The Fight of Our Lives

A new documentary exposes the growing threats to the West.

Front Page Magazine, by Mark Tapson, Feb. 8, 2018:

Editor’s note: The world premiere of The Fight of Our Lives will be held at the Broad Stage in Santa Monica, California on Monday evening, February 19, through the support of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. For details, click here.

“Civilizations, empires, great powers, can fall apart very fast. Collapse can come suddenly, like a thief in the night. And we should be very wary of assuming that our civilization, the civilization of the early 21st century West, will oblige us by declining gradually.”

That warning from noted historian Niall Ferguson is the opening and the theme of the vital new documentary The Fight of Our Lives: Defeating the Ideological War Against the West from filmmaker Gloria Z. Greenfield.

Greenfield’s previous work includes Body and Soul – The State of the Jewish Nation in 2014 (which I reviewed for FrontPage Mag here), Unmasked Judeophobia in 2011, and The Case for Israel – Democracy’s Outpostin 2009. She is the president of Doc Emet Productions, the simple and powerful motto of which is “Truth in film.” Unlike, say, propagandist Michael Moore’s front-and-center, demagogic presence in his films such as Fahrenheit 9/11, director Greenfield gets out of the way and crafts her narratives about anti-Semitism, history, Judeo-Christian values, freedom, and democracy from the authoritative, articulate arguments of the many intellectuals who lend their expertise to her projects.

Such is the case with her latest documentary, which features compelling observations and insights from well-known historians, journalists, and thinkers such as Niall Ferguson, Victor Davis Hanson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Alan Dershowitz, Melanie Phillips, Bruce Thornton, Raymond Ibrahim, Brooke Goldstein, Ibn Warraq, Alan West, and many more respected commentators from academia, human rights organizations, and think tanks. [Full disclosure: I am included among the featured speakers, as are David Horowitz Freedom Center Fellows Thornton and Ibrahim.]

The Fight of Our Lives addresses the various internal and external threats facing Western civilization today, and cautions that if we don’t recognize these grave dangers now and rouse ourselves to resist and overcome them, then it is no hyperbole to say that the West as we know it will come to – as Ferguson warned – a swift and inexorable end.

The film groups topics into seven “chapters”: “Utopian Masks” (about the subversive internal threats of cultural relativism and multiculturalism), “Crumbling Towers” (on the political radicalization of the university), “Weaponizing Identity” (on the gender and race conflicts that have sprung up with the rise of identity politics), “Breaching the Gates” (on the threat of global Islamic supremacism in the West, whether through terrorism or subversion), “People of the Book” (regarding the Islamic persecution and genocide of Christians and Jews), and “Durable Values” (on the assaults against the values that have made the West great, such as the freedom of speech). It concludes with a chapter on “Standing Up,” which exhorts us, the heirs of the Western tradition, to push back against our enemies and defend our heritage and our future.

Niall Ferguson speaks on the cultural consequences of the recent tsunami of migrants and purported refugees from Muslim countries into Europe, the heart of what used to be called Christendom. That civilization, he claims, may not be around by the end of the century – or it may have changed so much that it’s unrecognizable. The United States, with its rapidly growing Islamic population and influx of illegal aliens across our southern border, is facing a similar demographic transformation.

But we are facing a more significant threat by way of a subversive ideological assault. “The threat from within comes from the people who want to undermine the basis of Western civilization,” says journalist Melanie Phillips. She points out that the Baby Boomer generation was heavily influenced by the political philosopher Antonio Gramsci, who urged revolutionaries to infiltrate the organs of culture – the media, academia, entertainment – and “turn the mind of the West against itself.” That infiltration and indoctrination, as others in the documentary discuss, has been shockingly successful, particularly in our educational institutions.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, for example, decries “the light fog of fascism which seems to be descending on the universities” and which poses a tremendous danger for the future of Western values. “In universities there is almost a kind of an intellectual masochism, the sense that we should not be proud of the values that we stand for, that we even need to engage in a kind of a ritual self-flagellation,” says Kenneth L. Marcus from the Louis D. Brandeis Center. “There is too little in our universities being taught about what the admirable aspects of the Western tradition are,” declares Jeffrey Herf of the University of Maryland.

The influence of multiculturalism, as historian Victor Davis Hanson and The Lawfare Project’s Brooke Goldstein point out, has resulted in a moral relativism and a chilling effect on free speech, as any criticism of non-Western cultures is now deemed to be hate speech. Raheel Raza of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow points out the inconvenient truth that not all cultures are created equal; a culture which subjects homosexuals to grisly executions and women to female genital mutilation and honor killings is not on the same moral plane as one which defends individual rights, freedom, and gender equality. But that’s an unacceptable judgment to make in our relativistic culture now.

Speakers such as the Tikvah Fund’s Ruth Wisse, McGill University’s Philip Carl Salzman, and myself address how identity politics has fragmented society into tribal conflicts among races and between the sexes.  Radical feminism, for example, is carrying out an assault on gender relations and masculinity that has contributed to the breakdown of the family unit, an alarming decline of the birth rate in the West, and an emasculated society that is too timid to defend itself from the threat of an aggressively male-dominated Islamic sub-culture within the West, a culture which is outbreeding us.

The Hoover Institution’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali and TBN host and terrorism expert Erick Stakelbeck, among others, discuss the danger of refusing to identify Islam as a supremacist ideology intent on destroying the West and establishing a worldwide caliphate in its place. Meanwhile, such authorities as the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Shimon Samuels and the Freedom Center’s Raymond Ibrahim state that a literal genocide is being waged in the Middle East against Christians and Jews, who are targeted even in Europe and the United States as well, while the West wrestles impotently with self-loathing and willful blindness.

There is much more to this documentary. With The Fight of Our Lives, Gloria Greenfield has created a riveting and disturbing, but ultimately enlightening and inspirational, clarion call for the Western world to wake up and reverse its decadent course before it’s too late. Its urgent message is one that deserves as wide an audience as possible.

In the film, Niall Ferguson recalls Edmund Burke’s observation that civilization is a pact between the dead, the living, and the yet unborn. I cannot stress enough how important it is to view The Fight of Our Lives, take its message to heart, and honor that pact by standing up when and where you can in defense of the West.

For more information on the film, the filmmakers, and the featured commentators, click here.

Virgil — The Emerging Trump Doctrine: The Defense of the West and Judeo-Christian Civilization

JANEK SKARZYNSKI/AFP/Getty Images, BNN Edit

Breitbart, by Virgil, July 6, 2017:

Watching Donald Trump speak in Warsaw today, in the shadow of that city’s memorial to the gallantly doomed Polish resistance heroes of World War Two, Virgil thought of another Western leader of indomitable resolve: Winston Churchill.

Seventy-seven years ago, on June 18, 1940, Churchill told Britons, and the world, that they would have to fight Nazi Germany—alone.  “The Battle of France is over,” he said as Hitler’s legions swept into Paris, “The Battle of Britain is about to begin.”  At the time, the United States had yet to enter the war, and Stalin’s Russia was aligned with Germany.  Indeed, just the year before, the two evil empires had cooperated in the conquest of Poland.

Knowing full well the immensity of the godless forces arrayed against his country, Churchill described the high stakes: “Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization.”

And yet, Churchill continued about the Führer, “If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.”  But if not, he warned, “Then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age.”

That was the speech, of course, that Churchill closed with a ringing exhortation to his fellow Englishmen: In the future, he pledged, the Battle of Britain would be remembered as his country’s “finest hour.”  And so it has been.

Indeed, even after all these decades, Churchill’s memory and achievements still live; he is routinely rated as the greatest figure in British history, and hardly a day goes by without some new book, movie, or TV show further lionizing that great lion.

Of course, Churchill wasn’t always so highly regarded: In the 1930s, he was in political eclipse, regarded as a sixty-something has-been.  In particular, his stern warnings about the danger of Nazi Germany were regarded as shrill and irrelevant.  Back then, the grandees of London thought that they could make a deal with Herr Hitler; thus Churchill was dismissed, even as Hitler was appeased.

Yet then the war came anyway, because Hitler was unappeasable—he wanted bloody conquest, starting with Poland.  All the high hopes of the would-be peacemakers meant nothing to his wicked mind.  In the meantime, on October 1, 1939, Churchill took note of  Poland’s suffering at the hands of both Hitler and Stalin, in a worldwide broadcast over the BBC’s airwaves:

Poland has been again overrun by two of the great powers which held her in bondage for 150 years but were unable to quench the spirit of the Polish nation. The heroic defense of Warsaw shows that the soul of Poland is indestructible, and that she will rise again like a rock which may for a spell be submerged by a tidal wave but which remains a rock.

The Poles, crouching by clandestine radios amidst their cruel subjugation, were heartened to hear those words; the West—of which the Poles were proudly and defiantly a part—had not forgotten them.

Soon thereafter, Britain turned to Churchill as its political savior.  In the spring of 1940, he was ushered into power at 10 Downing Street—and into historical greatness.   So we can see: Because he never lost sight of his steadfast patriotic principles, Churchill was vindicated.

Now today, to Trump.  He, too, has a steadfast message about the defense of the West.  Even his bitterest critics—and there are plenty of them—have to admit that he has been stoutly consistent on that theme.  History has yet to make a judgment on Trump’s presidency, but this much of a verdict is already manifest: He has an iron determination to speak plainly about the mortal threats we confront.  In fact, Trump has never been more Churchillian as when, in Warsaw, he said:

For two centuries, Poland suffered constant and brutal attacks.  But while Poland could be invaded and occupied, and its borders even erased from the map, it could never be erased from history or from your hearts.  In those dark days, you have lost your land but you never lost your pride.

Continuing in that vein, Trump declared that the ultimate questions of defense and survival were about both heart and spirit:

Poland is the geographic heart of Europe, but more importantly, in the Polish people, we see the soul of Europe.  Your nation is great because your spirit is strong.

Trump was just getting warmed up.  The ultimate question for Poland and the West, he continued, was about the strength of our moral spirit:

We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons of anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.  If anyone forgets the critical importance of these things, let them come to one country that never has.

To put it mildly, these were not the words that the Western elites, including those in the United States, typically use to express themselves.  Those elites, including Trump’s predecessor in office, Barack Obama, and his rival in 2016, Hillary Clinton, find it hard, if not impossible, to unabashedly praise our own collective Western heritage.

Moreover, in the eyes of that globalist upper crust, Poland is regarded as a freakishly right-wing Catholic country, to be judged drastically wanting on issues ranging from abortion rights to immigrant influx—that is, Poland has too few abortions and too few immigrants.  And so, in the lofty eyes of these planetary policymakers, the politically correct goal should be to force Poland to become more in the mould of the Brussels-based European Union. After all, within the EU, it’s bureaucracies and institutions, not histories and cultures, that determine fates.

But Trump, never a part of that globalist groupthink, knew his Warsaw audience  better.  He proclaimed, to those who doubt the country’s dogged determination to survive, “Let them come to Poland, and let them come here to Warsaw and learn the story of the Warsaw Uprising.”

The Warsaw Uprising, of course, was the valiant effort by the Polish underground Home Army to strike against the Nazis.  After two months of fighting, in which some 15,000 Poles were killed, the rebellion was crushed.  If untimely death came to those Polish heroes, so, more importantly, did eternal glory

Then, the following year, the Soviet Red Army entered Warsaw, and the brutal Nazi occupation was replaced by the only-slightly-less-brutal Soviet occupation.  Yet even so, as Trump recalled, the long-suffering Poles held out:

Through four decades of Communist rule, Poland and the other captive nations of Europe endured a brutal campaign to demolish freedom, your faith, your laws, your history, your identity—indeed the very essence of your culture and humanity.  Yet, through it all, you never lost your spirit.  Your oppressors tried to break you.  But Poland could not be broken.

And a crucial part of the spirit that could not be broken, the President added, was spiritual faith.  Trump recalled the day in 1979, when a million Poles came to hear a mass by the new Polish-born Pope, John Paul II; they chanted, “We want God!”  As Trump put it:

In those words, the Polish people recalled the promise of a better future.  They found new courage to face down their oppressors.  And they found the words to declare that Poland would be Poland once again.

In other words, faith doesn’t just redeem in the hereafter, it redeems in the here and now.

Trump’s emphasis on the earthly importance of spiritual power is familiar to Breitbart News readers; here, many figures have emphasized this point.  One such is this site’s former executive chairman, Stephen K. Bannon, now the chief strategist in the Trump White House.

In a 2014 speech to the Vatican, Bannon began by declaring we are in the “beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict,” because jihadist Islam is “going to come to Europe.”  And yet this civilizational challenge, he continued, was, at its core, “a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West.”

We might note that Bannon’s perceptive words of warning came a year before Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel mindlessly decided to throw open the borders of her country to a million Muslim refugees.  Not only was this horde not subject to “extreme vetting”—it wasn’t vetted at all.  Thus we can see that a part of the spiritual crisis is simple empty-headedness.

Germany is now paying the price for its open-borders folly; yet to make matters worse, it is now seeking to force other European countries, including Poland, to suffer, too, by taking in still more refugees.

In other words, the Poles are once again being victimized by the Germans. Fortunately, the Poles have a friend in Trump. The 45th President, having won the White House on a platform of border security and national sovereignty, still embodies that strong spirit—and then some:

The triumph of the Polish spirit over centuries of hardship gives us all hope for a future in which good conquers evil, and peace achieves victory over war.  From the farms and villages of your countryside to the Cathedrals and squares of your great cities, Poland Lives, Poland Prospers, and Poland Prevails.

So today, that valiant country stands as a beacon, “as an example for others who seek freedom and who wish to summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization.”

And yet, Trump continued, the struggle is, in fact, far larger than Poland, because all of the West is under threat.  Yes, fascism and communism has disappeared from Europe, but jihadism is on the rise.  So once again, a Western leader must defend the things that we hold dear—or should hold dear.  Just as Churchill did seven decades ago, Trump took a moment to extoll the Western virtues that need defending:

We are the freest and the greatest community of nations the world has ever known.  We write symphonies.  We pursue innovation.  We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover new frontiers.  We reward brilliance, strive for excellence, and cherish inspiring works of art that honor God.  We treasure the rule of law—and protect the right to free expression.  We empower women as pillars of our society and our success.  We put faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of our lives.

And yet, as we all know, these values are under siege.  As Trump put it, “We are confronted by another oppressive ideology—one that seeks to export terrorism and extremism all around the globe.  America and Europe have suffered one terror attack after another.”  That is, even those who, for reasons of liberal ideology, wish they could simply ignore the threat can no longer do so: “We must stand united against these shared enemies.”

Indeed, in light of these enemies, Trump continued, we must be cautious about whom we let into our midst:

While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people, our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism.  We cannot accept those who reject our values and use hatred to justify violence against the innocent.

Virgil might note that Trump said, “we will always welcome new citizens,” as opposed to “new migrants,” or some other word that fudges the distinction between legal and illegal.

If other countries, such as Germany, don’t care about such distinctions, well, that’s yet another part of the current crisis.  As Ronald Reagan, and, before him, Franklin D. Roosevelt might have said, we cannot escape this rendezvous with destiny.  Or as Trump put it:

The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.  Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect their borders?   Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?

So this is what we must do—we must defend ourselves:

Just as Poland could not be broken, I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken.  Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive.  And our civilization will triumph. . . . So, together, let us all fight like the Poles–for family, for freedom, for country, and for God.

Trump really laid it on the line: It’s all about the defense of the West.  We will not only stand up for our Judeo-Christian civilization, we will also, if need be, fight for our Judeo-Christian civilization.

Thus we come back to that earlier defender of our ways and our faith, Winston Churchill.  He was right when he said, those 77 years ago, “Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization.”  We can expand that concept to included like-minded non-Christians, as Trump rightly did, but the underlying idea is the rock-solid same.

So if Churchill was right then, Trump is right now.  If we stick together, we’ll win, and if we don’t—we won’t.

The elements of a new strategy for the West’s survival are thus coming into place.  And if there’s not yet a Trump Doctrine, there will be soon enough.  And here’s a prediction: Most likely, it will embody the motto of the U.S. Army: “This we’ll defend.”

***

An Arab Muslim’s Prediction About the Fall of Western Civilization

His warning 600 years ago.

Front Page Magazine, by Timothy Furnish, May 30, 2017:

In the last 2 ½ years alone—from Charlie Hebdo to Manchester—there have been 20 Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States, killing a total of 381 people.  The vast majority of terrorists convicted in the US since 9/11 have pledged allegiance to Islamic groups: ISIS, al-Qaeda and their ilk.  Over 70% of the US State Department’s designated foreign terrorist organizations are Muslim in ideology and goals.  Muslim “grooming gangs” have roamed the UK for years, setting girls and young women up to be sexually used.  Over a thousand women were sexually assaulted in Germany on New Year’s 2016, largely by “foreign nationals.” Sexual crimes against women are increasing in Sweden, largely as a result of the massive influx of young Muslim men.

Yet how do most Europeans, and far too many Americans, respond to this civilizational assault?  With sorrow and tears, “love trumps hate” and candle-lighting.  By creating memes with the appropriate victims’ national flag.  With cringing apologies for non-existent “Islamophobia” and promises to bring in even more Muslim “refugees” in order to demonstrate, once and for all (or at least until the next jihad) that we Westerners are truly open-minded and tolerant—even if it literally kills us.  The President of the United States cannot even temporarily stop immigration from a few terrorist-haven countries—because they happen to be Muslim-majority ones, and leftist American judges, like British politicians, privilege the rights of non-citizen foreigners over their own countrymen in the name of Leftist ideology and global humanitarianism.

Western civilization may or may not be sick—but it’s certainly become spineless.  This happens to many cultures, eventually—as described first, ironically, by the great 14th century North African Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun in his work The Muqaddimah.  Ibn Khaldun, based on his study of ancient, Islamic and Christian history, ascertained a cyclical pattern of rise-and-fall among what he termed “dynasties” which, mutatis mutandis, is applicable to our culture as well.  All of them go through three phases:

[1] The first is the one which establishes the society: “its members are used to privation and to sharing their glory with each other; they are brave….sharp and greatly feared.  People submit to them.”

[2] Following that is the stage in which the society moves “from privation to luxury and plenty” and “the vigour of group feeling is broken…. People become used to lowliness and obedience.  But many of the old virtues remain” and the people “live in hope that the conditions that existed in the first generation may come back, or they live under the illusion that those conditions still exist.”

[3] The final generation “has completely forgotten the period of…toughness, as if it had never existed…. because they are so much given to a life of prosperity and ease.  They…are like women and children who need to be defended. Group feeling disappears completely….. When someone comes and demands something from them, they cannot repel him.”

The fourth phase, then, is the conquest of the civilization by another that is still in the robust, determined and, yes, dangerous phase.

Applying this paradigm to our American branch of Western civilization, we can say that the first, vigorous chapter of our history lasted from the Revolution to World War II (about 170 years); the second from the Korean War to our triumph in the Cold War (about four decades), an era dominated, alas, by the “Great Society” of LBJ and the liberal Democrats which institutionalized dependence on government; and the third began a quarter-century ago and has proceeded much more rapidly than the others—because, as Yeats observed in his poem “The Second Coming:” “things fall apart; the center cannot hold.”

The center, Ibn Khaldun’s group feeling, used to be Christianity, but that was jettisoned over the course of the 20thcentury; then American exceptionalism was terminated with extreme prejudice by Obama in his quest to humble America. Washington and Hollywood have spent years teaching people to rely on their emotions rather than rational faculties—with the result that now many young Americans prefer socialism, believe that gender is not biological, and insist that Christianity is as violent as Islam.  Even the new administration’s National Security Advisor refuses to acknowledge that Islam has anything to do with jihad and violence.

Those of us still in Ibn Khaldun’s stage two want President Trump to draw a line and stop the replacement of Jerusalem and Athens with Brussels and Mecca.  But when our fellow Americans are more concerned about whether men can use the women’s bathroom than the jihadists in our midst, we’re almost certainly trapped in terminal stage three—wherein a civilization which no longer believes in itself, said Ibn Khaldun, “is seized by senility and the chronic disease…for which it can find no cure, and, eventually, is destroyed.”

Perhaps there is hope yet—though it becomes difficult to see it. But as conservatives we must continue to fight on — and appreciate a president who is finally, unlike so many conservatives, fighting the political and cultural battle the way it’s supposed to be fought.

Timothy R. Furnish holds a Ph.D. in Islamic, World and African History. He has worked as a consultant to the US government, notably in US Special Operations Command, and has appeared on “Greta: Investigates ISIS” & “War Stories: Fighting ISIS.” He is the author of four books.

Ten Years, and Slightly Less Alone

mark-steyn

By Mark Steyn, October 10, 2016:

america-alone-cover-alt-rev-bTen years ago this coming weekend – October 16th 2006 – my book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It hit the bookstores and shortly thereafter the bestseller lists. This paragraph from early in the Prologue lays out the thesis:

Much of what we loosely call the western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands – probably – just as in Istanbul there’s still a building known as Hagia Sophia, or St Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate.

That’s just for starters. And, unlike the ecochondriacs’ obsession with rising sea levels, this isn’t something that might possibly conceivably hypothetically threaten the Maldive Islands circa the year 2500; the process is already well advanced as we speak. With respect to Francis Fukuyama, it’s not the end of history, it’s the end of the world – as we know it.

The clever chaps at The Economist called it “alarmist“, as did Tarek Fatah in my own magazine,Maclean’s. The Economist is as complacently globalist as ever, but Mr Fatah has since somewhat revised his view:

Steyn was right and I was wrong.

He’s, er, not wrong about that. America Alone did not get everything right. But, if you’d read it more attentively than The Economist did, Europe’s 2016 summer of terror would not have surprised you. Many influential persons did, in fact, read the book, including President George W Bush, Democrat vice-presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, British Brexiteer Michael Gove, etc. But evidently Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel and many others did not – and so here we are, a decade later. All this week we’ll be marking the tenth anniversary by running a few excerpts from the book. Let’s start today with some more from that Prologue:

It’s the end of the world – as we know it. Does that make me sound as nuts as Al Gore and the rest of the eco-doom set? It’s true the end of the world’s nighness isn’t something you’d want to set your watch by.

Indeed. After running through some of the more apocalyptic predictions of Sixties and Seventies environmentalists, I concede:

None of these things occurred. Contrary to the doom-mongers, millions didn’t starve and the oil and gas and gold didn’t run out, and, though the NHL now has hockey franchises in Anaheim and Tampa Bay, ambitious kids are still unable to spend their winters knocking a puck around the frozen Everglades. But that doesn’t mean nothing much went on during the last third of the 20th century. Here’s what did happen between 1970 and 2000:

In that period, the developed world declined from just under 30 per cent of the global population to just over 20 per cent, and the Muslim nations increased from about 15 per cent to 20 per cent.

Is that fact less significant to the future of the world than the fate of some tree or the endangered sloth hanging from it? In 1970, very few non-Muslims outside the Indian sub-continent gave much thought to Islam. Even the Palestinian situation was seen within the framework of a more or less conventional ethnic nationalist problem. Yet today it’s Islam-a-go-go: almost every geopolitical crisis takes place on what Samuel Huntington, in The Clash Of Civilizations, calls “the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims.” That looping boundary is never not in the news. One week, it’s a bomb in Bali. The next, some beheadings in southern Thailand. Next, an insurrection in an obscure resource-rich Muslim republic in the Russian Federation. And then Madrid, and London, and suddenly that looping, loopy boundary has penetrated into the very heart of the west. In little more than a generation.

1970 doesn’t seem that long ago. If you’re in your fifties or sixties, as many of the chaps running the western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair’s less groovy, but the landscape of your life – the look of your house, the lay-out of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge – isn’t significantly different. And yet that world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed nations had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30 per cent to 15 per cent. By 2000, they were at parity: each had about 20 per cent.

And by 2020…?

Well, by 2020, it will be impossible to compare statistics between “the Muslim world” and the west – because Islam is currently responsible for most population growth in English, French and German cities, and the principal supplier of immigrants to Canada, and already 25 per cent of the population of the European Union’s capital city, Brussels. Ten years ago, my line about mediation between Islam and the “host community” being the “principal political dynamic” in western Europe also struck many as “alarmist”, but after this last summer in Germany and France and Sweden it’s inarguable:

September 11th 2001 was not “the day everything changed”, but the day that revealed how much had already changed. On September 10th, how many journalists had the Council of American-Islamic Relations or the Canadian Islamic Congress or the Muslim Council of Britain in their rolodexes? If you’d said that whether something does or does not cause offence to Muslims would be the early 21st century’s principal political dynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, most folks would have thought you were crazy. Yet on that Tuesday morning the top of the iceberg bobbed up and toppled the Twin Towers.

This book is about the seven-eighths below the surface – the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and call into question the future of much of the rest of the world. The key factors are:

i) Demographic decline;
ii) The unsustainability of the social democratic state;
iii) Civilizational exhaustion.

Let’s start with demography, because everything does.

Just so. My argument was straightforward. The western world is going out of business because it’s given up having babies. The 20th century welfare state, with its hitherto unknown concepts such as spending a third of your adult lifetime in “retirement”, is premised on the basis that there will be enough new citizens to support the old. But there won’t be – so Europe decided to import the babies it couldn’t be bothered having itself. Ten years ago, one of the first interviews I did was with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal, on his TV show “The Journal Editorial Report“:

STEYN: Seventeen European countries have what demographers call lowest-low fertility, from which no society has ever recovered. That means they are basically not having enough babies.

And the way Europe is set up, they have these unsustainable social programs and welfare. And they imported the babies that they didn’t have. They imported them essentially from the North Africa and the Middle East.

So we’re seeing one of the fastest population transformations in history, whereby an aging ethnic European population is being replaced by a Muslim population. And the Muslims understand that, in fact, Europe, as they see it, is the colony now.

GIGOT: Is there any way that Europe can avoid being Islamacized in this way?

STEYN: Well, I think, to be honest, some of the Eastern European nations didn’t throw off communism in order simply to throw their lot in with the doomed French and Belgians and Dutch 15 years later. And I think Poland and Hungary and so forth, will be determined not to go down the same path that the West Europeans have.

That observation has been borne by the different reactions to the “refugee” “crisis” by, say, Germany and Sweden on the one hand and Poland and Hungary on the other.

GIGOT: Is the problem only demographics or is it somehow broader, a kind of lack of intellectual confidence, cultural confidence… I remember during the Cold War, there was a strain of pessimism about whether the West would prevail in that conflict. James Burnham, the great strategist, wrote about the suicide of the West.

And some people, as late as the late 1980s, were still saying we’re going to lose the Cold War. Yet we won that because the West had a great — demonstrated a lot of resilience, democratic resilience.

Why is this conflict, in your view, different?

STEYN: Well, I think we understood then, anyone who meet Czechs or Hungarians or Poles or any of these people on the other side of the Iran Curtain during the Cold War, understood that they actually had no dog in the fight. They weren’t interested. They weren’t interested in conquering the world.

And I think it is different now. I think the average Muslim does, in some basic sense, when he immigrates to the Netherlands, when he immigrates to the United Kingdom, when he immigrates to Canada or Michigan, wants eventually to live in a Muslim society in those places. And he expects effectively — I am not saying he wants to fly planes into buildings or any of that nonsense — but his expectation is that the host society will assimilate with him rather than the other way around.

And that’s a profound challenge in a way that communism wasn’t.

When America Alone came out all those years ago, another early interview was by the indefatigable Michelle Malkin for her then new Hot Air website. It stands up pretty well a decade later. Click below for Part One:

As you can see from the above video, time has beaten the hell out of me this last decade, although not Michelle – and not my thesis. This is the biggest story of our time, and, ten years on, the west’s leaders still can’t talk about it, not to their own peoples, not honestly. And they’re increasingly disinclined (as Angela Merkel fumed to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg) to let you talk about it. Yet, for all the “human rights” complaints, and death threats from halfwits, and subtler rejections from old friends who feel I’m no longer quite respectable, I’m glad I brought up the subject. And it’s well past time for others to speak out.

If you haven’t read America Alone during its first ten years, well, you’re missing a treat. It’s still in print in hardback and paperback, and personally autographed copies are exclusively available from the SteynOnline bookstore.

The Fight Against Islamism Is The New Cold War

Photo Orlok / Shutterstock.com

Photo Orlok / Shutterstock.com

The Federalist, by James Poulos, May 31, 2016:

Even today, with the West and Russia edging closer to outright conflict, there’s a simple nostalgia for the Cold War era, when conflict was easier to visualize and manage than it is now. Instead of today’s hellbroth of terror groups, failed states, and warring militias, we faced a single, unified foe, an iron curtain drawn across the middle of the world to cleanly demarcate where we ended and they began.

2016 is the year—as the truth comes out about how last year’s Paris attacks could have happened—that this strangely comforting Cold War myth should die. As the latest revelations about those attacks confirm, today’s world bears much more of a resemblance to the world of the Cold War than we might wish to think—and, somehow, the West must respond accordingly.

History confirms the comparison. Think back. The geopolitically bipolar structure of the Cold War world was just one feature of the threat matrix the West faced. As conventional armies and nuclear arsenals squared off against one another, seeds of the unconventional warfare that bedevils us today had already begun to sprout. Beyond the third-world proxy conflicts and arms shipments that defined the age, the Cold War saw the beginnings of state-sponsored terrorism and infiltration as we know them today.

This Time, It’s Not Different

Many may want to cling to the “clean” Cold War myth for its own sake. But the myth also shores up the entrancing idea that the matrix of conflict jihadist Islam and its allies pose today does not rise to threat level when militant communism straddled the globe.

Circumstantial evidence has suggested to our impressionable minds that it’s different this time. After all, “nobody” really thinks absolutist Islam is a genuine intellectual and emotional competitor to Western life. To be sure, some of the West’s losers and rejects have found themselves in the arms of the Islamic State, or loosely associated with foes who appreciate, if not aid and abet, jihadist gains against the United States and Europe.

But at the height of the Cold War, a host of respectable Westerners believed communism might actually be right and capitalism wrong—whether at the level of ideology or sheer practicality. Because absolutist Islam is so alien and particular, relative to the grand yet familiar abstractions Marx ushered in, we’re apt to think the jihadists and their allies may be able to attack our people and our systems, but they cannot really defeat our civilization.

It’s easy to think this way because we’re so resistant to the prospect of another existential threat to our civilization. It doesn’t just strike people as reasonable that terror attacks won’t rise to the level of catastrophe promised by a strategic nuclear exchange. It strikes them as emotionally correct or necessary—not just because it’s easier to live in a world where a few major cities might be destroyed and not all human life on earth, but because so few people really believe we could actually win a world war against the jihadists and their allies.

If the Soviet Union seemed prohibitively difficult to defeat, at least there was a plan and enough willingness in the West to execute it. Today, it’s psychologically unacceptable for many people to imagine that we’re at acute risk of civilizational defeat yet lack a viable, acceptable blueprint to avoid that fate.

Subterfuge May Be More Effective Than Instant Destruction

Well, it’s time for a wake-up call—even though the head check we need raises the risk that fear and recklessness will increase as a result. As the emerging truth about the Paris attacks shows, the parallels are clear between the “dirty” truth about the Cold War and the dark reality of the state of play in our conflict with international jihadists and their allies. The nexus of state-sponsored terror, subversion, and infiltration established during the Cold War has been reactivated, threatening not just Western people or Western systems but Western civilization itself. We can argue over whether this threat is “existential” or not. Most significant is that it really is a civilization being targeted, on top of people and systems.

Let’s be clear about what this means. In theory, terror, subversion, and infiltration could destroy Western civilization by carrying off a kind of coup on the communist model: you wake up one day and a revolutionary vanguard has seized state power and the means of production. However nightmarish, that’s not the kind of attack on Western civilization we should focus on.

More plausible, more efficient, and more effective is an attack with more limited and devious aims. Much as a Russian spy might opt against killing a victim outright, choosing instead to administer a debilitating but nonlethal dose of poison, jihadists and their allies are now well-positioned to cripple Western civilization, inflicting harm without provoking a true world war the West would eventually win.

This is the lesson we are only now able to learn from Paris. France, in a jihadist proof of concept, is now on the verge of becoming a garrison state. Officials have been reduced to monitoring airport and public transit workers for signs of jihadist activity—or mere sympathy. The French head of intelligence, Patrick Calvar, admitted to Parliament that he expected “a new form of attack” from the Islamic State, “characterized by placing explosive devices in places where there are large crowds and repeating this type of action to create a climate of maximum panic.”

What is new here is not terrorism’s fear factor. Rather, it is the active and passive paralysis that comes from a judgment that one’s society is so badly compromised from the inside that one’s civilization—one’s rights, freedoms, pleasures, celebrations, and moral values—is now inoperable.

Read more

In the Aftermath of Brussels, There Is a Mistake We Shouldn’t Make

MaalbeekNational Review, By David French, March 22, 2016:

It’s happened. Again. Another significant terror attack in another great European city. London, Madrid, Paris, and now Brussels. It should go without saying that this is exactly what happens when nations open their borders to Islamic radicals and then allow the spirit of jihad to flourish within their cities. It should go without saying that these radicals cannot be “won over” even by the best of intentions, the most politically correct policies, or the most fervent desires for multiculturalism. Europe tries to “win over” Islamists. Islamists merely try to win.

We’ve known these normal rules of terrorism for years — even if we don’t want to face them. Large Islamic communities can and will shelter jihadists, protecting them with their silence even if they don’t actively facilitate their attacks. Terrorist safe havens that used to exist mainly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Afghanistan/Pakistan now exist in the heart of Europe. Jihadists laugh at Western squeamishness (Belgian law actually prohibits nighttime police raids — a policy terrorists have exploited before) and use our sensitivities to facilitate mass murder.

But here’s what we often don’t know. Here’s the mistake we always make after a major terror attack — we believe this is what jihad looks like, and that stopping jihad means stopping violence. But the reality is that terrorist bombings represent merely an aspect of jihad — the most spectacular and bloody, to be sure — but only a part of the sinister whole.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were treated to a parade of “experts” who assured a worried public that jihadists were perverting the meaning of the term, that the term really and truly only referred to a peaceful, internal struggle — the quest for goodness and holiness. We’ve learned to laugh at this nonsense, but in so doing I fear that we’ve wrongly narrowed the term. To us, jihad is a bomb. It’s a beheading.

No, jihad is an eternal, all-encompassing unholy war against the unbeliever. It is waged in the mind of the believer, to fortify his or her own courage and faith. It is waged online and in the pages of books and magazines, to simultaneously cultivate the hatred and contempt of the committed for the kafir — the unbeliever — while also currying favor, appeasement, and advantage from the gullible West. Jihad is the teaching in the mosque. It is the prayer in the morning, the social-media post in the afternoon, and the donation to an Islamic “charity” in the evening.

There is jihad in predatory, coordinated sexual assault, there is jihad when Western camera crews are chased from Muslim neighborhoods, and there is jihad when Muslim apologists invariably crawl from the sewers of Western intelligentsia, blaming Europeans for the imperfections in their life-saving hospitality.

So don’t make the mistake of believing that Europe or America only “periodically” or “rarely” deal with jihad. We confront it every day, just as the world has confronted it — to greater or lesser degrees — ever since Muslim armies first emerged from the Arabian peninsula. While not all Muslims are jihadists, jihad is so deeply imprinted in the DNA of Islam that the world will confront it as long as Islam lives.

And so combatting jihad isn’t simply a matter of firepower — though that is certainly vital to the work — nor is it a matter of perfecting intelligence and police tactics. It’s the spiritual and intellectual effort of generations. And while the West currently enjoys unmatched military superiority, its mind and spirit aren’t just grotesquely decayed, they’ve been intentionally vandalized. Unless we can reverse that decline — and rediscover the eternal truths that defined our civilization — our guns, bombs, and magnificently-trained troops will merely constitute the rear guard, the force that delays the inevitable.

Until Europe can rediscover its heart — the courage and faith that turned back the ancient Caliphs — then the bombs will stop only when the jihadists have won.

— David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.

EXCLUSIVE – Geert Wilders: Stopping Islamic Immigration Is a Matter of Survival

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Geert Wilders, Feb. 9, 2016:

In April last year, the renowned nonpartisan Pew Research Center released a report on the future growth of world religions. The content was shocking. The report states that, if current trends continue, Islam will almost equal Christianity by 2050. While the world’s population is expected to rise by 35 per cent until the middle of this century, Islam will grow with a staggering 73 per cent.

The consequences of future Islamic growth are frightening. Islam is not a religion like Christianity, but rather a totalitarian political ideology. Its goal is primarily political. Islam wants to make the whole world submit. It aims to establish a worldwide Islamic state and bring everyone, including “infidels,” such as Christians, Jews, atheists, and others, under Sharia law. This is the barbaric Islamic law which deprives non-Muslims of all rights, treats women as inferior beings, condemns apostates and critics of Islam to death, and condones terror. More Islam equals more violence, more intolerance, more terrorism.

With the growth of Islam, the world will become a less safe place. And so will America. According to Pew, the United States will see its number of Christians decline from more than three-quarters of the population today to two-thirds in 2050, while Islam will more than double in size and replace Judaism as America’s largest non-Christian faith. The consequences of the Islamic presence in America have already been visible in several murderous attacks, such last December’s San Bernardino shooting, but also the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, and several other acts of terrorism. If Islam doubles in size, the threat of terrorism will only grow.

In the past, the totalitarian ideologies of Nazism and Communism have both been defeated by the common efforts of America and Europe. Without America, Europe would have been lost. But without Europe, America would have been isolated. If Europe had fallen to either Nazism or Communism, there is no doubt that America would have become the next victim. The Transatlantic alliance between Americans and Europeans has been the key to the survival of our common Western civilization. This alliance is in danger today, because the more Islamic Europe becomes, the less reliable it will be as an ally of America.

Though the predicted future rise of Islam in the US is worrying, the situation in Europe is far worse. The Pew figures show that Islam has already gained a significant foothold on the European continent and is growing rapidly. Europe’s Islamic population, boosted by higher birth rates and immigration, will nearly double, from 43 million people in 2010 to 71 million people in 2050. In the Netherlands, Muhammad is currently already the second most popular name among newborn boys nationwide and even the most popular name in our three largest cities, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. This is also the case in the Belgian capital Brussels, the Norwegian capital Oslo, and the British capital London. As a matter of fact even in the whole of Great-Britain, Muhammad has become the most popular name for newborn boys.

The Islamization of Europe will profoundly influence European politics. Winning the Islamic vote will become the goal of ever more European politicians. As a result, Europe’s policies will become even less friendly towards Israel and the United States than they already are. The Atlantic alliance is in danger.

The Islamic vote has already decided at least one major European election: the 2012 French presidential elections. These were won by the Socialist Francois Hollande over the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy by only 1.1 million votes. Since an estimated 2 million Islamic votes participated, of which 93 per cent – 1.7 million votes – went to Hollande and only 7 per cent to Sarkozy, it was the Islamic vote which gained Francois Hollande the Elysée Palace.

According to Pew, the growth of Islam in Europe is caused by several factors, including the young age of the Islamic population. However, more than half the growth can be attributed to immigration. In other words, stopping all immigration from Islamic countries would reduce the growth of Islam in Europe, but also in America, by more than half. The easiest way to limit the growth of Islam in the West is to stop Islamic immigration.

Islam is an existential threat to our Western freedoms and our Judeo-Christian civilization. It also threatens the Atlantic partnership between America and Western Europe. It is our duty to limit this threat. It is our mission as patriots to protect our nations. The first measure we must take to stop Islam, reduce the risk of terrorism and save our civilization, is to stop all immigration from Islamic countries. It is a matter of survival.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, is the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) and the author of “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me,” published by Regnery.