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.
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”.