Antemurale Christianitatis: Vol. IV
“The entire world of Islam is to-day in profound ferment. From Morocco to China and from Turkestan to the Congo…followers of the Prophet Mohammed are stirring to new ideas, new impulses, new aspirations. A gigantic transformation is taking place whose results must affect all mankind. This transformation was greatly stimulated by the late war. But it began long before. More than a hundred years ago the seeds were sown, and ever since then it has been evolving; at first slowly and obscurely; later more rapidly and perceptibly; until to-day, under the stimulus of Armageddon, it has burst into sudden and startling bloom.”-Lothrop Stoddard, The New World of Islam (1921), describing Wahhabism
“Mohammedan Nationalism is not an isolated or sporadic agitation. It is a broad tide, which is flowing over the whole Islamic world of Asia, India, and Africa. Nationalism is a new form of the Mohammedan faith, which, far from being undermined by contact with European civilization, seems to have developed a surplus of religious fervor, and which, in its desire for expansion and proselytism, tends to realize its unity by rousing the fanaticism of the masses, by directing the political tendencies of the elites, and by sowing everywhere the dangerous seeds of agitation.”-Andre Servier
There are profound theological and civilizational questions confronting the West, questions that will shape its complexion and, if it has one, future. The European Project is disintegrating before our very eyes as the battle for self-determination rages on: authoritarian versus anti-authoritarian, globalist versus nationalist, Christian versus Muslim versus Jew. The sickness and the cure are, in many respects, inextricably intertwined. The open-borders policies and freedom of movement within the European Union are obliterating the traditional nation-state, and yet, without a general consciousness as Europeans, natives of the continent are doomed to be swallowed whole by the tide of alien populations while simultaneously being crushed under the heel of totalitarianism.
The glue of Christianity, having dried, no longer binds, and makes for easy pickings, especially since the targets are so consumed by guilt, they’ll not only not resist, they’ll actively facilitate their own dispossession and destruction. Can the West survive without Christianity? The center of virtually every European town, literally, is the church, but what if its only purpose now, besides doubling as a municipal building of some kind (or a restaurant or nightclub, both of which I’ve seen churches become “re-purposed” for), is to serve as a reminder of the days gone by? What if the would-be antiquated relic can—and I hesitate to say this at the risk of sounding cliché—also be metaphorically positioned at the center or “heart” of European civilization?
The modern, secular West owes a tremendous debt to the Christian tradition that, alongside Greek and Roman civilization, was the foundation of its development. In many ways, Western Man is analogous to Alexander the Great. When there were no more worlds left to conquer, Alexander wept, and sought refuge in the arms of women and alcohol, until disease ultimately claimed the great conqueror, the philosopher-king, still in what should have been his prime. Western Man was industrious, he conquered seas, and now, riddled with sickness, he pursues oblivion. His faith shaken and his purpose obscured, he waits to die by the hand of the barbarian, even if he does not yet know it. To quote Lothrop Stoddard:
Asia and Africa today know Europe as they never knew it before, and we may be sure that they will make use of their knowledge...Europe today lies debilitated and uncured, while Asia and Africa see in this a standing incitement to rash dreams and violent action. Such is the situation today: an East, torn by the conflict between old and new, facing a West riven with dissension and sick from its mad follies. Probably never before have the relations between the two worlds contained so many incalculable, even cataclysmic, possibilities.
Europe proposes to combat this civilization-destroying tidal wave with what, tolerance? Gay, liberal Polish blogger Kamil Bulonis had his worldview shattered when he observed the scene at the border between Austria and Italy with his own eyes, so at odds was it with the governmental and media portrayal of the helpless, suffering “migrants”:
“With all solidarity with people in difficult circumstances I have to say that what I have seen, arouses horror…This huge mass of people – and I’m sorry for what I write – but it’s an absolute wilderness…Vulgar, throwing bottles, loud shouts of ‘We want Germany!’ The coach in which I was in, the group tried to push over. Shit thrown at us, banging on the door to be opened by the driver, spat on the glass…I ask you, for what purpose? How is this wilderness to assimilate in Germany? I felt for a moment like in a warzone…The whole group was cordoned by police and transported back to Italy. The coach was butchered, smeared in feces, scratched, broken windows. And this is supposed to be an idea of the demographics? These big powerful hordes of savages? Among them actually there were no women, no children – the vast majority were aggressive young men …On these few thousand people no one understood neither Italian, nor English, nor German, nor Russian, nor Spanish. In the coach of the French group they opened the luggage hatches - everything that was inside, in a short moment was stolen, some things lay on the ground ... Never in my short life have I had the opportunity to watch similar scenes and I have a feeling that it’s only beginning. At the end I will add that it is worth helping, but not at any price. We Poles are simply not ready to accept these people – neither culturally nor financially. I do not know if anyone is ready.”
The basic premises and suppositions of neo-liberalism simply do not hold water, and the evidence against the core egalitarian tenets is overwhelming at this point. Many countries and municipalities no longer keep racial crime statistics because of what they might “reveal.” You can try to criminalize reality all you want, but gravity always wins. Yes, we are all familiar with the exhaustive list of reasons for mass immigration, but even assuming the reasons were legitimate (they’re not), the negatives have simply never been considered, nor were the people ever really consulted. The multi-culturalists were too blinded by their own ideology in the first place to consider that the “migrants” might, 1) bring their existing beliefs and ethnic conflicts with them, and 2) that these illiberal and tribal peoples might just remain illiberal and tribal (and illiterate). It’s not as if by dint of being in Europe or elsewhere in the West immigrants, “migrants,” and aliens magically transform into Sappho or Thomas Paine or Michel de Montaigne overnight. European liberalism, so self-congratulatory in its “progress,” will only prove temporary under the sheer weight of demographic transformation threatening to sink the continent. As Greg Johnson wrote in In Defense of Prejudice, citing France in this particular example:
The gay marriage statute, after all, is only a law. Laws can be changed. And this particular law clearly will be abolished, along with the rest of liberalism, when Sharia law is imposed by France’s rising Muslim majority. Sharia law, of course, is not forever either. But Sharia law will be imposed only by the demographic swamping of the French, which will lead to their genetic and cultural obliteration. And extinction is forever.
The reality of the situation is that grave. With the Christian faith now transmogrified into a vague liberal, supra-national project, the Pop nothing more than a “social justice” avatar, the defining characteristics of European identity have more or less been supplanted by feel-good platitudes and materialism, all the while ignoring the encroachment on freedom in a terrible pincer movement of European Union bureaucracy and Islamization, supported by relentless propaganda. To quote F. Roger Devlin:
European man is unusual in his individualism, de-emphasis of kinship relations in favor of contractual relations, low ethnocentrism, and a morally universalistic outlook. Given these evolutionary realities, it is not an accident that liberalism was created by European man. Liberalism views society as a quasi-contractual relationship between individuals aimed at allowing everyone to pursue private aims, particularly economic self-interest, free from the “burden” of inherited traditions. As Professor [Ricardo] Duchesne notes, liberals “don’t want to admit that liberal states, like all states, were . . . created by a people with a common language, heritage, racial characteristics, religious traditions, and a sense of territorial acquisition involving the derogation of out-groups.” The German jurist Carl Schmitt theorized that liberals have an inherently weak sense of the political, because they are universalists, and politics is essentially about competition between groups, which rests on an ability to distinguish friends from enemies. For many generations, writes Prof. Duchesne, Western nations’ “sense of ethno-cultural identity was the one collectivist norm holding their liberal nations safely under the concept of the political.” Once this last form of collectivism was abandoned, liberal nations lost the ability to see outsiders as a threat. They were caught up in a “spiral of radicalization” that would lead to the importation of countless people from collectivist cultures who do not hesitate to use liberal language against their hosts to promote their own collective interests. Such people are not themselves liberals, and are unwilling to limit themselves to the pursuit of private and economic interests; they aim at gaining control of territory for their own group. Hence, the “no-go” immigrant zones in contemporary European countries, which liberal multiculturalists did not know to expect.
The universalistic ethos of Christianity, which found a ready home in the genetic pre-dispositions and predilections of the European population, when un-coupled from both the traditional faith and its role as an active buttress to nationalism and civilizational confidence, has become displaced, these energies poured into relative nonsense and, as Charles Dickens once identified it as the bourgeoisie’s “telescopic philanthropy.” Global uplift became the raison d’etre of Western Man, the sufferings of the Masai and Dinka and Pashtun and Arab of paramount importance while the people at home, if thought of at all, were treated with scorn and contempt and subject to derision. The worst invective of the “elites” was always reserved for the working class of their own nations, their suffering of no consequence, which explains why the girls of Rotherham and Telford and Rochdale and so many other places were so easily dismissed by the BBC, the authorities, and the other fixtures of the managerial class; it is far easier to Orientalize the Other than to deign to “dirty” oneself down at the council estate.
It is easy to see how the “temporary workers” from Turkey and elsewhere after World War II morphed into the present population replacement using this class-based lens. Now, everyone and anyone without white skin living in a hell of their own civilizational short-comings’ design can have sanctuary in the West, the supposed progenitor of all things of racist and xenophobic, which is suddenly good enough to give the global “People of Color” a new life at its own expense. Nay, at your expense. But this “savior” could only be “good” insofar as the aid and free housing on demand keep coming, but not good enough to be immune from the criticisms of the very people it’s extended a hand to. Sold a bill of goods, the European population was first suckered by the “need” for labor (still being heavily pushed despite the fact that this claim has been thoroughly debunked), and when/if that failed to convince, the morality was laid on nice and thick. A sufficient number of people have bought in to the empathy-guilt one-two punch that Western Man has been broad-sided by his own pathological altruism, the knife of compassion stuck deep between his ribs while he struggles to give the murderer the shirt off his back.
From peasantry to factory workers, the plebeians of Europe have always been despised by their supposed “betters,” which is why so many left to carve out a new agrarian and self-reliant life in the New World or Oceania or even Africa. But the aristocracy has an insidious way of re-producing itself, and the European affliction is now endemic to the entirety of the Western world in some degree, ranging from Canada and Sweden at the high end to the V4 and Appalachia at the low end. Whither your domicile, the tide of neo-liberal snake oil and Third World shock troops are coming to claim your nation with all-out demographic and psychological warfare—and if your state’s already succumbed, God help you.
 The Third World labor pool was obviously not very good to begin with, or the nations these people are so eager to get out of would be at least semi-prosperous. This begs the question, why, other than out of sado-masochism and a thoroughly impaired understanding of the world, would you keep bringing people with low IQs into an increasingly cognitively-demanding economy? It is estimated that 9.1 million jobs will be lost to automation in the United States alone (more if the Left keeps insisting on an exorbitantly high minimum wage) by the year 2025.