Monday, October 24, 2005

No more 9/11s: The Jihadists will win without them

There are people who imagine we are somehow winning the so-called War on Terrorism because there have been no catastrophic attacks, or they've been stopped by counter-terrorism forces, since that day in 2001.

Hugh Fitzgerald explains, in Dhimmi Watch, why such attacks are increasingly irrelevant: Muslim totalitarians have the D Bomb -- demographics.
If demography is destiny, and if nothing is done to halt Muslim in-migration, and Muslim overbreeding that astounds -- in France the non-Muslims increase by .5% a year, while Muslims increase by 5% per year -- 10 times the rate. In Italy (with a negative birth-rate), in Spain, in England, in Germany, the same kind of results. Anyone can do the simple calculation. It can already be seen that Western politicians, having no sense of their own civilizations or what needs to be retained at all costs, more and more willingly appease Muslim voters.

A few years ago a prominent leader of the Socialist Party sent out word to his underlings that they should forget entirely about "the Jews" and Israel, and concentrate entirely on winning the Muslim vote, which can only be won by adopting Muslim demands in foreign policy and meeting Muslim demands for changes in the laws, customs, and manners to be observed within the Infidel land in which they happen to have settled.

Much the same kind of cravenness by politicians can be observed in Great Britain, where in local elections, and not only in London with Ken Livingstone, the politicians vie in their desire to appease and please Muslim voters. Those who would like to register their fear and dismay, and their desire to make their country less welcoming to Muslims who do not wish the resident Infidels well, have only the beyond-the-pale (as many of them see it) BNP in England or Le Pen in France. Thus they are without an articulate, respectable figure to lead, to warn, to instruct, and to help rescue those who did nothing to deserve this except to be insufficiently attentive -- for they trusted their own leaders -- to the immutable nature, and menace, of Islam and its adherents, both those who are clearly "immoderate" and those who claim, and for the moment may be, that slippery thing, a "moderate" Muslim.
Read the whole thing.

You either don't need me to explain why Fitzgerald's article is urgently important, or you're wasting your time at my blog.

No comments: