Thursday, April 12, 2007

Is European Civil War Inevitable By 2025? - Part Two

Part the Second
by Mr. Weston

In which he further explains his reasoning behind the ides that Civil War is coming to Europe, and requests that those who would argue against this notion present their defense in cogent, coherent terms, refraining from ad hominem attacks or diatribe.

A reasonable requirement.

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

Part one of this article was an explanation of why our ratio of combat age native Europeans versus European Muslims could decline from 18:1 today, to 2:1 by 2025. These figures are largely irrelevant if one believes that Islam can peacefully co-exist within the West, but if such a scenario is simply a multicultural fantasy then we will shortly face a situation unprecedented in the history of mankind.

Europeans have been conditioned from an early age to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, resulting in our genuine ability to co-exist with peoples of significantly different cultures. But, rather than what we want, is this what Islam wants? Islam is as mono-cultural as mono-cultural gets. How can they possibly live in a liberal, multicultural society?

Islam expanded via the sword. Within decades of erupting out of the deserts of 7th Century Arabia it had conquered Palestine, Persia, Egypt, India, North Africa and Spain; its opponents were paralysed in the face of fanatical violence. It was only in 732 that Charles Martel stopped this frenetic Islamic expansion at the battle of Tours, in France.

In the 13th century Islam rose again. In 1452 they finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and within 100 years added Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Romania and Hungary to their empire. Attempts to take Vienna failed twice, before Jan Sobieski finally routed the Ottoman’s Islamic army in 1683 at the Gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Empire gradually fell apart after this defeat, and most occupied European countries reclaimed their independence. Christian Europe had largely prevailed.

But now, in the 21st Century, Islam is back and wants what it has always wanted; a global caliphate. This time, unlike their previous military attempts to overthrow the West, instead they are already within Europe, well funded, radicalised and rapidly expanding. As their numbers grow, so grows the violence they perpetrate — as we have seen all over Europe within the last few years.

And not only within Europe; Islam is engaged in religious conflict all around the world, from America, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, India, Russia, the Lebanon, Palestine, etc, etc. Wherever Islam comes into contact with non-Islam there is conflict.

In each and every country, one glaring reality stands out. It is always Islam as the aggressor, even when they are in a minority. In Thailand, where they represent five per cent of the populace, we have a country sliding inexorably toward civil war.

Such is the prevalence of Islamic violence that Samuel Huntingdon, author of The Clash Of Civilisations, coined the phrase “Islam’s bloody borders” the violence of which is represented by Gates Of Vienna’s animated Bloody Borders project which identifies Islamic terrorist activity just since 9/11.

Why do Islamists do this? Because they are commanded to, it is as simple as that. To be a Muslim means to obey the Koran, within which there are numerous commands to wage Jihad, or Holy War, against the infidel. Granted, there is no single explicit command, but it is possible to interpret many exhortations this way, which is exactly what radical Imams are doing all across the West. Unlike a modern day Christian’s tenuous relationship with the Bible, Muslims adhere to every edict of the Koran as slavishly as they did in the 7th Century. Unfortunately for us, the principal edict is to conquer or remove all non-believers.

To this end there are now some 2,000 Mosques in Western Europe, many of them funded directly by Saudi Arabia to the tune of 90 billion dollars. In these mosques are Imams — trained or imported from Saudi Arabia — preaching extreme Wahhabism. They call for the overthrow of the West, and promote suicide bombing and martyrdom. Channel Four recently sent an undercover reporter into various Mosques in the UK. The result was an exposure of these Imams in their call for Holy War against the West. It can be seenhere on Youtube. CNN also ran an interview with Al-Muhajiroun’s Anjem Choudray, where he calls for Sharia law in Britain. This is the same man whoprophesised that the Islamic flag will fly over 10 Downing Street.

The New Civil War
Despite the clear warnings, the concept of Sharia is still not fully understood by most Europeans. Under its laws they could either be killed for refusing to convert to Islam or they could accept that second-class status known as Dhimmitude. Homosexuals could similarly be killed, apostates killed, adulterous woman stoned to death, whilst limbs could be amputated for stealing. Forty percent of British Muslims wish this to be introduced.

What percentage of those who desire this are young males? Muslim women have a great deal to be unhappy about under Sharia law, whilst older Muslims are far less radicalised than the young. It is quite possible therefore, that for young males with a favourable view of Sharia, the percentage of those who favour Sharia in Britain is far higher than this.

So, Islam has a history of attempted Western conquest, and a present day policy of global domination. In countries such as Sudan, they are efficiently perpetrating genocide to achieve that end. In the West, their Jihadist rhetoric is accompanied by large-scale violence and lesser atrocities guaranteed to catch our attention. (Leaving out the violence in India and Pakistan and the Taliban) just in the years since 2001, there have been numerous incidents in the West:

  • 9/11, of course;
  • the London tube bombings;
  • the Madrid train bombings;
  • the lesser violence such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh;
  • the indescribable torture and murder of Ilan Halami;
  • the rape of European women as described by Fjordman,
  • the civil unrest in France, where policeclaim they are in the midst of a civil war;
  • and the death threats made against politicians who speak out against them, such as Gert Wilders.

Faced with this relentless tidal wave of Islamic aggression, what is the response of Europe’s ruling elites? Craven submission is the answer. In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and where no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
- - - - - - - - - -
After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers’ dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive had come from Islam, not from oppression.

In British schools the Holocaust is no longer taught because it runs counter to the Holocaust denial beliefs of Muslims, whilst British historian David Irving was imprisoned for holding the same views as that of the Muslims. Our teaching unions are also of the opinion that the idea of teaching British values is racist, and the BBC is so viciously anti-Christian and pro-Islamic that there is simply not the space here to detail it. The BBC treachery requires an article all its own, and a lengthy article at that (This is one of the more imponderable pathologies the BBC exhibits, considering the corporation has sheltered and encouraged a high number of homosexuals and feminists. As you know, both groups are on the Islamic extermination lists).

There are many more examples of Islamic aggression and of the consequential European appeasement. It is clear that so far we are impelled toward overwhelming submission. European politicians are clearly terrified of Islam. As well they might be. So, what can be done? Can Islam be contained, or is Europe drifting inexorably to all-out civil war?

Essentially, there are five options.

The first is that Islam integrates within Europe’s liberal democracies and we all live happily ever after This scenario takes no account of the moral sewer that Liberal policies have turned Europe into; a Europe which Islam, quite understandably, views with revulsion. Nor does it take into account that Islam today is the same as Islam in the 7th century. Why should they reform now? Given the increasing radicalisation of Muslim youth and the disturbing numbers whoagree with terrorist activity, this scenario is only possible within the mindset of deluded, ignorant liberals, whose naiveté is suicidal in the extreme. Option one can therefore be discounted.

The second option is that Islam quietly takes over demographically through sheer weight of numbers, and Europe is islamised under Sharia law. Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn think this inevitable, Steyn being of the opinion that any country capable of the type of appeasement prevalent in Europe today, is also a country incapable of rousing a defence. Although this is a possibility, it is unlikely we will not fight back, so option two can also be discounted.

The third option is that Europe wakes up to the danger it is in and expels all its Muslims. This is not going to happen; the European Union positively embraces Islam, as noted in Bat Ye’or book Eurabia (thankfully abridged by Fjordman). Not only does the EU have no intention of such an action, they will not even stop further Islamic immigration. The 2.2 million predominately Muslim immigrants they wish to bring into Europe each and every year up to 2050 is a done deal as far as they are concerned.

Indeed, in an extract from this disturbing report published by the European Policy Centre, the EU seeks immigration not only for economic reasons but also for social reasons:

“However, the arguments against immigration remain dominant in the political debates of many European countries, and must be taken seriously and challenged if immigration is to keep its place on the social and economic agenda.”

Whilst this attitude prevails we can discount option three.

The fourth option is that moderate Muslims reclaim their peaceful religion from the “fundamentalists”, who, as we are told over and over again by our media, are not representative of Islam. But where exactly are these moderate Muslims, what power do they wield within Islam as a whole? When have we seen marches and protests organised by them, waving banners reading “Not in my name” or “Not in the name of Islam?” They are as cowed by the radicals as are our politicians, or perhaps they are in agreement with them, but are squeamish when it comes to spilling blood. The only face of Islam we see or hear in the West is that of the violent Jihadist. As such, option four can be discounted.

The fifth option is that we resist the Islamic take over, and fight back. I disagree with Lewis and Steyn, who both appear to think Europe will roll over and submit. The wholesale and unprecedented racial and cultural transformation of a continent with a history of violent warfare will simply not happen without confrontation.

As options one, two, three and four can therefore be discounted; we are left only with option five: to fight. Whilst it is unfortunate that we should be confronted by an expanding, youthful culture with a set of beliefs they will die for, just at the time we are demographically declining, ageing, and apparently believe only in shopping, celebrity and alcohol, does not mean that we will not fight. We will simply have to. Not for domination, but for survival.

E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, “two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area.” (Emphasis in the original) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: “To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other.”

The history of man is essentially a history of warfare, where territory, tribe or religion drives the impetus for conquest. That our ruling liberal elites in the West today believe that history, current reality and the law of nature no longer apply to us, does not mean the end of warfare. Rather, their wishful thinking simply makes it easier for those who are determined to wage war against us. The idea that wars are a thing of the past is so fantastical that only liberals, who cannot distinguish ideological fantasy from historical reality, could possibly believe that war will ever be vanquished.

Islamic terrorist activity is being constantly thwarted by European intelligence services, but over the next ten years some of these Jihadists will slip through the net and carry out their next very large atrocity. Although most Europeans are still in a deep liberal sleep regarding Islam, this will not last. By 2017 the tensions between Europeans and Islam will have become nerve jangling. Impotent officials will employ ever-stricter government controls in a futile attempt to preserve the façade of societal order.

Somewhere between 2017 and 2030, during a period of heightened tension, Islamists in France, Holland or Britain will blow up one church, train or plane too many. Retaliation will begin and they, in turn will respond. So will the spiral begin.

The police are unable to cope now; they will be even less prepared then. The army will be drafted in, and members of the military who are even willing to carry out orders against their neighbours will find themselves massively outnumbered and outflanked. Civilians will be massacred. And so begins the civil war.

When the violence reaches a tipping point every person — be they moderate or extremist in their views — will be forced to take sides in this war. There will be no bystanders, and no civilians. Moderate Muslims will in all likelihood take the sides of the extremists. This war will resemble none of Europe’s previous conflicts, with their standing armies massed along clearly delineated lines. In the coming conflagration, it will initially be civilians, armed not with tanks and machine guns, but with knives, bombs and terror, who will call out the dogs of war.

I say “initially” because although the army will be of little use in the beginning, it will certainly be capable of forming an impregnable line behind which the native Europeans, unused to knife fighting, will flee and re-group.

And then, enter America — as always— Europe’s saviour. Whilst Europe’s navies blockade the ports, America will deliver technical weaponry to the organised Europeans, weaponry against which Islam will have no response. Whilst they are being annihilated in response to the butchery they carried out in the early days of the war, Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran will threaten a nuclear response. If they do, they too will be annihilated.

Such is the future brought about by multicultural liberals. Not only will they be responsible for bloodshed unseen even in the last century, they will also be responsible for the extinction of Islam. In 1907 no one could see the coming carnage, whereas in 2007 all educated people with some knowledge of history can see the inevitable. Quite how large this war becomes is of course beyond any prediction. However, it will not be limited to a merely European conflict. Our civil war could well become a global nuclear war against Islam; and one the Islamists have no hope of winning.

Such a scenario is unimaginable to the vapid multiculturalists, but it is their actions, past and present, which will bring about this nightmare. One can hardly blame Islam for wishing to dominate the world, but one can certainly blame liberals for giving them the geographical means and ideological confidence whereby they feel confident that it is actually possible. Will they attempt it? On a small scale, with their ratio of 18:1 they are attempting it now. How do you think they will behave with a ratio of 5:1 let alone 2:1?

The liberal response to an essay such as this is to make accusations of hysteria and paranoia. To those, I would say only one thing: rather than leave sneering one line comments, give us a thousand word, closely reasoned article explaining why the scenario outlined above is not likely. Use reality-based arguments rather than simply repeating outmoded ideology.

As much as I wish you could present such a case against my scenario, I believe the war is inevitable, and it will be a tragedy for the West, for Islam, and for all of mankind.

Please refute it. I really would like it another future than the one I have outlined.


livfreerdie said...

The only thing I disagree with is the date. From my silly Piscean mind and limited understanding of the Maya, their calender foretells the end of an "age" in 2012. Other cultures, I have read, believe in the different ages of men and maybe a long hard study of history might delineate these changes. Like the man from Texas all I can do is vote and prepare me and mine for the, as I see it, the clash of civilizations as outlined in the story.


Zerosumgame said...

I can't refute the path to civil war, but one thing is said that refutes the outcome:

And then, enter America — as always— Europe’s saviour.

As they say in High English:


Counter-Jihadist said...

How dare Mr. Watson, again, dare cast aspersions on the Multicultural Utopia we are so carefully constructing here in the EU? Next thing you know, this Islamophobe will try to tell us that all conflicts of any significant scale worldwide involve the Religion of Peace, Islam....


Uh, never mind.

Jacques Chirac

Mr. Spog said...

A sixth logical alternative, besides the 5 enumerated by Mr. Weston, would be a long-term partition of Europe into Muslim and indigenous areas. This would not be inconsistent with civil war, but in this case the fighting might have a more limited character than suggested by the article.

John Sobieski said...

I'm leaning toward the 6th scenario - a fragmentation of Europe with mass migration of infidels into cantons where Muslims are not allowed. Of course, the EU will collapse and there will be severe economic depression. It is going to be a terrible next 20 years.

Mission Impossible said...

Mr. Weston, I am split between your 5th and John Sobieski's 6th scenarios. I have lived and worked in the Middle East / Muslim countries for an accumulated total of 12 years of my life, and I have some scores to settle. I would welcome a chance to kill Arab-Muslims (I have no enmity for Indonesians, etc.) and destroy a few Saudi-sponsored mosques.

Even if we did nothing, the civilized world would soon begin to disintegrate (actually, that disintegration has already begun) due to the poison of Islam flowing in its veins. I want Mecca flattened and its marble-lined main feature turned into dust. Total eradication.

My biggest quibble with your articles (Parts 1 & 2) is that you made no mention of how we might deal with Liberals / Socialists / Feminists who have brought our culture to this low ebb. Treachery and High Treason deserves the most severe punishment, and the sooner we start neutralizing the people MOST responsible (e.g., certain authors and university professors) for their pernicious influences, the better off we shall be. One thing seems certain, representative democracy as we have come to know it is not going to survive intact.

The average Americans simply does not understand the degree to which his/her society is being controlled and manipulated by crypto-Communists, in the Media, in Education, and in the various (well-funded) NGOs/Special Interest Lobby groups.

I shouldn't be writing such uncompromising and strident opinions, but the blinkers fell from my eyes soon after 9/11 when what had happened earlier in my life, whilst overseas, suddenly fell into place and made sense. This is a fight to the finish, and the sooner we get the ball rolling, the better for us, and for the future of mankind (or 'humankind' for those who are still ultra-sensitive about such issues).

We have come to the very end of this particular road we have been travelling on since 1946: the one that was disproportionately shaped by an American President AND his wife ... The Roosevelts.

anti-uffe said...

"the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and where no white European dare set foot."

And probably no Sikh, Hindu, Inuit, or Egyptian Copt either. Or American Indian.

I believe that any terminology that emphasizes superficial differences - the colour of skin - only helps to further marginalize analysis such as this in the eyes of the MSM. I don't want to come across like a PC cop, but not only is this plainly silly, it is counterproductive too. Only by forging a Grand Alliance of Kuffars can we hope to defeat this plague. Please do not alienate those who should be our allies.

Anonymous said...

Whites are the easier victims for that lot, just look at Fjordman's reports on the rapes in Sweden, or the killing in the UK where the killers rejoiced 'we have killed the white man!'. Whether we like it or not, colour of skin looks very much like it's going to be a factor in the coming struggle.

A Grand Alliance? Certainly, a great idea, but I don't think pretending white is black in the process will help us much.

Or have I missed something?

Sir Henry Morgan said...

For the British and other disarmed countries amongst us:

Unknown said...

As i am Dutch, seen by many as a cowardice country toward de Muslim danger, i would like to react on this article and its comments (also Part One).

Our future is grim, in Europe, and certainly here in The Netherlands. A lot of people do not see the present danger YET!

But as many of us will flee and emigrate to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. There will be a lot who stay and fight. Geert Wilders' party is growing steadily. On forums, blogs, newspapersites the comments of people who are getting fed up with the situations is pouring over!

Among us our biggest traitor is the (alas.. jewish) Mayor of Amsterdam Cohen, who is handing over the capital to Islam Extremists.. (dutch)

I do not know what the future shall bring us and if we Dutch find the strength to defend our lands, but the Dutch Lion for once shall roar again!!

Aenschouw den Heldt, der Staeten rechterhandt,
Den redder van 't vervallen vaderlandt,
Die in een jaer twee groote koningkryken,
Tot driemael toe de trotse vlag deedt strijken;
Het roer der vloot, den arm daer Godt door streê,
Door hem herleef de vrijheit en de vreê.

anti-uffe said...

"A Grand Alliance? Certainly, a great idea, but I don't think pretending white is black in the process will help us much.

Or have I missed something?" Mr. Smith.

I believe you have. Look, there are no local solutions to this problem, no way the baddies can be pushed over the borders and be done with. I don't know about you, but I sure would like to be in an alliance including one billion Hindus, armed to the teeth with nukes and a baaad attitude over past mistreatment at the hand of Muslims. Somewhere in the vicinity of 60 million people murdered over the course of a few centuries.

If islam is to be contained - and nothing suggests this will ever be on the cards at the present - these players must be summoned and mobilized. Indians, Christian Nigerians, Egyptian Copts and countless other minorities with a brown complexion are as much victims of this belief system as we are and will be.

It's not about "pretending white is black," it's about acknowledging our common plight. I'm not quite sure what you are saying, is it your opinion that we should exclude these people because of complexion?

Unknown said...

"I can't refute the path to civil war, but one thing is said that refutes the outcome:

And then, enter America — as always— Europe’s saviour.

As they say in High English:


I tend to agree with this. America is going to be in the midst of its own civil war and won't have the resources to do anything to help Europe. It's inevitable. There will be no peaceful solutions here, either.

anti-uffe said...

I believe there are too many variables to guess what the situation will be like, say, a hundred years from now. What impact will for example a nuclear terrorist attack have on a larger scale, or what will happen in the remaining countries should one country go sharia?

Nevertheless, I think mr. Weston puts too little emphasis on the Lewis/Steyn scenario. IMHO this may well play a much bigger role, for two reasons: despite several situations that in normally functioning people should have triggered the breaking point, nothing but apathy still prevails. Second, the European mind will probably always favour the option of least resistance, i.e., giving in here and there, in the name of tolerance at first. Compulsory scarfs for everybody, in certain areas, to begin with, for example. Gradually, very slowly, conditions will worsen.

"The wholesale and unprecedented racial and cultural transformation"

Sorry to rub it in, but on which side does mr. Weston count adopted children from Korea or India? Are they enemies from purely "racial" reasons? Pardon me, but this language really, really jars.

Elric66 said...

It really is a 2 front war. Islam on one side and the socialist libs on the other. The libs have to be handled first for we cant fight jihad with a divided society.

crebs said...

There's a 7th scenario. Europe is overrun by Muslims, the natives scatter to safe nations. In 400 years they return to retake their ancestral lands. After a long period of victories, the elite members of Western society start to feel guilty for invading Muslim Europe. They deem the celebration of the Western crusade to be insensitive. Soon a spiritually weakened Europe is once again invaded by the Islamic death cult. The elite class re-educate the remaining the Western world to see that the re-conquest of Europe was an invasion and therefore Western Civilization is evil.

Robbert Online said...

I agree that Europe is heading for Civil War.

I agree that the European media like the BBC : "... teaching unions are also of the opinion that the idea of teaching British values is racist, and the BBC is so viciously anti-Christian and pro-Islamic that there is simply not the space here to detail it."

However the American elite is as much in the grips of multiculturalism as the European elites.

Once Civil War in Europe breaks out, America will easily convince itself that European whites are rascist and evil. As far as that is still required of course. The US will then come to Europe.

To crush the Euro revolt. To help their Euro neo-marxist elite buddies.

Remember the Balkans a decade ago? The Euros and USA coming to the aid of the Muslims there?

Both Europe and the USA will have to get rid of the neo-marxist mindset before they will be able to deal with the problems which are the result of the mindset.



Voltaire said...

Sorry this is somewhat hasty (have a plane to catch), but it recaps my thoughts on the matter.

1 - An important factor Mr. Weston plays down in his scenario is free will. Yes, it's likely that a civil war may simply materialize because of worsening conditions, as he outlines. But it's also likely that it may be initiated more deliberately by a well-organized movement of pro-Westerners.

2 - What many of us still don't realize is that we are already in a civil war. You may call it a civil cold war (although Theo Van Gogh, the 3,000 dead of 9/11, the targets of the Beltway sniper and other sundry victims may disagree) but it's a war nonetheless. The other side knows it and it's fighting it quite successfully, in our courts, our schools, our taxicabs, our media, our demographics, our culture, our street and our politics. It is emboldened, it's in full-attack mode and it shows less and less restraint in its actions and demands. The leaders of our side are bending over backward to convince us not to call it what it is, or even to see it as such. And they are doing an OK job at it. But this self-imposed and wishful blindness can't last forever. Then, the rotten and corrupt system that we've been impotently trying to change will finally be seen for what it is: a placebo for the civic conscience at best or another tentacle of the enemy at worst.

3 - Point 2 will inevitably dawn on an increasing number of Westerners, both in Europe and in the US. Having lived half of my life in Europe and the other half in the US, I am more prepared to think that a downright civil war may be a more immediate possibility in the US. Why? More spirit of individualism, more entrepreneurship, more youthful optimism. More 2nd Amendment. Which brings me to the next point.

4 - I wouldn't be surprised if groups of American pro-Westerners started getting together in person, rather than just typing away on the Internet. Getting together, sharing thoughs and resources, maintaining a clean and professional demeanor but routinely practicing various kinds of military exercises. And each group would naturally solidify around its more experienced member. And I'm willing to bet that as word gets around of these groups springing up all over the US--and calling themselves only different chapters of the SAME, large movement--their ranks would swell to surprising levels very quickly, impervious to and perhaps even spurred on by the inevitable media vilification.

5 - At that point, two things would need to happen. a) The emergence of a strong National leader and b) another catastrophe or outrage wrought upon us by the other side. This, in my opinion, would be unfortunately enough to trigger the avalanche--an avalanche that, if History is any guide, is not only probable but very likely. My prediction is that it will start locally, then spread like wildfire nationally.

6 - What would happen and how, at that point, depends on too many variables to even speculate here. But if I was a militant Islamist, one of their vocal apologists, one of the high-level bureaucrats who erected yet one more wall between intelligence and law enforcement, a turncoat politician, the editorial board of the New York times or any other person or parties who has merrily danced a rough-shod adwar on our culture and country I would quickly look up "treason trial," "pillory" and "ostracism." (Which answers Mission Impossible's question.)

7 - I see this movement as being extremely fair and process-minded, more prone to excesses of justice than its opposite, but I see it unapologetic in the pursuit of its goal--to restore the letter of the Constitution and the values which underpin it. And because of its fair mindedness, I see it attracting people of any profession and walk of life, which will make it all the more momentous.

8 - Lastly, I see the boiling point much closer in time than what Mr. Weston advances. I've never seen the level of frustration I'm seeing now, and sooner or later this collective frustration will find a constructive, short-term outlet.

Anyway, interesting topic, in all its complexity.

Unknown said...

I'm afraid option 5 is only wishfull thinking...

What if option 6 breeds a canton with nuclear capabilities/options, either through democracy or otherwise? No more help from USA, China or India as someone suggested. The people in the still 'free' areas within Europe will then also loose the will to fight.

Vasarahammer said...

I don't think there will be a civil war in Europe. Perhaps it might take place in some countries, but there certainly won't be a continent-wide civil war.

The more likely scenario is that increasing persecution and harassment will gradually drive the indigenous Europeans away. And this will not happen instantly but gradually over the years.

You only need to look at what's happening to Maronite Christians in Lebanon. They started moving out during the Lebanese Civil war and their share of the population has been decreasing ever since.

History Snark said...

I'm not terribly optimistic. I think that some kind of resistance would be good- at this point, I'd settle for some strong language by the Euro-leaders. But it's not happening at this time.

What is happening, as I think most of us would agree, is that the native Europeans are starting to leave. Fjordman and others have written about the numbers of people moving to Oz, NZ, Canada and the US. It seems to me that the "exiles" are the ones that understand what's happening, while the "stay-at-homes" are the ignorant ones.

So what's happening is that the people who themselves know, and who would be teaching their children and talking to their neighbors about the coming problem are washing their hands of the problem. (Which is not to say that I blame them per se.)

And the people that are staying put are the ones who are already deep in the multi-culti mindset, and believe that Islam will be tolerant to them.

I'm sure someone can provide more info on it, but I always recall Orwell's comment about those ideas that only an intellectual could believe, because nobody else would be so naive.

I do wonder about the Eastern Europeans, though. They are not usually inclined to surrender without a fight (except when their friends sell them out), but Poland, the Czechs, Hungary, etc. are going to be set upon from all sides, assuming Russia goes Muslim.

But wouldn't it be ironic if Russia goes back to totalitarianism and then leads the fight against Islam?

Sorry, I'm writing stream-of-consciousness here. Please look at the ideas, and not the ramblings themselves.

Anonymous said...

Have you heard about attack on "Wear a Hijab Day" campus organizer? Yes it's a hate crime and I'm not going to argue with that. But because it's a crime doesn't mean I cannot argue about a victim's activities.

What would happen to organizer of "Wear a crucifix Day" (or "Don't wear a hijab") campus in Palestine or Sirya, I wonder? After all, religion is a private matter and shouldn't be pushed this way. Having such an event in Western country is not a multiculturalism. It's dhimmitude.

"Racist cowards at work"

Charlemagne said...

As an American who loves the rich heritage of Western culture, especially its martial history replete with heroes and brilliant military commanders I will do whatever is necessary to defend Western civilization even if it means getting on a plane and flying to Europe to fight the Islamic invaders. I just hope the battle happens sooner rather than later given the fact that I'm 40 years old now.
Perhaps you should provoke the Muslims into starting the fight now rather than later while numbers are still on your (Europe's) side.
The wise among them (Muslims) would do well to advise their followers to be patient as side is on their side and Europe's sleeping populations can be convinced to remain docile while Islam's numbers grow quietly and quickly. It is the impatient and overly aggressive that may spoil the plan and give Europe a chance.
Don't allow the multi-culti's to lull you into a false sense of security by pointing to "peaceful' Muslim masses. They are just waiting for the right moment.

Unknown said...

@ gun-totin-wacko, who wrote:
"And the people that are staying put are the ones who are already deep in the multi-culti mindset, and believe that Islam will be tolerant to them."

"I'm sure someone can provide more info on it, but I always recall Orwell's comment about those ideas that only an intellectual could believe, because nobody else would be so naive."

I'll stay! Is it naive to stand and fight? To fight for what i believe in, for my country, our way of life, our ancestors, our history?

It is here where i was born and raised. Among the people i love an care for. My grandparents, my parents, they all did their share to make the best of it, for their family and loved ones!!
Who am i to emigrate, to close my eyes and say, well its getting too hot here, i am out... freedom has a price. And yes Europe's gonna pay for it!

But i will stand, let the shit hit the fan when the time is right! I do hope so i am not one of few..
although i believe in my fellow countrymen!
“Hope is faith holding out its hand in the dark.”

Thank you Charlemagne for your allegiance! We must all stand together! I wish more of the Dutch people had this kind of American spirit!

Unknown said...

Although you quickly dismiss point 4, I suggest you research Indonesia for concrete data on how moderate islam can effectively counter fundamentalism. It does happen, although we tend to ignore it in the West. Having said that, I agree that is an unlikely event in Europe, although I do think it is highly likely in the fringe muslim countries (ie: non Arab) if the West can start winning the information war.

And, while I totally applaud your use of evolutionary fact as part of your argument (with the mammal sub-species claims), in the interest of accuracy, I think it's only fair to point out that different races are not actually 'sub-species'. All modern humans fall under a single level: Homo Sapiens.

That being said, I also agree that Europe is headed towards civil warfare in the near future, even without the islamist interference speeding the process up, the fight is already practically inevitable. I spent 6 years of my life in Europe in the 90s, and I have spent a large portion of the last year here as well. The difference in 10 years is astounding. I thinks it is also much more obvious to an outside observer (as so many things are).

turn said...

Great post, Dynphna!

Having chewed on this awhile I don't see option six as viable because I don't believe the 'slammis would ever honor a border--it's not in their nature to restgrain from attempting to conquer it all.

Option 4? Recent years have shown the Indonesian model not so sweet. Beheadings of Christian schoolgirls and real wr against Christians in Molucca.

Plans must be laid (and soon) to secure French nukes should the need arise.

Last--there's no way the US stays out of it. What do you think the proposed anti-missile system is for?

songdongnigh said...

I see a gloomy future for the West. We stand around worried about being nice and not offending anyone while millons plot to dominate us by any means. I wouldn't call what will transpire a civil war but rather an overt war of aggression by greater Islam. The timing of the overt phase will be decided by the attackers. For the past 30 years, the Muslim Brotherhood has been spreading and inspiring others toward a global Caliphate. While the various Islamic movements around the world may not be tightly coordinated, they inspire and encourage each toward greater Jihad. Radical sects and political/social Muslim groups everywhere are becoming more active and more insistent on imposing Sharia.

In the West particularly, sleeper cells have been infiltrating and establishing themselves. They are here for a reason. At some point, a triggering event such as coordinated NBC attacks or a threat by Iran will take place that will activate the cells. A call will go out to ALL Muslims to join the Jihad. A mob mentality will swell and not many will refuse.

Jihadi groups everywhere will move to attack non-Muslims and governments where they reside. In chess terms, it will be a full court press. A nuclear Iran along with a nuclear Pakistan run by Islamic fundamentalists would have the ultimate blackmail weapon.

How exactly the west and other governments respond will depend on the will of the people and leaders at the time. Looking at recent history, there will be a strong desire to capitulate in order to “save something” rather than fight it out to the end....“Better Dhimmi than dead”. Many will fight back but the outcome will be tenuous. To prevail, the West will have to decimate Islam as an organized entity.

However it spins out, the effects will be cataclysmic.

History Snark said...

Michiel, I wonder though how many others feel like you do? That's my biggest concern. Some individuals will stay, of course, but many who have the means will leave. Recently I saw an article which I believe was linked by someone here, that almost half of all Brits would like to leave their country. That bodes poorly.

I had another idea though. Are we all looking at this the wrong way? Granted we all seem to be either Europeans or descended from them. That being so, maybe "giving up" there would be a tactical retreat for the forces of civilization. As someone commented here earlier, India will certainly fight Islam when the War comes. China probably as well, though they will have a slight problem-perhaps- in getting their forces from China to the Middle East/Europe. The Black Africans, I suspect, despise the Muslims. Latin America will perhaps feel some connection with the West, enough to fight for their culture and religion.

If this scenario were valid, then the Muslims would be pressed on almost every side. And the Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans know a thing or two about asymmetrical warfare and knives also. It would be quite literally a bloodbath. And I don't see Islam coming out on top, or even surviving. I think that China would willingly slaughter Muslims until they ran out of bullets and their blades were too dull to wound. Of course, that assumes China still exists as a unified entity in 20 years as well, which is a dicey proposition...

Anyway, just a thought. Lose Europe temporarily, and win the War. Perhaps even with- I hesitate to say it- a "Final Solution" to the Islamic Question.

Is this a valid scenario, anyone?

anti-uffe said...

"A nuclear Iran along with a nuclear Pakistan run by Islamic fundamentalists would have the ultimate blackmail weapon." - songdongnigh

Should this ever occur, these states should be presented with what to them will be the ultimate blackmail weapon: nuclear annihilation of Mecca and Medina. Even if the consequences of doing this would indeed be cataclysmic, the rulers and clerics of such countries would lose all legitimacy amongst their own, should these cesspools of evil evaporate for good. Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch has suggested using the threat of annihilating these sites, gradually cutting off access, as the ultimate weapon. No pan-islamic anti-missile shield could ever protect these dumb artifacts for eternity. It will happen, maybe not in our time, but it will happen, I'm quite certain of that.

"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit."

turn said...

gun-totin-wacko said "Perhaps even with- I hesitate to say it- a "Final Solution" to the Islamic Question.

Is this a valid scenario, anyone?"

Just what is the solution to those that would enslave or slaughter you as their god-given commandment?

You can't exactly spank them (beat them on the battlefield) and send them to the corner (back to the hellholes that spawned them). Even if they are remarkably childish in their strutting 'religious' superiority.

I can't think of any safe and sane solution that would not be 'final'.

I remember watching in joy and wonder as that abomination of a wall was torn down in October '89 and the ecstatic look of those that were wrecking it.

That is to say the not all destruction is a bad thing.

I would be happier still to see the mosque on the Temple Mount be similarly torn down while waiting for radiation levels to drop at the black rock of mecca.

Mission Impossible said...


... DVD ===>>

A 4-minute TRAILER

Evan said...

I think you could argue that the skirmishes in this war have already begun. I am now cataloguing outbreaks of mass interracial violence , episodes involving dozens or even hundreds of people at a time in Europe. These kinds of incidents - where large numbers of youths, usually nonwhite but in one case white, begin to rior and assault, believing that law enforcement cannot stop them, are becoming more common.

X said...

They were quire common around where I used to live. 'asian' gangs used to attack other 'asian' gangs - in other words bangladeshi muslims would usually be attacking gujarati hindus and sikhs - or they'd attack black muslim gangs, and occasionally white gangs. It washn't often. Now and then you'd see the aftermath of a gang war, with smashed windows. It never even made the news most times...

Walter Clark said...

I've heard there is (was) an old Chinese curse along the lines of "May you live in interesting times." When I first heard of it I had no idea how that could be a curse. Of course age and experience have shown that dull and boring is a whole lot safer and nicer than interesting. I think it applies to the too near future. However this unwinds the comment from discussions of world-wide nuclear war will again be true: the living will envy the dead. I truly believe that there are enough people from whatever race and religious/ethnic background who just plain won't stand for the Muslims taking over to make the next twenty years very interesting times, indeed.

Shrimpville said...

I really hope that you can solve it more peacefully in Europe.
Maybe by stopping the links between European muslims and muslims outside by forcing a new form of Islam.
Maybe by enforcing secularisation of muslims.
Maybe as a last resort you'd encourage muslims to go back home.
If a war begins in Europe, I am not sure that it is promised that one side will win, and which side it would be. The only thing I know is that if my danish friends were at risk, I'd be on the first flight from Israel to help them.

Oliver Stern said...

From the events of the last few weeks we in Britain have seen the proof that our millitary cannot be trusted. The main problem, which is behind the pitiful display from the hostages in Iran, and which will be the downfall of (Western) Europe is comfort.

We have become extremely good at being comfortable, and not moving out of the 'comfort zone'. I'm sorry to say it, but more terrorist attrocities will not galvanise people to react against islamism, it will only make them so scared that they will recede further into the comfort zone.

I believe that in Britain at least, at the behest of the leftist elite, Sharia law will be introduced. And then, when the freedom of the common man is taken away, then he will fight. The craven leftists, who would not lift a finger to save their own grandmother will be consumed by the fire, but the common old Brit, so despised by the lesbians at the BBC and the KGB operatives of the Guardian, for whom family and country still mean something, he will stand and fight.

All we need is a leader made from splicing the DNA of Churchill and Maggie

Charles Martel said...

Option 5 is heading right towards us, but please don't talk about civil war. It will be a war waged by Islamic colonialist aggressors against "crusaders". We will of course defend ourselves because where would we go ? Most of us aren't rich enough to start all over again somewhere else and the threat is equal in all western countries. Even the liberals are starting to experience the threat personally. As more and more of them are actually knowing people - maybe even having family members - getting murdered, raped, robbed or just beaten up by the "Janja-weeds" their forced voices of defence for the blessed "multicultural society" become silent one by one. They just don't have the energy anymore to feign their belief in it anymore. Europe has been locked in a trance of guilt since the Holocaust (rightfully, so) and the liberation of its colonies (wrongfully). This bad conscience has been exploited to its full extent by the extreme left, whose ultimate goal is the destruction of the "bourgeois" Europe. The real hardliners of the extreme left, have since the downfall of Soviet Union seen Islam as their saviour and natural ally. They have tricked the mainstream liberals into accepting the idea of "the multicultural society" as part of the liberal idea of globalisation, and they have been the most furious agitators when it comes to marking those airing hesitant protest against the mounting problems connected with the growing immigration as "racists". The hard liners are the real trouble as they are as determined as the Islamists themselves, and indeed in some cases have actually openly converted to Islam in their hate of the West. Many of them have infiltrated and occupied part of the media space since the 70's and, though small in numbers, have been extremely skillful in commanding the public opinon ever since. These people have, in order to rule, created an atmosphere in which it has been impossible to combine a job as a civil servant or journalist with criticism of the official immigration policies.

So in the current phase the liberal voices will just fade away amid the ever increasing Islamist oppression, the hard liners will desperately try to win time by increasing the volume in their sad song of sorrow for the "disadvantaged" to push the front a bit further or just hold the line and wait for demography to do its work.

In the last few years we see fewer and fewer articles in favour of "multiculturalism". Actually, you hardly hear anything at all about immigration. Hardly anyone has the energy to repeat the ever more blatant lies of the official mantras, but the hard liners still try to pretend that immigration is a natural fact, part of an unstoppable evolution, something that you just can't decide for or against. They even pretend, à la Pravda, that there are no foreigners, no real differences only "Nationals of different origins".

I believe that we will soon leave this phase as more and more deadly acts occur. More and more people actually see for themselves and understand that terrorism is not just Al Qaida but is evident in all aspects of co-existence with the Islamic clan society, that Jihad is actually happening now in our streets and in our schools and it has actually been happening all the time, only the numbers of the enemy were fewer a decade ago.

But please do me a favor, don't call it a "civil war" coming. Accepting that phrase is a halfway capitulation, isn't it ?

Baron Bodissey said...

Charles Martel,

This will be a civil war. Those who are watching events in Britain expect the situation to boil over fairly soon. As the government and police continue to fail to protect the Queen's subjects from Islamic violence -- and persecute native Britons for their "racism" -- eventually the tipping point will arrive, and large groups of people will begin to take action on their own to defend themselves.

At that point the police -- and if it gets big enough, the army -- will attempt to crush the "racist mobs" by force. This will indeed ignite a civil war, with the government and Islamists in tacit alliance against the people.

Anonymous said...

To prevail, the West will have to decimate Islam as an organized entity.

I think "Better Dhimmi than Dead" (ie no fighting against Islamization) is not really likely.

"Better Dhimmi than Genocidist" is probably a more accurate precis of the sentiment at work.

Brendan said...

Mr. Weston’s essay is an astounding piece of journalism which successfully presents - in a form easily accessible to the masses - the inescapable realities of 21st century Europe, and the associated horrors being inflicted upon the European people by a demonstrably insane ruling class who seem hell bent on engineering the great Eurocide. To what motivating factors or underlying pathology we could attribute such villainy, I have yet to entirely identify. However it is less an imperative that people understand why this is happening, than that they be made fully aware that it 'is' happening.

I have no doubt nothing short of a full scale pan-European civil war between those adhering to a Nationalist philosophy and those serving the ill-conceived philosophy of multiculturalism, can overthrow the status quo and grant Europe a timely reprieve from a certain fate. Such an event would require a mass awakening of the indigenous European population to the unpleasant realities of the wholesale transformation of Occidental civilisation which has been well underway for decades, and which has only gained momentum in recent years. Such a popular revolt would also require that a significant percentage of Europeans actually cared enough about their respective ethnic identities, and individual dignity and personal liberties to actually find the will and ultimately the strength to make a decisive stand in defence of their societies and respective ethnos, and consequently be willing to pay the price and make the sacrifices such defiance would demand.

Sacrifices which would include making what could be the heart breaking choice between standing by personal relationships with migrant friends, neighbours and colleagues, or relatives who have chosen to fully integrate into the multicult milllieu; and the greater imperative of taking all the painful steps necessary to ensure the survival of Western Civilisation, and the peoples whose existence make it possible. After being subjected for generations to the mind warping effects of the Multicult’s PC mind control tactics, I am not entirely sure Europeans can ever care strongly enough about abstracts such as National identity, hertitage , or tradition, to rouse themselves from the torpor of their depraved indifference, blissfully self-propagated ignorance, or fatalism. I am sure of one thing. They will eventually be dragged kicking and screaming from their refuge of comfortable conformity by the victorious masters of the Eurabian ummah who most certainly will plant the flag of their transplanted civilisation upon the shattered ruins of our own if something is not done to oppose the Islamicisation and multiculturalisation of Europe NOW!

Web editor

Sebnalak said...

In Thailand, where they represent five per cent of the populace, we have a country sliding inexorably toward civil war.

As a dutch guy who fled to Thailand from the Netherlands 5 years ago, I do not believe Thailand will slide into a civil war nor will they allow this to happen in their country. Their sence of National identity is extemely strong and has a basis in their indigenous religion (budhism). Evenly strong is their sence of freedom which they will certainly defend if the time comes (although they failed horribly in WWII).
The muslim disturbances caused in the south of Thailand are foreign (indonesian) funded. Which is as the Thai perceive them because they can freely conduct journalism regarding these issues, luckily they have not been infected by left wing multicultural ideologies and be portrayed as racists. They are pragmatists in their solutions and have already handled accordingly in relation to the muslim problems in the south.

Now to the bigger issue, option 5 is in my opinion the most likely outcome, an all out civil war in Western Europe. I saw this coming almost 20 years ago and openly announced major clashes between indigenous Dutch and muslim immigrants in my classroom. The result was 2 weeks of detension in which those horrible left wing teachers tried to talk guild into me reciting the atrocities of WWII. I do condemn those atrocities but it does not close my eyes from reality. With more and more incidents involving muslims in Europe happening you would have thought that it would have open the eyes of many fellow Europeans. But the rate in which they awaken is far to slow. My spirit finally broke, after years of trying to convince my fellow Dutchmen what was happening and being called a racist for it, when Pim Fortuyn was murdered. Also seeing my fellow Dutchmen being treated as 2nd class citizens in their own country doesn't help boosting one's spirit.
Cowardly looking from a safe distance to Europe brings me to the sad conclusion that very little has unfortunately changed except for the frequency of muslim related incidents and the boldness of those who cause them. The unwillingness of those in power to do even admit these problems despairs me, although there are some small signs of acknowledgement. Let's hope Europeans can overcome their comfortness and longlasting guilt in time to make a real stand.

Anonymous said...

Confrontation is by no means certain.
It remains possible that more than you think Muslims went to Europe and the West to flee Islam as it has been up to now. My experience of a French born in Algeria is that many, many of them just await the 'Roumis' ( the Romans: i.e. the Europeans) to stand up for their own civilization and are more than ready to embrace it.
The current European soft and mindless bureaucratic leadership doesn't let much chance to this to happen.

If there is a confrontation I expect first the official Europeans to be incapable as usual. but very soon an strong and determined alternative would burst out of the exceeded European people.
I bet that that many of the 'eleventh hour' fighters will come from France - a country prone to produce free thinkers and not so much leaning towards collective discipline as others may.
These people will act suddenly with a devastating surprise and ruthlessness, by commando type actions. To be short I expect - and I lament - a terrible Muslim bloodshed that will tame down their spirits. The French did do that already , I know it first hand, and one often overlooked psychological trait of the Muslim is that they revere sheer force. When they get beaten they tend to admire and serve their victor. This happened in Algeria where the French Paras were guided by young Algerian Muslims to the whereabouts of the guerillas. These guerillas were them summarily executed after having been forcefully questionned.
The giving up of Algeria - which is fine to me now - was mostly because Gen De Gaulle thought that the future of France was in building EU rather than fighting to keep its old Empire. Militarily it was an easy victory. After 1959, no Muslim terror activity was noticeable up to the end the 'events' were more of a civil war between French factions. A 'few' thousand French civilians 'disappeared for ever' in 1962 immediately after the Independance, but little happened while the French army was ruling the country.
Ruthless, strong minded people do exist in nowadays Europe and will show up when the time is ripe.
Will it be a good thing is another question.
I pity the Muslims in Europe.

Anonymous said...

Just adding a quick word: it's gonna be a liberal big inner city against gun-toting-clinging-to-religion small town/countryside thing as the ideological struggle in the US election shows right now.

Unknown said...

In Orwell's "1984" the only hope he saw rested with the "Proles". The growth of the Islamic population in the UK and Europe has been concurrent with the Political Left Elite's encouragementof a feral, uneducated, unemployed and violent underclass comprising non-Islamic whites and immigrants. Ironically, it may very well be these youth that are mobilised when the call to arms comes and even more ironically, they who save Western civilisation.

Johnny Caustic said...

I think there's one HUGE omission from this scenario: which side will China be on?

I think China will be allied with the Islamists. Therefore, it is not true that the Islamists have no chance of winning this war.