I think this discussion deserves its own post.
In a previous entry, I threw this out:
I’m more convinced than ever that a traditionalist movement in Europe will have to be Muslim-led. We, the remnant of Christendom, would still have much to contribute to and much to gain from such a movement. Imagine a movement promoting local self-government for religious communities, which would, yet, mean Sharia in Muslim parts, but also no sodomy indoctrination in Christian parts. We can lament the fact that Muslims would be more palatable leaders and spokesmen for such a movement for the general public, but we must acknowledge it.
Two of my wisest readers disagreed. (I should probably say four. While Alan Roebuck and Bruce Charlton haven’t said anything about this proposal, I’m pretty sure I know what they think of it.) Marcio Silva writes
This is a point where we disagree, by a large margin. I would like to, respectfully, address two aspects of your proposal. The first, is the question on exactly how is your proposal of joining the false (in this case, Islam) with what is true (in this case, Christianity) differs from Frank Meier’s fusionism or Tu Weiming’s “modern confucionism”? Will Muslims “tolerate” what they think to be false on Christianity and will Christian “tolerate” what they think to be false on Islam? A “Muslim-led traditionalist movement in Europe” if successful, would turn Europe in a Muslim-led society would it not? If so, I think it is fair to examine how well are the “Christian parts” of other Muslim-led societies going. How are Christians in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran? How well are Christians doing even in Kosovo? You say the Christians have “much to contribute” to this Muslim-led movement. Historically, apart from being a source for slaves, janissaries and, “raw material” to “organic fertilizer”, how exactly Christians “contribute” to Islam and “gain” from it?
The second aspect that I would like to address is the Muslim behavior in Europe. How exactly this crime-prone, violence-prone, gang-rape prone minority (the data on Muslim crime on Kafirs is abundant, as any reader of VFR, GoV or JihadWatch knows), today on a non-leadership position will, once turned in the majority or achieving leadership, behave in a proper and civilized manner? By the way, would you describe Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Pakistan as “conservative” place where you – as a Catholic – would like to live in? Allowing a troublesome ethnic-religious group to take the leadership of a country never ends well. Ask the whites in post-apartheid South Africa.
JMsmith writes
I have to agree with Marcio Silva, that Bonald is wrong in his fourth point. The word tradition denotes a form of knowledge, but without a qualifier indicates no particular content. Traditional knowledge is knowledge received on authority from the past, usually on the assumption that the people or person who originated the tradition enjoyed some sort of epistemic advantage. This is why modernity opposes all tradition. It stipulates that the present always has epistemic advantage over the past. Because modernity opposes tradition as a form of knowledge, it lumps all traditions together, regardless of content. We traditionalists are not, however, committed to tradition as a form of knowledge, but rather to the received content of our own particular tradition. So, coming to the point, European Muslims will not create a Traditional society, they will produce an Islamic society. If I had to choose between Islam and Hedonistic Nihilism, I think I’d choose Hedonistic Nihilism.
One big issue is how Christianity and Islam relate. Is any alliance between the two as intellectually incoherent as Frank Meier’s fusionism or Tu Weiming’s Enlightenment-friendly Confuciansim? I don’t think so; I would say that Christianity and Islam are rivals but not opposites. Libertarianism and social conservatism, and Confucianism and the Enlightenment are movements in opposite directions. There’s no coherent way one can push both at the same time. One can advance Christianity and Islam at the same time. Their morals and ours are mostly compatible (far more so than are Christian and liberal morals), and in a broad sense, Christians and Muslims would like to push Europe in the same direction (less public blasphemy, less pornography, less usury). The particularities of our own traditions can be pursued at the local level, since Christians and Muslims usually live in different places, so a robust localism can serve us both. What’s more, this is the means of coexistence endorsed by both our traditions. Muhammad himself said that Christians should be unmolested in our own enclaves, while we Christians are obliged to promote subsidiarity when possible. Both Christians and Muslims accommodated religious minorities through ghetto arrangements in the Middle Ages; it’s the sensible thing to do. The liberals, by contrast, think they have a right to indoctrinate other people’s children.
Let’s also not loose sight of the contemporary reality. A Muslim-dominated conservative Europe may not be the ideal, but at this point I think it’s by far the most viable alternative to a completely Leftist Europe. Christianity is toxic in the public mind. Europeans think we’re all a bunch of bigots and mass-murderers. And let’s not forget that half of those European Christians are Roman Catholics, who in the public mind are all child molesters. No one would ever vote for us. On the other hand, Islam, as they’ve been told ad nausium, is the religion of peace. Also, while the genetic differences between us and Turks or Arabs is small, they are regarded as non-white for some reason, which automatically gives them higher status in the European mind. Finally, they are a more formidable force because of their self-confidence. They really know that they’re right, and they don’t care what the New York Times says. Christians conservatives, on the other hand, are use to defeat. We’ve known nothing else for two centuries. We’ve come to expect it. We go into every fight demoralized, worried more about how to avoid social ostracism for what we know will turn out to be an unpopular cause than about how to make it a popular cause. The Muslims are psychologically better equipped to fight than we are.
Most importantly, between Islam and hedonistic nihilism, I’d choose Islam hands down.
Filed under: Europe, Islam, What's to be done? |
Throne and Altar 
Bonald, why are we compelled to choose? It’s a false dichotomy; our support isn’t going to determine the outcome of a contest between the two anyway.
Cooperating with Islam is a devil’s bargain in order to gain a desired objective the easy way.
We should endeavor to put our own house in order and thereby obtain the requisite credibility to call upon our fellow westerners to repent and return to the faith of their fathers.
Hi Andrew,
Probably our support won’t be decisive. However, if we’re going to throw our weight behind Islam, it’s probably better to do it now when our strength is small but not totally insignificant. It may make a good impression on our new masters.
Trying to restore credibility is a waste of time. As long as Leftist Jews control the media, every Catholic will be a murderer and a child molester in the public eye, and every Protestant will be not much better. Even if–and this is impossible–we could eradicate all sin from the Churches (and remember, just one unreformed would be enough to tar all the rest), journalists could always just start focusing on our sins from a century ago.
Instead of proposing false dichotomies and hopeless alliances with open, avowed enemies, why don’t you live your life and try to convert your neighbor. In the long run, the Antichrist will come, establish his temporal rule, and then be defeated by Our Lord and Our Lady. Everything between now and then, and including then, is just an opportunity for us to earn merits and indulgences. Death comes before resurrection. Focus on Heaven and don’t compromise in the hopes of gaining some advantage on earth. Your method is most decidedly NOT how any great Catholic leader (St. Benedict of Nursia, St. Bernard of Clairveaux, St. Ignatius Loyola, etc.) went about anything. Double down on Catholicism. Try to convert the Jew, the Protestant, the Mason, the heathen, the Mohammedan, the New Ager, the atheist, etc. But these bizarre “ecumenical jihads” are the sort of things that the prophets warned the ancient Israelites against. The Babylonians, however bad they may be, are not worth the alliance with Egypt, and vice versa (here I’m talking about the fall of Jerusalem). It may be that the Mohammedans come, it may be that sharia law in Europe is the purification that European Christians need, it may the just punishment for Christian sins. But it is *NOT* our job to contrive or abet our own chastisement. Any traditionalist movement that depends on the *leadership* of formally opposed groups (granting them a *leadership* role is much more than using them as tactical support, by the way, which might be sanctioned on a case by case basis) is a pretty poor traditionalist movement. As Andrew Matthews said, I don’t care about “tradition” as such, I care about Christ. Do the Mohammedans honor Christ as their King? No. So much then for Mohammedan leadership. I have to proffer the suggestion that you are way, way too fixated on temporal success. If thinking about such matters drives you to *this* extreme, maybe you should just take a breather from socio-political thought altogether. I don’t remember St. Justin Martyr and the other early apologists and martyrs trying to form alliances where Stoics or Platonists played the role of leaders against aggressive imperial paganism. They took it as sufficient that Christ already ruled and that their martyrdoms would yield the merits for any future temporal successes God had in mind for the Church.
Be at least as devoted to Catholicism as the sole valid religion as the Mohammedans are committed to their religion and at least as devoted to the sufficiency of your Faith as the Mohammedans are committed to theirs and you will not be so weak as to depend on the Mohammedans for the “leadership” you propose. Or at least have the consistency to move to an actual country where Mohammedans rule so that you can demonstrate to us how awesome that is. Actions speak louder than words. Thank you.
~Bonifacius
I am shamed by Bonifacius’ rebuke, because I too am guilty of placing earthly success above God’s kingdom in my heart.
My response to you, Bonald, is that God works conversion in the heart. Only at his choosing and in his way will we be vindicated in the presence of our enemies. When this happens, the Liberal-media complex will count for nothing.
Sounds good on paper, but remember that the left will turn on Muslims savagely the instant they show the slightest ounce of conservatism. Think the rank hysteria and bigotry to which black Republicans are subjected, magnified by Europeans’ total lack of perspective or shame.
I have a preliminary thought about this subject which I hope to have time to develop soon: Liberalism is a phenomenon and threat unprecedented in world history; in some ways today’s left is more radical even then the Communists. Never before has there been an organized, successful movement whose goal was the total obliteration of society and the suicide of a people. That being so, sensitive souls like Bonald are tempted to make common cause even with Moslems, for as wrong and dangerous as Islam is, its goal is not the total obliteration of society.
Hi Alan,
Great; I think this will be really interesting. Definitely make me one of your subject cases. I could use the publicity.
The problem is that many Muslims are just as throughly modern. Organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood (started by a former Communist) share more in common with 20th ideologies than with early Islam. Consider St. John of Damascus who served the Islamic caliphate as a government official and translator. He was able to along with the monks of the Palestinian desert to actually write apologetics against Islam under an Islamic regime! He wasn’t executed. Others like Anthony of Baghdad were able to do the same. Could a Christian get away with that today? Modern Christianity’s situation in the Middle East is more akin to that of the Kullaks in the Soviet Union.
Anyway Bonald is absolutely right about a robust localism. Once Islam overran the Near East in the 7th century many modern Christians and Westerners assume that the population became Islamic overnight. In truth, however, some areas remained majority Christian until as late as the 12th century. Nor were these necessarily stagnate communities in decline, they were vibrant centers of culture and theology. One of the main reasons for decline of Near Eastern Christianity has been the intervention of the West be it the Crusaders, Anglo-French imperialists, Israelis and Americans.
Bonald, If you haven’t already read this book I think you would enjoy it he is a very meticulous scholar- http://books.google.com/books/about/The_church_in_the_shadow_of_the_mosque.html?id=jn-tiP0b-PYC
Right, the Media will count for nothing. In the grand scheme of things, they already count for nothing. God has his own time and there’s no sense compromising yourself in order to get at the Media. They already have Hell waiting for them. Hell or conversion. With those odds, who needs Mohammedan allies?
Additionally, I would note that Islam is generally a conquering religion and not a converting one. I mean that a Frenchman may be Catholic or he may be atheist/Liberal/agnostic. A Mohammedan in France, however, is not really a Frenchman and any French converts to Islam would be conglomerated with the immigrants. So Mohammedan presence in Europe is that of a foreign, conquering power.
My point: Liberalism can vanish rather suddenly, within a generation or two. All that is necessary is a change of ideological orientation, a conversion, metanoia of the heart. The liberal would still be a German, or a Frenchman, or a Russian, etc. He would simply return to the Faith of his ancestors. Just as the first Roman and Frankish Christians did not revoke their Roman or Frankish identities when converting from Paganism. This does not seem to be the case with Islam. In part, I imagine, because the Koran is never translated, Mohammedans often seem to become part and parcel to an invading Islamic-Arabic culture that finds its deepest roots in the banishment of Ismael. This culture seldom if ever is converted to Catholicism en masse or even individually, which is why the installation of Mohammedan enclaves in Europe is so frightening. Countless important Liberal thinkers and ordinary liberals have turned to Catholicism, very few Mohammedans ever have. So, for the good of souls, I’d say that Liberalism is the lesser threat. Liberalism depends on Christianity for all the good it possesses and is demarcated pretty well by rejection of Christianity for the rest. So it points back to Christianity, as so many ex-Liberals testify after their conversion. Does Islam provide that vector for self-indictment? Not so readily.
But all this is beside the point: regardless of greater and lesser evils, one may not do evil (take infidels as one’s *leaders*) in order that good may come from it.
The much-lauded liberation of female “choice” — choice in sexual partners, reproductive choice, career choice, “lifestyle” choice, choice of social support services from the government — over the last generation is now a fixture of Western civilization.
The moral force behind this female empowerment is the extent to which it represents returning to individual females their sovereignty.
What about male individual sovereignty?
Under natural law the ultimate power — the power that shapes the future — of female individual sovereignty is the choice of which genes make it into the next generation and that power is exercised through birth.
Under natural law the ultimate power of male individual sovereignty is the choice of that which is to be killed in single combat.
Civilization is founded on a meta-stable “deal” in which females give up their individual sovereignty to their mates and their mates give up their individual sovereignty to the State. If, in this scenario, you liberate only one sex, not only does civilization collapse, but until it does, the circumstances are unbearable to the sex not liberated.
In Western civilization there is no going back to the age of females giving up their individual sovereignty to their mates, so Western civilization is ending and we are left with two choices:
Figure out how to legitimize formal individual combat to the death between males, or adopt Islam.
That’s a true dilemma.
Bonald – take care. You are beginning to sound like Saruman.
[Saruman speaking, quoted by Gandalf]:
“A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Numenor.
“This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power.
“It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it.
“As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. ”
We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends.
“There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.”
JRR Tolkien. Lord of the Rings: “The Council of Elrond,”
Any examation of recent developments within the Muslim community in Europe suggests the idea is a non-starter.
Anyone who knows France and the French press will know that there is great concern about communautarisme, by which they mean ethnic solidarities and allegiances that threaten to override Republican unity. This concern is largely incomprehensible to Americans who have learned to embrace the realities of their multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, but it is deeply rooted in French political culture, going back at least as far as Rousseau’s suspicion of particular interests that undermined the general will.
This concern is fully shared by most educated Muslims, and especially Muslim women, who are manifesting their confidence in the Republic and proclaiming their adherence to its values.
The president of the Muslim women’s movement Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Sluts nor Door-mats) Sihen Habchi, in a forceful attack on “multiculturalism” has demanded “No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those who force us to bow our heads”
Rachida Dati, herself a Muslim and former French Minister of Justice told the National Assembly that “The Republic is alone capable of uniting men and women of different origins, colours and religions around the principles of tolerance, liberty, solidarity and laïcité, making the Republic truly one and indivisible.”
Likewise, Fadela Amara, another Muslim and Secretary of State for Urban Policies has declared that “For this generation, the crucial issues are laïcité, gender equality and gender desegregation, based upon living together in harmony throughout the world, and not only in France”
Nor are these lonely or isolated voices. Every politician, of the Left or of the Right, berates the perceived racism of “Anglo-Saxon” multiculturalism – Try Goggling “l’affaire du voile” or “l’affaire du foulard” [[The headscarf business] However much people might have differed over the particular policy, they vied with each other in declaring their commitment to the Jules Ferry Laws on education, the Law of 1905 on the separation of Church and State, the ideal of laïcité and their unbounded faith in the capacity of the educational system to eliminate communautarism (that fertile source of all social ills) and to mould future citizens of the Republic, one and indivisible.
There was too much stereotyping of Muslim in current world. So much prejudice, propaganda, until world does not know that Islam is religion of peace.
History have shown that Muslim capable in lead the multi religion in their nation. What land that Muslim never reach, it think currently is only America. Most of land that being been conquered by trading (South East Asia), changing knowledge (Some of Middle East and India), marriage (China, Mogul, and Middle East, Turk, Egypt), yes there also by War (mostly Europe).
For European nation, you may heard word of Crusade, War of Hittin, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and other nation. But have you ever think that why Constantinople is being raid. Quote below is from historian before the raid of Mehmed II the Conquer:
The great historian of the Crusades, Sir Steven Runciman, wrote that the sack of Constantinople is “unparalleled in history”.
“For nine centuries,” he goes on, “the great city had been the capital of Christian civilisation. It was filled with works of art that had survived from ancient Greece and with the masterpieces of its own exquisite craftsmen. The Venetians, wherever they could, seized treasures and carried them off. But the Frenchmen and Flemings were filled with a lust for destruction: They rushed in a howling mob down the streets and through the houses, snatching up everything that glittered and destroying whatever they could not carry, pausing only to murder or to rape, or to break open the wine-cellars. Neither monasteries nor churches nor libraries were spared. In St Sophia itself, drunken soldiers could be seen tearing down the silken hangings and pulling the silver iconostasis to pieces, while sacred books and icons were trampled under foot. While they drank from the altar-vessels, a prostitute sang a ribald French song on the Patriarch’s throne. Nuns were ravished in their convents. Palaces and hovels alike were wrecked. Wounded women and children lay dying in the streets. For three days the ghastly scenes continued until the huge and beautiful city was a shambles. Even after order was restored, citizens were tortured to make them reveal treasures they had hidden.”
This also what going to happen to current world, pornography, gambling, drank man, homosexuality, lesbian, gay and all sort of bad morality that have been shown to people. Teen are not shame to show their asses to public. Churches have been silent for this kind of attitude and afraid to call rebellion toward all this non sense.
Who are the conquer of Constantinople, have you ask who is Mehmed II the conquer. Do you read his profile, a lion in a day (battle), a imam (rabbi or priest in others religion) during night. What have Islam bring to Constantinople, Islam bring Enlightenment Era (Era of knowledge and Science) which is later pioneer to Renaissance Era and etc. This time most European in Dark Age.
Jerusalem, is conquered by Islam, YES. Refer to my quote from Wiki, Jerusalem have many battle stories.
In 638 the Islamic Caliphate extended its dominion to Jerusalem.With the Arab conquest, Jews were allowed back into the city.The Rashidun caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab signed a treaty with Monophysite Christian Patriarch Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem’s Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule.When led to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest site for Christians, the caliph Umar refused to pray in the church so that Muslims would not request converting the church to a mosque.
Do we kill Jews as what Zionist do us currently. History show again.
Stories of Saladin also is same, a national figure for European due his great heart for spare the life of Christian who staying at Jerusalem. Do not forget, before that, raid of Crusades have kill almost all Muslim and Jews in Jerusalem town. But Islam has thought us “do not kill children, woman, old man and surrender soldier”.
The profile of Islam is not stop there, there still many public figure that are also conquerer who is a lion in battle, an iman at night as;
Umar ibn al Khattab, Khalid al Walid, Tariq bin Ziyad, Mehmed II the conquer, King Baibar, Sulaiman the Magnificent, and of course our prophet himself, Muhammad (pbuh). Yes of course all this people is doing Jihad. Do you really know what is Jihad?
The profile of Islam who is non conquer as Umar Abdul Aziz, Harun al Rashid, will leader of Islamic world who righteous to non Muslim and Muslim. Do you know how much tax that Caliph Umar Abdul Aziz gazette, 2.5% only. And that time you cant find any poor people all around nation because all people is already rich.
Hasan Al Banna, who founder of Islamic Brotherhood, is also one of greatest leader (a lion in the day, an iman at night). Do you really read his profile? Never right. During early 1900, he founded Muslim Brotherhood to release Egypt and fight of Palestine. Yes, Western see this as aggressive movement, but what have Zionist done to Palestine at that time. You can read the profile of Hasan al Banna, see he as Communist or as an Islam.
Even if the Palestine at that time being conquered by Islam, I am very sure that life of Jews who staying at Palestine will be spared and can practice their religion freely. History have not show once, but to all conquest that name that I mention above.
Hifzan Shafiee
[…] This post is comment / reply to https://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/should-muslims-lead-european-conservatism/ […]
Bonald: I agree with your endorsement of localism, and can well imagine a map of Europe that resembled the map of, say, 1300. In the US something similar could be accomplished by devolution of Federal powers to the states. There are two main advantages to this arrangement. It allows families to move to a suitable polity and, over time, it makes manifest the consequences of the various social, political, economic, and moral arrangements. To give one small example, almost all of the hippy communes that were founded in the late 1960s failed, very often for reasons that were direct consequences of the hippy lifestyle and philosophy. From what I have read, the big three were: too many freeloaders, sexual jealousy, and debilitation by drugs and alcohol. When hippies lived as part of the general community, these consequences were not so obvious. Many of the costs of the hippy lifestyle could be socialized and inevitable disasters appeared to be personal tragedies. Ultimately, the strongest argument for (or against) a traditional Christian society will be the communities and personalities it produces.
Bonifacius is right to remind us that we are working in one corner of a much larger picture, but I don’t think the eschatological vision shows temporal concerns to be mere vanity. Unless we are Calvinists, we believe that our eternal destiny is decided on this earth, and temporal circumstances certainly bias the decision one way or the other.
We need to re-learn structured daily prayer, setting aside one day in seven, fasting, almsgiving, pilgrimage, the global community of faith as the primary focus of personal allegiance and locus of personal identity, the lesser outward and greater inward struggle, the need for a comprehensive and coherent critique of both capitalism and Marxism, the coherence between faith and reason, and a consequent integrated view of art and science. The answer to the challenge of the Sunna is Sacred Tradition. The answer to the challenge of the Imamate is the Petrine Office. The answer to the challenge of Sufism is our own tradition of mysticism and monasticism. Liberal Catholics will be the last to see the point.
Bonald is right. Belloc, in his book on heresies, called that of Mohammed “great and enduring” and that of Moderns a “wholesale assault,” and that is what we are facing.
There may be a return to the way things were in the Soviet Era, where believers’ religious “freedom” did not include the right to pass on the Faith to their own children. How often “liberals” have told me that bringing up kids with religion is “brainwashing.” I’ve never heard this from a Muslim.
A minor point in the present discussion: JMsmith said “Unless we are Calvinists, we believe that our eternal destiny is decided on this earth, …”
Real Calvinists, that is persons (such as myself) who know the Reformed doctrines, know that although God predestines everything, this information is not available to man, and therefore for all practical purposes the future is determined by our actions in the present. God acts through secondary means even when He decrees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10, Ephesians 1:3-5 and 1:11, etc).
That some Calvinists act as if God will take care of it all by Himself is explained by bad teaching, by an unwillingness to learn, and by the prevalence in many Reformed churches of a “two kingdoms” doctrine that can be misapplied to appear to say that Christians should not be involved in sociopolitical activism.
Belief in predestination can certainly lead to fatalism, if we do not guard against it. But we must acknowledge what God says about Himself in Scripture.
Gneisenau writes:
“Consider St. John of Damascus who served the Islamic caliphate as a government official and translator. He was able to along with the monks of the Palestinian desert to actually write apologetics against Islam under an Islamic regime! He wasn’t executed. Others like Anthony of Baghdad were able to do the same. Could a Christian get away with that today?”
There is Father Zakaria (Zakaria Botros) of Al hayat TV in Egypt. Of course, he faces much opposition and Gneisenau is right “that many Muslims are just as throughly modern” and “share more in common with 20th ideologies than with early Islam.”
“Bonald is right.”
Then St. Benedict, St. Bernard, St. Ignatius, etc., are wrong. This is not a situation of making do with what Providence has given you (living under an Islamic regime). This is about accepting infidels as your leaders, which nothing forces us to do. It is cowardly and weak and an insult to Our Lord and Our Lady, as though they’re weak.
An unsolicited opinion for “The Western Confucian”: I have read enough of your posts to know that you favor ideas and positions that seem counter-intuitive. If something is popularly derided as anti-American, then it really is pro-American, and vice versa. While this is sometimes true, it is often not. Adopting infidels as our leaders (having Mohammedans lead a “conservative” or “traditionalist” movement in Europe) is an insult to everything our ancestors lived and died for, and to what Our Lord died for. We are fighting for *His* Kingship and we do not need the “leadership” of infidels. Better to fight the good fight to convert our countries and their current leadership and fail, and face the temporal consequences as Christian Romans did as Empire failed than put out a doormat for the invaders. Or else propose that your parish church be the first one turned into a mosque.
Thank you,
Bonifacius
Mr. Roebuck: You’re right to point out the difference between the doctrines proposed by Calvin and what we might call vernacular Calvinism. I was, of course, nodding toward the latter without intending calumny of the former. What I know of Calvinism is largely restricted to the form it took in New England in the 17th and early 18th centuries, and I understand that this was somewhat peculiar. Several writers of that time noted, and lamented, what they saw as the tendency of Calvinists to become antinomians. In fact a common expression then was “antinomianism is Calvinism run to seed.” Neither they, nor I, see antinomianism as the telos of Calvinism. It’s more like an inherent liability, much like the inherent liability of Roman Catholicism to superstition. Of course, reading 17th century New England divines brings one into contact with some very muscular anti-Catholic sentiments, most of which represent vernacular corruptions of Catholicism as the essence of the faith. I don’t mean to do the same to the Calvinists. I should add that I’ve been deeply moved by the many spiritual autobiographies written by ordinary Calvinists, who very well understood what they would call the “perilous” state of earthly existence.
I do not claim that the temporal is merely nothing and we most certainly go to Heaven or Hell based on what we do here. Life is about preparing for death, practicing for Heaven. There will be no need for “Mohammedan leadership” in Heaven, so we should seek none on earth. Look to what Saints Benedict and Ignatius Loyola did on earth — that is the model for preserving, defending, promoting, and advancing a Catholic culture and worldview. They did not look toward infidels to “lead” them in their endeavors just because the world rejected them; they trusted in God and, to use Gen. MacArthur’s advice regarding his island-hopping campaign, “hit ’em where they ain’t.”
~Bonifacius
Hello Bonifacius,
I’ve always had a high regard for your opinions, and I’m surprised by your degree of hostility toward this idea. You seem to regard it as an act of compromising the Faith, when to me its main recommendation is that it’s the only strategy (besides sitting back and waiting for martyrdom) that doesn’t involve compromising the Faith in any way. Catholic liberals and neocons all demand that we renounce the social kingship of Christ, and indeed all Catholic practice before Vatican II. My proposed alliance with Muslims involves no concessions of doctrine whatsoever. We maintain not only that the Catholic faith is uniquely true, but also that we have the right to make it the established religion in our regions.
Also, if accepting leadership from infidels is a sign of weak faith, then it’s not just me, but most Catholics, who you’ll have to argue against. There are very few orthodox Catholic leaders in the world today–essentially none in the United States or western Europe. Is it acceptable to vote in American elections, where the best one can generally get is a pro-life Protestant, and indeed most of the politicians in our country’s history have been deists? (I don’t vote myself. I find it distasteful trying to decide which of two liberals is the least objectionable. However, I wouldn’t rule out voting for an imperfect candidate in extreme circumstances.)
Looking for the least bad leaders and the least unlivable circumstances is what politics is about. Of course, you’re right to emphasize that we shouldn’t limit our action to politics. We should be trying to convert our neighbors not to Islam, or even to “mere” Christianity, but to the fullness of the Catholic Faith. We should, though, be thinking politically about what circumstances will best allow us to do this. Neither liberal rule nor Muslim rule are particularly encouraging, but joint Muslim-Christian rule may be feasible and better than the alternatives.
Hello Western Confucian,
That is something that’s weighed on my mind, too. Liberals seem a lot shakier on paternal rights and authority than Muslims.
Hello Mr. Shafiee,
You are right to be proud of your heritage. I very much hope that more Muslims will join us in fighting the godlessness and immorality in modern Europe. One thing that does worry me about your apologetic is that it relies too much on a selective history put out by Leftist academia for its own purposes. If Muslims do join a conservative movement, the media and universities–seeing their power threatened–will turn on you and start painting you as black as they do us. Every civilization–especially vast and old ones like yours and mine–has atrocities to its name. For most of the past 14 centuries, Europeans were on the receiving end of Muslim raids, enslavement, and conquest, and they can be easily reminded of it. Do such incidents define your people? Of course not. The Muslim Ummah is one of the greatest civilizations the world has known (although, of course, there’s one I like even better).
Still, even though it would mean incurring the wrath of the European elite–the atheists, Jews, and communists–I think Muslims will be better off if they break with the European Left sooner rather than later. As it is, the atheists are busy at work corrupting and destroying the faith of Muslim immigrants, as Michael Paterson-Seymour has shown. Western “freedom” and “tolerance” means turning your sons into queers and your daughters into whores. The sooner the facade of friendship between Leftism and Islam is thrown off, the better.
Dear Bonald,
Every civilization can not run away from Judas (a betrayal). In Islam there have also Judas that selling his religion for some amount of money. Name as Saddam, Muawiyah, is very famous in Islamic Saddam is Muslim who is bring along the Nazi and Communist Ideology, he is not bring the fundamental of Islam in his kingdom. Kamal Artartuk is a Muslim who bring Liberal ideology to Turkey. Most Western (liberal) are based on this figure (Saddam & Kamal Artartuk) to show to world that Islam is like that. This is not Islam, this is Liberal.
What is Islam want to re veil is not new to all of us, Abraham Religion.
1) God is one & monotheism – Fundamental of all Abraham religion. Prophet Abraham beheaded all statue in his kingdom to prevent his people from worshiping statue. (show that polytheism is not an option).
Prophet Moses, come back to Egypt to save their own people from Pharaoh, who claim himself is a God and shall be worshiping. ( show that human figure is not an option of God). For Trinity Law, I do not want to comment, if Abraham and Moses still alive, what are they going to do?
2) Worshiping God – Follow his law and worshiping him, a rare sight of any Christian in current world. I see some of orthodox Jew and Muslim only who pray. Christian are already neglect their God’s command, even Christian is largest religion in the world, most of them is just a name. I try make an research but do not know how Christian pray (Some one please teach me). Please understand the word mean of worship.
3) Request only to God – I think I see a lot Christian doing this during 9/11, or when disaster happen. Muslim are required to worship and then request. When you request to human, most people are praise, make nice to him and then request. But this God, you must make more than that. This is nature of world. (Salvation of Jesus….. )
4) Sabbath Day – God have provide 1 day to all his followers, Saturday to Jews, Friday to Muslim, and Sunday to Christian. Most of them go when Chrismas (where is Chrismas from?). Sunday Pray is nothing to them.
5) Take care of your woman – Adam make mistake when he listen to his woman (Eve), our mother, and being thrown to world. Pornography, Gay, Lesbian, Prostitute, is every where. Where is the churches at this time, what have they said?
6) Sex before married – A lot. One famous quote from Western ” Are you virgin “. Seem like a virgin in this world have no dignity.
7) Families Dignity – There was no more family in this world, a child can sue his mother/ father ( in a rule of open society). After 18 years old, father and mother are ready to kick his born child out from house.
8) Privacy – There was no more privacy, paparazzi is every where to only show to the world the mistake that been made. (Open Media Rules).
9) Public killing is every where. – You can kill and after that stay at a comfort prison. Death penalty is no more. (Recently ; Norway terrorist)
10) Robbing & Stealing – Youngster see this this as bravery movement to mock the police and etc. They not afraid to steal in public.
11) Usury – Trading is clean, usury is unclean. Is Christian/Jews feel if they take usury and buy food, that food is clean?
12) Tithing (Zakat) – Actually I just know this word, seem not that popular. I though Christian do not have tithing (zakat). It is not ben promoted i think. It is better that tax that liberal and cruel leader been promoted. Muslim are required every year. Are you forget a story of Qarun and Moses, what have God do to Qarun after he refuse to pay tithing
13) Hijab – The most conventional issue in UK and Aus, is it Mary, mother of Jesus wearing a Hijab (Veil), have anyone in Jews have seen her hair. Read the Bible.
14) Hat – Most of male scholar of Chistian/ Jews wear a hat on top of their head. Why when Muslim wear that are seeing as Barbaric.
15) Beard – You tell me, Adam, Noah, Moses, Isaac, John Babtist, David, Solomon, Jesus himself, and list of prophet of Christian and Jewish keep at their chin. It is beard my friends, it shown to us not Barbaric movement, it shown to us we are male, not shemale.
16) Unclean Animal – Is it Bible and Jews prohibit eating and touching Swine. 2 big chapter in Old Testament are just described unclean and clean animal to eat. Are you blind to your own Holy Book.
17) Believe to your own prophet – Jews have worship Cattle after 40 days Moses leaves them to received Torah. History of Jew show that they kill almost of their prophet that bring them a reminder. Reminder of Satan, Hell, Divine, Judgement Day and anger of God. Beware of God Anger and ask for his forgiveness.
Did Jesus say 17. “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. (Matthew 5 :17)
All of above is fundamental of Islam which is comply Jews and Christian Laws. Any discrepancies of fundamental? No my friends, we have been fighting for the fundamental long-long time ago. Generation to generation.
Actually all of above, I take from fundamental of Islam, which is comply to all Ten Commandments, Laws of Hammurabi and some of Biblical laws. Which is created by no others, God. But all above is being ignore due to ….. salvation to Jesus. Have you not ready a history/reminder in Bible, God are good to his faithful follower, not who are put His scared Book at the back of human ass.
Actually I do not want to comment regarding Trinity or Salvation. But too must common sense. Sorry for the comment.
Hifzan Shafiee
[…] https://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/should-muslims-lead-european-conservatism/ […]
Hello Mr. Shafiee,
Thank you for this explication of the Muslim religion. I certainly won’t deny that Christianity has fallen into a deplorable state, as bad as you describe. Islam is the last standing major religion that hasn’t yet bent the knee to liberalism. I hope that one day Muslims and the remaining serious Christians (I know they’re hard to find, but there are a few) will join forces against godless immorality.
Dear Mr. Shafiee,
There is certainly a good deal of decadence in post-Christian societies, but there are also plenty of Christians who deplore and resist that decadence. Since we accept that not all Muslims are homicidal terrorists, you should accept that all Westerners are not drug-addled pornography addicts. We Christians have our problems, to be sure; so do you Muslims. If I became a Muslim, or consented to Muslim leadership, I’d simply exchange my Christian for your Muslim problems. Here are some brief responses to your enumerated points, grouped into four categories.
1) There is, as you know, very deep disagreement between us as to the nature of the Godhead. Throughout Christian history various sects have proposed a Unitarian theology, whereupon they have quickly disappeared from history. The Trinitarian conception of God is an important part of the answer to your question about the nature of Christian prayer. We Christians are instructed to address our God as Father, presumably because our proper relation to Him is most analogous to our relations with our earthly fathers. This means that he has authority, and is to be obeyed, but that he also loves us, cares for us, and sacrifices for us. We are his children, not his servants or his slaves, and we address him in this manner. This can, of course, sometimes lead to excessive informality, and, as you observe, to an exclusive attention to petitionary prayer (i.e. asking for things). Children do the same things when they talk to their earthly fathers, and when they do their fathers rightly reprove them.
2) A distinctive mark of Christianity is that it generally rejects the idea that a Godly life has anything to do with things like the wearing of hats, growing of beards, covering of hair, or observance of dietary restrictions. Look up what Jesus had to say about “whited sepulchers” and you’ll see what I’m talking about. This, too, has its dangers (horribly exploited by liberalism), but Christianity is born in one’s heart, not on one’s head.
3) The public observance of Sunday as a day of rest has, as you say, declined very rapidly in post-Christian societies. When I was a boy, only drug stores were open on Sunday. This is regrettable, but it was an inevitable consequence of consumerism and secular government. One advantage of a system in which no one is compelled to act like a Christian is that those who do act like Christians are probably really Christians. Your system encourages hypocrisy.
4) Let’s say we both have a problem with our women, although these are very different problems. And, as I wrote above, if we accept that not all your women have had clitoridectomies, you should accept that all our women are not slutwalkers.
I hope you will take this in the spirit of interfaith dialogue. The purpose of such dialogue, as I understand it, is to remove remove imaginary disagreements and agreements.
Dear Mr JMsmith,
Thank you for your response, yes it good to bring this to interchange religion section, and I am sorry for maybe my rude word in my comment before.
My intention is not to bring misunderstanding, but to give solution that is already have in Bible. Yes of course, i am living at other side of Europe and America world. Even UK and America as largest Christian follower also keep silent in this matter. I also admitted that Muslim also have problem, but we have some strong fundamental to say YES/NO to one matter. It is not Islam prob, it Muslim who ignore/ misguide.
1) Even I disagree with Trinity, and salvation but that is one of core root that bring Christianity to all the matter already. (Lets interchange do their part)
2) Godly life of foods and garment, for us its is not godly, but more to following prophet (it not does mean Muhammad only) way of life with is perfect and try to follow the perfectionist so we also become perfect and we also do not reject fashion as most people think ( Why always Iran and Iraq being referred… all black… what the heck they think)
3) On Sabbath, different a bit from Christian and Jewish, we go to mosque to pray, and listen to sermon of Imam regarding world issue, politic issue, reminder and listening to Quran. As minimum once per week 52 time a year, need to remind our self again and again, who we are, why have we been created, and we think it was like weekly motivational section, psychology treatment as we can’t run from sin.
4) I am really sorry, i am not saying that Christian woman is slut, but that is the stereotype that coming from your television/ movie. As most my movie coming from US and UK, we think it should be reflected to what Christian been doing in UK and US because stereotyping is not coming us, but from your own people and should not 100% but 50% should be there.
As most of our misguide is coming from Liberalism and outside from Muslim, it should be OK (it not us, it coming from enemy), because it not coming from our mouth. History are biased, but this history is being created by your own people (too many Judas I think).
If I not Muslim, or Jewish. I read bible from 1 pages to end of pages, I go to churches, it not reflected to what been written in Bible. When I read bible 1st time, I also think, if Christian have their own holy book, and have a SOLUTION to it already (Liberalism, and other ideology)? Why they not follow as faithful Christian, instead become a Christian only?
And if I am Christian who just coming for Christmas only (do not know much about Christianity), and I want to change to be a better person. Why should I? I am already clean/ sin free by salvation of Jesus, Jesus has die for me already. Even Jesus teach all good thing, but if I not follow also OK. Movie and TV have bring a big influence to current Christian society, it is the King.
Follow back to what Jesus told, you going to find solution for problem to Liberalism, Socialism, Only Christian can pick what the best for them……….
Mr. Schafiee,
I have just one very brief remark to make regarding your important question as to why a person who has been saved should refrain from sin. It’s an old question that St. Paul first dealt with 2,000 years ago. People who believe that the saved can do anything they please are called antinomians. The basic answer, I think, arises from the Christian conception of God as Father. When I was a boy, I was not good only so my father would give me presents, and he did not give me presents only because I was good. His presents and my goodness (which was very imperfect) were both expressions of mutual love. It was more like an exchange of gifts than it was like a financial transaction.
I’d suggest you not watch American television. I don’t. It’s trash; it doesn’t depict America; and it will rot your soul.
Best wishes.
I believe that main argument is contradictio in adjecto. European conservatives try to conserve European traditions, which includes Christianity. This is probably even more emphasized in “Throne and altar” conservatism.
Europe and European traditions were historically developed through opposition and struggle with Islam, long before existence of liberalism or modernism. Through the lenses of Christian theology Islam is heresy, and suggestion that heretics should be defenders of European Christian traditions is heretical in itself. Suggestion of Islamic conservative leadership in Europe is like some other conservatives suggestions of alliance with liberals against common enemy. But fact is that Western neoliberalism and modernism is internal enemy of European traditions, while Islam is it’s external enemy.
Now, Islam have some moral teachings, which are closer to Christianity, then Liberalism. But Soviet Communism also had some moral teachings which were closer to Christianity, then Western modernism and Liberalism. Let’s not forget that Communists often accused West of “decadence” and “immorality”. Should we offer alliance with Stalinists because of that? I don’t think so.
Now, if Islam is possible ally of Christian conservatives, why Liberals import Muslims en masse to Europe? Why Liberals tolerate their violent outbursts and bigotry, yet they are highly annoyed by even most moderate examples of expression of Christian feelings and solidarity? Because Liberals consider Islam as strategic ally, even if Islam is not friendly to Liberals. Why would we make alliances with strategic ally of Liberals? To adopt Islamic leadership in Europe is same like drinking one poison in order to cure ourselves from another poison. It is manifestation of lacking of faith in yourself, defeatism and inferiority.
I personally have no problem with Muslims who struggle for preservation of their own traditions. I have even less problem with Shia Muslims, who are less aggressive and globalist then Sunni. That’s why I have sympathies with Iran. But most Muslims we are dealing with are not Shia, but Sunni.
In theocratic Iran, Christians, Zoroastrians and even Jews are not persecuted, and are left alone. In theocratic Sunni Saudi Arabia, all non-Islamic religions are banned by law, and even private worshiping is not allowed. Would a Christian would like to live in that kind of society?
Christians suffered greatly under some Roman emperors, since they rejected Emperors as Gods. Now we are supposed to be under command of heretical group which reject divinity of Christ, Holy Trinity, practice Arab tribal customs as base of their ethics, have Arab – centric culture in order to protect European heritage? I believe that is preposterous.
Bonald, one thing is conservative ideology as such, other thing is what exactly are you trying to preserve. Christian conservative wants to conserve his Christian heritage. To be Christian is not just about morality, but about actual belief in apostolic Christian teachings. Your suggestion imply that you have more faith in theocratic conservatism (in abstract sense), and classical ethics, then in Christianity, which supposed to be basis of Throne and Altar. But there is no Throne without Altar.
Lack of faith is main reason of European collapse. Liberals and Muslims, on other hand believe, and they have no doubts.
P.S
Why Muslims? Using similar logic, you could offer Hasidic Jews or Hare Krishna’s as leaders of European conservatism.
Hello Wrangel,
To reply to your strategic points
1) That Muslims are acting as allies for the Left is something this strategy is meant to disrupt. If you have two enemies, wouldn’t you rather have one of them teamed up with you against the other than have both of them teamed up against you?
2) I would consider a similar alliance with Hasidic Jews or other conservative religious minorities in Europe. They are welcome to join the movement, and they get the same thing out of it as Christians and Muslims: the right to organize their own communities according to their own beliefs. However, there are so few of these other groups, that outreach to them won’t be a big part of our strategy.
I’m happy that Wrangel has repeated most of the reasons for rejecting this proposal. That spares me the obligation.
Now, when certain subjects are discussed, to propose reasons is to entertain the notion that a particular idea is actually a matter of reasonable debate. Sometimes the only way to really convey the sense of censure that a particular idea merits is “bullying,” shunning, etc., as you, Bonald, have noted elsewhere on this blog (see your defense of bullying). It seems, Bonald, that you have simply, and sadly, lost the visceral repugnance that men of the West should have for the Islamic alien worldview and population entering Europe. Rehashing the arguments (like the fact that Mohammedans see Sharia as having universal applicability and therefore are extremely unlikely to respect Christian autonomous areas except when forced to do so by the sword, etc.) is probably futile at this point as you can come up with some counter-argument that suits you. So maybe your critics should simply let you know that for entertaining this repugnant notion you ought experience what censure can be evinced via this blog format. You’ve ventured into what is tantamount to heresy as far as promoting traditional Catholic culture in the West goes. Making do, looking on the bright side of a potential future Mohammedan hegemony is one thing; facilitating such hegemony like a good dhimmi by suggesting that Mohammedans should take the lead in Europe (as opposed to being converted or repatriated) is quite another. If all I can do is say, “Boo, hiss!” then “Boo, hiss!”
And I say all that as someone who does follow your writings and, in general, benefit from them. Thank you.
~Bonifacius
Dear Bonifacius,
Most of reference is taking from your sacred book, which Christian call The Holy Bible.
There was none from above is taking from my Sharia but only very little, even it was similar but it still different.
My first reference is Ten Commandment (if you realize all my comment is taking from Ten Commandment and also the sequence is also the same) ;
2nd Bible ( From Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, 2Samuel because I just finish this last month), and ;
3rd is Code of Hammurabi, ;
4th observation of prophet Israel, what they trying to do? and what are their objective? and why they so persistent even they know he was alone , ;
5th is my observation of morality and social life in the West and last is my common sense with help of my Islamic knowledge and adjust a little bit.;
I am not an expert of Christianity but I just have 3 reference only. But for me, it was sufficient because of all those three book are highly regards as highest reference among Christian. (Same as Muslim, if you got Quran, Hadith, and it interpretation – that all)
So that why I not seeing is wrong to remind all of you what are you really worth. I not even open my Quran yet. How you can claim that is from my Mohammedans. That is just my interpretation of Bible in my own way, because some of the word in Bible and Ten Commandment are direct and specified, straight to the point. I though it will over rule what over doctrine that bring by St Paul and not required myself squeeze my head to understand the doctrine.
Dear Wrangler,
I see if Christian allies with Jews will make sense but give an opinion allies with Hare Krishna, is like throwing a core faith of Abraham ” As Abraham beheaded all statue and not supporting polytheism”.
I see there was no future (for time being) for Muslim to lead European, as Muslim is only a minority, how to lead? You tell me?. Even I think also, it all not make sense, but if God’s will, it will.
All my comment is just to remind you all, Christian, it not too late to go back to a right path.
Thank you,
Hifzan Shafiee
Spoken like a true American. Which parts of Europe will be sacrificed (er . . .conserved) because of your desire for the mere appearance of morality? Which cathedrals will become mosques? Which local identities will be destroyed? Whose heritage will be forgotten? Which mass immigration policies will “our strategy” effectively support in the interim?
No wonder the Muslims are confident. Even the self-proclaimed more-extremist-than-Breivik Right postpones the Truth as they lust after their violent manipulation of global politics.
“Boo, hiss!”
Hello again Mr. Bonald,
Let start by saying that I feel deeply honored to be included among your wisest readers. I understand that the subject at hand already lost most of its impetus, but several deadlines (including papers, I am sure that you understand) kept me from participating on this discussion. Since I lost my “time slot”, but still feel obliged to answer to you compliment with at least one more comment, I will do so by pontificating over some secondary yet potentially strategic questions of the Muslim-Christian alliance (with the Christians as the “junior partner”, right?). Please do not think of such questions as challenges to be met immediately by you. I have been struggling with the very same questions posed here for quite some time:
#1 – As JMsmith already pointed out on “An important objection to the Muslim strategy” post, your answer to my question about difference between Fusionism/“Modern Confucianism” (i.e., transcendence grafted on immanence) and your proposed Muslim-Alliance (i.e., one transcendence grafted on another) is etymologically accurate but not particularly relevant for the end results. It is nothing more than a taxonomy of ways to incur in error, a taxonomy of ways of betraying Truth by trying to conciliate it with Falsehood. As JMsmith itself puts it, the dualism between “religious” and “irreligious” is not relevant. A false transcendence can be more suited for your personal tastes and philosophical bents, than the (always) false immanence of the revolutionary Liberalism, but they both will lead to the same place (Hell).
#2 – What exactly makes you sure that the Muslims are better suited to resist to Liberalism? By looking at the social unrest and plummeting fertility rates on Islamic countries like Turkey and Iran, I ask myself if the effects of Liberalism (particularly, Feminism) are not already manifest in these countries, beyond the point of no return. As anecdotal yet illustrative example, I must point out that even the Islamist Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan considers that “If we continue the existing trend, 2038 will mark disaster for us” (He made those remarks on May, 2010). I believe that we must not forget that Liberalism is changing Islam, in the very same way that the long years of cooperation with all sorts of Communists during the cold war have also changed (i.e., corrupted) it. By the way, remind me again why a civilization that is unprincipled to the point of having strategic alliances with Socialists and Communists can be a valuable allied?
#3 – You say the Muslims “don’t care about what the New York Times says”. Well, for Liberals they are a “wedge minority” (as defined by Larry Auster, among others) and wedge minorities have a god (yes, with small “g” 🙂 given right to behave in any outrageous ways that they want to. They do not fear the NYT because they receive a pass from the NYT to make “discriminatory” statements, given their role as just yet another multiculturalists’ battering ram on the remnants of the Western Civilization. They don’t care about what NYT says because they are in Europe, living on European welfare checks (that they collect for each their four wives) and do not have to be concerned with job loss or social ostracism. The Muslims in Europe have the same function that the Latinos and Blacks have in the US: an underclass to be used to overload the system in demonic perpetual re-runs of the Cloward-Piven and Gramsci strategies. I would say that, given the current circumstances, the Mormons have far more “courage” and “resiliency” to the NYT than any Muslim leadership in Europe or the US.
#4 – It would be distinctively prudent from your part to pay attention to Tony S.’s comment regarding your position. Based on your enthusiasm for the (rightly pointed by the impressive Bonifacius) heretic idea, I ask myself what the world looks like from the European traditionalist standpoint. Should they conclude that even the most principled, worthy and true conservatives in the US, are willing to deliver *their* Civilization (Europe) straight in the hands of Mohammedan savages? It is my understanding that a Christian should always aim to a social order that maximizes the possibility of salvation of individual souls. I am not sure that any scenario, even the “Balkanized” Europe scenario that you hope for, with multiple self-autonomous city-states would result in an arrangement with the characteristic previously described (mostle because the Muslim will not be content to restrain themselves to “their” city-states).
The most puzzling aspect of you advocacy for the enslavement of Europe to Islam is the actual and effective reason for it. Is it because Muslims worship the true God, or because their sexual practices are in line with the Truth (i.e., Christianity)? Not at all! Is just because they seem stronger than Liberalism. Would not that be just a Traditionalist Christian version of “Might makes right”?
Regards,
Marcio
There is no such thing as Muslim Conservatism. Muslim Conservatism is more radical than Nazism. I have lived and traveled many years from Morocco to Egypt to Pakistan. The essential teaching of Islam is Jihad against non-believers. Islam is anathema to a Catholic, it is a heresy of Christianity and point by point a Satanic inversion of sublime love into endless bloodshed and violence and the heaven of beatific grace is turned into a barbaric eternal ‘whorehouse in the sky’. This is truly and a deeply demented idea.
[…] as worshipping (albeit inaccurately) the same God Christians worship, and who has stated the desirability of Western conservatives making some sort of alliance with Islam against liberalism. (To be fair, […]
[…] at Throne and Altar has brought up the idea of conservative Muslims leading the charge for returning traditional values […]