Domain Query: Enduring the Long War

[Damn religious holidays... If it weren't for the fact that Rosh Hashanah is today (and I didn't know it), I could have reached out and punched someone at a Krav Maga class. Instead here I am writing a blog post...

Oh well. If you happen to be Jewish, שנה טובה ושלום עליך ("happy New Year and peace be upon you"... I think).]

pumpsix notes the potential for an anti-islamic backlash in Europe:
Now, I am not a national socialist, but I think Golden Dawn's reaction to the Islamic invasion is what is necessary to preserve the West. I see global Jihad as the same thing as global Communism. The Christian West destroyed the godless Communists. Now, the West is up against violent Islam; however, the problem is that we are no longer Christian any longer - we don't have anything to stand for.
This is an interesting set of points because there is a great deal that they get right, but I also think there are some flaws to these arguments that are worth looking into.

I'll address the point about Communism first. I would agree, up to a point, that it was the Christian West that defeated and destroyed Communism. I would refine this line of thought, however. The reality is that it was a Christian President, unafraid of presenting his faith and belief to his people, who led his explicitly capitalist nation to victory. Left to itself, (nominally) Christian Europe simply did not have the stomach, the zeal, or the means to tackle the juggernaut of the Warsaw Pact. In the 1960s and 1970s, the fact is that much of Europe was becoming rapidly socialist. The United Kingdom was virtually a Communist country in all but name by 1979. France had been solidly socialist ever since the end of WWII. Germany was the only really productive economy in most of Europe, but there was no way that a pacifist Germany could possibly have held off the military might of an entire Communist empire.

The key to victory during the Cold War came with Reagan's war. His strategy consisted of a multi-pronged offensive, combining the economic dynamism of the free market, the military might of the world's only true superpower, the rock of the Christian faith, and the defensive aggression of a highly confident combatant secure in the knowledge of its own strength. I link to my own post simply to point out that there is a roadmap to victory in the Long War, and that Reagan's War tells us exactly how to win. I say this not to negate pumpsix's basic argument, but to expand upon it. In fighting against oligarchic or totalitarian ideologies like Communism and Islam, faith alone is not sufficient. By way of counterexample, think of much of Latin America, which is deeply Christian, but also highly socialist in outlook. Does anyone seriously think that Brazil, Argentina, or (Lord help us) Venezuela could really take on an Islamic Caliphate and win?

pumpsix's point about Golden Dawn is spot on. I agree that there is a serious backlash brewing in Europe right now. Factions like Golden Dawn, the English Defence League, and various anti-immigrant parties like UKIP are gaining in prominence; for instance the UKIP is now, in my opinion, the only political party in England that appears to have anything approaching a coherent, sensible platform, based as it is on relatively free-market economics, an anti-EU foreign policy, and a deep and healthy scepticism of immigration.

I do not, however, think that this backlash will accomplish very much. As Vox Day constantly reminds us, demographics is destiny. The fact is that Eurabia will become a reality by 2050 unless massive disruptive action is taken today by the native populations of Europe. The birth rates of native Europeans- white, Christian, generally slow to anger and generally willing to tolerate an awful lot before reacting- has gone well below replacement levels and has stayed that way for decades.

In order to believe that Islam can be stopped in Europe, one has to first believe that the Europeans are actually willing to fight to preserve their way of life. Based on my personal experiences as well as the data available to us today, I think that one would have to be absurdly overoptimistic to put one's faith in such a possibility. Even relative to modern Americans, Europeans are a bunch of whiny, mollycoddled, snot-nosed pantywaists, who have grown decadent, soft, and weak. I hold much of Europe in deep contempt for its refusal to recognise just how important its freedoms are, and its unwillingness to pay the price to defend those freedoms. As that link to an old Frontpage Magazine article notes,
Not the least noteworthy of Peter’s errors is the assumption that modern Europeans are as ready to fight for the continuation of their way of life as the burgeoning Muslim populations in their midst are prepared to destroy it. Unwilling to admit the inconvenient truth that Europeans have grown lethargic due to cradle-to-grave state welfare and utopian pacifism, Peters is forced to seek out dates far back in history—such as 1492 when Spain ended 800 years of Muslim rule on the Iberian Peninsula—to try and make his point that the inherent brutality of Europeans will ensure their survival.
And this brings us back full-circle to the issue of belief. pumpsix is completely correct to note that the West won against Communism because it believed that it had something worth fighting for. And he is also completely correct to note that today, the West doesn't really believe in anything of importance. This will most assuredly be the reason why the West will- not might, will- lose this war, unless the people wake the hell up very quickly.

Let me explain briefly how Islamic expansions have been stopped. There have been three great expansions of Islamic dominion over its nearly 15-century history. The first two were stopped through military means; the third is still ongoing. The first great expansion occurred shortly after the death of Mohammed, and it conquered virtually the entire Middle East as we know it today, much of Northern Africa, and then extended into Spain until Charles "The Hammer" Martel stopped it cold at the Battle of Poitiers in AD 732. The second great expansion started roughly 200 years later (give or take a century) and consumed Byzantium, India, much of Southeast Asia, huge parts of what would eventually become the Soviet satellite states, and struck northeast into the heart of Europe until Jan Sobieski broke the back of the Turkish siege of Vienna, on a date that should stand as one of the most famous in all of human history- September 11th, 1683.

Both great sphere expansions were stopped by a combination of four major factors:
  1. Belief that the defenders had something worth fighting for;
  2. Supremely skilled military leadership;
  3. Serious home-field advantage;
  4. No small amount of luck
Today, we sure as hell don't have the first in the West. We're rapidly running out of the second. We're not really sure about the third, given that the invader is here, among us. And as far as I'm concerned, #4 is as much a natural consequence of the first 3 as it is an exogenous variable.

pumpsix is correct to point out the lack of belief in the modern West. That lack of faith is precisely what will cost the West victory in this war. The fact is that an Islamic economy cannot compete against a free-market economy. It is remarkable, in fact, how many similarities an Islamic economy has to a Communist one- a subject for another post- and as such it is susceptible to the same weaknesses and the same lines of attack.

The only way to stop the current third-sphere expansion is via a massive-scale implementation of something similar to Operation Wetback- and it is important to note that Operation Wetback did very little to stop the overall flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico to the USA, it only removed ones that were caught. Literally the only way to stop the Islamisation of the West is for every major Western power to engage in a truly gigantic program of forced deportation, and then to shut off its borders to any and all immigrants from any and all Islamic nations, regardless of status, education, sex, age- you name it.

Who seriously believes that the West has the stomach to do anything like that?



  1. i agree with your assessment, or at least, a flavor of it. i agree that strong faith has historically been the driving force of western european/american supremacy, but I take a much more machivelian stance on this then you - much much more.

    those with the strongest faith believe themselves to be " the chosen people", and thus, by default, makes it much easier to dehumanize ones opponents. this dehumanization is what leads to the ability to be genocidal in war, which has historically been a universally successful strategy up to and including World War II. No, im not referring to the Germens and the camps. Our bombing of Dresdin, Japan, etc was banket, total death raining war.

    the self righteous have no need to check their conscience. genocide (or at the very least, total and complete war, with no reservations and no quarter). there will never be a child avenging his father if his father is reduced to a fine powder blowing across the summer sky. the never will exist cannot avenge the dead.

    this does offend my "modern" sensibilities, to be certain. But it has universally worked throughout history. It would take Obama all of 20 minutes to end all bullshit in the middle east and the muslum world, but unfortunately, the only men who appear willing or able to do this today are muslims.

  2. Thanks for the write up. Without a doubt, you along with VD produce the most interesting blog posts. Just wondering, can you recommend a book on the economic battles between USA and USSR? (Also, off topic, do you know of any good books on economic history? I have New ideas from dead economists and The history of economic thought: a reader coming in the mail. I was wondering if there was anything better.)

    I agree with the argument you made. Islam has Christianity beat on faith alone. After all, how many Christians do you see strapping on suicide vests and bombing civilians? There are Christian militia, but nowhere to the same degree as Islam.

    What do you think about Putin's Russia? I haven't looked into Russia's economy; however, Putin looks to be the strongest (possible) Right-wing leader in the world. From where I sit, it looks like Putin has a vision for Russia that doesn't include progressive egalitarianism.

    1. Now that is high praise indeed, I'm flattered and deeply honoured to be held in the same company as Vox, given the immense esteem in which I hold him.

      Let me get back to you about the books, I've got a few in mind that are very much worth reading.

      Putin strikes me as the kind of bloke that Russia not only needs but wants. It should never be forgotten that Russia has basically always been ruled by men of iron- from the earliest days of its existence as a unified nation. Even today, roughly 20 million people in Russia still think that Stalin- genocidal lunatic that he was- did a great job because he brought "stability" to the Soviet Union and because he "won" the Great Patriotic War (their name for WWII). Russia's economy is doing well largely because of its massive natural resources- I actually worked on a project once involving a major Russian gas producer, and I can tell you, those guys are patient and calculating in a way that Westerners have a very hard time understanding. But, it wouldn't take much to tip Russia straight back over the edge- it's still a fragile economy, and it's headed for demographic disaster. Its population is due to drop by half within the next 50 years, and there is nothing much that they can do about this. Not even Putin can save them from that fate.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts