A comprehensive analysis of the Muslim “refugee crisis” in Europe, the how and why, and what the abysmal end result will be.

Syrian Refugees

By: Y.K. Cherson

Miles-long  Muslim immigrant queues at the borders, clashes between police and “peaceful immigrants” (one such clash has already ended in Croatia with the death of an immigrant and wounded anti-riot police officers), disgusting and aggressive behavior of immigrants in a Budapest railway station, European countries closing borders disrupting the very concept of the European Project…

But with all that, liberal optimists assure us that the Old Europe will cough a bit- but ultimately, she will be fine: after all, she saw many serious threats, and the number of immigrants is not so big, “just” some 1.2 million- for a 500-million European Union. And it will not be such a serious problem to feed them, house them, school their children, pay them welfare….

It’s all lies. The problem is not in feeding this million Muslims.

Crowds of aggressive Muslims at the borders  of Europe are not immigrants or refugees, they are AN AVANGUARD OF THE INVASION ARMY.

And they do not come to Europe to integrate- they come to conquer.

Social processes develop by exponent; a peak of flourishing of a civilization is followed by a crash at amazing speed, historians know it well. What we see is the last stage of the Fall of Europe.

The reason for this Fall is not the immigrants, it’s the rotten brain and heart of Europe.

To understand what’s happening now, we have to look back, at the sources.

The USA, 50s of the 20th century, Beat Generation and Counterculture. A bunch of junkies and homosexuals with antisocial views formulated ethics and esthetics of the “Counterculture”. Three iconic figures: Allen Ginsberg, William S. Burroughs,  Jack Kerouac. Dirty language, dirty sex, dirty fantasies, dirty lazy losers, and may this society, where I am not happy, go to hell. The society, by the way, was offering them all the possibilities to be happy and prosperous, but these guys, with twisted psycho and twisted brain, saw the only way to express themselves in fouling up the society and accuse it of their personal mental and spiritual problems.

A hundred years ago people, upon hearing such crap, would just twist their finger near the temple-  and forget about it. But in the 50s and 60s, traditional ethics and esthetics were in crisis, their resources were exhausted, Greatness and Perfection were already achieved in the Past…And now- what? An art is always making something new, and every next generation demands this new things, demands something different, a change!

Ok, guys, we shall give you this change. We shall change your society by destroying it.

The Great Hippy Cultural Revolution of 1968 canonized Counterculture. Why only art? Away with the ENTIRE bourgeois culture! And in plain words, away with professional careers and with any honest job in general. Away with patriotism, traditional family, away with disgusted blood-sucking rich, and with social inequality. And above all, away with any bans and taboos, a man must do what he wants and what makes him feel good- and he will be happy, and we shall all be brothers and sisters.

In practice, it meant smoking weed, a lot of promiscuous sex, and playing saxophone, as a variant.  No efforts, no sacrifices, only my personal pleasures are important. Life is good!

A mold of the satiated society was rapidly growing.

In 1962, black James Meredith was admitted to Mississippi University. A personal intervention by President Kennedy was needed, and the guy was escorted to the university by a couple of thousands of the National Guard and soldiers, who however could  not prevent riots. Two people were killed and some four hundred wounded. In 1965, a radical black movement “Black panthers” emerged, and in 1967, Martin Luther King was shot. By the end of 70s, black and white Americans obtained the same rights. Fighters for social justice triumphed.

But if the process started and triumphed- it will go further.

In just some 20 years, university professors and students, the intellectual elite of the West, accepted the idea of the Left Liberal neo-revolutionaries about the destruction of the bourgeois State with its institutions and its morals.  Moreover, among the intellectual elite, this idea became popular and warmly welcomed. We shall put an end to the exploitation and create a just community of people founded on brotherly love. Bourgeois morality is hypocritical, bourgeois culture is sanctimonious, bourgeois laws strangle a man, whose natural right to pleasure and happiness is above all. Pleasure is happiness, and happiness is a true sense of all.

A locomotive of the movement was formed by elite youth- and marginals.

And with this background, in 1971, John Rawls  published his “Theory of Justice”. A practical application of this multi-paged opus was a very simple idea: re-distribution of wealth in a society must be in favor of the poor by taking from the rich. And social relations in a society must be based on a family pattern: the rich and strong take care of the weak and poor; of children, of sick brothers, and so on. And this rich and strong must do it not for gratitude or profit, but out of love and humanity.

After that, not following this idea and not sharing it became in intellectual circles equivalent to being a right-wing bigot, almost a fascist, and parasites of all colors and types were screaming with joy. Satisfying their needs at the expense of those who work became a law. Moreover, it became a moral imperative! Education, medicine, housing, food stamps, social aid- free of charge! Why should I work? Obliging labor is a disgusting throw-back of totalitarianism, and we live in a free country! Long Live Parasitism!

Are you working? So, work and pay taxes, you dumbwit. And I am special, and I deserve an aid from society.

That such a starry idea leads to the reduction of efficiency of society was something that was not taken into account.

Workers were enraged that their money would go on letting some arrogant parasites live comfortably without working, but a State propagandistic machine worked at full speed, and the people were explained that it is a law, and the law is hard- but it’s a law nonetheless, and that they should be more humanistic, kinder, and more empathic. Shame on you, workers! You should demonstrate a solidarity with those who  suck your blood, they are your brothers!

In 1969, at the peak of racial and youth disturbances and riots, homosexuals in New York had a fight with the police in a bar. Just months later, gays became an oppressed minority persecuted because of their sexual orientation, and an object of compassion for the people of “advanced” liberal views. The fight for equal rights got a new push- and new direction.

Homosexuals were beaten in history many times, but this brawl happened in a good and very ripe moment for this soil. Sodom and Gomorrah promised G-d in America that He would not get away with what He had done to them. The gays movement, which was served to the public as a fight of the oppressed minority for their rights, fitted perfectly well the ideals of counterculture, antibourgeois morality, fight for the right of a person to get all possible, even religiously forbidden pleasures. For champions of the “new morality”, an attitude to gays became a litmus test: if you are with gays- you are “advanced”, liberal, good and progressive. If not-you’re all the opposite.

With such a support, it’s not surprising that gays gradually got all they wanted, including legal marriages and the right to adopt children. It can harm– and as quite a lot of research proves, it DOES harm- children’s sexual self-identification and even mental health?

Who cares?

An aggressive feminist movement fights against anything that has any resemblance to “discrimination”; in many Western countries, a man can have serious problems for just telling woman that she is pretty. An image of an “independent woman”  who has her first child when she is close to 40 is actively propagated. And the “child-free” movement promotes a model of life without any children at all.

Marriage has become unnecessary, it’s just a bourgeois atavistic cell, a cage for free people. We have a right to live with anyone as long or as short as we wish, and this is moral. Long live promiscuity! Families are falling  apart, the number of children born out of wedlock is growing; in many European countries  and in the US, it is already about a half.

And such a form of relationship, out of marriage, is besides economically lucrative, especially if one of the spouses- or both of them- are unemployed. A public system of allowances, aids, financial and tax supports, advantages and preferences actually means that the State condones the disintegration of family.

And in general, life is so rich and full of pleasures! Let’s live for ourselves! And two children become something unusual, more often it is one, and quite often- not even a single one.

Fertility has fallen! European nations and the USA do not reproduce, their population is decreasing.

Just 50 years ago, in Spain five or six children in a family were a norm: today, it’s an average of .75 child per woman of a childbirth age.


Without wars, famines, epidemics: women simply do not want to have children (and men too), exactly  like it was in Ancient Rome before its fall. We are a DYNG CIVILIZATION.  That is where we’ve arrived, with our “principles”, rights” and “values”.

All this went parallel with a collective session of political repentance, poor, oppressed, weak, our “brothers”, obtained a legal right for protection and love with those who are rich and strong, especially considering the fact that they had been oppressed by us. It was 300 years ago? It does not matter. And former colonizers started to collectively tear out their hair, running to make something for those they colonized: to invite them to their countries, to host them, to give them citizenship, and help, and  money… And  the undeniable fact that 300 years ago, they were illiterate savages and cannibals who often ate each other and that their kings were selling their subjects into slavery and would have most probably continued doing it till now, if not for the “damned white colonizers”, became taboo in public opinion.

And in just some 30 years, those “poor and oppressed” Africans, Pakistanis and so on converted residential areas on Western cities- and quite often, entire cities- into gutters, and they are not going to stop living on welfare, terrorizing and robbing those “natives” who were stupid enough to enter these areas.

But we must help them, because they are our brothers!

There are two serious- and a good hundred of small- mistakes in all these nice theories.

The first is showed in details in Richard Lynn’s book Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. The book is abundant in terrible tables with even more terrible data and conclusions. If we take an IQ of an average white European as 100, then the IQ of an average Japanese, Chinese, South Korean (and ,what a horror, even of an “undemocratic” North Korean) will be 5 points higher, i.e. 105, while the IQ of an Arab or an African-American will be 85, and that of an African- only 70. The figures are an average, but the author then groups the data by countries, age and social origin, with comments and conclusions.

The book was immediately labeled as “controversial”, racist, and so on, but the most terrible thing is that it was NEVER refuted. The book is “racist”, “fascist”, it should not be taken seriously, everyone who takes it seriously is a racist, the author should be prosecuted…But the data has never been refuted.  And notice: the author is white, but the Chinese-Koreans-Japanese in his book are smarter than whites- and nobody accuses him of racism on that point. However, as soon as he proves that blacks and Arabs have lower a IQ than whites – he becomes “racist”. Whites calmly accept when they are dumber than some other race – but start screaming “racist” when statistics say they are smarter.

There is also a second error.

Tolerant sociologists, in ecstasy of self-deceiving, have decided to classify people  by politically-correct criteria, exclusively by citizenship. In a State, all citizens are equal; if in America all are Americans, then in England all are English, in France all are French…However, a man is identified by a wide spectrum of criteria: gender, age, profession, incomes, nationality, religion, skin color… “Citizen of Great Britain” means only citizenship, as a juridical concept. “British” means belonging to the ethnos, its language, culture, history, it means you’re a part of this ethnos and that you identify yourself as a part of it. Its traditions, customs, habits are yours, are part of you. A man can be a citizen of five countries; money makes miracles. But a man is a part of only one ethnos. In order to be British, one should not be necessary a white Protestant- but he must be a part of Britain and associate himself with it. And “our British guys , from Yorkshire” who blasted London underground were not “our British guys”. They were, first, Muslims, second, Pakistanis- and only third, citizens of Great Britain. But they were not a part of Britain. So, a correct definition would be: Pakistani Muslims blasted dirty British infidels among whom they lived.

Islam means unity of all Muslims (it is called “Umma”) before all non-Muslims, and Islamic attitude to non-Muslims is very flexible and permits all, depending on the concrete situation. But non-Muslims are always ENEMY.

So, Western liberals can admire of how tolerant and noble they are and go on calling Muslims their “brothers”- but Muslims in their relations with non-Muslims will be guided by if it is good for Islam and the Umma.

Americans and their European vassals in an attack of a collective madness have decided that democracy is the best form of organization of society. ANY society. As a direct result, they’ve decided  that our Western duty consists in helping all the world reach happiness and prosperity, which is possible only through democracy. But as there is not a unique medication for all diseases, a unique food for fat and thin, a unique house for tropical Africa and for Siberian Tundra- there is not a unique form of organization of society for all people, all time and all conditions. People are different, and what is good for one of them can be mortal for another.

An attempt to plant “democracy” in totalitarian countries of the Middle East quite logically resulted in a bloody chaos, and so was a major evil than totalitarianism, because only a strong and cruel leader, like Hussein or Qaddaffi, could keep tribes and clans of his country under control.

During the establishment of “democracy” in societies which have hardly left a clan/tribal stage of social development, Western countries, before all USA, Britain and France, with an obedient Germany,  nearly destroyed Egypt,  successfully destroyed Libya, Iraq – and are now desperately trying to do the same with Syria.

Just as excessive pressure can kill a diver, so too can a democracy kill a country at the tribal stage of its development and whose people have a tribal mentality.

The destruction of Middle Eastern countries in the course of imposing democracy was a main reason for the mass Exodus of Arabs to Europe, which we see today. Libya and Syria were a kind of wall in the way of immigration. USA and EU broke these walls, and now…What we sow, we shall mow.

Democracy in Europe started to visibly rot when in 1979 a Hungarian prostitute and “porn-star” was triumphantly elected to Italian Parliament.

The dignity of Europe was visibly lost when Muslim terrorists captured Nativity Church together with its monks- and Europe did not raise a theme of sacrilege, and then gave asylum to terrorists. Just imagine: Christian terrorists captured a mosque in Mecca: how many Christian pogroms would have been organized by Muslims all over the world?

Europe lost an instinct of self-preservation when it cancelled capital punishment even for serial murderers; now the life of a criminal, sadist, paedophile was guaranteed, no matter what he/she did.

Will to victory was lost by Europe when European countries started to bow to the blackmail of some miserable bunch of terrorists threatening to kill hostages- instead of a counter-threat to kill all their partners, friends, families, which always gave a positive result. Now Europe is wagging its tail and negotiates the number of bandits who will be freed from jails for the crimes they committed (instead of simply applying capital punishment and ending the problem).

Instead of sinking Somali pirates right on the spot, the West engages in “negotiations” with them and if by a miracle they get captured, the West transfers them to comfortable European jails and then exchanges them for those hostages their “comrades in arms” would seize tomorrow- or pays ransom.

Instead of shooting all ISIS bandits and kicking out of Europe all who are engaged in terrorist activities together with their families, European liberals debate, how to make them “useful members of our free society”.

Europe became insane when after Muslim terrorists blasted the British in London, the British Queen in her speech promised that terrorists would not make us “renounce our values”, which actually meant Europe promised to go on accepting, maintaining, housing and protecting precious lives of Islamic terrorists, who despise Britain in particular and Europe in general, together with their “values”, and only cynically use them.

However, Muslim immigrants do not hesitate to demand of Europeans to renounce their values; not to celebrate Christmas, not to serve pork in schools and universities, to make lessons of Islam obligatory… And Europe obediently bows.

Groups of a different  and hostile culture positioned by the Law of the country as equals will inevitably try to change a society, which was stupid enough to make them equal, in accord with their more primitive norms- or simply pump this society dry, taking all they can and leaving ruins behind, because they are not a part of this society or of this ethnos; and people have always known it without having to read psychological and sociological researches. A stranger, someone who is not “one of us” has always been a stress factor; ours and his perceptions of what is politeness-and what is cowardice, what is kindness- and what is weakness, what is admissible and what’s not are very often quite different.

Your people, of whom you’re a part, ploughed and defended this land, and live on it by their laws and norms. When an immigrant, who has no connection to the history of the people, who does not share this people’s views and values, comes and starts to put demands and to change the face of your country, arrogantly saying he has the same rights in it as you, it breaks up a social essence of the people and contradicts its social instinct.

Any aggression by an immigrant against a native is considered as an aggression of a strange ethnos against your own- and besides, on your own land. And Muslim immigrants are very aggressive to natives.

A Question: should the natives be tolerant towards strangers who are not tolerant to them? And that they are NOT tolerant is something only a blind or a labeled liberal would not see. And that most Muslims take an idea of World Islamic Caliphate quite seriously is a fact nobody can deny.

In many big European cities, like Birmingham, there are more Muslim than English pupils in schools. Another 10-15 years, and a Muslim majority will have good chances to make Shari´a a ruling Law of Europe.

And then the time to pay the price will come for all those liberals, gays, and leftists who cried about “equal rights” for Muslim immigrants, who got out in the streets to protest against forbidding Muslim women to wear the burqa, who supported building of thousands of mosques in Christian European cities…

Gay parades? You will run before your bare asses. Be happy if you just stay alive, trembling in your own beds.

Feminism? Equal rights for women? Child-free movements? Super-mini shorts? A burqa, marriage at twelve, a child every year- and shut up and keep silent, lowering your eyes when you speak to a man.

Free-sex, “a “quickie” or a one-night stand  with condoms? Your only choice will be between a brothel and stoning in a central square.

Allah does not accept “majorities” or “minorities”, all must live in accord with his norms, revealed to us by his great prophet- or they have not a right to live at all.

And now, we shall live in your houses and eat what you produce; work for us, you dumb infidel slaves.

They are in Europe- and dirty streets and destroyed railway stations and trains mark their road. They are fed and transported and housed for free- but they spit in the faces of those who do it. Most of them are young strong men, and very soon, after they make the “reunification of family” and their ten brothers, sisters, nephews, cousins come and have children, their number will multiply tenfold.

An immigrant abuse of the hospitality of a host in the degree a host permits. A tolerant European is afraid to say a word to an immigrant fearing to “hurt his feelings”? Well, let him not cry when an immigrant treats him with despise and contempt and looks at his house and his country as if they were his.

Prometheus gained weight, become fat and stupid- and decided to feed with his liver all vultures, and they impatiently and with pleasure have started to  devour all his body.

It’s not immigrants who are killing Europe.


A solution is not in quotas or in banning illegal immigration; a solution is in a total and if needed, strong assimilation of the newcomers. Tolerance is permissible only till the newcomers do not start to substitute you in your own country.

Accepting a million or ten million European-Christians would be only a temporal and not too serious problem for a 500-million-strong European Union. What IS a problem is accepting people of another culture, with a strange, hostile and aggressive identity.

And when a collective self-defense of Europeans protesting against this suicide is called “ fascism”, Islamophobia” and “racism”, it only means that those who are in power in Europe are wolves in sheep skins. A classic fascism mutated in a really astonishing form of “neo-fascism”;  Fascism was aimed on genociding other people to substitute them with an “Aryan nation”, while modern “neo-fascism” of those who are in power in Europe is aimed on the destruction of  THEIR OWN PEOPLE, using strangers as an instrument of this genocide. If a classic fascism was solving this task with blood, wars and weapons, a modern “neo-fascism” solves them with chocolates, coca-cola and “mild force”. But the result is much more efficient! The efficiency of this modern “neo-fascism” would have made Hitler cry! Apparently mildly but inevitably crashing any resistance or criticism, this European “neo-fascism” is successfully making genocide of Europeans a reality- explaining to the genocided that this is being done in full accord with democratic laws for their own good,  and that it will make them  happy  and free. Europeans are disappearing PHISICALLY, as an ethnos- under the hymn of “Freedom” and “Human Rights”!

Ignatius of Loyola would have died of envy!

A main problem of Europe is not immigrants; the problem is an impotence of Europe at the core level of public morals, of understanding what is Good and Bad, Permitted and Forbidden, and the triumph of counterculture is just a reflection of the disintegration of European civilization (like it always was). Disintegration of morals means a  disintegration of civilization, which will be quickly and inevitably followed by the REAL, political and economical disintegration (again, like it always was).

Destruction of culture, destruction of traditional morals, destruction of the institute of family, encouraging parasitism, making a perversion equal to a norm, converting personal pleasure in the Highest Imperative of the society- and a physical dying out as a result of all this are not  something for what Europe could blame Muslims in general and Muslim immigrants in particular.

Europe has organized this self-genocide all by itself, guided by modern neo-liberal moral norms which are hypocritically called “Democratic values”.

It’s impossible to save someone who has firmly decided to croak.

The next few years will demonstrate a final result; if Europe will die out together with its perverted perceptions of the world which it calls “European values” and become Islamic-  or it will find intellectual strength to send this liberal madness to hell.

Meanwhile, Muslim immigrants go to end Europe.

SOURCE: Cherson and Molschky