Who Will You Run To?

Who will you run to when it all falls down?


I’ve been thinking for quite some time, and even mentioned it on this blog, that the transition of the gay rights movement from “keep the government out of the bedroom” to “get the government to insist the public comes in, watches, and claps in approval” will turn out badly for them in the long term. There are already signs that the feminists and trans lobbyists are going to throw gay men under the bus in the great game of victimhood poker, particularly if their political views are not of the approved kind. Look at the vitriol being heaped on Milo Yiannopolous at the moment: being a gay Jew with a preference for black men hasn’t stopped him being branded an actual Nazi by his opponents, including some supposedly respectable media outlets.

By moving away from the principle that consenting adults ought to do as they please towards one of forcing moral acceptance of their choices onto a reluctant public via the legal system, the gays have lost a lot of natural allies in the process, those people who may or may not have approved of what they do but on the principles of freedom and liberty believed they should have been allowed to get on with it. The question they ought to now be asking is who will they turn to when they are stripped of their victim status and chucked under the bus. They’re not going to find a lot of sympathy among those who didn’t care who shagged who but cared very much that the proprietors of pizza restaurants in Indiana were being crucified by the media, politicians, and gay lobby after being goaded into uttering the wrong opinions. The mainstream, in other words.

This latest business about Trump’s Executive Order has revealed that it’s not just gay men who might face this issue in future. I have said enough times that this order was clumsily implemented and the chaos at the airports could have and should have been avoided, but otherwise it is not much more than what any other country does, or indeed any other American President has done in the past. It is not “aimed at Muslims” and with the exception of Iran it affects only those countries which are in various levels of civil war and have no functioning security apparatus with which their American counterparts can liaise. Plus it is temporary. Granted the list of countries does not reflect the citizenship of those who have carried out terrorist attacks on US soil before, but perhaps the Trump administration is looking to the future rather than extrapolating from the past.

One can expect Trump’s domestic political opponents to scream blue murder about it, because they would go into meltdown if he scrapped the US nuclear weapons programme and diverted the funds to orphanages and baby seal sanctuaries. But the knee-jerk reaction of Europeans is an interesting one. Europe has a nasty habit of getting itself into an almighty mess which the United States eventually has to pull them out of. We had two World Wars which required American intervention in Europe, then the military umbrella throughout the Cold War which kept the Russians out, and then the mess in Yugoslavia which the Europeans just watched rumble on for years until the Yanks got fed up and intervened to end it. Given the rather alarming issue of Islamic terrorism in Europe, the latest example of which was (again) in Paris two days ago, and the millions of migrants that Merkel and others have allowed in unchecked and unscreened, one would have thought Europe’s leaders might not have launched into a tirade against Trump exercising the right of the US to decide who enters and on what terms. If things unravel in Europe and the security situation gets out of hand (and I think this is highly likely) then Europe will need the cooperation and assistance of the US in dealing with it. One hopes that Americans will appreciate the distinction between Europe’s supposed leaders and its general population, but there’s no guarantee of that and the more the anti-US shrieking goes on the less they Americans will be inclined to do so. Whether we like it or not, in the absence of the willingness of Europeans to pay for it in terms of military expenditure and tough political decisions, the United States is the ultimate guarantor of European culture as we know it. Trump has already said Europe should address the former, and if Europe keeps ducking the latter while hurling vitriolic abuse at America for trying, however cack-handedly, to get a grip on Islamic terrorism one wonders to whom they expect to turn if and when everything goes to ratshit.

But it’s not just Europeans. A year or so back I knew a woman who was nominally Muslim but very Westernised: perfect English, US educated, secular in the main in that she drank, partied, etc. Only she thought Israel ought not to exist, and she said so with such casualness that I could only assume this passed for an uncontroversial, everyday opinion in her circles. I presented this anecdote on another blog recently and somebody told me a similar story of a moderate Muslim he knew in his office who had all the hallmarks of accepting Western culture only she agreed with the fatwa on Salman Rushdie. Trust between Muslims and everyone else is eroding rapidly, and this is not so much to do with the hardline terrorists as the perception – real or not, it doesn’t matter – that an awful lot of Muslims quietly agree with the aims (and sometimes the methods) of the terrorists and generally would prefer to see Muslims hold more power and influence than they currently do, and all that entails. Anecdotes like the two I mention above do little to improve things, and it is sad to say that when I have drilled down into the opinions of supposedly secular, moderate Muslims their views fall some way short of the ideals espoused by Western culture.

This latest episode on the Executive Order has revealed that further: it has been almost universally opposed by secular, Westernised Muslims who have branded it a “Muslim ban” and decided that they have more solidarity with people in Yemen, Somalia, and Libya than they do an elected American administration simply because the former are Muslim. In theory I am Christian: I certainly have a baptism certificate. However, I don’t have the slightest thing in common with other people on that basis, none whatsoever. I had very much in common with the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre because I share many aspects of the French culture which the terrorists were attacking. I also have a lot in common with Israelis subject to daily rocket attacks and suicide bombings, but none of this is based in religion. I show solidarity with one side or another based on shared culture, values, and beliefs. Which is exactly what Muslims do, only I have noticed that a lot of those who claim they hold Western values dear threw their lot in with people with whom they have absolutely nothing in common in Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan except that they are Muslims and this appears to have been the driving factor. I would never show solidarity with anybody simply because they are Christian: yet a lot of supposedly secular Muslims have leaped forward to show solidarity with other Muslims, in opposition to the secular policies of a fairly elected government.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with this per se, Muslims appear to demonstrate an impressive solidarity when faced with what they perceive to be an attack on their religion. The fact that almost every possible slight by a non-Muslim is leaped on by millions and portrayed as an attack on Muslims everywhere, egged on by the useful idiots in the media and academia, doesn’t do anything to change the fact that very, very few Muslims actually speak out against the crowd and take the side of Western values and principles over solidarity with their fellow Muslims.

However, the problem will come when they find themselves on the wrong end of one of Islam’s many internal conflicts. In fact, that problem is already here: few in the West trust the Syrians to police their own ranks of jihadists because they don’t believe the Syrians have an interest in doing so. When push comes to shove, many people in the West believe Syrians, Iraqis, and others will side with the jihadists ahead of their Western host populations. Hence, people don’t want to take in migrants from the Islamic world. Had moderate Muslims been more serious about accepting Western values, adapting, and integrating chances are the Western nations would be ready to accept far more refugees from the conflict zones. Instead they have presented the West with almost two decades of clear demonstrations, one after another, that they are Muslims first and foremost and always will be, and Western values will always come second.

A lot of the secular, modern, educated Muslims who sided with Yemeni, Sudanese, and Somalian Muslims in opposition to the moderate, secular decision of an elected Western government are going to find themselves on the wrong end of a conflict internal to Islam, or possibly even external to it. Like it or not, they are going to be caught up in the actions of the hardliners either at home or in a future conflict between them and secular, Western forces. When that time comes, who will they run to? They’ve already nailed their colours to the mast, and chosen sides. Another few years of this and moderate, secular Muslims are going to find, like the gay men will shortly, that they have no allies left that are worth a damn.

I think there are going to be a lot of people in the near future desperately banging on people’s doors citing principles they abandoned long ago or never held, asking for help. And those doors won’t open, because those behind it think they’re the enemy. And half the time, they’ll be right. I think we’re fast getting to the point when people need to have a long, hard think about what they truly believe in and start saying it loud and clear.


24 thoughts on “Who Will You Run To?

  1. My Muslim wake-up call, in the innocent eighties, pre clash of civilisations awareness, was from a secular, golfplaying, surgical registrar, at least three generations removed from the homeland, who declared, as a casual aside, that all science was in the Koran.

  2. The pendulum will swing back, but nowhere near far enough to knock over the huge massive gains that the homosexual activists have gained over the last twenty five years, they just about completely eroded our societal values in one foul swoop.

    I would also say that the travel bans are targeted and they are targeted on Shite nations, that’s always been the divide.

    You do have an awful lot more in common and direct connections with Christianity than you think you do, you were born and raised by Christians in a Christian country in Christian ways. You are at the very least culturally a Christian and always will be.

    I take it there isn’t much snow.

  3. Bardon,

    Snow is good but I’ve just arrived at the resort itself. Everyone else arrives later, first day skiing is tomorrow.

    I agree completely about my culture being based in Christianity. But you’ll not see me going apeshit about Trump’s wall on the grounds that it discriminates against Christians and I am a Christian and therefore I must show solidarity with my fellow Christians, even if they happen to have an awful lot of drug and gun runners among them. In fact, you’ll not see any Christians making that argument. But when it comes to Muslims, the whole lot – secular, moderate, the lot – come out in support of their Muslim brothers and sisters, regardless of whether there might be nutters mixed up in there.

  4. This current EO is more about the battle between branches of State and jockeying for position, also flushing out the left liberals. The jihadis are a convenient vehicle.

  5. I expect there is nothing any of us can say, ultimately, that will make much difference to the state of the world and very little that I can say that would make sense to anyone who thinks differently to me. But, saying things is what we all do, and sometimes we say them because they are true and ought to be made public.

    Here then is the curiosity of humankind: if things are true then why are they so reviled and downplayed? Example would be in islam and the west. Here we westerners have, built on the foundations (and not always peaceful and sensible foundations by a long chalk) of a society with certain rules and practices which — over the last thousand years if not before — have given us a way of life that has shown numerous practical and physical benefits. The case I always make is the sewer system; it may be wretchedly vile in all sorts of ways but has kept our cities and homes clean, and with cleanliness has come better health. The basis of our progress is probably christianity and in many cases probably the authority of the christian church has held things together if not actually dug the sewers. The beliefs helped gave people a sense that the proper disposal of human waste benefits everyone. Yet I do not see islam even remotely coming to that conclusion. I believe for example, in Dubai — and better travelled people than me can happily contradict me — has despite its fabulous wealth and towering buildings no sewerage system the way we have it. Maybe it was too hard to do or not cost effective and it certainly isn’t glamorous the way leaping skyscrapers are, I don’t know, but I have seen a video of fleets of tankers each morning setting out from this glittering city to dump all of yesterday’s human waste somewhere. Maybe it is dumped sensibly, but my point is that there isn’t the structure in place.

    You see, for me this is the illusion of islam: it can copy certain things and copy them very well to the point of excess, but it cannot clean up after itself in an efficient and that we might consider a sensible, perhaps western, manner. It can aim for the glory but has no interest in the guts, as it were.

    I am getting old now and maybe I won’t see any real trouble in Europe with the growing muslim population. I hope it never comes for the sake of my children and grandchildren, but the stark divisions between islam and the west have not been soothed by diversity or even by soft-pedalling on a religion that allows women to be treated badly even before it gets to FGM and ‘honour killings.’ Despite the lamentations of the MSM I don’t think it will be, and despite the propaganda efforts of the Beeb it merely underlines the gap that we cannot close and islam never will. But what we have now, what we are facing, cannot go on indefinitely unless one of the two halves that exist in the west gives way; either our women wear a black sack in public to avoid trouble or the black sack wearers return to where such practices are applauded. It is nice to think people co-exist and live in harmony but reality is different. We have learned to tolerate but now we have people among us who do not want to tolerate us: muslim males calling perhaps badly dressed western women enjoying a night out ‘sluts’ and ‘whores’ is either a terrible chat up line or indicative that they really think the west isn’t worth much at all. There is no tolerance there and looks set to get worse.

    I know once upon a time my ancestors tribe (Elmet, possibly Brigante) ought to have nothing to do with the sodding Icenii and the rest, but in these islands and indeed Europe we had more common ground — literally — to work together. I do not see that in islam. I see instead a group who will take the benefits of being in the west but insist they are not part of it. One or more steps removed. I suspect, by the way, we will see the emergence of pro-muslim political parties, which should just about finally fuck Labour and their mass immigration pleasures. The divisions then are set to get wider because in the end, we have to believe in the principle of thede: our nation, our people, our way counts more than some ideology we never agreed to in the first place.

    Ideologies clash, sooner or later, and we are entering an era where clashing is seen to be the best thing of all, and the more violent the better (except for those caught up in it, natch) Erdogan said there are no moderate muslims, and he may well be right; after all, he is one. But we pretend we know the truth even when all we have is lies, and start to frantically deny any evidence the lies don’t work. To go back to my first point, we cannot face the truth that here are people among us who, happily, will deliberately think and act differently to us because they are convinced they are right and we are wrong. Observable reality comes into play here: every black-bagged woman, every shaggy-bearded and desert-robe dressed male are openly saying they are different and they will not meet us anywhere near halfway, probably because they believe one day their thede will outrun ours in lands that were once bale to build sewers. But the truth cannot be said today. if I stood and said any of this in public then I would get my collar felt sooner or later, because our ‘leaders’ think by suppressing the truth and ignoring reality then we will somehow all agree to get along. The emphasis would seem to be on the suppression of the west and the west’s views, even when a lot of evidence says this may not be the best outcome.

    I do not wish muslims any hard in any way, but I do not think all of them by any means think the same of my people and my world.

    In the end, we cannot be truthful any more, we cannot speak the truth and that perhaps more than anything I have seen over many years of looking, surprises and hurts me more than anything else. But then I’m old, so maybe it doesn’t matter.

    For those who may see this clash open up, good luck and I hope our thede wins.

  6. any harm, not any hard in the long piece above. Also bale is able, but my fingers is too fick so typing is hard. Sorry

  7. Watcher,
    With respect to the idea of a Muslim party, Steyn has pointed out that in a two party system the split will inevitably oscillate around fifty fifty. The arival of a group of less than ten percent prepared to vote as a block for which ever party will make the greater consesions is, demography willing, able to decide the outcome of an election. The Muslim party comes later.

  8. “I agree completely about my culture being based in Christianity.”

    And this is solely and only because of where you were born which is center point to this whole debate. If you had been born in say Istanbul and were a well-adjusted fellow, then you might just as easily be Islamic, okay with that?

    You also might pray regularly, give money to the needy, live a productive life, admire Islamic history and culture and hold romantic notions of the restoration of the Khilafah. Why in this current climate of chaos, death and destruction would you not yearn for something that seemed to work and be good for all types of mankind to live their lives productively and in peace?

    I don’t think that this makes Tim the Turk a bad guy and this is the point we can’t point fingers at all of the individuals of another culture just because they happened to be born in the location of another culture, a culture that we are criticizing.

    None of us were born with a Bible or a Koran around our neck and we were all born equal. Sure the agitators are at work stirring up unrest for their own nefarious objectives, but just because someone was born somewhere different from us doesn’t mean to say that we cannot live in peace with them and I don’t think we should let the warmongers win and hence never give up thinking that we can’t just simply live in peace with each other. This should always be the ultimate target of a civilised life.

    But that might not be the way of the world that we live in as the rasing of armies for the next Crusade gathers pace.

  9. I could in my boring way say lot more, but let me go back to the headline of Tim’s article, which is ‘Who will you run to?’

    I used to live in Rotherham. Okay, well… someone has to. I lived in one of the leafier suburbs and saw how it was tilting even there. I had muslim neighbours and yes, they were nice people. I even rescued an alarmed old muslim man from a dog that he obviously felt threatened by (actually, I felt threatened by it too but shoo’d it into a garden and closed the gate. No don’t thank me… hero that I am) Meanwhile the roads were full of young muslim men driving round with clearly nothing much to do — I even saw them stop driving in the middle of the road so everyone in the car could shake hands with ‘their’ people on the pavement/sidewalk before they drove round the block once more. The local shops all had money transfer facilities so the newcomers could send their spare cash to littlebigistan or wherever, but more noticeable was that the school had at least sixty per cent muslim children but almost all white teachers.

    The ‘community centre’ down the road was all muslim. There wasn’t much of a feeling of community there, and there was at least one house I knew with a quotation from the koran round it’s door. I would imagine that therefore only muslims would want to buy it as a non-muslim wouldn’t dare paint the message out. The feeling, such as one can have feelings about places, was that this was increasingly muslim territory. Sure, I am guilty of white flight; we bought a house well outside the town and indeed, we sold our old house to muslim family. But then of the dozen people who came round to look and think about making an offer, the majority were muslim families.

    So where was I going to run to? Not in Rotherham (putting aside what everyone suspected was going on with young white girls) and I bet not in Huddersfield or Dewsbury or Bradford or across the Pennines in Oldham. You see, areas were becoming something that if you weren’t signed up for the faith, weren’t for you. Or rather, if they were then you kept your head down and didn’t worry about halal meat and the fact that local stores were less likely to sell dog food because dogs were haram or whatever the word is for forbidden.

    If then we have an imported culture — a growing one judging by the number of school kids called Mohammed — which becomes solid in some areas then we whose kids are called after Christian saints have to have somewhere to run to if we don’t ‘sign up’ for the one true faith. Remember, none of this was debated in Parliament, none of it on any manifesto. It was just done and the feeling will grow that there are certain places — all connected by the Queen’s highways — that aren’t for you.

    Will we see a return to city states, maybe behind walls in the UK? Maybe not, but I think we will see a return to houses with high fences and closed roads. The feeling is that we can’t expect the police or courts or politicians to sort it out, so we must avoid contact and confrontation as best we can. By the way, that was something many muslims did when they bought a house with a garden in Rotherham: they built high gates, almost as if they knew what was coming. Their choice, but we certainly have started to see the growth of low trust societies and as a consequence increases the feelings that all of us have to have somewhere to run to.

    For someone raised in what I thought was a (mostly) honest and open society governed by agreed principles, it isn’t a nice feeling to start thinking of places to run to.

  10. Where this ends is anyone’s guess.

    I think Tim is correct in calling the obvious logical inconsistencies in these people’s bizarre move to identitarianism after all those years of claiming we were all the same really.

    One of my favourite is a useful idiot on a twitter from the People’s Republic of Melbourne, Kon Karapanagiotidis.

    Page through his virtue signalling and ask yourself what a dinner party would be like if he invited all the LBGTIXYZ, Muslim, anarchy-Communists (oxymoron, shorely?), etc. mates he claims to support. The seating arrangements alone would need a new branch of pure mathematics to be developed.

  11. The mobile phone really fucked up the grammar and spelling on that one.

    Nothing to do with the author’s attention to detail, obvs.

  12. To add; when I was a callow youth, the gays were the radical anti-government folk. Presumably the memory of the previous generation being locked up by the government for their sexual preferences was still strong.

    The u-turn to now demanding that the government approves and certifies their relationships is astounding.

  13. “Where this ends is anyone’s guess.”

    There is no need to guess. It is going to end in conflict, bloodshed, and war. And a hell of a lot of suffering. Blood in the streets as someone once said.

  14. TNA

    “I think Tim is correct in calling the obvious logical inconsistencies in these people’s bizarre move to identitarianism after all those years of claiming we were all the same really.”

    The one I can’t figure is the whole Gay thing being fixed in stone, just someone’s nature, so all the religious types who tried converting gays at straight camps were completely wrong, yet gender is now something ‘fluid’ and just a social construct.

    The modern world is a confusing place for a simpleton like me!

  15. @David Moore,

    As I’ve mentioned before here, having a lot of small kids tends to focus the mind on these issues as one has to explain the world to them.

    I missed the precise moment but at some point in the previous decade, gender and sexuality became blurred.

    Imagine trying to explain the distinction to a curious child.

    I go with, “There are two genders and a large spectrum of mental illnesses that affect a very small group of people making them confused about their biology. Sexuality is simply about who you find attractive.”

  16. A year or so back I knew a woman who was nominally Muslim but very Westernised: perfect English.

    I was living among them and came that close to marrying one.

  17. Pingback: Samizdata quote of the day « Samizdata

  18. Interesting the comparison between the Christian & Muslim heritage. But worth remembering. Christianity is an Eastern religion. Rooted in Judaism & the same cultures that produced Islam. Early Christianity was as riddled with divisive sects. The Christian churches were intimately involved in more than a millennia of European conflicts & the subjugation of entire continents.
    European Christianity has been moderated by our Germanic/Scandinavian/Frankish/Gothic/Celtic inheritance. Call it the difference between the peoples of the goat & the people of the turnip. The religions came out of the Middle-east were the religions of nomad herding peoples. Cultures centred around protecting the flock (or stealing someone else’s) Me against my brother. Me & my brother against the family. Me & my family against the tribe.The tribe against everyone not the tribe.
    Europeans are, at root, farmers. Wedded to the land. Land doesn’t wander off. This is my land & over there is my neighbour’s land. If I have good relations & cooperate with my neighbour I don’t have to sit in the field all night guarding my turnips. The other side of my neighbour’s land is his other neighbour. So he’s my neighbour too. And so’s his other neighbour. All Europeans are neighbours. We prefer to cooperate.
    Look at our conflicts. How many have been peoples against peoples? Mostly they’ve been over which particular ruler gets to rule over which bit of land. Absent kings & princes (& Popes) the humble footsoldiers would prefer to sit down, share a flagon of ale & discuss harvests.

  19. Germany and Scandinavia were deeply involved in Europe’s millennium of Taliban rule. It was the French who really first successfully kicked religion out of politics (inspired by the USA, and its founding myth* of fleeing religious persecution in Britain).

    It took until 1848 to get the Catholic Church Taliban out of German politics, and that was, actually, a popular revolt, and put down brutally. Wasn’t until Bismarck that the government was fully on-side with dereligionising government. To this day we cannot buy groceries or mow our lawns on Sunday because it drives nails into the hands of baby Jesus, and upsets the trade unions.

    * I mean this very loosely since it is a lot more true than most nations’ founding myths.

  20. If push came to shove and Europe broke down into chaos as a result of the EU’s incompetence and willingness to invite all of Islam and most of the third world into Western countries in Europe – and many think that day of reckoning is now inevitable, why on earth would we in USA or Australia want to let millions of Europeans into our countries when just a few years before these same people let millions of Muslims into theirs. These same people would come with the attitudes that led them to this pass, and pervert our society and political climate just as surely as it perverted theirs. Say goodbye to conservatism and hello to rampant socialism. Does America or Australia really want to be the new home for millions who apparently feel it is their right to retire young and live on the tax dollars of others as in many European countries or who refuse to protect and defend their countries, their cultures and their families because they are too “civilized” for this undertaking?
    And of course it is not this simple. Should Europe turn into a bloodbath as Islam takes over it would not only be people of European ethnic descent who would flood the remaining western countries elsewhere in the world – as war and bloodshed descended on Europe, there would also be millions of Muslims, newly arrived in Europe, now traveling with Europeans to these new lands. And there they would recreate the dangerous and chaotic conditions they themselves created in Europe and are now fleeing. Should America and the rest of the non European west abandon Europe to its own devices we had better be prepared to pull up the drawbridge. The best we can now hope for is a “soft” takeover by Islam as Europe becomes Eurabia but even then given the way Muslims have historically behaved among other Muslims, bloodshed seems inevitable as different sects and factions fight for supremacy.

  21. Peter, it’s already too late. Those people have already imposed their views in the US and Australia, Trump or no Trump. The people who espouse this open boarder, diversity bandwagon are the very people who don’t have to live anywhere near the consequences.

    If you want to know how someone feels about diversity, just find out what school they send their kids too. The truth lies there.

  22. “I mean this very loosely since it is a lot more true than most nations’ founding myths.”

    Yes, you’ve quoted the myth and it’s just entirely the wrong way around to reality.

    The Pilgrims were fleeing not being allowed to persecute people as their religious interpretation required them to. Once they got to the “Land of the Free”, they were able to be entirely small-mindedly bigoted to the content of their stony little hearts.

    It’s like the Wee-Free, a couple of centuries later, except they just escaped to the Scottish islands.

Comments are closed.