RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Spenglerian prediction of a slow, gradual Untergang is out. The monsters in Berlin (Merkel & Co.), Paris (Hollande & Co.), Brussels (Juncker & Co.) etc. are engaged in an outright joint criminal conspiracy to facilitate Islamic conquest by normalizing Islamic terrorism, which is being de-jihadized in a grotesque manner. The tools of their trade are transparent: continuing importation of millions of Muslims—thousands of actual, and tens of thousands of potential terrorists included—and fanatically surreal denial of the true nature of what is happening.

To his credit, Herr Spahn at least admits—in referring to “what would come upon us”—that some kind of problem exists. Not so Germany’s ambassador to the Court of St. James’s. Talking to the BBC in the immediate aftermath of a series of deadly attacks by Muslims in Germany last month, which had seen 15 people killed in eight days, H.E. Dr Peter Ammon claimed that the 1.1 people that came to Germany last year have tried hard to integrate: “We see signs of gratitude, we see signs that these people are making their best effort to integrate and of course it is costly. It takes a lot of time and effort but it is working.”

“Signs of gratitude”? Dr. Ammon is deluded and evil in equal measure, but the evil side now prevails. He claims that being grateful to the infidel for any act of kindness—opening the gates of one’s continent to the self-assertive multitudes—is a Muslim trait, but he knows that it is not. Yet he continues lying on a Clintonesque scale. His head will be chopped off with equal zeal and pleasure as that of his less self-hating compatriots. Dr. Ammon does not know, or (far more likely) knows full well but does not care – because he lives in a different world – that far from being “grateful,” Muslim invaders heartily despise Germany and the Germans for being such supine, unmanly, rapable suckers. What exactly is “working”? The inability of unaccompanied young German women to visit public spaces and facilities, such as railway stations, without fear of being gang-raped by wolfpacks of Muslim youths, is certainly working. Nothing else is.

Dr. Ammon further insisted the attacks had nothing to do with terrorism, and that mental health issues were currently the real concern in Germany: “The debate in Germany is not about migrants or even Islam, it is a debate about the growing incidents of mental illnesses among young people . . . [I]f we look at the background of the people who perpetrated these crimes, we see a huge difference so it’s quite clear that in one or two cases we had to deal with people with who are mentally ill. They are not connected to the ongoing debate on terror. These are very different cases.” Thanks to the good Ambassador now we know. That the attackers were all Muslims screaming Allahu akbar!, and in 75% of the cases recent arrivals, is irrelevant. Suggesting a link with Islam, migrants, or terrorism is wrong (actually polizeilich verboten). And his suggestion that “the debate” is what he says it is displays a mix of totalitarian propensity for thought control and wishful thinking. It is on par with a Soviet apparatchik claiming, in 1937, that the “debate” in Moscow is whether the traitors condemned by Vyshinsky is whether they should be shot or hanged.

Merkel’s continuing refusal to accept a cap on the number of migrants, even though Turkey’s unstable Sultan Erdogan may reactivate the tsunami at any minute, is not amenable to rational argument. What motivates her is a mystery. Reductio ad Hitlerum is distasteful, and has been used too often (Saddam, Milosevic, Gaddafi, Putin, Trump etc.), but in her case the comparison is apt. Both have an abiding contempt for Germany—the real Germany of some 80 million real people, with their highly developed culture and civilization—and see it as a tool of their Wille zur Macht. Both are perfectly willing to destroy Germany and the German people in pursuit of their ideological obsessions. Both have a soft spot for Islam, manifested in different ways (there are no Muslim divisions in the Bundeswehr just as yet), but based on the same nihilistic rejection of Germany’s Christian heritage. Both have an identical contempt for the lesser breeds of Europe (Balts, Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks etc.), insisting that they have to obey and ask no questions: in Hitler’s case, goose-stepping into the New European Order and sending divisions to the Eastern Front; in Merkel’s, accepting mandatory migrant quotas imposed from Brussels.

Former Soviet-bloc countries may save themselves from mandatory demographic and cultural suicide, because communism has been provenly less corrosive than liberalism; but it could be too late for France, Germany, Britain, Benelux, Austria, and Scandinavia: The “population-replacement exercise” has gone too far. An involuntary repatriation of the multimillion-man Muslim diaspora is a viable scenario only if the old nations of Europe miraculously rediscover their cojones. Even if politicians like Marine Le Pen, Heinz-Christian Strache, and Geert Wilders come to power and stop further immigration, their nations’ long-term prospects will remain grim. They will live permanently with the consequences of their leaders’ fateful decisions. Their homegrown jihadists will go on killing hundreds if not thousands of their “fellow citizens” every year. And getting them out by coercive means demands preparedness to kill and be killed in defense of one’s nation, faith, family, culture, and all that . . . too tall an order for the soft, genderless European person of our time.

The lesson of Europe for America is clear: The emergence of an autonomous and politically untouchable Muslim diaspora must be prevented. It is in the American interest for the U.S. government to introduce an open-ended moratorium on Muslim immigration now, while those who are present still lack the numbers and infrastructure to wreak havoc. In addition, Islamic activism should be treated as grounds for the exclusion or deportation of any alien, regardless of his status in or ties to the United States, because sharia advocacy is inherently prejudicial to the public interest and injurious to national security. The alternative is the predictable pattern of terrorist violence, social corrosion, and cultural decline that we are witnessing in today’s Europe.