Netherlands stirred by jihadist murder
Van Gogh murder backlash begins in Netherlands
. Liberal commentators are calling for Muslim hardliners to be expelled from the country, even if they are citizens; liberal newpapers are calling for a crackdown on Moslem extremists and the shutdown of jihadist mosques; and more and more Dutch people are saying that Moslems must either accept Western ways or leave the country. This is great—a seed of hope for the survival of European man.
But caution is in order. As long as Westerners are spurred to defend their country only by terrorist murder, they will remain vulnerable to cultural subversion. The Moslems would simply have to learn to avoid outright jihadist threats and violence, which would put the Dutch back to sleep again until the Moslems’ numbers had grown to the point where the Dutch wouldn’t be able to resist a Moslem takeover of the Netherlands even if they wanted to. That is why immigration restrictionism must not be based solely on an immigrant groupís worst traits; it must be based on their normal traits, namely their religious and cultural incompatibility. And it must not consist of a flighty emotional reaction to some horrifying crime, but of a steady rational comprehension of the real danger the immigrants pose to the society. In short, if immigration restriction is to succeed, it must be a principled position, not an unprincipled exception.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 07, 2004 06:36 PM | Send
andrew: it isn’t a coincidence that the word “Assassin” is Arabic in origin.
The points made here are excellent. But I wonder if Moslems are really capable of cultural subversion, which would require a degree of subterfuge that goes beyond the normative limits of their society. Are Moslems going to suddenly lose their burkas and veils to facilitate assimilation into secular society with the goal of subverting it? I’m not so sure Moslems are capable of compromising the vestments and practices that are part and parcel of their own religious extremism under any circumstance. I really don’t think they, as a society, can shut up about jihad and extremism long enough, and with ample conviction to convice anyone they have changed their ways. Anger is simply too dominant in their theology. Instead, I belive the greatest threat of a Moslem takeover in the Netherlands, or anywhere else in Europe is through making more Moslem babies.
One of the more potent weapons in the Moslem arsenal is their birthrate, which often far exceeds that of the regular population. They have large families (birth control is taboo) and the number of children born to Moslem families is usually directly proportional to the degree of free medical care available. France, the Netherlands, Holland, England-all have socialized medicine, so the effect is that Moslems are subsidized into having more and more children. If they did nothing else but continue to have more kids courtesy of an existing welfare system, “victory” is almost assured based on population growth alone. Prohibiting further immigration based on “normative traits” is important, but it would not defuse the already ticking population time bomb. My suggestion, therefore, is to terminate state-sponsered benefits that encourage unrestricted growth of an indegenous Moslem population.
FK, you are correct about the ticking time bomb. Combined with the generations of indoctrination of European females into the suicide of feminism, the welfare state, and multiculturalism, all the Muslims would have to do is sit back and bide their time.
Despite the murder, how many native Dutch are actually willing to entertain the notion that it is THEIR country, and that they have every right to expel all Muslims? Few, if any, would be my guess. Such an idea is totally anathema to liberalism. That is why the liberalism is incapable of opposing Islam to its very root. It is checkmate for liberalism. If the Muslims take over, liberalism will die under the Sharia. The other alternative, a victory over Islam as a result of repentance and re-establishment of the Christian civilization, likewise requires the death of liberalism. Death is inevitable. Liberalism, now holding all the levers of power in the west, must choose how it wishes to die.
FK is right, I wasn’t suggesting that Moslems engage in some complicated subterfuge such as pretending to assimilate, only that they put their jihadism in the cooler while they continue to increase their population and develop their community strenght. It win over the Euros, it’s not necessary to pretend to assimilate; it’s just necessary to stop acting threatening.
Why the wailing over Van Gogh? Wasn’t he, like Pim Fortuyn, a radical, Christianity-despising libertarian who attacked Muslims because they deny their women Sexual Freedom (tm) or something?
I suppose it’s natural that VFR prefers radical Western atheism over Muslim extremism, but really, let’s keep things in perspective.
More on Van Gogh:
J.K., there are few, if any, of us here who harbor any illusions about the disgusting nihilist vandal Theo Van Gogh. If you review the first big thread here, you can see that he isn’t held up as an ally of any sort.
Liberalism and multiculturalism are so thoroughly entrenched in Europe that most of us expect that it will end up as the Caliphate of Eurabia in a generation. Even in the wake of the murder, in which a jihad love letter was attached to Van Gogh’s carcass with a butcher knife, the Dutch prime minister came out with the typical leftist spin about the motive being unclear. It’s the same thing they do here whenever blacks slaughter whites out of racial hatred.
The leftist Euro-elite who are voted into power year after year will never be able to effectively oppose what is happening. I would even go so far as to theorize that they are positioning themselves to be the court Christians in the coming Caliphate. Unless there is a massive rebirth of nationalism, Europe is lost.
“Death is inevitable. Liberalism, now holding all the levers of power in the west, must choose how it wishes to die.”
Good point. It begs the question: is liberalism itself unfit for survival when faced with a hostile environment? It seems to me that the sort of left-wing, feel-good, emotional trainwreck that sums up European liberalism can only flourish in countries which have grown decadent due to living in relative safety for decades, or countries which have been made militarily secure.
[LA note: this is link to an article. When posting a comment with a link at VFR, be sure to have some text before the link. If the link is at the beginning of the comment, it disturbs the display of the main page, pushing the right column of the main page down to the bottom.] http://www.jnewswire.com/library/article.php?articleid=350
To Mr. Bern: Take a look at the effect your posting has on the recent comments listing on the home page. Please don’t post a URL in the first 100 characters or so of a posting. Thanks.
van Wijk asks:
“…is liberalism itself unfit for survival when faced with a hostile environment?”
Yes and no, is what I think. I think that when faced with a genuinely hostile environment which threatens its existence liberalism does transform: it rallies around a few unprincipled exceptions that are seen as critical to survival and becomes ruthlessly violent. Communism and Naziism are both examples of liberal modernism transforming itself into a violent radicalism in lieu of repentance from liberal principles or nonviolent surrender to dhimmitude. Communism and Naziism don’t *seem* like liberalism because of their unprincipled exceptions (blood and will for the Nazis, class and dialectic for the Communists). Whether they *are* forms of liberalism or not has been the subject of some debate here at VFR, but that they came from liberalism when liberalism faced an external threat to survival may be less controversial.
Will European liberalism ultimately react with a Final Solution to the Moslem problem before the Moslems become entrenched enough to sieze power? Some sort of clash seems inevitable in the long run, if the remains of European Christendom do not wake up and fortify the fences before it is too late (if it is not already too late). I don’t think I would be too optimistic about a lasting nonviolent European surrender to dhimmitude, though. That is one possibility, but it seems counterintuitive if only because the Moslems aren’t smart and patient enough to carry it out.
I agree with Matt and FK. There is no overriding organization among Muslims to carry out a policy of waiting to overwhelm Europeans — we are not dealing with the Comintern here, and even the Reds could never quite carry out such policies on a regular basis. The hatred of so many Muslims for the native Europeans is too great for the possibility envisaged by Mr. Auster to be something to worry about; so great they cannot control themselves. This is one reason I think in the end the Europeans will get rid of them, although whether the society that exists afterward would be a good one is something else.
Still, let’s hope Mr. Levine is correct, as it means that the Moslems can’t help but let the water get so hot so fast that the Europeans will jump out before they die.
What the Netherlands needs is a real traditionalist party that strongly advocates total deportation and immigration restriction. If this will not happen, anti-Muslim vigilante groups will rise all over Holland. The VVD, which has Ayaan Hirsi Ali as one of its members and is considered to be the most rightwing party in the Netherlands is too liberal and politically correct to throw Allah out of Amsterdam.
Two additional factors impacting the progressive dimmitude of Europe need to be considered.
1. Nuclearization of Iran, with delivery systems capable of reaching nearly every European capital.
2. Turkish Armed Forces, the largest conventional army with a toe hold on the continent.
With the US withdrawing over the next few years - this might be accelerated with the Army’s other commitments, Europeans are about to find out the extent of “soft” power.
If there was any serious societal conflict involving muslims in say 2010, could any EC country other than France or Greece defend itself? Once Iran acheives its nuclear ambitions, is there any doubt they’ll resist the urge to project that power? Checkmate…
Wasn’t it Lennin who condemned Capitalism by saying that a capitalist would sell you the rope that you would use to hang him? It seems that liberals will give it away. They, in large part, seem to draw no parallel between capitalists providing the means to their own destruction and liberals providing the licence for the same. All over Europe and now here in the USA, groups of well meaning (here I give the benefit of the doubt) folks from the private clubs in Boston and New York to the mansions of Brentwood and Belle Air seem to believe that they can create the idyllic and utopian society they seek by allowing everybody to do anything. It isn’t just moral relativism, it’s total relativism. Try as I might, I cannot understand the liberal opposition to measures we must take to insure our survival. Why don’t they understand that the Moslem extremists with whom they seek rapprochment will, if given half a chance, destroy them first? I suppose that it is true that “there are none so blind as those who refuse to see”.
I don’t think the Turkish army will be a threat to Europe anytime soon. It’s a strong Kemalist outpost and has deposed politicians that were deemed too Islamic.
It’s not even Iran with its Shehab 3 missiles that is the biggest threat. It’s those Muslim teenagers that crowd the squares and alleys of European cities and the mosques they worship in that are the biggest threat to Christendom.
“Try as I might, I cannot understand the liberal opposition to measures we must take to insure our survival.”
I think the basic problem is that liberals see people as autonomous individuals who are self-created through reason and will (credit to Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative for this very useful formulation). So anything that discriminates against a group of people as a larger aggregated category is inherently unfair. Right-liberals correctly perceive this as contradictory to such left-liberal programmes as affirmative action, but left-liberals see such programmes as necessary means to abolish an unchosen, unreasoned (and therefore arbitrary to the liberal) ethnic, sexual, or other distinction. So the difference between right-liberals and left-liberals on these matters is over pragmatic means, not ultimate moral ends.
Deporting Moslems and barring their entry at the border would, on this radically individualist understanding of things, be grossly unfair to the vast majority of Moslems who are not directly involved in formally seditious activity. To do so would be the moral equivalent (to the liberal) of imprisoning all blacks simply because blacks commit, per capita, far more crimes than whites.
So starting from liberal first principles it can never be right to deport Moslems just because they are Moslems (and therefore culturally and ethnically incompatible with Western Christendom). It is literally inconceivable, an utter moral anathema, and will remain so until liberals perceive that Islam constitutes a life-and-death threat to the very existence of liberalism. At that point as I mentioned above we should expect liberalism to transform into something radically violent that resembles Naziism or Communism more than the current European smug decadence.
The real solution, of course, is to reject liberal first principles as utterly as dystopian and inhuman, and to work toward a restoration of Western Christendom. But most modern first-worlders are a long, long way from doing that, or even from having any critical self-awareness about liberalism at all (witness the fact that modern right-liberals use the term “liberal” as an epithet despite the fact that they are, themselves, a form of liberal).
What FK and Mr. Levine say about the inability of Moslems conceal their real intentions suggests an analogy between Moslems and Democrats. Just as Moslems in the Netherlands (say FK and Mr. Levine) are unwilling to give up violent jihad, or even put it in the cooler for a while, in order to avoid rejection and exclusion by the rest of the society, American Democrats are unwilling to give up their demand for homosexual marriage, or even put it on hold for a while, in order to prevent devastating losses at the polls. In each case, compromise is out of the question. Jihad is to Moslems what the demand for homosexual marriage is to Democrats: the core of their moral and spiritual being.
I believe Matt is on course with his idea that a restoration of European Christendom is the right start toward a proper rejection of liberalism and its potential progeny-resemblent of Nazism or Communism, according to Matt
Although I am Jewish, I have enormous appreciation toward most traditional Christian principles and the values they engender. But then again, I cannot define what Christian principles will really serve as the antidote to the problem. On the one hand, evangelicals in the US are usually militantly anti-Islam while being pro-Israel. Meanwhile, one of the leaders of the Presbyterian church met with members of Hizbollah -the same jolly Moslems who incinerated a Marine barrack not to long ago-and praised their society while condeming the Jews. Two extremes of Christiandom, far right and far far left. Which will redeem Europe from its current abyss?
Personally, my immediate take on liberalism, and the response of liberals to the very idea of responding to radical Islam is as follows: liberals invariably connect the use of force to evil. This is either manifested in the big media, academia, or the well organized and wealthy claque of Hollywood liberals who have n-e-v-e-r supported a single United States military action regardless of it’s moral foundation. Liberals vilified Johnson and Nixon for the United States’ involvement in Viet Nam- but was there a single protest or public denuciation of Pol Pot or the killing fields of Cambodia after America disengaged from that conflict? Of course not. Ronald Reagan is the pre-eminent Republican facist in liberal/left circles. As a college student in the 1980’s, not one of my professors ever criticised Soviet totalitarianism with a smidgen of the anger reserved for President Reagan (and Nancy as well). When the Israeli’s blew up the Osirak nuclear reactor, the NY Times, and many liberals-especially Jews- condemned the use of force as provocative, or worse. The list is endless, but the equation is axiomatic: force-no matter how justified and proper- is anathema to liberals and liberalism to such a degree that it is demonic.
Final point: I think the readiness of any society or religion to display self criticism is the critical barometer of its ability to confront evil. When a crazed Jewish gunman shot up a mosque about 10 years ago, the country of Israel underwent an extended period of national contrition. Many branches of Christianity -especially the Catholic Church-have publically apologized for their historical anti-Semitism and avoidence of assisting the Jews during the Holocaust. Heaven knows how far the United States has gone in its attempt to remedy historical slavery…and so on. Where, I ask, is any public contrition by organized Islam. To be fair, there are several Moslem groups and leaders who have condemed terrorism, but their numbers are miniscule in comparison to the deafening silence of the organized Moslem world. One might expect the Imams of the Netherlands (perhaps joined by their co-religionists in Holland and Sweden) to take to the streets and scream their opposition murder, and the violence routinely perpetuated in the name of Islam. As the late John Belushi would say, “But NOOooooo”. Instead, THEY issue warnings not to sterotype Islam ( a religion of “Peace”) lest anti-Moslem racism prevail.
I believe that slowly, the cat is coming out of the bag and most normal people will realize how much Jihad has enveloped the mindset of most Moslems. Many years ago, when Arafat stood before the UN General Assembly, he held up a pistol, and an olive branch. These days, it’s not the gun we should fear; it’s the slender olive branch that is most frightening, because it resembles a long, slow burning fuse that will soon ignite a time bomb when we least expect it.
FK, most orthodox (small “o”) Christians (which would include many Orthodox, BTW), do not consider the Presbyterian Church USA - or other “Mainline” Protestant denominations like the ECLA, United Church of Christ, and American Episcopal Chirch (to name a few) as being Christian any longer. Their faith is in the religion of liberalism, not in Christ. There is currently a significant movement among these leftist-run “churches” to mount a divestiture campaign against Israel.
Liberalism is really the cancer within - even in Israel itself. There is a difference between honest self-criticism and the all consuming self hatred that is the hallmark of liberals everywhere. Traditional Christianity and Traditional Judaism are in the same boat - between the proverbial rock and hard place. Jihadis on one side, the liberal fifth column on the other.