The Creation of the Islamic Microstate

As the irresistible force of the Global Islamic Caliphate grinds against the immovable object of European culture, accommodation will need to be found within the borders of Europe’s host countries to prevent conflagration. I suggest that larger existing Muslim areas will re-create themselves into independent national entities.

Muslim/host nation tensions will continue to increase until an amalgam of Christian youth and nationalist groups, with the passive support of religious minorities and conservative secularists, will meet Islamic intractability head-on. The inherently violent nature of Islam is indisputable, even when Islamist terrorism is excepted. A 2008 YouGov survey of Muslims in British universities found 32% said that killing could be justified in defence of their religion. Only 6% of non-Muslims would agree.  Honour-killings and rape predominate in Muslims communities. 40% of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 would prefer to live under Sharia law, over twice the percentage of their fellow believers aged 55 and above.

Extrapolation of current trends will require a permanent solution to avoid on the one hand complete Muslim domination of European culture, and on the other, Europeans’ robust defence of it through violent or legislated means, including expulsion of those who refuse to accept it.

I am making the prediction (with a high level of confidence, since the alternatives will be too bloody to contemplate) that by the middle of the 21st century nearly all western European countries will be riven by the creation of Islamic city states within their borders. For the sake of brevity they will be referred to as a ‘microstate’, that is, an autonomous conurbation that is defined by the Islamic beliefs of its citizens.

This action will be seen to be the only way to avoid the destruction of both the national and the greater European cultures from their currently weakened states through to total domination by the cultures of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslim immigrants have interpreted the European ideas of tolerance and human rights to mean that their beliefs will be accepted and respected, and that assimilation would not be required. It will be seen by the host country as a means of placating and integrating radicals into an environment where their urges will both find an outlet and be curtailed by group pressure.

Boundaries will be formed around existing Muslim centres of population, initially in France, Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, followed by Britain, Norway, Austria, Germany, Switzerland and Spain. Dates for eastern European states, particularly Orthodox, may be more difficult to predict, although Russia with 15% of its 143 million people professing Islam, may well lead many western European countries in having an independent Islamic state. By the end of this century it will affect every non-Islamic state throughout the world. Current boundaries are well marked in many countries, particularly France with its 751 'zones urbaines sensibles' or banlieues. There are suburbs in most countries that are described as 'no-go' areas with limited policing, and some measure of Sharia rule may already be implemented. Cities with high Muslim populations will themselves be split along Muslim/secular lines and possibly still further on a sectarian basis. There will be forced movement of the population from one area to another, particularly in the case of secular citizens and religious minorities such as Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs from Muslim areas because of Muslims' widely-demonstrated limited tolerance of other religions. Areas close to host country borders are likely to be arrogated to form independent states.

There are examples that could stand as models, such as the State of the Vatican City, Monaco, the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla on the Moroccan coast, tiny boundary states such as Andorra and Lichtenstein, or the Kaliningrad Oblast. There are active precursors such as the Basque Country on the western Spanish-French border, South Ossetia with a population of just 70 thousand, Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, Basilan and Zamboanga in the Philippines, and Aceh in Indonesia.

By Max Weber's definition, these microstates will have a ‘monopoly on legitimate violence’, imposing their own legal order over the territory. Alliances will form between many if not all of these entities within a country, even among several countries, with perhaps a request for international recognition of the collective. This will require the creation of a new form of state entity which could be internationally recognised.

While the precise form of these Muslim entities is difficult to predict until they mature, there are aspects that can considered certain. These will include implementation of mores dependent on the dominant immigrant culture; polygyny, Sharia Law, Islamic finance, a militia, and its own system of justice and punishment. The host country’s language is likely to be ranked third after the religious and legal language of Arabic and the immigrant vernacular. The microstate will quickly be stamped with its own identity, with the renaming of streets and public areas, statues removed, churches and synagogues converted to mosques, and so on. The enclosed areas would be patrolled by a militia, youth groups or ‘religious police’. Infringement of dress code, morality, familial ‘honour’ codes, advertising standards and public displays is likely to be summary, and as now, involve some level of violence. On the basis of past behaviour and the traditional structure of Muslim societies it seems likely that the entities will do poorly financially and will be heavily dependent on the magnanimity of the host nation. Failure in this regard will be signalled by low-level terrorism and threats of expansionism, and the host nation will yield to this blackmail with heavy subsidies, particularly in social services where it will be regarded as jizya (a tax imposed by Islam on members of minority religions.)

Boundaries may have short-term stability only, with a tendency to be viciously defended and to expand to include nearby areas with shared cultural values or compatible sects, or to expand through population growth into adjacent areas. While they are unlikely to be formal in the sense of a national border, they will be legally documented and well established. Immigration to these areas from sources outside Europe could increase greatly unless the host country provides rigorous control, which in itself will lead to serious difficulties in the relationship.

CITIZENSHIP: Nigeria defines people by whether they are ‘settlers’ or ‘indigenes’, someone who resides in the area where their ethnic group has their ancestral home. Malaysia has a similar system where Malays are defined by their ethnic origin and are ipso facto Muslim with special indigenous rights denied to Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs, to whom civil laws apply.

CRIME: Applicable jurisdiction dependent on the residence of the suspect will need to be followed through. US state border and continental European border experience will cover some of this. Hudud punishment adds a new layer of complexity.

CURRENCY: While the host country’s will be used, and the Euro where applicable, it seems quite likely that either a local currency or a common Islamic currency is developed with parity to the host country’s. The advantage of this option is that it will be seen not to be polluted by the West’s use of interest and its immorality, and that local currency will help local businesses and banks. Similar examples are the use of the Cook Islands currency, equal to the New Zealand dollar but only of interest to collectors elsewhere, and Lewes’ (Sussex) attempt to introduce its own currency following Totnes in Devon.

EDUCATION: This may follow the current religious model of ‘special character’, with minimum standards of education insisted upon and supported by the host country’s taxes. This may be needed to guarantee that girls do not miss out. At the same time, the microstate’s autonomy may also allow for madrassas (religious schools) with no set academic standard.

HEALTHCARE: Ethnicly/religiously oriented clinics are being promoted in Stockholm, Rotterdam and Russia. This would suit first-line care, and it is likely a micro-state would have a city-sized hospital. One microstate may provide training services for a number of microstate hospitals. Current issues, such as alcohol-free medicines and the clear-arm strategy for theatre staff are being resolved through appeasement processes. Finance would be a major issue, depending on whether the microstate or the host country gets the health taxes.

It seems likely that consideration of these states will begin to permeate long-term governmental planning. Seeds have already been planted, with Archbishop Williams’ comments on the incorporation of sharia law into British law, and changes already under way which recognise Islamic marital standards.

The last four decades have seen erosion of European values by the deliberate act of cultural repudiation on the part of the feminist movement and post-modern philosophy. It is now at a ‘tipping-point’, to use one of the global-warmers’ favourite phrases. Should this become terminal, Europe will become Islamic.

Arcadianism

If we are to narrow down dualistic tensions in the West to the minimum, there is no question that the progress of technically and economically assisted improvements in standards of living in contrast to a simpler, more spiritual and naturally-orientated life will reach the shortlist. Within western diversity there are too many strands to be able to make a coherent movement antagonistic to our preoccupation with conspicuous consumption. There is, however, sufficient commonality in their themes to group them under the rubric of ‘Arcadianism’.

Arcadianism is the ideal of a simple rural life in close harmony with nature. The word derives from a mountainous region in ancient Greece called Arcady, whose inhabitants supposedly dwelt in an Eden-like state of innocence, at peace with the earth and its creatures. It was an ideal middle landscape between town and wilderness which held none of the fears or disadvantages of either. As an environmental vision in modem times, Arcadianism has often been naïve surrender to nostalgia, but it has nonetheless contributed to the growth of an ecological ethic of coexistence rather than domination; humility rather than self-assertion; and man as a part of, rather than superior to, nature. But in its reaction to Christian anthropocentrism, Arcadianism has moved to a misanthropic perspective requiring mitigation of mankind’s perceived sins.

Abrahamic religions incorporate in their concept of ‘heaven’ an Arcadian vision, a return to the Garden of Eden (at base a childish wish for a life without difficulty or mistakes) through spiritual effort in avoiding temptation and the path to hell. With the decline of the spirituality of religion in the west, concomitant with rising standards of living and increased leisure time, heaven becomes somewhat nebulous and remote.

There has been a disillusionment with science foreseen by Oswald Spengler, the German schoolteacher who became the first great prophet of the end of science. In his massive tome, The Decline of the West, published in 1918, Spengler argued that as scientists become more arrogant and less tolerant of other belief systems, society will rebel against science and embrace religious fundamentalism and other irrational systems of belief. He predicted that the decline of science and the resurgence of irrationality would begin at the end of the millennium.

Predictions made by micro-biologist Gunther Stent in his 1969 book The Coming of the Golden Age: A View of the End of Progress have been oddly prescient. Stent, following on from Adams’ Law of Acceleration stating that increasing rates of social change lead to increased chaos, contended that science, technology, the arts, and all progressive, cumulative enterprises were coming to an end. He says that with increasing affluence fewer young people may choose science, many preferring more hedonistic pursuits of drugs or electronic devices feeding directly into the brain. Progress would be stopped leaving the world in a largely static condition that he called 'the new Polynesia' signalled by the advent of beatniks and hippies. With the sense of increasing chaos, individuals left with nostalgia, a yearning for the world of their childhood that probably never matched reality.

This, then, is what leads to Arcadianism. It nestles well with the Gaia hypothesis, providing a god which needs propitiating. It has the obtainable heaven of ‘lifestyle blocks’, with national parks, cycle lanes and gymnasiums offering a resource of moral and spiritual regeneration. It is compatible with the modern fears of ionising and non-ionising radiation, chemical hazards, resource depletion, global warming and genetic modification. There are temptations to resist, such as SUVs, furniture made from unsustainable timber, food that may be genetically modified, or factory-farmed but cheap or preserved by irradiation, and abundant power embodied in nuclear generation. It has its enemies in global corporate entities, especially petrochemical and pharmaceutical, and anything associated with its fears. There are those to convert, such as smokers, the fat and the unfit. There is the promise of eternal life through self-abnegation, and the aesthetes who are determined to achieve it by self-control. It is the Arcadian vision that drives ‘nimbyism’, vegetarianism, natural remedies, and the conservation and ecological movements.

Warmers v Deniers

Many commentators advocating strong measures to control Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) criticise ‘deniers’, and wonder how they reach such a conclusion. The commentators will then produce purported reasons how such ‘deniers’ reach their conclusion. Mostly these reasons are laughably inaccurate and naïve.

But this response has a resonance elsewhere. It is exactly the same tone taken by Christian believers, sometimes even by agnostics or academics, to describe atheists. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the atheists’, or deniers’, philosophical position, and this arises out of the separate worlds that these antagonists inhabit. One is that of a believer who feels s/he knows the truth, the other of a sceptic who sees things not just in infinite shades of grey, but also the shadows behind.

A case in point is Lord Anthony Giddens (sociologist, author of The Politics of Climate Change, and creator of the Giddens Paradox) who give three superficial reasons that AGW sceptics use – denying it is happening, that it has nothing to do with human activity, or that it’s not very dangerous. As ever, reality is more complex.

. . .

Environmental Determinism

Hastings District Council’s edict that a sea-wall in Haumoana must be torn down is symptomatic of a much deeper spiritual drive. Briefly, the owner claims the sea-wall was a rebuild of an existing wall, while the Council states that because the house is in a “coastal hazard zone” the wall requires a resource consent. It successfully repelled high seas in a June ’09 storm. Dominion-Post 23/7/09

There is a concealed impetus behind many in the environmental movement to allow nature to take its course without human intervention, and to marginalise human society in its relationship with nature. This goes some way to explain the attitudes behind the following examples.

• In Australia a man was prosecuted for cutting down trees close to his house, yet his house was one of the few to survive bush fires in 2009.
• DOC is preventing the clearing of manuka scrub that developed during the hard times following Rogernomics on East Coast farms. The costs of the Department of Conservation’s consent process through the RMA and the court fight if consent were denied are resulting in lower stocking rates and fewer employment opportunities.
• Al Morrison of DOC invokes Maori cultural values when considering pre-emptive lahar prevention on Mount Ruapehu and he rejects the optimum method.
• A road in the Waikato is moved to avoid a ‘taniwha’.
• ‘Rewilding’, the process of removing introduced fauna and flora and encouraging only local species, is occurring globally.
• The Environment Court has ruled in favour of Maori spiritual values, including the site’s history, water and sacred areas, over a wind farm on a Hawke's Bay mountain range.
• A couple of New Zealand academics call for those interested in conserving genetic biodiversity to not plant cultivars.
• A south Wairarapa road has not been protected from sea encroachment and is now half its normal width.

This growing combination of rootless spirituality and misanthropy is a reflection of collective guilt for the imagined transgressions of previous (but importantly, recent) generations. What is new in comparison with established faiths is that this ‘eco-spirituality’ is advocating many of these actions on behalf of future generations. None of them improve the environment. What makes these people think that future generations need the protection of our inaction? What they do represent is cultural repudiation, of which more anon.

Support Whaling!

This is an e-mail I sent to Chris Laidlaw's National Programme 'Sunday', following some vacuous comments he and a guest made about Japanese whaling:

The comments about the sins of Japanese whaling and their hypocrisy are sanctimonious cant. Whales, just as man is, are part of the food chain, and to excuse them because they're "sentient" defies logic. Should we only eat stupid animals? No pigs, but horses are OK? What constitutes whale sentience and how different is it to that of cows, deer, pigs or sheep? Why should it be treated differently?

The only real issue is the sustainability and husbandry of resources. It would be self-defeating to cause the extinction of any of the whale species, and there's no evidence that whaling countries are doing this. Common humanity should prevent undue pain or distress to whales when they are killed, but it is in the interests of an efficient industry to ensure that this is the case.

The current fashion for opposing whaling is, like opposition to the use of fur, groundless, emotional, and fickle. Other than sustainability and undue cruelty, there is not one rational reason to oppose either the hunting of whales, eating of their flesh (which I would unhesitatingly), and use of industry by-products. That few eat whale meat in Japan is a matter of a scarce commodity, not a scarce resource. The argument that it’s not necessary to eat whale meat because other food sources are available can be used with practically all food sources on the Greens' Dietary Laws list, till all we get left with is lentil patties. This isn’t a world I want to live in.

No argument about whaling used in today’s program was possessed of common sense or intelligence. There was a clear loss of perspective and sense of reality in raising one species to a level of reverence. Whales are subject to the vicissitudes of life, of which we are just one of many. We won’t be repeating the sins of the Maori with moas et al and hunt them to extinction, so they really don’t need our help in survival.

Note that Dawn Carr, British co-ordinator of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, says she "would prefer people to eat whale meat rather than farmed salmon . . . It can feed hundreds, so less [sic] fish have to die." She ignores the inverse ratio between creature size and quantity. "We talk about dolphin-safe tuna, but what about the poor tuna caught in the nets? It deserves a life, too. What about the worms squirming on the end of the hook?" She has dedicated her life to stop the British catching and eating any fish at all. While not encouraging violence she "won’t rule anything out. I understand groups who smash into animal testing laboratories to liberate victims." Dominion 11/8/01. BBC’s HardTalk’s Tim Sebastian mercilessly exposed her moral vacuity.

More speculatively, concomitant with increasing sensitivity to whales and other more furry species is the wax of the feminist, imposing unexamined caution and the predominance of nurture without the balance of masculine practicality and common sense.

The Expert Drafting Group of the International Whaling Commission met recently in Auckland to finalise the regulations for the Revised Management Scheme. This will allow a limited return to commercial whaling. Kate Sanderson is a whaling adviser to the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands, which is dependent on whaling for food. She considers that opposition to whaling comes from urban dwellers in high income countries ‘humanising’ whales.

Japan is being demonised for its attitude to whaling, and for attempting to buy votes in support of its view. It should be remembered that in the 1980s Greenpeace actively lobbied for countries opposing whaling to join the IWC to implement the moratorium on whaling, even though they were not directly affected. In many countries opposing whaling, the issues are handled not by the fishing ministries but by the ones responsible for the environment, earning cheap green points along the way.

I don't want to be seen as supporting whaling, though. I've got bigger fish to fry.

Arcadian Values

All religions, as with ideologies, wish to refer to some unchanging principle or text in which to ground its beliefs. Wishing to avoid doctrinal compromises and the fickle nature of current thought and interpretation, a religion will produce guidelines which over time become held as inerrant. In their absence, as is the case with Environmentalism (which I will refer to as ‘Arcadianism’ to represent its religious aspect), substitutes will be created. Thus it is with temperature and CO2 levels. With ‘pre-industrial’ equalling Christianity’s ‘prelapsarian’, it is used as a standard to which the sinful modern world can refer, striving for it provides a penance, and its achievement will go some way to assuage the collective guilt of the Industrialised World.

It’s no surprise on this score that the phrase ‘global warming’ has been usurped by ‘climate change’. Given its pejorative twist it comes to represent an undesirable threat to modern life, without the comfortable implication that ‘warming’ gives. Change is bad. It has unquantifiable risk, something it shares with the Arcadians’ hubristic bugaboos like nuclear energy, radiation, and DNA manipulation. And, like these, they feel that climate change must be halted by the exercise of public will.

With many New Zealanders' unhealthy aversion to unquantifiable risk and its obverse of 'the precautionary principle' it's likely this country will be on its way to achieve pre-industrial status. It will give the Arcadians frissons of rectitude and sanctimony at the expense of the rest of us.

Doxogony

The fact is that no independent social group has ever existed without creating its own pantheon first, and no state eschewing religion has survived for very long. While one might wish governments keep from interfering in matters religious, as it has in western Europe, the results speak for themselves. Low fecundity and high ‘multi-culti’ tolerance has left many of these states with a loss of identity. While my essay on Arcadianism shows the way forward for the secular group that forms this episteme, it still leaves a gap which Islam is filling in a hurry, and the outcome of this is bleak.

The mistake made by many an atheist, and not understood at all by religious types, is in not realising that atheism is a perspective, not a philosophy. It is a one-dimensional viewpoint carrying no values, that the world should be understood as not being created or influenced by gods. After that, atheists have to find their own path of exegesis.

Compare that to the solidity of religion which offers to fulfil the deep human needs of ritual, connection, and inspiration. But religious faith goes further than codifying mores, moving into areas of unverifiable conjecture.

There’s no question that the atheistic viewpoint is correct. The spiritual viewpoint lacks the coherence required to construct a realistic world-view; it will be too obsessed with revealing 'The Truth'. It requires explicit and exclusive use of the imagination with support of possibly psychopathic spruikers, and is thus strictly individual to all seven billion-odd of us, albeit channelled along cultural lines. On the other hand, atheism offers no way to run a society of an advanced species. For this you need a mechanism that has evolved in parallel with it to ensure societal cohesion through a belief in shared values.

I call this mechanism ‘doxogony’, meaning ‘the source of opinion’ (Greek, doxa, δοξα, opinion, + gonia, γονια, origin, coined from ‘orthodoxy’ etc. and ‘cosmogony’ etc.) and emanating from the limbic region, to avoid the confusing meanings of belief and faith. I use this to describe the human brain’s evolutionarily-derived process that subconsciously drives the conscious to form non-verifiable opinions such as religious beliefs. Thus, doxogony carries no values itself, but provides the motive to create convictions which depend on the individual’s genetic heritage, upbringing and environment. In my opinion, such convictions are completely unique to each and every individual, yet link individuals strongly to their group and to the episteme or cultural paradigm. It evolved through the need of mankind to form social collectives with common ground to establish rules of behaviour and rituals for the purposes of bonding. I further believe it to be the most powerful factor in civilisation.

Lewis Wolpert put it slightly differently, “There is a strong motive for explaining any phenomena that affect us in causal terms, an ingrained need to organise the world cognitively – both the external world and the internal world of the individual. This cognitive imperative, which has been called a belief engine, may have evolved because it was essential for human survival . . .” (Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief)

For this reason mankind will never be free of religion. It offers control over highly destructive tendencies in human nature, as well as its excuse. For all its many faults, I suspect that were we to dispense with it society would be a lot worse off.

Probably non-existent.