Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Will We Save Europe... Again?

If you read the writings of Mark Steyn you begin to wonder if there is hope for the survival of western culture - and you begin to think that Europe is already lost. With the European-Muslim birth rates soaring, and the radical elements of the immigrant population effecting the formation and rule of law, Europe faces a more insidious and ubiquitous threat to its survival than the Nazis brought to the 1930's.

Imagine the Nazis in plain clothes, infiltrating every facet of life in every country of Europe. Imagine the Third Reich conquering France, England, and Spain - not with armies, but from within. If you imagine a more patient Hitler with a subtler approach, you begin to grasp the monumental challenge that Europe faces.

Ironically, it may be the rise of another fascist leader that ultimately saves the European culture.

Adolph Hitler rode the economic forces of the Great Depression into power, establishing economic security and modest prosperity. Although he abolished political parties, his popularity was such that he probably would have won an election held in 1936 or 1938.

Consider the forces acting upon on the European Culture and Economy today. Consider the Muslim riots throughout Europe. Consider the rapes, the bombings, the threats, and the demands for a separate Muslim society with a form of Sharia Law. We constantly hear of pending civil war in Iraq, but aren't the same forces at play throughout Europe?

Recently in Switzerland, the conservative "Swiss People's Party" has forced immigration reforms, through national referenda, that have wide public support. If the "Europeans" of Europe are to resist the Muslim colonization and intimidation of Europe, I believe it will be through the efforts of conservative groups rallying a populace which has seen enough political extortion and negative change.

My question is this: Could Europeans unite behind a charismatic leader that promised order, prosperity, and the reestablishment of the dominant culture? Is there a country in Europe that is ripe for such a leader?

Mankind may be suffering the birth pangs of World War III. Some say it is already upon us. If the battle lines form in Europe, will the United States play a role similar to its past?
Posted by at

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great post Chris.

The battle lines were drawn some time ago. "Arafish" aka Arafat once said, the palestinian people would over ride the Israelis not by guns and bombs but by birth. He knew then that muslims give birth to 4 times more babies than the Jewish people. That was how he planned to re-populate the "muslim holyland" and rule over the Israelis. By sheer numbers!

9/27/2006 9:22 AM
Malott said...

JT,

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of what percentage of the rise in European Muslim population is caused by immigration, and how much is by birth.

9/27/2006 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...

I like the way you compare conservatives to fascists, but I am dubious about your scenario. Unless Bush decides Portugal has weapons of mass destruction, Europe should be OK.

9/27/2006 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...

"I am dubious about your scenario."

And in six little words, anonymous illustrates for us the primary reason Europe is facing such a grave Islamo-fascist threat ... they'd rather turn a blind eye and pretend it doesn't exist. It also demonstrates why the U.S. will be next if we don't wake up. Unfortunately, too many people prefer anonymous' "head in the sand" view of the world and current events. "After all," they say as the evidence overwhelms us all, "it isn't really happening in Europe, and it certainly could never happen here... right?"

At least, however, anonymous was able to keep up with liberal playbook 101 by slamming conservatives and George Bush. It's good to see that some things never change for our liberal friends: ignore the elephant in the room and opt for personal attacks against those who are paying attention to the threat that (like it or not) faces us all.

9/27/2006 3:58 PM
Malott said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for stopping by.

If the situation continues to deteriorate in Europe I honestly believe a leadership vacuum will be created that could be filled with a Hitler-like figure.

A charismatic conservative would be preferable, but when you consider the race and religious issues that reform would involve, the comparisons are stark... and comparisons would be made.

But I'm sure that Europe's salvation will not come at the hands of a liberal. The "peace-at-any-cost" liberals have ridden Europe into a monumental hole - and their very nature is not conducive to turning the "beast" around.

A2,

I believe you nailed A1.

9/28/2006 6:09 AM
Anonymous said...

"grave Islamo-Fascist Threat"

And in four little words Anonymous2 illustrates the campaign strategy for Republicans. If the warmongers can scare enough Americans they just might hold on to Congress.

And it is their war-at-all-cost President that threatens world peace. Everybody hates us, including Europeans, because the world (including Europe) was much more peaceful place before Mr Bush escalated the resentment by attacking Iraq.

Do you think that giving Congress over to the Democrats (and the White House in 2008) just might give the world a chance to take a deep breath and consider a more peaceful way? I think the majority of Americans are beginning to think so.

9/28/2006 7:42 AM
Christina said...

Anonymous,

You say, "The world (including Europe) was [a] much more peaceful place before Mr. Bush escalated the resentment by attacking Iraq."

You are, quite simply, completely wrong. Terror attacks were happening over and over again, even during the Clinton administration (when the world was so "peaceful") for liberals. Peace is not defined by the absence of appropriate response to terror attacks.

You also say, "Do you think that giving Congress over to the Democrats (and the White House in 2008) just might give the world a chance to take a deep breath and consider a more peaceful way? I think the majority of Americans are beginning to think so."

Well, if indeed this is the way a majority of Americans think, then they are also very wrong. It's a nice idea in theory, but it does not pan out in reality. The only thing Democratic control of this country would provide is a deep breath and a chance to regroup for the terrorists. Just look at what happened in the years prior to 9/11. Attack after attack went unanswered as Democrats took the "diplomacy" alone route and "worked" through the U.N. Meanwhile, terrorists groups grew stronger and bolder, with each attack becoming better planned and executed. Simply put, the terrorists had all the time in world to gather resources and manpower to accomplish their goal while the U.S. refused to face the growing problem head-on.

I for one, have no desire to return to the days where the U.S. ignored the growing the threat and pretended there was peace. The undeniable fact is that confronting the enemy by bringing the battle to them has proven to be a much more successful strategy. The fact is that we have not been attacked in 5+ years since 9?11. The fact is that many of the ringleaders of 9/11 have been captured (leading to more intelligence) or killed, disrupting the terrorists' ability to plan and execute their attacks. They are on the run and in hiding, rendering them much less capable than if they were allowed a chance to catch their "breath".

It's time to face the situation as it is, not as we all wish it was.

9/28/2006 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...

We tried "a deep breath" and "a more peaceful way" for 8 years. It resulted in multiple terrorist attacks against Americans and American interests, culminating in 9/11.

"Just give peace a chance" doesn't work when the other side is more interested in mandating everybody convert to their way of life, and killing everyone who won't. Feel free to continue to ignore it anonymous. But I guarantee you that if you have your "peaceful way" approach again, it is only a matter of time until we begin seeing the same sort of demands that Sharia law be recognized, etc. in the U.S. that is now being seen in Europe.

Ignoring stark realities in the hope that everyone will hold hands and play nice will only work for so long. If we let the problem continue to fester, the peace at all costs crowd will eventually have to make a difficult choice: convert to Islam or sing Kumbaya while having their head lopped off in the latest terrorist snuff film.

Personally, that's a choice I'd rather not have to make. If that makes me a war monger, so be it.

By the way, citing the "grave Islamo fascist threat" as a campaign strategy is not done in an attempt to scare people into voting Republican. It is done in an attempt to scare people away from voting Democrat because of the dangers that such a vote would bring about - see above.

As for everyone "hating us" because the world was a more peaceful place before President Bush - are you kidding me? Have you paid no attention to the rise of global terror in the decade preceding Bush? No, I guess not. Neither has anybody else who "hates us". As I said before, they'd rather ignore what is going on around us and cling to this fanciful idea that we can all get along, while painting those who are paying attention and attempting to deal with the problem as war-mongers and fascists.

And just having noticed Christina's post, let me simply say... well said. That about covers it.

9/28/2006 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,
Take example of India/Pakistan
which were created simultaneously.
While the Hindu minority in Pakistan declined by half, Muslim minority in India doubled. They might take over India in a century. Let American continent be free of this.

9/28/2006 9:50 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)