I have talked about the many and varied types of jihad, and given examples of how they are implemented. Now we can add another to the list, this one being especially dangerous. In todays Jihad Watch, Roland Shirk expounds on an issue which affects us all in a direct way: immigration.
Let's examine the doctrine of "jihad of the cradle"
JIHAD OF THE CRADLE by Roland Shirk Jan 21
As those who have read me here before will remember, I think that the first task for Western countries threatened by jihad and Islamic expansionism is to get immigration under control. Islam is not a problem in Europe because Islamic Billy Grahams or Francis Xaviers arrived in Paris, London, and Copenhagen, and won millions of native-born Europeans over to the faith of Muhammad by their native eloquence and its intrinsic appeal. Sure, there are converts every now and then, and they are often the most violent jihadis whom we face; the fervor of recent converts compared to cradle believers is one feature that probably crosses all religious boundaries. As Robert Spencer said in a talk I was privileged to hear, people who have spent much of their lives listening to the violent rhetoric of the Qur'an, and the urgings of imams, are often inured to it--just as Christians can become jaded at their own religion's mysteries. But those who have experienced some kind of emptiness in their lives, who find it suddenly filled by an-all encompassing worldview, are often more likely to take its claims to heart, and act on its more extreme demands.
That much helps explain the behavior of traitors like Adam Gadahn and shoe-bomber Richard Reid, not to mention the otherwise unmarriageable British women who wed themselves to Pakistani zealots. But there is no Islamic Paul of Tarsus, traveling Europe and America attracting thousands of converts to the flock. The most common source of Muslim converts in America, from what I have seen, is prison evangelism--a dangerous phenomenon in itself, but statistically insignificant. No, the problem with Islam is immigration, and much of the problem with immigration is Islam. Past politicians in Western Europe, motivated by post-colonial guilt, the lure of cheap labor, and a post-Marxist hatred for organically functioning societies, imported millions of highly fertile Muslims in the 1960s and 70s, and the floodgates are still mostly open. Combine this fact with low Western fertility, massive Saudi funding for extremist (that is, orthodox) catechesis on Islam and jihad, and one has paved the way for the success of the conquest strategy warned of by Sam Solomon & Elias Al Maqdisi in Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration. In case you missed my previous column on this important new book (which I'm reading now and will review at length later this month), its thesis is this: Islam expands primarily by emigration, and only secondarily by conquest. The hijra itself, the authors point out, was an act of emigration, and the duty to emigrate and spread Islam is fundamental to that faith:
Seeing how helpless the West has left itself to this concrete, clearly defined strategy on the part of Islamic leaders to encourage their flocks to flood the West--not that most Muslim migrants have this conscious intention, but that is irrelevant--I am flabbergasted at how little attention anti-jihadists pay to blocking this mass colonization. Just as the English and French fought for control of North America by trying to encourage emigration of their nationals to their colonies, so Islamic leaders today extend their influence in wealthy, prosperous countries (two of which, Britain and France, have nuclear arsenals) by sending forth strong backs and fertile wombs, to enact the "revenge of the cradle." Compared to Islamic immigration, terrorism itself is an ugly distraction. The real jihad is the stealth jihad, and it happens in bedrooms and nurseries. If we don't want to end up like the Cherokees or the Hurons, we'd better do something about it.
It's just a fact that we will not be able, in any Western country I can think of, to muster the candor to selectively exclude Muslims from entering our countries. Given that this is true, it's the duty of every civilizational patriot to get involved in reducing the total numbers of migrants into our countries--large percentages of whom are going to be Muslims. Even if on every other ground one favored open borders, huge population growth, cheap labor, and multiculturalist diversity, one would have to in the current situation put those considerations aside and join the immigration restrictionist movement. There is already strong and broad-based support from a majority of Americans to reduce legal immigration totals and crack down on illegal entrants. We need not climb the precipitous learning curve it often takes well-meaning people to see that Islam is inherently intolerant; opponents of jihad can piggyback on the strong, aggressive lobbying efforts of existing groups that oppose mass immigration for a wide variety of non-racial reasons. The best group I know of is NumbersUsa, which emphasizes the economic and environmental costs of mass migration, gathering support from all across the political spectrum. That group has a highly effective system that alerts the general public about upcoming votes in Congress on immigration issues, and an automated system for flooding congressional offices with faxes and phone calls opposing bad legislation. Please, if you care about this issue, visit their website, and register so you can be alerted and take action. Read the reports of the Center for Immigration Studies, an academically reputable thinktank based in D.C. that produces airtight policy papers urging lower migration totals, and a shift away from policies (like the degrading and suicidal visa lottery) that privilege poor countries with large extended families (i.e., most Muslim countries) over Western Europe and Japan. In your own mind, remember that the cause of stopping Islam can only be achieved by stopping Muslims. We aren't threatened by Islam's crude and repulsive doctrines; ideas can't kill us, or vote in sharia laws. Only people can. So the people are the problem. No one wants to harm Muslims, sterilize them, or deport those who are legally present in our societies. But we have the perfect right to say to future migrants: "Enough!"
The more committed you are to fighting jihad, the more you should put energy into passing laws that keep out jihadists. It might take 10,000 peaceful Muslims living in a given city to produce a single terrorist. But we have imported, and are still importing, those tens of thousands. Their imams are radicalizing them, and our engines of cultural assimilation broke down 30 years ago. There is no other way to keep our societies safe, and give the West the breathing room it needs to raise its birth rate again to a sustainable level of self-replacement. Our civilization, which brought the world individual liberty, the extraordinarily open societies we all enjoy, and the broad tolerance that Ibn Warraq lovingly details in Defending the West, deserves at least this chance to revive itself. It doesn't deserve to be drowned by inhuman ideas carried in by a human wave.
I'm reminded of an old Ronald Reagan campaign quote: "There's already an arms race on, but only one side is running." We have seen the massive success of this Islamic strategy, but we're hardly pushing back. It is time we started. But we have to fight smart.
Let's examine the doctrine of "jihad of the cradle"
JIHAD OF THE CRADLE by Roland Shirk Jan 21
As those who have read me here before will remember, I think that the first task for Western countries threatened by jihad and Islamic expansionism is to get immigration under control. Islam is not a problem in Europe because Islamic Billy Grahams or Francis Xaviers arrived in Paris, London, and Copenhagen, and won millions of native-born Europeans over to the faith of Muhammad by their native eloquence and its intrinsic appeal. Sure, there are converts every now and then, and they are often the most violent jihadis whom we face; the fervor of recent converts compared to cradle believers is one feature that probably crosses all religious boundaries. As Robert Spencer said in a talk I was privileged to hear, people who have spent much of their lives listening to the violent rhetoric of the Qur'an, and the urgings of imams, are often inured to it--just as Christians can become jaded at their own religion's mysteries. But those who have experienced some kind of emptiness in their lives, who find it suddenly filled by an-all encompassing worldview, are often more likely to take its claims to heart, and act on its more extreme demands.
That much helps explain the behavior of traitors like Adam Gadahn and shoe-bomber Richard Reid, not to mention the otherwise unmarriageable British women who wed themselves to Pakistani zealots. But there is no Islamic Paul of Tarsus, traveling Europe and America attracting thousands of converts to the flock. The most common source of Muslim converts in America, from what I have seen, is prison evangelism--a dangerous phenomenon in itself, but statistically insignificant. No, the problem with Islam is immigration, and much of the problem with immigration is Islam. Past politicians in Western Europe, motivated by post-colonial guilt, the lure of cheap labor, and a post-Marxist hatred for organically functioning societies, imported millions of highly fertile Muslims in the 1960s and 70s, and the floodgates are still mostly open. Combine this fact with low Western fertility, massive Saudi funding for extremist (that is, orthodox) catechesis on Islam and jihad, and one has paved the way for the success of the conquest strategy warned of by Sam Solomon & Elias Al Maqdisi in Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration. In case you missed my previous column on this important new book (which I'm reading now and will review at length later this month), its thesis is this: Islam expands primarily by emigration, and only secondarily by conquest. The hijra itself, the authors point out, was an act of emigration, and the duty to emigrate and spread Islam is fundamental to that faith:
I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah. ... So Hijra or migration is binding on all Muslims for numerous reasons; the most important being that migration is preparatory to jihad with an aim and objective of securing victory for Islam and Muslims either in another country or generally as a community.
Seeing how helpless the West has left itself to this concrete, clearly defined strategy on the part of Islamic leaders to encourage their flocks to flood the West--not that most Muslim migrants have this conscious intention, but that is irrelevant--I am flabbergasted at how little attention anti-jihadists pay to blocking this mass colonization. Just as the English and French fought for control of North America by trying to encourage emigration of their nationals to their colonies, so Islamic leaders today extend their influence in wealthy, prosperous countries (two of which, Britain and France, have nuclear arsenals) by sending forth strong backs and fertile wombs, to enact the "revenge of the cradle." Compared to Islamic immigration, terrorism itself is an ugly distraction. The real jihad is the stealth jihad, and it happens in bedrooms and nurseries. If we don't want to end up like the Cherokees or the Hurons, we'd better do something about it.
It's just a fact that we will not be able, in any Western country I can think of, to muster the candor to selectively exclude Muslims from entering our countries. Given that this is true, it's the duty of every civilizational patriot to get involved in reducing the total numbers of migrants into our countries--large percentages of whom are going to be Muslims. Even if on every other ground one favored open borders, huge population growth, cheap labor, and multiculturalist diversity, one would have to in the current situation put those considerations aside and join the immigration restrictionist movement. There is already strong and broad-based support from a majority of Americans to reduce legal immigration totals and crack down on illegal entrants. We need not climb the precipitous learning curve it often takes well-meaning people to see that Islam is inherently intolerant; opponents of jihad can piggyback on the strong, aggressive lobbying efforts of existing groups that oppose mass immigration for a wide variety of non-racial reasons. The best group I know of is NumbersUsa, which emphasizes the economic and environmental costs of mass migration, gathering support from all across the political spectrum. That group has a highly effective system that alerts the general public about upcoming votes in Congress on immigration issues, and an automated system for flooding congressional offices with faxes and phone calls opposing bad legislation. Please, if you care about this issue, visit their website, and register so you can be alerted and take action. Read the reports of the Center for Immigration Studies, an academically reputable thinktank based in D.C. that produces airtight policy papers urging lower migration totals, and a shift away from policies (like the degrading and suicidal visa lottery) that privilege poor countries with large extended families (i.e., most Muslim countries) over Western Europe and Japan. In your own mind, remember that the cause of stopping Islam can only be achieved by stopping Muslims. We aren't threatened by Islam's crude and repulsive doctrines; ideas can't kill us, or vote in sharia laws. Only people can. So the people are the problem. No one wants to harm Muslims, sterilize them, or deport those who are legally present in our societies. But we have the perfect right to say to future migrants: "Enough!"
The more committed you are to fighting jihad, the more you should put energy into passing laws that keep out jihadists. It might take 10,000 peaceful Muslims living in a given city to produce a single terrorist. But we have imported, and are still importing, those tens of thousands. Their imams are radicalizing them, and our engines of cultural assimilation broke down 30 years ago. There is no other way to keep our societies safe, and give the West the breathing room it needs to raise its birth rate again to a sustainable level of self-replacement. Our civilization, which brought the world individual liberty, the extraordinarily open societies we all enjoy, and the broad tolerance that Ibn Warraq lovingly details in Defending the West, deserves at least this chance to revive itself. It doesn't deserve to be drowned by inhuman ideas carried in by a human wave.
I'm reminded of an old Ronald Reagan campaign quote: "There's already an arms race on, but only one side is running." We have seen the massive success of this Islamic strategy, but we're hardly pushing back. It is time we started. But we have to fight smart.
No comments:
Post a Comment