I have said this before, and I will say it again: allowing mass Muslim immigration is the stupidest and most irreversibly self-destructive thing that any Western nation can do. So in the wake of the Paris attacks, is it reasonable to imagine that Western nations, reeling from yet another inevitable and predictable act of jihad, will do, at last, what they obviously must do: namely, to declare an immediate moratorium on Muslim immigration?
There are already many in the West who understand this obvious necessity, and there are many who will now reluctantly awaken to it. But there are also many — and their numbers are legion — for whom it is a moral imperative to deny, despite the evidence of both the centuries and of recent hours, that Islam is what it is, what it always has been, and what it always will be. They must deny also the plainly evident truth that in any population of Muslims there will always be many who see things exactly as their Prophet, by holy word and holy deed, taught them to, and for whom the Ummah must never rest until all of humankind bends its knee to the will of Allah. These good and kindly people will continue to believe that, if we open our hearts and borders to them, Muslims who come to live in the bosom of the Dar al-Harb will somehow become completely indistinguishable from, and smoothly fungible with, the various Brits, Swedes, Germans, Austrians, Frenchmen, etc., among whom they have been allowed to settle in the millions, and whom they will swiftly outbreed and displace. And they will still believe — somehow they must believe this, although I cannot for the life of me understand how any sane person can continue to do so — that as a result, the aforementioned indigenes will be happier than they would have been had they kept their nations to themselves.
Millions of Europeans are now awakening, with horror, from this decades-long seizure of madness. They are rising, and they are arming themselves. (After mocking America’s gun culture for generations, suddenly Europeans are beginning to understand their peril, and long guns — particularly shotguns, which in some places are less severely restricted than handguns and rifles — are in great demand.)
What next? How will the struggle between these three forces — the awakening native peoples of Europe, their ruling classes still deep in the grip of universalist madness even as their nations groan in extremis, and the millions of Muslims already within their borders — proceed?
Last week John Derbyshire, in a thoughtful essay, listed five possibilities:
Scenario One: Absorption. All will be well. The migrants, in whatever numbers choose to come, will enrich and energize our tired, aging societies. They will take on our liberal values and become good Europeans, Americans, and Canadians.
Scenario Two: Restriction. Political pressure from their native populations will force receiving nations to stem the flow. Fences will go up, coastal patrols will commence; but those illegals who are in, will be allowed to stay in.
Scenario Three: Rejection. There will be a real uprising of native peoples. Illegals will be deported en masse to their countries of origin.
Scenario Four: Surrender. The native European and European-descended populations, enervated by soft living and psychologically disarmed by globalist propaganda, will yield up their societies to the invaders.
Scenario Five: Fragmentation. Some part or parts of the First World will opt for one of the foregoing scenarios, some other part or parts for a different one.
At the time, he assigned them the following zero-sum probabilities, respectively: 0%, 50-60%, 5%, 10%, and 25-35%. But this was before Paris. (That shouldn’t have mattered, in my opinion, because Paris or something like it was already inevitable, just as future such atrocities are. But I think Derb might assign different values today.)
Above all, I think fragmentation is almost certain. I simply do not think the EU will stand much longer. Already, nations are acting on their own, in ways that would have been very unlikely indeed just a year ago. This means that restriction, at least, will be widespread. But in addition to the fragmentation of the EU itself into its several nations, there is going to be, in many of those nations, severe internal fragmentation as well, as a surging tide of nationalist sentiment collides with the blithe and dreamy universalism that has so ensorcelled much of Europe over the past half-century of peace and comfort. This will accelerate sharply as further attacks and social decay occur — which they almost certainly will, especially given the sudden infiltration of great hordes of angry young Muslim men into the heart of the Continent. Europe is now, for the third time in a hundred years, a great, oil-soaked pyre, waiting to be lit.
As always, many of our news outlets are calling yesterday’s assault a “tragedy”. It was nothing of the sort. It was an act of Islamic jihad upon the House of War, the latest salvo in a great struggle that has lasted almost fourteen centuries. The real “tragedy” is that it did not have to be this way. The West, towering over the Ummah in both economic and military power for centuries now, could easily have avoided all of this had it not fallen prey to a lethal memetic infection I have named the “cultural immunodeficiency virus” (see here and here, and also here). It could have had its pacifism, and its socialism, and its peace, and its prosperity, for decades to come, had it spared only its pathological universalism. That we are still deeply in the grip of this mortiferous delusion was once again made frighteningly clear in Barack Obama’s remarks upon hearing of yesterday’s attacks:
“This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”
Or, as another man said on a similar occasion:
“As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”