Is a Peaceful or at Least Orderly Resolution Possible?

A reader named Oren has left a series of comments on several posts covering the topic of “moderate Islam”. Although his viewpoint is at variance with my own, his comments provide some thoughtful observations that are worth additional exploration.

Oren left the following comment on one of last weekend’s posts. I’ve bolded the parts that merit further discussion:

It is apparent from the post above, that the Baron has given up all hope on the seeing the conflict between Islam and the West being resolved in any peaceful or at least orderly way. If I understand correctly he foresees some sort of a “collapse”, in which Western countries will break down completely, and the survivors will have to form armed militias in order to protect their homes from pillaging Islamic gangs. I do not discount this scenario entirely, but I do see it as improbable.

I personally believe it is more likely that in the upcoming decades existing nation states will remain more or less intact. A global economic crisis is almost inevitable, as I often explain in my own blog. This crisis will impoverish most of humanity, and may aggravate the already tense social pressures existing in most Western European countries. Some of them, like Sweden for instance, who have imported more third world migrants than others as a percentage of the population, may experience civil wars. This scenario is less chaotic than what the Baron suggests, but it is brutal and bloody nonetheless.

However, I do see a third option, which can minimize all this blood and gore. This option involves a rapid shift of the political map towards the right, which will bring to power people like Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen. These newly elected leaders, assuming they act swiftly and decisively, may yet prevent the supposed “collapse”. Here are but a few measures they can take, which may stop the process of Islamization, and which do not constitute grave human rights violations. For starters, they can halt all immigration to Europe. They can prosecute any Imam who is preaching hate and violence under existing incitement and sedition laws. They can deport any immigrant who is convicted of terrorism, or any other crimes for that matter. They can place Mosques and other Islamic organizations under surveillance. They can block the foreign Saudi money which is funding these operations. They can reform their entitlement systems, and make it impossible for new immigrants to live on the dole. I argue that all these measures, if enforced stringently, can not only stop the process of Islamization but even reverse it to a certain extent, as many of the recently arrived migrants will opt to leave, rather than work for a living, god forbid. One may argue that such measures will not be taken peacefully by the Islamic population in Europe, and that may truly be the case. But Muslims nowadays still do not constitute a majority of the fighting age population in Europe (and certainly not in the US), and any violence they do exhibit will not constitute an existential threat, and will only grant the governments greater legitimacy to use force against them.

As you can see, I believe it is not too late for the Western world to avert this catastrophe through the political arena. This is why I believe it is so important for the counter Jihad movement to gain popularity. It is true that the left will never grant us legitimacy, and that the co-opted main stream media will always remain hostile towards us. But we here in Israel have proven that these are not real obstacles on the way to political power. The Israeli public has long ago realized that the left is collaborating with the enemy, and that the media is biased, and as a result we have elected a strong government which is ready to fight Jihad terrorism. When I mentioned on my earlier comments “the moderate sections of society” I was simply referring to the majority of the voters. Be they men or women, religious or atheists, straight or gay. The personal liberties of all of these groups are threatened by Islam, and therefore they are able to unite under the banner of Counter-Jihad.

Now is the time to discuss the dreaded “moderate Muslim” issue. Many of you have argued that such a creature does not exist, or that they are an insignificant minority at best. This may be true, but nevertheless I claim that we cannot shut the door before such individuals, not for their sake as much as for our own sake. Once the West has closed its borders and effectively cracked down on Islamic terrorism, we will still be left with millions of Muslim citizens, most of which have never broken any law, or had anything to do with terrorism. If we wish to preserve Western notions of human rights, equality before the law, indeed the very principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, we shall have to allow them to live as equal citizens. Again I go back to the example of Israel. Many people are not aware of it, but there are some 1.5 million Muslims living within the 1967 borders as fully equal Israeli citizens. On occasion some of them will collaborate with the Palestinians and carry out an act of terrorism or civil disorder, but for the best part they keep quite, because they are a minority and because the Israeli state is asserting itself strongly enough. Many of them are coming to realize that as Israeli citizens they enjoy more freedom and prosperity than anywhere else in the middle east, and are slowly assimilating.

Certainly, this is not an ideal situation, but let’s consider the alternative for a moment. Imagine that an overzealous Europe will ban the religion of Islam altogether, and demand all its Muslims to convert or leave. Many will pretend to convert but remain Muslim in secrecy. How will the state possibly be able to tell who is a Muslim and who is not? Will it revive the old Spanish Inquisition in order to identify the crypto Muslims? This will be the end of freedom of conscience, not just for Muslims but for the rest of society as well. Next, what will they do with all the Muslims who will not want to leave? Will they round them up and put them in camps? This will be a nightmare. One quickly realizes that mass deportation of citizens who have committed no crime is impossible. Whether they are truly “moderate Muslims” or not is beside the point. We shall have to assume that they are unless they prove otherwise.

Last but not least, I highly recommend against “nation building” or any other military involvement of Western powers in the middle east. I have objected to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the very start, knowing that no one can reform Islamic societies other than Muslims themselves, and that this may take centuries to unfold. Instead I recommend containment. In other words, closing the borders, reducing all interactions with Islamic countries to the bare minimum, and investing resources in finding alternatives to middle eastern oil.

This is the message I repeat time and time again on the social media – hope is not lost. Have some faith in your own people and in their basic survival instincts.

This time I’ve taken the bolded sections and turned them into discrete questions, which I’ll do my best to answer:

Have I given up all hope on the seeing the conflict between Islam and the West being resolved in any peaceful or at least orderly way?

After the events of 2015 I have very little hope left that there can be any peaceful resolution to the crisis presented by Islam. Up until this past summer there seemed to be at least a slim chance that somehow, despite the odds, the West might wake up and begin taking the necessary measures to cope with the grave civilizational threat posed by Islam.

Depending on which estimates one accepts — and nobody really knows for sure — somewhere between 5,000 and 100,000 Islamic terrorists walked into Europe last summer and fall along with the “refugees”. They were dropped off on one of the Greek islands (after paying hefty fees to the people smugglers) and then ferried to the mainland. From there they traveled by train and bus to their final destination, which in most cases was Germany. The expense was borne by the EU, European governments, and various NGOs. Many of these new European terrorists are operatives for the Islamic State.

So the Islamic State has come to Europe, with the intention of replicating on the continent the wasteland of sorrow and degradation it left behind in the Middle East. Thousands and thousands of trained, hardened, brutal mujahideen, ready to commit violence against the kuffar in Europe.

That’s why I’m not optimistic about the chances for resolving the conflict between Islam and the West in a peaceful or orderly way.

Will the wars be civil wars?

Not in the traditional sense. A civil war is a war between factions within a more or less homogeneous nation. In the English Civil War, Englishmen fought Englishmen. In the Russian Civil War, Communist Russians fought Monarchist Russians. Until very recently, no other kind of civil war was imaginable.

But now we have the possibility of war within a nation between the original native inhabitants and a hostile, alien population that is already resident and distributed throughout the host country. This is not a civil war, and the only way it differs from a traditional invasion is that the invaders were invited in and deliberately imported by the ruling class of each country.

As Fjordman said:

The European Union is the principal motor behind the Islamization of Europe. It is formally surrendering an entire continent to Islam while destroying established national cultures, and is prepared to harass those who disagree with this policy.

This is the greatest organized betrayal in Western history.

Will the rapid shift of the political map be towards the right?

The anti-immigration parties are hardly of the “right”. They range from the classically liberal (e.g. Geert Wilders’ PVV) to the Front National, which would be called “national socialist” if that descriptive hadn’t been poisoned forever by the Nazis. But Marine Le Pen, like the leaders of other parties that resist immigration and Islamization, promotes a standard social-democratic form of socialism under a patriotic banner. There doesn’t have to be any Jew-hatred or totalitarianism for a party to be national socialist.

My point is that there is no significant presence of traditional right-wing parties among those that oppose mass immigration into Europe. No monarchist groups pushing for a return to the days of emperors and the divine right of kings, just a range from centrists to socialists — the right is not represented.

Is it possible to halt all immigration to Europe?

Well, what do you think? What indications are that even the rate of increase in immigration will be dampened?

After a decade of watching Western European immigration politics closely, one fact stands out: no matter what party is in power, the rate of Third-World immigration tends to remain the same, or increase. The Social Democrats, the Greens, the Christian Democrats, Labour, Conservatives, center-left, center-right — all of them implement more or less the same policies. They all promise to get tough on immigrant criminals and correct the abuses, but nothing really changes.

A change might be possible if one of the “far right” parties gained power — the PVV in the Netherlands, Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden, the Front National in France, etc. — but the existing power structure is doing everything it can to make it impossible for such parties to form governments. In a parliamentary system, if all the other parties establish a cordon sanitaire around an immigration-critical party, such a party would have to gain an absolute majority in order to rule — a very unlikely event.

Furthermore, the fact that leaders of such parties are demonized in the press, hounded by the state, and repeatedly prosecuted for “hate speech” makes their chances of governing slimmer still.

The campaign against those who would halt immigration is so uniformly relentless and extensive across the entire continent that we may assume it is being ordered and orchestrated at a supranational level. Somebody, or some consortium of somebodies, is expending enormous quantities of money, effort, and manpower to make sure that the flow of immigrants into Europe remains unimpeded.

How many imams are likely to be prosecuted for preaching hate and violence under existing incitement and sedition laws?

Based on past experience, not many. And based on the current trend — which is to allow in more hate-preaching imams and then refuse to prosecute them — not many will be.

This is especially true in the UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Sweden. France is somewhat more likely to deport foreigners who incite violence. And, in an encouraging trend, Norway recently deported hundreds of convicted criminals (mostly Muslims, needless to say), and saw a dramatic drop in its national crime rate as a result.

Will significant numbers of immigrants be deported after being convicted of terrorism, or any other crimes?

See the above — the trends indicate that deportation will be a lightly-used option. And the ECHR is notorious for stepping in to prevent deportation, on the grounds that the would-be deportee has a “right to a family life”, or some other right requiring that he be allowed to stay where he is.

Will Western governments place mosques and other Islamic organizations under surveillance?

Western governments already have mosques under surveillance. I guarantee it. The problem is, they have to hide that fact, and keep their operations secret as much as possible. This sometimes prevents surveillance material from being used in court cases. And if the authorities are caught at it, such programs are stopped or gutted, at least temporarily.

Mass surveillance, publicly acknowledged, is an impossibility unless Islam is officially recognized as a clear and present danger to Western Civilization.

Is it possible to block the foreign Saudi money which is funding terrorism and fundamentalism?

Money will always talk. If the normal flow of funds is interdicted, enough money is available to make sure the funding continues by other, more creative means — laundered through “charities”, for example. The amounts are so huge that enforcement bureaucrats can be offered bribes far greater than their salaries to look the other way while the Salafist mosques receive their money.

The only way the flow is likely to stop is if the price of oil remains at its current level or drops even lower. That will dry up the springhead.

Will Western countries reform their entitlement systems, and make it impossible for new immigrants to live on the dole?

There are signs that some countries are cutting back the allowances offered to new arrivals. However, the subsidies and stipends were already so incredibly generous that a 50% reduction would still be a fabulous inducement for poverty-stricken migrants to make their way to Europe — especially when someone else pays those hefty smugglers’ fees.

How soon will Muslims constitute a majority of the fighting age population in Europe?

This question is complex, because the number of Muslims in various parts of Europe is usually indeterminate. France, for example, forbids the collection of statistics based on religion and ethnicity, so the Muslim population of France can only be an educated guess. Add to this problem the number of illegals in Europe — which was swollen enormously by the Great Migration of 2015 — and we really don’t have any meaningful numbers to crunch.

One thing is for certain, however: certain districts of certain cities and towns — and perhaps some entire metropolises — already have Muslim majorities of fighting-age young men. If the police and army are unwilling to enter them, these areas are de-facto parts of Dar al-Islam. And current trends indicate that if the security services do become involved, it will be on the side of the Muslims, to defend them against any violent incursions by angry natives.

“Once the West has closed its borders and effectively cracked down on Islamic terrorism, we will still be left with millions of Muslim citizens, most of which have never broken any law, or had anything to do with terrorism. If we wish to preserve Western notions of human rights, equality before the law, indeed the very principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, we shall have to allow them to live as equal citizens.” Or is there another way?

Yes, there is another way. It’s even humane, and also compatible with the rule of law. But it will require such a major shift in the political currents that it is not likely to happen until after extremely dire events intervene.

Western governments must recognize that Islam is not primarily a religion, but rather a dangerous totalitarian political ideology with the superstructure of a religion grafted onto it to justify its murderous brutality, and to motivate its adherents.

A formal legal recognition of the above facts — with constitutional amendments where required — would allow the traditional legal privileges afforded a religion to be removed. Islam at that point could be treated the same way one would treat Nazism or Communism or any other dangerously seditious political doctrine. Mosques could be shut down, leaders jailed, and preaching banned. The authorities could make it very difficult for Islamic leaders to proselytize and incite their followers.

And all without violating anyone’s political rights. No one has the right to incite violent sedition against a constitutional republic.

“How will the state possibly be able to tell who is a Muslim and who is not? Will it revive the old Spanish Inquisition in order to identify the crypto Muslims? This will be the end of freedom of conscience, not just for Muslims but for the rest of society as well.” Or is there another way?

Once the legislative measures mentioned in the previous section are implemented, tests can be devised to help identify the true believers. It will be difficult to be certain that any given individual has sincerely apostatized, but various strategies can be attempted — requiring a videotaped public repudiation of Islam by known adherents, say, followed by the publication of their names and photos. Those who refuse could be identified as dangerous to the public, and treated accordingly.

It will be harsh and difficult, and at this point it is still inconceivable. But by the time Western societies come to this pass, such horrific things will have been done to us by Muslims that harsh measures against them will no more concern us than the internment of Japanese-Americans did in WW2.

Is mass deportation of citizens who have committed no crime possible?

Yes, if they are not citizens of the nation they reside in. No foreigner has an absolute right to live in his host country. And those who hold dual passports — which in Europe covers many second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants — may also be treated as hostile foreigners and deported to the other country of which they are legal citizens.

Must we assume that all Muslims are “moderates” until proven otherwise?

We must assume that “moderates” don’t exist. There are believing Muslims and lapsed Muslims. The latter group traditionally keeps itself well-hidden, for obvious reasons.

When the time comes — when the proverbial excrement impacts the circulation device, and we change the legal standing of Muslims, and crack down on the sedition of true believers — then and only then will it become possible for a larger percentage of cultural Muslims to apostatize without fear.

Do I have faith in my own people (i.e. ethnic Europeans and descendants across the globe) and in their basic survival instincts?

I have enormous faith in my people and their survival instincts. That’s why I no longer think that “the conflict between Islam and the West can be resolved in any peaceful or at least orderly way”.

When things get bad enough — which they will relatively soon — the survival instincts of my people will kick in, and they will do whatever is necessary to take care of their own. I have no doubt that it will get extremely ugly at times, but I am certain my people will prevail.

When those dreadful days arrive, political correctness will dissipate as rapidly as an early-morning fog. And so will the “moderate Muslims”.

129 thoughts on “Is a Peaceful or at Least Orderly Resolution Possible?

  1. It would appear you have dispersed the fog around those “moderate” Muslims. Since, as you and I both agree, Islam is a political supremacist ideology, it might clarify things to refer to the two groups as jihadists and cultural Muslims.

    This compare-and-contrast doesn’t trip off the tongue as easily as does ‘moderates’ vs. radicals. However, it does have the advantage of signifying the deep distinctions between the two. When David Yerushalmi and his group did their anthropological investigations of American mosques in order to distinguish between the radical imams and those preaching a cultural form of Islam, they found 20% of mosques to be non-radical.

    That may be a small number but it does show that cultural Muslims do exist. It’s actually higher than I’d supposed.

    • But cultural Islam is a precursor to jihad as well as an enabler.

      In the next generation, how may offspring of cultural Muslims will be jihadists?

      • I would use the terms “Jihadi” and “MINO” (Muslim In Name Only). MINOs would be divided into those who are secret apostates and those who don’t take their religion seriously. The former should be helped to make the transition safely. The latter should be still be held under suspicion as they can become Jihadis at any moment (as can their children). So, unless a Muslim can be determined to be a secret apostate, we should be suspicious of them and guard ouselves against them.

    • The contents of the Koran and Hadiths dictate the culture of muslims. These are unalterable instructions, as most readers here know, meaning reformation of Islam is not possible. There are verses in the Koran and examples of Mh’s behaviour that create polarised behaviours in comparison to our Western civilisation.

      As Bill Warner’s facts (facts) also show Islam is incapable of existing with any other religious or political belief system, always has been and always will be – again the blueprint for this is the unalterable word of god that is the contents of the Koran. It always seeks to dominate, subvert and take over its host society – always.

      Moderate muslim is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. If a person is a follower of the Koran they do not hold “moderate” views in comparison with those of our Western civilisation. If they do not follow the Koran literally they are not muslims and are apostates. That’s how their religion was set up. Even unenthusiastic muslims would not be concerned by the possibility of their culture becoming dominant and providing them with benefits over non muslims.

      Because of Islam our nations are under threat. The possible solutions Orien puts forward are too dependent upon too many circumstances happening to create this “ideal” situation whereby Islam will not cause the carnage predicted by some.

      There are too many complex issues that need to be resolved to disarm Islam of its threat. The West needs energy independence from the Middle East to stop the funding of Islamic dawa. We have to stop immigration and embrace potentially decreasing populations in our nations. We have to manage our economies. Islam needs to be removed from our nations, mosques and Islamic community centres closed, supremacist attire legislated against. Let Islam have its grand Caliphate, from Syria through Turkey, around North Africa and its traditional homelands – on the solid understanding it does not expand into other nations or cultures. Stop contact, including trade and our technology advances with Islamic nations.

      But none of these things, like politicians with sense gaining government are going to happen – as most of us know.

      • It helps to look at history, particularly the history of what happened to the monolithic Roman Catholic Church. It eventually fell of its own rigidity and corruption. In the interim phase of the Reformation people weren’t free to not take sides. One has only to read Shakespeare’s history plays to see propaganda at work…ol’ Will was a master of survival.

        Islam boasts of its billion followers. But most of them have never read the Koran and couldn’t tell you what’s in it. They’ve long since memorized their prayers, and some even say them. But along with the virus of submission comes the opportunistic bacteria of fatalism: inshallah is the existential fatalism that has kept cultural Muslims poor and ignorant.

        The dangerous ones are rootless males, aged 16-24. They grab the fundamentals and hold on, desperate for meaning in an ugly world with no options. Not that there aren’t outliers, ready to kill their own families for infractions. Not that Islam isn’t an implanted neural IED – rather like living with walking landmines.

        • The problem seems more and more to be identified these days – such as you state, but solutions?

        • I was talking with a British soldier’s mum the other day, and she said that the way she looked at this deliberately infiltration of our societies by foreign fighters during the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ was this:

          If you had a big bowl of smarties and you knew that a handful of them were poisonous, would you eat any?

          Simple really.

          • The same analogy applies to cars. If a certain percentage of cars is known to have a brake defect, the entire line is recalled. No one wants to take the chance of someone dying due to a faulty braking mechanism.
            Why doesn’t such assiduousness apply to immigration?

            Why for that matter are large numbers of “refugees” allow to circumvent immigration laws designed to protect us and our way of life?

            Why does their right to safety and wellbeing come before ours?

  2. This was great, I would like to add also that if religious or human rights organization are taxpayer funded, governments should immediately have them de-funded. These groups are contributing to the immivasion.

    • As a resident of the UK where we are legally not allowed to have the means to defend ourselves from armed attackers I’ve sharpened a couple of spoons – just in case.

    • The President announced in Hawaii that he is Hell bent on wresting such defensive measure out of your right-wing mits. He wants to see how well we perform with our air-soft look-alikes.

  3. “we have elected a strong government which is ready to fight Jihad terrorism.”

    Is this Oren guy delusional? Does he think we don’t know that Israel is a dangerous place to be a Jew precisely because in panders to its Muslims? Does he think we don’t see the daily stabbings and vehicular attacks?

    Israel could by now have expelled its Muslims and thus become a light for the nations. Instead it has become the Jew of nations.

    • as an israeli i will answer that it is easy talk than done.
      we r already under heavy pressure from all around the world for trying to protect our self.
      oren is right that in israel the level of delusion regarding co-exist in peace has decreased significantly comparing to the west.

    • Israel is described as the Jewish State of Israel. This would probably lead most people to assume that its citizens wish to follow the teachings of the Elohim (god) of Israel and the hebrew peoples as read of in the Tanak (bible).
      Oren writes
      Once the Jewish State of Israel *West* has closed its borders and effectively cracked down on Islamic terrorism, we will still be left with millions of Muslim citizens, …… Many of them are coming to realize that as Israeli citizens they enjoy more freedom and prosperity than anywhere else in the middle east, and are slowly assimilating.[Really?]
      Certainly, this is not an ideal situation, but let’s consider the alternative for a moment. Imagine that an overzealous Israel *Europe* will ban the religion of Islam altogether, and demand all its Muslims to convert or leave. …… We shall have to assume that they are unless they prove otherwise.
      Oren like most of the Israeli ‘political’ and ‘educated’ citizens does not view his country through the eyes of Tanak. In fact, very few do. Judaism is a Talmudic and rabbinical religion with connections to the Tanak. So because faithful adherents to Judaism are many in their differences, the dilution to ‘nominal’ or ‘cultural’ followers of Judaism are just as varied.
      Dymphna suggests ‘Islam is a political supremacist ideology, it might clarify things to refer to the two groups as jihadists and cultural Muslims.’ I and perhaps Oren would too, find this terminology useful
      As an Israeli with a Tanak based world view I disagree with Oren’s almost secular Judaistic view, whilst fully comprehending how he sees the situation.
      Despite our differences and similarities most Israeli’s agree on how we deal with enemies outside our borders who wish to eliminate us.
      Israel is the most mixed ethnic and cultural, skin/hair colour shade, and religious group of people to be found anywhere in the geographical region of the middle east, or possibly anywhere you have 8+million people grouped together as a country.
      Coincidentally, before The Baron posted this article, a friend had asked. ‘Will our leaders deal with 5th columnists (of any variety) in Israel, by internment/deportation, elimination, or simply allow them to kill us?’
      I do not ‘know’ my future, but I do know that the Tanak describes the future of a land/state called Israel and of a people group who return to the way(s) of the Elohim of Israel. Until then……..

  4. Do we care about the percentage of moderate Muslims as long as_some_ radicals have the atomic bomb and an assortment of other WMDs. Aren’t we talking about the wrong thing? Present-level terrorism seems trivial compared to a reasonable look over the horizon. How can a true Islamic believer not use the bomb?

  5. I think the real existential questions for us now are: 1. Will mutually-assured-destruction deter the most ideological Salafists? and 2. How can we control our seditionist progressives?

    Banal terrorism seems easy compared to these problems.

  6. This is an incredible article. The implications embedded in this article are mind-numbing and shocking if you think about the logical outcome of progressive attitudes around policing and immigration run amok.

    I agree with the idea of moderate moslems being a myth. It is a fabrication. I don’t believe it at all. The shocking part is that the far left believes the moslems agree with the them! Certainly as long as the moslems are a coddled minority and able to exploit resources from numerous European countries those countries will suffer from massive numbers of immigrants.

    I agree with the final analysis, that once things get bad, meaning once blood has begun to flow in the streets of Europe, things will change.

    • Funny, but I thought blood had already begun to flow in the streets of Europe.

      The scenario depicted here is not the worst-case scenario. Indeed, as the author acknowledges, a good helping of faith is required to believe that things will take a turn for the better eventually. Oren’s best-case scenario, while not impossible, is not likely to play out, sad to say.

      The worst-case scenario is a Muslim takeover of large swathes of Europe, followed by further advances, and paralleled by a weakening of will in those nations not yet under the thumb of Islam. Don’t say it could not happen.

    • A European fulcrum becomes a balloon festooned welcoming point de Bascule for permanent invasion of hostile migrants without America. Given current political efforts to neutralize America’s military and commercial abilities to respond effectively to preserve Western interests before all hell breaks loose on the European continent, Oren’s misguided compassion invites collateral carnage on a massive scale of cross eyed, wall eyed, “anything but” focused on the culprit, “Islam”, the eternal doctrine of war. Documentation of 1400 years of Islam’s evil existence should be proof enough that Islam must be eliminated if humanity is ever to witness peace on this planet again.

      • “Colonel, the coordinates you gave are on top of your position.”

        “I know – Danger Close – But Lt., we’re being over-run. Fire away.”

        Europe doesn’t understand that America has its own “Muslim Problem” that wants it to get worse – here and in Europe.

  7. “will only grant the governments greater legitimacy to use force against them.”

    They aren’t interested in legitimacy to use force against Muslims, they’re interested in the legitimacy to use force against their entire populations. Muslim terrorists just provide the kindling for this trend of totalitarian control. Once Muslims are allowed to create sufficient civil disorder, there will be no more “rights” for anyone.

    I think the term “lapsed Muslims” is much better than the use of the word moderate. These are the people barely clinging to Islam, though you also have “Muslims in name only” who consider Islam to completely be a bunch of BS, yet don’t openly express this so as to avoid being executed by the devout Muslims.

    • Quite so.

      “In Europe today, the neo-totalitarians are doing everything in their power to undermine our traditional values and destroy our personal liberty. They claim to have the final solution to the question of how human beings are to live here on earth, and in the name of that final solution, they embarked upon a radical social engineering program, secretly and without the consent of the voting public, more than a decade ago.1 

      That radical project has changed the social fabric of our countries, and those changes appear to be irreversible. A census carried out in 2011, for example, showed that the number of immigrants in England and Wales had increased by three million in the previous ten years.2 It is significant that, out of all the recent immigrants to the UK, one group is now considered to be more important than any other. That same group has also been given precedence over the indigenous population, who were abandoned long ago by the power elite.3”

      Patriot’s Corner: The Neo-Totalitarian Control System.

  8. Nothing can happen along the lines outlined above until leftism is suppressed or defeated. This, I believe, will be the hardest thing to achieve.

    • Never underestimate the sudden turn-abouts in history. Many who mouth leftist platitudes do so only to hold onto their various privileges. Once those have been eroded – and our massive debt will make that erosion inevitable – many of them will turn out to be cultural leftists…opportunists who notice the iceberg coming at them. Those are the ones who will trample the feminists as they run for the lifeboats.

      • So now we see that both Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” was as accurate as Margaret Thatcher’ s “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

  9. Right off the bat Oren’s first paragraph shows he misunderstands islam quite badly, and I’m with the Baron there. There will NEVER be peace with muslims in Europe, they tell us that themselves, and daily the situation deteriorates; Europe is already Israel times 100.

    Yes, European countries may remain more or less intact to the casual observer, but with the worsening situation brought on almost entirely by traitorous, self-hating westerners, muslims must eventually assume control. No, they won’t do the work, or even ostensibly run things, but they will have control, which is what they want. Europeans will effectively be their slaves. It’s inevitable.

    It need not be, of course, but no one in any European country is making a stand; by that I mean a real stand, militarily.
    Which will leave Europe with the truly nasty problem of armed gangs of muslims doing exactly as they please to a terrified populace–the picture is not pretty.

    Oren says it’s impossible to round up all muslims and intern them in camps until they can be deported. Really? This country (Canada) certainly did that with the Japanese in WW2! We were at war with Japan, and we are at war with islam–we always have been, for over 1400 years! And the entire western world has opened it’s borders to the ENEMY, FGS! In my entire 80 years, I have never witnessed such unbelievable lunacy!

    Oren believes his peoples’ survival instincts will ‘kick in’ when push comes to shove, many Europeans think the same; one wonders when that will be?

    • “ one in any European country is making a stand; by that I mean a real stand, militarily.”

      I am sorry but this is simply factually wrong.
      Everybody knows that all islamic attacks in Europe are met with superior military reaction, and attackers are always destroyed.
      When I will see armed jihadis freely walking on the streets, I will agree with you.
      But for now it looks like useless defeatism.

      • Stick around–you’ll see it happen. The alternative is that westerners will wake up, realize what they have done, and do something about it; and I don’t see that happening.

        There is some hope, however; Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic have shown they are not as eager to throw away their women and countries as western Eurabia.

        • Peter35

          I too see hope in the example being set by Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic. Reasonable people, not currently Islam-aware and who may well be the types who would be sincerely (as opposed to publicly toeing the bien pensant line) aghast at what is written at GoV, will look east and think … eg, the Czechs are such a civilized people. Lovely country. Why do they support such anti-Islam policies. I should look into this further …

    • Peace?
      “There can be no peace … . The Islamic movement can and must take power as soon as it is morally strong enough … to destroy the non Islamic power”
      Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia (backed by NATO and the EU).

      “No peace can be made between us [Muslims] and the non-believers. This what our holy book says. This what Allah says.” (Al Jazeera TV, 9 January 2009.)
      Yusuf al Qaradawi, spiritual adviser to the Muslim Brotherhood

  10. The only -orderly- way to resolve this conflict is the one dictated by Islam — to submit. Islam in the core of its constitution is prevented from ever accepting anything else, only live with a compromise for as long as it doesn’t have the power to enforce its will while never cease to seek ways of turning that around. Until this ideology is understood in the West, there will only be an ever increasing string of events which don’t match the “politically correct” fantasy which is hammered down the throats of ordinary citizens. Until the breakpoint is reached, and how much time or how many casualties that takes is the only still unknown variable in this process.

  11. I would like to add some of my own comments.

    “may experience civil wars”

    What is currently happening is a continent-wide, multi-generational trojan horse operation. Many of the invaders are second and third generation. They may be born in Europe, but are not Western. People deride the term “clash of civilizations”, but that is exactly what it will be. Not a war of nations, not a war of civil factions, but a war of civilizations.

    “Muslims nowadays still do not constitute a majority of the fighting age population in Europe”.

    It’s not just numbers, you also have to consider the mindset. Islamic culture is militant, while modern Western culture is largely pacifist. You put 100 sheep against 1 wolf, and it doesn’t take an experienced bookie to know where the smart money is.

    “innocent until proven guilty”

    There appears to be a conflation between “innocent until proven guilty” and “under no suspicion until proven guilty”. The former is a fundamental right, while the latter is suicidal stupidity. However, in today’s political climate, being merely suspicious of a Muslim is considered a hate crime (remember the clock boy?). Being suspicious, and guarding ourselves against those who declare adherence to a violent, hateful, anti-western ideology (i.e. Muslims), goes a long way to blunting the effects of Islamic violence, does not violate anyone’s legal or moral right (noone has the right to be free from suspicion), and is just simply rational.

    “We shall have to assume that they are [moderate Muslims] unless they prove otherwise”

    If someone calls themself a “communist”, is it not rational to assume they believe in communist principles? If someone calls themself an “environmentalist”, is it not rational to assume they believe in environmental principles? So why, when someone calls themself a “Muslim”, are we supposed to assume that they do not believe in Islamic principles? It makes no sense. Even understanding that religious labels are inherited, it is still far more rational (and less suicidal) to assume that your typical Muslim believes in Islamic principles (and are thus pro-Jihad) unless proven otherwise.

    Thank you for your time.

  12. There are several comments on wording, but overall this is very adequate vision.

    First, – I think it will be a necessity actually, to ban any “violent incursions by angry natives”, as well.
    And ban it as firmly as ban sharia.
    The only people responsible for technicalities of containment, must be military or/and police.

    Second – presently, it is difficult (and not actually that important) to define who is “original native inhabitant” and who is not.
    Are all these 1,2,3-th generation Poles, Russians, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, etc. – living in London, and all British citizens, – “native” to Britain?
    When the stuff hits the fan, – the same way as English, Irish, Welsh and Scottish, they will become targets of islamic violence.
    Add here the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans – they are not even “ethnic Europeans and descendants across the globe”, but does it really matter?
    They all have stakes in the West, its culture, and the future..

    So the main “negative” recipes are

    – Stop uncompatible immigration
    – Stop foreign (islamic oil) funding of mosques, etc.
    – “Ban sharia” (using TR expression)
    – Establish and practice containment

    Also I think, there are further essential details here, that will critically affect the dynamics, and worth discussing, namely

    – Is “Balkanization” (geographical separation) a preferred option
    – Should we switch to Israeli/Swiss model of armed forces? That will need fast and
    significant reform, – and investment, and recruitment
    – what about EU, national borders, and Globalization
    – will there be concomitant societal changes – i.e., cashless economy/logistics, party-less politics, reform of charities, reform of Higher Education. Will the islamic crisis result in new social order in the end?

    It would be great to have some insight on that, too.

  13. This is a great post and a discussion I wish we were seriously having in America particularly on the concept of jihad as it has been given expression by so called “extremists”. The concept of jihad has remained consistent across the 1400 year span that incorporates today’s recognized Islamic authorities as the rules of Islamic law pertaining to jihad have remained consistent regardless of whether it was defined by an eighth century Arab, a ninth century Uzebki, a 12th century Spaniard, a 14th century North African, or even a 20th century Arab, Pakistani, Indian, Malaysian or American. It all conforms to the idea that jihad does not end until the world has been made the dar al-Islam and because there is agreement among the scholars on the status of jihad, it belongs to the fixed inner sphere of Islamic law that can never be changed.

    Its critical that all Westerners begin to realize this when were talking about Islam & how those with nefarious agendas within our nations seek to hamper our ability on describing or even identifying our enemy.

    I try and break this down the best I can in this piece writing about how our threat doctrine has been reduced to strategic incomprehension and incoherence due to all discussion on the subject of jihad and Islam having been purged from our lexicon.

    • You’ll recall that every time Dynamite Dave spouts off his latest load of rubbish about there being nothing in islamic doctrines which justifies beheading people etc, he insists that we must all be ‘united’. This is code for – NO DISSENTING VOICES ARE PERMITTED!

      Soft gleichschalting if you like …

  14. Britain had an election on May 7th of this year.
    Despite the fact that this country is over run with islam.
    That it is obvious they pose a real and present danger.
    That sharia, far from harmless calls for the overthrow of the British government, the monarchy and all our systems of government from law, education and finance.
    Even though the British people had a viable, sensible oppostion to party to vote for – the only one – UKIP.
    Telling people the truth, the facts, the future.
    87% of Brits knowingly, deliberately and utter perversely went out and voted for more islam, more immigration, more invasion, more occupation and faster colonisation.
    And woud do so again to morrow.
    Collective national suicide, sheer stupity, total denial – who knows.
    We blame the ‘elite’ but surely its time to hold electors more responsible for electing the traitors.
    When you get 87% of British people voting collectively for the destruction of their own country – I don’t know what the answer is.

    • And there you have the crucial defect of the Western welfare state, a form of cultural suicide that began with the defeat of Winston Churchill in his final electoral challenge, and the concomitant rise of the welfare state – that huge, all-encompassing lie.

      When my Irish relatives (settled in England after the War) would visit us during my childhood, their excursions were made possible only by the fact that one of them worked in the “tourist industry” and was able to finagle the bagel for cheap travel…

      For a brief time they were able to leave the pinched economies of their daily lives to visit a land of plenty. More than one of them said it was like a trip from a world lived in grey tones to a land of life and color. Yes, just as the Russian emigres would do the same a generation later, they went to the grocery stores to marvel at the array of food. They stood on the streets marveling at all the cars.

      It’s all relative: in our world, my family was poor but not poverty-stricken. My mother’s sheer will made sure we had a home she owned, even when we scraped up the pennies to make that $19.21 monthly mortgage. Back then, owning a house really did make economic sense. We lived in a safe suburban neighborhood, a short commute from what I thought of as real wealth, i.e., more affluent homes with swimming pools and cars and the presence of a dad to make the whole thing real.

      My English relatives thought us immensely fortunate…and I couldn’t understand why they were so poor and had such bad teeth.

      Being a kid who’s an inveterate reader has its advantages: I discovered Nevil Shute, and through him the miracle of Australia and New Zealand. England began to seem more and more like the dotty old uncle who’d begun life as a strapping young man who knew the whole world was his oyster…only to sell his heritage for a mess of pottage.

      I still feel sorry for the English. They didn’t deserve their fate, but they sold out, too, believing their treasonous leaders’ lies about “security”. Now they have large swaths of uneducated young people who have never worked at all and will never have the chance to do so.

      Now it is America’s turn to push away from the false promises of “security”…if we have enough spine left to do so. Many of our young people have drunk the bitter dregs of entitlement; it may be hard to bring them back if there is nothing remaining when they return: no jobs, no future, no hope.

      Remember that young street Tunisian vendor who self-immolated in the face of state regulations which prevented him from earning enough to get by? No one set him up to become the catalyst for a wider destruction…his was an individual decision but it wrought changes that are still in play.

      Never underestimate the reverberations of a single act, or the echoes of a shot heard ’round the world.

      • Any social welfare should be a hand up, not a perpetual hand out like it has become to many in England.

        It really does feel as though the ruling elite allow this largesse only to weaken those serfs beneath them; this continually enables their parasitic existence, similar to the need for endless immigration.

      • Churchill was a great wartime leader, but was seen by returning troops as representing the class system, which had been perpetuated by many of the officers’ refusal to mix with their subordinates off-duty.

        Also the “Land fit for Heroes” promised after WW1 had failed to materialise, another incentive to vote in Labour in 1945.

        • Mark H

          I think you have nailed the reasons for Labour’s landslide victory in 1945. I would add that the “Land fit for Heroes” promise was so wickedly, cynically and callously betrayed and the treatment of WW1 veterans and the working class (I hate that term, but in that era it was apt) between 1918 and 1939 so appalling, that Labour’s 1945 victory was to be fully expected. My upper-middle class, Hampstead Golf Club member, medical doctor, RAF officer, etc grandfather voted Labour in 1945. He regretted it when the fruits of the implementation of the Beveridge Report became apparent.

          • There’s a wiki on the Beveridge Report. But it doesn’t explain enough. Of the demons,
            “Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness”, it would seem that the first two were ameliorated greatly; the third and fourth less so, while the last one still abounds.

            That demon, “Idleness” happens wherever govt lays its heavy hand. The more communism and socialism there is in a culture, the less individual initiative is rewarded. It is hard to imagine an adult can going through his or her whole life without ever having a job.

            It took the U.S.’ cynical “War on Poverty” for the phenomenon to appear here. Now, the jobs-killing permanent bureaucracy is busy killing hope and ambition the same way it was killed in Britain.

            Also those wasted lives are unutterably sad. Now I hear people hoping for the upheaval to arrive so that Idleness is no longer an option…

    • I’m sorry but what you wrote doesn’t look realistic, at all.
      This is some other, imaginary Britain.

      yes, there is crisis of “party politics”, and elites are relativistic, greedy, stupid, and cowardly.

      but in crisis, the degenerate elites usually or broken, or replaced, or smoothly forced to adjust.

      there are all signs that it is coming.

      you have no clue about mood of real working class, majority people.

      there is very definite feeling of contempt and hate to islam and sharia.
      which is projected on muslims.
      and it isn’t about burly English blokes anymore, but among all non-muslims.
      Afro women throw hijab-wearing women out from buses – this is new British sport.

      parties don’t matter much anymore.
      even Cons, feeling this pressure, will do what is needed – extend army and police, introduce new policies.
      it is their survival as well.

      just check this out –

      intereting times are around, – and for many jihadis these won’t be happy times..

      • If the PM *really* means it *this time,* that would be incredible! But he’s the leader of those who’ve been…ah…appeasing the Muslims, so maybe he could begin this program by looking in the mirror.

        Thx for the link. 🙂

  15. Surely the law could be changed such that there is no automatic right to a British passport. I’d any child born to refugees or economic migrants have the passport of their parents. They would then have to apply for residence at the age of 18.

    The effect then would be of educated children being required (if so decided) to return to their country of origin. A net benefit to that country

  16. Dear Baron — I must disagree with you that Marine Le Pen is a benign national socialist: her Putinism makes her no friend of liberty. While I vehemently disagree with Claire Berlinski on Islamic immigration to Europe, I still read her; I separate the wheat from the chaff. She’s fully right about this:

    “In France, Marine Le Pen has publicly stated her vision of a Europe of independent nation states controlled by a tripartite axis between Paris and Berlin and Moscow. She was invited in 2013 to Moscow by State Duma leader and Putin friend Sergei Naryshkin, where she met with Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. Her party recognised the results of the Crimea referendum and stated in an interview with Voice of Russia radio that, “historically, Crimea is part of Mother Russia.” Le Pen’s party is to receive a €40m loan from a bank with links to the Kremlin to cover part of the FN’s campaigning expenses ahead of the national elections in 2017.

    Putin’s strategy makes perfect sense: It’s one thing just to grab Ukraine, but when it comes to the rest of Europe, he can just sit patiently on the sidelines and watch as the far right dismantles the EU for him. And with the financial crisis — and now the immigration crisis — it seems that this is his moment. Perhaps, against all odds, he’ll be able to pull it off.”

    More here:

    • [Comment from the Baron using Dymphna’s computer]

      Yes, I know all this. You are reading things into my words if you think that I said Marine Le Pen is a great friend of liberty.

      My main point is that FN is not “far right”. It is socialist, like the BNP.

      The party is financially supported by the Russians, as are other anti-immigration parties in Europe. The reason for this is that these parties’ policies serve Russian state interests.

      The Russians also have agents in PEGIDA and AfD.

      This is not to argue against support for any of these groups or parties. It is simply prudent recognize reality for what it is.

      Russian interests and ours may run parallel for a time. Later they will diverge.

      • I think Trump fits in the (non-Nazi) national socialist camp, as well, although he’s probably somewhat more free market than Marine Le Pen. He clearly admires Putin and, were Trump to become President, I think the US and Russia would become somewhat more cooperative.

        What’s clear is that, with Putin, Trump, the Chinese, Le Pen, and others, we are witnessing the rise of a new nationalism. It will be very interesting to see whether Trump is actually elected. I give him a decent chance, if only because I think he and his supporters will be more vigilant when it comes to Democrat cheating in places like Ohio and Florida.

        • it is good not to forget that Putin isn’t “nationalist” but first-foremost, he is the head of the hybrid KGB+mafia gang, probably most dangerous in history, as it is nuclear armed, sitting on resources of the largest state on the planet, and not following any rules of civilized diplomacy. only the GULAG ethics –
          “it was yours, it became ours”,
          “the kid gave a word, the kid took a word”,
          “you die today, I tomorrow”.

          Trump and Le Pen are not very cautious opportunists with flickering good intentions, but not realizing who is Mr. Putin.

          and the Chinese aren’t related to any of that.
          their nationalism is tamed and civilized.
          God forbid us from seing even a nail of more nervous Chinese nationalism, as it was, say, under Mao Tse [T]ung.

          • Well, I think the Chinese understand that their moment in the sun will be brief, given the terrible demographics. The Chinese military desperately wants to challenge the US, which makes them dangerous. However, I don’t think they’ll ever the dominant global power.

      • Baron- thank you for your reply. I don’t see how Putin’s interests run parallel to our our own. Do you really think he gives two figs about preventing the Islamization of Western Europe? He’s supporting a nuclear Iran, supplying them with ICBMs, etc., etc.

        What frightens me the most about Iran is an Iranian EMP strike over the U.S.

        And Putin is enabling this possibility. Directly.

        Marine Le Pen’s “cleaned-up” party is lipstick on a pig. They’re motivated more by hatred of Jews than by concern about Islam. As evidenced by that article to which I linked, “National Front’s Dark Underside,” one can well imagine them siding with Islamists than with anti-Jihadists. Just as the Nazis did.

        Back to Putin, I’d beg of you to read Walter Laqueur — perhaps the most judicious historian of the last 70 years — who has written an extremely illuminating book about the man.

        (Digression: it’s worth pointing out, Laqueur’s recent fisking of Timothy Snyder, “The Newton of the Holocaust?, is not to be missed…)

        • I don’t think Putin cares a whit about Western Europe, and I never meant to imply that he does.

          Russia’s interests concerning Western Europe, as far as I can determine, are as follows:

          1. Keep the EU militarily weak. This means opposing and weakening NATO, and encouraging discord between the EU and the USA.

          2. Weaken the EU in other respects, culturally and commercially. A breakup of the EU would be useful, which is why Russian money flows into the EU-skeptical parties (which also happen to be the anti-immigration parties). HOWEVER — this weakening of the EU must not be accompanied by a strengthening of nationalism in Germany, France, Britain, The Netherlands etc. Notice that the propaganda on RT and Sputnik always makes true European nationalists look dangerous and alarming. Once the EU breaks up, look for Russian support for the nationalist parties to dry up.

          3. Keep Western Europe dependent on Russian energy. This means controlling existing pipelines, and building pipelines that Russia controls. Central Europe (which has a healthy suspicion of Russian hegemony) must be kept on separate pipelines, so that energy may be cut off to Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics, Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary when politically necessary, but leave Germany and Scandinavia fully supplied. This plan is already operational, to some extent.

          4. Through disinformation, fabrication, provocation, and other KGB-style methods, encourage dislike, suspicion, and fear of the United States in Central Europe (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary). In this way, although Mittel Europa will never stop loathing Russia, it may become reluctant to ally too closely with the USA.

          There are probably other policies I’m leaving out, but this gives you a rough idea. #2 is one place where Putin’s interests align with those of European nationalists. But this is very temporary — and if Le Pen, Strache, etc. don’t understand the inherent time limit on this help from Russia, then they are fools.

  17. I must agree with the Baron. I only have first hand ground level experience with The Netherlands. I believe Wilders will NEVER be allowed to become prime minister. The Dutch State, to me, runs one of the most corrupt systems in Europe, closed ranks on him some time ago, and as a member of parliament should have been provided protection against Islamic extremists – only body guards he has paid for is probably the reason he is still alive.

    • The neo-totalitarians are so evil, I wouldn’t put anything past them. I could see Wilders getting ‘whacked’ before they ever relinquish power and let him take control.

      • Geert getting whacked would have serious consequences. His enemies would do well to actually protect him from harm.

        • NativeGladius

          I would be grateful if you could expand upon your comment. It is more likely than not that the Dutch establishment would very much like Geert Wilders to be whacked.

          Ernest8 is correct to point out the example of Pim Fortuyn’s murder: there was a bit of a kerfuffle afterward and then within a year the Pim Fortuyn List imploded. Problem solved, by some deranged vegan acting entirely on his own.

          Geert Wilders is a far more serious threat to the Dutch establishment than Pim Fortuyn was. As Wilders astutely observed, Fortuyn was a “hedonist” who for that reason alone was not temperamentally suited to the demands of being the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Wilders is so suited.

    • I see two of yours (so far) on this thread. As far as I can tell, everyone is moderated, which means there could be a delay of several hours between hitting “Send” and seeing one’s comment posted.

      Are you experiencing more than this?

      • There is often a delay when two people are the sole moderators of a website, even a small one.

        We sleep sometimes, we eat meals, the B is repairing the driveway, and when i feel well I go for walks – right on top of his work. Then there is church on Sunday, grocery shopping, haircuts, occasional doctor visits when i can’t get out of it. An exciting life…
        There are lots of comments. I will take the trouble to redact some of the rude words – the crackdown that’s coming will be bigger than my few efforts to keep it civil (see Twitter’s new rules). If a comment is simply too full of invective or mean-spirited remarks, then it goes to the trash can…

        I did a search on Carax. More than 60 of his comments have been admitted. I don’t have any stats for those not let in. The system doesn’t hold on to them. What I did read sounded interesting and informative, esp. his Netherlands’ background.

        So it’s a mystery to me, too.

  18. Excellent portrayal of the so-called “right” and why they can’t get their [effluvia] together. Here in the US we have often heard that the Republican Party is dead, that the remaining RINOs are not really conservative….all of which is true. Nonetheless, if Trump were to split from the Republican Party, he would likely not be able to win against the left. As the Republican debates and the debate analysis has come in, I fear the bigger danger is from within the Republican Party itself…some claim that they would be embarrassed to have Trump as President…I fear that they will eventually put their own RINO candidate forward, even if Trump continues to have a majority. Carson has proven that he is aware of how Muslim “theology” works, but he can’t win against the left….he is a bit too soft-spoken and his mannerisms appear wierd…(Just look how he is portrayed in SNL comedy sketches!) Trump has shown that he is on the learning curve when it comes to dealing with Muslims, however. If Trump becomes the official Republican candidate I will feel much relief, even though there is always the possibility of national voter fraud…which may of taken place even in the last election. My final point is this…if what Baron says turns out to be true…a swing towards “anti-immigration” policy might help prevent some of inevitable bloodshed in America. Let’s hold on to our guns and hope that we can ride out the last year of the Monkey!

    • I’m also very concerned about voter fraud here in the US. These elections are often closely run things, and a bit of mischief in Dade County or in Cleveland could change the outcome. I can foresee a scenario whereby Trump and Clinton both claim the presidency.

      The Democrats have attempted in the past to portray Tea Party supporters as violent, right-wing goons. It was, of course a slander. I don’t think Trump supporters will necessarily slip quietly into the night as we’ve seen with the Tea Party. This year is going to be interesting, and potentially very ugly.

  19. Good article telling it as it is.
    I do take issue with our dhimmi politicians and media who term those who call for an end to the invasion of Europe from bloodthirsty Islamic hordes as ‘far right’

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with far right or far left or up and down or whatever they want to call it but between good versus evil, freedom versus submission, civilisation versus barbarity and even life versus death.


    • Quite so. Unsurprisingly, the people who use the label never define their own terms. They quite literally don’t know what they’re talking about.

      I recall the comedian Jim Davidson being grilled by some tv presenter who accusing him of being ‘sexist’. Jim simply asked her to define her terms. What did she mean when she used that word?

      Well, she said, you know what it means. But do you know what it means, asked Jim …

      Game over, they didn’t know what they meant by it, and had nowhere to go after Jim pointed that out. I think this is an effective tactic. Simply ask anyone who uses the term ‘far right’ to explain exactly what they mean by that.

      In short – don’t play the game they want to play according to their deliberately vague rules. Play a different game. Our game. The game where they have to admit that they quite literally don’t know what they’re talking about.

  20. ” Somebody is expending enormous quantities of money, effort, and manpower to make sure that the flow of immigrants into Europe remains unimpeded”

    That somebody is the Muslim countries which dominate the UN. The EU is their executive arm in Europe and NATO stands ready to do their bidding. The first step for any patriotic Govt is to withdraw from all 3 of these compromised institutions.

    – Disenfranchise all 3rd world immigrants backdated to 1946; they were brought here without a mandate by criminal Govts.
    – Stop their benefits and demand that Muslim nations pay for the upkeep of their own; don’t forget to tax the resulting income for the benefit of the host countries.
    – Repeal all PC legislation such as Equality & Diversity, Hate Laws and Human Rights; acknowledge that the natives of each country are entitled by birth to first class citizenship; immigrants come second.
    – Introduce a new offense called “Abuse of Hospitality”.
    – Take back control of no go immigrant enclaves, block by block if necessary; use techniques of blockade and siege to starve them out and disarm them; it is easy to cut off utilities.
    – Round up all the socialist traitors (they are easy to find) and [intemperate recommendation redacted].
    – Recognise Vladimir Putin and Russia along with a handful of East European countries as the last hope for a free world.
    – Wise up to the tactics used by Muslims to gain sympathy and take over by stealth; harden your hearts to the hard luck stories.
    – Put an end to one way tolerance; treat Muslims in our country as they treat us and fellow Christians in their countries.

    That’s enough to be going on with.

    • Do you realize how useless it is, how much of a waste of our readers’ time and your own, to compile a lengthy laundry list such as this of policies that you demand to be implemented?

      Do you understand that not a single item on this list is remotely politically feasible, nor will it be for the foreseeable future?

      You say: “The first step for any patriotic Govt is…”

      Our core problem is that there are no patriotic governments in the West. None. All our efforts should be concentrated on changing that deplorable situation, rather than on compiling lists of wonderful imaginary things that need to be done. Why don’t you wish for a magic pony, too?

      In the governments of the West (and I do not include Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary in the West) there are only mendacious traitors, NWO toadies, cynical and corrupt bureaucrats, committed socialists, ambitious and unprincipled opportunists, and agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, in various mixtures. There are no patriots in charge.

      That is what we need to work on.

      • Dear Baron, don’t be angry, I tried to constructively answer the question in your title “Is a Peaceful or at Least Orderly Resolution Possible?” by suggesting measures to achieve it without bloodshed.

        btw the next time somebody talks about moderate Muslims, ask if they ever heard of a moderate Nazi. The parallel is almost exact because Muslims are subject to military discipline in support of their ideology. Thus deserters from an army are shot, an apostate is sentenced to death.

      • True Baron, but somebody has to say those things even if they are a fantasy currently. We’re all feeling our way through the fog of Islamolies.

    • Dunroamin, got it! My thoughts exactly!

      But I’m afraid we are ‘way too far-right radical’ for the loonies running (ruining) the western world.

  21. At nearly 79 I agree mostly but will we have the courage to help make the necessary changes?

    • Some people will. And some of those are already appearing, such as Tommy Robinson and Geert Wilders — people who truly risk their lives in an attempt to save their countries and Western Civilization.

      As the situation becomes more dire, more and more people like that will stand up and be counted. Some of those will become leaders of the resistance, and will have to fight their own governments (either politically or by force of arms) to prevent the Islamization of their nations and resist incorporation in the Ummah/NWO.

      Such is the reality of our not-so-distant future. I see no way of avoiding it; it is now too late.

  22. if RINO = Republican In Name Only

    does MINO = Muslim I Name Only = a moderate/cultural muslim?

    I want to believe .

    • The problem is that you “want to believe”. Don’t want anything. Wanting interferes with your perception of reality. Clear your mind and simply observe what Muslims do and all will become vivid.

      • There it is, in a nutshell.

        The “wanting” of various lovely, soft, fluffy things has led the West down a terrible path over the past half century.

        Recall Stan (Eric Idle) “wanting”, henceforth, to be called Loretta in Monty Python’s prescient circa 1980 ‘Life of Brian’? Why did he want to be so-called? Because he “wanted to have babies”. And John Cleese exasperatedly protesting “But you can’t have babies Stan! Where’s the foetus going to gestate? In a box?” Another member of the Judean Peoples’ Front (or Peoples’ Front of Judea – I forget), trying to broker a compromise, proposes that, despite it being agreed that Stan couldn’t have babies by reason of him being a man, supporting Stan/Loretta in the campaign for his “right to have babies” was “symbolic of our struggle against oppression”. Cleese remarks “Symbolic of his [Stan’s] struggle with reality!”

    • I’d define “Muslim in name only” as being someone who was born Muslim but doesn’t believe in the Quran, never or almost never goes to a mosque, and is likely to be atheist. Often, such as in Pakistan, they would tend to be Marxist as well.

      The main problem is that, coming from a Muslim upbringing, they usually don’t want to acknowledge to themselves just how bad Islam really is even though they may fully realize that it is the cause behind jihad murders, terrorist attacks, abuse of women, blasphemy executions, etc.

      This does not describe a “moderate Muslim” but someone who’s essentially just playing along with Islam for survival purposes while not really believing in it.

      The only “Muslims” I’d call moderate would be the Ahmadiyya because, rather than simply being lazy and ignoring the radical doctrine of mainstream Islam or being crypto-atheists, they do have an affirmative moderate doctrine that doesn’t seem to exist anywhere else in an organized fashion. However they are totally unhelpful since they misrepresent themselves as being typical of mainstream Islam which is completely false. (They are only 1% of self-identified Muslims and they are banned from Mecca as apostates/infidels. It is illegal in most major Muslim countries for them to even call themselves Muslim.)

  23. I am currently reading Jonathan Dimbleby’s ‘Battle of The Atlantic’ and I believe a parallel could be drawn between the opening years of WWII and what is happening today.

    The Brits (and most of the Germans) believed that they were engaging in a WWI type naval warfare, where surface ships would rule the day. The sinking of the Bismark put paid to that notion for the Germans, whether they wanted to admit it or not. Karl Dönitz (according to Dimbleby’s analysis) was one of the few people who understood that an entirely different kind of warfare was being waged.

    In the new kind of naval warfare, stealth, hit and run tactics, and hunting in ‘packs’ was the way to bring the enemy down. And if the Germans had embraced this concept wholeheartedly and given Dönitz the support he wanted, then the consequences would have been very bad for the British, and the rest of the world.

    In today’s world, the Islamic forces ranged against us have indeed embraced a new kind of ‘asymetric’ warfare where they use stealth attacks to undermine our society as a whole, rather than engage in large scale land battles against their enemy’s military forces. In short, we are still buidling surface ships and failing to understand how to protect ourselves, while the enemy is sending fleets of submarines to hunt us down in packs. They’re already waging war against us, and we don’t appear to have a clue what to do about it.

    • I note that the French called in their counter-terrorism people in Paris in November, in *addition* to the police.

      It was also CTC people who brought down the two (?) brothers who attacked the factory two days after they massacred the staff at Charlie Hebdo last January.

      Most police depts don’t have CTC capabilities; those are associated either with the military or government intelligence, depending on the country. I’d say the CTC people understand that we’re being warred against, and I’m almost certain that most Western governments won’t admit it.

  24. Unfortunately, most of you are totally off the mark. Things are much more demonic than you think. This is not about Islam versus the west, this is about the survival of the “white” race. Over the years I have collected hundreds of citations by top politicians and other “elites” that reveals the true agenda. The modern marxist, or post-modernist view is that “whites” are the root cause of all the worlds problems, and that the world will only be healed once the “white devils” and the last remains of everything western and white is removed from this planet COMPLETELY. I have debated whith human rights entusiasts and minority activists who have argued that there actually exists very concrete plans to get rid of white people from this planet. And I happen to believe they are right. We, “whites”, are in a much more difficult position now than even the anti-islamist comunity understands.

    • True. David Cameron is on record saying there are too many white Christian faces in Britain and he wants Muslims in charge of everything. Not hard to find, just google white Christian faces.

      • His very statement about “white Christian faces” is a statement on his own personal self-loathing. Such is exactly why he shouldn’t be a leader of anything … monsters from the id simply cannot be tolerated in the civilized world.

    • It is noticeable how these are the people who keep banging on about race all the time. I’ve never had any interest whatsoever in the subject, it all seems rather stupid to me. But they’re obsessed by it. They’re selective with it, of course. As you say.

      • exactly.
        that includes the comment of Randers on January 2, 2016 at 12:58 pm

        be as White as you want, mate with Whitest ladies you can imagine, dance with snowflakes, bath in milk, swim with White swans, it’s all up to you.

        but don’t try to impose that on me by force or by deception.
        don’t lecture others about virtues of Whiteness.
        any unearned, innate “virtue” is the supremacist myth.

        simply – stay free, know the truth, do good, and help others.
        practice your Whiteness as your personal hobby – it is SECONDARY issue.

        • And that is exactly the kind of cultural relativism that landed us in this mess in the first place.

          • where is “cultural relativism” here?

            I stand for universal humanist values, and flourishing of cooperative civilzation, – for all.

            and what are you standing for – racial laws?

        • On the contrary, it IS the issue. Multiculturalism is all about destroying everything that has to do with white people, our culture, racial homogenity, values, religion, economic and political system, our self-confidence, feeling of identity, even our history. You can check for your self what activists really say about these things. They are not secretive about it at all. They will tell you that the perfect world will start to materialize once white people are gone. White people are often referred to as “devils”, “cancer”, “virus” etc. This is the agenda. This is the purpose of multiculturalism. With white people out of the way all oppression, individualism, injustice, wars, poverty will cease. The socialist Utopia will be born out of the cadaver of the white race. But don’t take my word for it. Do some research.

          • I am white, and I don’t think Whites are all “devils”, “cancer”, “virus” etc.

            I know many people, Whites, Blacks, Yellow, Brown, etc.
            all normal hard working lads and lasses, going well with each other.

            there are attempts from cultural and racial “equalizers” to impose MC rules and customs, and that often results in clumsy, pompous, laughable anti-White stuff in advertising, etc.
            annoying, – yes.
            worth ridicule, – yes.

            “..the cadaver of the white race..” ?
            c’mon, – get a life!

    • It’s all about the self-loathing that has been crammed down our throats for sixty years by politics, media, corporations, schools, even churches. And, we were stupid and fell for it. Get people to despise themselves and their history and they become the walking dead.

      • There’s no need to keep talking about that. We need to move forward. Still, if you want to keep wallowing in that muck …

  25. If Europe were to ban the religion of Islam altogether, this could be justified under Article 21 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights – “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”

  26. Regarding deportation, some countries refuse to extradite suspects to the US because it retains the death penalty, I think uniquely among the “civilised” nations.

    If we truly believe in respect for human rights as one of the cornerstones of our democracy, then we should not deport people, however nasty, to places where they may be subject to torture, inhumane treatment or imprisonment without trial.

    If we are actually in a state of war, which our enemies have made it as clear that they believe to be the case, as the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor, then our governments are justified in suspending some rights for “enemy combatants”, but they should be honest about it, and torture and other brutality should remain outlawed.

  27. Look at Nawaz and Cenk Uygur, both “moderate Muslims”, both Islamists to the bone, one even claiming to be an atheist.

  28. It’s all talk until the Muslims explode a dirty nuclear bomb in a major European city. Not that there’s anything wrong with talk. But if the reaction to that horror is anything less than draconian…well, then Europe is lost.

    Do I think that horror is coming? I know it’s coming. Think of it — a crater where Paris was. If not then…..

    • Exactly. And, seriously, the bullets are flying, the bombs are exploding, we can talk later.

      And, oh, horror is here, it just hasn’t taken the nuclear form yet.

  29. Oren appears to be a real hopey/changey kind of guy. And, hey, we need cute opinions, huh?

    • Some of the problems we are facing has to do with our insistence on being “rational” and “humanistic”. While our enemies are using all possible methods to destroy us, we are still following a rulebook. Rationality, politeness, humanistic “values” will not save us this time. If we let our enemies decide the premises, we will lose this fight. We can not fight an exist philantropists – as some people here believe.

      • That last sentence is supposed to be “We can not fight an existential battle and at same time insist on being do-gooders, humanitarians and philantropists – as some people here believe.”

        • so what do you propose – to become evil-doing, inhumane misanthropes?

          that was really clever.

      • Its never just a question of “Can we win this fight / struggle?” Its also a question of the price we have to pay to win.

        • In this war, the price of winning is always smaller than the price of losing. When you are attacked, defending yourself does not make you an attacker. Destroying an enemy who has attacked you with the intent to destroy you does not make you the moral equivalent of the attacker. Failing to destroy the mohammedan attackers is the most immoral option: it not only leaves us dead, but despicable, cowardly, evil dead.

  30. Hello everybody –

    Here are my replies to the Baron’s post, more or less by the same order he has used.

    But first let me begin my making clear once again that I do not discount the possibility of an all out war between Islam and the west. If the Western world remains on its current trajectory for much longer (i.e. mass Islamic immigration, with no real attempts to integrate this population or to root out its violent components), then such a conflict indeed becomes inevitable. We may vary upon the ways in which we see such a conflict unfolding, but I believe we all agree that this conflict will be horrific, and (judging by the Syrian civil war, for instance) may involve hundreds of thousands of casualties, if not millions.

    I agree with the Baron than in such a scenario the west may “dispose of all niceties”, and that present notions of human rights and equality before the law may become irrelevant, as desperate people turn to desperate measures. Under such conditions anything is possible, including the mass deportation of millions of Muslims from Europe, including many who have never committed any crime. I advise everyone not to wish for such an outcome, only so that they may rid their countries entirely of any Islamic presence, because the price may be overwhelming. A world in which human rights are discarded offhandedly, and people can be stripped of their citizenship merely because of their religious affiliation will not be a pleasant place to live, for anyone. It will become a fertile ground for dictatorships to grow upon, and this is one of the things I hope to avoid.

    My following answers will not be related to this scenario, but rather to the other one which I have described as “a rapid shift of the political map”, in which the West attempts to tackle the problem of Islam through the political system, without giving up on its own principles of human rights, equality before the law etc.

    Can the conflict between Islam and the West be resolved in any peaceful or at least orderly way?

    It is difficult to say whether it is still possible or not to resolve the situation through the political system, but slim as the chances may be we must try to do so, because the alternative is so devastating. We should not give up without trying.

    Will the wars be civil wars?

    I used the term “civil war” because technically the combatants of both sides will be carrying the same passport, but you may call them whatever you like.

    I personally like the term “uncivil wars” suggested by someone on this blog a while ago.

    Will the rapid shift of the political map be towards the right?

    As I am not well acquainted enough with the political system in Europe I cannot say for sure whether the current anti-immigration parties truly belong to the right or not. But take into consideration that these parties may only be the first stop in a long journey towards the right, and that other movements may arise in the future to oppose them from the right.

    Is it possible to halt all immigration to Europe?
    How many imams are likely to be prosecuted for preaching hate?
    Will significant numbers of immigrants be deported after being convicted of terrorism, or any other crimes?
    Will Western governments place mosques and other Islamic organizations under surveillance?
    Is it possible to block the foreign Saudi money which is funding terrorism and fundamentalism?
    Will Western countries reform their entitlement systems, and make it impossible for new immigrants to live on the dole?

    My answer to all of the above questions is the same: where there is a will, there is a way.
    If the political climate in Europe changes to such an extent, that a politician who fails to address this issue will become unelectable, then all these things may change overnight.

    How soon will Muslims constitute a majority of the fighting age population in Europe?

    As the Baron has admitted, this question is difficult to answer, due to the lack of reliable statistics. But I believe it is safe to assume that we are not yet there. And so if the “rapid shift of the political map” takes place quickly enough, we may enter the conflict with the Islamic population having the upper hand, thus minimizing the amount of carnage.

    We don’t know exactly how many Islamic State militants have infiltrated Europe during this last wave of immigration, or how many home grown Jihadists are currently willing to pick up arms and join them, but one thing is certain – they do not yet posses the necessary infrastructure needed to win an open battle with any European army (even in their present decimated state). They will be out manned, under equipped and will not enjoy any air support or signal intelligence.

    Contrary to what some people believe, the Jihadists are not formidable warriors at all. They are largely undisciplined and unprofessional. They are able to carry out random acts of terrorism against unarmed civilians, but whenever faced with real opposition they tend to cave in. As long as they are a minority in Europe, they can be defeated.

    As we have seen on endless occasions, the only obstacle on the way to victory is the political class, which never allows our armed forces to exert their full force, and constantly binds their hands using PC culture and onerous laws of engagement. Once we are able to replace our politicians, Jihad will no longer pose an existential threat.

    Is mass deportation of citizens who have committed no crime possible?

    I’m afraid it will be very difficult to strip Muslims who have committed no crime of their European passports, without repudiating Western notions of human rights and equality before the law. Even if we assume that the public opinion is ripe for such a move, it will set a dangerous precedent in which people are judged merely upon their religious affiliation. Moreover, in the case of crypto-Muslims, which we must assume will become a widespread phenomenon, we will be granting the state the unimaginable power to try to discern the inner beliefs of a person, even when he himself is denying them.

    What will become of a society which attempts to do so on a large scale? it will no longer enjoy any of the liberties enshrined in the American constitution. In the name of fighting Jihad terrorism it will do away with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which are at the very base of Western civilization. As the old adage goes, we will be burning the village in order to save it.

    Must we assume that all Muslims are “moderates” until proven otherwise?

    I use the term “Moderate Muslim” to describe a theoretical person who claims to be practicing the inner spiritual aspects of Islam, and rejects all the violent and supremacist aspects of it sincerely and unequivocally. If such a person wishes to live in the west then he is also required to respect the local laws and values, and to not attempt to subvert them in any way or form.

    If such a person exists, then I see no legal grounds upon which his Western citizenship can be revoked, and he can be deported. If he does not exist, and the only people who are assuming to be “moderate Muslims” are indeed charlatans, and this can be proven in a court of law using objective evidence, then by all means do that.

    As you can see, I did not adopt the term “moderate Muslim” out of love or respect towards this religion, which I personally find to be obscene. Neither do I use it the same way Western politicians do, to describe some precious creature which should be coddled and revered. I use it simply as a technical term, whose sole purpose is to preserve the rule of law, and protect Western values of human rights and equality before the law from being destroyed. In doing so I do not concern myself with Islamic theology, nor do I care if meeting this standard turns a Muslim into an apostate or not. That is his problem, not mine. You may think of it as our own “yardstick”, which we can set before the Muslim population and say “if you want to live here, this is the standard you are required to meet, or else…”.

    If the Baron or anybody else in this forum finds the term “Moderate Muslim” to be too offensive, then perhaps we should come up with a different one to describe this theoretical person. I am open to suggestions (“pink unicorn rider” is funny but a bit too vague).

    • I like “lapsed Muslim”. It’s not pejorative, serves as a useful description, and distinguishes between those who might well slip back into sharia-world, and those who have departed it forever, never to return.

      We don’t speak of “moderate Buddhists”. “Moderate Muslims” makes no more sense than that.

    • “A world in which people may be stripped of their citizenship merely because of their religious affiliation will not be a pleasant place to live in….”

      Oren, we are not talking of ‘people’ in general, only muslims. We are not at war with other people, only muslims, who are NOT like other people, and never will be as long as they follow the koran. They are, and always will be, the enemy–the koran demands it.

    • small remark on comparison with Syria – the very high death toll there, is only due to the full-scale mechanized war, including wide use of air force and MRLS.

      warring sides are given generous financial and material support from Russia and Iran (Assad, Hezbollah), and Saudia, Qatar, Turkey (sunni fractions including IS).

      weapons are not produced in the region, they are smuggled in.
      there are no weapons and ammunition factories in Syrian/Iraqi deserts etc.

      in the case of “war” in Europe, such scenario is simply impossible.

    • Reasonable words sound….well reasonable, such as your notions as to how a war of civilisations can be avoided.

      There are too many assumptions that are unlikely to be fulfilled though. Given the actual facts as to how things really are its more likely that we will end up in another world war. I respect the positive outlook and hopefulness.

  31. Hello Oren,

    just one point:
    Have you forgotten the Benes decrees? (Yes, this was the Czech version. The Polish had their own version, just like the Yugoslavians had their AVNOJ decrees.)

    Not all Germans who lived in the East where Nazi supporters. But for the sake of peace they were all thrown out.

    After 15 Million Germans were expelled we had lasting Peace in Europe.

    So, what about the Benes Decrees 2016?

    For the sake of Peace all muslims north of the Mediterranean (and that includes Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania!) are moved south and all Christians and jews are moved North into the now empty places that were once known as Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania.

    And afterwards except for a contactpoint (for Business like buying and selling oil for instance) at the Greek-Turkish border NO-ONE (YES, NOBODY!) is allowed to cross this line.

    • Does South of the Mediterranean include Israel? Because I seriously think that they would fight back against a unilateral resolution from Europe destroying their nation and forcibly relocating them to the same place their grandfathers escaped, maybe up to the point of going Samson on Europe… Plus, on a more cynical view, a Western State in the Holy Land is an excellent buffer, keeping Islam occupied, plus the Israelis are known for beating the living daylights out of the Arabs whenever the Arabs decide to fight, forcing their focus on the reconquest of a bit of Dar Al-Islam and, with European Support, seriously weakening any threat from the region before it can march into this Post-Deportation Europe

      I would also agree on moving the Turkish-Greek Border to the Bosphorus, if anything to keep it slightly more defensible than a land border between Europe and Islam

    • Try selling that to the Israelis. When they’ve stopped falling about laughing (or taking understandable offence), see what the almost equally ancient Christian peoples of the region think.

  32. I have enormous faith in my people and their survival instincts. That’s why I no longer think that “the conflict between Islam and the West can be resolved in any peaceful or at least orderly way”.

    When things get bad enough — which they will relatively soon — the survival instincts of my people will kick in, and they will do whatever is necessary to take care of their own. I have no doubt that it will get extremely ugly at times, but I am certain my people will prevail.

    When those dreadful days arrive, political correctness will dissipate as rapidly as an early-morning fog. And so will the “moderate Muslims”.

    I wish I had the same faith because quite frankly I don’t.

  33. “Imagine that an overzealous Europe will ban the religion of Islam altogether, and demand all its Muslims to convert or leave. Many will pretend to convert but remain Muslim in secrecy. How will the state possibly be able to tell who is a Muslim and who is not? Will it revive the old Spanish Inquisition in order to identify the crypto Muslims?”

    This is a Jewish obsession which I don’t share. The inquisition is not only overrated, it is still used as the yardstick of Jewish oppression through the ages. Queen Isabella and prince Ferdinand, who got the Muslims (Moors) out of Spain, did the right thing at the time. Later generations should have continued to keep Moslem invaders out and to stop them from settling in the country.

    Expulsion is the right way to tackle this. It must be done.

    • The issue with the Inquisition is that it became a way of disposing of opposing Christians (See CounterReformation) as well as a way of getting a personal vendetta on that pesky neighbor (a lot of people were tortured because of false acusations).

      Also, there is the issue of relevance, the myth around the Spanish Inquisition is part of the “Black Legend” spread by British, Dutch and French to discredit Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries. The truth is that, while it ended up as a vile opressive institution, the Spanish Inquisition was much more justified than the Inquisition that existed all over Medieval Europe (In Spain it started in the 1490s, in the rest of Europe as early as the Cathars in the 13th century). The Spanish Inquisition’s original objective was to root-out destabilizing influences from the Muslim Population of newly-conquered Granada, while in the rest of Europe it was from the beginning a tool to exterminate all theological opposition to Rome…

  34. Whether muslims are moderate or not is irrelevant. They have a culture that always has been and always will be a supremacist, expansionist one. Live near them and you see this in how they interact (or can’t) with non muslims. Its intrinsic to this socio-political way of life and has always been so (I would refer to the historical facts available from Bill Warner in this).

    A similar analogy would be to that of the entire German people during WW2. They weren’t all Nazis, but that was irrelevant. There is also the aspect of group / tribal dynamics of people belonging to and jumping on the bandwagon of Islam from a variety of “weaknesses” that I could not explain adequately.

    But its all the same. A follower of the Koran can never be a moderate. Unless of course we were in a situation where they are ignorant of contents such as the verse of the sword and would become apostates upon being informed of this. However this is extremely unlikely. Any muslim on the planet must be aware of what is happening in the name of their religion given the frequency of violence. A moderate human being would come out and say they are against the violent contents of the Koran……a moderate muslim does not however do they?

  35. No need for any of that piecemeal “monitoring” and case-by-case arresting and deporting stuff: We already know what’s in the Qur’an, and what’s expected of islam’s “muslim” gang members.

    As for “moderate” muslims – there aren’t any, any more than there is such a thing as a “moderate” murder-gang member.

    Being a member of a crime-gang is already a crime, so deport them ALL.

    As for the Political Correctness of the EU and the rest of them:

    By design, America and the West are being destroyed by the political and pundit class on behalf of the globalists. The globalists’ goal is to eliminate borders; and to do this they intend to swarm all nations with people of other races, from other cultures, nationalities and even religions, so that people of civilized and established nations lose their cultural and nationalist identities and become homogenized. The argument can then be made that, since a nation now has no cultural or racial identity, borders are irrelevant.

    In a world without borders, people become world citizens. World citizens need world government.

    And it’s not only the government, either: the enemedia and so-called “education system” are also complicit – they serve the same globalist corporazi masters the politicians do.

    A great way to control people is to convince them they can’t manage their own affairs.

    Even better is to convince them they’re only potentially dangerous (hateful racist bigots) mistakes who shouldn’t even think about trying to defend them selves because by doing so they are guaranteed to always hurt innocent others.

    Best of all is to convince them they are not only all helpless victims, but to be proudly competitive in endorsing victim status – which is exactly what today’s feral “Social Justice Warriors” (SJWs) are all about!

    Which is both how and why the enemedia endlessly shames us all as potential racists all the time, and insists we import hordes of swarthy savages who we know want to murder and enslave us, to make up for it.

  36. -« Ni les Juifs, ni les Chrétiens ne seront jamais satisfaits de toi,

    -jusqu’à ce que tu suives leur religion.

    -Dis : « Certes, c’est la direction d’Allâh qui est la vraie direction ».

    -Mais si tu suis leurs passions après ce que tu as reçu de science,

    -Tu n’auras contre Allâh ni protecteur ni secoureur.». {S. 2 V. 120}.

    [Machine translation:

    ‘- “Neither the Jews or the Christians will never be pleased with you,

    -until you follow their religion.

    -Tell: “Certainly this is the direction of Allah is the true direction.”

    -But If you follow their desires after what you have received from science,

    -You Will not have against Allah no protector or helper. “. {S. 2 V. 120}.’

    This is an English-language blog. In future, please use English in your comments.]

Comments are closed.