Counter-Currents Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from the end of Fistfights With Muslims In Europe: One Man’s Journey Through Modernity, by Julian Langness. The book details the author’s travels through Europe in the 2000s, and how they impacted his personal and political journey. The book is available through Amazon.com here.
I think too that the circumstances that gave rise to the fights would be less possible today. In the years I was in Europe the Muslim communities were still more interspersed with non-Muslim ones, whereas today ghettoization has ramped up to an even greater degree. It would be difficult to have such interactions now with only one or two Muslims at a time, and more likely for similar altercations to immediately draw several dozen young belligerents.
Overall I view the fights now in a mostly positive light. They were in some ways silly, self-destructive, even comedic affairs, and in contrast to the great battles and great trials of history, they stand in infinitely small regard. Yet for a man my age, raised in the grip of our non-violent, politically-correct culture, they did possess significance, and marked the demarcation point from which I turned aside from the official societal narrative, and began finding the truth for which I sought. In them I also discovered deeper levels of strength within myself, including a measure of basic bravery I hadn’t thoroughly explored before my time in Europe. In the midst of contemporary culture, where our sacrifices and tests pale in comparison to those of men long ago, the fights I was in made me feel just a tiny bit closer to the kind of men my ancestors were, and less of an embarrassment to their legacy. This component of my experience gives me hope that I and other men like me will be able to find deeper reservoirs of courage in the years to come, and for all these reasons I am proud to have been in each and every altercation.
From the perspective of the present, looking back, these small bursts of violence which I and my various opponents engaged in also seem tragically minuscule compared to the everyday violence and turmoil now seen throughout Europe. For events have continued to spiral more and more out of control in the intervening years. The massive rates of immigration have only gathered steam since I left Amsterdam that spring. Seemingly innocuous commercial flights continue to arrive daily, bearing countless legal immigrants joining family members through re-unification. In the Mediterranean the vast surge of illegal immigrants is on more public display. In the summers it seems that every new newscast brings reports of the Italian Navy rescuing migrants stranded at sea. 400, 600, 800 at a time are taken into Europe, bound for far corners of its shores, to collect government benefits, and join the exponentially increasing diaspora of African and Middle-Eastern immigrants. Many others drown, dying horrible deaths after having been drawn to Europe by the knowledge that its governments will greet them with open arms, and provide them free housing, food, medical care, and welfare payments.
With this endless influx come ever quickening drumbeats from the immigrant community, insisting upon greater power and autonomy. Sharia law is demanded. Mosques spring up at a dizzying pace, and the share of tax dollars funding Muslim schools grows ever greater. Along with this we see increasing radicalization. In Holland in 2014 a Motivaction poll declared that 80% of young Dutch citizens of Turkish origin believe holy-war, or jihad, against non-believers is justified.
Yet at the same time the refusal among elites to acknowledge the threat is more and more pointed. The mainstream political parties articulate fanatic commitment to increasing immigration, to making Muslims more “welcome,” and to redressing what they see as the inequities and evils of European society.
On the streets of these nations however the problems grow worse by the day. In Scandinavia, the monumental numbers of native women being violently raped by immigrants testifies to the horrific dangers European citizens now face. Yet the Scandinavian governments refuse to even name the problem or attempt to stop it in any meaningful way.
According to United Nations statistics, Sweden is now home to the second highest per capita rape rate in the world, ranking only after Lesotho in South Africa. Sweden does not publish demographic data on crime, but to get an idea of who is committing the rapes, police reports from neighboring Norway found that of rapes involving strangers in Oslo, literally 100% were committed by those of North African and Middle-Eastern descent, and 9 out of 10 of their victims were white Norwegian women.
One would assume a mass movement of religious and ethnically-driven rape such as this might provoke cases of vigilante justice and revenge, but as far as I am aware not a single case of a brother or father seeking vengeance on the behalf of one of these women has occurred.
The Scandinavian rape crisis, as horrible as it is, has been overshadowed by the events in the English town of Rotherham that emerged in 2014. In Rotherham, over a period of years — as reported by the BBC itself — some 1400 girls, almost entirely native white British girls, between the ages of 11-16, were molested, gang-raped, and in many cases tortured by Pakistani immigrants who had purposefully lured, groomed, threatened, and blackmailed them. The statistics themselves are almost unbelievable, but make more sense when paired with the facts that came out regarding the authorities’ lack of response. Many of the victims, along with community members who knew what was going on, went to the police and child protection authorities throughout the years this was happening. Yet the BBC reported that the local government and child protection workers were afraid to speak out or get involved, lest they be labeled racist for doing so.
These events more than anything else in my eyes raised the collective shame and sickness of Europe to new levels. It became clear as these statistics came out, and their significance was roundly ignored during the 2015 UK Elections, that the European elites were more than willing to sacrifice the daughters of their countries to Muslim gang-rape on the platter of multiculturalism.
The Charlie Hebdo massacre in January of 2015, and the coordinated Paris attacks in November of the same year, seemed to cap this rising death spiral, and to mark some kind of important point in the story of modern Europe. It was as if they heralded the end of the first act in this intersection of Europe and Islam, and demanded that we — as people of European heritage — decide once and for all what course to take.
Such questions hold a place of great significance in my mind. Europe is the home of my ancestors, the seat of the culture and identity I am a part of, and I find its current landscape overwhelmingly tragic and shameful. But despite this it has an ideal buried deep within it, the light of which reaches to the furthest depths of my soul, and causes my heart to resound with emotion and pride. One might wonder that such a feeling has not been extinguished for men today — washed away in the suicidal push from Europe’s elite. But I know it is still there, because I am constantly drawn back to Europe. I find myself compulsively searching for European news, combing through headlines for signs of hope. In almost every way I am more focused on it than on America, and every new turn in its story pulls my heart its way.
I know these thoughts are not distinct to me; neither about Europe, nor modernity itself, and the ways in which it leaves us confused, displaced, and bereft of dignity.
Brett McKay writes that “The barren flatness of modern life is rooted in many things, including mindless consumerism, the absence of significant challenges, and the lack of shared values and norms, or even shared taboos to rebel against. But what is the answer?”
The author Keith Preston traces the precursors to these forces all the way back to Nietzsche and the 19th century. He references Nietzsche’s prediction of nihilism being the West’s greatest future enemy. Nietzsche predicted that the rise of science would cast doubt upon the metaphysics of Christianity and religion, and claimed that the existential crisis this would create would come in the 20th and 21st centuries and result in mass nihilism, which Preston argues can be seen in “the Western demographers gleefully predicting the deaths of their societies.”
But if that is the case it prompts the question Brett McKay poses even more strenuously: “What is the answer?”
In the years since I returned from Europe I have spent long hours thinking on this question, and have met men whose responses range the gamut. Of the five most basic reactions previously outlined, there are two that resonate most forcefully with me. The first is that of the “good man” who bides his time in the present, cultivating his tactical virtues and skills, lest the world ever need strong men again. I embrace this response — its understated confidence, its determination not to grow soft, its commitment to the future and to one’s family. Yet at the same time the most radical response — that of tearing down modernity — beckons me forcefully. The artificiality of modern life calls out for destruction. The present Western world deserves a chance to recast itself into something more natural, more sacred, and more worthy of its great history. These two responses must be bridged, and in such a combination lies the path I choose.
In a system that no longer represents us — those who believe in honor, family, heritage, and tradition — the only rational response is to acknowledge this fact and change our outlook accordingly. As the modern world moves ever more forcefully towards the “Iron Crown” and the “yawning abyss” Tolkien spoke of, we must consider such forces our enemy, and find ways to hasten their collapse. Simultaneously we must begin building anew, far outside the Western corporate-multicultural framework.
As we watch mainstream Europe continue to denigrate the best aspects of its history, hurriedly embracing its own death and the enslavement of its children at the hands of Islam, our response must start by taking a page from the Islamists themselves. Not to start murdering innocent women and children, but to cease counting on the state alone to protect the needs of our people and our future. We must stop brainwashing ourselves that the state is going to save itself or its citizens. The state in its present incarnation is both a symptom and a cause of the problem, and while opposition is rising on the European stage, it is doubtful whether the European political system is robust enough to effect change before it is too late.
There are groups of men (and women) attempting to accomplish such change right now, working hard to preserve Europe’s history and future. A diverse segment of groups, such as the English Defense League, the Sweden Democrats, and the PEGIDA protestors in Germany, are, through a variety of means, valiantly attempting to gain enough political and social traction to stop the looming suicide of Europe. These groups demonstrate great strength, and great courage, and I look upon them with admiration and respect. However I do not possess hope in their ability to effect change or relief.
A political solution might have been possible at some point in the past. If Enoch Powell’s speech had catalyzed a greater response, and Britain had halted immigration then, its world would not now be crumbling. Yet that is not the path that was laid out for it. Modernity — and destiny — had different plans in store for Britain, and the levers of power within its political system are not strong enough to now temper them.
Therefore what we must now do is cultivate both 3GW and 4GW solutions. We need to take advantage of opportunities both within the political framework and outside it, and we can start by studying our Islamic opponents, for Islamism has been the most potent and successful worldwide revolutionary force in our lifetimes.
The Muslim Brotherhood has created a worldwide movement working towards the goal of effecting social and governmental change to give traditionalist Muslims more power. By astutely utilizing the framework of Western society and its institutions they have been especially successful in accumulating power within Europe and the Commonwealth Nations. We need to learn from them, and use similar means to effect the changes that will preserve our own cultures. We need to build communities, families, organizations, and tribes. We must plan and work tirelessly to advance our cause and prevent our own destruction.
The Muslims do not stop with such soft power however, but undergo the training needed to fight on the physical level as well. What will it benefit Europeans to remain demure from such tactics and skills, if such a lack leads to their doom? We must therefore also learn from those men like Amin and Yasin in Inside the Jihad, for if we do not, we will forever be at a disadvantage against them. For though even the up and coming anti-immigration parties in Europe are hesitant to say it, we all know what the future holds. The collision that events have been building toward is inevitable. All sober participants in the debate understand that civil war will soon reach Europe. No matter how badly the European establishment wants to put their head under the pillow, and wish reality away, the facts are there for anyone to see. The quotes from thousands of Islamic preachers calling for confrontation are omnipresent, and growing, and any student of human history could see the wave building long ago. Without paramilitary training, without a cultivation of tactical virtues, without the will to fight, the European people will be at the full mercy of those forces — those men — that do possess such a will.
And this is rightly so, for a culture that is unwilling to fight for its survival does not deserve to survive. How many more eleven year old girls must be gang-raped, how many elderly Europeans beaten to death, before we stand up and fight?
The only question still remaining is how events will play out. A million possible permutations exist, but there are only three broad paths among them from which Europe can choose.
The first is surrender — whether abrupt or drawn out. Europe can continue on its current path, allowing in millions more Muslim immigrants, giving increasing power to its Islamic citizens, until they eventually become its rulers. European society would slowly disappear, overtaken by a great wave of Islamic law and culture. Its citizens who can flee overseas will do so, just as they are beginning to do already, while those who cannot leave will have to convert, or submit to “dhimmitude” and slavery.
Europe could, alternately, attempt to halt further immigration. This would be based on the assumption that it would allow the breathing room its governments need to correct the problem, and somehow convert all Muslim citizens to a Western way of life. However, even in this scenario, the demographics would play out in a similar if slower manner. Among young people the proportion of Muslims to native-Europeans is already several times greater than in the broader society at large. With white versus Muslim birthrates continuing on roughly the same path they are today, eventually Islam would achieve a majority nonetheless. Would such a Muslim majority gladly throw aside 1400 years of tradition, undergo the Islamic “Reformation” some are calling for, and embrace secular-materialism? Nowhere else in the world is there a Muslim-majority population which has done so, and such a hope seems a desperate plan indeed.
In a third scenario, choosing to acknowledge reality before it is too late, the governments of Europe could attempt to deport all Muslims currently in their countries. But in such a scenario the Muslims would surely revolt, bringing civil war directly back into the equation.
Such a pending Islamic takeover or civil war does bring with it a worthwhile result however, in that it helps attain the noble aim of waking us up to the suicidal ideology that has overtaken our lands. It awakes us from our slumber, and helps us see things as they really are. It plunges us into the deep, cool water of reality, and forces us to choose a response.
We can choose to surrender, and discard all honor, in return for flight abroad, or enslavement.
We can engage in rearguard actions, attempting small and impotent measures, while we watch the inevitable proceed.
Or we can take the most honorable course, and embrace our destiny and fight.
In choosing the latter, we should not view such a destiny as a cross that we must bear, for our ancestors would not have deemed it such. The warriors in The Iliad did not go to war with self-pity in their hearts, and neither should we look upon our own inevitable battle. It is rather an opportunity — a chance for us to finally do something meaningful, something worthy of our forebears, that allows us to measure up against their glory, and move with honor into the light of their far nobler countenances.