Wednesday, 27 July 2016

Can Multicultural Europe Avoid World War Three?

When Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man in 1993, it was to argue that Western liberal democracy and free market economics meant an end to warfare within the west, and by default, the end of history. This idea that warfare within the West is now a thing of the past seems to be shared by an overwhelming section of Western people, reared as they are on a diet of enlightened tolerance and historical ignorance.

In 1990 it would have been relatively difficult to argue with Fukuyama’s prophecy. The West, excluding the inevitable frictions that came with the break-up of the Soviet Union, was clearly not going to engage in the type of politics that led to the two world wars, whilst the demise of Communism meant an end to the global proxy wars between Russia and America.

What Fukuyama failed to realise, however, was that the ingredient for yet another “war to end all wars” was already in place. The cultural clashes between Nazism, fascism, communism and liberal democracies had simply been replaced with another ideology that would inevitably clash with the Western host cultures — Islam.

Wars do not simply spring out of nowhere. Although the causes may be relatively complicated, they require only a few very basic ingredients which when blended together, placed in a pressure cooker on gas level 5, and left to boil unattended, can have only one result.

The first of these, self-evidently, is an enemy, without which a chef cannot even begin to prepare his feast gastronomique. Some may argue that Islam is not our enemy. All Western ruling elites will tell you Islamic terrorism is a perversion of Islam. No political leaders, apart from those in ex-Communist central European countries (more about this curious issue in a future article) will admit to the stark fact that that Islamic terror comes directly from Islamic scriptures. Is commanded by Islamic scripture.

Take for example the beheading yesterday of Father Jacques Hamel at the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in France. Western politicians and media “experts” pondered over all possible reasons as to why two Muslim men would storm into a Christian place of worship and ritually behead a Priest whilst reciting Islamic verses and screaming Allahu Akbar.

Allow me to provide a small nugget of advice which might help these hapless little leftist children who control the Means of Information. The advice being: “Hello! HELLO!! Tarquin! Sophie! Have a look at a book called the Koran! Have a gander at verse 8:12 which goes something like this: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

The Tarquins in the media world and the Hollande’s and Cameron’s in the political Traitor Class need to understand one simple fact. Western liberal democracy is Islam’s enemy, as they tell us over and over again, through word and deed. As such Islam is our enemy, not radical Islam. Islam. The Islam established by the warlord, slaver, sex-slaver, under-age girl enthusiast  and spectacular terrorist Mohammed in the 7th century, which remains unchanged, unreformed in 2016 where young Muslim males revere Mohammed as the perfect man and seek to emulate him even as the ruling elites deny any such links....

The death and destruction wrought throughout the West in recent years is not because Islam, in some childlike, well-intentioned yet misguided way, wishes to assimilate with us… it is because Islam wishes to take us over. Period. We, obviously, do not wish to be taken over, so we must be prepared to resist an enemy, or be prepared to submit to an enemy, the point being that there is, with absolute certainty, an enemy.

The fact that our Traitor Class refer to radical Islam as our enemy, rather than “moderate” Islam, is irrelevant. In WWII Germany was our enemy, not the Nazis, just as Islam is our enemy today and not radical Islam. I am sorry to have to say this, but war entails polarisation of differing races and religions. The pieties and criminal lies of multiculturalism are reserved only for times of peace.

The second ingredient for war is anger and resentment amongst a unified mass majority. Despite the breadth of difference between Christian, post-Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, male, female, homosexual and heterosexual, the common thread that unites the people of the liberal West is no longer what we are, but what we are not. We are not Islamic, and — voluntarily — never will be.

And we are getting angrier by the day as we watch the television news, read the newspapers and listen to Islamic rhetoric calling for the overthrow of the West; a call apparently supported by our ruling elites who choose to clamp down on their indigenous people who dare to complain, rather than the perpetrators themselves.

Despite the best efforts of the vast state-funded race relations industry, the glaring evidence suggests one stark, unpalatable fact; Islam and the liberal West are incompatible. The utopian multiculturalist view that we can all get along is belied by the fact that as Islam keeps on trying to blow us up, so “Islamophobia” continues, quite naturally, to grow.

When police chiefs speak of “heightened racial tensions” (and in the case of France “low-level civil war”) they speak volumes about our current predicament. When Islam moves into an area and the indigenous inhabitants move out, this too speaks volumes. We do not — indeed apparently cannot — co-exist, a parlous state of affairs even whilst Westerners have the means and the territory to move away, but what happens when that escape route is removed?

Unfortunately, the birth rate differentials coupled with massive Muslim immigration and growing indigenous emigration suggest that this escape route is only temporary. Many European cities are on the brink of Muslim majorities already; within the next twenty years this will only escalate with increasing rapidity. At some point in the not too distant future, Europeans will have nowhere left to run.

Just as Islam is intransigently opposed to Western liberal democracy, so Western liberal democracy is intransigently opposed to Islam. The West in the case of “within borders” religious conflict is a demographic juggernaut compared to Islam today, but this can change very quickly as I argued in Part 1 of a recent article. Within one to two decades we will see two juggernauts of equal size, travelling in opposite directions on the same side of the road with the all too obvious result: collision circa 2030 or earlier, depending on their speed.

And it is as simple as that. Western Europe in 1990 did not have the ingredients necessary to bring about another war, but in 2016 we have a mixture of all the diverse ingredients necessary to ensure it. Two intransigent enemies, one demographically shrinking, the other demographically — and literally — exploding, both sides drawing their lines in the sand, and of course the simmering anger, fear and resentment that comes with such a scenario. This situation reminds me of A E Housman’s words, describing the year 1914:

Europe is a powder keg. The Germans are gripped by fervent nationalism, the British feel afraid of German expansion….the French still remember the bitter defeat of 1870. Germany enters into a pact with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but that empire is being torn apart by ethnic tensions and it will take just one spark to ignite a European war on an unimaginable scale…

Plus ça change plus c’est la meme chose, as they once said over a game of chess and chain-lit gauloises in the avant garde cafes of the Paris banlieus before they became Islamic outposts of Algeria.  History repeats itself, a fact not lost on the realists of the “right”, but lost in the fluffy mists of time to the liberal/left.

Perhaps a more recent quote might jolt them from their multicultural reverie, taken from Alastair Finlan’s book The Collapse of Yugoslavia 1991-1999 which details the civil war that killed 250,000 people, the majority of whom were civilians, out of a population of only 10 million:

“In 1991, almost overnight, an ethnically diverse region that had enjoyed decades of peaceful coexistence descended into bitter hatred and chaos. Communities fractured along lines of ethnic and religious affiliation and the resulting fighting was deeply personal, resulting in brutality, rape, torture, genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

Yugoslavia was a small country, and the death toll would have been much higher were in not for the intervention of external forces. Continental Europe has close to half a billion inhabitants. Should war start, there is no way on earth that any external force can stop it. And it need not be constrained to Europe; would a nuclear-armed Pakistan sit idly by? Will Iran possess a nuclear capability and would they use it against Israel? Would America then become involved? Would our need for oil necessitate the invasion of the Middle East? How would Turkey respond to that?

Such an apocalyptic scenario should give the liberal/left pause for thought. Is such a possibility really worth this peculiar multicultural experiment of forcing two disparate cultures together, in a perverse attempt to prove history (and present day reality around the non-Western world) wrong?

Even the most vacuous multiculturalist would have to admit that religious war is a possibility, but what percentage chance would he admit to? Suppose it was only 1% — is that a risk worth taking? My only question to him would be “would you fly on a passenger jet that had a 1% chance of crashing, and if you would not, why do you think it acceptable that your children will inherit Armageddon based on a statistical chance of death that you yourself would not take?”

The (then) completely unknown Serbian, Gavrilo Princip, provided the spark that ignited the First World War when he assassinated the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in the little-known town of Sarajevo on June 28th, 1914. In the Europe of 2016 the ingredients for the Third World War are in place, save for Islamic demographics, an issue rapidly being addressed courtesy of open door immigration and welfare funded high birth rates. Yes, we are paying the colonisers to colonise the West…..

Left-liberals are horrified by the actions of Anders Breivik. Classical liberals who view Islam as the greatest threat to Western civilisation in the history of mankind are also horrified by Breivik, but unlike left-liberals, we can understand why he did what he did. Memo to lefties, we don’t condone it but we do understand it. Furthermore, YOU left-liberals need to understand it too. Our future peace is reliant on it. Which is why our future peace is in doubt....

If Islam is allowed into the West and Islam is allowed to murder, rape and terrorise the West, then the people of the West will become angry. If the ruling elites refuse to acknowledge that the driver of Islamic terror is the Islamic holy book, then the people of the West will become angry not only with Islam but with their rulers. And so future Breivik’s are spawned.

Civil war, world war, will not start tomorrow. But it will start within a decade or two. And we are only in 2016…..what will Europe look like in 2050? 2075? 2100? A faithless, decadent, demographically dying people who believe in nothing but tolerance and diversity is up against a fanatically faithful, demographically exploding, austere, supremacist people who believe the West must submit before them….

War is coming. Left-liberals have made it inevitable. Prepare yourselves.


  1. its all part of the Marxist plan to destroy the nation state.

  2. Paul Weston. I saw a 'post' by you a month back & I totally, unconditionally agreed with you. Again, I do now. I truly believe that we are on a rapid acceleration towards a European war against the evil & terror ridden doctrine called Islam.It is unbelievable that lessons have not been learnt from the first Crusade & forthwith. The so-called leaders of the Western world possibly have their own self enhancement agenda. Possibly to lower the 'human' population alongside greed. The media have their agenda & of course the crackpot leftists. We are under seige & sleep-walking to our own eradication. I never thought I would have the word 'hate' in my heart & soul, but I do now.I also know we have to destroy Islam & it's evil permanently this time around.

  3. I agree. What can we, as citizens, do about this? How do we prepare? I am writing a blog about islam in spanish, my native language, trying to educate my countrymen about it, but I wish I could do more.

  4. We need a national committee, made up of agnostics, to look carefully into Islam and tell the TRUTH about Islam to everyone, including Moslems. Islam should then be reclassified as being the THEOCRACY it truly is. IMO, Islam should be banned, just as ALL ideologies and organizations that currently prescribe death to anyone should be banned. Moslems should either decide to LEAVE their cult behind and accept our laws permanently, or GO to a country where Sharia Law rules. We do not want any Mothers teaching their children to hate and kill people who are not believers in their ideology.

  5. Paul Weston's analysis of the situation is depressingly spot on. What his essay didn't say--perhaps because it would be tactically unwise--is that the only cure for this terminal illness will not be discovered and administered by a sorry congress of university-indoctrinated, devotees to PC, most of whom would never, under any circumstances, admit that they and their countrymen are in existential danger (that would be "racist!"). Peoples menaced by extinction from vicious foreign enemies do not select committees to bicker back and forth about the situation endlessly and fruitlessly. Peoples facing ethnic and cultural extinction (e.g., ancient Athens; Britain in 1940) decide on a brave, competent leader and get about the business of defeating their enemies while the possibility of victory still exists.

  6. Multiculturalism is a scam. It is a dishonest dressing up.
    It disguises and renames the deliberate deconstruction of white Western states.
    It is a bit like referring to poison as "medicine".