(In the latest of his series of essays, author Paul Weston continues his examination of the concept of the inevitability of a European civil war.)

Part one of this article was an explanation of why our ratio of combat age native Europeans V European Muslims could decline from 18:1 today, to 2:1 by 2025. These figures are largely irrelevant if one believes that Islam can peacefully co-exist within the West, but if such a scenario is simply a multicultural fantasy then we will shortly face a situation unprecedented in the history of mankind. 

Europeans have been conditioned from an early age to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, resulting in our genuine ability to co-exist with peoples of significantly different cultures. But, rather than what we want, is this what Islam wants? Islam is as mono-cultural as mono-cultural gets. How can they possibly live in a liberal, multicultural society? 

Islam expanded via the sword. Within decades of erupting out of the deserts of 7^th Century Arabia it had conquered Palestine, Persia, Egypt, India, North Africa and Spain; it’s opponents paralysed in the face of fanatical violence. It was only in 732 that Charles Martel stopped this frenetic Islamic expansion at the battle of Tours, in France. 

In the 13^th century Islam rose again. In 1452 they finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and within 100 years added Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Romania and Hungary to their empire. Attempts to take Vienna failed twice, before Jan Sobieski finally routed the Ottoman’s Islamic army in 1683 at the Gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Empire gradually fell apart after this defeat, and most occupied European countries reclaimed their independence. Christian Europe had largely prevailed.  

But now, in the 21^st Century, Islam is back and wants what it has always wanted; a global caliphate. This time, unlike their previous attempts to overthrow the West militarily, they are already within Europe, well funded, radicalised, rapidly expanding, and as their numbers grow, so grows the violence they perpetrate, as we have seen all over Europe within the last few years. 

And not only within Europe; Islam is engaged in religious conflict all around the world, from America, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, India, Russia, the Lebanon, Palestine, etc etc. Wherever Islam comes into contact with non-Islam there is conflict.  

In each and every country, one glaring reality stands out. It is always Islam as the aggressor, even when they are in a minority of 5% such as Thailand, a country sliding inexorably toward civil war.  Such is the prevalence of Islamic violence that Samuel Huntingdon, author of The Clash Of Civilisations coined the phrase “Islam’s bloody borders” the violence of which is represented by Gates Of Vienna’s animated Bloody Borders project which identifies Islamic terrorist activity since 9/11. 

Why do Islamists do this? Because they are commanded to, it is as simple as that. To be a Muslim means to obey the Koran, within which there are numerous commands to wage Jihad, or Holy War, against the infidel. Granted, there is no single explicit command, but it is possible to interpret many as such, which is exactly what radical Imams are doing all across the West. Unlike a modern day Christian’s tenuous relationship with the Bible, Muslims adhere to every edict of the Koran as slavishly as they did in the 7^th Century. Unfortunately for us, the principal edict is to conquer all non-believers. 

To this end there are now some 2,000 Mosques in Western Europe, many of them funded directly by Saudi Arabia to the tune of 90 billion dollars in which Imams - trained or imported from Saudi Arabia - preach extreme Wahhabism. They call for the overthrow of the West, and promote suicide bombing and martyrdom. Channel Four recently sent an undercover reporter into various Mosques in the UK, which exposed Imams in their call for Holy War against the West, which can be seen here on Youtube. CNN also ran an interview with Al-Muhajiroun’s Anjem Choudray, where he calls for Sharia law in Britain. He also prophesised that the Islamic flag will fly over 10 Downing Street. 

The concept of Sharia law is not fully understood by the majority of Europeans. Under it they could be killed if they refused to convert to Islam or accept second-class status known as Dhimmitude. Homosexuals could similarly be killed, apostates killed, adulterous woman stoned to death, whilst limbs could be amputated for stealing. 40% of British Muslims wish this to be introduced. 

What percentage of that 40% are young males? Muslim women have a great deal to be unhappy about under Sharia law, whilst older Muslims are far less radicalised than the young. It is quite possible therefore, that young males with a favourable view of Sharia constitute a higher figure than the 40% suggests. 

So, Islam has a history of attempted Western conquest, and a present day policy of global domination, for which they are happy, in countries such as Sudan, to perpetrate genocide. In the West, their Jihadist rhetoric is accompanied by large-scale violence such as 9/11, the London tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and the lesser violence such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the indescribable torture and murder of Ilan Halami, the rape of European women as described by Fjordman, the civil unrest in France, where police claim they are in the midst of a civil war, and the death threats made against politicians who speak out against them, such as Gert Wilders. 

Faced with this relentless tidal wave of Islamic aggression, what is the response of Europe’s ruling elites? Craven submission is the answer. In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” 

After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive was Islam, not oppression. In British schools the Holocaust is no longer taught because it runs counter to the Holocaust denial beliefs of Muslims, whilst British historian David Irving was imprisoned for holding the same views as that of the Muslims. Our teaching unions are also of the opinion that the idea of teaching British values is racist, and the BBC is so viciously anti-Christian and pro-Islamic that there is simply not the space here to detail it, it requires an article on it’s own, and a lengthy article at that. (This is one of the more imponderable pathologies the BBC exhibits, considering the corporation has more than it’s fair share of homosexuals and feminists.) 

There are many, many more examples of Islamic aggression and European appeasement, but the general thrust is one of overwhelming submission on our part. European politicians are clearly terrified of Islam. As well they might be. So, what can be done? Can Islam be contained, or is Europe drifting inexorably to all out civil war?  

Essentially, there are five options. The first is that Islam integrates within Europe’s liberal democracies and we all live happily ever after. This scenario takes no account of the moral sewer that Liberal policies have turned Europe into; a Europe which Islam, quite understandably, views with revulsion. Nor does it take into account that Islam today is the same as Islam in the 7^th century. Why should they reform now? Given the increasing radicalisation of Muslim youth and the disturbing numbers who agree with terrorist activity, this scenario is only possible within the mindset of deluded, ignorant liberals, whose naiveté is suicidal in the extreme. Option one can therefore be discounted. 

The second option is that Islam quietly takes over demographically through sheer weight of numbers, and Europe is islamised under Sharia law. Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn think this inevitable, Steyn being of the opinion that any country capable of the type of appeasement prevalent in Europe today, is also a country incapable of rousing a defence. Although this is a possibility, it is unlikely we will not fight back, so option two can also be discounted. 

The third option is that Europe wakes up to the danger it is in and expels all it’s Muslims. This is not going to happen; the European Union positively embraces Islam, as noted in Bat Ye’Or’s book Eurabia  (thankfully abridged by Fjordman).  Not only does the EU have no intention of such an action, they will not even stop further Islamic immigration. The 2.2 million predominately Muslim immigrants they wish to bring into Europe each and every year up to 2050 is a done deal as far as they are concerned.  

Indeed, in an extract from this disturbing report published by the European Policy Centre, the EU seeks immigration not only for economic reasons but also for social reasons: “However, the arguments against immigration remain dominant in the political debates of many European countries, and must be taken seriously and challenged if immigration is to keep its place on the social and economic agenda.” Whilst this attitude prevails we can discount option three.

The fourth option is that moderate Muslims reclaim their peaceful religion from the “fundamentalists”, who, as we are told over and over again by our media, are not representative of Islam. But where exactly are these moderate Muslims, what power do they wield within Islam as a whole? When have we seen marches and protests organised by them, waving banners reading “Not in my name” or “Not in the name of Islam?” They are as cowed by the radicals as are our politicians, or perhaps they are in agreement with them, but are squeamish when it comes to spilling blood. The only face of Islam we see or hear in the West is that of the violent Jihadist. As such, option four can be discounted.

The fifth option is that we resist the Islamic take over, and fight back. I disagree with Lewis and Steyn, who both appear to think Europe will roll over and submit. The wholesale and unprecedented racial and cultural transformation of a continent with a history of violent warfare will simply not happen without confrontation. 

As options one, two, three and four can therefore be discounted; we are left only with option five, to fight. Whilst it is unfortunate that we should be confronted by an expanding, youthful culture with a set of beliefs they will die for, just at the time we are demographically declining, ageing, and apparently only believe in shopping, celebrity and alcohol, does not mean that we will not fight. We will simply have to. Not for domination, but for survival. 

E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, "two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area." (Emphasis in the original.) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: "To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other."

The history of man is essentially a history of warfare, where territory, tribe or religion drives the impetus for conquest. That our ruling liberal elites in the West today believe that history, current reality and the law of nature no longer apply to us, does not mean the end of warfare, rather, it simply makes it easier for those who wish to wage war against us. The idea that wars are a thing of the past is so fantastical that only liberals, who place fantasy over reality, could believe it.

Islamic terrorist activity is being constantly thwarted by European intelligence services, but over the next ten years some of these Jihadists will slip through the net and carry out their next atrocity. Although most Europeans are still in a deep liberal sleep regarding Islam, this will not last. By 2017 the tensions between Europeans and Islam will be nerve jangling and will be accompanied by ever-stricter government controls to keep societal order.

Somewhere between 2017 and 2030, during a period of heightened tension, Islamists in either France, Holland or Britain will blow up one church, train or plane too many, and we will retaliate. They will then retaliate, the police will be unable to cope, the army will be drafted in but will find themselves massively outnumbered and outflanked, civilians will be massacred and so a civil war will start.

When the violence starts for real, each and every person, be they moderate or extremist will be forced to take sides, and moderate Muslims will of course take the sides of the extremists. It will be a war entirely different to Europe’s previous wars, which were fought by standing armies along clearly delineated lines. Next time, it will initially be civilians, armed not with tanks and machine guns, but with knives, bombs and terror, who will fight it.

I say initially, because although the army will be of little use in the beginning, they will certainly be capable of forming an impregnable line, behind which the native Europeans, unused to knife fighting, will flee and re-group. And then, enter America, as always, Europe’s saviour. Whilst Europe’s navies blockade the ports, America will deliver weaponry to the Europeans against which Islam will have no response. Whilst they are being annihilated in response to the butchery they carried out in the early days of the war, Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran will threaten a nuclear response. If they do, they too will be annihilated.

Such is the future brought about by multiculteralist liberals. Not only will they be responsible for bloodshed unseen even in the last century, they will also be responsible for the extinction of Islam. In 1907 no one could see the coming carnage, whereas in 2007 all educated people with a knowledge of history can see the inevitable coming war. Quite how large it becomes is of course beyond any prediction, but rather than being merely a European war, it could well become a global nuclear war against Islam; and one they have no hope of winning.

Such a scenario is unimaginable to the vapid multiculteralist, but it is their actions, past and present, which will bring it about. One can hardly blame Islam for wishing to dominate the world, but one can certainly blame liberals for giving them the geographical means and ideological confidence whereby they feel that it is actually possible. Will they attempt it? On a small scale, with their ratio of 18:1 they are attempting it now. How do you think they will behave with a ratio of 5:1 let alone 2:1?

The liberal response to an article such as this is to make accusations of hysteria and paranoia. To those, I would say only one thing: Rather than leave sneering one line comments, write a 1,000 word article as to why the scenario outlined above is not inevitable, incorporating reality rather than ideology. I believe it is utterly inevitable, and a tragedy for the West, for Islam, for all of mankind. Please refute it. I really would like it not to be the case.