“Terrorism” does not come out of a vacuum. It comes, as Mao Tse-tung’s guerrillas were “fish that swim in the sea of the people,” out of a demographic sufficiency, out of an ideological self-assurance.
“Terrorism” in Western Europe is a function of the fact that now large populations among whom “terrorists” are frequently found now live among their targets. This act of colossal folly has been the result of greed in some cases (as in Germany, with that supposed need for “gastarbeiter” who would supposedly, their work ended, return to Turkey — but they didn’t leave, and their progeny are obtaining German citizenship, and becoming more, not less extreme, in their Islam than their parents), and misplaced kindness in others (the British fondly believing that it was they who should rescue the Muslims among those Asians kicked out by Idi Amin and other African despots, rather than have them return to Pakistan or Bangladesh). And always and everywhere, it is the result of criminal negligence about Islam.
Those who commit acts of terrorism do not necessarily need, on the spot, Muslims to support them. The 9/11 attackers may have came from abroad, but remember that those guilty of terrorism in Amsterdam lived in the Netherlands, and that Muslims who have lived for long periods, or in some cases even been born, in Great Britain, in France, in Spain, in Italy, in Belgium, in America, in Canada, in Norway, in Denmark, have either participated directly in acts of terrorism, or plotted such acts before being caught, or have supported those who have been terrorists.
The larger the local population of Muslims, the more incessant the demands by that population for severe, absurd limits on methods used to prevent such terrorism. For example, take the demand that there be no “profiling” at airports or elsewhere for Muslim terrorists, on the basis of the perceived belief in Islam of those in the population who, intelligently and effectively, should be subject to much greater scrutiny. Take also the severe limits placed on public discussion of the nature of Islam, of what its adherents believe or can reasonably be assumed to believe, if they call themselves Muslims. The larger the Muslim population, the greater the number of people attempting to influence Western politicians to lay off of Islam, the greater the pressure to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, and the greater the likelihood that some in that population will offer political, moral, financial support to those who plot and plan, and those who manage to take part in, acts of terrorism.
And there is one final thing. Terrorism is an instrument. But the goal is the removal of all obstacles, everywhere, to the spread and dominance of Islam. Over 1350 years, with a few exceptions (in Java and Sumatra, conversion of the rulers to Islam led to mass-conversion of their subjects), Islam spread by force. Such force is not possible today, right now, in most of the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels. Other instruments of Jihad are being employed instead — well-financed and carefully-targetted campaigns of Da’wa, deployment of the Money Weapon (Saudi Arabia alone has spent nearly $100 billion in the last few decades, for mosques, madrasas, armies of Western hirelings, propaganda, public-relations efforts), and above all, demographic conquest. That conquest is discussed openly, and incessantly, by Muslims (from Boumedienne in 1974, at the U.N., to letter-writers to the Pakistani newspaper “Dawn”), while the victims of this demographic conquest are made to believe that discussion of this is most unseemly, most unwise, most “racist,” most something, and so they — mostly — keep very quiet.
And certainly nothing significant has yet been done to halt the large-scale Muslim immigration into the West, that for all the schemes and dreams of integration, poses a permanent (and growing) threat to the political and legal institutions, to the entire civilizational legacy (art, music, free and skeptical inquiry that makes science possible), of that West.
The inheritors of Western civilization may not be worthy, most of them, of those who came before. But they can at least do one thing: they can work to preserve that legacy from the greatest internal threat, possibly the greatest threat, it has ever faced, or endured.