America Should Look to 19th Century Utah to Understand How to Deal with the Threat of Islam

In 1899 Winston Churchill wrote the following: “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

I find this quote to be quite compelling. The most prescient aspect of it is this: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” If Churchill is paying attention at all in Heaven, he’s banging on the podium saying “See, I told you so!”

The other, more troubling element of this quote is this: “and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall,” If anything characterizes western civilization in 2025 it is an almost complete absence of “the strong arms of science.”

Emotion has replaced science, rational thought and common sense as the guiding principle in the Christian dominated, i.e. western world.  No longer are chromosomes determinative of a person’s gender.  A series of ever evolving fictional climate emergencies are used to force western nations into handicapping their economies and reducing prosperity. Nations that took centuries or a millennium to coalesce are being shredded in a few years or decades as they import millions of third world immigrants who share neither their cultural norms nor values.

Even in areas where science is literally part of the function of the organization, science is sidelined for empathy.  Here in America we have doctors, pilots, air traffic control officers and myriad others who are regularly being hired because of the pigment of their skin or some other irrelevant demographic characteristic. 

It’s clear that the world Christianity built is no longer the bulwark against the invasion of Islam it once was.  Actually, it’s just the opposite. In 2001, the year of 9/11, there were 1.5 million Muslims in America.  Today there are four million, an increase of 150%, eight times what the population at large grew.  In Europe, over the same period the number of Muslims has gone from 15 million to more than 45 million, essentially tripling. This while Christianity declined from 78% to 63% of the population in the US and dropped by both a percentage of the population and absolute numbers in Europe.

What, if anything should the United States do about this?  The first question to ask if it’s a problem.  I’d suggest it is.  There are countless resources that track the impact on nations as Islam becomes more entrenched, and those impacts are never good. Not to mention the terrorist attacks or the ongoing threats of such. Or the violent campus (and beyond) protests after the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023 to see that this is a problem.  And finally, at the end of the day, there’s the fact that Islam seeks to obliterate western civilization.

One might point out that Islamist terrorist attacks only killed a few thousand Americans over decades, out of a nation of 350 million people. That’s true, but that’s only because we have avoided another 9/11 thanks to the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people working hard to keep such an occurrence at bay.

Should something be done?  Yes.  Can something be done?  Yes. What?  Look to history. 

The first item of note is that for most of 20^th century Communism was rightfully seen as evil and anti-American.  And although the Communist Party was free to exist on free speech grounds, it was hindered in almost every way possible.  From not allowing Communists to work for the government and trying to root them out everywhere to the FBI surveilling them, Communism was anathema to American values and almost everyone agreed with that.  Islam is not Communism, but it has at its core the goal of eliminating all other religions, quashing free speech, relegating women to 2^nd class status and replacing secular government with Sharia law.  Those goals are equally as dangerous to the Republic as anything Communism ever dreamt of doing. The difference is, while the former was shunned or even denounced in the media, in academia and among most of the citizenry, the latter is celebrated by the media and the intelligentsia while being supported by NGOs and leftist government bodies across the country. 

Of course we have a 1^st Amendment that promises a freedom of religion... That’s true, we do, but it’s not an absolute. The latter half of the 19^th century saw the United States government essentially wage a 50 year war against the Mormon Church over polygamy, a core tenant of the faith. From outlawing the practice via law and arresting violators while Utah was just a Territory to refusing to allow it to become a state until the practice was officially expunged, the United States did everything within its power to eradicate the practice.  The Church finally relented and in 1890 banned the practice, thus clearing the way for Utah to be admitted as a state in 1896. 

Polygamy – a practice that is explicitly part of Islam – is indeed problematic, but certainly far less dangerous to the nation than the threats that Islam writ large poses for America.

So, what can be done? The first thing to do is explicitly recognizing that Sharia – the moral and religious law of Islam – is wholly incompatible with the Republic of the United States. From there a few things follow: 

1)      Explicitly outlaw Sharia law nationally and in every state.

2)      Monitor and close any mosque that hosts a speaker or features an imam who calls for Sharia law.

3)      Ban all funds to organizations in the US coming from nations that have Sharia law.

4)      Close any school that teaches or encourages Sharia law.

5)      Demand every mosque and Muslim affiliated organization affirm that the supreme law of the United States is the Constitution and they will not seek to undermine it, replace it with Sharia nor to engage in or support terrorism in any way. 

6)      After designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, do the same for organizations in the United States and beyond who support it or any other terrorist organizations.

Just as Mormons integrated into the United States after accepting the reality that the law of the land is founded on the Constitution, Muslims could do the same if America is really where they want to live.

Far from a mere mental exercise, this is a clarion call for the survival of the Republic. In little over a month, arguably America’s most important city is poised to elect as mayor an Islamist who also happens to be a Communist. In previous times those who advocated for overthrowing America were called traitors and were dealt with accordingly.  Doing so now will most certainly result in being called racists and Islamaphobes, but not doing so will be another step in bringing the Republic to an end.  Which is a better long-term outcome? 

 

Follow me on X at @ImperfectUSA

The West is playing an international game of RISK with the Muslim world

In the boardgame RISK the goal is world domination.  You achieve that by battling other players within and across continents. The best strategy is to take and hold Australia.  Once secured you can build up your troops while defending the single point of access to keep your opponents at bay then attack in a methodical style and slowly expand.

This strategy doesn’t always work, but the notion of finding an easily defendable base where you can husband resources and use it as a launching pad to attack others is sound. 

We’re actually seeing that strategy play itself in real life competition that is anything but a game. 

I’m talking of course about Islam.

Islam began in second half of the 6^th century in what is now Saudi Arabia.  By the time Muhammad died in 632 the peninsula was largely Muslim.  Over the next century Islam would grow rapidly, sweeping across north Africa, through Spain and into France.

In 732 Islam would meet its match in the person of Charles Martel, the de facto leader of the Franks. The Umayyad Caliphate had used its bases in North Africa and later Spain to advance on what is today France, behind the leadership of Abd Al-Rahman. Martel would appeal to the Pope for the funds necessary to defend Christendom.

When the forces met near Tours, the heavily outnumbered Frankish forces were victorious and at the end of the day the Muslim threat to Christendom was over.

While there would be other battles as the Caliphate retreated from France, Muslim control in western Europe would be limited to Iberia for the next 800 years where it would remain in slow decline until its final ouster from Granada in 1492.

Across the Mediterranean at about that same time the Ottomans conquered the unconquerable city, Constantinople, in 1453 and by 1653 would reach the gates of Vienna. 

By that point the Ottomans had control over much of south eastern Europe stretching from Greece up to central Hungary and east to what is now Ukraine. The Ottoman’s very much employed the Australia strategy, bringing resources from across its well defended Empire up through Istanbul and deployed them throughout the Balkans in preparation to support the siege.  Their efforts would be thwarted by Polish king John III Sobieski.

Much like the Battle of Tours, the assault on Vienna was seen as a threat to Christendom and would represent the high water mark of Muslim incursion into Europe.  The following centuries would see the Ottoman Empire slowly retreat until its ultimate demise in the early 20^th century.

Not that the Muslim world was monolithic, because it wasn’t. There were often competing caliphates and competition within caliphates, but the Islamic world never experienced anything resembling the kind of balkanization that characterized Christian Europe for most of its post Roman history. Nor was Europe the only area that Islam sought to conquer, at points controlling all of India and much of western China and stretching south to Indonesia.

Today we live in a different world where caliphates in the traditional sense no longer exist. Instead of having one or multiple caliphates controlling large empires of Muslim lands, today there are over 50 countries where Muslims rule.

But just because we live in a different world doesn’t mean we’re living in a different world.  Just as Muhammad and his successors sought to expand Islam to the ends of the earth, today we have a similar push, albeit from a far more grassroots source. 

The leaders of most Muslim countries today are simply trying to survive the chaos of their 3^rd world dystopias rather than trying to conquer the world in the traditional sense.  Sure, there are a few Muslim nations who have used the money from oil to climb into the relatively developed world, or create a Potemkin façade of such, but they’re a minority.  No, most are like Pakistan or Mali and often have challenges just keeping the lights on and their populations fed.

There are however hundreds of Islamic groups and terrorist organizations who seek to conquer the world and bring the entire planet (particularly western civilization) into a caliphate. Like in the game RISK, they depend on Muslim countries for support and sending new recruits. They are achieving results sultans could only have dreamed of as western countries welcome millions of Muslims. Western leaders always promise citizens the immigrants would assimilate and become productive members of their new nations.

But that didn’t happen. Muslims mostly congregated in Muslim areas, maintained their traditions, flew flags of their former countries and rallied to the cause of terrorist organizations. Indeed, many maintain allegiance to Islam rather than their adopted countries and commit a disproportionate amount of crime too.  Often natives are being pressured into changing the culture to accommodate them.  

What’s the difference between 732, 1653 and 2025?  Simple. In the former Christians understood they were in a battle for their very survival and were willing to fight to defend their way of life against powers that wanted to destroy it. They were more than just nominally Christian, they were actual Christians with faith, confidence and a belief that the civilization built by Christianity deserved to be defended. 

Today, none of those things apply.  Western civilization is largely ruled by globalists who believe the west is uniquely stained by the evils of slavery and colonization and contrition requires welcoming everyone, regardless of the country or culture from which they come. What’s worse, they tax their citizens to pay to support these newly arrived immigrants.  And citizens who complain because they liked their country the way it was are labeled far right racists and fascists and sometimes jailed.  But perhaps the single biggest difference is that western leftists and leaders today take for granted the world they were bequeathed.  They assume that because they enjoy freedom, prosperity, electricity, running water, etc. that they will naturally be there forever.  They have no understanding of history and have no interest in how successful civilizations are built, nor sustained.

The outcome of all of this will be that numerous western nations, particularly Europe, will be majority Muslim within a century.  But the reality is, the west will be part of the caliphate long before the end of this century. The reason the British could control India, a nation of 200 million people, with less than 100,000 troops (less than 1/10^th of 1% of the population) was because the cooperation of millions of Indians in the army and the bureaucracy. 

Muslims already make up far more than that in Europe and it doesn’t take much for the impact to be felt, particularly with pandering politicians.

Islam is not compatible with western civilization. Freedom of speech, religion and thought are core to western civilization. Islam opposes all of them. But it doesn’t matter as long as the west’s globalist leaders act as if their constituents are cogs in a machine who can be replaced by anyone from anywhere, regardless of their culture.  In RISK, as in life, it’s the last one standing who wins. Unless something changes, western civilization will find itself swallowed up in a caliphate of its own making, and freedom, prosperity and actual civilization will be but distant memories.  

Follow me on X at @ImperfectUSA