The most important task in the fight against Islamic Jihad
is to reunite the West in the defense of its own civilization,
which can only happen by derailing Europe’s path to Eurabia.
Raphael Israeli has suggested an Alliance of Western and
Democratic States, at the center of which will be the US,
Canada, Israel, Australia and Western Europe. This system may
sidetrack the chaotic situation in the UN today, where Islamic
countries and dictatorships have too much influence. It would
probably also presuppose scrapping the EU in its present form.
This alliance should maintain amiable relations with the
Russians. Russia under Putin is hardly a model democracy, and
its own Great Power ambitions
may sometimes make it an
unpredictable ally. However, the Russians will probably end
up on the right side in the struggle against Islam, in the
interest of self-preservation if nothing else. With collapsing
non-Muslim birth rates and significant Muslim minorities, the
survival of Russian culture is at stake. The alliance should
also forge ties with non-Western democracies.
Robert Spencer has called India our partner against Jihad, and suggests that India can and should be working side-by-side with us in this great struggle for freedom and human rights. Democratic India, which has suffered from Jihad for centuries, is in many ways our natural ally. It does, however, also have its problems. Historian N.S. Rajaram has explained how the wounds inflicted by centuries of Islamic rule on a large segment of the Indian intelligentsia and the political class have been so debilitating that they continue to live in a state of constant fear. Muslims in India make up about 150 million people, and their growth rate exceeds those of Hindus and Sikhs. Combined with the populations of Bangladesh and Pakistan, non-Muslims could be a minority on the Indian subcontinent by mid-century. Muslims still consider India to be “unfinished business”, which is why the Saudi royal family has cleared plans to construct 4,500 Islamic madrasas in South Asia. This dhimmi-fear of Islamic unrest explains why non-Muslim India was the first country to ban Salman Rushdie’s book “the Satanic Verses.” It is important that Indians get to know the full scale of Islamic atrocities on their continent, through books such as "Negationism in India - Concealing the record of Islam" by Koenraad Elst and "Indian Muslims - Who Are They" by K. S. Lal.
Another complicating factor in this alliance is the sometimes significant cultural differences between Indians and Westerners. Many Indians harbor some suspicion towards Judeo-Christian monotheism as well as Islam. They should listen to V. S. Naipaul, hardly a soft man in his treatment of Islam, who is a defender of Western civilization and says that the advent of Christianity did not damage India the way Islam did. Quite a few also still hold grudges for European colonialism. There are even those, and not just Indians, who say that Europeans deserve to become colonized by Muslims, after colonizing other nations themselves. This line of thinking is both wrong and dangerous. Non-Muslims should never support Muslim advances elsewhere. Indians should know this better than most. While Pakistan for decades remained a hub of Islamic extremism, Western powers usually ignored it as a “regional” or “Indian” problem. Now, terrorists trained at Pakistani madrasas hit London, and threaten other Western nations. Indians should not make the same mistake. There is no such thing as “local” or “regional” struggles against Islam, only different front lines of the same, global Jihad. There is ample evidence of widespread international cooperation between Jihadis. In the longer term, a Muslim Europe would become just another overpopulated Islamic failure. In the short to medium term, however, Europe’s accumulated economic and technological resources would be used to fuel Islamic aggression from Kashmir to Thailand and the Philippines. Most Europeans today are genuinely embarrassed by their colonial past, which is ironically one of the causes of the weakness presently displayed towards Muslim demands. This would not be the case with an Islamic Europe, which with the fresh zeal of the newly convert could seize the mantle of Islam’s cause worldwide, the way the Turks once did.
Whereas democratic India is our natural ally, authoritarian China is a more complicated matter. Through its long-standing partnership with Pakistan, China is partly responsible for that country’s nuclear capability, which is now threatening to spread to other Islamic countries or even terrorist networks. China’s increasing ties with Iran should thus be a matter of some concern for the West. With its’ growing economy, China, and India, too, is faced with a soaring need for energy, which brings it into the arms of the Iranians, the Saudis and even the Sudanese. In Asia, Japan has been a long-standing American ally. In the war against Islamic Jihad, China will thus be faced by an alliance that includes present superpower USA, former colonial power the UK, Asian rival India and the much-hated Japanese. Even without the Chinese Communist Party, it is not certain that all Chinese will be thrilled at the prospect of joining hands with these nations. On top of this, there is a powerful undercurrent of Chinese nationalism in the country, the feeling of belonging to a glorious, but slighted civilization that will now reassert itself and regain the prominence that is its due. The Chinese populace have been spoon-fed anti-Western propaganda for decades, yet have much less intimate knowledge of Islamic aggression than their Indian neighbors. This explains the occasional outbursts of gloating following 9/11 in the USA, by some Chinese viewed as a humbling blow against an arrogant nation. Yes, Chinese authorities are ruthless in suppressing militant Muslim Uighurs in its Western provinces, but this alone does not mean that China has joined the global fight against Islam. It just means that the CCP does not tolerate any kind of dissent, be that Muslims, Tibetan monks or pro-democracy activists.
However, the Chinese are above all pragmatic people. They may need relations with Muslim countries to fill their need for energy, but the Islamic world has little else to offer them. The growth in China’s economy, without which the country could disintegrate from internal unrest, is tied to markets and capital in the West and other infidel nations. And even though Chinese nationalism is a given, it may perhaps be redirected towards Islamic targets. Distribute stories of ethnic Chinese who are discriminated against and exploited in Malaysia, even to the point where they are not allowed to celebrate the Chinese New Year. Or of Chinese women being beaten and gang-raped in Indonesia by Muslims shouting "Allah Hu Akbar" and "Kill Chinese." Spread literature explaining that the Chinese, who are largely Buddhists, Taoists or non-religious, are in fact viewed as even lower by Muslim than Westerners of Judeo-Christian stock. Chinese women are seen as infidel whores, and Chinese men as pig-eating barbarians. The mentality of Islamic supremacy is an insult to 5000 years of Chinese civilization, and a giant slap in the face of the proud Chinese nation. Even though Muslims will want you as allies against other infidels today, they will come for you too, eventually. Your large population mass and ruthless pride may defend you for a while, but even China won’t be immune to an entire Eurasian landmass dominated by Islam.
As Hugh Fitzgerald says, this is not about a “Clash of Civilizations” or “East vs. West,” it is about infidels vs. Islam. We should have an agreement between Europeans, Americans, Indians and everybody else to deal with Islam today, and then the rest of us can haggle about trade quotas and currency rates tomorrow. That’s what civilized people do.
Robert Spencer has called India our partner against Jihad, and suggests that India can and should be working side-by-side with us in this great struggle for freedom and human rights. Democratic India, which has suffered from Jihad for centuries, is in many ways our natural ally. It does, however, also have its problems. Historian N.S. Rajaram has explained how the wounds inflicted by centuries of Islamic rule on a large segment of the Indian intelligentsia and the political class have been so debilitating that they continue to live in a state of constant fear. Muslims in India make up about 150 million people, and their growth rate exceeds those of Hindus and Sikhs. Combined with the populations of Bangladesh and Pakistan, non-Muslims could be a minority on the Indian subcontinent by mid-century. Muslims still consider India to be “unfinished business”, which is why the Saudi royal family has cleared plans to construct 4,500 Islamic madrasas in South Asia. This dhimmi-fear of Islamic unrest explains why non-Muslim India was the first country to ban Salman Rushdie’s book “the Satanic Verses.” It is important that Indians get to know the full scale of Islamic atrocities on their continent, through books such as "Negationism in India - Concealing the record of Islam" by Koenraad Elst and "Indian Muslims - Who Are They" by K. S. Lal.
Another complicating factor in this alliance is the sometimes significant cultural differences between Indians and Westerners. Many Indians harbor some suspicion towards Judeo-Christian monotheism as well as Islam. They should listen to V. S. Naipaul, hardly a soft man in his treatment of Islam, who is a defender of Western civilization and says that the advent of Christianity did not damage India the way Islam did. Quite a few also still hold grudges for European colonialism. There are even those, and not just Indians, who say that Europeans deserve to become colonized by Muslims, after colonizing other nations themselves. This line of thinking is both wrong and dangerous. Non-Muslims should never support Muslim advances elsewhere. Indians should know this better than most. While Pakistan for decades remained a hub of Islamic extremism, Western powers usually ignored it as a “regional” or “Indian” problem. Now, terrorists trained at Pakistani madrasas hit London, and threaten other Western nations. Indians should not make the same mistake. There is no such thing as “local” or “regional” struggles against Islam, only different front lines of the same, global Jihad. There is ample evidence of widespread international cooperation between Jihadis. In the longer term, a Muslim Europe would become just another overpopulated Islamic failure. In the short to medium term, however, Europe’s accumulated economic and technological resources would be used to fuel Islamic aggression from Kashmir to Thailand and the Philippines. Most Europeans today are genuinely embarrassed by their colonial past, which is ironically one of the causes of the weakness presently displayed towards Muslim demands. This would not be the case with an Islamic Europe, which with the fresh zeal of the newly convert could seize the mantle of Islam’s cause worldwide, the way the Turks once did.
Whereas democratic India is our natural ally, authoritarian China is a more complicated matter. Through its long-standing partnership with Pakistan, China is partly responsible for that country’s nuclear capability, which is now threatening to spread to other Islamic countries or even terrorist networks. China’s increasing ties with Iran should thus be a matter of some concern for the West. With its’ growing economy, China, and India, too, is faced with a soaring need for energy, which brings it into the arms of the Iranians, the Saudis and even the Sudanese. In Asia, Japan has been a long-standing American ally. In the war against Islamic Jihad, China will thus be faced by an alliance that includes present superpower USA, former colonial power the UK, Asian rival India and the much-hated Japanese. Even without the Chinese Communist Party, it is not certain that all Chinese will be thrilled at the prospect of joining hands with these nations. On top of this, there is a powerful undercurrent of Chinese nationalism in the country, the feeling of belonging to a glorious, but slighted civilization that will now reassert itself and regain the prominence that is its due. The Chinese populace have been spoon-fed anti-Western propaganda for decades, yet have much less intimate knowledge of Islamic aggression than their Indian neighbors. This explains the occasional outbursts of gloating following 9/11 in the USA, by some Chinese viewed as a humbling blow against an arrogant nation. Yes, Chinese authorities are ruthless in suppressing militant Muslim Uighurs in its Western provinces, but this alone does not mean that China has joined the global fight against Islam. It just means that the CCP does not tolerate any kind of dissent, be that Muslims, Tibetan monks or pro-democracy activists.
However, the Chinese are above all pragmatic people. They may need relations with Muslim countries to fill their need for energy, but the Islamic world has little else to offer them. The growth in China’s economy, without which the country could disintegrate from internal unrest, is tied to markets and capital in the West and other infidel nations. And even though Chinese nationalism is a given, it may perhaps be redirected towards Islamic targets. Distribute stories of ethnic Chinese who are discriminated against and exploited in Malaysia, even to the point where they are not allowed to celebrate the Chinese New Year. Or of Chinese women being beaten and gang-raped in Indonesia by Muslims shouting "Allah Hu Akbar" and "Kill Chinese." Spread literature explaining that the Chinese, who are largely Buddhists, Taoists or non-religious, are in fact viewed as even lower by Muslim than Westerners of Judeo-Christian stock. Chinese women are seen as infidel whores, and Chinese men as pig-eating barbarians. The mentality of Islamic supremacy is an insult to 5000 years of Chinese civilization, and a giant slap in the face of the proud Chinese nation. Even though Muslims will want you as allies against other infidels today, they will come for you too, eventually. Your large population mass and ruthless pride may defend you for a while, but even China won’t be immune to an entire Eurasian landmass dominated by Islam.
As Hugh Fitzgerald says, this is not about a “Clash of Civilizations” or “East vs. West,” it is about infidels vs. Islam. We should have an agreement between Europeans, Americans, Indians and everybody else to deal with Islam today, and then the rest of us can haggle about trade quotas and currency rates tomorrow. That’s what civilized people do.