Tuesday, 3 April 2007

Civil War by 2025? Or slow takeover by 2100?

Over at Gates of Vienna, there's a new article by Paul Weston, suggesting that, given present birth rates and rates of Muslim immigration and native emigration, Muslims in Europe could feel ready to launch a violent revolution by 2025.

As shocking as such a possibility is, I would regard it as far less worrying - and far easier to defeat - than what is going on at the moment. If Muslims, or at least a large percentage of them, do attempt to launch a violent takeover, then the sooner they do it, the better. On Mr Weston's most pessimistic projection, native European men of fighting age should still outnumber Muslims of fighting age by 2 to 1 in 2025. And, while Mr Weston emphasises that, at present, five native accountants could easily be sent fleeing by one machete-wielding Jihadi, he also makes the point that, were a war really to begin, everyone would have to pick sides, and, ultimately, fight. In such circumstances, I believe that the native numerical advantage would end up being decisive, albeit after much bloodshed. It would be a close-run thing, but I think that ultimately the odds would come down quite strongly on the native side.

By contrast, what is going on at the moment is far more frightening. At present, we have a situation where creeping demographic change is slowly but surely giving the Muslims the upper hand. Gradually, their numbers are increasing, while ours are declining. If they are patient, they don't need to get violent. Rather, they will be a majority soon enough (exactly how soon is unclear, but it certainly seems likely that by 2100 at the latest Western Europe as a whole will be majority Muslim). Then they can take over via the ballot box, secure in the knowledge that they will have the upper hand, should any physical fighting become necessary. In the meantime, they can slowly increase their influence: intimidating opponents, getting their people into parliament and local councils, colonising towns like Bradford and Oldham, in preparation for the eventual colonisation of the entire country.
Meanwhile, the native population will remain blissfully unaware of the problem, until one day it wakes up, and finds out that the battle has been lost before it's been fought. While I believe that Mr Weston's article is interesting, I think that the (largely) peaceful takeover scenario is what groups like the Muslim Council of Britain are aiming for, and it is the better strategy.

Of course, defeat is not inevitable. Perhaps one reason why Muslims might wish to precipitate violent conflict is that every day that their peaceful takeover goes on is one more day which the infidels have in which to wake up, and fight back. And it does seem that the public are, very slowly, awakening to the threat. The question is, whether they will wake up in time. Those of us who are already awake must do what we can to slow down the Muslim takeover, and to wake up those who are still asleep. And, on this note, I refer you to this piece by Mr Smith, discussing some ways in which we might resist the slow process of Islamification.

Postscript: The picture that illustrates this post is, I think, a very potent representation of the risk of a slow Islamic takeover. The man is a Muslim, the building a former church now destined to become a mosque, the location is Clitheroe, a town which has previously been lucky enough not to have any mosques. The slight smirk of triumph, just playing around the edges of his mouth, says a lot, I think.

6 comments:

MrSmith said...

That's the most worrying thing, that in some ways events like 9/11, Beslan, 7/7, are the worst things to happen to their jihad, since those events wake us up to the threat.

A friend sent me a link on the church desecration from the NY Times. According to the NYT, the church was called the 'Mount Zion' methodist. I wonder if that goes some way towards explaining the smirk.

Thanks for the link, much appreciated. If anyone can think of anything that needs adding to the little list I made, I'd really like to hear the suggestions. The more we fight back, the better.

Fulham Reactionary said...

9/11 was, I think, disastrous for groups like the MCB, and their slow takeover approach. On that day, and in the months and years that followed, millions of people - myself included - woke up to the true nature of the Islamic threat.

It's interesting to take a look through the archives at LGF (if you can find them: they used to be down the left-hand side, but aren't anymore) and read the pre-9/11 entries. Back then, LGF was Charles Johnson's personal blog, with such political comments as were made being generally somewhat liberalish. Had 9/11 not occurred, it probably still would be.

Sites like Jihad Watch, Western Resistance, and Gates of Vienna didn't even exist in 2001, and I think it's doubtful they would today, but for 9/11. Certainly they would have nowhere near as many readers. Instead they, and others, have been exposing the truth to hundreds of thousands of people each day.

Perhaps future generations will see the atrocities you mentioned (and all the others like them) as being the major mistake the Jihadis made. It would certainly be nice if something so positive were to come out of those dreadful events.

Bernard said...

"...something positive were to come out of those dreadful events".

Well, for one, the US got the perfect pretext to invade the Middle East, something the 9/11 conspirators never calculated.
And it was done so easily too!
All that 'come and get us' bluster was utterly humiliating for Islam everywhere when the hated Crusader just walked it. That must be worth something?
What we see now in the subsequent 'convulsions' from muslims, is pure, impotent hubris.
If it came to a civil war here or elsewhere, don't bet on them winning, they are not on their home territory, and that counts for a lot.
You and Mr. Smith are just fatallists. All it needs is for the liberal idealology to burn itself out.
I 'refuse' to subscribe to the old Arab saying: "It is written".

MrSmith said...

Me? A fatalist? When all I advocate is fighting and never say a word about giving up or giving in? I think perhaps we have very different definitions of fatalism.

Bernard said...

Mr. Smith:
Sorry, wrong word; it should have read, counsel of dispair.
Paul Weston whould have agreed with Ralph Peter's un-liberal article on Europes'likely, violent reaction to Islamification. But you....dismissed it?

MrSmith said...

Did I? Where was this? Please to refresh my memory?