I can see why women—biologically programmed to like powerful men who can take care of them—would find Muslim men more attractive than the West’s soft, repulsive, liberal men. Indeed, from this Jerusalem-based imam comes excellent locution and logic to describe an emasculated, feminized West, primed for a muscular, masculine Muslim takeover. His “Europe has become old and decrepit” is three minutes and 11 seconds into the supremely reasoned sermon.
So where are the West’s manly leaders? “I have a blond wife, a blue-eyed child and a … shotgun,” said one European, residing near a refugee encampment, to InfoWars’ correspondent. But he (and his hearsay) is but one (and if he defended his fair flock; he and European males like him would be jailed). Most men just hand their women over. Yuk.
And by the way, the Imam strikes a better pose than, say, Father Michael Pfleger and the prototypical white, liberal, male preacher. Be honest: Who looks better? The ascetic-looking Muslim in his white flowing robes, speaking in that deep manly voice, or this emasculated thing (which is what the West’s religious leaders generally look and sound like):
The Western, radical liberal preacher:
The Muslim Manly Preacher:
To follow on the report of Paul Joseph Watson, InfoWars’ young correspondent (some four minutes into the broadcast): Indeed, if you accept and want the growing “superstate bureaucracy,” you accept and want its imported populations. I’ve debunked the demographic argument, which is an extension of the argument from statism:
As explained in this 2010 column:
… Exemplified by Mark Steyn, Wilders’ worthy supporters in the US make sure he knows they love him for standing tall for speech, women, and individual rights—no-brainers all. Like Steyn, they generally steer clear of addressing the perils for their own country of mass, third-world immigration (legal and illegal).
I am told that I don’t understand Mr. Steyn of the dooms-day demographics. So I listened to his “End of Europe” lectures, in which he vividly describes the multitudes of Muslims going forth to North America and Western Europe to be fruitful and multiply and push for Islam. Their Pan-Islamist identity trumps their new assumed identity. Because of numbers, Mark asserts, History is on the march in the Muslim direction. By 2030 much of what we think of as the developed world will be part of the Muslim world.
Here Steyn hits a brick wall. Other than making babies at home and total war abroad, Steyn used to propose nothing much at all. Oh yes, if you’re not already fighting (futilely, in my opinion) in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can show your marbles by publishing offensive cartoons, making rightwing movies, and writing right-wing text.
The “One-Man Global Content Provider” is wrong. Demographics need not be destiny. The waning West became what it is not by out-breeding the undeveloped world. We were once great not because of huge numbers, but due to human capital — people of superior ideas and abilities, capable of innovation, exploration, science, philosophy.
Declining birth rates—and their antidote; the mass immigration imperative—are the excuses statists make for persevering with immigration policies that are guaranteed to destroy western civil society and shore up the State.
It would be productive if Steyn were to also demand, asap, as this writer has, the implementation of an immediate, defensive, libertarian, negative-rights, leave-me-alone strategy: don’t let the homie Jiahdis who hold western passports back in. Government-issued papers do not a natural right confer. Citizenship is no natural right; staying alive is.
