Many commentators are becoming increasingly convinced that, as the native European populations decline due to restricted birth rates, abortion, etc., the continuing influx of Islamic peoples will come to populate Western Europe; this is, of course, especially due to their significantly much higher birth rates.  Secularization of modern societies has, thus, logically brought with it a demographic disaster of major proportions concerning the eventual disappearance, if trends continue or, more so, if they do accelerate dramatically, of the former domestic populations of such countries. 

One vastly interesting irony, among many, is how the supposed pinnacle of Western civilization is to be achieved, quite shockingly, through the virtually planned, rationalized racial self-extermination of the peoples of those supposedly “enlightened” nations.  Modernization and industrialization carried to its final limits is illustrated, historically and empirically, best by Japan or, as some would justifiably call it, the Asiatic place known as: National Racial Suicide, Inc. (AKA Nippon).

It is supremely too ironic how the bemused Europeans, who have hotly prided themselves as to their supposedly enlightened quest for secularization, now face growing numbers of Moslems who wish to have Sharia instituted; however, there is present a notable double irony involved for those who are culturally and politically informed. 

Obviously, as is observed critically, many millions of Moslems have left behind Islamic countries that have the kind of law that, presumably, many among those same millions were anxiously trying to get away from by coming to Europe.  This curiously presents a major socio-cultural enigma or, perhaps, a socioeconomic puzzle that some people might try to explain somehow or other.  But, leaving that intriguing matter aside, what of the Europeans themselves?

Among the enlightened section of (native-born) Europeans, about 99.99% of them would be extremely horrified if, e.g., the Roman Catholic Church were to insist upon the adoption in Europe of the Church’s canon law; on the other hand, almost all of these same enlightened ones would be fairly tolerant of the assumed need for upholding diversity, pluralism, multiculturalism, open-mindedness, respect for diverse cultures, etc., inclusive of at least the possibility of incorporating some parallel kinds of aspects of Sharia for European countries.  This may, at first glance, seem rather odd or truly contradictory of such intellectual and moral progressives being willing, one assumes, to deal with a religion’s demands, while not being ever similarly quite tolerant regarding Christianity in general and, of course, the Roman Catholic Church, always in particular.

It is plainly, in fact, based upon a quite old Machiavellian principle: the enemy (Islam) of my enemy (Catholicism/Christianity) can be treated as if he were a friend; thus, as a prominent historical example, in World War II, after Hitler had attacked his former ally, the Soviet Union, then Sir Winston Churchill (no lover of Bolshevism, of course,) came to, thus, subjectively see Joe Stalin as a putative “friend” or, at least, a new-found ally.  But, nonetheless, the final actualized absurdity may very well occur as to how secularization in the West eventually disarms itself, through its own tolerant principles, in the face of an aggressive religion whose followers can, logically, come to demand their democratic rights; this is to be noticeably, of course, as they eventually become, sooner or later, the new majorities in these Western countries because of demographic realities.

The last, nihilistic consequence of “Enlightenment,” ironically, might very well mean that way must be clearly made for the entrance of Islamic law throughout the broadest context of the European region; this is where secular beliefs once were supposed to be forever mainly dominant.  But, before millions of Europeans celebrate this outcome; perhaps, some might pause to consider how, for instance, women are treated in Islamic countries today and, therefore, would they, genuinely, wish the same generally harsh treatment to exist in the Western world?  [Even Canada, e.g., is expressing interest in Sharia in the desire to be tolerant.]

One notices how relatively completely silent the vast majority of Feminists have been regarding the continuing and greatly documented mistreatment of women in the Moslem world.   Most of the reason is ideologically based in that, as observed earlier, the enemies of their enemies are regarded, at least through a silent consent, as assumed (strange) friends; this is, of course, concerning any attack upon a Western culture and civilization seen, usually, as being still mainly anti-Feminist, functionally pro-patriarchical, in its fullest, female-oppressive orientation as such.

These highly self-deluded Feminists will find, eventually, that they have, at last, jumped from the assumed proverbial frying pan directly into the fire of countries made increasingly subject to, at first, elements of Islamic law before mostly incorporating the main parts of such radically anti-Feminist legal thinking. There will occur, logically, a strange kind of laughable poetic justice as these liberated women become, logically, more and more of an isolated minority until they, eventually, become a rapidly- diminishing, persecuted minority. 

Of course, many people will simply assume that this situation remains forever and entirely farfetched in its creation or conception; however, more countries, in Western Europe, are now looking favorably upon allowing selected parts of incipient Sharia to enter, at least indirectly for now, into the legal considerations of their systems of justice; they wish, in a liberal manner, to manifest degrees of tolerance and respect for the beliefs of minorities.

And, if the proverbial camel’s head is in the tent already, can the rest of the critter be that really far behind, as to wanting further access?   Thus, there is, surely, present here great degrees of irony and absurdity to be found in the situation of how secularization, with its overflowing [anti-Christian] tolerance, may yet pleasingly pave the convenient way for the new Moslem “conquest” of Europe. 

But, this hard time around, there’s no valiant Charles Martel ready for a fight nor any spirit of a Spanish Reconquista; either— and anything really or genuinely equivalent in an actual sense— would honestly and willingly require that which is hated extremely forever much more than is all of Islam multiplied a million times over: Catholicism (in its traditionalist and orthodox sense), meaning as the requisitely needed basis of a true and staunch resistance to the aforementioned racial self-extermination in progress in contemporary Europe.