Roland Shirk at Jihad Watch calls for stopping all Muslim immigration into the West

But he thinks this is unlikely to happen. Instead, some individual countries will start to stand against the Muslim incursion, but they will find themselves isolated and attacked by other Western nations which still believe in the mass inclusion of unassimilable aliens as the highest moral principle. Shirk doesn’t express an opinion about which side the U.S. will come down on in this conflict. I myself have said it’s likely that America will join with the evil EU in enforcing “tolerance” on any European country that tries to defend itself from Islam.

Shirk then shifts into an even worse nightmare scenario in which Europe is divided between a “dhimmi” block and an “anti-dhimmi” block in a continent-wide war.

Shirk represents a new kind of voice at Jihad Watch—more realistic and outspoken about the Islam threat, about what we need to do about it, and about the West’s own suicidal ideology which prohibits any rational act of self-defense. The closest parallel I can think of to this piece is El Ingles’s much longer 2008 essay at Gates of Vienna, “Surrender, Genocide, or What?”

Here is Shirk’s article:

Digging Graves for the Next World War

A running theme in my recent commentaries has been the need to secure the safety of Western countries by limiting who enters them. I think most Jihadwatch readers are already convinced that the admission of millions of Muslims into Europe was a catastrophe on the order of … well, what historical incident equals it? The final outcome remains to be seen, so let me lay out a range of possibilities.

If the influx is stopped in the next few years, and Western societies overcome the self-gelding political correctness and hysterical scrupulosity that drives them to hold their own societies to an inhuman standard of Kantian selflessness—while endlessly indulging the sins of newcomers—it’s possible that we will keep our freedoms intact without a major violent confrontation. For that to happen, we’d need to slam shut our borders, cut welfare programs that allow recent immigrants to breed irresponsibly on the taxpayers’ dime, rigorously enforce laws suppressing sedition, infiltrate and expose terror networks already in our midst, and push back hard against attempts to force an alien religion into our cultural mainstream. If all that were to happen, there would be significant unrest among Muslim communities lasting several decades, but in general the level of violence would be low. We’d essentially have to reduce Islamic enclaves to the condition of the Basques—midsized, deeply disgruntled minorities treasuring claims against our territory, without the power to do much more than disrupt the peace, and occasionally murder some policemen. (Of course, the Basques have old, and in some ways legitimate grievances, since they really were here first—while the Muslims have none—but that’s not really the issue.) If all those happy events were to come about, perhaps through the secret release of massive doses of testosterone into the water supply, then the decision of wretched socialists like Francois Mitterand to flood their motherlands with Saracens might be comparable to some mid-level historical blunder—like Napoleon’s attack on Russia.

A less hopeful, but much more likely, scenario is that the “awakening” of Westerners will happen only fitfully, and the forces opposing jihad will arrive on the scene piecemeal, so that each nation, as it rallies itself, can be isolated and defeated by the others still sunk in denial. In other words, as countries reach the critical level of Muslim population, sharia activism, and jihad violence (these three, I maintain, are inherently inseparable) each at different times, and their native populations respond with varying degrees of firmness, the oligarchies that currently favor Islamic colonization will be able to crush each one in turn. In effect, any country like the Netherlands or Switzerland that woke up would suffer the fate (at best) of Austria after it elected the detestable Kurt Waldheim—and (at worst) that of Yugoslavia when it tried to hold onto its historical heartland, Kosovo. In this case, we would see a range of responses, from the EU and US sanctions against the offending” nation, to the use of NATO and U.S. troops to forcibly counteract the policies that nation was taking in its self-defense. If the combination of sanctions and domestic rebellion could bring down a nation as tough, endangered, and morally tone-deaf as white-ruled South Africa, I wonder which European nation could make a tougher stand. (Please note that I hold no brief for the apartheid system, which white colonists imposed on black natives; indeed, I’ve written before that it is precisely such a system of religion, not race-based, oppression that Muslim colonists have in mind for the rest of us.) If this is the fruit of Muslim immigration, we will have to compare their arrival to something more like the Mongol invasion of Russia—which ushered in centuries of subjection by tough, highly organized alien rulers, who used local elites to cow the subject populations. Real dhimmitude, of the sort chronicled by Bat Ye’or, will come to the West comparatively peacefully; we will have committed suicide using a penknife.

But that’s not even the worst conceivable outcome of the demographic treason committed by Western leaders who admitted so many Muslims. From a humanitarian point of view, it might be even worse if some European countries woke up to the Muslim threat while others did not—and the governments of those countries on either side of the divide formed into regional blocs. The divide between dhimmi and anti-dhimmi countries would become every bit as sharp as that which sundered Europe during the Cold War. Imagine a “Silk Curtain” dividing an Islamicized France from a resurrected Germany, or a dhimmified Germany from a proud, resurgent Poland. Within the Islamicized nations, the rights of Christians to free speech and worship would be quickly torn away, and millions of refugees would (if they were lucky) try to move to freer lands. Meanwhile, in anti-jihadist countries, peaceful Muslims living within them would no doubt be caught up in the net when those governments tried to “clean house” of jihadi subversives. Would we face a bloody “population transfer,” like those that marked Greece and Turkey after the First World War? Would we face, on the soil of Europe, with nations that had 21st century military technology (and some of them nuclear weapons) a Third World War? And in such a war, would America take the right side? We might once again see massive assaults against the rights of unarmed civilians, such as marked the First and the Second World Wars. It’s hard to imagine the kind of civilization that would be left in the wake of such a conflict. Surely the transformation, and destruction, would be at least on the order of both those conflicts.

Does this sound like crazy alarmism? The reckless fantasies of someone who has played too many computer wargames and read too many “alternative history” novels? Let me ask you this: What would a sane, sober person in 1913—who lived in what was still the London of Sherlock Holmes—have thought if you told him that within six years 20 million Europeans would lie dead, four out of five of the major monarchies reigning in Europe would be deposed, and Communist revolutionary armies would be streaming from a Jacobin-ruled Russia into Poland, aiming to conquer all of Western Europe? If you’d told all this to Dr. Watson, he would have referred you to an “alienist,” and gone back to Baker Street to chuckle with Holmes about the poor, self-appointed prophet he’d encountered in Hyde Park.

Situations that cannot continue … don’t. The strings that knit together peaceful coexistence among communities are straining under the pressure of millions of resident aliens who should never have been admitted, who can only be tolerated when they are as sure as we that compared to us they are helpless. Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat. We had better decide which posture we prefer. The time is short.

Posted by Roland Shirk on January 23, 2011 9:02 PM | 50 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | |

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 27, 2011 12:50 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):