Discussion about future scenarios

El Ingles has posted an article at Gates of Vienna, To Push or to Squeeze?, discussing future scenarios in terms of three options in which which the number of Muslims in a European could be reduced:

• through pressuring them, in whatever fashion, to decide to relocate (Option 1);
• through deporting them (Option 2); and,
• through large-scale violence which, taken to an extreme, would constitute genocide (Option 3).

Commenter Jean-Baptiste wrote an interesting reply to this:

El Ingles has demonstrated the practical obstacles for any European government wishing to institute Option 1 or 2, but there also exists a theoretical obstacle that renders even the adoption of a meek and mild version of Option 1 a complete impossibility.

Since the end of WWII and the rise of the United States as the sole superpower of the Western world, American values of liberal democracy have become embedded into all of the nations of Europe. All the major European states conceive of themselves as mini-Americas: multi-ethnic democracies which are not allowed to make any distinctions among citizens upon the basis of race, religion or national origin.

There are dissents here and there, Wilders to be sure, Berlusconi in Italy, but these dissents are working against the both the spirit of the age and the instititutionalized powers that be.

In order to adopt even a weak version of Option 1, a European elite would have to first reject the concept of the liberal requirement of the multi-ethnic, non-discriminatory state, a state of affairs so out of the question as to be absurd.

Even if one were to posit such an amazing occurrence, this new European leadership would then have to reject liberal universalism in favor of the ethno-state while under the steely glare of the United States whose—what a coincidence!—military forces happen to occupy the continent, with no challenger even close to being able to stop them.

Which scenario seems to you to be more likely: 1) a French nationalist movement captures the French state, declares the return to the ethno-state, overturns all contrary legislation and moves to deport all Muslims, whatever passport they carry, with force if necessary; or 2) NATO, with US troops providing the backbone, helped restore proper French Republican government after a near-coup by a crazy nationalist colonel who wanted to turn Europe back to an era where countries persecuted, and even killed, members of a disfavored religious minority?

If your answer is anything other than “2,” please see a doctor.

The hard, cold truth is that there will be no peaceful outcome, as we are already in a revolutionary situation. Until we grasp the full measure of what that means, until we understand as a movement that the current governments are completely illegitimate and that we are morally justified in using violence to resist and overthrow them, in short, until we realize to our horror that the time has indeed already arrived for the gun, all this is nothing but noise and fury.

Here is my reply to Jean-Baptiste:

Jean-Baptiste is all correct in his analysis. Europe is indeed occupied by American troops and this determines the whole situation (anyone who does not understand the significance of the military aspect as fundamentally determining for any political situation should indeed see a doctor). It's not until American troops leave Germany that any real change of the situation could happen.

It's not EU that is our problem here, it's NATO. The EU is just a weak shadow; a symptom, not a cause (it has no military power of significance, it does not militarily control its own land!). As Jean-Baptiste pointed out, the European countries had already been turned into mini-Americas -- by the cultural revolution that has been imposed upon us during the American occupation, in the name of anti-fascism -- and would have remained so, with or without the EU.

NATO's first secretary general stated that NATO it is about three things: keeping Germany down, Russia out and America in. And the fall of the Soviet Union didn't change this a bit. The three things sticks together in the same narrative and it all has to be reversed together. I.e. it is not until American troops leave Germany that we will see a situation different than the one described by Jean-Baptiste here. As long as American troops stay in Germany real change is hopeless and impossible.

What is missing from Jean-Baptiste's analysis (and El Ingles' as well) is the impending collapse of the dollar, and how this will fundamentally change the whole situation. And this will most likely happen before any Wilders in power or any Options 1-3.

I intend to write about my take on these future scenarios in my blog during the summer.