Source: Shutterstock

Similarly, much can be learned from honestly analyzing what could have prevented tragedies such as 11/13/15 in Paris and the marathon bombing in Boston.

Here in the U.S., for instance, there has never been an investigation into why refugee status was granted to the Tsarnaev family and to their friend Ibragim Todashev. The latter was gunned down by an FBI agent while writing a confession of helping Tamerlan Tsarnaev ritually murder three Waltham, Mass., weed dealers on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Todashev’s father is a fairly powerful local official in the Putin regime; so why does being a hereditary member of the Russian deep state get you asylum in the U.S.?

Third, most European countries currently offer immigrants modest payments, typically several thousand dollars, to leave. For example, in 2007 France began giving immigrants 6,000 euros to head home. Therefore, the principle of bribing unsuccessful foreigners to vacate the premises is already in place. But the amount of money on the table has been too small to make a dent in the size of the problem population.

So offer bigger buyouts to permanently leave the E.U.

Fourth, Europeans need to adapt their legal system to the nonindividualistic culture of Muslims. For example, the threat of a jail term might not deter a Muslim terrorist who expects to flee back to Syria and/or collect his 72 virgins.

Cultures with more experience dealing with Muslims, whether Hindu or other Muslims, typically wind up using various forms of collective punishment to persuade senior Muslims to control their young bravos. For example, the movie Slumdog Millionaire depicts the 1992 communal riots in Bombay in which Hindu mobs chastised Muslims by burning down their neighborhoods.

Europeans don”€™t want to regress to South Asian levels of barbarism. Fortunately, there are civilized, bureaucratic ways to incentivize Muslim extended families to police their own violent youths. Notice that the criminality of Muslim neighborhoods in Europe is less like the Hobbesian anarchy of Baltimore than like a perennial low-level insurrection. The pimps, car burners, and terrorists of the banlieues are acting with the tacit approval of their community leaders.

In Arab countries, except sometimes during the Arab Spring, disorganized street crime is surprisingly rare. That’s because Arabs know how to police Arabs. It’s not a pleasant subject to look into, but they don”€™t achieve law and order purely through police brutality. Besides using torture, police forces in Arab countries target criminals”€™ elders. When the senior members of the clan stand to lose from their grandsons”€™ viciousness, they find ways to keep them in line.

For example, several of the Muslim outrages in France in 2015, such as November’s slaughter, the August attack on the train foiled by the American soldiers, and the massacre at the kosher supermarket last January, were organized in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek, which is less impoverished than you might expect: Muslims aren”€™t bad at running small businesses, so they have something to lose. If young Mohamed runs amok, the patriarch of his clan should have his beautiful launderette confiscated and he be deported.

But demographic diversity requires legal change. Due to mass migration, Europeans can”€™t stick with their outdated tradition of punishing only guilty individuals. Instead, whites must learn from the various cultures who have all found that the way to deter Muslim violence is to pre-emptively threaten to punish any and all Muslims merely affiliated with wrongdoers with fines, confiscation, and deportation.

Sure, this new legal doctrine of collective responsibility would be a betrayal of the proud Western European tradition of individualism. But the alternative “€“ keeping Muslims out of Europe “€“ seems unthinkable to today’s leaders such as Dr. Merkel. Thus Europeans must adopt the kind of cunning devices that rulers of Muslims have everywhere else found necessary.