, sometimes sincerely rediscover their own true faith—with violent consequences.
What is needed to strengthen this book’s recommendations for a practical response to Islam is a more thorough theoretical treatment of the problem of Popper’s Paradox, which says (in words too plain for Karl Popper himself) that even open societies, if they are to remain open to some, must remain closed to others. A society such as Israel seeking to remain open to all Jews must remain closed to some Gentiles. Likewise, a society such as Belarus seeking to remain open to Orthodox Christianity must remain closed to the likes of George Soros and Michael Ledeen. And if Srdja Trifkovic is right about Islam, a society seeking to remain open to average Americans must remain closed to all Muslims.
This is a difficult truth for politically practical Americans today, but the danger of denying it was foreseen by farsighted Antifederalists such as the Rev. David Caldwell of North Carolina, who complained, at the state convention on ratification, that the Constitution would leave the country open to “Jews and Pagans of every kind,” who might “at some future period . . . endanger the character of the United States.” History has proved Caldwell correct, and the time has come to admit it.
Conclusion to Defeating Jihad:
The deadlock on the Somme in 1916, or at Verdun a year later, could not be broken with the strategic ideas and modus operandi of Messrs. Haig, Pétain, or Hindenburg. It could have been unlocked, however, had Lidell-Hart, de Gaulle, or Guderian held their ranks and positions. Winning a war demands “knowing the enemy and knowing oneself,” of course, but it also demands “thinking outside the box.” This old cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class. That would mark the long overdue beginning of serious Western defense against Islamic terrorism. It would signify the recognition that we are in a life-or-death struggle.
That struggle is being waged, on the Islamic side, with the deep conviction that the West is spiritually, morally, and biologically inferior. That view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for biological self-perpetuation is indeed in mortal peril. Islamic beliefs, ideas and intentions as such pose a threat to our civilization and our way of life in the same way that the ideas of the KKK, or the beliefs of Pol Pot, or the “religion” of the cool aid-drinking leader of Jonestown posed a threat. The difference is that our Islamic enemies number in the millions of potential terrorists and/or their supporters, and they are already within our borders. The elite class rejects this diagnosis, of course, but among reasonable and well-informed citizens the debate on Islam’s nature should be over.
Americans did not agonize over communism’s true nature during the Berlin air lift in 1949 or at Pusan in 1950 but acted effectively to contain it by whatever means necessary. Nor did Americans wring their hands over what the “response” should be after Pearl Harbor. The right to survive and defend ones self was not a subject for agonized debate. Yes, we once had a group of American leaders were pro Nazi, pro-fascist and pro-German, until the actual beginning of hostilities of the American entrance into the Second World War. And they denied that Jews were in peril, they portrayed Hitler as merely a strong and good German.... And yes, we once had a legion of Moscow’s apologists, character witnesses, moles and fellow-travelers, assuring us that the Comrades wanted nothing but social justice at home and peaceful coexistence abroad. Our appeasers and apologists for tyranny held tenured chairs, staffed the New York Times’ Moscow bureaus, controlled many Hollywood studios, and dominated all smart salons on both coasts. 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 Bolshevik Revolution itself, the genocidal crime of the great famine, the show trials and purges, the killing machine that destroyed millions of innocents known as the Gulag, Stalin’s pact with Hitler, the works.
Today the spiritual heirs to the pro-communists, pro-fascists and pro-Nazis in politics, the academy and the media establishment act as Islam’s apologists, character witnesses and fellow travelers. They 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 14 centuries of conquests, wars, slaughters, subjugation, decline without fall, spiritual and material misery, slavery, abuse of women and murderous fanaticism.
A year after 9-11 we noted that once upon a time the West and the Muslim world could clearly define themselves vis-à-vis each other in a cultural and political sense. What postmodernity and secularism have done, since replacing Christianity as the guiding light of the West, is to cast aside any idea of “our land,” of a space that is European or American in the ethnic, geographic, and cultural sense, a space that has an external boundary and that should be protected from all those who covet it but to whom it does not belong by birthright.
That same problem faces us even more starkly today, as the West faces two clear alternatives: determined defense or eventual submission and—as V.S. Naipaul eloquently put it—our acceptance of sacred Arab places and culture as “our own.” And what are we to get in return for giving up all that we have? “What kind of art can there be, when human beings cannot be represented? What kind of philosophy, where thinkers must accept the crudest fatalism as the revealed word or an absolute first principle?” Everything, from the Constitution to the Bill of Rights, from Mozart and Bach to Duke Ellington and Miles Davis, from Jackson Pollack to Bob Altman, from the local Presbyterian church to the local Roman Catholic cathedral, ceases to exist in the future as imagined by all “good Muslims.” [...] The choice before us is about more than mere theories. The choice involves the very fabric of our lives, from the books available in our libraries, the music we love, the films we see, how our women are treated, the future of our daughters, to the rule of law that supersedes any one group’s beliefs.
As we have seen, some eighty years ago Julien Benda published his tirade against the intellectual corruption of his times, The Treason Of the Intellectuals (La Trahison des Clercs). The “Treason” of the title occurred when the intellectual elite gave up promoting lasting civilizational values and allowed short-term political preferences to distort their understanding of the intellectual vocation as such. Benda called it “a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world.” In no field is this problem more visible today than in the schizophrenic approach of the elite to the war on terrorism. The fact that normal people don’t realize the magnitude of the problem works to the advantage of the people like Blair, Soros, Zapatero, Prodi, or Balkenende. Their ideas, which but two generations ago would have been deemed eccentric or insane, now rule the Euro-American mainstream.
Only a society gone mad can unblinkingly be 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, independently 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 and built their institutions, but to whoever happens to be within their boundaries at any given moment—regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions.
A further malevolent fallacy is the dictum that we should not feel a special bond for any particular country, nation, or culture, but transfer our preferences to the whole world, “all 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 utterings from a senior government official would have caused a scandal. By the end of the 20th century it bothered only the unsophisticated who persisted 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. It came from the man who had helped define and execute American foreign policy for eight years. Even before taking his post, Talbott wrote that he was looking forward to universal world government. “Here is one optimist’s reason for believing unity will prevail,” he said: within the next hundred years “nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority... A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century—‘citizen of the world’—will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.” The ideological foundation for Talbott`s beliefs was stated bluntly: “All countries are basically social arrangements, accom-modations 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 in Washington, New York, Brussels, London and elsewhere, 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. Atavistic sentiments may have to be invoked, strictly as communication tools for hoi polloi from the prairies and the mountains who provide the cannon fodder for Baghdad, Fallujah, or Mogadishu. But like Marx`s proletarians, the elite class knows no loyalty to a concrete country. Its members could serve any one or all of them if they can be turned into the tools of their Will to Power. The refusal of the elite class to protect Western nations from Islamic terrorism is the biggest betrayal in the West’s history. It reflects a global problem that is a synthesis of all others, and goes beyond “Culture Wars.” It is the looming end of culture itself.
For many millennia people lived in communities in which links were direct and emotional. Those communities eventually merged into “society,” in which relations were measured in terms of objects, and became formalized; but the “real” human being nevertheless remained the subject of his own activity generated by his emotions and needs as a living, feeling, thinking creature. By the mid-20th century, however, when science and technology ushered in the “Information Era” and society became a vastly complex socio-technological system, from the subject of activity man was reduced to its mere element—the “human factor.” Having been “integrated” into the network of relations, the man had to act in accordance with the system’s procedures. The environment, the real world, became symbolic rather than substantial, with nature merely providing the building blocks for the habitat.
The process is far from over. With the advent of post-modernity, most relations between people in the developed world cease to be regulated by non-rational means such as emotions, customs, morals, or esthetics. Spirituality is being substituted by “content,” by information. Society’s metamorphosis into technos (or post-society, post-history) may signify its end. With the pending revolution in genetic engineering, culture as a means of transmitting values conducive to society’s cohesion will no longer be needed. It is to be neutered and relegated to “heritage,” or else demonized as oppressive, racist, homophobic, sexist, discriminatory etc.
In this transformation of an increasingly globalized society into a socio-technological system regulated by the market, the Western world is entering the “post-human era” in which all aspects of social life are streamlined and rationalized, and all shades of human relations and nuances simplified into manageable routines and procedures, while the “redundant concepts of human existence that we have inherited from the humanist era… can no longer be sustained.” This is “culture” of the artificial world, of post-historical, techno-logical man. The reversibility of the signifier and the signified, terrorist and victim, oppressor and sufferer, native and immigrant, church and mosque, extremist and moderate, eventually eliminates the Creator and, after that, the subject in general, with nothing but the subject’s “signature” being left, perhaps in the form of smoldering ruins.
This is the mindset, the paradigm that breeds the obnoxious slogan that “force is not an answer” to terrorism, the claim that profiling is bad and open borders are good, that Islam is peaceful and the West is wicked. The elitist upholders of such claims belong to the culture that has lost its bond with nature, history, and the supporting community, not to mention the natural common sense instinct for survival of the majority of their populations.
In the meantime, thanks to our elite betrayers, 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 character and uniqueness, their art, music, literature, customs and social practices. If the reader wishes to know where this “future” leads pause to remember the Taliban’s wonton blowing up of the two giant statues of Buddha, and the systematic wiping out of several thousand years of high culture with a few sticks of dynamite.
The supporting community in the non-Islamic world is still out there, even in North America and Western Europe, grumbling and working and paying taxes. When it is told of Islam’s “peace and tolerance,” or when its children are forced to recite Muslim prayers at school, it complains, mostly quietly, about someone’s stupidity or ineptitude, but it still does not suspect outright betrayal.
The betrayers promote an ideology of “universal human values,” of a “common culture” for the whole world. In reality, however, the proponents of politically correct “diversity” are creating its exact opposite: a soul-numbing monism. They may not even realize why they abet Islam and no “conspiracy” is implied, just a dreary sameness of thought and utterly predictable result. For all the outward differences, our betraying elites share with the mullahs and sheikhs and imams a desire for a monistic One World. They both long for the Great Gleichschaltung that will end in Talbot’s Single Global Authority, post-national and seamlessly standardized, a ummah under whatever name. The Christian vision of Triune God Who allows choice, diversity, individuality and free will is the enemy to both versions of this vision.
Those North Americans, Australians, Chinese, Indians, South and Central Americans, Africans and Europeans who love their lands more than any others and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are as sick and evil as they are foolish.
As the saying goes, a thousand deaths is a statistic, one death is a tragedy. We human beings do best when operating on a scale that is commensurate with our nature and individuality. To be loyal to a “global” ideal—whether Talbott’s or to a Caliphate--is not only insane it is evil. It destroys the bonds that make life livable, bonds of home and hearth, wife and child, community and neighbor, traditions and religion.
The global thinkers in the elite are our main enemies and jihad’s indispensable allies. The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, and irreversibly jihad-friendly, has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming our mortal 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 American, European, Indian, South American, Chinese, and Russian, Australian and African non-Muslims to stop the madness. The Western elite traitor class wants us all to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as peoples 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 American traitor class is guilty.
The population explosion and the utter dysfunctionality of almost all Muslim societies, coupled with the spiritual enfeeblement and demographic collapse of Europeans old and new, are producing lasting results. In all creation disease and frailty invite predators, as witnessed in the scene of Madame Hortense’s death in Zorba the Greek. Both the loss of the will to define and defend one’s native culture, and the loss of the desire to procreate, send an alluring signal to the teeming favellas and kazbahs: Come, there’s money for nothin’ and chicks for free! Come, for no Western nation has the guts to shed blood—alien or its own—in the name of its own survival.
Can a gigantic reversal happen at five minutes to midnight? A Christian would say that a miracle can and therefore—God willing—will happen.
To a political scientist the model of recovery requires a catastrophic event, a colossal, rapidly spreading global economic crisis, say, perhaps caused by the combination of spiraling energy costs and a series of major terrorist attacks. The meltdown and the collapse of confidence in the ability of the all-pervasive State to manage relief would force millions of people to re-examine their lives and their assumptions. A loss of confidence in the leadership of our political elites is not impossible to imagine. One need only picture what will happen in the wake of several 9-11 type attacks that tragically are inevitable given the refusal of our elites to even name our enemy, much less take the practical defensive measures outlined in this book.
By being disillusioned in progress our ordinary populations may perhaps rediscover the value and force of their traditions. Perhaps children would no longer be a burden and a “financial liability,” they would regain their traditional value as economic assets and the substitute for collapsed social security and pension systems. The family might re-emerge as the essential social unit. Amidst collapsing political structures and a loss of faith in our bankrupt political parties, all ideological “propositions” might be recognized as empty abstracts. Communities bonded by memory, language, faith, and myth might be revived. And in adversity the eyes of men and women might be lifted, once again, to Heaven.
Even before the next life-altering terrorist event, normal people should not succumb to passivity. The game is not up. Dar al Islam is not inevitably the end of the road for all of us. We are endowed with feelings and reason, with the awareness of who we are. Our struggle to defend ourselves against Jihad is just even if the outcome is uncertain. In the face of this uncertainty we must nevertheless hold on to life, and beauty, and truth.
 The Sword of the Prophet, p. 295.
 Thomas Fleming: “Facing the Muslim Threat.” A lecture given at Matica Srpska in Novi Sad, Serbia, September 11, 2003, at a conference on Islam and the West organized by The Rockford Institute.
 Julien Benda: The treason of the intellectuals. New York: William Morrow & Company (1928).
 The New York Times, September 21, 1999
 “The Birth of the Global Nation,” Time, July 20, 1992
 Cf. Robert Pepperell, The Post-Human Condition. London: Intellect, Ltd. (1997).
AMAZON READERS’ COMMENTS:
READ CHAPTER 8 ONLINE: