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.
Yes, that is true. This is why American liberalism never really got in bed with Marxism, a few traitors notwithstanding. That explains the motivation. That does not explain the policy. Indeed, Western governments are not driven by barbra-streisand airheads; these are well educated, capable of logical thought, with access to every technological resource people. If not themselves, then their advisers would tell them that putting hundreds of thousands of people without skills or property, that belong to different and hostile religion and culture, would disproportionately hurt not the ruling class but the indigenous working class. Why do they do it to their own, -- German, Dutch, British poor?
Further, there is no need to be all that liberal politically to be compassionate to the refugees. Christian leaders, including conservative ones, call for charity too -- it is their job. At issue here is not humanitarianism but a destructive policy aimed at the national working class.
I still think that at work here is an active desire to destroy the Western civilization. It is not just do-goodism. The natural sentiments of compassion, that resonate especially well with the liberals, but are not unique to them, are how the enemy of our civilization sells these policies to the masses in the developed countries. The natural sentiments of envy and desire for equality and justice is how the enemy of the Western civilization sold Marxism to the masses a century ago. The sentiments differ, the end result is the same: erasure of national identities, destruction or rational economy, submission of religion to the state, formation of dictatorial ruling class.
What “evidence” you have in mind? You don’t think Cameron, Hollande and Merkel are well educated and have technocratic resources?
Why is this guilt not directed toward their own people?
Well, let’s hope that’s all there is. I still think that the situation is more sinister than just a nanny state running amok.
Just to amplify - decadence and misplaced guilt are just as bad as active malice. Maybe worse.
No. Liberalism alone would stop at national self-destruction. What we have here is deliberate self-destruction.
But you agree then that the problem is not merely economical? It is a matter of national identity and therefore national existence. It is no longer a matter of “how much in the budget we allocate for Muslim refugees”.
Good; thank you for the good discussion.
And thank you too. Interesting discussion.
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.