This was not supposed to happen. Brussels was meant to be just another harmonious, happy “global city.”(1) Brussels, the quiet, peaceful capital of the enlightened and “post­historical” European Union. The Muslim presence, one-quarter of the population already, was growing of course. But this was of no significance.

The Maelbeek metro station – on the commuting route of many Eurocrats – had some typically postmodern child­like, ugly art on the walls: Drawings of ordinary people with empty stares, nothing special, including a woman with an Islamic headscarf. Nothing special! Well, until a few go rogue and blow up your people and you’re carrying out still­ warm corpses and picking up blown off limbs. That is bound to be a little jarring.

I doubt any of this surprises the grotesque-­séducteur Michel Houellebecq, who way back in 2000 called Brussels a “terrorist haven” in his little-known novel Lanzarote. In his more recent best-seller, Submission, Houellebecq has this to say about Brussels:

I had been especially struck by the dirtiness and sadness of the city, as well as the palpable hatred, more even than in Paris or London, between the [ethnic] communities: in Brussels one felt, more than in any other European capital, on the verge of civil war.(2)

One does not get the impression Houellebecq’s insights have been taken to heart by Europeans however. The mainstream reaction to the new wave of Islamic terrorist attacks across Europe seems weaker every time. After the solemn mass gatherings of the Charlie Hebdo attacks and then the collective horror of the Paris attacks, Europeans seem rather numbed by the Brussels attacks. The memes the mainstream have produced range from wimpish expressions of universalist piety (e.g. France or Tintin symbolically crying for Brussels, or #JeSuisBruxelles) to the puerile (e.g. Brussels’ iconic “peeing boy” statue urinating on the terrorists). Impotence begets impotence.

The Economist, reputed to be the most thoughtful expression of globalist orthodoxy, proclaimed Islamic terrorism in Europe to be “the new normal.” The expression is striking. One doubts whether Charles Martel or even Winston Churchill would ever have considered it “normal” for Europeans to be regularly mass-­murdered by Muslims in their own homelands. But the situation certainly is “new,” and even a few normies will be disturbed by The Economist’s regularly­ updated charts showing that Islamists have been responsible for about 90% of terrorist killings in Europe in recent years. (Most of the other 10% was caused by Anders Breivik, whose attack was incidentally motivated by opposition to Islamic colonization.)

Two uncomfortable facts emerge:

1) Virtually all of this terrorism would have been prevented had the policy of replacing indigenous Europeans with Muslims not been instituted.
2) 90% of terrorism in Europe today stems from a minority group representing 10% of the population.

That certainly looks bad for the universalist egalitarians. Their attempts to “contextualize” these facts have been rather comical.

For example, the Jewish­ run liberal “explainer” site Vox assured that the link between terrorism and Islamic immigration was “a myth, propagated by Western political leaders who wish to halt immigration or, at least, exploit popular fear for their own electoral gain,” as the terrorism is mostly committed by “fellow Europeans,” as opposed to foreigners.

Now, the writer is either very stupid or more likely he really has a lot of brass in thinking we really are that stupid. One could retort: “I don’t think this means what you think it means.” If our Muslim “fellow Europeans” are still so prone to murder European en masse even in the second and third generation, well that really shows how unwise our immigration policies have been, leading as they have to an apparently permanently increase the risk of terrorism.

The same kind of stupid, self­-incriminating arguments were made by multiculturalists after the Rape of Cologne: Look, the “dusky” men who did this aren’t recent arrivals, they’ve been here for generations!

I have also been struck at the intellectual intolerance and shrillness of the mainstream. Suppose you say: “Look, we’ve really got a lot of intractable problems with this immigration business, failing to integrate let alone assimilate the Muslims. Why don’t we take a breather, be cautious, and have a moratorium on further immigration?” Oh, the shrieking that ensues! I suppose, for someone who is in a hole and in denial, the suggestion that one should stop digging is a kind of blasphemy.

Another weak, but very convenient, response is to argue that we can’t stop the further inflow of Muslims settlers into Europe because that would alienate Muslims already here and cause them to mass-murder Europeans. Hence, the Le Pens and the Trumps – who are the only ones whose policies would have prevented Islamic terrorism – actually are the cause of the terrorism! The mainstream really doesn’t seem to see any problem in their claim that Muslims are “fellow Europeans” of an evidently very special type, given that if one offends them by opposing immigration they are prone to go off like firecrackers.

Now, the liberal response to all this is not completely futile: Expansion of the proto-­totalitarian surveillance state, “liberalizing” Islam through censorship and state­-employed imams, and improving socio­economic conditions for Muslims in Europe (“gibs”). Don’t laugh, these measures will work, to an extent. Islamic terrorism still kills a relatively small number of people in the West, so the current trend is perfectly sustainable for a while still. And I believe senior American Jewish Committee official Stephen Steinlight was basically correct in gloating back in 2001 that for most Muslims: “MTV [owned by Sumner Redstone], for better or for worse, will prove more powerful with young Muslim immigrants than the mullahs.” If Christian America could accept gay marriage by legislative fiat without a hitch, I suspect many Muslims in the West will continue to be seduced by gangster rap and other forms of degeneracy.

But such liberal measures are undesirable for nationalists and indeed freedom in general: It is quite obvious that mass surveillance and renewed attempts to enforce liberal ideological orthodoxy through censorship, justified by the fight against Islamic terrorism, will also be used against European nationalists and Identitarians.

Furthermore, these liberal measures ­­ while they may indeed reduce terrorism to tolerable levels – will never address the underlying issue of inequality and the obvious sub-optimality (to put it lightly) of multiculturalism.

It is rather similar to the liberal response to black violence. That minority’s astonishing share of murder and rioting across the West has long been a deep source of embarrassment. The liberals argue that more gun control and welfare are the solutions. And they are partly right. In Europe, blacks are far less violent than their American cousins, probably because easier access to welfare makes them more docile and harder access to guns makes it harder to act upon the occasional murderous impulse (and most “thugs” presumably don’t have the intelligence or time preference to pursue a less convenient form of murder).

Thus, the black murder rate (along with that of society as a whole) in Western Europe is an order of magnitude less than in America. The Nanny State, in coddling blacks with welfare and protecting them from themselves by taking away their guns, really does work.(3) But again, that misses the point. In London, 54% of street crimes are committed by blacks, as are 46% of knife crimes and almost half of gun crimes. That’s despite the fact that blacks only make up 13% of London’s population. Just like in America, what an interesting coincidence . . .

Sure, the liberals’ measures may make multiculturalism tolerable, but nothing they propose or have achieved suggest that multiculturalism is desirable or that there is any truth to “equality.”

The Brussels attacks showcase multiculturalism’s intractable problems. But the problem, at root, is not Islam as such, but a multiethnic society. Islamic terrorism is the religious expression of an ethnic problem. The terrorists in all the recent attacks have overwhelmingly been Arabs, often brothers or couples, a clear sign of clannishness. Theirs is a very tribal culture with more agency than blacks, but their community is the obvious relative social failures and losers of Europe.

That is a deadly combination. A minority of these; rootless, alienated, and humiliated – coming from a brutally honor­bound culture – seek to redeem themselves by finding meaning in Islam and the struggle against the West. A West which, under Zionist influence, has been engaging in constant aggression against the Islamic World and destroyed several Arab nations, including Iraq, Libya, and Syria. These terrorists are a rather pathetic lot. Socialized, organized, and egged on by the Islamic State, they are just organized enough to kill a few dozen hapless, effeminate Europeans. They are not strong, we are weak.

The liberals’ proposal of a totalitarian multiculturalist state(4) would only address the religious/ideological consequence of the problem, not the underlying ethnic cause. Sure, Big Brother and Big Mother can make things manageable. But, at best, they will create a chaotic ethnic mush where no group has enough coherence to have identity, solidarity, or agency, a Brazil. And the underlying ethnic problem in Europe will steadily get worse. Things may be manageable today. But already non-­Europeans are estimated to make up about a third of births in Western European countries. What happens when indigenous Britons become a minority in the 2060s? What happens when, before the end of the century, Africans and Muslims become the majority in Germany, in France, in the Netherlands, and in Belgium? Not only will such societies be objectively horrible for the natives – for obvious reasons – but who is to say the liberals’ multiculturalist totalitarianism would be enough to keep things in line?

The politics of the Middle East and North Africa are dominated by conflict or rule surrounding the place of Islam in their societies. As the population of Europe becomes Levantine and African, there is reason to believe we will have these same conflicts.

Our own people do not understand this. The brighter ones, by a cognitive sorting, will tend to live and work with people of a similar level of intelligence and economic class. As such, they will tend to only interact with the minority of well­-performing blacks and Muslims and segregate themselves from the more obviously problematic ones. Thus, they escape the consequences of their own multiculturalist beliefs.

The personal hypocrisy of multiculturalists is often disgusting. One Brussels resident I know – while an ardent hater of nationalists – insisted after the Islamic terrorist attacks of fleeing to his own homogeneous European country . . . by car.

But the multiculturalists are not exactly stupid. I met one senior German official recently, whose job admittedly depended on believing and mouthing orthodoxy, who was quite cognizant of the situation. I faithfully paraphrase: “We can do it! Oh sure it will be tough. Actually, the 2 million refugees coming into Germany may not seem like much for a country of 80 million, but they already form a huge percentage of the 20 to 30 year­old age bracket (maybe 10%). Well anyway, in the long run, White people will be a minority in Germany, just like in America.” I was flabbergasted. These people rule Germany! If any Israeli or Chinese or North African Arab were to express such attitudes – welcoming the physical replacement of their own people in their historic homeland – I suspect he would be lynched in a hurry.

People like Steven Pinker on the left and David Frum(5) on the right argue that we have never had it so good, so why should we change anything? Well, technology may have made us more comfortable and maybe this will continue to be so, but I think it is downright irresponsible to assume there will never be great upheavals. History is the story of the rise and fall of empires, races, nations, and civilizations, a chronicle of crises. How arrogant would a German citizen of 1910 be, if he asserted: “Science and economic growth will solve all our problems. I certainly don’t need to worry about politics!” What a century he had in store for him to dispel such illusions.

A typical Panglossian today: Well, in the past decade Turkey, Brazil, and even Sub­-Saharan Africa have had lot of GDP growth (thanks to Western technology and global resource demand), so really we’re all the same and bound to converge economically! Stark Trek, here we come!

The panglossian has the mental horizon of a goldfish.

There’s a sucker born every minute.

While we await the Götterdämmerung, life and death go on. For the liberals, the trail of corpses left in the wake of black murderers and Islamic terrorists are a supernatural mystery. They are something best not thought of. But if one must take heart, look at the faces of our people – Léopold, Olivier, Patricia . . . – who have been murdered and maimed. What a small price to pay for the wonders of diversity! A necessary sacrifice to that cruel and insatiable god, I name thee: Equality.

[1]Note: Is there is a single harmonious, cohesive, and egalitarian “global city”? This fact ­ and its obvious causes ­ really doesn’t seem to sink in with the liberals.

[2]Michel Houellebecq, Soumission (Paris: Flammarion, 2015), 278.

[3]Incidentally, I suspect the violent crime rate had been going down in recent years ­ though not equalizing across ethnic groups ­thanks to smartphones and the Internet have a soothing effect,
every individual self­medicating their own preferred dopamine hits through our digital content communism. More “nigger tech” means less “nigger moments.”

[4]Ponder this: The standard response by Western leaders to both Islamism and nationalism is to affirm our “values” like “democracy” and “human rights,” which presumably also include freedom of thought and speech. Yet ­ paradox! ­ those who do not share in the orthodoxy (e.g. nationalists, including those who accept the democratic system) will not be allowed to participate in the “democracy” or enjoy “human rights” like freedom of speech. Ponder that! It is a sad statement on human affairs that, as we progress scientifically and materially, we seem to regress politically to self­evidently absurd and self­contradicting doctrines.

[5]I am struck at the two’s similar physiognomy.