Sunday, March 05, 2006

In Response to GJ Klaver

GJ Klaver sums up a problem we all have to ask ourselves clearly: What do we do to fight back against primitive Islamic fascism without ourselves becoming racist xenophobes? Can we avoid the Serbian Conundrum?

In defending ourselves and maintaining our cultures as they might be, following our progressive liberal histories, can we, without excluding by main force an intransigent and violent minority who will in time, perhaps as few as 20 years, be a majority in Europe, reach a settlement with those same violent and primitive invaders who are born and raised to conquer in the name of Islam? Must we kick them out?

Very few of us hate Muslims on racist ground: the largest group of Muslims anywhere is the Indonesians. One will find few takers for a rampage against them on racial grounds. Who cares about Indonesians? No one. It's not a racial problem, it's a problem of Islam.

One of the largest populations of Muslims is the Pakistanis. They are the same ethnic groups as Indians. The are the same. Few if any wish to rampage against Hindus. It's not race, it's Islam.

Let's look then at Arabs. In America, 80 per cent of Arabs are Christians. Few if any of us wish to rampage against Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians. It's Islam.

In Europe the majority of Muslims are Turks, Arabs, and North Africans from Morocco and Libya. They are not only a threat to their host nations in Europe, they are a threat to their home nations where they are parasitic and primitive and violent. No, not just a small minority of terrorists but the whole of the ummah, the over-all population of dysfunctional Muslims banded together to bring civilizations everywhere to a level of slavery and despair and religious exultation and ritual death.

In Europe there is the Modernist, and the primitive Muslim proxy, and his helper, the philobarbarist Left dhimmi fascist, the lost child of the Nazis.

What do we do?

There are those who are not involved directly in the struggle for our future as civilizations, the innocent by-standers who will never be involved in anything outside their personal lives. They are the public. They acquiesce. In Europe, in France, they are today ten per cent of the population. With the native population declining due to birthrates such as Spain's of 1.2 children per couple, and the Muslim birthrate of 7.0 per couple, the problem of majority is obvious. In 20 years the public will be Muslim. Europe will be Eurabia. Europeans will be dhimmis. Or dead.

We have an indelicate problem. We face the end of European civilization within our lifetimes. In its place we will see Islam triumph. If all cultures are equally valid and if all people are much the same regardless of anything but material circumstances, then there's no reason to rue the demise of Europe as a civilization. It is merely one among many, no better, no worse, except that Europe is seen as evil by virtue of its conquering past and destruction of the primitive worlds. Maybe we deserve the attacks and the extinction of Europe and its replacement with an Islamic rule under the new caliphate. Those who know nothing of Al Andalusia, the Muslim rule of Medieval Spain, will claim it is a good thing to live in dhimmitude. They who argue thus lack essential facts, but never mind, they care not for facts. If they did they could read KS Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India ; Peter Balakian, The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response ; Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) ; Bat Ye'or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis on the history of dhimmitude; and Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims . There are hundreds of titles one might turn to for a true vision of Islam and its history in relation to Europe and the world at large. We can see what Islam has created in the past, and we can see what Europe will become when and if Islam is triumphant in the future. We really need look no further than the homelands of our Muslim residents in Europe today to see what Europe will become when they are the majority. It's a very unhappy picture to those of us who have seen it and lived it. It's not a matter of race: it's a matter of survival and common decency. Islam provides for neither; in fact, it is wholly destructive, as anyone may see from text or experience or both.

What do we do? Our leaders, political, moral, intellectual, have made agreements with the Muslim world that they will say or do nothing to halt or impede the triumph of Islam in Europe. And the public agrees silently that this will be so. From fear of being labelled racists and xenophobes and anti-social, we do nothing but pursue our own pleasures as we may, paying off those who will in time destroy us. I return again to Primo Levi's essay "The Drowned and the Saved" in which he describes the inmates at Auschwitz as of two kinds: those who will follow all the lager rules till they die by design, and those will struggle against all to live. We, here and now, must understand that the majorities of our people will follow all the rules even unto extermination. It's the nature of Man. If those in authority demand by course that we die, then we will die without a murmur.

There will be those who argue that we must die, that we deserve death, that we are destined to die en masse for reasons beyond our ken. There will be those of us in the forests who struggle.

We who struggle will always and forever be a minority among our own. And within our minority we will be of many kinds. Among us will be racists and xenophobes. Among us will be progressive liberals. The question is, who will lead and who will triumph in the struggle for the minds of our peoples' opinion? We face the Serbian Conundrum: What do we do to save ourselves from Islam? How do we deal with the fascists among us who are our own?

Some one will take the lead in this struggle against Islam in the West. If not you, then it will be someone else, and they might not have your good qualities. In short, they might well be racist xenophobes. The longer reasonable people do nothing the greater the chance that extremists will organise to take charge of the resistance.

If we do nothing but agonize, the racists and the philobarbarists will control the agenda without us. Our nations will divide along lines of two extremes, and the Muslims will gather the pieces left over. Europe will be a vast version of Jugoslavia. Whatever is left won't be worth the having. Whatever we keep will have come at such a price we'll live in shame at having paid it.

What is to be done?

I'm known in some places as taking the hard line. I'm seen as a Left Jacobin, as a Marat. Thank you, I accept.

What is to be done? To celebrate our Revolutions of Modernity. No compromise. No negotiations. No pondering of subtleties. We act in the defence of the people who will not defend themselves, and in so doing we save ourselves, we save them, we save Muslims too, from Islam.
Recently we have begun meeting publicly in small groups at public places to discuss our concerns with our fellows the nature of our struggle against Islam and the Left neo-feudalist fascism that prevails in the West. Ours are akin to Jacobin clubs of the 1780s. We are indeed radicals, we middle aged and academic oldies. We are revolutionaries, surprising as it seems. We follow our revolutionary fathers of the American, French, and Industrial Revolutions. Yes, we are radical revolutionaries. When I ask "What is to be done?" I consciously use the title of V.I. Lenin's text on organising the Communist parties he expected would change the course of world history. I expect nothing less of us than the complete overthrow of the current world order. I expect the complete triumph of democracy and civility in the West restored. I expect the triumph of the will of the people in their pursuit of further Modernity. In that I am extreme.

Our Jacobin Clubs, new and delicate things, are our chance to form a unity of like minds across the world in struggle against the neo-feudalists, the philobarbarists, the children of the Nazis who are gnostic and Manichean in their vision of the course of future Humanity. I won't compromise with those people. Far from us being racists and xenophobes, we are Humanists, advocates of the Rights of Man, of Human freedom, of private Human volition. Every man is an end entire of himself. Every man's life is his own private possession. That's what we fight for. And we do so now by meeting others who wish to spread the resistance to all parts of the world. We do so one man at a time. We meet on Thursday evenings and we talk. Doing so is radical and revolutionary.

We who meet on Thursday evenings are a vanguard of this revolution for the furtherance of democracy and Human rights. We say no to the Serbian Conundrum of allowing our states to become destroyed from within by neglect and apathy and a sudden madness of violence and extermination of others. We say strike now and rule as democrats. We must shout out loud for all to hear that the time is come for democracy and freedom across our lands, and that Islam cannot continue its spread and must leave our lands. We must be the voices of moderate reason. If we fail then our lands will be riven by extremists, and our fates will be those of Jugoslavia.

Derek raises graphically the issue of ethnic cleansing, of kicking out people from our midst who are of a different creed and religion. That course is no longer precautionary, it is necessary for our survival as established cultures and as individuals. It's not a matter of race, it's a matter of staying alive. We don't have children enough to replace ourselves, and Muslims have children so many they threaten to become a majority in 20 years. They are a physical threat. Muslims will destroy not only our cultures, they will enslave us and murder us. Like it or not, that is the historical record from 620 to this day, and nothing will be different tomorrow.

What is to be done in the real world? We meet weekly to discuss among ourselves our proper course of action. We must organise ourselves and present a united voice of resistance to Islam and Left dhimmi fascism. We speak and we share information and insights. We plan and we try to plot. We learn and we think and we communicate with others. It's radical and it's revolutionary. It should be perfectly ordinary. Unfortunately, we are extremists in the current intellectual milieu. Democracy and Human rights are seen by too many as unforgivable assaults on the privilge of Islam. We either win or we fall into the conditions of Jugoslavia and face ourselves as what we might have to become.

We meet and we talk. It's daring and it's dangerous. The alternative is terrible. G J Klaver asks what we can do to save ourselves from a fate we cannot contemplate now. My best offer is that we continue to sit in public on Thursday evenings in public and discuss openly our concerns. By doing so we show others that this problem is in the open and that others so inclined can join us to voice their concerns. There is a time to talk, and that time is now. Our talk is a public unity. It is a formation of resistance. Reasonable people must speak or the unreasonable will act while we sit silently and do nothing but regret that this has come to pass, this future Jugoslavia. We only have to speak openly. So far, that is what is to be done.


maccusgermanis said...

Good advice Dag,

I would like to further point out that as with Athens, and Rome. The prodigeny of democracy, republican governance, or common law need not have Greek, Roman, or English DNA.

I gain perspective from reading the testinomies of apostates such as this quote from Mrs. Wafa Sultan.

What do you want from me? To speak evil of the American society? I've never said that America is the eternal city of Plato, but I did say it was the eternal city of Wafa Sultan. The idealism of American society was enough to allow me to realize my humanity. I came to this country with fear.

dag said...

Somehow the Left will paint her as yet another Rightwing racist bigot like Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, Salman Rushdie, and Ibn Warraq.

Honestly, when I encounter Leftists I just spit. I find more credibility in stories about giant spiders than I do in anything from the NYT.

We have to speak for ourselves. Our intelligentsia are simply liars and buffoons.

t-ham said...

I can't think of anything less helpful to us than acknowledging the babble of some deluded, self-inflated and self-congratulating "elite", convinced they know what's best for the ignorant and unwashed masses. Their vision for the world is an acid trip. Deadly, life-threatening fiction with a consciousness, a horror novel come to life.

Islam doesn't scare me. I can see it, identify it, fight it, grasp the insanity of it. It may kill me one day, but it doesn't scare me.

Elites, intelligentsia, writhing in their disgust for that which they sprang from and were nourished on, that scares me. That is a special kind of evil.

dag said...

It's sometimes amusing but more often sickening to see, when I'm on the road in foreign places mired in sickness and poverty and ignorance of the world and living, that whereas most Europeans cling to each other regardless for companionship and safety, some try desperately to ingratiate themselves with the locals who truly hate them, and all the moreso the harder the dhimmi idiots try to be liked. In the end everyone hates them. I suspect they especially hate themselves, not that I really care.

t-ham said...


I am reading Natan Sharansky's "A Case for Democracy" and, besides a section addressing moral clarity that reminded me of a recent post of yours, what I find remarkable about the book is it's utter simplicity. Sharansky doesn't range off on convoluted and "nuanced" arguments to make his point. His position can be stated simply and plainly, and there is a certain beauty to that.

I bring this up because I think we would do well to do the same. Let the Fascists frame arguments requiring mental gymnastics, suspension of disbelief, and an altered reality. What we stand for is elegantly simple. The strength of our arguments lie in that quality. Speak clearly. Speak simply. Speak up.

dag said...

When we face moral idiocy, the common line from the Left, we have no chance of effect. I don't bother trying to talk sense to them because they won't get it anyway. Better to focus our efforts on giving normal people a chance to speak openly about their concerns. Few people in the West actually buy the Left nonsense but they live in a state of nervousness thinking that if they speak out they'll be tagged as racists or islamophobic, and that they'll suffer job loss or law suits or at least the loss of friends and social esteem.

The questions are very simple: is it ok to kill people at random or not? If not, then why do we toelerate these monkeys who make up delusionary justifications? We sit out in public and say "Killing civilians for the sake of Islam is evil. Muslims do it. Muslims are doing evil." There is no "Yes, but...."

I'm thinking Derek's graphic sums it up pretty well. "Kick them out."

THw6kds said...

"We meet and we talk. It's daring and it's dangerous. The alternative is terrible."

A sarcastic pronouncement? I hope so. Talk is futile. Europe's fate is a mathematical certainty. The people of Europe willingly embrace demographic and cultural extinction.

The draconian response of the Jugoslavian Serbs was the only possibility of survival in the face of the primitive, relentless, merciless threat of Islam.

It is profoundly ironic that the only cause that has motivated the pathelogically pacifist,self-loathing, culturally suicidal european consciousness to resort to armed intervention was that of their muslim tormentors and future Islamic masters.

The Jugoslav state's ruthless efforts at self-defense were crushed by the military intervention of its own genetic and cultural cousins who will themselves be jihad's next victims.

Europe is destined for racial and cultural extinction. It is already dead, it just hasn't hit the ground yet. I lament this fact and desperately seek evidence of its falsehood.

dag said...

You've got me thinking here of chiliasm, revivalism, and eschatology in terms and ways I hadn't till now.

A brief view of what I see on a possible horizon: In the clutch of the end of the world, the triumph of Islam in the West, we might see a religious revival such as swept Europe and particularly the Uniteed States in the mid-19th century. Not any longer the Church Pacific and Dhimmi but the Church Militant and Churches militiant due to militant communions of souls. No rallies in defence of iPod; rallies in defence of the vision of the Second Coming.

Personally I won't welcome the Dictatorship of the Presbyteriate. However, I will work toward that rather than the collapse of the West generally into a Serbian-style and growing semi-dhimmitude.

Our current meme of atheism isn't so popular as it is because the majority have analysed the details of physics and concluded that the miraculous isn't possible. If they were to do so they'd arrive at a compromise such as Hume's of solid skepticism. I don't know anyone as intelligent as Hume, and those who give me opinions about this or that either match him in mental ability or they don't. If not, then I ask where they fall short and what's left lacking. I tend to dismiss out of hand most who claim atheism as foolish and unimaginative. That leaves me to conclude that they are simply following the intellectual norms of the time as set by those not so smart as David Hume.

Most people, it seems to me, believe not what they discover from their own mental labours at the level of Hume but what the majority of their neighbours beleive. If many in the community believe that the world is going to hell and someone must come to restore the reality of the modern West to right good reason, then many if not most will follow. Such is the point of public talk. The chiliasm is the motivation. It is the vision of rivivalism that I see. The form and content is the eschatology.

Will we see the reality in time of a surge of religious rivival and rational nationalism? Will a storm of rage blow across the land uprooting the staggley weeds of our intellectual wasteland? These are things we must talk about before we can act.

People can't believe in things they can't articulate at even the most primitive levels. People need at base the slogans and cliches of habitual thought. More, as Sorel points out so nicely, people need the Myth of Eschatology.

So we do talk. It is essential. Without talk there is no purpose to any of our further action. If we don't talk we mutter. If no mutter, we are orphaned and lost for ever. Wwe talk. We articulate. We make ideas real by doing so. We revive the Myth of our greatness and give direction to our purpose. Others will listen and in time, short as it is, we will act coherently.