This article was initially published on September 27, 2015.
In part 1 of this series, I summarised Europe’s changing demography, that it or parts of it, are well on the way to becoming Islamic majority in make-up, and becoming Islamic in its political system. At this point, and possibly before, millions of Europeans will flee Europe.
In part 2, I discussed where the Europeans might go, what considerations would be needed if Europeans started to flee their own continent, and how they might fare in new countries. The conclusion was that fleeing to new countries would be an imperfect solution, as long as the politically correct disease stopping us from calling out Islam for the bigoted ideology that it is, continued.
In this part 3, I will take a good educated guess as to what the future might hold, were we to abandon Europe, but also to suggest a different approach – to persevere with every ounce of our being for our civilisation and our identity.
The right to have a national identity.
What we are seeing in (Western) Europe, with its political leaders’ seeming capitulation to the idea that people can turn up, demand entry, and be let it, is not just weakness in enforcing a nation’s borders, essential for a nation’s existence, but an abandonment of the right, both individually and collectively, to identify oneself by one’s ethnicity and nationality.
To do so has become taboo. Whenever one points out that European birth rates are below replacement levels, but Islamic migrants’ are well above, and we continue to take in Islamic migrants by their hundreds of thousands, then indigenous Europeans will very quickly vanish; the spectre of Hitler invading Germany’s neighbours in the name of German nationalism is quickly raised. Thus all nationalism is bad, m’kay. Europe is effectively being Godwin’s Lawed out of existence.
Nationalism is not bad.
This nonsense forgets that it was national pride, national identity, which gave England, America, and every other nation which opposed the Axis powers, the strength and determination to defeat them. The people of nations the world over resisted and defeated their conquerers, not for equality or tolerance or social justice, but because they believed that national identities have the right to exist independently in their own state.
This idea of the virtue of a nation has been undermined deliberately and systematically by socialist ideology for several reasons; to cover for the fact that Hitler’s national socialists were actually socialist; to cover for the fact that the socialist/ communist regimes of the 20th century killed far more people even than the Nazis; and most importantly, to break the idea in people’s minds that they are bound to each other by national identity, but instead are bound together by class, gender, sexual preference, etc., as a means of laying the groundwork for socialism.
Loss of nationalism/ national identity leads to national extinction.
So what we are currently seeing in Europe is the logical endpoint of this idea – as the will to identify oneself or one’s nation by its national identity is lost, the will to enforce the borders of a nation is lost – and thus the borders and the national identity of that nation, are lost.
For this reason, Europeans will flee Europe by their millions, but probably not by the hundreds of millions. Many will convert. Many will submit to dhimmitude. Given that much of Europe is euphemistically referred to as “post-Christian,” it is uncertain how generous a coming Caliphate will be with regard to allowing the dhimmis to keep their head via the Jizya – they may only be prepared to offer this extra of the three choices to the people of the book..
America – Europe transplanted
Europeans discovered the New World because, despite European success in driving the Moors out of Spain in 1488, the Ottomans were advancing on Europe’s eastern flank, conquering Constantinople in 1453. So the Europeans were searching for a new path to the Orient, precisely because the Islamic advances cut off the centuries-old one. The success of the Ottoman Caliphate pushed the Europeans into sowing the seeds of their own future victory.
In America, the purest expression of European Enlightenment ideals was allowed to flourish, and it gave Europe an extra few centuries grace. Long before it saved Western European democracy in WW1 and WW2, it played the leading role in ridding Europe of the scourge of Islamic piracy. The European powers soon after moved into North Africa and regions of the Ottoman Empire, in part to defeat this piracy which had plagued the Mediterranean for over a millennium.
Roughly just two centuries of dominance, even with two of the most destructive wars in European history, a massive civil war in the US, and the dominance of half of Europe by Communist totalitarianism for nearly half a century, was enough for Europe and America to advance human civilisation more than at any time in our history. America has been both the protector and the vanguard of European/ Western civilisation for the last two centuries.
Europe essentially took a part of itself and transplanted itself in another part of the globe, as it did in Australia and New Zealand, and South Africa. Without this transplant, Europe would not have survived, Enlightenment or no Enlightenment.
Time for a new transplant?
One way European civilisation could survive, is if Europeans are prepared to let go of the idea that they are geographically bound to Europe. If many Europeans are prepared to abandon the idea that they have an ethnic, racial, or national identity as Europeans, British, German etc., and replace this with the idea that a European is anyone who can make it to Europe and live there, then why not the other side of the coin? Those Europeans who do still believe that they have an ethnic, racial or national identity as European can seek to preserve this identity by going somewhere where they are free to perpetuate it.
The creation of havens.
We are well past the age in which this can or should be achieved by taking territory away from another people. The sense of guilt over doing so in the past, in both Europe and North and South America, has played a big part in sowing the seeds of Europe’s demise. There are far more peaceful and far more creative ways of achieving this.
One way is for a state, or a region of a state which has succeeded, to openly announcing that it is to be European, or even multi-racial, but Islam free. Although a taboo exists against even considering this, there is nothing particularly warlike about it. It could be achieved quite peacefully, by people determined to live free of Islam and/or to preserve their national identity, on territory they own.
Land could be bought in uninhabited parts of the world, and set aside for Europeans or those who wish to live free of Islam. Just as China is building entire Islands in the South China Sea, and cities or small nations have reclaimed land from the sea, Europeans could do the same – create an Atlantis, if you will. A technology we are likely to see come to fruition this century is the idea of floating cities, which is currently known as “sea-steading.” And we are on the cusp of moving human civilisation into outer-space, although this may be the most precarious of them all.
In this way, a network of colonies of European civilisation may be spread throughout and beyond the planet. One might liken our near to medium future to periods in the past when Europe consisted of nation states.
European, or non-Islamic?
A great deal of thought will have to be put into answering the following question – should these colonies be for the preservation of European civilisation and identity, or of human civilisation free from Islam? It is a question which I don’t think I can answer in the article. In this article, I have defended the right of Europeans to exist in and of themselves, they should be able to identify ethnically or racially as Europeans, or by their European country, take pride in such identity, and attribute to themselves certain characteristics based on that identity.
But Europeans are not the only ones who will be fleeing from Islam. Immigrants to Europe who have moved there to escape Islamic societies will want to flee Islamic Europe, and people may well start to flee other countries afflicted by Islam. I do not particularly care about nationality or skin colour, so long as the ideas of freedom, democracy and human rights continue to exist in human civilisation. In this case, such colonies might exist to preserve European civilisation, non-Islamic civilisation. They could be run on the basis of free markets and free expression, but with one exception, or a combination of both.
In order to achieve this, one rule would be required – Islam is not allowed. Apostates could be accepted and welcomed, but the ideology itself could not be allowed in. This apparent contradiction of freedom is perhaps the one contradiction a free society may need to make in order to stay free. It certainly involves less contradictions than we now face, in that our own freedom may be enabling an ideology which seeks to overthrow such freedom.
Going Galt on Islam.
Ayn Rand presents the idea in “Atlas Shrugged,” that there are two broadly different types of people; those who produce wealth, or at the very least support themselves, through their own virtue and hard work; and those who expect others to provide for them, and indeed demand it – she describes the latter as looters. Looters literally loot the fruits of the labour of the productive, ultimately at the expense of the lives of the productive. This idea turns on its head the idea that the “capitalists” “exploit” the workers, especially in the finale, where the productive people remove themselves, their work, their minds and thus the benefits they provides, from society, and society as a result collapses. This is led by the (anti-)hero of the story, John Galt, from whom the idea of withdrawing one’s labour and the fruits of one’s labour from society, in order to preserve one’s life, gets its name – “Going Galt.”
Islam as a looter civilisation.
When Mohammed’s jihadists swept out of Arabia and conquered the Persian Empire, the Roman/Byzantine Empire, and much of India, they benefitted not only in loot, territory and slaves, but in knowledge and ideas. The so-called “Golden Age” of Islamic civilisation benefited precisely from the knowledge they were essentially able to loot. Many of the claims of the scientific discoveries and progress made in this fabled period are, when subject to closer inspection, exaggerated, taken out of context, or actually stolen from another civilisation – for example, what is often referred to as the Arabian numeral system, the number system we use today, actually came from India. One can make the case that the last of the Caliphates, the Ottoman, stagnated and fell because it ran out of new great civilisations, and the new ideas they possessed, to loot.
So if an entire people, an entire civilisation, who acknowledged the fact that Islam as an ideology stresses the idea that it must dominate the world, were to “Go Galt” on Islam, it is conceivable that this would starve Islam of its lifeblood, of ideas, of knowledge, of wealth, to loot. It takes the policy of Isolationism to its furthest extreme, at least in terms of relations with Islamic nations or the (non)acceptance of Islamic migrants, and also rests on the idea that wherever European/ Western civilisation has a chance to exist unhindered, it will flourish.
Going “No Contact” with Islam.
A similar idea comes from the field of psychology, in relation to how to deal with a Narcissist. A Narcissist is someone who possesses such a fragile, undeveloped ego that they must constantly draw emotional energy, or Narcissistic Supply, from others in order to sustain themselves. In Randian terms, one could say they loot emotional energy from others. The effects of a Narcissist on another are that their victims are completely drained of emotional strength, they have the faults and insecurities of the Narcissist projected onto themselves, and their sense of identity, and ultimately reality, is completely enveloped by the Narcissist. (I hope you recognise the parallels.)
The only way to deal with a Narcissist, to escape from a Narcissist, is to go No Contact, to Go Galt, if you will, and separate every aspect of your life from them. The Narcissist will do everything in their power to get you back, whether through appeals to or manipulations of your sense of human empathy, or through threats of retaliation or even violence. But without contact from another human being from whom they can draw their emotional supply, they will quite literally die. Thus they soon move on to a new victim. Understood from an international relations perspective, a new European/ non-Islamic colony may have relations with China or Japan, but not Islam, while other countries continue to have contact with Islam.
The corollary of this is that an Islamic Europe would eventually stagnate and collapse economically, and just as Islamic migrants stream out of the once great civilisations of the Middle East, they will one day stream out of a Europe battered by sectarian conflict, cruelty and poverty. At this point, New Europe will find itself with refugee camps full of Islamic migrants on its borders, and the relentless demand to let them in, all over again.
If such a situation were to occur, in this tendentious extrapolation of the present I am presenting, there is no guarantee that these new colonies of Western civilisation will not capitulate and fall to the same ideology of self hate and mutual civilisational suicide that currently afflicts Europe. The adage that a civilisation is only ever one generation away from tyranny is also true for fatalistic, and fatal, apathy. This idea brings to mind one of the most primal stories common to all humanity – the idea of the flood, sent by God to wipe out the sinful and preserve the righteous, but which only leads to humans reverting back to sin at the first opportunity they get.
The Dagny Taggart approach.
This leaves us with the scary conclusion that even if we were to separate ourselves from Islam, to find a new place to seed European civilisation and identity, there is no guarantee we would not have to go through the same process all over again in the future. This brings us to the alternative to the John Galt approach – the Dagny Taggart approach. In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart is a woman who shares the same value system as John Galt, she is determined to do and build whatever she wants, without anyone’s help, for her own sake and her own sake alone; but unlike Galt, who believes that the only way to rid the productive and virtuous of the looters is to starve them out, she is prepared to fight like hell to preserve the civilisation that she loves. And she fights with every ounce of her being, to the very end. From this perspective, it is unclear whether it is the looters, or Galt himself, who brings down civilisation in Atlas Shrugged; and whether, if Galt and his acolytes had held on, and fought for their values in the civilisation they had, whether they could have brought it back to health.
I believe we should take the Dagny Taggart approach and fight like hell. By “fight,” I don’t mean fight physically with weapons. Frankly, that would be a little too easily. If history has taught us anything in the last 200 years, it is that when democracies resolve to fight an enemy, they are almost always unstoppable. What has led us to the current situation in Europe is that the will to fight, the belief that we even have a right to fight, has been destroyed in the minds of a great deal of the population, and especially its leaders. If outbreaks of fighting do occur, they likely to be sporadic, and it is also likely that European security forces would work against indigenous Europeans – if the dominant narrative is that European nationalism is evil, and will only lead to genocide, thus why the defences have been completely lowered, how is this narrative likely to change if Europeans do take up arms to defend themselves?
By “fight, I mean something far harder. Fight culturally, fight politically, fight demographically. Assert the virtue of Western culture and history, hone the arguments in defence of it, and learn how to promote it proudly while acknowledging failures of the past. What is incredulous is that after so much hard work to spread equal rights and a good standard of living to more people than any civilisation in history, we have somehow managed to turn all this around on ourselves, and condemn ourselves for the fact that we didn’t provide such rights and living standards to all, sooner. In turn, this myopic view of history and of our society inverts what should be our proudest achievements, and our strongest case for defending our own culture and identity, into the reason why Europe is capitulating. Therefore, renewed pride in ourselves needs to be spread throughout our culture, through art, literature, music, tv and film.
By fight politically, I mean force politicians to start defending and promoting this narrative, and form new political parties and organisations to defend and promote this narrative.
And fight demographically. If you accept the thesis that Europe is not only shrinking, but is in danger of dying, because people aren’t having enough babies, it is up to you, men and women, to make more of them.
