Minarets, Petrodollars, and Politicians' Dubious Patriotism

Islam is the enemy.

That Switzerland, a country with a long tradition of religious tolerance and the provision of refuge to the persecuted, should have accepted such a grotesquely discriminatory proposal is shocking.

- The New York Times

The vigorous complaint by the Muslims against the Swiss prohibition to build minarets is based on a supposed violation of the protections commonly granted to religion in countries that separate state and religion.  These protections, which Muslims are now claiming so loudly, are obviously not provided in the Muslim-dominated countries - the law of Shariah is explicitly Muslim and yet almost always applied across the board regardless of individual religious persuasion.

Since Islamic countries do not even claim to permit freedom of religion beyond a few heavily restricted window-dressings, much less practice it in anything resembling what the term means in so-called Christendom, does the appeal to such protection suit itself to them?

This approach on the part of the Muslims is very much like the common Communist tactic of using democracy to get into power, and then immediately subverting the very mechanism that got them to power to make damned sure they never lose power.

In politics, this is called "one man, one vote, one time"; political parties which have this as their objective are regularly banned from participating in free elections because the electoral process is destroyed by their very participation.  In other words, if some person or group of people clearly intends to destroy freedom, they cannot expect to receive freedom to do so.

If a group wishes to destroy freedom, let them be honest about it and use the traditional means that tyrants have always used - violence and force.  At least that might awaken the sleeping masses lulled into a vague haze of so-called tolerance by the soft voices of their shepherds. But to demand to be beneficiaries of tolerance and freedom so that they may, in turn, subvert these ideals, is pure hypocrisy and manipulation.

This is a well-known ploy for avowedly Communist parties.  Although today pure Communists are mostly considered a thing of the past, nevertheless, the principles of freedom that once drove anti-Communists can equally be applied to the religion of Islam.

Let's develop this thought a bit more.  The one absolutely indispensable prerequisite for demanding the freedom to follow whichever god you choose, is that you honor the freedom of others to do the same.

Again, consider the political analogy. If some political candidate were to openly state that he fully intends to abolish democracy and declare himself dictator-for-life once he is in power, what insane and imbecilic society would knowingly allow him to use democracy to destroy democracy?  If some society did so, then when he honored his campaign promise and became a dictator after winning the election, that society would deserve no less than the tyranny it received.

That many tyrants have used democracy to deliver nations to slavery is an historical fact, but at least they have usually disguised their intentions behind flowery words until the chance to do the nefarious deed.  Even Hugo Chavez didn't have the cheek to tell the Venezuelans he intended to become a continental version of Fidel Castro.  Had he done so, Venezuela would probably still have an economy and not the ruins of one.

Can we blame Muslims for what they are doing?  Not at all, it's only human to want to advance your cause by whatever means work, Acorn's efforts to affect the electoral process come to mind. To find the guilty we need look no further than our own governments.

The astounding thing is not that the Muslims are trying to fulfill Mohammed's command to take over the world - they wouldn't deserve the title of Muslims if they weren't.  Nor is it astounding that they use subterfuge and lies and deceit.  After all, since Islam affirms that the West is their enemy, then we are at war whether we choose to be or not, and subterfuge and lies are a legitimate military tactic.

This is nothing less than we should expect.  To profess indignation would be simply naive.

The absolutely astounding thing, however, is that even after the followers of Mohammed clearly, repeatedly and unequivocally state that their intention is to bind the whole world to the worship of their god Allah and to crush all infidels under their heel, the West still doesn't believe what they say about their objectives!

Except, perhaps, the good burghers of Switzerland.  Not their government, to be sure, but the actual people.

It was no vote in Parliament that forbade the construction of more minarets, but a referendum by the very people those so-called statesmen are supposed to represent. After being forced to listen to the voice of the people, the Swiss government had the gall to apologize for this measure!

The West's leaders keep on plaintively repeating that Muslims are not the enemy.  That is nothing less than an insult to the honor of Muslims.

If Muslims worldwide declare in the clearest of terms that the West is their enemy and demonstrate the veracity and sincerity of their words with bloody deeds beyond count, then the very least we can do is to believe them!  But apparently that little leap of logic is a bit too much for the liberals of the Western world.

Freedom Goes Both Ways

There is no question about whether Islam does or does not honor the freedom of others to be true to their own religious convictions.  Anyone who doubts that should ask about the Christians in Saudi Arabia, in Morocco, in Iraq, in the West Bank, in Egypt, in Indonesia - if, that is, you can find any outside of an unmarked grave.  On and on goes the list, no deep investigation required.

Even the same liberal news media that bleats for religious freedom for the poor Muslims cannot help but report on the atrocities committed against non-Muslims in Muslim lands, albeit with a politically-correct slant of "These are not the real Muslims, oh no sir, real Muslims are peace-loving people."

The governments of these countries (in most cases) proudly state that they protect religious freedom, but that isn't what happens on the streets.  All it takes is one comedian in Sweden to pen a few tame cartoons of Mohammad and we quickly see that the so-called protection is pure window-dressing.  But to all too many apologists, the ensuing mayhem is obviously the fault of the publisher for "provoking fury":

...several hundred Iranians attacked the Danish Embassy in Tehran, hurling firebombs and chanting, "God is great," and "Death to Israel," while the police watched.

Since Mohammed declared that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to infidels, it should not surprise us that many Muslim leaders proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.  Notably, these are mostly among the ones who live in countries not yet under Islam's power.

The liberal politicians and news channels latch onto these comically incoherent statements and would have us believe that this is the true Islam, that the violent radicals do not speak for Islam, hence that we have nothing to fear and that any who claim likewise are fear-mongering paranoiacs.

They are mistaken.  This is, indeed, the true Islam.

If the Muslims who state that their religion does not require the extermination of all infidels and the rape of all their women honestly believe such statements to be true, then they are betraying their faith and are infidels themselves - they are certainly treated as such by their co-religionists!  They most definitely do not speak for global Islam.  At the very best, they speak but of their minority interpretation of the Koran, and have our full sympathy if ever the rule of true Islam overtakes them.

Facts, and Dollars, on the Ground

Whether the Koran does or does not demand the eradication of the infidels and the distribution of their women among the warriors of Islam is besides the point, as is the question of whether or not historically Islam has been violently militant.  What matters is that the modern Muslims in their overwhelming majority believe it to be so, today.  To argue theology or history is mere equivocation and sophism, with obvious intent to manipulate a credulous and vulnerable enemy.

All this could not be clearer.  Without doubt, the men and women who lead the world's democracies can, at the very least, see this just as clearly as anyone else.

We commonly tend to sneer and say that Liberals are dumber than a ton of bricks and can't see the self-evident nature of Islam. But, as convenient as that may be for our rhetoric, is this true?  If not, then why on earth do so many of them insist on singing gentle lullabies to their people as the very fabric of our civilization is subverted?  The answer is not hard to find: we must but follow the aroma of hard cash.

Even a casual observation of modern history reveals that the spread of Islam is inextricably linked to the flow of petrodollars.

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other.

- Oscar Ameringer

A politician's loyalty is to that which put him in power and has the ability to keep him there.  Since votes mostly follow the money, obviously a politician's true loyalty is to those who supply the money, not the votes. Votes can be obtained with money (either by directly buying them through organizations such as ACORN in America, or merely by spending millions on publicity), but who can fill the campaign war-chest?

When national industries financed politicians the system worked reasonably well, since no matter how greedy and self-serving a particularly industry or company might be, they still didn't want to see their market and base of operations destroyed, if only because they wanted some semblance of civilization wherein to enjoy their riches.  Human nature being what it is, it surely wasn't a perfect situation, and many were the abuses.  Far be it from us to attempt the defense of this morally and ethically bankrupt system.

However, since the West in its thirst for petroleum began hemorrhaging its wealth to the Arab nations and sundry tin-pot dictators, this situation has changed.  Now the bulk of the money flowing to the politician's campaigns comes no longer from national industries and interest groups that will have to live with the consequences of their lobbying, but from foreign sources that seek to preserve the highly lucrative status quo (for example, via the excessive regulation of petroleum exploration and extraction in their clients countries) and whose agenda is in no way affected by any loyalty to the West or tempered by an ideology of tolerance and liberty of thought.

Of course these sources are well-disguised and the money is filtered through layers of local interests and companies.  Nevertheless, it would be extremely foolish to think that the increasingly predominant foreign ownership of publicly-traded companies and the massive investment of sovereign funds in bonds and national debts come without strings attached.

All this means that the interests the politicians serve are no longer necessarily the interests of their constituents, but the interests of nations whose people have declared themselves our enemies and who have demonstrated time beyond count the truth of this declaration.  The liberal politicians (and many who call themselves conservatives and yet are certainly not) have not betrayed their people, since their loyalty was never given to the people, but to the source of money.  They have merely lied, which is hardly out of character.

Of course there are many exceptions to this rule.  There are undoubtedly many liberal politicians who are quite sincere in their intellectual incapacity to see the patently obvious past the insurmountable barrier of their own colossal prejudices.  To them goes the accolade of useful fools.  May they wear it with pride, for as embarrassing as it surely is to admit stupidity, worse yet by far is to be a traitor.

And so we come back to where we started.

What right have Muslims to demand equal protection of their faith?

The answer is: None at all.

Why should they stop, however, as long as it works?

No, they have said they are our enemy.  So be it.  Let us grant them the honor of taking their word at face value.

The war against Islam may no longer be winnable in England and France and Germany, as in many African countries cursed with an abundance of natural resources and a paucity of leaders who give a damn for their countries.  No longer winnable it may well be for some, but there is no shame in fighting for your land and for your family and for all that you hold dear, even if you lose.

There is, however, great shame in allowing the enemy, who makes no bones about declaring himself as such, to slowly eat away at the heart of our civilization until there is nothing left but a facade.

Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master.

- Demosthenes

Let us beware, indeed.

Speaking of masters, where will the politicians be who have lied to us about their loyalty when the West follows the road of England?  Hiding in Switzerland?

Alexis de Toqueville is a guest writer for Scragged.  Read other Scragged.com articles by Alexis de Toqueville or other articles on Foreign Affairs.
Reader Comments
Good observations here.

"Not at all, it's only human to want to advance your cause by whatever means work"

True, BUT most humans aren't willing to advance their cause by killing people. I don't know of any Christian, for instance, that would be willing - even if they were given a free pass by the government - to kill another person just to promote the Bible.
February 11, 2010 11:02 AM
The problem is that the last of our leaders who had direct experience with Japanese suicide bombers during WW II has died off. Bush the First had combat experience; some of his friends were killed by suicide bombers. Thus he BELIEVES in his BONES that you can't talk to someone who's willing to die to kill you, you gotta kill him first.

Clinton was our first Post WW II President - he was clueless about Islamic terrorism and did nothing when they bombed the Cole.

Bush II had Bush I to tell him this was serious.

Obama is more clueless than Clinton, if that were possible. He's a lawyer and lawyers think that enough words can fix anything. Not true, not at all, but no lawyer will ever admit that.
February 12, 2010 6:18 PM
But then, where in the Western world will non-Muslims be safe? Perhaps nowhere? What about the Eastern European countries? Will they have the testicular fortitude to resist the inflow of Islam? Or will they too, fall to a new Ottoman invasion? I intuit that I shall make my last stand in Holy Orthodox Russia, if she still stands. It is over the futures of my two small children that I agonize.
March 2, 2010 5:47 AM
Answer to what lfon said:
Good observations here.

"Not at all, it's only human to want to advance your cause by whatever means work"

True, BUT most humans aren't willing to advance their cause by killing people. I don't know of any Christian, for instance, that would be willing - even if they were given a free pass by the government - to kill another person just to promote the Bible.
AND this is a fundamental difference between Christians and Muslims. Christians would die for their religion/beliefs. BUT Muslims would KILL for their religion. That's why THEY ARE so dangerous.
March 2, 2010 3:44 PM
Lord, how refreshing to be able to actually read some truth. Truth is increasingly becoming a scarce commodity in America. Now for the rest of the story...

Mohammedanism is not a religion, never was, is not and never will be. It is an ideology in the same group as fascism, communism, etc. It is merely another means to tyranny and human ruin.
The communists came close to ruining the human race. I believe the Mohammedans cloaked as religionists will succeed...but only because humanity does not want the truth and then stand behind it and defend it.
March 5, 2010 2:47 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...