Europas dolda konservativa

Såhär på Första Maj....

Daniel Pipes intressanta artikel på Gatestone ligger lite utanför bloggens vanliga ämnesområden. Men då den behandlar en  av Europas ödesfrågor: EU:s destruktiva arbete mot Europas folk och det motstånd som trots allt växer fram, väljer jag att publicera den.

Tyvärr gör Pipes i sin definition av konservatism det vanliga amerikanska misstaget att blanda ihop den med dess motpol liberalismen. Men trots det är dess slutsatser tänkvärda. 

Att Europas framtid ligger i Centraleuropa (Visegrad, Österrike, östra Balkan), snarare än i Bryssel och Frankfurt, kan väl få tänkande europeer förneka...

***

Civilizationists' top concern is not battling climate change, building the European Union, or staving off Russian and Chinese aggression; rather, they focus on preserving Europe's historic civilization of the past two millennia. They worry about Europe becoming an extension of the Middle East or Africa. That anxiety contains four elements: demography, immigration, multiculturalism, and Islamization (or DIMI, recalling the Arabic word dhimmi, the status of Jews and Christians who submit to the rule of Muslims). Civilizationists... are already a powerful force, having advanced from a marginal position twenty years ago to a central role in many countries. They are the key opposition force in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. They have been or are part of the government in Austria, Estonia, Italy, Norway, and Switzerland. They govern in a coalition in Poland and on their own in Hungary. On issues such as demography, immigration, multiculturalism and Islamization, the former Warsaw Pact countries, including the Visegrád Four (Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary), have watched the mistakes of western Europe and resolved not to repeat them. Pictured: (From left) Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, and Slovak Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini before the meeting the Visegrád Group + Austria summit on January 16, 2020 in Prague, Czech Republic. (Photo by Gabriel Kuchta/Getty Images)

Does Europe have any conservatives? That is, believers in individual responsibility, national independence, free markets, a single law for all, the traditional family, and maximum freedom of speech and religion.

Seemingly not. Politicians called conservative -- such as Angela Merkel of Germany, Jacques Chirac of France, and Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden -- are often in reality mild leftists, as are their parties. One might conclude that conservatism is defunct in its homeland.

One would be wrong. A substantial conservative movement exists and is growing in Europe. It is hiding in plain sight, obscured by being tarred as populists, nationalists, extreme-right, or even neo-Nazis. I call this group by another name: civilizationists, acknowledging that (1) they focus on preserving Western civilization and (2) they forward some distinctly un-conservative policies (such as increased welfare and pension payments).

Civilizationists' top concern is not battling climate change, building the European Union, or staving off Russian and Chinese aggression; rather, they focus on preserving Europe's historic civilization of the past two millennia. They worry about Europe becoming an extension of the Middle East or Africa. Already, indigenous Europeans complain of feeling like strangers in their hometowns, of pensioners too scared to leave their houses, and of a school's few Christian and Jewish students beat up by immigrant bullies. Imagine how things will look as the proportions change.

The civilizationists' anxiety contains four main elements: demography, immigration, multiculturalism and Islamization (or DIMI, recalling the Arabic word dhimmi, the status of Jews and Christians who submit to the rule of Muslims).
DIMI's quartet are closely related: Demographic failure creates a need for Immigration which encourages a Multiculturalism that prominently features Islamization.
Start with demographics: Each year, because of its low birth rate of about 1.5 children per woman, the indigenous population of Europe declines by more than one million persons, a number that steadily increases over time. To maintain the population requires an annual immigration of more than that number (few immigrants arrive in Europe as newborns).
The potential pool of immigrants vastly exceeds that number. To cite just two figures: A former Iranian minister of agriculture predicts that, due to water shortages, up to 70% of the country's population, or 57 million Iranians, will emigrate. The population of Africa is expected to triple by the year 2100, leading to hundreds of millions seeking homes in Europe. One-quarter of the European Union's population in thirty years will be of African origin, according to Stephen Smith.
Non-Western immigration brings a variety of practical difficulties: new diseases, linguistic incomprehension, a lack of necessary work skills, and high unemployment.
Multiculturalism results from a mix of immigrant assertiveness and European guilt and self-doubts. Multiculturalism assumes cultures to be morally equivalent and sees no reason to prefer European civilization over any other. Burqas are as valid ball gowns, burkinis as bikinis.
Finally, Islamization brings a number of hostile actions and superior attitudes incompatible with existing Western ways: compulsory headscarves, partial no-go zones, taharrush (sexual predation), förnedringsrån (humiliation robberies), rape gangs, slavery, first-cousin marriages, polygyny, honor killings, female genital mutilation, the Rushdie Rules, jihadi violence, imposing Islamic law on all, and a deep nihilism.

The Establishment, or what I call the "Six Ps" (police, politicians, press, priests, professors, and prosecutors) tends to respond smugly to the DIMI quartet. Focused on the negatives in Europe's history, especially imperialism, fascism, and racism, the elite expresses a pervasive guilt and generally acquiesces to, or even encourages, a transformation of Europe away from its historic culture.

Civilizationists respond to this trend with conservative alarm and work to resist that transformation. They do not feel guilty; on the contrary, they appreciate national traditions, and they see Europe becoming an extension of the Middle East or Africa as a collapse of values and an as existential cultural threat.
The Establishment dismisses them as old-fashioned, weak, elderly, ignorant losers. Even analysts sympathetic to civilizationists, including distinguished writers such as Bat Ye'or, Oriana Fallaci and Mark Steyn, see the cause as lost, and see "Londonistan" and the Islamic Republic of France as inevitable.

But it is not. Civilizationists are already a powerful force, having advanced from a marginal position twenty years ago to a central role in many countries. They have been or are the main parliamentary opposition in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. They have been or are part of the government in Austria, Estonia, Italy, Norway, and Switzerland. They govern in a coalition in Poland and on their own in Hungary. Their failure is far from inevitable.

In this light, some predictions:
First, because no one says, "I used to worry about DIMI but no longer," the number of civilizationists will continue to grow. Within 15 or at most 20 years they are likely to dominate Europe's politics, with the possible major exception of the United Kingdom, where they are stalled. After a long and bitter struggle, this countermovement to restore traditional ways will ultimately prevail.
Second, the civilizationists have three paths to power: control of the government, as in Hungary and Poland; joining with nominal conservatives, as in Austria; or joining with the Left, as in Italy. Also, in limited ways, the Left itself can bring some conservative ideas to power, as in Denmark. Further new paths may yet appear.
Third, the former Warsaw Pact countries will lead the way toward this future. Watching the mistakes of NATO Europe, they resolve not to repeat them. This includes the Visegrád Four (Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary) as well as eastern Germany, Romania, and Bulgaria. The eastern part of Europe has for a millennium lagged behind the western part, so this is a remarkable turnaround.
Fourth, civilizationists are hardly known for their intellectualism or principles, so seeing them as conservatives may come as a surprise. But they are moving erratically in that direction. What begins with instinct, raw populism, and crude majoritarianism is evolving into something more refined, as civilizationists move to the political center to win support. Experience modulates self-indulgence. 
Intellectuals are emerging; these include Douglas Murray (UK), Alejandro Macarón (Spain), Renaud Camus (France). Bat Ye'or (Switzerland), Thilo Sarrazin (Germany), Christian Zeitz (Austria), Viktor Orbán (Hungary), and Lars Hedegaard (Denmark).

Staving off the crisis created by demographics, immigration, multiculturalism and Islamization means preserving the continent's best features. Civilizationists represent the hope for conservatism and for the future of Europe.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. This article is based on a talk presented at a conference on National Conservatism. © 2020. All rights reserved.

Daniel Pipes: Merkel's historic folly

 

Gårdagens jihad i Marseille 

 

Daniel Pipes var en av de första forskare som varnade Västerlandet för den expanderande islamismen.
Hans artiklar har fungerat som lärorika varningsklockor för de politiker och journalister, som är mottagliga för fakta. 
Inför tyska valet häromveckan skrev han en uppmärksammad artikel om Angela Merkels stora misstag. Den har publicerats över hela världen, inte minst i Tyskland....
Jag har hämtat ett utdrag från israeliska Arutz Sheva.
 

Mr. Pipes, You have written that Angela Merkel's decision to open the border to over a million migrants in 2015 "will likely be seen as a turning point in European history." You are a historian, so, what do you mean by this expression?                                                                                                                             I expect that when the evolution of European civilization is studied in the future, August 2015 will be seen as a key moment. The decision to allow unlimited immigration into Germany has had profound implications for Europe by raising this issue in a more acute way than ever before, creating divisions both among native Europeans who are for and against large-scale immigration and between native and new Europeans.

What basic questions do Europeans face?
Lacking sufficient children, the question is whether Europeans will they continue passively to accept whomever turns up, even if they lack skills and come from a largely hostile culture or whether they will develop a plan of controlled immigration, selecting people around the world most suited to bring skills and fit in? Germany's decision to open the borders meant choosing the former option.

Why are relations between Europeans and Muslim immigrants so fraught with tension?
They are fraught because Islam is an imperialist faith and many Muslim immigrants want to replace existing European civilization with Islam. Exacerbating matters, Europeans and Muslims are opposites on several key issues: Europeans have a low birthrate, Muslim immigrants have a high one. Europeans have a weak religious identity, Muslims have a strong one. Europeans feel guilty for their historical sins; immigrants have boisterous confidence in the superiority of their civilization.

 

Many Germans argue that as a rich nation, they morally must open their doors to people in need.
I admire that humanitarian impulse but it is unrealistic. Can Germany take in, say, 2 billion people? If not, how does it morally pick the tiny percentage it does allow in?

Is it not strange that migrants from Syria and Iraq move to places like Germany and Sweden? They would be better off going to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, where the climate, the language, the religion, and the mores are all like their own; plus, these countries are much closer to Syria.

What, then, is the answer?
Practically speaking, see the world in terms of cultural and geographic zones: Westerners in need should stay in the West, Middle Easterners should stay in the Middle East, and so forth around the globe. Is it not strange that migrants from Syria and Iraq move to places like Germany and Sweden? They would be better off going to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, where the climate, the language, the religion, and the mores are all like their own; plus, these countries are much closer to Syria

Cultures and customs change. Perhaps Muslims will adapt to European cultures if given the opportunity?
In theory, yes; in practice, no. Experience shows that the first generation of Muslim immigrants to Europe is more adaptable than its children and grandchildren, as cultural separation increases over time. It is hard to find any place in Europe where Muslim immigrants have assimilated, leading me gravely to doubt that this will take place in the future. Chileans, Chinese, and Congolese fit better into European culture than do Muslims.

Many Muslims of immigrant origins point to discrimination as a factor hindering them from fully integrating into German society.
Yes, discrimination is a problem. I would not want to be named Muhammad and look for a job in Hamburg. But that supports my argument that it is better to be named Muhammad in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Why push together peoples who, as the last 55 years have shown, cannot live easily together? As Thilo Sarrazin has showed, the experiment of Muslim immigration has failed; continuing it will increase tensions.

 

You stress that Islamism, not Islam, is the threat. How do you define Islamism?
Islamism is a specific understanding of Islam that holds if Muslims wish to return to the riches and power of 1,000 years ago, they must apply the Islamic law in its entirety. Islamists argue among themselves how to do so: the modern-oriented Gülen movement in Turkey represents one extreme and ISIS, which wants to return to the seventh century, represents the other. Some Islamists use violence, others work through the political system. In this way, they resemble communists, with their major tactical differences but similar goals

You describe "the Islamist threat" as "arguably the most consequential issue of our time" facing the West. Islamist terror can certainly do damage but how can Islamists threaten the West as a whole, given the West's dominant economic and military power?
I see Islamism as the third great totalitarian threat after communism and fascism, a seductive and powerful body of ideas that threatens our way of life. And just as we had to fight against the fascism and communism, we now must fight Islamism.

When you say that the West needs to fight Islamism, what kind of fight are you thinking of - cultural, political, or military?
Fighting violence is the easy part because murderous jihadi attacks are frightening and the West has police departments, intelligence agencies and armed forces competent to deal with this problem. Further, this low-level violence destroys property and kills people but cannot shift civilizations. Lawful Islamists, in contrast, by working within the system, in the political, educational, philanthropic, or media arenas, have a potentially profound influence. While I'd rather encounter a lawful Islamist rather than a violent jihadi on the street, only non-violent tactics change the face of society; and relatively few Westerners even notice what's happening.

How do you view Europe's response to Islamism?

Compared to 20 years ago, a great leap in awareness has occurred – but not enough yet to make a difference in policy. Virtually everywhere in Europe, political parties exist that make immigration and Islamism a priority, but almost none of them has been in power because these groups tend to be staffed by amateurs, contain too many extremists, and are ostracized. As a result, they cannot reach 51 percent.

 

Like the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, the only party that consistently opposes Muslim immigration?
Precisely. The AfD is an excellent example of amateurs mixed with extremists trying to figure out who they are – liberals, Neo-Nazis, or something in between? As long as they leave this question open, their electoral potential is limited, and they are dangerous. But I expect that eventually the AfD will mature, and I think and hope it will move toward the mainstream for there clearly exists a need for such a party in Germany. But every year that goes by, the danger grows.

Will the anti-immigration remain excluded from power?
No, I expect this will change, that these parties will start to gain power within a decade.

The AfD stands below 10 percent in the polls while Merkel's CDU gets almost 40 percent. Does this signal that Germans are not that unhappy with Merkel's immigration policies?
I am surprised by and cannot explain the lack of a CDU challenge to Merkel.

Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, one of the most prominent politicians against Muslim immigration, has been put on trial for hate speech. Your organization helped cover his legal costs; why?
We at the Middle East Forum believe in the freedom publicly to state opinions on matters concerning Islam and Islamism, whether or not we happen to agree with that opinion. Toward this end, our Legal Project often helps defendants pay legal costs, including Wilders' a few years ago. I disagree with his views on who the enemy is (he says Islam, I say Islamism) but that is secondary; I will help him, as any Westerner, assert the right to talk about Islam without getting hauled into Court.

Is Donald Trump's "Muslim ban" a useful way to keep Islamists out of the United States?
The Trump administration's ban of the citizens of six majority-Muslim countries was well-intentioned but poorly executed. One should not look at a person's passport but at his ideas. Some Canadians are our enemies and some Iranians are our friends. Of course, ideas are more elusive than nationality. But banning certain nationalities does not offer protection; that requires a serious effort to know each person entering the country.

The city of Hamburg in 2012 signed an accord, a "Staatsvertrag" with Muslim groups such as Ditib, Schura, and VIKZ to regulate Islamic classes and holidays. Members of those organization have been accused of Islamism and antisemitism, yet the authorities cannot a find clean Muslim organization. Your comment?
Islamists are much better funded and organized than non-Islamist Muslims, in part because they receive help from Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey. This permits them routinely to dominate Muslim life in the West, appearing on television, engaging in interreligious dialogue, teaching in classrooms, and (as in this case) partnering with governments.

You want Western governments to empower moderate Muslims but in Germany, only a few Muslims have showed up to protest Islamism, so who and where are the moderates?
Calls for mass Muslim support against Islamism always fail in the West. (Muslim-majority countries are another matter.) In part this results from a lack of funding and organization, in part to intimidation: it takes an awful lot of courage to be a Muslim and to come out publicly against Islamism. The new liberal Ibn Ruschd-Goethe mosque in Berlin is a good example: its founder, Seyran Ateş, has received death threats.

What should Western governments do?
Strongly support non-Islamist Muslims - and especially anti-Islamist Muslims. Islamists like Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan claim there is only one kind of Islam, namely theirs. No: there are many versions of Islam and non-Muslims should reject, and certainly not enable, Islamist hegemony. Rather, brave anti-Islamists like Ateş should get official recognition and other forms of support.

 

 

 

Prof. Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes is president and founder of the Middle East Forum and has authored 12 books., He is considered one of the world’s foremost analysts on the Middle East and Muslim history. He warned of militant Islam's war with the USA years before 9.11 and called Arafat's bluff at Oslo.



Daniel Pipes: Burkan som brottsredskap

Daniel Pipes berättar i sitt nyhetsbrev

om hur burkan alltoftare används

som brottsredskap.

Han ger talrika exempel från Philadelphia

på hur rånare använder det totalmaskerande

plagget...

"Som David J. Rusin från Middle East Forum

påpekar i sin detaljerade undersökning av

burka-förbrytelser i Philadelphia så har

muslimska klädesplagg två stora fördelar i

jämförelse med andra förklädnader:

För det första så rör sig många heltäckta kvinnor,

som inte har något kriminellt uppsåt, på gatorna

och ger därigenom oavsiktligt skydd åt tjuvar;

ju fler heltäckande klädesplagg som rör sig på

gatorna desto större sannolikhet att dessa

kommer att underlätta kriminell aktivitet.

För det andra så är det just själva främling-

skapet och distanseringen som ger bäraren

av dessa klädesplagg, inklusive brottslingar,

ett extraordinärt skydd. Som i andra fall (tre

gånger köpte en 14-årig pojke iklädd burka

alkohol i vin- och spritaffärer i Toronto;

muslimska kvinnor som inte kontrolleras vid

kanadensiska flygplatser), är tjänstemän så

rädda för att anklagas för rasism eller "islamofobi"

att de hoppar över statligt bestämda rutiner

såsom att kräva att de som bär niqaber visar

sina ansikten och bevisar sin identitet."

***

Läs hela artikeln

Pipes om FRIHET, partiet alltså...

Daniel Pipes råkade befinna sig i Berlin
för två veckor sedan. Naturligtvis blev
han inbjuden till grundandet av det nya
politiska partiet DIE FREIHEIT (Frihet).
Han berättar i sitt nyhetsbrev hur mötet
gick till:
(....)
Det mest intressanta för mig var hans (d v s
partiordförandens) muntliga genomgång av
partiets politik plus utdelningen av ett 71-sidigt
Grundsatzprogramm ("Principprogram") där
partiets hållning beskrivs detaljerat.
Stadtkewitz förklarade behovet av ett nytt tyskt
parti med motiveringen att "De etablerade
partierna dessvärre inte är beredda att klart ta
ställning utan lämnar folket ensamma med sina
bekymmer". Programmet varken skräder orden
eller tänker i snäva banor. Första meningen för-
klarar att "Västvärldens civilisation som i
århundraden varit världsledande, står
inför en existentiell kris".
**
Det nya partiet vars slogan är "partiet för mer
frihet och demokrati" talar öppet om islam,
islamism, islamisk lag och islamisering.
Det börjar med insikten att "Islam är inte bara
en religion utan också en politisk ideologi med
sitt eget juridiska system", partiet uppmanar
till granskning av imamer, moskéer och islamiska
skolor, till en översyn av islamiska organisationer
för att försäkra sig om att dessa följer tysk lag
och man fördömer försök att bygga en parallell
juridisk struktur baserad på Sharia.
Deras analys sammanfattar med eftertryck: "Vi
motsätter oss av all vår kraft islamiseringen av
vårt land".
**
Freihet stöder kraftfullt Israel och kallar det för
"den enda demokratiska staten i Mellanöstern.
Landet är därför den västliga världens utpost i
en arabisk omgivning. Alla demokratiska länder
borde visa ett stort intresse för att Israel ska få
leva med fritt självbestämmande och säkerhet.
Vi uttrycker tydligt vårt stöd för Israels rätt att
existera, vilket inte är öppet för diskussion".
(....)
Etablerandet av Freiheit reser två observationer:
För det första passar det in i ett mönster av
framväxande europeiska partier som fokuserar
på islam som centralt för deras uppgift.
På så sätt skiljer sig Freiheit från de andra med
sitt bredare synsätt. Medan Wilders PVV skyller
nästan alla sociala problem på islam så har
Freiheit förutom "med all vår kraft mot-
sätter vi oss islamiseringen av vårt land"
också många andra frågor på sin dagordning.
För det andra ligger Tyskland påfallande långt
efter de flesta europeiska länder med en stor
muslimsk befolkning genom att man inte har
ett parti som står upp mot islamiseringen.
Detta kan inte skyllas på brist på försök;
tidigare försök ebbade ut.
**
Slutet på år 2010 kan komma att vara ett
gynnsamt tillfälle att sjösätta ett sådant parti
med tanke på den massiva kontrovers i
Tyskland över Thilo Sarrazins bok som
uttrycker farhågor över den muslimska
invandringen följt av kansler Angela
Merkels uttalande om att multikulturalismen
har "fulltständigt misslyckats".
En förändring av sinnesstämningen verkar
vara på väg.
****
Läs hela artikeln
****
Här är Pipes tal inför Trykkefriheds-
selskabet i Köpenhamn 2008:

Daniel Pipes - The threat towards Israel from I Media Online on Vimeo.

Islamism 2.0 - nu ännu farligare

Daniel Pipes hade ett varningsord till

Västerlandet i onsdagens Jerusalem Post:

To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a U.S. congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.

Hussam Ayloush hosted Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn) at a CAIR event in November 2007.The 1.0 version attacks those perceived as obstructing its goal of a society ruled by a global caliphate and totally regulated by the Shari'a (Islamic law). Islamism's original tactics, from totalitarian rule to mega-terrorism, encompass unlimited brutality. Three thousand dead in one attack? Bin Laden's search for atomic weaponry suggests the murderous toll could be a hundred or even a thousand times larger.
However, a review of the past three decades, since Islamism became a significant political force, finds that violence alone rarely works. Survivors of terrorism rarely capitulate to radical Islam – not after the assassination of Anwar el-Sadat in Egypt in 1981, nor the 9/11 attacks, the Bali bombings of 2002, the Madrid bombing of 2004, the Amman bombing of 2005, or the terrorist campaigns in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Terrorism does physical damage and kills and intimidates but it rarely overturns the existing order. Imagine Islamists had caused the devastation of Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 tsunami – what could these have lastingly achieved?
Non-terrorist violence aimed at applying the Shari'a does hardly better. Revolution (meaning, a wide-scale social revolt) took Islamists to power in just one place at one time - Iran in 1978–79. Likewise, coup d'état (a military overthrow) carried them to power just once – Sudan in 1989. Same for civil war – Afghanistan in 1996.
If the violence of Islamism 1.0 rarely succeeds in forwarding the Shari'a, the Islamism 2.0 strategy of working through the system does better. Islamists, adept at winning public opinion, represent the main opposition force in Muslim-majority countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Islamists have enjoyed electoral success in Algeria in 1992, Bangladesh in 2001, Turkey in 2002, and Iraq in 2005.
Once in power, they can move the country toward Shari'a. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces the wrath of Iranian street demonstrators and bin Laden cowers in a cave, Erdoğan basks in public approval, remakes the Republic of Turkey, and offers an enticing model for Islamists worldwide.
Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, the Egyptian theorist of Al-Qaeda, changed his approach and now endorses lawful Islamism.Recognizing this pattern, Al-Qaeda's once-leading theorist has publicly repudiated terrorism and adopted political means. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (b. 1950, also known by the nom de guerre Dr. Fadl) was accused of helping assassinate Sadat. In 1988 he published a book that argued for perpetual, violent jihad against the West. With time, however, Sharif observed the inutility of violent attacks and instead advocated a strategy of infiltrating the state and influencing society.
In a recent book, he condemned the use of force against Muslims ("Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers") and even against non-Muslims (9/11 was counterproductive, for "what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?").
Sharif's evolution from theorist of terrorism to advocate of lawful transformation echoes a much broader shift; accordingly, as author Lawrence Wright notes, his defection poses a "terrible threat" to Al-Qaeda. Other once-violent Islamist organizations in Algeria, Egypt, and Syria have recognized the potential of lawful Islamism and largely renounced violence. One also sees a parallel shift in Western countries; Ramadan and Ellison represent a burgeoning trend.
(What one might call Islamism 1.5 – a combination of hard and soft means, of external and internal approaches – also works. It involves lawful Islamists softening up the enemy, then violent elements seizing power. The Hamas takeover of Gaza proved that such a combination can work: win elections in 2006, then stage a violent insurrection in 2007. Similar processes are possibly underway in Pakistan. The United Kingdom might be undergoing the opposite process, whereby violence creates a political opening.)
In conclusion, only Islamists, not fascists or communists, have gone well beyond crude force to win public support and develop a 2.0 version. Because this aspect of Islamism undermines traditional values and destroys freedoms, it may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0's brutality.

Islamistiska infiltratörer

Daniel Pipes ger oss ett nytt varningsord.

Denna gång om det ökande antalet

islamistiska infiltratörer.

Inom polis, säkerhetstjänst, skolor,

universitet, kommuner etc....

***
Aafia Siddiqui, 36, is a Pakistani mother of three,

an alumna of MIT, and a Ph.D. in neuroscience

from Brandeis University. She is also accused

of working for Al-Qaeda and was charged last

week in New York City with attempting to kill

American soldiers.
*
Aafia Siddiqui is accused of working for Al-Qaeda.

Her arrest serves to remind how invisibly most

Islamist infiltration proceeds. In particular, an

estimated forty Al-Qaeda sympathizers or operatives

have sought to penetrate U.S. intelligence agencies.

*
Such a well-placed infiltrator can wreak great damage

explains a former CIA chief of counterintelligence,

Michael Sulick: "In the war on terrorism, intelligence

has replaced the Cold War's tanks and fighter planes

as the primary weapon against an unseen enemy."

Islamist moles, he argues, "could inflict far more

damage to national security than Soviet spies,"

for the U.S. and Soviet Union never actually fought

each other, whereas now, "our nation is at war."

*
Here are some American cases of attempted infiltration

since 2001 that have been made public:
The Air Force discharged Sadeq Naji Ahmed, a Yemeni

immigrant, when his superiors learned of his pro-Al-

Qaeda statements. Ahmed subsequently became a

baggage screener at Detroit's Metro Airport, which

terminated him for hiding his earlier discharge from

the Air Force. He was convicted of making false

statements and sentenced to eighteen months in jail.

*
The Chicago Police Department fired Patricia Eng-Hussain

just three days into her training on learning that her

husband, Mohammad Azam Hussain, was arrested for

being an active member of Mohajir Qaumi Movement-

Haqiqi (MQM-H), a Pakistani terrorist group.

*
The Chicago Police Department also fired Arif

Sulejmanovski, a supervising janitor at its 25th

District station after it learned his name was

on a federal terrorist watch list of international

terrorism suspects.

*
Mohammad Alavi, an engineer at the Palo Verde

nuclear power plant, was arrested as he arrived

on a flight from Iran, accused of taking computer

access codes and software to Iran that provide

details on the plant's control rooms and plant layout.

He subsequently pleaded guilty to transporting stolen

property.

***

Läs hela artikeln

***

Glöm inte uppropet

Stopp för Sharia

Skriv under och anslut Dig !

Daniel Pipes i Köpenhamn: Hotet mot Israel

Daniel Pipes talade 19 juni i Köpenhamn.

Tack till arrangörerna Trykkefrihedsselskabet

och Tidskriften Sappho samt till Snaphanen som filmade.

***

Om Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes er blandt verdens kendteste kritikere

af islamismen. Han er direktør for tænketanken

The Middle East Forum i Philidelphia

og for organisationen Campus Watch

**
Daniel Pipes er fast kommentator ved New

York Sun og Jerusalem Post . Hans artikler

optræder hyppigt i verdens mest velrennomerede

tidsskrifter, og han optræder med mellemrum på

bl.a. CNN og Fox News. Han er forfatter til i alt

12 bøger om islam og Mellemøsten, der er oversat

til 18 sprog. Nævnes kan The Rushdie Affair:

The Novel, the Ayatollah and the West , en

detaljeret gennemgang af sagen om De

Sataniske Vers samt Militant Islam

Reaches America .

Læs mere på http://www.danielpipes.org/

***