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.”
43 Comments
“universal values”…
The mass delusions abound, Malcolm. Just watched the Dem debate on a Live Stream and none of those three would connect Islam to the terror. Unless we are willing to recognize the ideology, lying right at the heart of Islam, we are doomed. This isn’t some minor basal cell malignancy, but a metastasized terminal cancer throughout the Ummah. Their civilization is in its death throes and sadly, without some dramatic course correction, Western civilization might be too.
Listening to these three Dem candidates – they’re still supportive of bringing in large numbers of Syrian refugees. President Obama certainly won’t stop the onslaught.
Sadly, the only thing that’s universal about our values is how universally we subjugate them to appease the dregs of the earth.
It’s only going to get a lot worse as one can see in the scariest film I’ve ever seen. Germany, France, and the U.K. will never be the same, and the footage of these refugees beating the hell out of the locals and raping them is beyond horrific.
“although I cannot for the life of me understand how any sane person can continue to do so.”
Indeed.
Toxoplasma gondii…
A very overlooked aspect seems to be the biological one. I believe many white women welcome these arab/african men because they want to try some diversity without the inconvenience of travelling to shithole countries. Look at this way: if there were hot arabic chicks coming in, you better believe the men would be saying “oh its ok, I think we can handle them. it would be a shame to turn them away!”
Women want “their” men to fight for them and to chase them. It’s the classic lets you and him fight tactic. And if their men dont fight for them then it just means they are weak and need to be out of the gene pool. Of course we’re talking about men who are engineers, business men, basically beta types who work hard and keep the lights on, but there’s still a lot of chimp DNA that needs to be satisfied and civilizational concerns are of a far far second consideration. When these men cant carry society on their back any longer, then they will become valuable again all of a sudden. Or not, if they cant get it together during a race war.
Perhaps this is the reason why women were not allowed any rights throughout the centuries. Not because they’re inferior per se, but because they have proven that they will fornicate with the invaders/conquerors instead of their own people. They simply cannot be trusted to maintain civilized society.
My evidence for white female support is that fans of “diversity” and progressive politics skew mostly female. In the short term, this gives them more reproductive options. As any ad exec knows, sex sells.
Sorry for the long post, but I dont think this angle is being talked about nearly enough, probably because there is something very disturbing for us on a primal level to mention it.
http://20committee.com/2015/11/14/jihadists-attack-paris-again/
Obama and Casey….damn them both. Free people have to be hurt badly and often before they are roused to action it seems. Post WW2, Western Europe, courtesy of American military might, was allowed their easy freedom, their soft welfare state socialism, their wilting defense capabilities and all the liberal attitudes that come with it including the need to forget what they had endured at the hands of the Nazis not long ago. Academic and political elites were safe in their denunciations of capitalism, individual liberty and even Western Civilization itself. Now their defense capabilities are pitiful and their social welfare states are bankrupting their treasuries and worse, bankrupting the very dignity and character that it took to survive WW2 and rebuild.
Islam will follow the Lenin directive–push when you find mush. If you meet steel, stop.
JumpinJack, So women are sluts and not to be trusted is your theory for the escalating rape of white European women by Arab refugees? Historically, men have been the ones to spread their seed, far and wide, while cultural norms almost universally developed to constrain women from promiscuous sex. Women can reproduce less off-spring than men, which might account for their selectivity. Men aren’t nearly as choosy, hence the Genghis Khan DNA in the human gene pool.
You might be on to something with your theory on European women and their progressive political leanings creating a clash of civilizations in cultural perceptions. It might lead to their approaching these new invaders trying to “help” them, while the invaders perceive everything about these women, from their clothing to them approaching strange men, as an “invitation” for sex. In Muslim cultures, their women do not talk to strange men. In Western civilization women historically embrace “social causes”.
Even sharing food with people from another culture is fraught with confused cultural signals, like this old French do-gooder woman and her food delivery to refugees on Calais:
https://youtu.be/xbTSdUdQeLY
@JumpinJack: What Libertybelle said.
And above where Malcolm made mention of shotguns? Then the link?
Police say 70,000 guns have been sold this year, a rush which gun dealers report is led by women who are also driving up sales of pepper spray out of fear for their personal security.
JK, I read Schindler’s piece and I also think Poole’s report on this attack being the 5th attack in France this year by “known” wolves, as he refers to them, informative:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/11/14/one-paris-attacker-was-previously-known-to-french-authorities-marks-fifth-known-wolf-attack-in-france-this-year/
Yes LB.
And our host here has kept a running tab.
http://malcolmpollack.com/2012/10/10/the-truth-for-once/
JK, wasn’t it soon after that Logan interviewed a “participant” in the defense of Benghazi that was, in my opinion, a plant by the State Dept. If not Hillary herself? His story was phony and was used to discredit Lara Logan until recently. She had been getting too close to truth for the Administration. The guy Logan interviewed as a participant was, to me, an obvious fake anytime he was asked about his own actions. He couldn’t look directly at her.
Frank Brown,
Yes, that had occurred to me also; I’ve had T. gondii in the back of my mind for some time now. I almost closed this post by wondering if the West has too many cats.
JJF,
In my understanding, male guarding of females has at least two major evolutionary rationales. First is that the number of females places an absolute limit on the size of the next generation, so they are a far more precious resource than males. Second is that paternity is hard to establish, and so in order for a K-strategy male to ensure that his investment in his female’s offspring isn’t genetically wasted, he needs to prevent her from mating with other males. (Many mammals will kill a female’s existing cubs when acquiring her as a mate.)
LB,
Regarding attacks by known “wolves”: perhaps Europe will now start raising a few more sheepdogs.
“Regarding attacks by known “wolves”: perhaps Europe will now start raising a few more sheepdogs”. The European Left will howl like wounded dogs..or sheep.
…off the cliff they leap…
Whitewall, Or throw their hands up in the air, as they look dazedly around, and proclaim, “Oh, what a tragedy!”
They’re too far lost in delusional thinking to ever find their way to the truth.
The Left’s spin on an atrocity as a “tragedy” is not merely a mealy-mouthed outrage. It is an insult to the intelligence of normal people who have a grip on reality.
I notice that our resident Leftist is in hibernation during this latest atrocity in Paris. I guess it’s taking Obama’s spinmeisters a little extra time to come up with a “satisfactory” party line that the OEM can then regurgitate here for our continuing disgust in his inimitable obnoxious way.
What is there to say? Evil has been a constant in human history. Whether the mass murderer is Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Timothy McVeigh, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Anders Breivik, the Paris terrorists, or the perpetrators of mass shootings that seem to occur every other month on college campuses, makes little difference to me. Evil psychopaths are part of the human condition. I’m not sure what I can say, except to express the disgust which the entire world – including those in #notinmyname – feels after such a sickening event.
Nor does Obama have anything to do with this, and there is no need for a “party line.” Obama did not create ISIS by invading Iraq and putting the Baathist military out of work, and he is not responsible for French security. Nor is there any reason to think that there is anything he could have done to prevent this, up to and including deploying hundreds of thousands of troops to the Middle East. Obama is no more responsible for the terror in Paris than Bush is responsible for the 2004 subway bombings in Madrid. This may shock you, but not everything bad which happens in the world is because of what the President of the United States does or does not do.
As for Malcolm’s argument that the West should cease accepting Muslim immigrants because a handful of them commit terror: I strongly disagree, but see no value in rehashing something we have discussed ad nauseum in the past. Any further discussion would be like a rocking chair: going back and forth without getting anywhere.
Henry: I typically ignore your comments, as you are an angry old man with nothing of interest to say. I am responding simply to say that I am not hiding. I have nothing to hide.
“As for Malcolm’s argument that the West should cease accepting Muslim immigrants because a handful of them commit terror: I strongly disagree, but see no value in rehashing something we have discussed ad nauseum in the past.”
“FBI has nearly 1,000 active Islamic State probes inside U.S., cops reveal” –
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/14/fbi-has-nearly-1000-active-islamic-state-probes-in/
I sensed that this is what you tell yourself because you are devoid of personal accountability, just like the execrable Obama whom you admire and worship the ground he hovers over.
But it is clear to anyone who has a conscience that your useful idiocy is very much to blame for the decline and eventual fall of Western civilization. You and your miserable accomplices on the Left are very much to blame for the evils confronting all of us.
I could care less whether you find my comments interesting or not. But I will not forget or forgive your contributions to the misery endured by this once-great nation.
“although I cannot for the life of me understand how any sane person can continue to do so.”
Spandrell explains brilliantly:
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/the-social-module/
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/the-relentless-pursuit-of-advantage-3/
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/paris/
John,
It’s certainly true that status competition is of enormous importance in all social species, and that it can lead to outlandish results that reduce fitness in other ways (for example the peacock’s tail, the self-impoverishment of the potlatch, and the self-extinction of the Shakers).
Spandrell’s posts are very good accounts of this principle, which continues to exert its effect, and probably always will. The long history of the Puritan influence in the U.S., and ultimately the world (brought to Europe during its reconstruction after World War II), in which this signalling and competition serially expressed itself in abolitionism, women’s suffrage, Prohibition, civil rights, the “sexual revolution”, feminism, pacifism, abortion, environmentalism, and, lately, multiculturalism, gun control, “white privilege”, and “climate change”, gives us plenty of examples.
So I do agree with him descriptively, and in that sense I think those posts are very good. I’m not so sure that I agree with him predictively, though, as things can change very quickly. (Once upon a time all the young women of France tried to wear their hair just as the young Dauphine did; once that pretty head fell into a basket, not so much.)
The point of this post, and of the title of the previous one, was that we may be at a point where what was bien-pensant virtue-signaling last week suddenly becomes treason and betrayal. This can happen, and it might be starting to happen now.
I didn’t think there were many bloggers out there who are even more pessimistic than I am, but Spandrell may have pulled it off.
A straw man, as usual. That’s not my argument at all — although these acts of terror have certainly caused much suffering, and have driven us to adopt security measures that cause us tremendous inconvenience, expense, and erosion of liberty and privacy.
No, the argument is a far stronger, and far simpler one: there is no imaginable benefit from mass Muslim immigration to Western nations that justifies the cost.
Look at what has become of places like Sweden, France, Denmark, Norway, Germany, and England, and ask: are they better off as a result of mass Muslim immigration? Are they safer? Are their hospitals, schools, and prisons improved? Have their civil societies benefited? Are their welfare systems better able to cope with the demands they must meet? Are the indigenous Swedes, French, Danes, Norwegians, Germans, and Brits happier now than they were when they had their homelands to themselves?
Of course not. So why should they inflict this ruination upon themselves? For what?
That is the argument here. Violent terror attacks are just a small part of it.
Also: the idea that mass Muslim immigration will somehow provide a future economic base for an aging Europe — that all of these talented and hardworking Muslims now crashing the gates will someday be changing the diapers of geriatric Germans, whilst embracing feminism, tolerance, secularism, gay marriage, and cheerily and capably footing the bill for a vast and generous socialist welfare state — is an astonishingly naive fantasy. It would be laughable, were it not now the basis of a suicidal national policy.
LOL at this shitheaded leftist explaining it all to us.
Thanks for your comment Libertybelle. You’re spot on. I can’t say that I’ve noticed too many young women expressing an interest in or lust for these “arab/african” men that JJF speaks of. It seems unlikely that the average western woman would be able to cope with the curtailment of her freedom, which would inevitably come with any relationship with a Muslim man.
I know that you all feel very strongly about the right to carry guns and I don’t want another spat but how would a handgun work against men with automatic weapons? Furthermore, isn’t it conceivable that more “lone wolf” attacks would have happened if guns were freely available in Europe? Just asking.
A gun might not help against an attacker with a superior weapon. But it could help when an attacker has a comparable or inferior weapon.
There are no perfect solutions against all forms of violence. But some solutions are better than none.
John, those are interesting links and I have to admit I will need to re read them and think on them more. That’s the beauty of this blog I’m learning–deeper thinking needed.
Malcolm, I do get a chuckle when I read about Euro Lefties telling us with a straight face that with the arrival of Mohammad in sufficient numbers, all their demographic challenges and fiscal shortfalls will be fixed! Simply ignorant people wishing a solution that will not happen. Some it seems will find any excuse to appear noble and principled in their groveling. Principled groveling. Only a Lefty can pull this off with a straight face. Sick.
Yes, predicting the exact resolution of this situation is extremely difficult. Virtue signaling is ramping up and Spandrell’s model explains why this would occur because of greater and greater evidence that leftist beliefs and policies are insane.
It also explains why useful idiots and media/political elites can never retreat from their positions, they can only double down. To retreat would be to destroy the status and power which their lizard brains covet above all else. So the worse it gets, the more leftism we’re going to get…
We’re in the early stages of a left singularity and it’s not going to wind down, it’s going to accelerate until it explodes.
“We’re in the early stages of a left singularity and it’s not going to wind down, it’s going to accelerate until it explodes”.
John, do we accelerate our efforts toward this explosion by poking and prodding all the blather the Left will spew or do we stand aside under our plastic cover like at a Gallagher show from way back when?
It might enable you to kill one or more of them. And if others around you are armed as well, firing from different positions, it might make all the difference.
It’s inevitable that many people will get sucked into this disaster — the urge to speak truth to leftist insanity is immense.
But by doing so you expose yourself to tremendous risk…
Speeding things up a bit isn’t worth it. The left isn’t going to “win” it’s going to explode.
Better to stand aside, try to keep your own out of harms way, and survive to pick up the pieces.
“… but how would a handgun work against men with automatic weapons?”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-police-shooting-hero/
On one side, you had two men in body armor, toting assault rifles and showing every willingness to open fire now and count their victims later. On the other, you had a security officer — a traffic officer by day — with a pistol.
Somehow, the officer won.
Authorities have not released the name of the overmatched Garland, Texas, police officer who stopped a pair of gunmen Sunday night outside that city’s Curtis Culwell Center, where people had gathered at an event featuring controversial cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed….
Malcolm, my eldest son said what you said (11.03) almost verbatim when he came over last night. Mind you, he is of the “shoot the f*ckers and ask questions later” school of thought. Fortunately, he doesn’t have a gun.
I really do agree completely that we need armed police, more heavily armed and more of them. As for the UK, their police force is toothless and that will have to be addressed now. A truncheon is not good enough.
As a postscript, I have just read that Australian police have been instructed to shoot to kill when confronted by these Jihadists. Ditto, the British special forces.
There’s actually Musey, no other way when shooting is involved.
Even Dear ol’ Dad long ago told this here eight-year-old, “You must make your mind up now. Never holler Stop or I’ll shoot. You pull a gun out, Kill.”
(Fortunately as a civilian, I’ve never had to.)
I’m sure that you’re right JK and in a country where we depend completely on our armed police, and other trained personnel it is important that we know that they will act if necessary. I think that we’ve only just got the stage where a strong response is being proposed, as the correct early response to terror attacks. People are fed up of being told that there is nothing to worry about when, as has been admitted today, an attack is likely..and I would really prefer that essentially gentle, and untrained young men do not feel the need to become “have a go heroes” if they find themselves in a dangerous situation.
Musey, good morning..well here anyway. “As a postscript, I have just read that Australian police have been instructed to shoot to kill when confronted by these Jihadists. Ditto, the British special forces.” Not a bad idea. On tv they say shoot them in the leg. A very difficult shot to make even for a pro. Besides, if the jihadist is dead, his trial will not be lengthy…I hope your cities and towns remain safe.
Does anyone know where else the video johnfromdaejeon shared can be found? Apparently it’s been removed…
Might Paul, check our host’s sidebar near the bottom of PHILOSOPHY AND CULTURE.
Lemme see real quick … yeah still there.
Sorry for not being more specific – but you simply must have in mind Arkansas … the guy is actually the person “e-introduced” our host and myself.
That site’s post date was the 14th so you’ll need scroll down.
Apologies but there’s Mischief afoot on the Interwebs.
It’s just been pointed out to me that the link I had provided for Derb’s essay was not to the VDare original, but to a repost of it on a site that I had not intended, and indeed, would never have intended, to link to. It was a careless mistake, the result of a hasty Google search, and has now been corrected. (Thanks, BV, for noticing.)