And now what?

I had a couple of weeks ago an exchange with Esther, the dedicated blogger of Islam in Europe, after a link she put to Eurabian News. We discussed about the latest controversy in the anti-jihadi blogosphere. She then wrote this article (Opinion: … and then what?) about the topic. I answer to the post with this one.

First of all, I find very meaningful to find “natives” written between brackets when referring to the European population. I understand that she claims that there is not really a native European population, even if Europe has not received a significant amount of aloctonous population in the last –let us say- five hundred years. Therefore, while Chinese are natives to China and Arabs to Arabia, Europeans cannot claim to be European natives without been accused of xenophobia. One may wonder why Europeans are xenophobic if they are not natives. They may be hating themselves without knowing it.

Then, the comparison of climate forecasts of inscrutable models with the straightforward mathematical projections of the much higher breeding rate of the immigrant population is neither the best start for a sound analysis of the problem. Moreover, the perception of the problem by Esther is made clear in this statement:

Let’s say Europe does not deal with its own problems, that xenophobia and anti-Islam attitudes take over.

I understand that she considers that xenophobia and the antiyihadi effort are much more dangerous that the demographical and terrorist jihad waived against Europe here and now. It goes without saying that she should list some action comparable to the 7/7 London bombings or the unpunished preaching of the death to the infidel that the Undercover Mosque showed to all those who wanted to take note.

The point of her analysis is not the legitimacy of the reaction of those European “natives” to the invasion, which caused so much outrage at LGF and PJM, but what would happen once the Muslim population would be expelled from Europe. She puts us a number of question that I answer as follows:

1. – Europe cannot uphold its current lifestyle level without immigration. Will Europe attract anybody after going through a racist upsurge probably inflamed by anti-immigration rhetoric? How many immigrants, of any religion or race, would come to Europe? How many would be left?

The lifestyle will readjust, that is all. Lower-end jobs will be much better paid. All the better for the lower classes. Not all immigrants need to be expelled. South Americans are not a major problem is Spain, for instance.

2. – After its dismal failure in accepting the foreigners who wanted to integrate (Jews), and the likewise failure in accepting the foreigners who didn’t want to integrate (Muslims) – will Europe be given another chance?

Given a theoretical assumption that Europe would have a consistently increasing immigrant population that is fully Christian and fully integrated, and that this immigrant population would be non-white. How many people would still talk about the ‘demise of the ethnic European’?

I find here a practical non-sequitur: because the Nazis eliminated the European Jewry, together with other ethnical groups as Gypsies, I have to accept the invasion of a population that wants to impose Sharia law on me and my children. I do not buy, of course, the argument. Moreover, I have been puzzled by this statement: “…failure in accepting the foreigners who didn’t want to integrate (Muslims) – will Europe be given another chance”. So, it is my failure not to accept those who do not want to integrate. What I cannot accept is this reasoning. And, who has to give Europe another chance? I feel concerned by this sentences that seems to take for granted that if Europeans would once rise against the invasion they would receive the same treatment as the Serbs.

3. – Will this genocide also extend to the rest of the Muslim world? Are there any volunteers to gas or otherwise murder a billion people? how will such large scale genocide, or deportation, in Europe affect the rest of the world? What would such an attack mean for such small Christian communities like the Copts and Assyrians? Would they survive it?

First it is not genocide; it is the right of self defence against trespassers. And, there is no need to attack the Muslim world. BTW, should this also apply to those that are already doing it while trying, rather unsuccessfully, to impose freedom and democracy?

4. – Many European converts are attracted to Islam since they see it as an alternative to Western culture and as the religion of the underdog. These Western immigrants tend to radicalism and terrorism more often than the ‘ethnic’ Muslims. How would a massive civil war affect the urge to convert? If Islam becomes an illegal religion in Europe, would it attract more or less people?

I think that the appeal of Islam is largely overestimated. Islam will be forbidden as Nazism was; those who feel appealed by it will obviously have to conceal their feelings.

5.1- “How many people would leave Europe in final disgust and who would be left?”

No one can know. In any case, this is a false dilemma: people are already leaving because of the fear of Islamization; they are the brightest. At the same time, many people are coming in, nonqualified “refugees”.

5.2. – “Would Europe manage to rebuild itself culturally and economically?”

Again, a false dilemma. If Europe would be Islamised it would be culturally and economically devastated. Of course, we want to unroll the process before the popular violence bursts.

5.3. – “- Who would restore human rights? The US had come to Europe’s rescue in the past when totalitarian forces threatened to take over. If the totalitarian force is Europe itself and all Europeans support it, why should the US risk its neck fighting for Europe’s freedoms?”

A little bit of Realpolitik: The US will do it if it is in their interest and if they have the power to do so, as in the past. If not, they will accommodate, as they did with the Soviet Union. Allies during WWII, enemies thereafter.

More:

The world continued in its everyday business after the Holocaust, and 60 years later Europe is still dealing with the implications.

This is contradictory: On the one hand it is said that life continued as nothing had happened, on the other that its consequences are still felt. In any case, let us have a look at history: Life has continued in Turkey after the genocide of Armenians (Turkey being a reliable ally of the EE. UU. and Israel up until now, they refuse to insist on this topic). Life continued also in the Soviet Union after the genocide of Ukrainian peasants, and in China after the Maoist genocide. It seems that only the European “natives” must be guilty generation after generation, for ever and ever.

If Europe once again turns against its own citizens, due to their religion or belief, disregarding the innocence or lack thereof of each victim, I forecast it will take much longer than that to rebuild.

Sure, and we want to avoid it, but if Europe is Islamised, it will never be rebuilt. In the 1400 years of Jihad, very few peoples have been able to expel the Mohammedans of their territory (Spain, Portugal, Greece…). It was too long and too costly a process to happily take the risk again.

Of course, I cannot pretend to convince those who are convinced that xenophobia and opposition to Islam are more dangerous here and now in Europe than Islamists. We start from different premises and will necessarily reach different conclusions. I have to thank nevertheless Esther for putting forward her arguments on the topic. It goes without saying that this is more honourable than suffocating the arguments under the uproar of an army of lizards or the aloofness of a remote board. And it brings the possibility to understand the other part (not necessarily to identify with it) and to refine our own arguments on an issue that may become one day a matter of live or death in Europe.