The narrative here from the elite is that these terror events require understanding. That it is nothing to do with immigration or Islam. That the refugees require human charity.

Regardless of the tears, regardless of the cost.

What’s missing, of course, from everything that my friends posted or wrote is any mention of what precisely happened. Friday night’s events in France are obscured in a gauzy veil of passive voice and euphemism.

As a writer, I hate passive voice and I hate euphemisms. Any sentence that hides the actor either by removing him entirely from the sentence or by throwing him in at the end as an after thought, and that uses euphemism to turn a heinous act into an anodyne one is a cop-out and a white wash. Examples of these cop outs and white washes include variations of all of these statements: “French people were killed” or “French people die in attack,”or “Paris hit by terrorist attack,” or simply “Poor France,” or “What a terrible tragedy,” or “Our thoughts are with France.” Each is a cowardly effort to avoid saying that “Islamic jihadists slaughtered more than 129 people in cold blood and wounded more than double that number.”

This Leftist and Progressive refusal to name evil and its acts reached is apogee, of course, during the Democrat debate, when none of the candidates could bear to mention the word Islam in connection with what happened in Paris. Indeed, Bernie Sanders went even further, absolving terrorists entirely, regardless of affiliation, and blaming climate change.

Given how radical Islamists have carried out major attacks on every continent except for the polar ones, I think it behooves us to be clear here: What happened in France is that several Muslim men and at least one woman, many of whom were in France thanks to the recent open borders policy in Europe, and all of whom were in thrall to a fundamentalist strand of Islam, used guns, bombs, and grenades for the brutal, cold-blooded slaughter of 129 people and the attempted slaughter of another 300 people. This was not a “tragedy,” it was a carefully focused and planned, and utterly evil massacre.

The European people do not deserve Europe. That’s the only conclusion I can draw after witnessing the reaction to Friday’s attacks in Paris that killed 136 people. Instead of fighting back, rescinding policies that allow millions of refugees to flood Europe, or devising concrete plans to expel an incompatible Muslim horde from their nations, the European elite are doubling down on a narrative that will surely lead to the end of Europe and the demise of their own people.

If a purple man comes up to you and punches you in the face, the suitable response is to punch him back or get aid from other individuals that help neutralize him. The wrong response is to yell “peace” and “solidarity” at the purple man, and then flood the internet with messages of “Not all purple men are violent” and “Will the brutal attack against myself increase racism and hate against purple men?” Yet in a shocking display of weakness and demoralization, the European people are doing just that. The elites controlling the show are urging prayers for peace and the commoners, in the face of their own annihilation, are going along for the ride, insisting that what Europe needs right now is more Muslims and refugees.

Believe it or not, holding peace signs while crying will not stop future attacks…

The pushback is coming. Indeed, it has already begun.

Starting from 1st October 2015, I do no longer permit the usage of my TREEFINDER software in the following EU countries: Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark – the countries that together host most of the non-european immigrants. For all other countries, the old license agreement remains valid. USA has already been excluded from using Treefinder in February 2015. This is all in accordance with the license agreement stated in the TREEFINDER manual since the earliest versions, which reserves me the right to change the license agreement at any time. I can do this because Treefinder is my own property.

The reason: I am no longer willing to support with my work the political system in Europe and Germany, of which the science system is part. There is no genuine democracy, and I disagree with almost all of the policies. In particular, I disagree with immigration policy. Immigration to my country harms me, it harms my family, it harms my people. Whoever invites or welcomes immigrants to Europe and Germany is my enemy. Immigration is the huge corporations’ interest, not peoples’ interest. I am not against helping refugees, but they would have to be kept strictly separated from us Europeans, for some limited time only until they return home, and not being integrated here as cheap workers and additional consumers. Immigration unnecessarily defers the collapse of capitalism, its final crisis. The earlier the system crashes, the more damage can be avoided. Possibly a civil war in Europe. Not to mention the loss of our European genetic and cultural heritage.

Vox Day adds:

What’s interesting is that he took this action prior to the immigrant attacks in Paris. And what is even more interesting is that he is a man of the Left, as he writes: “Immigration unnecessarily defers the collapse of capitalism, its final crisis.”

Hmmm. A German, a nationalist, and a socialist. That sounds familiar. The thing is, if forced to choose between Muslims and Nazis, the Germans are going to choose the latter every single time, as the graffiti at a migrant center indicates. And it won’t only be the Germans either. In fact, I’ll bet that most of today’s self-styled anti-fascists will eventually embrace the ultranationalists once they discover that the “refugees” they are welcoming are considerably more “fascist” than the Nazis ever were.

It appears that at least the historian Ferguson gets it. From a liberalish women, on Facebook, sharing…

Niall Ferguson on why Europe is finished if it doesn’t remove its decadent self-hating ruling class. America won’t be far behind.

“I am not going to repeat what you have already read or heard. I am not going to say that what happened in Paris on Friday night was unprecedented horror, for it was not. I am not going to say that the world stands with France, for it is a hollow phrase. Nor am I going to applaud François Hollande’s pledge of “pitiless” vengeance, for I do not believe it. I am, instead, going to tell you that this is exactly how civilisations fall.

Here is how Edward Gibbon described the Goths’ sack of Rome in August 410AD: “. . . In the hour of savage licence, when every passion was inflamed, and every restraint was removed . . . a cruel slaughter was made of the Romans; and . . . the streets of the city were filled with dead bodies . . . Whenever the Barbarians were provoked by opposition, they extended the promiscuous massacre to the feeble, the innocent, and the helpless. . .”

Now, does that not describe the scenes we witnessed in Paris on Friday night? True, Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788, represented Rome’s demise as a slow burn. Gibbon covered more than 1,400 years of history. The causes he identified ranged from the personality disorders of individual emperors to the power of the Praetorian Guard and the rise of Sassanid Persia. Decline shaded into fall, with monotheism acting as a kind of imperial dry rot.

For many years, more modern historians of “late antiquity” tended to agree with Gibbon about the gradual nature of the process. Indeed, some went further, arguing that “decline” was an anachronistic term, like the word “barbarian”. Far from declining and falling, they insisted, the Roman empire had imperceptibly merged with the Germanic tribes, producing a multicultural post-imperial idyll that deserved a more flattering label than “Dark Ages”. Recently, however, a new generation of historians has raised the possibility that the process of Roman decline was in fact sudden — and bloody — rather than smooth.

For Bryan Ward-Perkins, what happened was “violent seizure . . . by barbarian invaders”. The end of the Roman west, he writes in The Fall of Rome (2005), “witnessed horrors and dislocation of a kind I sincerely hope never to have to live through; and it destroyed a complex civilisation, throwing the inhabitants of the West back to a standard of living typical of prehistoric times”.

In five decades the population of Rome itself fell by three-quarters. Archaeological evidence from the late fifth century — inferior housing, more primitive pottery, fewer coins, smaller cattle — shows that the benign influence of Rome diminished rapidly in the rest of western Europe. “The end of civilisation”, in Ward-Perkins’s phrase, came within a single generation.

Peter Heather’s Fall of the Roman Empire emphasises the disastrous effects not just of mass migration but of organised violence: first the westward shift of the Huns of Central Asia and then the Germanic irruption into Roman territory. In his reading, the Visigoths who settled in Aquitaine and the Vandals who conquered Carthage were attracted to the Roman empire by its wealth, but were enabled to seize that wealth by the arms they acquired and the skills they learnt from the Romans themselves.

“For the adventurous,” writes Heather, “the Roman empire, while being a threat to their existence, also presented an unprecedented opportunity to prosper . . . Once the Huns had pushed large numbers of [alien groups] across the frontier, the Roman state became its own worst enemy. Its military power and financial sophistication both hastened the process whereby streams of incomers became coherent forces capable of carving out kingdoms from its own body politic.”

Uncannily similar processes are destroying the European Union today, though few of us want to recognise them for what they are. Like the Roman Empire in the early fifth century, Europe has allowed its defences to crumble. As its wealth has grown, so its military prowess has shrunk, along with its self-belief. It has grown decadent in its shopping malls and sports stadiums. At the same time it has opened its gates to outsiders who have coveted its wealth without renouncing their ancestral faith.

The distant shock to this weakened edifice has been the Syrian civil war, though it has been a catalyst as much as a direct cause for the great Völkerwanderung of 2015. As before, they have come from all over the imperial periphery — from North Africa, from the Levant, from south Asia — but this time they have come in their millions, not in mere tens of thousands.

To be sure, most have come hoping only for a better life. Things in their own countries have become just good enough economically for them to afford to leave and just bad enough politically for them to risk leaving. But they cannot stream northwards and westwards without some of that political malaise coming with them. As Gibbon saw, convinced monotheists pose a grave threat to a secular empire.

It is doubtless true to say that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe are not violent. But it is also true that the majority hold views not easily reconciled with the principles of our liberal democracies, including our novel notions about sexual equality and tolerance not merely of religious diversity but of nearly all sexual proclivities. And it is thus remarkably easy for a violent minority to acquire their weapons and prepare their assaults on civilisation within these avowedly peace-loving communities.

I do not know enough about the fifth century to be able to quote Romans who described each new act of barbarism as unprecedented, even when it had happened multiple times before; or who issued pious calls for solidarity after the fall of Rome, even when standing together meant falling together; or who issued empty threats of pitiless revenge, even when all they intended to do was to strike a melodramatic posture.

I do know that 21st-century Europe has itself to blame for the mess it is now in. Surely nowhere in the world has devoted more resources to the study of history than modern Europe did. When I went up to Oxford more than 30 years ago, it was taken for granted that in the first term I would study Gibbon. It did no good. We learnt a lot of nonsense to the effect that nationalism was a bad thing, nation states worse and empires the worst things of all.

“Romans before the fall”, wrote Ward-Perkins, “were as certain as we are today that their world would continue for ever substantially unchanged. They were wrong. We would be wise not to repeat their complacency.”

Poor, poor Paris. Killed by complacency”.

If this is the twilight of the West, and the end of the European Union, where is the new Carthage? Who is our new Augustine? Who is our new Benedict? The Monks at Athos and in the West preserved Ancient knowledge for a thousand years, as the barbarians came, and (after they had been converted, and Christendom formed) the Islamics rose and broke the East.

Men of West, stand. The enemy is on us. Do not think we will have peace. This will be war: both in the realm of arguments and ideas and on the streets. The days of easy reform are beyond us, and winter is coming. The season, and to the social democratic nation-state.