Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Saturday, June 24, 2017
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font:
Symposium: The Death of Multiculturalism? (Continued) By: Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, September 08, 2006


Solutions?

FP: We have now reached the second and last half of our symposium. Wach panelist: kindly give some overall potential solutions to the nightmare we face. Lars Hedegaard? 

 

Hedegaard: If a doctor were to recommend a cure for some illness, he would be well advised to come up with the right diagnosis. And we still cannot agree on what is ailing us.
 
It is unfortunate that some members of this panel have introduced the idea of a malicious leftist plot or a conscious project to mislead -- perhaps even one that was hatched in the Soviet Union. You don't need conspiracies or plots -- and certainly not the intervention of Moscow -- to explain the general drift of the European left over the past three to four decades.

 

In several European countries, such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France and Germany, the left wing -- ranging from parts of the mainstream Social Democratic parties all the way to the former revolutionary socialists -- have simply changed ideological focus from socialism and collectivism to multiculturalism and cultural relativism. It may well be -- as Jamie contends -- that the left is attracted to the new ideology because they see it as a means to overthrow capitalism. And Islam will certainly do that -- together with much else including the welfare state -- but the basic "project" is not about socialism but about power. Multiculturalism should not be understood as a way to introduce socialism by other means. It is like a company that used to sell yoghurt and ice cream but is now marketing printing equipment. The printing machines are not a way to sell yoghurt by other means but a way to keep the firm afloat.       
 
Yes, as has been mentioned, multiculturalism may be viewed as a symptom of a disease which is Europe's fall from grace as a result of world wars, National Socialism, Communism the Holocaust etc. And in fact, Bruce has quoted me for a similar analysis in his recent book While Europe Slept. But if our purpose is to think of solutions, it doesn't help us greatly to lament the downfall of Christianity or the post-1914 carnage. We cannot undo history, but we can -- at least in theory -- do something about ideologies and policies that are working right now. And I believe that multiculturalism ought to be attacked for what it is doing right now and for the suffering it will impose on our children. To do that it is essential that we expose those who believe that they stand to gain from the dissolution of our societies.
 
I still contend that whereas multiculturalism is not a weed that has grown in the socialist garden -- Bat Ye'or has convincingly shown that we should look elsewhere for its genesis in contemporary Europe -- it is now the core ideology of the left or perhaps more appropriately of the post-left. In the case of Denmark, we know how and when the shift took place and who carried it out. The same is true of France and I'm sure many other European countries. And let's not forget the United States.
 
I doubt that there is any utopianism embedded in the new ideology. If there is any dream left in the left, it is a dream of power and the ideology and its concomitant policies of mass immigration and cultural appeasement serve only that purpose. The dream is one of ideological hegemony, political and economic clout and of cornering society's commanding heights for the class of people that used to be called, in the old Soviet Union, "the leaders of the social processes".
 
I certainly don't blame Islam or Muslims for our plight. They cannot be expected to integrate into a society, a political and legal system or a culture that are antithetical to all they believe in and stand for. I agree with Bar Ye'or that integration was never in the cards. Integrating Islam -- which must be understood as a political system and an army -- into Western society is like integrating fire and water.  
 
As Fjordman has stated, the left-Islamist entente will be short-term. Once the leftists have succeeded in creating a new people -- which they undoubtedly will -- they will quickly realize that this new people will have no need for their ideological guidance and will not acknowledge them as their natural leaders. But for now the multicultural ideology functions as an umbrella under which a variety of political and economic interest groups -- left, right and center -- may comfortably pursue their particular interests. In Denmark it was very clear that once the left had abandoned its anti-capitalist rhetoric and no longer called for the nationalization of the means of production, the capitalists lost all interest in ideological matters. The result can be described as an implied social contract: The capitalists and much of the traditional political center and right are perfectly willing to accept the left's ideological hegemony so long as the leftists do not threaten their special interests. In fact, as long as it works, it is a perfect system where nobody is interested in rocking the boat. The left may continue to import its social clients -- and voters -- and the right may feel secure because the Muslim newcomers do not settle in their neighborhoods and have no other political agenda than identity politics.
 
We saw this alliance at work during the recent cartoon crisis, when the entire left allied itself with the cultural, academic and media elite, most of the Christian church and prominent capitalists and bourgeois politicians to condemn the cartoons and Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen for refusing to compromise free speech.
 
As for the solution, I'm afraid that I cannot think of any. We can forget about integrating Muslims. Europe has successfully integrated any number of immigrants, including some that have come from far corners of the world. But we cannot integrate members of a competing political system who refuse to intermarry with us unless it is on their terms. If I could point to a single example of successful integration of Muslim minorities into non-Muslim populations anywhere during 1400 years of history, I would be more optimistic.
 
We will not get a solution, but we will get an outcome. And I fear that it will not be a pretty one. It helps little for European voters to choose new parliamentary majorities, as the Danes did in 2001, because the number of Muslims has already reached a critical mass and because any democratic government would recoil from employing the kind of harsh measures needed to protect free institutions and the secular state. What we see is general capitulation to the forces of the prophet -- one long Munich. And despite much talk of American resolve and resourcefulness, precisely the same is happening in the US.
 
Basically there are two possible outcomes: Either the Western populations accept their inevitable fate as dhimmies under new Muslim rulers, or they counter the emergence of Muslim parallel societies by setting up their own. i.e. they split their countries into mutually hostile enclaves like in Northern Ireland during the Troubles or in Yugoslavia or Lebanon. The third option -- that the Western states decide to side with their old majority populations and with those newcomers who want to live like them and with them -- would require a transformation of Churchillian proportions that I cannot envision.

 

Storhaug: With all respect for Lars Hedegaard and his broad knowledge and experience, I cannot be as pessimistic as him. Hedegaard says categorically that Europe can forget to integrate Muslims. Yes, I am very much concerned about the extremely well organized Muslim movements in Europe, the broad networks they have established, the float of Saudi dollars to these organisations, and the close ties they have to for example Middle east Islamists, like the Sunni ideological leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi is a leader who is maybe more dangerous to Europe than Osama Bin Laden, due to Qaradawi’s capacity to mobilize millions of Muslims around the world.

 

The European political establishment haven’t at all understood the power that Qaradawi and his companions in Europe possess. Neither have they understood how focused these leaders and movements are working towards their goal: to turn Europe into Eurabia, to use the term of the distinguished Bat Ye’or.

 

How these leaders and movements also have a strong grip on the Muslim communities in general, directly or indirectly, is also not common knowledge. But I think it is very important now to listen to Ayyan Hirsi Ali, whom I will label as the leading freedom fighter in contemporary Europe: don’t let us Muslims down. Give us a Voltaire. We have to support the secular Muslims a hundred percent. They are still in majority, according to many surveys in different European countries.

 

Our politicians and intellectuals have to be aware of who they are collaborating with. Today the support is going to the political Muslims and organisations, not to the secular Muslims. Because most politicians don’t have a clue who they are in so-called “dialogue” with. But in Denmark, Hedegaard’s home country, the Government has understood the game of the Islamists. The Islamists have been stripped naked and are hence out of the corridors of power.

 

I would like to point out some basic “medicine” for Europe. We need to give each other some hope. First; the famous saying from World War II, “Look to Norway,” is not appropriate for the new threats in Europe. We are still in ignorance here. The proper saying today is: Look to Denmark! Denmark is without doubt the Bellwether of Europe. Denmark has radically changed the immigration policy. First, the fetching marriages have to be stopped optimally, like in Denmark. Only then Europe can have some kind of immigration break and concentrate on the real integration issues.

 

Then, different studies show clearly that if you manage to integrate the mother, the main integration job is done, because the mother integrates the children. Today in Europe the situation is precisely the same in the ghettos as is the situation in the Arab/Muslim world. The women are kept in ignorance by force. Many evil consequences result from this position of women, the first being that it leads to a bad upbringing for their children. This fact is, for example, one major reason behind the revolts in France in the ghettos last year.

 

To sum up a huge issue: we must have a female perspective on the integration issues, and hence both take the power away from the patriarchs in the extended family, and also from the Muslim leaders. My experience from both two years stay in Pakistan and 14 years of work inside communities in Norway, is that most people, especially women, want to take part in a free and open society. The failed politics of Europe have betrayed the women, youngsters and children. The politics have preserved the power of the men.

 

Another main point that should be mentioned is our benefit system. We are “throwing” money at new immigrants as soon as they have entered their respective new country. Rights have to be followed by clearly defined obligations. Here we have failed again. But anyway, as you all have pointed out, the main battle field is to be played on the field of values. We have to be crystal clear on out basic values as free and open societies, and never tolerate intolerance, be it intolerance towards girls and women and homosexuals, or be it intolerance towards the basic pillars of our democracy: freedom of speech, religious freedom, and equality between citizens.

 

We must hope that European political leaders will start following the example of the honourable Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He didn’t leave any doubt about which field Denmark is playing on, and who the enemy is. He stood by the words in the title of my book, hopefully being published in a couple of months: But greatest of everything is freedom.

 

Thanks to all for having the pleasure of sharing thoughts with you.  

 

FP: How we are going to get past the Muslim husband, and the control that Islam gives him over his wife, to the wife and “integrate” her is beyond me. And this is going to happen in fundamentalist Muslim families? The wife will be going with a bikini to the beach everyday and to the disco at night while the husband leads a fundamentalist Islamic lifestyle? This is a bit absurd no? 

 

Fjordman: I just want to say two things. First: I do not believe there is such thing as a moderate Islam. I disagree with Storhaug in this regard. I can't see any significant signs that a Reformation of Islam is happening, and I have serious doubts as to whether it is possible at all, from a theological point of view. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an ex-Muslim, not a secular Muslim, whatever that is. We are fooling ourselves with talk about peaceful coexistence with Islam.

Second: Berlinski seems to argue that our problems lie less in any deliberate ideological project among certain political groups and more in a general loss of cultural confidence in Europe. This is, however, a false dichotomy. It is both.

I agree with Bat Ye'or that the rise of Eurabia is closely tied to the European Union. There is also little doubt in my mind that many Leftist intellectuals in our media and our Universities want to erase the foundations of Western civilization and replace them with
something else.

It is true that these groups could never have been so successful in implementing this if there had been stronger popular resistance. There is indeed a loss of cultural confidence, sometimes bordering on active self-loathing, that has penetrated deep into the general populace, not just some elite groups. Europe's faith in itself was severely wounded in the trenches of WW1, and perhaps mortally wounded in Auschwitz.

The most important task in the short to medium term is to weaken those elite groups who are most aggressive in attacking our civilization. This first of all means the EU, but also the censorship of our Politically Correct media. Eurabia can only be derailed by destroying the organization that created it in the first place: The European Union. The most likely outcome is that the EU, which is already a post-democratic organization, will become increasingly totalitarian until it falls apart.

I do, unfortunately, agree with Hedegaard that we have already passed the point of no return for serious conflicts caused by Muslim immigration. Anything we do now is damage limitation. A Multicultural society is only temporary. Sooner or later, we will return to a new mono-cultural society. This will happen either through the division of the previously coherent territory into new, mono-cultural enclaves or through the takeover by society as a whole of the most forceful and aggressive of these competing cultures.

The tectonic plates of global power are now shifting in ways they haven't done for centuries. This is the retreat of the Western world order. Multiculturalism and the inability or unwillingness of Western nations to uphold their borders are viewed by Muslims as a signal that their ancient Western rival is weak and ripe for conquest. This is no doubt the background for the ongoing aggressive posture by the Iranian president, among others. Al-Qaeda strategists have earlier outlined a schedule for awakening the Islamic world and overthrowing the West, with a timeline stretching over the coming fifteen to twenty years. A world war of sorts with the Islamic world is already inevitable by now, no matter what we do. The only question is whether this will be a cold or a hot world war.

My personal view is that the Jihad riots in France in 2005 could be interpreted as the early stages of a civil war, one of several Eurabian civil wars to come. What will happen to the hundreds of French nuclear warheads? Will they be used to intimidate the rest of the West?

Maybe future historians will dub this the Multicultural World War. I find this to be a more accurate term than "The Islamic World War" because what is causing this world war is Western cultural weakness more than Islamic strength. The wars in the Balkans in the 1990s will in hindsight be seen as a prelude to the Multicultural World War.

It could be similar to the division of India after WW2, with the creation of one or several Islamic "Pakistan" enclaves. All of Europe will not be lost, but some parts may be, and many others will be damaged by the fighting. Many of our cultural treasures will burn.

It is possible that those regions of Europe where the infidels are strong enough will copy the Benes Decrees from Czechoslovakia in 1946, when most of the so-called Sudeten Germans, some 3.5 million people, had shown themselves to be a dangerous fifth column without any loyalty to the state. The Czech government thus expelled them from its land. As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch has demonstrated, there is a much better case for a Benes Decree for parts of Europe's Muslim population now than there ever was for the Sudeten Germans.

The truth is that Europe has got itself into a bad fix, again, and will have some turbulent and painful decades ahead regardless of what we do at this point. The choice is between some pain where at least parts of Europe prevail and pain where Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western, cultural entity.

The most civilized thing we can do in order to save ourselves, but also to limit the loss of life among both Muslims and non-Muslims, is for Westerners and indeed infidels in general to implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world. This includes stopping Muslim immigration, but also by making our countries Islam-unfriendly, thus presenting the Muslims already here between the options of adapting to our societies or leaving if they desire sharia law. Even whispering about Jihad should be grounds for expulsion.

Since Islamic countries can use organizations such as the United Nations to influence Western freedom of speech and immigration policies, Westerners need to discredit and disengage from the UN as much as possible, at some point maybe withdraw from it completely. We cannot under any circumstances allow Islamic nations to influence our legislation.

Regaining our cultural confidence is a more complicated and longer term goal. It probably cannot be achieved until today's version of Western Europe has collapsed. Western Europe is now a collection of several layers of different Utopias, Multiculturalism, welfarism and transnationalism, that will soon come crashing down.

However, just as Islam isn't the cause of Europe's weakness but rather a secondary infection, it is conceivable that the Islamic threat could have the unforeseen and ironic effect of saving Europe from herself. Europe will go through a turbulent period of painful, but necessary revival. Maybe Jihad will trigger a new Renaissance in the West.


Europe will bleed but she won't die. It remains to be seen whether this is wishful thinking or whether it will actually happen. In any case, it will take time to materialize.

It may sound unrealistic to talk about the collapse of the European Union or pulling out of the UN, but I believe things will rapidly get worse in the years ahead. A generation from now, things that will seem improbable or outright impossible now will have come to pass. We will see some of the largest changes in world politics since WW2, perhaps
in centuries.

 

Bawer: My own feelings about Europe’s future swing between a cautious, tentative optimism and a profound pessimism. When I pass a Muslim mother on the street speaking Norwegian to her daughter, the former being in hijab and the latter not, I grasp at hope.  Ditto when I overhear Pakistani-Norwegian kids on the bus or tram speaking Norwegian with their ethnic Norwegian classmates.  But all too often I see, hear, and read things that make me – well – let’s just say very unhopeful.

 

Last night, as it happens, I watched Casablanca for what must have been the 20th time.  In the film, Rick’s patrons – aside from the Nazi officers and Vichy police – are Europeans united in their love of freedom and their desperation to get to America, which they all recognize as the embodiment of liberty and security.  They’re from different countries – France, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria – but they all share a single dream, and when the Marseillaise begins to be sung in defiance of the Nazi officers, they all join in.  This spirit might have been given the name “multiculturalism” too, and it’s precisely this spirit that today’s Europe profoundly needs – a cross-cultural recognition of the preciousness of freedom, the freedom that America restored to Western Europe in World War II, that Western Europe retained during the decades-long Cold War thanks to American military protection, and that is now threatened by jihadists within and without.  There are remnants of this freedom-loving spirit in today’s Europe, and I’m cheered when I encounter glimpses of it.  But the European establishment sees this spirit as its enemy.

 

I agree that Fogh Rasmussen in Denmark has set a splendid example.  His response to the Muhammed cartoon controversy was terrific.  Of course, it was no more than one should have expected from the head of government of a democratic country with freedom of speech, but the whole point is that Western European governments today tend to be so cowed by Islam that, within that context, Fogh Rasmussen’s defiance was remarkable.  Yet Fogh Rasmussen is a light in the dark.  The reaction of much of the Danish media, academic, and political establishment to the cartoon crisis, and to his handling of it, was repulsive.  Many ordinary Danes are proud of their prime minister for having stood up to intimidation and defended freedom, but the response of many other Danes has been to fret endlessly about the reputation of their country elsewhere in Europe, in the EU, and in the UN.  Journalists and politicians have told them that the Muhammed cartoons, and Fogh Rasmussen’s defense of Jyllands-Posten’s right to print them, have given Denmark a reputation as racist, as “Islamophobic” – and they’ve bought it, and feel apologetic about it.  Whether or not they really think their country is racist is irrelevant – they’re worried about Denmark’s image.

 

In the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were also heroic opponents of multicultural mindlessness – and were killed for it.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stood up against this mindlessness, risking her life and making enormous sacrifices for the freedom of the Dutch people – but too few of those people have dared to support her openly.  Her neighbors drove her out of her apartment for fear that they might be harmed by acts of terror directed against her – and then a leader of her own party tried to strip her of her Dutch citizenship and drive her out of the country.  And according to polls, an amazing number of people in the Netherlands were eager to see her go, as if getting rid of the woman who was leading the way in facing this problem would actually rid them of the problem itself.  To them, this immigrant woman who has put her life on the line for their heritage of freedom, the freedom their ancestors established, was not a hero but a troublemaker.  She was rocking the boat.  That boat may be drifting slowly but surely toward a caliphate under sharia law, but apparently they’d rather the voyage be as smooth as possible rather than try to turn the boat around and risk capsizing it. 

 

Now, like Rick’s customers in Casablanca, Hirsi Ali is on her way to America – and safety – and I don’t blame her.  The Netherlands’ loss is America’s gain.  What will the Dutch do now?  All too many of them – including, it may well be, many of those who cheered Fortuyn for taking on the mania of multiculturalism – are tired of dissension and scared of further trouble and simply want to make compromises to keep the peace, even if they know deep down that any such peace can only be illusory and temporary.  Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen, whose city will soon have a Muslim majority, has called for an “accommodation” with fundamentalist Muslim values, including the oppression of women.  This means surrendering democracy, pure and simple.  But even people like Ian Buruma – who within recent memory was writing sensible stuff about these issues – are now supporting him.

 

And so it goes in one European country after another.  In Spain, Aznar stood up bravely after 3/11 – and was voted out.  In Britain, 7/7 has simply led to more official attempts to placate Islamists.  (The easiest way to get knighted in Britain today, it seems, is to be a radical Muslim.) Every new jihadist effort to cow the West since 9/11 – the Madrid and London bombings, the Paris riots, the massive protests in Denmark over the Muhammed cartoons, the murders of Fortuyn and Van Gogh, Beslan – has reaffirmed the obvious truth.  Yet after each of these atrocities, the European political, media, and academic elite has been quick to deny any connection among them.  Journalists who after 9/11 mocked the idea that these attacks on America might be followed by assaults on Europe have responded to these subsequent events by explaining them exclusively in terms of local circumstances.  An astonishing proportion of the European elite remains determined not to see the Big Picture.  Will the people eventually rise up against this madness?  And if they do, will they rise up in the name of liberty – or in the name of far-right xenophobia and racism?

 

Frankly, it doesn’t look terribly promising.  These days it’s not easy to imagine a large cohort of Western Europeans taking a firm stand in the name of democratic principles.  They’ve been raised to prize consensus and to worry endlessly about what others think.  They love protest marches and candlelight vigils.  But look at most of those protests and vigils and you won’t see an embattled minority standing up against the establishment in the name of principle.  You’ll see image-conscious conformists eager to identify with establishment-approved causes, anxious lest they veer one iota from the corrupt orthodoxy symbolized by their Palestinian scarves, Che t-shirts, and so forth.  They are abject devotees of multiculturalism and the welfare state, of the UN and Amnesty International and any group with the word “Racism” in its name, and they keep being patted on the head by professors and journalists and politicians who assure them how brave and radical they’re being by standing up to the big bad U.S.A. and its evil lackey, Israel.  

 

Yes, there are liberty-loving Europeans who sit at home quietly shaking their heads while all this PC protesting is going on.  But how many?  Who knows?  The question is, how do we get those Europeans to stand up en masse for democracy and individual rights and against the slow, steady destructiveness of multiculturalism?  How do we get them to stop being cowed by the media and the authorities and terrified of being called racists or Islamophobes?  It’s a tall order.  All that those of us over here in Europe can do is to keep speaking up about these things – and hope that more and more of those who agree with us will work up the nerve to do the same.  Is it already too late?  All we can do is hope it isn’t.   

 

Berlinski: Mr. Fjordman does not believe there is such a thing as moderate Islam. I live in Istanbul and can reassure him that indeed there is. I am surrounded by men and women who are by any reasonable definition both Muslims and moderates: They are Muslims in the sense that they believe there is no God but God and Mohammed is his messenger; they pray five times daily in the direction of Mecca; they observe the Ramadan fast, complete the hajj if they can, and call themselves Muslims. They are moderates in the sense that they are tolerant of other religions; they do not equate Jews with pigs and apes, drop walls on homosexuals or blow up airplanes and Buddha statues, and they do not reject or fear modernity. I encounter these moderate Muslims by the score every time I step out my front door.

 

I am an American Jewish woman who looks and behaves like one. I dress exactly the way I would if I lived in Los Angeles, and obviously I express my political opinions freely. Yet I feel perfectly at home and at ease in my neighborhood of friendly, tolerant, moderate Muslims. I am sure my friends here in Istanbul—among them devout but liberal Muslims such as Mustafa Akyol—would be most puzzled to be told they do not exist, although perhaps intrigued by the discovery and its implications for their income tax status. It is frankly silly to say that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim or that there cannot be such a thing.

 

Mr. Fjordman can see no significant signs of a reformation in Islam. Again, if he looked to Turkey, he surely would. The Islamic reformation here dates from the late Ottoman Empire. A vibrant moderate-Muslim bourgeoisie has emerged in Turkey over the past 20 years, coinciding with a general opening of Turkish society. Muslim politicians such as Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah Gul have stressed the need for reform in the Islamic world. The country’s Directorate of Religious Affairs (known as the Diyanet) which controls more than 76 thousand mosques in Turkey and many others in Europe, recently declared that the Diyanet will remove from the hadiths—the non-Koranic commentary on the words and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed—statements that condone the mistreatment and oppression of women. This is an extremely important step for the Islamic world. (Note that the head of the Diyanet, Dr. Ali Bardakoglu, is a liberal theologian who was appointed three years ago by the Islamic AKP government.) I would direct Mr. Fjordman’s attention not only to Turkey, but to the flourishing in other Islamic countries of such groups as the Liberal Islam Network, the Progressive Muslims,  the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue, and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy.

 

Of course it’s theologically possible to reform Islam. If it is theologically possible to reform Judaism and Christianity, it is possible to reform Islam as well: Islam is what Muslims make of it.

 

So that’s the good news. The bad news, of course, is that there are also radical Muslims—a lot of them—in Turkey. Worse still, Europe is now home to some of the most radical groups of Muslims in the world—Britain’s Sunni Muslims of Pakistani origin, in particular, tend to be extraordinarily lunatic, as we have recently been reminded with the revelation that at least 20-odd members of that community have been plotting to blow a large number of commercial aircraft out of the sky. So I am of course in complete agreement with everyone here about the danger posed to Western civilization and Europe in particular by radical Islam. To acknowledge the good news in no way diminishes the reality and gravity of the bad news, but it does suggest where the solution might lie: with moderate Muslims.

 

Islam must be co-opted and modernized, and moderate Muslims are the key to that project. I make the case in my book, by the way, that this has already been done quite successfully in Marseille, although Marseille is in no way a typical European city.

 

Specifically, the solutions I propose are these: As Mr. Bawer advises, intellectuals and journalists and politicians must keep speaking out, or begin speaking out. As matters of policy, radical clerics funded by Wahhabi Saudi or subcontinental Deobandi money—any cleric who incites violence and lawbreaking and who advocates the destruction of Western civilization—must be deported or imprisoned. Cut off their funding, arrest them, fly them over a desert somewhere and drop them out of the plane. Bring mosques under state control, as they are in Turkey, and as Sarkozy proposes to do in France. Enforce all European laws pertaining to domestic abuse and violence against women with especial vigor. End all state support for extremist Islamic clubs—or any Islamic club where men and women do anything but pray for peace or play backgammon. Demand that all immigrants learn the language and history of their adoptive countries. Never cower or capitulate to the threat of violence, and make it perfectly clear that the price of admission to European society is accepting such European practices as the lampooning of the Prophet. Bring back universal conscription: A structured military organization is an excellent place for unemployed young men who are prone to radicalism and violence. If the state does not impose this structure on them, they tend to form their own kind of military organization. (Consider Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin, for example, who was exempt from military service.) The Dutch abolished compulsory military service in 1996, shortly before violent extremism in the Netherlands began making headlines. That was obviously a mistake.

 

At the same time, reward moderate Muslims. Respect and encourage legitimate religious aspirations and practices. End the European welfare system as we know it, and liberalize European economies so that hardworking Muslims have a fighting chance of moving up the socioeconomic ladder. Provide funding and support for groups such as those I’ve listed above that promote the reform and liberalization of Islam.

Now, even if all of these suggestions were to be implemented tomorrow—and of course they won’t be—would they work? I honestly don’t know. I have to agree that things don’t look good, and that even these ideas, the best solutions I can come up with, are not all that persuasive. Still, I agree with Mr. Storhaug that we need to give one another hope, and I do not think it ridiculous to feel hope, particularly when I consider what has been achieved in Turkey. Anyway, we are at war, and as Dr. Johnson once said, despair is a crime. All this talk of hopelessness is bad for morale, so we should probably not indulge in it. We have no choice but to win the war, so let's just get on with it.

Bat Ye’or: Solution? Truly I see none. I agree with Hedegaard that the major drive in politics is power. But this is common to both the left, right, and other political parties. And the means to achieve power is the adoption of multiculturalism and cultural relativism which allows the building of an alliance with Muslim countries.

 

Reading some EU leaders’ declarations, one is stunned by the tremendous frustration and greed for power they express, their impatience to confront America and to play a super-major role in the Mediterranean by giving a severe blow to Israel. Now Hizbullah offers them a chance. But France backed down from her former grand promise, withdrew to a marginal role and then felt obliged to add soldiers to the contingent. Frankly, I do not see France opposing Hizbullah without Paris burning. Romano Prodi, the champion of EU supremacy through an appeasement policy has offered the largest number of troops for the UN contingent in Lebanon. Doubtless, the vilification of Israel that has been consistent during his five years presidency at the European Commission will continue and the inexorable straightjacket of dhimmitude that he has masterly created for the EU will be reinforced. Germany hesitates to send her marines patrolling the Lebanese coast. Finally, homegrown terrorism in the EU reduces its big role in the Mediterranean to bark at Israel and America.

 

As Hedegaard has pointed out, cultural appeasement, mass immigration, ideological hegemony aim to create a Eurabian nomenklatura, while multiculturalism functions as an umbrella for several economic and political groups, including the Islamized Christian clergy. The rightist parties are no less close to Arab-Muslim countries; the latter acquire Western military and industrial equipments, associate in banking and financial projects, not to mention the oil industries. Tremendous interests are at stake, not least the whole Western economy dependant on oil, gas and exports.

 

Are our leaders and intellectuals unaware of Islamist realities, as Storhaug seems to imply? I doubt it. Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values. Following the French lead, they have chosen to face those challenges by a collective retreat and a denial, when in November 1973 they bowed to the Arab oil boycott, to PLO terrorism and wholeheartedly embraced actively and justified morally the Arab/Palestinian jihad against Israel. This was the fatidic Munich decision that has unravelled Europe’s dhimmi destiny; from then on, the capitulation by a long Munich appeasement could not be derailed. And because the 1973 decision was based on fear, cowardice and greed, our leaders, faithful to their policy of denial and subservience, promote Islamists for dialogue. Secular Muslims will not protect us from terrorism, but those who will suspend jihadist terror are those who control it and whom we bribe by providing them with a position of power. This is because European security since 1973 has become a bargain chip in a policy of collusion, compromises and alliances within a Palestinian jihadist strategy which the EU actively promotes in spite of being its victim. It is within this context that we have lost our moral orientation, our values, our spiritual guidance.

 

Can Muslim women help? As much as I praise and admire Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan and so many others, I will qualify Storhaug’s optimism. The majority of Muslim women choose Islamism in Europe, Egypt, Turkey and other countries, and a few even become suicide-bombers. Islamic culture is fourteen centuries old and it has conditioned men and women alike. In my view, it is a mistake to imagine that women’s emancipation will impact considerably on Muslim relations with the West. These are two different and unrelated domains. Traditional Muslim attitudes toward non-Muslims are set in the religious, legal and historical framework of jihad, totally unknown to most Westerners and which has its own conceptual rationalization.

 

If we want to change Islamist behavior toward the West, we must examine this issue and not rely on Muslim women to act as intercessors on behalf of about four hundred millions Europeans. And can we really believe that the problem is only about the integration of some twenty or more millions Muslim immigrants and not also their relations with the 56 Muslim countries from where they originated – countries fueled with anti-Western frenzy? The Danish cartoons Affair has proven our shortsightedness. The Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference were solicited in December 2005 by Danish Muslims in Europe to intervene in European affairs.

 

So what can be done? First put our house in order, keep a united Europe which is a great idea but get rid of Eurabia, with its fascist, Stalinist armature that binds together the establishment, the universities, the media, the Churches in a tight irrevocable political network that fuels denial, subservience to terror, dhimmitude and the resurgences of Nazi-type hate. Retrieve the universities won over by the cultural jihad that subvert our values, replacing our view by a jihadist conception of history, whereby jihad represents a wonderful chance for the vanquished to convert to Islam. Then expose and denounce our dhimmi media who support Hizbullah and Hamas, as well as the dhimmi NGOs, funded like many Palestinian NGOs by Eurabian finance drawn from European taxpayers. Bawer has well described the mass of devotees linked to the establishment, the press, the academics, the professors that represent this cohesive cemented Eurabian totalitarianism.

 

As Fjordman stated, Eurabia can only be derailed by destroying its cogs. Like Nazism and Communism, Eurabia is a European self-poisonous secretion whose functioning must be exposed in order to be neutralized. Its passion for multiculturalism emerges from its hate of Judeo-Christian culture and even more, its revulsion of Israel, and thus of the Jewish roots of Christianity. This is the drive to European self-destruction. Repressed Nazi tendencies reemerged in the Euro-Arab alliance against Israel and America. It is tightened within a fascist-totalitarian web controlling the mainstream media, the universities and the audio-visual. Hizbullah’s war against Israel has revealed the strong implementation in the West of a Eurabian jihadist party. This party wants us to believe that it is America or Blair’s foreign policy that triggers terrorism, not a jihad genocidal ideology. Transfer of guilt that started with France’s support for Palestinianism, has become a global issue with the globalization of jihad and its imperialistic exigency for the control of international policy. Now it is the dar al-harb, the world of the infidels that is guilty to resist Islamization.

 

The irrevocable determination to deny any victory to Israel induced the Western dhimmi media to support Hizbullah. This compulsive, relentless, automatic mechanism born from dhimmi fear, aims to prove that force, courage and resistance can never win, and that only surrender and submission (dhimmitude) can bring peace. An inflexible motto embodied by Eurabia and which has robbed Israel from its victories. In Eurabian mythology, Israel represents Nazi brute inhumanity, while Palestinians and Lebanese who nourish genocidal designs embody innocent victims. This perverted logic denies the jihad threat against the West and advocates its surrender by peace, love and services to jihadist societies.

 

Have we gone beyond the point of no-return with Islamic universities and madrassas sprouting over a Europe instrumentalized and paralyzed by terrorism from within and without, and professing jihadist fervor against America and Israel? Is not Tony Blair a tragic figure, in its Churchillian solitary fight? Can we survive if we stop to buy our security by paying billions in development projects in Arab countries and to the Palestinians? The results of this solicitude? The election of a Palestinian Hamas Taliban type regime with chaos, abductions, forced conversions, and the rise of Hizbullah and Islamism everywhere.

 

Our future? Maybe it will be like Lebanon, a fake state, a fake democracy which we pretend exists while in fact it is a jihadist battleground, administered by terrorized dhimmi notables in the service of their Muslim masters. Or Iraq? Everything which happens today in the Muslim world develops within a religious and historical civilisational framework that we deliberately ignore. What I see and hear today I recognize it, as it is endlessly repeated in past chronicles. Maybe we should start to learn this history to understand what is happening to us, as a first step to find a solution, to retrieve our lost basic liberties to life and security, and our self-esteem. Because even if moderate Islam will prevail – a hazardous speculation, even for Turkey – it is our right to refuse Islamization and to maintain our Western secular rules and our spiritual values which differ from those of the shari’a.          

 

FP: Bat Ye’or, Claire Berlinski, Leon de Winter, Bruce Bawer, Fjordman, Hege Storhaug and Lars Hedegaard, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

 

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.


Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.


We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com