TOO LATE

Current emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood

In the late 1920s (roughly 1925–1929), Nazism was at an early, fringe, and marginal stage of threat. After his release from prison in 1924, Hitler focused on a "legal path" to power — rebuilding the party, emphasizing propaganda, and organizing.

Come the early 1930s in Germany, the window for easy, purely peaceful, non-violent resolution had effectively closed.

By most metrics of organizational development, institutional penetration, and demographic/cultural presence, the Civilization Jihad strategy (as outlined in the Muslim Brotherhood's documents, which I wrote to you about in my last email) is significantly more advanced in these mid-late 2020s than the Nazi Party was in the mid-late 1920s.

In countries like France, Sweden, Belgium, and parts of the UK and Germany, decades of migration, higher fertility rates, and failed integration have created entrenched parallel societies and "especially vulnerable areas" (official euphemism for no-go zones). Recent 2025–2026 reports document ongoing radicalization (especially online among youth), persistent support for aspects of Sharia in polling (e.g., significant minorities in France favoring Islamic law over national law), and non-violent Islamist networks (often linked to Muslim Brotherhood offshoots) that foster separation rather than assimilation

A peaceful turnback is probably too late in much of Europe. It isn't too late here, 

Civilization Jihad specifically preys on Judeo-Christian-derived moralities and liberal Western values such as tolerance, forgiveness, charity, openness to strangers, and a reluctance to judge or confront religious differences aggressively.

In a world where Western civilization faces this threat, we are confronted with what philosopher Karl Popper called the "Paradox of Tolerance." In 1945, Popper — who had witnessed the rise of Hitler and the Nazis — wrote a powerful critique of totalitarianism and a defense of liberal, democratic societies. He warned: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance." Or as Ayn Rand observed: “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”

The fight against "Civilization Jihad" (or stealth jihad) focuses on countering gradual, non-violent infiltration and influence operations that exploit democratic openness, free speech, and our legal system. Analysts who take the documented strategy seriously emphasize the need for an "asymmetric defense" that strengthens resilience without abandoning core liberal principles.

This is not about targeting all Muslims. Rather, it is about distinguishing between personal faith and ideological supremacists who espouse political Islam/Sharia advocacy aiming for dominance.

Our commitment to tolerance and helping those in need is a beautiful part of the liberal tradition, but it leaves us vulnerable when others treat those virtues as tools rather than mutual values. The 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum openly describes building influence by working through our democratic systems and goodwill "from within."

Rep. Pat Ryan endorses
Mamdani for NYC mayor

Who is actively pushing back against the Muslim Brotherhood’s networks? Who is calling out the successes of Civilization Jihad — such as the election of figures like Zohran Mamdani — versus endorsing him? Similarly, on migration (often framed as "settlement" or tamkeen/enablement in the Brotherhood’s own documents), who is supporting unchecked illegal migration, and who is opposing it?

The fight against Civilization Jihad is not about closing our hearts — it’s about protecting the open, pluralistic society that makes our compassion possible in the first place, before it is too late.