Conspiracy, Treason or Stupidity?
Reader comment on item: Intimidating the West, from Rushdie to Benedict

Submitted by Thomas Justin Kaze (Australia), Oct 5, 2006 at 01:27

Conspiracy, Treason or Stupidity?

For the last five years, the world's greatest democracies have been waging a war on Islam; a defensive one, mind you – and they call it the War on Terror. Terror, you know: irhab, jihad, such things; all parts of the deadliest ideology… sorry – I will start again: parts of one of the greatest religions of the world. We are fighting the most important, the sine qua non part of Islam, but not Islam itself – or so we are told, time and time again. And in World War II, the Allied Forces were only fighting the Luftwaffe, maybe also the SS, but not the entire Nazi machine – it is like saying that if you take the jihad element out of Islam, the rest – including the Sharia law – is cute and cuddly. The public was prohibited from criticizing the National Socialism and from making fun of Hitler, so as not to offend the religious feelings of the peaceful German community world-wide… Just a sec; am I missing something here?

Adolf Hitler openly announced his intentions to all and sundry, back in the mid 1930s, and the world shrugged and went quietly about its business; after all, Hitler's quest for more Lebensraum was directed eastward – and anyway, who would dare get in the way of his plans? Any such move would only irritate him and declare war on the West too… It was better not to get involved – at least Mr. Chamberlain thought so. And they had peace treaty with Hitler – and so did the Soviet Union. It was no secret that Hitler hated Communism, but – a treaty is a treaty. Unless you use taqiyya and "legitimately" break the treaty, because… you can, and the other side does not expect it – and that gives you the upper hand, albeit temporarily.

The West – well, the United States for that matter, have peace treaty with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan and many other Muslim states; it pays, because the Saudis have oil, and the Pakistanis have agreed to assist in the war on the sixth pillar of their faith (I should like to think what would have become of them if they had not!); treaties with other Islamic countries, even those who do not have oil, are a must, because all Muslims are brothers; Islamic countries have peace treaties with the West, because… it is nice to have peace treaties with the West, taqiyya notwithstanding. Mr. Ahmadinejad does not mince his words when openly declaring his intentions – we can trust him on that "peaceful nuclear program"; all doubts will disperse, once the program has been completed. Sure, Islamophobes anticipate that Iran will force the free world to convert to Islam under threat of a nuclear war, but – maybe Iran is not such a bad guy as Herr Hitler's Germany was? Let's wait and see; in the meantime, let us face a few undeniable facts:

First, the West's addiction to oil – and that is a fact. Muslims (Arabs) have oil – fact. Muslims populate out of control and need more Lebensraum – fact; if the West does not allow millions of young Muslim men to immigrate, Arabs will turn off their oil taps – fact. We could call it a blackmail of some sort, whatever, but this, too, is a fact. When Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs, settle in Western lands, they expect to be treated with nothing short of reverence; they demand special treatment, concessions and privileges – everything that, in their opinion, their religious affiliation entitles them to – fact. When denied what they claim, they feel marginalized and discriminated against – so they riot, burn cars and blow us up to make their point; when accused of terrorism, they frown and accuse us of intolerance – fact. Whether under pressure or not, it is us who have invited them in – fact.

The laws in Islamic countries are known to be harsh and brutal; those young and ever-angry Muslims would never dare carrying on back home like they do in our only too liberal society. For what they would be hanged, beheaded or have a limb amputated in Saudi Arabia, they get a slap on the wrist or a suspended sentence in France or England – fact. And when their punishment is still perceived as too harsh, they are vigorously defended by various parasitic Islamic organizations and squadrons of lawyers who, for Arab petrodollars or for the Western taxpayers' money, lecture us about multicultural values and tolerance – fact. Was Uncle Stalin wrong, when he said that the West was plotting the rope on which it was later to be hanged? By the way: I do not recall the refugees from behind the Iron Curtain trying to impose their communist values on their host nations, converting them to Marxism at the point of a sword or demand that we erect a statue of Lenin on every street corner; they did their best to adapt to their new ways of life and to leave their, often painful, past behind – so no comparison here. Communism is dead, while Islam is on the move – and we do have a problem.

Sure, we are multicultural now; so multicultural, in fact, that we are almost hybrids. We drink ouzo and sake, eat nasi goreng, sushi, pizza and Indian curry; we listen to Italian operas, Bollywood songs and African drums and we learn Spanish, Russian or Korean, because it is fun to understand other cultures. But this is as far as we can go – we will not be told what to do in our own countries by some uncouth mono-cultural minorities with huge pretenses and inflated egos. Sadly, too many politicians, not to mention enemies within – Human Rights activists, Greenies, anti-defamation leagues, ever-savvy students who have only just enrolled and yet know what is best for the rest of us, Marxist hippies and of course the Fifth Column, the Islamic organizations, funded and maintained with the non-Muslim taxpayers' dollars, are siding with the Islamic minorities, facilitating the imposition of Muslim "values" on the majority who wants nothing to do with Islam whatsoever. If it is not forced islamization under the disguise of multiculturalism, I do not know what it is. One word of criticism directed at Muslims and we are branded racists, intolerant bigots and Islamophobes. (At many anti-war protest marches, we can see posters that read "Stop this Unjust War", "No Blood for Oil" and such; I would like to see just one that reads "Stop the Jihad against the West".)

If only the Muslim minorities were half as tolerant as we are, what a beautiful world it could be! On the other hand, I do not remember being asked by the State Treasury whether I agree to have a mosque built for the money I pay in taxes – it seems that the government has already decided, without consulting me – so much for democracy. The common sense is another thing to be questioned here: I understand some financial assistance to new immigrants, but why feed the beast that wants to devour you? Our distinguished politicians from both sides, including Mr. President, are bombarding us with the legend of a peaceful Islam, as if such a thing ever existed, and trying to make us believe that our resistance to the Islamic version of multiculturalism will incur the Islamic wrath – I wonder if they have the oil business in mind. Also, Allah a.k.a. Muhammad insisted that Jews are scum of the world and have to be wiped out – and contradicting that statement equals contradicting the words of Allah, if that is his real name, which is very offensive to over one billion of paranoid schizophrenics. I would like to hear what the United States Government has to say in regard to the Islamic "Jewish question", or indeed, the United Nations' stance versus the above.

The United Nations are infamous for their lack of action in defense of victims of Communism in the olden days or, recently, in defense of the non-Muslim victims of Islam. But, since the UN have in their ranks representatives of many oppressive Islamic regimes, they cannot question or discuss the issues like wiping Israel off the map or humiliation and destruction of the "Great Satan" by whose grace they have their headquarters in New York City and not in some Mecca, Rawalpindi or Mogadishu. Even al-Qaeda decided to attack the WTC and not the United Nations HQ. To me, the initials UN mean "Usually Nothing".

Muslims are free to criticize, ridicule and insult our Western values and to burn Stars and Stripes in their countries and we are not going to deny them their right to do so, but they in turn have to understand that, in our countries, we have equal right to criticize, question or ridicule their values and to condemn those that beg to be condemned, without being called names or under death threats, because that's what freedom is all about. If our governments try to outlaw criticism of Nazism, Communism or Islam, they will not last long. If our ways of life and our progress are offensive to some backward savages – bad luck; we cannot stop only because some retards cannot catch up. And if those Muslims already in our countries cannot adjust, they better leave. One of the principles of hijra (migration) says that a Muslim should not stay for too long in a non-Muslim land, but if he chooses to stay there permanently, he should make all efforts to make that country Islamic – only that it takes two to tango; and our laws regulating proselytizing should be amended quickly and exclude Islam, or rather adopt the stance identical to the laws that regulate proselytizing and conversions to other religions in Islamic countries.

As for conversions to Islam, I may be exaggerating but I have noticed a very disturbing trend: westerners, mostly young uneducated men with violent, if not criminal, past, "embrace" Islam (very often they convert in jail) and continue their life of crime, sanctioned by Islamic "values" from that point on; many join their new brethren in the jihad against their own countries and their own people. Our legislature has to address this problem quickly and pass necessary laws that will deal with such "converts" in a manner that will discourage them from acquiring such Islamic attitude. By not addressing this problem, our politicians and judges are becoming accomplices to the spread of the Islamic barbarism. Heads of state; presidents and prime ministers who thus facilitate the Islamic conquest of our lands, should think again: they have been voted in by us, they are being paid for their work by our taxes and live high life, to serve us and not to aid and abet the invading hordes. Now we are at war, one that we have not started, and, under martial law, treason is a capital offence. When it is committed by a head of state or another high profile person, it becomes a high treason.

Here are my suggestions:

1. Strict control of Muslim immigration; constant invigilation of mosques, harsh laws applied to preachers of hate and jihad against the West – mandatory jail sentences, or better still, instant deportation. Death penalty for terrorists, deportation of entire families of suicide bombers under collective punishment laws. Do not hesitate to bomb any Muslim country whose natives (or their children born in the West) commit a terrorist act in a Western country.
2. Strict control of all converts to Islam, if such conversions should at all be allowed; in Greece, for example, trying to convert a Greek to a religion other than orthodox Christianity is punishable by jail. Imposition of a jizya-style tax for Muslims – not to worry; they can afford trillions of petrodollars.
3. Birth control for Muslims – the more children, the more tax or less Social Security.
4. Limit the power of the parasitic Islamic organizations, lest they will become a state within a state; stop financing them – the House of Saud has pockets full of money.
5. No more special treatment or religious privileges for Muslims – either the truth that we are all equal is self-evident, or it is not. Stop Muslims telling us what to do and stop telling us that Islam is a religion of peace – we have brains, too; we know that politicians and even presidents do lie, but we will not fall for this one.
6. Stop wasting time, money and valuable human resources on establishing democracy in Muslim countries. Islam and democracy are incompatible and mutually exclusive; ninety-five percent of Muslims can live without democracy, but not without Islam.
7. Stop worrying about the Arabs turning off the oil taps – if they should, the non-Muslim world can always blockade them, thus depriving them of virtually all goods they desperately need in their daily life: machinery, cars, aircraft, radio, TV, computers, fridges, air-conditioners, cellular phones, weaponry (shall I say this again?), light bulbs or even cigarette-lighters – everything they have to import; we will see what they do sooner, invent and start producing all those things or turn the oil taps back on.
8. Finally, do not hesitate to keep the Muslim world in abject poverty; when poor, they will be busy to try and make the ends meet, so they will not engage in global conquest. It is when they do have money, they feel strong; weaponry is the first thing they buy, leaving their starving masses for the West (and the United Nations) to look after. (I admit that I got this idea from Mr. Ali Sina of Faith Freedom International, written in his excellent piece "Viva Oriana" on July 13, 2006.)

The bottom line here is: If we lose this war on Islam, it will not be because of better technology or better strategy used by our foes, as in no way are they superior to us; it will solely be because of our governments' calculated decision to sacrifice us and our freedoms for their financial or political gains. It does not take a genius to come up with the ideas I have presented above, but it will certainly take a politician with a strong character, honesty and determination to implement them and save the civilized world from the catastrophe. Remember, Muslims love death as much as we cherish life, as Osama bin Laden has famously said. To each his own, I say to that.

Thomas Justin Kaze

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.