Below is the conclusion of a three-part essay by Hans-Peter Raddatz about the EU, the Mediterranean Union, the Islamization of the West, and the deliberate engineering of the “Arab Spring” by the global elites to serve their own long-term goals (previously: Part 1, Part 2, and background by Rembrandt Clancy). It was originally published at Die Neue Ordnung in pdf form, and has been kindly translated from the German by JLH.

Note: This three-part piece comprises Part I of Dr. Raddatz’ larger work (which nomenclature is confusing, I realize). We expect to present Part II in due course.

Islamic Seasons and “Democratic” Global Policy

by Hans-Peter Raddatz

4. The Religious Technique of Islamic Terror

Central to the propaganda and what relates to it is Koran verse 8/60, which gives Muslims clear instructions for when the time of reckoning with infidels comes. In its tradition of apologetic interpretation of Islam and soothing conceptualization, the German version is absolutely meaningless and could be seen as deceptive in comparison to the versions in other languages. “And keep ready for them (the infidels) what you can in force and battle-ready horses, to make Allah’s enemies afraid as well as others you do not know. But Allah knows them! And whatever effort you expend on Allah’s path, will be given back to you in full measure and no injustice will be added.”

In contrast, the English translation given out by the Saudi ministry of religion in 1998 is of an obviously different tenor: “And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides, whom you may not know but whom Allah does know.” Apart from the clear distinction between German “make afraid” and English “threaten,” there is also the question of the Arabic expression turhibuna bihi, which means precisely “spread terror.” The root irhab is the ancient Arabic and Koranic as well as the modern expression for terror and violence “on the path of Allah.” So it is understandable that the language of dialogue deletes any connection between Islam and terrorism and higher courses of discussion can only be justified when the aspirants completely cleanse their thinking of such errors and thus so much more successfully avoid the traps of Islamophobia.

The verse is introduced by the imperative wa i’du (long u and apostrophe for the guttural sound ayn) which is translated by (German) “hold ready” or (English) “make ready.” With reason, it adorns the logo of the Muslim Brotherhood under crossed swords, since it contains a functional potential, whose complexity comes into view in the English translation with one of its multi-optional facets. The imperative is dependent on the root meaning of “enemy” (‘aduw) and/or “enmity” (‘adawa) and can be accommodated to every shift in the constellations of “dialogue” with correspondingly measured emphasis: “…seize them (the infidels), be hostile, do injustice, cross borders, attack them, throw yourselves upon them, use violence…” (cf. Hans Wehr, Arabic Dictionary for the Literary Language of the Present, 821 f., 5th edition, Wiesbaden, 1985). The beheading of the Syrian monk Francois Murad at the end of June, 2013 is — with many similar acts — emblematic of Koranic license for violence which, according to the “dialogue,” is due to “malpractice of Islam” or even the regrettable confusion of an “error in translating” the divine word. Nevertheless (or as a result), the barbaric deeds of Muslims are carried out and put on the internet to the glory of Allah, carrying out his command to implant terror in the souls of the infidels.

It is in tune with the dynamics of collective political and individual psychology that Muslims commit violence anyplace and at anytime, and their enforcers in the Western culture dialogue minimize the connection to Islam and accuse the perpetrators of “misusing Islam.” It becomes increasingly clear that this “dialogue” — which itself “misuses” many of its well-intentioned helpers — is nothing other than the prelude to the fourth totalitarian experiment of modern times after Jacobinism, Bolshevism and Nazi fascism. There too, as is well known, were all too many helpers “of good will” who adhered exactly to the objectives being pursued by the forward thinkers of the times, in reasoning, class and race. Just as they smoothed the way to the guillotine, to the work camp and ultimately to genocide, they made it clear that enlightened modernity is becoming the counter-concept to the old culture — developing obstacles to the common good and gradually dissolving the middle class values concepts established by the church. Because the universal formula blends devotion to the One with the divine will against the enemies of Allah, it gradually also embodies a start of the modern “dialogue” on the peace of Islam and against Islamophobia. So it becomes a pseudo-religious way of life with a Koranic additive which acts against our own culture, transforms the intercultural power of Western institutions Islamophilically and makes its enormous MAFIA potential (media, army, finance, infrastructure, accounting) the operative basis for the next, radical political religion. Planned as the imperial ideology of the OIC in the context of a coming caliphate, it is intended as a step-by-step takeover of Europe, for which a secondary role is intended, according to the rules for dhimmitude in the Koran and Hadith.

Since dhimmitude is the Islamic synonym for universal subjection and for equally universal employment cross-linkage, the merger of Euro-Islamic elites is entering a global productivity competition with the world power America. The OIC office for the “battle against Islamophobia” opened in June, 2013, after agreement with the neo-feudal EU autocrats on the limitation of what may be said about Islam, i.e., the criminalization of criticism, which would make censorship more severe and ultimately put an end to an already defective freedom of speech in Europe. OIC General Secretary Ihsanoglu showed himself to be sophistically satisfied: “At the highest levels of the EU, there is a steadily growing interest in cooperating with the OIC… There is a pressing need for cooperation of the Muslim world with Europe, in which the OIC is the common voice of Muslims for modernization and moderation… We must struggle earnestly against Islamophobia, in order to strengthen the bond between Islam and Europe and to eliminate unnecessary animosities.” (Report, Soeren Kern, Gatestone Institute, June 26, 2013)

5. Totalitarianism from Allah’s Modern Creation

Here, a collaboration at the highest level is achieved which makes the leadership apparatus of the EU into the executive power of Islamic expansion, and makes no secret of growing Islamic dominance. This “pinstripe strategy”* has been in preparation for at least a half-century, shaped by revolutionary minds in Islam, most notably two: the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb and the Palestinian Abdallah Azzam. The former created the image of Islam as the political system of the modern age which is overcoming its own ignorance (jahiliyya). The latter is the founder of jihad as the trademark of Islam in the struggle with modernity for leadership of the world. The two concepts merge when they absorb Western principles, which is in and of itself heretical, but takes on a common political-religious character in the Euro-Islamic radicalization process. While the Western doctrine of tolerance is useful to the Koranically mandated expansion of Islam, political freedom works for the Islamic legal doctrine of de-democratization. So the two components combine in a hybrid terrorism.

The totalitarian character of this hybridization-fortified radicalism comes from Allah’s act of creation, which makes it possible for Western elites alongside Muslim leaders — using religious freedom for Islam and the see-saw policies of tolerance and Islamophobia — to displace democracy. And that is not all. Because this hybrid totalitarianism is working in cooperation with the world created by Allah, it must — unlike previous extremisms — exclude no minorities, but rather the non-Muslim majority, which is contemplating a growing Muslim minority with an increasingly aggressive attitude. “No earthly political system must impede Islam,” says Azzam, mentor of Osama bin Laden and creator of a one-size-fits-all doctrine, which needs no imam as catalyst, and authorizes anyone to make multi-optional jihad decisions. A criticism which is seen as normal in the West can be perceived by Muslims as a serious problem or even a crime, and provoke vehement reactions. And so, Western policy — under increasing pressure of necessity and Islamic regulations — is driven to spare “the feelings of Muslims” at the expense of all others. This procedure creates a system which is “on the path” out of parliamentary democracy and into an oligarchical rule by technocrats and theocrats. With money-driven encoding for employment, consumerism and entertainment, it is developing a self-regulating. but infantile and conflict-challenged society.

Sebastian Gorka, an American specialist in terrorism, intelligence services and special operations warfare, who sometimes works for the think tank Rand Corporation, mentions a 1979 book by an author unknown here — The Coranic Concept of Power by General S. K. Malik. According to Gorka, it is the only book written about jihad in the sense of making war as a variant of a divine military theory. It is not about strategies on the Western model, but about Allah’s jihad, which is a grotesque mélange of the conduct of war à la Clausewitz and the battle power of Muslim masses motivated by an end-of-days fervor.

Gorka emphasizes the terror aspect sketched out above, which is central to Koranic battle instructions, and concerns Malik, who leaves no doubt that the soul of the enemy is the target of jihad: “The best tool Allah has designated for the destruction of the enemy and his faith is terror.” In other words, Islamic warfare has nothing to do with Western tactics and maneuvers on land, on the sea and in the air. It is confined to terror and the constant repetition of horror and threat to pulverize the enemy’s power of resistance. To put it another way, anyone who hurts the feelings of Muslims must expect terror.

The author of the foreword to the book, former President Zia ul-Haq, who himself fell victim to internal Islamic power struggles, also follows the Malik principle later continued by Azzam: “Not just Muslims but all Muslims must take part in jihad, because the umma is collectively responsible for it.” Ultimately, it is not just about some skirmish, but about a battle for all of humankind, to establish Allah’s reign. That is, anyone who does not convert must sooner or later be killed. Also, jihad is activated by the other person if he does not wish to become a Muslim or if he disregards Allah’s rules. The “insult” can be caused by the smallest incident, and then expand rapidly to larger conflicts, because the universal reach of Islam — like modern dynamics — encompasses all areas: politics, economy, society, psychology, family, morality, spirituality, etc. — those very sectors gathered in the PREIS spectrum.

Terror is that much more effective, concentrating as it does less on the weaponry of the enemy and more on his soul, his spirit, his faith and… his heart. That is to say, Islam is always at war. The “dialogic” profession of faith in Islam as the “religion of peace” is turned upside down, but only apparently, since its family resemblance to the actual Islam is revealed in its unadulterated purity and its power of deception. Gorka’s analyses reveal the same actors that we are investigating as the motive forces of our fourth totalitarianism: Wahhabism, the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood. “They are marching toward the same goal, along different paths: the institution of sharia wherever possible and the establishment of the caliphate.”

Throughout all this, we could well be dealing with mass deception by the elites, who — ever more intentionally, because ever more successfully — are using immigration to compel a total tolerance, and thus, inevitably, conciliatory compromise as the path to subjection, until the “peace of Islam” — full conformity with its laws — is achieved. Claims by citizens to basic rights such as freedom of expression, personal freedom and freedom of non-Islamic worship are considered “intolerance” because they collide with Islam’s claim to universal hegemony. Consequently, it seems “just” that protagonists — whether Muslim or not — proceed against such dissidents with words like rightist radicalism, xenophobia and racism, and above all with the systemic concept of Islamophobia.

This totalitarian potential demands a correspondingly systematic introduction to a subject area unfamiliar to many people. We have pulled together essential aspects of it in this first part of the essay. It began with the “Arab Spring,” led into the summer of “Islamic Democracy,” by which is meant that no governing body follows the rules decreed by the people, and that they otherwise wield no power. The proponents of this world view are driven individuals who are bringing about Islamocentric change with no consideration of the future for non-Muslims. In abuse of their offices, they are trading away constitutions and leading cultures, speaking all the while with conscious deception of freedom and democracy, but in fact importing dictatorship and compulsion.

Because the totality of this trend assures the advance of Islamic thought, their dialogue templates continue the propaganda tradition of Left-Right extremes. Using threats to nudge the consensus and taking measures in favor of Islamic interests, they sponsor the creeping entry of a new dominant culture. In doing so, they accept the clear risk of violence and terror, which is even now slowly but surely becoming reality in our big cities. In our estimation, the root cause of this trend, which can lead to a Western cultural autumn and winter, lies in the fundamental destruction of human reason. This leads directly to the metaphysics of radical evil, as discussed by Kant and Hegel on the one hand and von Baader on the other. As totalitarianisms demonstrate, and as we will show in the second half of this analysis, it has lost none of its physical actuality.

* A version of “Dress for success.”

Previous posts by or about Hans-Peter Raddatz: