There was once a splendid civilization, full of grandeur, the compiled knowledge of the ancient world, the economic hub of entire continents.
History calls it the Byzantine Empire, and, at least for me, it remains an object of intense curiosity. During the erroneously-named Dark Ages, the Byzantine world was the center of Christianity, the last remnant of the Roman Empire. For centuries, it was the medieval superpower of Europe and Asia, and the only nation to ever treat with the otherwise-invulnerable Caliphate as an equal.
It is gone, now, subsumed into the Islamic world and slowly erased over the course of centuries. Echoes of it remain in Eastern Europe, Russia, Armenia and Georgia, but they are just that: echoes.
People forget that Christianity was originally an Oriental religion, born out of the Roman near-east, and spread across Rome, the Middle East, and the Persian Empire. In some respects, it was the final culmination of Hellenism, as begun by Alexander the Great, the synthesis of the Mediterranean West and the Near-East.
All of that legacy is gone.
I speak of this because this legacy is, in some parts, my own. My grandfather spoke of it wistfully, from time to time. Oh, the Byzantine Empire was long gone even in the day of my great-grandfather, Ezra. But Ezra saw its ruins, and in that was intense beauty. He had a sense of living in the ruins of a world that was, in some ways, greater than the one in which he resided.
I will never see it. The legacy of the old Byzantine world is gone.
Islam destroyed it. Its institutions and learning were destroyed, its architecture destroyed or converted to the service of the mullahs. Its penultimate monument, the Hagia Sophia, remains covered in the calligraphy of the prophet.
Progressives often lament the conquest of North America by the British colonists and their successors. Yet, at the same time, the Ottomans were busying themselves lording over the conquered Byzantine world, destroy its culture, converting its people, and doing everything the colonists were accused of doing and more.
And then, as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, they annihilated as many of my own forebears as they possibly could, perhaps out of spite for the impending destruction of their own Empire.
It’s strange, but there are times I dream of it, a place I will never see, and a world I will never know.
This is a warning to the West. Islam is coming for you. Just as the Byzantines once thought themselves invincible, lording behind the impregnable Theodosian Walls, so does the West not understand the danger they face. And like the betrayers of the 4th Crusade, so does the threat to weaken the West lie within, in the form of the Progressives and Social Justice Warriors.
The Turk comes for you. He marches on Vienna, again. Will you fight, or surrender? Will the West join the Byzantine world in oblivion? Will its cathedrals blare the clarion call of Mohammed?
Here is what will happen in regards to the France attacks.
People will shed their crocodile tears. They will chant and light candles. There will be photo ops, and news coverage. The Facebook pictures change, and sympathetic memes will flood the Internet. Everybody will go home feeling like they have stood in solidarity, done some great thing, expended moral courage and spoken truth to power.
They speak lies to the weak, and a week from now they will forget, until summoned for the candle light vigils of another tragedy. They will run for breast cancer, they will stand against terror, they will march against racism — all things that do nothing for the causes in question. Today saying “I supported X” is considered the moral equivalent of a getting your GED.
Feeling morally upright is preferred over *being* morally upright. They are no different than cowards who agitate for war, but refuse to fight, and lay down their arms (indeed, if they even had any in the first place) when the terrorist comes for them.
Neat little rows of skulls for murderous thugs. Good little submissive Dhimmis, bowing to their Jihadi superiors. Those who cannot summon the courage to fight, even when death is assured, are beyond the pale. They are the uber-cowards, the summation of decades of coddling and helicopter parenting.
Let me hold this candle and let the tears stream down my face, despite knowing nothing of the war, a conflict that has lasted well over one thousand years and has claimed more lives than any conflict in human history. Jihad, counter-Crusade, more Jihad and mountains of skulls strewn across the Middle East, stomped on in the name of God, but in the service of money and power, by a “civilization” barely removed from the Iron Age.
We reach for space. They cannot even produce their own bullets. No, they buy the weapons from us, and kill us with them.
But go on, Progressive fools, and hold your candles. Sing your songs. Shed meaningless tears and change your Facebook pictures. Stand in solidarity as the Islamic tide comes for you, seeking not just to kill you, but to erase you and yours from history entirely. Spin your sob stories about making less with your Gender Studies degree than a guy who spent his life learning how to design spaceships.
You, who propose to surrender to Iron Age primitives spinning a story about how God told them to destroy civilization. You, who sacrifice your countries, your people, your culture, in the name of feeling good, like a druggie addicted to roaring emotional highs, stealing from his own family to support his habit.
There was a time when I thought Progressives were merely delusional, and unworthy of my hatred. I have changed my mind. They make me sick. I cannot respect the intellectual coward. I loathe them. And their candelight vigils for solidarity make me wretch.
Sheep for the wolves, every one of them.
Vox Day has little regard for Angela Merkel. I can’t say I blame him, as accepting potentially millions of Islamic immigrants is not a recipe for improving Germany or Europe, and contains within it the risk of bringing in ISIS terrorists and other Islamic extremists.
To top it all off, the Merkel crisis is going to drive Germany into the red this year. She is, without question, the worst leader that Germany, East, West, or United, has had since Hitler.
That’s an interesting claim. I cannot say that I am as familiar with the rulers of East Germany, but with regard to West Germany he is almost certainly correct. Germany has been, previously, one of the more fiscally responsible European countries. This has earned them the ire of the Greeks who were, shall we say, somewhat less responsible. But this may be ending with Angela Merkel’s spending on the immigrants and the subsequent expansion of the welfare state necessary to sustain them.
More importantly, however, if this immigration wave erupts into ethnic violence, as I suspect it will, she will, indeed, be the worst leader of Germany since Hitler. Especially since all she would have needed to do in order to avoid the violence would have been to defend her own borders.
In simple terms, if we see ethnic violence and destruction in Germany, it is, categorically, her fault.
Something that has irritated me somewhat in the last few years is precisely how many people crawl out of the woodwork whenever Islam is criticized or spoken of unfavorably. Excuses are made for the happenings in the Muslim world. Blame is heaped upon “Christian Crusaders” as if the failed attempts at reconquest centuries ago have any real relevance to what Islam does today. America, naturally, is criticized because it desires oil (what’s wrong with that, I wonder?), or because it interferes with the actions of Muslims dictators and theocrats, neither of which are particularly good or nice people.
Leftists decry “White Privilege” and suggest that the deficiencies of the Muslim world are because of White racism. That Islam is not is a race, and disliking it has nothing to do with racism, is lost upon them. I have, myself, been accused of racism against those of Middle Eastern descent. Naturally, such people are often surprised to learn that I am, myself, of Middle Eastern ancestry. The homeland of my grandfather has been a constant site of warfare against Islam for nearly 1,400 years. No, Leftists, this is not a racial issue. Rather, it’s much greater. It is a clash of civilizations, or more appropriately, a clash of civilization against semi-civilized barbarism. Or, are the things ISIS does in the service of restoring the Caliphate describable as anything but barbarism?
John C. Wright recently mused on the nature of the conflict, and reading the comments section was enlightening, for so many individuals were convinced that Mr. Wright was wrong, or perhaps even prejudiced, for daring to suggest that Islam is a backward belief system, and has been a force against civilization and enlightenment since the beginning. Whether he knows it or not, he actually quotes a lot of material from Emmet Scott’s book Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited, namely that the Islamic Golden Age was a myth, and that it consumed preexisting Western and Zoroastrian Persian cultures. That process, of course, would later be repeated with the Ottoman consumption of Byzantium. For all of Western history since the rise of Islam, it has been at the forefront of a global war against us, with only a brief respite, as John C. Wright explains:
“So history teaches that the Mohammedans are relentless, and merciless, and that they have tortured, enslaved, defeated and humiliated Christians again and again and again, with only a brief respite between Lepanto and the Cold War. With the Fall of the Soviet Union, they emerge again.”
There is a reason, after all, that the Industrial revolution, high technology, and economic dominance did not come from the Muslim world, even though the Ottoman Empire was, for a time, far stronger than most of Europe. Islam contains, at its core, a philosophy that can be summed up in a catchphrase used by many Muslims: “Insha’Allah.” This means “God Wills” or, rather “as Allah Wills.” The intellectual curiosity necessary for a civilization to pull itself out of the Medieval Age is missing in Islam. Things happen because God Wills them. Essentially, Islam denies the fundamental notion of Free Will. The religion is very Fatalist.
When infidels suffer great losses to Islam, when the Twin Towers fell, when the Boston Bombing happened, or when the Charlie Hebdo massacre occurred, many Muslims cheered, feeling that the unbelievers were getting their just desserts from a vengeful Allah, at the hands of warriors for God. Muslim apologists are wont to discuss the Crusades are any available opportunity, while ignoring the Jihad going on today, right in front of their very eyes. It is a curious form of doublethink.
How soon this was forgotten. Christians endure the “art” of crucifixes in jars of piss, and the criticisms of Atheists all day. Muslims can’t take a cartoon joke.
Naturally, I would expect Muslims to take issue with this notion. Their self-interest compels them to defend their ideology. But what is fascinating is how many non-Muslims are to be found in the ranks of its defenders. In fact, when Richard Dawkins, a prominent Atheist with Leftist sympathies, declared that Islam needed a Feminist revolution (presumably to help with their atrocious human rights record where women are concerned), he was shouted down by his own Leftist compatriots. Certainly, Richard Dawkins, no Conservative Christian, wouldn’t be bringing up this problem of women’s rights in Muslim countries if they were paragons of proper behavior.
Sally Kohn wants everybody to know that Conservative Christians are just as terrible as Islam where women are concerned. Right. Because Conservative Christians are committing honor killings, throwing acid in the faces of rape victims, and don’t allow women to drive automobiles. Got it. If she is representative of a typical Muslim apologist, then they must be terminally stupid.
In any event, the radicalization of Muslims living in the West appears to be on the rise. Islam as a religion is a strong wall against cultural assimilation. Indeed, some Leftists demand that the West ought to assimilate to Islamic cultural norms! Ben Carson was not wrong when he suggested that it would be difficult for a Muslim to be President, because Sharia Law and American Law are not compatible. The media trashed him for this, but in my opinion, it was one of the most intelligent things he’s said during his political campaign.
Even here are The Declination, we have merkur, our resident Muslim apologist, who in previous threads has repeatedly attempted to deflect the possibility that Muslim migrants commit more rapes than the native populations in their host countries. I don’t know if he’s a Muslim, or just another Leftist enamored with them, but the phenomenon is nonetheless fascinating. Indeed, the United Nations itself has dedicated itself to the Islamic cause, ensuring that as many Muslims as possible move into Europe. The fact that Muslims have their own countries, and have made a mess of many of them, doesn’t seem to cross the minds of the Muslim apologists.
Merkur pointed out that I had misidentified the Muslim countries that had taken in zero refugees. Yet, it remains that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (who owes us big time, right?), Qatar and the UAE have done nothing. They expect that we should fix the problem for them and foot the bill.
Why are they not going to Saudi Arabia, or Iran? Why is it the responsibility of the West to replace its own population with Muslims? We know that Muslims themselves say that, but why do Leftists support this? How many Muslims are enough? 25%? 50%? The whole population? Muslim apologists, this is a serious question. Tell me how many is enough, at what percentage you would cease Muslim immigration to a country, if any at all.
They have their own wealth, in the form of oil revenues, their own lands, their own support systems, populations, religious leaders and otherwise. They have Muslim organizations like CAIR dedicated to their cause. Why then do we need an army of Leftist apologists? Indeed, what do the apologists get out of it?
Muslim apologists, this guy has said enough for both of you. And Ben Carson gets called stupid because he suggests that folks like this might not be good candidates for running a non-Muslim country?
It fascinates me that Progressives would give so much to proponents of an ideology who would kill them if they thought they could get away with it. Indeed, in Muslim lands, lobbing gays off of buildings is no big deal. Blaming women for their own rape is par for the course. Their religious tolerance is a joke even in the best of times, and justification for genocide and mass-murder in the worst times.
A Muslim apologist might claim that is merely a symptom of my own religious hatred and intolerance, but my readers will note how I do not rant on the doings of Hindus, or the philosophical inclinations of Buddhists. There is one major religion on this planet that simply cannot abide the others. Nor is this a matter of race, for my own ancestors are of similar genetic stock as the Iranians, and I have suggested on multiple occasions that the West should consider taking in the Christian refugees from Syria, the few that haven’t yet been butchered, anyway.
John C. Wright has one last piece of wisdom to provide us:
And history teaches that we cooperated and collaborated with them. Small wonder our history is not taught: we are ashamed of it.
This cooperation and collaboration continues to this day. There are those Christians who profited from Islam, by selling to them slaves, by selling out their own countries as the semi-legendary Count Julian is said to have done, opening the doors for the Islamic conquest of Visigothic Spain. There were even those Byzantines who foolishly claimed to have preferred the Sultan’s turban to the Pope’s hat. In the West, there is no shortage of Wormtongues to bend the ear of the people to their will.
And today, we call them Muslim Apologists.
It’s rant time again, this time combined with the fisking of a United Nations twit who is engaged in the transparent use of Weaponized Empathy to secure funding for his pet projects. The usual language warnings apply. If you’re offended, I don’t give a shit.
As my readers may already know, I was not exactly a member in good standing of the George W. Bush fan club. But, he was what the Republican party offered us at the time, and better him than Al Gore. Bush II was too squishy, too prone to compromise with the Left. Yet he had one moment of greatness, one act that took me by surprise and made me suspect that a real Conservative might exist underneath all that Establishment chicanery.
He appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN. This was a thing of beauty, and I was in awe of it. For a moment, the polished turd yielded a diamond. The skies parted, the angels sung, and I could just imagine the UN building vanishing from the sheer level of internal contradictions contained therein. Reality would have been too much for it. Couldn’t handle, couldn’t keep it together. John Bolton, of course, said the following of the UN, echoing my own sentiments perfectly:
There’s no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
This man is a visionary.
Brilliant and on point. He was probably the only figure to walk into that building who wasn’t knee-deep in sex slavery, bribery schemes and the like. But, like all good things, John Bolton’s tenure did not last. Instead we get today’s fisking target, Michael Møller, Director General of United Nations Office at Geneva. His article on the Syrian refugee issue was so full of idiocy, wishful thinking, lies and blatant stupidity that it could only be written by UN Official. These people make Used Car Salesmen feel honest.
Let’s begin, shall we? What can the Director General of United Nations Office at Geneva tell us? The title of his article is instructive: “The Negative Narrative on Refugees Is Changing – But Not Swiftly Enough.” It is a tacit admission that, to the trolls at the UN, the Narrative is to be elevated above all other concerns. And he is impatient that the propaganda is not working swiftly enough.
As the refugee influx continues unabated, it is gratifying to see that our humanity is finally showing signs of life, thanks to generous German, Serbian, Austrian, Greek, Italian and other European citizens. They follow the proud example of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Egypt. Our leaders are at last heeding what their voters are telling them and starting to question the pandering to anti-immigration voices.
This is absolutely rich. First, he sets the stage by suggesting that it is inhuman to let the refugee influx abate.
[CORRECTION]Merkur pointed out that I incorrectly identified the states taking in zero refugees. Therefore, this item is withdrawn and conceded. However, it still stands Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and other wealthy gulf states have, indeed, taken in Zero refugees. Perhaps the UN should bark up their tree, no?
If Germany followed the example of those countries, there would be a sea of humans filling up the Mediterranean right now. Instead, they are tearing up Greek ports. Apparently it’s just fine for the Muslim world to be anti-immigration. If the West does the same it is “inhuman.”
The negative narrative on refugees and migrants is beginning to change, allowing the facts to prevail: there are clear economic and social benefits to those countries receiving migrants. And most European and other developed economies need immigration to meet present and future workforce requirements. This is a positive development, but it is not enough. All countries should contribute towards solving the problem.
What clear economic and social benefits? The rape rate goes up in Oslo? The welfare system, already a disaster in Europe, and little better in America, will suffer even greater strain? Nothing improves a nation’s economy like millions of Muslim freeloaders, right? But, get this. There is suspicion that 2 out of every 100 migrants is an ISIS operative looking to spread terrorism. 100,000 migrants would thus mean you have just brought in 2,000 terrorists. This is a positive development, according to the Mr. Møller. What’s next, you ignorant pile of rhinoceros dung, concentration camps as a fucking vacation destination?
In finding the necessary international solution, we can draw on our collective institutional memory. This is not the first time we have faced a refugee exodus of this magnitude. In the 1980s, thousands of Vietnamese boat people took to the seas to reach neighbouring countries and, from there, the US, Canada and other nations. Thousands died, human traffickers made fortunes and the countries of first asylum sealed their borders.
The Vietnamese were refugees from Communism and were not loaded with boats full of Muslims looking for handouts. They were also a mixture of women, children, elderly and every other sort from all walks of life. And when they arrived, they worked themselves half to death to support themselves. The Muslim refugees are 75% young men, and they have cell phones, brand name clothes, Ray Bans, etc… Interestingly enough, The Right Scoop proves that the UN knows this fact and is singing the praises of the refugees anyway.
This is Weaponized Empathy, certainly, but it is also profoundly insulting. How stupid does the United Nations think we are?
The problem seemed intractable – until enterprising staff at the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) devised a comprehensive plan of action, approved by an international conference in 1989. Bringing together the international community, it created an orderly process that distinguished between and established procedures for asylum seekers and economic migrants. This mechanism successfully resettled thousands of refugees, all of them now productive members of the societies that welcomed them. It is a good example of how things can be done when there is the will and the means to protect and assist in a humane and dignified manner.
So, let’s appoint an expensive Blue Ribbon commission to come up with a comprehensive plan of action, and have it approved by a conference, then adopted by the international community. Right. Blue Ribbon commissions exist to do one thing, and one thing only: nothing at all. Then he makes the absurd rhetorical claim that “all of them are productive.” Really? I remember reading a story some time ago about two Muslim thieves in France who ran away from the cops and hid in an electrical transfer station, then died by being shocked to death. Protip: don’t hide in a giant capacitor. How productive were they?
Take the Syrians sitting around at Greek ports right now, productively stripping the places bare:
Tear apart the country you flee to. Great idea. Also, notice what a sausage fest this is. I wouldn’t attend this party.
5. Fund these measures on a global level and assist with meeting the costs of primary receiving countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Greece, as well as funding more targeted development interventions in the countries of origin.
This asshat just got done explaining that the migrants were of great economic benefit, and then, in the same article, demands that we foot the bill and pay for all the migrants ourselves. Aren’t they a blessing and won’t they generate piles of positive income for their host nations? Then why would we have to pay anything at all? Furthermore, three of the four countries he lists aren’t taking in migrants at all. Just what the hell are we supposed to pay for in the first place? Why doesn’t he just come out and say it: pay Islam the Jizya. That’s what this is really about.
Because you know that as the Director General of United Nations Office at Geneva, he’ll get his cut of the inevitable bribery. Give the UN money, he says, and we’ll be responsible with it! We promise to not give it all to sex traffickers this time around. Cross our hearts and hope to… well, not that, of course. Dying is for other people. Like the victims of future terrorist activity from thousands of ISIS fighters we made you pay to import.
Here’s my proposal Mr. Møller: we’ll take in a Muslim migrant for every UN official that promises to leave America and never come back.
7. Change the negative narrative in receiving countries based on social and economic facts.
Translation: propaganda time. The social facts are these: the Islamic world is a shithole, and its economy is, despite the general malaise of late, far worse off than anything in Europe. Greece looks like a paragon of financial responsibility next to, say, Afghanistan. That’s why we call it the Third World.
At the operational level, the agencies that manage asylum and migration issues are overwhelmed and underfunded. At the policy level, apart from the loosely organised Global Forum on Migration and Development, there is no formal international structure to provide options for future flows of the victims of man-made or natural (read climate-related) disasters, both of which will define our daily lives far into the future.
Underfunded is the key word here, Mr. Møller. You’re just crying out for more money which the United Nations will promptly flush down the toilet in corrupt carbon credit schemes, or just use to buy sex slaves from Africa. But look at this, he’s framing the argument around man-made “climate change” disasters, as if that is why Syria is a clusterfuck. No, of course it doesn’t have to do with a genocidal apocalyptic death cult fighting a life-or-death battle with an insane dictator with a proclivity for chemical weapons.
Why, like the State department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, told us, they just need a jobs program and everything will turn out great!
These actions may prove that enlightened self-interest, humanity and international solidarity can produce a win-win outcome. But this will only address the current temporary spike in refugee numbers. We need to deal with the much broader, long-term migratory trend.
Any one of us may one day need refuge
Yeah, we might one day need refuge ourselves, because we imported millions of Muslims and thousands of terrorists. But then where will we go, if you destroy Europe and America? Anyway, anytime some idiot blathers on about international solidarity it can only mean that he is a Marxist. Do you think ISIS gives a fig for your solidarity? Or maybe the Taliban? I’m sure the Ayatollah is just waiting for the right time to express unity, love, peace and understanding with the world. That’s why they want nuclear weapons, right?
But he goes on to tell us about the long-term migratory trends. That’s right, it’s not enough that we are taking all of the migrants today, Mr. Møller tells us. He wants us to make provisions so that we can take in as many people as humanly possible. 1.5 million migrants to Germany is not enough.
In the absence of such a body, we need to give Sir Peter Sutherland, the UN secretary-general’s special representative for migration and development, the mandate and wherewithal to catalyse action. One way to start the process may be to decide on greater integration of the work of UNHCR and IOM, and allowing them to propose new long-term global policies. The humanitarian summit in Istanbul next year, the meeting called by the UN secretary-general in New York in September and the November meeting in Valletta between the heads of state of Europe and Africa are opportunities to move this forward.
Let me interrupt this fisking for a moment to laugh my fucking ass off at this phrase: “The humanitarian summit in Istanbul…” What next, Mr. Møller, are you going to host the Women’s Rights convention in Saudi Arabia? Or, perhaps, you would like to conduct a gay parade in a Muslim neighborhood. Oh wait, sorry about the last, I forgot, that might offend Muslims. Yeah, because Turkey has such a great record on Human rights, right?
But, admittedly they are better than the current human rights chair, Saudi Arabia. What’s next, Mr. Møller, will your ilk appoint Lucifer as the chair on the righteousness council?
Finally, we need to capitalise on the policy frameworks the world is adopting this year: the sustainable development goals (SDGs), a climate agreement and the disaster risk reduction agreement. If we successfully implement the 17 SDGs we will stand an immeasurably better chance of dealing with future migratory flows.
This idiot interrupts his tirade about migrants to tell us about Global Warming. Because sitting around talking about carbon credit taxation schemes is obviously better than doing anything important or intelligent, right? I am sure that if we just make the Earth cooler, all the Muslim terrorists will just give up and go home, right? Bankrupt welfare systems will recover all on their own. Unicorns will fly, and pigs… fuck, they’ll go to outer space.
Any one of us may one day need refuge. Empathy, generosity and sound policies today will greatly improve the chances of the same being applied to our calamities tomorrow.
Translation: I’ve deployed my Weaponized Empathy. Obey us in all things or be called mean names.
In the tradition of John Bolton, a man of few words, I have a diplomatic and reasoned reply to the Director General of United Nations Office at Geneva: eat a bucket full of cocks.
I’m so tired of apologetics for Islam. No more. We all know the rational reasons for opposition to the ideology. The expression of terrorism is so much more common in that world. It has resisted the progression of technology and science. In a more visceral manner, it has thrown gays off of buildings and beheaded Christian children. The ideology is poison. But, for me, it is worse than that. Consider this rhetoric, if you wish, but it is also truth.
For me, my heritage and connection to the Middle East is strange. My brother and I come from the same gene pool. Yet for him, if he bothers to think of his Armenian ancestry, it is only for the briefest of moments. He doesn’t even look the part, whereas somehow I do. The lottery of genetics is funny that way. You can tell we are brothers, but somehow he looks straight-up Anglo-Saxon, and I could pass for fully Armenian if I really wanted to.
It is that way for remembrance of it, as well. My grandfather was very old when I was born, and he died when I was only 12. My brother was too young to know him at all, but I remembered. Through his stories, I felt like I had almost been there myself. They spawned a lifelong obsession with the old Byzantine world that, even in the twilight days of the Ottoman Empire, still lay underneath that world.
The Turks, you see, had borrowed the architecture and forms of that older civilization. In those days, Greeks, Armenians, Lebanese Christians, Copts and Syrian Christians were still common enough. They were, in their own way, the remains of that ancient Byzantine world. Everything from that era fascinates me. I wish I could walks the halls of the Hagia Sophia, as my own ancestors did.
A place my ancestors had seen, once. Christianity’s greatest monument, built 1500 years ago, has been in the hands of the Turks for over 500 years now.
But in its final death throes, the Ottoman Empire broke apart and cast out as many Christians as it could, some through murder, others through exile. It is a process that has continued to this day, with ISIS cleansing the remaining Syrian Christians. It’s a thing that has continued for over a thousand years, and will not end until, for all of those people who survive, it is nothing more than a dim cultural memory. It will be chaff in the wind.
Islam erases people, religion, culture, and history wherever it goes. Everything is replaced with the Muslim faith, governance, and law. And unlike the assimilation once practiced in America, it does not borrow from those it takes in, it does not stir them into a pot and say “from this, we will make something better.” It annihilates them, erasing even their memory. The monuments are destroyed or plastered over, the people slaughtered, the great works lost.
The world my grandfather told me of no longer exists. It hasn’t existed for nearly a century, now. And the tiniest fragments of it, the last bastions of its descendants, are being annihilated as I write this. Children, decapitated for daring to live on in the land of their ancestors, without converting to Islam and forgetting everything that makes them who they are.
What does the West do, now? Do we fight them? Do we plan battle with the enemy who wants to erase us from history? Apparently not, for today the paladins of Social Justice are far more worried about Britishers wearing sombreros. That is the thing they view as culturally damaging. The erasure of entire peoples, cultures, and civilizations is irrelevant to them.
Worse, they invite the perpetrators into their own countries in mass numbers, to eventually erase them, also. They subsize their own conquest and erasure.
When the West falls, it won’t be like when the Byzantine East disappeared. There will be no place to run to, no place to hide. There will be no children learning of their heritage on their grandfather’s knee and thinking wistfully that he might like to see Justinian’s great church someday. There will only be Islam, everywhere.
At least some of us in the West remember what was destroyed. There will be no one to remember us if we fall. It will be as if we never existed.
Am I exaggerating? Not in the slightest. This is the character of Islam. This is what it does, who it is. It a giant eraser poised over the books of history.