Imagine, hypothetically speaking, that in the near future all native German women would give birth to four children per woman, even though they knew they could only raise and educate two of them. Perforce, because German society could no longer provide for its own people, Chancellor Merkel decides to send her surplus population to Turkey, for example, first as guest workers, then in the light of family reunion, and lastly as so-called refugees.
The first and second generations of these German asylum seekers, largely refuse to learn to speak Turkish, demand special Christian schools, unemployment and housing benefits, pensions, affirmative actionized entry into Turkish universities, and, thanks to financial support from the European Union, the establishment of thousands of churches throughout Turkey.
In no case would the Turkish people be allowed to protest against these crimes. Every well-behaving Turk with the audacity to criticize the absurd demands of these arrogant German migrants supposedly contributes to a ‘climate of hate’. For the rest of his life, he would be ostracized as if he were born a racist. He would lose his chances of getting promoted in his career, while his fellow citizens take to the internet to express death threats against him.
Seen in this light, who would be the real fascists—the concerned Turkish citizens united against the Christianization of the Orient, or the leftist do-gooders that wish to silence them?
A Question to Which No Muslim Has an Answer
Historian Yuval Harari writes in Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind:
“If one … wants to understand the Muslims, … one should not look for a perfect system of values that all Muslims take to heart. Rather, one should look for conflicts and contradictions Muslims continuously struggle to comprehend, and that nobody can solve. A question to which no Muslim has an answer is key to understanding his culture.”
Such a question may be: Why isn’t there a single democracy and a single welfare state with a Muslim majority population to be found anywhere in the world, while Muslims in large numbers swap their Islamic utopias for the immigration nations of the ‘spoiled’ West? A Muslim probably cannot answer this question without speaking of self-hatred. This self-hatred of Muslims also associates them with the self-hating European elites: both the immigrant newcomers and our native politicians agree that Europe, Germany in particular, is evil and deserves her downfall.
Another question goes: Why do Islamists, as well as too many ‘moderate’ Muslims, despise those very societies that have welcomed them as their equals? American longshoreman and philosopher Eric Hoffer understood why over almost fifty years ago. In The Ordeal of Change, he writes, “We cannot win the weak by sharing our wealth with them. They feel our generosity as oppression.” Furthermore, “People who become like us do not necessarily love us. The impulse of the imitators is to overcome the model they imitate — to surpass it, leave it behind, or better still, eliminate it completely.” (Emphasis added.) If you hate yourself you will only befriend people who hate you too.
Ecological Causes of Mass Migration
An alternative answer to both questions nonetheless goes that we aren’t really dealing with multiculti-friendly migration, but flatly speaking with the expansion of Arabic Lebensraum, or living space, through the conquest and colonization of Europe. Of course, anyone who protests that we surely may not treat Muslims any different merely because they are Muslims is absolutely right.
The colonization of Europe indeed has nothing to do with religion, but with war. Ecologist Paul Colinvaux also observed this in his book The Fates of Nations, “The outbreak of warriors from the desert, that Mohammed uncorked like a genie from his Arabic bottle, was another one of the wars of aggression started because the people needed land.”
The Arabs possess oil, but the dry desert, including that of Northern Africa, can’t offer the Arabic-Islamic peoples any further chances of population growth. Colinvaux explains that when people give birth to too many children they can only secure a future for their offspring in three ways, namely through trade, colonies or wars. Yes, the damned West also fared wars, but the aging European nations actively help modern conquerors in their quest—through open borders. Whoever conquers Europe today may even claim housing benefits, while native Europeans, despite their wealth, no longer succeed at producing replacement generations of children, precisely because they have become too expensive.
The Dresdner people taking to the streets are right. Pegida is right. Critics of Islam are right—as a desert doctrine, the original sources of Islam call for incessant war. What Pegida supporters have also understood is the leading role elitist self-hatred plays in Europe’s self-destruction. Basically, self-hatred is the price all people pay for their feelings of superiority. This is the so-called ‘cognitive dissonance’ of Islamists, and that of the decent elites of the West, united in their quest to destroy Europe and America.
On the other hand, what exactly bonds patriotic Europeans against Europe’s suicide? Their love for their culture, for the self-determination of their peoples and the progress of all mankind through voluntary cooperation over commercial compulsion.
That’s why Europeans oppose Islam. Europeans aren’t evil but are responding to the self-hatred and self-loathing of the West’s political classes.
Yuval N. Harari, Eine Kurze Geschichte Der Menschheit, trans. Jürgen Neubauer (München: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 2013), 204.
Eric Hoffer, The Ordeal of Change (Titusville, New Jersey: Hopewell Publications, 2006), chap. 2: The Awakening of Asia.
Ibid., chap. 4: Imitation and Fanaticism.
Paul Colinvaux, The Fates of Nations: A Biological Theory of History (Penguin Books, 1983), 114.