Pope Francis embraces the Arab invasion of Europe precisely as an Arab invasion:
“The only continent that can bring about a certain unity to the world is Europe,” the Pope adds. “China has perhaps a more ancient, deeper, culture. But only Europe has a vocation towards universality and service.” … “If Europe wants to rejuvenate, it is necessary for it to find anew its cultural roots. Of all Western countries, the European roots are the strongest and deepest. By the way of colonization, these roots even reached the New World. But, by forgetting its history, Europe weakens itself. It is then that it risks becoming an empty place.“[La Vie:] Europe, an empty place? The expression is strong. … Because in the history of civilizations, emptiness always calls fullness to itself. Incidentally, the Pope becomes clinical [in his diagnosis]:“We can speak today of an Arab invasion. It is a social fact.” … “How many invasions Europe has known throughout its history! It has always known how to overcome itself, moving forward to find itself as if made greater by the exchange between cultures.“
Or, as white nationalists and identitarians accurately summarize it, “Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. Europe for everyone.”
I am pleased at least that Catholic leaders are following my advice of qualifying their anti-cultural statements so they don’t generalize their genocidal hatred of whites into a supposed universal duty for the destruction of peoples. What’s interesting is the pope even obliges us with a reason why only the West must be subject to multicultural elimination.
Depending on how you read it, it is either insulting to the West or insulting to everyone else. What is this “vocation towards universality and service” that only Europe is burdened with? Why can’t Europe be happy as one people among many? Are our artistic heritage and distinct customs not as satisfying as those of others? Is it arrogance, that we can’t bear that any other people should excel in their own ways that we don’t? Either way, a “vocation towards universality” sounds like a spiritual defect. On the other hand, if it means a striving toward transcendence, toward objective truth, what would Francis be saying about other civilizations? That the Muslims and the Chinese hold to their beliefs and their morals not because they think them true and right, but just because they are theirs, as a means of collective self-assertion? But this is preposterous!
Unfortunately, the pope gives no justification for Europe’s unilateral “vocation towards service”. Why do we exist to serve other peoples rather than vice versa? Why does this “exchange between cultures” seem to go only one way?
As for His Holiness’s entreaty that Europe has been invaded before, that these rejuvenate it by allowing it to “overcome itself”, I will just point out that the matter in my body has been in many prior organisms, passing from one to another sometimes by consumption, and the tiger that hunts me may be in many ways a more youthful and energetic creature than I am, but that doesn’t mean I have to cooperate.
I sense that the heart of the matter is a false opposition between the universal and the particular, a very close analogy to the ancient Gnostics’ false opposition between spirit and material/bodily existence. Just as matter restricts form to its instantiation in a particular body, the instantiation of civilization in a particular people in a particular place with a particular history is in a sense a restriction, but a “restriction” that makes that civilization a real thing rather than an abstraction.
Historically, cultures (which I’ll define for this post as pieces of civilizations, limited perhaps by geography or language) know themselves as particular, but this is usually not true of civilizations. After all, a civilization is the largest significantly integrated cultural unit, so the existence of two distinct civilizations would seem to require that communication between them be infrequent. Often, a civilization will simply think of itself as the civilization. For example, the ancient Greeks and Chinese and 19th century Europeans knew about other peoples but thought of them as barbarians. Even when there are two closely-matched rival civilizations, like Rome and Persia or Christendom and the Islamic Ummah, each would see the other as radically defective. These civilizations had either a defining worldview/religion (e.g. Islam) or a defining organizational type (e.g. the polis) regarded as universally applicable to all civilized peoples and according to whose criteria any really distinct rival civilization could be judged partially barbaric.
Over the last two centuries, the great world civilizations have been coming into greater and greater contact. They are each confronted as never before by their own particularity, and they are being forced to learn to value themselves as such. One might say that the major civilizations are converting into very large cultures within a single world-civilization, and the West seems to be having the most difficulty adjusting.
This shows that conservatism is needed by our people especially now, because the reconciliation of the universal and the particular is one of the great signs of the genius of our school.
Filed under: Uncategorized |