Islam versus Europe

Which of these two problems would you rather have to solve?

The first problem has existed for more than 1000 years. It has proved extraordinarily resilient during that time, surviving the evolution of science, military defeat, economic failure, cultural marginalisation, the emergence of a canon of public morality at a global level whose precepts it routinely violates, as well as abundant evidence that its core historical claims are essentially fraudulent.

The second problem has existed for only a few decades, was only made possible in the beginning, and can only be sustained now, by violating the will of the majority in countries that are nominally democracies; criminalising free expression; censoring news reports; subjecting the population to relentless propaganda and threatening them with prosecution and loss of livelihood if they dare to dissent.

Which of these problems seems the most firmly rooted?

In the course of this century the people of Europe must solve one of these problems if their civilisation is to continue to exist. But the optimal strategy for solving one of these problems will be a sub-optimal approach to solving the other. Trying to solve both problems at the same time will involve compromises that increase the likelihood of failure in both cases.

So here is my challenge to the European Counterjihad movement. You need to solve one of the two problems listed above. Pick one. And then adjust your strategy accordingly.

Trying to solve the problem of Islam in Europe is going to be a lot easier than trying to solve the problem of Islam globally. Yet at the moment, with its human rights rhetoric, the Counterjihad movement (including the European part of it which is not yet meaningfully distinguished from the rest) has oriented its approach around trying to solve the problem of Islam globally. It is the wrong choice.