Showing posts with label world. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world. Show all posts

Monday, September 17, 2007

Rediscovering Faith In the Face of Evil

Islam has always yearned to own and control the ancient lands of Europe. They have tried many, many times to conquer the West, beginning in 715 with the invasion of Spain and most recently in front of Vienna in 1683. With nuclear weapons, a vast population and a new generation of leaders who see the West as weak, sonner or later they may well succeed. The question is, what should the West, principally the United States, do about these barbarians?

Writing in the American Conservative, James Pinkerton has an audacious answer- revive Christendom and make a Council of the West to defend Christians around the world from the rapacious and bloody grasp of Islam. Channleing JRR Tolkien, Pinkerton suggests that the West take a page from the Council of Elrond, which brought together the races and groups- Men, Elves, Hobbitts- who opposed the evil of Sauron. Pinkerton proposes that the West do something similar to forge a grand council to oppose Islam and secure the West, while leaving the East to do what it will. Pinkerton writes,
Two years ago, the Eurocrats in Brussels drafted a 300-page EU constitution that consciously omitted reference to Europe’s specifically Christian heritage. The voters of France, as well as Holland, rejected that secular document.

Maybe there’s a lesson here. The people of Europe might not be so eager, after all, to declare that they are “united in diversity.” What does that phrase mean, anyway? How about trying to find something that unites Europeans in unity? How about a revival of Christendom as a concept—as a political concept? A revival, or at least a remembrance, of Europe’s cultural heritage could be the healing force that Europe needs.

After all, it worked in the past. In the words of the 19th-century French historian Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, the victory of Christianity marked “the end of ancient society”—and all the petty divisions that went with it. Fustel de Coulanges continues, “Man felt that he had other obligations besides that of living and dying for the city. Christianity distinguished the private from the public virtues. By giving less honor to the latter, it elevated the former; it placed God, the family, the human individual above country, the neighbor above the city.”

As history proves, a larger communion can be built on such sentiments. In the 9th century, Alcuin of York declared that the crowning of Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor would bring forth a new Imperium Christianum. Ten centuries later, Hilaire Belloc asserted, “The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith.” Indeed, during those many centuries, Europe enjoyed a pretty good run. Only in the last century—the century of atheists, psychiatrists, and National Socialists—has Europe’s survivability come into question. Today, the Christian author Os Guiness puts the issue plainly: “A Europe cut off from its spiritual roots cannot survive.”

Some will smile at the thought that Christianity might be part of the solution to the problems of the Third Millennium. Admittedly, there’s an element of faith in the idea of trying to revive the idea of Christian unity. But Christendom is the Shire Strategy, applied.


But what about the groups who are neither Christian nor Mulsim? What about the Buddhist Chinese, Japanese and Korean? What about the Hindi Indians? These groups also are threatened by resurgent Islam. As the Indians know, Islam has no preferences- India was under the Muslim Mughal emperors for centuries. Pinkerton suggests that as long as Christians do not seek to expand their own lands by conquest, then Christians, Buddhists and Hindus can work together to surround Islam and force it to stay within it's own boundaries. As he says,
No matter what we say or do, the blocs of Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese are all going their separate cultural ways, rediscovering their own unique heritages. And Islam, of course, is at odds with all of its neighbors. In his book a decade ago, Huntington, mindful of the indirect danger posed by American universalism, was even more mindful of the direct danger posed by Muslims: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards,” he writes. “Muslim bellicosity and violence are late-twentieth century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny.” That’s bad news, but there’s a silver lining: if Westerners, Russians, Africans, Hindus, and Chinese all feel threatened by Islam—and they all do—there’s plenty of opportunity for a larger encircling alliance, with an eye toward feasible strategies of containment, even quarantine. But not conquest, not occupation, not “liberation.”


Not everyone will agree with Pinkerton- for example, I suspect that the West is less reliable than the Anglosphere, but his suggestions are certainly a possibility, if only Europe will raise its collective head from the sands and realize the danger in which it stands. The Hagia Sophia, one of Christendom's greatest church, was turned into a mosque on the Muslim capture of Christian Constantinople in 1453. Today, it is a museum, but Chirstians are not permitted to worship within its hallowed walls. Could we face Muslims worshipping in the halls of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome? Diversity and multiculturalism are a recipe for cultural suicide in the face of an Islam that thinks it is finally in position to destroy the one region that has always resisted it and has surpassed it so badly in ther last few centuries. If the West does nto awake, there won't be a West. Freedom of press, dress, behavior and the ability to worship as one chooses are integral to the West. They are anathem to Islam.

Read the whole thing and make your own decision. One way or another, we will be faced with a murderous and religiously inspired Islamic world against us sooner or alter. How we deal with it will determine whether we survive or not. Hat tip to Jerry Pournelle.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Piracy Pays

Especially if you target naive, liberal non-government organization (NGO) workers who neither know how to use a gun nor have the intestinal foritude to actually fight for anything they believe in. All the NGO/aid community knows how to do is to appease, appease, appease. They don't seem to understand the simple idea that bullies will back down when their target starts fighting back.

This is especially a problem in countries like Somalis. As the Strategy Page reports,
Somalia is unique in that the locals have turned a humanitarian disaster into a business. This has been going on for fifteen years. Back then, when famine brought in aid agencies and food relief, some of the Somali warlords saw it as a business opportunity. The warlords began attacking and looting the relief convoys. The UN sent in peacekeepers, who got shot at a lot, and who soon got out. The relief agencies tried to keep operating since then, but they can only succeed if they play by Somali rules. That means, for example, that the trucks carrying food to starving Somalis, have to pay "taxes" to the warlords whose territory they pass through. The aid agencies try to negotiate these payments, but the best they can do is keep track of how many roadblocks there are along the routes the trucks have to take, and hope they gave the drivers enough cash to make it. Currently there are nearly 300 roadblocks in southern Somalia. The gunmen charge $20-$500 per truck, depending on what they think the driver can afford. It's a tricky business, as if they charge too much, or just steal the truck, the word will get around and the trucks will take another route, no matter how long it is.


the NGOs have made a killing off the perception that they are "above politics". This is of course about as true as the oft-repeated assertion that Amnesty International was created by Peter Benenson. NGOs like to play the anti-American game to the world's media, as this assures them of more positive press. And they take advantage of every corrupt member of the UN to keep their own particular hobby-horse flush with cash.

However, they are beginning to find that professional victims only attract predators. And the UN is no more capable of protecting them than it is of actually performing any of the global government functions that the NGOs so desperately want to take away from the US and give to the UN. As the article comments,
What the "aid community" has lost sight of is the fact that the idea that the UN was supposed to be "impartial" was not part of the original UN concept. The original idea was that the Great Powers (the West) would use the UN to maintain order. But since the Great Powers couldn't get along, the UN evolved its own ways. The aid community, and all those NGOs that appeared in the last half century, through they were above politics. Now they have received a reality check, and they don't like it at all.


Perhaps now maybe the NGOs and the "aid community" might realise that the only real protection comes from those who are strong-willed and tough enough to fight for themselves. That means the United States, as the only Western country powerful enough to enforce its will on a worldwide basis. And after fifty years of anti-American propaganda from the NGOs, Americans are not any too willing to spend their valuable time protecting them. What goes around comes around. Maybe even to NGOs. And if that is the case, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving group.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.