How this is a World War
One of the comparatively reasoned arguments from the Left is that the confrontation that opened on September 11, 2001 cannot be called another World War, because it lacks the definitive feature of the first two: armed states engaged in full-scale battle against each other all over the world. They say World War II, for example, was such because it involved the march of German land, sea and air forces all over Europe and North Africa, while a comparison to what is going on today would have Nazi bombs detonated in Britain’s cities from time to time, which would be a nuisance but not an existential threat, and so is Al Qaeda.
The argument is a convincing one, so he who wishes to show that the talk about “World War III” (or IV, if you count the Cold War as the third) isn’t just fearmongering on right-wing politicians’ part needs to present arguments of his own. I will do this now. My argument consists of two parts: first, that there can be war, real war, all over the world, even without full-scale clashes between state armies, and second, that there is indeed a prospect of full-scale state warfare as in the first two World Wars, and a dreadful prospect it is.
First of all, war is about achieving goals; what makes it terrible is the bloody means usually carried out for reaching those ends, but it is the ends that matter, and it can be no less painful for a state to be conquered by its enemies without military conflict than with it. Westerners may be familiar with jihad in its violent form: guerrilla warfare and terrorist attacks. However, that is only one form of jihad; there are more, non-violent but perhaps, because of that, more insidious, such as the multicultural jihad, which pits Western post-colonial guilt against the West’s cultural immune system, and the demographic jihad, which uses Western democracy, if it consists in nothing more than majority rule, to install shariah law once the Muslims are the majority, as the Justice Minister of the Netherlands, Piet Hein Donner, has suggested.
In the long run, what does it matter if Islamic law is forced upon a state democratically or by military conquest? In fact, I think the only saving grace of the West so far has been the Muslims’ inability to stay their hands off the trigger of violent jihad; had they shown that restraint, many European states could someday fall into their hands naturally, quietly, without anyone the wiser for it. A non-Muslim citizen of the Netherlands would wake up one day to the reality of policemen forcing his wife to cover up. Such a situation could be achieved by military conquest of a state, which would be much more noticeable than slow demographic overpowerment through immigration and high birthrates, but the result would be the same: Islamic law. The West–Islam war is, after all, about the conflict between a totalitarian ideology hell-bent on installing itself the whole world over, and those who would resist that. For the Muslims, the victory of having shariah law rule a state is a victory even if no drop of blood is spilled.
At this stage, well-nigh the only non-Muslim state that has to contend with full-scale military conflict of the WWII kind is Israel. That in itself is a cautionary note, for what happens to Israel portends the fate of all the rest of the free world, unless they take action. They’re not taking action, except for some initial signs of resistance in Australia. Europe, with its multiculturalism run amok, the dying of Christianity (the lifeblood of resistance to Islam in Europe and the USA) and the low birthrates of the natives, opening the door for unscrupulous left-wing politicians to invite Muslim immigrants in order to swell their electorate, is sinking fast. In France and Norway there are numerous pockets of de facto Islamic rule within the state, no-go zones where even the police are afraid to venture. If not for what Daniel Pipes calls “education by murder”, Europe would be entirely beyond hope, converted to the Ummah by a Faustian kiss while asleep.
In the USA, things are better, but only in the sense that the USA is some years behind Europe in its processes of ideological death and demographic takeover. America is still strongly Christian, and that is its hope for the future. However, the inept politicians, even on the Right, are making all the wrong moves, just as in Europe, like agreeing to bring 15,000 students from Saudi Arabia to be residents of the USA. The little good that may have come from sending troops abroad to the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq is being undone by letting the enemy into home territory.
This war, then, is being fought (or not) all over the world, on the ideological, political and demographic fronts. That it lacks the photogenic, front-page appeal of charges of soldiers, tanks and airplanes is irrelevant; the end result of being ruled by Islamic law is disastrous for non-Muslims no matter how it is achieved. The Cold War did not involve full-scale military clashes (thankfully), but it was every bit as existential as World War II; and so is this so far ideological, political and demographic war. The lack of knowledge of the enemy or of recognition of it or of willingness to fight it will cost the non-Muslim as dearly as did the loss of the Battle of France in 1940 or would a defeat for the British Royal Air Force have in the following years. Through the mode of the multicultural auto-immune assault, the Islamic enemy can, without spilling a drop of blood, have entire states, with their technology, including their military capabilities, at its disposal. And that is where I come to the second point showing how this is a World War.
If the Left does not regard, before it’s too late, the demographic jihad as every bit of a war as armed conflict, then we will have that which the Left does regard as the real thing. If you remember, that horrendous conflict of the years 1939–45, with millions dead, was caused by just three states run by a fascistic ideology: Germany, Italy and Japan. Three, that’s all it took. Today, just one state, Iran, is putting the future of the world in jeopardy. With regard to Iran, it is instructive to remember that it was a staunch ally of the USA until Khomeini overthrew the Shah in 1979, by virtue of Jimmy Carter’s bungling. That state, once a great ally of the United States, is now its bitterest enemy. And the frightening fact is that what happened to Iran can happen to any state with a Muslim majority—the Middle East (except for Israel; it is thus seen that the talk of Israel as being the USA’s only reliable ally in the Middle East is no idle figure of speech), North Africa, the central Asian “Stans”, Malaysia and Indonesia now, and Europe later.
Think about it: it took just three totalitarian states—Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan—to wreak havoc on the world for nearly 12 years; in our day there is potential for Islamic totalitarianism to take hold on tens of states, meaning that World War III could make its predecessor look like kids scrapping in a kindergarten playground. The Left may argue that September 2001 is not comparable to September 1939; to that, the answer should be, “You do not want this current incomparability to cease”. Israel and Iran are the first warnings; unless the West wakes up to resist Islam, a world-dominating, totalitarian ideology as sure as the ones the free world had to contend with in the 20th century, it will be confronted with a scenario in which the non-Muslim world will be a few Israels contending against the full-scale military might of many Irans. Of that, the sages of Judaism said, “When it comes, let me not be there to see it”. G-d give us strength to overcome this coming darkness.