Posted on 09/28/2015 8:04:50 PM PDT by annalex
An invasion is not always done by military means. When the barbarians invaded the Roman Empire, they also did not want to conquer it - they wanted to serve it. What happens today is, in my view, a judgment of history for the fact that Europe abandoned the white man's burden, – abandoned colonialism. Because there is no third way: either the civilization conquers the barbarians, or the barbarians conquer the civilization. In the history of mankind both these outcomes happened, and multiple times.
And, here's an important issue. Note that none of the conquests in the history of mankind is evaluated with the sign "minus". I have not yet come across the book in which the Mongols called to repent for their conquest of China and, incidentally, destroyed its ancient culture. Or is there a condemnation of the Mongols because they conquered India. Or is there a condemnation of the Arabs because they conquered the entire African part of the Roman Empire.
There is one exception – the Europeans. The Europeans are called all the time to repent for their civilization, which, being successful, conquered the world and – can you imagine?-- banned wonderful local customs like cannibalism and the burning of widows.
If I may, let's go back to the example of the Roman Empire, because it is important for our case: the Roman Empire – that is an important point - stretched around the Mediterranean. Mare nostrum, “Our Sea” was it called in the Roman Empire.
The last few centuries the Mediterranean is the boundary between Islam and Europe. In Roman times it was not a boundary, but a road. Why, actually, had Carthage to be destroyed as Cato kept repeating? Because Carthage, current Tunisia, was exactly opposite to Italy. If someone else owned Carthage, Rome could not possess the Mediterranean Sea. Once Carthage was destroyed, the Mediterranean Sea has become “our sea”, the Mare nostrum. And once what formerly had been Carthage was captured by the Vandals, it ceased to be the Mare nostrum.
The great Belgian historian of the XX century, Henri Pirenne has the book "Mohammed and Charlemagne."And, in it he proves that the Roman Empire de facto came to an end when the Arab conquest cut it in half.
This is why I think of the example of the Roman Empire. Theodor Mommsen, another great historian, once said that some parts of the Roman Empire in the days of antiquity were managed better than it is now. Mommsen saw it at the end of the XIX century, and the remark is also true today. Because then, at the beginning of the XX century European travelers that arrived in Africa, were shocked by the ruins of cities like Leptis Magna. They even decided that the climate must have changed, because they saw what once were amazing agricultural settlements. In the III-IV century Diocese of Africa, which, in fact, stretched along the Mediterranean coast of Africa, was the breadbasket of the empire. But the climate has not changed except for the political climate. The rain fell the same as now, yet in the day of Rome the olive oil from Africa competed in the Italian market with the Italian olive oil, yet with the Arab conquest, the country turned – not because of the climate but because of the political system – from a prosperous Roman province to the current desert.
That situation started reverting again at the end of the XIX century. The Europeans once again came to the old Roman province - Africa, Asia, Egypt. They came to Mesopotamia, the cradle of human civilization, they built roads, taught grammar, conducted excavations.
By the way, a striking fact: at that moment no one heard of Islamism. Read Agatha Christie's detective novels, those that take place in colonial Egypt or Mesopotamia - not one of them features Islamists, who are so useful for detective stories today.
In the First World War, Lawrence of Arabia was the leader of the Arabs and he did not accept Islam. Rommel and Montgomery fought in World War II under the Alamein, and where, then, were the Islamists? When the Europeans had tanks, the Islamists were quiet.
Once again: everything that is happening now, is a historic retribution for the refusal to continue the Western expansion, the refusal, disguised in a thousand kinds of self-justifying lies such as "Yes, we are guilty of destroying native cultures." Weller (*) remarkably reminds us when, in fact, this trend originated in the main. It started in the 60s, when the counterculture was born when well-fed young people said "Why don't we do it? Why don't we destroy the bourgeois society“.
But let me remind: that before that there was one very important thing. Before this was still such a thing as the emergence of the Soviet Union. And, behold, the appearance of the Soviet Union and the triumph of left-wing ideology, which is now going on in the West, these two things are very much related to each other.
Let us consider this uncomplicated thing: the modern human rights movement. Isn't it an amazing that the human rights movement, in general and in principle of course, is a tool in the hands of the Islamists. It achieves what the Islamists want, it states exactly what the Islamists want the infidels to believe.
Which, for example, is the greatest danger for the islamic terrorists? Very simple: that there will be a war against them. What is the main mantra of the human rights movement? "You can not kill people without a court trial." But wait, war - it is murder without court trial. In a war, killing without trial – that is the definition of war. If you forbid killing without a trial, you prohibit war, and you prohibit it for only one side.
What is the other major threat to the terrorists? That they will be killed using unmanned drones. Here, look at other mantra of the human rights movement, "you can not use drones."
The lefties played a huge role in the spread of Islamic terrorism and impunity. Here's a simple example. Between 1998, when bin Laden declared jihad on the United States, and 2001, when the twin towers were blown up, President Clinton had three times the opportunity to eliminate bin Laden. Three times he was afraid, because all three times next to bin Laden were some people, and Clinton knew that no matter what these people are really, the global human rights movement will tell him that this people were non-combatants.
These are the people who created such an atmosphere in the world according to which terrorists can not be destroyed, unless ... (a number of conditions which never obtain follows). Yes? They are guilty of the death of not only the 3 million people in the Twin Towers, they are also guilty for the ISIS because it is precisely the example of Bin Laden that showed that the US has become a paper tiger, against which it is fun to lead a defensive jihad.
And now the most important question. Attention: question! Where did we get this strange logic? The first human rights organization in the history of mankind has been the American Civil Liberties Union. Its organizer was was Mr. Baldwin, Alex Baldwin, not a human rights activist himself, but a Communist, a man who did not hide his admiration for Soviet Russia, who wrote straightforwardly in his letters that the protection of the values of the US Constitution is a false flag, under which he will seek the dictatorship of the proletariat. The ACLU task was formulated by Baldwin very simply: the destruction of the bourgeois state with the help of the bourgeois institutions.
Baldwin admired the Soviet Union. He knew perfectly well that there was no freedom of speech there. He wrote that freedom of expression is only needed in order to destroy the United States. And, behold, when the working class in the US comes to power, he (**) (no fool) will never give freedom of speech to its enemies.
And you know another strange thing? America adopted the Declaration of Independence in 1776. America had a very good living for a long time as the only republic. It was America that engendered standards of governance: elections. She fought for the freedom of slaves - it seems to be one of the few times in human history when people were fighting for the freedom of others. And all this time, America somehow never needed to protect human rights - the ideas of law and justice were just fine and sufficient there. But then came the Soviet Union, and a year later ACLU appeared, to protect human rights.
Another example. Alex Baldwin was a communist. His European counterpart Willi Münzenberg was an agent of the Comintern. I can not call Willy Münzenberg "Stalin Goebbels” - it would be unfair to Goebbels because it was the other way around: Goebbels was Hitler's Münzenberg.
Münzenberg was the closest ally of Lenin who did not get into the sealed train (***) only because he was a German citizen. This was the main creator of the European anti-fascism and anti-colonialism, all the ills from which Europe is suffering today.
Of course, this chimera of anti-colonialism and protection of human rights, after it had been set up by agents of the Comintern, has life of its own now. It survived the USSR. I would not underestimate the fact that its real organizers were people who were going to help destroy the bourgeois values of bourgeois society.
If you want to be on this right wing, monarchy, paleolibertarianism and nationalism ping list, but are not, please let me know. If you are on it and want to be off, also let me know. This ping list is not used for Catholic-Protestant debates.
It is because the globalists are out to destroy the folks that would put up the most resistamce to them. Smart enough and industrious enough to if they wake up and see what is going on. Plus they wipe out many christians at the same time so that’s a big plus for them too.
It would be helpful to her case if she got the name of the founder of the ACLU correct - Roger Nash Baldwin
Alex Baldwin is a misspelling of the drinking, loudmouth actor and hollywood lefty, Alec Baldwin.
Margaret Sanger was a bit of a whore in her younger days.
“Yulia Latynina is known for her sharp and polemic statements. She claimed that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, French President Jacques Chirac, Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schröder, and U.S. President George W. Bush have all been successfully “recruited” by Vladimir Putin to serve his political objectives”
Stupid article from a stupid russky
Interesting
That doesn’t surprise me. The whole thing appears very hastily written. Nevertheless, the general drift is correct.
All of this verbiage is unnecessary. Economic migrants from failed Muslim nations are showing up in Western Europe because Western Europe offers them financial benefits simply for showing up. These people don’t want to be in Hungary or Poland - they want to get to Germany or France or the UK. Stop offering people incentives to come and they’ll stop coming.
From my limited knowledge of him, I did not. He seems another typical early 20th century "progressive." Full of hypocrisy. Praised the Soviet Union and Stalin up and down. If he had said half of what he said about the Soviet Union in defense of Hitler, he would have been jailed.
And 3 thousand not 3 million died in the twin towers.
Pretty simplistic and limited analysis, Alex.
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man’s burden—
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.
Take up the White Man’s burden—
The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man’s burden—
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper—
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man’s burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Ye dare not stoop to less—
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Have done with childish days—
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
- Rudyard Kipling
Bravo!
He should have been jailed.
The difference between a historian and a recorder of events is that a historian sees primary reasons behind the “offering people incentives to come”, and a recorder of events sees “unnecessary verbiage”.
For example, why Britain of early 1900 did not offer incentives for the migrants to come and a century later it does?
Or why colonial Middle East was a well cultivated happy place (Lebanon was known as a “second Paris” and now it is in a state of unending civil war?
Was Islam less of Islam a century ago?
That, by the way, is a judgment on the brokenness of our political discourse.
It looks like a drunken tirade rather than analysis (it is worse in Russian). However, it touches upon ideas that lately people are afraid to touch if they want to continue publishing their thoughts. Such, for example, is the idea that a fundamental revision of the assumptions under neo-colonialism is needed; also a lot more history needs to be examined behind our liberal “institutions”.
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Still true.
A lot more history in general needs to be examined, especially about the Mediterranean world. It’s a complex, very long history not well sited to the idiocy which passes for public/political discussion in the West these days; nothing simple about it. For example, notwithstanding their at least nominal Mohammedanism, the Palestinians and even more so the Syrians, are Hellenistic people. I remember talking with a Palestinian fellow many years ago who remarked to me that his people were the Byzantines left behind when the rest of us lit out as the Arabs and their Mohammedanism showed up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.