This article was originally published on September 12, 2015.
In part 1 of this series, I discussed the following scenario:
Europe’s demography will shift dramatically in coming decades so that its indigenous population is no longer a majority. With this demographic shift, it is expected that the majority of the population across Europe will become Muslim. Given the nature of Islam, which does not make the same distinction between Religion and State as Christianity, it is highly likely that Europe, or certain European nations, will become Islamic States. In response to this Islamisation, many Europeans will decide that they don’t want to live under Islamic rule, or be compelled to leave, and so Europeans will leave Europe by their millions.
In this part 2, I want primarily to explore where they might go.
The right mind-set:
But first, I want to consider just how monumental a decision this might be, and some of the considerations to take into account, were Europeans, or at least Western Europeans, to leave their homelands in order to preserve their life, their liberty and their identity.
It is ironic that the decision to leave one’s country, in order to preserve one’s identity, involves the willingness to let go of a part of it. It may be that doing so involves accepting, at least in part, what we might otherwise consider a “progressive” idea – taking on a broader identity. If one is to move from England to America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, one may have to consider one’s place in the broader heritage of the British Empire, our common language, and common political and cultural roots.
Another irony is that Europeans may experience what, according to the Western cultural elite, has been defined as “racism.” They won’t be immediately accepted, and it will take one or two generations to fit properly into a new society, by which stage their children and grandchildren will speak the local language, with a local accent, barrack for the local football team and listen to the same music as the local kids.
This is only fair – we cannot expect another country to change its ways to accommodate us. If one is leaving a country because its demography, culture, and political system has changed, due to the failure of immigrants to integrate, it would be downright rude to not at least pay one’s new society the respect of integrating into it.
The irony is that this concept has been outright banned in multicultural-obsessed Western Europe, defined as “racism,” and it is for this reason that Western Europeans will likely have to emigrate themselves. The idea that it is wrong to hold back on trust and and acceptance of a new group of people into a country until they have earned it, is akin to removing the immune system of a nation. You have no way of filtering out the bad aspects of a new culture from the good, and you remove the most effective tool a country has in integrating new arrivals.
From Western Europe to Eastern Europe:
The most obvious place to go for many Europeans will be Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe’s comparative economic underdevelopment could be its unwitting saviour – it merely comprises of transit countries for migrants because they do not offer the same employment opportunities and welfare benefits available in the West. So its countries’ populations are generally majority European, their culture European, and society Christian – and if the steps taken in recent weeks by Hungary and Slovakia are anything to go by, they appear determined to keep it that way. But it wouldn’t be easy for new Western European migrants. Eastern European countries have distinct cultures of their own, distinct enough that a German or Frenchman will stand out.
They also have proud democratic traditions – Poland has the oldest in modern Europe, and Czechoslovakia was strongly democratic until it was invaded and occupied, first by Hitler’s Germany, and subsequently by the Soviet Union. The Eastern Europeans have a long history of close contact, through invasion and occupation, with the two political systems which obsess the Western intelligentsia the most – Socialism and Islam. The 44-year sentence behind the iron curtain at the end of World War Two was one thing – the Ottomans had been pushing into Southern and Eastern Europe as early as the 13th century. Hungary was occupied for over 150 years, Bulgaria for nearly 500. When the Ottomans stood on the verge of occupying Vienna in 1683, it was the Poles who saved all of Europe. Stories of Ottoman tolerance and enlightenment are pure fantasy, too. When you hear EU/UN automatons or progressive journalists/activists condemning European countries for their supposed heartlessness or discrimination to Muslim immigrants, keep this in mind.
Eastern European economies could well receive a boost from an influx of fellow Europeans, as could their security. Eastern Europe has been cursed by its geography for millennia, being the first stop of invading hordes from the Asian steppe, and inconveniently lying between great empires. Its near future could well be one precariously poised between an aggressive Russia, a likely Caliphate in the Middle East, and a possible United Islamic States of Europe.
The Anglo-sphere – warm embrace, but same terminal disease:
The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand owe their existence, their character, and their political and social institutions to the British. As these countries are built on immigration, European philosophy, and have a consistent and free flow each way of its nationals, they will hold one of the best opportunities for immigration and integration.
However, the biggest challenge they will face won’t be the occasional cry of frog or wog, a sneaky Basil-Faulty-esque goose-step behind a German, or the friendly niggle at a “whinging pom.” The Anglo-sphere countries are all, to some extent, in the grip of the same crippling politically correct vice that is cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and the pathological refusal to call out Islam for what it is amongst its political, academic and cultural elite. To a certain extent, they all show symptoms of the same terminal disease which afflicts Europe, just not as advanced.
The nature of the debate which has taken place in Australia over the last week is a case in point. When putting out ‘feelers’ to test the community reaction to the idea of taking in 12,000 Syrian refugees, with a focus on taking in Christians, as they ARE the most endangered group, the reaction from the left and from Islam-dominated ‘multicultural’ groups was savage. The most hysterical came from the leader of the Australian Green, Richard Di Natale, who suggested that this had ‘more than a hint of the White Australia Policy about it.’ (Regardless of the fact that they were making a distinction between one group of brown-skinned people and another group of brown-skinned people.) Sure enough, the government watered down its language, referring only to ‘persecuted minorities,’ although it may well turn out to still be mostly Christians, and the media appeared to tow the line that it is wrong to ‘discriminate’ on the basis of religion when accepting refugees.
This same mentality could start to afflict the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, especially if the trickle from Europe becomes a flood. Anybody who has had a conversation with a “progressive,” regarding what they think of white South Africans who have fled the violence and decay of the soon-to-be-failed rainbow state, will know what I mean. For every open arm that welcomes a European, there will be another which calls them ‘racist,’ ‘Islamophobe,’ or ‘Nazi.’ Their fears for their liberty, safety, their lives and their identity will be dismissed as ‘white flight,’ ‘white supremacism,’ and academics will push the line that ‘whiteness’ and even Western Civilisation itself are mere constructs.
South America, India, and Israel:
Spanish, Portuguese and Italians may well move in large numbers to South America, given their colonial and linguistic links, especially as it has remained free of Islamic immigration for the same reasons as Eastern Europe. Many migrants who have come to Europe have done so to find refuge from a repressive Islamic society. Many may desire to move on to America or elsewhere, while Indians could be drawn back to their booming homeland. Jews, meanwhile, have already started to leave Europe for Israel, in greater numbers every year, as anti-Semitism increases in correlation with the rise in Muslim population. Some evangelical Christians may also see this as an attractive option, and don’t discount the possibility that some Europeans may consider converting to Judaism, and living in a Jewish society, a more attractive option than life under Islam.
Retreat, or strategic withdrawal?
So to conclude, there are plenty of options if Europeans want, or are compelled, to leave an Islamic Europe. None are perfect. All involve some loss of identity, the adoption of a new one, and they may only provide a haven from Islamic conquest, in one form or another, for a limited time. But I think it is important to have this discussion, even though it is largely speculative, especially if you, the reader, has come to the same conclusion as I – that demographically and culturally, Europe is on its last legs. Given that it can take years to complete the process of immigration, it is something Europeans may need to start planning for soon, and be prepared to be patient. Countries like Australia should start putting more resources into their immigration bureaucracies, so they can process what could become a new flood.
In part 3, I will discuss what I think has been on the reader’s mind the entire time – why should we leave? Like hell we are going to to let Europe be taken over. But I will also try to present the European abandonment of Europe in a different light – think of it as a strategic withdrawal. Perhaps an equivalent to the miracle of Dunkirk. If we consider the difficulties an Islamic civilisation may face without others to loot from, such a withdrawal could even be a decisive move.
Dare we go No Contact? Dare we Go Galt on Islam?
