It is impossible to fight something with nothing, and Western culture at present and liberal ideology are nothing. We need something else in order to get people to defend Europe and her nations.
Paris has once again been hit by terrorists, and 129 are dead. This is a tragedy, but it is also the result of a long series of bad political decisions. There are many nations in Europe, and there are differences between each of them. In Sweden, where I am writing this, we do not have the same schizophrenia concerning Islam as in the French public debate. We do not have a colonial past and we have a slightly larger welfare state. But we also have several things in common. The bad politics that led to the catastrophe in Paris are also a part of politics in Sweden, and in most European nations. If we do not want to see this repeated in our countries, it is time that we identify the aspects of this politics (?), and the politicians who represent it. Their primary mistakes are summarised in the official American response to the attacks:
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter is calling the attacks in Paris ‘an assault on our common human dignity’. The Chief of the Pentagon says that ‘the United States stands with the people of France and its vibrant, multicultural democracy’. He praised France as a NATO ally and a leader of the coalition fighting Islamic State militants in Syria.
The problem in France, and in most European nations, is that our ‘leaders’ are trying to maintain their countries as both ‘vibrant, multicultural democracies’ and ‘NATO allies’. Simply put, we cannot welcome Muslims here at the same time that we bomb them there. Ash Carter forgets to mention that until very recently, both the US and France were de facto allies of IS in the war against the Syrian regime. Among other things, French citizens who left to fight alongside the Islamists were not prosecuted.
If we are to summarise the politics that led to an increased risk of terrorism, we find that they have three aspects. First of all is the immigration policy that creates huge minorities, minorities whose members have the potential to become radicalised. This policy we find not only in France, but also in Sweden and most European nations. In Sweden it is already the case that within one year, 38% of boys aged 16 will be ‘refugees’, if nothing changes.
This immigration policy leads, according to several studies, to less trust, less happiness, a worse economy, more crime, and an increased risk of conflicts. It also leads to an increased risk of terrorist attacks.
But this risk is increased further if this foreign policy is aimed at people who come from the same ethnic or religious groups as the minorities. For example, Sweden supported the bombings of Serbia at the same time that there is a large Serbian diaspora in Sweden. The result was that the Foreign Minister was publicly murdered. A neutral Sweden has an easier time handling its minorities, but a Sweden that supports and partakes in American wars less so. Given that American wars are often unjust, often hurt Europe’s interests in having stable relationships with its neighbours, and often take place in countries in which many Swedish citizens were born, this ought to be borne in mind by those supportive of Sweden’s NATO membership. A combination of political correctness and loyalty to American projects in the Middle East has also meant that Sweden accepted the fact that many of its young citizens from the Middle East served in Islamist armies in Syria and Iraq. Now many of them are back.
Related to this is the third aspect: the question of national sovereignty. A suicidal immigration policy and a pro-American foreign policy are intimately connected to lack of sovereignty, but it also shows itself in economic and cultural policy, in education, and so on. To get to the bottom of the bad decisions that led to what happened in Paris, and several similar attacks before that, we need another perspective, a paradigm shift, where national sovereignty is placed at the centre. We could then replace the incompetent class of politicians and journalists, and get what Robert Steuckers has called ‘a new team’. We would then end immigration and look at ways to implement remigration for many people who are already here. And our collaborator class of politicians would have their loyalty to the US exchanged for a policy centered on European interests.
But such a paradigm shift would also have consequences for culture, for economics, and for education. It is impossible to fight something with nothing, and Western culture at present and liberal ideology are nothing. We need something else in order to get people to defend Europe and her nations.