Islamic terrorism is horrifying. It’s frequent worldwide. It’s effective. And it’s the least important part of the European debate about Islam.
With sufficient intelligence and resources, terrorism can be prevented as surely as any other crime. Presumably the French will be asking very soon why this particular attack was not thwarted and why police guarding such an obvious target were not even armed. To allow a terrorist attack is simply to admit a technical failure, to show an inability to meet a logistical challenge.
We can easily imagine a multicultural society where terrorism is rare or even entirely absent. After all, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, pundits confidently predicted that terrorism would become part of the American way of life, the United States becoming a giant version of Israel. (Insert your own jokes here, my commenting friends.) As it stands, it’s not even an annoyance.
The American military and intelligence community has killed thousands of Muslims, including many innocents, in order to safeguard the “homeland.” And yet only a lunatic could deny that the American government has been actively promoting mass immigration from the Islamic world into White homelands, thus guaranteeing that the domestic terrorist threat will be a permanent one.
What’s more important than “fighting terrorism” is the end that Islamic terrorists seek. And whatever the specific demands about respecting their prophet or implanting sharia or whatever else, Islamic terrorists share a greater metapolitical goal--putting Islam at the center of European culture and law.
For that reason, we should perhaps be grateful that many Muslims can’t seem to stop themselves from threatening and murdering everyone who seems to annoy them. Such actions are the only way to get the consumers who occupy the West to look up from their football (both kinds) and booze, if only for a few moments. If jihadists could simply have controlled themselves for another decade or so, there’s little doubt they would have inherited the Old World without firing a shot.
Just as the only time people feel emboldened to use their guns against their government is to protect their guns, the only time people feel like they can defend the freedom to offend is to pointlessly offend. The staff of Charlie Hebdo showed real courage, but it was bravery in defense of nullity. Those who still have freedom of speech seem to have nothing to say.
Therefore, it’s hard to take seriously the “free speech” protests that followed the shootings at Charlie Hebdo. For one, there is no real free speech in France nor in many other European nations on issues that really matter. These protesters, in short, are a little late.
For another, as horrible as the murders were, the attacks were only a spectacular distraction from the larger question that confronts Europe. It is a question painfully simple and inescapably obvious--will the Continent become Islamic through the sheer weight of demographics?
The demographic trends have been clear for some time. The prominence of anti-immigration parties in almost every nation of Europe ensures that the Political Class can no longer simply ignore the problem. What is taking shape is a more or less coherent response from the governments of Europe--the Islamization of Europe will continue but violent terrorism will be condemned. Sharia is fine, as long as it is imposed quietly and democratically, pushed through gradually by increasing numbers of Muslim voters.
However, democratic opposition to the Islamization of Europe will not be tolerated. The overwhelming media response to the slaughter of liberal cartoonists is that the real problem with the Charlie Hebdo shootings is that the National Front may win more votes. In the unlikely event that Marine Le Pen (whom Roman Bernard tells us is not that anti-System anyway) comes close to achieving power, we can expect that the entire French political establishment will simply unite and change the rules against her, just as the Swedish establishment did against the Sweden Democrats. Democracy will be suspended, in order to defend democracy.
But should we even care? The underlying premise of modern “nationalist” movements is essentially liberal. Islam is opposed by American conservatives because it is held to be against women’s rights, gay liberation, sexual libertinism, the freedom to drink and eat pork, and generally the right to have a good time by screwing around. However, the Third World banlieues of France have more in common with American cities like Detroit and Camden than they do with Saudi Arabia.
The danger is not just that sharia law may rule the European homeland, though that’s part of it. The danger is that we may get something even worse--Third World behavior and crime expressed through a nominally Islamic culture that owes more to the hip-hop of the American black underclass than the Ottoman Sultans. The mainstream culture of Europe will become the kind of Islam seen in an American prison.
Even “moderate” Muslims still impose a larger cultural narrative, set of symbols, and metapolitics on the civilization they join. The fact that one of the victims in the Charlie Hebdo shootings was a Muslim policeman isn’t a sign of hope, but a warning that France ultimately faces an immigration problem, not a terrorism problem.
At the same time, the contemporary West is such a cultural nullity that even a degraded Islamic culture that at least pays lip service to traditional values and the existence of the divine may be welcomed by many. Michel Houellebecq (who could not have planned this week better) has a new novel out, Submission, which posits the Islamic takeover of France. However, Houellebecq does not necessarily decry this scenario. He simply suggests it is what is happening and what may be necessary. As he puts it in the Paris Review:
I accelerate history, but no, I can’t say that the book is a provocation—if that means saying things I consider fundamentally untrue just to get on people’s nerves. I condense an evolution that is, in my opinion, realistic… I don’t feel that I’m writing out of fear. I feel, rather, that we can make arrangements. The feminists will not be able to, if we’re being completely honest. But I and lots of other people will.
This hasn’t stopped Houellebecq from being called an alarmist and Islamophobe. This follows the usual pattern--predicting something will happen is racist, fascist, and bigoted until such time as it actually occurs, whereupon questioning the new reality is racist, fascist, and bigoted.
Of course, this presupposes that European elites recognize what is going on and support it. And they do, if only subconsciously in some cases. Like Houellebecq says, they are confident they can “make arrangements.” They may be right. If the European slaves known as the Janissaries were able to essentially rule the Ottoman Empire at times, the European financial and political elite should have no problem dominating the dysgenic, superstitious, and hapless brown proles they are importing to replace the more independent and dangerous European workers.
Ordinary Europeans who don’t want to live under this new system are effectively disenfranchised. More than that, they are bereft of political, cultural, and even spiritual leadership as the overwhelming message from the commanding heights of their society is united in telling them to shut up, die, and get out of the way.
In this context, the most critical events are not taking place in France, but in Germany, where the marches by the group “Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West” have climbed from a few hundred people to 18,000 even after condemnation from Andrea Merkel, Christian leaders, and the German media. The marches are chiefly justified on liberal grounds (defending women, free speech, etc.) but the media is having none of it and the marchers find themselves referred to as “pinstripe Nazis”, despite the fact that they rally behind the gold, black, and red of the liberal Bundesrepublik.
It seems that in modern Europe, the government protests the people.
What is happening is a winnowing process with Islam as the catalyst, though not the cause. The tropes of liberalism may serve as slogans for the anti-Islamization movement today, but the core constituencies of the Left will never rally in defense of their nations, even in their most degraded modern form. More importantly, as the attack on Charlie Hebdo shows, even the ironic, post-modern, nothing is sacred Last Men of Modernity are not accepted as comrades by those to whom they eagerly surrender their birthright.
It is sometimes assumed that liberal Westerners will “wake up” and join in the defense of their homelands against the “Other.” However, it seems more likely that many liberals will assume that their fellow Whites will always remain their true enemy, and, as Houellebecq posits in France, will make arrangements to survive and maintain their status. Being part of a people is a responsibility that many modern Westerners do not want to accept.
There’s also a moral consideration that goes beyond even pathological altruism or media “brainwashing.” The cult of the martyr has been transferred from Christianity to its bastard heresy of Egalitarianism. Many liberals aren’t “cowards,” but are actually displaying a perverted form of courage where the refusal to fight for your civilization and people is a heroic act of atonement and morality. And this isn’t just for Whites. As progressive black commentator Ta-Nehisi Coates put it, “I would actually rather die by shooting than live armed.” If the price of survival is conflict, it is better to die.
We are entering a period of Occupation--or, rather, we are already in it. What does it mean to be occupied? It means that the cultural context that provides meaning to your life is determined by someone else. You fight someone else’s wars. You bow to the authority of someone else’s religion. You obey the institutions controlled by another people. And your Identity as part of a greater sovereign collective is denied, as you and your people are but a resource and an input in someone else’s System. When the churches of Europe (those not yet sold off) actively side with professed enemies of their faith over their own congregations, it can only be called collaboration with a foreign regime.
We Whites have been under occupation before. Those Europeans who can survive this crucible will constitute a new people in their own right and will build new institutions out of this experience. But this experience will impose a terrible cost, as there is not one major institution remaining that can truly be called ours.
Indeed, as Europe is not a geographically distinct Continent, I predict even using Europe to refer to a separate continent will eventually be regarded as offensive and exclusionary, just as using “American” to refer to citizens of the USA is now politically incorrect. Like the Christians encountering Revelation’s Mark of the Beast, those Europeans who wish to remain European will be forced to pursue a course of radical distinction as once Western governments and institutions increasingly define themselves in universalistic terms.
There is little promise of saving mainstream institutions from themselves. If there is a redemption, it will come in the form of a very hostile takeover. But there is hope. There is hope because the System that rules us has no brakes. Even after the slaughter of their own, leftist reporters have learned nothing and forgotten nothing and are continuing to pin the blame on Europeans. And both the European and American governing classes can only respond to rising diversity with more explicitly anti-White policies, meaning that those Whites who cooperate will be far easier to designate as collaborators.
Put simply, the debate is moving to the point where racism is a kind of blood libel for Whites , where Europeans and their diaspora are racist no matter what they do. Identity will be forced on Whites by their governments, whether Whites want it or not. The only choice will be whether to fight or surrender.
Far more Whites than we can imagine will consciously and explicitly choose to surrender and collaborate. But not all. And that last Remnant, if conscious of itself, can overcome all opposition. Our task is to prepare that Remnant, that great Last Battalion of our civilization, which will be called upon to serve within our own lifetimes. Europe will become worthy of itself in its last great existential struggle. But victory is not guaranteed, nor even particularly likely.
If we are on the receiving end of jihad, perhaps it is time to respond in kind, not by shooting cartoonists but by using Evola’s analysis of the “greater holy war.” The Baron wrote:
The “greater holy war" is man's struggle against the enemies he carries within. More exactly, it is the struggle of man's higher principle against everything that is merely human in him, against his inferior nature and against chaotic impulses and all sorts of material attachments.
The West as it is barely worth defending. But that’s the West we are part of. And few of us can really tell ourselves that we are the equals of our ancestors--I know I certainly can’t.
The change has to begin with ourselves, to exemplify as best we can the kind of civilization we want to see. If the West is to survive, those who aspire to be its defenders must strive to become worthy of it. We will not be permitted to live in comfort much longer and we will not be left alone. We will be forced to become heroes in order merely to survive. It’s an onerous burden to carry and a depressing reality to face. But meeting these kinds of odds head on is what being part of the Faustian West is all about.