From the Archives: Surrender, Genocide… or What?

This ground-breaking essay by El Inglés caused Gates of Vienna to be ejected from Pajamas Media on April 27, 2008 — nearly ten years ago. It’s hard to believe it’s been that long.

By popular demand, El Inglés’ essay is being republished here, in its original form, with a new preface by the author. I’ve omitted my original introduction, in which I advised readers to “Remember: the article below is descriptive, not normative.” That was a futile attempt to fend off what eventually happened to us. Ever since then Dymphna and I have been able to post whatever we like, without any fear of being consigned to the Outer Darkness, since we’re already here.

Preface by El Inglés

December 6, 2017

Nearly ten years have passed since it was first published, but it appears that at least a few reprobates out there still remember an old essay of mine. I refer to the charmingly titled Surrender, Genocide… or What?.

It was only the second essay I had written under the banner of what is sometimes referred to as the Counterjihad. As I recall, it engendered a certain amount of controversy in some quarters. I say this, of course, without modesty. All writers are shameless attention whores, and fear, more than anything, the possibility of a piece disappearing beneath the waves of the world’s attention without a ripple. Better to be reviled than ignored.

Nonetheless, I must remind those reading this now that the title of the essay was not mere clickbait. Rather, it was a deadly serious introduction to a deadly serious piece of writing, one whose relevance has, alas, not diminished over the intervening years. On the contrary, nothing has happened since to lead me to believe that its analysis is not still, broadly speaking, sound.

Certain elements of the writing style I employed in the essay now aggravate me somewhat when I reread it. Attempts to inject an element of humour seem misjudged, some sentences too convoluted, some sections too hurried. In terms of its analytical content, the only major reservation I have derives from a belief that the state, be it in the UK or anyway else, may do a better job than I expected of forcibly segregating the two sides in the event of major violence. If this turns out to be the case, we may well see the formation of formalized, static, entirely Muslim ghettos that hardly interact with the host societies at all except in the most basic infrastructural sense. The long-term ramifications of this would be hard to predict.

Time will tell, either way. Comments and criticisms are more than welcome. Shameless attention whore that I am, I invite you to explore my other essays as well.

Surrender, Genocide… or What?
by El Inglés


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

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

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

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

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

To the type of people most likely to read this essay, this suggestion will not necessarily come as much of a surprise. However, I feel that an issue of such gravity should be analyzed with as much rigour as possible, and this essay will constitute my attempt to conduct this analysis. I have much confidence in parts of it, but less in others, and would appreciate comments from those who feel they have greater or additional insight into key topics. There is certainly a huge amount of variety among European countries in key respects, which I have largely ignored here. Ideally the key claims of the essay would be explored on a country-by-country basis, but such an analysis is quite beyond me. There is also great variety in terms of the current degree of Islamization of these countries, and the amount of braking room that they therefore have available. To the extent that the analysis herein captures the imagination of any of its readers, I would welcome opinions on the likelihood or likely timelines of the different discontinuities discussed below.

These caveats out of the way, I will briefly describe the structure of the essay. It is divided into three parts. The first, “Decay”, will consist of an overview of certain aspects of the current situation in an attempt to establish the momentum already established by the forces of Islamization. The second, “Consequences”, will analyze the extent to which our options in dealing with Islam have been and will continue to be narrowed for some time yet by this momentum. The final part, “Violence”, will take this analysis further whilst also considering the likely nature of the large-scale societal breakdowns we will see as Islam in Europe continues to be what it cannot help but be.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Closing

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

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

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

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

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

For previous posts by El Inglés, see the El Inglés Archives.

96 thoughts on “From the Archives: Surrender, Genocide… or What?

  1. Quote: “we may well see the formation of formalized, static, entirely Muslim ghettos that hardly interact with the host societies at all except in the most basic infrastructural sense…”

    This is exactly the “solution” offered the Jews since 1925 in various iterations. The so-called “two-state solution”. We know how well this worked for the last century or so. The basic flaw in this “solution” is the theoretical respect Islam must give to borders, wherever they are. The simple truth is that Islam’s borders are never respected. They must be forcefully defended or they constantly bleed.

    Thus this quote is inconsistent with the reality of Islam as manifested over the last 1400 years, in general, and Israel in particular.

    • May I observe the one and a half state solution seems to be working out rather well for Israel. They have walled off most of the Palestinian terrorists, and can prevent the Palestinian state from obtaining weapons which would threaten Israel. The world shrieks and moans whenever a stray bullet hits a Palestinian or Gaza child who is purposely put in proximity to a military base or arms factory.

      But the point is, at the cost of constant tension, Israel is maintaining its strength and security and its citizens are relatively secure (other than the frontier towns like the one MC lives in). In other words, there is a local, but not a global, solution, and it is not a treaty, but an accord and understanding.

      On the purely positive side, Israel is absolutely protecting its borders, and progressively making it more uncomfortable for illegal immigrants. Chances are the two biggest dangers to Israel now are :1) an organized, international aggression, possibly actually violent, carried out against Israel by international bodies such as the UN and EU. 2) an internal collapse of Israel’s will to exist as a coherent, defendable, nation. This possibility is strongest if Israel should allow in under the law of return the many liberal Jews in the US who voted overwhelmingly for Hillary.

      • Israel is in deep doo-doo with the international pooh-bahs for planning to deport its large non-Jewish African population. Israel already has pockets of home-grown poverty that need attention.

        • Israel has plenty of Israeli liberals prepared to sing the multiculti song – many of them are also singing it in Europe and America.

      • Ronald B That is a truly great analysis. Not least because it accords with my own assessment. You have coined the “The One And A Half State Solution” TM Ronald B; which may well be adopted more broadly in time. Perhaps for many decades.

        Israel has, for the whole of this century, more or less quarantined its problematic neighbors in one way or another and got on with being a nation-state and prospered. It is now a first-world country, in GDP per capita and HDI terms. More power to it.

        I suspect that the outbreak of the “world intifada” in the West this century has resulted in Israel being, effectively, left alone to get on with its life. Sure, nincompoops like John Kerry (with nasty mellifluous idiot Obama overseeing) tried to make a splash, but were outmaneuvered by a wily, experienced, Israeli government.

        One thing the world should note is the quiescence of the million and a half plus Israeli Arab citizens over the past two decades. There’s a reason for it: they never had it so good. Not a few of them are descendants of migrants from Syria and Lebanon in the Mandatory Palestine period 1920-1947. Where would you rather be now: in Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, in civil war-wracked, and half-ruled by ISIS, Syria or in Western democracy Israel?

        As to your concerns about liberal Jews who voted for Hillary exercising their right of return option and destroying Israel, don’t worry, Israel still doesn’t offer the level of amenities and prosperity that the US does, so they won’t be going anywhere soon. And the EU is too caught up with Brexit and a self-inflicted, grievously wounded, German powerhouse, to devote serious do-gooder attention to Israel.

        • “As to your concerns about liberal Jews who voted for Hillary exercising their right of return option and destroying Israel, don’t worry, Israel still doesn’t offer the level of amenities and prosperity that the US does, so they won’t be going anywhere soon.”

          Thank you.
          The time to deal with the question, then, is now, when it is not critical. The US Jews are busy supporting the importations of ever more Muslims. Sooner or later, hopefully later, the tipping point will arrive and Jewish institutions will be under serious attacks by Muslims.

          In other words, changes come all at once, rather than drop by drop. If you read some accounts of liberal Jewish bodies, they consider themselves to have a personal stake in Israel policies. They will not change their opinions if forced to move.

          So, if the issue would be an ideological test for immigration to Israel, a fundamental change from the law of return. If such a change were instituted, Israel would undoubtedly lose some political support from Jewish political groups. This is not a bad thing at all. The Jewish pressure groups in favor of Israel advance Israel’s interests in the same way that feminist groups advance the real interests of women. The neocons who favor the US jumping into every war and brushfire detectable are not doing anyone a favor.

          I have an ulterior motive. If Israel instituted an ironclad ideological filter on its immigrants, the liberal Jews might see they have no safety valve, and quit fouling their own nests with support for massive immigration. In reality, without the US to run interference (not provide handouts) for Israel, chances are it would be a lot more isolated than it is now. The west European powers can’t wait to jump on the OIC bandwagon to condemn Israel for virtually any action.

          In other words, were the US to tip anywhere near as much as England or Germany in its surrender to Muslim pressure, living in Israel would become riskier even than it is now.

    • “The simple truth is that Islam’s borders are never respected. They must be forcefully defended or they constantly bleed.”

      Indeed. It would be wonderful if the ruling establishment of the West understood this and acted upon it. Samuel Huntington identified this phenomenon in the “Clash of Civilisations”: Islam has bloody borders.

    • The advantage of a ghetto system is that there are all kinds of infrastructure games that can be played to encourage immivaders to self-deport.

  2. A humane solution would be to offer every Mohammedan £1,000,000 Pounds to leave and a total ban on re-entry to any European country on pain of the most severe consequences. Britain has around 6,000,000 adherents in fact. Considering what we waste on welfare and politically correct programs it would be cheap. Government waste billions. I also believe you underestimate the perhaps hundreds of thousands of Moslems who want to escape this Satanic Cult. Ex Moslems are a credit to Society and often become the most patriotic. These latter would need protection as a point of decency. I shudder to think of a new Holocaust. The guilty are the “Progressives” and other ninnies. As a people, we British do not do “Holocaust” scenarios and God forbid. What a mess the Left have created. They should be held responsible in a new version of Nurenburg that should also cover the atrocities of Communism.

    I believe however that a global conflict is in the wind and that will be the type of existential threat the author talks about. A game changer indeed.

    • Bishop, that’s around £100,000 for every person in the country. Humane indeed, but ruinous.

      • Humane?

        How certain words that comprise the ideology of the west have ruined the west and are in their way to put it in the “has been grave.”

        The words multiculti, humane, human rights (i.e. human rights of muslims to live and colonized any country unimpeded, nay empowered by Traitors, PC, Gay rights, Feminism, criminals’ / prisoners’ rights, Veiled rights, and the poisonous results of perverted thinking: e.g. They are in danger they are not dangerous. “I will happily exchange rape for racism ( doesn’t that deserve a peace reward from the humanist most advanced Norway).

        Recently a genius in France suggested that to avoid civil war, France must be divided in two, the Lion’s share will go to the Natives ( muslims, according to the the premise “all the earth is allah’s possession, and allah will grant it to his / her most enthusiastic adherents, who will listen to Allahu Akbar when slaughtering others. And allah does pay attention to his/her votaries.

        Marx Manifest for the communists and for the soviets in the west. Mein Kampf for NAZIS and Hitlerites, and the destructive, worse than Kampf, THE UNwritten But Prevalent Ideology of the west. It’s like the Common Law: Everyone is expected to obey blindly without explaining it to anyone.

        How can anyone expect to deport jihadis if they cannot even stop them at the borders, and airports. muslims have a greater scheme and goal: to colonize the west, allah’s lands. For the last 60 years Cowards and Traitors are

        Ask our ally” very sincere Turkey what’s their goal, and what has been their tradition: munching on infidel’s lands.

        Will zombies ever rise up and resist the evil.

        Or sorry : Evil is an impolite word due to its Christian affinity and affiliation. Just increasing the distance between the west and Christianity will solve all our problems. Scandinavia the best shining example.

        Am I bitter? No there is no reason to be.

        • Sorry. To complete the thought: For the last 60 years Cowards and Traitors are …

          Traitors have helped the jihadis, tooth and nail, to reach their goals.

    • As a people, we British do not do “Holocaust” scenarios…

      But as government policy, sometimes Britannia did just that. Ask the Chinese about those Opium Wars and how England deliberately used opium to force China’s ports to open…that was the calculated and ruinous fate of many Chinese…

      Britain is no longer in power, though. So now the government goes after its own citizens.

      • Ask the women and children living in Germany’s cities towards the end of WWII – consumed by fire by British bombers.

        • PS – Britain’s establishment should be held to account for what it has sanctioned/ordered/encouraged (China, Germany, India, Africa) – but Britain’s people are inncocent.

        • Hardly genocide. More like war. Insane as it is. Britain’s cities had been mercilessly bombed in nightly raids, from bases in France, for 6 years. Towards the end of the war, Britain had for the first time the ability to reciprocate. A terrible thing, but the third Reich had to be beaten. War is a dreadful and terrible thing.

    • Easier than paying and more effective is simply voting to end welfare programs including housing and support for anyone nor born in the country or having contributed to those programs for 20 years.

      They will voluntarily go somewhere else.

      This works best for the first country to pass the laws and least for the last.

      The problem is many are employed or rely on government money right now and they are therefore owned and addicted to it, guaranteeing their votes to continue said programs.

      These people need to be advised that the invaders are eating the people’s winter supplies and these people should consider both alternate employment and more careful dispensing of “winter” supplies.

      In the end, the money runs out. What will happen if the invading population is nor significantly thinned before this occurs? Mass violence, looting and civil war.

      I would vote to cut payments to single men first.

    • I believe however that a global conflict is in the wind and that will be the type of existential threat the author talks about.

      To indulge in a rhetorical question:

      Aside from an “existential threat”, what other sort of menace is there that Islam would have the slightest respect for?

      Think WWII Japan. Only the possibility of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the first two on a list of twenty or thirty similar ground zeroes was capable of extracting the unconditional surrender necessary for any lasting peace.

      Now, consider what Islam’s purposefully decentralized command structure (see below) will make necessary in order to obtain the same sort of acquiescence.

      If you haven’t done so already, please consider reading a magnum opus of Richard (“Wretchard”) Fernandez, “The Three Conjectures“. A concluding excerpt:

      “… a United States choked with corpses could still not negotiate an end to hostilities or deter further [jihadist] attacks. There would be no one to call on the Red Telephone, even to surrender to. In fact, there exists no competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world. Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions. Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange by entering -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination.

      The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the ‘rational’ American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset.

      James Lileks and the Pew respondents would not lose America; but like the boogeyman in Seven, Islam would take it’s soul. The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column. They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

      Even if Islam killed every non-Muslim on earth they would almost certainly continue to kill each other with their new-found weaponry. Revenge bombings between rival groups and wars between different Islamic factions are the recurring theme of history. Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.”

      Islam, as always, continues to be its own worst enemy. With supreme irony, it cannot be otherwise. There is no happy ending and, at some (not too distant) future point, the global Muslim population will be confronted with an “existential threat” courtesy of their jihadist component—and a collective, tacit silence regarding Islamic terrorism.

      Nothing else will work and even worse would be the stopgap solutions or halfway measures that nearly all Western countries are liable to adopt instead of posing that much-needed “existential threat”.

      Such delaying tactics will only serve to skyrocket an already staggering butcher’s bill with little to show save for incarnadine bloodshed with more of the same to follow soon thereafter.

      Grim? Yes. Unlikely? No.

  3. Baron, El Inglés also wrote a very prescient article on Antifa. Might also be worth a re-run.

  4. What is done to Britain now, in slow motion, population replacement by Islamic immigration, was done by the Brits to the Jews during the British mandate, but much faster on a massive scale. The capitulation to Islamic violence is akin to the capitulation to Nazi violence at the same time. No wonder that islamo-Nazi cooperation was aborted only at the terrible price of fifty million killed,l six of whom are my co-religionists

      • This was indeed a disgrace and shame upon we Brits, but people are not responsible for their ancestors’ misdeeds.

        • Indeed we are not responsible for things done before we were born, but there is a karmic sense of being answerable. With England’s great power came great responsibility and sometimes the latter was ignored.

          But at other times, being in power presents a conundrum for TPTB – no matter what they do, it will be seen as wrong.

          Lord Acton was right, though. As we are seeing in the U.S.

          • My British grandfather died fighting the nazis and both his brothers. How dare you suggest that I or any of the millions of other grandchildren of dead soldiers bare any responsibility for the chaos surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel.

          • Britain was badly mauled by Germany, and two generations of alpha males were obliterated during the first half of the 20th century. We’re not there anymore.

            And that doesn’t change the fact that our leaders – America’s and Britain’s and the rest of Europe’s leaders at the time – made far-reaching karmic decisions that still resonate today. Those two wars may well be responsible for the steep demographic slide in Europe. The emptying out of churches due to the resulting sense of meaningless was also a factor.

            I lost family members in the wars. That doesn’t make you and me special – millions upon millions died leaving no one behind to mourn them.

            [I also lost some during the Easter Rebellion against British rule in Ireland. Look, the fact is that in the British Isles everyone hates some group or other. Just ask the Welsh what they think of the English…for starters.]

            If we don’t hang together we’ll certainly hang separately, Jag.

    • So the current population of 60 000 000 uk residents are all equally guilty of the crimes and mistakes of a tiny elite that were in power long before they were born and deserve to be punished accordingly?What an evil, twisted and vengeful way of thinking.

    • yB – you mean what was done to the Palestinian population during the mandate, surely. Following that perception, you are saying that Zionist violence is akin to Nazi violence, a la Soros maybe.

      [redacted incivility]

      • Oh dear, another instance of GoV’s admirable policy of permitting the expression of any point of view. One can be guaranteed that if Anon were running a weblog (they’re always “Anon” aren’t they?) Yuval Brandstetter, myself or any GoV regular respondent, even the decent and reasonable “house-lefty” Mark H, wouldn’t have their comments posted.

  5. The sad reality is that the Islamic invaders have the same plan for the native populations, but will be far more ruthless in the execution. I would agree if the Islamic green parties was relocated to some remote, desolate island where they would have to eke out a living. Alexander Selkirk, off the coast of South America, would do just fine.

    • I wouldn’t place a bet on the Demented Slaves of Allah being “…far more ruthless…” than us, Choderlos de Laclos. Brutal, inhumane and mindless, primitive evolutionary retrogrades yes, but they don’t understand that we are so far up the scale of ruthlessness if we so choose it is beyond them.

      That is why every time they have tried it on they have been consigned back into the evolutionary cul-de-sac from which they spring with irritating regularity

      Indeed, I would advise you to look at our joint history and re-evaluate. Our utmost ruthlessness at the defining points in this 1400 year war is what has stopped them in the past, and if and when we revert to that necessity we may do so again.


      • Hm, an army of snowflakes going into battle demanding gender neutral latrines? Yeh, that will work.

        • Point taken C de L, but I seriously doubt whether the combat soldiers and the combat command are at all concerned with gender-neutral latrines or dedicated latrines for the transgendered soldier. Maybe I’m wrong, but I suspect these concerns are the province only of people who would never join the military and whose progeny would never join the military.

      • Seneca III, Your observations are most heartening and I feel, and sincerely hope, that you may well be onto something with this:

        “Indeed, I would advise you to look at our joint history and re-evaluate. Our utmost ruthlessness at the defining points in this 1400 year war is what has stopped them in the past, and if and when we revert to that necessity we may do so again.”

        Cue Charles Martel at Poitiers. Jan Sobieski[?] at Vienna in 1683. I have a sneaking suspicion that France, to take an example, will not go down into thorough and irreversible dhimmitude because elements of the military, security services and police will, at some point in the not too distant future, covertly coalesce into a determined and robust resistance. Basically, they will say: enough is enough, the democratic process has given us Macron (a winner of the presidency of a major nation that makes me wonder if it’s all just a bad dream and when am I going to wake up) and it’s not working for France. Enter the Sixth Republic.

        On the theme of “necessary ruthlessness if we so choose”, in 1973 Israel made a decision (two, actually) that I’m not sure was the right one and the world would be a very different place if it had gone otherwise. At the beginning and near the very end of the Yom Kippur war, instigated unilaterally by Syria and Egypt, Defence Minister, Moshe Dayan recommended to his Prime Minister that Israel nuke Damascus. Golda Meir did not accept his advice.

        Dayan’s thinking was, at the outset of the war, nuking Damascus would put an effective brake on the Syrian invasion and also cause Egypt to embark on a rethink of their own actions: hmm, better back off unless we want Cairo to become a smoldering ruin as well. His thinking at the end of the war, when Israel had turned the tide, was: “Now, don’t do it again!”

        Imagine how things would have been since 1973 if Meir had accepted Dayan’s advice? Many innocent Syrian civilians would have died: hundreds of thousands have in the current civil war caused by ISIS, and millions dislocated. Israel would have been excoriated and hated by the Islamic world and the Left of the West: umm, well it has been anyway and still is. Any problem in the Middle East is, has been and no doubt will continue to be attributed to the actions of the nefarious Zionist entity anyway. The wife of Yasser Arafat tells the wife of the US president that the Zionists are poisoning the water supply thus killing Arab schoolchildren and gets a hug in response. The Israelis send in humanitarian medical teams to help Haiti and get accused of “organ harvesting” – and such accusations get reported by serious media organizations. It could not be worse for Israel.

        What would nuking Damascus have achieved? Well, Syrian would have certainly eased back on its bellicosity towards Israel for a century or more. Lebanon would not have been invaded by Syria and the Christians would have the upper hand there instead of Hezbollah. Turkey would have engaged in a respectful, mutually rewarding, relationship with Israel. Egypt would have ended its invasion and done a deal with Israel over the Sinai with Israel keeping the eastern half. Saudi Arabia would have sat up and taken notice. Iraq would have concluded it was unwise to take military action against Israel. Iran would not be, today, threatening Israel with extermination. In short, the Arab-Muslim world (yes, I know Iranians aren’t Arabs and neither are Turks) would have pulled its collective head in and behaved.

        On balance, if Damascus had been nuked in 1973, far fewer Middle Eastern Muslims would have died in multifarious fratricidal conflicts since 1973. ISIS wouldn’t exist. The Assyrians, Maronites, Copts, Chaldeans, Yazidis and Syriac Christians would have had better lives, indeed many dead would be alive, for the past half-century. As Osama Bin Laden said of his own culture and society: people back the strong horse. They respect only strength and will exploit any sign of weakness, such as withdrawing from Gaza.

        • “… if and when we revert to that necessity we may do so again
          Cue Charles Martel at Poitiers. Jan Sobieski[?] at Vienna in 1683. ..” Let us not forget the heroic defence of Malta in 1565 – 500 Knights Hospitaller and other Christians totalling 6000 in all against 40,000 Turks/Muslims. Turks sent homw eith their tails between their legs – after losing about half their force.

        • The human mind can accustom itself to anything. [intemperate text redacted] Don’t worry, relax, and learn to love the bomb.

          In the last couple years BBC News has several high-profile Pakistani ‘presenters’ who they often have interview such US conservatives as Ann Coulter, and it’s hilarious watching the Muslim interviewer leaning forward, interrupting, shaking with vitriol and rage at Ann’s very calm funny and reasonable pronouncements. I sense that among Muslim intellectuals an ideological escalation has occurred since Trump was elected. They sound -dare I say it – well and truly scared.

          If Trump even obliquely suggested that the n-word and a Muslim city, or several, is not inconceivable to him, imagine the ululations of Islamic horror that would ensue. Such an implied ultimatum is long long overdue.

      • Brutal, inhumane and mindless, primitive evolutionary retrogrades yes, but they don’t understand that we are so far up the scale of ruthlessness if we so choose it is beyond them.

        Too right, Seneca III!

        No one, again, NOBODY does mechanized industrial-scale warfare like the West. Take for instance, Iraq.

        In Saddam’s time, Iraq had one of the world’s largest standing armies. Even after battling with Iran for over a half-dozen years only to reach a blood-soaked stalemate (at the cost of 500K to 1MM Muslim lives), America strolled in with Desert Storm and rolled up Iraq’s sidewalks in a few short weeks….

        Without placing a single boot on the ground, America could end all MME (Muslim Middle East) resistance in less than 24 hours.

        The only thing lacking is political–military will. Everything else is merely awaiting activation. Once Western powers develop a spine, Islam doesn’t stand a chance. It is only a matter of time. Not “if”, only “when”.

    • The Moon would be better! “Allah” is a moon god. The Crescent moon represents the horns of the black bull. A lot of piffle is written about Islam being and “Abrahamic” religion. It is not. It descends from worship of a “Venerean” stone-meteorite encapsulated in what appears to be vaginal lips and can be traced back to Bel/Baal. The clowns that blew up Bel Temple at Hatra do not know their own history. The “elite” have really been taken for mugs. Worship of Venus meteorites was common in the region. Places include Ephesus.

      • This is one of several hypocritical things that bother me about Islam.

        They claim to be against idolatry, yet they have the most obnoxious idol out there, that they worship in the most obnoxious manner, and on top of that the requirement to make a pilgrimage to perform this worship is one of the major tenets of their ideology.

      • A lot of piffle is written about Islam being and “Abrahamic” religion. It is not.

        Thank you, Bishop Cardinal GLT TOACC UK, for that dazzling peek at the plainly apparent. Far to few people have even a remote understanding of how contrived Islam’s doctrine really is.

        Fortunately, whatever sliver of sane population which remains on this planet is rapidly coming to the realization that Islam is a NOT a “religion” and, instead, a political ideology.

        The sooner that Western countries deny Islam all religious protections (including tax exemptions), the better.

        “One of these days, Islam … Kapow! Straight to the (crescent) moon!”

        [/The Great One]

  6. We have done this before.
    How did Spain handle the Islamic problem?

    The way the Spanish confronted the Moors in the Reconquista was to offer either exile to North Africa or conversion to Catholicism. Lots of fighting too. Toledo in @1000 was the first city to fall back to Catholic Spain. Also, later in 1492, Isabella and Ferdinand burned all the Islamic books.

      • The Inquisition was aimed at Muslims pretending to be Christians.

        Veeeeery interesting…

        [/Arte Johnson]

        You heff das links, bitte?

    • Some stay, some went away. Those who convert to Islam to flee slavery, come back to Christianity, the rich from Morroco, went back to where they came — Portugal

      In Spain they were given a lot of favours (after 1492), but they rebelled with Turkish help (early XVIIth century), so they were expelled.

  7. No one knows if western Europeans will have the honor and fortitude to use violence against those who would enslave them. Over the last several years I’ve concluded that nations are extremely malleable. A people can do a 180 degree turn in two generations. Both the Japanese and Germans went from being hyper-nationalist, aggressive, and confident to quite the opposite. Canadians went from being notorious, admired, hyper-aggressive Allied shock troops in both World Wars (largely forgotten) to the gynocentric, hyper-bureaucratic, largely far left natiin it is today. Nations can change profoundly. My assumption is that nations like Britain and the Netherlands that still had some spine have indeed changed, and so much so that any pushback against Islam will be very muted. People will slide directly from shock to a paralyzed melancholy to a listless surrender.

    Also, I suspect the betrayal by the elites will go much much further. In Europe the governments are more likely to kill large numbers of the native population than kill Muslims, and they’d feel justified in doing so.

    El Ingles is right in how options 1 and 2 would rapidly collapse into option 3, which no European government has the spine to do.

    How has the West become so emasculated so quickly. There’s a range of factors at play, of course, none of which adequately explain it. European police and military will be used almost exclusively to attack and kill white protest and vigilante groups, and will do nothing against Muslims. We got a taste of that in how police in US cities leave leftists and Antifa free to riot and burn while attacking Trump-supporting conservatives. The state will be increasingly selective in who it confronts.

    It’s hard to see how Europe can avoid war. Last year I was an enthusiastic Brexit supporter; now that objective seems irrelevant given that Britain so eagerly embraces its own self-destruction. It’s like all of Europe is sitting peacefully on the Titanic, resigned to its fate, watching listlessly as the deck reels from side to side, without even the consolation of prayer.

    • It will take a lot more to turn Europe Moslem. People often cite Iran and Afghanistan as examples of quick Islamisation. Those peoples were already Moslem. One cannot change ancestral ideation and patterns of belief over night. Even those raised in the cult, in the West have been affected by western thought, although they will never admit it. Assimilation works both ways. The modern “DAESH” is a modern development and like multiculturalism belongs to this time and place.Both “ideologies” are dysfunctional oddities of the Post-Modernist milieu. They reflect each other perfectly. They are shallow and oxymoronic.

      • Bishop, you must be as old as I, raised when the country at least embraced Christian morality if not Christian belief. After several more generations of leftist propaganda from everywhere it is no surprise to me that the national religion is now Leftism. And Leftism is no defence against Islamism as we have discussed here at length. There are no absolutes of right and wrong any more, every man does what is right in his own eyes. (I seem to have heard that before.) With the clarity of hindsight it is obvious to me that the rot was already so well established in 1945 that the folks came home from fighting National Socialism and thought it right to vote for … Socialism!

        Those who understand what is happening and who have the will to fight back against it are a small minority. That is why the British State can pick the patriots off individually and most of the sheeple murmur something about “had got it coming to him”. In biblical terms we are a “remnant”. I can’t speak for other Western nations, but I am sure that we in Britain are shortly either to be sent into exile or to be dispersed into our own diaspora.

        • Leftism is no defense because Leftists will publicly convert to avoid death.

          This will be enough to indoctrinate their children into becoming full members of the Ummah.

      • Zoroastrian Iran was not subjugated quickly – it took coming up 200 years of atrocity, death, beheading, rape and enslavement before it finally fell into the caring-sharing arms of the Religion of Peace.

        • Iran rejected modernity established by the Shah. That is what I refer to.

          • The Shah’s “modernity” included a brutal police state (if not as repressive as the current regime). The previous, I believe democratically elected government, was toppled by the CIA at the instigation of the British (yes, us again) because it planned to nationalise the oil industry, ie Ango-Dutch Shell.

        • It would be well worth doing a historiographic survey of the top ten ‘nations’ subjugated by Islam over the centuries. It seems as though the West has fallen the fastest. Zoroastrianism fell in 2 centuries! Hindu India was still resisting in the last century (after more than a millennium) when Britain created Pakistan for Indian Muslims, which of course they pocketed and kept right on pushing to Islamize the rest of Hindu India. Never has it been truer that appeasement (as in Europe) just produces further and deeper and more aggressively pursued fronts towards Islamization within a society. Excepting the pause between the Ottoman collapse and the emergence of mullahs’ Iran (1920 – 1979) the jihad has been fairly constant.

          • Maybe I am wrong, but I am more concerned with Islam being used as an indirect proxy weapon by our own elites in their own quest. That may be as a distraction, a pivot point for controlling dissent, the ENFORCEMENT ( and I have to write it like that to describe secular STATE domination of human freedom) of a social reality… etc.

            To me it is as if western society is being experimented with by some higher Machiavellian or sinister powers, Islam and migrants are only a facet of that. Sure, they grate and our reaction is expected, prepared for, but the end is foreseen as quite different to an Islamic west.

            That said, the Arab character and Islam are persistent, calculated ( not in good or bad sense), and of potent origin.

        • Eh, look at the spread of Islam in Indonesia – anywhere from 300 to 500 years for it to take most of the archipelago, initiated by nothing more than a few traders and merchants if you believe the official lines.

    • Canadians went from being notorious, admired, hyper-aggressive Allied shock troops in both World Wars (largely forgotten) to the gynocentric, hyper-bureaucratic, largely far left nation it is today.

      I doubt there’s been a better précis of Canada’s recent descent into postmodern hell than yours, Stephen Carter.

      The state will be increasingly selective in who it confronts.

      Right up and until people learn how to vote independent of party.

      All America (or Canada) requires to regain its deserved status is informed voters and educated consumers. Hey! No one said this would be easy…

      It’s hard to see how Europe can avoid war.

      It can’t. Capisce? Most of Europe slid over the (non-hostile) event horizon with Angela Merkel’s first election. What ensued was all EU window dressing. Eh?

      It’s like all of Europe is sitting peacefully on the Titanic, resigned to its fate, watching listlessly as the deck reels from side to side, without even the consolation of prayer.

      Nitpick: You left out the part about furiously rearranging deck chairs.

      Other than that, please carry on…

      PS: Great post!

  8. It’s more disturbing to review the passage of sixteen-plus years, than ten years, or the fact that my very first ‘comment’ ever was on these subjects, just short of seventeen years ago. This article was archived by me on the date it was published. I can see the hard-drive ‘archived’ in a Ziploc bag on a shelf about 5′ from me as I type this. I stopped reading jammies-m IMMEDIATELY after becoming aware of the ‘ejection.’ I think I have stuff on the Oslo attacks that I found at GoV on a drive in that same box. The 5-1/4″ floppies are with the 8-tracks. Thank you for resurrecting all this.

    • The 5-1/4″ floppies are with the 8-tracks.

      Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth!

      [/Marlin Perkins]

  9. A working, believing Roman Catholic church fought Islam to a standstill from Martel to the Gates of Vienna. The carryover from those actions held Islam in check in Europe until the Church collapsed in Europe a half century ago. It’s impossible to successfully fight a religious war when you don’t believe in anything. Western civilization, along with its norms, is in collapse. We have only our games and circuses for the time being. Enjoy.

    • I like that. What if they gave a religious war and no one believed? Seriously. Islam fights for Allah and the West fights for McDonald’s.

      • I’d recommend THE DESOLATE CITY, by Muggeridge, but it’s hard to find. It’s a good summation of the problem, presented about thirty years ago.

    • Christianity is surging in several regions outside of the atheist West (excluding USA, which is still a Christian nation). China and Korea will have huge Christian swathes by mid-century, which has happened of its own accord as there’s been near-zero proselytizing by the West in the last half-century. Christianity literally changes hearts and minds, Islam bribes and threatens and punishes. Which is most likely to prevail? But in the interim the atheist West is succumbing to its own nihilist obsessions. I was shocked the first time it clicked for me that Canada has literally morphed into an atheist state. State atheism has been practiced in West Europe for nearly three generations now.

  10. To see this well-worded, pertinent article reemerge with such timely clarity and much-needed appropriateness is nothing short of heartbreaking.

    Europe’s imperative removal of its Muslim invaders transcends too many other issues.

    This planet earth faces a “triple bottleneck” (Essay to follow) involving the prospects of Islamic jihad, Artificial Intelligence, and Climate Change—be it anthropogenic or solar-cycle related—that will winnow out a monstrous portion of the global population.

    Whomever emerges from this bottleneck will inherit a wounded environment and severely damaged political sphere which will need the very most unforgiving military measures to overcome. I do not envy those who must remedy these once-avoidable measures.

    • I suspect there will be a Butlerian Jihad waged next if we in the West prevail against Islam. Sentient machines and a Stone Age theocracy will not coexist for long.

      • Ah, Frank Herbert again. “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of Man”, if I recall correctly.

      • TMHM, you might be glad to know that, just yesterday, I lectured a (very wealthy district’s) high school science class about 3-D printing, but took time to note how “Artificial Intelligence” could just as easily threaten most of their involvement in this marvelous new fabrication technology.

        It was nearly heartbreaking to see almost every Caucasian (or other race of) pupil remain silent and unquestioning. Instead, a young Asian girl with vividly multi-color hair (that originally put me off) posed some of the most intelligent questions and provided many incredibly unexpected observations, for someone of her age.

        If White civilization allows this pattern to continue, I have little pity for what awaits. Either the Caucasian race realizes the importance of bringing forth brilliant children or it will appropriately succumb to individuals like this astonishingly intelligent young Asian woman.

        Again, in the last several years of providing university, college, and high school-level presentations, I have not seen someone of more remarkable capability. My only hope is that she will make an indelible mark on the progress of Western technology.

        To clarify, she correctly understood complex concepts like chemical sequestration, specific (3-D printed) genetic tuning of surgical implants, and other high-level ideas in ways that some 90% of the class had no flipping clue.

        I had no choice but to linger after the lecture and (basically infer) that her future was so bright that she would have to wear sunglasses in bed just to get some sleep.

        Just one Caucasian student took time to interact with me post-lecture. Even less curious was how the lecturer (that preceded me the previous week) was another stunningly clever White young woman, that I know, whose impressive command of science has given me some degree of hope. She specializes in biomemitics and other exceptionally arcane yet promising technologies. Thank goodness for that!

        All said and done, your prediction of a “Butlerian Jihad” is nowhere out of the question. I anticipate a “New Luddite” movement that will revolt against Artificial Intelligence and its ability to destroy some 50% of minimum wage jobs (if not more).

        But, hey! That’s just me…

    • No worry; it won’t be worse than what happened on Easter Islands. I don’t mean the nice stone statues for tourist. Read the true history of the islands if you haven’t done so, yet.

      • good hint! The rapa nui case is iconic.
        Best read I had about the history of war is by John Keegan! It goes from prehistorc times ( 10.000 b.c) till modern days.

        • War itself is a constant, and historically was pursued almost as a sport. However, the rapa nui is on a different scale; a story of megalomania, stupidity, resource exhaustion, societal breakdown, and genocidal tribal warfare. You can treat it as a foreboding of a future of a multicultural society (different tribes shared the island).

  11. There is an alterantive you know.

    Convert the Muslims.

    Obviously this is utopian thinking, but then again any solution to the problem of Islamization at this point can be considered utopian.

    What makes this solution extra troublesome however is that we would first as ex-Christian Western nation convert ourselves. Not necessarily to Christianity, but to some form of structured religious practice which is in direct competition or even war with ideologies such as Islam.

    It’s the only way to established organized criticism for harmful ideologies and a backbone for honor, justice and freedom.

    I’m working on a philosophy which could eventually have the potential to form the foundation of a religion.

    If anyone’s interested in hearing more let me know.

    • Oh, now this is just hilarious.

      And how do you propose to go about converting the Ummah, who are only able to leave their faith under the pain of death?

      • Obviously you’d have to start small. As small as possible. First convince your inner circle of the merits of this particular philosophy/religion/spiritual practice/whatever you want to call it. Then your broader circle of acquaintances. Then you neighbourhood, city, region, country.

        Yes, this in itself is already a nigh insurmountable task, but see it as a thought exercise for now.

        Ok, so then given that you have established a common acknowledgement for said ideas and its usefulness, you now have a backbone on which you can stand and enter into dialogue with muslims (also starting from your closest circle outward).

        The thing with muslims is that many of them really don’t think Islam is perfect. However it’s the most perfect solution for their insecurities out there, so they cling to it. Outside of Islam the deep dark philosophical abyss stares them into the eyes. And yes, obviously there’s the death penalty for apostasy. However in most Western countries, it’s not that severe. It’s usually toned down to social excommunication.

        There’s a real opportunity there.

        Right now, the West (well, the sane West) is basically saying: “Islam is irrational, immature and inhumane.” Great. That’s actually true. But you completely ignore what these people get out of it.

        A sense of community. A sense of identity. A (false) sense of control or security that they have god on their side. A sense of righteousness. A sense of superiority…

        From their perspective, even regardless of the death penalty for apostasy, at this point there is very little the West has to offer them that would justify them giving up Islam.

        Plenty of the radical Muslims are actually people who tried the lifestyle we portray. They make some money, they go out and spend it on the consumer goods of their choice, end up waking up one day feeling empty and decide to grab the next best thing which in their case was always there in the background: Islam.

        That’s the good ones. The bad ones deal drugs, end up in jail, radicalize and blow themselves up next chance they get.


        Another aspect of the ideological response is dealing with Islam itself. In order to judge a certain ideology, you need a certain moral fundament on which you base your judgement.

        For instance cultural marxism judges Muslims and Islam as good, innocent and benevolent because they place them under the ‘victim’ category. It cannot possibly do harm because of that.

        Islam itself obviously makes claims of morality. Christianity, Judaeism, etc etc. You get the idea.

        Now while we all agree that Islam is disagreeable, there is very few common ground as to why exactly, what to do about it and how to argue it.

        Having a more defined ideological/spiritual/philosophical shared point of view will also make criticism of Islam -and here’s the good part- AND all other future or potential harmful ideologies possible and desirable.

        If you can establish a moral foundation on which you build your arguments, you have a support which can serve as a base for all potential threats.

        Look, I’m not saying it’s easy, but at the end of the day, Islam is not the only ideological problem mankind faces. Postmodernism, Communism, extreme Nationalism, extreme kapitalism, … And these are just the ones that exist today.

        If you really want to solve this problem of ideologies and identities, you will need to provide a strong postive answer. You can’t expect people to give up their beliefs and identity if you’ve got nothing worthwhile to offer them in return.

        • Well, I lived in an Islamic country for 4 years, so I know very well the positives that Muslims believe they gain from the ideology.

          Totally disagree there are many Muslims who think Islam is not perfect. The reality is that almost all of them believe Islam is perfect, especially in contrast to the degenerate West. Most of them would agree with your final sentence.

          The cultural Marxists love Islam because they see it as a highly effective tool to bludgeon the West and European peoples with. In this, they are correct. They are incorrect that Islam will live in peace with them after the West is destroyed, and they are incorrect that they will be able to co-opt Islam, because the cultural Marxists have as little to offer as the degenerate secular West.

          • There’s a difference between Muslims in an Islamic or a Western country. Not surprisingly there is a lot more cognitive dissonance with Muslims living in the West than with those who don’t.

            Sure, the majority still genuinely believes in Islam as the word of God and all that it implies, but at the same time, many of them are exposed to values and opinions that simply do not align with Islam, yet they don’t radically block them from their lives.

            What I’m saying is that the situation they live in isn’t as black and white as they (and Islam) would like it to be.

            There are plenty of Muslims in the West right now are Muslim simply out of practicality. They don’t really practice, they don’t go to the mosque, they don’t really bother with praying or frankly most of the regulations Islam imposes on them.

            What they will do is the bare minimum of what allows them to prevent from standing out. They don’t really believe as much as they ‘should’, but they don’t want to risk causing any trouble either. They simply walk the line of moderation that allows them to keep their social relationships stable.

            Right now, the only force that’s really tugging them in either direction is that of the more radical or strict Muslims in their environment. Giving them remarks when they don’t fast, pray, etc.

            What I’m saying is this: we need an idea, a community and an identity that tugs them towards the other side. Away from Islam and into a more human way of life.

            Will it defeat Islam? Not any time soon. Islamic countries will need some drastic influences before anything happens.

            Will it make more doubting Muslims dare to leave Islam?
            Will it make criticism of Islam easier?
            Will it become harder (for anyone) to justify certain Islamic practices?
            Will it be easier to combat harmful ideologies as a whole?

            As a final note, I believe that even given this utopian solution, relocation of the dedicated Muslims at the very least will remain a necessity. We won’t cure this cancer by any oneside approach.

    • Convert the Muslims.

      Good luck with that (excremental reference).

      As in, yes, it’s “utopian”.

      If anyone’s interested in hearing more let me know.

      I’m very interested. Let the Baron know. He can connect us.

        • Re: Multiparagraph response above


          Of course the West needs some type of positive counter-programming, that is obvious.

          As for the nature of positive counter-programming, the West had Christianity, but in this day the West is content to mock it to death.

          Wishy-washy ‘Churchianity’ and secular humanism are not answers either. They are most cheap virtue signalers that back the globalist agenda. Heck, the NGOs associated with both groups are the reasons we have Somali colonies all over the upper Midwest.

          • Agreed full heartedly. To be honest it amazes me how little guts our philosophers have (had) over the years. Where are all the experiments and groundbreaking ideas? Most of the contributions are just a rumination of past thoughts.

            From what I’ve seen so far it’s mainly Nietzsche who’s had the [testicular fortitude] to really put forth something substantial. And even then.. He’s a very dense writer with practically zero chance of widescale adoption of his point of view. Well, I guess Nazi Germany did try rather substantially in a way to emulate some of his thoughts.. Unfortunately they did not (want to) fully grasp it.

            Obviously there have been plenty of great ideas, but in terms of society/religiosity/community/identity it’s been remarkably poor. Virtually all of the existing ideologies are very weakly argumented. It’s either morality based on flawed value allocation or accidental tradition. Neither of which have any solid arguments going for them.

            The idea I’m working on so far evolves around 3 pillars: 1) Value of life. 2) Approach to truth. 3) Concentric personal values.

            These three are interwoven and allow for a pretty solid fundamental philosophical/spiritual reasoning.

            Since I’ve started writing now anyway I’ll give you a brief rundown of the concepts:

            1) This premise considers all life. Trees, animals, terrestrial, extraterrestrial, … it doesn’t really matter. Life is valuable in and of itself. This does not mean life is ‘holy’. It simply holds value. Without this premise, it’s easily argued that mankind, or even all life on earth is worthless. However to those who argue this I suggest they kill themselves. Why sustain worthlesness? If they don’t, well, maybe there’s room for deeper discussion.

            2) Truth exists. However uncovering thruth is a very tricky matter. Gravity for instance. We know it’s there, but we don’t know what it is exactly. We can’t define the specifics. Does that make it any less true? Not in the slightest. Also, how do we go about exploring new insights? What methods and best practices are there? Long story short, my current view is that we can never be 100% sure a theory is factually correct. We can however prove certain theories wrong. Hence we can inch closer to the an understanding of truth. Claiming truth is a delicate matter, and for one to be able to claim truth, there’d have to be some extremely compelling objective evidence to back it up. Otherwise it’s fairly reasonable to say it’s unwise to take his word for it. In short, a consistent and philosophical application of the scientific method.

            3) The above two aren’t exactly new. This one might not be either, but ok. I don’t know of anyone going before me anyway. Morality is based on value allocation. Once you categorize the world as valuable or unvaluable you can start making claims about what is and what is not morally just. Based on 1), let’s assume all life is valuable. Ok so then killing is immoral? Not necessarily. You have to take into account every aspect of life. Killing is part and parcel of living. So is dying. In order to sustain itself, most life feeds on life. Killing or harming living beings aimlessly however is another thing entirely.
            Consider personal values then. The majority of them are not exactly limited to you as a person. You value air, water, food, shelter, freedom, sex, a sense of community, etc etc. Now take these values and look at their scope. For instance freedom. How broad is the value of freedom. Well it depends on how broad you want to think about it. Take the law of entropy. Particles will naturally organize themselves (assuming they do not apply force on eachother) in a way that grants them the most amount of freedom (or the most amount of chaos). Take any lifeform and drastically confine its living space. It’s going to try and find a way out. Ok so freedom is a tremendously universally shared value. Based on this, it’s placed more towards the core of your value system and thus earns more weight in questions of morality. Your valuation of your siblings is way less broad and therefore should not weigh up to their (or your) desire for freedom. Obviously this is a theoretical oversimplification but you get the idea. This allows you to have a value system based on universality. As an extension of this, you could for instance see argue that your personal desires should not interfere with the freedom of others.
            At the same time, value also depends on your relation to it. For instance you hold your own neighborhoud closer to your heart than a random outskirt of Kinshasa. Perfectly legitimate. Therefore, you could rank value based on another metric, namely proximity. These two, universality and proximity then form the foundation of your value hierarchy in any given situation and they are applicable to everyone. To all life forms in fact. They will conflict at times, and there will not always be a clear cut answer, but it’s an attempt at a universally applicable secular value system that I believe has some potential.

            If you intertwine these 3 elements you get what I feel is a minimum viable theory for morality (and in extension spirituality, identity, community etc) that is easily expanded to real life situations without becoming too convoluted and/or limited. Due to 2) it’s also minimizing the dogmatic nature of itself and able to keep up with the evolution of human knowledge. At the same time, it gives you a great foundation of arguing against absurd claims in general. Let alone harmful claims.

            If you have any arguments against my general premise I’d love to hear them.

            The idea is to go to the root of value systems and try to come up with a theory that is as practical, truthful and lean as possible without leaving gaps for exploitation or undermining of the idea.

          • If you have any arguments against my general premise I’d love to hear them.

            This five hundred word essay goes far beyond the limits of courtesy to our readers. Few will have the energy to go past the first paragraphs.

            If you’re posting such lengthy “comments”, it’s a sign you ought to consider setting up your own website and have a go.

            And if you don’t think any philosophers beyond Neitzche are worth reading, one can only surmise that you’ve not read very widely. Try Maverick Philosopher to see what you’ve missed.


  12. Would err….cutting back on abortions help all? One Muslim degenerate replacement for every four healthy young non-Muslim aborted does not strike as very sober thinking.

    • It is not the aborted or those getting abortions that are the problem; in matter of fact most of those who choose to abort are probably doing society a favor instead of bringing a child into the world and imposing one’s lack of responsibility onto society. I see a far greater problem with those who are not conceived in the first place, to responsible husbands and wives. Those non-births have cost society far more, and have allowed the West to degenerate into it’s current idiocracy.

      • Do you have the stats for this?

        I know several women who’ve terminated pregnancies – and several who wanted babies desperately but couldn’t get pregnant. Both sets in the middle class.

        I am also familiar with the high rate of black abortion, though I’ve lost the stats since I quit social work years ago. When the govt started limiting the amount of financial help one could get after X number of children, the pregnancy rate declined. But the fatherless girl children in poverty, desperate to hold onto something to love, still do get pregnant. The strange thing is, if a teenager in foster care gets pregnant while she is under the guardianship of the state, the child she bears while in care is NOT a ward of the state…

        • I was referring primarily to abortion among the lower class and lower income women. Something like close to half of african american pregnancies end in abortion and the vast majority of abortions (75 percent) were among individuals with incomes that put them in the poor or low income category according to federal poverty standards. This is according to the Guttmacher Institute study of the reason why women choose to have abortions.

          It is debateable whether society is better served paying for a lifetime of costs involved in public financial support as well as costs related to criminal activity and damages to victims that were incurred by such unwanted feral youths who were not aborted by their mothers who were incapable of, or unwilling to care for them. In my opinion, these are not the women who should be encouraged to have children or carry to term those they accidently (or purposefully) conceive.

          Anecdotally within my circle of aquaintences, I know of at least three women who chose to have an abortion at some time during their life. All three were single at the time, and had not the financial ability to care for a child if they had chosen to have one. Two of them already had one child from a previous relationship when they became pregnant. My personal opinion is that abortion is an awful thing and is (at least amongst my aquaintences) not something chosen lightly but a way out of a bad situation brought about by a series of poor choices. Instead of forcing such women to live with the consequences of their poor choices, I believe our society should be doing more to encourage those who are responsible parents to have and raise more children, so the future will be populated by those from loving, intact homes.

          • That would include having these single mothers marry. It would at least rectify the poor choices.

            Black women in poverty having kids can be laid at the Dems’ door. The huge rise in pregnancies correlates with the so-called “War on Poverty”. And the Dems knew it would do so, but they also wanted those voters. Similar to the way the British Labour Party cynically imported their voters.

        • I’m no expert, but I think Western governments are still offering far too many incentives that create broken homes when they could easily be incentivizing strong nuclear families and healthy communities.

      • I see a far greater problem with those who are not conceived in the first place, to responsible husbands and wives.

        I could not agree more!!!

        Most excellent, MTHM!

  13. You know there are other minorities in the UK…namely Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists…who have a v long and bloody history of muslim oppression.
    Coming from a Sikh background I can tell you as a matter of fact, if British people can’t stand up for themselves, Sikhs will. Sikhs will take matters into their own hands, regardless of what actions the police or government takes. Sikh history. Whether this will help or worsen the situation, god only knows

  14. Genocide? Wrong word, wrong concept. The solution has to be multi-level, thus: partial removal via disincentivization, partial compulsory deportation/expulsion, assimilation of assimilable remainder, along with a block on almost all further Muslim/non-white (permanent) immigration, and strong restrictions on Islam as a proven hostile ideology/faith and existential danger, eg no more than one non-sectarian guest mosque per big city, no madrassas, no ‘Islamism’, etc.

    We just need to keep pushing for it until it happens, if it doesn’t, then there is no future worth thinking much about, from a Western pov at least.

Comments are closed.