How To Defeat Jihadism In America

Interview With Srdja Trifkovic 

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “I wanted to talk a little bit about your essay that you had published in Chronicles Magazine website, “Defeating Domestic Jihad: A Program of Action.”  When you say domestic, do you mean American domestic, or do you mean Serbian, Bosnian, Ukrainian, Crimean, Russian domestic?”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  I wanted to talk a little bit about your essay that you had published in Chronicles Magazine website, “Defeating Domestic Jihad: A Program of Action.”  When you say domestic, do you mean American domestic, or do you mean Serbian, Bosnian, Ukrainian, Crimean, Russian domestic?

Srdja Trifkovic:  American, of course.  After all, what I’m trying to do with my analysis of the problems posed by jihad is primarily to focus on how the United States can and should defend itself from what Europe unfortunately is literally getting out of control.  What I’m suggesting as an American program of action is more or less out of the question now that we have a wave of roughly one million so-called refugees, in reality illegal migrants, pouring into an unprotected, demoralized, and politically inane Europe from both the Middle East and North Africa, which is placing security services in the European countries into a quandary.  America is not there yet, but it might get very close to that imbroglio unless measures are taken to prevent it from developing.  My essay was really an attempt to define the issues in fairly neutral terms, to look at them in terms not so much of emotional response to San Bernardino, but of a realist approach, which, of course, would be decried as xenophobic and Islamophobic by the liberal elites.  Nevertheless, it’s the only way to think about it and talk about it.

Mike:  You say number one is “spying on Muslims is necessary, legal and justified.”  I agree with that.  How do you convince the American government, as it were, with all the trouble candidate Trump is going through with even suggesting that there should just be some sort of a moratorium on importing future Muslims or Islamics that would need to be spied on?

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

Trifkovic:  First of all, the precedence for what I’m suggesting already exists.  It was considered perfectly legitimate for the United States authorities to spy on the members of the Communist Party and various affiliated front organizations, both before and during the Cold War.  If a group professes an ideology which is fundamentally opposed to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the American, not so much way of life – again, that would be one of the political statements, in strictly legal terms, which is opposed to the principle that the U.S. Constitution is the rock bed, the foundation of the American political system.  No believing Muslim can ever aver to respect the U.S. Constitution above all other systems or documents because it would be an act of apostasy.  It would be a mortal sin.  Sharia, for a true, believing Muslim, is the only valid, universally-valid, eternally-valid law of any land.  Sharia is, of course, based upon the Quran and the Sira, the example of the prophet.

Ever since the time of Muhammad and his four immediate successors, the first four caliphs in the seventh century, the model of eternally-valid political, legal, and religious authority was established, which Islamist revivalists have tried to emulate ever since.  What I’m saying is, if you are seriously committed to the Muslim faith, then you cannot be a regular American.  You cannot really swear an oath of allegiance.  As a naturalized U.S. citizen, I did so some 15 years ago.  You cannot swear an oath of allegiance to a system that is based on what is essentially a manmade document.  A believing Muslim, the only source of authority and the only source of legitimate sovereignty is Allah and his appointed representative in this world, the caliph.  That was the model established by Muhammad in 632 when he conquered Mecca, and has been followed ever since by various successors, the Baghdad caliphate, Damascus caliphate, the emanations in Egypt and Spain, and, of course, in the Ottoman Empire since the early 16^th century, until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of World War I.

What I am saying is that for legal purposes, it is necessary to rebound [ph?] Islamic activism, which necessarily entails the introduction of Sharia law as an inherently seditious political activity, so that no one can raise the objection of suppressing religious beliefs and violating human rights and all that nonsense.  We are simply talking about a very clear, very coherent, long-term plan of political action which postulates that the world is divided in a Manichean, black-and-white manner, into the world of faith, Dar al-Islam, and the world of war, Dar al-Harb.  Everything that is not under their rule is automatically by default Dar al-Harb.  This existential historical drama can only end with Dar al-Islam prevailing upon the whole of humanity.  Sharia governing the lives of all 7.5 billion people in this world.

This may sound melodramatic, but this is truly what they believe.  What I’m saying is that those who believe that should be supervised just as stringently as the Bolsheviks and the Trotskyites and various other fringe groups with cataclysmic end-of-times agenda have been over the decades.  I don’t believe there is anything inherently strange or extreme about that.  The only reason why the dominant discourse in the United States is opposed to this notion is because it is in the hands of people who do not know Islam, do not know the teachings, have not read the Quran, have not read the Hadith, the traditions of the prophet, and do not realize that ultimately Islamist ideology derives its authority from these sacred texts and not from any notion of inherent human rights or sovereignty of the people or democracy.

Mike:  It doesn’t derive its existence or its purpose for doing things, I believe the Latin term is desideratum, it doesn’t derive it from liberalism or from Western liberalism, certainly not Western liberalism, and certainly not Eastern liberalism, as it would be known outside of Soviet countries.  Something else that you wrote here that is actually prevalent, and I’m sure that you being a newsy, as I know you are, and keeping up with the current affairs of the United States, you must know that proposition two – by the by, it’s Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, live from Belgrade, Serbia, on the Dude Maker Skype line with us.  Proposition two, “refuse/rescind citizenship to Islamic activists.”  In rescinding, we’d have to identify.  In refusing, we’d either have to identify or we’d have to assume.  That sounds like at least one of the components of what candidate Trump is saying.  Until we can figure out where to go and how to deal with this, we shouldn’t import any more people from Muslim countries.  Is that fair to say?  Am I on the right track?

Trifkovic:  I’m mildly amused by Donald Trump [unintelligible].  I do not know if he reads Chronicles website or some of his advisors might.  What I’m saying is that because the oath of allegiance when you become a U.S. citizen is really a legal document, a contract, if you will, where you commit yourself to the respect for legal document par excellence, which is the U.S. Constitution, as the one that you will observe and serve to the exclusion of any other source of supreme authority.  We have, I think, in the oath the antiquated phrase [unintelligence].  What is meant by that is, of course, a source of authority that transcends and trumps, excuse the term, the Constitution itself.  If we find out that a naturalized Muslim has engaged in the promotion of Islamist supremacy, Sharia law, and Islamization of America and everything that goes with it, he has really violated this legal contract; therefore, it should be made null and void and the person reported back to his country of origin.  Again, I believe that my position is eminently logical and reasonable.  It does not violate anybody’s human rights.  Swearing the oath of allegiance to become a U.S. citizen is a voluntary act.  You don’t have to do it if it is in conflict with your conscience.

Mike:  Let me say to the audience, we have Dr. Trifkovic on the Skype hotline.  You may not have heard clearly what he said.  He said it partly in gest.  I would just like to reiterate it because I think it’s worthy of notation here.  What Dr. Trifkovic said is that his essay in Chronicles Magazine that contains the “refuse/rescind citizenship to Islamic activists” was published on December the 4^th.  Candidate Trump made his now famous statement bout barring entry or denying entry to Islamics from outside the United States into the United States on December the 5^th.  There’s a one-day divide there.  What he said was: I don’t know if Trump or Trump’s people are reading Chronicles.  You could easily call it not the Trump plan but the Trifkovic plan.

[/private]

Trifkovic:  I am still waiting for the phone call, by the way.  Just kidding.  No, it simply means that certain ideas have come of age.  What I used to say some years ago, I outlined a similar plan of action in my book Defeating Jihad, that was published in 2007 and was severely criticized by some of the PC police.  It is becoming an increasingly legitimate, common sense view of many American.  We have been force fed so much pap on the religion of peace and tolerance.  I’m afraid in this respect, both George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama are equally guilty.  The gap between the politically correct propaganda and the ugly reality has become so obvious, the schism is so daunting, that reasonable people are no longer prepared to swallow it.  I think it is necessarily to start systematically through a long-term strategy of defense.  If it is not done, if Obama is able to import so-called Syrian refugees and migrants, and if the security services are burdened both by the shackles of non-profiling and by the exponentially rising numbers of potential suspects and culprits, then the situation will become impossible.  It is already impossible in Europe, as I said a minute ago.  America is not quite there.  America needs to do all that is possible to prevent it from reaching the levels of real and present threats that exist today in, say France or Britain.

Have you tried the all new Veritas Radio Network yet? You can listen to the Mike Church Show LIVE weekdays 8-11 CST. The show is easier to access than ever before.  But Veritas Radio isn’t JUST Mike Church, try the exclusives shows by REConquest with Brother Andre, David Simpson, The Mark Kreslins Show, My Story of America from Michael T George, Reverse Deception with Gregory Carpenter and The Constitution Hour with Kevin Gutzman.

Mike:  You mentioned Britain.  I was speaking with a friend the other day and he didn’t believe what you just said.  I actually said: Let’s go to the Guardian UK newspaper and I’ll show you.  There is a running thread or a continual thread of editorialists and essayists that are writing about how they see cloistered societies, cloistered areas of Islamics that were voluntarily immigrated and allegedly assimilated into Great Britain or into the United Kingdom that systematically now have refused to assimilate.  Not they’re saying no.  They don’t want to be Englishmen.  They are Muslims.  They are practicing Sharia.  They’re not leaving.  What the authors are writing about is that if they’re not leaving and they’re practicing Sharia and their numbers are growing, what does that mean for us?  It’s what you just said.  That means implementation ultimately.  That’s the way it happens.  Anyone that does not know the history of Islam rising out of the desert as a combination of paganism and, unfortunately, some perverse and heretical sects of early Christianity and Judaism – it arose as an answer to the spread of Christ.

End Mike Church Show Transcript