18 May Will America’s Think Tanks Cave to the “Religion of Peace”?
There’s an alarm bell sounding across the country–including inside the Beltway—as America’s most prominent think tanks are finally being forced to very visibly take up the questions surrounding Islam/sharia in America.
In the runup to celebrating America’s 250th birthday, and the corresponding natural inclination to wonder whether there will be another 250 years for America as founded, there may be nothing more important in 2026 than to find out how America’s think tanks are going to deal with these questions.
[A simple google search, whether AI-assisted or not, will readily turn up the names of these think tanks. They won’t be named here, because the purpose of this post is not to shame or pressure any individual person or group of persons, but to warn and inform—in the hopes that moral courage won’t be found lacking.]
America would never have gotten off the ground in 1776 had not many of its finest leaders possessed not only a knowledge of human history sufficient to recognize the revolutionary enormity of what the Declaration of Independence proclaimed as ‘self-evident’ truths, but also the moral courage to be willing to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to make that Declaration stick.
The founding fathers were not promised money or honor or luxurious lives if they would sign their names to the Declaration; on the contrary, and profoundly, they promised to sacrifice their money, their honor and their very lives to stand for the cause of individual freedom and responsibility under God. (And in many cases, their pledges were called, in full.)
____________________
In the 2020’s, as in decades prior, America’s think tanks depend for their existence on supportive donors. And in general, the bigger the think tank, the greater the dependence on the most generous and deep-pocketed of those donors.
Donors generally like what they view as the status quo of laws and policies that enabled them to become wealthy. They generally do not want to rock the boat, and are very hesitant to support initiatives or policy programs that tend toward rocking the boat.
For anyone (including the think tank donor class) early in the learning curve on the irreconcilable conflict of Islamic sharia with the US Constitution and rule of law, this conflict looks and feels like something with a lot of potential to rock the boat.
And so the default reaction of such donors and the messages they deliver to think tank leaders, is: ‘handle this in a way that won’t rock the boat…avoid confrontation…keep the rhetoric dialed down…we can ride this out over time.’
But…the leaders of prominent think tanks aren’t dummies; they didn’t generally arrive at their positions without the skill of critical thinking; and, at least for think tanks with a conservative, America First/MAGA-leaning direction, such leaders generally have a grounding in Judeo-Christian morality and western civilizational norms. They—like Charlie Kirk—know damn well that ‘Islam is not compatible with western civilization’.
So…these think tank leaders and donors are entering a time of profound consequence not merely to the survival of their institutions but to the survival of America. (For background on the threat that sharia presents to the survival of America, see the posts listed in the footnote below[1].)
Bottom line—there isn’t going to be a dialed down discussion that leads to a think tank path for implementing a reconciliation of Islam with Christianity over time. It hasn’t happened for 14 centuries because it’s theologically impossible; in any given country, there is Islam or Christianity, simply one or the other. (Ask any imam: they don’t want a reconciliation with Christianity and certainly not with Judaism; they know a reconciliation is not possible; by the terms of Islam itself, they know its purpose to conquer the world—most definitely including America—and establish a global caliphate ruled by sharia. Islamic majority countries do not tolerate Christian churches.)
______________
As America’s think tank leaders take on this challenge, they will inevitably have to keep one eye on their donors. Their dilemma is not difficult to comprehend; it’s actually a recurring one for any think tank that addresses controversial issues: lose key donors, and they may lose the think tank.
But this time the stakes are uniquely high. Shy away from facing the truth about this challenge, and the country may be lost, along with its think tanks…and sooner than you might think.
Watch carefully how America’s think tanks respond to this challenge. Are they ignoring the Islamic conquest of America now underway or pretending it’s not happening? Are they acknowledging the conflict but downplaying it? If they are downplaying it, why? On what grounds? With what historical basis of support? Or are they honestly acknowledging the conflict and willing to go all-in with solutions built around remigration? The answers may well be driven by donors and not by the leaders.
The task at hand for the think tank leader determined to help preserve America and freedom is very obviously to rapidly bring the donor class up the learning curve on the conflict, and carefully—without hysterical ranting and raving—demonstrate to them that this conflict is truly existential as to America itself and the American culture which enabled them to accumulate the resources that allowed them to become donors in the first place.
The think tank leader must explain to the donors that America has arrived at a point where their sustained and increased donations are actually more important than ever for assuring America’s survival and enduring vitality.
Let’s hope think tank leaders are up to the task.
Eric Georgatos
[1] America’s 250th Birthday – A Changeless Declaration, Forever Opposed to Sharia; America’s 250th Birthday: A Perfect Time for an Emancipation Proclamation for Muslims in America…and a Remigration Plan
First posted on the America Can We Talk Substack.