, , , , , , , , ,


I am not a moderate on the Islam-in-Europe debate. I do not want ‘European’ Muslims reformed, still less integrated. I oppose any kind of Muslim presence in Europe on the grounds of security and the preservation of liberal society. In my more sentimental moments, I long for a sublime evening of victory, when young Englanders toast with drinks and fireworks, a new, Muslim-free London.

So you see, my position has at least clarity on its side. What it lacks, still, is popular understanding or support. Who in Europe speaks openly such ideas?

“Lots of people!” might come back the answer, so let’s redesign the question.

Who in Europe with any power speaks such things?

The answer here is ‘a few’; a tiny clique, most members of it already familiar to one another, and to the rest of us. One of them is a Dutch politician named Geert Wilders.

Since 9/11, only Wilders has spoken clearly about the endgame of our confrontation with Islamism. While most are happy to state in a variety of new, tedious ways the nature of the problem, Wilders strides ahead into the (altogether more perilous) domain of how to fix it.

Who has the stomach to join him?

Not the Dutch apparently, who lamentably knocked the flame-haired hero out of the political mainstream in the 2012 election. The BBC said, at the time, that the Dutch had ‘bigger’ things on their mind than Wilders and his ‘fringe’ concerns….

Really? Like what? Europe, Taxes, Unemployment?

All of these will be become meaningless if Wilders is not re-embraced.

You see, the Islam/Europe battle is winner-takes-all. If the Muslims win, the Christians will be made extinct. If the Christians are to win, then Muslims must be made extinct from Christian nations. This understanding motivates the truest type of opposition to Islam in Europe. All others, however admirable, are falling short.

When Wilders elucidates his manifesto, mouths are typically left long and open. The politician is direct like a bullet, sharp like a meat cleaver and (most troubling for the bourgeois) entirely unconcerned with the sentiment of political correctness.

But however ‘horrifying’ they are, Wilders’ political views have behind them a very sensible moral realization – one that we must all, in time, heed for ourselves,  and this is it – 

Given that there are still many more Christians than Muslims in the Netherlands, the vital ethical measure concerns which option harms the greatest number – the forcible Islamisation of the 80% who do not currently profess Islam, or the Christianisation or expulsion of the 20% of the population who do, and the only sane, rational answer to this is the former. The second, though unpleasant, rescues us from the first.

Christopher Caldwell in his admirable but incomplete book ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe’, went so far as to defend the idea that native Europeans have a moral right to say who should enter their countries and who should not. Perhaps predictably, reviewers were violently shocked by this. Caldwell you see, is not some fringe lunatic, but a lead writer for the Financial Times of London. And yet here he was, openly promoting a selective immigration policy!

Such outrage as greeted Caldwell’s book, demonstrates how much work still has to be done on this debate. If people are shocked by the suggestion that future immigration must be modified for the sake of social cohesion, how distant they must be from the idea that previous immigration must be modified.

Perhaps they understand that there is only one way of modifying immigration that has already taken place, and that is deportation. Wilders, alone in the political class, has recognised this, and has spoken of his intentions to work towards that end.

If you find Wilders shocking now, then brace yourself for a surprisingly ‘shocking’ future. Islamisation in Europe is an entirely safe prediction, or as safe as can be made. The sturdy force of mathematics supports it. We know that the number of Muslims will increase, and because of those increasing numbers that the number of converts will also grow, and because of those conversions that the number of excited Islamists taking up arms will rise too. Information like this should terrify anyone who believes in a liberal, tolerant society.  

After the 2012 elections, Wilders is politically alone. He is jogging on ahead, as if in a different race to those behind him.

But he isn’t, and if he loses, we all do.