Islam 2.0: Coexistence

"Islamophobia" suggests a paranoid and irrational fear of Muslims and Islam.  The last ideology that proclaimed openly its right and destiny to rule the world, however, caused the deaths of more than 40 million people (including 7 million of its own) before it was finally stopped in 1945.  Statements like "Today Germany, tomorrow the world" and "Islam will rule the world by the grace of Allah" must therefore be taken seriously.

Who is the Enemy: Militant Islam or Islam as a Whole?

Ann Barnhardt's "A Peaceful Neo-Nazi" contends that "[t]here is no more 'moderate Islam' than there is 'moderate Nazism.'"  The article quotes Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as follows: "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam.  Islam is Islam and that's it."  Turkey is among the world's most advanced Muslim-majority nations, so this reinforces the position that there is no such thing as moderate Islam.

Paul Myron Anthony Linebarger's Psychological Warfare warns, however, that it is generally bad policy to define the enemy too widely.  If we extend this definition to the opposing rank and file, we reinforce its determination to fight instead of surrendering, mutinying, or deserting as we would like it to do.

The most effective psychological warfare directs hatred and contempt only at the enemy leaders while it portrays their followers as pawns of the leaders' personal agendas and ambitions.  The instant the followers conclude that their organization, whether it be a religion, political party, or government, is serving itself at their expense, the end of that organization is in sight.  That is exactly the manner in which the anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March was destroyed as an organization in 2000; columnist J.R. Labbe exposed its misuse of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt donations to support candidates for political office.  We personally brought the MMM Web pages in question to Labbe's attention.

PsyWar that breaks the bond of trust and commitment between leaders and followers is therefore totally devastating, but its success requires that the practitioner identify and relate to the Propaganda Man.

Who is the Propaganda Man?

Linebarger defines the Propaganda Man as the hypothetical audience we wish to persuade.  It is vital to identify and relate to him, as shown by the difference between injunctions to "surrender" and "cease resistance."  The difference to Japanese soldiers was literally one of life or death; those who were offered "surrender passes" treated them as insults and fought to the death, but they were often willing to "cease honorable resistance" instead.

A public relations war against Islamic aggression must consider (1) the rank-and-file Muslim whom we wish to lead away from jihad and (2) fellow infidels whom we want to fight Islamic aggression.  If we define all Muslims as enemies, we leave Muslims with no way to walk away from the enemy camp without becoming apostates, atheists, kafirs, or infidels -- a status to which many might prefer death.  We must instead provide a palatable means for Muslims to "cease honorable resistance."

Islam 2.0: Ceasing Honorable Resistance

Jesus resolved the conflict between state and religion by saying to render to Caesar that which was Caesar's and to God that which was God's.  The kingdom of Jesus (or Jehovah, or Brahma depending on one's faith) is not of this world; England's Henry V and Prussia's Frederick William I elaborated that every subject owed his duty to the State but eternal salvation was between the subject and God.

We will define Islam that conforms to this arrangement as Islam 2.0 in contrast to Islam 1.0, the unevolved and violent ideology that Mohammad invented to unite his followers.  We explain to the rank-and-file Muslim that, no matter how badly ancient Hebrews and medieval Christians behaved as described by the Old Testament and historical records, respectively, modern Jews and Christians do not act that way.  The ancient Hebrews may have had to "smite" their neighbors to flourish or even survive, and Mohammad's followers might have had to do so as well.  Nobody has to behave this way in the 21st century, though, and behavior that worked for the ummah or Muslim community in the Dark Ages works against its interests today.

To this we can add that Islam 2.0 is genuine submission to the will of God as reflected by Natural Law (John Locke) or the Constitution of the Universe (Henry Ford).  Islam 2.0 therefore gives the Muslim Propaganda Man a place to go, and a place to stay if he has already assimilated into a civilized society.  Those whom the Islam 1.0 shoe fits know who they are, and we must denounce them as hostis humani generis: enemies of all Humanity.

Islam's Declaration of War on Civilization

Islam 1.0's division of the world into the Dar al-Islam (House of Submission or House of Peace) and the Dar al-Harb (House of War, the non-Islamic world, including the wrong kinds of Muslims such as Sunnis or Shiites, depending on who defines Islam) is a declaration of war on our society by definition.  To this we add specific examples of Islamic aggression:

  1. Anjem Choudary has declared war on the United States by calling upon Muslims to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with Sharia law.
  2. Ukrainian teenager Katya Koren was recently stoned to death, allegedly by three Muslim youths who did not like the idea that she had competed in a beauty pageant.
  3. Immigrant youths have used Islamm as an excuse to commit gang-rape, which they call tournantes or "taking turns" in France.
  4. The Organization of the Islamic Conference sanctions criminal domestic violence.
  5. "Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah, considered one of the Islamic Republic's most radical clerics, issued a religious edict on his website whereby suicide attacks are not only legitimate but are a must for every Muslim."  He is in no hurry to complete this religious obligation himself, though, which leaves what he calls Islam wide open to the most devastating PsyWar methods.
  6. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the United Kingdom's most senior Muslim cleric, said it is acceptable to rape women who do not cover their heads with sacks.  He compared such women to "uncovered meat" that cats were free to eat, and added that women who wore hijabs (veils) and stayed at home did not have to worry about rape.
  7. Many European countries have passed so-called hate crime laws to punish those who speak out about these outrages.  Geert Wilders is currently being prosecuted under laws of this nature.  Denmark recently convicted Lars Hedegaard of "racist statements" for his criticism of incestuous rape in Islamic society.

Those who enact and enforce these speech codes must be regarded as Quislings who collaborate with their countries' domestic and possibly foreign enemies.  They are also enablers of criminal violence such as rape because suppression of a crime's discussion protects and encourages the criminals.  If Europe has not learned anything from the last time its residents were punished for speaking out about a rising tide of evil and tyranny, Americans must speak for them -- and we will do so with willful and intentional contempt for the European speech codes in question.

"Islamophobia" suggests a paranoid and irrational fear of Muslims and Islam.  The last ideology that proclaimed openly its right and destiny to rule the world, however, caused the deaths of more than 40 million people (including 7 million of its own) before it was finally stopped in 1945.  Statements like "Today Germany, tomorrow the world" and "Islam will rule the world by the grace of Allah" must therefore be taken seriously.

Who is the Enemy: Militant Islam or Islam as a Whole?

Ann Barnhardt's "A Peaceful Neo-Nazi" contends that "[t]here is no more 'moderate Islam' than there is 'moderate Nazism.'"  The article quotes Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as follows: "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam.  Islam is Islam and that's it."  Turkey is among the world's most advanced Muslim-majority nations, so this reinforces the position that there is no such thing as moderate Islam.

Paul Myron Anthony Linebarger's Psychological Warfare warns, however, that it is generally bad policy to define the enemy too widely.  If we extend this definition to the opposing rank and file, we reinforce its determination to fight instead of surrendering, mutinying, or deserting as we would like it to do.

The most effective psychological warfare directs hatred and contempt only at the enemy leaders while it portrays their followers as pawns of the leaders' personal agendas and ambitions.  The instant the followers conclude that their organization, whether it be a religion, political party, or government, is serving itself at their expense, the end of that organization is in sight.  That is exactly the manner in which the anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March was destroyed as an organization in 2000; columnist J.R. Labbe exposed its misuse of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt donations to support candidates for political office.  We personally brought the MMM Web pages in question to Labbe's attention.

PsyWar that breaks the bond of trust and commitment between leaders and followers is therefore totally devastating, but its success requires that the practitioner identify and relate to the Propaganda Man.

Who is the Propaganda Man?

Linebarger defines the Propaganda Man as the hypothetical audience we wish to persuade.  It is vital to identify and relate to him, as shown by the difference between injunctions to "surrender" and "cease resistance."  The difference to Japanese soldiers was literally one of life or death; those who were offered "surrender passes" treated them as insults and fought to the death, but they were often willing to "cease honorable resistance" instead.

A public relations war against Islamic aggression must consider (1) the rank-and-file Muslim whom we wish to lead away from jihad and (2) fellow infidels whom we want to fight Islamic aggression.  If we define all Muslims as enemies, we leave Muslims with no way to walk away from the enemy camp without becoming apostates, atheists, kafirs, or infidels -- a status to which many might prefer death.  We must instead provide a palatable means for Muslims to "cease honorable resistance."

Islam 2.0: Ceasing Honorable Resistance

Jesus resolved the conflict between state and religion by saying to render to Caesar that which was Caesar's and to God that which was God's.  The kingdom of Jesus (or Jehovah, or Brahma depending on one's faith) is not of this world; England's Henry V and Prussia's Frederick William I elaborated that every subject owed his duty to the State but eternal salvation was between the subject and God.

We will define Islam that conforms to this arrangement as Islam 2.0 in contrast to Islam 1.0, the unevolved and violent ideology that Mohammad invented to unite his followers.  We explain to the rank-and-file Muslim that, no matter how badly ancient Hebrews and medieval Christians behaved as described by the Old Testament and historical records, respectively, modern Jews and Christians do not act that way.  The ancient Hebrews may have had to "smite" their neighbors to flourish or even survive, and Mohammad's followers might have had to do so as well.  Nobody has to behave this way in the 21st century, though, and behavior that worked for the ummah or Muslim community in the Dark Ages works against its interests today.

To this we can add that Islam 2.0 is genuine submission to the will of God as reflected by Natural Law (John Locke) or the Constitution of the Universe (Henry Ford).  Islam 2.0 therefore gives the Muslim Propaganda Man a place to go, and a place to stay if he has already assimilated into a civilized society.  Those whom the Islam 1.0 shoe fits know who they are, and we must denounce them as hostis humani generis: enemies of all Humanity.

Islam's Declaration of War on Civilization

Islam 1.0's division of the world into the Dar al-Islam (House of Submission or House of Peace) and the Dar al-Harb (House of War, the non-Islamic world, including the wrong kinds of Muslims such as Sunnis or Shiites, depending on who defines Islam) is a declaration of war on our society by definition.  To this we add specific examples of Islamic aggression:

  1. Anjem Choudary has declared war on the United States by calling upon Muslims to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with Sharia law.
  2. Ukrainian teenager Katya Koren was recently stoned to death, allegedly by three Muslim youths who did not like the idea that she had competed in a beauty pageant.
  3. Immigrant youths have used Islamm as an excuse to commit gang-rape, which they call tournantes or "taking turns" in France.
  4. The Organization of the Islamic Conference sanctions criminal domestic violence.
  5. "Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah, considered one of the Islamic Republic's most radical clerics, issued a religious edict on his website whereby suicide attacks are not only legitimate but are a must for every Muslim."  He is in no hurry to complete this religious obligation himself, though, which leaves what he calls Islam wide open to the most devastating PsyWar methods.
  6. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the United Kingdom's most senior Muslim cleric, said it is acceptable to rape women who do not cover their heads with sacks.  He compared such women to "uncovered meat" that cats were free to eat, and added that women who wore hijabs (veils) and stayed at home did not have to worry about rape.
  7. Many European countries have passed so-called hate crime laws to punish those who speak out about these outrages.  Geert Wilders is currently being prosecuted under laws of this nature.  Denmark recently convicted Lars Hedegaard of "racist statements" for his criticism of incestuous rape in Islamic society.

Those who enact and enforce these speech codes must be regarded as Quislings who collaborate with their countries' domestic and possibly foreign enemies.  They are also enablers of criminal violence such as rape because suppression of a crime's discussion protects and encourages the criminals.  If Europe has not learned anything from the last time its residents were punished for speaking out about a rising tide of evil and tyranny, Americans must speak for them -- and we will do so with willful and intentional contempt for the European speech codes in question.