Postscript

Islamic Sharia Law says all men are not created equal, but the American Declaration of Independence says otherwise. Islamic Sharia Law, which defines Islamic Government power, does not derive through the consent of the governed; and such law is therefore a feature of unjust and tyrannical government power— so says the American Declaration of Independence. Islamic Sharia Law sanctions murder of non-Muslims and apostate Muslims; and so it violates the God- given human right to life which our forefathers spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Islamic Sharia Law suppresses human liberty which our forefathers declared to be a God-given human right; and our sacred liberty, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to defend human life, and the other freedoms were then enumerated in, and secured by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our right to the pursuit of happiness, declared in the American Declaration of Independence is nullified by Sharia Law because there can be nohappiness if our right to life and liberty are destroyed.

— Author Unknown

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.

— Camus

Man is quite insane. He wouldn’t know how to create a maggot, and he createsGods by the dozen.

— Montaigne

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called a Religion.

— Robert Pirsig

Avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error.

— Saying attributed to Muhammad1

British historian Arnold Toynbee famously declared that “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” Today, Western Civilization is in the process of committing suicide through multiculturalism, mass immigration, and demographic conquest at the hands of Islam. The future of that civilization is in danger, and its fate can be read in the fates of others—Hindu civilization in Pakistan, Buddhist civilization in Afghanistan, Coptic civilization in Egypt, Zoroastrian civilization in Iran, Hellenic civilization in Turkey, Christian civilization in North Africa and the Middle East.

At the end of this book, the reader must ask himself whether Islam truly is a peaceful religion as its apologists claim. Or is it rather an imperial force that destroys everything in its path? Are those nations that were forcibly converted to Islam better off for it? Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, North Africa, and the Middle East—has Islam made them great, or has it borrowed their pre-Islamic glories for a time and then destroyed them? Today, the only wealthy parts of the Islamic world are so mainly because of large deposits of oil and natural gas. Prior to the extraction of those resources in the mid-20th century, Mecca and Medina were largely unpopulated backwaters for centuries.

Wherever one looks in the Muslim world, one sees volatility rather than wealth and stability. In Yemen, this volatility has led to a near-complete collapse of the government as Muslims kill Muslims for being the wrong kind of Muslim. A league of Sunni Arabs, led by Saudi Arabia, was forced to intervene against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis to prevent a full-scale revolution. The volatility has also spread beyond national boundaries, as it did in February 2015 when Muslim attackers murdered staff members of the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris over articles they considered offensive to Islam.

In a recent article for Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper, Nobel Prize-winning author V.S. Naipaul remarked that ISIS

is dedicated to a contemporary holocaust. It has pledged itself to the murder of Shias, Jews, Christians, Copts, Yazidis, and anyone it can, however fancifully, accuse of being a spy. It has wiped out the civilian populations of whole regions and towns. Isis [sic] could very credibly abandon the label of Caliphate and call itself the Fourth Reich.2

The allusion to the Nazis is not far-fetched. Rather, the threat to world civilization presented by ISIS is far greater than what the Nazis offered—they at least preserved art (albeit by stealing it for their own use) and valued innovation. Islamic fundamentalists, by contrast, have been destroying all vestiges of the civilizations they conquer for fourteen centuries. They seek to freeze the world in a 7th century poverty of mind and spirit. Whatever they cannot do by the sword they will seek to accomplish by simply outbreeding their enemies.

Such volatility calls for decisive political action, yet at every turn Western leaders have failed to understand or to respond correctly. As of this writing, American politicians are gearing up for the 2016 presidential campaign. Top candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, along with others of both parties, now freely admit that the Iraq War was a mistake. This admission is both too little and too late. How can one explain to the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured that your policies have failed? “I guess I got it wrong,” which were Clinton’s words, are far too inadequate for such a catastrophe. Even the attempt to put an end to Afghanistan’s drug trade has ended in a miserable and expensive ($7.6 billion) failure.3

In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were failures before they even began. They were failures because the politicians and the generals failed to understand who their enemy was. The enemy was not the Afghanis or the Iraqis, of course, yet they have suffered disproportionately. Our enemy was not “terrorism,” which is only a concept and a technique used by the enemy. Our enemy was not even the Taliban or al-Qaeda, though these may have been particular manifestations of the true enemy. No, as this book has argued repeatedly and clearly, our enemy was real, literal Islam. The enemy of Western Civilization is Muhammad, the Qur’an, and sharia.

As a result of this failure, American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the situation worse. A secular and stable government in Iraq has been replaced with a government based on Islam and a country fractured along religious lines. ISIS now controls a large part of the territory of Iraq. America followed up the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles by compounding the mistake—helping to overthrow (or trying to overthrow) secular dictators in Libya and Syria or watching helplessly while Mubarak was overthrown in Egypt and briefly replaced by the literal Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood. Only the intervention of the Egyptian military prevented this latter disaster from becoming worse than it was.

The Western powers have failed to understand that by promoting democracy without also promoting secularism, their mad rush to overthrow Middle East dictators has only opened the door for Islamic extremists to fill the void. They do not realize that Islamic “democracy” is not democracy at all; it is only the replacement of secular dictators with a far more brutal and uncompromising religious authority. In short, supporting democracy without secularism is playing right into the hands of our enemy—literal Islam.

Only now, after more than a decade of failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and across the Islamic world, is the nature of the enemy becoming clear to some in the West. While Western leaders continue to deny it, thoughtful observers have begun to recognize that the various terror organizations, armies, and militias—the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and so on—are only different aspects of the same global Sunni fundamentalist movement. The goal of every one of these groups is essentially the same: to establish a global Islamic caliphate and impose the medieval sharia law code upon all humanity. Given the chance, each one of these groups would overthrow a local secular government and replace it with a theocratic dictatorship in the mold of the first caliphs of Islam.

The most recent example as of this writing comes with the negotiations between Iran and the U.S. over Iran’s covert pursuit of nuclear weapons. Fearing the result of these negotiations would endanger his country, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to the U.S. for an almost unprecedented speech before Congress asking them not to make a deal. Given Iran’s known sponsorship of global terrorism, Netanyahu’s concerns are well founded and largely shared by the international community (and the majority of the American public). For more than two decades Netanyahu has opposed Iran’s nuclear and imperial ambitions in the Middle East.

Yet neither Netanyahu nor President Obama has offered a viable solution to the problem of Iran. President Obama, out of folly or secret sympathy with Iran’s religious leaders, believes that Iran can be appeased and talked out of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. While such a deal might be agreed to and signed, it would mean nothing. Religious deception (the Arabic term for which is taqiyya) has been part of Islam from the beginning. Muhammad explicitly directed his followers to make deals with non-Muslims when they had to, but they only had to honor them until they had recovered their power. It is perfectly acceptable to lie to non-Muslims and to make deals with non-Muslims that they have every intention of breaking at the first opportunity. Since Iran has repeatedly broken agreements concerning the inspection of its nuclear development facilities, there is no reason to believe it will not do so again.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, would be satisfied by a forced scrapping of Iran’s nuclear program. Even if this were to happen, Israel would still be threatened by demographic overrun. Nuclear weapons would be unnecessary if in 50 years Israel is surrounded by increasingly hostile Muslim nations, or overwhelmed from within by the breeding of Palestinian Arabs. The real threat to Israel’s security comes not from possible nuclear weapons but from the force that would direct those weapons—that is, the real threat comes from Islam.

Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian opposition leader in exile whom this book has discussed and praised for her efforts, is on record expressing considerable doubts for the deal President Obama has proposed with Iran. Calling the pursuit of nuclear weapons “one of three pillars that will ensure the continuity of the control [the regime] established over Iran with the 1979 revolution,” Rajavi characterized the proposed deal as a capitulation.4 Congress has not yet ratified Obama’s deal, but the crucial point is the same whatever the congressional outcome: our leaders simply do not know how to deal with the threat of Islam. The idea that Iran’s mullahs can be pacified or that their promises are anything more than empty words and gestures is absurd to anyone with an understanding of Islam or taqiyya (religious deception). They are jihadists, just like ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood—the key difference being who they want to be in charge of Muslims.

This book has argued that we must recognize that jihadist organizations are not separate entities, but separate expressions of the same single ideology of Islam. This ideology is not an extremist or inaccurate interpretation, either: it is founded on the literal meaning of the words in Islam’s holiest and most authoritative texts, the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira. The enemy is Muhammad and his work in this trilogy of texts. In this war, we must target not just the jihadi groups but the ideology which inspires and creates them. Battling such an ideology may seem like an enormous task, but there is good cause for hope.

First, the monumental attacks of 9/11 were a serious overreach for the forces of global jihad. These attacks, plus subsequent spectacular attacks in such countries as Britain, Spain, and India, exposed the nature and agenda of jihad as never before. Prior to 9/11, only a select few academics and researchers knew much about the psychology, history, and agenda of Islam. After 9/11, many ordinary citizens have become familiar with the aims and terminology of jihad, while the protests of Islamic apologists have worn increasingly thin. Repeated acts of barbarity and violence make it difficult to sustain the proposition that Islam is a peaceful religion willing to coexist with others.

Second, with the development of the Internet there is now ample information about Islam available instantly at one’s fingertips. Islam thrives on ignorance—ignorance of its true aims, ignorance of its true beliefs, and ignorance of its true actions. With the Internet, such ignorance becomes far more difficult to accept. Of course, the Internet can be a double-edged sword, as virulent jihadist groups can use it to spread their propaganda and recruit members. However, I believe that what the jihadists offer is far less appealing. In the end, anti-jihadists will likely find greater success in undermining Islamic propaganda, but we must be effective and aggressive. As a rule, the Internet and freedom of speech are our two most potent weapons against Islam.

Third, the development of sectarian violence is turning some people in the Muslim world away from Islam entirely. Perhaps the most interesting example of this comes from Iraqi Kurdistan, which borders ISIS-controlled territory. Fed up with ISIS and sectarian violence, some Kurds in this country are returning to the ancient and native religion of Zoroastrianism (founded by a man born in Kurdish Iran 3,500 years ago). Although it is difficult to determine how many Kurds have converted, the topic has become enormously popular on social media in the autonomous region.5 When offered a choice, people like the Kurds may well choose simply to leave the brutality of Islam.

Building on these causes for hope, this book offers a long-term solution to the problem of Islam. That solution begins with understanding our true enemy, then proceeds to opposing the most powerful and dangerous avatars of that enemy. In other words, we must oppose the Axis of Jihad, which is Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. These three nations are the wealthiest and most powerful (militarily and ideologically) of all exporters of jihad and literal Islam.

With Iran, the solution must come from within the country itself. It is the fundamentalist religious regime, not the Iranian people, which is our enemy here. Fortunately, there are already representatives of the forces of democracy and secularism in Iran; these should be encouraged and supported. One example is Iran’s National Council of Resistance (NCRI). Led by human rights activist Maryam Rajavi, NCRI is a powerful advocate for democratization and secularization of the Iranian state. Rajavi and her organization offer a better future for Iran and its people.

The youth of Iran also offer abundant cause for hope. The majority of Iranians are under 35 years old. They have no memory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution or the government of the Shah that preceded it. Their experience with politics is limited to the failures and broken promises of the mullahs who currently oppress them. Thanks to the Internet and mass media this generation is more western-oriented and democratic in its temperament and aspirations than the older generations. They naturally loathe Iran’s theocratic regime and would be glad to be rid of it.

Iran, however, represents only a small fraction of the global problem presented by Islam. As a Shia state, Iran represents scarcely 15% of the total world Muslim population. An even bigger threat to Israel, the United States, and the world comes from the Sunni majority. Sunni Islamic fundamentalism is at present the single largest source of terror in the world. The threat posed by Sunni fundamentalism comes in multiple forms. Terrorism is only one form—others include the potential use of weapons of mass destruction and demographic conquest. By killing, terrorizing, and outbreeding non-Muslims, Sunni fundamentalists hope to impose their ideology on the world. If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, all the Sunni nations in the region would feel compelled to do likewise. (Saudi Arabia has already been in talks with Pakistan to purchase some of its weapons if Iran goes nuclear.) This result would be disastrous for the entire world.

With the Saudis, the solution begins with admitting what many already know—that Saudi Arabia is our enemy. Bin Laden and the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. There is strong reason to believe that Saudi Arabia directly financed the attacks. The U.S. Senate inquiry into 9/11 contains 28 classified pages which, in the words of former Senator Bob Graham, “go to the question of who financed 9/11 and they point a strong finger at Saudi Arabia.”6 Senator Rand Paul and others have fought with the Obama administration over declassifying these pages, so far to no avail. Whatever those pages may reveal, it has been documented (see Part 2, Chapter 1 of this book) that Saudi money finances a large portion of terror around the world and their government does little to nothing to stop it. Meanwhile, the Saudis have spent tens of billions of dollars over the past decades to export Wahhabism, which is their own particular brand of literal Islam. The fruits of this export may be seen in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where members of the Taliban are typically grown-up trainees of Wahhabi madrassas.

Fortunately, Saudi Arabia is enormously dependent on others for its very survival. Outside of petroleum exports, the country has very little to offer. Its military depends entirely on U.S. equipment, training, and supplies. This dependence makes the Saudis vulnerable to a determined effort to restrain their worldwide efforts to proselytize others in the ways of literal Islam. The Saudis should be demilitarized, democratized, and secularized. The immigrants they exploit for cheap labor should be made citizens. For years, the Saudis have willingly used oil as a foreign policy tool. Why should the world not return the favor and use food, water, and medicine as foreign policy tools against the Wahhabis?

Finally, Pakistani support for global terror must be stopped by any and all means necessary. Together with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan is the epicenter of Islamic fundamentalism worldwide. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, is a Pakistani and was found in Pakistan. Bin Laden was found in Pakistan, where ranking government officials had been hiding him for years. The Taliban receives money, training, and logistical support from Pakistan—and even shelters within its borders. Pakistan, along with Saudi Arabia, is one of the true enemies of the United States and the West. Afghan president Hamid Karzai has been outspoken in his denunciation of Pakistan’s involvement in his country’s ongoing problems:

Pakistan has created enough mischief! And when I say Pakistan, I mean the Pakistani military and intelligence … The Pakistani military and intelligence must stop creating excuses for the promotion of terrorism. … [Their] work in creating radicalism, in promoting radicalism, in using radicalism as a tool of terrorism, as a tool of foreign policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan and also vis-à-vis India and other countries. It should stop it.7

The advantage with regard to Pakistan’s military and intelligence forces is, as journalist Mustafa Qadri remarks, that these people are “as inept as [they are] corrupt.”8 The Pakistani military holds over $15 billion (USD) worth of private assets and a large portion of the country’s territory. Military members enjoy relative freedom from criticism in Pakistan’s press, despite their repeated failures to deal with internal problems such as the Taliban insurgency. Furthermore, since the 1950s both the United States and China have provided large sums of cash to the Pakistan military in order to secure alliances with the country.9 Former general and dictator of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf rose from humble beginnings to become a multi-millionaire (in USD) thanks to his military connections. As a general, Musharraf was the chief instigator of the Kargil War, which brought the Indian subcontinent to the brink of nuclear war. After taking power in a military coup, he was embroiled in scandal over his role in encouraging nuclear proliferation.10 Once his dictatorship was put to an end, he promptly skipped the country for Great Britain, where he lived for several years in lavish comfort.11

As with Musharraf, so with other generals in Pakistan. Their truest allegiance is not to Islam but to cash. Their support and even their nuclear weapons stockpile are accessible for the right amount. A study by a research fellow with the International Security Program in the U.S. goes so far as to recommend this very approach in securing U.S. interests in Pakistan.12 The only issue is identifying those interests more precisely. It must be recognized that the paramount interest for Pakistan should be in removing Islamic influence from its government and putting it firmly on a secularist or at least non-Islamic path. Instead of promoting religiously motivated wars with India, Pakistan’s military should be turned into an internal police force to monitor the enemies of secularism—namely, the Islamic fundamentalists. As this book has argued (see Part 2, Chapters 3 and 4), Pakistan’s real enemy is not India but the supremacist ideology of Islam, which has produced in their psyche a split like a mental illness.

As of this writing, the effects of Sunni fundamentalism have been constantly in the news. The summer of 2015 has brought still more terror attacks. In June, 38 tourists (30 of them British citizens) at a beach hotel in Tunisia were massacred by a jihadi gunman. Earlier, in Yemen, 150 Shiites were murdered at a mosque, and in Kenya 150 Christian students were murdered at a university—both mass murders carried out by Sunnis. Then in July a terrorist conducted yet another shooting spree on a U.S. military base, killing five soldiers in Chattanooga. These acts all had one thing in common: they were all inspired by the virulent Sunni/Wahhabi ideology that the Saudis have been exporting for more than five decades.

In addition, Islam and the entire Muslim world have exhibited a pattern of deception and hypocritical behavior that are sanctioned and even directed by Islamic scripture. This strategy has been fully documented in this book, but a few crucial examples should be kept in mind. In Saudi Arabia, atheism is punishable by death. Pakistan persecutes atheists while at the same time maintaining close relations with officially atheist and Communist China. At the same time, Muslims in the West routinely collaborate with leftists, liberals, secular humanists, and atheists to combat Christian conservatives and conservative politics.

In the United States, Pakistanis seek to develop relations with Indian immigrants. When it suits them, they appeal to the commonality of so-called “desi” (meaning common culture, common ethnicity) connections. After 9/11, many Pakistanis pretended to be Indians or even Hindus to protect themselves from any possible backlash against Muslims. Pakistani and Bangladeshi restaurants across Britain and America referred to themselves as “Indian” to mislead the public. At the same time, the same Pakistanis rabidly denounce and vilify India and Hindu culture whenever they want to assert their true Muslim identity. Some of them continue to fully support Pakistani terrorism against India as well.

Whenever it is convenient, Muslims around the Western world make common cause with Jews to fight against alleged White Christian racism. These same Muslims are just as likely to turn around and advocate Arab violence against Jews and the destruction of Israel whenever it suits them. To that end, they love to align themselves with Palestinians or any other cause where they can express anti-Semitic attitudes under the guise of opposing “Zionism.”

In similar fashion, Muslims will align themselves with Christian groups to oppose homosexuals or other marginalized groups, then turn around and support homosexuals and others against “Christian homophobia” whenever they wish. In general, when Muslims want to attack predominantly Christian cultures in the West they will be at the forefront singing the praises of multiculturalism. In Islamic countries, however, they suppress and oppose multiculturalism at every turn. In many of these countries, no culture other than Islam is accepted or permitted. In others, even if non-Islamic cultures are permitted they are forced into second-class status below Islam.

In America and the West, Islam loves to advocate unity between black Africans and Muslims using slogans referring to white oppression and racism. In many Islamic countries, blacks were enslaved until John F. Kennedy’s term of office—and in some cases, even after. And even after the official abolishment of slavery, de facto slavery remains firmly in place in the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council in the form of migrant worker programs where non-Arab workers from such nations as India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Indonesia are abused, treated like slaves, and deprived of many basic human rights. In Sudan and Mauritania, Africans can still be found enslaved to Arabs. In short, Islam sanctions the practice of hypocritical double standards on almost every imaginable issue.

The fight against Islamic imperialism is also a war of liberation. The non-Arab masses in the Muslim world should be freed. Ultimately, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from repudiating and abandoning this ideology. This book has argued that some 90% of Muslims worldwide are not beneficiaries but rather victims of this Arab imperialist ideology. Muslim women and the Muslim masses of the world must be liberated from this tyranny.

With the appearance of ISIS and the spread of sectarian violence across the Islamic world, this war of liberation has become a moral imperative. This violence illustrates the crucial fact that even if the entire world converted to Islam there would still be no peace. There would still be, as there is now, intra-religious conflict among the different sects of Islam. Already there is growing fear among foreign policy experts that a massive conflict between Shia and Sunni could be looming in the near future.

The state of perpetual violence in the Islamic world demonstrates that the teachings of Muhammad are harmful. His teachings are diametrically opposed to those of Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, and Socrates. The most crucial point of difference here being that Muhammad’s ethics are dualistic, with one set of rules applied to fellow Muslims and another set—where all manner of violence and duplicity is acceptable—applied to non- Muslims. Not only that, the teachings of Muhammad are also utterly incompatible with the ideals of a free and democratic society. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and John Locke assumed that what humanity needed above all was critical thought and freedom of inquiry, both of which are impossible in Islam. The Founding Fathers of the United States based their new government on the findings of the Enlightenment, and the government they created is therefore opposed in its bedrock principles to the teachings of Islam. They are mutually exclusive: one cannot simultaneously believe in the teaching of Muhammad and in the Constitution of the United States. It is logically impossible. It was recognition of this impossibility which led Major Nidal Hassan to unleash his terror attack on fellow American soldiers at Fort Hood.

President Obama announced in June 2015 that he has no strategy to fight ISIS.13 I have one. It is total ideological war against the teachings of Muhammad, the Qur’an, and sharia law. It is building a united front of non-Islamic nations to invade the nations infested by Islamic radicals. It is to demilitarize, democratize, and secularize the Axis of Jihad—Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. These steps would put an end to the threat of Islam.

Fortunately, there is a historical precedent for what I have in mind, albeit on a smaller scale. That precedent is the foundation of the secular, modern state of Turkey by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938). Ataturk is a far better political role model for the Muslim nations than Muhammad. At the foundation of his new nation, Ataturk announced his dedication to democracy, freedom, and secularism:

My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth, and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will, every man can follow his own conscience provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him act against the liberty of his fellow men.14

At the same time, he also warned against the dangers of allowing religion to influence the secular policies of the state:

Those who use religion for their own benefit are detestable. We are against such a situation and will not allow it. Those who use religion in such a manner have fooled our people; it is against just such people that we have fought and will continue to fight.15

The Middle East needs more great leaders like Ataturk, not more Ayatollahs, dictators, and royal families full of hedonistic princes.

In the end, the message of Islam is simple: it seeks universal conquest, not universal brotherhood. The entire world must surrender to Islam, and nothing else is acceptable. The “evidence” supporting the claims of Islam are metaphysical and false. There is no more reason to believe the words of Muhammad than to believe the words in a Saturday morning cartoon. They are based on faith in a claimed divine revelation and as such cannot be proven, cannot be argued, cannot be sustained. Theological and metaphysical claims cannot be used as justification for enslavement and mass murder.

The entire world is under direct or implicit threat from Islam. This threat is not simply a threat of a terror attack or military invasion—there is also a demographic threat, where Muslims outbreed the native population and become dominant. This happened in India and is already underway in Europe. The native cultures of the world will be destroyed if Islam persists in its demographic conquests. Islam’s great strength is its ability to change from acting weak and oppressed when it is at a disadvantage to becoming tyrannical and high-handed once it has the power to do so, and then to change back again when necessary. This adaptability to changing political fortunes has allowed Islam to persist through various historical setbacks.

The failures of world leaders to recognize and address the problem of Islam cannot be accepted. In America, our Anglo-Saxon civilization is under threat because our leaders have embraced multiculturalism and Islamophilia at home, permitted rampant legal and illegal immigration, embarked on enormously expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and steadily eroded our freedoms in the name of greater security from “terrorism.” We are watching the death of the soul of America and Western civilization before our eyes. Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have seen Western Europe, the U.S., and Canada move further away from defending the values of Western civilization. There is every possibility that in the coming decades Russia will emerge as the epicenter of White European civilization and become the torchbearer of Western ideals as the West itself degenerates into amoral “multicultural” societies.

This failure of leadership comes at a poor time. The strategy I have described for defeating Islam requires leadership. That strategy requires a united front of the non-Islamic civilizations of the world—Russians, Chinese, British, French, Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, Greeks, Japanese, Americans and more. The whole of Indic civilization, which includes India, Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand, is also under direct and immediate threat and should unite to oppose Islam. All these nations and cultures have a common enemy in Islam. It is an existential, military, and demographic threat to all. When our leaders point out Russia, or China, or North Korea as a threat they are ignoring the scimitar pointed right at their throats.

Because the threat from Islam is demographic as well as military, it is fundamental. Russia, China, and North Korea have no missionary zeal to transform the West. Islam does. India today bears witness to the results of Islamic military and demographic conquest. Ancient India has been split into squabbling countries perpetually in conflict with their former parent. This feeling is particularly rampant in Pakistan, where Muslims seek the death of their mother Hindu civilization—matricide on the grandest scale. In Pakistan Islam has produced a societal mental illness, where Pakistanis wish they were Arabs and despise the racial, cultural, and linguistic heritage of their Hindu and Buddhist ancestors. Yet these latter ties are far stronger and more meaningful than a religious creed.

One final word is necessary. If Islam is allowed to achieve its aims, it would be an end to human progress. Progress is impossible without innovation or change—yet Islam regards both of these as positive evils, since all truth is held to have been revealed by
Muhammad. The quotation used at the head of this chapter illustrates the traditional Islamic attitude toward progress: suspicion and hatred. Instead of seeking progress, Islam hates change and glorifies enslavement and parasitism. Islam tries to freeze the dynamic progress of human existence in the position it occupied in 7th century Arabia. The world has developed far beyond that time and anything Muhammad envisioned. It is time to leave his fantasies in the past where they belong. Everyone who believes in progress, change, and the dynamism of the human spirit must oppose Muhammad’s evil and reactionary force or our descendants will be destroyed by it.