The Stakes in Europe

Longtime commenter DP111 — who comments on Gates of Vienna, Fjordman, Little Green Footballs, and other blogs, but has no blog of his own that I know of — is featured today in a post on Fjordman. His remarks are worth reproducing in full; I have edited them for typos. DP111 is British (I think), and the European perspective on the Great Islamic Jihad is a valuable one:

     The long-term goal — and we shouldn’t be squeamish about stating this — is to encourage mass apostasy among Muslims. Apostasy in the widest sense — that is, Muslims either leave Islam or leave infidel lands. The question is how do we arrive at this point rapidly enough and before the demographic imperative leaves no choice for either us, or for potential apostate Muslims. In the first instance, deporting illegal aliens, particularly Muslims, then following it by deporting those who advocate terrorism, will deplete the Islamic base in the West to a sufficient degree, that it is unable to facilitate jihadism in the West as easily.
As Islam is mainly a profit motive political ideology, masquerading as a religion, the pressures on Muslims to change their ideology must also be based on a profit-cum-political basis. Islam has no real philosophical base, and as such, is immune to arguments based on morality or ethics. Thus deportation of the advocates of Islamisation, terror etc will start to demoralise the Islamic base. continues the Islamic base. A number of Muslims will leave of their own accord, or will leave Islam, as they see no future for themselves or their children in a modern society.
What I’m getting here is that we have to give Muslims some incentive to either leave Islam or leave infidel lands. They are unlikely to do either, if what they see is the continuing Islamisation of the West. Why would anyone in their right minds, wish to join what is perceived as the losing side? This to be followed by an insistence that the rules that define a liberal secular democracy have to be adhered to. For instance
1.   The electrically amplified calls of the muezzin are an invasion of the public square as well as an affront to other faiths.
2.   Wearing clothes that signify the oppression of women is a symbol of acceptance of slavery as legitimate. Totally unacceptable.
3.   Teaching Islam in public schools is not acceptable, as the texts violate several; cherished values of the West.
What is being proposed here are certain ideas, none are racist or Islamophobic, bigoted or anti-religious. They are just what defines Western civilisation i.e. rule of law, separation of church and state, equality of sexes etc. As I pointed out, 9/11 and others such massacres were chastisement delivered to the Western donkey to make it move in the right direction. It is the stick and carrots approach. In essence, this what I’m proposing – stick and carrots approach. Generally works. The basic impulse of Islam is to expand into Infidel territory. The territory is not just physical but spiritual and intellectual. Unable to do so, it will collapse quite quickly in historic terms, and thus release the 1.2 billion souls in its enslavement. What more can one ask for.
The other great thing of this approach is, that we are will not be untrue to our own ideas of who and what we are.

7 thoughts on “The Stakes in Europe

  1. Nice coherent post, but it does not allow for the most important aspects of Western society – capitalism and growth. Western secularism is a profit motive ideology and Gulf Arabs who sponsor the radical strain of Islam are very wealthy. To deny ourselves ability to profit from their sponsorship and beliefs, act in their pay, will require that we limit our capitalism. To limit our capitalism will be a great constraint on our society.

    A better way would be to find a way to profit and limit the spread of Islam. Best solution may be to remove the oil wealth from the hands of the Gulf Arab leader that promotes this form of Islam and place it in the hands of a leader that does not, or take it for ourselves.

  2. I did write that islam was a profit motive ideology masquerading as a religion. As you rightly point out, capitalism is also a profit motive ideology. However, capitalism is not a religion or even a philosophy, but simply a method for the efficient use of resources, and to create more wealth.

    Islam OTH is a religion that expressly started out as raids against caravans for loot and booty. In other words, it is simply profit at the expense of other people’s work. It does not create wealth, it simply seizes the wealth of others. Mohammed himself robbed others, as well as took hostages to be bartered for money. That is, all profit with no outlay in capital expenditure or work except one of violence. In essense, islam is a robber baron’s ideology. To this day, muslim nations are among the poorest of all, and the rich ones, such as the oil states, are wealthy due to the expertise and work of the West.

    In Britain, some 40% of the muslim population is on Benefits. Of the remainder 60%, some 30% have a single person employed in a family of 6 to 8 or so. They then qualify for all sorts of benefits. One can therefore surmise, that some 70% of the muslim population of Britain, is on Welfare. So here we are again, profit with no expenditure of real effort.

    Now lets us look at islamic nations to whom we “loan” enormous amounts of money – which we know full well will never be repaid. Now as long as these nations know, that we will continue to give them money, even though it is apparant that they are poor because of islam, they will continue on their chosen path. Palestinians are the most extreme example of this case. The message we give out is that it is profitable to be muslim, poor, and engage in Jihad, as the world will continue to pay the Jizya.

    We need to break this cycle of Jihad and dependency on the victims of Jihad. I see no reason whatever that muslims should profit from the excercise of their religion, whether it is blackmail money for palestinians, Afghanistan, or welfare money.

    Now it is not in our power to take the wealth from oil states. But it certainly is in our power to stop funding poor islamic nations. It is also in our power to start deporting illegal immigrants, particularly muslims. If they see that it is no longer profitable to be muslim anymore, many are likely to change their views on life. If they do not, then at least they are removed from the West, and are unable to conduct Jihad from within.

    My initial post was simply to look at islam from a different perspective – different from the currently accepted one. Your response is helpful. Look forward to your comments.


  3. unaha-closp

    I have argued that islam in effect is a robber baron’s ideology. It is worth noting, that through history, Islamic societies grew rich on looting the wealth of others, and subjugating the conquered to dhimmis i.e., working slaves.

    The option of extracting money from kaffirs by conquest is now no longer available. We thus see the option of blackmail or dependency being excercised. If one accepts this view of Islam, islam begins to appear as nothing but “beg, borrow or steal” in action by a large group of people i.e., a collective of spongers and thieves.

    I’m proposing that instead of a war of religion that we seem to be engaged in, we simply cease to play the game of paying money to muslims. If islam is really just a money grabbing ideology, then if we cease to hand out money, its reason to exist vanishes. If it doesn’t fall, then atleast we have saved ourselves a lot of money, and at the same time removed the threat from within.


  4. DP111 —

    As a matter of coincidence, I’m currently reading The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic (a very good book), and I just encountered this passage:

    “Marxist-Fascist and Islamist projects have in common the lust for other people’s lives and property, and the desire to exercise complete control over their subjects’ lives. All three have been justified by a self-refential system of thought and belief that perverts meanings of words, stunts the sense of moral distinctions, and destroys souls.”

    His analysis is that Islam is a materialistic religion, because your reward is either rape and plunder in this life or rape and plunder in the next, but in either case it’s a hedonistic reward.

    The whole thing explains why the Left seems to ally so easily with the Great Jihad.

  5. BB

    Serge Trifkovic has been writing about the islamic threat for a long time. As a Serb, he knows full well the implications.

    I have written that our nations are not willing to even contemplate that there is a war of religion going on. It is just too passe – it is something we left behind in history. So my hope is to shift the battleground where we can fight back effectively.

    Bearing this in mind I have suggested two grounds that are suitable.

    1. Cultural – this encompasses things such as separation of church and state, any incidence of slavery is unacceptable, equality of the sexes.

    2. Financial – We all know that in capatalism there is no such thing as a free lunch. Yet we have been handing out the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars of free lunches every year to the islamic world and muslims. This is not capitalism – it is socialism of the worst sort. That is, handouts to those who will not work. Even the communists did not dole out money to their enemies, and yet we are doing just that. Well the politicians are. They can afford to do that, as it is not their money but the plebs. When it comes to the victims of the Jihad, it is again the plebs, as the elite are too well guarded with tax payer money. Makes one quite furious.


  6. DP111 —

    I agree with everything you say, but I don’t think your program is politically feasible under present circumstances. The entrenched interests are much too committed to the status quo.

    The biggest problem is the stranglehold that the liberal elites have on the media. If real information about what goes on could be thoroughly discussed, and repeatedly brought to public attention, change would become possible.

    That must be our first task, to change the conversation. With the blogs we have a chance to do it. The three most important things are subversion, subversion, and subversion.

    Of course, we also need more gutsy journalists like Oriana Fallaci…

  7. As another Brit who posts on JihadWatch, I would like to point out that what DP111 suggests is exactly what I think needs to be done.

    I see the explosion of immigration as totally planned by the Muslims for when the oil money runs out.

    As for these wealthy Gulf Arabs, when we put this into opperation we should basically nationalize every single Arab holding in Western companies. Then nation states can sell these back to the people and make a major dent in the profits of the Jihadists.

    I think that a major change in energy is required, I just read something in the Economist Technology Quarterly which makes me feel that we have a chance, the discussion is on batteries, a number of researches have managed to significantly reduce the time it takes to recharge lithium-ion batteries and have also significantly increased their capacity, in fact Toshiba have managed to develop a battery that charges to 80% of capacity in 1 minute.

    If you think about this, we have cars that we fill with petrol, now imagine electric cars that can be charged up in three minutes, we have a choice at last.

    The trick is to produce the electricity, but I really believe that we can start developing real alternatives with a bit of effort and investment.

Comments are closed.