Saturday, October 17, 2009

The Parallel Should Make Us Pause

Our Flemish correspondent VH has discovered in a book from India some passages which are eminently relevant to the ongoing Islamization of the West.


The Parallel Should Make Us Pause
by VH


As is well-known, in the East, India has suffered from attacks, occupation and colonization by Islam since the 8th century (resulting in the enslavement of many millions, massacres and ethnic cleansing, destruction of some fifteen thousand temples, etc). This millennium-long enslavement and colonization, however, resulted in only 12% of the Hindus converting to Islam. In addition, for half a century India has suffered not only from terrorist attacks and proxy war by Muslims (supported and directed by Pakistan) but also from appeasement politics and the Islamist-Socialist coalition.

Reading about this, I came across a book by Sita Ram Goel written nearly thirty years ago, that with a few minor adjustments is applicable on the West today. As the text says: “The parallel should make us pause” — also true for us in the West.

The excerpt is from chapter 2 of Sita Ram Goel, Hindu Society under Siege, Voice of India, New Delhi 1981: In the quoted text the words “Hindu”, “India” and “Communists”, and similar words and phrases have been replaced with suitable alternatives.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The United Front of Hostile Forces

Islamism has evolved a strategy in which the Muslims in the West are envisaged as a base and an arsenal. Some salient features of this strategy can be outlined as follows:

The seven-fold strategy

1. The Muslims in the West, particularly the Muslim intelligentsia, should be sealed off from every shade of rationalism, universalism, humanism and liberalism, and an army of mullahs and imams trained in the tenets of Islam should be let loose to brainwash and keep them along the right track;
2. Every Muslim who does not accept Islamism or dares criticize it or stands for the mainstream of Western nationalism, away from and above religious differences, should be denounced as a renegade and a legitimate victim for murderous Muslim mobs;
3. The Muslims should be encouraged to air as many grievances as can be invented, and try to pass off as a down-trodden minority, oppressed, exploited and treated as second class citizens by the “brute” non-Muslim secular majority;
4. These contrived grievances of the Muslims should be used to convert the Muslim community into a compact vote-bank which can function as a balancing factor in as many electoral constituencies as possible, and which can blackmail all non-Islamist political parties to accommodate Muslim candidates or include the maximum measure of concessions to the Muslim community in their election manifestos;
5. The Muslims should be made to agitate for Western support to all international Islamic causes, right or wrong, legitimate or illegitimate, so that their attention is kept constantly diverted from demands of their own economic, social and cultural condition;
6. The Muslims should be progressively persuaded and prepared to stage street riots on the slightest pretext, be it a stray pig, a dog in an advertising or a cartoon, or music before a mosque, or the minority character of a Muslim University, or a purely personal fracas between toughs belonging to two communities, or the bombing of al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem by an Austrian adventurer, or the hanging of Z.A. Bhutto by President Zia of Pakistan, or the capture of the Ka’ba by some disgruntled faction in Saudi Arabian politics, or some other similar event in the Islamic world at large;
7. The frequent riots should be used to frighten the Muslims who should then be coaxed to create, consolidate and extend exclusive Muslim enclaves which can be stocked with arms and ammunition, imported or otherwise.

This seven-fold strategy is aimed at the Muslims in the Dar al Harb, who are to be brainwashed, blackmailed, frightened and forced into the fold of Islamism.

Secondary strategy
- - - - - - - - -
Another side of the same strategy has been worked out to neutralise, paralyse and blacken or pamper different sections of the non-Muslim society so that the road is cleared for the forward march of Islamism. Some salient features of this secondary strategy can be outlined as follows:

1. The concept of Secularism which is enshrined in the Constitutions in the West and which has become the most sacred slogan for all their political parties should be distorted, misinterpreted and misused to the maximum to block out the least little expression of Judeo-Christian culture in the state apparatus and public life in the West;
2. The terms “communal” and “communalism” which have become terms of abuse in the West’s political parlance, should be carefully cultivated and more and more mystified to malign all those organisations, institutions and parties which do not serve Islamism, directly and/or indirectly;
3. The accusation of being fascists and anti-secularists should be hurled at all those individuals and organizations who question the exclusive claims of Islam and its culture, who know and tell the truth about Islamic scripture and history, and who see through the Muslim game of grievances;
4. All praise and support should be extended to those Christians who go out of their way to champion Islamic causes, national and international, and who see in Islam and its culture those higher values which Islamism claims for them;
5. All available platforms should be used to defeat and frustrate the emergence of a genuine and positive nationalism in Western countries by always harping on Western multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-language, multi-national, and multi-cultural character.

Being patronised

Islamism did make some headway in the Dar al Harb, mostly because the dominant section of the Western post-’68 “elite” patronised it for various reasons.

The Christian Democrats are patronised it because they found out very soon that they could survive in power by combining a solid Muslim vote with whatever native vote they could get. The Socialists went out of their way to patronise it partly because they harbour an anti-Western animus and partly in the hope of securing Muslim vote-a hope which has not as yet come anywhere near fulfillment. The extreme Left saw in it a powerful ally in their campaign against the “neo-liberal” society which they viewed as their main enemy. The self-alienated intellectuals patronised it out of sheer animus towards Western society and culture which they were out to damn on any pretext. Extending patronage to Islamism thus became a pastime for all those who wanted to pass off as large-hearted liberals, progressives and secularists.

Oil as a political weapon

The use of oil as a political weapon by Islamic countries and the influx of petro-dollars in plenty from several Arab countries, particularly Libya and Saudi Arabia, since the early seventies, has given to Islamism in the West and East a new glow of self-confidence in one sudden sweep.

This influx of Arab money is a natural and inevitable phenomenon because, in the last analysis, Islamism is only another name for Arab imperialism which had, at one stage of its history, pillaged and populated with its own progeny many foreign lands and which even today keeps many non-Arab nations spiritually enslaved.

Islamism in the Dar al Harb is now busy employing to the maximum advantage the Arab money which is pouring in through many channels and in increasing quantities. Some of these uses are very obvious to the eye. A few salient features of the new scenario can be listed as follows:

1. The rapid rise of a powerful media, mostly in Western languages, and many publishing houses to propagate Islamism;
2. The generous funding, and the founding of, many new Islamic schools, madrasas and institutes for teaching Islam and training missionaries who are then employed at high salaries for purifying the faith of the Muslim flock and seeking new pastures for converts to Islam;
3. Buying of land and real estate all around in urban and rural areas by individual Muslims and Islamic institutions and organizations at whatever prices available;
4. Manufacturing and storing of arms in mosques, Muslim homes and localities and training of Muslim toughs;
5. Holding of frequent conferences, national and international, and taking out demonstrations in support of every Islamic cause;
6. Financing Muslim politics and inducing Muslim politicians to infiltrate and ingratiate themselves in every political party, and function from every public platform;
7. Bribing secularist intellectuals, scribes public workers and politicians, and buying them up for supporting Islamism, denigrating Western culture, and character-assassinating those who oppose Islamism;
8. Using the lure of money for winning converts to Islam from the weaker sections of society, particularly the lower classes.

The strategy is nothing new. The self-same strategy had been used by the Muslim League for the carving out of Pakistan. Islamism in the West has assumed the same menacing proportions as it had on the eve of Partition of India. The parallel should make us pause.

2 comments:

Arius said...

The number of Hindus massacred overall in the Muslim invasions of India are immense, so high as to be hard to comprehend. Conservative demographers estimate at least eighty millions massacred. Others estimate even higher numbers. This makes the Muslim invasions of India the greatest mass slaughter in human history. Has anyone heard of a single Muslim apology to Hindus? The Muslim Turks won't even apologize for the one and a half million Armenians slaughtered during WW1. Extrapolate this out into the future. How will civilized humanity survive with the proliferation of WMDs in the hands of the followers of the pedophile prophet of mass murder?

4Symbols said...

The summary gives clues as to why differing political groups are partial to mass imigration and multiculturalism but it may not explain the policy strategy in Europe.

Britain in particular had experience of population dynamics and manipulation from empire and particularly the Holy Land, with this knowledge why then import the certainty of civil strife. Possibly this was a trade off for what they assumed to be the greater post war danger that of extreme European nationalism.