Thursday, August 27, 2009

I Promise Not To Mention Eurabia Again For Two Months

... but I can't pass over this, Theodore Dalrymple's review of Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, originally published in National Review. A few (well, many) snippets :

Indeed, in the Netherlands, multiculturalism as a doctrine began as the means by which Moroccans would be kept in touch with their roots so that they could be transplanted back to Morocco without difficulty (or opposition). But human beings are not sacks of potatoes, to be moved about without consultation or consideration; and, thanks to the European welfare state, it was better to be an unemployed donkey in Europe than an employed lion in Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, or Bangladesh. The immigrants therefore stayed, and, the Europeans having in the meantime discovered human rights, such as the right to a family life, they were soon joined by their spouses, children, parents, grandparents, in-laws, cousins, and so forth, a process that has since become self-reinforcing...
If you were to ask a believer in multiculturalism for the tangible cultural or other benefits brought to Europe by hundreds of thousands of Somalis, not as individuals but as bearers of Somali culture, he would almost certainly be reduced to silence; for the truth is that believers in multiculturalism are not really very interested in other cultures (for such interest is very hard work): They are, rather, moral exhibitionists, out to prove the largeness of their minds and the breadth of their sympathies to others of like disposition...

On one hand, they felt that their civilization was worthless, having brought about the twin catastrophes of the First and Second World Wars; but on the other they felt that their civilization was so strong that nothing could undermine or destroy it. It was therefore for their countries to accommodate themselves to immigrants, and not for immigrants to accommodate themselves to their countries; moreover, because the Europeans had ceased to be religious, and were intellectually the most advanced people in the world, they believed that all other people were destined to follow suit very soon. The upshot of all this is that the political elites displayed no real interest in where the immigrants came from or what culture they brought with them. They thought that everything would come out in the tepid wash of European social democracy...

For Caldwell, the problem boils down to a confrontation between a civilization that has lost confidence in itself and a resurgent religion that is self-confident. The Europeans now have such a foreshortened sense of history that they suppose that homosexual marriage and an equal representation of women in parliament and the boardroom have been their core values since at least the time of Julius Caesar; the religious roots of their civilization are to them either not evident or a cause for embarrassment and apology. This means that they think it normal to apologize for the Crusades and for Muslims not to apologize for Islamic imperialism; this is a manifestation of the strange European complex of self-denigration and arrogance, according to which only Europeans are sufficiently human to do real wrong.

Dalrymple has previously expressed the view that young Muslim men will eventually integrate - in that they'll accept, enter into and enjoy the culture of public drunkenness and casual sex that is the birthright of the natives. I'm not so sure. He also reckons that most converts are male, which surprises me if true.

The majority of young Muslim men are by no means religious; they see in Islam but a pretext for the domination of women (that is why nine out of ten European converts to Islam are men; most of the women convert for marital reasons).

He should know what he's talking about. My impression - and it's only an impression from a distance - is that more females are converting. And the women are key if Islam - or any other religion - is to make headway among the natives. Without it there's only conversion by conquest.

As George Borrow put it :

She then asked me how I liked the singing of the gals who sat in the next pew to mine. I told her that I liked it exceedingly. “Ah,” said she, “them gals have the best voices in Bala. They were once Methody gals, and sang in the chapels, but were converted, and are now as good Church as myself. Them gals have been the cause of a great many convarsions, for all the young fellows of their acquaintance amongst the Methodists —

Follow them to church,” said I, “and in time become converted. That’s a thing of course. If the Church gets the girls she is quite sure of the fellows.”

(via commenters Mark and Ed West)


Anonymous the 1st said...

I think it is quite clear that the white majority (and quite a few non-white non-muslims) already realise that Islam is on the road to becoming a serious problem in the UK. Bombs on trains and a dozen or so other thwarted terrorist activities have proved the point.

The political elite either don't want to believe it, find it politically expedient to work with it because there are votes in it (eg Simon "poo on my face" Hughes cosying up to gay-hating Muslims) or see it as a natural extension of "world socialism" and perhaps indeed a method of breaking down the predominant culture so that it can be replaced by Marxism (in the manner of Gramsci and actively followed by the likes of George Galloway).

Such views are held only be the politcal elite and their fellow travellers in the media and the criminal justice system who have, by deliberate and inadvertant use of the methods of Gramsci, become infected by the same socialist mindset. However, this socialist mindset was the result of a revolution in political thinking that has led many countries towards disaster. It is clear to those outside the world of politics that somehow we are now on the wrong path. We need a new revolution in political thinking and in the meantime the political elite and the media have lost their moral authority. Problem is that revolutions in political thinking tend to be bloody.

The rise in Islam seems to me to be the likely motivator to the bloody political revolution. I see the likely progression of events to be as follows:-

Anonymous the 1st said...

Attempts to reduce immigration will be met with protests from the growing immigrant community, protests from whites with legitimate reasons for wanting to bring their foreign partners into Britain and socialist in the media. The government will talk about immigration controls but generally they will not be implemented, or only partially. The Labour Party will find it politically as well as philosophically expedient to relax border controls whenever in power.

Fecundity of the backward followers of Islam will ensure a rapid growth in their numbers regardless of immigration. The state will try to claim that Muslim numbers will stabilise, but the reality is that everywhere there are Muslims they have a high birth-rate, with the exception of relatively secular Turkey.

The Islamic minority will grow in number and a small proportion will become more and more extreme in their views. Within 20 years they will make up over 25% of the population and it will be apparent that due to fecundity they will reach a majority by 2050. Their sheer numbers will make "white flight" from Muslim areas a physical impossibility and they will continue to demand political accomodation for their beliefs. Many amongst the white majority will realise that time has run out for any kind of political solution and that something will need to be done to reduce Muslim numbers by force.

Muslims will actually become more divided from the non-Muslim community. They will form their own political parties and a strong activist base promoting Islamic interests. Consequently they will have a profound impact on British politics, especially British foreign policy. Our former partners in Nato will become concerned by this impact, as will the Jewish community, and will regularly protest the growing Islamic influence. American intelligence will perceive that something will need to be done to counter this influence and will support violent anti-Muslim groups as they develop in the UK.

Unemployment will be rife amongst the Muslim community and whilst the government will blame white racism for this unemployment it will be clear that other races do not suffer the same problems. The white community will begin to perceive that they are carrying the growing Muslim community on their backs.

Young white people will frequently find themselves the subject of violence from gangs of their Muslim peers marauding around schools. The racist element of such attacks will continue to be ignored by the politicians as they try to keep a lid on a situation that they cannot control. Any attempt to control the Islamists will result in a barrage of verbal attacks by socialists in the media.

Gangs of Muslim youths will succesfully drive out non-Muslims from some towns by threats and actual violence. Once again this will be overlooked by the media and the government. There will be a demand for such towns to have the right to impose sharia law.

Anonymous the 1st said...

The government and media will find it increasingly difficult to keep a lid on the activities of Muslims activists and extremists and their attempts to keep things quiet to prevent the inevitable backlash will fatally undermine their authority as the truth becomes more widely known and spread on the internet. By the same token the credinility of nationalist groups will increase. The government will try a failed attempt to control the internet, undermining state authority still further.

At the same time another European country, further down the road towards violent confrontation, will erupt into civil war. This will have a massive impact on all European countries experiencing similar problems.

Extremist Muslims in the UK having learned something from recent mistakes will bomb again - this time they will not die in the explosions, nor will they be caught. There will be a growing number of attacks.

There will be a violent response to these attacks from a small number of white terrorists, quite possibly with a military background. It will culminate in the first phase in a gross terrorist atrocity probably on a mosque.

Subsequent to this atrocity the majority of the Islamic community will appeal for calm but at the same time there will be a "call to arms" from some quarters. Many young Islamic men will heed this call to arms and the terrorist actions will be stepped-up. Believing god to be on their side, they will expect to win any civil war regardless of a bias against them in terms of numbers.

In the face of growing Islamic violence the white extremists will also launch a succesful recruitment drive.

Various foreign governments will covertly supply both sides with arms.

The whole situation will escalate, with the government losing effective control. Maybe only 1% of the population will be involved but nevertheless it will be a civil war. It will last about 20-30 years and about 250,000 people will be killed. The police and army cannot be relied upon to control it as they will have some sympathy with the army of non-Muslims.

Eventually the white extremists will win this civil war. This will leave them with the problem of what to do with the millions of Muslims they now have complete power over. I think we can dismiss mass conversions as a likely scenario for the end game so mass expulsions and/or mass murder will probably be utilised. Naturally a white extremist group seizing power by force will have more widespread political repercussions.

I believe this is now inevitable and will follow a path regularly travelled throughout history when two intransigent cultures collide. Ironically, English socialism has sown the seeds of its ultimate demise by creating a problem that will only be resolved through nationalist extremists seizing power through force.

Fred said...

"young Muslim men will eventually integrate - in that they'll accept, enter into and enjoy the culture of public drunkenness and casual sex that is the birthright of the natives"

If he had ever been to the Spearmint Rhino in Slough he would know that this is already the case. Julie Bindel (of all people) has pointed out that Islam effectively teaches that white women can be turned into sexual slaves or indeed whatever since they have no value to Allah.

The principle of Tiqqiya also means that Muslim men can live a complete lie to fit in with the natives - which means even drinking alcohol can be allowed if it permits a Muslim to blend in. However, from what I have seen Muslim men have easy access to more powerful intoxicants that, strangely, won't inflame the ire of their god. That which they don't take themselves they sell on the streets of Britain. Well, you didn't think young white chavs had got their hands on all that heroin by working out their own lines of supply back to the Muslim world did you?

Laban said...

Hmm. I'm not as sure as Anonymous 1st (have you thought about your own blog ?) that civil war is inevitable. It's a possibility, that's all, and IMHO not short odds.

But it's odd that a government which wants us all to be terribly risk-averse in the small things doesn't seem to worry about risk asessment when it comes to the large ones.