A War of Competing Worldviews

“We must abandon the picture of a world divided up by states, in which states make war and conclude peace with one another. The trend — as shown by the Balkan wars — is toward denationalization, privatization and commercialization of war, in the course of which local warlords, bandit chiefs, mercenary-hiring companies, as well as internationally connected and deployable religious warriors are increasingly the real actors in the prosecution of war.”

The following article by Udo Ulfkotte was originally published on February 20 at Kopp Online. JLH, who translated the piece, includes this note:

Udo Ulfkotte has turned up before in Gates of Vienna as a modern Jeremiah — heeded by some and carefully ignored by those in power. He practices what he preaches, has settled with his family on a farm that makes them largely self-sufficient.

The concluding advice in this essay can be clicked on to lead to an ad for his most recent book, No Black, No Red, No Gold: Poverty for Everyone in a Jolly Immigrant Community.

The translated article (which I highly recommend):

The New World Disorder: Why the Surveillance of Radical Muslims Is a Failure

by Udo Ulfkotte

Something is changing in German-language territory. History, ultimately, means change. Policy maintains that the changes will be good for us. In this process, a new world order is arising out there with more and more Islamist cells.

There are many good books and DVDs on Islam, But one thing is mostly left out. If we examine the goals, motives and ideological-religious background of the radical Islamic network, which to all appearances, has control of firm institutional linkages and a not-to-be-underestimated criminal energy, we should expect the uneasiness of German authorities and citizens to increase. More than 3.2 million Muslims are living in Germany, in peaceful coexistence — at first glance — with their fellow citizens.

Yet in so many kebab shops and mosques and Islamic organizations there are not always relaxed conversations. An Islamic ghetto is developing in our midst, which has various faces — not just peaceful — and has been absorbing the mindset propagated among believing Muslims by the previously mentioned groups, organizations and fraternities. One of those concealed faces is the distorted mask of terror, hidden in plain sight by discussion forums, multiculti events, and the German enthusiasm for dialogue, while it clandestinely condones or encourages acts of war and terror which will realize the alleged plans of Allah. And so, a small, radical minority is bringing all of Islam into disrepute because it is prepared to declare war on our cities in the not too distant future.

Certainly, the greatest part by far of Muslims does not identify with radical Islamists. 72% of people of Muslim faith living in Germany are in favor of a clear separation of church and state. Only 3% are part of the Islamist scene being watched by state security. If you include their family members in the calculation, you reach about 10% of all Muslims. As a percentage, the Islamist groups easily exceed the extreme rightist parties like DVU or NDP, against which state security — rightly — puts forth great efforts. The Turkish radical scene, which has substantially more adherents at its disposal, is by no means so peaceable, but need not fear state security to the same extent as does the rightist. Barely a handful of agents are concerned with this extremist club. Why is that?

In Germany, every federal state and every authority within it surveils for itself the activities of suspicious groups, which often means that several persons are responsible for each of these groups. For this reason alone, connections between potential terrorist groups and organized crime cannot be identified because completely separate agencies are responsible for them. One of them is headquartered with the Federal Police in Wiesbaden and the other in Meckenheim. To be sure, they do communicate, but the important exchange of information is only rudimentary. So sometimes there is the apparently absurd situation that the same group is being investigated by one division for money laundering and by the other for danger of terrorism.

In the chaos of the technological investigation, one point is repeatedly lost in the public discussion, which is enormously important for clandestine procedure, clandestine cooperation and clandestine understanding of Islamist groups in Germany. The bond which unites all groups is the common, stereotypical bogeyman image of the enemy. Regardless of whether you ask members of the Turkish Islamists or the Lebanese Hezbollah, they all agree in their rejection of the state of Israel and talk about “worldwide Zionism.” Second, in their view, Europeans are atheists, idol worshippers, usurers, capitalists, adulterers, alcoholics and useless creatures addicted to pornography and other types of enemies who may appear to be teachers, doctors or engineers but are in truth enemies of Islam.

In their view, the media run by these “infidels” presents a distorted image of Islam, which, however, offers the only escape from the Western world of sadists, child molesters, mass murderers and other perverts. This basic attitude also applies to many non-Islamist Muslims in Germany. Islamists are united by the goal of putting a stop to the untenable condition in the Christian, Western world by resurrection of a “caliphate” by violent means.

It is this dream of the “caliphate” which welds together the representatives of Turkish extremist groups, the adherents of Algerian terrorist groups, Chechen “rebels,” Palestinian Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Jihad and the Egyptian Gamaat al-Islamiya into a spiritual unit. What the representatives of Hizb ut-Tahrir read aloud in a Hamburg mosque at Friday prayer and what is maintained word-for-word on a videocassette would find agreement among all extremists, no matter what organization they belong to:

“In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Compassionate. The Islamic caliphate is the protection for the countries of the Muslims. Its establishment is our duty. And inactivity on its behalf is a sin. The caliphate is the collective leadership of all Muslims on this earth, so as to implant Islamic laws and propagate the Islamic message. It is a political structure which unites Muslims and their countries. Allah’s Messenger has commanded Muslims to install a caliph who will reign with the laws of Islamic Sharia. The caliphate is also the state whose return the Messenger of Allah prophesied when he said: Then a caliphate will arise again according to the plan of the prophecies! This state will fulfill what Allah the Sublime has commanded for Muslims in Islamic laws in jurisprudence, in the system of governance, in the economic system, the social system and the family system, in education and in foreign policy. The caliphate is furthermore that state which will fulfill Jihad, which Allah has imposed on Muslims, so as to carry the Islamic message to all the world, to protect the lands of the Muslims and to defend their lives, their kin and their property and those entrusted to their care.”

When we know this common dream of the extremist groups for the caliphate, we can understand why Islamists — despite the confused multiplicity of organizations they are active in — have developed such a great feeling of togetherness among themselves. And we see why uncovering conspiratorial networks is a fruitless undertaking unless these groups are seen in association with each other, and priority given to clarifying their cross-connections, including all contact with organized crime.

The “caliphate” is one of the key words that have great significance in the Islamic political system. When the Prophet Mohammed died on June 8, 632 in Medina, he left — according to the Sunni interpretation of Islam — no successors. According to the Shiite interpretation which is dominant in Iran, he named his cousin and son-in-law, Ali, his successor (“caliph”). From 632 until the dissolution of he caliphate by the Turkish National Assembly in 1924, the concept was connected to the worldly and religious leader of the Muslims, who, however, could not lay down any guiding principles. Theoretically, since the end of the caliphate, anyone can declare himself caliph, which the “caliph of Cologne” in fact did. Although such “nominations” have no binding effect on other Muslims, many of them wish for a European caliphate in which Christians and Jews play a subordinate role as “tribute-payers.”

After everything we have learned, it is foreseeable that the struggle against this type of terrorism will not end like the usual wars. We must abandon the picture of a world divided up by states, in which states make war and conclude peace with one another. The trend — as shown by the Balkan wars — is toward denationalization, privatization and commercialization of war, in the course of which local warlords, bandit chiefs, mercenary-hiring companies, as well as internationally connected and deployable religious warriors are increasingly the real actors in the prosecution of war. This privatization of violence is a characteristic of international terrorism, and the lines between bands of mercenaries and terrorist groups have become fluid. This is dire. No longer is this a war against a state, an economic power or certain ruling classes. It is the war of one worldview — Islamic — against another — that of the West. It is about the destruction of the Western world. Do not count on a treaty, a ceasefire or concluding peace. Just think about informing yourself on the effects of it and preparing for its development.

Update: An error in the translated title of Udo Ulfkotte’s article has been corrected.

22 thoughts on “A War of Competing Worldviews

  1. The ultimate power of Islamists, aptly described by Udo Ulfkotte as bursting with criminal energy, lies in their ability to mobilize the live and let live Muslim masses. It is a mistake, in my view, to direct counter-jihad efforts at the Islamists or the willfully asleep citizens of the West. The proper target for counter jihad is the live and let live Muslim majority. The poisonous myths propagated by Islamists need to be publicly countered. For example, posters throughout cities which cannot be taken down or “legally” attacked as insulting Islam. One of these might say: My name is Maria
    Schmidt. I am a German woman who does not cover her head. I am not a prostitute and have never been one. I have been married for
    forty years and have never committed adultery. I do not approve of
    pornography or any kind of child abuse. My children are a credit
    to society; they work hard at their jobs. My son is a computer programmer and my daughter is a writer. No one in my family, not me, not my husband, not my children, has ever committed a crime or
    maliciously acted against others.
    I am not pleased with being caricatured as a degenerate member of Western society. Please go to the internet and read more of my
    story and thousands more like me on http://www.westernwoman.de.

    Efforts along the lines of what I have written above could go a long
    way toward neutralizing the poisonous myths propagated by Islamism. Failure to direct anti-venom in the direction of the Muslim masses allows the Islamists to win by default.

    • Miguel Roberto,

      Thank you; I think this is a great idea. I hope it is gloriously effective. However, please reconsider the idea that other approaches are a mistake. Ccounterjihad should be directed also toward the citizens of the West, both the willfully asleep and those who are simply uninformed, and also against the Islamists. I will present my view for your consideration.

      I am a good example of a non-Muslim who was not willfully asleep. If I had not by accident come upon a compelling counterjihad essay– I think it was on the Political Islam web site– a few years ago, I might still be asleep, so to speak, but my “sleep” was not willful. Citizen Warrior is another great resource for this purpose, but I’m afraid that it needs a new name to better reach those who most need to read it.

      Along with your excellent approach, counterjihad directed toward mainstream or nominal Muslims should also include teaching the gory details of who Muhammad was, since many Muslims believe good things about Muhammad that are patently untrue, and also are ignorant of bad things Muhammad did and said. Father Zakaria Botros (see YouTube) has had great success with this approach, but apparently he reaches mostly Muslims in the Middle East. Someone could take his presentations and adapt them to other Muslims using English or whatever other languages fit.

      Putting aside philosophical discussions about human nature, the ideological root of the Islamists’ or traditional Muslims’ evil is quite simply the Koran and Sunna in combination, along with the most authoritative biographies of Muhammad (if they are not part of the Sunna– can someone fill me in on that question?). Even those Muslims who do not qualify as Islamists are heavily influenced by its worldview. I do not see any way to detoxify Islam without getting at this root, if it can be detoxified at all. If Islam cannot be detoxified, the root of its evil still must be addressed.

      Part of counterjihad therefore should be to draw to public attention those passages from Islam’s foundational texts which show Muhammad’s evil– with references to Islam’s foundational texts. For example: the massacre of Jews, the assassination of his critics after the conquest of Medina, his taking or selling into sexual slavery the female family members of men he had either killed in battle or murdered after battle, and so on. Billboards, bus ads, internet ads, etc., come to mind.

      One disturbing thing: Recently when I have looked online for the ahadith which recount such passages, I have found them purged from all the online hadith collections I have found– with no indication in the text that anything has been removed. It looks like Islam is now hiding these unflattering passages, at least from the English-speaking world.

      Along with these examples we need to present key principles of Islam such as abrogation, Muhammad’s status as a perfect example, and taqqiya or kitman (sp?), showing how they are clearly mandated by the Koran or Sunna; and we need to show the amazingly consistent pattern Islam has shown of damaging or taking over nations from within whenever there is not a totalitarian or authoritarian government strong enough to restrain it.

      If we are calm and very careful to get things right then I think mainstream people, whether Muslims or not, will be more likely to accept our presentations as credible. And, as hard as it is for someone long-winded like me, I think we need to try to do as much of this as possible in sound bites. We need to be content to build one brick at a time.

      • Mr Christianinfidel, I second your approach about informing asleep westerners. You sure brought back memories. You’ll find my memories a bit off topic, but had me thinking…

        I never much thought about Islam, just considered it to be barbaric and uncivilized. The thought of defending or respecting ideas I don’t agree with never seemed to make much sense to me. Respect is freely given when it is deserved. One doesn’t ask or demand respect; only thugs demand respect. Respect borne out of fear is not respect at all, but intimidation.

        I’ve always been disgusted by political correctness. In my teens I read and re-read “The Prince” by Machiavelli and everything this guy said rung true: you don’t coddle your enemies; you deal with them swiftly and brutally and then you will know peace.

        My father worked in Israel during some of my childhood. Whenever he talked about it I sensed a great deal of admiration for the Israelis and the nature of their distrust for the Arabs. But other than that, this was the only form of contact I had with the clash of civilizations until recently. I was apolitical for (so far) most of my life.

        One day, I was browsing a web forum about PC gaming mods (of all places), drilled down the page and entered a post called “Off topic”. I looked it up and someone had linked the page to a video of Pat Condell. I watched it. Then I watched all of his videos in a row on that same night. I was addicted, amused by his humorous and confrontational style and wanted to know more.

        I started looking at the Atheist point of view with great enthusiasm. For a while I fancied myself an Atheist and enjoyed seminars and debates with the great Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and other such speakers. But one thing kept nagging at me: in spite of their points-of-view being rhetorical masterpieces, you can “prove” anything with rhetoric if you massage the facts enough. I didn’t feel completely convinced. It didn’t negate the validity of religious worldviews and most importantly, I couldn’t understand why they were directing such a great effort to bashing Christianity, which is a spent force today. No matter how powerful the Church may have been in the past, it is but a pale shadow of its former self. These people weren’t in danger of being arrested for speaking their minds about Christianity, or being waken up in the middle of the night and rushed off to a gulag where a bullet in the back of their heads had their names written on. No, these people were all over the news, they had a pulpit and a platform. I liked it when they attacked Islam as it was courageous and necessary, but Christianity is a fake enemy, an easy target like laughing at the fat kid on the back of the bus.

        For me, the great enemy of the West is and always has been Islam. Not only that, but Christianity (for all its quirkiness, different flavors and occasional nutjobs) had been one of the consistent underpinnings of the West and it was only when it fell under the attack and ridicule of leftists everywhere that I realized how Atheism was contributing to the sustained destruction of the Western Civilization. Crying “peace” when the enemy is at the gates will only help the enemy consummate its victory and not stay its hand. And pretending that “every religion is the same” is at best wishful thinking and at worst historical revisionism.

        The more I thought of it, the more I admired Christianity and when before I timidly stated that “I was raised with some Christianity values, but…”, I now proclaim I am a Christian. If ever there was an example for Man that would have been Jesus Christ, not Mohammad. Sure, Hitchens would say something like “the Golden Rule dates back to Confucius”, but we didn’t get it from Confucius. Chinese philosophy has had a nearly negligible effect on the formation of Western thinking. The values I’m talking about and I see as under assault are the Christian and Jewish morality, the concepts of Truth and Justice, the concepts of Freedom, Civility and Democracy of the Greco-Roman (Classic) Civilization. There is a reason why the Enlightenment didn’t occur in other Civilizations or Cultures.

        Throughout its duration, the West as we know it has been the stage to many forms of government, social institutions, economic ideas and ethical motivations but it has, by and large, had one prevailing and dominant form of religious doctrine: Christianity.

        The idea that Man can know G-d, that Justice and Truth are absolutes (as opposed to the relativistic mush and indiscriminateness that is in effect the life blood of the Left) and not the whim of some unreachable deity — which is one of the reasons why Islam is NOT and “Abrahamic faith” — reminded me that the triumph of the West is in great part due to its anchor of civility and moral compass. The West is the triumph of standards, of choosing between different approaches to obtain different results. In Islam, there is no knowing of G-d, no “made in the image of G-d” thingy and no standards with which to understand the Universe, as allah’s will may change on a whim and alter the nature of reality as we understand it. Or better said: There is no god but Muhammad and Muhammad is his prophet, as the corpus of Islamic scripture seems to be nothing but a tired vindication and recitation of the whims of this warlord with very unsavoury tastes. If every whim of Mo was corresponded with a convenient divine “revelation”, in effect Mohammad’s will was allah’s will. So Mohammad was his own god.

        Peoples, ideas and civilizations are not interchangeable. Whenever we forget that, we pay the price. All Civilizations die from within, with ennui and existential exhaustion. I see no coincidence in the decline of the West and the whittling of its principles. And these principles must be affirmed not attacked, defended not ridiculed and fought for, not traded away for some mirage of peace, dialogue, community cohesion and universality.

        No culture is “strong in diversity” unless it’s diversity of thought. One Civilization needs a core cultural narrative and opposing narratives will cancel each other out. Islam and the West can coexist as long as they don’t mingle, as long as we promote that our values are the law of the land here.

        But when the enemy is at the gates — and returning to topic — it will most often than not, be some well-to-do traitor that will throw the gates open. These oikophobes, the ones who would sell their mothers for mohammadan approval must be ridiculed, boycotted, shamed and discriminated against in every possible way. The devout muslims wouldn’t be the problem they are if not for the left’s help. It’s like blaming cancer cells for causing cancer; what else would they do? Not that I’m excusing their responsibility for atrocities and the disrespect of our institutions. But just because the majority of them doesn’t take up arms against us doesn’t mean they are suddenly part of the resistance and anymore trustworthy.

        Expecting the less reliable citizens of the West to turn around their worldview and understand that their unchecked actions and propaganda will destroy the most productive, prosperous and efficient Civilization to ever exist, is not going to happen any time soon.

        The good news is that — unlike the Left — the facts have always been on our side. The bad news is that these people are not interested in facts. Showing them the truth will not awake them from the stupor of ignorance; they are not asleep. We are! Assuming reason and debate will set the record straight with the Left is a fool’s errand.

        This is why we keep losing the debate: it’s not about finding the truth anymore: it’s about wining! It’s not about the moral high ground, it’s about survival. Time we give them a dose of their medicine. No matter how well researched and prepared we may come to a discussion of the “evils” of the West, the Left devotes its energies to destroying our efforts by setting the terms of the debate. It’s why we have jokes like the UN, a club for terrorists and Human Rights violators to pat each other on the back, to accuse and project the ugliness of its lowliest dignitaries on the Nations at the forefront of Civilization. Debating on the Left’s terms guarantees that we are pushed against the wall on pointless evasion to accusations of “racism”, “imperialism” and “greed”.

        Thank you

        • You do understand Machiavelli is at odds with Christian ethics? I read Il Principe with much enthousiasm during my teenage days, as well as G.K. Chesterton.
          The Golden Rule has a powerful practical contradiction. If you dissaprove of abortion, you will have large families. If you have large families, you will have to invade other countries. Invading other countries is at odds with the Golden Rule.
          I agree, however, that Atheism is very destructive. Only the threat of hell will Muslims ever dissuade from their all-too convenient religion. Actually, it could be argued that Islam is a social construct, and a system of privilege, that should be abolished and deconstructed.

          • My approval of Machiavelli is based on my dislike for PC, not as an identification with Christian ethics. Machiavelli was a man that made no excuses for victory over one’s enemies and understood well why only victory matters against those who threaten you.

            As for Christianity, it is the basis of my cultural heritage and I won’t bother with the throat clearing nonsense of “all religions are the same, they all have extremists” or any similar non-nondescript bromide that seeks to relativize the role of Christianity in our Civilization. Freedom of speech and Liberty have flourished under Civilizations with a prevalent Christian culture and been non-existent or severely restricted on those who adopted other interpretations of faith and ethics.

            We are who we are because of it; whether we have faith in the almighty or not (and the nature of that almighty), the West is the West because Christianity was a part of it, a big part. The influence of Islam in the West has been mostly negative or negligible.

        • RUJV,

          Thank you for what I consider a brilliant essay. There are so many memorable statements in it that I will not list them. Your penchant for memorable sentences, combined with the robust case you make for Christianity-based or Christianity-influenced Western Civilization– and more– brought me to a Eureka moment.

          I have a request. If you are not already involved in the fight to save Britain I ask that you check out the new Liberty GB web site, as well as Paul Weston’s FaceBook page.

          Paul Weston and Liberty GB are trying to reach the British mainstream, or what I think he calls “middle Britain”, with the kind of message you just conveyed. Polls in the UK show what should be a groundswell of support for a political party to actually do something about Islam and overwhelming immigration and whatever else is contributing to the destruction of Western civilization, but so far no political party has gotten too far trying to address these matters.

          Someone who can formulate and express the kind of thought you have presented here– even if only as an occasional commenter on FaceBook or elsewhere– can help the snowball, which I hope will become an avalanche, to gain momentum.

          If you are not British, that in a way is an advantage, as it frees you from the threats to career and social standing, never mind the danger of imprisonment, that continue to impede UK citizens from saying the type of thing you said here; and without people saying these things it is hard for people even to think through the situation and find that they agree with your general viewpoint.

          In fact, perhaps you would consider sending Paul Weston a FaceBook message that includes the essay you wrote above, or at least some of it. I think he would much appreciate it, and also would very much appreciate having you as a commenter on his FaceBook page; and many British people would be helped by your thoughts.

          Just so you know, I have no formal connection to Paul Weston or Liberty GB. If you haven’t found them already, there is an archive of Paul Weston’s articles on this web site, and that is how I first encountered his work. Whether Liberty GB goes far or not, I support it as one more try to break the political stranglehold on Britain, and especially England, before ‘bad’ becomes ‘much worse’. At the very least, it will help increase the fertilization of Britain with ideas that should help.

          • P.S. To anyone else reading this: I do not mean to be exclusive in this request, nor to slight the other brilliant contributors to this page. If I wrote a “thank you” comment to everyone here whose writing helps me, I’m afraid I’d become a standing joke on this page.

            If anyone else here is not yet helping shape the online social and political atmosphere of Britain, I hope you will join in. My request to RUJV just occurred to me because RUJV’s writing and theme both reminded me of what I think Paul Weston has been trying to communicate.

  2. Mohammed’s dicta is but systemic brigandage.

    One must understand that A L L of the islamists, wahhabists, deobandi, et. al. represent feral warfare as it was pre-1648 — before the Peace of Westphalia.

    In Western terminology such warfare is u n l a w f u l.

    Those engaged in unlawful warfare are NOT entitled to a n y combatant rights — the ones tossed about WRT the Geneva Conventions, etc.

    It is a staggering perversion of the Western laws of war to proffer lawful combatant privileges to unlawful combatants.

    When the Nazis sent agents dressed in American Army uniforms to disrupt it during December, 1944, such men were functioning unlawfully. Hence, they were shot out of hand. Indeed, even torture is permitted against unlawful combatants.


    The other pervasive error — seen time and again — is the claim that Mohammed’s dicta represent 7th Century norms. This is false. His rules-set is consistent with Neolithic norms, dating back one hundred centuries. ( 10,000 ybp )

    It’s a Big Man, capricious, rules-set — alienated from writing. Mohammed killed anyone writing his words down — and wasn’t too fond of having his words thrown back at him, straight from memory.

    (While modern man looks upon writing as a universal boon — it’s a curse to a capricious tyrant. It’s notable from the Old Testament/ Torah that even Pharaoh was very explicit about just what words he wanted written down — in stone, in his case.)

    Mohammed was a brigand of the first water. The story of islamic success is always ever one of seizing a stash — on a national scale, of course.

    One by one, every touted ‘islamic advance’ turn out to be intellectual booty stolen from distand cultures — then plagerized by this or that muslim ‘scholar.’ Islamic mathematics comes immediately to mind. Everything claimed islamic was passed on from the Hindus.

    Today, in Indonesia, the virtuous, intellectual, elite become ‘muslim’ after burial, by state edict — and over the rousing protests of kith and kin.


    Because the PC blinders so hobble sane action by officialdom, it must rest upon private parties to draw together the wicked connections that are the new wave brigand network.

    As noted in the original post, they are a crazed and chaotic lot. So there is no unifying philisophical bent other than inchoate hatred and infantile resentment.

    • “…they are a crazed and chaotic lot.” Yes. The word psychotic springs to mind.

  3. “Western world of sadists, child molesters, mass murderers and other perverts.”

    The problem of the Western world is that it channels its violence to itself. The Islamic world channels its violence to outsiders.
    For centuries, Christians castrated Christian boys to sing music. Muslims castrated Christian boys to guard harems.
    In 19th century, Christians castrated Christian boys to prevent masturbation. A Muslim would buy a slave girl for his son.
    Do you all get it? Muslims don’t download child porn BECAUSE they groom infidels.

    Again, the NPD and the DU would not accept the children of a German man and a Turkish woman as Germans. This makes German men less attractive which leads to child molesters and other perverts.
    They should take a leave from the Ustashe, who did understand the difference between man and woman. Equality between the sexes leads to Nuremberger race laws. Official, PC feminism considers abortion and birth control far more important than legal euthanasia, so official PC feminism has forfeited all rights. And if the official, PC feminists still want matriarchy, point out that this will mean that Turks with German mothers should be treated better than Turks with Turkish mothers. Matrilinearity has consequences.

    “When the Nazis sent agents dressed in American Army uniforms to disrupt it during December, 1944, such men were functioning unlawfully. Hence, they were shot out of hand. Indeed, even torture is permitted against unlawful combatants.”

    Even torture? The fight against Islamification will inevitably resemble the Denazification of Germany. The book “120 days of Sodom” of Marquis de Sade does give ideas. A religion which promises its adherents the possibility of torturing the enemies of God in the Afterlife would be very useful.

    • “In 19th century Christians castrated Christian boys to prevent masturbation.”(?)
      I hadn’t heard that one…

  4. ‘It is this dream of the “caliphate” which welds together the representatives of Turkish extremist groups, the adherents of Algerian terrorist groups, Chechen “rebels,” Palestinian Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Jihad and the Egyptian Gamaat al-Islamiya into a spiritual unit.’

    The gay muslim group in Britain is called “IMAAN”. It is touted by gay groups, leftists, etc. as the very personification of tolerance, secularism, and is supposed to be the very proof that multiculturalism and liberalism are positive and will succeed.

    IMAAN gave a public lecture at London University in September 2011, addressing a room that was evenly divided between observant, bearded muslims; a mixture of “moderate” western muslim men and women; white non-muslims. About 7 representatives from IMAAN were present. They maintained that homosexuality was not sinful in islam, nor was it against sharia law (the bearded fundamentalists not only disagreed, they did so quoting scripture). IMAAN’s source for their claims: they’d found some imams who agreed with them.

    Now, given that the image that IMAAN were presenting of themselves, given the location of their talk, given who their audience was, none of this was surprising. What was surprising was that even this icon of liberalism was prepared to publicly (and voluntarily) state: “We support the restitution of the Caliphate”.

    When it was pointed out to them that this policy was no different from that of the islamic nazi party Hizb ut Tahrir, their representative just shrugged.

    It is clear that there is no muslim group that does not support the Caliphate. Even when it means death for them.

  5. A good essay fom Udo but he under-estimates the extent of Moslem support for
    violent jihad against Germany. It is very definitely not a minority view. In fact Islam is an ideology of total war, complete and permanent war, as was possibly needed in the Empty Quarter 1400 years ago. They are at war with the rest of mankind, they are perfectly comfortable with this. It is also a mistake for states to think that weeding out the violent jihadi terrorists will make any difference. The ideology will ALWAYS produce violent jihadis. A permanent solution to the ‘Moslem Question’ is needed. That permanent solution is either to meet them in war or to restrict the area of the Earth’s surface that they occupy.

  6. “Certainly, the greatest part by far of Muslims does not identify with radical Islamists.”

    Stopped reading at that point. Life’s too short for fantasy in the guise of realism.

  7. The article is based on a political worldview that is void of any territorial boundaries or foundations. To counter subversion and asymmetrical warfare from within those European territorial borders surely the answer is the expulsion of the Arabian Trojan Horse not the destruction of the City Walls.

  8. My suggestion?
    Expel the Ummah, expel the Ummah, and then, expel the Ummah.
    Do not have any dialogue with someone who wants to kill you.
    And as for warfare, Muslims have proven that they make no distinction between “lawful” and “unlawful” combatants, so take no prisoners among them, show them no mercy, regardless of what they say.
    Mercy is for people who believe all people to be human.
    Muslims grant humanity and decency only to other Muslims. Their structure, let them pay for it with their lives.

    • “Muslims grant humanity and decency only to other Muslims.”

      I understand your point of view, but may I refer you to the web site “thereligionofpeace.com” where you’ll see that most daily atrocities are directed at other Muslims. There’s in fact, no mercy in Islam, not even for other Muslims. There will always be “more extreme extremists” and “less devout faithful”. The Caliphate, as a united entity seems to me like a pipe dream of a pipe smoker! If the whole world was Islamic, there would be no one left for the islamists to trample underfoot. They would be shooting and beheading their own families faster than you could say “shahada”.

      But we cannot save them from themselves. Only they can do that. What we CAN do is save us from them!

      • “But we cannot save them from themselves. Only they can do that. What we CAN do is save us from them!”

        See what I mean? Another memorable quote. These things can serve as useful memory tools and thought organizers.

Comments are closed.