Middle East studies in the News
NATO Needs To Meet [incl. John Esposito]
by Hugh Fitzgerald
Surely at this point NATO ministers -- NATO without Turkey, or with a Turkish representative who is as secular as they come, and means it -- need to discuss the Islamic threat. Or, to put it more truthfully, they need to discuss the threat of Islam to the peoples of Western Europe, to their legal and political institutions, and to their physical security. This threat should include terrorism, but not be limited to it. This discussion should, noisily or quietly, include consideration not only of the Muslim duty to participate, directly or indirectly, in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, but of the varied instruments of Jihad, now available as they were not to the early Muslims, who had to be content with qitaal or combat.
These instruments -- a threat to the wellbeing, the cohesion, and the future survival of the Western world -- include Muslim deployment of what may be called (and is called by Muslims themselves) the "Wealth" or "Money" Weapon. This weapon includes well-financed and carefully-targeted campaigns of Da'wa, aimed especially at the economically and the psychically marginal (with special attention to prisoners). Then there is demographic conquest, which proceeds inexorably, and is made easier by the reluctance, possibly now out of fear rather than naivete, of the governments and peoples of the West to end Muslim immigration, to halt the transfer of money from the Gulf that is used to support Muslim institutions and spread Islam deep within Western lands, in capillary fashion through the mass building of mosques, madrasas, Islamic societies, and of course the buying up of influence.
Let there be special attention at this NATO meeting to the Money Weapon. Who supplies it? And how can those who do – those Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, Qataris, and others – have that supply interdicted by NATO efforts? Can it be by mass seizure of funds, and by reading those little sheikdoms and Saudi Arabia the riot act? All of them are hopelessly dependent on Western goods and services, on Western wage-slaves and Western knowhow, on access to Western education and Western medical care, on Western arms and on Western, or rather American, guarantees for the safety of the ruling families. Yet they are allowed to continue to spend vast sums on subverting the West. Saudi Arabia alone has spent in the past few decades about one hundred billion dollars on spreading Islam everywhere (and not only in the West: Saudi tentacles have been reported to me by black African informants in Niger, where they have transformed the easygoing, syncretistic form of Islam into something more sinister, and in the Ivory Coast and even Togo, where the Christians now are uneasily aware of Muslims and mosques suddenly appearing where they had never been before).
Let the NATO meeting be the first of many, because the Western world is not imperiled only now, or only for the next few years until things "calm down." This imperilment does not stop if Iran's nuclear project is halted. It does not stop if those intent on throwing Israel to the wolves – oh, they don't see it that way, of course – by "making peace between Arabs and Israelis" on the terms of the Slow Jihadists of Fatah succeed in their mad effort. It does not stop if Pakistan decides that for now it needs American money and military aid, so it will put up a façade of disapproval of its own many and varied terrorist groups, and perhaps even raid a camp or two, in the spirit of Captain Renaud rounding up the usual suspects. It does not stop if the Danish government shuts down Jyllands-Posten. It does not stop if the British government rounds up everyone who, alarmed by Muslim immigration, dares to speak out or to leak documents to Shadow Ministers. It does not stop if the French government keeps up this policy of deux-rivisme with the Maghreb, or builds mosques that are supposed to help "moderate" opinion. If the Qur'an and Hadith remain immutable and inviolate, if the ideology of Islam remains what it has been for 1350 years, what is to prevent even those going to a French-taxpayer-funded mosque, with French-taxpayer-funded imams, from still getting that old-time religion, merely by reading, merely by studying, with a little help, possibly, from the Internet? It does not stop if the Italian government, or even the Vatican, were to distance itself, out of fear and feigned disapproval, from Magdi Allam's new political movement, or offers to build all sorts of infrastructure, beginning with a coastal highway, for Libya. It does not stop if the Spanish government ceases to try to stop Moroccan immigrants, surrenders Melilla and Ceuta, and even allows itself to be blackmailed into paying "reparations" to Morocco. It does not stop, because the desire, the deep need, the positive duty, to spread Islam and to make sure that Islam comes to dominate, and Muslims rule, everywhere, is central to the ideology of Islam. For Islam is a religion but also, and much more importantly, a politics and a geopolitics.
There are some in the Western world who, as individuals, profit from the policies of appeasement. They do not care. They allow themselves not to think about what this means for the societies and countries in which they live. The obvious cases are of those who violate the laws, and sell weapons components to Iran for its nuclear project, or who helped and still help -- not unwittingly but wittingly -- other Muslim countries to obtain the weaponry or knowhow that they need if they are to truly threaten Infidels militarily. But many of the most powerful companies participate as well. Back in 1981, during the famous debate over selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia, American corporations shamelessly lobbied for the Saudis, and the effort was led by United Technologies (planes and arms) and Whitney Corporation (a supplier of hospitals), both of which did a lot of business with Saudi Arabia and appeared willing, even eager, to be its Washington servants and lapdogs.
For decades the American government has been unable to even begin to think about properly taxing gasoline and oil, or to otherwise diminish the use of oil. The ARAMCO lobby became the Saudi ARAMCO lobby, and for those decades we heard from the powerful and the well-connected, the very people who always seem to receive huge sums for addressing Arab audiences, or presents from Prince Bandar, or contracts to do public relations for Saudi Arabia, that we could rely on "our staunch ally Saudi Arabia" to "moderate" prices in OPEC. This was nonsense. Saudi Arabia at any moment calculates what price will maximize the future value of its reserves, and its current budgetary needs. Saudi Arabia charges the market price to the United States as it does to any other country. And since oil is fungible, the very idea that one need offer political favors to a particular oil producer in order to obtain "access" to that oil makes no economic, or political, sense. Oil is sold on a world market, and bought on a world market. One need not do favors to oil producers in order to buy the oil they produce any more than one need do favors for the gas station owner down the street to buy gas from him. In both cases, paying the current price is all that is necessary. It has taken a very long while for that to be understood.
NATO should discuss the importance of interdicting the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere that are used to support the Muslim bases within Europe, and that fund campaigns of Da'wa to spread Islam. There should be open discussion of how schools and universities have come to be dominated, in their teaching about Islam and the Middle East and even the history of Europe, to force a Muslim viewpoint upon others, whether it be to claim, falsely, that "Europe owes so much to Islam" (it doesn't), or that "the Renaissance comes from Islam" (it doesn't), or that "Islam is a peaceful and splendid religion" (it isn't), and so on.
There is the problem of the buying up of academics, of whole "centers" by the Saudis (see Durham, see Exeter), or funding obviously scandalous operations (see John Esposito's "Prince Somethingorother Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding"). There is the funding of special chairs for special friends who then sit in those well-upholstered chairs, and the buying up of businessmen, before whom fat contracts are dangled, and of ex-diplomats, who are rewarded with "consulting contracts" for their "expertise in international business, with particular attention to the Middle East." There is also the buying up of assorted whorish journalists, some of whom are directly on the Arab take. All of this helps to explain how the peoples of Western Europe have not been kept adequately informed, and have thus been unable to demand, until now, and now only partially, the kind of measures that ought long ago have been put in place to diminish that Money Weapon, to cut off those campaigns of Da'wa, and to halt Muslim immigration. They have been unable to demand measures to begin, using all the most artful means, to reverse that Muslim in-flow, and to make it harder and harder for those who adhere to a Total Belief-System, or who may not adhere to it but out of a strong residual loyalty will nonetheless continue to defend it through deception and threats, to continue to remain and to receive all the benefits that have so far been foolishly lavished upon them by Infidel states and societies seemingly incapable of defending themselves in rational fashion.
Yes, NATO has to meet to discuss not only terrorism, but the problem of Muslim access to NATO armories, and the fiendishly difficult security problems that arise, especially if Western governments allow Muslims and even encourage them to join the army, to join the police, in greater and greater numbers -- all in order, apparently, to reassure the Muslims that they are regarded without any suspicion. But why should they be reassured about that? And why should we attempt to convince ourselves, and our fellow citizens, of that obvious falsehood? And why should this dangerous farce continue, unnecessarily endangering us still more than we already are by the large-scale presence of Muslims who have settled deep behind what they themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines?
Discussion of the Money Weapon should not just be limited to how it works, but also on measures that can be undertaken to render it less potent. Obviously, diminishing OPEC oil revenues is important (and diminishing the use of oil and other fossil fuels is vital for other, quite independent reasons), but the members of NATO need also to find ways to force the Arabs and Muslims to share their accumulated and accumulating wealth with poorer Muslims. All Infidel aid to those poorer Muslims should now be withdrawn. The responsibility for saving Muslims who do not have oil from the clear consequences of Islam itself -- the despotism and inshallah-fatalism – should be transferred, noisily, to the rich Arab states.
Then there is a need to check, to halt, or to render less effective, all the campaigns of Da'wa. Western governments need to figure out how to conduct, with funding both public and private, campaigns of what may be called counter-Da'wa, in an attempt to immunize the most vulnerable categories of Infidels, by presenting them with evidence of how Islam treats Believers as "slaves of Allah," and discourages free and skeptical inquiry and artistic expression. Let those prisoners know about how Islam forbids sculpture, most painting, and most music. Let them know how it prevents freedom of conscience, encourages mistreatment of women, and stunts in every way moral and mental growth. And along with that information about the ideology of Islam, for particularly vulnerable groups -- i.e., black prisoners -- go into the history of the Arab slave trade, and the role of Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism. And do not stop, but carry that war into the very Camp of Islam, attempting to make the case, among those non-Arab Muslims who constitute 80% of the world's Muslims, that they are being used, that they have been sundered from their own pre-Islamic histories, by the arrival of this history-destroying, past-destroying Total Belief-System that relies on inveigling would-be converts into the fold by withholding much of what Islam is about, and only slowly dispensing that information after they have already said the Shehada and become a Muslim. And then a swarm of Muslims attempts to offer you every sign of interest and kindness so that you don't have second thoughts, especially as you learn more, and then more. And of course, then you find out that you are not allowed, as you may once not have realized, to get out: you are in, for life.
And finally, NATO governments -- and other interested Infidels (India, Israel, Australia, Russia, even China) need to discuss, openly, the problem of demographic conquest from within, and how to discuss things so that Infidels will understand that Islam is an ideology, not a race, that the ideology has a clear set of principles, a clear laying-down of duties. The central duty is to remove all obstacles to the dominance of Islam. This means destroying, in the end, the legal and political institutions that are flatly contradicted by the Shari'a. This is a real, not theoretical problem. The more Muslims exist in the Western world, the greater will be the pressure on our own liberties, including freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. This has no sell-by date. This pressure never comes to an end, but only increases with each new victory. For Islam can only be held in check if it is denied victories. What may seem to non-Muslims as demonstrations of good will and compromise, to be met by similar demonstrations by the Muslim side, is based on a misunderstanding of Islam and its effect on the minds of men. We do not comprehend how thorough is its brainwashing, how totally controlled are the primitive Muslim masses by this ideology. We prefer to pretend that the handful of plausible, smiling, educated, knowing-exactly-what-to-say-to-the-Infidels elites of these countries, the very tiniest of elites, are somehow to be believed, somehow to be trusted, somehow to be thought of as "representative" men -- when they are merely clever, ruthless, possibly in a few cases slightly anguished, practitioners of deception on behalf of Islam. For whether out of filial piety, or embarrassment, or -- in most cases -- deep belief -- they can do no other.
But we, the Infidels, can.Note: Articles listed under "Middle East studies in the News" provide information on current developments concerning Middle East studies on North American campuses. These reports do not necessarily reflect the views of Campus Watch and do not necessarily correspond to Campus Watch's critique.
Campus Watch contact e-mail: email@example.com