Monday, May 18, 2009

To Push or to Squeeze?

Here is another in an occasional series from El Ingles. As readers familiar with our essayist know by now, Señor Ingles doesn’t pull his punches.

I will reiterate again (for all the good it seems to do) that this essay, like his others, is descriptive; it is not normative. We have become so bullied by the censorious politically correct language police that we are no longer able to differentiate between the two kinds of rhetoric. Like children, we conflate description with reality, as if by imagining what might occur, we magically make it happen by speaking.

That kind of thinking is regessive to an earlier period of human development when words had magic and could cause events all by themselves.

To the grown-ups: enjoy!


*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Introduction
Being of a sinister disposition, I have continued to ruminate upon the likely course of events as relations between European countries and their Muslim fifth columns unravel. In particular, I would like to focus on the probable nature of attempts on the part of native populations to bring about what is euphemistically referred to as the repatriation of their Muslim populations.

To recap briefly, in ‘Surrender, Genocide or What?’ (hereafter referred to as SGW), I suggested that there were three basic ways in which the number of Muslims in any given European country could, in principle, be reduced:

  • through pressuring them, in whatever fashion, to decide to relocate (Option 1);
  • through deporting them (Option 2); and,
  • through large-scale violence which, taken to an extreme, would constitute genocide (Option 3).

I further suggested that certain dynamics long at work in the countries in question had already significantly reduced the likelihood of being able to deal with the problem of Islam through Options 1 and 2 alone. In short, I saw a clear progression of violence and unpleasantness from Option 1 to Option 2 to Option 3, a slippery slope from one to the next, down which European natives were destined to slide, like it or not, as they fought back against Islam and the entire process of Islamization.

The above notwithstanding, it occurs to me of late that these three options may not in fact mark out a linear progression on the road from less to more ruthless de-Islamization tactics. Rather, they can better be considered to represent the three corners of an equilateral triangle, within which a given set of policies can be represented by a point, and each option a corner.

The proximity of the point to each corner indicates the fraction of the relevant option in a given set of responses. If we assume that European peoples start their de-Islamization efforts at a point very close to the corner representing Option 1, then it is far from clear that the course taken by that point as the situation disintegrates need veer off towards Option 2 before heading for Option 3. Indeed, there is no reason in principle why de-Islamization efforts cannot move directly from Option 1 towards Option 3, skirting widely around Option 2. In this essay, I will argue that this is, in fact, what is likely to happen.

As a preliminary to this discussion, I will consider in more detail what it would mean to implement Option 1, especially in light of recent developments in Europe. I will then reexamine certain issues I first brought up in SGW to explain why I am now convinced that Option 2 will never play a central role in de-Islamization efforts. Finally, I will consider what an escalation of the conflict between natives and Muslims in Europe would consist of in the absence of Option 2, how it might come to pass that Option 3 would be gradually incorporated into de-Islamization efforts, and how Option 3 might eventually render itself unnecessary.
- - - - - - - - -
Towards Option 1
It is heartening to observe that politically-aware people in European nations are waking up, however slowly, to the catastrophe that Muslim immigration is busy shaping for them. As a direct consequence of this awakening there are prominent political figures in at least some European countries who have started to advocate what would be considered, in my scheme, Option 1, mixed with small amounts of Option 2. The most illustrative example is to be found in the Netherlands.

I consider the Dutch instance to be the purest, and conceptually the neatest, example of a move towards Option 1 and what may lie beyond it. The situation in the Netherlands possesses certain characteristics that allow for clarity and greatly sharpen our understanding of what is happening. In Geert Wilders it has as its figurehead a charismatic and striking politician with an incisive and unapologetic approach to divisive issues. Support for his party, the Freedom Party, has been growing rapidly, and has already reached a level which would make it the largest in the Dutch Parliament if elections were to be held today. Furthermore, Wilders has been extremely successful in building up a strong international profile in recent months, with a little help from the witless fools in the British Home Office.

Needless to say, it is hardly a certainty that Wilders will be Prime Minister any time soon, and far from clear that any coalition government he might be able to form in the future would actually afford him the freedom of manoeuvre he would presumably desire. However, there is clearly a considerable degree of momentum being established in the Netherlands with respect to the incorporation into government policy of many of the key ideas of those who are serious about opposing Islamization.

I will be more specific. In an April 2009 speech given in Florida, Wilders listed a number of measures that he felt should be introduced to oppose and reverse the Islamization of European countries. They included the following:

  • Official recognition of Islam as a political ideology, not a religion, and the concomitant removal of all protections afforded it as a religion.
  • The immediate cessation of all Muslim immigration.
  • The encouraging of voluntary repatriation.
  • The expulsion of foreign criminals, including Dutch citizens with dual nationality.
  • The cessation of new mosque-building.
  • The closing down of mosques in which incitement to violence has taken place.
  • The closing down of Muslim schools.

Were such a program actually to be implemented, it is fairly clear that the Netherlands would have heartily adopted Option 1, supplemented with Option 2. What this means is that one of the European countries worst afflicted by the cancer of Islam is already at a point where the debate on what would constitute a genuinely effective response to Islam is moving into the political mainstream, pushed by a political party whose popularity is fast increasing and likely to increase a good deal more. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that within the next few years the Netherlands could be attempting to implement at least some elements of the first de-Islamization program in modern European history.

This is where we currently stand. Personally, I am both surprised and delighted that the situation vis-à-vis Islam is unraveling so quickly, in the Netherlands and elsewhere. I am also extremely heartened to note that a certain phenomenon that I wrote about in my essay, Pick a Tribe, Any Tribe, (Parts 1 and 2) is also starting to become visible in the Netherlands, to wit, the reemergence of tribalism in policy proposals. More specifically, I refer to Wilders’ suggestion that criminal immigrants should be deported. If my interpretation of this proposal is correct, then its importance cannot be overstated. Superficially nothing more than a robust response to imported violence and dysfunctionality, it in fact constitutes nothing less than a fundamental redefinition of what it means to be Dutch.

If a second-generation Moroccan living in the Netherlands could be deported upon obtaining a criminal record and an equally criminal native Dutch person could not, then the Netherlands would already have become a two-tier society, in which native Dutch people had legal rights that immigrants, of whatever generation, did not. Non-native Dutch people would know that their time in the Netherlands was something that could be brought to a halt at any time if they strayed too far beyond the law, provided they had dual citizenship or originated from a country that granted the right of return to anyone who could trace their roots to it.

When the members of a group can have their citizenship revoked, their citizenship has, in a sense, already been revoked. That is, they exist in a different legal category to that of the majority population of the country in question. This is a big step. Though Wilders has yet to formulate it in these terms, there appears to be a nativism, that is to say a tribalism, in his proposals that can only continue to reemerge throughout Europe in response to the threat of Islam.

Option 2 Denied?
Having now reminded readers of the details of Option 1, I must also remind them that, in SGW, I concluded that Option 1 would almost certainly be incapable of de-Islamizing a country. I do not plan to revisit that argument here; rather, I will simply assume that Option 1 has now been implemented in a hypothetical country without either breaking the will of the Muslim population or inducing a non-electoral discontinuity.

Now I will explore the question of what comes next, by returning to part of the discussion in SGW, which focused on the difficulties involved in deporting large numbers of Muslims from European countries, i.e., the problems inherent in the implementation of Option 2.

It needs to be stated in no uncertain terms that there is no point in attempting to implement Option 2 if in doing so, one collapses an electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity. At that point Option 2 would no longer exist in any meaningful sense. Beyond a non-electoral discontinuity, there are very few ‘options’ at all in the sense that we would normally understand the term. Avoiding non-electoral discontinuity should therefore be a key objective of those who seek to de-Islamize their countries with as little human suffering as possible. Sadly, it seems clear that if the Muslim population of a given country increased so greatly that natives begin considering the draconian de-Islamization efforts which make up Option 2, then it will be sufficiently large to collapse any electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity if it so desires. As I put it in SGW:

I am aware of no examples of large-scale deportations being carried out by aircraft, which they would have to be in this case. [...] [I]t must be observed that air travel is the most infrastructurally fragile of all modes of transportation, and completely reliant on the goodwill and cooperation of people at the destination. A functioning government might be able to organize and carry out mass deportations via airline, but would surely be forced to preemptively intern the target population, and the notion that such populations in Europe would allow themselves to be peacefully interned strains credulity to breaking point and beyond. If this is true now, how much truer would it be in five or ten years time? Even the merest suggestion of implementing such a plan would surely collapse an electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity for reasons already discussed.

Even if we ignore the vexing question of how Option 2 could be ordered, let alone implemented, without hurling a country into a non-electoral discontinuity, we need to ask a few questions about its utility in comparison with other options, which, as I suggested above, now seem to me to be slightly broader than I had suggested originally in SGW. So let us suspend our disbelief for a moment. Imagine that a hypothetical Wilders government announces that most Muslims and people of Muslim heritage are to be deported from the Netherlands, without the country descending directly into chaos. In this case, we could say with some confidence that many, if not all, of the following consequences would be observed:

1) International Condemnation
The degree, type, and consequences of international condemnation experienced by a Netherlands announcing the deportation of its Muslim population would depend very heavily on the extent to which other European countries were involved in similar activities at the same time. For this reason, it is difficult to even begin to make any predictions as to what the details of the broader international response might be. However, we can reasonably predict that in the absence of a Europe-wide breakdown in relations between Muslims and their host societies, the Netherlands would very quickly become an international pariah state. International organizations such as the UN and EU could well expel it; at least some other European/Western countries would condemn it; the OIC and member states would call for military intervention (presumably by the US!). Many third-party countries without any obvious stake in the struggle would also join in the chorus of disapproval. None of these developments would necessarily prove fatal to Dutch de-Islamization efforts; perhaps not even all of them together could do so. However, the external attacks would be a thorn in the side of those defending the Netherlands from Islam.

2) Severing of Diplomatic Ties and Trade Links
Closely related to the previous concern, this would likely cause greater difficulty for our hypothetical Wilders government. The welfare of Dutch citizens in Muslim countries would be a key concern, and a preemptive withdrawal of diplomatic personnel from the Muslim world would probably be prudent. More problematic still would be the cessation of trade with the Muslim world, which could have an impact not only on Dutch exports, but on supplies of oil and gas. It is also possible that other countries would boycott Dutch produce and refuse to sell their own exports to Dutch companies and consumers.

3) Refusal of Airlines
Given the likelihood of Muslims in the Muslim world deciding that the continued presence of large numbers of their co-religionists in European countries was beneficial, it is quite possible that they would simply refuse to cooperate with any efforts on the part of those countries to deport said Muslims. It would surely be a relatively trivial matter for Morocco to close its airspace to any European airline or aircraft that were participating in the mass deportations of Moroccans from the Netherlands. If formal channels for deportation were to close, it is very difficult to see how Option 2 could proceed at all. Of course, if the Netherlands were to simply start brutalizing its Moroccan population, the attitude of the Moroccan government could change overnight as it realized that maintaining political leverage in the Netherlands through the Moroccan population there was of only secondary importance relative to preventing them from being slaughtered. But here we would already have blundered into Option 3, which is precisely what we are trying to avoid, thus rendering Option 2 irrelevant and/or impossible in any case.

4) Surge in Terrorist Activity
Given the Muslim predilection for terrorism, it is very hard to imagine a scenario in which terrorist activity, successful or not, would not immediately spike as the Muslim population of the Netherlands learns that it is expected to surrender to the unpleasantness of Option 2. Even a single successful attack could, in such a context, result in a rapid escalation of counterattack after counterattack that would render the further implementation of any ordered set of policies impossible, with all that this impossibility implies.

5) Massive Riots
Needless to say, large-scale rioting and the aforementioned surge in terrorist activity constitute the most obvious ways in which an electoral discontinuity would collapse into a non-electoral discontinuity. Even ignoring this possibility the massive damage and destruction - physical, human, and political - caused by rioting is something that Wilders and those like him will be keen to avoid if at all possible. It is hard to see how large-scale and well-organized rioting across urban areas in the Netherlands could be avoided if a future Dutch government were to announce its intention to implement Option 2, and equally hard to see how such rioting could be brought under control once both sides understood that they were involved in an existential struggle.


In addition to these issues, I must reiterate that it is difficult to envisage a scenario in which attempts to implement Option 2 on any large scale did not collapse an electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral one, which would be the gravest problem of all. In addition, there is the more prosaic set of problems presented by the sheer cost and logistical difficulty of trying to deport hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, many of whom will undoubtedly not go quietly, from a given country by air. As such, I would suggest that it is unclear that any reasonable cost-benefit analysis could indicate that Option 2 were an efficient or effective way of de-Islamizing a country. However, the twin failures of Options 1 and 2 do not in fact mean that a downwards plunge into Option 3 is therefore inevitable. On the contrary, I suspect that something somewhat more refined, and considerably more devious, awaits us.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Option 1 (Enhanced)
Let us assume once more that Option 1, laced with a small amount of Option 2 (hereafter referred to as Option 1 (Standard)), has now been implemented in some European country, as described above. While it has cut the growth rate of the Muslim population, nonetheless, this has largely failed to solve the problem of Islamization. Let us further assume that the country in question has not descended into anarchy, but that the predictable pushback on the part of Muslims has indeed transpired. Given the higher fertility rates of Muslims, it is clear that much would remain to be done. Here, I propose to consider how Option 1 ([Standard) might gradually be upgraded to Option 1 (Enhanced) by the people and government of a country eager to resolve its Muslim problem permanently.

As a preliminary, let it be said that domestic political and legal challenges to pushback against Islam will be ignored in these considerations since they are too difficult to predict and would be proved irrelevant if the country in question were on the verge of moving beyond Option 1 (Standard).

I have not yet explained what Option 1 (Enhanced) is, so let me do so here: it consists of using far more inconsiderate and uncivilized means to tighten the squeeze on Muslims, including means that are well beyond the pale at present in any polite discussion of the problems resulting from Islamization. Not famed for my politeness, I will suggest that these means would include but not be limited to the following, in order of increasing divergence from the prevailing ideas of what is acceptable in a civilized society:

Draconian Legislation Banning the Hiring of Illegal Immigrants
Hiring illegal immigrants should already be illegal, but introducing and enforcing more draconian legislation aimed at employers who ignore the status of illegal immigrants could have great utility in getting rid of the large numbers of illegal immigrants, many of whom are Muslims. In the UK, there are estimated to be somewhere in the region of 750,000 illegal immigrants. Though hard data is difficult to come by, these illegals are often said to originate in Muslim or predominantly Muslim countries, such as Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. Clamping down on illegal immigrants in this fashion would be one of the easiest and politically painless ways of putting the squeeze on Islamisation. Alternatively, a clampdown on illegal immigrants could be announced, with enforcement efforts focusing overwhelmingly on Muslim illegal immigrants to get the message across implicitly.

Reduced Access to Public Services and Quality of Public Infrastructure
This is something that would have to be done gradually to avoid the possibility of being pulled into a non-electoral discontinuity. To understand it, consider the infrastructural elements on which our quality of life so heavily depends: transportation (roads, buses, trams, trains), sanitation (sewers, water supply, garbage removal), communication (mobile phone networks, terrestrial phone networks, broadband connections, mail delivery), health (doctors’ surgeries, hospitals), law enforcement (police patrols, emergency services, arrest and incarceration of criminals), and public support (housing benefit, unemployment benefit). These disparate fibres, which together constitute much of the weave of a modern state, would provide a veritable smorgasbord of opportunities to a government wishing to squeeze Muslims out of its country. Some can simply be denied at the source, such as welfare benefits. Some can be downgraded piecemeal, such as bus and tram services. Others can gradually be observed to disintegrate or suffer from inexplicable problems, as phone lines go dead, garbage removal grinds to a halt, and the local clinic closes for ‘lack of funds.’ Imaginative readers can no doubt offer their own suggestions in this regard.

Refusal of Re-Entry for Muslims
Ignoring the multitude of legal barriers that exist at present, it should be possible in principle to devise a system whereby certain types of immigrants can simply be kept out of the country should they ever leave. One of the ways in which the Americans tightened relevant aspects of their security post-9/11 was to implement pre-flight checking of the personal details of would-be entrants to the US. Anyone not providing their details or providing details that flag them as undesirable is refused boarding at the departure point of their inbound journey. This and other approaches could surely be adapted to the purposes of European countries eager to prevent Muslims from re-entering their countries should they ever leave. Note that the objective of such a measure would not be to spring a surprise on Muslims trying to board aircraft back to Europe in their countries of origin. Rather, it would be to lay down a choice to Muslims still in European countries: either accept that you can never return to your home country, ever, for any reason, or make the decision to go back there now for good. Those Muslims in Europe with strong family and other emotional ties to their home countries would surely feel great pressure as a consequence of such policies.

Assiduous Deportation of Muslim Criminals
Of course, some Muslim criminals are already deported from European countries. Here, however, I refer to the deportation of anyone of Muslim heritage, citizen of their host country or no. It would need to be decided which crimes warranted deportation, and which groups could have their members deported should those members be so foolish as to be convicted of breaking the relevant laws. Once these decisions had been made, however, a significant fraction of the young, male Muslim population of any European country would fairly shortly be available for deportation, especially if relevant new legislation were to be applied retroactively. The ability to break up families and generally destroy the confidence of Muslims in their status in European countries would be at least as significant as the actual deportations. Additionally, the Muslim unrest that would undoubtedly result from any such large-scale deportations would provide a fresh stream of ‘volunteers’ to be deported, making it a potentially very potent weapon in the hands of committed de-Islamizers.

Violent Attacks by Non-State Actors
Just as the previous option essentially introduces elements of Option 2 into Option 1, deporting Muslim criminals would do the same, but with elements of Option 3. It does not require a great degree of foresight to see that ever more organized forms of violence may well come to be used by Muslims and natives against each other as the tensions between them increase. However, in the context of the ever-tightening squeeze that is Option 1 (Enhanced), such violence, directed at Muslim populations throughout a given country, would also constitute a fairly obvious squeeze factor. This will not be lost upon those non-state groups interested in seeing the influence of Islam in their countries undergo a steep decline. The possibility of elements in the police and/or intelligence services providing equipment, training, or intelligence to these groups is an intriguing one. That said, however, this course of action differs from the other four in that it is not undertaken by the apparatus of state, and is therefore part of Option 1 (Enhanced). That is, it would be more likely to occur after the situation has degenerated far enough to make this option viable, but not in the sense that it is something that the authorities would intentionally or overtly implement. To be completely clear, Option 1 (Enhanced) does not include the possibility of the government of a country engaging directly in large-scale, lethal violence against Muslim populations. It is very hard to see what advantage this would have, politically speaking, over arming and turning a blind eye to informal militias. As such, I dismiss it here and do not propose to analyze it further in this context.


Having introduced the most obvious ways in which Option 1 (Standard) could be upgraded to Option 1 (Enhanced), it is necessary to point out those elements that are likely to make the latter a more attractive option than Option 2 for the purposes of de-Islamization. These are several: its diffuse nature, its deniability, and its incrementality. I will touch upon each of these in turn.

Diffuse Nature
Opposition to a given political scheme of whatever sort will always be easier to organize if the scheme itself is clear-cut, easy to identify, and easy to analyze. Option 1 (Enhanced), coming as it would on top of Option 1 (Standard), would consist of a large number of different initiatives whose variety would make it difficult for opponents to organize any coherent response. Furthermore, there is no need for decision-makers to present these initiatives as being a unified suite of policies. At least some aspects of Option 1 (Enhanced) would be introduced with virtually no public discussion at all. The potential exists to imbue large chunks of Option 1 (Enhanced) with, shall we say, a reduced radar signature, making them difficult targets for those who oppose these strategies.

Deniability
Deniability is related to and, at least in part, stems from the diffuse nature of Option 1 (Enhanced) as outlined above. How troubling that Muslim areas should find their electricity supply cutting out in the middle of the day for no discernible reason! How irksome that the perpetrators of mosque bombings and arson attacks should prove so difficult to bring to justice! What a coincidence that all the illegal immigrants being arrested and deported by immigration authorities should happen to be Muslims! And what a shame that it should be necessary to deport thousands of young Muslim criminals, thus breaking up family ties. However, we must have law and order, we simply must. Option 1 (Enhanced) could, not completely but substantially, be presented as something other than what it actually is. Of course, no one with any spare brain capacity at all will be fooled by this smokescreen should Option 1 (Enhanced) ever come to be implemented in any European country. But sometimes keeping up appearances is a good tactic to employ against the aggrieved.

Incrementality
Most importantly of all, Option 1 (Enhanced) has the advantage of incrementality, which is to say that the degree of pressure exerted on Muslims can be varied arbitrarily to take any value at all. This is in stark contrast with Option 2, which would represent such a massive rupture with the past that it would almost certainly break a country in two, or, to rephrase, result in a non-electoral discontinuity. To demonstrate the point, let us contrast moderate and draconian implementations of Option 1 (Enhanced), in the context of the UK.

In the moderate implementation: 1) those hiring illegal immigrants would be punishable by a fine of up to £5,000; 2) road maintenance and street cleaning would be deprioritized in Muslim areas, and diversion of county and national tax revenues to make up for the weak tax base in these areas would cease; 3) Muslim residents of the UK without British citizenship would be refused re-entry to the UK if there were suspicion of their involvement in terrorist/jihadist activity; 4) authorities would turn a blind eye to attacks on mosques, or on Muslims in general; 5) anyone of Muslim heritage convicted of a violent or sexual crime would be deported, without the right of appeal, to their country of origin.

In the severe implementation: 1) those hiring illegal immigrants would be punishable by a fine of up to £100,000 and/or five years in prison; 2) Muslims would lose access to free healthcare and see welfare benefits cut in half, and Muslim areas would see garbage removal drop off to once a month, as electricity supply and mobile phone coverage were gradually cut back; 3) all Muslims not British citizens would be flatly denied entry/re-entry to the UK; 4) native militias would conduct mosque bombings, targeted killings, and arson attacks against Muslim targets throughout country, with police and intelligence services turning a blind eye, when not actively aiding and abetting; 5) anyone of Muslim heritage convicted of any crime at all would be deported, without the right of appeal, to their country of origin.

These two examples demonstrate the huge scope for squeezing Muslims within the confines of Option 1 (Enhanced). The ability to apply pressure gradually in this fashion, incrementally tightening the vise, would be one of the advantages of this option, which creates no sudden flashpoint likely to induce disintegration as per Option 2.


Of the five negative responses to Option 2 I listed above (international condemnation, severing of diplomatic ties and trade links, refusal of airlines, surge in terrorist activity, and massive riots) at least the first three could be forestalled, reduced, or delayed by progressing to Option 1 (Enhanced) rather than going to Option 2 should Option 1 (Standard) be tried and found wanting. This is no small advantage, especially given the greater likelihood of Option 2 inducing a non-electoral discontinuity.

From Option 1 to Option 3 and Back Again
It will not have escaped readers’ attention that Option 1 (Enhanced) starts off nasty and gets worse. Accordingly, it is unlikely to take place without considerable upheaval, and some of its measures and the aftermath of those measures may be better categorized under Option 3 rather than including them in any version of Option 1. Note that there is no point at which the former replaces the latter. Options 1, 2, and 3 are, after all, nothing more than a conceptual framework introduced to facilitate a more rigorous analysis of the constituent properties of de-Islamization. These are not an explicit menu of mutually exclusive options that would be individually chosen in any conscious fashion.

There is a point beyond which any analytical framework contrived to deal with subject matter as complex as the de-Islamization of Europe will break down, and ad hoc argument becomes as effective as more rigorous alternatives.

The framework I have established here has now reached that point. Thus, I will make the observation hinted at already i.e., all de-Islamization measures undertaken under Options 2 and 3 could also be considered to fall under Option 1. If two thousand unfortunate Muslims were to be killed in Birmingham, would that not induce many others to consider booking flights back to Islamabad, Dhaka, or Mogadishu? If this is the case, then how can Option 1 and Option 3 be considered discrete, separate alternatives?

This is not a paradox I want to resolve here. Rather, I will suggest that if discontinuity is reached while European natives are still majorities in their own countries, any large-scale violent conflict between Muslims and those natives will quickly work to the advantage of the latter. Any violence that could be categorized as Option 3 (under my existing taxonomy of de-Islamization) combined with the other provisions of Option 1 that would already be in place, would have such a drastic effect on Muslim populations that de-Islamization could be completed almost entirely within the confines of Option 1.

It is hard to envisage de-Islamization taking place without at least some outbreaks of mob violence and the temporary breakdown of law and order across swathes of urban Europe. Some countries may well see the formation of armed militias and concomitant eruptions of more systematic and lethal violence aimed at entire communities. But it is hard to believe that such violence, backed up as it would be by elements of the apparatus of state, would not constitute the most effective squeeze factor imaginable for an Option 1 (Enhanced). In addition, this efficacy would surely (and hopefully) mean that very little application would be necessary.

Given these factors, here is my final prediction: European countries seeking to de-Islamize will move into Option 1 (Standard), supplemented as described above by small amounts of Option 2. As this proves insufficient (which it will) these tactics will segue into Option 1 (Enhanced). In some countries more and more Option 3-type violence will be incorporated. After a period of unspecified time, the will of the Muslim population of the country under consideration will be broken, and decreased resistance from that Muslim population will allow a successful end to de-Islamization through a reversion to Option 1 (Enhanced). There will be no need of a further application of violent tactics.

Of course, this assumes that the spine of the state itself is not broken by the discontinuities a country has to pass through to get to this point, and that the government maintains a strong grip, though not a monopoly, on the use of violence within the country’s borders. If the state does not maintain its firm hold then all bets are off, and unhappy times lie ahead for everyone.

57 comments:

Snouck said...

Thought provoking as usual, El Ingles!

With regards to to points you make 1. international condemnation and 2. severing Diplomatic ties and Trade links here's my thoughts.

The expelling nation could insist that the multiculturally orthodox countries accept the undisirables. After all they are saying that they know a better way to deal with these people.

It can further be argued that such measures will worsen existing tensions between communities and will play into the hands of extremists on both sides.

Regards,

Snouck

Fjordman said...

Thank you for posting your thoughts here, El Ingles.

It is frightening to see what kind of options we leave to our children and grandchildren. It will be impossible for them to comprehend what we were thinking when we imported these people to our countries and celebrated this as a victory for tolerance, or said that it was "good for the economy."

Czechmade said...

Start with the least effort possible - collecting all quotes about muslims living in kufr lands.

Those who say it is unlawful for muslims to live here according to their own rule canon can be expoited to the full and publicised. Made into a public discussion, indicating they break their own rules.

In addition - what are those things and objects cancelling islamic prayers? Let us employ many artists to use them in abundance! We are not ready to exploit the supersticious nature of the muslims. On the contrary, we do so much to make them feel at ease!

"If you live among us, with us, your islam is DEAD." Invalid, cancelled, sullied, desecrated, polluted, incapacitated, aborted, ridiculed, parodied, castrated, demonized, pulverized, defenestrated, flushed down the toilet.

Homophobic Horse said...

The Muslims know that all they have to do is sit tight so that humane efforts at repatriation are unlikely to succeed without coercion. If we push hard, we'll be regarded as Nazi aggressors and then NATO will be brought down upon us. If we do nothing we lose our countries. Either way, it's starting to look as though the western Europe is ultimately lost.

Metatron said...

All of this is impossible without leaving the EU and putting up a border fence.

What's the point of deporting someone to Morocco, if they can fly back to Brussels(and you can be damn sure that the guys in charge in Brussels will allow them in this kind of situation) and drive across the border.

Also about denying re-entry if they go back to their countries of origin, this would require banning them leaving the country AT ALL, since they could always go to a holiday in a third country and fly to their home country from there. I'm pretty sure the Moroccan customs official wouldn't stamp their passports if asked.

Thirdly, harsh measures would bring harsh responses from Muslim countries, and as far as I know Holland's military is quite small and fills a NATO specific role. Would NATO intervene on Holland's side if their actions were considered unpopular?

All in all any meaningful steps are only possible as a European measure, not something Holland can do itself. And with the current bottom-feeders running the EU, there is little cause for optimism.

Zenster said...

Yet more nutritious food for thought from our ever-dependable El Inglés. Bravo, Sir.

Dymphna: Like children, we conflate description with reality, as if by imagining what might occur, we magically make it happen by speaking.

That kind of thinking is regessive to an earlier period of human development when words had magic and could cause events all by themselves.
This trait continues now, even in modern society. Well written Asian guide books warn prospective travelers not to directly express the possibility of harm or danger. As in saying: “That accident could have killed you!”, because merely mentioning it proposes the actuality of such a negative outcome. This is largely a superstitious remnant of earlier human consciousness but it also reflects back upon when the spoken word could focus a susceptible mind and even fixate it in the manner of curses and spells.

However, I would venture that in modern low context Western culture, such conflating is more the product of intellectual laziness or an outright malicious effort to besmirch honest and open speculation as agitation or support for apparently questionable aims. The current European trend to reflexively associate all forms of nationalism with “right wing” or “Nazi” sympathies is a sterling example of this intentional confusion.

El Inglés: Indeed, there is no reason in principle why de-Islamization efforts cannot move directly from Option 1 towards Option 3, skirting widely around Option 2. In this essay, I will argue that this is, in fact, what may likely happen.This should come as no surprise to even faintly rational minds. Throughout its entire history, Islam has demonstrated its ready propensity for a direct resort to violence. Lord Ahmed’s threats of “10,000 Muslims” rioting over the possible British screening of Geert Wilder’s movie is a vivid demonstration of this exact behavior. There are no intervening steps of orderly protests or legal actions between the initial objection and a violent response.

Therefore, it should be equally unsurprising that abrupt and extremely violent Muslim pushback might occur against even just the threat of deportation. In many ways, it is happening right now. The use of gang rapes, carbeques, “wilding” style assaults and violent counter-protests all represent this sort of intimidating short-circuit escalation. There is no reason why Europe’s indigenous citizens should not escalate in a similarly precipitous manner.

… I am now convinced that Option 2 will never play a central role in de-Islamization efforts.Europe’s liberal political elite bear almost complete responsibility for this fact, as I will note in further comments.

Personally, I am both surprised and delighted that the situation vis-à-vis Islam is unraveling so quickly, in the Netherlands and elsewhere.As any remotely sane mind should be. Only by swift implementation of anti-Islamization measures will there be any hope of averting the now looming prospect of a European Muslim holocaust, much less one of even greater magnitude in the MME (Muslim MiddleEast) itself. Allowing the current European situation to fester only tilts the equilateral triangle even further towards Option 3.

It is here where Europe’s liberal political elite must take the greatest responsibility for vitalizing this horrendous outcome. Both by encouraging Muslim immigration in the first place and subsequently repressing all non-violent attempts to quell Islamization have these budding social engineers made a Muslim holocaust such an inevitable prospect. Their’s alone is the blame for giving Islam’s usual and well known predatory behavior such free rein in Europe.

Zenster said...

When the members of a group can have their citizenship revoked, their citizenship has, in a sense, already been revoked. That is, they exist in a different legal category to that of the majority population of the country in question.Perish the thought that Muslims might be subjected to some form of their own preferred two-tier societal structure. So long as Islam remains a proponent of dhimmitude, it must be rewarded with second-class status in all non-Muslim countries.

Sadly, it seems clear that if the Muslim population of a given country increased so greatly that natives begin considering the draconian de-Islamization efforts which make up Option 2, then it will be sufficiently large to collapse any electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity if it so desires.Again, none of this should come as any surprise given Islam’s congenital predisposition towards violence. It is long past tea for Muslims to gain a crystal clear understanding of the repercussions that obtain from their love of war.

As to Option 2, the entire issue of International Condemnation, Severing of Diplomatic Ties and Trade Links, Refusal of Aillines, Surege in Terrorist Activities and Masive Riots all pivots upon the earlier observed protocol attributed to Geert Wilders of:

· Official recognition of Islam as a political ideology, not a religion, and the concomitant removal of all protections afforded it as a religion.

· The immediate cessation of all Muslim immigration.

· The encouraging of voluntary repatriation.

· The expulsion of foreign criminals, including Dutch citizens with dual nationality.

· The cessation of new mosque-building.

· The closing down of mosques in which incitement to violence has taken place.

· The closing down of Muslim schools.
The above measures are ones that will have to be taken by any and all contries intent upon surviving Islam's onslaught. Only by unmasking Islam’s political nature can any of this have the least chance of succeding. Furthermore, mass repatriation or reverse immigration will simply have to be conducted at gunpoint. Not just with respect to the repatriated individuals but also in regard to the coutries of origin being repopulated.

This is why I continue to paint such a bleak picture of our world’s future. Islam has intentionally made this entire situation into an “all-or-nothing” conflict. It has always done this and there is absolutely no indication that Islam intends to alter its strategy one whit. All of this militates towards the most destructive scenarios that involve nuclear terrorist attacks finally driving Western nations into either Total War or a Muslim Holocaust. Remember:

Islam wouldn’t have it any other way.

Zenster said...

3) Refusal of Airlines: … Of course, if the Netherlands were to simply start brutalizing its Moroccan population, the attitude of the Moroccan government could change overnight as it realized that maintaining political leverage in the Netherlands through the Moroccan population there was of only secondary importance relative to preventing them from being slaughtered.

Which is why I maintain that all such non-violent countermeasures against Islam will have to be performed at gunpoint. This will require Western nations to recognize Islam as a common enemy and not a lot of progress will happen until that occurs. Worst of all is how Islam already is the West’s common enemy and only willful ignorance of the most vile sort prevents this from becoming accepted fact.

4) Surge in Terrorist Activity: Given the Muslim predilection for terrorism, it is very hard to imagine a scenario in which terrorist activity, successful or not, would not immediately spike as the Muslim population of the Netherlands learns that it is expected to surrender to the unpleasantness of Option 2.

Much as the with the scorpion that stings the frog bearing him across a rivier, this is also the nature of the Muslim beast. Islam is already ratcheting up the violence in Holland and everywhere else in the entire world. The “surge” being discussed will, in actuality, only be a further escalation of existing violence already underway. Bloodshed and mayhem are Islam’s eternal psychic baggage and nowhere does it travel without its caravansary of murder and genocide in accompaniment.

In addition to these issues, I must reiterate that it is difficult to envisage a scenario in which attempts to implement Option 2 on any large scale did not collapse an electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral one, which would be the gravest problem of all.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is Islam’s preferred modus operandi. Taken against the backdrop of modern civilization as a whole, Islam is a discontinuity in and of itself. Until the Western world accepts this fact, Muslims will continue to subvert centuries of hard won progress in the name of their stone-age ideology. There are no other alternatives.

Zenster said...

Draconian Legislation Banning the Hiring of Illegal Immigrants … Alternatively, a clampdown on illegal immigrants could be announced, with enforcement efforts focusing overwhelmingly on Muslim illegal immigrants to get the message across implicitly.

Do you mean to suggest [gasp] profiling? I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

Reduced Access to Public Services and Quality of Public Infrastructure … Imaginative readers can no doubt offer their own suggestions in this regard.

I would suggest—as others often have—that the entire Muslim population be denied anything invented or made by those they revile the most. Namely, all items of Jewish invention or manufacture. Further efforts should include the withdrawal of any articles or utilities not contemperaneous with the time of Mohammad. Since Muslims deem their prophet to be the Perfect Man™, let them live exactly like him. Selective imposition of shari’a law upon all Muslims would also set a nice precedent. Let them experience first-hand the harsh realities of what they profess to love so dearly.

Diffuse Nature … The potential exists to imbue large chunks of Option 1 (Enhanced) with, shall we say, a reduced radar signature, making them difficult targets for those who oppose these strategies.

Are you proposing that Western nations employ kitman or taqiyya when dealing with Muslims? How fiendish, FIENDISH I say!

If this is the case, then how can Option 1 and Option 3 be considered discrete, separate alternatives?.

Quite simply, they cannot. I will again note how Islam blends many if not all components of these Options into its own operating system. It should come as no surprise then that fighting Islam will likely require adopting nearly all of them as countermeasures.

Islam’s flame will be fought with fire. All that remains in question is whether that fire is conventional or nuclear.

Any violence that could be categorized as Option 3 (under my existing taxonomy of de-Islamization) combined with the other provisions of Option 1 that would already be in place, would have such a drastic effect on Muslim populations that de-Islamization could be completed almost entirely within the confines of Option 1.

Which is why the current stalling, foot-draging and outright obstruction by Europe’s liberal political elite presages a Muslim holocaust that leaves them, and them alone, with so much future blood on their hands.

In an offhand departure, I will also note how—under Option 1 (Enhanced)—the Muslim propensity for non-assimilation and their formation of municipal enclaves confers upon them rather illusory benefits. Such intentional clustering will make ghettoization of their little hives all that much easier, especially as it will mitigate the overall impact upon non-Muslims as such measures are implemented.

However distasteful or nettlesome it may be to consider these disturbing notions, it is vital to recall that none of this would be necessary were not Muslims so Hell bent upon global domination. Our hand is forced while theirs is played with the sole intention of sweeping all before them. Regardless of how much our traitor elite invites and facilitates Islam's predatory incursions none, repeat NONE, of this would be happening were it not for the triumphal and supremacist nature of Islamic doctrine.

By overt and conscious choice, Islam has made its—and by extension, our own—existence into a life-or-death struggle. The West’s only obligation is to ensure its continued survival and forever make clear to Muslims the fate that awaits those who live by the sword.

Again, superb work, El Inglés. You cut through a veritable forest of obscuring rhetoric with your concise and well-reasoned examinations of this important topic.

Robin Shadowes said...

"Such intentional clustering will make ghettoization of their little hives all that much easier, especially as it will mitigate the overall impact upon non-Muslims as such measures are implemented."

Yes, they should remember what their greatest kufr-idol of all time Adolf Hitler did in Warsaw. He trapped the jews and locked them inside their own ghettos. It's easy enough to block off entries with alrge dumpsters. This is a tactic already familiar to the police by now as they often uses it to contain violent demos. Lock them in and cut off all electricity and water supplies. It would be possible to starve them into compliancy, at least theoretically. I also suggest cutting off all economically fundings by the state. The problem is how to implement these draconian measures without first taking care off the traitorous political elites both within our borders and extrenally the EU itself. They will not leave without a fight. They will try to stop the de-islamization at all costs. Another problem is NATO. What if they intervenes and bomb the crap out of us like in Bosnia? The OIC and MB will probably use UN as a tool to make NATO act upon us. For us as natives we could very well face a three front war. The fifth column muslims within our borders, our own military and police and later that of foreign troops intervening. That could make it very difficult to fight the islamization.

Robin Shadowes said...

As someone mentioned, they would probably find a loophole by travelling by using a third country to get home on vacation and back again. I don't know if there is already RFID-chips in the passport but that would be a good idea to keep track of them as to prove they had actually been in their country of origin. The islam-huggers would probably argue that this would be a violation of their personal integrity. Well, muslims are also hellbent on controlling their fellow muslims lives 24/7 from the cradle to the grave. I also like Zensters idea of forcing them to live by the rules outlined in the quran itself, by 7th century technology only. Bye-bye to satellite dishes, cell phones, playstations, computers or whatever including no electricity. After all they should be able to live a life outlined by the perfect man for all times then.

PatriotUSA said...

El Ingles! Another grand slam of an article! Let those of the multicultural diversity clans snivel and whine all they want. They think Islam will spare them when their time comes? We know it will. You have a true gift of cutting through the garbage and excess and getting right to the main highlights. Fantastic and
illuminating!

Zenster and Robin Shadowes: You beat me to the keyboard and I could never match your literary excellence. Simply put, It will come down to a violent conflict against Islam and the world will look and be very changed, hopefully, prayerfully for the better and be Islam free.

Zenster said:
Islam’s flame will be fought with fire. All that remains in question is whether that fire is conventional or nuclear.


It will be both and I cannot discount biological and chemical Islamic terrorism. Let us not forget what we have in the White House. The mullah obambi will go to Egypt and apologize some more, say how bad the USA has been, kneel, grovel and appease Islam. He is compounding all of Carter's gravest errors and the world has been paying the price ever since 1979. Mushrooms over Tehran anyone?
Courtesy of the IAF, if we are very very fortunate.

Charlemagne said...

I believe we should cause the non-electoral discontinuity non-electoral discontinuity while we still have the demographic advantage.

Watching Eagle said...

One little problem:

The governments of the West today are NOT democracies, they are shadow Oligarchies run by (de facto) "progressive" multiculturalists. And what do these rulers believe?-- "that 'Western Imperialism' is the sole obstacle to a utopia and that if we could just get to the place where non-western people were not "viciously oppressed" there would be kum-by-ya, etc.

After all, isn't obvious (truer than gospel) that if we just give the theocratic muslim supporters of the "Way of Survival"(Shariah) everything they or we could possibly think of for them to establish shariah; that these theocrats will magically become secular multiculturalists? Isn't true that anyone who would doubt this in the slightest is a vicious facist hatemonger trying to bring back genocide of oppressed non-westerners"

THIS IS WHAT THE "LEADERS" of the WEST believe. IF the Native Europeans can get through the media and academia's obstacles to elect someone like Wilders, they still face the Bureaucracy and Courts (including the "European Court of Human Rights") which will act vigorously to stop Native Europeans from preventing Islamization. The United Nations (controlled by the OIC) will also put its muscle into condemning any attempt to stop Islam.

Those UN resolutions will terrorize the PC MC elite more than if they were being tortured.

There is a good book entitled "Modern Day Trojan Horse" by Sam Solomon that states that many high muslim Shieks state that if a land prohibits the practice of Islam, muslims must leave that land.

The PC MC elite will never agree to such a thing, however, rather when they see "oppresed masses of a misunderstood minority" (muslims) in the West, they will allow Socialist doctrine to "grow and change" so that it can be bent into the shape compliant with "the Way of Survival"(shariah)-- all without knowing what they are doing.

Of course, when Turkey joins the EU, something like 40% of all EU people under the age of 10 will be Muslim -- as of NOW.

What a world we live in today.

Whiskey said...

The more I look at demographics, the more I am convinced much of Europe is a lost cause and will become Islamic dominated republics.

I don't think ANY option is possible, either 1. (paying people to go back); 2. Deportation, or 3. Some sort of militia violence.

The reason I don't think ANY option will happen, or any combination thereof, is the civil war within the West between Women (and a few SWPL men, Gays, and elites) and the single blue collar and white collar men.

Women across Europe will happily ally themselves with and defend, politically and electorally, Muslim Islamists who conduct assault campaigns, and so on, against them. Because in Europe, with limited opportunity and shrinking pie, power economically comes from whoever can grab the most money, employment opportunities, taxes, and power from the blue/white collar European men.

Brussels Journal Takuan Seiyo has a passing jibe at the Scandinavian "gyneocracy" and female domination, and it is in fact the truth that men being competitors in the workplace and NOT husbands, fathers, etc. (the latter don't exist any more than the European nuclear family does) means women will seek ANY ally against them.

ESPECIALLY Islamists.

Therefore, there is ZILCH possibility of options 1 and 2 ever taking place because women will block it to preserve their allies against their true enemy: their male peers. Whom they hate and loathe, for the most part and find dispensible at best.

The only caveat I can think of is a collapse of the Welfare state to the point that real hunger sets in among the European male natives who are unemployed or underemployed, and find Muslims and Women notably not among their conditions.

THEN you are looking at a series of "Bonus Army" pluses that would quickly turn into street fights and riots. Many European capitals are still vulnerable to that way of governance: London, Rome, Oslo, perhaps Paris, and maybe even Berlin.

The fight then would be a raw spoils fight over a rapidly diminishing welfare pie, with the exclude majority group angry (blue/white collar men) and doing something about it. It's one thing for gender/race preferences and money paid out if your wife at least benefits. If you're not married and get nothing but at best a series of short-term girlfriends (if that) then there's no self-interest in the system and male native European incentive is to crash the whole system.

However, I think most governments are competent enough to avoid extremes by spreading enough cash around, and then using the police to suppress with female support any nascent male revolt against an unfair system.

[This is why, for example, women support illegal immigration by huge margins, in the US and Europe. Women don't face competition since they work office jobs that illegal aliens cannot do, unlike construction and physical labor jobs, and benefit from cheap nanny/housekeeper services that allow both single mother families and wage-earning.]

In short, the Muslim emigres and the attitudes of PC and Multiculturalism have wide and deep support in Europe (mostly among those competitive with or threatened by the average European man, elites and women). I don't see that changing any time soon.

laine said...

Guess the most benign way to start is to make Muslims feel unwelcome instead of bending over backwards to avoid all offense to their very thin skins.

Pointing out that they are not devout Muslims according to the tenets of their faith by voluntarily moving to infidel lands might discomfit some of them but certainly not all.

However, in order to do this, who is going to kill PC and somehow sideline its supporters who have captured all the levers of power at present - government, both politicians but especially the permanent bureaucracy, media, much of the legal system including the police, all of education etc.?

The PC brigade have us all cowed. The only way they can be defied is in large enough numbers that they cannot haul everyone in front of leftist judges and tribunals.

Break out the crosses and piggy banks. Discuss and treat the Koran as just another superstition filled book. Agitate for a national discussion on immigration with discussion of its disadvantages. Publish the welfare and crime figures that show disproportionate Muslim participation.

laine said...

Let a thousand personal mini rebellions bloom.

randian said...

How irksome that the perpetrators of mosque bombings and arson attacks should prove so difficult to bring to justice! That mirrors what happens in Muslim countries to Jews and Christians.

Zenster said...

randian: [How irksome that the perpetrators of mosque bombings and arson attacks should prove so difficult to bring to justice!]

That mirrors what happens in Muslim countries to Jews and Christians.

This is a point that cannot be sufficiently emphasized. If Saudi Arabia prohibits the importation of Bibles, why should Western countries permit the continued importation of Qu'rans?

Islam must be force fed a massive dose of its own putrid medicine.

The simple act of forbidding consanguineous marriage (between first cousins) and a prohibition upon immigration of those who have consumated such unions (along with their concomitant birth defect-ridden offspring), would sharply reduce the burden that Muslims so cheerfully impose upon Western nations.

Strangling the Hawala funds transfer network is another highly productive method of thwarting both jihad and the covert Muslim financial infrastructure in general.

Beyond all irony is how Islam remains so rife with unique vulnerabilities that it alone possesses in such great measure. All that is required is the will to implement reciprocal countermeasures that saddle Muslims with the exact same penalties they so happily impose upon all other faiths.

It is this lack of demand for reciprocity from Islam that, more than anything, epitomizes the yawning gulf which separates modern liberal thought from any demonstration of sanity or reason.

I can only suppose that, along with its hatred of Christianity, modern liberal thought has seen fit to dispose of any regard for the Golden Rule that has always mandated reciprocity. This one single concept is worthy of an entire essay and now joins my roster of future topics.

Czechmade said...

Zenster,

" the attitude of the Moroccan government could change overnight as it realized that maintaining political leverage in the Netherlands through the Moroccan population there was of only secondary importance relative to preventing them from being slaughtered."

Those Moroccans in the Netherlands are mostly people from interior Rif mountain range of Morocco, rarely speaking any French. I wonder how much the govt. there cares at all for those people and how much they are scared of having them back for various political/ethnic reason.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Actually that would fit the MO of islam to a tee. They always seemed to like using slave armies to bear the brunt of any slaughter and these second-class types were the most fanatical of Islam's warriors - the Janissaries for instance. Using populations that would cause trouble at home to advance Islam in foreign lands must be the ideal outcome for them.

Morocco has a problem with its Berbers. Most of the Moroccan immigrants to Europe are Berbers, who are demanding - an dgetting - the sort of Islamic hellhole they escaped from. WHen you consider the islamic hierarchy of race then it begins to make sense. In Morocco they were scum, a slave race, subjugated by their Arabian masters. In Europe they become the masters.

rrwest said...

Words, mere words.

While Islam builds bombs, arms its people and actively murders for its cause, the west continues to wring its hands and allow "refugees" into its borders.

The elephant is in the house, people and is destroying it while we argue how to remove it, or whether or not to remove it.

This is part of a war that should have ended in 1683 or before. Why are we not fighting back?

May the west prevail.
Kaffir and proud.

Zenster said...

Czechmade: Those Moroccans in the Netherlands are mostly people from interior Rif mountain range of Morocco, rarely speaking any French. I wonder how much the govt. there cares at all for those people and how much they are scared of having them back for various political/ethnic reason.

Czechmade, the passage you cite is from El Inglés and not myself. Nonetheless, your question does have merit.

It would come as no surprise to discover that the MME (Muslim Middle East) has been shipping us their dregs. What better way to rid themselves of a burdensome millstone and at once throw a boat anchor to the drowning West as well?

What's more, these downtrodden indigents who have nothing to lose are just the type to begin sparking civil unrest at home and generally mucking about. The West, in its idiotic kindness, has generously accepted these agents of change who infect our own placid waters instead of allowing them to remain in place where they might propagate the shifts in governance so desperately needed within the MME.

Considering how the vast majority of these aliens come to the West's party empty-handed, sending them back home to quarrel over the table scraps of their vampire elite only makes all the more sense. America is doing the same thing with respect to Mexico and paying dearly in its thankless role of playing safety valve for our Southern neighbor's hyper-corrupt narco-regime.

Europe's Muslim plight becomes all the more absurd when one examines exactly what these intrepid colonizers really do contribute upon arrival at her shores:

· Virulent antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases incubated by outright refusal of treatment

· A vastly disproportionate number of birth defects per capita due to consanguineous marriage

· Importation of backwater habits such as bribery, graft, criminal syndicates, extortion, polygamy, rape, child marriage, so-called "honor" killings plus a host of other unsavory and decidedly vile Third World practices

· Consumption of social services, financial welfare, unemployment benefits, hospitalization, state funded child care and subsidized housing, all at a rate far beyond that of the indigenous citizenry

· Minimal contribution to the tax base accompanied by aggressive erosion of transparent business practices and the active diversion of funds to terrorist organizations or sponsoring direct physical attacks upon their host countries

All in all a rather dismal track record regardless of whatever other metrics one might wish to apply.

In the absence of using military force to dismantle the MME and its tyrannous archipelago of Islamic Hellholes, the least we can do is put a halt to the influx of its deadweight Muslim colonists.

Gort said...

The fact that this article was posted plus the comments that follow as a discussion are proof that progress is being made. Even though this thread may seem like preaching to a choir, this choir may have reached a tipping point and is finally willing to loudly sing its tune in public.

When I first stated, over ten years ago, that there would be another holocaust in Europe no one would listen. Now I see that others have had this epiphany.

Those who have continued this thread through comments are doing all of us a tremendous favor, for this is one topic that we need to face and explore fully. The scenarios we may envision could presage things to come, terrible things.

I do expect some of those terrible things to come to pass. The current world economic situation together with the demographic nightmares this choir sings about coupled with the incompetence of those in power who think they can solve these problems is a formula for disaster.

Can we prepare ourselves for the inevitable or must we helplessly watch this slow motion train wreck?

Robin Shadowes said...

I'll count on that some european states will succumb to islam, among them my own (Sweden). The reason is simple. In no other country the PC MC-crowd has such a firm grip om media as here. It is truly like Soviet/East German-style. In no other western country the general population has been so brain washed into voting for their own demise as here. In the long run I think even these states will be liberated although it might not happen in my lifetime. The most important thing is that the countries with nukes does not fall into the wrong hands. This should be priority numbero uno.

Jean-Baptiste said...

El Ingles has demonstrated the practical obstacles for any European government wishing to institute Option 1 or 2, but there also exists a theoretical obstacle that renders even the adoption of a meek and mild version of Option 1 a complete impossibility.

Since the end of WWII and the rise of the United States as the sole superpower of the Western world, American values of liberal democracy have become embedded into all of the nations of Europe. All the major European states conceive of themselves as mini-Americas: multi-ethnic democracies which are not allowed to make any distinctions among citizens upon the basis of race, religion or national origin.

There are dissents here and there, Wilders to be sure, Berlusconi in Italy, but these dissents are working against the both the spirit of the age and the instititutionalized powers that be.

In order to adopt even a weak version of Option 1, a European elite would have to first reject the concept of the liberal requirement of the multi-ethnic, non-discriminatory state, a state of affairs so out of the question as to be absurd.

Even if one were to posit such an amazing occurrence, this new European leadership would then have to reject liberal universalism in favor of the ethno-state while under the steely glare of the United States whose—what a coincidence!—military forces happen to occupy the continent, with no challenger even close to being able to stop them.

Which scenario seems to you to be more likely: 1) a French nationalist movement captures the French state, declares the return to the ethno-state, overturns all contrary legislation and moves to deport all Muslims, whatever passport they carry, with force if necessary; or 2) NATO, with US troops providing the backbone, helped restore proper French Republican government after a near-coup by a crazy nationalist colonel who wanted to turn Europe back to an era where countries persecuted, and even killed, members of a disfavored religious minority?

If your answer is anything other than “2,” please see a doctor.

The hard, cold truth is that there will be no peaceful outcome, as we are already in a revolutionary situation. Until we grasp the full measure of what that means, until we understand as a movement that the current governments are completely illegitimate and that we are morally justified in using violence to resist and overthrow them, in short, until we realize to our horror that the time has indeed already arrived for the gun, all this is nothing but noise and fury.

persikas said...

homophobic horse

Unfortunately , I think I must agree with you - Europe is doomed .
That powerful , undemocratic organisation , the EU , is determined to import more Muslims and who is going to stop them ?
If we can stop them , it won't be done democratically - not enough awareness for people to be sufficiently alarmed - and if you do try , well look at what
doing to G Wilders .
Even without further immigration , the numbers are in place for a future takeover , given the difference in the birth rates between the Muslims and the locals

Aquinus said...

Hello,

There is another scenario that is seldom talked about. Maybe because we live in a world were solutions must be quick and efficient.

I do not believe the presence of islam in Europe will decrease at some point if we, Westerners, do not change radically change. If we do not understand WHY this has happened and WHEN we put our nails into our coffins. If we do not start to think long, long-terme and to place our destiny in the hands of GOD almighty. In other words, we will never do it without faith. Christian faith.

In France my country, the last indigeneous group which still has a future are traditional Catholics. They account for roughly 150,000 families which might seem little, but with an average fertility estimated at 6 per woman. They have their own schools, a very solid culture, hardly any divorce and there is no gender war (good point on this mentioned above in the thread, it is indeed one of our downfalls). More importantly they form many priests, and now have direct influence and link withint the larger mass of practising Catholics which account for ~10% of the French population. They are bound to get more and more importance.

Liberalism, Free speech and democracy will never win the fight, and we will never find guts and spine to fight just for that. We must remember the cause that enabled that, the source of our civilization, and that is Jesus-Christ.

aquinus

Niko said...

As a Bosnian Serb I rub my hands with glee. I can't for Amsterdam, Paris and London to become part of some Moghul empire.

The west rammed Mohammedanism down our throats and now its your turn....

Barbara said...

As much as I appreciate the intelligence and knowledge of El Ingles and the commentators, I can't help but think that all that has been said is merely academic because here's the question:

What happens to to Wilders' government--or any other European government which tries to implement Enhanced Option 1--when the ME oil-producing nations stop--or even threaten to stop--the flow of oil into Europe?

Homophobic Horse said...

"As a Bosnian Serb I rub my hands with glee. I can't for Amsterdam, Paris and London to become part of some Moghul empire.

The west rammed Mohammedanism down our throats and now its you"

When I woke up today that was the first thing I thought of. The future has already happened in Bosnia and Kosovo. Today the last Serbs are being ethnically cleansed from Kosovo. Much like in the "multicultural" west Serbian history is re-written to facilitate violent illegal immigrant invaders. Serbian defensive measures against Albanian bandits becomes "racist ethnic separatism", Serbian monasteries become merely "Byzantine monastery" or worse yet "Kosova Albanian monastery", anti-Serb pogroms like in 2004 we are encouraged to sympathise with and even romanticise.

Yorkshireminer said...

Electoral discontinuity, what a nice word for religious civil war. I have enjoyed the essay immensely but there are a few other factors that have to be taken into consideration. The economy for one. All the western economies are oil DEPENDENT a 5% decrease in the first oil shock in the seventies drove up the price 400% . You can bet your life on it that if an option like this were to be implemented in Holland the decrease in oil supplies to Holland would be 100% . We are past peak oil now and world supplies are contracting at the rate of a couple of percent per year. The world is in permanent recession. The worst of it is yet to come though OPEC supplies 40% of the worlds oil exports the main Oil exports in the main non OPEC Oil exporting countries Norway is past its peak Britains North sea oil fields peaked in 1999 and production is falling at 7% per year, the Giant Cantrell field in Mexico has peaked and production is fall at an incredible 14%. This will mean that in the next 5 years OPEC will be supplying over 50% of the worlds oil. This gives Charves and the Muslims incredible political power. It will mean that until we can find a substitute for oil. or when they go into permanent decline and they have to spend there money feeding there countless millions and not subsidize Jihad will Islam begin to lose its force It will be then and only then that the food weapon can be used to dampen down there enthusiasm.

Yorkshireminer said...

I have thought about this problem very much over the last few months, and came very much to the same conclusion as El Ingles apart from the fact that I don't think that option two is very likely, not with the Islamic moon still in the ascendancy. We see how Muslim rage can quickly get out of control, the Danish cartoons fiasco is a good example. The fact that they failed to get what they wanted from such a small country, is not because they are weak we saw how they cowered the rest of Europe into silence. It was the fact that the Danish economy is virtually isolated from middle east oil. Denmark produces 20% of its energy from wind has its own oil fields in the North Sea which supplies there transport need and all there power station run on coal. Countries like Holland or Eire are in a different position they are very dependent on Arab oil . Just thinking about even a mild implementation of option (1) by these countries would cause an uproar from the Arabs which would certain cause them to back off. We are seeing now here in Holland all the attempts of the Government to keep the cork in the bottle when the balloon does go up the only option will be option (3) result misery. I do not want to see genocide although I think if we keep on this course it will end up that way. I prefer a gentler form of ethnic cleansing lets call it persuaded migration something on the lines of the Benes declaration which got rid of the Sudaten Germans. It certainly wasn't painless but it had very few political consequences, it will certainly not happen until the EU is broken up, the European Human rights legislation repealed, and the race relations act put too sleep. If that happens and we get our countries back there might be a chance.

Yorkshireminer said...

My solution is certainly, not confrontational, in fact it means giving them what they want helping them on there way too take over Europe, or giving them the illusion, lead them the way they want to go until they fall over the cliff. My solution is quiet simple allow them to form large enclaves in certain dispensable area in our countries where they can practice Sharia law in all of its pristine glory. Birmingham Bradford Burnley would do for a start in my country England. They are gone anyway. It would certainly not get the sanction of white aboriginals and it would be impossible to get through Parliament, but let us say that it could be done. The British Government offers the British Muslims these area where they can practice Islam the way they want it, but to do so they would have to move there. Housing swaps could be arranged loans given and grants both too indigenous Brits who would willingly move, and the Muslims. I can imagine vast amounts of money coming from the Saudis and other oil rich Arab nations to help make it happen, the goal of an Islamic state in the middle of a European State would have them salivating like hungry dogs ,this would help keep the costs down. I would require all muslims to register for this who wanted too including muslims who did not want to move there but thought the idea a good one. I would help them to form a local assemble with the right to pass there own laws. Anything to get them into the Ghetto as cheaply and as quickly as possible, cattle trucks are a good way of doing it but I don't think world opinion would allow that. This area would still be under British jurisdiction but I would soon solve that problem because as soon as they started practicing and passing Sharia compliant laws. I would announce in Parliament that as British law did not now function in these special areas they were now independent countries. I would make a nice spectacle of it get all the members of the OIC to visit have Prince Charles to salute as the Union Jack was pulled down from Birmingham town hall and what ever piece of rag they wanted to be used raised in its place.

Yorkshireminer said...

Where has that got you, you may ask, well to be precise it has got them where I want them. Shortly after the euphoria has died down, I would start to exploit the situation. I would pass laws in the British Parliament denuding them of there British citizenship they now live in a foreign country and you cannot hold two passports welfare would stop, which would save us Billions the areas would be ringed with a fence and patrolled by boarder guards and dogs only certain point of entry with strict customs controls would be put into place. I would demand work permits and entry visas I would charge them 50 pound a week that should be a good little earner and take a little bit of pressure off the PBBT poor bloody British taxpayer. This system would have lots of other good points Muslim countries could not really complain, not that they wouldn't but what would be put in place is only what other countries do and is quiet normal. Say for example Saudi Arabia complained about the fence you point to the fact that they are building a fence between Saudi and Yemen, whats the difference. Another good point is that they could not vote anymore in a British Election our politician would not need to pander too them, Crime would drop. It also gets over another difficulty that of deportation. It now costs thousands and thousand of pound to send someone home from Britain as most of the Muslims in Britain would have signed up to this anybody causing trouble, say for example an Immam wanting to behead somebody or a Muslim gang rapes some girl, a quick trip up the motorway and over the boarder you go. Justice would once again improve, it would be quick cheap and seen to be done and no prison costs for the British Taxpayer as they would be in there own large open prison paid for by the muslims.

Yorkshireminer said...

How would you deport them you may ask, basically by impoverishing them so that they leave and it becomes inviable as a country and they I would invade and take the place back, here there are many opportunities. There is the quick method stave them out. In my view politically unsound, boiling the proverbial frog is more too my liking and I would also want too make a much money while doing it get some of the money back we have spent keeping them all the years. The work visa etc was basically to show that the place was now a foreign country. This country would be dependant on Britain for virtually everything that they needed to survive. Birmingham gets all of its water from Wales put up the water rates and the profits, give it too the Welsh, they deserve a break, the same goes for gas electicity communications and sewage do it nice an slowly a few percent a year above inflation. Customs duties could be a nice little earner. I would certainly not have any free trade agreement with Brummystan. Transport costs for bringing there imports would certainly rise when they have to import goods through British ports, lets call them transit fee . I am sure the readers here can think of many more.
I am certainly not a spiteful person but in this case I will make an exception. I would pass a law in the British parliament forbidding any animal to be exported that was killed before being stunned in a foreign abattoir. That would certainly cause an uproar in Brummystan but being the gentleman I am I would turn a blind eye to any subterfuge that they might want to do like sending them to an abattoir in France but preferable well inland in Europe where the paper work could be fiddled so it looks Kosher. The high transports cost should make Halal meat a lot more expensive for them. Another good point is that they would act as an Hostage if the Arabs tried to cut off oil or gas to Britain then you cut off the oil or gas too Brummystan. I think a few years of this and they would soon start to leave. I know it is a dream, but is better than the nightmare that is facing us in a few years time when no. of Muslim youths in the fighting age bracket equals the no. of indigenous Brits in the same age bracket, and option (3) is the only option.

Zenster said...

Barbara: What happens to to Wilders' government--or any other European government which tries to implement Enhanced Option 1--when the ME oil-producing nations stop--or even threaten to stop--the flow of oil into Europe?.

A valid question and one that is addressed in part by the author. The key to Option 1 (Enhanced) is that it can be expanded incrementally and done so without it becoming immediately apparent that such measures are being taken solely against Muslims.

Additionally, I would venture that any country seeking to implement something akin to Option 1 (Enhanced), would first build all of its strategic petroleum reserves to peak levels and (while holding their nose), secure contracts with alternate suppliers like Russia or, preferrably, the North Sea combine.

Working under radar to secure sub rosa co-supply agreements with military allies would seem advisable, save for the lunatic scenario of America actually siding with European Muslims.

On that note, if America thinks Europeans hate them now, just wait and see how the USA is regarded after abetting their Islamic colonizers. Muslim hatred of the jews would pale in comparison.

mik said...

As a Bosnian Serb I rub my hands with glee. I can't for Amsterdam, Paris and London to become part of some Moghul empire.

The west rammed Mohammedanism down our throats and now its your turn....
Your glee is misplaced, albeit understandable.
Many of us in the West thought the Clinton bombing of Serbia is a war crime, or at least Wag the Dog war to cover up Monica naked ass.

Understand that people, who urged ClintonAttaq on, are the same people who would gladly submit to the new Mohammedan masters.

Focus your energy where it is belong, Muslims and their fifth column in the West.

Robin Shadowes said...

Our major problem is not the muslims itself. Not at this time. The main problem is our treacherous elites who works against us. We need to bring down EU first or they will simply counteract our every move. And these guys has unlimited assets. We don't. As soon as we regain political power in our own nations, first then we can hope to de-islamize our countries. The only other option I could see is if the situation so much getting out of hand, riots and violence all over Europe, without EU first been taken down. Perhaps if the situation is getting so chaotic and anarchic, they will have a hard time to uphold order anyway. So if this happens, what is the most likely outcome? I know that many fear that NATO will intervene, probably in cooperation with UN and they will probably side with the muslims again. like they did in Bosnia. If this happens then we have a problem. It would probably lead to several new sharia states within Europe. I don't know how to counter measure this situation. Only one thing is for certain. We will die anyway, whether we fight or not. Better to fight then than being led as the lamb to the slaughter.

Then if we manage to regain political power. I suggest that if we are going to cut off power and food supply, that we'll do it in winter time. Aside from knowing that they truly hate us from being kuffar, they also hate our climate. They come from a more warmer climate so I guess it makes sense. Starving and freezing them into unconditionally surrender. The problem is to ship them where if their country of origin does not want them back. There has been some speculating on swedish forums about the possibility of renting prisons from the russians thus possibly sending them off to gulag in Siberia. At least we could get rid of the criminals that way if it is possible at all. I suppose the OIC and UN would whine if such a possibility would come true. About the non criminals then? How about start dumping them at Antarctica then? They could have their own independent halal sharia state there for all I care.

Barbara said...

Thank you Zenster for responding to the question about what will Europe do when ME oil producers cut them off. And thanks for saying that El Ingles suggests a PARTIAL answer. Does anyone know how long one or more European countries could hold out even with North Sea and Russian oil? And hold out against the pressure and threats toward other European governments by the oil-producing countries? Would Europeans have the stomach to take over some of the ME oil fields, even if that is feasible? Any real movement against Islam (no matter disguised) could fairly quickly trigger this kind of scenario.

leadpb said...

We are still pigs when it comes to oil consumption. If we *really* made the effort at using less, under duress, we could probably save 20% or more. Efficiency and conservation are the key to solving or dampening this problem.

If Americans\NATO were with the program then seizure of ME oil fields would seem an obvious concomitant development.

Niko said...

I was being a bit facetious but hey its not pleasant being bombed....

The real destructive force behind Europe's decline is liberalism. Its an insidious totalitarian movement that uses supposed minorities (Muslims, gays, women, transsexuals etc.) to exact freedoms from Old World (read Christian and patriarchal) cultures.

James Kalb's 'The Tyranny of Liberalism' is an absolute must read. Liberalism is the enemy and Islam is its handmaiden.

Barbara said...

Yorkshireminer,

I just read your comments for the first time. Thanks for the information about the energy situation in Denmark and Holland.

Since Muslim Only enclaves are already developing in Europe, complete with Shariah (to the extent that they have "law"), something along the lines you suggest may develop. I suspect that terrorist attacks from Muslim enclaves (or "states") may very well lead to genocidal reprisals in some areas--disenheartening to contemplate. I'm reminded of Zenster's refrain that Islam would not have it any other way.

Zenster said...

leadpb: If Americans\NATO were with the program then seizure of ME oil fields would seem an obvious concomitant development.

While, clearly, the elephant in the room, this sort of blue sky thinking only remains as such until the first few nuclear terrorist attacks are lit off. Look for things to change in a radical and swift fashion once any prevailing illusion of peace with Islam finally slides over the edge.

In the process of educating myself about this ongoing battle with Islam, it has become increasingly hilarious to hear people say "It's all about the oil!"

My reply to this BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious), has finally morphed into a sarcastic riposte of "And your point is?"

This war, Islamic jihad (in its modern form) and just about every other bit of pissing and moaning emanating from the MME (Muslim Middle East), is, has and, for the medium-range future, will ALWAYS be about oil. It is the sole reason why we have anything to do with this cesspit of human rights abuse and only the advent of petrodollars in their TRILLIONS made possible modern jihad and every other recent Islamic predation upon the West.

Face it, at present, our world is a petroleum-based economy. Nothing is going to change that during the brief timeframe within which Islam must be dealt with. Peak oil will not take its toll soon enough and nuclear weapons will proliferate far too rapidly for the dream of Alternative Energy to have any ameliorating effect.

Consequently, the West WILL enter into a significant conflict phase with Islam that goes well beyond the skirmishes and deluded nation-building efforts currently taking place. If far more capable military minds than those of idiot savants like BHO and the EU prevail, we might successfully avoid glassing and Windexing™ the entire MME and, instead, harvest its remaining petroleum reserves to see Western culture through its oil addiction. (continued)

Zenster said...

It is almost impossible to foresee Slow Jihad (i.e., demographic displacement), actually winning the Muslim day. Even at a puny 1.0% rate of fanatics in their population, that signifies some 1,500,000 Muslim radicals who are more than willing to escalate with nuclear weapons the instant they become available. Slow Jihad doesn't stand a chance.

No matter how much Western leaders want to deny it, we are in a new World War. All that remains is for it to become the Total War that Islam has already declared in its typically premature fashion.

The least painful (for the West, that is), measure that might prevent this Total War is for our militaries to begin immediate decapitation of the leaders, scholars, clerics and financiers that comprise Islam's jihadist aristocracy. All other outcomes involve a hideous loss of life, Infidel and Muslim alike.

Still, the above done not dismiss how important it is to openly discuss and comprehend what it will take to subdue and excise the Muslim carcinomas that have grown in our midst. It is vital to have reached some sort of concensus so that indecision or hesitation can be minimized. None of that changes how rapidly things are sliding towards the precipice.

Barbara: I'm reminded of Zenster's refrain that Islam would not have it any other way.

Bless you for taking this admonition to heart, Barbara. Few conservatives and even fewer liberals still have even a remote comprehension of Islam's willingness to shed blood on an unimaginable scale so that it may achieve its ends.

Remember, there are radical imams who would rather see our world stripped of all human life, with Muslims in their paradise and the Kufar rotting in Hell, than be forced share this planet with even one single unbeliver.

Please try to understand that it is radicals like the one cited above who will be most likely to obtain a stray nuclear weapon with which to precipitate such a crisis. This is what we are confronted with and the sooner our actions are informed by these facts, the better our chances of survival will be.

Watching Eagle said...

Alas, although Yorkshireminer and some others have given some interesting thoughts, one can easily fail to realize that the problem is just how weak the Leftists could make us in the next 10-15 years. We do not understand how the Leftist get more irrational, rigid, and out of touch as the years go by. However, within 20 years the leftists will be subsumed into shilling for the "Way of Survival"(Shariah)[without having a clue] all under the guise of "exquisitely refined Multicultural Sensitivity".

30 years ago, Western feminists would have wretched in utter disgust at muslimas in their niqabs protesting for their "human rights" as women to be treated liked domestic animals in the middle ages. Now, they parrot the PC MC gobbledlygook about their "intese piety" and "attempts to cope with a hostile [western] society" as reasons for "more understanding" of these "misunderstood minorities". What will the Left be shilling for 10-15 years from now?

For those of us over 40 (most of our adult lives lived in the 20th. Century) these trends are very hard to absorb. However, one must realize that the 20th. Century was created by the actions of Westerners from 1850-1914. The 20th Century was an era of overwelming Western dominance. The 21st. Century situation has been created by people's actions from 1960 to the Present and is resulting in the complete demise of western dominance. You'll be surprised at how deep the denial syndrome runs in Leftists.

The book MOdern Day Trojan Horse by Sam Solomon notes that Islam conquered Malaysia, Indonesia, regions of Central Asia, the Sahel, and parts of East Africa NOT by the sword, but by migration. It is important to understand from this book what is going on.

Watching Eagle said...

Zenster,

You got it ALL WRONG about the slow jihad. First, 1% of muslims worldwide is something like 16 MILLION. and surveys about suicide bombing indicate that 10-15% of muslims could be "warrior jihadists". Moreover, an even larger group of muslims don't support violence but do support "the Way of Survival"(Shariah), and thus the "slow jihad" if it's 40% then 600 Million Muslims are available for the "slow Jihad". More than that, there are many muslims that are "for Islam" but not yet sure that it can win, and many muslims want to be western, be can be cowed. It does not help when Islamists are welcomed by Western "Leaders" as "offical representatives of the Muslim Community". Tablighi Jamaat (Conveying Group) alone has 80 MILLION members, and the Islamic Block, Muslim Brotherhood, and HIzb-ut-Tarir (Party of Liberation) each have MILLIONS MORE members.

More to the point, in 1970 most muslims who heard someone say that they would bring back the Islamic Theocratic Empire (Caliphate), most muslims would have said "get Real!" Now, it looks increasingly probable. Watch these three clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDLinMUhn3Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjJ_d04aUiE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EYRot8ZMpo&NR=1

As the West beocmes more and more dysfunctional under the Leftists who are tearing it down, Shariah won't look so bad to many people. Finally, remember that all groups of people have a natural desire for their group to win (pick a tribe, any tribe). Indeed, the westerners had a view to dominate in the 19th. Century, and that is what led to 20th Century WEstern domination. For the West to no longer believe in itself is a huge part of the problem (when every other culture does!!).

In sum:
Millitary Jihad will not conquer the West, but Migration (Al-Hijra) will unless the Left is stopped.

Conservative Swede said...

Jean-Baptiste is all correct in his analysis. Europe is indeed occupied by American troops and this determines the whole situation (anyone who does not understand the significance of the military aspect as fundamentally determining for any political situation should indeed see a doctor). It's not until American troops leave Germany that any real change of the situation could happen.

It's not EU that is our problem here, it's NATO. The EU is just a weak shadow; a symptom, not a cause (it has no military power of significance, it does not militarily control its own land!). As Jean-Baptiste pointed out, the European countries had already been turned into mini-Americas -- by the cultural revolution that has been imposed upon us during the American occupation, in the name of anti-fascism -- and would have remained so, with or without the EU.

The founding document of NATO states that it is about three things: keeping Germany down, Russia out and America in. And the fall of the Soviet Union didn't change this a bit. The three things sticks together in the same narrative and it all has to be reversed together. I.e. it is not until American troops leave Germany that we will see a situation different than the one described by Jean-Baptiste here. As long as American troops stay in Germany real change is hopeless and impossible.

What is missing from Jean-Baptiste's analysis (and El Ingles' as well) is the impending collapse of the dollar, and how this will fundamentally change the whole situation. And this will most likely happen before any Wilders in power or any Options 1-3.

I intend to write about my take on these future scenarios in my blog during the summer.

El said...

swede:

you should indeed write more if you are inclined to do so, especially about the US occupation of europe, as you call it. i am sceptical about this thesis, but would be interested in hearing more.

thnks to everyone else as well, for the many interesting comments.

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle: You got it ALL WRONG about the slow jihad. First, 1% of muslims worldwide is something like 16 MILLION. and surveys about suicide bombing indicate that 10-15% of muslims could be "warrior jihadists".

Thank you for the correction but please realize how it only lends more impetus to my own argument. At the 10-15% level, we are now looking at some 200 MILLION willing and able jihadists.

While a small fraction of these fanatics have their hands of the levers of true power, it still presages a major strategic "discontinuity" (to use El Inglés' own terminology), in a far shorter time frame than the "20 years" within which you say that the leftists will be engulfed by Islam.

This is not to deny that Islam is attempting to engulf Western civilization. It is and that is what gives this entire subject such urgency.

However, none of that changes the fact Islam has too many impatient jihadists who will employ Weapons of Mass Destruction in a far shorter time frame. As a death cult, Islam has no compunction about risking apocalyptic situations or outcomes. It literally feeds upon them, as can be seen in the Shiite "Twelvers". No matter how dire the outcome, Muslims still end up in paradise. There is no way of getting around this one incredibly perilous and elemental aspect of Islamic doctrine.

It is this freedom from any fear of death that makes Islam so extremely dangerous. This is the Prime Mover which will propel Islam into a catastrophic conflict long before the West is threatened by slow jihad. Again, this doesn’t mean that slow jihad must not be fought, but there are far more dire consequences on the immediate horizon.

If, indeed, the EU’s leftist social engineers remain in power for another few decades, that will literally assure the proliferation of nuclear technology and weapons throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East). Hans Blix and his myopic succesors will continue to enable a nuclear-armed Islam and that assures the eventual “leakage” of atomic weapons into jihadi hands.

Regardless of the exact numerical threshold, beyond a certain quantity of nuclear devices in Islamic hands, there emerges a non-zero probability of some number of them being diverted for the purpose of jihad. This is an absolute fact. Jihad is embedded in Qu’ranic doctrine and it will be obeyed by those ~200,000,000 radical Muslims. Another few decades is more than ample time for those Islamic nuclear bombs to be built and then stray into the hands of proxy terrorist groups who are unafraid to use them.

The upshot is that Western civilization must find sufficient determination to address Islam militarily in such an overwhelming manner that dealing with implanted fifth columns will be but a sidebar to the larger conflict. The MME itself is a far greater nexus of near-term strategic “discontinuities” than those held in store by either Europe’s or America’s Muslim populations. Failure to address this central and prevailing threat promises consequences that eclipse all other concerns.

At a minimum, left unchecked, the current situation will result in catastrophic damage to Western civilization, a global economy set back by nearly half a century and the potential loss of millions or hundreds of millions of lives. And as always:

ISLAM WOULDN’T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY.

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle: In sum:
Millitary Jihad will not conquer the West, but Migration (Al-Hijra) will unless the Left is stopped
.

Just in case I was not clear:

While certain elements of the Slow Jihad movement seek to "conquer the West", there is a far more dangerous and radical faction that simply wants us dead or economically maimed and conquering be damned. They want to kill the Great Satan and could give an almighty rip about occupying the scorched earth they intend to leave behind.

These are the ones we need to worry about.

Gort said...

I've seen some sentiments that have surfaced which seem a bit odd to me. The U.S. military is not "occupying" Europe. Some of it is there in a pre-positioned role should the need arise. I think that need has passed, however, and we probably won't be needed to stop the Russians at the Fulda Gap. Some of the facilities we have there are to provide support for activities elsewhere. Medical facilities in Germany, for instance.

If civil problems begin in any European country the U.S. military won't be taking part in quelling any of it. I don't think NATO obligations involve domestic problems within the member nations. Think, riots in the U.S.; will any NATO member rush troops to help with that?

So, let's be honest with ourselves. The U.S. isn't occupying any country in Europe. That was what the Third Reich did. Do you see American troops surrounding any ghettos or executing partisans anywhere in Europe?

I agree, NATO made a huge mistake with Kosovo. I hope the Serbs will one day find out that many of us didn't have anything to do with that and didn't want our governments so involved.

Some creative ideas for the de-islamization of Europe have been fielded here. The consensus seems to be that option 3 will be inevitable. Europeans will need to do some catching up if that happens. I'll just say that there is no NRA in Europe and leave it at that.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

Ounce again, El Ingles, I can only say: Stone... Cold... Logic. Thank you for this fascinating (and dismaying) glimpse into the near future.

Also, thank you one and all for your perceptive comments, to which I will add a couple of my own:

re:"4) Surge in Terrorist Activity
Given the Muslim prediliction for terrorism, {No! Really?? :)} it is very hard to imagine a scenario in which terrorist activity.....would not immediately spike....."

Indeed, just look at the Mumbai Massacre. How do you think people would react if something like that happened, oh, about once-a-week?

re:"5) Massive Riots"

Sad to say, remember that the native European populations are very badly placed to resist any of this because, for the most part they have been DISARMED. Europeans will be easy pickings for any bands or rioters.

re:"Violent Attacks by Non-State Actors"

The Muslims will be better able to mount such operations than native Europeans. There are more and more reports of weapons being smuggled in to Muslim groups in Europe, and the age demographics favor the Muslims (more young, physically fit males) and, of course, they certainly have the WILL. Think of Muslim terrorist squads, or Muslim Death Squads, roaming far outside of their ghettos, systematically murdering Europeans.....

Homophobic Horse said...

Anyone up for colonising the Russian Far-East?

islam o' phobe said...

Conservative Swede,

I took part in a heated discussion at a prominent American conservative blog about six months ago which involved myself, a German man (irreversibly pro-EU but what can you do?) and hundreds of American conservatives.

The German man advocated the removal of U.S. troops from Germany but got shouted down as a Hitlerite - which was very unfair because he was actually a soft liberal.

How long can the present situation endure?

There is no instance in history, as far I know, where an entire Continent has been colonised on the sly while a massive standing army shuffled around picking their noses.

The cliche about commanders wanting to fight the old war instead of the new war doesn't apply in this instance - Germany can't be reinvaded.

Germany, as a country, is too big to be neutral.

Unfortunately there's no chance of a decent German armed forces being formed anytime soon - those jobs have been outsourced. Whatever the U.S. mission in Germany is called they ought to re-name it Operation Turkish Delight.

Conservative Swede said...

Islam o'phobe,

The German man advocated the removal of U.S. troops from Germany but got shouted down as a Hitlerite.

Yes, this is the mindset that holds the current world order up. It manifest itself as these emotional outbursts, which are generated from the core myths. As I said to El Ingles in our discussion over at my blog, the whole thing this deeply ideological. That's why Britain is hit by it too, even though they and France have got a privileged position in this scheme (as Quislings).

Whatever the U.S. mission in Germany is called they ought to re-name it Operation Turkish Delight.I just love that name :-)

However, according to the prevailing myths we have to pretend that the US troops in Germany have no operation. We are forced to pretend that they are just hanging around there for no reason whatsoever. So since we have to impose upon ourselves the denial of any operation, in order to maintain our minds withing the proscribed collective hypnosis, we cannot name the operation. That would amount to admitting that Germany is occupied.

Federale said...

I think you and Ingles have both underestimated a vigorous implementation of a removal and exclusion program.

Until 1976 and the advent of the communist sympathizer Jimmy Carter, the United States excluded and removed aliens for ideological reasons, mainly communism and Nazism.

This could be an effective example for an Islamist control and removal program.

From personal experience, I don't believe that most Muslims support Sharia law. However, the more Muslims you have, the pressure to conform to Sharia and political Islam is greater.

Obviously the first part of the program should be restricting the immigration of Muslims. Unlike Communists, they are not inheritantly evil and dangerous to the free Christian Republic.

In the United States we have a similar problem with Mexicans. In small numbers they are no problem, and usually a benefit. However, in too large of a number, they are a problem for welfare and crime, and, more importantly, for loyalty. In large numbers they assert their loyalty to Mexico. But in small numbers and integrated in an agresseive manner, like conscription and service in war, as WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, show that their indiginous culture can be overcome and their national character can be integrated into the American norm.

What we can do with the political Muslim, or the Jihadist, is that they can be excluded and removed from the country. They can be separated from the regular Muslim, who may go to Mosque, but wants the normal things from life; own a house, a good job, a family life.

When we separate the Islamist from the Muslim community, then Muslims present no real problem.

The problem is separating the two.

That, however, is not a great problem. First, you restrict immigration from Muslim countries. You can do this in various ways. First, rigorously enforce laws against poligamy, agressively investigate any evidence of multiple marriages in immigrant candidates. Give preference to nominal Muslims, those westernized and English speaking, agnostics, athiests, or secret Crhistians. Profile the candidate immigrant for the wearing of beards and traditinoal dress.

The next step is the prohibiting of the immigration of Muslim clerics. Legally prohibit the immigration of any Muslim who advocates poligamy, political Islam, discrimination against other religions, legal subordination of women or non-Muslims, etc. Agressively remove any Muslim who enters, then advocates such beliefs.

We used to exlude and remove Communists in similar situations. However they routinely would deny their beliefs and rally the left to their support. Harry Bridges, an Australian Communist, used that to avoid deporation. It requires political determination and perhaps a Constitutional Amendment making Sharia and political Islam, or Jihadism, subject to control.

However I believe that it can be done.

And as for wide scale political effort, I would just point you to President Eisenhower's Operation Wetback, where millions of illegal aliens from Mexico were removed with only 1,000 Border Patrol Agents and Special Agents and Deportation Officers from the INS.

While Mexico is closer, routine flights to all Muslim countries ensure that they can be removed by airplane.