Possible future scenarios for Europe.
A scenario that has been widely debated over the last decades is a possible muslim takeover of Europe within the next 30-40 years. It has become somewhat of an academic puzzle for the political correct elites, a question that must be discussed, but not taken too literally. After all, according to this elite, the muslims will eventually integrate into our societies, provided we treat them properly and give them enough time. They are simply Europeans with another colour and cultural background. Nothing to really worry about. For others with a more highly developed sense of survival instinct, this scenario is the cause of grave concern. It’s simply a problem that has to be dealt with, whether we like it or not, and the fact that we’re starting to shed light on it, is a sign that we’re willing to do so. The first step of solving a problem is to admit that we’ve actually have one.
But there’s one scenario that hasn’t been debated to nearly the same extent, and that is how this eventual transformation from a Christian to an Islamic continent will manifest itself. Will it be a violent clash between the two cultures that will leave the continent in ruins? Will western Europe resemble war torn Chetchnya after the final battles have been fought? Or will it be a peaceful takeover, where the Europeans simply concede defeat and succumb to the stronger and much more aggressive tactics of the newcomers? Or will the Europeans rise up to this challenge and resist the onslaught from the invading Muslims, and eventually win this fight?
I believe there are six possible outcomes to this crisis.
1. The Muslims will win by sticking to democratic principles. Peaceful victory.
2. The Muslims will win by undemocratic principles. Terror campaigns and intimidation.
3. The native populations of Europe will revolt and defeat the Muslims. A revolt.
4. Major terrorist attacks will cause the governments in Europe to reconsider their position on muslim immigration, and start the deportations of muslims on a grand scale.
5. A coexistence between the two cultures, where both groups are given an equal status. Not a very likely scenario
6. An uneasy status quo, where immigration is curbed, and the muslims will forever be a minority.
At the present time alternative nr 1 looks like the most likely outcome, but of course things could change in a heartbeat. If there’s one thing that history has taught us, it is that rapid change is the norm rather than the exception. There’s no question that the liberal laws of the present European governments works in the muslims favor. All they have to do is sit back, act in accordance with the democratic principles in the societies they reside in, and high birthrates and the open border policies of the west will make them a majority within the next couple of generations. All they need to do is blend in and cease control when they’re strong enough to do so. But of course, there are several factors that needs to be brought into the equation. Political views that are considered the norm today can easily be discarded for more radical and pragmatic ideas in the future. We’ve witnessed liberal European governments introduce very tough immigration and asylum laws, others could follow suit.
So lets assume that things stay the way they are for the next thirty years. Let’s assume that the European governments decide to introduce tougher anti-discrimination laws, and clamp down on what they view as anti-muslim sentiments. Let’s also assume that they start persecuting people with opposing views on this issue. The immigration would then continue, and quite possibly accelerate, making it next to impossible to prevent muslims from becoming a majority in Europe. If this scenario was to take place, the question one would have to ask is, what kind of society would rise up from the ashes? Would we get a moderate form of Euro-Islam, like the proponents of the multicultural society hope for, where a relatively moderate muslim population would accept and tolerate other religions and values? Or would they, with or without democratic means, decide to introduce an Islamic caliphate, where Sharia law takes superiority over existing criminal laws?
Like many other people, I see the term Euro-Islam simply as a smokescreen that the elite use as a means to try and pacify the native populations of Europe. Let’s face it, muslims believe in the writings of the Holy Koran, and not in any utopic illusions that some non-believing bureaucrats in Europe may hold. It is my opinion that the muslims would use our undying belief in democracy against us if it came down to it, and simply point out the obvious, which would be, that they won the referendum fair and square and they’re going to introduce the Islamic caliphate whether we like it or not. And technically this would be within the boundaries of accepted democratic rules. What the majority decides, goes. The native Europeans would then have to decide whether to accept this new regime or not.
Alternative number two is also a likely outcome. We’ve seen the emergence of radical muslim elements in our societies that are advocating such a solution. We’ve had several devastating terrorist attacks within the last couple of years that has made us reconsider our believes that we live in free and open democratic societies. These attacks along with other forms of intimidation has already eroded some of our freedoms. We think twice about criticizing Islam in public, and we refrain from publishing any drawings that could be deemed offensive to the muslim community. There is no question in my mind that the results of the scare tactics are viewed as small victories among radical muslims, and only make them more determined to push forward with their plans for overthrowing our democratic societies.
It doesn’t take that much effort to subjugate the masses. And a small group of highly dedicated and trained individuals could easily wreak havoc on our societies if they so choose. If ordinary people feel that they’re putting their lives on the line just by venturing down to the local supermarket or by simply hopping on the tube to go to work, we’ve entered a very critical phase. If we end up with a spiral of violence in Europe on a similar magnitude of let’s say South Africa, where crime is a very real part of everyday life, we’ve entered a point of no return. How long could we survive in such a violent environment? The next natural progression would be a situation similar to the one we have in Iraq, a total breakdown of law and order. If the governments should prove unsuccessful in weeding out the insurgents in such an environment, which is the most likely scenario, would it be that unheard of for them to try an negotiate a truce? European politicians have been keen advocates of “land for peace” deals in other parts of the world. Would they consider such an option in Europe if the result would be a cessation of hostilities?
The third possible scenario would be the creation of armed European resistance groups. This is very plausible option. We’ve seen such groups operate in Europe before, both during and after the second world war. If people feel they’re being pushed too far, they’ll eventually start to push back. In the novel “Hvitvasking” (Money laundry) by Tom Kristiensen (Norwegian author), a clandestine group of Norwegian patriots plan to rid Norway of third world immigrants. The methods they rely upon are similar to those the terrorist use in present day Iraq, a war of intimidation and scare tactics. They try to create an environment so hostile and dangerous that the immigrants themselves choose to leave the country.
I believe this would be the tactic of choice, adopted by such resistance groups. It has proven highly successful in other parts of the world, such as Iraq and Sudan, just to mention a few. It is very hard to fight such unconventional guerilla groups, mostly because they can hide amongst the civilian population after they’ve carried out their attacks. It would also be very easy for them to identify members of the muslim population, but equally difficult for the muslims and the authorities to identify members of these resistance groups, simply because the members of these groups share the same ethnicity as the majority population in Europe. I am of the opinion that everyone sooner or later will succumb to these scare tactics, just like the native European population are intimidated by radical muslims at the present time, muslims would be equally intimidated by Europeans if they were targeted in a similar way. It would be a totally new experience for them.
The fourth possible scenario is one where terrorist attacks just becomes to frequent and the loss of lives too hard to tolerate, or that the elite themselves are being targeted by the terrorists. If we get frequent terrorist attacks on the same scale as 9/11 or even bigger, say the partial or total destruction of some of our major cities, it would next to impossible for European governments not to introduce radical measures to rid itself of this threat. If the number of terrorist attack victims reach into the tens of thousands, or possibly even hundreds of thousands, they would have to act. It is not unthinkable that mass deportation of muslims then would take place, and that the creation of detention camps, like the one at Guantanamo Bay would go ahead. If on the other hand, after incidents like these, some politicians still wouldn’t act, something that’s very unlikely, it would still create an ambience where more radical and pragmatic politicians would win landslide elections, and the execution of these plans would go ahead. I think ordinary peoples survival instinct would override any other human instincts, including any utopic reference to human rights and religious freedom.
A fifth scenario is a peaceful or hostile coexistence between the two cultures. Where both are granted equal status, and where the segregation, both culturally and demographic just increases. It would be a continuation of today’s status quo. This is not a very plausible scenario, because both cultures have shown their unwillingness to live under such unnatural conditions. Sooner or later one of the cultures would resort to undemocratic methods to exert their will over the other.
The sixth scenario is one where the governments of Europe finally see the dangers of the influx of immigrants, and ban immigration from third world countries altogether, but allow the ones that are already here to stay. This could be the result if the people in Europe elect radical right wing politicians into office. They then again, introduce tough new measures to stop the rapid growth of immigrants in Europe. Maybe they would go as far as introducing a one child policy for all third world immigrants, or resort to other economic sanctions to achieve this goal. They could possibly even ban Islam altogether in Europe, or at least ban the radical approach to the religion that the islamists follow. This would then lead to a situation where Europe forever would have an ethnic minority within its borders, a continuation of the present day situation. The muslims living in Europe could then of course choose to either sever all ties to their native countries and perhaps reform their religion, or still choose to cling on to their old culture and strive to change the system to their advantage.
No matter what happens to this continent, whether a full scale war breaks out or not, it’s going to get very nasty. I believe that a rapid deterioration will first occur in one nation, and then others will follow in its track, or chose to introduce countermeasures to prevent a similar fate. It is naive to expect that an atmosphere of tranquil coexistence is going to last forever here in Europe. War and hostilities have been the norm here, and not the exception. That’s probably also how it’s going to be in the future.
But there’s one scenario that hasn’t been debated to nearly the same extent, and that is how this eventual transformation from a Christian to an Islamic continent will manifest itself. Will it be a violent clash between the two cultures that will leave the continent in ruins? Will western Europe resemble war torn Chetchnya after the final battles have been fought? Or will it be a peaceful takeover, where the Europeans simply concede defeat and succumb to the stronger and much more aggressive tactics of the newcomers? Or will the Europeans rise up to this challenge and resist the onslaught from the invading Muslims, and eventually win this fight?
I believe there are six possible outcomes to this crisis.
1. The Muslims will win by sticking to democratic principles. Peaceful victory.
2. The Muslims will win by undemocratic principles. Terror campaigns and intimidation.
3. The native populations of Europe will revolt and defeat the Muslims. A revolt.
4. Major terrorist attacks will cause the governments in Europe to reconsider their position on muslim immigration, and start the deportations of muslims on a grand scale.
5. A coexistence between the two cultures, where both groups are given an equal status. Not a very likely scenario
6. An uneasy status quo, where immigration is curbed, and the muslims will forever be a minority.
At the present time alternative nr 1 looks like the most likely outcome, but of course things could change in a heartbeat. If there’s one thing that history has taught us, it is that rapid change is the norm rather than the exception. There’s no question that the liberal laws of the present European governments works in the muslims favor. All they have to do is sit back, act in accordance with the democratic principles in the societies they reside in, and high birthrates and the open border policies of the west will make them a majority within the next couple of generations. All they need to do is blend in and cease control when they’re strong enough to do so. But of course, there are several factors that needs to be brought into the equation. Political views that are considered the norm today can easily be discarded for more radical and pragmatic ideas in the future. We’ve witnessed liberal European governments introduce very tough immigration and asylum laws, others could follow suit.
So lets assume that things stay the way they are for the next thirty years. Let’s assume that the European governments decide to introduce tougher anti-discrimination laws, and clamp down on what they view as anti-muslim sentiments. Let’s also assume that they start persecuting people with opposing views on this issue. The immigration would then continue, and quite possibly accelerate, making it next to impossible to prevent muslims from becoming a majority in Europe. If this scenario was to take place, the question one would have to ask is, what kind of society would rise up from the ashes? Would we get a moderate form of Euro-Islam, like the proponents of the multicultural society hope for, where a relatively moderate muslim population would accept and tolerate other religions and values? Or would they, with or without democratic means, decide to introduce an Islamic caliphate, where Sharia law takes superiority over existing criminal laws?
Like many other people, I see the term Euro-Islam simply as a smokescreen that the elite use as a means to try and pacify the native populations of Europe. Let’s face it, muslims believe in the writings of the Holy Koran, and not in any utopic illusions that some non-believing bureaucrats in Europe may hold. It is my opinion that the muslims would use our undying belief in democracy against us if it came down to it, and simply point out the obvious, which would be, that they won the referendum fair and square and they’re going to introduce the Islamic caliphate whether we like it or not. And technically this would be within the boundaries of accepted democratic rules. What the majority decides, goes. The native Europeans would then have to decide whether to accept this new regime or not.
Alternative number two is also a likely outcome. We’ve seen the emergence of radical muslim elements in our societies that are advocating such a solution. We’ve had several devastating terrorist attacks within the last couple of years that has made us reconsider our believes that we live in free and open democratic societies. These attacks along with other forms of intimidation has already eroded some of our freedoms. We think twice about criticizing Islam in public, and we refrain from publishing any drawings that could be deemed offensive to the muslim community. There is no question in my mind that the results of the scare tactics are viewed as small victories among radical muslims, and only make them more determined to push forward with their plans for overthrowing our democratic societies.
It doesn’t take that much effort to subjugate the masses. And a small group of highly dedicated and trained individuals could easily wreak havoc on our societies if they so choose. If ordinary people feel that they’re putting their lives on the line just by venturing down to the local supermarket or by simply hopping on the tube to go to work, we’ve entered a very critical phase. If we end up with a spiral of violence in Europe on a similar magnitude of let’s say South Africa, where crime is a very real part of everyday life, we’ve entered a point of no return. How long could we survive in such a violent environment? The next natural progression would be a situation similar to the one we have in Iraq, a total breakdown of law and order. If the governments should prove unsuccessful in weeding out the insurgents in such an environment, which is the most likely scenario, would it be that unheard of for them to try an negotiate a truce? European politicians have been keen advocates of “land for peace” deals in other parts of the world. Would they consider such an option in Europe if the result would be a cessation of hostilities?
The third possible scenario would be the creation of armed European resistance groups. This is very plausible option. We’ve seen such groups operate in Europe before, both during and after the second world war. If people feel they’re being pushed too far, they’ll eventually start to push back. In the novel “Hvitvasking” (Money laundry) by Tom Kristiensen (Norwegian author), a clandestine group of Norwegian patriots plan to rid Norway of third world immigrants. The methods they rely upon are similar to those the terrorist use in present day Iraq, a war of intimidation and scare tactics. They try to create an environment so hostile and dangerous that the immigrants themselves choose to leave the country.
I believe this would be the tactic of choice, adopted by such resistance groups. It has proven highly successful in other parts of the world, such as Iraq and Sudan, just to mention a few. It is very hard to fight such unconventional guerilla groups, mostly because they can hide amongst the civilian population after they’ve carried out their attacks. It would also be very easy for them to identify members of the muslim population, but equally difficult for the muslims and the authorities to identify members of these resistance groups, simply because the members of these groups share the same ethnicity as the majority population in Europe. I am of the opinion that everyone sooner or later will succumb to these scare tactics, just like the native European population are intimidated by radical muslims at the present time, muslims would be equally intimidated by Europeans if they were targeted in a similar way. It would be a totally new experience for them.
The fourth possible scenario is one where terrorist attacks just becomes to frequent and the loss of lives too hard to tolerate, or that the elite themselves are being targeted by the terrorists. If we get frequent terrorist attacks on the same scale as 9/11 or even bigger, say the partial or total destruction of some of our major cities, it would next to impossible for European governments not to introduce radical measures to rid itself of this threat. If the number of terrorist attack victims reach into the tens of thousands, or possibly even hundreds of thousands, they would have to act. It is not unthinkable that mass deportation of muslims then would take place, and that the creation of detention camps, like the one at Guantanamo Bay would go ahead. If on the other hand, after incidents like these, some politicians still wouldn’t act, something that’s very unlikely, it would still create an ambience where more radical and pragmatic politicians would win landslide elections, and the execution of these plans would go ahead. I think ordinary peoples survival instinct would override any other human instincts, including any utopic reference to human rights and religious freedom.
A fifth scenario is a peaceful or hostile coexistence between the two cultures. Where both are granted equal status, and where the segregation, both culturally and demographic just increases. It would be a continuation of today’s status quo. This is not a very plausible scenario, because both cultures have shown their unwillingness to live under such unnatural conditions. Sooner or later one of the cultures would resort to undemocratic methods to exert their will over the other.
The sixth scenario is one where the governments of Europe finally see the dangers of the influx of immigrants, and ban immigration from third world countries altogether, but allow the ones that are already here to stay. This could be the result if the people in Europe elect radical right wing politicians into office. They then again, introduce tough new measures to stop the rapid growth of immigrants in Europe. Maybe they would go as far as introducing a one child policy for all third world immigrants, or resort to other economic sanctions to achieve this goal. They could possibly even ban Islam altogether in Europe, or at least ban the radical approach to the religion that the islamists follow. This would then lead to a situation where Europe forever would have an ethnic minority within its borders, a continuation of the present day situation. The muslims living in Europe could then of course choose to either sever all ties to their native countries and perhaps reform their religion, or still choose to cling on to their old culture and strive to change the system to their advantage.
No matter what happens to this continent, whether a full scale war breaks out or not, it’s going to get very nasty. I believe that a rapid deterioration will first occur in one nation, and then others will follow in its track, or chose to introduce countermeasures to prevent a similar fate. It is naive to expect that an atmosphere of tranquil coexistence is going to last forever here in Europe. War and hostilities have been the norm here, and not the exception. That’s probably also how it’s going to be in the future.
posted by The Observer at 6:11 AM
6 Comments:
Unfortunately I think elements of all of your scenarios will come into play. Its really quite sad that the elites will continue to push the mythology of multiculturalism well beyond the point that no real thinking indigenous person continues to believe the nonsense. Its sad because it will end in bloodshed; and our children are the inheritors of our folly.
It will get bad in sissy Europe. But when the metal hits the meat, Europe will prevail.
Islam produces terrible soldiers. Soldiers win wars. Warriors/fighters are slaughtered by soldiers.
Look at Falluga, the supposed grave yard of arericans. The usa killed 2000 islamo crazies the sad part is 30 brave Americans died. islam is a cancer on the modern world.
The Dutch have woken up to the dangers of multi-culturalism and have enacted policies to slow down non-EU immigration. The French seem to be on their way to electing anti-immgration leaders and the British leaders seem less keen on immigration and multiculturalism too.
There is hope for the future.
If there are more muslim riots and demonstrations that should have a big impact on Europeans and push people further to the right.
Maybe we need to pay more attention to the crucial role of the evil and cruel Ulema - the Muslim witchdoctors - in the current clash of civilizations. See 'Defining the Enemy' at http://kenlydell.typepad.com/islamic_evil/2006/09/todays_update_2.html
The Ulema were, until the mid 20th century, the arbiters of law, custom and the Koran among a predominantly ignorant and illiterate muslim population.
They were far more than priests, being also judge, jury and executioner. Their status was very similar to that of the Druids of ancient Gaul and Britain. They were immensely influential and became wealthy by giving judgements in accordance with the Koran and what was most beneficial to the highest bidder (baksheesh).
With increasing secularisation in the mid 20th century, the Ulema became marginalised. The current wave of muslim obnoxiousness, beginning with Khomeini, is in part due to the Ulema's attempts to regain their influence.
The Romans conquered Gaul and Britain, but were subject to constant insurrection and guerilla warfare until they exterminated the Druids and destroyed their sacred sites.
We may not have to wage a war against all Muslims if we eradicate the Ulema and destroy the Mosques. There will be fewer people killed that way.
There's a very insightful comment by 'Columba' about why it's impossible to reason with Muslims, at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012989.php#comments
"It's significant that most other belief systems (including secular ones) base their truth claims on ... well, truth. Someone converting to the belief system would do so on the grounds that the system had somehow proven itself to be a valid way of looking at everything.
Islam's call to conversion is entirely different; it's based on power. Not just the threat "convert or die," but even the claim that "Islam is stronger," a claim we've been hearing more frequently these days. Not that it's true, but that it holds power.
There's little attempt to convince intellectually, but rather a call to join the winning army: might makes right. And that's a powerful appeal to people already inclined toward arrogance and violence."
There's one more possible scenario.
Western troops in the Middle East and Israel is attacked by Iran and it's allies, while muslim terrorist and paramilitary groups start offensives in Europe simultaneously. A final show down, so to speak.
Post a Comment
<< Home