Thursday, August 21, 2008

What Can We Do to Stop the Islamists?

Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer has come up with some creative ideas for ways to take effective action against the Islamization of Western culture.

What Can We Do to Stop the Islamists?
By The Observer

What is the single biggest advantage that the Muslims in the West have over the silent majority of indigenous non-Muslims, who are sick and tired of watching these newcomers trying to take away their hard-earned liberties and values and replacing it with Islamic Sharia?

I’d say it’s the way the Muslims have managed to organize themselves into special interest groups that are always keen and ready to make their voice heard on issues incorrectly referred to as ‘discrimination’ and ‘Islamophobia’, as practiced by the indigenous population of their host nations. Like it or not, the Muslims have succeeded in creating a highly effective way of speaking with one voice, and they have learned to back up their demands with real political pressure.

This was clearly demonstrated during the Mohammad cartoon crisis in 2006, and I suspect that the silent majority in the West got a rather nasty wake-up call when they saw how easy it was for Muslims and their representatives in the Western world to subdue politicians, corporations, and in some cases entire countries.

There have been several similar incidents after this demonstration of force by the Muslim community, and unfortunately a trend seems to have developed, in which the Muslim special interest groups constantly condemn and demand, and the non-Muslim community chooses to bow and appease. In most cases there is a thinly veiled (excuse the pun) threat behind these innumerable condemnations and accusations made by the Muslims, namely the threat of violence, and unfortunately a very low threshold for resorting to this behavior. And this is, of course, one of the reasons why there are so few people who dare to publicly stand up and criticize the dogmatic and undemocratic religion called Islam. The number of Westerners who have had the misfortune of being earmarked for a fatwa or other similar violent assaults is unfortunately growing.

This willingness to resort to violence is very hard to prevent — for those who wish to play by the democratic rules, which most indigenous people in the West take for granted. And since the silent majority in the West for the most part consists of peaceful individuals, this threat will never go away. But there are other ways to resist this radical Islamic erosion of our hard-earned liberties, and it doesn’t involve sticking one’s neck out. In fact, it doesn’t involve a lot of effort at all, and that’s the beauty of it. It has proved to be a highly effective way of getting the message across in the past, and provided that it’s organized properly an people are willing to support it, it will continue to be an effective way of getting the message across in the future.

What we need to start focusing on is targeting those who choose to collaborate with the members of this undemocratic religion, and we need to act as a united force. We also need to act decisively, and we need to strike where it hurts most, which is in the pocketbook.
- - - - - - - - -
What I’m suggesting is the use of specifically targeted boycotts aimed towards those companies that support Islam, either because it’s profitable for them or because they wish to be portrayed in a positive light and be seen as supporters of the multicultural ideology. I’m not suggesting small-scale boycotts, which will only have a miniscule effect on those on the receiving end, but massive international boycotts which will have severe repercussion for those companies that are being targeted.

I had an idea a few days ago, and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. What if a group of resourceful individuals got together and created a new website. I’m not talking about your average blog, or your average anti-Islamic news site, but a professionally run website that would focus solely on targeting those who profit on aiding the Islamist and seek to downplay the consequences of this dangerous ideology. What if this website eventually managed to be linked to by all the major Islam critical internet sites, Christian and Conservative sites in Europe and America. I don’t think it would be hard to convince the webmasters of these big websites to put up a link/icon on their own sites, and perhaps even give it some publicity to kick-start it.

Imagine, then, that this webpage managed to grow and become one of the bigger sites on the internet, with tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of hits every day. The purpose of this website would be to single out corporations, newspapers, universities etc, which are supporting Islam, by either caving in to Muslim demands or by offering Muslim-only services. If we managed to create a site like this and succeed in convincing the readers to take on a more proactive role based on their dislike of the preferential treatment that is currently being bestowed upon the Muslims in the Western world, we would definitely become a force to be reckoned with.

Think about it for a second. The Islamic world was quick to boycott Danish products after Jyllands-Posten published the Mohammad cartoons. Big Danish corporations suffered heavy losses in the Middle East as a result of this boycott. But, fortunately for the Danes, conservative American consumers, tired of the undemocratic behavior of Islamic thugs, launched a campaign of their own, a “buy Danish products” campaign. And it was a success. Overall Danish trade revenues increased as a result of this spontaneous effort by the American consumers to support Denmark in this dark hour.

Other countries, like Norway, acted in a very different and cowardly way. As a matter of fact the Norwegian government practically bent over backwards until their heads touched the floor, trying to deflect the Muslim rage that was directed towards them. Many interpreted this spineless reaction from the Norwegian Government as a result of religious bullying, but I’m not that naïve. This less than honorable display of cowardice from the Norwegians was financially motivated. Official Norway was unwilling to sacrifice Norwegian business interests abroad, so they decided to sacrifice freedom of speech instead. For those who don’t know it, Norway is heavily involved in the oil industry in the Middle East, and any sanctions against Norwegian oil companies in this part of the world would mean the loss of billions of dollars.

Now imagine that a boycott had been launched in America during the cartoon crisis, organized by the same people behind the support Denmark campaign. Only this time they decided to boycott Norwegian companies. Imagine that they had a list of all the Norwegian products available on the American market, and imagine that they had encouraged their compatriots to boycott these products. I’m fairly confident that this would be felt by the big Norwegian companies operating in the US, and I can guarantee that the leadership of these companies then would put a lot of pressure on the Norwegian Government to try and bring an end to this boycott, and perhaps even manage to convince the Government to reconsider their views. If this scenario had been a real option before the cartoon crisis broke out, and had the Norwegian Government been made aware of such an option, I’m confident that they would have included this in the equation, and quite possibly toned down their criticism of the cartoons.

Consumer power shouldn’t be underestimated. Like it or not, money is what makes the wheels go around. If a company is faced with the very real possibility of having to close down, due to intense economic sanctions, it would do everything in its power to try and reverse the situation. I believe that in such an environment a company would re-evaluate their its and eventually ‘see the light’. It’s not that hard, through a well-organized campaign, to inflict a substantial amount of pain and misery by applying this tactic. It gives the word consumer power a new meaning.

So why should this boycott idea be tried out? Because it gives the average person an opportunity to make his voice heard. There are tens of thousands of anti-Islamic blogs, internet discussion forums and anti-Islam news sites on the internet, and they have done a truly marvelous job in spreading information about the dangers of Islam, and they have had a big impact in changing people’s perception of this ideology. But unfortunately it hasn’t had any significant impact on the policies carried out by Western governments (there are, of course, some exceptions). And that’s why we need to come up with new ideas that will have the desired effect, and force those who so far have chosen to ignore our views, to stop and listen.

It is not a big secret that special interest groups have a huge sway on politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. There are thousands of lobbyists in Brussels, and on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. and every single one of them has an agenda of his own. Any politician with an ounce of political survival instinct is aware of this, and knows that he has to pay attention to these people if he wants to hang on to his jobs. But the silent majority in Europe, unlike the Muslim community, do not have any special interest groups that look after their interests, and they do not have any well funded organizations that speak out on their behalf.

America has various Christian organizations that have a lot of clout, and politicians tend to listen to what they have to say, but sadly this is not the case in Europe. This must change, if there is going to be a real change in the future. The silent majority in Europe will have to become more proactive and come up with smarter ways of getting their message across. Think about it: the silent majority outnumber the Muslim community by ten, twenty times at least. But even so, the Muslim community is able to pressure entire nations into submission, and severely limit freedom of speech in the process.

If we could set up a website that actively targeted those who choose to cooperate with the Muslim community this would give the silent majority a real opportunity to take part in the process of defeating this undemocratic movement, and we would most certainly be able to turn the tide around. Obviously, the creation of such a website would only be the first step. Other direct-action measures would have to be thought of and put into life.

The website could be the springboard from which to launch massive boycott campaigns against newspapers with biased views on undemocratic Islamic special interest groups, companies/supermarket, banks, insurance companies, nations, politicians, corporations etc. A list of all the products to boycott, along with an explanation as to why this boycott is necessary, and a message to the companies affected by these boycotts about what they need to do to put an end to the boycotts. There could also be letters and e-mails published on this site which the readers then could send off to the heads of these companies, expressing their concern about these companies’ support of undemocratic Islamic interest groups.

There could even be a fund, created by advertising revenues generated from the site, and thru online donations, which would specifically be earmarked to support people who are having legal actions taken against them by Islamist organization who wish to put a lid on freedom of speech, and as a result of this legal action have amassed huge legal bills. The majority of these Islamic organizations are funded by Saudi oil money, and none of its members risk financial ruin by taking opponents to court. For the people being sued by these Islamic groups on the other hand, it is a completely different story.

Let’s face it: there is a silent war taking place at the moment, and the battlefields are currently being dominated by radical Islamists who have managed to properly organize their troops. We need to get organized too, and fast. In a time when it’s dangerous to publicly oppose Islam, it’s essential that we come up with ways in which people can make a stand without necessarily having to reveal their identities.

This is where the internet comes into the picture. Blogs and internet discussion forums have had an enormous effect on highlighting some of the problems that the massive Islamic exodus has had on the European continent. But highlighting these problems doesn’t necessarily mean solving them. The only way to solve these problems is through hands-on direct action.

I believe that the time has come for a much more drastic approach, and launching well-planned and massive boycott campaigns is one of the ways to achieve this. If companies are made aware that they can risk going under if they continue to pander radical Islamic organizations — which are hard at work trying to transform our societies into an extension of the Arab peninsula — then maybe these companies will change their allegiance. Unfortunately, we only get to choose our politicians ever four years or so, but we get to choose which companies are worthy of our hard-earned cash on a daily basis, and I for one am not going to support those who actively support my enemies.


dienw said...

Very curious: a set of people are creating anti-jihad videos:

if I didn't do the youtube link properly, go to you tube and enter for Search: Join Us On The Modern Crusade. I came across this as I searched for the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers".

P.S.: Your preview function is not working.

While we are here laying the intellectual groundwork, these people are laying the emotional groundwork. I suggest a linkup.

Steen said...

ps: Actually the "crisis" took off very slowly. It even started internally in Denmark prior the the JP publication of the cartoons on september 30. september 2005.

The first demonstrations took place in Pakistan in december that year and the actual boycott did not begin before jan. the 26 th 2006.

We did loose money, thats true, but our market in muslim nations is diminutive, so I dont think one should overestimate the harm done to danish economy. (The market is mostly Egypt and Turkey, and its less than 2 % of our export.)- But anyway, your idea is worth considering.

dienw said...

I had an idea a few days ago, and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. What if a group of resourceful individuals got together and created a new website.

Perhaps this new site should be on its own servers free of the commercial sites. You would become independent of providers such as Google; you would be as a newspaper or magazine: your own publisher and writer. Then if there is government pressure, you will be more secure under the First Amendment.

Ypp said...

Muslims have managed to organize themselves into special interest groups, not because they are good in organization, but because they have common world view. And we don't. Our advantage used to be the ability to create vertically organized states, but current liberal ideology is aimed at destructing any vertically organized states.

Boycotting those who collaborate with islamists means boycotting virtually everything. It means complete dissociation from current ideology, actually passive disobedience and non-cooperation. However, since our power is in organization, such a boycott will further disorganize our states.

I would recommend guys, simply make more kids, and let them solve problems which we created.

Agent said...

not spam

poke around and learn about the history of this site, it will amaze you

Agent said...

a little history...

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

I think it is a good idea indeed. While muslims protests almost always is violent this would be a peaceful way of protesting against the islamization. It will also be interesting to see how media will handle it. No doubt they will try their usual strategy of covering it up which will probably work well, at least at first but the more the movement grows it will be very difficult for them to keep the lid on. Somehow they have to explain to the public why so many companies which of many will be multinternational suddenly loose a lot of money.

Charlemagne said...

This is my recommendation for how to deal with Islamists with extreme prejudice.