Okay, Okay, So I Lied. Blame Fjordman.

Looking at the site meter (a good way to discover new blogs), I couldn’t figure out why we had so many links to GoV from Jihad/Dhimmi Watch so I opened one to find out.

I should have guessed.

As an LGFer once intoned whilst squatting in our comments, “Wow. Just wow.” — thereby giving me the gift of my new favorite banality, surpassing even “awesome, dude.”

However, this time the stunned feeling is genuine. Fjordman has written one of his best essays to date, and it’s up at Dhimmi Watch — “Fjordman: Socratic Dialogue vs. Islamic Dialogue.”

“Dialogue” explains for me what I knew but didn’t have the reading background to articulate — i.e., that the Islamic approach to history is both a strength and a fundamental weakness. There is greedy consumption in which Islam consumes history and then preserves it without ever reviewing it or going back to the sources it used so as to re-examine old theories based on new information. “Knowledge” becomes sacerdotal and enshrined in amber.

This is one of the reasons that Islam can’t create. Its tenets forbid returning to the place where a theory originated in order to reframe a new hypothesis based on further information acquired in the interim. Even worse, Islam destroyed the original documents once it had digested from them whatever was immdiately useful:
– – – – – – – –

“(The Muslims) desired to learn the sciences of the (foreign) nations. They made them their own through translations. They pressed them into the mold of their own views. They peeled off these strange tongues [and made them pass] into their [own] idiom, and surpassed the achievements of (the non-Arabs) in them. The manuscripts in the non-Arabic languages were forgotten, abandoned, and scattered. All the sciences came to exist in Arabic. The systematic works on them were written in (Arabic) writing. Thus, students of the sciences needed a knowledge of the meaning of (Arabic) words and (Arabic) writing. They could dispense with all other languages, because they had been wiped out and there was no longer any interest in them.”

Rémi BragueAs Brague says, the consequence of this disappearance of the original texts and the neglect of the original languages was that the Muslim world has not been able to return to what it translated and deepen their examination. “In doing this, the Islamized world made the phenomena of ‘renaissances’ impossible — that is, of a return to the original texts against the traditions that claimed to follow them.” In European history, “one witnesses a constant effort to go back up toward the classical sources. One can thus describe the intellectual history of Europe as an almost uninterrupted train of renaissances.”

I beseech you to go read the whole thing. How Fjordman remains dispassionate and yet engaged with his subject continues to amaze me. A guess: he is, at heart, a scientist dressed up in other intellectual clothing. He has given up the test tube for the pen, and we are the richer for it. On the other hand, maybe he’s a polymath.

If you do nothing else today, go read this gem…and then re-read it.

By the way, he is quoting Rémi Brague here, from Eccentric Culture: A Theory of Western Civilization. Fortunately, it’s available in English. Any amateur historian should put it on his “must have” list.

[NB: okay, so I lied. This is a post. By me. I will have to do some penance or other. Oh, wait. This is Fjordman’s fault, not mine. Blame him.]

Religious Symbols in EU Institutions

The NiqabUp until now, the pattern of behavior for Muslims in the West has been to insist on special privileges and exceptions, using our constitutional and statutory provisions for freedom of religion to justify their demands.

Anyone who wants to act against the Islamization of the West needs to address this situation, and the way to do it is to create rules that apply equally to all religions, thus forestalling the objection that they are discriminatory. If Christians can’t wear crosses, Jews can’t wear yarmulkes, and Muslimas can’t wear the veil, then the rule is fair, right?

Christians and Jews will mostly comply with such rules without demur, but Muslims tend to bridle at the restrictions, because the wearing of the veil is a political statement for Islam, a sign that Dar al-Harb has been converted into Dar al-Islam. Where veils are worn, the sexes are separated, and the muezzin calls from the minaret, everyone knows that sharia has come to the territory that formerly belonged to the infidels.

So, practically speaking, the “fair” rule has the desired effect: it denies Islam a political toehold in the countries which enforce it.

With that in mind, three members of the European Parliament from Belgium have taken action. On April 21st, the MEPs Philip Claeys, Frank Vanhecke and Koenraad Dillen — all from Vlaams Belang — proposed the following:


Written declaration on the introduction of a ban on the wearing of religious symbols in buildings of EU institutions

– – – – – – – –

The European Parliament,

  having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,
A.   whereas the separation of church and state in Europe is a fundamental acquis,
B.   whereas this acquis is being placed under increasing pressure by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism,
C.   whereas the Muslim headscarf is also a symbol of the oppression of women,
D.   whereas many women are forced by social pressure to wear a headscarf,
E.   whereas the staff of public services should present a neutral appearance, most of all (but not exclusively) in dealings with the public,
    1.   Urges the institutions and the financial, advisory, interinstitutional and decentralised bodies of the European Union to introduce a ban in all their buildings on the wearing of visible religious symbols, to apply to all staff members and employees of service providers;
    2.   Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the other EU institutions and the financial, advisory, interinstitutional and decentralised bodies of the European Union.

We’ll have to wait and see how the various countries of the European Union react to this proposal.

Document received via email.

’Tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough,’twill serve

A suggestion to our readers: you may want to read Shrinkwrapped’s response to El Inglés’ recent essay here on possible scenarios regarding the future of Europe as it deals with the onslaught of unimpeded immigration.

 Francisco de Goya’s ‘The Lunatic’What dismays me is that the good doctor — whose essays are usually thoughtful and modest in their approach — has, in this case, chosen to give El Inglés a diagnostic label based on this single post, while ignoring the warning that these scenarios were descriptive, not normative. To describe possible scenarios is not “to toy with them,” but I doubt everyone can discern the difference between a consideration of an outcome and its endorsement.

Shrinkwrapped has decided on the evidence of this post that El Inglés is “exhibit[ing] all the signs of a regressive response to anxiety.”

As I said in my comment on Shrinkwrapped’s post, “Say What?” Since when does a responsible member of the psychiatric profession go around assigning diagnoses based on such sketchy evidence? Prior to this demonstration, I would have sworn an affidavit that Shrinkwrapped was too professional, and his boundaries too solid, for him to theorize so carelessly, so wantonly, so unreflectively. Anyone can throw diagnoses around. It’s quite another to prove them.

Nor is that all. Shrinkwrapped uses for his proof Charles Johnson’s ideas regarding the essay. Normally, I ignore Mr. Johnson’s pontifications. I give them the gravitas they deserve. That Shrinkwrapped would choose this man, who has viciously attacked our blog since last October, as his “evidence” is absolutely breathtaking.

He knew full well what ammunition he was handing out to a man who appears negatively obsessed with us.
– – – – – – – –
Thus, Mr Johnson has reams of material to further scapegoat and attack us, using the credentials of a respected psychiatrist to back him up.

I was talking to Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) a few months ago and our conversation turned to blogs. Pamela stated unequivocally that there was no blogger you could fully trust not to betray you. I offered Shrinkwrapped as a counter-argument and upon thinking it over, she agreed. Well, Pamela, after today’s post I am forced to agree with you. Don’t trust anyone who blogs. Including me.

My psychiatrist often remarks upon the notion that betrayal is a commonplace event; the most common, frequent human experience we will encounter. He says that we must all learn to process and metabolize these events when they occur, especially when we are blindsided by someone we had heretofore trusted. That is what I will do with this one, though it will take awhile. I admired Shrinkwrapped and am sad to be bereft of that admiration of him. I had thought him one of the Righteous Ones, but as it turns out, he’s merely human, an average joe like anyone else.

What is most interesting, clinically speaking, is Shrinkwrapped’s own public dysphoria — quite regressed and anxious now that I think of it — over the fact that he believed Israel had “lost the will to live“. I didn’t agree and told him so. In fact, I sent him several news articles that I hoped disproved his alarmist thesis.

To sum up what I am attempting to convey, I offer this passage from Neal Stephenson’s The Diamond Age:

“‘Nell,’ the Constable continued, indicating through his tone of voice that the lesson was concluding, ‘the difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people — and this is true whether or not they are well-educated — is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations — in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.

“In your Primer, you have a resource that will make you highly educated, but it will never make you intelligent. That comes from life. Your life up to this point has given you all of the experience you need to be intelligent, but you have to think about those experiences. If you don’t think about them, you’ll be psychologically unwell. If you do think about them you will become not merely educated but intelligent…’”

As a result of all this, I am going to take a vacation from Gates of Vienna for a while. I’ll be back sometime. In the meantime, I ask our roster of contributing writers and tipsters to fill in the gaps so that the Baron will not have to carry on by himself. He is already too busy as it is. Had I another choice, I would not leave him to carry on without me.

For the moment, I will concentrate on the smaller, day-to-day minutiae at my other blog, “The Neighborhood of God,” which I have grossly neglected. At least that is my intention, once I get past this sense of having been slammed in the stomach by someone I used to consider as a man of integrity.

Live and learn. It’s the best cure for sadness.

Buddhist Workers Murdered in Pattani

Bangkok Reporting

This post is the latest in a series from our Bangkok correspondent, H. Numan.

From The Bangkok Post:

School builders killed

Southern rebels on Thursday ambushed and killed a five-member, unarmed Buddhist work crew, including two women, on their way to build and repair an Islamic school in Pattani province in the deep South.

Police said the attackers hid at the side of the road just outside the grounds of the Yarang district school, which is closed for summer break.

When the workmen approached in their pick-up to begin their morning work at about 9:20 Thailand time (0220 GMT), an estimated 20 insurgents armed with M16 rifles fired on the truck to stop it and then kill the five workers. A sixth worker was shot and seriously wounded.

The German news agency dpa quoted Pol Col Poonsak Prasertmate of Yarang station as saying, “This attack was obviously planned in advance. They must have been observing the workers for days.”

The insurgents escaped cleanly after the murders, scattering nails on the road to slow down any possible pursuit.

– – – – – – – –

An army spokesman, Col Acra Tiproch, said the work team was to make repairs to the school.

“About half past nine, a pick-up truck was carrying the workers to build a fence of a school. Two motorcycles came and opened fire on to the truck,” said Col Acra. Other insurgents emerged from cover beside the road and continued the attack. The workers had no weapons.

It was one of the most brutal attacks of the year, and continued the insurgent pattern of intimidation against schools, apparently seen by the Islamist rebels as a symbol of the Bangkok government.

The attack came as Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej was visiting Malaysia on Thursday to discuss the violence in the South with his counterpart Abdullah Badawi.

Mr Samak was to ask the Malaysian premier for help by extraditing two most-wanted separatist leaders believed to be living in Malaysia.

This was Bangkok reporting,
H. Numan.

Anders Fogh, Prince of Europe?

Anders Fogh RasmussenRegular readers are familiar with Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the current Danish prime minister. Two years ago he earned everyone’s respect with the pluck and fortitude he showed in the face of attempted Muslim intimidation during the Motoon crisis.

But since then he has set his sights on (and hitched his wagon to) the twelve stars of the EU flag. In the USA we would say that he has “grown in office”, and he now looks to become a good apparatchik in the superstructure of Europe.

Yesterday, in celebration of the strange new respect that Mr. Rasmussen has earned in progressive circles, European Voice published an admiring piece about the new “handsome prince of Europe”. Knowing how ordinary sensible Danes view him, I wrote to some of my Viking contacts to ask them if they were pissed off.

Skjoldungen sent me a link to a post about Fogh (in Danish) at Hodjas Blog entitled “The Man Who Would Be Sun King”.

And Zonka wrote me back with this concise summary of the current state of Danish politics, and the part that Anders Fogh Rasmussen plays in it:

I don’t know if “pissed off” is the right word.

The Left hates Fogh, as they always have done, even though he is more of a social democrat than the Social Democrats, and a first-class steward of the welfare state (nanny state).

The conservatives or national-conservatives (not the Conservative Party — they are ninnies — but the people, bloggers, commenters, etc.) are quite disappointed with him and more so of late, since he has spent more time abroad than at home, and has looked more and more disinterested in national politics. Thus there is a widespread feeling that all he is doing is positioning himself for a top international job, either as President of the EU, the political leader of NATO or some high position in the UN (perhaps as a continuation of his recent Africa campaign).

The only problem is that there is no real candidate that could take over as PM. The opposition is in a total shambles; the leading opposition party (Social Democrats) are almost run over by Villy Søvndal (Socialist People’s Party), and Villy and Margrethe Vestager (Social Liberals/Radikale) are placing themselves in opposition to everybody else these days!

– – – – – – – –

Add to that the crown prince of Venstre (Lars Løkke Rasmussen), who has gone through a mini-scandal of using tax-payer money for entertainment (cigarettes, booze, nightclub visits, etc.). Not big-time, but enough to make people wary of letting him take over the country, at least for now.

The Conservative Party has absolutely no profile, and the only way Dansk Folkeparti can get their hands on the wheel is to win a landslide election victory, and then I fear we will have a civil war with the autonomer, Antifa, and whatever else is crawling around on the left wing.

So, as you see, Anders Fogh has managed to make himself “indispensable”, and yet he looks totally apathetic and disinterested in taking care of the job that he was elected to do.

But then again, I probably would too if I had been responsible for signing away the sovereignty of my country.

Also, he is the perfect “civil servant”, caretaker, steward, or bureaucrat — not really a leader.

So, as you can see, it is not a simple question of being pissed off. It’s also a matter of not having a viable alternative… really a fix to be in!

Hat tip for European Voice: TB.

Eight Jihadist Groups Have Settled in Spain

AMDG at La Yijad en Eurabia has an alarming report about the presence of terrorist mujahideen in Spain. First, some excerpts from his translation of a Spanish news article:

According to antiterrorist sources consulted by 20 minutes, eight Jihadist groups have already settled in Spain and are located mostly in Catalonia, Madrid, Andalusia and Valencia.

Their threat is real, since most of these sleeping cells “can be activated at any time and perpetrate criminal attacks”.

Three of these groups have a remarkable appeal among the Moslem community in Spain, especially among the young men that the National police defines as “second generation”, that is, children of immigrants born in Spain, with higher education and western lifestyle. They do not seem to be radical Islamists. [This paragraph just repeats conventional info. Moreover, there is not yet a “second generation” of Muslim immigrants in Spain]

The first of these groups is Al Qaeda for the Maghreb, the former Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat. It has been responsible for the last big terrorist attacks in the north of Africa; in their statements they use to call for jihad in order to take back Ceuta, Melilla and Al Andalus.


The second group is the Islamic Combat Group of Morocco (GICM), detected in Madrid and Catalonia. They are the authors of the 11-M attack. [The responsibility for the attack has been never clear]

The third movement is linked with the ideological group Takfir Wal Hijra (Anathema and Exile), the most violent and radical movement of Islamic fundamentalism.

AMDG offers some commentary:
– – – – – – – –

The fact that Spain is one of the targets of the Third Jihad is not surprising. Muslims have the religious obligation to expand Islam — mostly political Islam; conversion can be forced later on in many ways — and in particular they have the compelling obligation to retrieve those lands on which Islam once ruled. Al Andalus — that is Spain, and not only the south of Spain, the modern Andalucía — was once under Mohammedan yoke and is therefore among the priorities of the Jihad.

The answer by Spaniards to this threat cannot be more discouraging. Spanish government withdrew its troops from Iraq immediately after the first terrorist attack, even if they were not combat troops. Their next initiative was the proposal of the Alliance of Civilizations. Spanish citizenship showed their spinelessness the day after the attack, flocking together in massive demonstrations with white painted hands and pathetic slogans like “Terrorism = Pain¨, “No more death” or “Death will not suppress your voices”.

AMDG also notes that Spanish Government is currently “negotiating” (i.e., paying the ransom) for the release of 26 Spanish sailors kidnapped by Somali pirates.

See his post for the rest of the article and the external links to his sources.

I Hear My Train A-Comin’

I hear my train a-comin’Recent events have inspired me to write a series of mini-dramas, each featuring a dialogue between Baron Bodissey and Mr. Interlocutor, the late great Vaudeville star.

The setting: Out on the lonesome prairie we see Mr. Interlocutor standing in the middle of the railroad tracks, while Baron Bodissey watches from nearby.

Scenario #1

Baron B.:   Look out! A big steam train is coming at you fast!
Mr. I:   You’ve got to remember that not all steam trains are bad.
Baron B.:   But this one is about to hit you…
Mr. I:   Besides, what do you have against steam? Are you a fuelist?
Baron B.:   I —
Mr. I:   You’ve got to be careful; people may perceive you as a fuelist, even when you’re not.
Baron B.:   Wait —
Mr. I:   Especially if you associate with crypto-dieselists.
Baron B.:   Oh, no…
Mr. I:   SPLAT!

Scenario #2

Baron B.:   Watch out! A train is coming fast!
Mr. I:   Are you advocating a train wreck?
Baron B.:   No, I just —
Mr. I:   When you simply describe the train wreck, you’re actually opening the door to recommending it.
Baron B.:   Hey, man, look behind you!
Mr. I:   Why should I? Do you want me to give credence to you and all your fellow wreckists?
  (Sound of a train whistle, very close)
Mr. I:   Don’t you scream at me!
Baron B.:   Oy vey!
Mr. I:   SPLUD!


Scenario #2,115,282
– – – – – – – –

Baron B.:   Get off the track! There’s a train coming!
Mr. I:   What kind of train?
Baron B.:   A fast one!
Mr. I:   It’s important to distinguish between radical trains and moderate trains.
Baron B.:   Too much steam! I can’t tell!
Unseen Engineer:   (Very loudly) Get off the track, you moron!
Mr. I:   This is great! I welcome the dialogue…
Baron B.:   Oh, noooo —
Mr. I:   BLORF!

There are several million more of these, but I think you get the general idea.

Feel free to write additional scenarios of your —


Thinking the Unthinkable

I’m taking a lot of flak via email today about the essay by El Inglés that I posted here in the wee hours of this morning.

Despite his clear statements at the beginning and end of his post, some people see his analysis as an advocacy of genocide.

This is not just untrue, it is damaging to our cause to describe the discussion of genocide as advocating it.

Believe me, when I want to advocate genocide, you’ll know it. I won’t pussyfoot around the topic.

But neither El Inglés nor I, nor any of our other contributors, has anything other than dread about the possibility that he is looking at. All of us want to avoid it.

It’s obvious that we don’t advocate genocide. Genocide is simply one possible horrible outcome of our failure to address the decay of the West. No one I know wants to see it happen, or recommends it.

Nevertheless, genocide may well come our way even if we don’t talk about it, given the current trends.

It might happen, no matter what we do or say, and no matter how hard we try to point out what lies ahead.

But it might not. There’s still time.

If the awful outcome El Inglés describes happens, it won’t be because he or I or anyone else advocates it. It will be because the situation has reached the discontinuity he talks about, and some or all of our societies begin the descent into violent chaos.

Things cannot continue as they are.
– – – – – – – –
Present trends will inevitably lead to one of several possible scenarios of varying degrees of nastiness. How nasty our future will be depends on how well we look ahead and see what’s coming, and how effectively we communicate our concerns to the political leadership in our different countries.

Our only hope is to see the situation clearly, and then spread the word so that action can be taken while some degree of reason and order still prevails in our political systems.

I’ve been asked to pull El Inglés’ post. I won’t do it. His analysis is careful and thorough and deserves to be studied.

A discussion of our possible futures is also welcome here in the comments, provided commenters stay within the bounds of our well-known rules. If they don’t, I’ll close the comment thread.

But the topic itself is not taboo. Blogger may silence it, but I won’t.

Knocking the Teeth Out of Racism

Zonka has translated an article from yesterday’s Jyllands-Posten about the efforts of an Antifa clone to dispense revolutionary justice to right-wing racist crypto-fascist neo-Nazi Islamophobes who object to the Islamization of Denmark.

Here’s an excerpt from the article. See Zonka’s post for the full translation and outside links:

Right-wing activist got five teeth knocked loose

A female member of the right-wing group Vederfølner got five teeth damaged in a violent assault last Saturday on the main street of Århus.

Antiracistisk NetværkThe assault happened, shortly after the “House” on Vester Allé — where Anti-Racist Network [Antiracistisk Netværk] held a meeting — had been stormed by right-wing activists.

The 19-year-old woman went together with two girlfriends from the Reginacross towards the train station.

“She was dressed in a Henry-Lloyd dress and had a Danish flag, which by the left wing is considered to be right-wing. They passed a bench, on which three autonome girls were sitting, and shortly afterwards the 19-year old got hit five times in the face by one of the three girls,” says Lars Grønbæk Larsen, who is the chairman of Vederfølner.

– – – – – – – –


The girl was wearing the Danish flag because she had been at a birthday party, her two front teeth cracked and a another broke at the root.

“We’re investigating the case as all other cases of violence, but there is nothing new,” says police-inspector Jan Andersen.

Zonka’s comments:

I have to admit that I hadn’t heard about the Aarhus group Vederfølner before hearing about this story, but judging from their web page, it seems like a counter-jihad group and states that their purpose is to fight for Freedom of Speech, Democracy, Equal Rights between Genders and against multiculturalism and Islamization.

Not something that should cause them to be labelled as rightwing activists, but then again the left-leaning people and the media, and even sometimes the authorities, have a hard time getting the labels right… Everything that the lefties doesn’t like is labelled right-wing, fascist, racist, Nazi, etc. One convenient large lump of everything-the-left-hates that grows bigger by the day, since it apparently is now a “hate crime” in the lefties book to carry a Danish flag!

Note: I realize the logo I used above is for the Odense group and not the Århus group of the Antiracistisk Netværk, but it was the only example I could find.

Jordan Sues Danish Papers Over the Motoons

In the latest ripple of Motoon responses, a group in Jordan is taking up “lawfare” to punish the evil Danes for their blasphemous deeds.

Jordan is not a free country, so one presumes that such an initiative has the full approval of the king and the regime.

According to ANSAmed:

An Amman-based activists group filed today a lawsuit at a Jordanian court against Danish cartoonist and newspapers that published controversial cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammad, according to activists.

The group “Prophet Mohammad Unites Us” presented its case to Amman prosecutor before its high profile members, including members of the parliament and prominent politicians, gave their testimonies.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind in Jordan, will seek punishment for the newspapers that published the cartoons as well as the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, said Zakaria Sheikh, founder of the group. “We want the newspapers to come and give their testimonies,” he added.

– – – – – – – –

Lawyers involved in the law suit said they will base their legal arguments on international convention for political and civil rights, which the kingdom signed in 2006. The lawsuit also outlined that Jordan’s press and publications law and the penal code do punish for publishing material that provoke religious sentiments, said Sheikh.

“According to the law, we are able to prosecute any one outside the kingdom who published material on the internet and had influence inside the kingdom,” said Sheikh.

The group spearheaded a campaign to boycott Danish and Dutch products for allowing the publication of material deemed insulting to Islam. Thousands of Muslims around the world took to the streets to protest against the cartoons, which associate Islam with terrorism and mocks its religious figures.

Hat tip: insubria.

Fuat Deniz Murder: Case Closed

Fuat DenizFuat Deniz was a Swedish university professor of Assyrian Christian background who was murdered late last year in Örebro.

The killing had all the earmarks of a political murder: Dr. Deniz had been previously threatened with death for writing about the Ottoman genocide against the Assyrians. Also, he had been stabbed in the neck, which made the murder look like a jihad operation, based on the Koran: Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when you have caused a bloodbath among them, bind a bond firmly on them. (Koran 47:4)

To make matters even more suspicious, the ineptness and incompetence of the local police in their investigation (or lack thereof) seemed willful. It led many of us to wonder if official pressure had been applied from above to put the brakes on the case and prevent the naming of the real suspects.

But it eventually emerged that the crime was part of an old family quarrel. Now Dr. Deniz’ murderer has been caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced. The case is officially closed.

To read the earlier background on the Fuat Deniz murder, see the links at the bottom of this post. Here’s the latest from The Local:

Lecturer’s killer gets ten years

A 42-year-old man has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for murdering Örebro University lecturer Fuat Deniz in December of last year.

An old dispute between the two men, who were related, is thought to have been the motivation for the stabbing.

– – – – – – – –

The killer visited the university in Örebro on the 11th of December last year for a meeting with Deniz.

When the man finally met up with his relative on university grounds, he attacked the academic with a knife. Deniz was seriously injured in the attack and died from the stab wounds a few days later.

The murder received a great deal of attention, generating concern in Sweden’s Syrian and Assyrian communities that the killing may have been politically motivated.

Deniz was well-known and respected within both communities, and his research dealt with political activists.

Previous Posts about Fuat Deniz:

2007   Dec   15   The Long Arm of the Assyrian Genocide
        16   Silencing Any Discussion of the Assyrian Genocide
        18   Remembering Fuat Deniz
        19   A Political Murder? Unlikely, Says Swedish Expert
        22   Soft-Pedaling the Murder of Fuat Deniz
        25   The Swedish Keystone Cops
        30   Update on the Fuat Deniz Case
2008   Jan   3   Bureaucratic Torpor in Swedish Law Enforcement
        12   Sweden’s Feds Take up the Fuat Deniz Case
        16   The Swedish Police Have “A Person of Interest”
        18   No Turkish Connection for the Fuat Deniz Murder
        19   Old Conflicts Between Cousins

Hat tip: TB.

Jailhouse Romance

Our expatriate Dutch correspondent H. Numan has translated a recent newspaper article for us. First, a brief note from the translator:

Do I really need to comment on this? Perhaps this: I thought I had seen all the Loony Left could throw at us… wrong.

And now the article from Monday’s de Volkskrant (the translator’s comments are in square brackets):

Prisoners get dating service

AMSTERDAM — Logical, a dating service for inmates: “a relationship improves the chance to stay straight.”

The inmate union “Bonjo” starts a dating service. Inmates and TBS patients [extremely dangerous psychopaths hospitalized in special prison institutions] looking for a partner can send their personal details to Bonjo. Responses will be forwarded to the prison or mental asylum where the inmates are kept.

“Relationships often end when people are locked up,” said Nico Epskamp, spokesperson for Bonjo. “During detention it is hard to find a partner. A pity, for a relationship improves the chance to stay straight. That is why we began our Bonjo Dating Service on our website.” In the organization’s paper a call for help will soon be published. Epskamp: “We ask inmates what they are interested in, what they look for and the time they have to serve.” Due to privacy considerations no names will be published, only initials.

According to Christiaan Donner, a prison minister in the Bijlmer Prison, dating service will satisfy a great demand. “‘Most inmates I know dream about a good relationship.”

– – – – – – – –

Ordinary dating services are useless to prisoners and psychopaths, as they are — in principle — not allowed to surf the Internet. That’s why they have to use contact ads in newspapers and magazines. One magazine, Mijn Geheim, decided to skip this column, as far too many inmates solicited for dates. A reader complained her date was mainly interested in her 12-year-old daughter. “People who respond, know they will have to deal with a convicted criminal [or dangerously mentally insane psycho]. That is their own responsibility,” as Epskamp sees it. “One has to be alert, but that normally applies to all strangers one begins dating. Also, some women like the idea of starting a relationship with a convicted criminal.”

Preacher Donner: “It’s something surprising. I know about a man [read: convicted criminal] who abused many women, and still got 30 letters after an advertisement. A psychologist told me women like to dominate such a relationship. They decide when they start visiting, and take care of such a man. Also excitement can play a role.”

Surrender, Genocide… or What?

Regular readers will remember our guest-essayist El Inglés, who has contributed several thoughtful pieces to Gates of Vienna in the past.

The essay below presents a stark view of the West’s most likely future. It’s difficult to read such a pessimistic scenario, but El Inglés’ analysis rewards close scrutiny.

Remember: the article below is descriptive, not normative.

The Ummah Jack

Surrender, Genocide… or What?
by El Inglés


A few months ago, I wrote “The Danish Civil War”, a fictional scenario which served to structure a consideration of various issues relating to the rise of Islam in Europe and the likely consequences thereof. The essay finished with the conclusion that Islam constituted an existential threat to the survival of European civilization, and that Islam’s influence on Europe therefore needed to be eliminated. It further concluded that, logically speaking, the various ways of achieving this goal could be broadly subdivided into three categories:

1)   inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will,
2)   mass deportations, and
3)   genocide.

(Hereinafter referred to as options one, two and three, respectively)

This final conclusion was delivered as dispassionately as possible due to a desire to present the situation objectively, as if an alien super-intelligence were viewing the conflicts of various warring tribes of hairless apes. If I am correct in arguing that the number of Muslims in Europe must be reduced to no more than a fraction of its current value, then the three options I discussed are the only three options for achieving this goal. We may consider all three to be morally abhorrent and decide to submit to Islam rather than avail ourselves of any of them, but that does not alter the brute analysis of what could, in principle, be done in response to the Islamization of Europe.

Having now had several months in which to further consider this issue, it seems to me that my conclusions in this regard can be considerably refined. For reasons that I hope to make clear in this essay, I no longer believe that it is possible to solve the problem that Islam has become by means of option one, and I have little confidence that even option two could constitute an effective tool in this regard. I therefore predict that Europe is being swept into a position where it will be forced to choose between relying overwhelmingly on option three and surrendering.

To the type of people most likely to read this essay, this suggestion will not necessarily come as much of a surprise. However, I feel that an issue of such gravity should be analyzed with as much rigour as possible, and this essay will constitute my attempt to conduct this analysis. I have much confidence in parts of it, but less in others, and would appreciate comments from those who feel they have greater or additional insight into key topics. There is certainly a huge amount of variety among European countries in key respects, which I have largely ignored here. Ideally the key claims of the essay would be explored on a country-by-country basis, but such an analysis is quite beyond me. There is also great variety in terms of the current degree of Islamization of these countries, and the amount of braking room that they therefore have available. To the extent that the analysis herein captures the imagination of any of its readers, I would welcome opinions on the likelihood or likely timelines of the different discontinuities discussed below.
– – – – – – – –
These caveats out of the way, I will briefly describe the structure of the essay. It is divided into three parts. The first, “Decay”, will consist of an overview of certain aspects of the current situation in an attempt to establish the momentum already established by the forces of Islamization. The second, “Consequences”, will analyze the extent to which our options in dealing with Islam have been and will continue to be narrowed for some time yet by this momentum. The final part, “Violence”, will take this analysis further whilst also considering the likely nature of the large-scale societal breakdowns we will see as Islam in Europe continues to be what it cannot help but be.


Information pertaining to the decay of European societies in the face of the onslaught from Islam comes so thick and fast these days from such a variety of sources that there is no particular need to try and summarize it here. Instead, I would like to examine one particular aspect of the decay of one particular country in an attempt to establish the sheer momentum already inherent in the process of Islamization, which will have ramifications later on in the essay. Sadly, the country in question is my own, the UK, and the institution already in an advanced degree of cultural and political putrefaction is that of the British police. I will briefly summarize three examples of their egregiousness.

The first relates to that most sweet-natured of Muslim terrorists, Abu Hamza (Captain Hook to the tabloids). In 2005, under the Freedom of Information Act, the Metropolitan Police were forced to reveal that they had spent nearly £900,000 over a 22-month period from January 2003, stewarding (i.e. protecting and enabling) illegal street sermons given by Hamza after he was evicted from the Finsbury Park Mosque. Patrick Mercer, the Conservative frontbench spokesman on homeland security at the time this information came to light, had the following to say in response: “The effect of the police action was to make it easier for poison and subversion to be preached openly on our streets.”

However, according to an article in The Times, the paper which made the original request for the information, Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, expressed himself to the effect that his force had been presented with “a challenging policing operation” that had been handled with “appropriate sensitivity.” Contrary, it seems, to the lowbrow prejudices of xenophobes like the current author, spending vast sums of money on protecting criminals openly engaged in criminal activities in public is an appropriate response to the challenges of multiculturalism. Whether similar consideration would have been shown to large, illegal gatherings of white supremacists advocating, say, the ethnic cleansing of London, remains an open question.

Boom Allah!Moving on, we have the inspiring response of the police to the online publishing of one of the Mohammed cartoons by the British magazine, The Liberal. In an online editorial explaining the decision to put the image on the magazine’s website, the editor, Ben Ramm, wrote the following: “[The Liberal] will not be coerced into self-censorship by the threat of violence from those who use a platform of free speech to call for the destruction of the very system that enfranchises them.” In other words, despite the very real possibility of being the target of violence, Mr. Ramm refused to allow himself to be intimidated by Muslim fanatics. Unfortunately, he was subsequently intimidated somewhat more effectively by “senior officers” at Scotland Yard, who conveyed to him that the resources of the police were “not infinite.”

Given that this is, in fact, a statement of the crashingly obvious and therefore conveys no information if interpreted literally, we would surely be justified in assuming that the police meant something else by it, something they could not say explicitly. I will hereby hazard a guess that the police had decided that by withdrawing the protection of the state from law-abiding citizens exercising their historic rights in the face of murderous religious savages, they could successfully conclude another “challenging policing operation” with the “appropriate sensitivity.” Presumably the fact that they were acting as highly effective force multipliers for the enforcers of a totalitarian political creed, which would destroy British society if it could, did not occur to them.

Channel 4 on UK mosquesFinally, we have the controversy over the British documentary “Undercover Mosque,” which showed undercover footage from a variety of British mosques and Islamic centres of Muslims being Muslims. The response, predictably, was split down the middle, with Muslim groups taking the presentation of the filth spouted by Muslims as being evidence of Islamophobia (yes, really) and everyone else calling for a police investigation. The investigation, far from resulting in the charging of anyone caught on tape, resulted in the West Midlands Police complaining to Ofcom, the media watchdog, that the film had been selectively edited in a manner “sufficient to undermine community cohesion” and “likely to undermine feelings of public reassurance and safety of those communities in the West Midlands for which the Chief Constable has a responsibility.”

This development allowed the usual apologists for Islam, Muslim and non-Muslim, to crawl out of the woodwork, claiming that the revelations in the film were meaningless, the intent Islamophobic, and the featured imams victims. This significantly blunted any effect the film might otherwise have had in alerting the British public to the danger of the growing Muslim presence in their country. It also had the effect of libeling the creators of the film, as Ofcom itself concluded that “Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest… On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context.”

I cannot comment on the soundness of the decision not to prosecute any imams featured in the film. But the way the police and the Crown Prosecution Service effectively accused the filmmakers of inciting hatred against Muslims in response to having been presented with incontrovertible evidence of Muslims inciting hatred against others strikes one as being a less than satisfactory response on the part of those entrusted with the maintenance of law and order.

As I hope I have demonstrated, we have concrete examples here of the following activities on the part of the British police:

1)   Publicly and unashamedly protecting criminals engaged in criminal activities in broad daylight
2)   Greatly amplifying the efficacy of shari’a-based intimidation directed at law-abiding citizens by criminals and would-be murderers
3)   Subverting serious journalistic efforts to investigate the degree of Islamic rot in the UK by hurling libelous claims at said journalists, thereby helping to perpetuate the smoke and mirrors of the Islamic apologism that afflicts our societies

There are many people far better positioned than I to try and explain how it came to pass that the police could have become so thoroughly and hopelessly compromised. But the sheer scale of the disaster that this represents is something that needs to be appreciated, as is the light it casts on proposals to reverse Islamization.

It is striking to note that there does not seem to be any discernible philosophy or strategy guiding the response of the British police or establishment to the encroachment of Islam into our lives and societies. The terrible, mind-numbing boilerplate about inclusion, and integration, and assimilation, and reaching out, and Muslims being just the same as everyone else, and inter-community respect, and Islam being one of the great religions, and on, and on, and on, simply highlights their complete and utter cluelessness. Islam is a problem the solution to which exists so far outside their mental universes as to exist, in effect, not at all. This can perhaps be forgiven to some extent on the part of the police, who are presented with a demographic reality that they are then required to deal with. It is hardly forgivable on the part of their political masters.

London protestHaving accused the British police of not having a strategy to deal with the increasingly corrosive effects of large and growing numbers of Muslims in British society, I will now suggest that there is one strategy consistent with their behaviour, whether they have ever consciously formulated it or not. Simply put, it is the strategy of managing decline. The police have recognized that brute demographic realities render it impossible to ensure that the rule of British law continues to obtain in Muslim-dominated areas or with respect to Muslims in general, and that there is nothing they can do about it. They therefore take action against the most egregious examples of Muslim criminality, whilst simultaneously recommending that clergymen in London not wear their collars in public for fear of being assaulted by adherents of the Religion of Peace. They are, in essence, fighting a rearguard action against an inexorable demographic process, which can be slowed, but no longer stopped through mainstream political processes.


Anyone masochistic to enough re-read my earlier 10,000-word essay will find ample explanation of why I believe that accommodation of, indeed coexistence with, Islam is impossible, and I do not propose to revisit those arguments here. Instead, I will claim that the pathetic and dispiriting abandonment of pride and principle in the face of Islam described so far has attained a momentum that renders it impossible to reverse by any gradual process.

Let me first make clear what I mean by a gradual process. I use the term to refer to sets of policies and actions: a) implemented by existing mainstream political parties that b) do not consist of or result in major, long-term disruptions to the stability, security, or viability of the countries in question. It does not imply that sudden, far-reaching changes in legislation (on immigration, for example) could not be part of the process, only that such changes, if they occur at all, must come from outside the political mainstream that allowed the Islamic cancer to metastasize in our midst in the first place. This would prevent them from constituting gradual change as defined here.

UK immigration graph

My reasoning in concluding that gradual change is impossible is very straightforward. Consider a hypothetical, yet representative European country with a 5% Muslim population and the attendant problems that we are painfully familiar with and need not elaborate here. We can be sure that this country has a certain type of political and media elite, with certain ‘progressive’ attitudes towards national identity, immigration, religion and race, as only the existence of such an elite could allow a 5% Muslim population in the first place. This elite has at least three decades of intellectual and emotional investment in an entire moral-cultural-political worldview which is embodied in the corrupted state the country now exists in. So terrified at the prospect of having to confront the consequences of its macro-historical errors, which even it has now dimly started to perceive, it chooses a course of appeasement, making soothing noises to Muslims, and cracking down on anything that might displease them in whatever manner it can.

Let us now advance our country a discrete portion of time, say one year, during which the Muslim population has increased to 5.5% and become ever more accustomed to demanding and receiving concessions, while the ruling elite has made an even greater investment in its position and conditioned itself even more thoroughly to genuflect to the adherents of Islam. Is it now better positioned to confront the reality of the situation, or less well positioned? Clearly, all the factors that made a realistic appraisal of the situation impossible before are all reinforced now, which will only increase the extent to which the situation worsens when we advance our country by a further increment of time. I conclude that no extant political elite will take any serious steps to reverse the tide of Islamization. I do not claim that they cannot slow this tide down at all, and the tightening of family reunification and marriage laws in some European countries is evidence that the blinkers are slowly coming off. But this is too little, too late.

This argument about the inability of mainstream politicians to solve the Muslim problem will seem absurdly simplistic to some, ignoring as it does worlds of complexity, along with national differences and idiosyncrasies. But I would argue nonetheless that it is the fundamental dynamic at work here. Those who think I underestimate the chances of gentler political change led by mainstream political parties should consider the brilliant innovation of Gordon Brown’s government in the UK, in response to the terrorist attacks that occurred shortly after he entered office: Muslim terrorist plots directed at non-Muslims would now be referred to as ‘anti-Islamic activity.’ What to make of the people who dreamed up this ‘policy’?

Now the notion that the mainstream political parties who have put our head in the Islamic noose will not come riding back to take it out again may not seem particularly insightful. But that is not the key point to be made here. The key point is twofold:

1)   Stopping and then reducing the Islamization of our countries will require a discontinuity, a completely new dynamic that overpowers these existing trends and that must therefore come from outside of the existing power structure, which is not capable of generating it.
2)   Although, in principle, one can conceive of two distinct types of discontinuity, the electoral and the non-electoral, there is a very high probability that the first, if it could be achieved in time at all, would rapidly collapse into the second, resulting in a grand total of one type of discontinuity that could reverse Islamization.

To try and establish both halves of the proposition, let us first consider what these two theoretical discontinuities would look like. The electoral discontinuity consists, naturally, of the election of political parties from outside the political mainstream who would introduce new legislation to deal with the Muslim problem. This legislation would act as the basis for the implementation of some combination of options one, two and three as detailed above, all three of which still exist as options at this point in time. The non-electoral discontinuity refers to a discontinuity that bears no relation to politics in the normal sense of the word, but consists instead of a partial or complete breakdown in the authority of the state and a concomitant descent into chaos, subsequent to which options one and two are no longer available to any significant degree.

It must first be observed that the possibility of electoral discontinuity, clearly the most desirable of the two types of discontinuity, seems remote at present in most European countries, despite the remarkable efforts of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and the positive developments in Denmark. Given the private sector opposition to his efforts, the fact that his party currently has only 9 seats out of a total of 150 in the Dutch Parliament, and the likelihood of existing elites resorting to every dirty trick in the book to foil him as his influence grows, it is hard to believe that a Netherlands with him or a similar figure in the driving seat is likely to exist any time within the next five years, during which time the window of opportunity for successful electoral discontinuity will continue to close. In France, another country neck-deep in the green stuff, Sarkozy was, some hoped, to represent the long-awaited electoral discontinuity. To be as gentle as possible, this does not seem to have been the case. As for Sweden, if what I read about its political and media culture on concerned websites is accurate, there is no hope whatsoever of electoral discontinuity occurring before it is preempted by something far more grisly. I note, for the sake of completeness, the existence of countries such as Denmark, Italy, and Switzerland, which hold more promise than most of refuting my position in whole or in part.

Map of the NetherlandsLet us focus on a single example and consider the most optimistic possible scenario for the Netherlands. I do not know the country or its politics well, but will attempt to use it to examine some general principles. If Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party were to attain an outright majority in the Dutch parliament tomorrow and attempt to implement option one, we would have achieved as neat and clean an electoral discontinuity as could be imagined. Would it be possible to solve the Muslim problem then without recourse to either options two or three? I do not think the possibility can be ruled out, but I think there are many factors that make it improbable.

Collectively, the Dutch have, until recently, offered, as far as the interested layman can discern, not a single iota of real opposition to the influx of massive numbers of adherents of a religion which considers everything they hold dear to be absolutely anathema (I intend no disrespect by this, and observe that in terms of sheer preemptive cultural surrender, the UK competes with the very best).

SlotervaartDespite Muslims’ well-rehearsed claims of how brutal and oppressive their host societies in Europe are, I feel that Dutch Muslims are confident that they, in fact, have the initiative in the Netherlands. The readiness with which they riot and burn, the shockingly disproportionate fraction of crimes they commit, and the demands for inconveniences such as freedom of speech to be removed to appease them are not suggestive of a people who shy away from conflict or have much regard for the will of the people on the other side of that conflict. Put differently, Muslims in the Netherlands seem to be desensitized to conflict to a very significant degree, be it verbal conflict or actual street violence. In contrast, significant numbers of ethnic Dutch seem to still be operating within a paradigm which sees civil breakdown along tribal lines as being literally unimaginable, something which can be avoided through concessions, and must be avoided at all costs.

This disparity in the relative appetites for and desensitization towards conflict is scarcely the type of thing that the Muslim population of the Netherlands could be unaware of. Much weepy-eyed talk to one side, it does not exactly seem to be a community living in fear. Of course, we have stipulated that the Freedom Party has already won an outright majority, which would only be possible with a significant hardening of opinion on the part of ethnic Dutch towards Muslims. But I do not believe the desensitization gap can be closed so quickly or so easily in either direction, and it is a key contention of this essay that this gap will be the key factor in turning electoral discontinuities (should they even occur) into non-electoral discontinuities.

Would a young, violent, disproportionately criminal community, possessed of (and by) a supremacist and totalitarian politico-religious ideology preaching world domination, significantly desensitized to the tribal violence most Europeans fear above all else, and already approaching being a majority in the biggest cities in the Netherlands, be likely to conclude that the jig was up for Islam, that it would simply have to pack its bags and leave? To even ask the question, I think, is to realize that the answer is no. They simply would not believe that massive amounts of rioting, killing, and burning tearing through the urban centres of the Netherlands would not be able to force the Dutch to back down and revert to their earlier path to dhimmitude. Thus does the chaos of the non-electoral discontinuity strip away from the hands of those Dutch who would still apply them options one and two, which both require an intact and dominant apparatus of state.

Weakness has two disadvantages, the weakness itself being but the first of them. The second is the inability to have a reversion to strength taken seriously without violence. The Dutch will inevitably overcome the first of these disadvantages sooner or later. But they cannot overcome the second without locking horns with their Muslim population in such a manner as to almost certainly collapse their hard-earned electoral discontinuity, should they even be capable of generating it in the first place. Even if I am wrong about the country already having reached this point of no return, where options one and two disappear and only option three remains, I feel that it will reach it very soon. And there are other European countries which are in similar, if not worse, positions, such as France, Sweden, and Belgium. Others, such as the UK, Germany, Norway, Austria, and Denmark do not seem to be that far behind. And the violence will prove to be contagious in direct proportion to its severity, destroying the ability of neighbouring countries to achieve or build upon electoral discontinuity.


I have argued that, in those European countries with significant Muslim populations, a situation is rapidly being reached, if, indeed, it has not already been, in which option three is the only option left for dealing with the Muslim problem. I have also argued in the Danish Civil War, that though this violence may well involve the organs of state, most obviously the police and the army, it will be of a scope and scale which will ensure that it spills outside any cordon the state may try to erect around it. This may well result in not only a collapse in the authority of the state itself, but a collapse in the coherence and command-and-control of such organs of state as remain intact, thereby accelerating the downward slide into anarchy.

The Danish Civil War

The first and perhaps most important point to make in this context concerns the reduction of a continuum of violent options into a brute choice between a small handful of broad-brush approaches. Considering violence to consist of all types of physical coercion and all actions backed by the obvious and immediate possibility of bringing violence to bear, it is clear that the state, alone among all potential actors in the early, non-critical phases of a conflict, has the ability to calibrate without restrictions the violence it can apply to a situation. It can combine, in arbitrary proportions, incarceration, the prohibition of proscribed activities (wearing hijab, etc), large-scale non-lethal violence (using riot police, etc.), curfews, targeted executions, deportations, internment, mass expulsions, and large-scale killings. Moreover, the knowledge that it has access to these varied options will reinforce the likely effectiveness of the less draconian and therefore reduce the likelihood of the more draconian being used.

Following the types of discontinuity that I envisage occurring in the near future, we must observe that the likelihood of government being capable of maintaining an effective monopoly on the use of violence is exceptionally low, and that, in direct proportion to its failure to do so, the continuum represented by various combinations of the above options will be collapsed into a much smaller number of discrete, widely separated and virtually impossible-to-combine options. Incarceration after a fair trial will simply not exist as an option in the event of societal breakdown. Prohibitions of proscribed activities will be enforceable only through immediate violence, which essentially collapses this option into a new option not available to the state itself, mob violence and vigilante ‘justice’ centered on tribal markers such as dress, appearance, or language. Large-scale non-lethal violence takes large numbers of well-trained, well-equipped, well-organized and amply-supported personnel and is therefore the province of organs of the state, guided by intact political structures. It cannot exist in the circumstances imagined here.

Curfews require a patrolling presence by a heavily-armed controlling authority in areas of potential unrest and therefore suffer from the same problems as large-scale non-lethal violence. Deportations are a key point to which I will return briefly, but I suggest here that they will be impossible to organize on a large scale once the situation has degenerated to the point foreseen in this analysis. Internment that does not result in everyone being dead 48 hours later is obviously the province of government, with the massive infrastructural demands it makes of those who would implement it. Mass expulsion, the poor man’s deportation, though possible in principle on an impromptu basis, would present insuperable problems in practice that are presumably obvious but that I will discuss below nonetheless. As for large-scale killing, it is not only always an option, it is the option that constitutes the backdrop to all human conflict, whether we perceive it or not.

As this brief categorization makes clear, the tactical options left to actors on either side of the conflict in the result of non-electoral discontinuity become very similar very quickly, even if the means available to implement those options differ significantly. Surrender, flight, mob-style violence resulting in almost immediate segregation in major cities, and more determined efforts to actually start systematically killing entire groups of the opposition: these are the tracks along which the course of events will inevitably run once the grip of government on the situation fails.

And this is the tragedy of the situation and the scale of the betrayal. Government, the one entity capable of preventing the problem in the first place, and capable also of solving it with a minimum of bloodshed once it was indeed recognized to be an existential problem, has, in effect, simply washed its hands of it. In doing so, it has guaranteed the deaths of countless people and the utter destruction of the society it was responsible for protecting, at least in the form in which it has hitherto existed.

The joker in the pack here is the joint category of deportation/mass expulsion. I take the former to mean the removal of people by government in a relatively orderly manner, the latter to mean the expulsion of entire groups by violence and the threat of violence in a disorderly and impromptu fashion. The most obvious point to make here is the that the latter can only take place if there is some adjacent territory to which the group being driven out can easily gain access. Despite the dark mutterings of some that people like myself are advocating some sort of mass ethnic cleansing, it is not clear that this would even be physically possible. How would the French ethnically cleanse their Algerian population? By driving them from one side of Paris to the other? That, to put it politely, would not solve the problem. Perhaps they could drive them, by fire and pitchfork, into Spain. But one suspects that even the Spanish would not put up with this, and would simply drive their own burgeoning Moroccan and Pakistani populations back into France, bringing new meaning to the term population exchange. Mass expulsions as I have defined them here are actually not possible in a brute physical sense. Compare this with what, in principle, America could do to its Mexican (or Canadian, if you prefer) population, and the point is clear.

This leaves only the question of deportations. I am aware of no examples of large-scale deportations being carried out by aircraft, which they would have to be in this case. Apart from the faintly surreal notion of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis being flown out of the UK and being served hundreds of thousands of halal meal options while fiddling around with hundreds of thousands of aggravating airline headsets on the way back to the homeland, it must be observed that air travel is the most infrastructurally fragile of all modes of transportation, and completely reliant on the goodwill and cooperation of people at the destination. A functioning government might be able to organize and carry out mass deportations via airline, but would surely be forced to preemptively intern the target population, and the notion that such populations in Europe would allow themselves to be peacefully interned strains credulity to breaking point and beyond. If this is true now, how much truer would it be in five or ten years time? Even the merest suggestion of implementing such a plan would surely collapse an electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity for reasons already discussed. It is on the basis of this reasoning that I argue that deportations and mass expulsions, though the most difficult types of violence to read in this context, will not play a key role in post-discontinuity violence apart from perhaps being used to repatriate the survivors once the conflict has been won.

It is worth noting that the notion that some sort of Nazi-style genocide is in the cards for Europe’s Muslims would seem to be missing the point for related reasons. The Holocaust, like the Armenian Genocide that provided the inspiration for it, was conducted with as much deception and misdirection as was possible given the vast numbers of people involved. Both genocides were heavily reliant on the relocation of vast numbers of victims to sparsely-inhabited areas to be dispatched, whether in recently conquered territories as in the case of Germany, or the wilder reaches of empire, as in the case of the Ottoman Empire. There is no conceivable way that this would be viable in any European case, especially given the massive qualitative gulf between communication and surveillance technologies of the early/middle 20th-century and the first decades of the 21st. Whatever type of violence we end up seeing between Muslims and their host societies (and I do believe it will be appropriately described by the word genocidal), the Holocaust will not be much of a reference point. I suspect that the recent conflicts in the Balkans are much more likely to overlap structurally with what we will see in Europe in the near future.

The disparity between the levels of desensitization of Muslims and non-Muslims has already been mentioned. However, there is an additional consequence that should be mentioned here in closing. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I have gained the impression from various sources over the years that it is precisely those who are plunged into violence without having been conditioned to deal with it psychologically, in whatever manner, that are most likely to commit atrocities (excluding those who are already ideologically committed to them). If violence does erupt in European countries between natives and Muslims, I consider it highly likely that people who had never done anything more violent than beat eggs will prove incapable of managing the psychological transition to controlled violence and start killing anything that looks remotely Muslim. Our unspoken conviction that we, in 21st-century Europe, have moved beyond such savagery will be shown to be an arrogance founded on a few decades of fragile peace and prosperity, taken for granted and allowed to slip through our fingers for no reason at all.

In Closing

Given my obvious and adamant opposition to European countries allowing themselves to have their political, cultural, or legal destinies influenced by their rapidly-growing Islamic populations, and my belief that, in all likelihood, violence edging towards the genocidal would be an inevitable part of removing this threat, readers would be perfectly justified in wondering if I am advocating genocide. The answer is no. Let me make clear what I do in fact advocate in the context of my own country, that is to say, the policies I would immediately implement if I were the sole, unchallenged ruler of the UK. I will not concern myself with any legal issues that would be involved in actually implementing such policies; ignoring such technicalities is one of the great pleasures of being dictator-for-a-day.

As newly installed ruler, I would introduce an immediate ban on Muslim immigration. If I were in an exceptionally good mood, I would consider allowing up to 100 Muslims annually to gain temporary residency in the UK if, and only if, they were married to non-Muslim UK citizens. Other than this, no Muslim would be granted permission to live in the UK unless essential (diplomatic staff, etc.). Visas, whether for tourism, study, or business, would be exceptionally hard to come by for Muslims, especially for Saudis wishing to go shopping at Harrods. As a result of this policy, exogenous growth of the Muslim population of the UK would be reduced to zero. The question of determining who was a Muslim and who was not would not be difficult for a committed immigration service to answer, and in the case of any doubt, permission to enter the country would simply be denied.

It would be announced that immigrant Muslims, of whatever generation, (i.e. the overwhelming majority) would all be investigated to discover whether they had any record whatsoever of supporting the erosion of British freedoms to further the dictates of Islam, and could demonstrate proactive efforts to engage with British society on its terms. Anyone failing to satisfy any of these criteria would be deported immediately, without the possibility of appeal. Ideally, the announcement in advance would serve to inform many Muslims that their days in the country were numbered, and provide them with a period of time in which to put their affairs in order and hopefully make a dignified exit from the country of their own accord. Muslims claiming to have converted to another religion would have to provide evidence of attendance at a house of worship of said religion for at least the last year. Questionable cases would be deported. Anyone having been judged to be in accordance with these criteria would be informed that they could be deported at any time in the future if they were judged to have ceased to comply in any respect.

East London MosqueHaving banned Muslim immigration and deported some hundreds of thousands of people, thereby addressing the most pressing demographic issues, attention would be turned to undermining Islam itself at the institutional level. Mosque construction would be banned, and locations serving as mosques without official permission would be closed down by the police. Attending an illegal mosque would be considered grounds for deportation. Advocating or defending the use of violence in support of any Muslim cause would be considered grounds for deportation. Advocating the adoption of any aspect of shari’a law would be considered grounds for deportation, especially if you happened to be the head of the Church of England. A thousand and one various other gradual restrictions could be conceived of to squeeze Muslims so hard that they concluded that there was simply no point in remaining in the UK at all, up to and including the classification of Islam itself as a pernicious political ideology, the practice of which would be considered grounds for deportation for immigrants or their children, imprisonment in the case of native Britons.

Observant readers will note that this set of policies is actually a combination of the previously discussed options one and two, coupled with the obvious necessity of curtailing any further Muslim immigration. It also has the advantage of allowing ‘borderline’ or ‘cultural’ Muslims the option of staying in the UK if they understood that Islam had no future there and would simply be bleached out of British life over the course of a generation or two. But there are two other observations that need to be made here. The first is that there is not the slightest chance of any European country enacting policies of this sort any time soon, if ever. Secondly, there is absolutely no guarantee that they would not, if actually enacted, simply fall prey to the structural problems outlined in the discussion above, and result in us slipping all the way down to the bottom of the slide, where option three awaits us.

Indigo Red Says You Pronounce “EU” This Way: ‘eeeeewwwww’

Map of a reshaped Europe
He also advises scrunching up your face while pronouncing it in order to get the proper effect.

And no wonder. That unbearable map, which he said the Germans called “The Schlieffen Plan” took only half a century or so to bring to fruition. But in the end, they managed to eradicate the Anglo-Saxon world.

Any comments that Europeans affected by this travesty would care to make, I’d like to hear.

Someone please sing a Requiem.