For those who wish to republish his work, please read his conditions.
On Anti-White Racism
This essay is an amalgam of several posts of mine.
The violence waged by Muslim gangs in Europe is usually labelled as “crime,” but I believe it should more accurately be called Jihad. Those who know Islamic history, described in books such as The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer, know that looting and stealing the property of non-Muslims has been part and parcel of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior of Muhammad and the early Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know exactly where crime ends and Jihad begins. In the city of Oslo, it is documented that some of the criminal Muslim gangs also have close ties to radical religious groups at home and abroad.
As Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen points out, the Koran is seen by some Muslims as a God-given “hunting licence,” granting them the right to assault and even murder non-Muslims. It is hardly accidental that while Muslims make up about tem percent of the population in France, they make up an estimated seventy percent or more of French prison inmates. Muslims are overrepresented in jails in countries all over the world, and a striking number of non-Muslims in jail convert to Islam.
In the city of Antwerp, Belgium, Marij Uijt den Bogaard from 2003 to 2006 worked as a civil servant in the immigrant borough of Berchem. She noted how radical Islamist groups began to take over the immigrant neighborhoods, but was fired when she warned against this danger in her reports to the authorities:
“Many victims of burglaries in houses and cars, of steaming and other forms of violence, can testify that aggression by Muslims is not directed against brothers and sisters, but against whoever is a kafir, a non-believer. Young Muslims justify their behaviour towards women who do not wear the headscarf, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, by referring to the Salafist teaching which says that these women are whores and should be treated as such. They told me this. I wrote it down in my reports, but the authorities refuse to hear it.”
Muslim violence targets non-Muslims regardless of skin color, in Asia, Africa, Europe and elsewhere. However, some of the violence directed against people of European origins is anti-white racism, not Jihad. In March 2005, peaceful white French demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths. One 18-year-old named Heikel added that he had “a pleasant memory” of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground. The sentiment was a desire to “take revenge on whites.”
Why is there so little public discussion of anti-white racism? I have heard two explanations for this. The first one is that white people are more racist than non-whites, a claim I find highly dubious these days. The other is that we should focus mainly on white racism because “white people are so powerful.” But whites are, demographically speaking, a rapidly shrinking global minority. We are even a shrinking percentage of the population in the West.
Barbara Kay of Canada’s National Post writes about a new fad called Whiteness Studies:
“The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: ‘The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.”
Whiteness Studies began in the 1990s after the collapse of Communism, when some Marxists concluded that the key to Utopia was to undermine Western culture and white people, race war instead of class war, or perhaps race war as class war. Some of its inventors state their goals quite openly:
“Abolitionism is also a strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country.” And: “The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.”
Conservative social critic David Horowitz comments that: “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.” However, despite widespread criticism, at least 30 institutions — from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles — teach courses in Whiteness Studies.
A mandatory University of Delaware program in the United States required students to acknowledge that “all whites are racist,” offering them “treatment” for incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion or culture. A civil rights group cited excerpts from the university’s Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement: “A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination.” The education program also notes that “reverse racism” is “a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege.”
I’ve been trying to understand exactly what this “white privilege” consists of. In many Western European countries, if you are a native and in the mildest terms possible object to uncontrolled mass immigration which, if continued, will render the natives a minority in their own country, you will immediately be branded a racist and vilified. Most likely, your career will be over. The natives are de facto disenfranchised and are supposed to meekly fund their own colonization. If this is “privilege”, then privilege is vastly overrated these days.
College professor Mike S. Adams writes about conspiracy theories he’s heard among students attempting to blame various social ills on white people: “The Mona Lisa was painted by an African artist and stolen from a museum in Ethiopia. Most of the great works of art are African in origin and stolen by white people. This is done to promote the myth of white cultural superiority.” Another one: “It is a proven fact that U.S. Coast Guard ships — on orders from President Bush — were seen crashing into the New Orleans levees during Hurricane Katrina. Bush did it to kill black people living in government housing projects.”
Adams presents this as funny, but I don’t think it is.
Dr. Kamau Kambon, former North Carolina State visiting professor of African Studies, told a forum at Howard University that: “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.…I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us.…The problem on the planet is white people.”
Kambon may be an extreme example, but he is the product of a climate where accusing whites of the most insane things has become socially acceptable. Since the 1960s, the Western education system has become increasingly dedicated to demonizing traditional Western culture. Young people of European origins know little of their history, and what they do know they are often taught to hate. As a result, entire generations of young Westerners would find it difficult to articulate anything that’s good about their culture and makes it worth preserving.
Robert Spencer has written about the demonization of Christianity in Western media and academia. He is right about this, but I sometimes suspect that this is part of a larger trend aimed at discrediting Western culture in general, of which Christianity has traditionally been a part. Those of us who are not Christians should reject this trend. First of all because it is factually incorrect: Christianity has made many positive contributions to our civilization and does not deserve the negative reputation it has gained in recent years; and second because the demonization of Christianity is part of a wider movement aimed at discredicting our heritage.
Here is a quote from Spencer’s book Religion of Peace?:
“Attacks on Christian history and doctrine are an integral part of a larger effort to instill a sense of cultural shame in even non-Christian European and American youth — a shame that militates against their thinking the West is even worth defending. A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing… Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’ Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground…When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none….Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’“
As Allen G. King, an employment defense attorney put it: “I just have to leave you to your own devices, and because you are a white male,” you will discriminate. In other words: You don’t have to do anything; you’re a racist simply because you’re white and breathe.
All people of European origins can be considered racists. In Defending the West, former Muslim Ibn Warraq criticizes Edward Said’s highly influential book Orientalism from 1978:
“In cultures already immune to self-criticism, Said helped Muslims, and particularly Arabs, perfect their already well-developed sense of self-pity. There is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besetting your society. It is all the fault of the West, of infidels….Orientalism came at the precise time when anti-Western rhetoric was at its most shrill and was already being taught at Western universities, and when third-worldism was at its most popular. Jean-Paul Sartre preached that all white men were complicit in the exploitation of the third world, and that violence against Westerners was a legitimate means for colonized men to re-acquire their manhood. Said went further: ‘It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.’ Not only, for Said, is every European a racist, but he must necessarily be so. As I have argued, Western civilization has been more willing to criticize itself than any other major culture.”
René Descartes, French philosopher and one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution — a Dead White Male as Western students now learn — is famous for his statement Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. Apparently, if Mr. Descartes has been alive today, he’d have to rephrase that to “I’m guilty, therefore I am.”
I once heard the Dutch-Somali critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali be told that if she had been white, she would have been called a “racist.” Which essentially means that if you’re white, you’re not allowed under any circumstances to stand up for your culture, far less criticize non-whites. It doesn’t matter whether what you’re saying is factually correct. Whites have effectively been disfranchised in matters related to the preservation of their own countries.
Jews were once told to “get back to Palestine.” When they did, they were told to “get out of Palestine.” The people who said this didn’t object to where Jews lived, they objected to the fact that they existed at all. Similarly, I have noticed that while I have heard calls for people of European descent in the Americas, Australasia or southern Africa to “go back to Europe,” the natives in Europe are demonized if they resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. The problem then, apparently, isn’t where whites live; it’s that we exist at all.
As Professor Ida Magli writes in an Italian essay entitled A Nation for Sale: “Why can’t we protest? Why aren’t we allowed what every people has always had the right to say, that is that no ruler, whatever the system of government — monarchy, dictatorship, democracy — has either the power or the right to sell off the homeland of their own subjects?”
It has happened many times that a people move into an area and subdue those living there before, but the natives have at least been allowed to defend themselves. It is unprecedented in the annals of history that a people is banned by their own leaders from defending their lands from foreign colonization. The established historical pattern is that people who are conquered by others are harassed by the newcomers. When we are being told that mass immigration is “inevitable,” we are actually being told that verbal and physical abuse of our children is inevitable and that we should “get used to it.” I see no reason to accept this. If mass immigration leads to harassment of my children then it is my duty to resist it.
Observer Ole Kulterstad notes that Europeans who are against free migration are labeled as “right-wing extremists.” But common sense indicates that giving away your country to alien cultures is more extreme than merely wanting to preserve it as it once was.
I am personally tired of hearing how Islamic organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood that want to destroy my civilization are called “moderates,” whereas Westerners are “extremists” if we resist this, yet that is exactly what our media and authorities do. We are not extremists; we are subjected to policies that are extreme. Is reducing a people to a minority in their own land, without proper debate about future consequences, not to be regarded as extreme?
Some observers fear a “white extremist backlash,” but if people are so concerned about this then they should stop creating the foundations for such extremism to grow. Native Europeans increasingly get the feeling that they are being pushed into a corner and have an entirely justifiable fear of being overwhelmed. Fear leads to desperation, which sometimes leads to aggression. If we do get an outbreak of extremist political movements, this will not come about because Europeans are born evil; it will come about because they will be pushed into extremism, feel that their continued existence is at stake and that they have been abandoned by their authorities. The solution to this is to recognize that Western nations have accepted more immigration from alien cultures in a shorter period of time than any other civilization has done peacefully in history. We have reached our limit and we need a break before our entire political and economic system breaks down. The ongoing mass immigration is population dumping where less successful cultures dump their population in more successful ones. This is a form of global Communism and will generate the same disastrous effects by destroying successful communities and centers of excellence.
My ancestors have lived in this country since prehistoric times, yet we have no status as a distinct group. Pakistanis, Somalis and Kurds have the right to preserve their culture in my country, but I don’t. The only ones who are specifically denied displaying any pride in their cultural heritage are people of European origins. That’s the whole point of Multiculturalism. Our countries no longer exist as cultural entities, only as empty vessels to be filled with the “human rights” of other peoples.
Native Europeans are being told that we don’t have a culture and that we thus “gain” culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic legacies and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage we all share in. The next moment we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is not worth preserving, anyway.
My nation doesn’t have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am held personally responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have roughly similar skin color throughout recorded history. American novelist Susan Sontag once stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that “race” doesn’t exist, it’s socially constructed. What this means is that people of European origins can be verbally (and sometimes physically) attacked for being white, yet are systematically deprived of any means of defending themselves against these attacks or identifying the cause of them.
I do not hold Abdullah the kebab salesman personally responsible for sacking Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held responsible for actions done by his ancestors centuries ago. On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit for their achievements.
It was to an overwhelming degree people of European stock who created the modern world. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism or the transatlantic slave trade, I want personal credit for the greatest advances for mankind made by any civilization that has ever existed on this planet. The next time our children are taught to feel bad for something that happened centuries ago, we should inform them that they should take pride in discovering electromagnetism and thus the telegraph, the telephone, radio, TV and the Internet, making chemistry into a scientific discipline (as opposed to alchemy), coining the concept of “gravity” and inventing rockets that could be used to explore space (Asian rockets used gunpowder and weighed a few kilograms at most), making the first accurate measurements of the speed of light, creating barometers and thermometers, thus establishing meteorology and the only mathematical temperature scales ever made by humans, inventing everything from light bulbs, refrigerators, beer cans and chocolate bars to cars, airplanes and all modern means of transportation, inventing microscopes and founding microbiology and antiseptics in medicine. We did all of these things, and much more. Nobody else did, despite how much they claim otherwise.
If current immigration continues, France will soon become an African Muslim country that just happens to be north of the Mediterranean. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization, shouldn’t Europeans have the same right? No Eastern European country has a colonial history and many Western European countries have only marginal ones. The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why should Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have suffered from centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and therefore seemingly have no legitimate claim to their own countries.
People of European origins have a right to exist, too. The primary duty you have as a human being is to preserve the heritage of your ancestors and pass on to your children a country they can call their own, where they can prosper and walk the streets in a major city without being harassed for who they are. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. For my part, I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love this even more if I know I can also return to my own.
Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement
Published at The Brussels Journal in April 2008
An American friend of mine has proposed that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement. I have hesitated with supporting this because it sounded a bit too extreme. However, in more and more European cities, the native population is being pushed out of their own neighborhoods by immigrant gangs. The natives receive little or no aid from their authorities, sometimes blatant hostility, when faced with immigrant violence. In an age where the global population increases with billions of people in a few decades, it is entirely plausible, indeed likely, that the West could soon become demographically overwhelmed. Not few of our intellectuals seem to derive pleasure from this thought.
Bat Ye’or in her book about Eurabia has documented how the European Union is actively allowing Muslims to colonize European countries. The next time EU leaders complain about China’s treatment of minorities, I suggest the Chinese answer the following: “Yes, we represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to subduing the indigenous people of Tibet, but you represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to displacing the indigenous peoples of an entire continent.” There is no love lost between me and the Chinese Communist Party, an organization responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its citizens, but even Chinese authorities do not actively seek to displace their own people with violent Muslims. European authorities do, at least in Western Europe.
In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn’t open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it’s one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as “racism and hate speech.” To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it’s as if we don’t even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having “democratic” governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why?
At the Daily Telegraph, Simon Heffer suggests that the mass immigration encouraged in particular by the Labour governments of Blair and Brown in Britain is not happening out of incompetence, but is part of “a doctrinally driven determination by the new Government in 1997 to destroy our national identity and to advance multiculturalism.” I agree, but this policy of state-sponsored population replacement is far from limited to Britain.
Numbers discussed in 2008 showed clearly that mass immigration has had no positive effects on the economy in Britain, and I have seen similar calculations from France, Denmark and Norway, among others. On the contrary, it is a drain on the finances of the native population, and that’s even if we don’t count the wave of terrorism, insecurity and street violence which is sweeping Western Europe, from Sweden via Germany to the Netherlands. On top of this, the costs of destruction of national cohesion and weakened cultural legacies are incalculable, yet mass immigration continues as if nothing has happened. In April 2008, a report indicated that Spain needed over two million new foreign workers just until 2020, many of whom are likely to come from Muslim North Africa. The authors of the report would call upon the Spanish government to adopt a new law on immigration “to facilitate the legal entry, take advantage of the new arrivals and encourage integration.”
I have earlier toyed with the idea of giving native Norwegians the legal status as indigenous people in Norway. A large proportion of my ancestors have lived here since the end of the last Ice Age, for as long as this country has been habitable for humans. The original settlers, who came from Central Europe (Germany and the Czech Republic), have been supplemented by other Europeans. Genetic traces from peoples of Near Eastern origins who spread agriculture to Europe are detectable, but until recently most Europeans were overwhelmingly the descendants of men and women who had lived in the region for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.
Genetically speaking, native Europeans have thus lived longer on the same continent than have Native Americans. Many Southeast Asians are descendants of southern Chinese settlers who displaced or eradicated the original, dark-skinned inhabitants of the region in early historical times, just as many of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa are Bantu invaders who displaced or eradicated the indigenous Khoi-San peoples throughout much of Africa. Modern-day Japanese have lived in Japan for a shorter period of time than Europeans have lived in Europe. Yet a Scottish councillor, Sandy Aitchison, was chastised for using the term “indigenous” about native Brits. Why is it considered ridiculous or evil if Europeans assert our rights? Is it because we are white? Everybody’s supposed to keep their culture, except people of European origins? Is that it? Why is colonialism bad, except when my country, which has no colonial history, gets colonized by Third World peoples?
Western Europeans have in recent years accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than any society has ever done peacefully in human history. If we want a break we have the right to do so. What we are dealing with is not “immigration” but colonization, and in the case of Muslims, internationally organized attempts to conquer of our countries. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization then so do Europeans.
I like cultural diversity and would hope this could be extended to include my culture, too. Or is Multiculturalism simply a hate ideology designed to unilaterally dismantle European culture and the peoples who created it? If people in Cameroon or Cambodia can keep their culture, why can’t the peoples who produced Beethoven, Newton, Copernicus, Michelangelo and Louis Pasteur do the same? As Rabbi Aryeh Spero points out, European elites insist “on the primacy of indigenous cultures and religions when speaking of other faraway regions, yet find such insistence arrogant when it concerns the indigenous culture of its own lands.”
Yes, a little immigration from compatible cultures can be absorbed, and can be beneficial on certain terms. But what we are dealing with now is not from compatible cultures and it certainly isn’t little. My nation runs a very real risk of being demographically wiped out during this century, as do the other Nordic countries. We will go from being among the most successful societies in human history to being eradicated in the space of a few generations if current levels of immigration continue. Do I have the right to worry about this, or is that “racist”?
The author Gore Vidal once stated: “Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species.” Thomas Jefferson said that “The law of self-preservation is higher than written law,” and he was right.
As I wrote two years ago: “By any standards possible, we’re one of the most successful cultures in the world, our largest flaw, which could eventually bury us, probably being our naivety. So why on earth should we quietly watch while our country is subdued by the most unsuccessful cultures in the world? The most basic instinct of all living things, even down to bacteria level, is self-preservation. In 2006, you have a natural right to self-preservation if you are an amoeba, but not if you’re a Scandinavian. Maybe the solution then is to argue that Scandinavians are indeed a species of amoebas, and that we need special protection by the WWF. We could showcase some of our finest specimen of Leftist intellectuals and journalists to prove our point. Shouldn’t be too hard.”
For simply suggesting that I would not enjoy being turned into a persecuted minority in my own country, I have been accused of being a “white nationalist,” which says a great deal about how demonized people of European ancestry have become. What about Koreans or Japanese? If they were gradually being displaced by, say, Nigerians and Pakistanis and were harassed in their cities by people who moved there out of their own free will, would they be denounced as yellow nationalists if they objected to this? In fact, why do the terms yellow nationalist, brown nationalist and black nationalist hardly exist, whereas the term white nationalist does? Isn’t that by itself an indication of a double standard?
I started out initially writing almost exclusively about Islam, and I still write predominantly about Islam. However, I have gradually realized that we are dealing with an entire regime of censorship that needs to be removed before we can deal with Islam. I will in any situation highlight and support the struggle of Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is, Jews, African Christians, Chinese Taoists etc. against Islamic Jihad, which is a global fight. I always have and I always will. The one thing I will not do is surrender my land, which is not mine to give. I do not see anybody else quietly accept being turned into a minority in the country where their ancestors have lived since the end of the last Ice Age, and I cannot see why I should have to do so, either. I don’t care if white Westerners are “scared of being called a racist.” I will not leave a ruined land behind to my descendants because I was afraid of being called bad names. If you think it is “racist” for Europeans to preserve their heritage and protect their children from abuse, then I’m not the bigot here. You are.
I hereby propose that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement, on behalf of the traditional majority populations of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark etc., inspired by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The European Indigenous People’s Movement should support the right of Europe’s indigenous peoples to preserve their self-determination, traditions, sovereignty and culture as majority peoples in their own lands.
The list of goals and objectives should include:
1.) The right to maintain our traditional majorities in our own lands, control our own sovereignty and our own self-determination. We do not wish harm or ill-feeling toward any other peoples on earth, but we assert the right to maintain our own majorities in our own lands without being accused of “racism.” We reject current trends which preach that we have no right to oppose, control or lessen unlimited immigration from non-indigenous cultures.
2.) The right to teach our children our cultures, languages, historical interpretations, religious celebrations and traditions unimpeded. We reject educational trends which encourage our children to forget or despise their culture, traditions, religious practices and history in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.
3.) The right to maintain, cherish and practice our own indigenous religious holidays and celebrations. We reject out of hand current trends which preach that traditional indigenous European religious or cultural celebrations such as Christmas are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” and therefore must be “downgraded,” “renamed” or otherwise de-emphasized or eliminated in order to avoid offending non-indigenous European residents or citizens. We reject current policies which establish that our indigenous cultures are somehow deficient and therefore are not complete until they are “enriched” by other, non-indigenous cultures.
4.) The right to maintain, cherish and display our own indigenous religious, national, ethnic and cultural symbols. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that our national flags or ethnic symbols of centuries standing are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.
5.) The right to maintain, cherish, protect and display our own indigenous cultural expressions such as music, artwork and sculptures. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that indigenous European cultural expressions such as statues of boars, folkloric tales about pigs or dogs, paintings with Christian or Classical pagan themes, war memorials with a Christian theme, etc., should be removed from public view, banned, destroyed, modified or otherwise threatened in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.
6.) The right to maintain, cherish and protect indigenous burial sites, structures, buildings, churches, museums and other public works and structures from destruction, modification or other changes. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which establish that indigenous public works and structures must be changed or modified to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens, or to “make way” for structures or public works that benefit non-European residents or citizens (i.e. digging up indigenous graves that are centuries old in order to “make room” for non-indigenous cemeteries, removing external Christian symbols and statues from churches, etc.)
Mr. Franco Frattini of the EU Commission, the unelected and unaccountable government for nearly half a billion people, has stated that Europeans should accept further tens of millions of immigrants within a generation. The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the EU should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. This is part of an organized attempt to surrender Europe to Islamization that has been going on for decades. Since the European Union involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims and other non-indigenous peoples at a time when native Europeans fear for the survival of their civilization and feel like aliens in their own cities. Meanwhile, Ernst Uhrlau, the president of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, warned about the rising assertiveness of violent Jihadist organizations in North Africa.
Based on this evidence, the European Union can hardly be seen as anything other than a criminal organization dedicated to the demographic dispossession and cultural marginalization of the indigenous peoples of an entire continent. Consequently, the EU should be immediately and totally dissolved. Europe is being targeted with coordinated Islamic efforts aimed at the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason.
Native Europeans should demand that we have an interim period with public de-Eurabification, where the lies propagated by pro-Islamic Multiculturalists should be removed from our history books, and a proper respect for European cultural traditions should be restored. Those officials on senior levels who have participated in the creation of Eurabia should stand trial for crimes against their civilization.
CAN THE WEST BE SAVED?
by Serge Trifkovic
Published: May 2008.
Serge Trifkovic is a Serbian-born American historian and political analyst. He is the author of several books, among them Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won — in Spite of Ourselves and The Sword of the Prophet: Islam; History, Theology, Impact on the World. He is currently foreign affairs editor for the conservative monthly “Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.” This essay is republished here with his permission.
“Europe today is a powder keg,” Otto von Bismarck remarked, “and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal.”
I am not going to waste your time tonight with yet another treatise on why Islam is not the Religion of Peace, Tolerance, Compassion, etc, etc. We are beyond that. Had America agonized, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, whether Shinto was actually OK but only Bushido was bad, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere would be going strong to this day. Among reasonable people, unblinkered by the dicta of political correctitude, the real score on Muhammad and his followers is well known. It has been known for centuries. That score, however, no matter how calmly stated and comprehensively supported, invariably elicits the howls of “Islamophobia” from the neoliberal elite class.
AN EMINENTLY POSTMODERN LITTLE PHOBIA
In the way of an introduction, let us therefore look at the formal, legally tested definition of that word, the latest addition to the arsenal of postmodern “phobias.” It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based here in Vienna. (“Orwellian” is a worn-out adjective, but it simply has to be used in connection with this particular institution.) The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and “Other.”
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Discriminatory practices and Muslims’ exclusion from mainstream society are advocated.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. As it happens,
1. That Islam is static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an internal, orthodox critique of jihad, sharia, jizya, etc. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, “Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action.” A century later his diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are “distorting” Islam; the would-be reformers are.
2. That Islam is separate from our Western, Christian, European culture and civilization, and “other” than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if Europe eventually succumbs to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.
3. Whether Islam is “inferior to the West” is a matter of opinion, of course. That Islam cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative, and attractive human society is not. Whether Islam is “barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist” is at least debatable; but that many of its tangible fruits are so, is all too painfully visible.
4. Islam is seen by so many as “violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism” not because of some irrational “phobia” in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because (a) of the clear mandate of its scripture; (b) of the record of its 14 centuries of historical practice; and above all (c) of the timeless example of its founder.
5. “Islam is seen as a political ideology,” and it should be seen as one, because its key trait is a political program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready and eager to spill blood. This makes Islam closer to Bolshevism and to National Socialism than to any other religion. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by “the Other,” i.e. non-Muslim societies and cultures, is implacable hostility and violence, or violent intent.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand; they should be understood. Its chief “criticism” of the West-and of every other non-Islamic culture or tradition-is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.
7. A priori hostility towards Islam should not be “used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims.” Quite the contrary, an education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting — not because it is an intolerant “religion,” but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the values of the West.
8. And finally, while anti-Muslim hostility is not a priori “natural or normal,” the desire of non-Muslims to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is “natural and normal”; but the elite class is actively trying to neutralize it.
As the demand for Sharia-based communal self-rule is made with increasing frequency in the banlieus of Paris and the grim West Midlands council estates, Europe’s elite class is ready to throw in the towel. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner-a Christian Democrat!-sees the demand as perfectly legitimate and argues that sharia could be introduced “by democratic means.” Muslims have a right to follow the commands of their religion, even if that included some “dissenting rules of behavior”: “Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed’! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy…”
Such inanities are light years away from Winston Churchill’s warning, over a century ago, that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam:
Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
Even Churchill’s prescience could not envisage the possibility that the invader would find his fellow-travellers at No. 10, Downing Street, at the European Union headquarters in Brussels, and in dozens of chancelleries and palaces across the Old Continent. Their joint efforts are helping change the face of Europe. The cumulative effect is not in doubt: by 2050, Muslims will account for over one-third of “Old Europe’s” young residents. Millions of them already live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host country, toward which they have a disdainful and hostile attitude.
The elite class responds to such hostility with calls for ever-greater inclusiveness. Giuseppe Pisanu, Berlusconi’s former minister of the interior, responsible for controlling the country’s borders, thus declared five years ago that the high fatality rate of North African illegals on the high seas en route to Sicily was “a dreadful tragedy that weighs on the conscience of Europe.” His view was paradigmatic of the utopian liberal mind-set. If “Europe” should feel shame and guilt that people who have no right to come to its shores are risking their lives while trying to do so illegally, then only the establishment of a free passenger-ferry service between Tripoli and Palermo-with no passport or customs formalities required upon arrival, and a free shuttle to Rome or Milan-would offer some relief to that burdened conscience. And Sr Pisanu is supposedly a man of the “Right”!
The tangible results of the leaders’ moral decrepitude are devastating. A century ago, Sr. Pisanu and his class shared social commonalities that could be observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, Biaritz or Paris, depending on the season. Englishmen, Russians, and Austrians shared the same outlook and sense of propriety, they all spoke French, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their national traditions, the permanent vessels in which Weltanschauung could be translated into Kultur. Today’s “United Europe,” by contrast, does not create social and civilizational commonalities except on the basis of wholesale denial of old mores, disdain for inherited values, and an overt rejection of “traditional” culture. It creates the dreary sameness of “antidiscriminationism” and “tolerance.”
Such weakness breeds contempt and haughty arrogance on the other side. Take Tariq Ramadan, who calmly insists that Muslims in the West should conduct themselves as though they were already living in a Muslim-majority society and were exempt on that account from having to make concessions to the faith of the host-society. Muslims in Europe should feel entitled to live on their own terms, Ramadan says, while, “under the terms of Western liberal tolerance,” society as a whole should be “obliged to respect that choice.”
If such “respect” continues to be extended by the elite class, by the end of this century there will be no “Europeans” as members of ethnic groups that share the same language, culture, history, and ancestors, and inhabit lands associated with their names. The shrinking native populations will be indoctrinated into believing-or else simply forced into accepting-that the demographic shift in favor of unassimilable and hostile aliens is actually a blessing that enriches their culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies. The “liberal tolerance” and the accompanying “societal obligation” that Tariq Ramadan invokes thus become the tools of Western suicide. “No other race subscribes to these moral principles,” Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, “because they are weapons of self-annihilation.” The weapons need to be discarded, and the upholders of those deadly “principles” removed from all positions of power and influence, if Europe is to survive.
THE PATHOLOGY OF THE ELITE CLASS
It is in the inability and unwillingness of the neoliberal elite class to confront the grave threat to our civilization that Western Europe and North America most tellingly certify that they share the same cultural chromosomes. In 1938 Hilaire Belloc wondered, “Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world which will shake the dominion of Europeans-still nominally Christian-and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?”
Seven decades later, the same traits of decrepitude are present in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States, including both the primary cause, which is the loss of religious faith, and several secondary ones. Topping the list is elite hostility to all forms of solidarity of the majority population based on shared historical memories, ancestors, and common culture; the consequences are predictable:
- the loss of a sense of place and history among Europeans and North Americans;
- rapid demographic decline, especially in Europe, unparalleled in history;
- rampant Third World (and in Europe, overwhelmingly Muslim) immigration;
- collapse of private and public manners, morals, and traditional commonalities;
- imposition of “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” “sensitivity”; and
- demonization and criminalization of any opposition to any of the above.
The end-result is the Westerners’ loss of the sense of propriety over their lands. Before 1914, both the West and the Muslim world could define themselves against each other in a cultural sense. The neoliberal elite insists on casting aside any idea of a specifically “Western” geographic and cultural space that should be protected from those who do not belong to it and have no rightful claim to it. The elite insists that our countries belong to the whole world.
We face an elite consensus that de facto open immigration, multiculturalism, and the existence of a large Muslim diaspora within the Western world are to be treated as a fixed and immutable fact that must not be scrutinized. That consensus, I contend, is ideological in nature, flawed in logic, dogmatic in application, and disastrous in its results. It needs to be tested against evidence, and not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.
In addition, a depraved mass culture and multiculturalist indoctrination in state schools and the mainstream media have already largely neutralized the sense of historical and cultural continuity among young West Europeans and North Americans. By contrast, the blend of soft porn and consumerism that targets every denizen of the Western world has not had the same effect on the Muslim diaspora in the West. The roll-call of Western-born and educated young Muslims supportive of terrorism confirms that failure.
The loss of a sense of place and history experienced by millions of Westerners follows the emergence of two sides of the same coin: a neoliberal post-national hyper-state in Europe and the neoconservative “benevolent global hegemony” in the U.S. epitomized by the demand for an ever-growing NATO. These two mindsets, seemingly at odds, are but two aspects of the same emerging globalized universe, two sides of the same coin. The neoliberals advocate multilateralism in the form of an emerging “international community” framed by the United Nations and adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with the EU acting as an interim medium for transferring sovereign prerogatives to a supra-national body; the neocons prefer to be the only cop in town. Both share the same distaste for traditional, naturally evolving societies and cultures.
The revolutionary character of the multiculturalist project is revealed in the endless mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality, the formula now elevated to the status of the post-modern Philosopher’s Stone, the force that moves the linear historical process forward, towards the grand Gleichschaltung of nations, races, and cultures that will mark the end of history. Race, Gender and Sexuality have replaced the Proletariat as both the oppressed underclass (hence the cult of the non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual victimhood), and as the historically preordained agent of revolutionary change.
Classical Marxist political economy found the dynamics of revolution in the inevitable conflict between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat that has nothing to sell but its labor and nothing to lose but its chains. Latter-day Marxist revolutionaries go beyond dialectical materialism, however, by introducing a wholly metaphysical concept of victimhood and an array of associated special-rights claims that have worked such wonders for Islam all over the Western world. Majority populations of “old” Europe and America, in this insane but all-pervasive paradigm, are guilty of “oppression” by their very existence, and therefore must not protest the migratory deluge, let alone try to oppose it: that is “racism.”.
The fruits are with us already. Gibbon could have had today’s Antwerp or Malmo in mind, or Marseilles, or Huddersfield, when he wrote of Rome in decline, its masses morphing “into a vile and wretched populace.” On present form, within a century the native Western majorities will melt away: “child-free” is a legitimate yuppie lifestyle term, on par with “fat-free” and “drug-free.” But whereas the threat of extinction of an exotic tribal group in Borneo or Amazonia — let alone a species of spotted owl or sperm whale — would cause alarm and prompt activism among neoliberal elites, it is deemed inherently racist to mention the fact that Europeans and their trans-Atlantic cousins are, literally, endangered species.
There will be no grand synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization, between the West and Islam. Even the ultra-tolerant Dutch are beginning to see the light, pace Geert Wilders, but they are hamstrung by guilt-ridden self-haters and appeasers, whose hold on the political power, the media, and the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, and obscene. If Europe is to survive they need to be unmasked for what they are: traitors to their nations and their culture. They must be replaced by people ready and willing to subject the issues of immigration and identity to the test of democracy, unhindered by administrative or judicial fiat.
If the coming war against jihad is to be won, the first task is to start talking frankly about the identity and character of the enemy and the nature of the threat. The obligation to do so is dictated by morality no less than by the need for self-preservation. “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles,” says Sun Tzu. Well, we know the enemy. We know his core beliefs, his role models, his track-record, his mindset, his modus operandi, and his intentions. We also know his weaknesses, which are many, above all his inability to develop a prosperous economy or a functional, harmonious society.
The main problem is with ourselves; or, to be precise, with those among us who have the power to make policy and shape opinions, and who will reject and condemn our diagnosis. Having absorbed postmodernist relativism, certain only of uncertainty, devoid of any faith except the faith in their own infallibility, members of the Western neoliberal elite class treat the jihadist mindset as a problem that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself. The result is a plethora of proposed “cures” that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from terrorism as snake oil is likely to cure leukemia.
Abroad, we are told, we need to address political and economic grievances of the Muslim impoverished masses, we need to spread democracy and free markets in the Muslim world, we need to invest more in public diplomacy. At home we need more tolerance, greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the minorities that feel marginalized. The predictable failure of such cures leads to ever more pathological self-scrutiny and to ever more morbid self-doubt. This vicious circle must be broken.
BREAKING THE DEADLOCK
The deadlock on the Somme in 1916, or at Verdun a year later, could not be broken with the ideas and modus operandi of Messrs. Haig, Foch, Cadrona or Hindenburg. It could have been unlocked, however, had Lidell-Hart, de Gaulle, or Guderian held the old guard’s ranks and positions. Winning a war demands “knowing the enemy and knowing oneself,” of course, but it also demands “thinking outside the box.” This cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.
Let us therefore start our specific policy recommendations with the complex and emotionally charged issue of “human rights” versus national security.
DEFINING ISLAMIC ACTIVISM — Instead of seeking a ban on all Muslim immigration right away, which is not a realistic goal at this moment, Western anti-jihadist activists should campaign for changes in immigration legislation of their home countries to include clauses that would exclude Islamic activists before they come, and have them deported if they are already infiltrated into the country.
This demand needs to be made acceptable and attractive to a wide cross-section of the electorate regardless of political and ideological preferences. Therefore it should be focused on the Islamic activists’ threat to the neoliberal values themselves:
- Discrimination against other religions (with special emphasis on the rising European phenomenon of Islamic anti-Semitism), outlooks (inc. atheism) and lifestyles;
- Discrimination and violence against women (esp. wives and “disobedient” daughters);
- Discrimination and violence against homosexuals;
- Threats of violence in any form and for whatever alleged “offense” or “insult” (e.g. drawing cartoons, making documentaries, writing books);
- Apology or justification for all of the above.
It is essential to focus on the despicable acts themselves, and then drawing the direct line to the commands of Islam’s scripture and its founder, rather than doing it in reverse, as some well-meaning but politically less astute anti-jihadist activists do.
This definition of Islamic activism would be a major step in the direction of denying actual or potential jihadists a foothold in Europe and the rest of the West. In the U.S. the broad model is provided by the old 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, the McCarran-Walter Act), mandating the exclusion or deportation of any alien who engaged or had purpose to engage in activities prejudicial to the public interest or subversive to national security. “Ideological” grounds for deportation were on the US statute books until 1990, when they were repealed by Congress. After the Russian revolution foreign communists were singled out for deportation. One night alone in January of 1920, more than 2,500 “alien radicals” were seized in thirty-three cities across the country and deported to their countries of origin.
DENYING CITIZENSHIP TO ISLAMIC ACTIVISTS — I submit to you that all Western countries need laws that will treat any naturalized citizen’s or legally resident alien’s known adherence to an Islamist world outlook as excludable - on political, rather than “religious” grounds. It is politically feasible to articulate the demand that citizenship of a democratic Western country should be denied to all Islamic activists.
In the United States a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath, “that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” A declaration of this kind, of not a solemn oath of allegiance, is expected from naturalized citizens in most European countries.
For a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts an “infidel,” i.e. non-Muslim document or law as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of apostasy par excellence, punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the “secular” legal code with which it coexists; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will — and for as long as they remain infidel, both Europe and America are illegitimate. So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith? Because he is practicing taqiyya, the art of elaborate lying that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of Jihad. (Or else because he is not devout enough and confused, but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point he will rediscover his roots.)
AUXILLIARY MEASURES — Those who preach or promote jihad and advocate the introduction of sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner that adherents of other totalitarian ideologies had been treated in the free world during the Cold War. It will be a long and hard struggle to open the eyes of legislators and legal regulators that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to Western values and institutions, but it can be done. Other necessary measures would then follow, but to that end anti-jihadists should start articulating and advocating them now:
1. Seek zero porosity of the borders. Preventing illegal immigration is a desirable objective per se; in the context of stopping terrorists it is mandatory. No anti-jihadist strategy is possible without complete physical control of borders. This is an issue on which a majority of the electorate of each and every Western country will agree — much to the chagrin of the liberal elites. Anti-jihadists should insist that all illegal immigration is a major security threat and that it can and should be subject to the letter of the law, and not to the suicidal dictates of the “human rights” lobby.
2. Demand mandatory cooperation of state agencies at all levels in identifying, registering and apprehending illegal immigrants and in assisting in their deportation — starting with those from nations and groups at risk for terrorism. It is a curious phenomenon in most Western countries that at various levels of state administration (e.g. welfare officers and social workers) and law enforcement (e.g. police forces in major cities) we encounter varying levels of tolerance, and even encouragement, of illegal immigrants’ continued presence in the community. Again, this demand for simple compliance with the law by tax-funded public officers would be politically popular.
3. Discard the irrational ban on “profiling.” Not all Muslims are terrorists, of course, but all transnational terrorist networks that threaten Western countries’ national security and way of life are composed of Muslims. It is time to accept that “profiling” based on a person’s appearance, origin, and apparent or suspected beliefs is an essential tool of trade of law enforcement and war on terrorism. Just ask the Israelis!
4. Subject the work of Islamic centers to legal limitations and security supervision. All over the Western world, Islamic centers have provided platforms for exhortations to the faithful to support causes and to engage in acts that are morally reprehensible, legally punishable, and detrimental to the host country’s national security. They have provided shelter to the outlaws, and offered recruitment to the leaders.
5. Treat affiliation with Islamic activism as grounds for denial or revoking of any level of security clearance. Such affiliation is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government (e.g. immigration control, airport security). Presence of practicing Muslims in any of these institutions would present an inherent risk to its integrity and would undermine morale.
Acceptance of these proposals would represent a new start in devising long-term defense. The proposed measures recognize that we are in a war of ideas and religion, whether we want that or not and however much we hate the fact. They reflect the seriousness of the struggle. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep condition that the West is on its last legs. The success of its demographic onslaught on Europe enhances the image of “a candy store with the busted lock,” and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for self-perpetuation is indeed in peril.
CAN THE CANDY STORE WITH A BUSTED LOCK BE SAVED?
The above proposals are not only pragmatic, they are morally just. They will elicit the accusation of “discrimination” from the self-hating segments of the elite class, even though no such label is applicable. Targeting people for screening, supervision and exclusion on the basis of their genes would be discriminatory indeed, but doing so because of their beliefs, ideas, actions, and intentions is justified and necessary. Orthodox Islamic beliefs, ideas and intentions as such pose a threat to the European civilization, culture, and way of life.
The elite class rejects this diagnosis, of course, but among reasonable, well-informed citizens the debate must be conducted on terms liberated from the shackles of the elite class. Geert Wilders certainly shows the way. We should act accordingly, and never, ever be afraid of causing controversy. That means being subjected to the threat of legal proceedings by the neoliberal state — or to the threat of death, by those whom the neoliberal state continues to protect to the detriment of its own citizens.
Western leaders did not agonize over communism’s “true” nature during the Berlin air lift in 1949, or in Korea in 1950, but acted effectively to contain it by whatever means necessary. Yes, back then we had a legion of Moscow’s apologists, character witnesses, moles and fellow-travelers, assuring us that the Comrades want nothing but social justice at home and peaceful coexistence abroad. They held tenured chairs at prestigious universities and dominated all smart salons, from London and Paris to New York. They explained away and justified the inconsistencies and horrifyingly violent implications of the source texts of Marx and Lenin. They explained away and justified the appalling fruits: the bloodbath of the Revolution, the genocidal great famine, the show trials and purges, the killing of millions of innocents in the Gulag, the pact with Hitler, the works.
Today their spiritual heirs in politics, the academy and the media establishment act as Islam’s apologists, character witnesses and fellow travelers. They flatly deny or else explain away, with identical scholastic sophistry and moral depravity, the dark and violent implications of the source texts, the Kuran and the Hadith, the deeply unnerving career of Muhammad, and centuries of conquests, wars, slaughters, subjugation, decline without fall, spiritual and material misery, and murderous fanaticism.
Some eighty years ago Julien Benda published his tirade against the intellectual corruption of his times, The treason of the intellectuals. For generations prior to the 20th century, Benda wrote, members of the Western intellectual elite ensured that “humanity did evil, but honored good.” The “Treason” of the title occurred when they gave up promoting lasting civilizational values in favor of short-term political preferences. Benda wrote at a time when fascism, nazism and bolshevism dominated Europe’s scene. Today the “treason” of the elite class takes a different form. It upholds the allegedly universal values of multiculturalism, inclusiveness and antidiscriminationism to the detriment of the particular value of our civilization and all its fruits. The propensity of the elite class to the betrayal of our culture remains the same, however.
The fact that normal people don’t realize the magnitude of the problem works to the advantage of the people like Solana, Soros, Blair, Prodi, or Hillary Clinton. Their ideas, which but two generations ago would have been deemed eccentric or insane, now rule the Euro-American mainstream. Only a society inured to the concept of open borders can be unblinkingly told that Islam is good and tolerant, that “we” (the West) have been nasty and unkind to it over the centuries — remember the Crusades! — and that “terrorism” needs to be understood, and cured, by social therapy that is independent of Islam’s teaching and practice.
At the root of the domestic malaise is the notion that countries do not belong to the people who have inhabited them for generations, but to whoever happens to be within their boundaries at any given moment in time — regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions. The resulting random melange of mutually disconnected multitudes is supposed to be a blessing that enriches an otherwise arid and monotonous society.
A further pernicious fallacy is the dictum that we should not feel a special bond for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but transfer our preferences on the whole world, “the Humanity,” equally. Such notions have been internalized by the elite class in America and Western Europe to the point where they actively help Islamic terrorism. In America the process has been under way for decades. By 1999 then-Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott felt ready to declare that the United States may not exist “in its current form” in the 21st century, because the very concept of nationhood — here and throughout the world — will have been rendered obsolete.
A generation earlier such uttering from a senior government official would have caused a scandal. By the end of the 20th century such declarations bothered only the unsophisticates who persist in assuming that the purpose of what Dr. Talbott was doing at the Department of State was to ensure the survival, security and prosperity of the United States within the international system, rather than its eventual absorption by the system. But his was an exultant prophecy, not an impartial assessment. The ideological foundation for Talbott’s beliefs was stated bluntly: “All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary.” To the members of his class, all countries are but transient, virtual-reality entities. Owing emotional allegiance to any one of them is irrational, and risking one’s life for its sake is absurd.
The refusal of theWestern elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history. It is rooted in the mindset that breeds the claim that “force is not an answer” to terrorism, that profiling is bad and open borders are good, that “true” Islam is peaceful and the West is wicked. The upholders of such claims belong to the culture that has lost its bond with nature, history, and the supporting community. In the meantime, thanks to them, the quiet onslaught continues unabated, across the Straits of Gibraltar, through JFK and O’Hare, Heathrow and Schiphol. Far from enhancing diversity, it threatens to impose a numbing sameness and eradicate the identity of target-populations, to demolish their special character and uniqueness.
That supporting community, the real nation, is still out there, in North America and Europe alike, working and paying taxes and grinning and bearing it. When it is told of Islam’s “peace and tolerance,” it grumbles about someone’s stupidity or ineptitude, but it still does not suspect outright betrayal. The betrayers, meanwhile, promote an ideology of universal human values, of a common culture for the whole world. They may not even realize why they abet Islam. For all the outward differences, they share with the mullahs and sheikhs and imams the desire for a monistic One World. They both long for Talbot’s Single Global Authority, post-national and seamlessly standardized, an Ummah under a fancy secular name.
Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands and nations more than any others, and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil. They are our enemies and jihad’s indispensable objective allies.
The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.
It is up to the millions of normal Europeans and their American cousins to stop the madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity, and to make room for the post-human, monistic Utopia spearheaded by the jihadist fifth column.
This crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.
Suggestions for the Future
Published at the Gates of Vienna blog in September 2008; republished with some changes here.
This essay overlaps to some extent with the essay Recommendations for the West from 2006. How should we respond to the threats our civilization is facing? First of all, ordinary citizens should take steps to protect their own security since crime and violence is spreading fast throughout the Western world. Second, we need to reclaim pride in our heritage, which has been lost or taken from us in recent years, and restore a proper teaching of this in the education system. We should assume that our leaders are not telling us the full truth about the scale of mass immigration.
Journalist Nick Fagge wrote the following in newspaper the Daily Express in October 2008:
“MORE than 50 million African workers are to be invited to Europe in a far-reaching secretive migration deal, the Daily Express can reveal today. A controversial taxpayer-funded ‘job centre’ opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting ‘free movement of people in Africa and the EU’. Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population. It states:…’Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.’ The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. Ms Castex said: ‘It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say ‘yes’, we need immigration …is not a new development, we must accept it.”
Unlimited mass immigration would destabilize cities that are already swamped in crime. Besides, we are real, physically existing peoples, nations, and countries, not walking tax revenue. We are told that the ongoing mass immigration from alien cultures is “good for the economy.” This is demonstrably false and resembles the “Big Lie” technique employed by the Nazis. Even if it were true, I would still reject this argument. I am not willing to give up our existence as a people in the hypothetical hope that doing so would earn us a few more electronic toys, of which we already have plenty. The notion that man is homo economicus, the economic man, nothing more than the sum of his functions as a worker and consumer, is widely shared by left-wingers and many right-wingers today. It is one of the most destructive ideologies of our time and needs to be defeated while there is still something left of European civilization to preserve. You cannot put a prize tag on your cultural identity and the heritage of your ancestors. I want my children to grow up in a country that is theirs, with a sense of belonging to a community with deep historical roots.
One “anti-Jihadist” in Scandinavia once indicated that it was OK with a Muslim majority in Europe as long as these Muslims respect “human rights.” They won’t, of course, but that’s not the point. The “debate” we have is between those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration and those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration as long as those who replace us believe in “human rights,” where the former group views the latter as “racists.” At no point is there any debate of whether native Europeans have the right to preserve our cultures and historical identities.
Globalism is the enemy within which needs to be defeated. Globalism does not refer to the impersonal forces of technological globalization (although committed Globalists like to pretend that it does, because this makes their ideological program seem “inevitable”), but to a Utopian ideology stating that erasing all national cultures and states (especially Western ones) is a positive good which should be promoted at all costs. Opposition to this should be banned as “discrimination,” “racism” and “nationalism” (the terms are used as synonyms).
I’ve engaged in long discussions as to whether or not our current weakness is caused by deeper-lying, structural flaws in our civilization or whether it is promoted by certain powerful groups with a dangerous agenda. My answer is that it is both. The ideology of Globalism is indeed promoted by certain elite groups much more than by the average citizen, and these ideas are enforced from above. This is happening all over the Western world, but it is particularly dangerous in Western Europe because of the legislative powers of the EU.
Although Leftists tend to be more aggressive, perhaps the dividing line in the internal struggle in the West is less between Left and Right and more between those who value national sovereignty and European culture and those who do not. Upholding borders has become more important in the age of globalization, not less. We need to reclaim control over our borders and reject any organization, either the EU, the UN, various human rights groups or others who prevent us from doing this. We must remind our political leaders that we pay national taxes because they are supposed to uphold our national borders. If they can’t do so, we should no longer be required to pay taxes. National taxes, national borders could become a new rallying cry.
There are both left-wing and right-wing Globalists. They have different agendas, for instance with left-wing Globalists putting emphasis on silencing free speech and promoting “international law” through the United Nations and similar organizations, while right-wing Globalists concentrate more on the free flow of people across borders, just as they want free flow of goods and capital across borders. The Presidential election campaign in the USA in 2008 between Obama and McCain is a race between a left-wing and a right-wing Globalist. Both want open borders, if only for slightly different reasons, and tend to think of countries as ideas, not as entities populated by distinct peoples with shared values and a common history.
An ideological “war within the West” has paved the way for a physical “war against the West” waged by Islamic Jihadists, who correctly view our acceptance of Muslim immigration as a sign of weakness. Perhaps we will need to resolve the war within the West before we can win the war against the West. When Europeans such as Polish king Jan III Sobieski led their troops to victory over the Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna, they fought for a number of things: Their country, their culture and their religion. People don’t just need to live; they need something to live for, and fight for.
We are against Islam. What are we for? I would suggest that one thing we should fight for is national sovereignty and the right to preserve our culture and pass it on to future generations. We are fighting for the right to define our own laws and national policies, not to be held hostage by the United Nations, unaccountable NGOs, transnational progressives or self-appointed guardians of the truth.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the West is the sick man of the world. We provide our sworn enemies with the technology and medicine to multiply, give them the transportation and legal rights to move to our countries (after showing them through TV and movies how much better life is in our part of the world). On top of this, we pay them to colonize our countries and harass our children while our leaders ban opposition to this as intolerance, discrimination and racism. When did the West stop thinking? Where did we go wrong? Here is the answer an American friend of mine gave:
“Well, there’s Marxism of course, which was extremely damaging in all its forms. There were the two world wars which killed so many of our people and caused a lack of cultural confidence. Then there was the Pax Americana and the unprecedented safety and affluence it brought to the Western World. We have now had two generations of Westerners, almost three, who have never known real poverty, hunger, war, or ‘the knock on the door in the middle of the night.’ Without a need for survival skills, we had the time and the money to focus on ever-more insane political and cultural ideologies…I think I remember reading something about how the Indian Hindu empires became ripe for conquest by Islam — ‘They focused on becoming good, instead of remaining powerful.’ I can’t remember the source on that though. But that’s what we are now — obsessing about how to be good, not on being powerful. And our ‘goodness’ isn’t worth much if the rest of the world is focused on becoming powerful. Also, you have to remember, a lot of people are making money out of these insane ideologies. The ‘diversity’ industry in the U.S. is worth billions — people with little skills or ability are being given comfy well-paid jobs because of it….And because of anti-discrimination laws, every organization, whether for profit or not, must have a ‘diversity’ plan to point to if they ever get sued for ‘discrimination.’ It’s literally a recession-proof captive industry. Anyways we’re sick and the whole world knows it. They are coming here to feed off our sickness.”
The West is rapidly declining as a percentage of world population and in danger of being overwhelmed by immigration from poorer countries with booming populations. People of European origins need to adjust our self-image correspondingly and ditch the current ideology of deranged altruism. We are not all-powerful and are not in a position to help everybody in developing countries out of poverty, certainly not by allowing them to move here. We need to develop a new mental paradigm dedicated to our own survival.
We should take a break from mass immigration in general. Any future immigration needs to be strictly controlled and exclusively non-Muslim. This break should be used to demonstrate clearly that the West will no longer serve as the dumping ground for excess population growth in other countries. We have cultures that we’d like to preserve, too, and cannot and should not be expected to accept unlimited number of migrants from other countries.
In my view, the best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should completely stop and if necessary ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West and change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.
We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Much of this can be done in non-discriminatory ways, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. Boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.
American columnist Diana West wants us to shift from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive. Calling this a “War on Terror” as President George W. Bush did in 2001 was a mistake. Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog has suggested the slogan “Take Back the Culture,” thus focusing on our internal struggle for traditional European culture.
People should be educated about the realities of Jihad and sharia. Educating non-Muslims about Islam is more important than educating Muslims, but we should do both. Groups of dedicated individuals should engage in efforts to explain the real nature of Islam, emphasizing the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and the use of taqiyya and kitman, religious deception.
As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says, we should explain why Islam encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis, intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) in Islamic countries. Let Muslims themselves begin slowly to understand that all of their political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures are a result of Islamic teachings.
Fitzgerald also suggests exploiting the many fissures within the Islamic world: Divide and conquer. Divide and demoralize. Islam has universalist claims but it talks about Arabs as the “best of peoples,” and has been a vehicle for Arab supremacy, to promote Arab conquest of wealthier non-Arab populations. In addition to divisions between Arabs and non-Arab Muslims, we have the sectarian divide between Shias and Sunnis, and the economic division between the fabulously rich oil-and-natural-gas Arab states and the poor Muslim countries.
Both the sectarian and economic divisions within Islam are best exploited by infidels doing nothing. If the Western world stops giving Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Palestinians “aid,” which has in reality become a disguised form of jizya, this will clear the psychological air. And it will force the poorer Arabs and other Muslims to go to the rich Arabs for support.
Right now, Muslims can enjoy the best of both worlds, and follow primitive religious laws while enjoying the fruits of 21st century civilization. We need to drive home the utter failure of the Islamic model by making sure that Muslims should no longer able to count on permanent Western or infidel aid in their overpopulated, self-primitivized states, whose very unviability they are prevented from recognizing by this constant infusion of aid.
We need to deprive Muslims as much as possible of Western jizya in other forms, which means ending foreign aid, but also institute a Manhattan Project for alternative sources of energy, in order to become independent of Arab oil.
“What would the rich Arabs do if the Western world decided to seize their property in the West as the assets of enemy aliens, just as was done to the property owned not only by the German government, but by individual Germans, during World War II? And what would they do if they were to be permanently deprived of easy access to Western medical care?”
We must reject the “You turn into what you fight” argument. Those who fought the Nazis didn’t become Nazis during the Second World War. The truth is, we will become like Muslims if we don’t stand up to them and keep them out of our countries, otherwise they will subdue us and Islamize us by force. The West isn’t feared because we are “oppressors,” we are despised because we are perceived as weak and decadent. Jihadist websites have said that China is not the enemy at the moment. China, too, is an infidel enemy, but Muslims respect the Chinese more than Western nations. We can live with having enemies. The important thing is making sure that our enemies respect us, as Machiavelli indicated in The Prince.
We should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world, but for this to work we will sometimes have to take military action to crush Muslim pretensions to grandeur. The Buddhists of Central Asia undoubtedly held the “moral high ground” in relations to Muslims. They are all dead now. At the very least, we must be prepared to back up our ideological defenses with force on certain occasions.
Several objections could be raised against the containment option. Some claim that it is too harsh and thus won’t be implemented; others say that it is insufficient and won’t work in the long run. It’s true that in the current political climate, expulsion of sharia-sponsoring Muslims isn’t going to happen, but the current ruling paradigm won’t last. It is likely that we will get civil wars in several Western countries because of the ongoing mass immigration. This will finally demonstrate how serious the situation is and force other Western nations to act.
I have heard comments that it isn’t practically doable to contain the Islamic world behind some artificial Maginot Line. When the Mongols could simply go around the Great Wall of China in the thirteenth century, it will be impossible to contain anybody in an age of modern communication technology. No, it won’t be easy, but we should at least try. Containment isn’t necessarily the only thing we need to do, just the very minimum that is acceptable. Perhaps the spread of nuclear technology will indeed trigger a large-scale war with the Islamic world at some point. The only way to prevent this is to take steps, including military ones, to deprive Muslims of dangerous technology. Jihad is waged by military, political, financial, demographic and diplomatic means. The defense against Jihad has to be equally diverse.
In the post What Can We Do?, Gates of Vienna republished an essay by reader Westerner which was originally posted at American writer Lawrence Auster’s website. Westerner argues that the separationist policy proposed by Auster and others of rolling back, containing, and using military force to quarantine Muslims would not be sufficient to make the non-Islamic world safe, because Islamic regimes would still exist and continue to seek ways to harm us. He therefore proposes a policy aimed at crushing Islam.
Nevertheless, my general policy recommendation is to advocate separation and containment. The crucial point is to stress that Islam cannot be reformed nor reconciled with our way of life. There is no moderate Islam. There can be moderate Muslims, but they can turn into Jihadists tomorrow or they can lie to deceive the infidels, which is widely practiced in Islam. There is no way for us to know. Those who want to understand this can read my online essay about “moderate Islam“ as well as the essay “Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims.”
According to blogger Conservative Swede, “In fact it is easier to argue for a stop of ALL immigration, to the general public, than a specific stop of Muslim immigration (maybe not in America, but surely in Sweden and the rest of Europe). People simply know very little about Islam. They need to be educated first, and already that is a big effort. So this is the first step. Before this has been achieved, before the awareness about the true face of Islam is firmly represented among the general public, it becomes pointless to push for deportation of all Muslims at the arenas directed at the general public. The first and current step is about educating people about Islam.” He puts emphasis on the need for breaking the spirit of our Jihadist enemies and finding ways of symbolically defeating them.
I have been criticized because my talk about containment and the need to limit even non-Muslim immigration smacks of the siege mentality of a friendless West. Advocating a policy of much stricter immigration control in general isn’t based on isolationism, it’s based on realism. We’re in the middle of the largest migration waves in human history. The simple fact is that far more people want to live in the West than we can possibly let in. Technology has made it easier for people to settle in other countries, and easier for them to stay in touch with their original homeland as if they never left. We have to deal with this fact by slowing the immigration rates to assimilation levels; otherwise our societies will eventually break down.
I’m advocating isolation of the Islamic world, not of the West. Even if we cannot allow all non-Muslims to freely settle in our lands, this does not mean that they have to be our enemies. Jihad is being waged against the entire non-Muslim world, not just the West. We should stop trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims instead cooperate with other non-Muslims. It is important to stress here, however, that this cooperation should be based on mutually shared strategic interests, not on a Western mission to “save the world.”
We live in a world demographically — and perhaps soon economically — dominated by Asians, yet too many Westerners are still mentally stuck in an age where we had a dominant position. The Chinese look after Chinese interests, Indians after Indian interests, etc. This is how it should be. Only Westerners are supposed to worry about global interests. We should stop trying to save others and start saving ourselves, while we still can. Only by letting go of illusions of hegemony can we regain our sanity. The Western world order is dead. The sooner we realize that, the better are our chances. Instead of complaining about “decline” we could use this situation as an opportunity to define a new civilizational mission dedicated to our own survival. If cultural confusion is a cause of our low birth rates, it is possible that a new sense of purpose could lead to a rise in birth rates. The battle for Western hegemony is already over. The battle for Western survival is about to begin.
As I have pointed out several times in my essays, Islam is a secondary infection which feeds off our weakness. Muslims would never have been able to challenge us as much as they do now without finding willing collaborators within our ranks who viewed them as potential allies in the fight against their own civilization. Many immigrants are tools for our elites as well, a protected class being used as a battering ram for the “creative destruction” of established Western nation states. The groups that hate our civilization the most, along with Jihadist Muslims, are white Marxists, while some of the people who defend it are immigrants who were not born into it. We thus face the possibly unique situation of a civilization being attacked by insiders and defended by people who were not born into it.
We need to keep our eyes on the ball. Imagine if you have a zebra in a cage. A social engineer comes up with the brilliant idea that we now live in the age of globalization and that all creatures therefore have to learn to live together in harmony. If they refuse, they should be forced to participate in this noble project under the enlightened guidance of educated social engineers. The zebra is forced to share his cage with a lion. When he tries to protest, the social engineers tell him that he is an evil racist who suffers from lionophobia, which is promptly banned by law. Young zebras are taught through the education system and the media to feel weighed down by guilt because lions have suffered much injustice in the past. They are consequently prevented from identifying threats and responding to them in a sensible manner.
The experiment ends badly and many zebras are slaughtered. The question is: Who are really the bad guys in this case? I would blame the social engineers more than the lions. If a lion kills a zebra, he is only following his nature. Similarly, it is in Islam’s nature to attack others. If Muslims follow Islam’s nature, why should we be surprised? After all, they have been doing this for 1400 years. Yes, we should be angry with them, but we should first and foremost be angry with those who fed us false information, flooded our countries with enemies and forced us to live with them. They constitute enemy number one. We should never forget that. This analogy is not perfect since we are not dealing with animals but with human beings who can think for themselves. Nevertheless, we need to keep this in mind.
I believe we need to think of two distinct fights: The fight for the West and for European civilization, and the fight against Islam. They overlap on a number of occasions, but they are by no means identical. Moreover, just because Muslim immigration is uniquely harmful doesn’t mean that all other forms of mass immigration are unproblematic. Personally, I have two goals, listed here according to their relative importance:
1. Defend European civilization and the peoples who have historically created it
2. Fight Islam on a global basis
For my part, I have always, and will always, support priority number two, as long as this doesn’t conflict with priority number one. I will be happy to help Hindus in India or Buddhists in Thailand in the fight against Jihad, but that doesn’t mean that I will allow unlimited numbers of Asians settle in my country. This would spell the end of my nation, and that would obviously conflict with goal number one. There is a school of thought which says that it’s bad if native Europeans are displaced by Muslims, but OK if we are displaced by others. I would prefer not to be displaced by anybody. The defense of European civilization, which is what Western civilization actually is, is inseparable from the defense of the peoples who have historically created it. And no, we are not “socially constructed.”
The United Nations is heavily infiltrated by Islamic groups. We should starve it for funds and ridicule it at any given opportunity. As an alternative to the UN, we could create an organization where only democratic states could become members. The most important principle at this point is to contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have influence over our policies, which they do through the UN.
Europeans need to totally dismantle the European Union and regain national control over our borders and legislation. The EU is so deeply flawed and infiltrated by pro-Islamic thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. No, the EU isn’t the only problem we have, but it is the worst, and we can’t fix our other problems as long as the EU is in charge. And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel. Europe’s first line of defense starts in Jerusalem.
Europeans should adopt legislation similar to the First and Second Amendments in the American Bill of Rights, securing the right to free speech and gun ownership. The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic security of their citizenry, far less our national borders.
We need to ditch the welfare state, which is probably doomed anyway. The welfare state wasn’t all bad, but it cannot compete in a world of billions of capitalists in low-cost countries. It creates a false sense of security in a dog-eat-dog world and breeds a passivity that is very dangerous in our struggle for survival. We should use the money to strengthen our border controls and rebuild credible militaries. Western Europeans have lived under Pax Americana for so long that we have forgotten how to defend ourselves. This needs to change, and soon.
I recently read the book The Shock Doctrine by the prominent left-wing intellectual Naomi Klein. That is, I made an attempt to read it. I gave up after a few chapters. Klein talks about how clean slate ideologies are dangerous, and mentions in passing some crimes committed by the Soviet regime and the criticism which followed its collapse. Then she says:
“The process has sparked heated debate around the world about how many of these atrocities stemmed from the ideology invoked, as opposed to its distortion by adherents like Stalin, Ceausescu, Mao and Pol Pot. ‘It was flesh-and-blood Communism that imposed wholesale repression, culminating in a state-sponsored reign of terror,’ writes Stéphane Courtois, co-author of the contentious Black Book of Communism. ‘Is the ideology itself blameless?’ Of course it is not. It doesn’t follow that all forms of Communism are inherently genocidal, as some have gleefully claimed, but it was certainly an interpretation of Communist theory that was doctrinaire, authoritarian, and contemptuous of pluralism that led to Stalin’s purges and to Mao’s re-education camps. Authoritarian Communism is, and should be, forever tainted by those real-world laboratories. But what of the contemporary crusade to liberate world markets?”
Klein claims that not all forms of market systems have to be inherently violent. They can leave room for free health care, too. She condemns “authoritarian interpretations” of Communism, but not necessarily Communism as such. Exactly where we can find examples of non-authoritarian Communism she doesn’t say. That’s as far as self-criticism has progressed in the political Left a generation after we “defeated” Marxism.
The economist Milton Friedman, along with F. Hayek, is one of the villains of Naomi Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.
This is actually sound advice and in my view the strategy Western survivalists should follow. When I first started writing as Fjordman I focused on how to “fix the system.” I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies; it also contains too many internal contradictions. If we define the “system” as mass immigration from alien cultures, Globalism, Multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of “tolerance,” then this is going to collapse. It’s inevitable.
The goal of European and Western survivalists — and that’s what we are, it is our very survival that is at stake — should not be to “fix” the ideology of Multiculturalism but to be mentally prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve. What went wrong with our civilization, and how can we survive and hopefully regenerate, despite being an increasingly vulnerable minority in an often hostile world?
If or when the European Union collapses, we need to stage trials against the creators of Eurabia and denounce the lies told by our media and academia. Their ideology needs to be exposed as evil. The political elites implement the agendas of our enemies and ignore the interests of their people. Change will come when they fear the consequences of their betrayal more than they fear Muslims. We need to regain control over our national borders and legislation, and we need to reclaim control over the media. Those who control the media, control society.
It is easy to blame others, but we have to accept responsibility for our situation. Yes, we have indeed been betrayed by our leaders, but that’s only part of the problem. People tend to get the governments they deserve. Maybe we get weak leaders because we are weak, or because they can exploit weaknesses in our mentality to get us where they want; anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, our excessive desire for consensus and suppression of dissent, the anti-individualistic legacy from Socialism and the passivity bred by welfare state bureaucracy. Muslims are stuck with their problems and blame everybody else for their failures because they can never admit they are caused by deep flaws in their culture. We shouldn’t make the same mistake. Europeans export wine; Arabs export whine. That’s the way it should be.
In his book The River War published in 1899, Winston Churchill wrote about the cursed effects of Mohammedanism (which is what Islam is):
“The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
This description remains correct today. Nevertheless, bad as it is, Islam isn’t the cause of our current weakness. In addition to plain decadence, there is a widespread feeling in much of Europe that nothing is worth fighting for, certainly not through armed struggle. There are no Great Truths, everything is equal. Maybe Europe’s faith in itself died in Auschwitz, but it was severely wounded in the trenches of the First World War. It was WW1 that radicalized Europe, triggered the Russian Revolution and the rise of Soviet Communism, and filled Germany, including a young corporal named Adolf Hitler, with a desire for vengeance and much of the ammunition they needed for their rise to power in the 1930s.
I have heard claims that European civilization will not survive the twenty-first century. A century is a very long time, we should remember that. Would anybody (except a Churchill) in the early twentieth century, when Europe was strong, have predicted that it would now be in the process of being overpowered by Algerians and Pakistanis? Things change. They can change for the worse, but also for the better. Our ancestors, better men and women than we are, held the line against Islam for more than one thousand years, sacrificing their blood for the continent. By doing so, they not only preserved the European heartland and thus Western civilization itself, but quite possibly the world in general from Islamic dominance. The stakes involved now are no less than they were then, possibly even greater.
It is difficult to predict the future, apart from the fact that there will be a lot of turbulence. As American scholar Daniel Pipes puts it, the decisive events have yet to take place, perhaps within the next decade or so. The situation is historically unprecedented: “No large territory has ever shifted from one civilization to another by virtue of a collapsed population, faith, and identity; nor has a people risen on so grand a scale to reclaim its patrimony. The novelty and magnitude of Europe’s predicament make it difficult to understand, tempting to overlook, and nearly impossible to predict. Europe marches us all into terra incognita.”
Some people claim that Europe isn’t worth fighting for and that many people here deserve what’s coming. Some of them probably do, yes. The catch is that the people who deserve most to be punished for the current mess are the ones who are least likely to pay the price. The creators of Eurabia will be the first to flee the continent when the going gets tough, leaving those who have never heard of Eurabia and never approved of its creation to fight.
Edmund Burke believed that if a society can be seen as a contract, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. I like that idea, which means that when you fight for a country, you don’t just fight for the ones that are there now, but for those who lived there before and for those who will live there in the future. If we don’t want to fight for what Europe is today then let us fight for what it once was, and maybe, just maybe, for what it may become once more. There was real greatness in this continent once. It seems a long time ago now, but we can get there again. Meanwhile, let us work to ensure the survival of European civilization, which is now very much in question.
This concludes “Defeating Eurabia”. The book is available through Lulu.com, a print-on-demand provider. (This includes the updates, which will be published here as well in the next post).