Islam versus Europe

One of the recurring themes of this blog is bureaucracy vs. democracy. I even call this the defining dynamic of our age. Because it is bureaucracy – the idea of government by rules – that embodies the idea of non-discrimination. And it is this ideology of non-discrimination that is driving forward the islamisation of Europe and ultimately the dissolution of European civilisation.

Discrimination is essential. It is in the act of discriminating that we most fully express our humanity: the sum total of our capacity for moral and practical judgement, including judgements that are instinctive and cannot easily be articulated.

If Europe is to save itself from Islam, it will almost certainly be necessary to discriminate against the Muslims as Muslims. A moral, conceptual or legal framework that disallows this discrimination is fatal to us.

There’s still a lot of naïve thinking about this, even among people who are part of the Counterjihad movement.

For example, the first article in the English Defence League’s Mission Statement says this:

(1) HUMAN RIGHTS: Protecting And Promoting Human Rights
The English Defence League (EDL) is a human rights organisation…

When criticising Muslims, it’s tempting to reach for the human rights stick to beat them with. But the temptation should be resisted.

The idea of human rights is a form of transnational utopianism that attacks the unique identity of each individual nation. It is part of the ideology that has been used to effect the genocide of the European people. We need to free ourselves from it.

Traditionally, the term “right” has been used to state a moral claim. It’s mostly harmless at that level. But once the moral claim is embodied in a treaty or, worst of all, in law and supplied with a constitutional mechanism designed to enforce it, it becomes pernicious. Why? Because to be embodied in the law, the right must be expressed in a form of language and someone must be empowered to interpret that language. Often the language is extremely vague, offering scope for a wide variety of interpretations. For example, many of the bizarre judgements routinely handed down in British courts that allow foreign criminals to avoid deportation are based on interpretations of the simple verbal formula: “the right to family life”.

The application of rights to any specific problem is often also far from clear-cut. In most complex, real-world cases, these supposed rights are in conflict with one another. For example, as the EU’s Manual on Hate Speech says:

The right to freedom of expression can thus be limited by the right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion. Confronted with attacks on religious beliefs the European Court of Human Rights has highlighted that the question involves “balancing the conflicting interest that result from exercising those two fundamental freedoms: on the one hand, the applicant’s right to communicate his ideas on religious beliefs to the public, and, on the other hand, the right of other persons to respect of their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

A judge must arbitrate the claim by assigning different weights to the respective rights. This creates a black hole of undemocratic arbitrariness at the heart of our political life.

This is the core objection to the idea of human or civil rights: that they are anti-democratic. That is the whole point in them. They are specifically designed to limit the discretion of governments, whether those governments are dictatorships or democracies. Democracy is, in effect, government by discrimination. People collectively use their discriminating judgement to decide on the best way forward for their country. Government by rules – bureaucracy – is inherently and irreconcilably in conflict with democracy.

Only the suppression of democracy made the European Genocide possible. The people of Europe were and are overwhelmingly opposed to the colonisation of their countries by non-Europeans. As we grapple for ways to save Europe from Mohammedanism, strengthening direct democracy has to be part of the solution. Because it is representative democracy that has failed, not democracy per se. And it failed because it wasn’t representative enough. The supposed representatives found ways to game the system and deny the people their choice. And in this conspiracy against the wishes of their own people, the ideology and the apparatus of human rights served them as faithful accomplices. If direct democracy, or something approximating it, were to come into being in Europe, the European people would be empowered to act in bold and vigorous ways to save themselves from the threat of Islam. We should have faith in the wisdom of the mob – at least while the mob is still European.

This tension between democracy and the rights-based bureaucracy will inevitably become ever more severe with the passage of time. Although the rules themselves are largely fixed, the scope of their application continually increases. Human rights NGOs and lawyers develop ever more elaborate doctrines based around the same set of basic rules. They then get these newly-developed doctrines endorsed by the courts and embodied in case law. Ever more often, political parties find that policies they campaigned on, and won democratic approval for, are challenged in the courts as constituting a violation of some supposed right.

As this practice becomes ever more deeply entrenched, politicians and commentators increasingly anticipate the human rights challenge, internalise the human rights doctrines and no longer even think or talk about policy options that would not receive the endorsement of this unelected caste which has now assumed a role in our society comparable to that of the clerical First Estate in the Middle Ages. Indeed, the lawyers, NGO activists and judges could well be seen as the sacerdotes of a new secular religion.

Some people might raise the objection: how can we criticise the treatment of the Copts in Egypt or women in Saudi Arabia if we abandon the idea and the language of a universally applicable standard of human rights? There are several points to make about this:

• Most topics discussed in terms of “human rights” can be reframed to talk about “freedom” instead.


• Human rights ideology has had limited effect in improving the conduct of Islamic governments anyway.


• When governements alter their polices under foreign pressure, they do so because of power relations, not because of rhetoric. We can still exert pressure for change in various ways.


• Ultimately, though – and this is the most important point - what happens in these countries should not be our primary concern.

The focus of the European Counterjihad movement must – quite ruthlessly – be on preserving European civilisation. That is the only thing that matters at this stage. If the Copts in Egypt or other distressed minorities around the Ummah and the world have to be sacrificed to make that happen, so be it. We are engaged in triage now. Not everyone can be saved.