, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


As Islamophobia migrates from the margins of European discourse to breach the mainstream, our opponents on the political Left are busily arming their partisans with objections and counter-arguments. Most of these arguments are (or will be) junk, but we’ve all come across a few that do not sound obviously false, and so let’s arm ourselves in kind, so to speak. Here are three reasonable sounding arguments against cultural preservation, followed by a clarification of each individual issue.

Claim: “People overestimate the number of Muslims in their country.”


On the face of it, there is nothing to object to here. People do indeed overestimate the Islamic percentage of their nation’s population. In France for example, the Economist found that ordinary natives believed 1 in 5 French people were of Islamic origin, when the real figure is actually closer to 1 in 10.

As it relates to the larger picture however, this argument means next to nothing at all. History is a work in progress, and the predictions of mainstream demographers all concur that Islam will become a major cultural force in Europe in the coming decades and that it will ultimately find itself in a position to bully its cultural rivals – including secularists, Jews and Christians.

It must also be noted that statistics do not always tell the whole story, especially if numbers are cherry-picked out of their proper context. It’s true that Muslims currently make up a small percentage of passport-holding Europeans. However it is also true that this Muslim population is typically youthful and that the non-Muslim population is quickly aging. With the greatest respect to any older folk reading this, a native over the age of 65 cannot be counted on in a situation of street conflict or civil war – that is, unless the population is armed. To best understand the street-fighting power (and this matters) of European Muslims therefore, the figure of believers should rightly be doubled to reflect the real balance of forces. This detrimental process shows no sign of slowing down, and should native birth-rates recover to replacement level (and they show no sign of doing so) there will still be a very long and perilous period of ‘generational drag’ – a period open for more virile aliens to make their power felt.

Claim: “Muslims are just like Jews of the 1930s. Islamophobia is just a replacement for anti-Semitism.”


I fully understand what people mean by this and – looked at with a lazy eye – the claim would appear to be supported by evidence. The cartoons we see depicting blood-thirsty Jihadis are clearly reminiscent (hook-noses and all) of those gruesome caricatures of Jews in Hitler’s Germany. Similarly, the phrase ‘Islamic Menace’ can easily be (mis)heard as an echo of ‘Jewish menace’, ‘Muslim problem’ of ‘Jewish problem’ and so on.

That though is as much as I will concede. Unlike contemporary Islamophobia, the anti-Jewish hate-wave which billowed across the continent in the early Twentieth century was a detailed portrait of human irrationality. Of course the Jews of Germany enjoyed a disproportionate share of influence (as they do today in America), but this is a consequence of talent, rather than conspiracy and this is borne out by the fact that all around the world, there are other ‘Jews’.

As Amy Chua explained in her book ‘World on Fire’, the concept of a ‘market-dominant minority’ is a universal one, and the reactions to it are everywhere the same. In Africa, the Tutsis of Rwanda were the ‘Jews’ – and they were attacked for it by Hutu Nazis. The Chinese minority in the Philippines are hated with a similarly violent passion and Filipino Nazis have called openly for their genocide. The Koreans of south Los Angeles in the 1990s were the ‘Jews’ – and the local Black Nazis reacted in the same time-honoured fashion. Chua’s rule is easy to understand and more-or-less solid: Whenever a racial minority does well, anywhere in the world, the racial majority senses conspiracy and reacts with violent populism.

But Islam is not hated because of envy. In modern Europe, Muslims are disliked because they are a proven threat to civilisation. No country in the world has ever successfully integrated a Muslim minority, or at least not without injury to its native way of life. In China, the Uygurs behead, blow up and enrage the Han majority. Lebanese Maronites have had their tolerance repaid with paramilitary violence. Serbia has been mutilated and half-destroyed. It is not irrational, but the height of clear-headedness for Europeans to resist the same fate.

Claim: “Muslims can be integrated. The reason they have not done yet is because of Islamophobia.”


This is a quite ludicrous idea and I include it only because of its popularity. The reason Muslims haven’t integrated into our native culture has nothing to do with the native reaction to their lack of integration. It is frankly surreal to advocate any other way. But given that some continue to maintain this, the best response would be the following counter-interrogation: If Western Islamophobia explains the lack of Muslim integration into Western culture, why have Muslims similarly failed to integrate into Chinese, Thai, Latin American or African culture? Are Nigerians Islamophobic? Is that why Boko Haram exists – to combat reactionaries?

Despite the increasing desperation of our enemies, I (like you) take great pleasure in being on the right side of history. When people look back at our generation, whether from the vantage point of a free world or a nightmarish Islamised Europe, some of us will be remembered fondly, and others with contempt. I implore everyone, of any background, to come over to the side of truth if they are not already here. It is not yet too late, but the clock is ticking.