Is the Islamic takeover of Europe inevitable?
(This post contains a thought-provoking and challenging argument by Conservative Swede about a different type of politics that may lie beyond Europe’s current democratic politics, under which, according to Paul Belien, Islam’s ascendancy in Europe is assured; and about the prevailing forces that may prevent Europe from adopting that different politics.)
(Also, so many comments have come in response to this thread that I may have missed a few. If you’ve sent a good comment that has not been posted, feel free to send it again.)
Writing in the Washington Times, Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal says it’s over:
Pundits who predict that Western Europe is about to witness a shift to the anti-immigrant right are mistaken. This trend will be over by the end of the decade, when the impact of the immigrant vote will move European politics dramatically to the left. The right’s chances of winning elections are dwindling. The anti-immigrant right realizes this. As Filip Dewinter, the Antwerp VB leader, said after last year’s elections: “I am a realist. The number of potential voters for our party is declining year by year… “
I don’t know if we can trust Belien’s prognostications. He’s a conservative writer who, like many others, endlessly catalogues the steady Islamization of the West, but, as far as I can remember, has never proposed doing
anything to stop and reverse it. But let’s say for the sake of discussion that Belien is right and that it is over. It would be over in the sense that the current suicidal European order—in which European elites “manage” the gradual Islamization of Europe, thinking they can remain in control of the process, while tiny and powerless European right-wing parties impotently protest the process—is doomed. But if, as Belien predicts will be the case within a few years, European Europe finds itself not merely threatened by Islamization but actually under the thumb of a Leftist-Islamist Coalition regime, then out of that catastrophe there could arise a new European right, different from any seen before, which knows that it has lost control of its civilization, and knows that it has no alternative but to fight to win it back. As I’ve said before, it is possible that only real defeat can make Europeans wake up to reality.
- end of initial entry -
Sage McLaughlin writes:
In response to your most recent post, in which you say that “it is possible that only real defeat can make Europeans wake up to reality,” I would answer that this is cause for both hope and for concern. Obviously, hope because there is every chance the European right will reemerge as something different, and more vital. Concern because, after all, we don’t know what that may be or how long it may take or, for that matter, what would happen next.
My fear is that the left will wind up hastening the very thing they claim to be preventing—the emergence of virulent hatreds, which will find expression through organized political movements. If the left continues to go on insisting that any politically effective preservation of one’s own culture and civilization is tantamount to fascism, then many people might simply grant them the argument and become fascists. If “racist” now means “doesn’t hate one’s own kind” or “isn’t interested in groveling before Muslim interlopers,” then lots of otherwise decent people may simply conclude, “Very well then, God help me, I am racist.”
Liberals never fail to miss this important point. By declaring practically all interest in the maintenance of ethnic integrity and social distinctiveness “fascistic,” “racist,” “hateful,” “xenophobic,” or what have you, they virtually guarantee that normal people will eventually become desensitized to these words and lose their ability to distinguish between love of one’s own and hatred of the Other. If liberals can’t see the difference, and if they are the self-appointed experts on these matters, who is the average man in the street to disagree? Since the average man on the street has no burning desire to be displaced by foreigners and forced to comply with their every demand, he might just conclude that violent hatred is the natural and indispensable companion of ordinary self respect.
In the end, I think things are going to get much, much worse before they get better, precisely because liberals refuse to accept the most common sense limitations on the principle of tolerance. They risk discrediting tolerance altogether by making it synonymous with self-extinction. An outpouring of hatred and violence is almost certain to erupt at some stage, since nowhere do people gladly suffer replacement of their own people civilization by that of others. A tipping point must eventually be reached, and when it does, the reaction could be spasmodic and bloody. This can easily be avoided, but liberals are determined to see this suicidal path through to the bitter end, such is their devotion to a program which I think even they suspect is daily darkening the future of mankind.
I agree with everything Mr. McLaughlin has said. His analysis can also be seen as an extension of my recent discussion of the origins of modern liberalism out of an overreaction to Nazism, in which liberals defined the evil of Nazism as intolerance. Since anything short of liberal notions of tolerance is Nazism, i.e., the worst evil, and since the continued existence of any Western society is incompatible with tolerance, the preservation of any historic Western nation or culture is the worst evil. Liberalism thus tells people that if they want to exist and preserve their societies, then they are evil in the worst way.
As I’ve been observing since the previous decade, many paleocons have, tragically, essentially adopted this view. Since the liberal notion of morality says that preserving one’s people and culture is racist, many paleocons have said, “Ok, I’m racist.” It’s a fatal error. Instead of articulating a true moral code as distinct from the false moral code of liberalism, they have concluded that since liberalism is a false moral code, all morality is false, and thus they embrace amorality—namely amoral tribalism—as their own moral code.
In this they are like adolescents responding to a hypocritical father by saying, “Everything is hypocrisy.”
My gloss on Sage M.’s excellent comment was less clear than the comment.itself.
Brandon F. writes:
After reading McLaughlin and your comments I have a question. You’ve been on the forefront of this issue long before most of your readers (I assume most but definitely me) have been aware of it.
Considering how far the decline of the West has progressed through liberal idealism and immigration since the early 90’s, how long do you consider the boiling point to be from now. I know this is a difficult and broad question that has no simple answer. It seems however that the “season” may be upon us.
I think, as I’ve said before, the catalyst for this revolution could be an economic collapse. Whites everywhere are so distracted by our economic prosperity that they really don’t care what’s happening. I believe once this veil is lifted action on a grass roots level will begin.
Is it not ironic that this economic prosperity makes liberalism possible?
I don’t know, I don’t have any ideas or “intuitive glimpses” about this. I do see how over many years, the turnabout which people on our side expected to occur from this or that external event did not occur. I tend to see the general trends, I try to see the inner psychology of the forces at work. That has led me to the idea that only major loss, disaster, and suffering could turn this around. But about the precise nature of that disaster I have no idea. People who know more about economics than I do look to an economic downturn or collapse to signal the turning point.
I also tend to feel that it’s futile to wonder about and wait upon this “magical” moment when the majority starts to wake up. That event and its timing are not in our power. We need to do what we do, and try to wake people up, and be prepared for this event when and if it occurs.
Conservative Swede writes:
Regarding Paul Belien’s defeatism, it’s a Wilsonian dilusion that political change happens through voting. Real political change never does. Real political power is not represented by a plurality of votes. It’s represented by having the greatest means to apply violence. It’s only when living under the protective wings of an empire—such as Europe have been living under the protective wings of Pax Americana the last 60 years—that peaceful political procedures make sense. The means to apply violence here represented by the mighty American army, providing the protective shield for the Europeans (however, and apple with a worm in it).
But it’s when this is seen clearly that we can also see why the system of modern democracy—a Wilsonian invention—can never allow real political change, but is only of ceremonial value. You will not be allowed to transgress the (over)ideology imposed by the guarantor of your protective shield. Or you will be given the “Serbian” treatment.
The point is not that the Europeans lack the will to fight. They are, just as the Americans, lulled into a false sense of security. Westerners truly think that we still dominate the world (including our own countries), and have an unmoved sense of invincibility. They generally think that we are steamrolling the rest of the world to adapt Western values, and that there is just some friction on the way.
Just look at Sweden. Sweden is often brought up as the worst Western country in many ways. I invite everyone to come here and visit. You’ll find the most idyllic place, where you’ll feel safe walking in the streets after dark, etc. Do you remember the VFR reader who wanted to escape California and said he “felt more at home in smaller towns in Sweden.” This picture is not at all untrue. It takes many decades for the destruction of a country to come in effect.
It’s only if you’re a thinker, or you had bad personal experiences, that you will already now see how the current incarnation of the West is terminally ill. It doesn’t show, not in the ordinary life of common people. We are past the point of no return, but it still doesn’t show. It’s like that George Washington quote, that in a democracy people have to feel it before they can see it. And they don’t feel it quite yet.
But we are headed for the moment when the perception of the idyllic order will break apart in Europe, followed by the illusion of the imperial protective shield along with the system of modern democracy. This will be a truly revolutionary moment. The awakened Europeans will not only have the Muslims against them, in this fight, but their own political elites, leftist stromtroopers, and a Wilsonian Uncle Sam. Bush II would have reacted just like Clinton, had there been another Serbia in Europe. And so will Giuliani or Hillary (let’s hope for Tom Tancredo in 2012).
It will start with street wars, then civil wars in one or two European countries—maybe in England and Holland, where we have already seen unrest caused by “white hooligans.” It will spread like wildfire over most of Western Europe. Next we will see extensive migrations within Europe. White people will flee to countries such as Poland, while the Muslims will escape to countries such as France. Mid 21th century, Europe will look like a chess board, now in a situation of more conventional warfare. We will see Europeans building city walls around their traditional cities, but for the first time in history to protect the country side from the cities.
Please keep up with your good efforts at VFR. I hope and pray there’s not another Wilsonian president in office when this get started.
Your last line has resonances of Jesus’ prophecies of the Last Days: “But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!” (Mark 13:17.)
I asked Conservative Swede if he could state in a couple of sentences the meaning of the opening part of his comment. He replied:
To explain some of my points of the two first paragraphs:
1. It’s a Wilsonian delusion that political change happens through voting. Paul Belien is a Wilsonian. Therefore, when he now sees that the necessary change cannot happen through elections, he concludes that no change can take place at all.
2. In ancient Rome political power was built upon how many legions of soldiers you had behind you, and/or on connections and riches in civil life. Political representation was connected to real substance. So it was still in 19th century Europe (here the votes had meaning, since there was substance behind them). But the 20th century Wilsonian democracy meant giving everyone a free ticket to political influence (universal suffrage). It’s the same thing as the looney leftist idea of printing more money to give everyone an equal salary, but applied in politics. It leads to political inflation. There’s nothing behind it, it’s an illusive shell. And when this shell cracks, the naked power game of being able to apply violence comes up the surface. In ancient Rome or 19th century Europe, the two side were integrated into each other, so it didn’t crack so easily.
3. Such an illusive shell—i.e. the experiment of Wilsonian democracy, and its sensitive eco-system within the shell—can only exist if you’re protected by an empire. In this case Europe has been protected by American military power. But since this is the real source of the political power, it also means that the limits of possibility of European politics is set by America. If you transgress, the empire will use its power against you. Unfortunately, Wilsonian democracy has not been the only illusive idea imposed upon Europe by America. And the shell is therefore now cracking from within.
But America itself then? Well, you told me to keep it short. So that would have to be for the next e-mail then.
This is an interesting theory, but I wonder if it’s unnecessarily complicated to use as a criticism of Belien’s simple commonsense observation. He was simply saying that Muslims in league with the left are gaining decisive political power and that in a few years this combination will rule Europe. Is that true or not? If it is true, your Wilsonian vs. Jacksonian (or Machiavellian) analysis does not make it cease to be true. Yes, you’re introducing a new element, which is (I think, I still don’t understand you entirely) that the Europeans could start using physical force instead of elections. But that is a possibility that lies outside the present order. Within the present order, Belien is either correct or not correct that Muslims are gaining power.
Further if your point is (and again I’m probably failing to understand you) that Europe is not lost because the Europeans could start using physical force instead of elections, why not just say that? However, I gather you’re saying it’s not that simple, because you also seem to be suggesting that if the Europeans did resort to force to save themselves from the Muslims, the same fate would befall them as befell the Serbs in 1999: the U.S. would come down on them like a ton of bricks, enforcing the multicultural liberal order with bombs and guns and international criminal courts.
Carl Simpson writes:
I think our Conservative Swede has really hit upon something here. The European elites are at least partially kept there by the power of the US military—which still has numerous bases throughout Europe 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Note also that (despite the Mahdi from West Texas’ comments about not indulging in nation-building like his predecessor) the United States still has troops on the ground in both Bosnia and the Serbian province of Kosovo. I agree with Conservative Swede that the electoral process is an empty gesture of symbolism that changes nothing in Western countries. Filling the voting rolls with enough welfare recipients, aliens, and feminist-indoctrinated women guarantees a de-facto one-party system even if there are multiple parties who squabble over inconsequential details of how to implement more liberalism and sovreignty-destroying treaties. Any political movement which presented a serious challenge to the established order in Europe would be rapidly marginalized. It’s scarcely different here in the USA. There’s a reason all the funding and media attention is going to Romney, McCain and Giuliani, while Tancredo, Ron Paul or anyone who might upset the apple cart is summarily painted as “unelectable” by the conservatariat.
The drive for globalism and one-world-government received a great boost from Woodrow Wilson’s administration. It was complemented at home by a drive for the consolidation of federal power over both the states and individuals. Three disastrous amendments to the US Constitution: popular election of senators, effectively destroying the representation of the different states as states in the congress; the Federal Income Tax; and women’s suffrage were all ratified during the Wilson administration. There are serious questions about the legitimacy of the ratification of all three. The same period saw the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, whereby Congress turned over its fiscal policy-making authority to a cartel of bankers. Likewise, Federal police powers were vastly expanded thanks to another (subsequently repealed) amendment—Prohibition. The federal police force created during the prohibition—whose powers were not removed with Prohibition’s repeal—morphed into today’s BATFE and FBI.
Lots of food for thought. Thanks, CS, for giving a view with a different angle. I quite agree with CS’s assessment that Bush would attack any European country that refused to acquiesce to the universalist, utopian ideology of those who yank his chain just as Clinton attacked Serbia. It’s fairly obvious that Bush and his neo-Jacobin pals have no problem with the establishment of an Independent Islamic Jihadistan of Kosovo, despite all the empty nonsense about “global wars on terr-r-r-r-r.” Hey, it’s “democracy,” isn’t it?
Conservative Swede replies:
Regarding your first paragraph, it should be clear from what I write that I assume that Paul Belien is correct (within the present order). And this is what gives us reason to expand the perspective beyond the present order. Quite as you did yourself. And quite as me, you also didn’t directly address the question of whether Paul Belien is correct in the narrow view. What’s your take on it? [LA quick reply: I don’t know enough to have an opinion on it.] My point is that regardless of whether the modern democratic system fails in the way described by Paul Belien or not, it is bound to fail. Because of its inner nature; the role of mass media, etc. So I didn’t find reason here to expound upon it in that kind of narrow perspective.
Furthermore, if you see my text as strictly a criticism of Paul Belien, you have misunderstood its purpose. Instead I took Belien’s comment as a starting point to expand into a wider perspective. Well, actually it was your criticism, which expanded into the bigger picture, which inspired me to expand upon it even further. And once that was done, Belien himself was no longer of any special interest, other then as yet another example of how widely and deeply spread the Wilsonian mindset is. [LA asks: What is your basis for calling Belien a Wilsonian, other than the simple fact that he rues the growing power of Islam in European elections? Is it the fact that he treats that growing power as the proof of the inevitability of the Islamization of Europe, i.e., that he sees no way for the European nations to express themselves except through the current electoral order?]
The interesting question regarding Belien is whether he’s able to see beyond the present order. He might be, but may consider it “uncivilized” to write about it. Or he might think that what is seen on the surface of Western people and Western societies is it, and that Europe therefore is doomed to fall into dhimmitude as Bat Y’eor described it happening in Egypt and the Near East. And this is where the whole point of my description comes into the picture. What I do is to describe what constitutes the surface (the present order), and what is under that surface.
“Further if your point is (and again I’m probably failing to understand you) that Europe is not lost because the Europeans could start using physical force instead of elections, why not just say that?”
I describe when, why and how the Europeans will start fighting. And why they haven’t started doing so yet. Furthermore, the dichotomy is not as simplistic as between elections and physical force. My description of real political power is that it is based on the ability to apply violence. It’s not the choice between the two extremes of Potemkin elections or raw physical force. Power demonstrations of the ability and will to apply violence is probably the most important political means. Elections, furthermore, before the age of Wilsonian democracy, was based on votes being proxies of real political power, and therefore had a meaning, that they no longer have today.
Another point is that after the revolution, we’ll leave Wilsonianism behind, and reconnect to Western political traditions.
“However, I gather you’re saying it’s not that simple, because you also seem to be suggesting that if the Europeans did resort to force to save themselves from the Muslims, the same fate would befall them as befell the Serbs in 1999: the U.S. would come down on them like a ton of bricks, enforcing the multicultural liberal order with bombs and guns and international criminal courts.”
My first point is not whether this will actually happen or not—if the country is Great Britain or the president is Tom Tancredo, I’d say we can be sure it won’t happen in this way. The point is that America is the empire, that the rules of the game are clearly communicated, that power demonstrations of the ability to do the above has been made (last time in Serbia), so this has been internalized among the Europeans, which inhibits them from taking action.
Let’s say the country is the Netherlands and the president Giuliani. They would likely meet isolation and international bullying. Then UN resolutions and threats of international criminal courts. And if they persist… But probably they won’t persist. It would be easier just to escape to Poland and leave Holland to the Muslims.
Conservative Swede continues:
Greetings to Carl Simpson who gets completely what I wrote. As he said, it’s “giving a view with a different angle.” And this is my first motivation—that virtually no one else provides this angle—which calls for me to stress it.
In any other historical situation we would start our analysis with identifying who’s the empire and who are the vassal states. But when talking about our own age, this rarely enters the picture. The left is not interested in admitting that America is the “good empire” protecting Europe by its military might, while the right, who supports the American hegemony, denies that America is really an empire. The nature of America is that it is an empire-in-denial. You have to be, if what you are promoting is democratic imperialism.
What I provide is the fundamental structure of the power relations in our Wilsonian age.
LA to Conservative Swede:
In this current discussion, you’re the elephant, I’m the blind man. :-)
Conservative Swede replies:
Ha ha, yeah well maybe then I should go on a diet.
No seriously. I’m happy and grateful for how well received this is among (thinking) Americans. I have spent a few years now trying to force myself to see the current world through the eyes of someone living before World War One, or looking back at it a hundred years from now. What will it say in future history books about the events of our time?
So I believe there is quite a lot of substance behind it by now. But then it’s up to you and others, after exploring the elephant, to say if it makes sense.
Political theater is a tricky thing to study, with its play of shadows and mirrors, and its many layers. And things can many times be the quite the opposite of what it first appears to be, when looking under the surface.
I believe it can be enlightening to compare the relations, like the one between Europe and America, with the relations within a family. How will the son act while he is living in the house of his father, and how when he’s moved out, or when the father is not around anymore? People have things in them that make them take new roles when a vacuum appears, or when circumstances forced them to. Europe here has the double nature of being both the browbeaten grandfather and the spoiled teenager. But there is more under the surface (or should I say surfaces). As there is in America.
Conservative Swede writes:
LA asks: “What is your basis for calling Belien a Wilsonian, other than the simple fact that he rues the growing power of Islam in European elections? Is it the fact that he treats that growing power as the proof of the inevitability of the Islamization of Europe, i.e., that he sees no way for the European nations to express themselves except through the current electoral order?”
I’m a great admirer of Paul Belien, and have no reason to pick on him. And I’m sure he would be just as open as you to this discussion, if he would partake in it. My point was not at all to describe Paul Belien as the typical Wilsonian. On the contrary, my point is of the form: even Paul Belien displays this mindset! It’s my “backward” way of coming to insights. Quite as five years ago when I could see: “even moderate Muslims defend …!”. That’s the kind of moment when I come to insight of how predominant something really is.
Furthermore, actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Paul Belien I do not see as Wilsonian. He just happened to become the “victim” of one of my moments of inspiration. My post went into its own direction and is no longer about Paul Belien.
Mark J. writes:
I would like to object to this “imperialist” label that the Conservative Swede used with regard to America. The Swede wrote “(t)he point is that America is the empire….” If America is an empire with Europe as vassal states, it is a strange empire. At any time, any European country could say “thank you very much, but we no longer require or want your protection. Please remove yourselves from our nation” and we would leave. What kind of an “empire” leaves the territory of its vassal states when requested to do so?
And I don’t think that the fact that Clinton used American power to stop the Serbs from forcing the Muslims out of Kosovo qualifies the U.S. as an “empire”, either. We have not conquered that territory. We are not exacting tribute from it. We receive no benefit from it whatsoever of which I am aware. We are pouring money into keeping the people from killing one another. We would be happy to leave if the Europeans would step forward and do the job themselves. Haven’t there been instances of nations stepping in to stop mass killings before, without those nations being considered imperialistic for doing so? Aren’t we excoriated for not doing so in Rwanda?
Yes, if native Europeans started committing genocide against the Muslim immigrants, America as it is presently led might intervene. But is that really the characteristic of an empire? Must any people who step in to stop atrocities be slandered like that?
According to the dictionary, an “empire” is “a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom.” In no reasonable historically correct use of the term can America be fairly called an empire. Perhaps Europeans make themselves feel better about their current state of native military unpreparedness by labeling us that way, but I resent it. I don’t know what you call a country that foots the bill for defending other countries, but there has to be a less pejorative term. How about “friend”?
Just a pet peeve of mine.
Mark J. raises interesting points which are not easy to resolve.
I agree with him entirely that the word “empire” is overused and misused in relation to America. Since empire has the meaning indicated by Mark, a group of nations ruled over by a single sovereign, it is obviously incorrect to apply it to America’s actions and its sphere of influence. But it is so used, and it falls too easily off the lips. I’ve overused it myself. I entitled an article of mine at FrontPage in 2002, “National Defense or Global Empire?”, and always regretted it because empire was not exactly the thing I was talking about; I was talking about “spreading democracy.”
At the same time, the word empire is not entirely incorrect either. The American sphere of influence does have distinctive empire-like qualities, most importantly, its organization around a single universal idea, with America as its avatar.
CS himself has pointed to this paradox, when he says that the American empire is a liberal democratic empire, which operates, not by domination, as in “Empire Classic,” but by pushing and exhorting and bribing the states within its sphere of influence to be democratic and egalitarian like itself, even encouraging them to do their own thing so that they will not remain under our control. Obviously we need some word other than empire which can still capture the empire-like things about the American liberal sphere.
However, I disagree with Mark about the former Yugoslavia. In the case of Kosovo I think the word imperial has some justification. America was not intervening in a legitimate manner to stop oppression and mass murder. There was no mass murder. There was a low-level civil war in which there was no clear right and wrong but an ineluctable zero-sum game: either the Serbs would dominate the Albanian-Kosovars; or vice versa. We decided we didn’t want the Serbs to dominate. Our real interest was to impose our liberal multiculturalist vision of the world on the Balkans. The general of NATO with the staring eyes out of a ’50s sci-fi movie, Wesley Clark, said something like: “In the future all countries will be diverse, and we are ensuring that.” [See correct quote below.] We were imposing our liberal imperial “idea” on the Balkans.
See my summation of the Kosovo war at the beginning of this article.
As for Bosnia, America’s and other countries’ troops are still there, 12 years after Dayton, because we refuse to allow the respective three entities to partition into sovereign units. We force them to be together in a single, totally unworkable, “multicultural” unit, which requires that we keep our troops there to keep them apart so that they won’t kill each other. Makes sense, huh? We have literally imposed our preferred multicultural organization on Bosnia. And that is certainly imperial-like. Maybe it is imperial, period.
James N. writes:
I’m fascinated by Conservative Swede’s comments, and Carl Simpson’s reactions.
I think they are exactly right, and I’d like to restate the point without reference to Woodrow Wilson or Paul Belien.
One of the strongest features of traditionalism is its predictive value—human nature is fixed and, therefore, the past predicts the future. Liberalism, by contrast, believes human nature is plastic and that the future is a work in progress.
All of us, including you and I, have our thinking influenced to an unhealthy degree by liberalism. Because of this, our ability to predict the future is limited, or constrained, by liberal conceptual frames.
So, we imagine that the Islamization of Europe will proceed by elections, and that when the Islamists, or the black-red-green coalition, gets to 51% that they will take over.
Of course, mass-participation elections are an aberrancy in historical terms, and they in fact have appropriated a tool (voting) which acquired its potency in a different time when the franchise was a surrogate for the means to deploy violence.
No people have ever surrendered their cities and their women in the way the “Islamization of Europe” people believe will happen, and soon.
So, the most likely outcome, based on a traditionalist understanding of the world, is that the Europeans WON’T surrender, and that they will use ALL the tools of power, not simply mass-participation voting, to accomplish their own survival.
Well, James’s prediction certainly supports my theory that Europe must go down before it can recover. However, I have seen the recovery only as a hope, not as a certainty or anything close to a certainty. According to James, basing himself on traditionalist principles, the recovery is a certainty. As he sees it, as soon as Islam gets powerful and starts doing things in Europe that the Europeans can’t abide, the entire European personality will transform itself utterly—from EU drone into European patriot, from dhimmi into Crusader, from Eloi into Morlock.
Carl Simpson writes:
Just to add a little point to what I was saying earlier, I note that Ralph Peters’s latest frothing (reported by VFR) explicitly mentions the prospect of the U.S. military being employed against any native European move to forcibly expel the Muslims there. CS’s point about the U.S. government’s imperial behavior (despite all the denials) is a pretty good one.
So here you have a hard-core American Wilsonian empire guy, Peters, bluntly musing about the possibility of using our military to squash any violent reactions among European natives. Such talk must be comforting to folks like Chirac and Blair. A huge U.S. military infrastructure remains in place from the days of the Cold War. It’s certainly feasible that the Euro-elites want it to remain there, despite the collapse and withdrawal of the Red Army. There’s also been quite a bit of talk about setting up U.S. bases in places like Bulgaria and Hungary. Despite some rhetoric about “old Europe,” I’ve yet to see any of the Busheviks or the neo-Jacobins actually oppose the EU, its expansion, or its nation-destroying policies.
With regards to the discussion involving the resuscitation of traditional white Europe and the abandonment of democracy to pursue this goal, I find it hard to believe this will ever happen. Have any of you considered the details that such a revolution, a violent revolution, would entail the white pacified, unarmed, socialist, and brainwashed Europeans, to undertake? I mean there’s just so many obstacles to either a democratic or violent revolution to regain Europe, especially in heavily Islamic nations like France, where Islamic children constitute a near majority of the children born there. The same is true of many countries in Europe.
Have any of you considered any of the other massive hurdles to either solution? Europeans are unarmed, power is concentrated in the national governments; without massive military and police cooperation, such a revolution would be crushed. The most likely scenario would be the police and military obeying the government’s order to extirpate any insurgents or revolutionaries of the state. Remember how our government sent police and federal agents to spy and monitor the Minutemen instead of the illegals who continued to slip by? How bad are European police and military infiltrated with Muslims and leftists anyway? Does anyone know?
Secondly, a large percentage of these Europeans are thoroughly leftist. They will never change their ideology, no matter what the circumstances or conditions they encounter are. Remember the riots in France in 2005? The suburbs all over Europe palpably turning into ethnic ghettos of unassimilated hordes who fuel the crime rate and spit on their newly adopted civilization? This is hard not to notice and have a visceral reaction to, if you actually care. How many leftists, moderates, or even phony conservatives did that wake up? I hope and pray Europe can recover its lost heritage as much as everybody else here does, but I don’t find it likely. Possible, yes. Probable, no. Demographics, Dhimmitude, and thoroughly entrenched leftism are roadblocks that I’ve yet to see anyone argue a comprehensive, workable solution to. A solution that doesn’t involve the Ralph Peters asinine notion that “Europeans are natural born genocidal killers, its in their blood.”
Thirdly, what would “waking up” entail? We supposedly woke up on 9/11 and look who we empowered: neocons. The same supposed people who want to defend us from “Islamic terrorism” now push upon us comprehensive amnesty for illegals.
What would likely happen in Europe is they’d empower some form of Nazism, fascism, or even something resembling George Bush. They’ve been taught to hate Christianity, their civilization, and themselves for 50 years. Whatever they empower, assuming they do fight back, will not be pretty, not will it revitalize a traditional notion of Europe. I don’t think have the same restraints they used too nor the same aspirations.
A truly horrifying possibility is emerging from this discussion, and it is so awful I have been slow to take it in. As a preface, I have always been utterly aghast at the American elites’ support for the unification of Europe. Why did Americans support the elimination of historic states and nations in this unaccountable, post-national, post-human, air-conditioned nightmare of the EU? It seemed the ultimate betrayal. It was also horrible that there was never any debate in America about this. No major voices in U.S. politics have opposed European unification or even questioned American support for it.
But now a worse possibility—though it is only a possibility—appears on the horizon. It is that America is not merely the friend and cheerleader of the EU project, but its enforcer. Our troops and missiles and tanks are in Europe to prevent any uprising by European patriots and nationalists against the EU tyranny.
That’s what Conservative Swede has been saying since the beginning of this discussion, but I’m only seeing it now. After all, I said that he is the elephant and I am the blind man.
Here is Wesley Clark’s declaration of the New World Order, which he issued during the U.S. war against Serbia:
There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea, and we’re trying to transition into the 21st century, and we’re going to do it with multi-ethnic states.
— General Wesley K. Clark, Supreme Commander of NATO, interview with CNN, April 1999
Conservative Swede writes:
Regarding Mark J’s objection to the “imperialist” label:
My first point is to apply the terminology of “empire” etc. as an analytical tool, to see things from a certain perspective. Quite as we can apply a perspective to see things in terms of e.g. slave- and master-morality, and it can provide us with new insights, even though it is not the only possible perspective. The empire perspective serves us well, since it makes our times comparable to previous history.
One way of describing recent history is to say that America abhors empires, and this was a motivation why she put an end to the empires of Europe. But by doing so, and by being powerful enough to do so, she ended up finding herself in the imperial position, shouldering the burden of the British Empire to keep seaways peaceful and free from pirates around the world, guaranteeing that international banking is working, etc., etc.
The British empire was a real empire since it was able to create such a world order, by, among other things, colonizing other countries and imposing its culture and institutions there. America, though, is only able to maintain the world order. It is a quasi-empire in the sense that it is inhibited, by its own culture, from imposing its imperialism upon other countries the way the British empire did. But in the long run, you won’t be able to maintain the world order if you’re not also able to create it.
Mark Jaws writes:
As a retired (but still young at 52) U.S. Army intelligence officer, I have several items to add to the thread with Conservative Swede.
First, the cataclysmic demographic changes taking place in our very own America will make it less and less sustainable for the U.S. to maintain its role as multi-culti enforcer. With horders of older whites demanding their SS and Medicare and younger alienated Mestizos, 50 percent of whom are born illegitimate, I can tell you that the U.S. is not going to be able to throw hundreds of billions of dollars away on these global police actions anymore. In that regard, the debacle in Iraq is good. In the future, the U.S. military may be embroiled in action within our borders, not engaged 4000 miles away.
Second, there is a considerable difference in IQ among Moslem immigrants and the European indigenous. In any struggle involving more than a few hundred men, the higher IQ Europeans should prevail. I have some interesting data on anyone interested, but the bottom line is that battle is cognitively demanding and the lesser brains are vanquished. Look at the Arabs and the Israelis.
Third, the police forces of most European countries still tend to be conservative types, who live day to day with the antics of immigrants. Do you really think, the police will turn on their own? I don’t.
And finally, any leftist-Moslem union will not be able to maintain prosperity for more than a few years. Moslems in Europe will simply vote themselves more benefits and bankrupt their host countries. I know lefties. They may talk the talk and sound like Che Guevera, but most of them prefer to live like John Kerry. Take away the affluence of modern Europe and their coveted safety net and the Eurolefties will say hasta la vista, and you will soon have Germany in 1932.
Mark G. writes:
I find this discussion very insightful.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 15, 2007 03:15 PM | Send
I take exception to what James N. and perhaps other wrote, taking some solace in the supposed fact that “No people have ever surrendered their cities and their women in the way the ‘Islamization of Europe’ people believe will happen, and soon.”
Let me mention a few cities in these United States of America: Chicago South Side; Gary, Indiana; Cupertino, CA; Bronx, NY.
These cities represent a full spectrum from a huge, Chicago, to a very small, Cupertino.
At some point 20 to 70 years ago all these cities were white. As people of different culture and different look, speaking different language, started to arrive, whites commenced a “white flight.”
Of course in the case of Chicago, Gary and Bronx arriving people were blacks and so are U.S. citizens. However it is difficult to argue that U.S. black culture and black English are close to majority culture and English.
In Cupertino Chinese immigrants keep whites out. Crime rate remained stable and schools, as measured by standard SAT scores, have improved significantly. However, the city looks foreign and is very expensive. White kids in schools have to compete individually against “team work” by Chinese kids. Not only Chinese kids study very hard, they also think nothing about cheating. As result there are very few whites moving in and a regular rate of whites moving out. In 20 years city became virtually Chinatown.
In all these cases whites have given up one time prosperous cities without a quibble.
Americans have proved that as long as there is a space to move to, they will retreat without a fight. Why do people expect Europeans to behave differently?