Surrender, Genocide… or What? — An Update

A thought provoking essay by El Ingles which has caused a lot of debate and controversy.
.

The essay is a very interesting read as to the likely future scenario and consequences which is a likely result of our utopist and mediocre as well as intellectual bankrupt politicians notoriously from the left which has promoted their insane and outright racist ideology of multiculturalism and braindead collectivist tool of oppression - Political Correctness - Which they stuff down the native European citizens throats preventing opposition, criticism and hampering reason and rational thinking, all which is essential for their perverted social engineering and utopist fantasies.

.

by Baron Bodissey

Last spring El Inglés caused a bit of a stir here with his essay “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”. In recent weeks he has been busy researching and writing a follow-up, and the result is posted below.

.

A prefatory note from El Inglés:

I started writing ‘Surrender, Genocide… or What?’ with a fairly loose set of topics I wished to write a paragraph each on. There was no hint in my mind of how it might take shape when finished, or what threads of argument might bind it together. However, as I started to put metaphorical pen to paper, some paragraph headings were discarded as superfluous, others used at greater length, and the resulting chunks of text reorganized in accordance with an increasingly clear notion of what it was I wanted to say.

.

Having enjoyed the great privilege of having a number of very different essays read, enjoyed, loathed, praised, and torn down by presumably some thousands if not tens of thousands of readers, I would like to bring an end to my rather strange and short career as an analyst of Islamization and related issues with a long-brewing update to ‘Surrender, Genocide, or What?’ in which I consider again some of the key arguments, some new developments, and some factors which may be of relevance to issues of central importance.

.

Surrender, Genocide… or What? — An Update by El Inglés

Prelude

The controversy over ‘Surrender, Genocide… or What?’ (hereafter referred to as SGW) was, by and large, fraudulent. It was simply used as ammunition in an ongoing conflict, by certain parties with limited reading comprehension skills and even more limited integrity. Nor is there any obvious reason why it should have been controversial. Given the prevalence of violent conflict of various sorts in human history, it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that any polity, no matter how peaceful or prosperous, is never more than one or two macrohistorical wrong turns away from reacquainting itself with the unpleasantness such conflict results in. Given further the innumerable examples to be found even just in recent history of the extraordinary violence human beings will use to attack and/or separate themselves from others with whom they do not identify, the likelihood of an outbreak of vicious tribal conflict in Europe as a consequence of mass immigration struck me as obvious. Indeed, it still strikes me as being so obvious as to be slightly embarrassing to suggest at all.

.

Despite the above, there was a slightly surreal quality to the process of considering, in as much detail as I could manage at the time of writing, the implications of the fairly simple positive feedback arguments that were central to the essay. The conclusions I reached in SGW struck even me, the author, as being slightly fantastic in some regards. But that they did so was, I think, more a consequence of the unprecedented nature of the phenomena I predicted for post-war Western Europe than of any flaw in the arguments themselves. Indeed, nothing that has happened between now and my writing SGW has led me to believe that the reasoning therein was not fundamentally sound and the dynamics I claimed to see in the Islamization of Europe not actually real. On the contrary, subsequent events have convinced me that the point of no return I mentioned in SGW has, in all likelihood, already been crossed by at least some European countries, and others are dangerously close to crossing it. Before explaining why I think this, I would like to briefly review the key line of argument in the original essay.

.

Boiled down to its essentials, the argument goes as follows.

Political elites in most Western European countries are wedded, through genuine ideological conviction, institutional entanglements, or both, to a politics which has taken the influx of large numbers of Muslim immigrants to be both natural and beneficial. This position, facilitated by a belief in the equal worth and validity of all cultures and a consequent desire to allow all cultures consideration and concessions, has permitted Islam to start to display its true colours, as a vicious, expansionist, and totalitarian ideology that will continue to demand ever greater degrees of obeisance.

.

With both endogenous and exogenous growth of European Muslim communities driving up the Muslim population fractions in afflicted countries, a positive feedback loop emerges.

The abovementioned political elites, baffled by and helpless in the face of a tribalism the likes of which they had, one assumes, forgotten ever existed, rush to appease the followers of Allah as, their worldview informs them, all conceivable tensions can be resolved to the satisfaction of all relevant parties through compromise. Such capitulation as then takes place emboldens Muslim fifth columnists whilst allowing their numbers to continue to grow unabated. Before too long, further capitulation is required to soothe the anger of an ever-stronger Muslim community, thereby wearing the groove of a coupled behavioural pattern ever deeper into the minds of demanders and appeasers, predators and prey.

.

It is my contention that this disastrous positive feedback loop cannot be escaped from through the actions of extant political elites with decades of psychological and intellectual investment in its creation. Accordingly, it will be broken only by the emergence of qualitatively different political actors, who can be categorized in one of two ways: non-mainstream political parties who gain power on the back of opposition to Islamization and mass immigration more generally in electoral discontinuities; and agents acting outside of or after the breakdown of established political mechanisms in non-electoral discontinuities, which imply some significant collapse of law and order. Both of these discontinuities are likely to be extremely unpleasant and feature much violence.

.

Furthermore, there is a very real possibility that even electoral discontinuities will be induced by additional dynamics to collapse into non-electoral discontinuities with all that that implies. Note that none of these claims is offered up as some fundamental law of European societies pertinent to the situations they find themselves in today. Rather, they simply constitute a formalization of a number of easily observable, loosely bundled European dynamics vis-à-vis Islam.
.
Continue reading at The Gates of Vienna where you can join the debate as well.