When Joseph Loconte slyly intimated that Dutch authorities ought to contrive some means of preventing Geert Wilders' film, Fitna, from being released, on the grounds that it constituted incitement to religious hatred and subverted the values of democratic society, it is highly dubious that he had these sorts of oppressions in mind. In brief, an Austrian opposition politician has been indicted on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols; the EU's
Politburo Parliament has rejected Hirsi Ali's proposal for a common fund to provide protection for those targeted for assassination; a Dutch journalist wishes Wilders' police protection to be lifted; the Federation of Dutch Employers is mulling a suit against Wilders, to claim damages for any losses incurred as a result of Muslim boycotts; and Belgian authorities are urging vigilant citizens to report instances of religious incitement, connecting this with a campaign to suppress Fitna.
Lawrence Auster suggests that the European Union has jumped the shark. I'm inclined to concur in the assessment, but find myself wrestling with the conundrum of the European Union itself: the EU is a collective act of shark-jumping, a continent-wide declaration that Europe is a spent force as Europe, a distinctive civilization comprised of dozens of unique peoples and cultures. The EU is is merely the denouement of a long, sad process; the two attempted autogenocides of the Twentieth Century represented a last flurry of activity before the final exhaustion, with the EU itself the grave. Europe's accelerating cultural, economic, and demographic integration with the Islamic world is merely the bouquet upon the freshly-turned soil beneath which the real Europe lies. All these things being the case, the entire endeavour being a shark-jumping, how can one episode, however monstrous, be a discrete, distinguishable shark-jumping?
All of these cultural episodes are not merely foreshadowings of dhimmitude; they are the substance of subjugation itself. Consider: it is forbidden to express even historical truths, if these should be invidious in regards to Islam, while the foulest blasphemies are feted; it is apparently a respectable opinion in Europe to maintain that those who run afoul of Islam should confront the consequences naked and alone, pariahs to even their countrymen; European authorities actively seek to suppress public discourse concerning these matters, as assiduously as any Chinese censor; and the possibility of subjecting dissenters to financial ruination is openly contemplated. Dhimmitude is being imposed, not directly, but through intermediaries, the impositions not merely treasonous in the sense that they violate patriotic obligations, but metaphysically, as a breaking of faith with ancestors and descendants (what few of these actual Europeans may have).
What, however, should one expect?
The elites of Europe have purposed to orchestrate a grand integration with the Islamic world, and, as might be anticipated, the motivations are principally economic, to be augmented by the geopolitical clout wealth can purchase. Economic integration entails demographic and cultural integration, both as a matter of logic and as a matter of demographics - specifically, the negative demographics of the indigenous Europeans; and, if such integration is occurring, why, the managerial caste will exercise its ministrations to ensure that there is a minimum of friction, at least from the natives, for if there is to be integration, they will have to acculturate and accommodate themselves to them. It cannot be otherwise, what with the European superstition that either declining to admit the Other, or requiring him to assimilate, would be an act of ontological violence, a precursor to genocide. Europe now wishes to negate itself before the Other, hating that it is, what it is, and what it has been, deserving only the most radical truncations of its identity.
As for us, we ought not doubt that our own establishment, confronted with the same circumstances, would respond similarly; for the object is not to defend against an Islamic threat, whatever that should be, but to defend against the potential disruptions of a grand strategy in which American economic, geopolitical, and ideological fantasies converge, almost to the point of identity. That strategy does not concern anything so retrograde as a simple patriotic defense of a homeland, and a cultural identity, but constitutes the American roadmap for a Great Game, the sport of emperors, political and economic, paid out in our blood and treasure; and we will be protected and subjected to cultural propaganda as that strategy requires, no more (in the case of the former), and no less (in the case of the latter, that "no less" being quite considerable). As for American conservatives on the whole, who have with wild abandon signed on to such of this wish-projection as they comprehend, they are
...not in favor of the socialist totalitarianism that is rising in Europe. But they are in favor of globalizing markets. So if they have to accommodate the expansion of the EUSSR's centralized power in order to get Turkey into the EU, they'll take it. They can deal with any mental or moral imbalance this causes by occasionally clucking their tongues lightly about the EU's socialism or by just seeing-no-evil altogether.
Many of them, apparently, will even swallow some of the oppressions mentioned previously, or at least turn away, so as not to look upon them, consoling themselves with the polite conceit that they have thereby protected "democracy". Behold, O men of the West, how your patrimony is sold for filthy lucre, your blood for wretched pieces of silver, the hollow comforts thus purchased merely the indulgences of the Last Men, after whom come dust and shadow.