If you don’t want rats in your house, you make your house unlivable for rats, perhaps by buying a cat. If you don’t want cockroaches, you likewise make your house unlivable for those unlovable critters too. I recommend scrupulous cleanliness and the occasional use of poisons.
So, what do you do if you don’t want to live (and die) cheek-by-bloody-jowl with Islamist nut jobs, like the Kouachi brothers, the gunmen who attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo, and their various cohorts? The answer is simple: you make it unlivable for such scum.
That much can be understood by everybody, but the next question is how to achieve this panacea of common sense.
Some hotheads would advocate a massive séance to raise the ghost of Charles Martel, and a literal driving of all Muslims into the sea – a version of Camp of the Saints in reverse.
Yes, that sounds good a few hours after the most recent outrage perpetuated by the followers of “The Religion of Peace” ™, but that’s not going to happen, at least not yet. There are too many vested interests, too much face to lose by the establishment doing a 180-degree turn, not to mention the immediate economic fallout – soured relations with Middle East, the costs of deportations, etc., etc.
The general populace also have not steeled their hearts for that much harshness and occasional brutality. Many of them will probably know reasonably nice and normal people of Islamic backgrounds, and there will be millions of sob stories just waiting to happen.
But unless some solution is found, the problem will only grow, so a solution will eventually be found several atrocities down the line. So, what will it look like and will it work?
The main problem as far as the elites are concerned is not the racial nature of Muslims but the militant nature of Islam, which, at least in contact with other cultures has played a galvanizing and inflaming role. They are of course wrong. Race remains very important, but this is a realization that for them is perched right on the edge of the precipice of White survival.
For these blinkered elites, their main hope still lies in what I have called elsewhere “cultural genocide,” the hope that Islam can be what Christianity now is, a minor distraction, a bit of cultural fluff. Their ideal is apparently someone like Lassana Bathily, the immigrant from Mali, who is now being hailed as the “hero” of the kosher supermarket siege in Paris that occurred in support of the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
A heroic young Muslim hid Jewish hostages in a freezer as they sought refuge from a killer during a siege at a Kosher supermarket.
Lassana Bathily, originally from Mali in west Africa, is said to have shepherded terrified customers to safety in a chiller as the Islamist gunman took hold of the Hyper Cacher supermarket in Porte de Vincennes, Paris, yesterday.
If all Muslims could be like Bathily, a docile-seeming soul, happy to fill a low-paid service sector job for his social superiors, and oblivious of any sense of Islamic solidarity, then the great scheme of the multiculturalization of Europe would perhaps be back on track. But with Islamic militancy rising in symbiosis with the long-repressed, but now accelerating anti-Islamic tendencies of native Europeans, how can Bathily-style multiculturalism edge out the Islamic nascent mono-culturalism of the Kouachi brothers that demands the conquest of the West?
There seems only one route that our elites can ultimately follow that retains an all-important token believe in “tolerance,” “diversity,” and “multiculturalism,” while also satisfying the growing anger and outrage of Europeans, this is the Chinese solution to the problem of disruptive religion.
When the Communists took over Russia in the 1917, some attempts were made to simply abolish religion and impose atheism, but it was soon realized that such steps would be costly. Later Russian orthodoxy was among the many elements of traditional culture that Soviet Russia mobilized in the service of the war effort against Nazi Germany. In China, following the Communist victory against the Kuomintang in the 1940s, the Chinese Communist Party did not outlaw religion or seek to abolish it, but instead decided to manage or neuter it.
They were particularly concerned about Christianity, both because of its connections with the leadership of the previous regime – key nationalists like Sun Yat-sen (Congregationalist) and Chiang Kai-shek (Methodist) were Christian – and because it was used as a means of subverting Chinese culture and identity by foreign powers.
Accordingly, Christianity and three other religions – Buddhism, Taoism, and Islam – were reorganized and placed under the supervision of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, a bureau charged with harmonizing these religions and their followers with the interests of the state. As Christianity was divided into Protestant and Catholic branches, officially five “religions” were recognized.
Even with the exclusion of Westerners from China following the revolution, Christianity continued to be viewed as inherently dangerous to Chinese sovereignty. This was due to its high degree of organization and universalism. This fear was reflected in the names given by the State Administration for Religious Affairs to the two bodies under which Protestantism and Catholicism were reconstituted. While the organizations overseeing Buddhism, Taoism, and Islam were simply termed the Buddhist Association of China (中国佛教协会), the Chinese Taoist Association (中国道教协会), and the Islamic Association of China (中国伊斯兰教协会), the two Christian organizations had the word “patriotic” pointedly added to their titles. Protestantism was organized as the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (三自爱国运动) and the Catholic Church became the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (中国天主教爱国会).
All worship was conducted through state-approved churches, where patriotic values and respect for the “socialist motherland” were instilled side-by-side with the love of Jesus. The Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association also denied the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as this conflicted with the notion of Chinese sovereignty.
More recently, China has allowed greater religious freedom, and there has been a massive growth in other religions, including evangelical Protestantism. The Chinese government, however, remains keenly aware of the threat this poses to national identity and sovereignty and has recently been addressing this:
China will redouble its efforts to nationalize Christianity, a senior Chinese official announced on last Thursday. “The construction of Chinese Christian theology should adapt to China’s national condition and integrate with Chinese culture,” Wang Zuoan, director of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, said at a Shanghai forum on the “Sinicization of Christianity,” according to Chinese state media. Gu Mengfei, deputy secretary-general of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement — a state-sanctioned umbrella organization for Protestant churches — elaborated on the initiative. “This will encourage more believers to make contributions to the country’s harmonious social progress, cultural prosperity and economic development,” Gu said. http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/why-is-china-nationalizing-christianity/
The relevance that this has with the solution in Europe should be obvious. With tens of millions of Muslims now living in Europe, forcibly uprooting and deporting them will be difficult to say the least, especially with our present societies, which combine the profession of Liberal values with soft totalitarian tendencies. Modern multicultural Europe, in fact, faces very similar challenges to Communist China, with its ethnic and religious minorities ever poised to take the flame of faith or nationalism.
What then would be more natural than for our elites in Europe to finally attempt something analogous to what has been done in China, but with particular emphasis on Islam, which is, of course, a far greater threat to Europe than Christianity is to China?
This could be done by nationalizing Islam in some way and bowdlerizing it, forcing each mosque to teach “European values” side by side with the more anodyne elements of the Islamic faith. These “European values” could include those values that the liberal part of our society find particularly attractive, such as gender equality, homosexualism, non-violence, tolerance, animal rights (anti-halal), and a respect for atheistic science. Other key European values that might be promoted could also include traditional monogamy.
The key point about all these values is that they are especially antithetical to Islam, and by diluting and polluting Islam in this way, our elites would have a convenient device both for reigning in Islam and appeasing discontent. Such moves would smoke out the main Islamic hotheads, who could then be arrested, deported, or, assuming the worst, shot in bloody stand offs, but they would also encourage those Muslims most resilient to the agenda of “cultural genocide” to remigrate back to Muslim lands. For them following a gelded caricature of their faith would be a lot harder to accept than it is for Christians to do likewise. This could then be spun to indigenous Europeans as closing the floodgates of immigration and promoting assimilation.
The main benefit of this approach, as far as our elites are concerned, is that it would give Europeans yet another mechanism of denial about their true identity, while leaving them safe in their deluded moral assurance that they were wise and tolerant individuals open to all the cultures of the World.
Would it work is, of course, another question.