Because that part of Europe has few Muslims.
Central Europe, chiefly Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, remain largely safe from the terror threat, despite the former in particular being a Nato player in the Middle East. It is precisely because the reasons for this are so obvious that they cannot be mentioned. Poland is 0.1 percent Muslim, most of whom are from a long-settled Tartar community, Britain is 5 percent, France 9 percent and Brussels 25 percent, and those numbers are growing.
For all the goodwill shown by the vast majority of people in Europe, Muslim and non-Muslim, and for all those things that shouldn’t have to be said – that most Muslims hate this monstrosity – these statistics correlate to terrorism risk. That’s not something people want to hear when they have a desperate urge to feel solidarity, but it is true nonetheless. …
Central Europeans have become the new target for liberal snobbery in the past couple of years, their antediluvian attitudes to Islamic migration making them the new hillbillies; low-status whites it’s okay to mock on account of their views. But looking at what is happening in Brussels, London and Paris, is it not rather rational for them to look at Merkel’s open-borders policy and the whole multicultural thing with some scepticism? I suspect those flags will be back at half mast soon enough.
Comments to Steve Sailer:
* Eastern Europeans’ cohesiveness, resistance to immigration, skepticism about homosex, etc. are legacies of the Soviet-Warsaw Pact period. These are exactly the things that the neocons fought the Cold War to eliminate. As those older generations are replaced by newer, more Westernized (in a bad way) generations, those countries will get on board the multi-culti train.
* If I were to judge Islamic terrorism by the results, I’d say it works very well. There’s an avalanche of Muslims that have been invited into Europe and put on welfare by liberal Europeans. If your goal is being able to put your feet up, relax, and watch the grass grow while someone else supports you, and that someone enables you never having to put up with your own crappy rulers in your own countries again while nice, civilized, educated Europeans run thing things the smart, proper, and ethical way, then Muslims have achieved it.
Therefore, it makes sense to set off more bombs, if this is how Europeans buckle in the face of militant Islamic terrorism both at home and abroad.
Soon, the modern Islamic mega-state (ahem, Europe), is going to resemble the Ottoman Empire back in the days in which the cowed white Europeans (kidnapped Mamluks) did all the civil service work and kept the economy going to support their brutal Islamic overlords in the style to which they had become accustomed.
* Listening to CNN today, still hearing the usual palaver. “We need to get moderate Muslims to cooperate with us, etc.” Hard to believe that some “moderate” Muslims weren’t aware that the wanted terrorist, Salah Abdeslam, was hiding in plain sight in their enclave for several months. Maybe someday the moderate Muslims will throw us a bone. We probably need to beg them more pathetically. The danger, as one CNN commentator noted, is Trump. “His rhetoric will push Muslims in the opposite direction.”
If the opposite direction is back to the lands from whence they came, who’s complaining?
* Here’s an alternate plan: How about we prevent Muslims from coming to the West and expel as many as we can. Then it won’t matter what they do or think, because they won’t be here.
As has been pointed out so many times around these parts, terrorism is merely the most visible aspect of Muslim dysfunction. They are parasites feeding off of the West. Disturbingly, terrorism may be what saves Europe. If Muslims were identical to how they are now minus the terrorism the European frog would probably be well and truly boiled. But maybe terrorism will some day wake them up.
* I think Eastern and Western Europe are so different today because of policies taken in the West in the late 1960s and into the 1970s. That was the era of Enoch Powell’s famous series of speeches on immigration, then the OPEC oil shock, going off the Bretton Woods agreement and France and Germany changing their immigration policies to allow “family reunification” for foreign guest workers. This may seem like a jumble but they do form a greater whole. This was the time the leaders of Western Europe decided to follow the American “nation of immigrants” model in order to artificially maintain the postwar trend of growth that would otherwise have come to an even sharper end than it did.
Enoch Powell was the first of many politicians who were ganged up on because he didn’t get it; he didn’t get the enforced consensus on this. Once this course of action had been chosen by the G7, Davos, Bilderberg consensus then a whole culture of bullying, peer pressure and happy talk had to develop to maintain and promote it. Policies quickly became self-fulfilling facts on the ground. These policies weren’t carried out in the East Bloc and so they don’t have several generations of consensus thought saying it’s all a wonderful thing that the West has. Again, it was the early 1970s when the two parts of Europe diverged when it comes to multiculturalism, immigration and all that comes with them.
* Ask a friend if they have an upper limit on how large they want the Muslim population to become. Will America still be America if it is 60% Yemeni-American. Most will say no. Everyone I’ve tried this on has some upper limit in mind.
Once they’ve arrived at their own personal upper limit, ask them to explain how they will cap the Muslim population at that proportion. No one has a good answer.
Next ask them if it will be easier to cap Muslim population growth when Muslims are 1% of the population or when they’re 40% of the population?
Next ask them if taking a hands off policy and allowing the Muslim population to grow will make America better for their children and grandchildren or maybe we should nip the problem while it’s still small and manageable.
The problem, of course, is that people are rationalizers rather than reasoners. Only a few were comfortable with the reasoning, the others didn’t like the conclusions and got agitated. Now though they have a little burr under their saddle and hopefully it will irritate them over time.
* A tweet by a Dutch yoga teacher. Translation according to r/the_donald:
“How are you supposed to continue teaching in your class if muslim children are applauding [the attacks]? #attacks #Zaventem”
“3 [Dutch] police officers on my front door because of my tweet this morning. Asking to not do it again. #Brussels #attacks #Zaventem”
* I have used that upper limit trick with people about immigration overall.
I start by noting that America currently has about 330 million people here now. And point out that there are over 3 billion people worldwide living in extreme poverty. I ask if all 3 billion should be allowed to come here? If America would be improved by that?
When they say no, I have some fun calling them bigots, xenophobic, pointing out that those 3 billion only want to make a better life for themselves, to do the jobs American’s won’t do, etc…
I then confirm that they agree that there should be a limit to how many people we allow in, and establish some set of standards. So ask them what that limit should be. Very few can do so, and most people get so agitated that I drop the conversation.
But hopefully I at least plant the seed in their mind that immigration should have some theoretical limit, and create a negative mental image of themselves surrounded by foreign hordes.
Once people break through the propaganda & stop seeing immigration as a sacred good there is hope for them.
* I really do not see how civic nationalism and white nationalism can coexist, since both are philosophically incompatible, and one must be destroyed for the other one to survive, in fact you could think of Islam and the United States as competing schools of civic nationalism. Of course it is best if the liberals and civic nationalists destroy each other. The fact that the United States was founded on civic nationalism makes its very existence incompatible with the aims of WN. A propositional nation and a ethnonationalist nation based on blood ties are polar opposites of each other ideologically, and one must be destroyed for the other one to be able to survive.
* ‘…to ourselves and our posterity…”
The United States was founded on blood & soil. It’s right there in the Declaration.
By the 1770’s the American ethny was well established. Many colonists were three generations removed from the Old Country. Some were five removed and some more. And they were almost all from England.
* I brought up the Brussels attack with my eye doctor this morning during a check up. I said something about this being a big issue for Europe. He said not all Europe, that he just got back from Poland. I nodded and said it certainly makes Trump’s message resonate. He said absolutely. For New Yorkers who take the packed subway twice a day, there’s a knowing nod. For all the talk of Trump and Hitler, you know who the real fascists are.
Then cooking dinner there was a Georgetown professor on the radio. She’d been to Brussels and lamented that this might make Belgians even more anti-Islamic. Even more? They seem tolerant enough to me. She said she was shocked by the attitude of cab drivers there. Oh sure. Cabbies, at least where they take licensing seriously enough to keep employment up for local map-reading proles, always an affront to university professors on tour.
* Eastern Europe is never going to get on the diversity train. Only Western countries that are too wealthy for their own good get on this train. Eastern Europeans know how hard life can really be and how diversity just makes things more difficult.
* It is almost as if the more Muslims a country has, the more Islamic terrorism it is likely to experience. But surely that can’t be true. After all, the media keeps telling us that Islam is the religion of peace and the media never lies.
