|The Enemy Within||Liberalism and multi-culturalism are no defence against terrorism, says Frank Kimbal Johnson|
Few historic events, however devastating their immediate local impact, trigger reverberations likely to have permanent or at least long-term effects on the climate of national and international politics. But the catastrophic terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Centre in the United States are certainly two such events. Their impact on the American national psyche has been compared to that of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in certain respects though they far exceed that event in the scale of casualties. Sober reflection reveals the common features of these two events:
It remains to be seen how appropriate and effective the American response will be. On this occasion, there can be no all-out offensive against a very clearly identified aggressor country. A somewhat protracted and largely covert campaign against certain terrorist groups in several unfriendly countries seems more likely, perhaps following an initial high profile strike to take the edge off public anger. But even before the dust has settled on this disaster, we hear the world's wimps saying there can be no assured defence against determined terrorism. Of course there can be! It is summed up in the military maxim that attack is the best defence against potential aggressors. Already it seems that Muslim fanatics, implacable enemies of all other faiths and of America in particular, planned and perpetrated this outrage. They are engaged in a perpetual jihad (holy war) against 'infidel' people and countries, and claim scriptural assurance of immediate transportation to Paradise if they die in that conflict. And this always gives them the edge on western politicians fearfully reluctant to engage in any action which might result in the televised arrival of body-bags at their airports.
We have witnessed our own Government's appalling cowardice and incompetence in the face of IRA terror. We have heard repeated claims that there is "no military solution to the Irish Problem," and that a "negotiated settlement" is the only way forward. While despatching British troops to policing and rebel-disarming roles in the Balkans and Africa, this Government has released hundreds of IRA terrorists from prison and promoted some of them to government office without a single tangible concession in return. And now we see and hear the Prime Minister posturing before the mass media as "shoulder to shoulder with America in the war against terrorism"! If there has ever been a more outrageous example of political hypocrisy, we have yet to hear of it.
It is common knowledge that the IRA is closely linked with international terrorism, and has been partially funded and armed by Islamic extremists; that it thrives on appeasement, though it could certainly be extinguished by a resolute government. Meanwhile, we have also seen our country flooded with aliens, most of them spiritual brethren if not active supporters of militant Islam. Untroubled by the Crown Prosecution Service, rabid fundamentalists in immigrant-dominated areas of this country counsel terrorism against the 'infidel' British people while the courts are busily persecuting ordinary Britons for drawing attention to such things and alerting the British public to the inevitable consequences of government multi-racialism.
We keep hearing politicians describe the attack on New York and the Pentagon as an act of war "against democracy". But this is not a matter of secular politics; it is the most extreme example yet of Islamic fundamentalism versus the 'infidel' Western World. Religious conviction is not decided by votes.
Of course, we recognise that many, probably most, Muslims here and elsewhere repudiate terrorism and don't deserve to be bracketed with the kind of people responsible for the recent atrocities in America. Even so, the so-called "multi-cultural society" is a conglomerate of disparate races and religions in which the most militant factions will be a permanently disruptive and subversive influence inside the host countries. Any dynamic faith is dedicated to expanding its territory and sphere of influence unlike the Christian Church, which has abandoned any effective opposition to traditional forms of immorality and has targeted "racism" as the cardinal sin, thereby clearing the ground for more mosques in British towns and cities.
There is nothing in the Koran about "negotiated settlements" or integration with the infidel; quite the reverse in fact. Islam is not just unwilling but fundamentally incapable in the way of maintaining permanent co-existence with western societies; it is doctrinally committed to replacing them.
It is repeatedly stated that after this American catastrophe the world will never be the same again. Indeed it won't! People will be more aware that the "multi-racial society" is not only an unattainable fantasy but also a very insecure basis for national survival. After all, could we have fought the Nazis effectively in World War II with a huge German population in our midst? And would resistance to Soviet Communism have been helped by admitting hundreds of thousands of Russians to this country?
Anatomy of a nation
A nation is its people, a unique and organic entity, not a legislated conglomerate of disparate races and religions. Faced with Islamic fundamentalism, liberal western societies are psychologically handicapped in mounting any affective defences. Having allowed their own traditions, values and institutions to be constantly undermined and disowned by renegade and decadent elements in the political and cultural hierarchies and mass media, these societies positively invite those of firmer faith and resolve to take over the moral and eventual political leadership of the world. The ideological vacuum at the heart of any country given over to promiscuous multi-racism and "globalism" is therefore sucking in all the world's opportunists, from those simply bent on economic plunder to those with more sinister ambitions. So, however satisfying any short-term response to attacks by militant religious or political factions may be, it leaves unchanged those underlying conditions which will always give rise to similar attacks in the future. The only reliable protection against alien invasion is a population united in its resolve never to surrender its traditions, culture and homeland, whatever it takes. Our politicians, dithering in the face of external extremism, will sooner or later have to face the fact that there are fundamentalists in Britain too. And recent events at home and abroad are bringing them into the open in ever-increasing numbers.
Historians have often said that the London Blitz was a decisive factor in mobilising the nation's war effort and will to win. Let us hope that, for all its grievous impact on people's lives, this most recent atrocity will be the catalyst for a fundamental re-alignment in national and international politics that will give our children a worthwhile and secure future.