America, American Liberty, BBC, brexit and Islam, brexit Islam, brexit vote, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, coffee coffee, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, dtmw blog, dtmw dtmw, EU, eu vote, Europe, europe europe, Facebook, Islamism, June, June 23, june eu, June month, politics, Politics in Europe, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Twitter, United States, vote
The EU referendum is now only four weeks away. Reflecting this urgency, both campaigns are becoming increasingly shrill and their warnings increasingly perverse. Boris Johnson – standout figure on the ‘leave’ side – compared the intentions of the European Union to those of Adolf Hitler; a comment which has since garnered the margarine-haired philanderer ferocious criticism from both official campaigns. Across the divide, David Cameron – Prime Minister and standout figure on the ‘in’ side – has suggested that were Britain to leave, Europe might be plunged back into the kind of carnage not seen since the darkest days of the twentieth century.
Both of these statements are unworthy even of refutation, but they nevertheless reflect just how high the stakes are in this contest of visions. The EU referendum is the most vital and influential choice the British people have been asked to make since D-Day.
Though there are a plethora of issues at stake in this vote, perhaps the most vital sub-issue concerns demographics; specifically, the effect the result of the referendum may have on the contest between Europe and the Islamic religion bent on conquering it. With this in mind, let’s examine here the differing claims of the ‘in’ and ‘out’ side relating to the problem of Islamisation.
Claim 1: Leaving Will Strengthen British Resistance to Islam.
Most people on the political right believe that leaving the European Union will be good for the Western resistance to Islam. And there are many solid reasons for this point of view, some obvious, some less so. Perhaps the popular argument holds that the EU currently favours large-scale legal immigration from the third world, and seems unwilling – or unable – to prevent large-scale illegal immigration from the third world.
In the first ten months of 2015, 1.5 million illegal immigrants entered the European Union, most of them deriving from the Muslim world, especially the nations of Syria, Eritrea, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq. This can be compared to 2014, when only 274,000 illegals entered the EU. This drastic and bewildering increase has continued to grow in the first half of 2016, with uncountable hordes of ‘refugees’ swelling the total out of the competence of monitors to record.
Should this continue for the next ten years or so, the demographic reality of Europe will be permanently disfigured. The Muslim population will rise to a proportion unseen since the Moors were pitchforked out of Andalucía. The leaders of the European Union have refused to heed the European public’s concerns on this trend, instead going on to make the problem worse by passing legislation designed to enforce massive asylum quotas on all member states. No national (that is to say, democratically elected) leader has been able to overrule this insanity. Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Francois Hollande, despite their different ideological origins, have been reduced to nervous silence by the muscle of the combined European purse. This is what the EU looks like in practice, critics say; unaccountable, undemocratic, and as far as Islam and immigration is concerned, potentially ruinous.
Another argument for Claim 1 holds that the European Union secretly favours Islamisation. Critics point to the bizarre statements made by EU officials relating to multiculturalism; a concept they would seem compelled by some hidden motive to defend. The same people also point to plans, as yet unrealised, to incorporate large swathes of the Muslim world into the European fold, beginning with Turkey, and then extending to absorb Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Lebanon. The EU-backed ‘Union for the Mediterranean’ has been laying the groundwork for this plan for several years now, holding summits with the leaders of all Mediterranean states (with the temporary exceptions of Syria and Libya). Both conservative (Merkel et al) and liberal (Hollande et al) European leaders have expressed support for this initiative, despite its clearly dystopian end-goal – the elimination of Mediterranean divide, the creation of Eurabia.
Claim 2: Staying In Will Weaken British Resistance to Islam.
As we have observed, it is doctrinal to the ‘leave’ camp that Brexit will inevitably reduce the amount of immigration to the United Kingdom. Some see this as logically including the number of Muslims coming to the UK, but this isn’t necessarily true. Almost all Muslims come from outside the European Union and their immigration route is not filtered through EU legislation.
As commenter DaveyP put it just a few days ago: “Being in the EU at least means that most of the immigrants coming here are from the EU itself, which is preferable to mass immigration from the Third World.”
This is a vital truth; one we cannot sensibly ignore if we wish to come to an informed conclusion. Being in the EU means that most of the immigration the UK receives each year is White and Christian – Poles, Bulgarians, Romanians and Slovenes. Is this not infinitely preferable to Pakistanis, Iranians, Saudis and Bangladeshis? I would say that it is.
Nigel Farage, the closest the eurosceptics have to a Churchill figure, is admirably candid about this. He has asked, repeatedly and with great conviction, why the UK seems to give favour to Poles and Bulgarians over Indians, Pakistanis and other denizens of the Commonwealth. Is this a man with his head fully screwed on?
The only exception to DaveyP’s point is the case of Turkey. As the leave campaign have wasted little time in pointing out, the EU administration appears hell-bent on integrating Turkey – a nation of 70 million+ Muslims – into the European project. A prelude to this integration will involve giving visa-free access to Europe for all Turkish citizens. Should the EU go ahead with this, the number of Muslims permitted to enter and dwell within Europe will increase by Turkey’s population, massively adding to the Muslim component in the ongoing cultural tug-of-war between Sharia and civilisation.
But will this affect the UK? Not necessarily. The free movement of peoples, though a central tenet of EU policy, does not play out everywhere in the same way. The Schengen Zone, inside which all may travel unobstructed without passports, does not extend to include Britain at all. Should Turks be admitted to the EU, there would still be a degree of oversight, even if not control, available to the British state.
There is also the issue of Western Unity to consider. My friend, a Tory, has repeatedly attempted to persuade me that the EU, for all its evils, serves to unite otherwise divided nations into one coherent bloc – a defensive phalanx, through which it is difficult for the spear-point of Islam to penetrate. Who is to say that the dissolution of the European Union will not lead to the resurrection of ancient grudges on the continent? Who can guarantee that France will not seek to fight Germany’s dominance over the regional economy? Who can say for sure that Germany will not turn to protectionist measures to secure its place atop the European pile? I do not believe for one moment that World War III will break out, as our Prime Minister has ludicrously and desperately suggested, but I cannot say with certainty that Europe, as an idea, will survive the end of the European project. Nor, for that matter, can anyone.
Western Unity is vital at this point in history. At a time when Muslim extremists stand ready to seize upon the slightest weakness or division in our civilisation, it is imperative that we remain on the same page.
Whether we stay in the European Union or drop out, the issue of Islamic immigration will remain a serious problem for the United Kingdom. The EU vote will not finish anything. It will only tip the balance towards our salvation or away from it.
Considering the factors we have discussed above, I still believe that Brexit will serve the cause of resistance better than remaining. However, this is only as far as the United Kingdom itself is concerned. The argument that the breakup of the EU will risk disunity within the broader West is convincing to me. I do not believe that the EU will be replaced by a sunlit utopia of happy cooperation. This is wishful thinking. The truth is we don’t know what would come after it. It might be good, but it might be bad. In my opinion, the best course of action for continental Europe would be to reform the European Union without the UK. The EU should continue in its current form, but with a democratically endorsed constitution, alike that of America, guiding its actions. Needless to say, any attempt to integrate Turkey or other Muslim states must be permanently taken off the agenda.
Come the day of the referendum, it seems more likely that Britain will vote to remain than to leave. People are more inclined to carry on with the status quo than to step into the unknown. Such is human nature.
In the meantime, the enemy is licking its teeth, hoping and praying that we make the wrong choice.