Friday, 23 December 2016

EUROPE: HERE IS YOUR SUBMISSION, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT




“It’s submission,” Rediger murmured. “The shocking and simple idea, which had never been so forcefully expressed, that the summit of human happiness resides in the most absolute submission.”

Michel Houellebecq, Submission


Submission.

Going down, down.
You’re dragging me down.

Sex Pistols, Submission





If you are familiar with Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission, you will also be aware that the book is gradually emulating Orwell’s 1984 by moving from the realm of fiction to that of description of the current state of European affairs. Houellebecq’s novel – reviewed by me here – tells of a France a little into the future coming under Islamic rule not as a result of terrorism or demographics, but due to political alliances which favour an Islamic party and produce a subsequent Mohammedan President and ruling party. In short, a fear of the ‘extreme Right’ – a bogeyman today’s extreme Left will not let loose from its jaws for a moment, like a terrier with a rat – causes a serious of fortuitous alliances which favour Islam, and Islam is what France subsequently gets.

Houellebecq is not to every taste as a writer, but the scenario he describes becomes more plausible for Europe as each dread week rolls by. At this point we must perform a hoary old thought experiment and ask; if the European elites really were planning to Islamise Europe, what would they be doing any differently?

The following is a selection of news items and snippets culled from various random sources:

·        Angela Merkel tried in September to push through a programme to train migrants as lorry drivers.

·        The Swedish government offered migrants shooting courses at a rifle range.

·        The German police first showed the photo of the suspect in the Christmas market massacre with his face pixelated.

·        After the Berlin massacre, police in Bristol, UK, increased their presence in the town, not with an eye to terrorism, but over concerns about increased ‘Islamophobia’.

·        Obama is to discontinue a registry previously used to track Muslims from countries known to be a terrorist risk.

·        A French mayor voiced concerns about the replacement of white people. He is to be charged with a ‘hate crime’.

·        Despite assurances that immigration is essential for European economies, just 34,000 out of 1.2 million refugees in Germany have ‘found’ work.

·        Muslim immigrant men are being taught how to ‘flirt’ with German women.

·        Prince Charles, who may one day become King of England, has asked people to ‘think of Mohammed’ this Christmas.

·        The first statement by a Swedish official appointed to monitor terrorism was that the greatest risk comes from the ‘far-Right’.

·        The parents of a 19-year-old raped and murdered by a Muslim immigrant collected money at her funeral to go towards immigrants.

·        Journalist Robert Fisk has written a column stating that ‘anti-Muslim parties only help ISIS’.

·        Swedish disabled people were forced to move from sheltered accommodation to make way for Muslim immigrants.

·        Further to Angela Merkel telling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that he must counter ‘fake news’ and ‘hate speech’ on his site, Germany is now preparing legislation to outlaw what is described as ‘wrong opinion’. This opinion will be concerned with immigration.

This is just a selection from a vast inventory of recent aberrations which appear to share a denominator; they all point to an insistence that deleterious immigration of Muslims as a good and welcome thing in itself.

Add to this the ceaseless and remorseless hounding of those who dissent against the elite programme, and a scenario very much begins to form. Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Lutz Bachmann and many, many others have been tried and harried through the courts for daring to speak out against Islam and its forced importation into the West.

Each day brings a fresh wave of micro-events establishing what we might call a framework of coercive acceptance. Governments are very clear on what is expected of the populace with regard to Islam:

·        Belief that it is a Good Thing.

·        Belief that it is a religion of Peace.

·        Belief that it is not and cannot be connected with terrorism.

·        Acceptance that Muslim migration is necessary to save ailing economies.

·        Realisation that dissent is punishable to an extent that criminal wrongdoing by Muslim immigrants is not. This particularly includes thought-crime on social media.

Foremost in the battle against this forced submission is what the elites are calling ‘fake news’ sites such as Breitbart and numerous others. More than this, attention is now being turned to ‘fake opinion’ as mentioned above in the case of Germany. Now, when the Germans talk about criminalising ‘wrong opinion’, which will doubtless be represented by some multisyllabic and Hegelian-sounding noun, you can be sure they will not be going after those who feel that the earlier Beethoven symphonies are superior to the later, or that Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason does not form a whole with the Critique of Practical Reason. These opinions will be confined to immigration in general and Muslim immigration is particular. That is to say, the public are being told in no uncertain terms that they will not treat the greatest and clearest threat to their freedom and well-being as such, but will instead welcome, celebrate and embrace it under pain of job loss, social ostracisation and jail.

I have said a number of things on this subject, certainly enough to lose me at least one job in the UK. One is that disruptive and dysfunctional Muslim immigration is a deliberate and well-planned operation by the European elites. Secondly, the indigenous people of European nations – and ‘indigenous people’ and ‘nations’ are both concepts anathema to the elites – will, eventually, rise up to combat the invasion their masters and mistresses have put into action. Thirdly, this resistance will be met with maximum force.

Now, whether George Soros or Saudi Arabia or the European taxpayer is funding this sorry state of affairs is a matter of much conjecture, but the ultimate purpose remains even more of a mystery, until one of the many possibilities toxic to ordinary people – non-Muslims, in this case - proves to be the correct one. By that time it may well be too late.

There is, of course, an ultimately petrifying scenario for us, the little people. What if the elites realise that we the people – such an archaic, quaint old phrase, like ‘I say!’ or ‘I do beg your pardon’ – are too powerful in potentia, now that the liberatory seeds of the Sixties have come to fruition, and the internet has provided a path to knowledge, even if vanishingly few people actually take it? What if the elites are scared of a populace which could rise up at any moment and take control? What if the elites have realized that a demoralised police force and a denuded army will not be enough to pacify a populace who have both had enough and know their enemy? What if Islam is being brought into Europe for one reason and one reason only; to police the kufr?

‘But with Islam, I think, the time has come for an accommodation, an alliance.’

Michel Houellebecq, Submission

No comments:

Post a Comment