The Case for Islamization

Our Russian correspondent Dimitri K. sends his latest essay, a meditation on the process of Islamization and the nature of the modern state.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
The Case for Islamization
by Dimitri K.

Many have noted recently that the Islamization of Western countries is not only permitted but often promoted and enforced by the authorities. After terrorist attacks in USA and Europe the pace of Islamization actually increased. The reason for that is not yet clear; some blame leftists, other blame greedy capitalists, lack of religious belief, conspiracies, etc.

The author proposes his own theory. Currently it is only a hypothesis; it lacks statistical evidence and details. To collect that evidence is a task for millions of sociologists and political scientists all over the world — after all, they also need to have something to do.

My first point is that the state is not simply a collection of its citizens, just as the animal is not just the collection of cells. The state is an entity which obeys its own laws (don’t confuse these with the judicial laws) and behaves according to its own pattern. Those laws should be studied in future; however, we can speculate on some of them right now.

As with any open system, the state needs some food for its existence. What could that food be?

We know that states emerged thousands of years ago; the great empires existed when technology was rather primitive. My point is completely anti-materialistic: I believe that the food for a state is not industrial production, nor agricultural food, nor means of production, nor any other material substance. The food for a state is the lives of its citizens, which they are willing to give away for the sake of that state. Indeed, the main requirement for citizens was that they always be ready to die for their king or their republic. Not necessarily to win, but necessarily to die.

When the citizens refuse to die, as in modern Europe, the states weaken and die out. When the state receives enough food, like USSR during WW2, that state gets more powerful and can live some of the time without food. Of course, the economy matters, but it is a secondary and derivative factor. The example of the USSR is persuasive — an economically rather weak Russia could create a superpower.

With this hypothesis in mind, what about modern people, who refuse to die for anything? They often think they are the center of the universe. Indeed, they are so educated, so productive, so smart and also law-abiding. But suddenly they start to recognize that the state cares much more about people of absolutely different sort.
- - - - - - - - -
Why is that? Because those modern people are simply not suitable as a food for their state. They lack some vitamin that the state needs. With all their virtues, they are not suitable as a food, and the state ignores them. And this is also an argument against pacifism: even when all current states are abolished, the resulting superstate will still need some food, and it will find the way to get it. Otherwise it will collapse, just as the USSR did.

And now we are ready to answer the main subject of this study: what is the case for Islamization? It is obvious — the state sees people who are ready to die for their principles, whatever those principles are, and those people are Muslims. The state sees the potential food and its mouth is watering.

The modern secular state does not really care about religion. If necessary, it can adapt to any religion. And that’s what it is doing before our eyes.

Our states are preparing for a new source of food, and we are just irrelevant for them.

However, it would be wrong not to add an optimistic tone at the end. For one reason or another, Muslims are not too good in creating states; that is a verified fact. And that is our hope: as soon as our states realize that the new food is not edible, they will return to their traditional feeding policies.

We, in our turn, must show that we still have some vitamin left inside us.