Islam versus Europe

In general, I'm sympathetic to any individuals or organisations opposing Islam or the European genocide more broadly.

So I read this press release announcing the creation of Stop the Islamisation of Nations (SION), an organisation that builds on SIOE and SIOA, with sympathetic interest.

But reading their statement of principles causes me to have reservations. In it, SION declares its support for the equality of all people and the principle of non-discrimination.

The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia's institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

SION also declares its support for the rights embodied in the constitutions of western democracies, including the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It aims to preserve the fundamental freedoms and rights articulated in the Constitutions of the Western democracies, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The countries within European civilisation (defined broadly to include Europe’s colonial offshoots) are being progressively conquered by Islam. But the Muslims lack the power to conquer us by force. In reality, we are being self-conquered: conquered by our own ideas, or at least the ideas that hold sway among our ruling elites. We need to find out which ideas it is that are exposing us to this threat. Among these, I suggest, is the idea of human rights.

In any era, the most potentially dangerous ideas are those which are almost universally accepted. These are also the ideas whose threatening nature is most difficult to grasp and explain because they are so deeply embedded in the moral framework of the age that they are simply regarded as normal and challenging them seems like lunacy.

Groups who face charges of heresy or wickedness, as nationalist or Counterjihad movements typically do, are understandably eager to demonstrate that the charges are false. Sometimes they subconsciously internalise some of the accusations of evilness made against them and feel a compelling psychological need to prove their “goodness” to the ideological hegemons who control the reigns of power. We saw this, for example, when the EDL, at a demo last year, fell over itself to praise Tariq Jahan as a “great Briton”. Tariq Jahan is not a Briton at all. He is a Pakistani, a GBH specialist and a former committed member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Why did the EDL praise him? Because they were eager to demonstrate that they were not “against all Muslims”. In other words they had been psyched out by the powers that be and want to prove their goodness to them. We see the same tendency in their insistence that the problem is “radical Islam” not Islam itself. No, chaps, the problem is Islam itself.

I don’t mean to pick on the EDL here. The same psychological impulses exist in virtually all individuals and groups branded heretical. It is not nice to be a moral outcast. No one likes it. We would all like to be welcomed back around the fireside of a moral community where we can share a meal and a song. But those urges must be repressed.
We need to find the mental and moral strength to resist this impulse to win the approbation of the powers that be by genuflecting in front of their false ideals. The solution to the problems we face will not come about when the ideological aristocracy accepts our legitimacy and invites us into their castle for a feast. It will come about when we raze their castle to the ground. We need to replace their conceptual framework with ours.

The ideals of human rights have come to be the defining ethical ideology of our age. Because the idea of human rights is, in essence, the idea of rule-based government: bureaucracy instead of democracy. We see the same thing in the US constitution and other written rule-based frameworks intended to constrain the actions of governments. It is a great mistake for anyone in the Counterjihad movement to see the ideal of rule-based government as being on our side. Democracy is on our side. If the people were able to control the actions of their governments directly, none of what is happening to us would be happening to us. It is because of the intermediation of elected representatives (who are not representative) and judicial bureaucracies that Europe is being transformed into Eurabia. Democracy is government by discrimination. Bureaucracy, human rights, civil rights – any ruled-based frameworks that constrain the actions of governments – embody the ideal of non-discrimination.

But the ideal of non-discrimination is exactly what we are fighting against in the Counterjihad movement. Establishment mainstream thinkers are guided by simplistic, rule-of-thumb ethical norms that ultimately derive from the concept of human rights. Examples of this might include “All religions are good” and “All people are basically the same”.

Those who have studied Islamic doctrine, Islamic history or the reality of Islam around the world today know that these rule-of-thumb ethical norms are false and dangerous. All religions are not good. All people are not the same. The Counterjihad movement is, in essence, an attempt to convince our own uninitiated people that Islam is uniquely threatening to us. In other words, we must convince them to discriminate against Islam and the people who are the carriers of this most pernicious of all mind viruses: Muslims.

How can the story of the modern Muslim conquest of Europe end? Any happy ending involves explicit discrimination against Muslims. At a minimum, there must be explicit discrimination against prospective Muslim immigrants. More likely, mass deportation of Muslims will be necessary. Perhaps the United States, with a Muslim population of 1-2% (?) can afford the luxury of clinging to the non-discrimination ideal for a bit longer. But Europe can’t. Parts of Europe are too far gone. Take Brussels with its expected Muslim majority by 2030, and its 40+% Islamic instruction in the schools; or Marseilles with its 30-40% Muslim population. Even if we shut down immigration completely, it wouldn’t help these cities. Are we just supposed to shrug our shoulders and hand them over to the Muslims?

To confront the Mohammedanisation of Europe, the necessity, and the morality, of discrimination must be recognised. We must be empowered to use our judgement to solve the problems of the world. Thoughtlessly applying abstract rules is not a good way to navigate moral complexity. If our judgement tells us there is something uniquely threatening about Islam, we should be empowered to use it. And that means the ideal of non-discrimination – which the idea of human rights embodies – must be dethroned. And democracy put in its place.

It is a catastrophic misjudgement for the Counterjihad movement to embrace the ideal of non-discrimination because it is clearly inimical to what ought to be the movement’s core purpose: saving European civilisation. The purpose of the movement should not be to confront Islam globally. Yes, we feel sorry for the Copts in Egypt and the Jews in Tunisia. But the truth is: they have already lost. Islam has achieved its demonic ascendancy there and isn’t going to lose it any time soon. However sorry we feel for oppressed minorities in Islamic countries, we cannot let it achieve ascendancy here, too, by adopting a moral framework intended to help them which, in reality, only harms us.

For us, discrimination against Muslims is moral and necessary. If, in the short-term, that means our pariah status is intensified, so be it. If it means that Muslims are empowered to discriminate even more against non-Muslims in the countries they control, so be it. It is European civilisation that must be saved and the actions we take to save it should be guided by one rule-of-thumb only: whatever it takes.