In his sixth and final in a series of six essays, Peter Carl offers some practical insights and suggestions as to how the Counter-Jihad Movement and its leaders and supporters can best learn from Winston Churchill’s experiences and successes from World War II. The author concludes that, in light of Islamism’s own well-coordinated international implementation and its deeply local successes across both the West and the remainder of the world, failure on the part of the Counter-Jihad Movement to realize similar levels of effectiveness as those achieved by Islamists will not and can not bode well at all for a vulnerable Movement and the future of the West. Hope, however, may be found, argues Peter Carl, in implementing and pursuing jointly coordinated policies and efforts domestically and internationally within the Counter-Jihad Movement, based upon today’s practicalities and Churchill’s most successful insights and strategies.

Looking back over the past five essays, the difference between our own times and those of Winston Churchill become rather apparent. Today, among the Counter-Jihad Movement, in contrast to Churchill’s unity movement, there is at present much more disarray and far more polarization and strident points of view among those who wish to defend Western freedoms. As one member of the English Defence League (EDL) recently characterized these essays in the EDL forums, he described them as “[a] very hard hitting [series] that many [within the Movement] are not going to like but [which] needs to be said because it sums up the publics [sic] opinion of us.” More specifically and perhaps least easy to palate in these essays, as the EDL commenter alludes to, I have provided a detailed summary of the rather uncomfortable yet actual reasons for these views so uniformly held by the general public across the West.

The difference between Winston Churchill and some today who are entrusted with decisions in matters of politics and political messages is that for Churchill, as we saw so plainly in the previous essay (Part V), on the issue of defeating totalitarianism, it was never a question of ideological power moves, the “spin” of public relations management, or, perhaps, the marketing of a next book: Churchill understood the larger civilizational goal and the nuances of partisan politics all within the context of both Western history and, most importantly, the human psychological and emotional dimension. It was what he referred to as understanding things “in their true proportion.” Churchill also did not have to deal with the thorny issue (that causes confusion for individuals both outside and inside of the Movement) of an attempted defense of freedom and human rights ever being misunderstood among the general public as “religious bigotry” or an “attack on religion.” Defending against Nazi attacks on our Common Freedoms is obvious to us all, from each of us as individuals to the strident, vocal, and usually violent members of Antifa; however, as to Islamism, an attempt to defend against its inhumane treatment and supremacist denigration of the rights of women, girls, homosexuals, atheists, non-believers, apostates, Jews, Christians, Hindus, religious minorities, cartoonists, bloggers, criminals, human rights activists, and so many others that Islamism designates as societal “inferiors”, to be targeted and punished in the basest ways, is all too easily confused with being an attack on a religion or a religious minority. Churchill never had to face this very serious conundrum. We do.

Even so, on a most basic level, Churchill understood very well that no member of a mainstream Western political party should or would react positively to being told that his or her political ideology makes him “wrong”, “disloyal”, “stupid”, or “naïve”. No such person, at the most basic human level, Churchill understood, would become more open to a person or a message by being told how fatally “flawed” or “idiotic” his or her political beliefs were. In the shadow of an imminent totalitarian take over of all of Western Europe and, himself, placing the matter on a plane of personal and social morality, Churchill understood and argued that to make such claims of political opponents “…would be indecent and improper.” ⁱ As prime minister in a time of unprecedented crisis, he understood very well that if he attacked the political positions, beliefs, or intellects of those individuals outside of his own party – each an emotional, political being with other political options – the natural instinctual reaction of any such person would be to tune-out and actively and publicly delegitimize both the message and its source. Key to his eventual success, Churchill understood, at both the political and the human level, was that neither time nor the fascist enemy’s own beliefs and actions would ever forgive such a grave misstep on his or his party’s part.

Thus, the understanding came naturally to Churchill that the key to getting large numbers of people – who may never agree with him at all politically – to work with him in a battle for the future and survival of the West was not to change the minds or views of those of adverse political ideologies or to otherwise disrespect or challenge them in their ideological beliefs. The quickest path to success and victory over totalitarian ideas, he understood, lay not in exacerbating ideological differences among his countrymen in a time of crisis, but in seeking out, bringing forward, and emphasizing the foundational ideas common to all democratic Western political ideologies. Churchill understood that raising and keeping the rhetoric focused upon this one common denominator, which individuals of all political stripes shared and could support and which was evidenced in his one common “principle” and one common “ideology”, was the only way England and the West would survive. As to “ideology”, Churchill placed that one common denominator “…in freedom, in a liberal constitution, in democratic and Parliamentary government, in Magna Charta and the Petition of Right….”ⁱⁱ Summarized in the simple terms used in these essays, as our “Common Freedoms” (as defined in Part I). As to his guiding “principle”, recognizing that “…[w]e are held together by something outside, which rivets all our attention,” he defined this as being: “Everything for the war, whether controversial or not, and nothing controversial that is not bona fide needed for the war.”ⁱⁱⁱ Instrumental to his success, Churchill very much understood both the importance of avoiding unnecessary controversy and, of utmost significance, which controversies (and, therefore, which arguments) would actually be unnecessary in or destructive with respect to advancing a unity coalition and defeating totalitarianism.

Put into more modern terms, Churchill succeeded in managing both the message and “brand” of the entire West – and getting its consumers of all ideological stripes to buy into and support that “brand” prior to and then for the duration of the war. It would, however, be both very cynical and extremely false to say that he did this in any way comparable to the “spin doctors” of modern political machinery. Churchill, as explained above, deeply understood the human emotional and psychological side of politics. A basic ground rule for him: No one reacts well to being told that they are wrong or stupid, whether deserved or not, especially when directed at their deepest political beliefs. An approach that alienates, it was obvious to him, tends to create far more enemies than it will ever create open minds, friends, or allies. Therefore, as Churchill realized, to spend one’s time and energy fighting with one’s most natural and necessary allies, would result in the win going quickly and directly to a very determined enemy.

People, Churchill believed on the other hand, would react most positively to being affirmed in their most well-intentioned actions and beliefs. For example, affirmation as to their beliefs in an effort to protect democracy, justice, human rights, or the less advantaged or as to their sacrifices for our Western Common Freedoms; these are the affirmations that were capable of bringing people together rather than dividing them. Applied to Islamization today, the key to getting someone who believes that they are supporting our Common Freedoms to see that they may, on the contrary, actually be fully undermining them is to affirm them in their desire to protect human rights while, at the same time, helping them to think through and examine the contrary ideology (e.g. Islamism) and the Common Freedoms themselves – not to ask or demand they part with their most personal political beliefs. Churchill understood better than most politicians ever might that, due to the simplest basics of human psychology, taking on an alienating battle over political ideologies within the West in relation to or during a time when facing existential threats to our Common Freedoms was and would be a recipe for a quick and disastrous defeat. Victory, he correctly saw, could only be found in moving every Westerner’s focus to that higher ideological common denominator of our “Common Freedoms” and addressing all threats and disagreements related to the totalitarian threat solely and squarely within the context of this common denominator.

In Churchill’s footsteps then, as we have seen in the previous essays, there are good reasons and good ways to help move the Counter-Jihad Movement forward across the West in a manner that can ensure both its growth and a greater public acceptance of its insights regarding Islamization. To do so, however, much depends upon the Counter-Jihad political parties and politicians. Though we are separated by national boundaries and differing political ideologies, languages, and cultures, moving the entire Movement forward requires stepping forward together to proactively and collectively take a leadership role, as Churchill did in his unity government and well beyond, in determining and controlling a non-ideological Counter-Jihad message while ensuring consistency of its use.

In this respect, a first concrete step for the Movement should be to organize a formal international meeting of the leadership of the various Counter-Jihad parties, called by the parties themselves and chaired by a neutral and respected third-party from outside of the Counter-Jihad political establishment. The sole qualification for the chairperson being that he or she be fully convinced of the immediate and absolute need for an international implementation of the Counter-Jihad Argument. Though there have been many other international meetings of opinion-leaders within the Counter-Jihad Movement in the past, this one would be different. Prior meetings have concentrated on getting to know others within the Movement, raising awareness of and discussing the advances of Sharia and Islamization in our respective countries, and to some extent exchanging best practices. The goal of this meeting, however, would be – led by the leadership of the Counter-Jihad parties of many nations – to recognize internationally the need to lay ground rules for and to create and control an international “brand” for the Movement that moves our Counter-Jihad message collectively away from the partisan ideological infighting (that continually generates a “right-wing” label for the Movement) and, instead, refocuses on the movement’s actual core concerns found in the “common denominator” of human rights and our Common Freedoms.

In order to increase both buy-in and broad international collaboration among the independent Counter-Jihad opinion-leaders, bloggers, and activists not formally affiliated with any Counter-Jihad party, a small handful or, in some cases where the numbers are small anyway, a limit of two per country could be invited to attend, provide input, and take part in the exchange. This would provide necessary insight into the practicalities of an implementation of guidelines and offer these external actors a personal opportunity to better understand and offer their “buy-in” to this voluntary global effort and message. Attendance and the costs of the meeting, to comply with laws relating to donations and financing of political activities (domestic and international), could be financed by each party as each political party individually determines would be legal and required. As will be discussed later on below, it would also be useful at such a meeting for the various Counter-Jihad political parties to formally adopt a common method of rating and ensuring international uniformity of the common message based in the Counter-Jihad Argument. In all cases, it would be useful for this group, when established, to subsequently arrange for and coordinate regular trainings in each country for each party’s politicians and staff as well as for local independent bloggers and activists on how best to convey the Counter-Jihad Argument and thereby achieve the Movement’s goals and implement an improved message both nationally and internationally. This is important since, for some, the Counter-Jihad Argument may not intuitively make sense. In order to make the Argument, one must truly understand and internalize why attacks on others’ partisan ideologies alienates voters, turns-off listeners, and severely damages the Movement by continually painting it as “right-wing”.

Such a meeting could be held fully in private or in public (or partially both). In either case, it could be tied in with an international fundraising event for charitable human rights organizations active in protecting Common Freedoms in the West as well as across the Muslim world. On the other hand, it could be centered around the international Movement forming and funding, at the time of the meeting, its own affiliated human rights organization meant to support and recognize the many varying types of victims of Islamist abuses across Europe and across the world. The central goal of such a meeting, contrary to those held previously, would be to expressly recognize the value of, discuss, and, in the end, to formally and voluntarily adopt across nations Churchill’s common approach; and afterwards, to begin to set up some of the mechanisms for implementing consistency within our message, as summarized in the Counter-Jihad Argument. The successful international collaborations of the “Green Party” or the “Social Democratic Party” or, for that matter, Scandinavia’s “Center Party” (fully disregarding their respective ideologies) could be seen as a structural and logistical model for the cross-border collaboration of numerous otherwise unrelated national political parties from differing countries.

In the case a larger, broader, and coordinated effort between the various national Counter-Jihad parties can not be put together to take ownership and control of the Movement’s perception and message as anchored in the Counter-Jihad Argument and a mutually-held “ideology” of Common Freedoms, it would speak very little for the Movement as a whole. As it stands right now, there are no mechanisms or agreements internationally with respect to what the Movement’s common message must be and how it should be uniformly presented. Nor are there any understandings internationally as to which arguments are best made and which are best avoided due to their tendency to, in so many different ways, damage to the entire Movement’s – and each individual party’s – message and perception. As it stands right now, this leaves the entire Movement, party-by-party across nations, all fully open to unlimited and uncontrollable damage every time an extremist ideologue or, worse yet, a small- or large-scale terrorist like Breivik may ever come along.

Since the Islamization movement is, by its very nature and definition, a very well-organized, well-funded, and highly dedicated international movement of world-wide scale, the difficulty for a loosely coordinated, hard to unify Counter-Jihad Movement to face the challenges these groups pose to human rights worldwide, makes success that more difficult to come by. Compare the international collaboration and reach of the splintered Counter-Jihad Movement with that of Abu Sayyaf, Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda involvement in Africa, Al-Qaeda involvement in Asia, Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe, Al-Qaeda involvement in the Middle East, Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb, Hizb ut-Tahrir (Official: Hizb ut-Tahrir), The Hofstad Network, Islamic Education Society (Official: Islamic Education Society), Jamaat-e-Islami, Jemaah Islamiyah, general Jihadist organizations, The Muslim Brotherhood (Official: The Muslim Brotherhood), The Muslim World League (Official: The Muslim World League), The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), general Salafi Organizations, or, for example, on the local front, national groups such as Sharia4Belgium, Hizb ut-Tahrir UK, CAIR, or, for that matter, the many local groups within each country, including, for example, the three hundred (300) or so found across the UK. Often funded by oil money, criminal proceeds, or the drug trade, these organizations are able to buy Islamism its way to success. As a result, any inability on the part of the Counter-Jihad parties, opinion-leaders, and activists (across “Center”, “Left”, and “Right”) to pull together and coordinate in basic ways, as proposed here, in order to do what is, without doubt, best for the entire Counter-Jihad Movement and the West, would cast serious doubts on both the effectiveness and future of the Movement, not to mention that of the West itself.

On that very uncertain note, even as individuals, from the most important leaders within the Movement to the average rank-and-file member of any Counter-Jihad party, our approach must also remain consistent. Therefore, in addressing specific inquiries or situations, there is one specific approach that we can and must take in order to best succeed in attracting the largest numbers of voters from the broadest swath of the political spectrum. We all, both individually and as a Movement, must do with the “Left” exactly as Robert Spencer very correctly does when taking on the Islamist-appeasing views or activities of “Conservatives” on the “Right”, when such become apparent. A look at his approach can be seen in his criticisms of present Republican presidential candidates Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul, Republican Governors Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Rick Scott (R-FL), and other “Conservative” leaders like Grover Norquist and the Conservative Political Action Conference​ (CPAC).

What does Mr. Spencer do? He rightly sticks fully to the facts and an argument or explanation of how those facts violate our Common Freedoms. He does not attempt to argue that a “Conservative” is wittingly or unwittingly supporting Islamism as a direct result of his or her “Conservative” or “Rightist” political ideology. He sticks to the facts and our Common Freedoms. With respect to Grover Norquist, an individual who has long influenced proposals that determine who is to become a nominee within Republican party election races, Mr. Spencer – without ever making claims that Mr. Norquist takes the positions he does or acts as he does with respect to Islamism and Islamists due to his “Conservative” or “Right-wing” political views – simply lays out the facts of what Mr. Norquist has done, who Mr. Norquist knows, what Islamist interests Mr. Norquist has advanced, and how those acts and activities undermine our Common Freedoms and human rights. Mr. Norquist’s actions or positions are never described by Mr. Spencer as being rooted in any specific political ideology – they are, in Mr. Norquist’s situation, according to Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller as well, rooted in Mr. Norquist and his wife’s (herself a Palestinian) own lack of consistent adherence to our Common Freedoms as well as, in part, their own personal and financial self-advancement.

As Pat Condell recognizes and as we have discussed in previous essays (Part I), just as “Conservatives” care deeply for human rights, there is also a very well-meaning but slightly different “Progressive” or “Leftist” desire to support the human rights of apparent underdogs. He points this out in a recent commentary on Israel and Palestine (at 3:43). He and others agree, quite correctly so, that resistance on the “Left” to the Counter-Jihad Movement arises in a very well-intentioned but otherwise contradictory view of supporting “tolerance” and protecting “human rights”. Tolerance, as history and even basic reflection reveals, is necessarily and counter-intuitively lost by the tolerance of intolerance. That being the case, the most effective argument will, therefore, be found in challenging the narrow and self-destructive views of human rights (e.g. tolerance for intolerance where cloaked in a non-Western “religion”) held by the unconvinced, whether from the “Right”, “Left”, or “Center”.

In the process of putting together and publishing these essays here at The Brussels Journal, I have had the opportunity to see how these have been received in different places across the world. One commenter here at The Brussels Journal, however, I believe has stated the required approach to the future in the correct terms. “It is possible,” writes that reader, “that Counter-Jihadists need to anticipate a long-term struggle, like the struggles for the abolition of slavery and for the abolition of abortion.  To some, it is obvious that Islam is inimical to Western civilization and should be excluded from it to the greatest possible extent, as soon as possible.  But it is not obvious to most.  For the feelings of the majority to change to the point where they can compel politicians and officials to follow their views, counter-jihadists must put aside their contempt for those who don’t get it and humbly and tirelessly work to overcome the ignorance, ideology, interest, and indolence that prevent anti-Islamic measures from being put into effect. In effect, to be a successful counter-jihadist, one should set aside right and left ideologies and focus on the immediate practical harm of admitting substantial numbers of Muslims into a country. That would be more likely to get leftists to drop their pro-Islamism than attacking their leftism.” (Emphasis supplied). Convincing the unconvinced or the repulsed is going to take time, humility, patience, and repeated patience. The key words, it seems, are: “humbly and tirelessly work to overcome the ignorance, ideology, interest, and indolence.” Why? Because what’s the alternative? There is none. Ideological war within the West and Islamization taking hold only that much more quickly, are the only alternatives to what is proposed in these essays. There is no other way.

Encouragingly, these essays here have been followed among various Counter-Jihad groups, including the English Defence League (EDL). The comments there have overwhelmingly recognized agreement with the points raised here. From, “this is the stuff that our own MP’s should be reading to the masses!” to “…if the remaining [] installments are as well done as [these], well it’s the kind of thing a whole lot of those so concerned [with the Counter-Jihad Movement] should work their way through as a series.” The problem of polemic politics has been recognized: “The author is correct. The main parties are now so [deep into] polemic politics that they can neither see the light [n]or recognise the smell of [their defeat by Islam].” Others have recognized how the Counter-Jihad Movement’s own message and polemic politics are severely damaging the Movement by painting an unflattering and often inaccurate image of the EDL. “[The public is slowly beginning] to understand the dangers of Islam,” writes one EDL member, “but have doubts about the EDL caused by our public image, which in all honesty is [quite low]. [….] If we want to advance the cause and form a political wing then we have got to change our image and that means stop giving the [media] all the photo [opportunities] they could ever wish for, [while] we continue to moan about the press coverage but do nothing about stopping [behaviors that provide the poor perception].”

Success, then, will be found in changing ways of thinking and behaving within the movement, both among leaders and followers, as well as in patiently and humbly educating the unconvinced and the repulsed about our actual commitment to human rights and our “Common Freedoms” and, on that note, the unsustainability of tolerance for intolerance. Success will not be achieved – as Churchill himself wisely recognized – by attacking the personal political ideologies of the very people one desperately needs to understand these concepts. Except for the extremely few actual Marxists across the world, every other “Liberal”, “Progressive”, or “Leftist” across the West who “supports” or unwittingly advances Islamism or “Palestinians” or “Gaza” is doing so because, as Mr. Condell correctly states, they believe themselves to be advancing “tolerance” and “human rights” and repelling “hate”, “racism”, “bigotry”, or “religious” or “racial” “oppression” or “injustice” of various kinds. Any average Antifa webpage tells you as much. We are all against racism. We all actually support the same rights and freedoms; no one across the West today – “Right”, “Left”, or “Center” – would argue that “Jim Crow” was then or is now ethically or morally viable under the Common Freedoms held for centuries across the Western world. Our ancient belief in these Common Freedoms, found in the Christian roots of the Abolition Movement, is actually the very reason for the eventual demise of both slavery and Jim Crow.

In the same way, no one today in the Counter-Jihad Movement would argue that the human rights of Palestinians should be violated any more than those of any of us; they should not. We respect – and expect both Palestinians and Israelis to respect – the human rights of all people. In understanding the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, however, the Counter-Jihad Movement asks that the ancient and long-lived doctrine of jihad (and, therefore, the mass violations of so many other human rights that comes along with it, including the rights of Muslims who suffer under Islamism) not be naively advanced or hidden away. The Movement asks that we not blindly fail to recall that Islam’s “holy” texts’ doctrines on Jihad against all non-believers and eternal war on them, including especially Jews, is the ancient source of conflict in Palestine (and across the world) - and the State of Israel is, quite simply, its most current target. As everywhere else in the Islamist world and as the Koran requires, an Islamist version of “peace” (submission) can only reign when Islam reigns over everyone and everything else. Western naïveté about the “Arab Spring” and what many saw to be an overwhelming movement for “democracy” across the Arab world, is turning out to have been not a movement for democracy, but a passionate cleansing away of the dictators whom populations across the Middle East saw as standing in the way of and oppressing Islam. Thus, as to Israel as well, until non-Muslims submit (or convert or die), according to the Koran, there is, will, and can be no “peace” (submission). Any “peace” or even the possibility for “peace” between Israel and Palestine must be understood within this context.

Those who remain unconvinced of the dangers of Islamism and Islamists (whether “Center”, “Right”, “Liberal”, “Progressive”, or “Leftist”), however, really do mean well and do honestly believe themselves to be protecting our Common Freedoms including, first and foremost, religious freedom, freedom of expression, and minority rights. For “Conservatives” dealing with “Liberals”, “Progressives”, or the “Left” then, the approach should and must – even if for some on the “Right” it might simply feel good emotionally to lambast “Liberals” and “Leftists” – be universally the same as in dealing with “Conservatives” who enable the spread of Islamization. As Churchill said of dealing with his opponents in other parties, “…we must restrain those emotions; we must see things in their true proportion; we must put aside everything which hampers us in the speedy accomplishment of our common purpose….”^iv There is no reason to waste time and energy arguing that a “Liberal” or “Leftist” any more than a “Conservative” or “Rightist” is wittingly or unwittingly supporting Islamism or its teachings as a direct result of his or her political ideology.

An actual and true Marxist on the other hand, of which there are very few – and true Nazis or neo-Nazis as discussed in Part IV – are fully another question; just like Islamists, they seek revolution. But even in suspected cases, the Movement must first confirm that it is actually dealing with true Marxists or neo-Nazis (groups made up of individuals who, by their own words, believe in imposing a social, political, and economic system by revolutionary means) – and then refer to them in our writing and discussions only as “Marxists” and “neo-Nazis”, leaving out otherwise destructive and antagonistic references to “Right” and “Left”. As far as run-of-the-mill “Liberals” and “Conservatives” and “Leftists” and “Rightists” are concerned, we must take on their lack of belief in the concerns raised by the Counter-Jihad Movement by using with each of them the very same Counter-Jihad Argument that shows step-by-step how political correctness and tolerating intolerance in the context of “respect for religion” actually is now and will continue to undermine all of our Common Freedoms.

We all need to understand collectively that, quite ironically and counter-intuitively, even if only hypothetically, showing tolerance to intolerance results in the absolute extinction of tolerance. Nazism showed us this once. Islamism – for 1,400 years – has shown us this again and again. Why? Because all ideas are not equal; the only person who would academically argue for a “minority’s” right to practice cannibalism, for example, is a person who feels himself certain to never come into contact with cannibalism or the actual underlying ideas that have in places caused cannibalism to exist. Therefore, when any “religion” teaches hate; misogyny; social, religious, and gender supremacy; social, religious, and gender inequality; no law but “holy law”; no government but that ordained by “god” and his “prophet”; and restrictions on free speech or changes within others’ cultural norms to avoid offending the “religion” in question or breaching its “god-given” norms, in such case, all of our Common Freedoms based in the opposite of these things will not be capable of surviving. Because of our own Western universalist Christian-based views of human relationships and the world (which themselves are otherwise inherently extremely valuable), people of the “Right”, “Left”, and “Center” have an equally difficult time believing Islamism and Islamists imply a loss of these rights and values on our part.

So, broken down into everyday language and example, when a “Leftist”, a “Progressive”, or a “Liberal” wants to engage you, me, or any blogger, opinion-leader, political party, or politician in “Left”/”Right” political debate or discussion in anyway related to Islamism, Islamists, or irrational immigration, we must not participate in the “Left”/”Right” part of the conversation. We must ignore it fully. We must instead explain to our challenger some things about this Movement. Instead, we must stick to the Counter-Jihad Argument and show the ways in which we within our Movement – which, we should underscore, has immigrants as members and leaders and a membership and leadership that comes from across the “Center”, “Left”, and “Right” – actually support all of our Common Freedoms for all. We must show that it, therefore, has nothing to do with “Right” or “Left” and that their actions and assertions, though very well-intentioned, we should stress, actually end up fully subverting the jointly-held Common Freedoms held by us all not to mention those of so many other vulnerable groups within society. These include women, girls, homosexuals, artists, political and human rights activists, and other religious faiths.

We must take the above path of action instead of entering into some alienating unwinnable conversation or argument about the “Left” or “Hard-Left” or “Progressives” or “Liberals” or how “they” might ever be labeled or whatever “their” real or imagined mistakes, shortcomings, lack of understandings, or “ideologies” are. We must, at all times, stick to the countless actual examples of Islamism and Islamists – contemporary and historical – that violate our (yes, both the “Left’s” and the “Right’s”) Western standards of human rights, women’s rights, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, etc. – also known as our Common Freedoms. No one – no “Leftist”, no “Liberal”, no “Progressive”, no “Socialist” – can argue with these or label our Movement – especially if we in the Counter-Jihad Movement refuse to denigrate their political ideology. Why? Because they themselves believe in these Common Freedoms. Our job is to show the unconvinced – with real world examples of everyday Islamism and Islamists and without ever using the irrelevant terms “Left” or “Leftist” or “Liberal” or “Progressive” or “Socialist” – how their arguments and assertions about Islamism, Islamists, or irrational immigration actually completely undermine and subvert their own beliefs in our Common Freedoms.

If, on the other hand, by engaging in a “Left”/”Right” debate we actually allow “Liberals” or “Leftists” to both privately and publicly delegitimize each of us within this Movement and our Counter-Jihad Argument in general by painting it and us as “right-wing” before all on the “Left”, “Right”, and “Center” who are looking on, we will be prevented from gaining listeners, voters, and votes. Once it becomes a “Left”/”Right” conversation, as has been happening for years now, those not already convinced will simply tune out and dismiss us and our message. This will prevent us all from talking in any effective way about how Islamism, as is visible in media sources all across the world everyday, continually violates our Western standards of human rights and Common Freedoms.

If we in the Counter-Jihad Movement stick to the Counter-Jihad Argument, however, in our writings, postings, speeches, and discussions, we can successfully short-circuit anyone’s arguments and present those who attempt to advance simplistic and incorrect accusations of “bigotry” or “Islamophobia” with issues, facts, and theology that can not be rebutted. We will also, most importantly, attract to the Counter-Jihad Movement people from the “Right”, “Center”, and “Left” because our answers will appeal to an unconvinced individual’s own concerns for upholding Common Freedoms. At the same time, as Churchill recognized to be so important, we will focus upon all that we have in common and not disparage the listener’s own personal ideological politics, regardless of where they stand. Equally as importantly, governmental authorities will be better able to understand that the Counter-Jihad Movement honestly and genuinely is working for all of our human rights and Common Freedoms – Muslim, non-Muslim, and everyone in between. This will allow those in government and other political parties to understand that the Counter-Jihad Movement is not a danger and, as a result, to begin to open up and see the logic and reasoning behind the Counter-Jihad Argument and its connection to the everyday reality that authorities face all across the West.

As to the Breivik situation, taking up the “Left”/”Right” discussion only offers yet another way to feed the unconvinced of all political stripes with arguments and sound bites to be used against the Counter-Jihad Movement. Ideological polemics, quite sadly, also have the potential to feed an imbalanced view of the “Left” among (though not incite) truly right-wing radicals (as with Breivik) and it leaves our Counter-Jihad Movement looking crazy, amateurish, and horrifically “right-wing” no matter what the circumstances – but especially when a Breivik crops ups. The Movement does not need that. It absolutely can not afford to have that. On the other hand, if each of us had all been doing (and now start doing) as I have proposed here, that is, presenting argument and facts – not as an attack or even a discussion of the shortcomings or perceived shortcomings of the “Left” or any ideology – but as our commitment (and our followers’ and parties’ commitment) to human rights, women’s rights, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, etc., in such case, we and the Counter-Jihad Movement would all be in a very good place even in light of another unhinged terrorist like Breivik. If we were to refrain from attacks on the “Left” and make it clear how many from the “Left” make up an integral part of our Counter-Jihad Movement, no one could blame anyone in the Counter-Jihad Movement (rightly or wrongly) for Breivik’s murderous attack on children of the “Left” in Oslo. People across the world would slowly quit pigeonholing and associating our parties so falsely and simplistically with “right-wing” or “extreme-right” politics.

So when, in The Conversation outlined in Part I of these essays, one Counter-Jihad opinion-leader wrote to me that Breivik’s actions were, “…not because of anything we have done…,” we can be certain that though this Movement did not incite him to violence, there were things done and not done within the Movement that fed his misguided and fully out-of-proportion disgust for the so-called “Left” as it exists in his twisted imagination. Moreover, we have, for example, allowed ourselves, our websites, and our political parties to be distracted into divisive, fully unproductive, and alienating discussions of polemical “Left”/”Right” politics. The only result of this being that it alienates present and potential members from the “Left”, “Center”, and “PC Right” and can even feed imbalance to – though not incite – those prone to violence on the “Right”. Worse yet, we have failed to see and pro-actively anticipate exactly which arguments would always be capable of landing us in the absolute best position for ensuring the success of the Counter-Jihad Movement in the case a Breivik were ever to come along. The approach used so often up until now within the Movement – “put pressure on the Left” – has sorely left our Movement and everyone in it across many countries in an extremely exposed, no, in fact, in the very worst position when a Breivik eventually did come along. We as a Movement and as leadership within the Movement have fully failed to anticipate this. That is an extremely disastrous and worrisome failure, not only on the part of the rank-and-file, but on the entirety of the leadership of our Movement. Such a terrible event such as Breivik’s will, sadly and without doubt, happen somewhere again in the future. The question is now, however, whether we will still be feeding ourselves and our Movement into this same indefensible, self-defeating, backlash-prone position with our highly alienating rhetoric and politically partisan arguments?

Had we presented our websites or our political parties as a true home to people “Right”, “Left”, and “Center” all of whom are committed to human rights, women’s rights, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, etc. – period, there would be and could absolutely be no “backlash” and no use of “baseball bats” by the unconvinced, as one of my contacts in a European national parliament so graphically but correctly described the post-Breivik whirlwind. One opinion-leader, in an e-mail to me, referred to “…the Left’s desperate efforts to link us to it…” In light of the above, it appears safe to say that neither the media, the public, nor the “Left” needed to make any real effort to make a link. It only needed to look at the number of times “Liberal”, “Left”, “Leftist”, “Progressive”, and “Socialist” were and are so self-defeatingly used on various Counter-Jihad websites and in Counter-Jihad speeches, compare these with Breivik’s manifesto – and then honestly consider a very ugly and imbalanced picture.

Though some have attempted to add “balance” to the “Left” versus “Right” debate, the point here is that we as a Movement must drop the debate altogether – because it is fully “off-message”. By the eternal discussion of “Left” “Right” politics and unending demonization of the “Left” and “Socialists” and “Liberals”, our Counter-Jihad Movement and these fledgling political parties have created for themselves: 1) a terrible position now in light of such a horrific massacre carried out on “Leftist” children by, in fact, a disgruntled former Counter-Jihad (Fremskrittspartiet) party member (who rejected our and that party’s commitments to democracy, human rights, and our Common Freedoms); 2) added clearly and obviously to the anti-“Left” arguments of – though not in anyway inciting to violence – this murderous individual (and potentially more like him); and 3) we have carelessly damaged our Movement’s ability to recruit members (from the “Left”, “PC Right”, and “Center”) over all of these years now and, as it will be, even more so in the future. Breivik’s actions – and our failure to be sufficiently vocal in ejecting such rare cases from our parties – have also needlessly given governmental authorities a reason to be concerned about the Movement (which exists both in fact and reality to look out for, not detract from or weaken, human rights).

With that, we move forward to some additional ideas and suggestions that would better allow the Counter-Jihad political parties and politicians to take ownership and control of the Movement’s message. As stated previously, because of not moving forward with a consistently correct and focused message across the Movement internationally, the damage is now done. In light of Breivik, it quickly became damage control time – of the severest and most difficult order. Anyone who, after reading these essays, still believes that “more pressure” will ever turn a “Conservative” into a “Liberal” or a “Liberal” into a “Conservative” – and that we will, in the mean time, somehow in time to save the West halt Islamization, it should now be clear, is pointlessly wasting precious voters and time and irretrievably burying the remains of Europe and the West in dark and irreversible change.

In our minds and our hearts, as Winston Churchill declared on so many occasions and so eloquently, we must come to understand that – when it comes to winning the battle of the Counter-Jihad Argument – we do not need to convince any person to give up his or her political convictions. I will repeat: “What holds us together,” Churchill proclaimed, “is the conduct of the war, the prosecution of the war. No Socialist, or Liberal, or Labour man has been in any way asked to give up his convictions. That would be indecent and improper.” ^v In other words, each is fine as he or she is. As long as each individual – by our focusing the Counter-Jihad Argument on contradictory views of human rights and our Common Freedoms – comes to understand the unavoidable loss of Common Freedoms inherent in treating jihad, Sharia, and Islamist supremacy as “respect for religion,” that is the only thing we as a individuals within this Movement need or should care about.

In the future, in addition to an international meeting of Counter-Jihad political parties, politicians, and activists for the purpose of coordinating buy-in internationally and creating some templates for the regularization of the Counter-Jihad Argument, as outlined in these essays, other effective actions can and should be taken. As the attached draft guidelines propose (see the proposed “Churchill-Inspired Guidelines”), subsequent to any international buy-in meeting, the Counter-Jihad political parties and their politicians, carried out via their public relations support staff and webmasters, need to take control proactively over the problems of message communication emanating from the Movement. This could perhaps be done through a trusted independent third-party, who could carry out the service on behalf of one or more of our political parties. This would allow the leadership of the various national political parties, coordinating internationally, to meet their needs to begin uniformly to monitor and publicly “grade” or rate the postings and public statements of the most commonly known Counter-Jihad bloggers and activists. This could be done, as mentioned above, through a trusted and collectively ascribed to intermediary.

To do so, the Counter-Jihad parties as a group should first, however, develop and adopt some simple internal formal standard and mechanisms. These could be made available to their public relations staff and webmasters to use to monitor rhetoric that damages or has the potential of damaging the movement. In limited cases, the parties could privately or publicly criticize and reprimand opinion-leaders were they to encourage “Right”/“Left” rhetoric and polemics or, in the far rarer cases, allude to acts of violence. Private criticism could consist of letters or e-mails sent to offending bloggers or activists. Complementary website listings could also be developed, perhaps by a trusted third-party service, displaying these ratings which, in the case of another Breivik situation, could be referred to by Counter-Jihad parties to show that a party or its politicians directly took up criticism and rejection of such activists and bloggers including the details of why. This would be very valuable as evidence to the media, the general public, and governmental authorities of any Counter-Jihad party’s actual and regular rejection of offending activists’ beliefs and actions. A simple piece of software that monitors relevant blogs and websites, checked by a human coordinator, could make the task both low-cost and simple.

One current example of the ongoing damage to the Movement and the need to address it actively, as proposed, recently came to my attention. I ran across it while adding the finishing details to an earlier version of this essay. Though postings alluding to violence, war, or weapons have never been an issue at all on Mr. Spencer or Ms. Geller’s or most other Counter-Jihad blogs, the same can not be always said for The Gates of Vienna. Sadly this blog, which – even despite its other truthful and useful content – has been perhaps among the most egregious with respect to mentions of weapons and violence. In my opinion, the blog seems not to understand the terminology or the law related to the concept of “incitement to violence.” That blog hosted a posting recently which disconcertingly ended as follows:

“All in all, in closing, the only suggestion I can offer to readers of this essay who in whole or in part agree with its essential premise is this: ‘We live in interesting times. Do not buy shares or bonds or savings certificates but instead rope and ammunition, because very soon you are going to need them. Use what time is left to you to learn who your friends are and who are your enemies, then make peace within yourself by accepting the necessity of what must come to pass — as it has come to pass so many times before in the long history of our species. ‘Sauve qui peut.’ [e.g. “each man for himself”]”

Apparently, despite Breivik’s many citations from The Gates of Vienna, this blog has failed to gain even the least understanding or insight from these events. Aside from the fact that such writings quite arguably expose its American author and blog owner to arrest when visiting Europe for violation of European incitement laws, such a massive failure in insight causes extensive and irreversible damage to the perception and the credibility of the entire Counter-Jihad Movement and its international political establishment. Just as highly confused neo-Nazis present a danger to Counter-Jihad parties when, in rare cases, they confusedly attempt to associate themselves with the Movement’s efforts, a blog and continued writings like that cited above – especially in light of Breivik’s many similar citations from that very same blog – are equally an extreme danger to the entire Counter-Jihad Movement and, most especially, our ability to turn back the advance of Islamism across the West.

No Counter-Jihad politician or party should have the least qualms about openly and vehemently criticizing such writings and thoughts and the blogs and activists who recklessly post them. According to the criterion suggested in the proposed “Churchill-Inspired Guidelines” presented above, the writing in question would receive a designation of “fail” and the offending blogger and writer (and anyone else from the blog), it is proposed, would be barred from all contact with any Counter-Jihad politicians, parties, or events, privately or publicly, in any country (including any third-party events at which our parties and politicians appear), for example, for five (5) years, assuming that such themes are not repeated and all steps to remedy are taken during the interceding years. Those bloggers and activists who damage the growth of the Movement by fomenting – whether publicly or privately – “Left”/”Right” polemics or who allude to violence need to be exposed and lain out to dry by the Counter-Jihad Movement and the very political parties so damaged by these actions. Just as the Counter-Jihad Movement has become much better at quickly expelling and exposing bigots and confused neo-Nazis when and if they show up in those rare circumstances within the ranks of a Counter-Jihad party, the Movement needs to take ownership of the damage being done to our Movement and publicly reject those who damage it and who alienate potential voters from “Left”, “Right”, and “Center” with a needless focus on “Left”/”Right” arguments or by inanely referring to violence and weapons.

Continual – even if low-level conflict – between Counter-Jihad politicians or parties and those offending bloggers or activists who continue to undermine the entire Counter-Jihad Movement will actually serve well in the media and in the mind of the public to remind potential voters and governmental authorities that the Counter-Jihad Movement is not in any way accepting of such polemics nor a movement attached to the “far-right” or, for that matter, in anyway at all adverse to our common notions of human rights and our Common Freedoms. By seeing to it that there are negative consequences for offending bloggers and activists, for example, in losing all access to political parties, politicians, and the events and conferences at which they appear, bloggers and activists who insist on continuing to damage our fledgling parties and movements by using “Left”/”Right” polemics or references to violence will be greatly marginalized. As such, the parties themselves and their politicians will be far better insulated publicly from undue criticism and, as a result, benefit greatly in the press and the minds of the general public. Only in this way will the Counter-Jihad Movement be able to pro-actively control its message and perception and, thereby, insulate itself from a deeper and more devastating backlash in the case of another Breivik. Only in this way, we can be sure, will it also eventually succeed in gaining broad-based respect and support and, in that manner, be able to implement policies that ensure the continued existence of our Common Freedoms.

As the saying goes: “United we stand, divided we fall.” Judging from this exchange of correspondence over the past years, including comments posted among various Counter-Jihad groups, such as the English Defence League (EDL), a growing number of leaders within the Counter-Jihad Movement are coming to understand that “Left”, “Center”, and “Right” are already and must continue to be equally brought into our Movement and our political parties. As one EDL commenter has recognized in response to these essays, “The [Counter-Jihad Movement] has two choices [-] we can continue as we are and watch [the West] slide into an islamic [sic] [hell]hole or we can become leaders that the public can trust to bring them back from the brink and save our [Western societies] from destruction.” In the case we are unable or unwilling to begin and stick to our common (and fully winning) Counter-Jihad Argument as laid out in Part I and steer clear of all that damages us by our own hand, it is clear, circumstances and people from outside of the Movement as well as careless members within the Counter-Jihad Movement and their poorly crafted messages will all, without doubt, ensure our own self-defeat. With this eventuality, expedited by our inability to unite and focus on the correct Argument, we will be faced with the end of the West as we know it and the loss of the rights, freedoms, values, and countries we all – “Right”, “Left”, and “Center” or convinced and unconvinced – so very much cherish.

 

The author, writing under the pseudonym Peter Carl, is an independent non-partisan advisor to a sitting American congressperson and a strategic political researcher and consultant on international and comparative political and public policy issues. He is also a member of the American Committees on Foreign Relations. The author maintains contacts with numerous present and former ambassadors from both the U.S. and European countries, a number of whom are serving or have served in the Middle East. Similarly, he also maintains contacts with present and formerly elected representatives from parties across the political spectrum who have been elected to the U.S. Congress, the EU Parliament, and various national parliaments within Europe. Fluent in five languages and possessing elementary abilities in others, the author was trained and works as an international attorney and possesses a Masters Degree in Public Policy from the top-ranked public affairs program in the United States.

The terms “Islamist” and “Islamism” are used in this piece in recognition of relevant and applicable European Union directives or national laws, while duly noting valid and correct concerns over these terms and any uses of such terms.

 

 

Other parts of this series:

Part I: The Conversation

Part II: Right v. Left

Part III: Breivik v. Hitler

Part IV: On Politics & Nazis

Part V: Winston's Wars

 

 

_________________________

NOTES 

 

Attachment	Size
Brussels_Journal_Churchills_Principle_PART VI_Proposed_Guidelines.pdf	38.58 KB