Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Surrender, Genocide… or What? — An Update

Last spring El Inglés caused a bit of a stir here with his essay “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”. In recent weeks he has been busy researching and writing a follow-up, and the result is posted below.


A prefatory note from El Inglés:

I started writing ‘Surrender, Genocide… or What?’ with a fairly loose set of topics I wished to write a paragraph each on. There was no hint in my mind of how it might take shape when finished, or what threads of argument might bind it together. However, as I started to put metaphorical pen to paper, some paragraph headings were discarded as superfluous, others used at greater length, and the resulting chunks of text reorganized in accordance with an increasingly clear notion of what it was I wanted to say.

Having enjoyed the great privilege of having a number of very different essays read, enjoyed, loathed, praised, and torn down by presumably some thousands if not tens of thousands of readers, I would like to bring an end to my rather strange and short career as an analyst of Islamization and related issues with a long-brewing update to ‘Surrender, Genocide, or What?’ in which I consider again some of the key arguments, some new developments, and some factors which may be of relevance to issues of central importance.


London Explosion

Surrender, Genocide… or What? — An Update
by El Inglés


Prelude

The controversy over ‘Surrender, Genocide… or What?’ (hereafter referred to as SGW) was, by and large, fraudulent. It was simply used as ammunition in an ongoing conflict, by certain parties with limited reading comprehension skills and even more limited integrity. Nor is there any obvious reason why it should have been controversial. Given the prevalence of violent conflict of various sorts in human history, it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that any polity, no matter how peaceful or prosperous, is never more than one or two macrohistorical wrong turns away from reacquainting itself with the unpleasantness such conflict results in. Given further the innumerable examples to be found even just in recent history of the extraordinary violence human beings will use to attack and/or separate themselves from others with whom they do not identify, the likelihood of an outbreak of vicious tribal conflict in Europe as a consequence of mass immigration struck me as obvious. Indeed, it still strikes me as being so obvious as to be slightly embarrassing to suggest at all.

Despite the above, there was a slightly surreal quality to the process of considering, in as much detail as I could manage at the time of writing, the implications of the fairly simple positive feedback arguments that were central to the essay. The conclusions I reached in SGW struck even me, the author, as being slightly fantastic in some regards. But that they did so was, I think, more a consequence of the unprecedented nature of the phenomena I predicted for post-war Western Europe than of any flaw in the arguments themselves. Indeed, nothing that has happened between now and my writing SGW has led me to believe that the reasoning therein was not fundamentally sound and the dynamics I claimed to see in the Islamization of Europe not actually real. On the contrary, subsequent events have convinced me that the point of no return I mentioned in SGW has, in all likelihood, already been crossed by at least some European countries, and others are dangerously close to crossing it. Before explaining why I think this, I would like to briefly review the key line of argument in the original essay.

Boiled down to its essentials, the argument goes as follows. Political elites in most Western European countries are wedded, through genuine ideological conviction, institutional entanglements, or both, to a politics which has taken the influx of large numbers of Muslim immigrants to be both natural and beneficial. This position, facilitated by a belief in the equal worth and validity of all cultures and a consequent desire to allow all cultures consideration and concessions, has permitted Islam to start to display its true colours, as a vicious, expansionist, and totalitarian ideology that will continue to demand ever greater degrees of obeisance.

With both endogenous and exogenous growth of European Muslim communities driving up the Muslim population fractions in afflicted countries, a positive feedback loop emerges. The abovementioned political elites, baffled by and helpless in the face of a tribalism the likes of which they had, one assumes, forgotten ever existed, rush to appease the followers of Allah as, their worldview informs them, all conceivable tensions can be resolved to the satisfaction of all relevant parties through compromise. Such capitulation as then takes place emboldens Muslim fifth columnists whilst allowing their numbers to continue to grow unabated. Before too long, further capitulation is required to soothe the anger of an ever-stronger Muslim community, thereby wearing the groove of a coupled behavioural pattern ever deeper into the minds of demanders and appeasers, predators and prey.

It is my contention that this disastrous positive feedback loop cannot be escaped from through the actions of extant political elites with decades of psychological and intellectual investment in its creation. Accordingly, it will be broken only by the emergence of qualitatively different political actors, who can be categorized in one of two ways: non-mainstream political parties who gain power on the back of opposition to Islamization and mass immigration more generally in electoral discontinuities; and agents acting outside of or after the breakdown of established political mechanisms in non-electoral discontinuities, which imply some significant collapse of law and order. Both of these discontinuities are likely to be extremely unpleasant and feature much violence. Furthermore, there is a very real possibility that even electoral discontinuities will be induced by additional dynamics to collapse into non-electoral discontinuities with all that that implies. Note that none of these claims is offered up as some fundamental law of European societies pertinent to the situations they find themselves in today. Rather, they simply constitute a formalization of a number of easily observable, loosely bundled European dynamics vis-à-vis Islam.
- - - - - - - - -
Continuation

I commenced the discussion in SGW with a review and analysis of the stance of the British police with respect to Islam, in order to demonstrate the rot in modern Britain through focusing on a specific institution. Continuing in this vein, I would like to consider more recent developments in this and related areas to show that things have only worsened in the interim and that the positive feedback dynamic I identified in SGW is alive and well.

In 2004, a documentary called Edge of the City was due to be shown on British TV. The filmmakers had spent a year working with social services in Bradford and produced a 90-film exposing the darker aspects of life in that town in northwest England. Originally due to air in May 2004, the broadcast was withdrawn from the schedule at the last moment due to an apparently unprecedented request by the police. This request, made due to a concern that broadcasting the film could result in an outbreak of race riots, resulted in the eventual broadcast being delayed by several months.

Why the concern? The film examined, among other issues, the rather vexing problem of underage white girls in Bradford being systematically pimped out by Pakistani gangs. Despite a furore of claim and counterclaim, the actual scale and nature of the underlying problem was not clear to me at the time, and I was only dimly aware of the controversy. Pakistani gangs were responsible; the police said they had arrested whites for the same crimes. The police were pressured to try to reduce the possibility of the British National Party gaining support prior to the European Parliament elections; the concerns were about the outbreak of rioting a mere three years after the Bradford riots. It was a racial problem; it wasn’t a racial problem. It was a cultural problem; it was a misogyny problem. And so on and so forth.

The entire episode slipped from my mind until fairly recently, when I happened upon a detailed and well-sourced article in The Times that touched on related subjects. Entitled Mothers of Prevention, the article provided a great deal of clarification of what had been happening over the last few years with respect to the pimping of young white girls in the northwest of England. I belatedly discovered that, to put it bluntly, the claims of a disproportionate ‘Asian’ presence in the exploitation of underage girls appeared to be not only true, but horrifyingly so.

The article was written in response to the convictions obtained against two Blackburn men, Zulfqar Hussain and Qaiser Naveed, for abduction, sexual activity with a child, and the supply of a controlled drug. As was demonstrated in some detail, the backdrop to the case was essentially that which Edge of the City had reported on some years earlier, with a vast swath of the North of England seemingly affected. To quote the article:

‘It seemed a shabby, seedy episode, probably typical of many cases down the years that have involved exploitative men and naïve women. Yet, until these convictions, the police in over a dozen towns and cities, including Leeds, Sheffield, Blackburn and Huddersfield, had appeared reluctant to address what many local people had perceived as a growing problem — the groups of men who had been preying on young, vulnerable girls and ensnaring them into prostitution.

‘It was a very uncomfortable scenario, not least because many of these crimes had an identifiable racial element: the gangs were Asian and the girls were white. The authorities, in the shape of politicians and the police, seemed reluctant to acknowledge this aspect of the crimes; it has been left to the mothers of the victims to speak out.’


Here, I will present certain key claims in the article at length to provide the material for the analysis that follows.

(1) The mother of one young victim ‘[…] was told by one police officer that he did not ‘want to start a race riot’ by arresting Pakistani men for sexual offences.’
(2) The problems discussed in the article are widespread, as ‘Blackburn, in common with many northern towns, is experiencing a huge upsurge in pimping, and it is an unpalatable truth for the authorities — and indeed the police — that many of the newest wave of pimps come from within the Asian [sic] community.’
(3) Blackburn, the most obviously afflicted town, is the constituency of Jack Straw, a key Cabinet member under the Labour government in power since 1997. According to Mr. Straw: ‘I have had two cases at my constituency surgery over the past two years and have discussed this with the police, council, community leaders and the Lancashire Telegraph.
(4) Affected families are ‘meeting lawyers to discuss possible action against the police. This could result in the biggest civil action ever brought against police for failing to protect children from sexual predators.
(5) The mother of one victim said that ‘We parents are doing more to investigate these criminals than the police […] My husband and I have sat for hours outside hot spots, taking down car-registration numbers. I have given the police dozens of names from my daughter’s mobile phone, but they have done nothing.
(6) Predictably, there are efforts to minimize the importance of the ‘evidence from rigorous research by organisations such as Crop [Coalition for the Removal of Pimping] that the gangs are largely made up of men from the Pakistani Muslim communities‘. ‘What we’re dealing with is gross criminality,’ says Aravinda Kosaraju, a researcher at Crop. ‘That should be confronted whatever the race of the perpetrator.’
(7) Mike Cunningham, an assistant chief constable with Lancashire police was quoted as saying that ‘Offenders can and do come from a variety of cultural backgrounds, and we deal with each case on its own individual merit.
(8) During the events leading to the postponing of the broadcast, ‘A spokesman […] said police had found no evidence of the alleged systematic exploitation, and the chief constable of West Yorkshire Police warned Channel 4 that he felt the timing of the programme could contribute to community unrest in Bradford and possibly even provoke public disorder in the city.
(9) Sunny Hundal, a young British Sikh journalist and commentator said that ‘Although it’s obvious that it’s young, lawless Pakistani boys, it’s tricky to make this an issue about race or religion when neither are contributing factors.‘ He also claims that some young ‘Asian’ men ‘hold very disparaging attitudes towards white girls‘.

This assembly of points, depressing and enraging in equal measure, can be pieced together to help reiterate and reinforce the key claims in the central argument of SGW as follows.

Key Claim 1 — Political elites in most Western European countries take the influx of large numbers of Muslim immigrants to be both natural and beneficial.

This claim is not demonstrated explicitly in the article, but is the foundation on which everything in the article stands. Point (3) mentions Jack Straw, who has been Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, and Leader of the House of Commons since Labour’s ascent to power in 1997. It was in that year, soon after winning the general election, that Labour abolished the Primary Purpose Rule, which made it incumbent on those who would bring spouses into the UK to establish that the marriage in question was not being undertaken for the purpose of enabling the immigration of the non-British spouse. Muslim immigration soared after this change, and has remained ever since at annual levels much higher than those seen under the previous Conservative administration. To all intents and purposes, there seem to be no barriers of note to the influx of ever-greater numbers of Muslims, particularly from the Indian sub-continent. This was, undoubtedly, the purpose of the change, though why it was considered desirable is a question I do not pretend to be able to answer.

Key Claim 2 — Islam has started to display its true colours, as a vicious, expansionist, and totalitarian ideology.

This claim is not demonstrated explicitly in the article either, but will already be crystal clear to most of the people reading this essay, so I will not rehash the evidence for it here. Suffice it to say that the standard wall of denial comes down in point (6), in which a red herring statement of the blindingly obvious is used to deflect attention from gross disproportionalities in the identities of the criminals, point (7), in which we hear the same thing from a police representative with no intention whatsoever of straying from the prevailing taboos of his decaying society, and point (9), in which an occasionally sensible commentator admits the disproportionality but essentially shrugs and admits defeat on the thorny topic of what its significance might be. Neither race nor religion are contributing factors, leaving said disproportionality as one of the great mysteries of modern social science, shuffled awkwardly out of sight with vague references to ‘disparaging’ attitudes towards white girls. Note also the ascribing of the problem to the meaningless construct of the ‘Asian’ population in point (2), an inexcusable slap in the face to the UK’s productive and law-abiding Hindu and Sikh populations from an otherwise reasonably clear-eyed article.

Key Claim 3 — With the Muslim population fractions in afflicted countries increasing, a positive feedback loop emerges.

This is the heart of the argument. Points (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) all testify to the conflict-avoidance of political elites, the consequent deterioration of the situation, and the subsequent occurrence of similar but even more difficult problems. Points (6) and (7) have already been touched upon, so let us consider points (1), (3), (4), (5), and (8).

In point (1), we have a frank statement on the part of a police officer that the investigation of certain types of crimes by certain groups will not take place if it could lead to race riots. Sadly, it seems improbable that there will come again a time when such investigations have no potential to do so in areas with large Pakistani Muslim populations, forcing us to conclude that the police will avoid such investigations as and when possible in such areas in perpetuity. This is the implication of this simple statement; to wit, that the larger these communities become, the more feebly the long arm of the law must extend into them. Note that this claim is not refuted by the disproportionately large numbers of Pakistanis in our prisons; rather, it suggests that this number would be even larger if the police were so old-fashioned as to actually do their jobs.

Moving onto point (3), we observe the response of the previously mentioned, democratically elected Member of Parliament for Blackburn, Jack Straw. I will repeat it here due to its great comedic value: ‘I have had two cases at my constituency surgery over the past two years and have discussed this with the police, council, community leaders and the Lancashire Telegraph.‘ Mr. Straw is actually admitting, albeit tacitly, that he has accomplished nothing whatsoever to aid those young girls being systematically drugged, raped, and pimped by vicious sexual predators who only exist in Britain in such large numbers in the first place due to the pro-immigration policies of the government in whose Cabinet he has been such a prominent figure. According to the 2001 census, the population of Blackburn was nearly 26% Muslim in that year, and this number can only have risen since. Presumably this has something to do with Mr. Straw’s reluctance to help pursue Pakistani Muslim child rapists.

Points (4) and (5) drive home the evolution of the police from an organization dedicated to bringing criminals to justice and thereby deterring possible future offenders, to a passive riot prevention tool. This astounding law enforcement innovation requires some explanation. Faced with the widespread sexual abuse of young girls by an actively hostile fifth column, the concern of the police is simply to avoid riots (not an unworthy objective in its own right), a goal it achieves largely by not doing anything in response. The churlish might argue that this important goal could be achieved at lesser cost by simply not having a police force in the first place, but, at times, the police also have an active riot prevention function to perform, hence their enduring utility. This is made clear to us by point (8), where we see not only the astounding deceit the police are prepared to resort to in pretending not to see what is in front of their faces, but also their attempts to prevent the broader public from learning about their gross negligence at times considered politically inconvenient due to the proximity of elections for the European Parliament.

Key Claim 4 — This positive feedback loop cannot be escaped from through the actions of mainstream political elites.

This point is a logical extension of the previous one. Once a positive feedback loop has been established as outlined in more detail in SGW, by its very nature it will prove impossible to break in the absence of some influence being extended over the system by an agent external to it. Much could be said to further develop this idea, but I will refrain from saying it to simply observe that no mainstream political party (i.e. a party once a part of the multicultural consensus) has yet come to its senses and unapologetically started to oppose the Islamization of its country, as far as I am aware. Nor does any seem to have come close. This empirical reality speaks far more eloquently on the subject than any theoretical claims could hope to.

Key Claim 5 — Accordingly, the positive feedback loop will be broken only by the emergence of qualitatively different political actors, in an event which will constitute a discontinuity.

This final claim cannot be definitively established in advance for any country, but it is reasonably clear that we can, with some confidence, expect political actors to emerge and gain support from outside the political mainstream across Europe to challenge Islamization, its supporters, and its enablers. These forces, when ascendant, will cause a rupture between the European recent past and the European future, which I have referred to as a discontinuity. These discontinuities will be, as mentioned before, of two different types, electoral and non-electoral, with the former likely to be structurally unstable enough to collapse into the latter.

Colonization

Is there one convenient word for describing what we are witnessing when we look at the sort of phenomena plaguing the north of England? I believe there is, and the word in question is colonization. Until recently, I have always been suspicious of suggestions that this is what is occurring, as they seemed to smack of a genuinely hysterical xenophobia. Upon more careful consideration however, it occurs to me that it is a very simple and accurate description of what is happening.

When we examine unambiguous historical examples of colonization, such as the colonization of North America by Europeans, what precisely are the characteristics of these historical events that lead us to describe them as colonization at all? I submit that there are three conditions, related but distinct, all of which must be satisfied for us to be observing an instance of colonization. Others might produce different lists, but the key principles will be the same.

1) Population — Colonization must involve the colonizing population putting the colonized population under continuous demographic pressure. It can do this by continued settlement/immigration, higher fertility rates, gradually killing off the colonized population, undermining its ability to maintain itself economically, or some combination of these factors. If the colony at Jamestown, Virginia, had remained the only European settlement in North America, we would surely not talk today about the colonization of America, irrespective of the other behaviours of the colonists.
2) Territory — Colonization must also involve the colonizing population putting the colonized population under geographic pressure. If the ‘colonized’ population enjoys permanent control of substantial territories in which it is able to maintain its way of life without major hindrance, then it has not yet been colonized, though it may have been inconvenienced by the influx of newcomers. If the colonization of North America had been limited to a number of large, populous settlements along the Atlantic seaboard, we would not talk about the colonization of the continent, though we could still legitimately talk of the existence of colonies.
3) Zero-Sum Game — Last but not least, colonization must involve the creation of a zero-sum game between colonizers and colonized, a game which the colonized start to lose. Whether competition over resources, markets, and territory, or outright wars of extermination, there must be winners and losers in interactions between the two groups. If the native population of North America had simply been incorporated into an ever-growing yet prosperous, peaceful and productive polity, membership of which they greatly preferred to their previous nomadic ways, using the word colonization to describe the process would feel somehow wrong, despite its obvious applicability in other, technical regards. Colonization is not colonization if it is welcomed.

It seems to me that these three conditions are, taken together, both necessary and sufficient to establish an encroachment of one people on another as being colonization. This said, can it then be observed that Europe is being colonized by a mishmash of various Muslim populations? I would argue that it can. The demographic pressure of Muslim populations on native populations in European countries, spurred on by ongoing immigration and high fertility rates, is too well-established to be discussed again here. The territorial pressure on the native population, brought to bear on both private citizens and organs of the state too, will be similarly familiar to anyone with the briefest acquaintance with the growing Muslim ghettoes in European cities.

More interesting is the last condition, that of the zero-sum game. This implies a transfer of some sort from colonized to colonizers, but the nature of the transferred object can vary. It can be tangible, such as a piece of land, a gold nugget, or a horse, or intangible, such as a trade concession, a social privilege, or a legal privilege. It will not be lost on the observant reader that at the same time as Muslim colonizers extract great tangible wealth from their colonized populations in the form of welfare and other payments, they extract intangible concessions in the form of, for example, ‘hate speech’ laws which reduce the freedom of those populations whilst increasing the political utility they themselves enjoy.

There is more to be said on the subject, but this should suffice. The fact that most of the Muslims in Western European countries arrived there legally is neither here nor there. Legality is beside the point, a thin and pathetic smear of superficial legitimacy slapped onto mass population movements by political elites who long since stopped attempting to implement the will of the electorates they supposedly served. Colonization with the help of collaborators is still colonization.

I am well aware of the fact that many reasonable-minded people will consider the description of Muslim immigration into Western Europe as colonization to be overstating the case. But the fact of the matter is that colonization was not a historical aberration inflicted by white Europeans on unsuspecting indigenous peoples around the world during a now long-gone historical period. Rather, it is an ever-present historical force that will exist as long as human beings do. The Chinese government is quite deliberately colonizing Tibet and Xinjiang by subsidizing influxes of Han Chinese into these provinces and providing greater political freedoms to those who choose to relocate. America is gradually undergoing a colonization by the various peoples of Latin America, many of whom believe that large swathes of the American southwest are rightfully theirs. In Africa, Bantu peoples continue to gradually encroach upon the few remaining lands of the Bushmen, who used to roam a much larger portion of the continent.

Also noteworthy are failed or only partially successful colonizations. The Russian attempt to colonize the Asiatic land mass from the Urals to the Japan Sea seems doomed to eventual failure, as the country undergoes a demographic collapse and the thinly distributed population of the Russian east heads back west. Similarly, the attempts of white settlers in southern Africa to carve a new America out of the tip of that continent foundered and are now, slowly, in the process of being reversed. Encroaching, retreating, swamping, receding; these human tides are not and will never be merely a feature of some bygone age, or a historical curiosity. They will endure as long as human beings do, and there is a pressing need for European peoples to realize that new waves of colonization are already lapping around their feet.

Considerations

The coming discontinuities, be they electoral or non-electoral, will be attempts by the native populations of European countries to reassert the primacy of their historic ways of life over those of alien and hostile colonizing forces. They will not, I hope, be attempts to reject, tout court, all ethnically non-European peoples who have, in one way or another, come to make their homes in European countries and lived law-abiding and productive laws without endangering the stability or integrity of those countries. I suggested in The Danish Civil War that notions of identity which can encompass such people, while rejecting those who need to be rejected, will be important if we are to steer away from the gradually increasing likelihood of the resurgence of a featureless racial tribalism the consequences and aftermath of which would not be difficult to imagine. Given that I am capable neither of formulating nor propagating such notions, I will content myself here with some final thoughts on topics of relevance.

1) Size of Country

I suspect that geographically small countries with high population densities will have an advantage in somehow successfully responding to the threat posed by Islam in the long term. Larger, more sparsely populated countries will provide too many opportunities for their inhabitants to simply move away from the deepening nightmare of Islamization. Of course, these opportunities will always exist in the form of emigration, but given that many people will naturally be reluctant to completely give up on their countries due to the encroachment of hostile invaders, the greater psychological pressure exerted by the growing inescapability of Islam in a country like the Netherlands will give it a major advantage over a country like Sweden, in that the problem is likely to come to a head sooner.

2) Military Capabilities Relative to Population

In the event of any type of discontinuity, the single most obvious salient factor in determining the outcome will be the capabilities and disposition of the country’s military. In Denmark, which has a substantial and serious Muslim-free military establishment for the size of the country, and in which military experience is widespread among those not in the standing military, any sort of civil breakdown could undoubtedly be met effectively if the political will existed. Sweden, on the other hand, is a country which appears to attach much less value to the maintenance of an effective military and, as far as I am aware, is currently downsizing its already fairly underwhelming forces. Should it continue in this vein, it may well find that its ability to maintain even a semblance of order in the event of a discontinuity will be extremely limited. This will shut some doors and open others considerably less likely to lead anywhere pleasant.

3) Private Gun Ownership

It is probably fair to suggest that in the event of a collapse of civil order and the outbreak of hostilities between Muslims and others, the types of violence that the two sides will bring to bear on each other will be very different. We have been given great insight into the Muslim way of war by events in Iraq over the last few years, with the spreading of diffuse webs of terror through entire societies as the various sides try to crush the will of their opponents. In contrast, the key characteristics of the Western way of war are the forcing of decisive shock battle with highly trained and technologically intensive concentrations of force, the occupation of territory, and the forcing of favourable political settlements after favourable results on the battlefield. Insofar as the defence of European countries falls to the common man rather than professional militaries, the application of this latter way of war or a related one will largely depend on the availability of firearms to that common man. European countries in which such availability is high will be well-positioned to play to their own strengths, irrespective of the actions of their opponents.

4) Urban Vs. Rural

It is a peculiar irony that the brunt of Islamization is born by those in urban areas, whereas the will and means to oppose it may well turn out to be concentrated in more conservative and less cosmopolitan rural areas, where gun ownership is more common and the bond felt with nation and soil presumably stronger. The ability to mobilize, in some fashion, the outrage of the countryside against the Islam-induced decay of the city may well play an important part in determining the post-discontinuity course a given country follows. If a city sees its Muslim population reach parity with its non-Muslim population, as many European cities are projected to in the not-too-distant future, then the necessity of such a mobilization in the event of a discontinuity not contained by the military is not difficult to see.

5) Discrete Opportunities for Electoral Discontinuity

It would take a more knowledgeable observer of Dutch politics than such as myself to say for sure, but it may be the case that the Netherlands is teaching us an important lesson about the likelihood of electoral discontinuities: that such opportunities are discrete entities, arriving, remaining available for a limited time, then receding again. First Pim Fortuyn, now Geert Wilders — if Wilders’ efforts fail, in one fashion or another, perhaps the next chance for an electoral discontinuity will not come for several years, by which time it may be too late to avoid a collapse into a non-electoral discontinuity. If such opportunities do indeed possess this discrete nature, then pressure for such a discontinuity will not be something that steadily builds, but that can be periodically batted away by clueless political elites.

6) Whither the Netherlands?

As I implied in the three scenarios I wrote, in which I laid down three possible futures for Britain with respect to Islamization, my personal belief is that the Netherlands is the country most likely to hit a discontinuity first. This belief, largely impressionistic in nature but also supplemented by a consideration of the country’s size and population density (see above), is further heightened by the existence of all the key elements necessary for the drama to proceed: a rapidly-growing Muslim population both criminal and seditious; a charismatic politician identifying the threat without bending a knee to multicultural platitudes; growing public alarm and anger; and a witless government capable of convincing itself that sending squads of policemen to kick in the doors of cartoonists constitutes the optimal response to the problems it faces. It would be foolish to expect all countries afflicted by Islam to read from a single script, but there is no better country than the Netherlands to observe if we wish to glean an insight what lies in our futures.

7) Whither France?

France would seem to enjoy the dubious privilege of being the European country most likely to continue its slide into Islamization without meeting a discontinuity along the way. Anyone who has read SGW will understand that I do not predict post-discontinuity events to be particularly enjoyable for either side, but it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the only thing worse than experiencing a discontinuity would be not experiencing one. I am indebted to certain colleagues for trying to explain to me exactly how and why France has reached its own distressing position vis-à-vis Islam, and understand and appreciate many of the germane points. However, any genuine understanding of what exactly the French establishment thinks it is doing eludes me. I will only venture to say here that after the disappointment of Sarkozy and the lack of any obvious widespread attempts to reverse the Islamization of the country despite a Muslim population perhaps as high as 10%, we should at least consider the possible that one of the most populous and powerful countries in Europe will not crash into the wall of Islam at all, but somehow intermingle with it to create a type of polity for which no precedent springs to mind. Though an Islamic France would doubtless be a crippled and enfeebled version of its former self, opponents of Islam and Islamization in the vicinity might do well to start asking themselves what such a development might mean for them.

46 comments:

Natalie said...

Oh my. El Ingles, that was excellent. Absolutely excellent. You have truly outdone yourself.

Fjordman said...

Good work, El. Either the Netherlands, Britain or Denmark will have a civil war first. Maybe Italy. I don't know about Spain, but it doesn't seem likely. Neither does Germany, or Sweden. My impression of France right now is not good. I hope I'm wrong. France is too big to fail, with hundreds of nuclear warheads situated in the heart of the European continent.

laine said...

How did the West uniformly end up with leadership by mediocre minds incapable of drafting thinkers like el Ingles, let alone generating such ideas on their own? This is our fatal flaw, one that just got the most know-nothing of a bad lot of candidates elected POTUS.

Our leaders' talk of "negotiation" and "compromise" is laughable even on its own terms when they repeatedly come away bested by primitives. There is an ongoing litany of concessions to Muslims without the slightest reciprocity, nothing on the other side of the ledger, not even empty promises. Sarkozy who's been replaced by a leftist pod person and others look like courting clowns but they are jealous clowns, quick to demonize anyone like Gert Wilders who points out that the emperor Multicult they worship has no clothes.

The pretense that Muslim immigrants are a necessity as taxpaying citizens to help perpetuate the Ponzi scheme socialism of Europe is completely bogus as their illiteracy, polygamy, religious sense of entitlement and lack of work ethic mean their costs in education, multicult human rights machinery, Welfare, policing and incarceration add up to more than they will ever contribute in taxes. (This is also true in the US for Mexican illegals). Muslims demand taxes (jizya) FROM infidels and have been collecting functional jizya even in non-Muslim countries by hook or by crook. They do not pay taxes TO infidels.

Our so-called intelligentsia remain ignorant on this and every other score as they continue to present and promote a completely fictional non-threatening Islam that bears no resemblance to the facts on the ground.

Where do these quislings to their own culture think they will end up? Even if their plan is to convert, have they not observed that no infidel or convert is allowed power where Islam rules?

What mental midgets and moral eunuchs we have put in positions of authority over us. They abuse us with that authority while offering no deterrent to our enemies.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

Stone. Cold. Logic.

Thank you, El Ingles, that was brisk and refeshing.......and dismaying.

Fjordman wrote: "France is too big to fail, with hundreds of nuclear warheads situated in the heart of the European continent."

Indeed, and with delivery systems that give those weapons global range.
Let us take the lead from El Ingles and engage in some more stone cold logic.

Muslims (as one of their own spokesmen has stated) love death. They are perfectly happy to murder each other (Sunni vs. Shiite) if they temporarily run out of infidel dogs to kill. They are not only happiest when killing infidel dogs, but as we saw on 9/11, they crave the ability to inflict mass casualties. The greater the death toll, the greater the Muslim's glee, in direct proportion.
Thus we can only conclude that a Muslim France WILL use nuclear weapons.
But the devil is in the details which we cannot predict withn certainty. Will they supply nuclear weapons to terrorists? Pack a bomb into a shipping container and set it off in New York harbor? Threaten Denmark with nuclear attack if the Danes do not allow uncontrolled Muslim immigration into their country? (This sort of nuclear blackmail would also work against many other small countries: Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, etc.?) Will they nuke "the Zionist Entity" (Israel)?

That which has long been feared now seems INEVITABLE.

Sagunto said...

I'd agree with Fjordman, though TCCKAB, the country currently known as "Belgium", would take the place of Denmark in my shortlist. Civil war in Britain (England), Belgium (Flanders) or Holland will be fought against both the current political elites and their State apparatus, and Islam.

For each country/community/city the final trigger will be different. Might be wise to sort of predict the most likely scenarios and try to anticipate. Civil war can be described as inevitable, and I agree, but there's no need to be fatalistic about it.

Whenever doomdemographics (Steyn) are presented to enlighten us about the already hopeless situation in our big cities (male muslim youth of fighting age predominant), there's always one glaring omission, I think, on the "aboriginal" side: our women, tallest in the world. A quick peek in Tacitus' Germania and one knows that women in northwestern Europe have always been feared by foreign invaders.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Zenster said...

Well done, El Inglés. Yet another masterpiece of analytical deduction from the coterie of wizards here at Gates of Vienna.

Given the prevalence of violent conflict of various sorts in human history, it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that any polity, no matter how peaceful or prosperous, is never more than one or two macrohistorical wrong turns away from reacquainting itself with the unpleasantness such conflict results in.

I do believe the original quote goes as such:

Dogs are only two missed meals away from being wolves.

To paraphrase John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

Those who make peaceful de-Islamization impossible make violent de-Islamization inevitable.

… the conflict-avoidance of political elites …

With Islam, there is no “conflict avoidance”, only conflict delay.

In point (1), we have a frank statement on the part of a police officer that the investigation of certain types of crimes by certain groups will not take place if it could lead to race riots.

Ergo, the almost iron-clad assurance that any “investigation of certain types of crimes by certain groups” will “lead to race riots”. This is the very worst sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Pandering to Islam’s intrinsic propensity for violence only ensures that Islam will maintain the threat of such intrinsic violence.

They will not, I hope, be attempts to reject, tout court, all ethnically non-European peoples who have, in one way or another, come to make their homes in European countries and lived law-abiding and productive laws without endangering the stability or integrity of those countries.

In many respects, this is the only predominant question left standing with regard to the forthcoming discontinuities faced by Europe’s variously beseiged nations. Sadly, given the Continent’s bloodsoaked history of pogroms and ethnic cleansing, it is difficult to imagine that such indiscriminate mayhem will somehow manage to be avoided.

Sweden, on the other hand, is a country which appears to attach much less value to the maintenance of an effective military and, as far as I am aware, is currently downsizing its already fairly underwhelming forces. Should it continue in this vein, it may well find that its ability to maintain even a semblance of order in the event of a discontinuity will be extremely limited. This will shut some doors and open others considerably less likely to lead anywhere pleasant.

All of which the Swedes have struggled with valiant and unstinting effort to bring about in no uncertain terms.

… it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the only thing worse than experiencing a discontinuity would be not experiencing one.

The only variable in this equation involves—not the level of pronounced discomfort—but whether it is the Muslim or Infidel who experiences that particular bit of unpleasantness.

ENGLISHMAN said...

If france falls ,the muslim will not need nuclear weapons allthough they would pack a big bargaining power,they would de-stabilise all the countries in thier immediate vicinity,and the dominoe effect would come into play,they only need one country to effect thier plan,all the others would make ridiculous concessions and appease thier tiny heads off,thier army is already in place waiting for the command to strike,we must strike first.

David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/25/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

José, The Fenec. said...

Maybe, France is easy to understand. There is great "racism" underneath the general indigenous population, wich i would classify more like a latent chauvinism. The more rooted the nationalism is in a population, the more effective multicultural guilt tactics are to push people into a corner. So people lie there, very much disgusted at the colonization, very much feeling it's wrong, but they can't really act on it because the nationalism is not rationalized, it's more like a sense of kin coming from the gut. It's this feeling liberals so sucessufully exploit as "racism". People then keep thinking they're sooo racist and that they must hide it real hard, silently but not beaten.

When shit hits the fence the fanaticism with wich the the chauvinist french leftists snipe at any moderate attempt to reverse things, will be on the nationalists side.

I agree with the essay, big countries will delay this, allowing for white flight to clear way for attempts of sedition and posterior balkanization. Tha's why France, being so big and so rapidly being filled with muslims and usefull liberal idiots has the best set up for a war. It would be just easely controlable riots if the french military by then hasn't been compromised like it will probably be, so french will have to really unleash their worst martial natures to regain the country. It will be a bloodbath.

Proud Infidel said...

First of all, I'd like to congratulate El Ingles on an excellent, thought provoking essay. Sadly, I think he has given us a very realistic glimpse of things to come.

I understand Europe's tribal and bloodsoaked past raises the potential for violence from the natives in response to the on going Islamization, but I also wonder how years of politically correct indoctrination might affect that equation. Europeans in virtually all countries have been subject to an amazing and unprecendented amount of brainwashing and I question how many of them would be able to throw off this conditioning. With the EU supranational state in charge, a new dynamic has been thrown into the equation. How well Europeans in each country manage to hang on to their feeling of national worth and history in the face of this decades old policy may affect at what point the discontinuity El Ingles mentions will take place. Or even if it takes place.

Of course, I'm just an observer outside of Europe, so I really lack the insight people living in Europe have. I appreciate the insight El Ingles, Fjordman and other Europeans provide this once clueless Yank. God bless and keep you all.

Conservative Swede said...

Fjordman,

I don't know about Spain, but it doesn't seem likely.

Spain still has the whole structure for a civil war in place. The last one is not forgotten. Every person or village is still connected to the Franco side or the Red side, through history. The country being essentially split in halves.

Come to think of it, that's probably a main reason that Spain is into such hyper-liberalism right now, as a way of glossing over a country that is still fundamentally cracked in halves.

Another reason is that they missed the '60s and started their era of hyper-liberalism in 1975, and are therefore at least a decade behind us. So they are now where we were 10 years ago, that is they are still into development optimism.

Anyway, take off that gloss -- and it will have come off within a decade from now -- and Spain has the whole structure for a civil war in place, "better" than any other country.

Conservative Swede said...

Sagunto,

I think, on the "aboriginal" side: our women, tallest in the world. A quick peek in Tacitus' Germania and one knows that women in northwestern Europe have always been feared by foreign invaders.

The women among the Germanic people have always naturally and traditionally held a more equal position with the men, unmatched by any other culture. Such traditional and natural status of the women is real and "hard currency", unlike the ideological equality movements, such as feminism, which only undermine and bring down this whole society providing status, rights and a good life for women. Reversing the whole development and more, ultimately leaving them in the violence of Muslim gang rapists.

Anyway Sagunto, I think you just provided us with an important key to understanding the prominent place of women among Germanic people: they were good and useful warriors. Compared to the little swarthy attackers coming from the south they were tall and strong. There's no way this wouldn't end up giving them important respect within the society.

TC said...

@ Proud Infidel

You write: "Europeans in virtually all countries have been subject to an amazing and unprecendented amount of brainwashing and I question how many of them would be able to throw off this conditioning."

I have been to my former homeland Germany for a week in August and visited with friends in France in September. EVERYBODY is growling against the islamisation and the rampant idiotic leftism in the governments. Still, EVERYBODY is quiet about it in public. Too many potential perceived disadvantages if you speak out!

I can tell you right now, where this is leading: The day that dam breaks, the day, the first violent reactions occur against the colonisation, will bring a horrible flood of pent up rage and very possibly an uncontrollable bloodbath.

The longer the European political correctness blocks the will of THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, the worse the release will be!

Sagunto said...

@CS,

We're in agreement. I especially like your description "hard currency". Now that our economies worldwide have been (and still are) wrecked by State and central banking elites, it's good to know some things still have true value. In fighting Islam in the West, our fair ladies will provide a new "Gold Standard" ;-)

But seriously, I'm oftentimes truly amazed that our women are always left out of the comparison, when numbers are conjured-up about who will do the actual resisting in our communities.

On the other hand, to be fair, the Muslim sisters in the West still have one advantage and that is fecundity (don't know that's proper English but nvr mind). But here's where our "useful idiots", i.e. the PC sharia-socialists might really be put to good use for just once.
Feminism for all its many faults could be an important factor why fertility rates are dropping fast among Muslim women (I'm speaking of Holland here, could be quite different in other nations). I know of many studies that show that Western-style liberal "emancipation" of women is a crucial factor to bring down fertility rates. Now this might be an overdose of wishful thinking on my part, but could you imagine our liberal political elites and the policies on emancipation they have been enforcing over the years, actually contributing in a positive way to our upcoming battle against Islam?

My wife, and my own sister could each take on two of those tiny recrutes of the Allah-jugend easily. So we might want to redo the math on "fighting power" in the streets. Yet another reason why we needn't be too fatalistic about civil eh.. discontinuities that await us.

And they will. Sometimes it looks as if some commenters entertain the thought of a political solution that would avert civil war. In Holland this line of reasoning would present Geert Wilders as some sort of last alternative to prevent civil war. I support Wilders of course, but I do think that we can expect two things happening as soon as he is brought to power:
- attempts at GW's life
- an Islamic streetwar in our cities

The only thing to prevent civil war in Holland would be to actually pay all Muslims to leave and stay away. I know it is beyond unrealistic (need to leave EU, restore national borders, et cetera), though there have been plans in the early '80s, but anyway my guess would be, that an overwhelmingly large majority of the native Dutch population would gladly invest all their last savings in some Corporation (I suggested "Vade Retro Ltd." as a brand) solely erected for this task. You could take this company to the stockmarket, and its shares would skyrocket in no time. It would truly be a rewarding investment indeed ;-)

Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Sag.

George Bruce said...

"...there's always one glaring omission, I think, on the "aboriginal" side: our women, tallest in the world. A quick peek in Tacitus' Germania and one knows that women in northwestern Europe have always been feared by foreign invaders."

Don't depend on your women to protect you from the invaders. What is more, you don't need to. Muslims consistently make horrible soldiers. They are great at dominating and enslaving unarmed and helpless populations, but they are very poor soldiers. Europeans and their descendants, on the other hand, are very good soldiers. Even if the invaders enjoyed an advantage in fighting age males, they won't stand a chance once the indigenous populations rouse themselves, so long as the defenders don’t wait too long. All that is lacking for successful self defense is will.

George Bruce said...

A timely article illustrating my point:

http://www.military.com/news/article/marine-corps-news/marine-makes-insurgents-pay-the-price.html

Avery Bullard said...

Female voters are disproportionately on the left and bleeding-hearted when it comes to talk of immigration restriction.

Ultimately women will go with the side that projects confidence and strength.

PRCalDude said...

Another great piece, Ingles. You racist you ;)

Russkiy said...

I have been reading the works that can be found on www.rusjournal.com by Matthew Raphael Johnson, who appears to be "Russia Studies" Professor and an Orthodox himself.

Although some of his views would appear strange to many, I couldnt but agree with some of his assertions, namely, that the modern western world is ruled by an oligarchy. Oligarchy that doesnt value anything but power. This Oligarchy are happy to share power with each other, rather then leting a true populist leader whose base support would 5/6 of the population to come through, and take away their priveliges.

He demonstrates rather convincingly that in midieval Russia, a true nation was the people (farmers living off the land), Church (the heart of the nation) and the Czar (the protector of the nation against the external foes and the highest arbiter in the land). As long as the Czar was legitimate, he acted purely from the interest of the nation.

The Boyars or the oligarchy were more intereste in their own power rather then the nation, they were hated by people, and constantly siding with the nations animies, whether the catholics or muslims, their faith was not an issue.

The same thing happening in the west. The oligarchy managed to convince people that the nation is not important, that the monarchy and religion are obsolit, and they constantly siding with the enemies of the people, for their own personal gain.

If this is all true, the obvious sollution to this is a real monarchy that will follow the interests of the people and undermine oligarchy.

I am not suggesting complete removal of wealthy, powerfull people, but what I am saying is that there is a need for the powerfull counterweight to their greed.

Holger said...

I don't think it'll open with a massive outpouring of rage, as was the case with for instance Cronulla beach in Australia. Instead, it'll be a small Al Qaida or IRA-inspired movement of Europeans who start targeting Muslim public people as well as the perceived traitors in government. The resistance men and women in turn, will be severely demonized by media and the government, but many people around the continent will nevertheless secretly see them as the good guys/liberators as long as no "innocents" are harmed. However, then when one bomb too many goes off or some prominent person is killed, the muslims and so called anti-fascists will begin the riot and take to the streets. It is only when that happens that the real split will become apparent and chaos will errupt - like a two-sided version of the Paris riots. Think Cronulla beach, until people arm themselves... Of course the military/police/politicians will be on the muslim/AFA side. A few smaller politicians might take on a form of leadership of the "revolution" but only become poster boys.
That's what I think is going to happen.

Conservative Swede said...

Russkiy:
If this is all true, the obvious sollution to this is a real monarchy that will follow the interests of the people and undermine oligarchy.

It would take a Russian of course to say something as common sensical and true as this. Westerners are constitutionally unable of independent thought like this, submerging into paranoic fear of anything that is not a crazy enlightenment ideal. Being junkies of democracy, the most anti-people system there has ever been, like no other system it facilitates an omnipotent tyrannical oligarchy cementing its place in power. Even the people who want to overturn the current order say they want to do it in the name of "democracy". Why for heavens sake??? Because democracy is like crack to them. These people are not rational. It's like dissatisfied people in Muslim states, in their view the problems of the society can only be solved with more Islam, i.e. more of the same! Same here with Westerners and democracy, they want to "solve" the disaster that enlightenment ideas and democracy has brought upon us with "more of the same"!

As Hans-Herman Hoppe pointed out monarchy is morally superior to democracy. For anyone that takes Capitalism seriously we know that the principle of private ownership prime force of morality and responsibility in our society. A king owns his country as his private property, ergo he takes care of it. In democracy there are only temporary care-takers who takes no responsibility at all. NO wonder they are giving our countries away for free.

Anyone that takes Capitalism seriously can see that monarchy is superior to democracy. But Westerners do not take Capitalism seriously, so they apply the principle of socialism at the highest level of society, to the way it is ruled, it's called democracy. But the Westerners are so in love with this constitutional socialism that if you suggest that there is anything wrong with it they freak out.

Democracy is the only constitutional system where it is completely impossible to change the way a country is ruled. Surely you can get a government with a new name and colour, quite as you can choose shampoos of many names and colours in the supermarket, but the result is always exactly the same. In a monarchy a new king can completely turn around the direction of how a country is ruled; this is impossible in democracy. The head of the country in a democracy has too little time, to little personal power, and too little interest in the common good and in taking any real responsibility, to do that.

I am not suggesting complete removal of wealthy, powerfull people, but what I am saying is that there is a need for the powerfull counterweight to their greed.

Well, monarchy is just *one* other system. There is a whole range of them, all of which are effectively erased from the minds of the modern Westerners since their whole terminology of constitutional systems has collapsed into the simplistic baby language consisting of only the dichotomy democracy/dictatorship. A perfect formula for blocking independent thinking and creating a population of sheep on crack.

A traditional republic is another fine way to rule a country. In those systems counterweights were created since there were many competing elites: landowners, priests, capitalists, etc. The society wouldn't turn tyrannical since if one elite became too oppressive the people could always turn to one of the other elites. Today they have nowhere to turn. The effect of democracy is that there is only *one* elite, the political class and the media, there is no other elite to turn to.

Also democracy is the only system when self-government is impossible. No other system is so centralized and meddles so deeply into people's every affair.

Russkiy said...

Thanks CS,

I am still not entirely convinced about the Religious component of the trio (e.g People, Church, Monarchy)since I am not really religious person, but when I read about the historical significance of Orthodox Christianity in my country, how it binded people together against its foes, I start to appreciate the need to recovery and grow it as much as possible in Russia.

joeblough said...

Well thought out, well written. Thanks.

Re. the point:
1) Size of Country

I am somewhat puzzled.

Britain is a small country with high population density.

Therefore, based on the line of reasoning presented, Britain should "have an advantage in somehow successfully responding to the threat posed by Islam ... in that the problem is likely to come to a head sooner".

But it seems to me that exactly the opposite is happening. The more pressure the mohammedans exert against the native population, the more concessions they win from the authorities and the less resistance they get from the native population.

I suspect that if population density is to help at all, it will only help under circumstances where there is some genuine will to resist.

Otherwise it is apt to produce, as in Britain, a more orderly and rapid surrender -- the native population being easier for both the invaders and the local authorities to target.

Whiskey said...

Sagunto is quite wrong. Women are GROUND ZERO of PC. They in fact support Islamization and form the core of the native electoral support for hard core leftism.

This is because the nuclear family is dead. The Pill, the Condom, anonymous urban living, and good incomes making women equal or better have made the traditional nuclear family dead, dead, dead. Women HATE it, and only the most powerful man can really have that nuclear family.

Already Razib Khan is writing in the Guardian that monogamy is out of date and the West must "surrender" to polygamy. Women generally already in the West engage in a "soft" polygamy, sharing a few socially dominant men, so the transition to a hard one is not so bad for them. It gives women a lot of advantages, and women such as Cherie Blair are the most enthusiastic supporters of Polygamy and Islamization. After all, it allows women to "share" powerful men.

In event of some breakdown, women will side overwhelmingly (except married, older women with children) with the Islamists. They already do electorally. Since most of them are single anyway.

Italy is my vote for the most likely to have a discontinuous event. El Ingles neglects the critical issue of native criminal organizations that lose when Islamists gain. Camorra is not full of nice guys, they'd scare Tony Soprano.

Whiskey said...

Note btw the original issue -- at it's heart a struggle over women.

Eventually polygamy will spread out to the larger European native population, and leave men out.

THAT is the unexpected discontinuity, likely to provoke extreme violence.

I mean, men fighting over the very limited pool of women. Who could imagine such a thing?

Its ... almost as if I've blogged on it.

Conservative Swede said...

Russkiy,

Just checked out www.rusjournal.com. Looks interesting. And firmly opposed to the Enlightenment:

"It is resolutely opposed to accommodation with the voguish and dilettantish theories of modern Orthodoxy in its prosaic, clumsy and pseudo-intellectual attempt to combine ancient Orthodoxy with the doctrines of the Enlightenment."

How nice indeed. The Enlightenment is deadly poison.

Russkiy:
I am still not entirely convinced about the Religious component of the trio (e.g People, Church, Monarchy) since I am not really religious person

There are several possible constitutional systems providing checks and balances. Unlike democracy where there are no checks and balances. The key is to have many competing elites represented in the system. In the old estates parliaments three groups were represented: nobility, clergy and burghers. Thusly representing military, religion and trade, among other things. Common people (farmers) had no representation. Democracy is the constitution where this has been all turned upside down (quite like a dictatorship of the proletariat) where only common people are represented and none of the key elites representing the key functions of society are represented.

The problem with this is that the people cannot hold any real power; according to the Iron law of oligarchy (Michels) all the power ends up in one unchallenged elite (as we have it today). Better then to have a system with many competing elites, i.e. a system with checks and balances (not fancy paper tigers of checks and balances, but real ones of flesh and blood).

Speaking generally of good mixed constitutions the sort of things we would consider wanting to be represented are e.g. wealth (big companies etc.), military, religion, and of course a democratic component of ordinary people. In the Roman Republic the military was prominently represented along with the nobility and ordinary people. A very good and balance system. The model for all republics.

Back to your specific question again. For the West the answer is sure: No Church represented politically! Western Christianity has gone through so many reformations and enlightenments that it is effectively suicidal. It should be kept at a safe distance from politics. I would however like to see the military prominently represented, and wealth as well.

For Russia it's a different thing. Your Orthodox Christianity is fine and healthy, so you can let it have a significant place in politics. It will be a force of strength and good.

Charlemagne said...

@ Holger - you might enjoy My this.

Charlemagne said...

Please ignore the "My" in the above.

Sagunto said...

@George Bruce, Avery Bullard, Whiskey,

So little faith in our women.

GB,
When I describe Dutch women as an asset relative to their Muslim counterparts, it's obviously not to claim that we should "depend" on them. Just a matter of relative strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, I suspect that you think of the military when you speak about soldiers and such, and you're quite right on that part. But you have missed my point about Holland and the most likely way our revolt against Islam and our political elites will take place. The struggle against Islam will be a people's revolt, not a matter of standing armies.

AB,
"..Female voters are disproportionately on the left and bleeding-hearted when it comes to talk of immigration restriction.."

Two short remarks about your statement. First of all, you talk about voters, and that's a distortion of the picture isn't it? At least in Holland. A vast number of women who will fight in our streets doesn't vote at all these days. Second, and perhaps that will somewhat lift your spirit, 45% of the voting base for Geert Wilders is female. As I said, I was speaking of the situation in Holland. Perhaps you've met a lot of bleeding women's hearts where you live.

WH,
"..Sagunto is quite wrong.."

From your perspective indeed, but not quite. Stating that "the nuclear family is dead" equals jumping the gun a bit when Holland is concerned, where there are still enough nuclear families left. Moreover, I was speaking of women who have both the physical capacity and will to resist and fight, comes the time (Ms. Blair didn't exactly come to mind). You seem to think that only women from "nuclear families" will fight. Perhaps you also got that info from Razib Khan, your reliable source on polygamy in England ;-)

You could be right about (parts of) Italy though. The trigger for a revolt against Islam will differ among various coutries.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

CzC said...

I understand Europe's tribal and bloodsoaked past raises the potential for violence from the natives in response to the on going Islamization, but I also wonder how years of politically correct indoctrination might affect that equation.

----------

Just remember when you suppress something it comes out worse than it would have had it been allowed naturally.

Just a thought. Europes reaction could be very harsh when the time comes.

Afonso Henriques said...

El, great essay.

I just wanted to say that I think that two things are not considered:

1)The brownification of Europe, not due to immigration but miscegenation and all things it entails... especially in France...

2)That if a Civil War breaks out, the violence will be abysmal and everybody who don't see the Nation as a great vallue will be tempted to fled. So yes, the anti-islam movement will pray on all non Europeans and even on Europeans they dislike for some reason. And yes, non Europeans will be pleased to leave. If that happens, they will pay to leave instead of what many people want to implement now: pay non Europeans to leave.

3) The most important of all is that we have to understand that an eventual "civil war" will only happen if there are a sufficient number of people exteremly radicalised. Wars do not start just because of the reaction of a middle class economist in Amsterdam when a Moroccan steels his daughter's mobile phone...
You stated what happened in Bradford. And nobody is still radicalised enough in the U.K.
Just imagine what will have to happen to people to become radicalised. The end of economical prosperity is a must happen for that condition.

I still don't know why people think Western Europeans are so different from Ex-Yugoslavians and Lebanese. The case studies are there for us to see. Usefull as well would be to understand what happened during Weimar's Germany...

Sagunto said...

@Afonso,

For info on the Dutch situation, you might want to read this (incl. comments):
last remaining traditions under siege

Of course, I cannot comment knowledgeably on the situation in other countries, or what the most likely scenarios will be elsewhere.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

laine said...

In a world looking for the perfect form of government, or at least the "least worst", Russia has nothing to offer, except to Conservative Swede and Russkyi who are an inexplicable mutual admiration society for all things Russian.

Russia has the distinction of having birthed the largest massacre in the history of man followed by decades of locking up peoples' souls. CS and R persist in ridiculous denial, first that anything evil happened, secondly that Russians had anything to do with it, as though space aliens had come down and victimized them along with all the subjugated nations on Russia's borders. Communism was carried out by Russians for decades and one could argue that there is something in the national character that allowed this without wide scale rebellion. I cannot imagine Americans inflicting or bending to such oppression, certainly not the contemporaries of Russian communists.

One could argue that an oligarchy just as CS and R recommend ruled in communism, but the military that R so respects was what allowed the oligarchy to hold hundreds of millions of people enslaved and carried out its gulag torture and extermination policies. And praising monarchy while using the example of the Czar as someone caring for the people is so ahistorical that CS must take people here for fools. Swedes should know better. I don't know what childhood trauma has created CS's extreme Russophilia, but it is bizarre and he routinely adds insult to injury by sneering at the victims of communism for not appreciating the finer qualities of their Russian oppressors.

Yes, democracy is now failing, but it had a long and fruitful track record of maximum freedom for the maximum number of citizens, unlike anything the Russians have ever carried out.

The fatal error was changing the laws of the American Republic as envisioned by the founding fathers to giving those without a stake in it the vote. In other words, there is now representation without taxation and it is as corrupt in its own way as taxation without representation.

If someone is basically a ward of the state in adulthood, not capable/desirous of supporting himself, then he does not deserve a vote, pure and simple. He is functionally still a child.

What has now happened is that leftism-collectivism has rotted away the foundations of the republic (self-sufficiency) and a large feckless minority with their liberal enablers are voting themselves handouts. The liberals think they are going to be the oligarchy in perpetuity by having encouraged a permanent discontent underclass to vote for them and their Ponzi scheme policies against the shrinking number of working taxpayers. Instead, the unintelligent Dems and their venal clients are killing the golden goose.

But unlike Russia in any of its incarnations, America was golden and for a long time, providing a good life for the largest proportion of citizens ever known in history. America has very real and generous service to the world as well. There isn't another country on earth that would have extended a helping hand to its beaten enemies and helped them build out of the rubble in a Marshall Plan. And look at the "thanks" they received.
On the other hand, Russians have exported only pain and bloodshed.

Those who look forward to the end of Pax Americana will rue the day if they are young enough.

islam o' phobe said...

laine,

There isn't another country on earth that would have extended a helping hand to its beaten enemies and helped them build out of the rubble in a Marshall Plan. And look at the "thanks" they received.

On behalf of my own self I'll drink a toast to George Marshall and the Americans. (Cheers!)

On the wider issue of ingratitude I think this feeling of being slighted is why American conservatives prefer having Third World peoples as their allies. I think Albert Schweitzer expressed this feeling pretty well when he said "The African is indeed my brother but my junior brother." The Iraqis and the Kosovars are "junior brothers" who are fondly believed to have a deep abiding love for America.

However I think white, Western people find it desirable to project their own imaginings onto Third World peoples. The problem with this is that if you start with the expectation that you ought to be loved then you make yourself susceptible to be taken in by flatterers.

Two quotes from the Bible to keep in mind:

Psalms 5:9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.

and

Proverbs 29:5 A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet.

Based primarily on Hugh Fitzgerald's writings on Dhimmi Watch I'd be extremely wary of Muslim allies who say exactly what is required of them and get everything they want in return.

Erich said...

I agree with most of this fine essay, except one thing that peppers the argument throughout: the implication that only those dastardly "elites" represent the problem of PC MC.

A severely small class of individuals (severely small relative to the masses of non-"elites") do not enjoy, in democratic polities such as prevail throughout the West, the sufficient degree of control that would explain why PC MC is dominant and mainstream throughout the West.

I.e., PC MC over the past 50-odd yeasr has won the hearts and minds of at least a solid majority of ordinary people throughout the West. This is not to deny the influential role that actual elites do genuinely play. However, if most of the people were not also generally supportive of PC MC, there would not be sufficient sociopolitical traction for those elites to exert their power to the degree we see, particularly with regard to the twin axioms of the PC MC paradigm -- irrational denigration of the white West / irrational elevation of and "respect" for the non-white Third World Noble Savage (with Islam now at the vanguard of that amorphously global nebula).

Baron Bodissey said...

The problem with expressing “gratitude” towards a country is that the emotion is not appropriate to direct towards a collective entity. Gratitude is only appropriate when directed individually, in families, and local groups.

Also, how long should gratitude be good for? If it runs indefinitely, we should still be grateful to the French for 1781, and we should also still hate the English.

The statute of limitations for any gratitude Europeans should feel towards Americans has passed. Since 1945 we have not done much to evoke gratitude. Study your history, and read some non-American sources. The sandbagging of Britain after WWII. The Suez Canal crisis. The bombing of Serbia. Kosovo. No reason for gratitude for any of those things.

Eastern Europe — that may be another matter.

But gratitude is not something to look for. Nations should look after their people’s interests, and everyone should recognize that.

America has a habit of abandoning people (like the Vietnamese, the Kurds, and the Shia in Iraq in Iraq in 1991) after bringing them on board the cause with starry-eyed idealism.

Beware of gratitude.

laine said...

Baron, I respectfully disagree. Why the one-sided ticking off of American errors in European relations as though Europe is blameless? Americans are way too deferential these days to hypocritical nations who have no great moral authority.

Secondly, you say America's service to Europe is "far in the past". Well, what's Europe ever done for the US? Bupkus, so being a thorn in her side is a bit nervy. If I owe someone money, don't repay them and then say the debt is canceled because it's "far in the past", at the very least I should be cutting the party I stiffed some slack instead of holding him up to higher standards than I have for myself and constantly carping at him.

As far as gratitude is concerned, nations are collectives of individuals, and rationally as well as morally, those individuals should encourage their leaders to deal warmly with nations who have freed them from a tyrant, poured money and other aid into redevelopment, provided them with a free defense umbrella throughout the Cold War up to the present so the recipient could spend his money on socialist candy or been the biggest contributor after various natural disasters etc. Unfortunately, we do not live in a rational or moral world.

As far as pursuing self-interest exclusively is concerned, fine, America should start doing that and copy every other nation on earth as she is clearly overextended and needs to husband her resources. She should also shrug off the avalanche of criticism that will follow. Those who do not credit selfless actions or who even sneer at them have no right to complain when the selflessness stops. (And no, I'm not saying America has always been selfless or hasn't made mistakes but that just makes her the same as all her critics. The difference is that occasionally, America, unlike any other nation has tried to do something for others. The world will be a poorer place in every sense of the word when this unique behavior stops. People will not enjoy Pax China nearly as much).

A good place to start the tough love would be to withdraw every last American soldier from old Europe and S. Korea. They have bitten the hand that fed them long enough and what does an America that is itself infected with socialism care if North Korea overruns South Korea? Perhaps they deserve each other.

Similarly, there's really nothing the USA can do to stop Eurabia from happening if Europeans are copacetic with it. So far they've been voting for politicians with these policies at the ballot box and calling anyone against overwhelming third world and Muslim immigration nazis. Even if things erupt into civil war as el Ingles predicts, a divided America will not interfere.

The cutting and running leaving erstwhile allies to dry as in Vietnam is entirely at the behest of Socialist America which is now running things again so we'll see much more of it wherever the aggressor is totalitarian. Leftists love totalitarians, including Saddam Hussein. They still can't get over his loss. Let's see how quickly Obama decamps from Iraq and how little he comes away with from the wily (and ungrateful) Arab Maliki who expressed his preference for this weak sister over McCain in future negotiations.

Baron Bodissey said...

laine --

I’m not saying that Europe is better than America. It isn’t.

I’m an American nationalist, first and foremost. And most of our leaders since WW2 have been, by and large, damaging, if not traitorous, to our own national interests. Reagan is an exception, but as for the rest — PAH!

Eisenhower’s little number with the Suez Canal did enormous harm to Britain and France. A large portion of our current trouble with Islam comes from Europe’s decolonization after WW2, and the United States pressured Europe, especially Britain into decolonization. We bear a huge share of the blame.

These are facts. To deny them is to ignore reality. The documentation that backs up what I say is extensive. As I said, read up on your history.

That doesn’t mean that the USA isn’t the best of a foolish, feckless bunch of Western nations. But even if it is the best, it is qualitatively only slightly different from Europe.

And you are right about Socialism — it is the root of our problems. And with Obama, we will see the full Eurification of the United States, and it will not be pretty.

God help us all.

Sagunto said...

I agree with @laine here, from a conservative standpoint, that is, conservative as it was once used in the United States.
Most certainly all American soldiers out of Europe would be the right place to start, and a good first move to cut costs (US are present in 130 countries worldwide). Let's see what that so-called European "Union" is worth, once our erstwhile liberators (thnx again!) have returned to US soil.

I have nothing but contempt for this Eurocracy, figment of overzealous elitists' imagination and progressive hubris.
I have to say though, that I believe many of the problems with the political elites in America are also the problems with political elites on this side of the Atlantic. Socialist (progressive/liberal) America goes back a long way (back to Wilson/TR and the "Progressives"; or take a few minutes to learn about the Bellamy nephews and socialist fascism more than one hundred years ago), and socialist Europe even more. All this mess, long before Oboema.

The sharia-socialist elites in various European countries are having a ball right now while there still are just enough people left who are unaware of the Islamic threat. These elites will betray us, as your elites will betray you in the US, where the "choice" has been between a right-wing liberal and a left-wing liberal, i.e. no real choice at all, while your currency is being further wrecked by State-sponsored inflation, thnx to the Fed. It is not a matter of "tough love" that the US should pull out of Europe, but - in the wider context - a financial necessity. But the US should have left much earlier; Europe (of course I mean France here ;-) simply hasn't been worth it.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

islam o' phobe said...

Sagunto,

The sharia-socialist elites in various European countries are having a ball right now while there still are just enough people left who are unaware of the Islamic threat.

I agree re the removal of US troops from Europe. One thing rarely considered is that the US troops stationed in Europe would probably be obliged, in the event of conflict, to defend the EU government and their Muslim charges from the "Eurofascist" natives.

Any discontinuity, or radical upheaval of any kind, would be rendered impossible if the EU bureaucracy is being protected by its own private (US) army. It would be doubly unfair if such an event required both US troops and European peoples to fight each other and die for nothing to their mutual detriment.

Zenster said...

islam o' phobe: ... US troops stationed in Europe would probably be obliged, in the event of conflict, to defend the EU government and their Muslim charges from the "Eurofascist" natives.

As Islam's hand is tipped further and further by its terrorist and radical factions, I foresee a growing reluctance on the part of American troops to participate in such nonsense.

The military has already made clear their refusal to assist in disarming America's people. It is no great reach to believe that assisting with Muslim attempts at acquiring France's nuclear arsenal will be recognized by our military leaders as not being in America's best interest.

If Islam has one glaring hallmark, it is over-reaching itself. Almost entirely bereft of atomic bombs, Islam has openly declared war on the nuclear armed West. With failing water resources and little domestic food production, the MME (Muslim Middle East) has made itself the direct enemy of its grain suppliers in America, Canada and Australia. Islam is driving beyond the reach of its headlights by a huge margin.

Few American military leaders will mistake Islam's hasty grab after France's nuclear arsenal as anything but a direct threat to US security. Garbed or not with the cloak of EU elitist approval, Muslim appropriation of European nuclear weapons will more than likely be a non-starter.

So long as the EU's traitor elite continue to unabashedly osculate Muslim arse, I can only predict a growing unwillingness to rescue these scum from their own predicament. This may come to pass, if only because so many American soldiers have distant relatives among Europe's indigenous population.

Czechmade said...

Gratitude is the main tool in ruling various folks in ME.

A muslim wife must be extremely grateful to her husband not to use his full-fledged hitting rights.
She must be overwhelmed with gratitude when she gets hit "only sometimes".

I think gratitude can develop into a sound feeling, if none of the parties involved has a real power:

The Serbs are proud of having supported us politically consistently for the last more than 100 years. And we have no problem with it, since there is no real power dependence between Czechs and Serbs. We can blame them for their foolish support of Russian policy and they can blame us for our foolish support of recent official EU/US policy. What a balance! But looking closer our support of anti-Serbian US/EU attitudes was very much hastily concocted in few political corners.
And those politicians lost their faces. So the Serbs first lost and won afterwards in our political circles. Of course we can never create such a close link as is the Serb-Greek one.

Bilgeman said...

"I suspect that geographically small countries with high population densities will have an advantage in somehow successfully responding to the threat posed by Islam in the long term."-El Ingles

Several reasons for this.

1)More density yields a greater chance for the native population to be personally affected by Islamic immigrant crime. Who ever heard of a riot breaking out in farmland?

2)Samizdat. Again, due to the greater density, once a few families get touched by the caressing hand of radical Islam, they can more easily tell their friends.

3)Greater urban media saturation. At present, it seems that EuroMedia is lock,stock, and barrel in the Multi-culti PC camp, but sooner or later, one of the media companies is going to glom to the fact that taking a contrarian view to the dominant PC meme is going to yield a LOT of consumers...and money.
Once that happens, the native population is going to get a steady diet of Islamic Jihadist immigrant crime.
This will have the effect of turning up the heat on the boiler.

At some point, sooner or later, some of the natives are going to remember what is supposed to occupy that sac that hangs between their penis and their anus.

Then things get...interesting.

Conservative Swede said...

Laine, in his answer to me above, does not get a single thing right. He simply make up things about what was said between me and Russkiy, often the very opposite of what was actually said, and then argue against these free fantasies of his.

I and Russkiy discussed the age old dilemma of how to balance the powers within a nation in order to create a good and sustainable constitution. The thing we both agreed on is that an (recklessly) irresponsible and oppressive oligarchy (such as we have today in the West) is what must be avoided. Different alternative systems were discussed, e.g. monarchy and republic.

Based on this Laine writes:
One could argue that an oligarchy just as CS and R recommend

Huh? This is precisely the opposite to what I and Russkiy said. Laine hasn't got a clue what he is answering to. He just makes things up.

Laine:
but the military that R so respects

Russkiy never mentioned the military, but only the church. I did mention it however, with reference to the Roman republic; which is held up by any Westerner with historical knowledge as the model of The Republic.

Let's take the full quote of Laine:
One could argue that an oligarchy just as CS and R recommend ruled in communism, but the military that R so respects was what allowed the oligarchy to hold hundreds of millions of people enslaved and carried out its gulag torture and extermination policies.

Laine's free fantasy, that he makes up here, is that this is what was recommended by me and Russkiy. There's no connection with reality at all here. Laine also seems to want to imply that since the military can be misused in this way, that the military is bad and we should not have one? Or at least not respect it? Or what?

Laine:
And praising monarchy while using the example of the Czar as someone caring for the people is so ahistorical that CS must take people here for fools.

Well, I never brought up the Czar as an example. Laine doesn't get anything right. The discussion I held was a general one, and not about Russia.

Laine also announces that I and Russkiy "persist in ridiculous denial" of the Soviet Union massacres and locking up of people, a denial that "anything evil happened". Another free fantasy from Laine, and it all becomes ridiculous. The Soviet Union was not even discussed in the exchange between me and Russkiy. And our view about the crimes of the Soviet Union does not differ from Laine's himself. Why does he have to make up all these things? Does he not have any real arguments to present? Laine steps up his free flying fantasies by adding how I "routinely add[s] insult to injury by sneering at the victims of communism". Wow! Laine has no problem with any magnitude of lies and distortion. And his volume is turned up as if he learned his manners from Charles Johnson.

Laine:
The fatal error was changing the laws of the American Republic as envisioned by the founding fathers to giving those without a stake in it the vote.

The funny thing is that the discussion between me and Russkiy was of the same kind as among the founding fathers of America. A discussion that is virtually impossible among the Westerners of today, since they lack the terminology for it. America's founding fathers were as concerned about the threat of democracy as I am, and in how it would lead to tyranny of an oligarchy as described by Russkiy.

So I do not know what made Laine freak out here really... unless it is Russia of course. One cannot have a discussion about constitutional systems in the style of the founding fathers of America, Aristotle etc. with a Russian, apparently, because that makes Laine think of the USSR, and then he freaks out and starts making up lies. But Laine is against anything Russian. also the Czar era and Putin today, all of which makes him go starry eyed. He's got something against Russian, period.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

By the way, El Ingles, I thought your comments on private gun ownership were right on the money. I have seen several reports which indicate that the Muslims are smuggling weapons from the Balkans into their enclaves in Western Europe. When the time comes, they will be well prepared.
What about the natives? From what I have read, private gun ownership is virtually non-existent in The Netherlands, severely restricted in England, and very difficult in France. That does not bode well for the natives of those countries when the "discontinuity" occurs.

With the election of an ultra-liberal, ultra-left wing looney tune administration here in the USA, American gun owners are in for a very rough ride for at least the next four years.
Last weekend, I went up to the gun show in West Lebanon, New Hampshire (just across the river from White River Junction, Vermont.) The place was packed, standing room only.

AMDG said...

> I would like to bring an end to my rather strange and short career as an analyst of Islamization

Why, inglés? Please go on.

In any case, thank you for this logically articulated and sound reasoning. Apart for its obvious intrinsic value it has been very useful to unveil the hypocrisy of some bloggers.