|
A prediction of genocide
El Ingles’s disturbing April 2008 article at Gates of Vienna, “Surrender, Genocide, or What?”, is of continuing relevance. For those who missed it when it was published, or who, daunted by its length and the author’s somewhat expansive style, only picked up on its sensational thesis without reading it carefully, it is worth the investment of time. El Ingles, an Englishman, argues that there are three possible ways that the mortal threat that Islam poses to Europe can be ended: (1) inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will; (2) mass deportations of Muslims; and (3) the mass killings of Muslims, which he calls “genocide.” He is not at all proposing option 3, which he says would wreck Europe. But he makes a well reasoned case that options 1 and 2 either will be rejected by the Europeans, or, if tried, will prove impracticable, leaving the problem to keep growing worse and worse until option 3 become unavoidable regardless of what anyone thinks about it. He also says that the violence would not be carried out through the policies of governments, which would have lost control of the situation by that point, but through actions of an extra political nature.
The heart of the article, and of el Ingles’s original contribution to the issue, is his logical, objective analysis by which, step by step, he gives his reasons why option 1 and option 2 cannot happen, leaving only the option of mass violent death, and, along with it, the ruin of much of the West.
In the last section of the piece, he reverses himself and argues that notwithstanding what he has said up to that point there is a way that Muslims could be successfully removed by means of option 1 and option 2 (both of which correspond closely to my own proposals), and that if he were dictator of Europe that is the course that he would pursue. But, he continues, there is almost no chance of Western governments adopting such policies, leading again to the horror of option 3.
He doesn’t explain, however, why he assumes that the Europeans would win this conflict. Isn’t it possible, once violence has broken out, that the Muslims would win, in which case there would be both the horror of mass violence and the horror of Islamization?
It comes down to this: the only way for the Western countries to avoid absolute catastrophe is through the voluntary or forcible departure of their Muslim populations.
- end of initial entry -
El Ingles writes:
You write:
“He doesn’t explain, however, why he assumes that the Europeans would win this conflict. Isn’t it possible, once violence has broken out, that the Muslims would win, in which case there would be both the horror of mass violence and the horror of Islamization?”
This is a huge discussion in its own right. Different countries might end up taking very different paths in this regard. There is an awful lot of difference between Denmark and France. Suffice it to say for the moment that Muslim communities in Europe are: (a) geographically concentrated, (b) wholly dependent on their host societies for everything, including power, food, water, communications infrastructure, (c) from cultural backgrounds with poor records in outright war against Western-style warfare.
This means that any serious, violent conflict between them and us ends in their defeat/destruction. Of course, this presupposes the eventual emergence of the necessary political will.
Besides, what does Muslim “victory” look like? Do they, in the UK, take over the Houses of Parliament and the civil service and implement sharia throughout the country? In Cornwall? Scotland? do they ensure that the garbage is taken away and that the lights stay on? The conflict is so asymmetric that it is important to understand that victory doesn’t mean the same thing for the two sides. Absurdly, victory for Muslims will mean, in some fashion, that they get to recreate the conditions they fled in the first place in their new countries, just as the Mexicans are doing in California. there is a lot to think about here …
” … el Ingles’s original contribution to the issue, … “
I hope so. My feeling is, as you know, that there is no way out of our situation without great violence, so I hope to play a part, however small, in helping propagate this idea and analyzing the likely type/course of violence so that relevant parties can be better equipped to deal with it. Note that many/most of these parties will be non-state actors/rogue state actors in at least some countries.
Jake Jacobsen writes:
I thought, and was right, that this post caused Gates Of Vienna to be tossed unceremoniously off Pajamas Media.
Which if I may be permitted to say have really distinguished themselves as the pussycat network!
Cold Equation writes:
Regarding El Ingles’s prediction of genocide:
This situation was faced by Spaniards 500 years ago. They forcibly converted the Muslims (and Jews) to Christianity, with great success.
It’s hard to imagine modern Europeans doing that, but it’s certainly possible.
Richard S. writes:
The choice comes down to the mass murder of Muslims which would wreck Europe; and the enslavement of Europe: the end of Europe. In other words there is no choice.
Would Europe be as wrecked by the mass murder of Muslims and the deaths of millions of Europeans as it was wrecked in 1945? No one can say. I’m guessing not. Did Europe survive 1945? And go on to thrive? Yes and yes.
Horrible suffering. Horrendous suffering. But we are talking about survival versus extinction. Since options #1 and #2 will never happen due to the extreme distortion gripping western elites, option #3 is the only hope, that’s right, hope, left.
James P. writes:
You write:
“El Ingles, an Englishman, argues that there are only three possible ways that the mortal threat that Islam poses to Europe can be ended: (1) inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will; (2) mass deportations of Muslims; and (3) the mass killings of Muslims, which he calls ‘genocide.’ “
He rules out submission and surrender, which is clearly the most likely alternative. Bruce Bawer’s book makes it clear that the elite institutions that in a sane world would support and defend civilization—the media, the universities, the justice system, and the politicians—are falling all over themselves in their desperation to surrender to Islamic fanatics. All that it takes for Islamic violence to succeed is for the state to withdraw the protection of the law from the victims of such violence, and this is exactly what is happening in Europe. Why? Well, we already know that the deliberate purpose of Labour Party immigration policy is to destroy Britain. What better agent of destruction than Islam?
He says,
“It is striking to note that there does not seem to be any discernible philosophy or strategy guiding the response of the British police or establishment to the encroachment of Islam into our lives and societies.”
This is wrong. The police and the establishment absolutely have a strategy—their strategy is appeasement of and surrender to Islam. They are not trying to “manage decline” they are trying to accelerate it. How else can you explain their active refusal to punish Islamic freaks while at the same time actively punishing “Islamophobes” who hope to resist Islam?
“Gordon Brown’s government in the UK, in response to the terrorist attacks that occurred shortly after he entered office: Muslim terrorist plots directed at non-Muslims would now be referred to as ‘anti-Islamic activity.’ What to make of the people who dreamed up this ‘policy’?”
What to make of them? They want to destroy Britain, what else can you make of them?
“Stopping and then reducing the Islamization of our countries will require a discontinuity, a completely new dynamic that overpowers these existing trends and that must therefore come from outside of the existing power structure, which is not capable of generating it.”
One must understand that the power structure not only will not generate resistance to Islamization of Europe, the power structure will actively oppose stopping or reducing the Islamization of Europe.
“Government, the one entity capable of preventing the problem in the first place, and capable also of solving it with a minimum of bloodshed once it was indeed recognized to be an existential problem, has, in effect, simply washed its hands of it.”
He still doesn’t get it. Government is not indifferent to the problem—government is causing the problem.
“This means that any serious, violent conflict between them and us ends in their defeat/destruction.”
He assumes the state is on our side, and I am not sure this is true. The Leftist state is violently allergic to Rightist violence, and that would include anti-Muslim violence.
LA replies:
James P. makes excellent points. And his comment answers the question I posed to El Ingles in the opening entry: Isn’t it possible that the Muslims would win? Why did he leave out that possibility? And the answer is that Ingles may be underestimating how decadent and suicidal the Europeans really are. Just as Ingles seems to think that the European establishment are clueless or drifting about Islamization, whereas, as James and I both believe, they are actively supporting the Islamization of Europe, he may also be overestimating Europe’s ultimate will to fight back against Islam.
AC writes:
Today you wrote of El Ingles’ articles at Gates of Vienna:
“He doesn’t explain, however, why he assumes that the Europeans would win this conflict. Isn’t it possible, once violence has broken out, that the Muslims would win, in which case there would be both the horror of mass violence and the horror of Islamization?”
I happened to be searching through your archives on European subjects tonight when I came across a relevant comment by Mark Jaws on this thread:
“Second, there is a considerable difference in IQ among Moslem immigrants and the European indigenous. In any struggle involving more than a few hundred men, the higher IQ Europeans should prevail. I have some interesting data on anyone interested, but the bottom line is that battle is cognitively demanding and the lesser brains are vanquished. Look at the Arabs and the Israelis.”
LA replies:
If higher IQ people out-do lower IQ people, then how is it that Muslims are currently gaining power in Europe over the whites? How is it that Arabs conquered half the world, including peoples more intelligent and advanced than themselves? I don’t think that reductive analyses—e.g., “whites will defeat Muslims because whites have higher IQ”—are useful. In fact, they are a retreat from thought. They’re too simplistic. More factors need to be considered.
November 1
El Ingles replies to James P.
James P. wrote:
[El Ingles] rules out submission and surrender, which is clearly the most likely alternative. Bruce Bawer’s book makes it clear that the elite institutions that in a sane world would support and defend civilization—the media, the universities, the justice system, and the politicians—are falling all over themselves in their desperation to surrender to Islamic fanatics.
I consider submission and surrender, by and large, to be unlikely. Either way, it is simply false to suggest that they are “clearly” the most likely outcome. There is nothing clear about any of this. It is radically unclear what will happen in Europe vis-a-vis Islam. It is true that many are desperate to appease Muslims, but we need to draw a distinction between appeasing in the hope that things will “work out” and surrendering in the knowledge that they won’t and that one’s way of life is to be destroyed.
James P. continues:
He says,
“It is striking to note that there does not seem to be any discernible philosophy or strategy guiding the response of the British police or establishment to the encroachment of Islam into our lives and societies.”
This is wrong. The police and the establishment absolutely have a strategy—their strategy is appeasement of and surrender to Islam. They are not trying to “manage decline” they are trying to accelerate it. How else can you explain their active refusal to punish Islamic freaks while at the same time actively punishing “Islamophobes” who hope to resist Islam?
If James is claiming that the entire British establishment has already surrendered to Islam, consciously, explicitly, he needs to provide evidence. The weakness of the establishment in this regard is clear and beyond dispute. But the term surrender implies an acceptance that the UK is simply to be taken over by Islam, and I flatly reject the claim that elites are, as a whole, resigned to that (people like George Galloway and Ken Livingstone notwithstanding).
“Gordon Brown’s government in the UK, in response to the terrorist attacks that occurred shortly after he entered office: Muslim terrorist plots directed at non-Muslims would now be referred to as “anti-Islamic activity.” What to make of the people who dreamed up this “policy”?”
What to make of them? They want to destroy Britain, what else can you make of them?
This is hysterical. I have nothing but contempt for traitors like Gordon Brown and the insane social engineering efforts of his party. But calling Muslim terrorism “anti-Islamic activity” is compatible with a number of different stances, including a) wanting to destroy Britain with Islam, as James suggests, b) genuinely believing, however misguidedly, that Islam is not the problem and that things will blow over eventually, so what’s a lie or two between friends c) believing that Islam is a problem, but that for tactical reasons it is better to pretend it isn’t d) not knowing what is happening, or what to do, and panicking. [LA replies: I respectfully dissent from El Ingles’s reply on several counts. First, there is nothing “hysterical” about saying that the British left seeks to destroy Britain. Andrew Neather’s recent article revealing that Labor leaders deliberately used mass immigration to transform Britain into a multicultural society while concealing this intention from the public is only the most recent indication of that. Second, I do not want commenters to engage in the sort of demeaning characterizations of each other’s positions or persons, such as “hysterical,” that are common at other websites. Third, and most important, I am stunned by Ingles’s suggestion that there could be any reasonable and justifiable explanation for Britain’s policy of describing Muslim terrorist acts against non-Muslims as “anti-Islamic activity.” The choice of that phrase shows an establishment that has beyond the farthest reaches of Orwellianism in order to cover up the fact that an enemy is an enemy. To offer any possible defense of that phrase is just wrong and creates the impression that El Ingles is indeed underestimating how far gone Britain is.]
James continues:
“Stopping and then reducing the Islamization of our countries will require a discontinuity, a completely new dynamic that overpowers these existing trends and that must therefore come from outside of the existing power structure, which is not capable of generating it.”
One must understand that the power structure not only will not generate resistance to Islamization of Europe, the power structure will actively oppose stopping or reducing the Islamization of Europe.
This is hardly an original insight. We need look no further than the trial of Geert Wilders to see that the Dutch establishment will pull out every stop to prevent the implosion of its paradigm. I implied as much in the essay. [LA replies: It’s not clear what El Ingles’s point is.]
James continues:
“Government, the one entity capable of preventing the problem in the first place, and capable also of solving it with a minimum of bloodshed once it was indeed recognized to be an existential problem, has, in effect, simply washed its hands of it.”
He still doesn’t get it. Government is not indifferent to the problem—government is causing the problem.
No, no, I get it. The problem is caused by immigration, and therefore by government action or inaction, by definition. Again, this is obvious. I simply mean that government has created, through some combination of negligence, stupidity, malice, and treason, a situation that only it can solve without massive bloodshed, and that it refuses to do so. James is splitting hairs here.
James continues:
“This means that any serious, violent conflict between them and us ends in their defeat/destruction.”
He assumes the state is on our side, and I am not sure this is true. The leftist state is violently allergic to rightist violence, and that would include anti-Muslim violence.
Actually, I find it increasingly unlikely that the state will continue to function properly through what we face at all. In all likelihood, fragments of it, most obviously the police and military, will take things into their own hands to a significant extent, undoubtedly in cooperation with various militias/non-state actors. The leftist state may be allergic to rightist violence, but armies are usually averse to having their countries conquered by Muslim scum. Or am I missing something? Are the military out of the picture now? Or will they machine gun us in the streets only to hand the keys of Downing Street over to Abu Hamza? Bear in mind that the British Army has spent the last eight years fighting Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are they now going to help recreate these Muslim hellholes in the UK? [LA replies: I think El Ingles underestimates how leftist British institutions have become, including the military and especially the police. As the British police are constituted now, it’s entirely possible that in a conflict they would side with Muslims against the British.]
I have to say, I wouldn’t want James in my foxhole. Does he have anything constructive to say? I can take criticism and disagreement, but he seems to think it’s all over, while we’re still 96 percent of the population of the UK. There is no excuse for that, none at all. Just one year ago, I feared that it would take another ten years or more for people to wake up to Islam. Instead, things are moving fast. Why doesn’t he get on board? [LA replies: I don’t think that James was saying that it is all over, and I don’t think that he was showing a lack of fighting spirit. James was simply saying that El Ingles fails to appreciate how anti-European the European establishment has become, and that Ingles was mistaken in dismissing the possibility that in a European-Muslim stand-off, the Muslims could win.]
Anthony Damato writes from Transylvania:
I disagree on the scenarios presented by El Ingles. I see daily here in Eastern Europe the role the media plays in acculturating the population to the notion that the Islamic world is an extension of Europe. It is seen in the commercials, many of which feature Arab themes, music or locations. The euronews TV broadcast relentlessly drives home the general theme of a “Europe racist, Islam good” paradigm. Even the sports integration, which is substantial, involves Turkey, and other Islamic countries, such as Qatar, Abu Dhabi, etc., and is fostering a false sense of friendly competition. The biggest TV commercials constantly aired on Romanian TV is Turkish Airlines, featuring American stars like Kevin Costner, and Emirates Airlines, which serve the large travel and tourism trade between the two civilizations. My wife has been to Turkey three times and once to Tunisia, and the same is true for many Europeans. They simply do not view Islam as a threat, unless they live in Malmo, Berlin, or Marseilles, but by then, it is always too late to warn others who cannot imagine and will not believe the truth. The whole system is designed to mold the minds of the Europeans around the idea that East and West, are now one, and the twain long ago did meet.
With such powerful propaganda and humanistic fantasies fed into the minds of the Europeans, a more likely scenario will involve aspects of conflict, and civil war, but with a powerful centralized government to quell any resistance, as is now demonstrated across Europe, the demoralized masses will likely enter two phases. First, even further engagement with the multicultural model, for peace, putting them further under Islam’s control, and then secondly, direct acceptance of Islam by millions. Think about it, the liberal inhabitants of Europe love their freedoms, which consist mostly of fulfilling their basest impulses. What does Islam allow Moslems to do? Have multiple wives, and kill without fear of penalty so long as those killed, humiliated, or tortured are non-Moslems. For liberals, it would be a new high, like graduating from pot to cocaine.
I do think there will be resistance, but I do not think it will be effective in achieving a decisive victory as the Spaniards did with the Moors. From there, who can tell what action Russia, or China might take.
Terry Morris writes:
LA wrote:
“If higher IQ people out-do lower IQ people, then how is it that Muslims are currently gaining power in Europe over the whites?”
Well, it has been truthfully remarked before that some people tend to “outthink” themselves. Which I’m not sure entirely applies here, or can be said to be the source of the current problem with Muslim empowerment in Europe. But it actually could be the case that the comparatively “simple” Arabs have a distinctive advantage over their white European counterparts which derives from their comparative simplicity. It’s something worth thinking about. When a person is able to see his way clear to a goal or a purpose, unimpeded by a lot of intellectual mind-junk, he definitely has an advantage over someone who tends to over analyze the chain of causes and effects related to a given problem. [LA replies: But this only supports my point that it’s too simplistic to argue, “Group A will defeat Group B because Group A has a higher mean IQ.” All factors need to be considered, not just one factor by itself.]
But isn’t it the point that Muslims are gaining power in Europe by and with the aid of white Europeans; that Muslims could not possibly continue to gain power there without this essential aid? What happens when white Europeans finally wake up (assuming for the sake of argument that they eventually will) and deprive Muslims of this aid? Is it that at that future point white Europeans will be so weakened, physically and spiritually, that they’ll be unable to put up an effective resistance to the Muslims kind of like what happened with the Jews in Germany? [LA replies: once again, you’re showing that the decisive factor is not IQ, but other things, such as will and belief.]
In any event, I tend to think that there’s one essential key to eventual European victory over the Muslims—they have to believe and know that they’re right, that their cause it just and right; that their victory over the Muslims is just and right. Otherwise I see no possibility of their winning. The same principle, of course, applies to America. [LA replies: I wrote my previous reply before I read this paragraph. Honest.]
Rick Darby of Reflecting Light writes:
I’ve just returned from 10 days in Italy. It was a vacation, not a political fact-finding mission, so I claim no deep insight. This is just a note on what I saw, both in Italy and on TV, where you can watch cable channels from all over including the middle east. CNN’s European channel seems to devote half its coverage to Muslim countries and Islamic issues, incidentally.
My impression that Italy has been more resistant to the Muslim invasion than most other European countries seemed partly justified. I saw almost no identifiable Muslims except in Venice, where they were presumably tourists, until the last day of our trip. We pulled off the autostrada into Vicenza for no reason other than to have lunch, and decided to drive through the “historic center” (centro historico) as long as we were there. As usual driving in Italian cities, we got lost and found ourselves in a seedy quarter that was obviously a Muslim neighborhood, like those in England or Amsterdam, if on a smaller scale.
As to the topic of the post: There is no question that Europe’s government and intellectual elite might as well be agents of Muslim domination, whether because they are ignorant, naive about Islamic culture, politically calculating, or Quislings. But there is another, and I think equally significant factor that is permitting the population replacement going on in more or less full view.
I got the impression that there—like here—for most people economics is the alpha and omega. Business and to some extent entertainment pervade every minute. Culture is increasingly reduced to abstractions like economic growth and immediate concerns like individual prosperity. TV is full of pop music and game shows that keep the masses sedated. Compared with these, issues like Islamization barely register on most citizens.
Seeing what I saw, it’s hard to believe that the indigenous (I know you don’t like that word, but I know of no better one) population of Europe is seething with outrage. If they were, they could change the story, regardless of what their politicians try to inflict on them.
While I’m far more sympathetic to capitalism than to any government-run form of economy, it has become the dominant force in present day life, and in its quest for profit Islamization just doesn’t reach consciousness, except perhaps as a new market.
LA replies:
Rick Darby has brought out a dimension of the problem that is so important but is not discussed enough. I tend to focus on the belief system that I call liberalism as the main problem. But alongside liberalism, overlapping it but distinct from it, is something that is not a belief system but simply a fact of existence: modernity. Modernity is the way tbings are organized and the way people live today. Modern people live and think pretty much the way Mr. Darby describes. They are radically deculturized. To a great extent, they don’t think about anything outside their material concerns and entertainment. Since they have no awareness of or identification with their own culture, how could they be aware that it is being threatened by another culture, let alone care that this is happening?
If liberalism is Plato’s Cave, the place of false ideas about reality from which men need to be led forth, then modernity is the cave below the Cave, where it’s not a matter of false ideas that can be corrected, but of no ideas at all—no culture at all, perhaps no possibility of rational communication at all.
Rick Darby replies:
Yes, you say it more clearly than I was able to. Even Italy, with all its historical riches, seems to have lost a lot of its national character, and life now centers around making money, shopping, and various forms of spettacolo. The churches, including many that are artistic and spiritual gifts to mankind, echo mainly the steps of tourists. Prosperity is well and good; but few are going to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their honor for economic growth or to maintain a continuity that seems to be dissolving.
But I was only a visitor with a poor grasp of the language, so it’s possible that under the surface there is more traditionalism and resistance to Islamization than I was aware of.
By the way, I meant Piacenza rather than Vicenza.
El Ingles writes:
Lawrence, these traitors, these miserable Trojan Horses in the Labour Party have dealt my country a blow that it will only be able to recover from through great suffering for all concerned, if at all, all in the name of their partisan party-political agenda. I would be perfectly happy to see them swinging from lampposts, especially Blair and Straw. Disagree with any of my points as much as you like, but please don’t present me as a semi-apologist for these traitors, or someone who understands where they’re coming from. My only point is that their exact motivation/beliefs cannot be deduced with precision from their outrageous statements.
El Ingles continues, replying to LA and James P.:
It is fine to suggest that the left wants to destroy Britain. By and large, I agree. But what is not fine is to suggest, as James does repeatedly, that there was a conscious decision on the part of the Labour government to destroy Britain by setting in chain a series of events that would, as far as they were concerned, destroy Britain through having it taken over by Muslims and subjugated by sharia law. It is my position, in a nutshell, that political elites have unleashed something much bigger and harder to control than they realized at the time. I am fairly confident that there are many in the multiculti elite who can feel in their gut that things are going badly wrong with their utopian experiment. Put one of these types on the spot, hard, over what is happening (as I have done occasionally), and they get very defensive, they deny that anything is wrong, they deny that we are headed for catastrophe. If James is right, they are inwardly gloating over what is happening all the while. But they are not. Most of them can, I believe, feel what is coming. It’s not the culmination of their plans—it’s the complete failure of everything they’ve tried to do, i.e. Create this wonderful rainbow utopia.
I understand that the term hysterical sounds harsh, but I have written an essay saying that genocide is a virtual certainty in at least some European countries, and James thinks that I am overly optimistic about the disposition and competence of the European establishment! In fact, I am utterly convinced of their uselessness and the gravity of their macrohistorical errors, hence the conclusions of the essay, and hence the focus of my essays on phenomena having, ultimately, little to do with electoral politics. James’s email is threaded through by the notion that the entire British/European establishment wants, and has wanted for decades, to turn Britain/Europe into an extension of the umma, a position so outlandish it strikes me as being the product of panic/hysteria, which I think I detect in his email. He is free to correct me on this if I am mistaken, and I hope he will not think I use the word hysteria to insult him. Perhaps I should have used the word panic from the get-go, to be more precise and less emotive.
By the way, I was obviously not clear on the phrase “anti-Islamic activity” used by the government. It is an intellectual and moral disgrace that any British politician could dream up something so Orwellian, and I was disgusted at the time. The point is that we should refrain from mind-reading people. There are several disgraceful reasons why someone could call Muslim terrorism anti-Islamic activity, but we can’t tell for sure which of them is the actual reason. [LA replies: As I always say, it doesn’t matter what a politicians private thoughts are; it matters what his policies are. See below.] To give a different example of the same thing, Wilders always says that Muslims are not the problem, Islam is the problem. But of course, without Muslims, there is no Islam, and it is the actions of Muslims that are the ultimate expression of the problem. So what is Wilders talking about? Is he just being politically canny? Or does he really believe that Muslims are not the problem, an incoherent position in my opinion? I cannot say, and will not guess. [LA replies: I see no problem with that. That is Wilders’s way of saying that he doesn’t hate human beings.] Back to the UK, is it inconceivable that Brown and co. really believe that Muslims will eventually integrate if only we don’t poke them in the eye, so to speak? This would be disgraceful idiocy, to be sure, but I know intelligent people who actually believe the same thing! There are different interpretations to be made here. That is all I wanted to get across on this point.
LA replies:
I don’t believe that either James or I was saying that it’s a fully formed, conscious plan: “We are helping turn Britain into a Muslim state.” Rather, it’s a direction, a direction of always yielding to and facilitating Islam, of welcoming each gain by Islam. To say that liberals are seeking to destroy their country doesn’t necessary imply a completely worked out game plan. When everything they do leads in a certain direction, we can say that that is their direction and their intent. In politics, it’s not your private wishes and intentions that define you, but the public positions you take. If a politician’s public positions lead always toward Islamization, we can say that this man favors Islamization, whatever he may be privately thinking about it. Further, given the destructive, nihilistic. nature of liberalism, it is inevitable that liberal leaders lie not only to others but to themselves about the direction in which they headed.
I quote Leo Strauss: “The inescapable practical consequence of nihilism is a fanatical obscurantism.” No one is willing to face the fact that his beliefs and agenda are leading to destruction and hell on earth. So liberals spend much of their time in a foggy state (obscurantism) where they refuse to make connections between their beliefs and actions and where those beliefs and actions are leading. Consider how Jack Straw on Question Time four times refused to answer the host’s question, did he think that his covert policy of using immigration to turn Britain into a multicultural society had led to the rise of the BNP?
However, while it is interesting to speculate about the private mental operations of liberals, beyond a certain point, it’s not a useful. I repeat that what defines politicians politically is what they do. We simply don’t need to get into the fine points of how much they intend Islamization.
A reader writes:
I wanted to take some time away from handing out Halloween candy to surly Mexican teenagers who pile into beat-up vans and drive out to my nice suburb to panhandle candy from gringos. Your response to El Ingles article is spot on. There is no reason to believe that the native peoples of Europe will win a fight against immigrants. I looked at France as a good example. France has the largest military in Europe. It has the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world and it is a hotbed of Muslim vs. native conflict.
When the Paris suburbs were being burned up two years ago, I wondered why the French did not send in their army. I read later that the French COULD NOT TRUST THEIR ARMY TO FIGHT MUSLIM RIOTERS BECAUSE THEIR ARMY WAS TEN PERCENT MUSLIM. A quick look at the CIA fact book and Wikipedia confirms that the French are effectively defenseless. A nation with a population of 65 million people has a land army with 134,000 soldiers. It has 1,293 military fighting vehicles. To modify Bismarck, if the French Army landed in New York City it would be arrested.
The French also have a 100,000 man-strong Gendarme, which is more heavily armed than regular police. The French have no history of private gun ownership and are unarmed. Conscription ended in 1996, so widespread military experience is declining as part of their culture. And that is the French, who have an extensive military and imperial history. Think about the other nations of Europe—especially Scandinavia-without recent military experience.
The most immediate problem is the inexorable infiltration of Muslims into the nuclear weapons and nuclear power establishments of France, Britain, and Russia. It is only a matter of time until a critical mass of Muslims exists in these nation’s nuclear forces to subvert security. My opinion is that we are overdue for an attack using radioactive materials of some sort and that when it comes, it will be from an unexpected source.
In my opinion, there is little reason to believe the native populations of Europe will be able fight back. Especially if the influx of immigrants continues unabated and the natives continue to age away living meaningless attenuated lives on their socialist plantations.
A fourth contingency that El Ingles did not consider is that Europeans will seek refugee status in the U.S. and elsewhere. What is happening is that many European whites are emigrating away from multi-cultural, multi-racial mayhem. This Diaspora will only grow in the next fifty years. We have an analogous case staring us in the face-the fate of white Rhodesians and South Africans. Their artistic statements are being made right now. The film District 9 and the book Disgrace are both about incompatible cultures and beleaguered whites.
So what to do? In my opinion, the best thing the U.S. can do for Europe is to leave NATO. I had not realized how true it is that the once great nations of Europe had become so militarily helpless. Once they must pay for their own defense and not rely on the U.S. taxpayer, they will necessarily become more serious.
Malcolm Pollack writes:
Although we had a disappointingly unproductive discussion at my website some time ago, I do want to tell you that I continue to read your blog, and that I agree entirely with your assessment of the grave threat that Islam poses to Western culture. I’m writing today to say that, if you haven’t read it, you might find interesting a recent post by “Deogolwulf”, proprietor of the website Joy of Curmudgeonry, on the topic of Europe’s multiculturalist “sui-genocide”. Here.
LA replies:
Thank you, I”ll check it out.
But—darn—for years I’ve had a phrase I was planning to use in a book: sui genericide. And now Deogowulf has (more or less) beaten me to it. But maybe mine is different enough from his that I can still use mine.
November 3, 2010
Mark Jaws writes:
This is an excellent discussion, but I am somewhat disappointed that you don’t think my injection of IQ differential is very useful. In fact, you ask how did the Islamic armies of old manage to do so well if the Europeans were smarter. Good question. I do know that in just about all of their victories against European armies during the Middle Ages, the Moslems had the upper hand numerically, on their home turf and on ours. They were simply able, for whatever reasons, to mass larger armies. [LA replies: that’s a big simplification. There were differences of war technology, confidence, and so on.] I also know, that the less advanced warfare is, as it was in the Middle Ages, the less IQ will weigh in the outcome. For example, in a life and death struggle involving no weapons, Mike Tyson with his 80 IQ can likely best Mark Jaws with his much higher IQ. However, with a thousand Mike Tyson against a thousand Mark Jaws with equal firearms, my victory is certain. Now, add the more modern factors of advanced communications, data manipulation, deception, psychological warfare, deployment of munitions, aircraft, etc, and the higher IQ force WILL ALWAYS prevail.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 31, 2009 05:15 PM | Send
|