In one of his most powerful and, to my mind convincing, columns ever, Spengler weighs in on the Geert Wilders controversy, coming down emphatically on the side of Wilders' efforts to force the Dutch to deal with the destabilizing contradiction the European ruling class tolerates within liberal society. He speaks, of course, about a European Islam that refuses to accomodate itself to European norms. Excerpts:
No civilized state can abide a rival from within who contests the monopoly of violence of legitimate government. If governments refuse to act, the optimal course of action is pre-emptive: bring matters to a decision as fast as possible before the rot destroys the entire house.[snip]
Thus far, the authorities of Europe have made clear that they will do nothing to prevent the murder of a prominent citizen. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose plea to the European Parliament made headlines, can expect no help from the authorities when her life is at imminent risk, what succor can the anonymous victims of Islamist violence expect?
I am ashamed to say that it did not become clear to me that Wilders has taken the only appropriate course of action until I read carefully the Archbishop of Canterbury’s now-infamous "sharia" speech. Stripped of casuistry, he proposed that Muslim women subject to forced marriages, genital mutilation, or domestic violence should be handed over to Muslim religious courts, rather than be offered the protection of English Common Law. To my knowledge, this is the first time that one of Europe’s spiritual leaders has proposed to abandon innocent victims to their fate.
Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams, to be sure, has a point. But he should have stated plainly what he really thinks. What he wanted to say is more or less: "To protect a few hundred or a few thousand colored ladies, the English state will have to put its big boots on, kick down the doors of Muslim homes, trample through Muslim living rooms, tear up the fabric of Muslim communities, and disrupt the social order. Why not turn such cases over to religious courts and wash our hands of them?" I reiterate: this is satanic hypocrisy.
If decent and well-meaning men like Dr Williams are so afraid of communal violence as to abandon the founding principles of common law and Judeo-Christian ethics, it is long past time to debate the fine points. Blessed are the pre-emptors, for they will get on with it.
If you read nothing else today, make it this entire Spengler column.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
You advocated for this Iraq war, and like so many others who did, are not fighting. Which is your right. You are a family man. Understood. We live by our deeds.
1. I've long since admitted I was wrong.
2. It is fallacious to say that the only people who have a right to advocate for any particular war are those who are in the military. If you are against a particular war, but the generals favor it, I doubt you'd feel the same way.
3. I have a close family member serving in Baghdad right now. So it's not like the war, which I agree was a bad idea and wish we'd never fought, doesn't touch my life at all.
I have a friend named Muhammad Abdul Rahman. A very good friend. He's taught me a lot about the meanings of violence, and of prejudice. Two years ago we drove into upper Egypt together, visiting Luxor, and a string of Coptic churches & monasteries & mosques of various descriptions. We visited his ancestral village on the Nile, which is really two villages, the ancient Coptic village built around a church/monastery, and the more recent (700 or so year old) Arab Muslim village, of Bedouin brought by one of the Sultans of yore, and settled there as fellahin. It hugs the river beneath a great flat hill several miles long, into which are dug caves probably first burrowed there by our neolithic forebears.
I would describe the place, and my many other experiences in places like upper Egypt to you, but I never could, not truly. I'll only add that he and I spent the entire trip talking politics & religion. I tried to explain the Trinity to him (try explaining it to a non-Westerner sometime.. it's a real eye opener.. how bizarre the idea is at first blush, and how, even in this time of skepticism we all pretty much take it for granted.. after you've attempted to proselytize a Saracen, you gain a whole new appreciation for how seminal such ideas really are.. but I digress.)
He spent a lot of time screaming at me on that trip. I remember one of the things that unhinged him was Darfur. Now, know that I am no fan of the Janjweed. And I pray often for the people there, and have worked with Sudanese Christian refugees. But I have never been able to think about the problem the same way since living in Egypt. Everytime I hear someone suggest we ought to "do something" about it, like plant the Marine Corps or a UNPROFOR smack in the middle of it, I think of Muhammad. And the tens of millions like him. And I think, if we did that, Muhammad's gonna think it's really all about frustrating China, and all that Sudanese oil.
And you know, now I'm so damned cynical, part of me would agree with him. Part of me would think, I may advocate intervention on humanitarian grounds; but Dick Cheney, he's got his eye on that oil, and keeping it out of China's hands. And if we were ever to really do it, that really would probably be the score. And the Muslim world, they would definitely see that way. With good reason. Even if our motives were lily pure. But they so rarely are.
Anyway, I don't consider calling you on you chickenhawk status a low blow, Rod. Not when you continue advocating violence.
I just read a piece of yours from NOR posted on March 21, 2003 entitled "Ex-Friends: Casualties of this war." In it favorably you quote somebody named Magnet Atwood from the Manhattan Institute Institute who says:
“There are an awful lot of people whose politics are really nothing but attitude and fashion, as I learned very sharply in the sixties.. Attitude and fashion changes [sic] with the wind. As we go in and win the war, God willing, and begin to remake Iraq in a way that makes it a freer society, an awful lot of people who have no idea what they’re saying now will find themselves saying something completely opposite, and will have no idea they’ve contradicted themselves.”
Which of course is far too ironic to need a gloss. I would have told you the same thing I'm telling you now, then. My thinking and position hasn't changed.
All I can finally say is that though we will never likely meet I like you, Rod. My buddy Josh is coming by later, he's been deployed with 3rd special forces in Gardez for a while, and between the Army bureaucracy & the IED's he's about ready to take somebody's head off. Instead, we're gonna sit on the balcony, and lay down some funky assed country guit, jamm the harp, and drink some beers. You'd be welcome. Since I don't expect you, know I'll toss one back to you & dedicate Jonny Horton's The Battle Of New Orleans to you.
You keep talking smack about apocalyptic violence (Bring it?? Get yourself a Kalishnikov), though, I'll keep filling your comboxes with mild derision.
Pretty funny me calling old Magnet on his error when I can't seem to edit my own stuff at all, though, huh?
Like I can't even get his name right. Never said I wasn't a dork.
I should give up commenting on these threads, and on politics in general. My voice is moot, because I more or less am. Unlike you and your voice, Rod. You in your capacities at the NR and NYP influenced us, and still do.
I speak up in this forum again, despite my inefficacy. Still, thanks for giving a little guy a voice.
On your points above enumerated, explicitly:
"1. I've long since admitted I was wrong."
But you still advocate provoking Muslims, and responding to extremist excess with gross violence. Instead of going to them, talking to them, listening to them, and attempting to proselytize them.
*Please* correct me if I am wrong, but I bet you have yet to darken the lintel of your local mosque on a regular basis? Other than once or twice as a reporter (maybe) attempting to spook out the terrorists or just get a quote? I only add that equivocation for you, because due to your job you probably have. But most of us haven't, and even if you have you probably haven't spent much time.
As Christians that is our charge. They live among us, yet we rarely proselytize them, or even listen to them.
As a Christian and an American, I say you betray our tradition.
"2. It is fallacious to say that the only people who have a right to advocate for any particular war are those who are in the military. If you are against a particular war, but the generals favor it, I doubt you'd feel the same way."
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
The elite have often bought their way ought of serving, most egregiously in the Civil and Vietnam Wars (where the draft was widely evaded by the elite). Still, traditionally public advocacy of conflict entailed enlistment for honor's sake.
Teddy Roosevelt had the guts to take San Juan. The pusillanimous denizens of the Bush administration and propagandists such as the NR scribblers have (I believe universally) shirked service.
Contemptible.
Without honor or integrity.
I was in the Army at he beginning of the Iraq war. I opposed it then, but still served.
"The generals" are all essentially political appointees. As is right and just. What they think about the justification of the war is moot. What they (see General Shinseki) thought about the execution of the Iraq conflict, and the occupation was disregarded by the bulk of the public and the elected leadership.
"3. I have a close family member serving in Baghdad right now. So it's not like the war, which I agree was a bad idea and wish we'd never fought, doesn't touch my life at all."
You advocate violence, and do not serve. Whatever your relations do, I say you are still compromised.
I have family and friends serving too. I have lost a friend and acquaintances. We all suffer loss for this catastrophe. The Iraqi people most especially.
When the Arabs and Muslims attack us again, do not be outraged. All par for the course. We've lost all ethical narrative, and that is why we will ultimately disintegrate.
When Wilders broadcasts his flick, I expect you to be in harm's way. But I won't hold my breath.
Like I say, whatever Rod. Whatever. Conservative? My ass.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.