Note: In the remarks below I write as if from a European point of view. I have been specializing in European affairs for so long that I have “gone native”: when considering the issues of mass immigration and Islamization, I tend to examine the situation in Western Europe to get a sense of the way we are headed.
Things are different here in the USA — we are careening towards the same cliff as the Europeans, but we are a right good ways behind them. As a result, America may be able to avoid the catastrophic future that faces Europe. Or, if Western Europe turns it around and follows El Inglés’ advice, we’ll be able to model our responses on theirs and escape martial law or civil war or revolution or whatever nasty outcome would await us otherwise.
But Western Europe will not have the luxury of returning to the idyllic status quo of 1955-2000. My contention is that things have gone too far down the multicultural primrose path for Europeans to be spared an illiberal outcome. The niceties of civil society will evaporate, no matter what. They will either be blown away by the imposition of sharia, or at the very least they will be reduced by whatever authoritarian regime emerges to resist the sharia.
There are no other choices.
Our situation in the West is similar to that of the Hindus who eventually became Sikhs, and violently resisted the Islamic invasion. Will we develop our own version of Sikhism? Or will we simply become the European version of Persia/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Indonesia?
A number of commenters on El Inglés’ posts objected to the idea of the draconian actions against Pakistanis that he proposed. They observed, correctly, that these things cannot be done without abrogating the civil liberties of at least some of the targets. They also noted that innocent Pakistanis — those few who do not oppress women, take little white girls as sex slaves, and engage in welfare fraud for their livelihood — would be caught up and punished along with the guilty ones. El Inglés addressed these objections in the conclusion of Part 3, but his answers evidently failed to assuage the fears of his critics.
We’ve been discussing these issues in this space for at least a dozen years. Time was short when the conversation started, and it is far shorter now. Back then we were at five minutes to twelve; today it may be five seconds to twelve.
Any solution that does not rend the civil fabric of our societies must be devised VERY quickly. Bear in mind that such a solution would first have to be raised and discussed in national legislatures. Then a majority coalition would have to somehow be cobbled together in support of it. Horses would have to be traded. Palms would have to be greased. Sausages would have to be made. Individual representatives would have to be convinced to vote in favor of something that would earn them a death fatwa from the Religion of Peace for doing so.
Just think how difficult it would be to accomplish that.
Furthermore, as soon as such a movement gained steam, it would be violently resisted by the antifas and other “anti-fascist” street thugs bankrolled by the globalists. We already know that antifas aren’t averse to a bit of ultra-violence when they bash the fash. How will they respond to real political and cultural change in Western Europe, the kind that would actually deport the “refugees” en masse?
Once the anti-fascists start killing police, for example, the rules of the game will change. The first thing the state will do at that point is to impose martial law and significantly reduce everyone’s civil liberties.
I can’t see a way out of this that preserves the customary civil society that Europeans have grown used to. It’s just too late.
Our choices are between sharia and some form of authoritarian governance by leaders of our own native ethnic groups. There are no other doors out of this room.
The conversations below are taken from the comments section on El Inglés’ first post. They cover in greater detail the same issues I outlined above. The participants are our Swedish correspondent Svenne Tvaerskaegg, ECAW, and myself.
|Svenne:||‘Pakistani’ is a nationality not an ideology or a belief system and while it is quite in order to criticize and even ridicule an ideology or belief system it is not in order to accuse a whole nationality of being thieving murderers. That line of rhetoric is unwarranted, reprehensible and leads to very dark places. It is also not in order to demand the rounding up and mass deportation of people based on their nationality. For anyone who wants to gain an understanding of where this line of reasoning leads I recommend the film “Schindler’s List.”|
|Baron:||There are vast, overwhelming differences between the Jews and the Pakistanis in their respective diasporas. In order of significance:
I think it can be safely said that any analogy between Pakistanis in Britain and the Jews in 1939 does not hold up under scrutiny, and has no real bearing on current circumstances in the UK.
|Svenne:||“Pakistani” isn’t an aggressive, expansionist political ideology whose core texts require it to propagate itself violently all over the globe either.
Islam an aggressive, expansionist political ideology whose core texts require it to propagate itself violently all over the globe and Islam is a major problem.
As well as the Islamic dimension there is a lot that is seriously wrong and unacceptable with much in Pakistani culture and it is a big mistake to allow large scale immigration from such a culture into the UK, or anywhere else.
But although there is a correlation between the nationality, the religion and the undesirable elements of Pakistani culture it is wrong to attribute all negative aspects that can be found in the culture correlating with that nationality to all who hold that nationality or that national origin.
Be critical of the religion and the culture because they are beliefs and value systems that people can adopt or leave as they choose. They are voluntary positions people can take while nationality is not and not all people who fall under the same nationality umbrella adopt and display all negative aspects of the culture correlated with that nationality. This is an important distinction.
|Baron:||Only one of my four criteria concerned Islam. The other three were about Pakistanis as PAKISTANIS; their culture, their behavior as a group, and the obvious danger they pose to any society they immigrate to in significant numbers.
Those three points are quite enough to establish the inappropriateness of any comparison with the Jews.
However, I would even take exception to #1 being solely about Islam. It is about Islam as it is practiced by PAKISTANIS, which is in the aggregate quite different from the Islam practiced in, say, Malaysia. The latter is on balance less violent and dangerous (although it is Islam, so it’s still vile stuff).
The Pakistani brand of Islam, like the Somali, turns out hordes of depraved, violent, dangerous young men and exports them to the rest of the world.
|Svenne:||My objection is in branding all holders of a nationality with negative cultural attributes. It is wrong to say: “Murdering, Thieving Hordes of (insert nationality of choice here)”. Although it is quite true that negative cultural attributes are more strongly correlated with some nationalities than others and large scale immigration of those nationalities is definitely a very bad idea.
The problem with Islam is Islam, the religion, the belief system. There are Muslims who are reasonable people and how reasonable they are is directly proportional to how far from the religion and belief system they are. The less like a Muslim that a Muslim is the better he is and is best of all when he is no longer a Muslim.
|Baron:||Unfortunately, we Westerners are rapidly approaching the point when we will no longer be able to judge people as individuals any longer, at least not all the time. We just won’t have that luxury anymore. Given the size of the Pakistani population now resident in the UK, testing each individual to determine how “reasonable” or how “radical” he is has now become impossible. Any meaningful decisions that are made — and it is unlikely that they will be made; the country will almost certainly continue careening along in its lemming-like rush over the paki-cliff — will have to be made on the basis of whether people are Pakistanis or not (or Somalis, or Afghans, etc.), and not by examining difficult-to-discern individual character traits.
It’s ugly and unfortunate, but there isn’t any real choice. It doesn’t mean there has to be genocide, but it means that the customary politically correct way of cognizing the situation will have to be abandoned.
El Inglés started talking about these difficult issues more than ten years ago, when it was still theoretically possible to avoid the dire pass we have come to. But nothing in the political culture has changed significantly in the interim, so it’s too late now. We have passed the point when we can employ the traditional liberal Weltanschauung to grapple with these dreadful issues.
|ECAW:||I am dismayed that El Ingles should so spectacularly pick the wrong target and even more dismayed that only one commenter here appears to disagree with him. However I also think Svenne is wrong to bring up the Jewish parallel for the reasons that BB outlines (Godwin’s Law and all that…).
I disagree with BB that it is too late to distinguish between Muslims who are a danger to us (in my view those who follow the example of Mohammed most closely) and those who are not (cultural Muslims etc). The criteria would not have to be too finely drawn. Using a Hilali Khan translation (aka the Wahhabi Koran) would suffice. So would praying for “victory over the kuffar”, or having anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hizb ut-Tahrir, or wearing a niqab, or attempting to control symbolic public spaces like Speakers Corner, or displaying 7th century attitudes to Jews or Kaffir girls. I don’t give a damn about the personal parts of sharia like which foot someone enters the toilet with but would it be too difficult to make it clear that any sharia based action which contravenes the law or any attempt to impose sharia on the rest of us means you’re out?
That still leaves the problem of what to do with such people but I suggest it would be less of a problem over time than trying to offload millions of people all at once. Perhaps we could cut a deal with Sudan or the newly impoverished Saudi Arabia when the oil runs out.
Conversely there are agreements which people have proposed that Muslims should be required to sign with penalties for not keeping to them. The latest leader of UKIP, Gerard Batten has supported a long complicated one written by an ex-Muslim cleric [Sam Solomon]. Harry Richardson has proposed a Declaration of Peaceful Intent. I seem to remember Geert Wilders came up with something similar.
In short I agree with Svenne that the problem with Islam is Islam, or at least that the core problem with Islam is Islam, and we should go to the part which really concerns us, sharia, rather than pick on particular groups of Muslims. After all there are Pakistanis who are not a danger to us, and Somalis (and Malaysians and even ginger headed Brits) who are.
|Baron:||The criteria would not have to be too finely drawn. Using a Hilali Khan translation (aka the Wahhabi Koran) would suffice. So would praying for “victory over the kuffar”, or having anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hizb ut-Tahrir…
OK, let’s accept that as our premise. But think about the practicalities of it — if an imam preaches “you must kill infidels”, and there are 250 in his congregation, do you deport them all? What about the ones who never pay attention to the sermons (probably most of them)? Or the ones who listen but disagree? It would be unjust to round them up along with the true believers.
No, in order to separate the sheep from the goats, every single one of them would have to be brought in for an interview with plod, who would have a questionnaire in front of him and a checklist to go through to determine their ideological stance, before any legal action could be taken against them.
With millions of Muslims in the country who attend mosques where such things are preached, it would never be practicable to do what I outlined above. It just couldn’t be done.
And that doesn’t even take into account the thorny problem of Muslims’ being trained to lie. None of the answers in those interviews could be considered totally reliable.
As for which translation is used, that’s not even relevant to a lot of ordinary Muslims, who are mostly functionally illiterate.
We’ve seen so many cases where no one would have guessed that a guy was a “radical” until the moment he drove his car up over the curb into the pedestrians while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”
At this point there are no longer any outcomes to this mess that don’t involve violence and bloodshed and suffering. And there are no outcomes in which we, the infidels, actually prevail without throwing our away the Marquess of Queensbury rulebook.
“Totalitarianism” is already on its way. It can’t be avoided. The only choices we will have will be in how we might mitigate that totalitarian regime to some extent whilst not allowing our civilization to be destroyed. That’s the best we can do.
There is simply no endgame any longer that allows Britain to retain its (formerly) customary civil liberties and rule of law. Those are already gone, anyway, as the native Britons are being oppressed. Do you really think those civilized rules can somehow be restored for everybody, without accepting sharia as the legal norm?
|ECAW:||Baron — I hardly recognise my comment from your response to it. I will try to clarify my view from a different angle.
In the blog post I linked to above I listed what I saw as the full list of possible outcomes from here on with estimates of the likelihood of each actually coming to pass. Only three are relevant to this discussion:
I would put my suggestions under the heading Sensible Curbs whereas I would have to set up a new heading for El Ingles’ proposal:
What would happen immediately after an announcement that all Pakistani Muslims (and their dependents) were to be rounded up and deported? All other Muslims would side with their co-religionists, partly because they will have more allegiance to their religion than to their host country and partly because they would realise that they would likely be next. Leftists would join them, eager to bring down Western civilisation at any price and a great many others, either indoctrinated by our education system or offended at the unfairness, would support them. Any government seriously attempting to follow through would then find themselves with more committed opposition than they could handle without military force. Bingo…civil war.
On the other hand my proposal, which would only ever be brought up after the current trickles of jihad inspired blood have become rivulets and a majority of the population had started to realise what genuine Islam — Mohammed’s Islam — really means, with Sweden or Belgium probably gone under, would at least stand a chance of majority support.
To take your example with the mosque:
Firstly you say “Do you deport them all?” Well even if that were the case it would be no worse than El Ingles’ proposal but no, the imam would be deported in the first instance and, if it kept happening, the mosque would be closed down. Those who opposed that would show themselves to be on the wrong side and also deported or sent to somewhere offshore where they could do no harm.
After a great many imams were sent packing and a great many mosques were closed down perhaps the remaining Muslims, particularly those who do not own a copy of the Koran and pay no attention during sermons, would come to believe that a quietist version of Islam is okay with Allah if there is no other option. That’s how the Muslim population were in 1980 before their numbers grew to a significant percentage.
I do not think this approach is likely to work though! As you see I gave it odds of 20 to 1. But I think it is our last hope before having to decide between civil war and subjugation, and I think it is worth a shot.
You are quite wrong thinking I have a Pollyannaish optimism about the survival of our accustomed civil liberties. I see our future as nasty or nastier but I see El Ingles’ proposals as even nastier and less likely to produce the required results than my counter-proposals.
(I look forward to part 3 in which I believe he goes into the practical details)
|Baron:||Actually, I consider your suggestions as reasonable, practical ways of dealing with the issue. If they were to be implemented, then we would have a chance of getting out of this mess without rending the civil fabric of the West more than is absolutely necessary.
But here’s the problem: Time. In order to have any hope of success, these new policies would have to be implemented, like, NOW. If another ten years goes by, not only is there no chance of their succeeding, but there would be no chance that they could even be attempted.
Really, though, such policies should have been implemented a decade or so ago. We discussed similar things here back in those days, and the basic conclusion was that they needed to happen very soon, within a few years at most, or it would be too late.
Well, those few years have come and gone, and nothing has changed. Or rather, things got worse: Muslims are now allowed more latitude, and have been given more concessions and special privileges, than was the case in 2008. More schools are fully halal. More police forces have made hijab part of the uniform. More countries punish people for any offensive utterances about “a religion”. We are farther away than ever from being able to implement even the mildest measures against the spread of Islamization and the sharia.
The political will to do anything — or even to describe the problem in terms that include the words “Islam” and “sharia” — is simply absent. My assumption is that this is because the Muslim vote now swings elections at the margin — all across the major cities of Western Europe, any candidate who wishes to be elected must carry the Muslim vote. Those who gain the endorsement of the imams — Muslims tend to vote as a bloc, with the imams pointing the way to the halal candidate — win the election. Thus there is no chance that any serious measures against Islam will ever make it to the floor of the legislature or to the table of the borough council.
The only thing that could change this discouraging situation would be for white people to also vote as a bloc, in their own ethnic interests. And how likely is that? We honkies splinter into our different factions based on important issues such as animal rights or transgender bathrooms, and then one faction or another (usually the more Progressive one) allies with the Muslim bloc to prevail.
The Muslims understand this process well, and cynically exploit it. They’re experts in playing the kuffar. Their ideology counsels patience, and a decades- or centuries-long time frame for their success. They’ve been using the divide-and-conquer strategy successfully against us for 1,400 years. Think of the disinterest of the Venetian mercantile oligarchs in giving any support to the beleaguered Byzantine Empire during the decades of warfare ending in the fall of Constantinople.
So we are actually making a mistake when we discuss the nuts and bolts of what might work to reverse the current disastrous trajectory of Western Civilization. It doesn’t matter exactly what we think up to move us in that direction, because it cannot be implemented.
That is the core problem: how to create a large enough constituency for a general anti-Islamization program to be able to implement it in a democratic fashion. We, the white people formerly known as Christians, have the majority. We could do it if the political will existed. But it doesn’t: creating a viable Crusader coalition is not possible at this time, and has not been possible during the entire fifteen years that I’ve been paying close attention. People do not care enough about Islamization, if they are even aware of it, and would rather engage in fratricidal political struggles around entirely different issues.
I can’t see any sign that this will change before a general economic collapse. When the fiat money system finally implodes and the welfare state falls apart, millions of white people will join the “nothing left to lose” brigade, and change will then be possible. However, at that point circumstances will be so dire that a traditional democratic solution will no longer be in the cards. We will have either anarchy — the War of All Against All — or some form of tyranny, maybe regional warlords, or a dystopian mass surveillance state à la Blade Runner, or — the most likely outcome, in my opinion — clusters of sharia-based hellholes ruled by local emirs in constant warfare with pockets of the destitute and sickly remnants of European civilization.
I can’t see any other outcome at this point, unfortunately. We are headed in that direction, and we are headed there fast. Over the past decade and half I’ve seen no sign that our direction might be changing, notwithstanding the election of Donald Trump.