| So It Is A Crusade Against Islam ! |
|
|
| Tuesday, 03 June 2008 | |
Bruce Anderson: "We are destroying the very values which could save us in our battle against Islam." Europe has immense strengths. The resources of civilisation are not exhausted. In 1683, a Turkish army reached the suburbs of Vienna. The outcome trembled in the balance until Jan Sobieski of Poland arrived with his army, threw back the Ottomans and finally freed western Europe from the threat of Muslim domination, thus completing the work begun by Charles Martel at Poitiers in 732.
I was in Vienna for a conference on post-Christian Europe and resurgent Islam. The history of all important cities is a duet for grandeur and original sin but, even by those standards, Vienna is a masterpiece of complexity and ambivalence. An imperial city which has diminished into the capital of a gemütlich little republic, it was the nursery for so many of the glories of German culture – and for so much of the foulness of mid-20th century German history. So it was an appropriate setting for a pessimistic agenda. In contemporary Britain, there are many grounds for anxiety. Even so, we cannot rival the continental Europeans when it comes to pessimism. Our home-grown product is shallow and pallid in comparison to the length, depth and sophistication of its continental rival. This is hardly surprising. The pessimism of the European mainland is the product of shattered hopes and a failed century. The first half of the 20th century was the most disastrous epoch in history. The Channel spared us from the worst of the ravages and savageries, but those whose nations experienced them or inflicted them can be forgiven for their distrust of the human condition. After such knowledge, what forgiveness, especially as recent events have added fresh inspissation to the gloom. By 1990, it seemed as if whatever brute or blackguard made the world had decided to forgive mankind for the 20th century. The Cold War was won. George Bush celebrated a new world order. Francis Fukuyama announced the end of history. But history disagreed. There is a basic difference between our circumstances now and the Cold War order. In the first place, it was an order. The threat was terrible but it was also predictable. We could analyse our enemies, understand them, even compromise with them. In the grimmest paradox of all, peace and stability had found a secure footing, upon the rock of mutual, assured destruction. Then, the enemy had a name, a capability, an order of battle. We had insights into his intentions, diplomatic means of mitigation, geopolitical concepts. Now, we do not even have a map of our ignorance. We are blundering in the dark, wrestling with unknown unknowns. Europe has immense strengths. The resources of civilisation are not exhausted. Yet many of my conference colleagues were defeatists who believed that those strengths could never be mobilised. Some even argued that Islam would inevitably prevail and, within a few decades, Europe would decline into Eurabia. It is easy to make the pessimists' case. In essence, Europe has become the victim of one of its undoubted successes. Over the last century, despite the destruction of so much human and economic capital, Western Europe has made a decisive break with scarcity, that mighty constraint which had overshadowed all earlier societies. Europeans no longer needed to fear starvation. As a result, however, they have thrown off two other constraints which marched in step with scarcity: religion and family life. Much of Europe is post-religious, post-familial – and also post-reproductive. With average child-bearing rates of 1.5 per female, many countries are condemned to declining populations. Unless they import immigrants to produce the wealth to sustain an ageing population, they might even rediscover hunger. Yet immigration is not cost-free. As the Romans were the first to discover with their barbarian legions, you decide that you need manpower but you end up by importing people. People bring problems. Large-scale immigration would change the character of the host societies.So would population decline. In Mark Steyn's words, the future belongs to those who show up. Cultural and religious decline could reinforce population decline. A Europe without God and without the civilising disciplines of family is condemned to the devaluation of all values. This is exacerbated by the cultural self-hatred of many European elites, at least outside France. Under the guise of cultural relativism, they enforce their contempt for European traditions, using their control of the educational system to ensure that youngsters are brought up in cultural and historical darkness. Even those who do not feel cultural self-hatred often lack cultural self-confidence. There was an example of this in Vienna. Last Friday evening, many churches were holding concerts. I heard a Haydn symphony in the Stephansdom. Haydn in St Stephen's Cathedral: the resources of civilisation did not appear to be exhausted. But the cathedral authorities were not on civilisation's side. The columns were festooned with photographs; the choir was obscured by a fatuous plastic montage. If not quite desecration, it was certainly de-sacralisation. Over the centuries, the cathedral has been a place for prayer and worship, a conduit between the streets and the skies. Its pillars and its vaulting have humbled the faithful and exulted the faith. Stones, sermons and singing have joined in harmony to proclaim the eternal message: ad maiorem Dei gloriam. So one might have thought that those who are now in charge of the cathedral would use the music as an enticement, hoping that some passers-by who dropped in for a symphony would return for a service. On the contrary: it was as if the ecclesiastics, desperate to spare the sensitivities of any visiting atheist or pagan, had done everything possible to distance the proceedings from historical Christianity. No wonder some of the Christians at the conference wondered whether their faith still had the vitality to resist Islam. Others insisted that this was absurdly one-sided. Imagine a similar conference in the Islamic world. How many participants would be happily luxuriate in the complacency of resurgent Islam? The West's problems with Islam do not arise from the confident aggression of resurgent nations. They are caused by the embittered victims of failed societies. For any one argument we could provide to justify a lack of confidence in our countries' institutions, the average Muslim could find ten. Now that the neo-conservative attempt to reconstruct the Middle East has failed, containment and crisis management are the only options. Although this will be harder than it was during the Cold War, the attempt we must try and cultural neurasthenia is of little help. Yet one conclusion is obvious. For much of its history, Vienna was the capital and fortress of the Ostmark: the frontier of western civilisation. Today, the whole of Europe is in the Ostmark. Source: The Independent
MPACUK Comment: It is unhelpful and inflammatory articles like this which are being promoted by the mainstream media that fuel the fire of Islamophobia and makes it seem obvious that there is another crusade against Islam raging right now. Despite politicians and diplomats claiming otherwise, this type of rhetoric shows it to be a war against Islam rather than a war against terror. If this type of view is mainstream then only God knows what is discussed behind closed doors. Is an enemy being manufactured out of your average Muslim. Is there an artificial rift being created so that the xenophobes can get their way or are Muslims just whining over nothing again?
Readers have left 7 comments.
shan:
Quote
There is a concerted campaign by the government to create mistrust between british citizens so that they can played against one another.
if the resources beign used by the government were granted to me i would uncover terrorist plans everyother day within diffrent communites as there are nutcases in all sections of society. Btw it was not the poles but the mongols and their offsprings who helped europe by attacking muslims from the rear,helped by the safavids in iran.
(1)
2008-06-03 12:15:29
RSD:
Quote
Shan's interesting final comment asserting an erstwhile "Dolchstoss" deserves further exploration. If we look at the regions where the Ottoman's prevailed up to that point, what is most striking is the high levels of residual hatred directed towards Islam. Also from the 18th C onward the Christian Empires, most notably Russia and Austro-Hungary found fertile ground for dissent and rebellion amongst the Christian inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. Far from a modicum of satisfaction and security these groups cite violence and oppression as their experience. It is instructive to examine the diplomatic effeorts of Britain during the period as it attempted to persuade the Sublime Porte to reform itself and afford equality and security to its subjects.
IN respect of the article itself, the problem is that it is not the business of non-Muslims to determine what Islam is or isn't, and non-Muslims are not in a position ot judge. It is the sole business of Muslims in this country to ensure that those who claim to speak on behalf of the UK Muslim population have the authority to do so and that their statements accord with the wishes of the majority. So long as individuals and groups opposed to the basic values of this society pronounce, largely unopposed by Muslims, upon how it should be destroyed then misunderstanding and xenophobia will be the outcome. Equally so long as the Muslim leadership, such that it is, does not come to understand the importance and impact of certain events in European minds, such as the Salman Rushdie book burnings, then there will be everpresent misunderstanding.
(2)
2008-06-03 20:08:21
Brian Higgins:
Quote
The answer for the UK and Europe to their problems is by embracing Biblical Christianity.
(3)
2008-06-03 20:16:34
shan:
Quote
Its no use coming on this site and telling us people need to embrace biblical christianity.
Put your words in action by fasting-not eating pork-not drinking alcohol-not fornicating and praying. we already do this so in a way we are more biblical christians than you.
(4)
2008-06-04 10:32:20
markuk:
Quote
why should someone not eat pork? Apart from your quran telling you not to eat pork.
Lets assume god knows in the 20th century we would have fridges. what possible reason could there be not to eat pork.
(5)
2008-06-04 15:49:08
shan:
Quote
markuk just goes to show how much you know about your own faith.
the commandment about not consuming the flesh of swine is in your bible,unless of course thats been changed to cater for your needs. do check medical reports about the deseases inside pigs.
(6)
2008-06-05 10:26:53
RSD:
Quote
Shan, the Old Testament forbids the consumption of all mammals that are not domesticated and have either cloven hooves or are birds. These mammals may not be those that eat carrion. Of sea creatures the Old Testaments permits the consumption of fish with scales. Also forbidden is the consumption of milk and meat during the same meal, and the consumption of animals that have worked, have suffered injury or are ill.
With the emergence of Christianity as a separate religion came the Pauline Covenant which viewed relationship between man and animals quite differently, and permitted the consumption of animals that are fobidden by Kashrut (Kosher). While the Quran forbids the consumption of pork and carrion, its strictures are somewhat liberal compared with Kashrut.
(7)
2008-06-05 19:36:23
|






Bruce Anderson: "We are destroying the very values which could save us in our battle against Islam." Europe has immense strengths. The resources of civilisation are not exhausted. In 1683, a Turkish army reached the suburbs of Vienna. The outcome trembled in the balance until Jan Sobieski of Poland arrived with his army, threw back the Ottomans and finally freed western Europe from the threat of Muslim domination, thus completing the work begun by Charles Martel at Poitiers in 732.











