Europe Should Surrender: A Modest Proposal

(AP Photo/Christophe Ena) (The Associated Press)

Europe has an existential problem. Millions of young, unskilled men are not assimilating. Worse, many Muslim men and women are openly hostile to the societies in which they’re living. Straining matters, Muslims are having children at rates far exceeding those of non-Muslims. And the flow of immigrants, legal and especially illegal, shows no sign of abating. If this weren’t bad enough, mainstream political parties and the media have consistently lied about the nature and scope of the problem, crafting narratives that any concern or even discussion about these issues are “far right”. This has complicated the situation and made offering compromising solutions nearly impossible

A photo of a public demonstration in the UK in favor of Sharia Law (Photo Credit)

Given population trends, the explicitly stated objective of the Islamists, illegal human trafficking, and the role of foreign influence, the situation is not merely unsustainable. It is destined to end in blood. I would like to offer an inevitable, pragmatic solution: Surrender.

Western Europe, in its current form, is over. It lacks the political will to even stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Significant immigration reform has not proven to be politically viable (based upon voting decisions). Education, job training, and interfaith dialogue have shown meager returns. The populace and the elites will not tolerate mass deportations. Nor will continental Europeans acquiesce to breaking up the EU and reverting to individual custom zones to make migration more difficult. However, a negotiated early surrender now can limit bloodshed, save Jewish and other lives, and yield more favorable conditions after the surrender.

Before I make this argument, as is obligatory in such conversations, let me state the obvious: The vast majority of Muslims living in Europe are decent, law-abiding citizens, many of whom face racism and discrimination. Yes, in some cases their values are incompatible with democratic values and liberal societies, and yes, crime and unemployment rates are high in these communities, but by and large as long as people with these attitudes are kept to minimum, say two percent of the population, there is almost no concern about bloodshed, Jews fleeing, gay rights being overturned, terrorism, rampant criminality, social services being strained, rape gangs, etc. (Muslim immigration to the US, which is admittedly different in terms of the immigrants, has arguably been a net positive.)

Mosque of Rome, the largest mosque in the Western World

Europe’s problem is that even if demographic trends stall over the next decade, in a very short period (estimates range wildly, from 2030 to 2050), almost all Europe will be dealing with double digit Muslim populations. Once that happens, any of the other alternatives like mass deportations, or exiting TFEU and the New Pact on Migration and Asylum and EU Migration and Asylum Pact, will be off the table. Europe will be facing mass riots, and even if citizens had the political will they would lack the police and military power to handle a widescale, violent uprising. (Think about the recent riots in France. A fraction of France’s ~9% Muslim population rioted, and were joined by many non-Muslims. Now imagine the difficulty of controlling those riots with 5% of young Muslims participating along with a percentage of leftists, the disaffected, and the unemployed.)

There are some who will read this and point to the Dutch politician Geert Wilders who’s referred to Islam as ideology rather than a religion. He’s called for banning the Qur’an, closing mosques, and ending Muslim immigration. Or they’ll bring up Nigel Farage and the Reform party in the UK, with their strict anti-immigration stance. However, do not be fooled by populist outliers. There’s one thing they’ve not been able to do—and that they will not be able to do: Stop illegal immigration. Until they do this, no matter how sincere their intentions, all their protestations are moot.

If European nations do not surrender, here’s what I predict in the short term: Slowly increasing civil discontent, mass riots, radically increased spending on anti-terrorism measures, the rise of the (actual) far-right and ethnonationalism, increasingly strained safety nets and social services (health care, police, prisons), alienation of large swaths of the host populace, increasing housing shortages which will further alienate young people and the middle and lower classes, more terrorism, further erosion in the trust of public institutions, the murder of Jews, a “hands-off” policy re. Israel, to name a few. In the long term, I predict civil war and bloodshed.

However, if the native populace surrender now, these negatives can mostly be avoided. There are logistical issues that will need to be worked out, like who they’ll surrender to—perhaps a foreign state like Saudi Arabia or perhaps leaders within their Islamic communities. One thing that is essential and nonnegotiable in these deliberations is the safety of Jews. They must be allowed to escape the country. This is not subject to compromise.

The other advantage of surrendering sooner rather than later, is that the Jizya, or the tax levied on non-Muslim subjects (known as dhimmis) under Islamic law, could be favorably negotiated. While this is currently out of vogue and has been condemned by many Muslim scholars, I would argue that it is in the interest of EU citizens to argue for a modest Jizya in return for their safety. The longer the EU waits, the higher the tax will be when they ultimately surrender. And make no mistake about it—surrender is inevitable.