Paul Weston, chairman of the LibertyGB party in England, is a solid member of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, having gained his 15 minutes of fame back in April of 2014, when he was arrested for speaking the words of Winston Churchill in England -- more specifically, with a megaphone on the steps in front of Winchester Guildhall in Winchester, a borough a little less than 70 miles southwest of London. Initially, his thought crime (amplified by megaphone) was "racially aggravated crime under section 4 of the Public Order act" (the charge was later dropped and by bail he was set free; see this informative report).
More recently, just last month in July, Paul Weston published a piece on the Gates of Vienna blog entitled: France has two options: Civil war or surrender.
Does the reader notice the conspicuous absence of a third option (let alone a fourth)...? Yes, we speak of Deportation.
Later on in his essay, Weston finally breezes past the D word -- parenthetically -- as he writes the following:
Can France be saved? It can, but it would mean removing Islam from public life. It would mean closing down the mosques. It would mean deportation. French Muslims in their millions wouldn’t like this, so it would also mean civil war. Real civil war à la 1990s Yugoslavia. Hollande and Valls are not prepared to take the steps necessary to ensure France’s survival. Even Marine Le Pen might baulk [sic] at instigating civil war, but France’s survival has moved beyond peaceful measures now, through the sheer weight of Muslim numbers combined with a fanatical belief system.
So many subtle things wrong with this. First off, if French Muslims "wouldn't like this" (i.e., being rounded up and deported), that would not trigger a "civil war" -- it would trigger sporadic, mass bouts of violence from the Muslims who happen to be in France (one hopes Weston meant this when he wrote "French Muslims"). These flare-ups of violence that Muslims would engage in would not be a "civil war" since a civil war, properly speaking, is a breakdown into violence reflecting a grave sociopolitical division among the population of a nation who belong there -- and since Muslims don't belong in France and the Muslim citizens among them never really were citizens in the true sense, this would be the eruption of an internal jihad against France by an alien demographic who, through a series of disastrous policies based upon the mass neurosis of politically correct multi-culturalism, were allowed over the decades to immigrate, infiltrate, and insinuate their alien fanaticism deep into the social fabric of France. One hopes that when and if any Western polity decides to round up and deport its Muslims, it will have prepared itself for the dangers attendant upon this delicate operation, more fraught with lethal consequences than when one is trying to figure out which wire -- the red or the blue -- should be cut to defuse a bomb.
The process of deportation, then, should be framed as a process with a high potential for spontaneously networked jihad among the Muslim demographic being deported. It should not be framed as a potential "civil war".
Thus Weston should have titled his piece -- France has two options: Surrender or Deportation of Muslims. Immediately thereafter, in his first paragraph, he should have spelled out why this is the dilemma facing France -- and eventually facing the rest of the West. Then in the piece he could have explained, as I did, how the latter would be a complex, delicate, and dagerous operation. As it is, Weston's piece buries the D word and conveys the impression that "civil war" is somehow distinct from deportation, and is the "only" choice other than surrender.
This reflects, I think, the prevailing diffidence if not timidity throughout the Counter-Jihad Mainstream about the idea, and the topic, of total deportation. If it won't be thought and then hashed out in discussions in the Counter-Jihad, how will it ever percolate into the wider Western mainstream...?
The D word