• How to really End the Jihad

    Slightly misleading title – Jihad won’t really end as long as Islam remains, but this is a response to my colleague, the Arizona Atheist.  Please read his post carefully.  The basic argument is that if the United States leaves the Muslim world alone, they’ll stop randomly killing civilians over here.

    First things first, let’s take the fact that this argument has an implication: if the willingness of Muslims to commit acts of mass civilian slaughter is a good reason for infidels do do what they want, then maybe mass slaughter by infidels of Muslims will give them a good reason to do what we want?

    That’s been tabled before.  John Derbyshire defends this policy as “rubble doesn’t cause trouble”, and responded to criticism – of the ‘root cause kind advanced by AA – as follows:

    Ah, but Mark, there is rubble, and there is rubble.  Of the 13th-century Mongol horde it was said that when they had once bestowed their attentions on a city, you could afterwards ride over the place where that city had stood without your horse stumbling.  If the indignities suffered in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Grozny are the root causes of present-day Islamic terrorism, then I submit that the indignities were insufficiently severe.

     Armchair warriors like myself are sometimes accused of laboring under the illusion that all the world’s problems can be solved by neat “surgical strikes” on troublesome locations, in which suspect facilities, or persons, are cleanly eliminated with minimal collateral damage. 

     Not guilty!  I am, in fact, willing to confess myself a collateral-damage armchair warrior, who would be happy to see us trade in our inventory of smart laser-guided precision munitions for lots and lots and lots of old-style iron bombs, and fleets of great big iron planes to deliver them.  Remember those photographs of mid-1945 Berlin, fragments of broken wall sticking up out of vast drifts and dunes of pulverized masonry?  Now that’s rubble. 

     Oh, and we won that war.

    Okay, maybe that’s a bit much.  If we just want a quiet life, why not do what they want and to stay out of the Middle East, grovel, throw Israel to the wolves?  Ah, but will that be doing enough of what they want?  It might not.  For example here is Sheikh Muhammad al-Gamei’a – head imam in New York – has expressed himself as follows:

    “You see these people [Jews] all the time, everywhere disseminating corruption, heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism and drugs.  Because of the Jews there are strip clubs, homosexuals, lesbians everywhere.  They do this to impose their hegemony and colonialism on the world…”

    Right then, we’d better repeat gay marriage something sharpish, and while we’re at it, criminalize homosexuality.  Then go on to ban strip clubs, alcohol, get rid of freedom of speech (I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Muslims take ‘heresy’ quite seriously)…  To be on the safe side, time to reset relations between the sexes to at least 1950s.  Why, we even let women be heads of government and then wonder why we’re despised?  Actually, as I recall, Osama listed Clinton’s “abominable acts” as part of his casus belli, so stone the adulterer to death!  These suggestions have been also been tabled before.

    Which to choose?  Well, I dunno.  On the one hand, I have a great number of Israeli friends and comrades, on the other hand I have a lot of gay friends and comrades.  I cannot bring myself to abandon either.

    Fortunately for me, I don’t have to, because this whole thesis is hogwash.

    Let me start with where I entirely agree with my colleague.  The record of US foreign policy has been largely disgraceful since 1945 – from sponsoring the coup of Yahya Khan in Pakistan and the arming of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.  You will not find me an apologist for either of those actions.  Let me further specify that he is quite right that, when the US went to war to toss Saddam Hussein’s armies out of Kuwait, and later to throw him out of power, this was seen by tens and hundreds of millions of Muslims as an attack on Islam, as was the destruction of the Taliban.  My colleague cites good sources on this, but he barely scratches the surface of the fury that was expressed at the time.  If you are interested, please open your copy of Samuel P Huntington.

    So, yes, hundreds of millions of Muslims are perfectly willing to defend the Taliban and Saddam Hussein as representatives and embodiments of Islam.  That’s rather my point.

    How have things changed, if at all?  Well, just focusing on the Arab Muslim world for a second, here is another poll, worth reading carefully.  One question asked which: “World leader (outside your own country) you admire most?”:

    1.  Hassan Nasrallah, 26%

    2.  Bashar Al-Assad 16%

    3.  Mahmoud Ahmadinijad 10%

    4.  Nicolas Sarkozy 6%

    5.  Mohmar Qadaffi 6%

    6.  Osama bin Laden 6%

    7.  Sheikh Muhammad bin Rashid 6%

    8.  Hugo Chavez 4%.

    Huh.  Quite the line up.  Even if #4 is something of a comic interlude

    This brings me to the bit where my colleague is just flat out wrong when he writes this:

    Contrary to the US propaganda it is not a “hatred” of Western values or democracy or even freedom that causes much of the Muslim world to hate the US. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the Arab world want precisely that: democracy and freedom.

    Or perhaps I should say that you cannot possibly prove that from the study that AA links.  That is because the title of that study isn’t “Most Muslims want Democracy and Personal Freedom”.  It is “Most Muslims Want Democracy, Personal Freedoms, and Islam in Political Life.

    Emphasis mine.

    If you had a study of a population that said “Most Generics want a long life, good fitness, and to eat huge amounts of sugar and not do any exercise”, would you expect the Generic Male to look more like this or like this?

    You see my point, I am sure.  I have no doubt that a lot of Muslims like the idea of personal autonomy and all the prosperity that comes with that.  However, how many are willing to pay the price for it – to stand up for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, separation of Mosque and State?

    Taking a shufty at the study cited by Arizona Atheist, I see that 82% of Pakistani Muslims, say they want laws should strictly follow the Koran, 72% of Jordanian Muslims.  I’m happy to see that only 17% of Turks and Lebanese do, but they still want laws to “follow the values and principles of Islam”.


    Well, what kind of a society would they like then? Well, 23% of Turks, 81% of Egyptians, 90% of Jordanians, 50% of Lebanese, 40% of Tunisians, 95% of Pakistanis rate Saudi Arabia positively.


    Granted, they tend to view Iran negatively.  Given the aforementioned results, is it likely that this is because they are opposed to theocracy, or because Iran is the center of Shia power – and the Sunni and Shia do not like each other?  I think I can guess.

    What about the favourable views of Turkey?  Admiration for a progressive, secular, Western looking society?  Or a hope that the people who once lead Islam to the gates of Vienna could do so again?   I’ll let you choose.

    Now here’s a detail that comes back to me.  I can’t find the study right now, but something like eighty percent of British Muslims believe in jail time for those who attack Islam or caricature Mahomet.  Now that means that eighty percent of British Muslims do not believe in freedom in any real or meaningful sense.  Censorship is the ultimate dividing line between tyranny and liberty.  We can argue about how much of a mixed economy is still free, and the rest of it.  But you cannot compromise freedom of speech.  If debate isn’t on the table, then the only way to settle differences is through violence, and that means either war or tyranny.

    This brings me to my point.  This isn’t that the United States has been mean to the Muslim world.  This is the clash of civilizations.

    Look at the cartoon riots.  Someone explain to me how the situation in Gaza logically leads lynch mobs to demand the murder of cartoonists living in Denmark?  Of course, that’s all balls.  The reason for those riots is that Islamic civilization holds Allah and His Messenger as sacred, the West holds the individual mind and freedom of speech and conscience as sacred.  There is no, no way to square that circle, no middle ground to be sought.  One or the other will give way.  And to our shame, it appears that the West is doing the giving way.


    So, what do we do?   Well, here is my prescription:

    1.  Build the Infidel Alliance.  What scrapes my nerves about AA’s post is the parochialism.  It’s all about the US.  Well, in case you haven’t noticed, the overwhelming majority of the victims of the Jihad are not from the US.  We need a campaign of maximum solidarity and internationalism with all of our kindred civilizations.  The fact is that the civilizations of Latin America, Christian Africa, Orthodox Eurasia, and India are all close kin to the West, fellow children of Rome and Greece.  Take a look at the recent slaughter in Nairobi.  Europeans died alongside our African brothers and sisters, and Israeli and British soldiers fought alongside the Kenyan to send these bastards into their graves.

    Could the common cause be any plainer?  What needs to be understood is that an attack on Kenya is an attack on Nigeria is an attack on Israel is an attack on Germany is an attack on the United States is an attack on India is an attack on Australia is an attack on Britain…  Kin calls to kin and we should answer.

    What does that mean?  In some cases it means outright military aid.  In others providing aid by, say, training the Kenyan armed forces to British standard.  Or maybe it just means providing aid and solidarity – raising charitable funds, doing blood drives, hell, even writing letters so our civilizational cousins on the front line know they are not alone and are not forgotten.

    2.  Isolate the House of Submission as much as possible.  Where ever possible, all Western nations should seek their oil from non-Muslim sources.  The US should take its oil primarily from domestic sources, Canada and Latin America.  Such negotiations could form an excellent base for rapprochement between the United States and Latin america and perhaps go some way to repairing the appalling damage that the cold war years did to those relations.  As part of it, the US should seek Henry Kissinger’s indictment and trial for treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Conversely, the United States should abandon all aid and connections to Pakistan and switch its support to India.

    Europe should seek a closer accommodation with Russia – declaring it, perhaps, the exclusive oil source on the understanding that the Russians quit arming Iran.  In general the West should seek to liberalize trade between itself and the nations of Christian Africa.

    As part of the process of isolation, all Muslim immigration should be halted for at least two decades, combined with a vigorous program of refugee aid for those infidels fleeing the House of Submission to come live in the West.  One might also impose on Russia to accept the Orthodox refugees from Syria, but there is no reason why, say, Germany, could not absorb a large Coptic population, and if any of the Hindus and Sikhs still stuck in Pakistan are still there, they would be more than welcome.  Naturally, that goes double for all atheists.  When the moratorium expires, it should at first only be lifted on the non-violent Islamic sects, the Ahmadi and the Ismaili.  Immigration of our fellow infidels should be encouraged.

    3.  Pursue a policy of strict Kemalism.  I do not know how many have read Ataturk‘s magnificent reforms, but they are just what the doctor ordered.  Islamic preachers kept out of the armed forces and the prisons.  Mosques that advocate terror or Shariah to be closed.  Hate preachers to be expelled.  That kind of thing.

    And in case anyone starts wailing that this is ‘discrimination’ –  Germany has been heavily discriminating against neo-Nazis and other riff-raff for the last seventy years and it hasn’t done us any harm.  For my American readers, please don’t pretend you aren’t down with discrimination and persecution.  The test is easy: try writing an article saying that racial segregation is a good thing and you want it back.  You’ll lose your job, your friends and maybe your family.  Say it loudly enough, and you might lose your life.  Now, you can say that that is fully justified persecution – it is and I agree with you – but it is still persecution, a valuable tool in maintaining a civilized society.

    4.  Declare total war on the Islamic slave trade.  This is a standing disgrace.  This is the twenty first century and there are still something like one million black slaves under the lash of the Koran.  The slaves ships should be seized, their crews hung, and the slaves freed.  The trade in human flesh is an abomination.

    5.  Establish funds to support apostates.  Any Muslim apostate takes his life in his hands.  There should be large body of funds set aside to provide the necessary protection and support for those that take such a momentous step, combined with a more general social solidarity.

    6.  Defend women’s rights.  Women’s emancipation is the single most powerful weapon that we have.  This should be a top priority; women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sabatina James should be defended and their organizations lavishly funded.

    7.  Wage a long cultural war.  Through internet, radio etc. it should be carefully explained that the violence, oppression, poverty and whatnot in the Islamic world is the direct result of Islamic doctrine.  Reach out to any mind capable of hearing and understanding – make them realise they aren’t alone, and that if they are willing to free their minds and throw this madness off, they will not stand alone.



    Category: IslamJihad

    Article by: The Prussian

    • Lea

      Dear Prussian

      I do believe that I have found someone who thinks things in very much the same light as I do. Whoever you are, if we could be the president of the US and UK, we could change the world within a few weeks.

      How it is that current leaders are not following a policy such as that which you outlined, is beyond me. Because if there are at least two of us who think this way, then there must be more of us. And surely, the leaders have at least been presented with such an option to consider by this stage.

      Instead of trying to trigger a world war with russia, the west should be buying their oil from russia, and cut off all trade with islamic countries.

      • ThePrussian

        Agreed. Glad to meet you – please stick around, I have a huge post on this subject coming up!

        • Lea

          Do you have a newsletter? I must confess, I am one of those Jesus loving people. The christians, who have alot to do with the idea that we are all just one big happy family, and refuse to agree to reject and eject islam, because we love muslims too, leading to a sort of abomination called chrislam. And this despite the fact that muslims are waging a genocidal war on christians worldwide, and historical facts.

          I am no atheist, neither am I a scientist, and definitely not okay with transhumanism, which off the bat, is a process of dehumanising humans, which will no doubt lead to greater problems than we are dealing with on earth right now.

          But you and I are in complete agreement when it comes to a policy to deal with the global islamic jihad and foreign policy.

          It is clear that the Ukrainians shot down the Malaysian plane, and Russia has nothing to do with this atrocity. I suspect that there are muslims in the Ukrainian army and in those volunteer militias, who are targeting the Russian speaking orthodox.

          The muslims and their allies, mostly marxists (talmudic jews) and freemasons (some masquerading as orthodox christians) – all 3 have the same goal for a one world government) are the nazis here.

          The sanctions on Russia, is a nothing less than an economic jihad on Russia and Iran (shia), with the Saudi Arabians (sunni) and USA in collaboration. The war between shia and sunni is only for the leadership role of the expected global islamic caliphate. ISIS is supposed to sort this out and bring an agreement between these two faction of islam. This is also Erdogans role, to unite the shia and sunni muslims. He also wants to be the global caliph and the University of Azhar in Cairo, agrees with him, so does the OIC.

          Western foreign policy should be the exact opposite to the trajectory that it is taking. Russia is not a problem. Even though they annexed Crimea, to the fury of the jihadists, they did this is a completely bloodless manner and with the full agreement of the majority of Crimeans, except of course, for the muslims, the tartars. The descendants of those ones who decided, in the heat of the battle, to change sides and join Hitler.

          It seems that our western governments and the media are fully penetrated by the enemy of the west and that our resources are being used for the expansion of sharia islam and for the protections of its vile ideology. Which is communism with a god, much more dangerous than the atheist marxism which Russia once represented.

          Alot of ordinary muslims hate Russia due to perceived injustices mainly to do with the hard line that Russia has taken towards muslims practising the tenet of the faith called jihad. But the muslim mullahs, like the OIC, see Russia as a future ally against the west, according to their prophetic views in islam. At this point however, they seek to break any possible friendship between the Russia and the West, even spark a world war between the two. In this way they get two christian majorities to destroy each other. This will pave the way for the New Order out of the Chaos. Muslims believe that it is in this Chaos that their Mahdi will arrive and make the whole world submit to islam with muslims as the ruling elite, and the arabs, as the elite of the elite.

          These are some of my further insights. I look forward to reading your next post on these issues.

          • ThePrussian

            Okay, first of all – I have to say that all the stuff about jews and freemasons steers a little too close to anti-semitism for my taste. Apart from anything else, how do you know I’m not a Jew?

            There’s no conspiracy and no mystery here. Western elites are craven before Islam because it is subconsciously associated non-whites. However, Russia is white, and therefore can be loathed with impunity. Western elites can pretend they are not cowards and hypocrites by beating the drum about Putin while playing doormats to the jihad.

            That isn’t to say Putin is a nice guy. He’s a very nasty guy. But he is nowhere as bad as the House of Saud and last time I checked, they had permanent access to the White House.

            • Julea

              Even if you are a Jew, you cannot say that there are no evil Jews on this planet, can you? And to me, it appears that the extremes of both good and evil manifest through the Jews. They are simply extemely brilliant at whatever they do, either way. My view is that there are some bad Jews, however, most of them are good. Jews are often used as frontmen for the baddies who are always behind the scenes.

              This is no conspiracy, it is how evil operates. Sometimes it is so in your face that you are blinded to it. The rest of the time it is hiding, and walks in disguise.

              Nothing is as it seems. Never a good idea to take things at face value.

    • JBP

      Okay, I’ll bite.

      On the issue of persecution of people for beliefs, a lot depends on what you mean by persecution. If you mean social isolation, that can work. But it may also have the opposite effect.

      But if you mean legal repression other than setting standards for who can be in the government, which your reference to Turkey suggests, then persecution tends to have the opposite effect. If the state forbids ideas, people get the message that it’s because people would believe these things if they weren’t persecuted. People will see persecution as a testimony to an idea’s power. It’s classic reverse psychology.

      How is the persecution of neo Nazi’s working out for you? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/rise-of-neo-nazis-in-germany-seven-decades-1293137 OR http://www.npr.org/2012/10/11/162663914/with-a-database-germany-tracks-rise-of-neo-nazis

      Over here in the US, the more the left suppresses speech, the more sources like infowars grow in power and popularity.

      It’s much better to debate untruths than to suppress them. This is especially true of strong ideological or religious beliefs. After all, it was during it’s period of persecution that the Christian religion grew the most.

      • ThePrussian

        I agree with you, and I do think that debate needs to be at the center here. But what you are missing is that you can’t debate people whose ultimate argument is to kill you. There need to be strong ways of cracking down – expelling from the country would be my favourite – those who happily use violence.

        To continue with the neo-Nazi thing, I’m happy to debate any of these guys, any time. I’m also happy for there to be broad powers and ferocious laws to deal with the violent Nazi goons.

        • JBP

          Now, I’m not sure how much we disagree on. Here’s what I think:

          Once these people take the actual step towards violence, I don’t have any problem with expelling or even killing them. We should deal with actions not beliefs.

          It seemed to me like you were advocating prosecuting people for their beliefs. Even if they are Neo Nazi’s, we should let them speak. At least you can monitor it. And you know where to strike if it turns violent.

          Also, we don’t debate people merely to change the other debater’s minds. We also debate people to change the minds of the audience.

          • ThePrussian

            Sounds like we’re on the same page.

      • Lea

        The issue with the neo Nazis is rising again due to the deliberate and criminally negligent policy of governments, like Germany, to impose immigration of hostile aliens onto a people who are strongly nationalist and protective of their culture. It finds expression in the idea of Hitler, who fostered a pride for Germany in Germans. But these are not all people who worship Hitler, they are in the main against foreigners.

        Today we applaud the ordinary Germans who have come out in their thousands to rally against this ongoing islamisation of Germany through the continued immigration policies of their government, who are in fact heedless of what the people want. Therefore the government can be held responsible for inducing this issue by forcing upon the people something they have outrightly rejected, and is therefore will be held criminally negligent should civil war arise because of this.

        Muslims have in fact openly declared war on us. ISIS is the main mouthpiece. And should the couple of million of muslims, minus the group that won’t take part, decide to respond to the call that ISIS is already sending out to muslims, then there will be rivers of blood, on the hands of these criminals in government who have failed in their duty to protect and serve us, but followed instead their own narrow agendas.

        There are already numerous crimes committed by muslims who openly declare their muslimness. But there are even more, that disguise their muslimness, and their crimes are registered as crimes, not jihad which is war. While our stupid politicians keep on repeating the diabolical mantra: Islam is a religion of peace, this has nothing to do with islam.


        • JBP

          Yes, I agree that you shouldn’t be importing Muslims. The answer is to send the Muslims back home not to tell Neo Nazis they can’t believe what they believe. It’s futile and usually only helps them.

    • Goosebumps

      Hi Prussian,

      I’m not sure if you’ve written about this before, apologies if you have. What are your views on Edward Snowden and the mass surveillance he exposed? Do you have enough faith in our leaders to consent to such a program for protection against terrorism?

      I’m thoroughly disgusted with WikiLeaks after the way they’ve made a fuss about a perceived lack of press freedom in the Western world while turning a blind eye to violations in other countries. For example, when Russia announced early this year that all bloggers with a certain minimum level of daily traffic would have their content regulated, WikiLeaks offered only the mildest reproach on their Twitter account (“such a move will prove counter-productive”). So I don’t have much sympathy to spare for WikiLeaks. But Edward Snowden seems to have acted in good faith and appears to genuinely care about internet privacy. Do you support a pardon for him?

      • ThePrussian

        I don’t know enough about Snowden – I do like that he sounded the alarm about the NSA’s nonsense. But I don’t know enough to comment.

        Assange, on the other hand, is a very evil man.

        • Goosebumps

          I’d say evil is a bit too strong a word for Assange. I see him as a Chomsky with more courage. Assange at least has the decency to get holed up in the Ecudaorian embassy in London for acting on his beliefs. Chomsky lives a life of comfort and pays his taxes to the very government he calls “the leading source of terrorism in today’s world”. And as much as I despise Chomsky, I wouldn’t call him evil.

          Assange is a man who has a pre-formed conclusion – that the US government is at least as bad, or worse, than every government or entity in the world – and is pursuing evidence for it with fanatical zeal. You can’t fault him for revealing some of the things he has – for example, how NATO helped Turkey in its repression of Kurds. But he cannot see the forest for the trees. He does not see that, to borrow from your article, censorship (which other governments he’s soft on openly practise) is the ultimate dividing line between tyranny and liberty.