Thursday, January 18, 2007

Winds of War: How the War Against Islamism Will Last 70 Years – And They Win

UK Home Secretary John Reid, Newt Gingrich, and the Pentagon have all chimed in over the last few months stating that the misnamed ‘war on terror’ will last a generation or so. To quote Gingrich:

Americans must steel themselves for a long and arduous war against the "irreconcilable wing of Islam," which could last anywhere from 30 to 70 years.

A wing? Were the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor a ‘wing’ of the Shinto religion? Were the SS a ‘wing’ of a benign National Socialist Party?

Mr. Gingrich, if this struggle between a freedom loving ideology and that of the Islamist ideology lasts 70 years without an outbreak of a global war, the Islamists will have won.

Here’s why.

What if Pearl Harbor didn’t happen? And what if Hitler didn’t invade Poland and Mussolini didn’t invade Ethiopia? That is to say, what if the fascist regimes of Japan, Germany and Italy restrained themselves for starting a hot war and didn’t reach for the gun – i.e., putting boots on the ground in other countries to impose their ideology - to advance their agenda of world domination? How would history have turned out? Would the fascist ideology have won?

The fascist regimes were making great strides achieving their goals before 1939. Hitler was handed half of Europe by the appeasers. Japan was winning its war with China. Mussolini was intimidating North Africa and with the help of Hitler, drawing up plans to have the Mufti of Jerusalem start a rebellion against British and French rule. Japan, undermined the control of Dutch and French colonialists in the region. How? Guess what. With the help of Muslims.

Most people at the turn of the twenty-first century have forgotten that there was a time in Japan before World War II when Japanese nationalists showed an Asianist face to the world's Muslims, whom they wanted to befriend as allies in the construction of a new Asia under Japanese domination. The rise of Japan was a destabilizing factor that attracted Muslim activists who wanted to cooperate with the "Rising Star of the East" against the Western empires, accelerating contacts between Japan and the world of Islam from vast regions of Eurasia and North Africa.

Add the lure of the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and you have the makings of an infiltration strategy that played on the desires of those under colonial rule and side with the Japanese and their goals. Both the Germans and the Japanese played both sides against the middle when planning the strangulation the democracies.

As we know, appeasement of Hitler and his demands was the order of the day before the outbreak of war in Europe. Hitler’s National Socialism had a strong admires in Britain.

Lord Halifax records how he told Hitler: "Although there was much in the Nazi system that profoundly offended British opinion, I was not blind to what he (Hitler) had done for Germany, and to the achievement from his point of view of keeping Communism out of his country."

There was even support for Hitler’s ideas. One such group consisted of the Duke of Windsor (the former King Edward VIII) and appeasement-minded elitists known as the "Cliveden Set." The Nazis had longstanding social ties with this group and confided in them.

It has long been widely accepted that this aristocratic Germanophile social network was not only in favour of the appeasement of Adolf Hitler but also in favour of friendly relations with Nazi Germany .

This support for Nazism in Europe was widespread, sweeping across the European continent from Britain, Ireland, France, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe right into Russia itself. Of the more famous pro-National Socialist movements with large followings the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists, the Francistes in France, the Rexist party in Belgium, the Dutch National Socialist Bund, the Iron Guard in Romania and the Russian National Liberation Army, amongst others.

One might say of Europe, that even the shameless bigotry towards Jews was not enough to sway Nazi supporters against Hitler in the democratic counties of Europe. This weakened the moral and political resolve of the democracies who feared another war like WW I and didn’t want to see it repeated – at any cost.

The US at the time was no different. The use of the ‘peace moments’ in this county like the America First Committee and the lure of the American Bund Party to German-Americans sought to undermine efforts of FDR to oppose Hitler and Japan’s expansion policies and act as infiltration agents for the Nazis. Add the strong Nazi presence – and growing support - in South America and you find the US isolated within the womb of its self-imposed neutrality.

A political collapse of mainland Europe already weakened by political and economic strife, a real non-aggression pact with Russia in keeping with Karl Haushofer a "Eurasist" who advocated a policy of German - Russian hegemony and alliance, the slow absorption of Britain into the Nazi fold, rebellions instigated by Hitler and Mussolini in the middle east (read control of oil), Japan’s political success of their Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and their support of anti-colonial nationalist groups in the sub-continent – all would have exploited the playing filed tilted in the favor of the fascist regimes. If they exercised some patience (a generation or so?) they could have dominated the world without reaching for the gun?

Now fast forward to today.

The very same strategy of infiltration and appeasement is being employed now by the Islamists and their useful idiots. Using the many types of Jihads at their disposal – militant, institutional, cultural, media, demographic and litigation Jihads – they could reach their goals of an Islamic dominated world in a generation or so while the non-Muslim countries have their tunnel vision firmly focused on the most obvious jihad – terrorism, or the militant Jihad – and forgetting the more insidious and successful non-violent Jihads.

Europe is fast becoming Eurabia. The once multi-faith Far East is radicalizing. Iran is making inroads in South America by invitation of the buffoon Chavez - and the US is confused and dazed by the apologists and appeasers and the increasing onslaught of Islamism under the protection of political correctness and multiculturalism.

The Islamists could win without putting boots on the ground and forcibly imposing their ideology on the world. The question is - will Islam, out of impatience or over confidence, reach for the gun?

Sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.


  • I hate to say it...If Islam doesn't "reach for the gun," the West will go down. We're infiltrated and well down the road on appeasement WITHIN.

    Escellent essay, WC!

    By Blogger Always On Watch Two, at 8:17 AM  

  • Interesting, WC!

    Your key question is whether they will grow impatient or overconfident and begin to act more overtly in such a way as to provoke our defense.

    Not only do I think they already are doing so (the gangrapes in Scandinavia, the rioting, etc., in other parts of Europe, and the big no-brainer attacks on 9/11 and 7/7), but, more importantly, since their holy book tells them that Allah is on their side, I don't think they can stop themselves from growing impatient and overconfident. Impatience and overconfidence are intrinsic to their worldview. They really believe that Allah is giving them the world, so why should they fear tipping their hand?

    It reminds me of the Barbary Coast pirates and how the United States responded the first time our nation confronted Islam (see article at We at first paid the pirates protection money; in their arrogance, they thought we would never do otherwise. When we skirmished with them, they backed off; as we stopped fighting with them, they regained their self-confidence, until finally we went in there and gave them a real "whoopin'", then dictated terms. After that, they got the point.

    I think we're in a similar situation right now. After 9/11, President Bush said to the world, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Everybody noticed an angry America, and our enemies were worried. But, since then, America has lost its way in the war on terror. Bin Laden, who is very patient, will strike again; if he doesn't, someone else will. They will try to outdo themselves. When that happens, America will lead, the decent people in the free world will get behind us despite their pansy governments (Sweden comes to mind here), and it's going to suck to be the bad guys.

    The Free World is facing some dark times, but not really any darker than we've faced before....

    Good article. I'm going to link to it and write an essay at The Murky Waters.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home