Migrant gangs and religious violence have made Europeans hostages in their own countries

From Taylor Swift dance classes to Christmas markets to an innocent stroll in the park or meeting some friends in the city centre of a bucolic village in southern Austria: all activities that just a few years ago would not have needed special considerations or caused parents to worry about their children. Alas, thanks to mass migration, these days are over. According to the Spectator, there are 120 knife attacks every day. Yes, you read that right: 120 attacks per day. Germany now has on average two gang rapes per day, with half the suspects being foreigners. Sweden now has the second highest rate of gun violence deaths in Europe, and only Albania is worse off. According to the Guardian, the reason is “inequality” and “poverty.” Well, according to official statistics, Sweden has the 14th highest GDP per capita in the world and ranks 20th on economic equality so is not really a country where desperation drives people to pick up a gun.

The truth, of course, is not to be found in economic factors but in gang violence dominated by migrant groups. And that violence is not just about crime and drug dealings, but often spills over into religious conflict as well. Salwan Momika was recently killed for burning a Quran. Ah, dear reader, I know exactly what you were thinking there for a second: probably just for a moment you had a thought flash by along the lines of “didn’t he have if coming if he burned the holy book of Islam?” If you did, you just had your first brush with the collective Stockholm Syndrome with which most of Western Europe is afflicted.

Maybe you do not like burning books, or going to the park, or visiting Christmas markets. You certainly do not have to, but in a free country you can. Once that is no longer possible because you have to be afraid of getting killed, you are no longer a free citizen but a hostage in your own country. Most Western European governments still refuse to admit the failure of their migration policies and ask for ever more permissions to surveil their citizens. Yet all these laws that are being pondered to monitor radical Islamists can of course easily be used against anybody else as well. How long do you think it will take until the same methods used to surveil the Jihadi-Chatgroups will also be applied to supporters of political parties like the Freedom Party in Austria or the Alternative for Germany? The same governments who can no longer effectively protect their borders or their citizens are asking for even more power. 

Interestingly, the Polish and the Hungarian state are not asking to micro-manage the communication of their citizens, even though according to the usual suspects from Politico to the Guardian Orbán’s Hungary is the great illiberal threat to democracy. I split my time between Vienna and Budapest, and the likelihood of falling victim to a knife attack is significantly lower in the latter than the former. I might not agree with everything the Orbán government does, but at least they are covering the basics, and do not attempt to use their own failures as the justification for creating a police state. And don’t be fooled, this is where the journey is going. As US Vice President JD Vance pointed out during his speech in Munich, parts of the European elite have grown increasingly hostile towards the concept of free speech. Pointing out the massive problems caused by immigration brings one awfully close to being accused of “hate speech” or “disinformation” – terms designed for the very purpose to curtail freedom of expression. The truth, of course, is much simpler: more migration from Muslim countries leads to more Islamism. And if one is not willing to stop and reduce this migration to zero, the outcome will be either a police state or an Islamist state.

Don’t believe me? Look to the Islamic world and what you see are police states almost without exception, and what usually follows the collapse of such a state is the replacement with an Islamist regime. Nothing made this clearer than the so-called “Arab Spring” which showed that when it comes to governance in the Muslim world, there are two choices: the Islamists (as now in Syria) or a police state (as in Egypt). Some countries like Morocco are experimenting with mixtures of the two, but there is not a single functioning liberal democracy in the Muslim world. As Western Europe is slowly grinding towards Islamisation by mass migration and the demographic collapse of the native population, why should it be any different? 

Whenever I make this argument, readers remind me that in many of the recent terrorist attacks the victims themselves have a migrant background. In the Austrian case it was a Syrian man who stopped the also-Syrian terrorist from harming even more people by hitting him with his car. Alas, all that tells me is that Syrian civil war is now being fought in the streets of rural Austrian villages. Syrian Islamists versus Syrian non-Islamists is pretty much what is going on in Damaskus, but does it really have to happen in Austria? If moderate Christians would be fighting against radical Christians in the streets of Riyadh, it would strike us as absurd. So why should it be normal if the conflicts of the Arab world are being fought in the streets of Austria?

The multicultural society is not a happy melting pot but a tribal society with an overbearing state that tries to manage the conflicts between different tribal groups. In order to do so, it will require ever more authority to intrude on the personal lives of its citizens. This is where we are heading, unless there is a radical shift in Western European migration policies. If this is still possible also depends on the willingness of voters to choose the parties that are ready to execute such a shift. In a few days, Germany goes to the polls. I am curious to see what they will decide.