Wednesday, December 29, 2010

The Profound Problem of Muslim Immigration

Henrik Ræder Clausen has written a review of Sam Solomon’s new book at Europe News. It is republished here with his permission.

The profound problem of Muslim immigration

Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration

by Sam Solomon & Elias Al Maqdisi ANM Publishers, 2009, 139 pp., $14.95

Reviewed by Henrik R. Clausen


Al-Hijra: The Islamic Doctrine of ImmigrationAs the West has accepted extensive immigration from Islamic countries, unexpected social and political problems have followed. While rising crime rates, rampant unemployment and a heavy load on our much-appreciated welfare systems are severe problems in itself, a distinct and dramatically more significant problem is the subtle subversion of our free and democratic societies, also known as “Stealth Jihad”.

The retired Islamic scholar Sam Solomon, in this compact book Al-Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, connects the dots and explains why seemingly unrelated incidents are in fact rooted in Islamic tradition and are steps on the path to create a fully Islamized society.

To demonstrate how this functions, Sam Solomon dives into his exhaustive knowledge of Islamic history and law. As with scholars of Islam everywhere, he derives his conclusions from Islamic scripture, the life of Muhammad in particular, and shows how historically immigration has slowly but steadily lead to formerly Jewish or Christian societies submitting to Islam. The primary example in the book is Muhammad’s takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina, and how the concepts and strategies developed for the conquest of a relatively insignificant Arab city are being duplicated by Islamic leaders worldwide, with the same goal: Expanding Islamic conquest ever further.

The depth of knowledge and connections described in Al-Hijra constitute both a strength and a weakness. Most important is the strength: Sam Solomon uses his Islamic scholarship to reveal the justifications and machinations being applied to undermine and attack the very notion of a secular society. This is important information that everyone involved in these matters deserve to have.

The weakness is that the book frequently becomes hard to follow. Understanding Islamic terms like Darura (necessity), Takweem (empowerment), I’dad (readying) etcetera are important in order to counter the undercurrent of Islamization, yet the denseness of the presentation makes the lines of thought hard to follow for the unprepared. One does well in having some knowledge of Islamic thought before reading Al-Hijra.

That said, this book is indispensable for a very simple reason: It presents information otherwise not available to the uninitiated Westerner, and mercilessly reveals the twisted logic of Islamist activists, their justifications, methods and ultimate goal: a fully Shariah-compliant society. By pointing out the scriptural justifications and inner logic of seemingly benign and unrelated Muslim demands, it provides an invaluable tool for identifying and countering the stealth jihad destabilizing our societies. Dismantling this threat peacefully requires knowledge as provided by Sam Solomon.

Review opinion:

Unique book with invaluable understanding of matters. Well worth tackling despite dense prose.

Rating: 5/6

First up is the book cover: A wooden horse associates directly to the Trojan Horse, the stratagem that according to legend was applied by the Greeks to finally conquer the city of Troy. The use of this archetypical image is sure to evoke emotional responses by many, but it also points to an important fact:

The subversion against our societies is executed by relatively few immigrants. Most immigrants from Islamic countries do not come to the West in order to transform free Western countries into semblances of the autocracies or theocracies they have fled from. They seek better living conditions, employment, a better future — but they do so without the intention to change their religion, and this is where things get complicated.

Retaining faith in Islam and Islamic scholars will lead the immigrants to tacitly support the subversive aims of Islamists who have also come to the West, initially as a relatively small fraction of millions of Islamic immigrants. These Islamic leaders and scholars use the Islamic teachings to destroy confidence in Western democracies, and they are astonishingly effective in achieving that aim.

Explaining how this seemingly irrational development can take place requires some history. This first and foremost means the life and conduct of Muhammad, the perfect example for the pious Muslim even today. The authority of Muhammad is absolute in Islam, be it in form of Quranic commands or the examples of conduct recorded in hadith collections, known in Islam as the ‘Sunna’. Hijra, immigration, was a key element in Muhammad’s takeover of Yathrib, today known as Medina.

Unfortunately, the concept of Hijra is not limited in time or space to 7th century Arabia. The command as given is absolute, and remains an obligation on Muslims. One of many hadith quotes Muhammad for this:

I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah.

Thus, immigration is step four out of a five step plan. Sam Solomon elaborates:

So Hijra or migration is binding on all Muslims for numerous reasons; the most important being that migration is preparatory to jihad with an aim and objective of securing victory for Islam and Muslims either in another country or generally as a community.

Those who do not desire to live in an Islamic theocracy had better take heed. Over the last decade we have observed how jihad has come to the West in various forms. The most obvious is the violent, such as train bombings in London and Madrid, and more recently even in immigration-friendly Sweden where a cartoon drawn by Lars Vilks has become a pretext for detonating bombs during Christmas shopping.

However, more important than the flagship violent jihad is the so-called ‘Stealth Jihad’, where Islamic law (Shariah) is quietly being implemented in our societies, usually in seemingly benign aspects of life, but leading to a constant affirmation of Islamic identity being more important to Muslims than honest integration in the host societies. Sam Solomon quotes extensively from scripture and interpretation, pointing out how Islam in itself constitutes a barrier to integration.

The strange concept of ‘necessity’

The Islamic doctrine of ‘necessity’ is a strange twist in these problems. For a Muslim is permitted to ignore any and all Islamic rules if ‘necessity’ dictates it, even to the point of openly denying his or her religion, a move also known as ‘Taqiyya’. Ignoring Islamic rules regarding halal/haram (permitted/forbidden) enables Muslims to work as shop clerks handling pork and alcohol if needed to make a living.

Later, when the Islamic community feels strong enough, cases are seen where Muslim shop workers start protesting having to handle these ‘unclean’ items, and demand an exception due to their ‘religious needs’. Demands for gender-segregated swimming halls, prayer breaks, prayer rooms and eventually mosques follow similar patterns, where items that were initially not a concern suddenly become demands voiced with strong conviction of their necessity. Employers and public institutions tend to yield to such Islamic demands, not noticing that this is a slippery slope towards implementation of Shariah.

Shariah — a totalitarian system of state

As has been pointed out by Robert R. Reilly (The Closing of the Muslim Mind) and others, Islam as a theological system has, step by step, lost the connection to Hellenic thought and ideals, respect for reason, the notion of causality (that laws of nature govern the physical world), the notion of individual responsibility, and has devolved into a Rule of Will, commonly known as ‘despotism’. Instrumental in this rule is the Shariah, as established and interpreted by the Islamic clergy.

Islam today consists mainly of its legal code, the Shariah. Islamic law is derived from the life and actions of Muhammad. Codifying his life into law has been a major undertaking by Islamic scholars through the centuries, resulting in detailed manuals of conduct like Reliance of the Traveller, which describe in detail how a pious Muslim is supposed to behave. This all-regulated way of organizing a society is also known as ‘totalitarian’ (Wikipedia):

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

Totalitarian models for organizing societies have been tried in the 20th century, most notably in Italy, where the totalitarian model of society was a cornerstone of fascism:

The new state was to provide the “total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.” He described totalitarianism as a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to Benito Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human:

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

All Western attempts at establishing a totalitarian state have failed miserably. In the Islamic Middle East, however, the religious authority of Muhammad, combined with extensive enforcement on every level of society, regulating every aspect of human behaviour is largely successful, largely due to the religious prestige associated with interpreting Islamic law accurately.

The grand ambition of Islamists is to implement this system everywhere in the world.

Now, living under a totalitarian system might sound awful. Everyone is obligated to spy on everyone else, and those most zealous in enforcing the rules are held in highest regard, with actual living circumstances in the totalitarian system not being an issue of debate, for obvious reasons. Instead, such systems have intricate pecking orders, where the top cadres get to pick on the lower cadres, who pick on ordinary citizens, who in turn need some kind of enemy to pick on. As Wafa Sultan described in her book A God Who Hates, this is very much the case in Islam.

Easing the burdens: Tay’seer and Darura

Converts to Islam face a bewildering set of rules and norms to adhere to. One might think that breaking these rules would cause the failing Muslim to effectively become an apostate, but here the doctrine of Tay’seer (‘easing of burdens’) comes to the rescue. If the burdens imposed by Islam are too difficult to bear, the Muslim can depend on Allah to ease the burdens of those unable to bear them, or until bearing them becomes possible.

Rejecting the lifestyle of non-Muslims is one of those difficult challenges, in particular for converts who usually would come out of a Christian or secular background, be accustomed to having a beer or a glass of wine, to women having equal rights with men, and to religion being a private matter. Changing the mindset from one of reason to one of irrational religious zeal takes great effort, and has a great potential for conflict. The application of Tay’seer permits this transition to be quite gradual, but must also be seen in light of the polar opposite, the doctrine of Darura (‘need’).

The doctrines of Tay’seer and Darura add up to a rather confusing whole. Muslims in principle have an obligation to live in accordance with the Shariah, but host societies who find those customs bizarre, unreasonable and wildly impractical are likely to refuse implementation of all but a few minor elements of Shariah. Sam Solomon describes this contradictory situation:

So under the darura (necessities), the forbidden becomes lawful, the exception becomes the rule and the rule as we know it is suspended until the circumstances change or the objectives are achieved. Hence this principle is applied to overcome every obstacle by Muslims in a non-Muslim country from visa regulations, to obtaining nationality of the host country, to ushering in Islamic Shariah slowly […]

The unsettling implication of this that Muslims, at large, cannot be trusted to respect secular law, even if superficially it would appear that they do.

Be prepared: Tamkeen and I’dad

Now for something disturbing: the Islamic concepts of tamkeen and i’dad. Tamkeen (‘empowerment’) is the strengthening of Islamic identity (as opposed to assimilating into the host society), and is a fundamental precondition for establishing Islamic rule. Without a significant number of persons identifying with being Muslims, having faith in Islamic scripture and its interpreters, Islamic leaders would have no cadres to base their authority upon, and thus no chance to seize power and establish Islamic rule in the land.

The next step, i’dad, is the practical preparation for seizing power in the land. This means building and strengthening Islamic infrastructure in the land, building networks and making Muslims proudly display their Islamic identity in public. I’dad also constitutes the practical preparation for the final physical effort to establish Islamic rule in the land, executed by a well-prepared army of soldiers fighting in the Cause of Allah, also known as jihad. Physical fighting would be a foregone conclusion at this point. For that reason, military training and accumulating weapon stocks are natural parts of i’dad. Logically, finding weapons in mosques or other Islamic buildings is a stark sign of warning to the host societies.

A logical and practical conclusion

The main text of the book ends on page 97 with a concluding chapter so short and clear I will repeat in full. It reads:

Islam is neither a religion nor a faith in a personal way, as defined and understood in the West. It is a whole encompassing political system, barged in religious outfit, addressing every aspect of the life of its adherents.

So when Muslim immigrants refuse assimilation and despise integration, it is done as a political move expressed religiously. Hence it would be in the interest of the host society and its national security to examine all requests, from a socio-political angle. For every Islamic doctrine is a political dictate aiming to establish itself by undoing the existing systems to control, rule and dominate in every area.

It must be mandatory for all immigrants, and particularly Muslim immigrants, to sign an undertaking with built-in punitive charges, that they would:

1. Abide by the law of the land.
2. Do their utmost to be integrated and assimilated with the host society.
3. Regard religion as a personal matter of free will and choice.
4. Embrace the equality of genders in all aspects.
5. Regard and treat the discriminatory and violent doctrines and teachings of the Shariah as inapplicable and ineffective for today.
6. Accept the equality of all Muslims and non-Muslims.
7. Uphold the separation of state and religion.
8. Value and uphold the right of every individual to choose the religion of his or her choice, irrespective of the religion of the next of kin or community they might have belonged to by birth, or by association of any kind.

Closing thoughts

George Orwell in his novel 1984 described how the Western world might have fallen to the totalitarian temptation, as did F. A. Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom”. This decay of our free societies into totalitarianism has not taken place on its own, but might come about through religious authority and pressure.

Sam Solomon describes the mechanisms used for this purpose, and is clear about what we must do to stop it. It is the task of our politicians to take heed and do so. Sam Solomon, as usual, is unrivalled in his profound understanding of the problems. Reading and re-reading the compact books of Sam Solomon is an excellent way to gain the knowledge needed for this task.

28 comments:

svenskamerikan said...

Why is it a 'Profound' problem?

It is a created problem. There is nothing profound about it. Actually, It is really quite obvious to anyone other than a nihilist.

Anonymous said...

svenskamerikan, how would you explain it to a nihilist? ('It' being the quite obvious thing.)

svenskamerikan said...

It can be explained in the ultimate bankruptcy of moral and cultural relativism. Challenge the apriori assumption that all cultures and value systems are equal when they are not. Honor killings would be an easy place to start making the case. The prospect of building a Cathedral in Saudi Arabia is another. Or beheading schoolgirls in Indonesia another.

There is no shortage of examples with which you can highlight a postmodernist's willful blindness. All cultures and value systems are clearly not equal. It's absurd to argue as if they are.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Why is it a 'Profound' problem?

Because it is difficult to follow the arcane machinations and the religious power structure that turns what should have been benign immigration of extra workforce into a challenge for our free societes as such.

Tracing the internal workings of the Islamic religious authority and how it works out in the West is quite a challenge. We need people like Sam Solomon to explain it, and a thousand readers to apply his findings in real life.

sheik yer'mami said...

"The subversion is executed by relatively few immigrants. They seek better living conditions, employment, a better future ..."


I beg to differ.

I don't buy the "tiny minority of excremists" line. And the "better future"line for Muslims is equally disturbing, because it is highly ambiguous. Even more worrying is the "better future for their children" line, because their children are taught to be martyrs for the cause.

What about our kids?

1389 said...

Solomon failed to draw the obvious conclusion: the answer is to permit NO Muslim immigration whatsoever - including no more h-1b visas in the US, no "family reunification" even for marriage, no extension of visas for Muslims currently on foreign soil.

We do not need a foreign labor force. Both the US and many European countries face high unemployment. Recovery means removing the Muslim viper from our bosom.

Always On Watch said...

It must be mandatory for all immigrants, and particularly Muslim immigrants, to sign an undertaking with built-in punitive charges

Well, Moslems won't agree to those terms.

Worse, our immigration services won't even REQUIRE those terms.

I grow more pessimistic every day about the future of the West. I won't give up, exactly, but my outlook isn't good these days. Some of my outlook has to do with my husband's medical condition, I suppose.

syntec said...

Immigration from the Third World was originally provisional in that our former governments, following the ending of World War 11, informed us that non-White, non-European immigrants were being admitted into our ancestral lands as temporary workers to help rebuild the devastated infrastructure and partly also as a result of so many millions of indigenous White Europeans having been slaughtered in two extremely closely occurring World Wars.

We were massively lied to, of course, following which the successive traitorous powers-that-be embarked on a policy of frequently rewording thus effectively rewriting practically the whole of the Nationality and Citizenship Act, not only to cover up their lies, but to suit their own secret agendas at the same time too.

In reality, this translates as all non-White, non-European immigrants being illegal since those still residing on our ancestral territories have never returned to their own ancestral homelands from out of which their own kind forcibly removed us White Europeans.

As a result, they are all, in actual fact, invaders and occupiers.

It is, of course, the Muhammedans who have emerged as the most prominent and obvious threat resulting from the said treachery and treason committed by the successive various administrations of the present ruling elite.

Serious handling of both the Islamic and all-encompassing non-White invasion/occupation situation, will only come about via successful Ethno-nationalist political ascendancy.

Anonymous said...

svenskamerikan, the thing that needs to be challenged is the idiocy that civic nationality is. It's simple - governments are instituted by a homogeneous group to service its purposes. Let's take Sweden. Ethnic Swedes created the Swedish government in order to organize their society. If I was a Swede, I'd hardly see a reason for non-ethnic Swedes to have any say in how Sweden should be ran, Muslim or not, in Sweden for 500 years or not. This is the problem we face. Muslims here would hardly be one if we were to deal with them like we should - as foreign non-citizens who are here for our benefit. And in the same sense, you can take away all their property and send them packing if it doesn't benefit you. This isn't even about cultural superiority, it's about what we should do as people.

Anonymous said...

To highlight a problem that even people here have: make our immigrants do whatnot. Wait a minute, why have immigrants at all? And not even this, but you can get people to come and work and ban them from ever being citizens or their children from ever being citizens. Once you don't need them anymore, you send them back home.

Our problem is the current Western civilization - the universalism, egalitarianism, propositional nationality and so on. These are our problems, not the Muslims.

Anonymous said...

rebelliousvanilla said: ...And in the same sense, you can take away all their property and send them packing if it doesn't benefit you.

Sweden can not start again from the beginning: If you've got a clever plan to "eliminate" the living, breathing people in Sweden who don't fulfill the required "homogeneity" quotient, then please share it with us.

And: Our problem is the current Western civilization - the universalism, egalitarianism, propositional nationality and so on. These are our problems, not the Muslims.

In my opinion, the radical versions of these things are unwholesome. The alternative to egalitarianism is racism (superiority/inferiority) or the kind of nationalism which has been seen as one cause of the two World Wars. The Muslims in Sweden who want to supplant the national laws with Islamic Law are a problem, but it is a second distinct problem. Remember it is demonstrable that Muslims are permitted to engage in any deception that servers the goals of Islam.

syntec said...

One can indeed start from the beginning in order to return to a homogeneous nation. It's been done by non-White nations, namely India and Africa in relation to the banishment and ethnic cleansing of White Europeans and is currently under way in South Africa, having been all but completed in Zimbabwe.

Either one can pay encroachers to return to their lands of origin including the bribing of respective governments or take a leaf out of the aforementioned's books.

None of the White Western ruling elite and unfortunately, the majority of indigenous White Europeans or those of such descent domicile elsewhere, appear to be exhibiting proper concern and calls for action regarding what is happening to Whites in non-White territories, South Africa being a case-in-point nor about the brutual methods being employed by Blacks and Asians against those of White European ethnicity even though the criminal acts that Blacks and Asians are perpetrating against White people due to seething race-hate, is actually genocide, nor do the Black/Asian indigenous concerned care a tinker's cuss what outsiders think of their criminal acts of genocide, either.

"In my opinion, the radical versions of these things are unwholesome. The alternative to egalitarianism is racism (superiority/inferiority) or the kind of nationalism which has been seen as one cause of the two World Wars. The Muslims in Sweden who want to supplant the national laws with Islamic Law are a problem, but it is a second distinct problem. Remember it is demonstrable that Muslims are permitted to engage in any deception that servers the goals of Islam."

This is the usual fallacious and baseless argument we hear from Leftists against the rights of White nations to act in self-defence of their ancestral territories, artistic and infrastructural creations and ethnicities, ie, race, lineages, heritages, beliefs, languages, traditions and cultures whilst they, the Marxist/Trotskyite Liberals, simultaneously hold no qualms whatsoever, about aiding and abetting the invasion and theft of ancestral White homelands by non-White invaders/encroachers, while being overwhelmingly and vehemently opposed to any suggestion of the opposite scenario. Why!!!

Incidently, the true causes of the two 20th century World Wars were not as a result of purely inter-ethnic conflict, but as a result of a combination of several confrontations brought about by the multi-machinations of a certain creed as was, it's also believed, numbers of other European wars of the past too.

Anonymous said...

scherado, you can strip non Swedes of citizenship and send them packing if you want to. You don't even have to do anything, just oppress them until they leave(you know, confiscate their property, deny them employment, tax them more when they get it and so on).

And the WW2 was caused by the stupid peace of Versailles and the destruction of the traditional Europe. WW1 was caused by pretty much stupidity and the whole world being busy bodies and it would have never been as bad if the US didn't want to destroy Europe in it - because yes, this is why the US got in both world wars.

The way I see it, I'd rather marry a Muslim that will oppress Europeans than marry a European who will treat everyone as his equal. So so far I'm rooting for the Muslims hoping that the Europeans will get their balls back. I dislike Muslims, but I don't dislike anything as much in this world as I dislike European progressivism with its universal values and so on. I decided to make no bones about this - if Europeans don't wake up and continue to not do what's in their best interest and solely that, I won't mind us getting destroyed.

And I mind Sweden's current laws too. Only an idiot would support them. The way I see it, if I was Swedish, I'd much rather have the Muslims rule Sweden because at least I'd have another group of people dispossessing me than my own betraying me in order to feel good about themselves.

syntec said...

"The way I see it, I'd rather marry a Muslim that will oppress Europeans than marry a European who will treat everyone as his equal. So so far I'm rooting for the Muslims hoping that the Europeans will get their balls back. I dislike Muslims, but I don't dislike anything as much in this world as I dislike European progressivism with its universal values and so on. I decided to make no bones about this - if Europeans don't wake up and continue to not do what's in their best interest and solely that, I won't mind us getting destroyed."

This kind of talk is appeasement and capitulation of the most primitive sort.

Do you think an enemy, any enemy would respect such cowardice? Well!

You would be condemning your children, grandchildren and future generations to a protracted and very indefinite period of slavery and savagery. Again, are you sure you are in favour of this certain outcome?

Even if you are childless yourself, what about close relatives and their offspring, not forgetting all innocent non-Muslim generations ahead? Well!

Anonymous said...

syntec, I'm the one being betrayed, in case you didn't figure it out. I'm putting myself in the shoes of a Swedish woman and I'd feel anger and despair towards Swedish men, but if they weren't willing to impose Swedish rule in Sweden and act in their 'Enlightened' way, I'd pretty much have to give up.

If I'd be a Swedish girl my age, it would mean that my parents were born in a pretty much 99-100% Swedish Sweden with pretty much no crime and all that and decided to destroy it. The way I'd see it, my parents betrayed me.

And it's not that I'd capitulate. I'm a woman, I can't expel people out of Sweden. But if Swedish men would act like they currently do, I'd rather give birth to the children of a Muslim man and like this, my offspring will be in the group who will rule over Swedes. The way I see it, it would treason to my descendants to have the kids of a Swedish man, considering how things are right now.

And enemies don't have to respect the women of their foes. We're nice trophies and playthings if we submit. The people who aren't respected are the men. And yes, as an European woman, I wouldn't respect European men if they at least didn't try to do something about it. But again, right now European men will have to earn my trust in this issue.

Anonymous said...

syntec said: "One can indeed start from the beginning in order to return to a homogeneous nation. It's been done by non-White nations, namely India and Africa..."

I wasn't generalizing. My comment was about Sweden, which does not have the luxury of a homogeneous population: one can only pretend otherwise.

Hesperado said...

"Solomon failed to draw the obvious conclusion: the answer is to permit NO Muslim immigration whatsoever..."

Even the position of "no immigration" isn't enough -- not only because we already have millions of Muslims within our West, but because by the time we are ready to stop immigration of Muslims (and that time is obviously years if not decades away) there will be millions of additional Muslims within the West, both from continued immigration and from a population explosion of their baby-factory women.

Stopping immigration in that situation is like closing the barn door -- after the wolf has already gotten in.

Total deportation of all Muslims is the minimum we need to do to protect our societies. Just because it's not doable now (due to the mainstream dominance of PC MC) doesn't mean it's not right. Nor will the West ever move to the point of considering it, unless people start thinking it and discussing it. Social change and paradigm shifts don't happen by themselves out of the blue sky. People have to do it. I find it depressing that most in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement continue to balk at the idea of total deportation.

The Hesperado

Anonymous said...

Hesperado, that's because a lot of them are American and Americanism prevents them from understanding ethnic cleansing. Also, most of them mind Muslims only as long as they're a threat to progressive liberal values. Look at Richard Spencer or Pam Geller, for instance. If Europe would be 100% non-European would hardly matter to them, as long as they had an enlightened culture and weren't anti-Semitic(I don't get how Arabs can be anti-Semitic since they're in that group too).

But yes, sadly, the only solution is what you're talking about.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado said: "Total deportation of all Muslims is the minimum we need to do to protect our societies. ...I find it depressing that most in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement continue to balk at the idea of total deportation.

Total deportation is pure fantasy. You would need to purge your society of all Leftists/Progressives/Multicultalists as well as deport the subject matter. Preposterous.

Hesperado said...

scherado,

"Total deportation is pure fantasy. You would need to purge your society of all Leftists/Progressives/Multicultalists as well as deport the subject matter. Preposterous."

1) Firstly, the problem of PC MC is not merely a Leftist problem: it reflect a sea change in Western worldview that has affected the hearts and minds of nearly all conservatives and centrists as well as liberals, and of probably the majority of ordinary people as well as "elites".

2) Secondly, the West went through a sea change in worldview that resulted in the mainstream dominance of PC MC. This occurred over approximately the last half century. If the West could change that radically in one direction, it can change back again. In fact, there is further reason to hope for a reversal of that paradigm shift in that the prior paradigm was more reasonable while the present one is more irrational. Unless you are a nihilist or some kind of disaffected pessimist apocalyptician, you will appreciate the innate strength and health of the West, and will thus see that hope in reversing its present relative irrationality is not an unreasonable hope (much less is it "preposterous" nor will it require "purging" of millions).

This is not say that it will be quick and easy. It will likely take a few decades, and will probably only occur after the tragic and horrible mass-murder of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of us by Muslims. But that's a far cry from impossible.

Anonymous said...

scherado, most people believe whatever they are told to believe. You should research some behaviour experiments. If the moral authority tells a MC person to kick a Muslim, he will. People are inherently stupid and Europeans being like they are is proof of this. You need merely to outnumber and outdo the people on the left who do think(or assassinate, considering that the left isn't beyond that) and control the others.

For instance, give me control of the Western media and in an year everyone would laugh at multiculturalism.

And leftists are easy to deal with. The problem are the leftists that pose as conservatives and have leftist premises.

Hesperado said...

rebelliousvanilla,

...most people believe whatever they are told to believe. ...People are inherently stupid...
For instance, give me control of the Western media and in an year everyone would laugh at multiculturalism.

This is certainly one way to explain the problem of the West; but it's the wrong way, because in attempting to save the West, it denigrates the West. The whole point of the greatness of the West is that its people are not stupid -- that is to say, not stupid to the colossal degree you are imputing to them such that this stupidity is centrally instrumental in the current near-suicidal policies of the West.

Zenster said...

rebelliousvanilla: The way I see it, I'd rather marry a Muslim that will oppress Europeans than marry a European who will treat everyone as his equal.

May your wish come true. Please, oh, please marry a Muslim and then be sure to get back to us with a detailed journal of just how glorious your existence is wedded to that two-legged piece of excrement. We breathlessly await your report regarding Islamic marital bliss. Few others than you could deserve it more.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado, it's not really that Westerners are stupid in themselves. I didn't mean it as impervious to thinking. What I mean is that people don't really think about why they support things - they do it because it makes them feel good about themselves.

Let's pick equality. Why should we be equal? And I mean in any sense of the word, including equality in front of the law. Why should anything be decided by majority rule or why should everyone vote to begin with? All these things are things that nobody really thinks about and they support them because they think they are genuinely good in and on themselves, which is obviously bogus and stupid.

What I'm referring to in regards to people being stupid isn't that Europeans have a low IQ or are genuinely dumb. What I refer to is human nature. Just like people vote based on whatever makes them feel good about themselves, they do whatever the moral authority tells them to. There are ton of experiments about this. And believe me, Muslims act in the same way, the only difference being what they think its good.

Any person who votes based on ideas does this(as in equality is good, discrimination is bad instead of it benefits me/my family/my ethnic group).

Zenster, don't worry, your wife, who will be our slave girl will be able to tell you all about it. ;)

syntec said...

The masses will follow what is the current fashion whether led by the players who comprise the political system or the media as both are essentially one and the same.

Unfortunately, the question of good reationale -v- bad rationale doesn't register with the bulk of the brainwashed masses either.

Only the feel-good factor and promises of endless 'bread and circuses' gets their real attention. That is, until their enjoyment of the good life and comfort zones they've errected around themselves become very seriously threatened and we can be sure the native White peoples of Europe along with the rest of their ethnic kin throughout the West, are destined to experience the full force of those many accumulated threats already aligned against them, in the not-too-distant future.

syntec said...

"I wasn't generalizing. My comment was about Sweden, which does not have the luxury of a homogeneous population: one can only pretend otherwise."

This is the whole crux of the argument.

As recent as 2007/8, Sweden was a highly homogeneous nation consisting of the indigenous peoples, ie, the Sami and their closely-related Nordic brethren from various other contiguous areas of Europe. In other words, the Marxist Liberal-inspired ethnic cleansing of Sweden's indigenous Whites, began just a mere three or so years ago.

Luckily, there is still time to reverse the genocide albeit, the window of opportunity to do so decreases ever steadily.

Anonymous said...

"As recent as 2007/8, Sweden was a highly homogeneous"
You've never been to Sweden, have you? lol. This started decades ago.

The whole problem is the idea that you can be a citizen in any other form besides by blood.

syntec said...

"As recent as 2007/8, Sweden was a highly homogeneous"
You've never been to Sweden, have you? lol. This started decades ago."


You obviously haven't interpreted properly what I originally said.

I said that Sweden, up until as recently as 2007/8, was a highly homogeneous nation, 'highly' being the operative word.

Immigration, up until past 1970, consisted predominately of other Europeans mainly of contiguous European stock.

However, in the last three or so years, non-White Third World immigration/asylum has been deliberately intensified so as to accelerate the wipeout (genocide) of indigenous Swedes.

It is easier and relatively less obvious to eradicate a small indigenous population more speedily than a larger one when one has control of the levers of power across 99% of the societal sphere.

Of course, the same criminal tactics are being replicated right across the whole of the White world.