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.
“Was Islam less of Islam a century ago?”
We could ask Chinese Gordon or the Armenians or the Greeks of Smyrna....
Pretty simple actually.
In the continuing war between right and wrong the world is a better place when right wins.
The left’s continuing battle is to obscure the two.
Moral relativism. Islam and Christianity? No difference.
Communism and Capitalism? The same.
No evil in the world. Just a difference of opinion.
Th fact remains that the Muslim conquest was a geopolitical disaster that we may be allowing to repeat today.
Yes, I agree that distinctions should be made between the peoples of Islamic faith: not every one is slicing throats and destroying their own culture.
On the topic of Armenian genocide of the massacre of Smyrna, horrific as they were it was not a geopolitical event of the scale that ISIS and the mass migration to Germany and Britain is. Our civilization or what remains of it is deliberately dissolving itself. That is unprecedented.
Yes. The notions of listening to both sides, intelligent discourse, mutual respect between opponents, etc. are only applicable inside a civilization. They do not exist when two civilizations clash.
That is no Occam’s Razor, that is the ostrich’s head in the sand. I repeat the question: why do West European governments provide these incentives to the migrants?
“On the topic of Armenian genocide of the massacre of Smyrna, horrific as they were it was not a geopolitical event of the scale that ISIS and the mass migration to Germany and Britain is.”
And yet millions of people were slaughtered. ISIS’ toll is weak beer compared to what happened 100 years ago. As for migration, hundreds of thousands of Greeks, Pontian Greeks and Armenians fled to Greece, America, Russia and ... SYRIA, where they were welcomed and taken care of.
Like I said, complex.
Yes. I did not mean to sound like nothing else was a civilizational conflict and only this is.
The new aspects are
- ISIS thriving and taking territory despite the air war. That was not supposed to happen: we were supposed to shock and awe everyone.
- Migration is not in the Middle East and south east Europe, where the culture of accommodation existed thanks, probably to the Ottoman Turks, — it is in West Europe
- The collapse of nationalism makes elementary measures like border control politically impalatable
- Strong Western economies dictate terms of radical liberalism to weaker central European powers.
Ordinarily a desire to benefit your own people does not translate to a desire to benefit a people quite different than your own who arrive in your own house and demand them. What does the Occam Razor say about that?
You did not address the question. Why is Western Europe “dangling” those benefits?
Which post?
Post 29, post 31. Look - you obviously will not be happy with any answer which does not fit your narrative. Why not just clearly state what you think the reason is and we’ll take it from there.
In 29, you describe what is happening: liberalism directed at their own people all of a sudden is directed at the people not at all like their own. I agree that it is indeed happening. I further agree that the US having taken up the burden of military security in Europe has contributed to this diversion of funds away from their own people toward development goals in the Third World.
In 31 you further stress that on the part of the Third World refugees this is purely economic migration that seeks the best welfare. I agree that it is so for some, even though we can’t be sure if that is the motivation of all.
But the question is not what is happening, — on that we more or less agree, — but why the Western governments allow it to happen. Let me frame the question a bit better.
When German (for example) people elect a liberal government because they want a strong welfare state for themselves, that is not surprising. It may be unwise because socialism is unsustainable in the long run, but it is not surprising. It agrees with the human nature to want security in the old age, in the case of misfortune, etc. This is how Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, and to a lesser extent Britain built themselves economies when people work short hours and take two-month vacations, and have nationalized health care and pensions. US relieving them of military expenses of course helped.
The unanswered question is why liberalism turned its benevolence away from their own people toward other and unrelated nations. You would think that a logical approach would be to do the exact opposite: keep the liberal system to themselves so that not to squander the national treasure. So why is the illogical happening?
I don’t think attributing it to some generalized “do-goodism” answers it. It may be an aspect of the answer but it is not an in-depth answer. I think that the active desire to destroy our civilization rooted in the 19c. Marxism is a better and deeper answer. This is why I like this article, with all its obvious flaws.
I think, this is an oral rant that someone recorded and posted on the Internet. This explains the poor grammar, the repetitive colloquial style, errors like this one, and the confusion between the UN and the pronoun "he", only possible in oral Russian. Whoever recorded it did not bother cross-checking the factual references.
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.