Conquest by Other Means

By Martin Witkerk
Published in The Social Contract
Volume 27, Number 3 (Spring 2017)
Issue theme: "A new era for immigration enforcement"

Book review:

Muslim Conquest Through Immigration
and the Resettlement Jihad
By Leo Hohmann
WND Books, 2017
304 pp., $25.95 hardcover, $9.99 kindle

Veteran newspaperman Leo Hohmann has for several years been covering immigration and Islam for World Net Daily. In Stealth Invasion, his first book, he explains that the biggest mistake Christians and Jews make in regard to Islam is to assume it is “just another religion seeking a place in society on equal footing with the other great faiths.” Unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims have a religious duty to impose their faith upon the entire world through a combination of force and fraud.

Muslim authorities stress that the concept of jihad (literally “struggle”) does not refer only to fighting; it covers many kinds of apparently peaceful behavior intended to prepare for the eventual forcible conquest which always remains Islam’s ultimate goal. One of the most important non-violent components of jihad is hijra, or migration by Muslims to infidel lands. Muhammad himself set the example by migrating from Mecca to Medina in order to spread his message. The Koran advises Muslims that “Whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah (4:100).” Dying as a warrior engaged in violent jihad may be number one in the merit it gains a believer after death, but hijra comes in a close second. If a Muslim migrates to help spread his religion and dies away from his hometown, even comfortably in his bed, he is considered a martyr and guaranteed of going to heaven.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the prospective migrant also knows of the cradle to grave benefits in Europe and America. Such persons may see their income increase by a factor of ten—without even having to get a job.

Before America’s immigration floodgates were opened in 1965, there were about 150,000 Muslims in the entire country. Today, America has about 3.3 million Muslim citizens and permanent legal residents, with nearly a quarter of a million newcomers arriving every year. We cannot know for sure how many are coming for the easy life and how many to promote Islam, but many tell pollsters they would prefer to be back home. If they stay nevertheless, it could be because they are practicing hijra.

A second nonviolent component of jihad is da’wah, “summoning” or “inviting.” This can refer to Islamic proselytizing, but also includes the formation of alliances with non-Muslim groups that may prove useful for promoting Islam. As Hohmann explains, such overtures “are nothing but a clever ruse meant to weaken the resolve of the unbelievers.” But you do not have to take his word for it; documented proof has been found.

In 2004, FBI agents raided a safe house belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood in northern Virginia. Among the evidence they seized was a document entitled An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, written in 1991 by a Brotherhood operative named Mohamed Akram. This document described Muslim settlement of the United States as a “civilizational jihad process”:

The brothers must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands… so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Akram explains that “the heart and core of this strategy was contingent on these groups’ ability to develop a mastery of the art of coalitions.”

Such coalitions can even be formed with Christian churches. The Islamic Society of North America, one of 29 organizations unmasked by the Explanatory Memorandum as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, practices da’wah through its Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances. In January 2016, that organization’s national director, Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, participated in a Catholic-Muslim interfaith conference at the University of San Diego. He spoke of:

…a new millennium of alliance-building for common values of mutual respect and recognition. All faiths are striving to promote those divine values enshrined in our sacred texts and scriptures, so that those who exploit them for reinforcing hate, extremism, violence and instability are identified as the enemies of all faiths.

Mr. Syeed clearly knows what an American audience wants to hear. Yet even as he dishes out this pabulum to naïve Americans, his own chief sponsor, the Muslim Brotherhood, is busy supporting Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other violent jihadi organizations around the world!

This might not matter so much if influential Americans were not listening to him. But there on the stage beside him sat San Diego’s Catholic Bishop Robert W. McElroy. Instead of challenging Dr. Syeed on his terrorist connections, the good bishop rose to denounce the “scourge of anti-Islamic prejudice.” “We are witnessing a new nativism,” he told his listeners, “which the American Catholic community must reject and label for the religious bigotry that it is.”

Bishop McElroy is a member of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, one of nine voluntary agencies, or VOLAGs, working as government contractors to resettle Muslim “refugees” in America. Although five of the VOLAGs are affiliated with Christian churches, they are not engaged in missionary work; the law forbids them from proselytizing the new arrivals. Nor is such resettlement charitable work: the government pays VOLAGs $2,025 for every person they sponsor. Nor do most of these refugees even fit the 1951 Geneva Convention definition of “refugee” as a person displaced by a well-founded fear of persecution due to their religious, political, or ethnic affiliation. That is a strict standard; even many persons fleeing war zones do not qualify. The original intent of America’s refugee program was to provide safe haven for people fleeing communism.

But today all this has been forgotten. Ninety-five percent of those coming to the U.S. as “refugees” are hand-picked by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and America simply accepts whoever they send. According to the State Department, more than one million Muslims have been legally transplanted into over three hundred American cities and towns through this program. As Hohmann explains:

Those who enter as refugees immediately qualify for a full slate of government goodies that aren’t offered to most other immigrants. Everything from subsidized housing to food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, cash stipends and Medicaid are part of the prize. Within five years they can apply for citizenship and full voting rights.

Hohmann stresses the irony that perhaps no class of people in the world today fits the Geneva definition of refugees better than the persecuted Christian minorities in today’s Middle East. But it is their Muslim persecutors who are given the green light to come to America. For example, despite making up 10 percent of Syria’s population before the war, only 0.5 percent of the Syrians allowed into the U.S. as refugees have been Christian.

The Obama administration has done everything in its power to prevent any Christians from entering the U.S. as refugees over and above the tiny number chosen by the UN High Commissioner. In the spring of 2015, a group of 27 Iraqi Christians set out to cross the border and were detained and held for six months; five of them were charged criminally with falsifying their asylum applications and the rest were promptly deported. One lawyer who specialized in helping Iraqi Christians find refuge in the United States was charged by the Obama administration with “falsifying and embellishing” applications, and is now facing thirty-five years in prison. It is hard to believe that an attorney representing Muslim migrants would have been subject to similar scrutiny from the Obama administration.

Besides the VOLAGs and naïve men of God like Bishop McElroy, the most important targets of da’wah, or outreach to non-Muslim allies, are the globalist left with their vision of a borderless world controlled by unelected technocrats. For decades, this elite faction has been promoting birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and female careerism—in a word, sterility—across the West; at length, they have succeeded in creating a shortage of young people entering the workforce and paying taxes into the system. As the shortage becomes acute, these same people are coming forward to promote massive outsourcing of good-paying jobs to the third world and massive immigration of third world labor to the West as a “solution” to the problems they themselves have created.

Common sense would suggest that intelligent, educated persons of mainly European descent would make the most desirable candidates for immigration to the United States. But importing such people would do nothing to further the globalists’ goal of forcible equalization of material conditions around the world. It is precisely third-world Muslims’ alienness, poverty and lack of skills which makes them attractive to the globalists.

It is obvious, however, that the vision being pursued by the globalist left has nothing in common with the plans of radical Islamists themselves, and many have been puzzled by their willingness to embrace such allies. Hohmann’s diagnosis is certainly correct: globalists feel certain that Christianity and the inherited institutions of the West are the greatest obstacles in the way of fulfilling their plans; Islam, on the other hand, they see as “the perfect tool, a battering ram, for [the] brutal task… of tear[ing] down what is left of the old world order.”

Never was any political alliance more cynical than this one between Islam and globalism. Each party feels certain it will succeed in using the other for its own purposes, and God alone knows which of them is right. The only thing they agree on is the need to destroy the West thoroughly before turning upon one another. Patriots are stuck with the job of fighting both enemies at once, for no wedge can be driven between them until we are gone.

The most important globalist force working to maximize Muslim immigration to the U.S. in recent years has been the administration of Pres. Barack Obama. In November, 2014, as he announced his (unconstitutional) plan to grant amnesty by executive order to over five million illegal immigrants, Obama also created a “White House Task Force on New Americans.” In subsequent weeks, the cochair of this task force, Cecilia Mu ñoz (former executive of the National Council of La Raza) hosted three conference calls between White House officials and representatives of various open borders groups.

Baltimore talk-show host Susan Payne managed to infiltrate these conference calls, and reported what she heard to radio host Mark Levin. Participants were planning for 13-15 million legalizations rather than the five million announced to the public. They compared the placement of these immigrants to “planting seedlings” into the “soil” of receiving communities, which “soil” was to be adapted to accommodate the needs of the “seedlings”—and not the other way around. The newly amnestied immigrants were expected to “navigate, not assimilate;” one task force member spoke explicitly of “developing a country within a country.” Like seedlings, these new immigrant communities were meant to grow and gain strength until they could come out of the shadows and overtake the receiving communities: in effect, pushing older Americans into the shadows from which they had emerged. A key part of this plan is to grant all 13 million or more newly legalized aliens all the benefits hitherto reserved for refugees—courtesy of the same American taxpayers whom the newcomers are meant to replace.

Most immigrants to the U.S. are not Muslims, of course, but the Muslim proportion continues to rise. John Guandolo, a former FBI counterterrorism specialist and the author of Raising a Jihadi Generation, estimates that the U.S. is ten to fifteen years behind Europe in terms of the advancement of Islam and the eventual subjugation of its non-Muslim population.

American public school children are already being taught a sugar-coated version of Islam that portrays Muhammad as a swashbuckling Robin Hood character. As one of Hohmann’s interviewees explains:

He’s this amazing guy whose message was spread around the world, and he wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor. Very few details are given of any of his conquests, the beheadings, the taking of female sex slaves, nothing.

The Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer remain strictly off-limits in America’s public schools, of course; separation of church and state applies only to Christianity.

A 2015 study commissioned by the Center for Security Policy found that 51 percent of American Muslims would prefer to live under sharia law rather than the U.S. Constitution; among Muslims under 30, the figure rises to 60 percent. Nearly a quarter of Muslims in America are willing to tell pollsters openly that they consider the use of violent jihad justified in order to establish sharia.

It is not even clear that Americans are allowed to disagree publicly with Islam any more. In the spring of 2016, the pastor of a small church in Oregon posted the following messages on his church’s marquee: “Wake up Christians; Allah is not our God; Muhammad not greater than Jesus; Only the Bible is God’s word… Koran is just another book.” The pastor estimates that on a good day, perhaps thirty cars would drive by and see this simple statement of Christian belief.

Within days, word had gotten out and liberal “Christian” groups descended on the church to protest. The largest newspaper in the state, the Portland The Oregonian, reported on the “controversy,” and even the Mayor of Portland intervened, describing the incident as “ugly” and “bigoted.” One night the church’s sign was vandalized, but the newspapers did not see fit to report this. As one observer pointed out, if Christians had defaced a mosque’s marquee it “would have been all over the news, and you probably would have had Obama out here with the Department of Justice filing hate-crime charges.”

Liberal “Christian” allies such as these reliably come to the aid of expanding Islam whenever called upon. And this is precisely the plan set forth by the Muslim Brotherhood in its “Explanatory Memorandum”: viz., “sabotaging [Western civilization’s] miserable house by their [own] hands.” As the author explains, “If you can find someone within your enemy’s own camp who is willing to be used and who will do your bidding, that’s always more effective than if you pleaded your own cause.”

Leo Hohmann’s Stealth Invasion went to press before last year’s presidential election, and it remains to be seen to what extent Donald Trump can reverse the immigration disaster Barack Obama sought to “institutionalize” as a permanent part of the government bureaucracy. But the book—packed with more information and real-life stories than I can summarize here—will remain relevant for as long as appreciable numbers of Muslims remain settled in the United States.

About the author

Martin Witkerk writes from the mid-Atlantic region and has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Tulane University.

Copyright 2007-2013 The Social Contract Press, 445 E Mitchell Street, Petoskey, MI 49770; ISSN 1055-145X
(Article copyrights extend to the first date the article was published in The Social Contract)