Eurabia: It Is Closer Than You Think.

When the Camp of The Saints was published its central premise was probably seen as ridiculous and, of course, racist.

When Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations was published its central premise was seen as wrong and, of course, racist.

When Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia was published its premise was seen hideous and, of course, racist.

When Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe was published it was seen as fear-mongering and, of course, racist.

When Submission came out, it did not seem so ridiculous, but it was still racist.

When Douglas Murray’s Strange Death of Europe was published it was seen as ridiculous – by ridiculous people – and, of course, it was racist.

Now ask yourself, does a Europe that is described in Saints, Clash and Eurabia seem a more accurate description of reality and a more likely vision of the future than of anything you will read in the Guardian newspaper in 2017?

One argument against Eurabia is that demography is not destiny and that Muslim demographics can be lowered  and that integration is occurring (occurring where?).

Demographics are, indeed, not destiny. However, there are a few things to keep in mind.


1: New Arrivals.

As Merkel showed with her decision to allow up to a million Muslims to march into Germany, the demographic facts on the ground can change literally overnight.

What happens if this is repeated even just a few more times (which it probably will)?


2: Global South Demographics.

Have you seen Steve Sailer’s most important graph in the world?

There are more Africans than Europeans and there are more Muslims than Europeans right now and in the future and probably forever.

Tens of millions of men are eager to come to Europe: some for freedom; some for prosperity; some for a bit of rape and robbery; some for fun and some for Jihad.

This is never going to go away.


3: Turkey.

Turkey has a knife to the belly of Europe.

Turkey can turn on a valve and out comes millions of Muslims. They can do this any time they choose unless homage and tribute is paid.


4: Exodus.

As the standard of living in Europe declines due to a system-wide, interlinked crisis of security, economics and political legitimacy, more and more Europeans will leave – the Jews are already getting out (always a good sign of societal dysfunction).

As these Europeans leave – who will be among the smarter, wealthier and pro-civilizational set – Europe will suffer from capital flight and brain drain.

Thus, the state and the economy will all the more be in hands of both the left and Muslims (some of whom will be 5th columnists).


5:  Conversion of the Natives.

Islam is a missionary religion.

As the attacks step up, and the intimidation increases, more and more Europeans will convert to Islam.

Virtue signalling whores (gender neutral term) will be the first.

Women will outwardly conform to Islamic dress and some of them will begin to marry Muslim men.

Young, female students will be seduced by Muslim men, flush with cash on a Love Jihad, who will then be married and made pregnant.

Young, poorer females will continue to be made concubines.

Young, poor males will be converted to radical Islam (on the streets and in prison) because it will provide an outlet for violence and brotherhood – and females.


6: Sell Out.

As Europe’s economy weakens, businesses, schools and the media will be bought out by rich Muslims with an agenda.


7: Enemy of the Enemy.

As the nationalist right begins to rise, the establishment will join forces with Muslims and will promote more and more Muslims to positions of power – even voting for Muslim parties and Muslim presidents rather than nationalist ones.


8: Anti-Muslim Violence.

Violence against Muslims will begin – perhaps sponsored by outside patrons (Russia and even other Muslim powers). This will quickly escalate to a civil war.

The civil war will trigger revolutions and coups and counter-revolutions and counter-coups.

More exodus.

More immigration.

If Europe has a civil war, then Jihadis from all around the world will flock to join it – welcomed in by many leftists who need foot soldiers.


9: Turkey Invades Europe.

Turkey is acting like an enemy now.  Sometime in the future – perhaps during a civil war – Turkey invades Europe on the pretext of rescuing Muslims. Turkey brings with it a modern army and a huge irregular army of Muslims. Turkey is the bridge between Europe and the Middle East and across it a huge Muslim army will march.


10: The Empire Strikes Back.

Russia sees its chance. Russia turns off oil supplies to Europe, leading to a collapse and then retakes the Baltic States. Nevertheless, Poland, Hungry and Austria make a deal with Russia and come under its protection. A New Order is drawn up for Europe.

The Russian Empire is Restored.

As is the Ottoman Empire, with the return of Greece but also the new additions of Spain and Southern France.

Various Islamic and Christian cantonments exist across France, Germany and Northern Europe.

An Ode to Joy Indeed!

Sure, the premises become increasingly speculative, but can any informed, reasonable person disagree with the plausibility of what has just been presented here?

Can anyone come up with a plausible vision of how things do not turn out as suggested?

There is always the most obvious option.


14 thoughts on “Eurabia: It Is Closer Than You Think.

  1. I’ve consistently projected from 2015: “5 years to solve the problem peacefully, 10 years to do it violently, with fairly confident assurances of victory. Outside of that timeline we’re at strategic retreats and a European wide Reconquista (700 years) as the only option.”

    As an American looking into Europe from the outside, it seems all but certain that Europe will fold, with a few notable holdouts in Mitteleuropa/parts of France. We’ll be going down too of course, but the demographic/geographic situation here is more tenable, and the existence of a large and still practicing Christian population, quite conservative and rural, bodes well for us. Christians are a decreasing part of the population, however, despite declining rates I’m convinced time is on our side and I suspect we’ll come to a crossroads before we dip below 40%. Events are accelerating such that someone will pull the trigger, either domestically or abroad, before we’re in the boat Europe is in; total secularization and its incumbent inability to rationalize resistance and self-preservation of anything larger than the individual.


  2. Do you agree with Fjordman that “Europe at the dawn of the 21st century is a global joke, a decadent and weak continent, despised by its enemies and viewed with pity by its friends”?


    1. That is probably a fair generalization.

      As you can tell, if you have read some of stuff here (especially on foreign policy), that we do know a lot about global politics.

      From China to India and from America to Russia, there is perception and it is often stated publicly.

      And yet, there may be an element of wishful thinking here.

      The political elite of Europe, like in any nation, are sociopaths. They are ruthless and they are disciplined. Europeans, meanwhile, are very disciplined and patient. However, the popular anger is building and there could, in theory, easily be a switch.

      Clearly, their is something building in Europe, a kind of reactionary populism that is still democratic, socially liberal and not imperialist. It is, however, nationalist and hostile to Muslims and the “global elite”.

      Whether by design or evolution or both, the European “project” could still be maintained but with some changes.

      Form remains the same (bureaucratic oligarchy).

      Materials (people) are slightly changed but there is populist element that (appears) to be running things.

      Means will change the most. More security, tougher on Islam, less immigration and some economic changes.

      Ends remain the same which are an end to democracy, the nation state, Christianity and ethnic homogeneity. Power will be in the hands of the bureaucratic elite.

      You may or may not consider these changes a good thing.

      In short, if the EU survives, then expect it to become more like China.


      1. “We Don’t.”

        Your above article is titled “Eurabia: It Is Closer Than You Think.”, and promote books of the Eurabia genre, a hate literature which claim that Europeans are lazy, decadent, impotent, blind, childless and asexual (when they are not Muslim), islamized, arabized, anti-USA, anti-Western ( ), anti-Israel, antisemite (anti-Jews), you suggest that “Europe that is described in Saints, Clash and Eurabia seem a more accurate description of reality and a more likely vision of the future than of anything you will read in the Guardian newspaper in 2017”, you agree with Fjordman that “Europe at the dawn of the 21st century is a global joke, a decadent and weak continent, despised by its enemies and viewed with pity by its friends”. Of course you hate Europeans. And I want to know why.

        “Do you?”

        I don’t hate Europeans. I love Europeans. I am European.


      2. Ah, this modern fixation on the word “hate”.

        It is used so freely and so unthinkingly don’t you think?

        Furthermore, the assumption that if X calls Y’s argument or work “hateful” it is somehow irrational, false or morally reprehensible is ubiquitous.

        Is it necessarily true, that if someone does “hate” (let’s assume) some behavior, belief or state of affairs then they are irrational, unreasonable and morally reprehensible?

        Is this always true? Sometimes true? Rarely or never true?

        Is it possible that a good, honest person can “hate” what is wicked?

        Furthermore, is it possible and also desirable that a good person should, in fact, “hate” what is evil?

        What is hate?

        First pass, let’s go with strong dislike, aversion or revulsion at some object.


        As the lyrics of the Radiohead song There There has it “just because you feel it does not mean it’s there.” (But it also does not mean it isn’t.)

        The question, from a rational point of view, is whether or not one is justified in feeling as one does.


        As for the concept “European” and the construction “European people” well, we must define terms here, must we not?

        What does it mean to be “European” in a descriptive sense and in a normative or ideal sense?

        As one philosopher said, philosophy traffics in “essentially contested concepts” see:

        And as another philosopher said, much time could be saved if disputants “define their terms.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s