It can be a good thing to be idealistic. But you'd better make sure you have the right ideals. As to this, the modern West is quickly becoming something non-Western -- precisely because our ideals are now far less than ideal.
It has often been noted that some among us use our freedoms to destroy our freedoms. George Soros, a real-life James Bond villain, comes to mind; other leftist entities such as the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center also qualify, as they sue Americans into shedding Americanism. Another example is a group they aid and abet: Muslim conquerors bent on winning the West for Dar al-Islam. And since this is not just an American phenomenon but a Western one, it has recently been addressed by a French academic -- in strikingly blunt language.
Jean-Louis Harouel, professor emeritus of the History of Law at the University of Paris, recently criticized a French court's decision to strike down a burkini (Islamic swimsuit) ban that had been instituted by dozens of the nation's municipalities. Here are some of his words, as translated by Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald:
[T]he Conseil d'Etat [the court] failed to take into account the fact that France is now engaged in a clash of civilizations, that just in the past year has cost it hundreds of deaths on its own territory, and which made it necessary to maintain the State of Emergency. "Islamism" is now making war on France, and there is no real boundary-line between Islam and Islamism.
The Conseil d'Etat failed to take into account the shock felt by the French people on seeing burkinis deliberately appearing on the beaches so soon after terrible massacres had been committed in France by Muslims acting in the name of their god. So soon after the carnage on the promenade in Nice and the slitting of the throat of a priest while he was fulfilling his priestly duties, such an increase in the flaunting of Muslim identity is truly indecent.
The Conseil d'Etat failed to take into account the fact that at present a silent conquest of Western Europe is underway. This conquest finds its source in the Qur'an where one can read that Allah has promised to give to the Muslims as the spoils of war the lands of the Infidels. That's how sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradawi, one of the leaders of the UOIE (Union of Muslim Organizations in Europe), the French branch of which is the UOIF (Union of Muslim Organizations in France) put it: "With your democratic laws, we will colonize you. With our Koranic laws, we will dominate you."
The Conseil d'Etat refused to see that the conquest of our beaches by these burkinis is only one stage in the taking over of France by the forces of political Islam. The Conseil d'Etat refused to see that those wearers of the burkini -- like all those who wear variations on the Muslim veil -- are the foot-soldiers, whether deeply convinced or merely docile, of a civilizational jihadism which is now trying to conquer our country by stealth.
To speak simply, the "rule of law" too often means condemning the peoples of Europe to helplessness when confronted by the mass immigration that is submerging them, and the aggressive Islam that is in the process of conquering their countries. To be able to react, it will be necessary to give the "rule of law" a bit of a shove, as it is currently being imposed on Europeans in this positively suicidal fashion by the secular religion of human rights.
In this confrontation with Islam, to conceive of the principle of "laicite" as being neutral in regard to different faiths will not work. For Islam is only secondarily a religion in the sense given to that word in Europe. In our country, Islam is now an aggressive civilization that is at war with our own and claims to replace it. Now, facing another civilization bent on our conquest, we cannot be neutral: we have to defend ourselves and counter-attack.
The main point is this: a Muslim living in Europe should not expect to be able to live as he would in a Muslim country. Muslims who have settled on European soil have constantly to be reminded that they are not in Dar al-Islam but, rather, in the land of the Infidels where, even their own sacred texts tell them, they should keep a low profile. If the Muslims living in Europe come to feel that they are living in Dar al-Islam, that will mean the end of Europe.
And it is leading to the end of Europe, just as our suicidal immigration regime -- wherein 85 percent of our newcomers hail from the Third World and Asia -- is contributing to the death of Western culture in the U.S.
When considering these suicidal policies, it occurs to me that our Western liberals are like children playing at government. Our second president, John Adams, said in 1798, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." How many of us understand the true meaning of that statement? And how many of us are willing to contemplate its implications?
We could, of course, convince ourselves that Adams didn't know what he was talking about. Yet he was merely echoing great thinkers, men such as Irish philosopher Edmund Burke, who warned, "It is written in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." Benjamin Franklin likewise observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Once we recognize the validity of Adam's statement and that he uttered it not just because, hypothetically, there could in some alternate universe be peoples lacking the moral foundation for healthy representative government, some striking matters must be pondered:
Peoples unfit to live under our form of government do exist in this world. Given this, it's dangerous to the republic to allow them, as a group, into our country. It's also dangerous to have cultural institutions -- the media, academia and our entertainment realm, for instance -- that breed "men of intemperate minds."Then there's this question: since foreign peoples "inadequate" to our form of government exist, who might they be? Pro tip: when people empower vile socialists in their native lands or think Sharia law should be preeminent, it's a clue.
Of course, much of this could be solved if we actually adhered to our Constitution. Note that the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (emphasis added). The founders specified "Congress," thus constraining only the federal government's legislative branch. States were meant to have more power in this area, and, in fact, prior to 20th-century, incorporation-theory jurist fantasies, this was recognized.
Were it still, states would be able to prohibit, oh, let's say, a religion wholly incompatible with Western civilization. Instead, we don't even have a correct understanding of "establishment," which is why a Satanist was recently allowed to give an invocation before an Alaskan municipal legislature. I suspect, by the way, that these days Satan is a big civil libertarian.
If our current ideals don't allow us to exclude people who vow, "With your democratic laws, we will colonize you," then those ideals are only for schlemiels.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
No comments:
Post a Comment