Know that what we're faced with now is a different kind of totalitarian threat altogether, one that is part-state and part-insurgent. It has an old name: jihad, holy war. Its methods are what you might call populistic, or guerrilla like, but its aim is the restoration of an empire that is gone, the Ottoman Caliphate, which was an empire of religion. And an empire based on monotheism is by definition totalitarianism.
To the extent that Christopher Hitchens recognised Islam as totalitarianism, he was right, even in seeing it as totalitarianism “of a different kind” to the Nazi and Soviet varieties (a distinction can similarly be made between Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism). But the kind Hitchens zeroes in on is based on appearance, rather than essence. The modus operandi of Muslim terrorists and their organisations, the mujahideen and their militias, could be described as “populistic, or guerrilla-like,” and the empire they seek is certainly based on monotheism, which is by definition, indeed, totalitarian.
Christopher Hitchens was delivering a talk to an audience of students, not writing a monograph, so more might be left out or glossed-over than one would like. Still, it is critical to point out that the totalitarian threat that Muslims pose is not merely “part-state and part-insurgent.” Lately, the term "hybrid warfare" seems to have been on everyone's lips. What is jihad, but hybrid warfare, employing every possible means without distinction between fair and foul, to accomplish the aim of "all worship for Allah alone."
Every totalitarian aggressor worth his salt is accomplished at turning his enemies against themselves, from Sun Tzu to practically every Muslim to Vladimir Putin. "Practically every Muslim"? How could I possibly justify that? Because jihad is obligatory on all of them — yes, it is not obligatory on all of them all the time, but that would be a very silly objection. At all times, Muslims are advancing "all worship for Allah alone," whether they do so by ploughing trucks into pedestrians, or are living examples of peaceful Muslims who would never hurt a fly. Such Muslims, whether "moderate" or whatever other anaesthetising appellation they go by, and whether they are consciously aware of it or not, are giving effect to the central doctrine expounded in Sun Tzu's The Art of War, the KGB's training schools, and the Muslim Brotherhood's vision for North America:
The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.
In case it is not clear, "God's religion is made victorious over all other religions," means that there is no one in North America who is not a Muslim. Your sincerely friendly Muslim down the road will help to convince you that "God's religion is made victorious over all other religions," is not such a bad idea, giving effect to the doctrine of turning your enemy against himself so you win the war before you've even fired the first shot. This Islamic vision is enunciated in the Explanatory Memorandum, the guiding document of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. It makes for chilling reading and I urge every reader to download it, read it, discuss it and act upon it. It is especially important to see everything that Muslims get up to in North America (and elsewhere in the West) in light of the Muslim Brotherhood's vision:
- Establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood.
- Adopting Muslims' causes domestically and globally.
- Expanding the observant Muslim base.
- Unifying and directing Muslims' efforts.
- Presenting Islam as a civilization alternative.
- Supporting the establishment of the global Islamic State wherever it is.
North Americans are easy prey for any totalitarian visionary, given their inability to see that not everyone on earth wishes the same for themselves and their children as Americans do. After 9/11, my American friends could only rationalise what had happened on the basis of an assumed jealousy at the great American way of life. It was impossible for them to process that there are people on earth who genuinely find that way of life repulsive. There are people who sincerely believe that death is better than life, and who rejoice at the deaths of their own children.
It would have been comical, had it not been so pathetic, when Chinese "diplomats" berated and threatened the United States right to Antony Blinken's face as guests on US soil, and his response was "we welcome fair competition." China, or any totalitarian regime or operatives for that matter, has not the slightest interest in competition, fair or otherwise. Totalitarianism is called totalitarianism for a reason: its raison d'être is to obliterate all else. Christopher Hitchens understood this; George Orwell understood this.
The traditional openness of the North American people is not only exploited for their assumption that everyone comes to their continent to be part of their economic and cultural success, to "make it." And why not, they say, it shows how great we are. Our society wins out in the "fair competition" between nations. All they need is a bit of fair competition and they, too, will make it. Voilá! No more "extremism." The more they come to America, the better things will be. When anyone attacks them, then it is a mistake, an aberration, someone gone rogue, anything that fits into the world view that everyone else on earth is simply a less-than-successful American. The same naïvety, mixed in with a healthy dollop of greed, motivated Nixon's embrace of China...
Islam and China have not been the only totalitarian entities to specifically target the United States. In 1984 (there's that year again), Robert L. Redstone interviewed Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB defector to the United States. Below is an abridged version of that interview, interspersed with my commentary:
Robert L. Redstone: You spoke several times before about ideological subversion. That is a phrase that I’m afraid some Americans don't fully understand. When the Soviets use the phrase ‘ideological subversion,’ what do they mean by it?
Yuri Bezmenov: Ideological subversion is the process that is legitimate, overt and open. You can see it with your own eyes. There's no mystery. It …is a slow process that we call either ideological subversion …or psychological warfare.
What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that, despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country. It's a great brainwashing process that goes very slowly, and it's divided into four basic stages:
The first is demoralisation. It takes from fifteen to twenty years to demoralise a nation. This is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy, …pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism. The result you can see.
Most of the people who graduated in the ’60s — dropouts or half-baked intellectuals — are now occupying positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media and educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behaviour. In these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible To rid society of these people, you need another fifteen or twenty years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favour and in the interests of the United States society.
RR: And yet these people have been programmed and, as you say, in place, and who are favourable to an opening with the Soviet concept, these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country—
YB: Most of them, yes, simply because the psychological shock when they see …what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people and the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people.
A person who was demoralised is unable to assess true information. The facts tell him nothing. Even if I show him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it until he receives a kick in his fat bottom, when a military boot crushes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that. That's the tragedy of the situation. …It will still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normal and patriotism.
The next stage is destabilisation. This time the subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption, whether you eat junk food and get fat and flabby doesn't matter anymore. This time — and it takes only from two to five years to destabilise a nation — what matters is essentials: economy; foreign relations; defense systems. And you can see quite clearly that in such sensitive areas as defense and economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe …that the process would go that fast.
The next stage of course is crisis. It may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. And after crisis with a violent change of power structure and economy, you have a so-called the period of normalisation. It may last indefinitely. Normalization is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda. When the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in ’68, Comrade Brezhnev said, “Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalised.”
This is what will happen in the United States, if you allow all these schmucks to bring the country to crisis. Most of the American politicians, media and educational system trains another generation of people who think they are living in peacetime. False! The United States is in a state of war, undeclared total war against the basic principles and foundations of this system. You will have nowhere to defect to. This is it. This is the last country of freedom and possibility.
Geopolitics is an important element of the Islamic threat: jihad is, after all, about claiming the physical territory of the earth for Islam. The most serious aspect of the Islamic totalitarian threat is the psychological onslaught that it has been levelling at the minds of the Western populations since Muslims, that is, the Muslim Brotherhood, insinuated their way into US politics and education at all levels, and since global jihad organisations, especially the OIC, usurped the United Nations and formed an unholy alliance with the European Union, whose role it has been to deliver up to Islam the continent and its peoples. This duty the EU fulfils, firstly, through multilateralism, i.e., the undermining of its member states’ national sovereignty and ability to act independently to safeguard their people and subjugating them to unelected and accountable officials whose directives are legally binding on their national Parliaments.
Secondly, and paradoxically, the EU hands over Europe through “multiculturalism,” i.e., the eroding and homogenising of the many different European cultures at the same time as welcoming into Europe, as equal and desirable, the entirely alien, barbaric and predatory Islamic culture, that must not be homogenised, but preserved intact, and favoured over other cultures. With Angela Merkel in the vanguard, her population blinded and paralysed by umweltschutz dogma and fanaticism, she opened the gates and let Muslims stream in, unvetted and unrestrained, not the least interested in either the environment or multiculturalism, and driven to turning white women into broodmares for jihad.
This was not a mistake on Merkel's part, as some contend. She knew exactly what she was doing, just as the Biden/Obama Administration knows exactly what it is doing when it throws the doors open to Afghans. For Islam, “multiculturalism” is anathema; it is a killing matter. All signs, symbols, edifices, values, worship, commemorations, etc., as well as practitioners, living and dead, of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and any other religion must be attacked and destroyed. While the EU tells its own citizens to graciously welcome Muslims, there is not even a hint that Muslims might return the favour. Instead, European citizens are blamed, and blame themselves, for Muslims shunning them and their culture. There is nothing "multi-" about multiculturalism. In reality, multiculturalism means nothing more than that all cultures become Islam, or at the very least, submit to it. Every school-leaving generation in the EU and North America is now ready to submit.
The cultures and properties systematically destroyed in the lands overrrun by jihad have been those of the dhimmis, untermenschen, sub-humans, that is, those who are not Muslim. What Christopher Hitchens misses is the reduction of the Western population, both North American and European, to dhimmis before jihad warfare has conquered them. The dhimmi is Winston Smith at the opening of Nineteen Eighty-Four, not yet reduced to a mindless prole. The facts stir something in him, but tell him nothing. He has become comfortably numb.
With the bar as low as totalitarianism, Sun Tzu and the KGB still tower above jihad. The first two theorise and engage in hybrid warfare to paralyse a population with the aim of avoiding fighting. Not so jihad, which happily employs propaganda, deceit and social demoralisation, but still wants to kill, the fast track to Heaven. Certain and instant redemption comes only through murdering the kufaar, the infidels, the non-Muslims. On the low bar of totalitarianism, neither China nor the Soviet Union sought to bring about the end of the world. Islam does.
Whatever spark of life, whatever sense of dignity or justice remains in Western populations afflicted with multiculturalism, these are so perverted (“social justice,” Black Lives Matter, “burn it down”), that not even the grossest jihad outrage will prevent them from abasing themselves before Islam and Muslims. A manufactured climate crisis was the first stab that wounded the Western capacity for critical thinking. A grossly exaggerated racism turned the knife, and “Islamophobia” finished the job. Critical thinking remains alive and well, but it is constantly on the defensive, having lost ground in the media, in the corridors of power, and in the halls of learning.
Unlike under Islam, where dhimmis, non-Muslims whose lives have been spared, “pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued,” in non-Muslim countries still being Islamised, dhimmitude means never speaking ill of either Islam or Muslims, no matter how justified. Dhimmitude means never defending yourself against Muslims, no matter what they do, but always defending Muslims against yourself. Dhimmitude means never contradicting a Muslim, no matter what they say. Dhimmitude means being harsh towards non-Muslims and lenient towards Muslims. Dhimmitude means feeling virtuous for helping Muslims, whether they are illegally entering your country, raping your women and girls, depleting your coffers while refusing to work, blocking your streets and sidewalks, blasting your neighbourhood with their calls to prayer, refusing to let a blind person’s guide dog onto a bus, demanding the closure of the bar next to which they had gone and built a mosque, or assaulting your children and their teachers at school. Dhimmitude means feeling guilty about eating in front of Muslims during Ramadan. Dhimmitude means not calling out a Muslim who refuses to shake hands with a person of the opposite sex. Dhimmitude means wishing “Happy Holidays,” rather than “Merry Christmas.” Dhimmitude means that every time a Muslim commits mass murder of non-Muslims, you worry about the "backlash" against Muslims. Dhimmitude means always making sure to stress “not all Muslims” whenever referring to some iniquity about Muslims. Dhimmitude is multiculturalism plus submission. And as for jizya, don’t worry. Western taxpayers have been paying that extortion money for decades, even bankrupting their public coffers in some cases. Expert on dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or, adds:
The condition of dhimmitude transformed populations that were once free, self-governing majority nations, boasting the most refined, powerful civilizations of their times into amnesic survivors, living as humiliated, terrified, insecure minorities in their Islamised countries, strewn with the ruins of their history. The destruction of indigenous cultures and nations by Islamic colonization from the seventh and eighth centuries was accomplished by jihad conquests and dhimmitude—a body of humiliating, discriminatory laws verging on servitude. The dynamics and ideology that drive these transformations, which are still active at every level today, are barely detected as they continue to operate in Europe’s current changes because of ignorance of their history and mechanisms.
The history of dhimmitude, with an analysis of the chain of political, economic, and social events that ineluctably drove nations targeted by jihad into decadence and disintegration, is a taboo subject in Europe today. This is because Muslim states refuse to take responsibility for their history of imperialism, colonization, enslavement, and oppression, unlike European and American historians and politicians who acknowledged the dark pages of their past. European leaders, fearful of irritating the OIC countries, have adopted the Islamic view of history in which concepts of war, peace, and justice do not have the same meaning as in Judeo-Christian civilizations.
In his essay on war and peace in Islam, Bassam Tibi emphasizes that in Islam peace only exists between Muslims, and not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The word “peace” applied to non-Muslims requires conversion or submission (dhimmitude). Citing the Qur’anic duty to Islamize the planet (34:28), Tibi explains that for a Muslim, striving in the path of Allah to spread Islam in the world is not war but a pious, just action and a religious duty. Non-Muslims who obstruct the Islamisation of their nations are the aggressors. They are to blame for the wars caused by their opposition to Muslim conquest; if they had not resisted them, the massacres incurred in this struggle (jihad) could have been avoided. Peace would reign if non-Muslims complied with the call of Islam (da’wa) by converting or submitting to Islam. Jihad, writes Tibi, is considered beyond reproach because it is an obligation and submission to the will of Allah. Non-Muslims bear all the guilt for provoking war by resisting Allah’s will and forcing Muslims to wage jihad against them.
Dhimmitude manifests much earlier than overt submission to Muslims, indicating that the mind has been prepared, and not only will not stand in the way of takeover, but will facilitate it. Dhimmitude shows in apologising for something your long-dead ancestors have done. It shows in entertaining claims of reparations for slavery from people who have neither the foggiest idea of slavery, nor any interest in the fact that there are 40 million slaves in the world today, all black, the same number as the current black population of the US. It also shows in being against slavery, but refusing to call out Islam for condoning it. Dhimmitude shows in professing feminism, but refusing to call out Muslims for their misogyny. It is in a white person asking for a black person's permission before including a black character in a story, because "that is not my story to write." Dhimmitude shows in never interrupting a black person, no matter what drivel they speak or how out of order they might be, but always interrupting yourself to let a black person speak. It is there when a white person parrots "black lives matter." Dhimmitude shows in prefacing everything you say in front of a black person with how bad things are for black Americans, the freest and wealthiest 3% of blacks in the world, and how bad you feel about colonialism. Dhimmitude underlies making sure to keep in with the bullies by coming down hard on "Islamophobes." Demoralisation is complete. It remains only for the Lord to mount the dais, so the people may prostrate.
Bezmenov’s account of the KGB’s programme to reduce the free world to totalitarianism reminds me of my first response to the title of Samuel Butler’s Erewhon. I immediately interpreted this title as “earlier won,” which just as immediately lead my thoughts to its opposite: “later lost.” Curiously, Erewhon is set in New Zealand, where Bezmenov’s “demoralisation” stage is in full swing as I pen these words. Butler’s “meek and long-suffering people, easily led by the nose, and quick to offer up common sense… when a philosopher arises among them,” elected and re-elected Jucinda Adern to highest office after her most spectacular capitulation to Islam right at the heart of power. Submitting once was not enough for our Jucinda, who hastened to put her country at the mercy of another totalitarian force, China. And most of the voters of that far-flung little democracy not only see no problem in any of this, they are convinced of the "wisdom" of submission. They remain blissfully unaware that they have placed themselves in the hands of a Justin Trudeau, an Angela Merkel, a Joe Biden, and an Emmanuel Macron, each preparing the ground for Philippe Pétain.
- An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America, 5/22/1991, p7 (p21 of the dual-language Arabic-English version). https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/20-an-explanatory-memorandum-on-the-general.pdf
- Americans don’t do very slowly. They don’t understand it. It is a potentially fatal weakness that every totalitarian enemy, be it the USSR, China or Islam, will zero in on.
- These “soft heads” are manufactured and continue to be manufactured across US university campuses, even those not located in the US. I once sat in on a session at New York University in China where an American lecturer quite unapologetically indoctrinated her students into “micro-aggressions” in a series that included “virtue signalling”, “hate speech”, “safe spaces” and other gems of contemporary education. She was actually teaching them correct thought in an American university in China, the irony totally lost on her. The same attritional process has been underway at universities in all Western countries.
- And in November 2020, they all awakened. The programme was able to run its course, even though the programmer had retired thirty years earlier.
- For example, the widespread inability to see Saddam Hussein for what he was, the apoplectic reaction to Donald Trump’s election in 2016, the ubiquitous pandering to the racism of blacks, and the deep discomfort brought on by hearing criticism of Muslims, to name but a few.
- Bat Ye'or, Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate. 2011. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Kindle Edition.