A Follow-Up to “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”
by El Inglés
It appears that my essay “Surrender, Genocide… or What?” attracted a certain amount of attention in a certain part of the blogosphere. Having enjoyed the resulting debate in much the same way one enjoys a blast of sea spray in the face from the prow of a boat, it is probably time to respond slightly more substantively than was possible in the occasional comments I made on various blogs. Any further invective hurled in my direction will simply be a reiteration of invective already gratefully received, and its impact, slight to begin with, greatly attenuated as a result. As such, I doubt I have anything to fear in further clarifying my position and extending my earlier analysis.This response will be split up into two sections. The first of them deals with the charges of fascism that were directed at the essay. The second section will examine more reasoned objections to various aspects of the content of the essay. I was pleasantly surprised to realize that, irrespective of how valid I considered any particular criticism to be, it could, where relevant, be incorporated into the analytical model I laid down in the essay with a minimum of difficulty. As such, I respond to criticisms in terms of the model as and when possible, given my increased confidence that it constitutes as useful an analytical tool as I am aware of in this regard.
Fascists ‘R’ Us
It came as no surprise to learn that there were those who considered the ideas outlined in the essay to be ‘fascist’ in nature. I owe these people, who flung a wide variety of accusations at me, my thanks. Given that the charges greatly increased the exposure of the essay, which large numbers of intelligent people seem to have read in good faith without seeing anything particularly inappropriate in it, the entire episode has turned out to be very gratifying so far.
It was suggested in certain quarters that the essay was toying with genocide, was dancing around the subject of genocide, and was in fact a piece of genocide porn. Furthermore, we were told, it reeked of fascist ideology, and advocated the adoption of the tools of fascism. The first set of claims has no clear meaning, and I do not propose to discuss it further. As for the second set, that pertaining to fascism, I am not interested in defending myself against it per se. The material is all online, and interested parties can read it and make up their own minds. However, this second set of claims does make the type of accusation that is sure to confront increasing numbers of us in the years to come. It might therefore be profitable to briefly discuss it here in an attempt to explore its most obvious flaws.
The observation that the word fascism has been stripped of meaning in popular discourse by slapdash use is hardly original. Rather than outline my own political philosophy to refute the claim that I am myself a fascist, I will simply point out that the essay in fact has no ideology of any sort in it, fascist or otherwise. Even the most careful reader of the essay would be at a loss to discern my opinions on any ideological issue at all:
- - - - - - - - -
Immigration in general? Nothing.
Importance of ethnic homogeneity in a country? Nothing.
Religion? Nothing.
Women’s rights, gay rights? Nothing.
Free markets, protectionism, privatization? Nothing.
Taxation? Nothing.
Big government vs. small? Nothing.
The environment? Nothing.
The electoral system? Nothing.
The military? Nothing.
Education, healthcare? Nothing.
Some might be tempted to argue that my brief recommendations at the end of the essay bespeak an ideological predisposition to use the coercive apparatus of the state to solve social problems. In fact, I recommend the use of said apparatus because, as the essay makes clear to those who read it without malice aforethought, I believe it is the only way there is any hope of dealing with the problems Islam presents us with before a non-electoral discontinuity becomes inevitable. Others are free to disagree, but the prescription I advance is no more intrinsically ideological than proposing the use of a hammer when inserting nails into wood.
As for the charge that, quite apart from any ideological considerations, I advocate the use of the tools of fascism, well, what are these supposed tools? They are, most obviously, deportations (which I do advocate), and concentration camps (a completely tendentious and loaded term used to refer to internment prior to deportation, something I do discuss and would indeed countenance if I thought the situation warranted it). Having acknowledged this, must I further acknowledge that my critics have a point when they chant ‘fascist’ at me?
In a word, no. I may very well be the most evil person in the history of the world, the illegitimate offspring of Adolf Hitler and Count Dracula, but that has no bearing on the issue one way or the other. The question is whether or not deportations and internment are the tools of fascism, and a brief survey makes it clear that they are anything but. Focusing on internment, a few historical examples will give a feeling for the sheer political variety of states that have availed themselves of this ‘fascist’ option:
| (1) | The internment of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans and resident Japanese aliens by the U.S. government during World War II. | |
| (2) | The internment of approximately 3,000 German and Austrian men in Australia during World War I. | |
| (3) | The internment of hundreds of thousands of Boers and black Africans by British forces during the Boer War (1899-1902), which led to the deaths through starvation and disease of as many as 40,000 people from both groups. | |
| (4) | The internment of as many as 1.5 million Kenyans by British authorities during the Mau-Mau Uprising (1954-1960), which resulted in the deaths of well over 100,000 people. | |
| (5) | The internment and murder of millions of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other targeted groups by Nazi Germany during World War II. | |
| (6) | Current internment of an estimated 200,000 political prisoners in North Korea. | |
| (7) | Internment of an estimated 18 million people in gulags throughout the Soviet Union between 1929 and 1953. |
Interested parties can review many further historical examples of internment and deportations quite easily on Wikipedia. The examples quoted here will surely suffice to establish the geographical and political diversity of polities that have interned substantial numbers of people, the impossibility of ascribing such policies to a single ideology, and the difficulty involved in categorizing them as being fascist or not. Was the U.S. a fascist state during World War II, as indicated in (1)? Or can one intern innocent people during wartime without descending into fascism, freeing the U.S. in (1) and Australia in (2) from having to face this charge? Or is Australia, in (2), not exempt, because it had not suffered a direct attack prior to commencing the internment, as the U.S. had at Pearl Harbour? Was Australia then a fascist state during World War I? Or were the numbers interned too small? Or too white? Or too German?
If being at war is indeed a mitigating factor, do we decide that the Nazi internment of Jews in Sobibor and Treblinka (both constructed well into World War II), in (5), was not fascist, though their mass murder was? Given that the UK is currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, can it consider interning some of its Muslim population without having to worry about being fascist? Or is a common religion, in contrast with a common ethnicity or nationality, not sufficient justification? If being at war in these two Muslim countries is not enough, our own Muslim population being predominantly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, can we start interning them in a non-fascist manner as long as we are decent enough to declare war on Pakistan and Bangladesh in advance? Or are we already at war with Pakistan given its support for our Taliban foes in Afghanistan, and therefore allowed to start interning Pakistanis without delay?
This blizzard of conceptual difficulties becomes all the thicker when we move on to a fairly depressing pair of examples of British internment during the days and in the territories of the British Empire. The Kenyan example (4) is particularly horrifying, and the Boer internment (3) constitutes one of the more underwhelming innovations of the Victorian period, to put it mildly. Was Britain a fascist state from 1954-1960? And in 1899-1902? Did it flick back and forth between fascism just in time to fight World War II against fascism? Or was it not fascist at all because we were careful to inflict these horrors outside our own country? Does that matter? Were we fascists abroad and constitutional monarchists at home? Is that possible? Was the Soviet Union a fascist entity, with its gulags (7) identifying it as such? Is the North Korean version of the gulag system (6) also the product of a fascist government?
One of the methods of execution favoured by the Einsatzgruppen during their extermination sprees on the Eastern Front was the machine-gunning of victims into mass graves, often dug by the victims themselves. Shall we conclude that machine guns are the tools of Nazism? It certainly seems plausible: fascists have used internment and deportation, which are therefore the tools of fascism; Nazis have used machine guns, which are therefore the tools of Nazism. U.S. forces in Iraq are therefore Nazis, as were Israeli forces during the Six Day War, and British forces during the Falklands War. The logic is inescapable, if logic is not your strong point.
Machine guns are not the tools of Nazism, any more than internment or deportation are the tools of fascism. Machine guns are the tools of those who have chosen to extend a certain kind of kinetic lethality over distances reaching out to several hundred yards. Internment is the tool of those who believe that large numbers of people must be segregated from the wider world, temporarily or permanently. Deportation is the tool of those who believe that some number of people must be permanently removed from certain territories. That is all. They are simply different mechanisms of physical coercion. The morality of their use in any particular situation can be debated without end. But to consider either internment or deportation to be intrinsically fascist would be equivalent to considering the firing of machine guns at people to be intrinsically Nazi-like. Is this the position of those who have labelled me in these terms? Are they happy to defend this position?
Enough. No more evidence of the fatuousness of equating internment or deportations with fascism is required here. If I seem complacent about the possibility of interning and/or deporting large numbers of people from my own country, let me make it clear that I am not. I consider the possibility of having to do such things horrendous, not least because it would constitute a hideous injury to the very fabric of my society. But there are other injuries that a country can suffer, some of them fatal, and drawing closer by the day. I make no apology for choosing the lesser of the two evils, as I perceive them.
Other Points and Criticisms
Assimilation — Possible After All?
The first and perhaps most frequent criticism of my essay was that I had ignored the possibility of Muslims assimilating into European society. Strictly speaking, it was not ignored, it was simply dismissed in ‘The Danish Civil War’ which “Surrender, Genocide… or What?” took as a starting point. However, I must confess that even ‘The Danish Civil War’ only contained a relatively peremptory discussion of the issue, so there is clearly some clarification required in this regard.
What does it mean to assimilate? I will adopt an operational definition here, in which assimilation refers to a state of affairs in which it is simply not observed that an immigrant community behaves in such a manner as to create any significant threat to the viability or security of the host country. Hindus and Sikhs are therefore assimilated in the UK, irrespective of the depth or breadth of their attachment to aspects of their original cultures, religions or languages. Muslims, obviously, are not. Whether or not immigrant groups disproportionately responsible for crime, such as Jamaicans, would be considered assimilated under this definition is an open question, but not one of any particular relevance here.
Needless to say, a small enough Muslim population will always appear to be assimilated according to this definition, and a large enough immigrant population of whatever type might not be considered assimilated, irrespective of how productive and law-abiding it might be. I, for example, have great regard for the Hindu population of the UK (we fascists and ethnic cleansers often do), but would have difficulty considering it assimilated if it made up 50% of the population of the country.
Definition out of the way, what do we observe in Europe with respect to Muslim populations? We observe that not a single one of these populations (Finnish Tatars to one side, as I consider them to represent a fundamentally different phenomenon) ever exhibits any significant degree of assimilation other than the faux assimilation of massive numerical inferiority. We observe further that even this faux assimilation breaks down at an astonishingly low fractional Muslim population. Anyone who doubts this would do well to consider the demonstrations in the UK following the publishing of The Satanic Verses in 1989, during which thousands of Muslims openly and publicly called for the death of Salman Rushdie. I am uncertain of the size of the Muslim population in 1989, but given that it is not thought to be much greater than 3% at present, and has grown massively in the last 19 years, the basic point is clear.
In addition to the above, we can make a further observation: as mentioned above, other racially similar populations (namely Hindus and Sikhs, the UK’s Muslim population originated overwhelmingly in Pakistan and Bangladesh) have assimilated into UK society with few obvious difficulties for the society at large, irrespective of the difficulties that they themselves undoubtedly had to overcome in the process. No other groups of immigrants cause anything like the fundamental, and in my opinion existential, problems that Muslims do, and Muslims always cause them once their numbers are anything other than trivial.
Given the absence of examples of real assimilation (i.e. assimilation at non-trivial fractional populations), it is surely legitimate to suggest that the burden of proof is on those who would argue that Muslims will, or even can, assimilate. Let them explain why that which did not happen, in the early days of Muslim integration, before today’s problems even existed, can happen in the hugely polarized and rapidly disintegrating situation that already obtains in several European countries. Until I hear substantive arguments to this effect, I will continue to reject the possibility of assimilation as defined here.
The Aztec Strategy
It has been suggested by a fairly bad-tempered commenter at Gates of Vienna that what I shall call the Aztec Strategy is not only an option to add to the three I presented as being exhaustive in the essay, but the option of choice for the discerning citizen concerned about Islamization. It seems to consist of destroying every obvious physical manifestation of the religion in question, and making it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the former adherents of said religion are to behave themselves, or else. As I understand it, an implementation of the Aztec Strategy would see the razing of mosques, the killing of imams and other prominent Muslims, the burning of copies of the Quran, and the prohibition of any practice of Islam.
Very well, how does this option look in light of my model? Let us suppose that Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party in the Netherlands were to be elected today, with an outright majority, to give the country an electoral discontinuity as described in the essay. Mr Wilders, after due consideration, appears on Dutch television declaring that he has decided to implement the Aztec Strategy in the Netherlands, with the tanks rumbling into position in key urban areas as he speaks. Is it not reasonably obvious that this would collapse the electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity, with the entire country descending into chaos and flames in about five minutes? The Aztec Strategy becomes moot as soon as it is implemented in a country like the Netherlands, for reasons explained in detail in “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”.
What about a country like Finland, with a much smaller Muslim population than that of the Netherlands? Could the Aztec Strategy be successfully implemented there? I suspect the answer is yes. But let us be clear about the sheer brutality that the Aztec Strategy entails: the systematic execution of large numbers of unarmed people, the casualties that would be incurred, overwhelmingly on the Muslim side, as mosques were bulldozed and homes searched for things Islamic to be carried off and burned. If a government, post electoral discontinuity, had the sheer will to act in such a manner, why would it need to? Why not bring a halt to Muslim immigration, deport whatever fraction of the Muslim population seemed appropriate (focusing on those without Finnish citizenship, those with criminal records, those who had explicitly demanded Islamization, young males, the unemployed, etc.), and make the new anti-Islamic stance of the country clear to all concerned? This would be a much easier policy to implement, much more humane, much less damaging to the country’s international standing, and much less likely to cause scars to the psychological fabric of the country as a whole.
To sum up, the Aztec Strategy will be one of two things. It will either be a mechanism for instantly collapsing an electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity, rendering itself meaningless by spurring an escalation that rapidly swamps it, or it will be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, a needlessly brutal response to a problem best handled differently. Unless the strategy includes subtleties that I have missed so far, it is hard to see that there is much to recommend it.
What is the Law For?
Another common objection to the essay was that European countries could deal with the danger of Islamization by simply choosing to enforce the law. Make it clear that the law of the land is to be obeyed, without the police turning a blind eye to the honour killings, forced marriages, and rampant criminality of Muslims, and everything would turn out fine. This rather touching idea is superficially appealing, to be sure. We have laws. We must apply them. Muslims will then understand who is the boss. All our problems will go away.
This, supposedly, is the fourth option missing from my essay that allows us to deal with our Muslim problem without drastically reducing its numbers. I will ignore the obvious objection that Muslims are already deeply engaged in the process of applying various types of pressure throughout Europe to have the law corrupted and corroded to suit their own purposes, for the simple reason that the idea falls flat on its face even before such pernicious long-term considerations are taken into account. The law enforcement apparatus of a country is not some arbitrarily flexible and powerful entity capable of simply ‘enforcing the law’ anytime it pleases. Consisting of, at a minimum, the police, the courts, and the prison system, it is a massively expensive entity, representing decades, if not centuries, of accumulated expertise, institutional memory, physical infrastructure, and law enforcement doctrine. It is not designed, created, or maintained willy-nilly, with no regard for the characteristics of the country in question. Rather, it is a tool designed to achieve certain ends in a reasonably effective and efficient manner.
Syria is run by an Alawite clique that will very quickly find itself swinging from lampposts, along with large numbers of its co-religionists, in the event of a successful revolution. It has therefore constructed a law enforcement apparatus (not to mention a military) predominantly for the purpose of pre-empting, defusing, and, if necessary, crushing any threats to its rule, not for issuing parking tickets or arresting people for singing songs about turbans. Japan, on the other hand, a democracy where the system of government enjoys exceptional legitimacy, racial strife is essentially non-existent, riots and civil disturbances virtually unheard of, crime rates exceptionally low, and people not socially or culturally inclined to violence, has a completely different law enforcement apparatus, with the most frequent roles of the Japanese police being the issuing of directions and the stopping of cyclists to check that their transportation has not been registered as stolen. If the Japanese police were suddenly faced with Syrian-style law enforcement ‘challenges,’ are we so foolish as to believe they would be able to deal with them by just ‘enforcing the law’?
Continuing in this vein, it should be clear that European police forces are not, by any stretch of the imagination, in a position to enforce the law with respect to large Muslim populations, a task radically beyond their capabilities. To generalize for a moment, European police forces have been tailored to the law enforcement requirements of policing relatively law-abiding, prosperous countries, where systems of government and law enjoy general approval. They were not created to pacify rapidly growing and chronically criminal, if not seditious, Muslim populations. Suggesting that, for example, Sweden enforce the law amongst its Muslim population with its existing police force is like equipping a lumberjack with a bread knife and then insisting that he cut down an oak tree.
Those who are not yet convinced by my claim that this option does not constitute a meaningful addition to the three in my essay should consider the following thought experiment. France has a Muslim population (be they nominal or actually practicing Muslims) of approximately 10% of the population. The estimates vary, but exact figures are not really relevant here, so I will take the 10% as a round figure. Could the French state simply solve the existential problems posed to it by its Muslim population by ‘enforcing the law’ without collapsing what would be, in effect, analogous to an electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity? Could it tame those suburbs where the writ of French law does not currently seem to run without escalating the situation beyond control or recall? Let us suppose that it could. Could it do the same with a Muslim population of 15%? Let us suppose that this too would be possible. If we continue to increase the Muslim population by increments of 5%, it is fairly obvious that, eventually, we reach a point where this successful law-based pacification would simply not be possible. Given that this situation must exist at and above some fractional Muslim population, it is surely legitimate to consider where this demarcation point might lie.
I will not pretend to be able to answer this question with any accuracy, but anyone who has given any serious thought to the riots in France in 2005 would, I am confident, have difficulty concluding that the French state was in a position to enforce the law throughout its territory without sending in the army. To reiterate, the French law enforcement apparatus is simply not designed to control vast swathes of territory inhabited by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of angry young males prepared to use violence up to and including the lethal against the police. Indeed, it barely seems to be able to contain their quotidian criminality, let alone the nationwide flare-ups of said criminality. ‘Enforcing the law’ is no more an option in dealing with burgeoning, unassimilable Muslim populations than the waving of magic wands, or the sprinkling of pixie dust. It is not an alternative to the options laid down in the original essay in key countries of concern, and even in those where it might still be, the window of opportunity closes a little further every year. Of course we should enforce the law as and when we can. But anyone who thinks that this prescription will suffice needs to start arguing their case in a more serious manner, for it has little substance at present.
In Closing
What prompted me to write the essay that evoked such a strong response in some quarters? A desire to whip up a nationwide pogrom against Muslims and rule The Crusading Republic of Albion from atop a throne of cloven Muslim skulls? Or a desire to instigate mob violence and civil disintegration which I could then enjoy as I skulked, cackling maniacally, through the streets of London?
Sadly, the answer is ‘neither of the above.’ If only I were that exciting, that dangerous, that great an evil mastermind. No, the reason I wrote the essay is far more prosaic. Many websites and media sources spend a lot of time and energy charting the trajectory of Islamization in Europe, whether through original reporting or collating and analyzing incidents and trends brought to light by others. But implicit in all this activity is the notion that, if events continue along their current course, something unpleasant awaits us. Were this not the case, and were an increasingly Islamized future not likely to be worse in any way than our non-Islamized past, why pay any attention to the issue? Why give it a moment’s thought?
I think I can legitimately say that I did in my essay what every single person who has ever expressed any concern about Islamization has done: I made some predictions. But instead of making them unconsciously, vaguely, ambiguously, implicitly, or internally, I made them consciously, in detail, clearly, explicitly, and in written form in a public forum. I also made them as rigorously as possible, and explained at length the reasons I considered them valid. Having done this, I explained briefly what I would do to deal with the situation in my own country. The prescriptions here were intentionally lacking in detail, as formulating an actionable policy response would require far more information and expertise than I possess. Nonetheless, they do constitute a rough outline of what I believe would constitute an appropriate and measured defence against the ongoing Islamization of my country.
I will not pretend to understand the mentality of those who dedicate considerable time and energy to charting the course of Islamization, only to denounce as fascists those who try to predict where that course might lead us, or what we should do on the basis of those predictions. However, it seems (and you must picture me twiddling my handlebar moustache as I say this) that the usefulness of these people is rapidly coming to an end. If they are willing to hasten their slide into irrelevance through publicly displaying their own foolishness, I am perfectly happy to provide them with opportunities to do so.
21 comments:
I thought your first essay was excellent and thought-provoking, and I did not see you advocating genocide at all. You simple examined what will be facing us in the future, which is an important thing to consider.
The current situation the world is in cannot continue. Eventually, there will be big changes, whether it's the Muslims more aggressively trying to take over or us resisting them properly. Personally, I think a huge war is coming - one that will make WWII look small.
Though I can't imagine you were thrilled about being called a fascist (since being called nasty names without good cause is never fun, to say the least), but at least your essay got good circulation and hopefully made people think.
I don't think Fascism is possible in the EU any more. What people forget is that Fascism requires a large body of young men willing to, to put it baldly, kill people to maintain or achieve political objectives.
There simply is not enough young men, with no other options open, and a history of military engagement (to break cultural taboos against violence and killing). Germany alone has a lot of East German men without any real prospect of employment, but they lack the ingredient of WWI experience seen in Nazi Germany.
What is likely IMHO as two populations, European post-Christian and Muslim, struggle for control of territory and resources, is what we have seen in other regions: Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Not fascism (which requires too much resources, too much money, men, organization).
There is no real desire on any political platform, even fascist ones such as Germany's NPD, to do much of anything. No one has energy, money, and the great bubbling manpower stew of post WWI Europe.
Instead, you are going to see IMHO terror and counter-terror. As in Malaysia, where anti-Chinese riots spark up (until China became too dangerous a regional power) whenever Malays feel threatened, see also Indonesia. The Philippines is also a good model, with Muslim Moros and Christian Filipinos constantly battling with terror/counter-terror for control of the archipelago.
The reason for this is the inability to marshal serious resources. Broken/weak societies tend to have constant, low-level, violent warfare as in most tribal societies. There are no non-combatants, no front lines and rear areas, no civilians, no rules.
In the long run however, it might be very likely that decades of tribal-style warfare provokes a desire among Europeans for a Cromwell. Someone who will end the killing by decisively killing the enemy.
Europe is not the Philippines, in that it has far greater resources, tends to act in communal ways, along "mega-tribe" boundaries (i.e. Frenchmen vs. a clan in the Cote D'Azure). I don't see "tribal warfare" being a stable situation as in the Philippines or Indonesia.
Excellent essay. As to just 'enforcing the law' that option becomes less and less possible as the muslim population grows. Charges of 'racism' and 'disproportionate impact' will crop up all over the media. Muslims will vote to weaken crime enforcement, or will use jury nullification to just get their fellow muslims out of jail. (though I guess jury nullification is only an American concept) In any event, it all becomes moot as the muslim population reaches 40 or 50% because enforcing the law at that point is the same as civil war, and by 2050 those numbers aren't in the least unreasonable. The birth rates are simply dictating our future choices by the day.
I would just like to draw attention to the correct use of terminology when using terms like assimilating/assimilated/assimilation etc..
I believe that for an example, bothe the Hindus and Sikhs are "intergrated" rather than being "assimilated". Assimilation means:
"The process whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture."
I would go even further to state that assimilation is accompanied with a lack of connection with the land the immigrant originally hailed from.
Any ethnic or relgious group or both, that still maintain their cultural and religious heritage, while being fully accepting of the host cultures habits and norms...is intergrated, not assimilated.
The Celts became assimilated, that's why as a people, they no longer exist. The same can be said of a whole host of ancient societies that no longer exist. They fully accepted the culture of the host or dominantating society in which they immigrated to, or found themselves in, due to war and otherwise etc..
What we are looking for is a deeping intergration, and if a people become assimilated along the way, due to choice, so be it.
I don't think Fascism is possible in the EU any more.
Unfortunately, I disagree. I believe it is being implemented in the shape of the European Union, which picks up such Fascist standards as 'Unity', 'Projecting our power in the world', silencing dissent and voiding democratic procedures for the cause of 'The common good'.
There's much more to be said about this, for it's subtle, hard to identify and harder yet to convey.
I agree with the author. The simple question for the average reader is: what can I do, right now?
Well, for one there's supporting successfull political parties that combat islamization, most prominently Geert Wilders' PVV in The Netherlands:
[from the site]
Please support our struggle. The battle for the survival of freedom is not something we can do all by ourselves. Party for Freedom (PVV) is the only political party in Dutch Parliament that refuses government subsidy. Therefore, we are dependent on your support. We need your help urgently, as costs are mounting. Freedom isn’t free.
You can make a contribution to:
Stichting Vrienden van de PVV (Foundation Friends of PVV), in The Hague, the Netherlands. Bank account 67.04.72.344
IBAN: NL98 INGB 0670 4723 44 - BIC: INGBNL2A
Sag.
Lebanon and the Balkans offer excellent previews of coming attractions - Not only in Europe, but in the US, Canada, and Australia as well. All seem to be at different points on the same road.
EU 'Unity' will probably turn out to be about as effective as previous examples of involuntary 'unity' - Yugoslavia and the USSR. An absolute best case scenario would be Canada's rather tenuous and uncertain 'unity'. If the EU is able to impose unity, I anticipate a Yugoslavian pressure cooker type scenario. If the EU cannot impose unity, it's another Lebanon in the making. Both offer the same tragic result - they just offer slightly different timelines.
The historical parallels are there. I find it impossible to deny them.
Fascism has been redefined by the left to mean anything they disagree with. On any issue that conservatives or libertarians differ with the left, they are branded as 'fascist' even if it is an issue that the left agrees with the policies of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, such as government control of the economy.
Thus, if a conservative in the USA questions whether human are causing global warming, he is branded a 'fascist' by the left. Likewise, anyone who doubted the false accusation of Crystal Mangum against the Duke lacrosse players.
" Suggesting that, for example, Sweden enforce the law amongst its Muslim population with its existing police force is like equipping a lumberjack with a bread knife and then insisting that he cut down an oak tree."
- - - - -
Sagunto said...
"I agree with the author.
The simple question for the average reader is:
what can I do, right now?"
- - - - -
The question for a simple specific reader is:
what must I do, right now?
what am I forced to do, to maybe get out of this mess?
- with the whole apparatus of
the Rotten Shithouse Sweden against me!
You will find the answer to this question here: CLICK!
My dear El Ingles , That is probably the finest philosophical essay on politics that I have had the privilege of reading in many a year .
The incontestable logic of your propositions are refreshing in a time of mediocre drivel . I wish you well Sir .
... the essay in fact has no ideology of any sort in it ...
At least until such a time when oppressive tyrannies declare liberty and freedom to be "ideologies", that is.
The question is whether or not deportations and internment are the tools of fascism ...
Not when they remain what is rapidly becoming a sole option in defeating one of the most fascist doctrines to ever come down the pike.
... the impossibility of ascribing such policies to a single ideology ...
Unless you just happen to be one of those expansive neoliberals who firmly believe that Great Britain, Australia and America are ALL fascist entities.
Or were the numbers interned too small? Or too white?
Danger, Will Robinson!!! Danger! Independent thought that defies Political Correctness closing fast!
Or is a common religion, in contrast with a common ethnicity or nationality, not sufficient justification?
BANG! Only by declaring Islam a political ideology can this exceptionally uncomfortable question be avoided. Seeing that the first alternative is probably even more distasteful to Transnational Progressive Multiculturalists, look for neither to happen.
... the Boer internment (3) constitutes one of the more underwhelming innovations of the Victorian period ...
As I near the end of James Michener's "The Covenant", this is all too apparent.
No other groups of immigrants cause anything like the fundamental, and in my opinion existential, problems that Muslims do, and Muslims always cause them once their numbers are anything other than trivial.
At day's end, this is the central issue. It has nothing to do with assimilation and everything to do with jihad, be it slow or fast. Wherever Muslims go, jihad—with its caravansary of shari'a inflicted murder and misery—follows. EVERYWHERE. This goes to the heart of Islam's fascist nature and the harsh measures that are always required in dealing with it.
In the vast majority of cases, Muslims and shari'a are inextricably conjoined. As a consequence, the only way of eliminating shari'a law's vicious brutality is removal from general society of those who insist upon its enactment. Ergo, the almost obligatory resort to repatriation, deportation or internment.
We have laws. We must apply them. Muslims will then understand who is the boss. All our problems will go away.
Au contraire. Such is not necessarily so when confronted with the unique case of Muslims and their beloved shari'a law. It confers upon Muslims the religiously sanctioned right to criminally skirt all existing Infidel-enacted laws and thereby merits a far more substantial response than mere law enforcement.
This is why most of the central arguments consistently return to the subject of state-applied coercion. Once a minority Muslim population has risen above non-trivial numbers (i.e., ~3-5%), the efficacy of law enforcement abruptly declines. Witness Paris’ banlieues and Britain’s near 200 no-go zones.
Unlike Islam, civilized Western society has relinquished any predominate role in initiating the application of force. By common consent, this task is delegated to the state with municipalities given a minor role in police interdiction and prosecution. Absent any significant discontinuity, large-scale application of coercive force can only be applied by the state. Once the state abdicates this primary obligation to its citizens, surrender or discontinuity—electoral or otherwise—become the only alternatives.
If the Japanese police were suddenly faced with Syrian-style law enforcement ‘challenges,’ are we so foolish as to believe they would be able to deal with them by just ‘enforcing the law’?
Superb comparison!
I also made them as rigorously as possible, and explained at length the reasons I considered them valid.
Please rest assured that this is what your opponents found so offensive. You did not resort to any vaguery and thereby prohibited your foes all resort to their favored form of nuance.
If they are willing to hasten their slide into irrelevance through publicly displaying their own foolishness, I am perfectly happy to provide them with opportunities to do so.
And so you did, in spades. Congratulations are in order, Sir.
Jungle Jim: Fascism has been redefined by the left to mean anything they disagree with.
Is there nothing that expansive neoliberalism can’t do?
When all is said and done, it is vital to remember that any of the foregoing measures—unappealing though they might be—are not entirely a result of Western thinking so much as they automatically derive from confronting an intransigent and triumphalist doctrine like Islam. We have seen such doctrines before: Be it in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or Communist Russia.
The one key difference is that Islam is not just triumphalist but also apocalyptic. This amalgam is extremely dangerous in that it erases many usual avenues of deterrance. In dealing with such a foe, there is a far more swift crossover from skirmish-based warfare to inflicting mass casualties, be they military or civilian. When martyrdom is relished, only death on a truly horrendous scale can make any lasting impression. Islam counts upon this.
It is this precipitous crossover—so repugnant to most Westerners—that Islam relies upon to blunt popular opposition. In it’s ultra-minority phase, Islam exhibits what El Inglés’s correctly identifies as “the faux assimilation of massive numerical inferiority”. Shortly thereafter—even at 5%-10% minority levels—Muslims quite rapidly become a festering societal canchre that requires ever-increasing accomodation (i.e., dhimmitude), or flat-out excision.
Modern society is so used to constitutional rule-of-law’s bloodless political machinations that even the most surgical measures seem gory by comparison. Factor in how Islam—through terrorism and low-intensity warfare—intentionally ratchets up all conflict to a point of requisite massively disproportionate retaliation and it becomes easy to see why so many liberal governments do not have the stomach required for response-in-kind. Again, Islam counts upon this.
While this may seem to be a failing upon Western government’s part, our overwhelming adoption of peaceful political transition is not a weakness. It is a worthy and civilized tool that Islam is weaponizing against us. This is already being done by Muslims with our sense of fair play, transparency, humanity and democratic practices in general. Let there be no doubt that even our most cherished traditions will be honed to a keen edge before Islam thrusts them back at our collective jugular.
Once more, it is not the West’s fault that resurgent Islam must always be countered with brutal force. Islam’s own barbaric nature literally demands it. Either we summon up the backbone to address Islam on its own terms or it will address us on its own savage terms. What little choice remains is ours. As El Inglés so aptly put it: “Surrender, Genocide…or What?”
"Was Australia then a fascist state during World War I? Or were the numbers interned too small? Or too white? Or too German?"
Brilliant, as usual.
Great "answer", El Inglés but I think you were not "oblige" to deffend yourself this way. Nice you did it though.
"As I understand it, an implementation of the Aztec Strategy would see the razing of mosques, the killing of imams and other prominent Muslims, the burning of copies of the Quran, and the prohibition of any practice of Islam."
It makes my blood memory remember the Reconquista...
Now seriously, I did not like much your article because it was too detailed. We can not predict the future like that. Not obstanding, I recognise the good work and intention you have deposit that. So it is a good piece, just not for my taste. Your merit is still on.
Also, it is polemical so I like it!
Continue with your essays El Ingles, don't matter what!
Whiskey 199
"I don't think Fascism is possible in the EU any more. What people forget is that Fascism requires a large body of young men willing to, to put it baldly, kill people to maintain or achieve political objectives."
Do never say that again. History repeats itself. Rome was never excpecting to be overthrone by barbarians from the North; Egypt was not expecting to be assaulted by the sea peoples; The European Powers in the beggining of the XX century could never imagine they would face decolonisation in fifty years time; etc.
And when one looks to the Nationalist movements in Russia and Serbia, when one looks to hooligans all over Western Europe one starts to think if people are not capable of dying for something or if they simply do not have a motive for due for. Yet.
The next genrations of Conservatives will become more and more radicalised. As someone noted. The worst ethnic conflicts happen when there is no "strait line" dividing the two ethnicities: Jews and Germans; Hutus and Tutsis; Muslim Bosniak and the rest; many follow.
My thinking is there will of course, not be a fascsit future, but one thing I guarantee you, the future will become more and more Nationalistic (well, it is already, out of the "European Civilisation") and there are lots of youth who are capable of dying for something. And as living conditions detroriates, it will become more and more evident. I hope you to read that that youth is European. Haven't you seen 200.000 Serbs manifestating over the Kosovo incident and burning the Amerian embassy?
How many were above 40 years? Almost none. And the country only has 9 million people.
It will not be pretty.
"No one has energy, money, and the great bubbling manpower stew of post WWI Europe."
As Samuel Huntington pointed out, the Nationalistic Movements in Europe are becoming more and more literate. What means, it may soon become an elite thinking. And with the elite, there comes money.
Also, this leftist EUists have shown their incapacity.
In twenty ~ thirty years there will be an elite which may be of Nationalistic Carachter (fascist, for many) and will compete against this masters of ours for dominion.
Also, KGS is right.
The Irish and Italians are assimilated in American Society, the African Americans and Asians are integrated. Simply as that.
Ciao El Ingles,
Very good follow-up. And here in Italy with the recent popular uprisings against the Gypsies, your hypotheses/predictive scenarios - as far as I'm concerned - were validated, whereas Charles Johnson's kneejerk reaction against you and those who aired, shared, considered your views, now puts him precisely in line with the vanquished remnants of the ultra-left who AUTOMATICALLY whined about Fascism following the new right-wing government's recent crackdown. "Crackdown" in this case means a fairly mild application of legality. Nothing really to get heady about, but in Rome at least, people are already immensely happier.
Listen to the people and actually DO something to solve real and terribly serious problems and right away you're a Fascist.
The ultra-left here in Italy lost its working class support to the Leghisti precisely because they got completely out of touch with their traditional constituencies. People who for years were carefree masters of their cities are now terrified and the great idealists, instead of picking up the vibes, merely went on spouting their ideological homilies. Reminds me of that Saturday Night Live skit with John Belushi in which the NBC executives, i.e. reality (mistaken for aliens) come to cancel the show.
Here's the transcript of the parody. Make the proper substitutions, i.e. Nielson ratings the people, the Star Trek comedians the leftist elites.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75vstartrek.phtml
I liked your approach. You really did not make any ideological statements pinning you to any party. For all I know you might be a socialist or a gay liberationist or a feminist or a tree-hugger. And if you are, though I would disagree with you, God bless you anyway.
Most of us believe in the universal brotherhood of man, but we haven't forgotten the story about those brothers called Cain and Abel. We too, like the elites, also have dreams and ideals, but we still have sanity, a residual sense of reality. And it tells us that evil and enemies exist, that great civilizations are vulnerable precisely because they're gentler than the barbarians.
Along with great plans for the future we also have an appreciation for the past and precisely because we're fond of change, not an inch must be ceded to those who have not only their ideals, but even their practices written in stone.
The more clever among us understand that the real questions predate democracy, that they are religious / ethical in nature, and that democracy, fine as it is, cannot work with certain mentalities. In other words, it's not a game like soccer in which everyone knows the rules and respects the refs, but a struggle for the rules themselves. As you can't have soccer with the different teams playing by different rules, you can't have a society with different bottomline moralities. Different schools of thought perhaps, just as we have different styles of soccer, from the rough and athletic to the elegant and playful, but we don't have one team allowed to use their hands and another forced to wear ski boots.
Mosques galore here and nary a church there? Satirists free to mock our religions, but arrested for mocking theirs? Our people arrested for hate speech, while their Koranic hate speech gets govt. subsidies.
And those who not only denounce the foolish imbalances but wish to restore fairness and sanity are Fascists for fearing that the opprobrium of the above-mentioned soccer game has within it the elements of a rapid deteroration, not just in the playing field but also in the stands?
Fascist? Proposing genocide? Amusing how similar experiences I've, or any other "conservative" European poster or blogger has gone through. It really is another aspect of the War of the Words. Those opposed to conservatives or supporting leftists views label everything they disagree with fascists or racist.
Criticize multiculturalism as a national policy? Racist!
A country requires immigrants to read official documents in the native language of their the new host country? Apartheid!
Criticize any aspects of the immigration after 50s? You are comparable to Adolph Hitler or worse!
Propose that the police maintain and enforce the law? Fascism!
Request that muslim (or any other immigrant) to spend time within the confines of an Immigration Center while their asylum requests are processed? Auschwitch!
Not only that, but even THINGS, facts that exist within our reality, as in not mere views or a political standing but solid matter have become "fascist" or "racist", with which I mean that even discussing or mentioning a phenomenon like white flight, disproportionate criminalty among Muslim immigrants, the problems in French banlieus, the alarming spread of criminalty and lawlesness in Sweden, you name it, has become fascist or racist. He or she who utter out loud any of these things is a fascist, and therefore, can very conveniently be ignored.
At last! The age of the fact is upon us. El Ingles' purely factual essay is a beautiful confirmation of it...
KGS;
The assimilation vs. integration (note spelling: not "intergration") is crucial. But assimilation specifically involves substantive loss of cultural behaviors and heritage by the assimilated (though the process is not entirely one-sided, it is predominantly so). This is a multi-generational process, and much harder for some groups than others.
We all know enclaves of various cultures that didn't assimilate; some are charming, some are not. Muslims who assimilate are actually rare, because it involves major repudiation of almost everything significant about Islam.
So El Inglese's analysis comes down to saying that it's not just a "Clash" which is inevitable, but outright war. On everyone's home turf. The obsessed and dedicated few have their usual advantages; a potentially maddened majority has its advantages.
I think E-I's point is that there are no plausible exits before that confrontation.
The best illustration is handling by Russia Muslim insurgency in Chechnya. The declared goal was reestablishment of constitutional order in this breakaway province turned into pirate state, that is, law enforcement. But it took army to achieve. Since insurgents were heavy armed and entrenched, even using tanks and artillery was not enough, it took gunships and carpet bombing of city blocks to establish order. Some European politicians called it genocide, but this never was a goal: only disarmament of insurgents and restoring law andorder.
Hello Inglés,
I fully agree with the first two points, but not with the last ones.
The reference to internment camps is very opportune. I mean internment, not extermination facilities or extenuating labour camps. They were the solution to one of the most poignant ethical dilemmas of mankind: what to do with people who belong to a group who is in a state of war with us. The obvious decision is to kill them, only civilisations highly respectful with human live would intern them in order to keep them in check but alive. Of course, usually the living conditions are extremely hard, and the death toll is extremely high.
The first example that I know comes from Thucydides, CHAPTER XXIV, at the end:
The prisoners in the quarries were at first hardly treated by the Syracusans. Crowded in a narrow hole, without any roof to cover them, the heat of the sun and the stifling closeness of the air tormented them during the day, and then the nights, which came on autumnal and chilly, made them ill by the violence of the change; besides, as they had to do everything in the same place for want of room, and the bodies of those who died of their wounds or from the variation in the temperature, or from similar causes, were left heaped together one upon another, intolerable stenches arose; while hunger and thirst never ceased to afflict them, each man during eight months having only half a pint of water and a pint of corn given him daily. In short, no single suffering to be apprehended by men thrust into such a place was spared them. For some seventy days they thus lived all together, after which all, except the Athenians and any Siceliots or Italiots who had joined in the expedition, were sold. The total number of prisoners taken it would be difficult to state exactly, but it could not have been less than seven thousand.
The Spaniards also concentrated a defeated French army in a small island, Cabrera. Only 3600 survived out of 9000.
Nevertheless, as regards the Aztec Strategy, I also think it can be an adequate option. May be the name is misleading. The Aztecs could be subjugated by very few Spanish:
Cortés' contingent consisted of 11 ships carrying about 100 sailors, 530 soldiers (including 30 crossbowmen and 12 harquebusiers), a doctor, several carpenters, at least eight women, a few hundred Cuban Indians and some Africans, both freedmen and slaves (Wikipedia).
Once defeated the leading class the process was not violent, as the historical enemies of Spanish Monarchy claim (the Black Legend). I think that it can be implemented gradually. For instance, we saw recently that a Mosque was suppressed in Italy. I think that this is the way.
I also think that the Law (police and judiciary measures) can play its role, but of course it is necessary first to change current laws, in particular the ones promoting multiculturality.
Regards
Ingles -
your view on the Syrian Regime is apt. Why, PRAY TELL are we in the west NOT thinking outside the box in order to encourage the "Milan Gas Station" end of the Assad regime. The resulting regime might be a crap shoot - yet one worth taking. DrShalit
Post a Comment