Friday, July 22, 2005

The Second Fall of Rome?

I will write several essay in English during the next few weeks, and a handful in Norwegian because of the elections we will have here on the 11th of September. One of the themes I am working on in both languages is that the population movements we are witnessing now are the largest and fastest in human history. In Europe, they can only be compared to the period often referred to as the Great Migrations, following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. However, during the 4th and 5th centuries, the total human population of the world was in the order of 200 million. Today, it is 30 times larger than that, and still growing fast. We also have communications that can transport people anywhere on earth within hours, and media that show ordinary people how much better life is in other countries. On top of that, the Romans didn't have human rights lawyers advocating that millions of barbarians be let into their lands.

Is it a coincidence that the last time we had migrations like this was when large parts of the European continent suffered a complete civilizational breakdown? Is that what we are witnessing now? The second fall of Rome?

I'll quote a couple of posts made at LGF by the always excellent observer DP111:

What we are seeing in the West is the opening salvoes of the continuation of the Jihad against Christendom, that was brought to a close at Vienna in 1683. The new onset has come about as a direct consequence of allowing muslim immigration to the West. Muslims are mandated to the Jihad and it is foolish of us to expect that they will refrain from doing so. It is our foolishness that gave them the opportunity to do so from within.

Muslims and their religion are not yet ready to accept pluralism, democracy and free thinking. Democracy is in fact incompatible with islam, as many muslim imams have openly stated. That is their interpretation of the koran. It should therefore come as no suprise to us, that muslims in the West are waging Jihad against us. In their eyes, if we didnt realise that this would happen, the fault lies with us and not them. I agree.

I do not think our societies, geared as they are to free and open thought, can continue with this continuous assault on freedom. If this assault is not brought to a halt soon, then free society will start to perish, and with that the economy. It may not be evident immediately, but perish it will in the fullness of time. If the current trend of increasing conflict continues, then we are irrevocably headed in the direction of a major armed conflict with the Islamic world. This is also going to lead to a civil war within Europe of unimaginable proportions. Europe's civil wars (WW 1 and 2) have not exactly been powder-puff affairs.

Each day brings news of events that seem to bring us to that inevitable reckoning. We do not wish to fight for religion but we are being engaged in a religious conflict, quite against our will. Our politicians find it difficult to imagine that we are in a religious conflict. So passe - that sort of thing went out of fashion in the Middle Ages. It is all so pointless and avoidable. Time is short, and we need to act now to avert a human tragedy, which this commenter just does not wish to see.

Separation recognises, that at this moment in time, Islam and democracy are irreconcilable. Thus a separation leaves hope for the future for everybody. This is important, as muslims like all humans will reach a stage in their social development, when they do indeed welcome democracy and pluralism. It is just that at this stage in their history, they are not ready for it. A war, which is where we are headed, will stop their progress, as well as cause a split within humanity, that will be hard to patch up.

The basic impulse of Islam is to expand into Infidel territory. Unable to do so, it will collapse quite quickly in historic terms, and thus release the 1.2 billion souls in its enslavement and bring about true freedom for them. What more can one ask for.

I have stated many times over the last couple of years, that we will easily win a full scale war with the islam. What worries me is that in the event of a nuclear event in the West, we will rapidly go for the THIRD CONJECTURE option. Over the last two years I have stated on LGF and Jihad/Dhimmi Watch, that our inevitable large scale nuclear response, will also shatter the foundations of our own civilisation. Our Judeao-Christian civilisation has a built-in guilt complex, and we will not be able to sustain the shock of our victory bought at such expense. That is why the war option is not really a good one unless.. unless we can re-define what this war is about.

To state the obvious, there are two principles in any war. The first is that the home front is secured. The second is to carry the war to the enemy. However, if we do NOT carry the war to the enemy with a correctly defined moral and political purpose, we will not be able to have public backing for the war. The Jihad in the meantime will continue, for in the eyes of the jihadis and the muslim world, they have a clear moral and religious purpose, and divinely sanctioned to boot.

The question is how do we carry the war to an enemy whose ideology we recognise as a religion, while ours is multi-culturelism. You see the difficulty here. There is no way we can conduct a war, so long as we suscribe to either one of those two tenets. Even if we discard multi-culturelism, this in itself is not sufficient. This inevitably leads us to ask, can we somehow re-define Islam, in particular for a Western audience, not as a religion but as a political ideology, and one whose tenets are sufficiently evil, so that it merits destruction, much as Nazism. (Note here that I do not recognise that islam is susceptible to reformation). This construct has to take place so that the Western populace sees it as justifiable to actually give the physical and moral support that is required for such a large scale venture. (In passing it is worth noting the political difficulty that Bush and Blair are having in Iraq in sustaining political support for the war, once they had proclaimed that Islam is a RoP - they had conceded the moral ground). They now have the same problem here in the West, as the bombs go of.

The jihadis have a clear moral purpose, and thus we too have to define an even more powerful moral argument as to why our cause is more just, more moral and better - not just to our public, whose unwavering support we need, but to many muslims around the world. Once we have such a clear moral purpose, then indeed we can go to full scale war and even respond to a nuclear attack in an appropriate fashion without being fatally afflicted by guilt.


At July 22, 2005 2:33 PM, Blogger felix said...

Great commentary from DP111. DP111 said:

"The basic impulse of Islam is to expand into Infidel territory. Unable to do so, it will collapse quite quickly in historic terms, and thus release the 1.2 billion souls in its enslavement and bring about true freedom for them. What more can one ask for."

I have long thought that slowing Muslim immigration to western countries and deporting anyone who is a radical islamists will also have the benefit of straightening out the thinking in the various countries of origin. We in the west need to clarify that this is not multicultural business as usual.


At July 22, 2005 5:53 PM, Blogger Baron Bodissey said...

Fjordman, in case you haven't already seen it, our thoughts were converging today: The Sick Man in Europe.

At July 23, 2005 2:44 AM, Blogger erp said...

Jihad Made In Europe, an article in the Weekly Standard showing the author hasn't a clue.

At July 23, 2005 3:18 AM, Blogger ThBadMonkey said...

Its kind of sad to see the European reaction after 9/11. I understand that most european countries are only as big as alot of our states, but we had 9/11, 2500 people, and Europe had 1 filmmaker, and 60 some in the subway bombings, and your all getting pissed off and ready to rock....

WE forgot about 9/11 after a MONTH, and our President had talks with Muslims, who were later ARRESTED for being contributers to terrorist causes.

A few more hits, and I think Europe will get it. This will also put more conservtives in office. But it will take a few more of these little amature hits...

At July 23, 2005 5:42 AM, Blogger RobertinArabia said...

An alternative view worth considering:
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago:

The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw....

Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.....

Osama bin Laden’s speeches and sermons run 40 and 50 pages long. They begin by calling tremendous attention to the presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula.

In 1996, he went on to say that there was a grand plan by the United States—that the Americans were going to use combat forces to conquer Iraq, break it into three pieces, give a piece of it to Israel so that Israel could enlarge its country, and then do the same thing to Saudi Arabia. As you can see, we are fulfilling his prediction, which is of tremendous help in his mobilization appeals....

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled...

Many people worry that once a large number of suicide terrorists have acted that it is impossible to wind it down. The history of the last 20 years, however, shows the opposite. Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop—and often on a dime.

At July 23, 2005 6:14 AM, Blogger ThBadMonkey said...

Yes, I would agree on this issue. While the gang rape/cultural epidemic is ignored, the bombings, for what ever reason, bring the cultural differences to light.
NOW is the time to highlight the cultural problems. But no one is doing this.

Just as people dont care about the gang rape/cultural problems, they will also lack the insight to address the hows and whys of why mulsims blow themselves up.

Only Muslims can do anything about the muslim crisis. And now the ball may be rolling. Well have to wait and see if they keep it up for a couple years...

At July 23, 2005 11:28 AM, Blogger Don Miguel said...

Pape has shown a potential cause and effect relationship, but he has not proven as a "central fact" that "overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland."

It can't be denied that most suicide attacks in recent years are performed by Muslims and that Islam is used as their justification. In the case of Iraq, few suicide attacks are launched against foreign forces but instead against Iraqi civilians (almost always Shiites) and Iraqi forces.

From a strictly political point of view (after all, he is a political science professor) his theory makes sense, but given the writings and pronouncements of bin Laden, Zarqawi and their ilk, religion is the primary motivator. Since in Islam religion and politics are in effect the same thing, one can’t divorce one from the other. And one must take into account that the primary strategic objective of Islamofascists is a world-wide Caliphate. Any objective to compel military forces to withdraw is just a stepping stone in the overall religious goal.

At July 23, 2005 8:03 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

You are wise to understand that the goals of Islam are to take over the world. If you read the Koran and do some Internet searches of the Hadith, you will see that they are doing exactly what their "holy" book tells them to do. Hitler had "Mein Kempf" and the muslims have the "Koran" and the "Hadith". The only solution is to deport them ALL, regardless of citizenship back to their countries, and make them STAY there. Do not allow them to come to the west for anything, including tourism and/or education. Then, we all need to leave their countries, and as a western world body, unite to defend the border areas (ie Chechnya, Kashmir, Israel, Cyprus, etc). It worked with Turkey/Greece in the early 1900s and is the only solution.

At July 24, 2005 11:42 PM, Blogger PD111 said...


Second that.


Post a Comment

<< Home