Unlike all other religions, Islam has been gaining new adherents rapidly during recent decades, not least within the Western democracies themselves. While Western media, politicians, social scientists and educators claim progress towards a "new global society" based on human equality where religion and patriotism are dirty words, reality demonstrates that Islam, the only creed extending its hold on human minds, explicitly claims the superiority of its believers over unbelievers and urges them to take over the unbeliever’s land whenever they can. The said media, politicians, social scientists and educators operate on behalf of the narrow circle of tycoons benefiting financially from the portrayal of their attempt to dominate the globe as "humanist", "progressive" and even "inevitable"... but also from the political and economic bribes to the Moslem states. Which explains why "globalism" and Islam - obviously irreconcilable - have received their simultaneous support.
Human minds are usually inelastic. Wishful thinking comes easy. Changing preconceived notions is difficult. Changing US State Department policies is even more difficult. A small but growing number of people may have misgivings about these policies and the nature of the globalism protected by the US. However, their ability to do something about this is severely limited, since a high proportion of influential Western electronic media and newspapers are controlled, directly or indirectly, by the economic interests promoting globalism and some are heavily funded by Arabs. Even when unconnected with these interests, politicians are hamstrung by their dependence on these media for reelection. Serious critics may be denied the exposure required to influence public opinion. Until the Islamic attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the chances were therefore much better than even that the policy-makers in the US would continue their simultaneous support of globalism and Islam until these destroy Western civilization and democracy the world over. Now the shock of this terrorist attack offers a chance that long-pursued policies will be shelved. Yet the syndrome of greed as a catalyst of collapse may still win out. It always has in the past.
The disease has a difficult and unpleasant cure the West will be reluctant to embrace. The first prerequisite of dealing with Moslem terrorism and Moslem territorial expansion is to admit that they thrive on the pre-Twin Towers policies and can be prevented only if these policies are changed. The second prerequisite is to understand that Moslem terrorism and Moslem territorial expansion are complementary. The character of Islam makes terrorism popular in the Moslem states, unless, of course, it is directed against Moslem rulers. Every successful act of terrorism against unbelievers enhances the prestige and following of terrorist movements among the Moslem masses. Most Western policy-makers are aware of this, and sometimes indirectly admit it in public. Yet they and their tame media were always ready with excuses. The blowing up of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania is a case in point. Apprehending some of the culprits will discourage terrorism no more than the deaths of suicide bombers. The really important reaction was that of the Arab League, which unanimously condemned the American reprisal raids on Sudan and Afghanistan. It takes a stupid policy-maker to close his mind to the obvious conclusion that the rulers of the Arab states, even when they do not identify with the terrorists personally, know that their acts enjoy widespread support in their own countries. During one Arab League meeting, the entire West viewed the anti-American demonstrations and flag-burning in the Moslem world on its television screens. The PLO took part in this Arab League meeting, voting and allowing the public burning of US flags with the rest. Shortly afterwards, the United States clarified that it wants Israel to cede additional territory to the PLO...
The State Department consistently ignores or excuses the hatred of the US in Moslem states, perhaps in the futile hope that it can be ended by sacrificing Israel (or Kosovo, the Christians of Sudan, Lebanon and Indonesia, etc.) to the Moslem Moloch. This policy indicates the ideological weakness and economic greed of the West to Moslem rulers, encouraging their territorial aspirations and Moslem terrorism alike. It also faces Christians living in Moslem states with the tragic choice between emigration, supporting their governments or hopeless revolt. Sometimes their fears even cause them to join Moslem terrorist movements.
In the West, the fear of Moslem violence has dictated a double standard under which this violence is cited in justification of policies of appeasement, while the victims of appeasement are condemned and sometimes punished for using violence in retaliation. Pre-Twin Tower Western propaganda supported Moslem states against democracies. It also supported the potential aggressor against his intended victims. The parallel with 1936-1939 is amazingly close. But Britain and France were saved from the fatal consequences of appeasing Hitler by Stalin and the intervention of the United States. The United States of today has nobody to save it from the consequences of appeasing the Moslems.
The motivations and patterns of this appeasement have become so deeply embedded in the minds of American policy-makers that to neutralize them remains an almost impossibly difficult task. They seem incapable of understanding that Moslem rulers cannot accept the concept of "one world", unless it is a world under Moslem rule. Islam forbids them to strive for a world under US hegemony. The distinctions between their goals and the goals of Moslem terrorists have been blurring. Western apathy will ensure that they will continue to blur until the terrorists become the rulers’ instrument.
Due to its pretense to "globalism", the West is equally blind to the importance of demographic trends. The Moslem population of the world has been increasing fast - not only in Asia and Africa but also in Europe and the United States. Unlike the Western democracies, China, Japan and India, all of which try to control the birth rate in order to raise living standards, most Moslem states regard demography as a political weapon. A few of their rulers, like Mubarak of Egypt, suffer from Islamic terrorist movements operating from bases in the Western world. But the majority understands that the bigger the Moslem populations in Europe and America, the greater the political influence they will exert, the harder it will be to deprive them of it, and the more concessions Moslem states will be able to extort from the West.
Just as in 1936, checking appeasement requires a revolution in the West’s political thinking. It requires a realization that safeguarding Western power-wielders’ economic interests from Moslem encroachment or confiscation may become impossible if such encroachments continue to be tolerated or encouraged, for whatever reason. It requires understanding that Islam regards lies, violence and threats of violence as legitimate means of gaining political ends and that the only capacity Islam respects in an unbeliever is the capacity to use diplomacy or military force successfully against it. After signing his peace treaty with Israel, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt explained to President Hafez Assad of Syria that their strategic goal was identical but that Israel had to be reduced in size before it could be realized. The same principle must be applied to the Moslem world now. Reducing its size, whether it likes it or not, should be one the West’s urgent strategic concerns. Urgent, because far sooner than Western policy-makers think, it may become impossible - and then the Islamic expansion may gather momentum while the global balance of power will shift rapidly away from the United States.
Such a goal requires much more than modifying existing policies. It requires their reversal. These policies are counterproductive even as regards the prospects of democracy within the Western world. Not ethnic nationalism but the attempt to suppress it (while simultaneously permitting mass immigration of ethno-religious minorities into previously stable nation-states) has created the growing fascist and neo-Nazi movements of Western Europe. Ethnic nationalism and carefully controlled immigration policies limiting the scale of immigration to socially acceptable levels are not "racism" but a legitimate expression of national sovereignty. Moreover, a European state fixing immigration quotas can legitimately take into consideration that most Indians, Chinese and Christian Africans are peaceful while most Moslems have a high subversion potential. It is no paradox that a return to ethnic nationalism is the only way to combat neo-Nazism. It is just common sense. And the growth of neo-Nazism in the US and Western Europe will prove yet another obstacle to checking Islamic terrorism. The two have cooperated in the past and are likely to do so again.
On the ground, the reversal of existing policies means, inter alia, active Western help, diplomatic and when necessary military, to relieve Indonesia of West Papua and the Christian parts of the Moluccas, to expel Syria from Lebanon and create a Christian state in part of Lebanon, to create an independent Christian state in southern Sudan, to detach the Serb-populated and Croat-populated parts from Moslem-dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina, to stop Albanian attempts to take over Kosovo or Macedonia and to force the Arabs to give "land for peace" to Israel. It also means supporting India against Pakistan and independence for oil-producing, Christian provinces of Nigeria. In line with its pro-Moslem policy, the West stood idly by in 1967-1970 when Moslems massacred hundreds of thousands of Christians in these provinces, then called Biafra, during their struggle for self-determination. The time has come to atone for this. The religious tensions between Moslems and Christians in Nigeria are rising steadily.
The inevitable argument against such a policy reversal will be that it will set off Islamic terrorism "on a never before experienced scale." It is as spurious as the logic combining "globalism" and "promotion of democracy" with support of Moslem dictatorships. Islamic terrorism has been thriving because the existing policy is perceived as a sign of Western weakness. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan supported it openly before the Twin Towers outrage. Its scale will diminish when it ceases to pay political dividends to the movements concerned and Islam as a whole. This too is in line with the pragmatism promoted by the Moslem religion.
The real problem facing the United States and Western democracy is not how the Moslems will respond to a policy hostile to their interests but whether the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses. Curbing their greed is a prerequisite for maintaining US superpower status and for success in the inevitable conflict with Islam. Will the ideals of democracy prove too weak to overcome cupidity?
There is very little time. The substitution of "globalism" for nationalism has spawned the twin evils of Neo-Nazism and rampant authoritarian Islam. And, as always in history, greed has spawned negligence. The West will be lucky to avoid serious setbacks even in the sphere of technology on which much of its present predominance depends. It needs a leadership with political courage that knows historical trends at least as well as how to line its own pockets. It needs less hypocritical talk about promoting democracy and more action to discomfit dictatorships. This is still a tall order.
2. The Diagnosis
