The Answer Once Lived.

Tags

American Liberty, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Islam, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, Netherlands, No to Turkey in the EU, Pim Fortuyn, Pym Fortuyn, Saudi Arabia

As I’ve said previously, although I don’t have a solid political affiliation, I would gladly align with any movement capable of both preventing Islamisation and at the same time upholding the virtues of European liberality.

This might well seem like something of a tall order. Many (if not most) parties professing the will to resist Islam also profess the will to resist secularism, Jews, individuality and sometimes even democracy. For all his virtues, even Geert Wilders has made some very smelly alliances with the Dutch ethnic right. Marine Le Pen is known to schmooze with those who doubt the facticity of the Holocaust. In both (and many other) cases, the apple has an attractive skin, but is sour inside.

But people like myself, even if we lack representation now, once did have a champion. His name was Pim Fortuyn.

A noted iconoclast, Pim Fortuyn managed in his truncated career to confuse the intellectual establishment like no other other modern politician. He was the first political leader to oppose Islam for entirely liberal reasons. And this naturally made him dangerous.

When Nick Griffin (or his faceless successor) criticise Islam; the liberal elite have no trouble dismissing their claims by associating them with the other claims they have made.

Griffin might speak sense on Islam, but he speaks (or has spoken) garbage on the Second World War. This self-cancelling poise is repeated across the continental far-right.

Fortuyn by-contrast was a classical liberal. He was also (and this is important) a nice, friendly, charming man. Unlike many others on the far-right, he made no secret of his homosexuality and fought consistently for a cosmopolitan morality. Indeed, he used this minority status to justify his politics:

I don’t hate Islam.” he said in a much-referenced 2002 interview “I consider it a backward culture. I have travelled much in the world. And wherever Islam rules, it’s just terrible. All the hypocrisy. It’s a bit like those old reformed protestants. The Reformed lie all the time. And why is that? Because they have standards and values that are so high that you can’t humanly maintain them. You also see that in that Muslim culture. Then look at the Netherlands. In what country could an electoral leader of such a large movement as mine be openly homosexual? How wonderful that that’s possible. That’s something that one can be proud of. And I’d like to keep it that way, thank you very much.”

How could (or can) a Leftist, a self-proclaimed ‘liberal’ take issue with that?

They can’t, and so every argument deployed against Fortuyn from the Dutch left rang hollow. His party ‘The Pim Fortuyn List’ was enjoying a rapid increase in support at the time of his assassination.

That’s right – in case you didn’t know – Pim Fortuyn was assassinated. The killer was a Leftist who (in his own words) disliked the ‘victimisation’ of Muslims.

In reality, the murder reflected the impossibility of refuting Fortuyn’s arguments from a Left-wing direction.

There are many ways of confronting Islam. Most of the options currently suggested are either self-destructive, ineffectual or regressive. But we are a great civilisation, capable of producing a better answer to the Islamic conquest. I know that because the answer once lived.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

United in Hypocrisy: The Left-Right Reaction to Mandela’s Death.

Tags

Africa, Christianity and Islam, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Dutch, Dutch people, Multiculturalism, Nelson Mandela, Netherlands, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Rotterdam, South Africa, Zulu

In both the liberal and right-wing reaction to and subsequent commentary on the passing of Nelson Mandela, there has been (perhaps predictably) no shortage of hypocrisy.

Of these uncountable strands, there are two dominant fallacies which themselves give momentum to all the rest:

The first is found on the right-wing, and in particular amongst its White Nationalist faction. Members of this tendency seem to find no logical problem in defending the right of Dutch people to settle in the ancestral lands of the Zulu, while at the same time protesting the right of Zulu (and any other kind of Sub-Saharan African) to settle in Rotterdam. For such people it would seem, the mere fact of being European serves as a kind of universal passport; a transcendent liberty to settle, disperse, re-arrange, conquer and roam, without moral regard for any other tribe or hue.

On the Left meanwhile, a strange hypocrisy of the opposite kind can be felt, namely the idea that Dutch people have no business asserting themselves in Johannesburg, but that the Africanisation/Islamisation of the Netherlands is perfectly OK. Zulu and Nguni men and woman should not only be free to settle in Amsterdam, but should be allowed to feel as Dutch as the people who have always lived there, and furthermore, if their birth-rates condemn the Dutch to the dispossession of their ancestral land then well… if you snooze you lose…

Both of these points of view involve ridiculous errors of logic. Neither of them, hemmed in by self-contradiction, can move an inch either side. We shouldn’t argue with them therefore, but we can and should replace them with sound alternatives:

The only consistent and honest positions on South Africa are the following:

1. The White race is so crushingly superior that they can do whatever they damn well please. Therefore South Africa should be governed and organized by Afrikaners.

2. The White race is inherently demonic and therefore should not be allowed to settle in Africa, but (given the innate evil of the honky) all Africans have the right to settle in Europe just to make sure Whites behave themselves.

3. The Dutch people are not indigenous to South Africa and should return to the Netherlands. By the same principle, the Africans currently in the Netherlands should return to Africa.

4. The exchange of peoples from Europe to Africa and vice versa is a fact of history. Both Europeans and Africans have the right to settle in either continent insofar as their presence is consented to by the native population. People should be free to live in voluntary segregation, or to inter-mix. The issue should be left to human (not political) agency.

Personally, I would pick number 4. You might choose differently. But whatever your view, hypocrisy demeans us all. We’d do well to avoid it.

D, LDN.

The Muslim Tide and Huntingdon’s Prophecy.

Tags

anti-Semitism, Christianity and Islam, Christopher Caldwell, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Huntingdon, Islam, Islamization, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslims, Netherlands, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Sub-Saharan Africa

A new book (released this month) seeks to refute the claim that Muslim immigration poses an existential threat to the European peoples, their culture and religious integrity. “The Myth of the Muslim Tide” by Doug Saunders has so far been well-recieved, even charming a pleasant review from anti-immigration website Vdare.com.

The central contention of the book is that the Islamisation scenario uses demographic estimates based on the fertility of first-generation immigrants. This is a bad idea, according to Saunders, because newly settled migrants tend to be considerably more fertile than their offspring. Second and third generation immigrants typically reproduce more in kind with the country of their birth, including Muslims.

Various statistics shown in the book appear quite devasting to the arguments I am used to. True enough it seems, second generation Muslims do have smaller broods, and the same with the next generation, and the next…

Perhaps the long-term won’t be worse than the short-term after all?

Well, that would be true were I the kind of ‘believer’ Saunders seeks to educate.

Personally, I do not believe that Islam will take over ‘Europe’, and I never have believed this. There will be no triumphant Islamic parades in Warsaw, or Kiev, or even Edinburgh. Nor will the folk of Cumbria, Cardiff or Cork be subdued in this way.

The idea that Muslim growth rates in Europe are so high that the entire continent shall be enslaved is a ‘myth’ indeed. As mythical as the idea of the ‘black flag of Jihad flying over the White House’ so beloved by Islamic fantasists.

But with that said, I do believe we are on course to lose parts of Europe.

The Netherlands is a case in point. The demographics there cannot be sensibly denied. The population growth of ‘Dutch’ Muslims will only peak around mid-century and that’s a pretty dire prognosis given how things already are. France too, is due to become one fifth Islamic within decades, thereby opening the door for a movement to violently subdue the other four-fifths. Sweden can hardly be bothered to track numbers within its borders, but reasonable estimates also point to a fifth of the country falling before the tide rolls back. Then there’s Belgium and Denmark etc.. etc…

My point is – Why should Europe concede any of its security or cultural integrity to a hostile religion? What do we get out of it? Where is the gain?

Thinking about Saunders’s book reminded me of an often ignored prophecy in Samuel Huntingdon’s Opus ‘Clash of Civilisations’. In this book Huntingdon predicted – with remarkable accuracy – the Islamisation threat to (parts of) Europe. He also predicted however that by around 2025, fears of ‘Islamisation’ in Europe would give way to fears of ‘Africanisation’.

Huntingdon based this on the longer-term demographics of North and Sub-Saharan Africa respectively. Currently, demographic growth in the Arab world is declining towards the global mean. In Sub-Saharan Africa by contrast, the population is set to DOUBLE by 2050 to 2.4billion. If migration increases at the same rate (and carries the same hue) then Huntingdon appears to be correct.

But this is all besides the point.

Whichever tsunami eventually hits hardest is a matter for the future. Now is still the time to build defences.

D, LDN.

The Last Days of the Netherlands.

Tags

Amsterdam, anti-Semitism, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Dutch, England, English Defence League, Eurabia, Europe, Geert Wilders, Islamisation of London, Netherlands, Theo Van Gogh

I’ve always felt a personal connection with the Netherlands (often referred to – by erroneous convention – as ‘Holland’). My surname at birth was Dutch. One branch of my family, though now based in England, remains fluent in the beautiful Dutch language; something I’m hugely envious of and seemingly unable to master for myself. As a child, I supported the Dutch team in the Euro football tournament and my boyhood idol was the brilliant Arsenal striker Dennis Bergkamp.

I have visited the country only once in my lifetime; a frat-boy weekend in Amsterdam to experiment with some of the local ‘horticulture’. To be honest with you, that particular experience was a huge letdown. I found the ‘Coffee shops’ (and their products) to be very boring, and I had little interest in seeking out any other (higher) form of culture.

Still, I intend to revisit the city next year, albeit this time for a very different reason.

As anyone who reads the CounterJihad press on a regular basis will be aware, the Netherlands is currently undergoing an especially severe process of Islamic colonization; in my judgment, the worst case of its kind in Europe, exceeding even the likes of France and Sweden. 

While we’re all aware of the ‘celebrity’ flashpoints of this process (The sadistic butchery of Theo Van Gogh, and the threat to kill his accessory Ayaan Hirsi Ali; the rise of the controversial politician Geert Wilders; the murder of anti-Islam liberal Pym Fortuyn by a pro-Muslim Leftist etc…), these occasional spectaculars do not do justice to the everydayness of Dutch suffering. 

I want to see what I’ve read about with my own eyes.

When I visited Amsterdam all those years ago, I had yet to attend University (the experience of which radically altered my view of Islam), and so I was still a fairly left-wing guy, not really keeping an eye out for Muslims, or crime, or crucially the connection between the two.

One thing I do remember though, was strolling late at night through a seedy area of town, not far from our (equally seedy) hotel. I was very drunk, as was my friend, and so we were speaking English rather carelessly. Our foreign accents seemed to attract the attention of some North-African youths on bicycles, who then began to approach us in the dark.

The elder of the group (anorexic and shaven-headed) stopped his bike close to where we stood, and asked if we were looking for drugs. As I said, we were very naive at the time and so were stupidly thrilled to be asked such a thing.

Politely, in our middle-class, East-Midland accents, we enquired what he had to offer. He wouldn’t go into detail he said, and then he asked how much money we had in our pockets. Before we could answer, we noticed that two of the other youths had quietly veered their bikes to take up positions behind us. It became obvious what was about to happen.

Thankfully, a group of other youngsters, very drunk and conspicuously different in appearance to our would-be robbers, came close enough for us to use them as cover and scurry away.

I’ve spent long enough in London now to know this is nothing out of the ordinary. I only raise it as Moroccan crime is (sadly) a defining feature of modern Dutch life. To grasp the magnitude of this blight, consider the following assessment by Bruce Bawer in FrontPageMag:

“In Den Bosch (Note: a city south of Amsterdam) just under half of young Moroccan males between 12 and 24  (47.7 percent, to be exact) have police records.  (That’s up from 45 percent last year.)  In a long list of other cities  (Zeist, Gouda, Veenendaal, Amersfoort, Maassluis, Oosterhout, Schiedam, Nijmegen, Utrecht, Ede, Leiden, and The Hague) the figure also topped 40 percent.  In every municipality that was studied, incidentally, the scores for Moroccan youths far outstripped those for ethnic Dutch kids, among whom an average of 13 percent of boys in the same age cohort had come in for similar police attention during the same period.”

The statistics Bawer mentions are legitimized by personal accounts too numerous to reproduce. The truth is available for those willing to see it. 

Turning from the present to the future, if you’ve ever visited (and I don’t recommend it) the crackpot Nazi forum ‘Stormfront’, you’ll have noticed a reccuring theme of discussion concerns the logistics and probable outcomes of a ‘race war’. By this, they mean a scenario where law and order collapses in a Western country, and the natives have to physically fight minorities for national sovereignty. In America for example, Stormfronter’s guess that Blacks, Asians and Hispanics would likely overpower the Whites. In Canada or Australia on the other hand, the Whites would be more likely to win etc…

Well, I clearly have no interest in ‘race-war’ politics, but it does pay to wonder where the balance of physical power lies between Muslims and Kaffir in Europe, especially in a country where political activists have been brazenly murdered on their own streets.

In Amsterdam, the native Dutch at present number barely half the population. A similar situation holds in cities like Rotterdam and The Hague. Things are only marginally better (30%+ immigrant pop) in Eindhoven and the City of Utrecht.

These cities are not chosen at random. They are the 5 largest urban centres in the country. If you’re English and want to understand what this is like, imagine if Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and London had an immigrant population share of over 35% (currently this is only true of London and – debatably – of Birmingham).

Furthermore, while the Dutch are still a (slight) majority in their urban centres – they are not often a ‘fight-ready’ majority. By this I mean that ‘Dutch’ Muslims are (numerically and socially) dominant among youth. They (together with other immigrant groups) represent the healthiest, quickest, and strongest portion of society. If a cultural war broke out between Muslim youths and elderly Kafir, there is every reason to believe that Muslims would seize whole cities across the country.

Considering all this, one inevitably wonders why the Dutch haven’t resisted more aggressively. But really, that question should be asked of every country in Europe. We mustn’t forget this is our struggle too. The Dutch are just further along the same road.

It’s heartbreaking to say it of the nation of Rembrandt and Van Gogh, but given another ten years on this demographic trajectory, the Netherlands will almost certainly become the first EU nation to be physically dominated by Islam.

D, LDN.

Geert Wilders and The European Race against Time.

Tags

Christopher Caldwell, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Eurabia, Geert Wilders, Islam in the Netherlands, Multiculturalism, Netherlands, No to Turkey in the EU, Politics of the Netherlands

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.

D, LDN