Dear Western Europe: Surrender to Islam

The headline here isn’t a joke. Western Europe unwittingly became engaged in a culture war with a more powerful and attractive world view, and lost. At this point, there is no strategy that can result in an end without massive bloodshed, other than surrender.

Before you dismiss this as crackpot garbage, give me a chance to explain.

For 623 years, the Ottoman Empire ruled from Vienna to as far as Algiers. And for most of that time, wars were the exception rather than the rule. The Caliphate established by the Muslim Turks was one of the most advanced and tolerant societies in the world, and it was based on the same world view that millions of European citizens now hold.

Until the last 100 years, there was only one other world view that rivaled the Ottomans, that being Christianity. Since Western Europe freed itself from the shackles of that ancient religion, there is now only post-modern secular pluralism and progressive democracy to stand against the strong call of Islam.

The demographics are irrefutable.

Since 1960, European “natural” birth rates have fallen, while immigration has increased.

The low contribution of natural increase to total population growth is the result of two factors. The first is the considerable increase in net migration in the EU-28 since the mid-1980s. The second is the fall in the number of births and increase in the number of deaths. The gap between live births and deaths (see Chart 3) has considerably narrowed since 1960. Since the number of deaths is expected to increase as the baby-boom generation continues to age and assuming that fertility remains low, a negative natural change (more deaths than births) cannot be ruled out in the future. The extent of population decline or growth will therefore depend on the contribution made by migration.

Over the years, migrants have come in, replaced the birth rate declines of native Europeans, and done so at an increasing rate. They’ve come from many places, but millions of them have come from Muslim-dominated countries. They are younger and more fruitful in their fertility than the Europeans they’ve replaced.

Europeans, being enlightened post-modern, pluralistic secular humanists, see no issue with this, given that all religions are equal, all pathways to wisdom involve some measure of “faith” and all supernatural stories of “god” are hokum. But Islam has as its goal to subdue the entire earth in the name of Allah.

Lest we stick our heads in non-working ovens looking for the pilot light and breathing the gas (don’t do that), it’s pretty obvious why there is terror in England. There is clear “division” between Brits and those who blow themselves to bits to kill young girls at a pop concert. Mark Steyn:

Britain is “divided”, perhaps fatally. It’s not so much the comparatively small numbers of suicide bombers, or even the support group of family and friends – the dad who works at the mosque pending his return to the battlefield, the sister who congratulates him on entering Paradise, the sister’s schoolmates who drop out to be become brides of Isis, the bomb-maker who lives down the street, the other friends and family who turn a blind eye to it all. Beyond all that is the larger comfort zone of “British” Muslims who support the ultimate goal of Salman Abedi – an Islamic state where once was England – and for the most part live their daily lives as if it’s already here. “Britain” has no purchase on them, and its “values” command no allegiance – even though, lest they give offense, non-divisive officials are careful never to spell out precisely what those “values” are”. Easier to chant the approved abstractions, and warn against the non-approved ones: Diversity good, division bad.

The signs of this have been known for years. Muammar Gaddafi said in 2006 that Islam will conquer Europe “without firing a shot” due to the demographics.

To counter this, Prime Minister Theresa May offered a “hearts and minds” strategy, along with “difficult” and “embarrassing” conversations about how to deal with the violence. But the violence is a feature to those who live as Muslims under a non-Islamic regime.

What makes May think that “pluralistic, British values” are inherently better than the five pillars of Islam, followed by paradise after a life spent in surrender to Allah? Does she really think the secular Europeans can persuade millions of Muslims to abandon their faith before the demographics work against her?

The mayor of London is a Muslim. Perhaps she can ask him.

The answer is clear. Surrender.

For generations, Europeans attended church without believing in the God to whom the oldest and most ornate cathedrals were dedicated. They’d go to Mass (in France), and attend High Church at the Church of England, recite liturgies, perform rituals, and believe none of it.

Millions of Muslims all over the world pray five times a day, facing Mecca, attend Friday services at mosque, fast at Ramadan, and believe none of it. It’s not hard to find a bar, or a pork slider, in certain Muslim cities–I’ll put it that way–and not everyone in those places is an infidel.

What’s the difference between secular, lapsed Christians and secular, lapsed Muslims? I don’t know, maybe someone more evolved in their sensibilities can explain it.

Europeans and secular thinkers tell Christians to “get off our high horses” because of the Crusades (against the Muslims) and the Inquisition (against the Jews) and walk into a future of Reason and Peace. Amen.

If Europeans want a future of Reason and Peace, all they have to do is say some words they don’t believe. Muslims call it the Shahada. It’s the first pillar of Islam. When Boko Haram terrorists in Africa attack a village, they ask all the residents to recite the Shahada. Those who don’t, die. Those who do are left alone. There’s no test for “do you believe it?”

To many in the Muslim faith, that’s how jihad works. Infidels must submit or die. There’s no way to get rid of that particularly troubling teaching of Islam without getting rid of Islam. And secular humanism is no match for Islam.

Therefore, the best course for Europeans is to surrender and allow the Muslims to set up a Sharia state on top of the secular state. Negotiate the terms, pay the jizya, or tax to support Islamic charitable causes, make Islam the state religion (instead of the Church of England, for instance), and continue with your unbelieving lives.

Like the Ottomans, the new Caliphate will leave you alone, in peace. They’ll even fight ISIS for you  (because ISIS kills many more Muslims than Christians or others). The moment you surrender, there will be no more terror in England, France, Belgium or anywhere else in Western Europe. The Muslim community will deal with ISIS and terrorists their own way. You don’t have to watch the public beheadings, just continue with your lives.

At this point, there are only two possibilities for secular Europe to deal with the problem of radical Islam. Europeans can fight a war that’s already lost, or surrender to Islam and live in peace. Why fight it when you can’t win?

Thinkers Like Michael Gerson Will Get Europe Into The Next War

Let’s get wonky for a moment, said Bill Clinton between cigars. But really, Michael Gerson, on CBS “Face The Nation” with John Dickerson got wonky on France, Europe, nationalism, and the Holocaust.

“All the worst events of the twentieth century took place because of the triumph of identity over idealism, in Europe,” Gerson exclaimed.

Wow, that’s a mouthful.

But before we venture down into the bowels of that particular dark and mildewed bat cave, first a disclosure. I actually agree with Gerson’s conclusion that hyper-nationalism is a really bad idea in crowded and culturally competitive Europe. I wrote about it just after the French general election.

What we’re seeing in Europe is actually dangerous. I’m no fan of one-world government globalism, or some utopian panacea to produce Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité forever. But forgive me for pointing out that Europeans, untethered from the requirements of entwined interests, tend to pursue extremely self-interested courses, regardless of the political philosophy or structure of state government applied to each nation.

Where Gerson and I differ is the alternative to Le Pen’s, Geert Wilders’ and Nigel Farage’s vision of Europe divided into neat fiefdoms.

Now light your lantern, as we go spelunking into knee-deep bat guano. Gerson glibly cited a technical term, “transnational values,” without defining it or putting it into context. It could mean what former President Barack Obama referred to in his Cairo speech in 2009. That worked out really well, wouldn’t you agree?

But it more probably means what Walter Goebel and Saskia Schabio exposited in the rather obscure academic tome “Locating Transnational Ideals.” I warned you this was going to get wonky.

Covering such wonderful topics as “The Fascination of ‘Living Together in a Civilized Way’ or Nations and Cosmopolitanism in More’s Utopia (1516) and Ribeiro’s Wild Utopia (1982),” transnational ideals consist mostly of anti-colonial screeds, the ascendancy of art and sex over the White oppressor, and Jane Austen. You get the idea, I think. Unicorns and rainbows and unlimited sex–liberal claptrap.

To Gerson and the liberals, the choice is binary. Either you choose Blut und Boden, complete with anti-Semitism, homophobia, and the associated atrocities of a Holocaust, or you embrace the unicorns of Utopia. Oh by the way, Thomas More, who wrote Utopia, was beheaded for treason by King Henry VIII. So much for getting along.

You see, human nature being what it is, we’re more likely as a species to devolve into Lord of the Flies than the evolved humanism of Utopia. Therefore, it’s almost certainly not the failure of idealism that sparked “all the worst events in the twentieth century,” but the choice of the wrong ideals without entwined interests and moral absolutes to check them.

It was the belief that Man can possibly attain “peace in our time” through things like “transnational ideals” that allowed vicious dictators like Stalin, Hitler, and the hyper-nationalist Imperial Japanese Army to thrive and attempt to own the world. Not all nationalism is bad–in fact, a dose of nationalism is healthy. The “us versus them” drive in human beings has to be satisfied; only naifs believe it can be permanently suppressed.

Macron is a better alternative to Le Pen for France and for Europe. Then again, unicorn rainbows would be a better alternative given the penchant for Europeans to knock the bloody hell out of each other. But cooperation and shared economic, military and security values doesn’t make for some triumph of “transnational values” ideals over identity.

That’s total garbage, and if you want to test it, go into a random bar in a small city in central France, and start speaking German and talking about shared values. Let me know how that works out for you. Nationalism is part of who Europeans are. Only the common enemy of communism and the Iron Curtain have kept the last 70 years relatively free of conflict on the continent.

Now Europe has the challenge of finding other things to tie themselves together so they don’t start another war. Thinking that some enlightened secular humanist idealism is the answer is what got them into the last war. Let’s not have naïve liberals like Gerson encourage them to make that mistake again.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Supposedly Mark Twain said that. Whoever actually said it would be in iambic pentameter right now.

Yesterday, the Juice Vox Media kids unveiled their propaganda interview with President Obama. Were Vox a Nevada Corporation, it’d have to register as a sex worker considering the rub and tug of the President that the interview amounted to. In it, the President referred to terrorists in France, that would be Islamic terrorists, as “randomly shoot[ing] a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

There was nothing random about it. The President, who will not attribute violence to Islam, but blames the Crusades on Christians while getting his history backwards (must have been toking up that day in class), refuses to deal with ISIS as a serious threat. They are contained in the Middle East and not an “existential threat,” according to Susan Powers.

In Germany, a court has ruled a synagogue firebombing was an “act of protest.” The men who firebombed the synagogue will spend no time in jail.

These are dangerous times, made more dangerous by the President of the United States abdicating his responsibility as leader of the free world. By the time it is over, fewer will be free, more will dead, and the left will, as they have time and time again, rewrite history to absolve and protect their precious.

When the United States does not lead, but sees itself as one of just many nations not set apart as something special, the world tends to go to hell. But then that’s all part of the plan.

The post Something Wicked This Way Comes appeared first on RedState.