Tuesday, February 17, 2009

On the Northern Alliance: A Response to Srdja Trifkovic

At the Brussels Journal, John Laughland has responded to Srdja Trifkovic’s recent essay calling for a “Northern Alliance” to resist the onslaught of the Great Jihad. Some excerpts are below:

…Unfortunately I think that the proposed solution — an alliance of Russia, Europe and the United States — misses not one point but two.

First, and as Srdja Trifkovic is the first to argue, Europe and Russia suffer from catastrophic demographic collapse. Even America’s projected population growth will be the result of immigration. Christian civilisation, in other words, is not threatened from outside by aggressive jihadists or Turkish expansionism as in the past. It is threatened by its own materialistic suicide — a protracted and determined suicide which has been going on for decades now and which consists not only of the refusal to have children (a flagrant indication, if ever one was needed, that modern so-called “progressive” Europeans and Americans think only of the present and never of the future) but also in the willful abandonment of the Christian religion of which the leaking roof in a deserted cathedral is a perfect illustration.
- - - - - - - - -
Ever since the Second Vatican Council, any growth in Christian observance has been exclusively a Third World phenomenon, helped along by a liturgy which is as moronic as it is ugly. As a result, the great Catholic shrines in Paris (the miraculous medal chapel of the rue du Bac, for instance) is staffed entirely by nuns from the Philippines, a pleasant irony since the seat of the Missions étrangères which evangelised Asia from the 17th century onwards is right next door. Nature abhors a vacuum and is it therefore any wonder that Islam steps in where Christians fear to tread? The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.

Second, and concomitantly, I feel that such grand geopolitical plans are a distraction. The natural political unit is the nation. It is the unit which makes sense to its citizens because it is real. Nations are the irreducible facts of political geography, rather like mountains in ordinary geography and rather like families with a state, and it is absurd and dangerous to try to overlook them or to overcome them. No doubt the idea of a Grand Alliance against a revanchist or Muslim Third World can give us a frisson of excitement and a moment of escape from the reality of our willful self-destruction. But it is just that — an idea, a wish, a dream — not a realistic political project.

Even if the men existed to put it into place, it would not last. If even the deeply Christian men who led the Eastern and Western empires could not unite in the 8th century against the Muslims who had overrun France and Spain; if instead of recovering the Holy Land in 1204, Venetian Crusaders sacked the capital city of the Eastern empire; if Greeks preferred the Sultan’s turban to the Cardinal’s hat when they rejected the agreement reached at the Council of Florence in 1439, when the reunion of the Western and Eastern Churches was agreed and signed, then there really is not much hope of us doing so now. Far better to put our own houses in order first, itself a monumental task. Once we have done that, then we can start talking about grand alliances.

Read the rest at the Brussels Journal.

Mr. Laughland’s point is well-taken.

I would add one further instance to the list of Christian fractiousness and infighting: the siege of Vienna in 1683. During the grave crisis at the Gates of Vienna, Christian Europe was very much divided and at war with itself, and the common threat of the Turkish advance into the heart of Europe did nothing to change this foolish short-sightedness.

On September 11-12, 1683, the rescue of Vienna hung in the balance, and succeeded only by a hair’s breadth. The emperor of France — a Catholic like the Austrian emperor — actively abetted the forces aligned against Austria, and many of the German states were reluctant to assist in repelling the Turks.

The Ottoman forces were thrown back, but victory depended to a large part on the incompetence of the besieging Turkish army, and not on the presentation of a determined united front by the Christian nations of Europe.

’Twas ever thus.


Hat tip: Fjordman.

27 comments:

Fjordman said...

Be sure to read his book Defeating Jihad as well.

Czechmade said...

That is what I preach. Let us go through our heritage and let us add knowledge of what was seemingly lost (what is it?).
Let us anti-cipate or ante-cipate what comes and what is gone.

Many things are often lost only on the surface. Let us go slowly, the missing links can re-appear on their own while getting deeper.

Mind also other civilizations. They might be a valuable commentary to ours. By contrast one learns more. We are very strong, but do not feel that way right now. Few marks can provide for that notion.

We need a sort of flexible semi-institutions replacing/complementing our universities, schools, churches.
We like naturally to attend them lifelong.

Having strong individuals (like Laughland) is not enough. Preferably we need little local study groups able to link themselves freely with others. Those who accidentally make an advance should be able to serve as a free model. Everybody is free to add more value to that what has been achieved sofar.

spackle said...

"It is threatened by its own materialistic suicide — a protracted and determined suicide which has been going on for decades now and which consists not only of the refusal to have children"

True. But I have long believed that another economic depression (which may be pending depending on who you talk to) could be the blessing that Western man is looking for. People tend to have more children in an economic crisis as a protection against starvation and destitution. More bodies to do more work and act as protection. It may seem counterintuitive, but there it is.

Profitsbeard said...

It's not the number of the population (a mere 130 million Americans defeated Imperial Japan, fascist Italy and Nazi Germany simultaneously) but the spine in the people that matters.

A small country ~ a U.K. or even a Finland~ with advanced Western military power and a serious will for self-preservation could defeat every Mohammedan threat on Earth, Pakistan included.

So, only the failure of nerve, not any raw demographic figures, are the true danger to our Civilization.

A billion sheep are less effective than a thousand wolves.

Decatur said...

Western nations appear to have lost their enthusiasm for self preservation, and it seems to me that it is the decades of listening to the Left badgering and hectoring us that war must be avoided at all cost that has led us thus.
Perhaps we need to rethink just how we became free nations in the first place; It was not by offering olive branches, not by negotiation nor by holding hands and singing Kumbya. It was by shedding blood in wars that we bought ourselves freedom and security. Self defense, national interest, rebuffing threats, removal of tyrants; in the past, all these have been considered just causes for waging war. What grounds would Leftists consider justifiable reasons for going to war nowadays? Are there any nations left in the West that would be prepared to fight to retain their liberty? Like it or not, we are going to have to think very hard about this, because there is no possibility whatsoever that Islam will voluntarily stop their takeover.

WarAgainstTheMiddle said...

While the article from Brussels Journal brings up excellent points, to me the biggest problem is that so few of the elites in any of the "North" think that the jihad is a real problem. It bad enough here in the US. It's worse in Europe. In Russia, the problem is beyond the pale.

In fact, Russia is one of the biggest (non-Islamic) problems for counter-jihad. The Russian oligarchic thugocracy is too busy either directly or indirectly aiding the jihad. They can't even be bothered to act in their own best interests. They are more interesting in poking the US and Europe than in defending themselves against the massive threat of jihad (not to mention China).

Last year during the Russian-Georgian conflict all I could think was that Russia signed its death warrant. It wasn't because of the outcome of that conflict. It didn't matter. The oligarchic thugocracy decided that a couple of specks of territory in the Caucasus was worth sacrificing their Far East. (There is a massive illegal immigration problem from China in the Russian Far East. It makes the American illegal immigration situation look like a couple of kids jumping the fence.) The reasoning Russia used to take those specks of land in the Caucasus can be used against Russia by the Chinese. Potentially, Russia could lose a third or more of Siberia.

It seems to me that Russia is imploding in on itself. They are flailing about in a fit of rage and shooting themselves in the foot by doing so. Actually, its worse, Russia is on the verge of blowing off its own leg, if not committing suicide. I can't help but think Russia will end up similar to Mongolia which used to be massive.

I don't see how Russia is going to help in the counter-jihad. They are too busy collapsing to be of any help.

Czechmade said...

What is Russia? They recognize two cities, the rest is referred as countryside. 80% capital is in Moscow.

The Moscow race is so arrogant, you can smell them (Rusians say so) from 500 m. Only 5% think they are practicing Christians...

Jungle Jim said...

"It [Christian civilization] is threatened by its own materialistic suicide – a protracted and determined suicide which has been going on for decades now and which consists not only of the refusal to have children (a flagrant indication, if ever one was needed, that modern so-called “progressive” Europeans and Americans think only of the present and never of the future) but also in the willful abandonment of the Christian religion of which the leaking roof in a deserted cathedral is a perfect illustration."

I don't agree that America is abandoning the Christian religion. Rather it is changing. The mainline protestant faiths (Methodists, Lutherans, etc) and the Catholics are declining but the Mormons, evangelicals, and charismatic churches are increasing in membership. These latter groups are the ones who are also making the most babies.

Unless there is a dramatic change in the current trends, I don't see any decrease in the number of Christians in the USA.

Whiskey said...

The problem with Russia is that Putin has decided to align with Jihad, because he hopes the West and Islam will fight, leaving himself the last man standing.

He has at every turn made bargains and accommodations and support for Jihad, in exchange for a free hand in Chechnya and stopping of terror attacks.

If Putin simply lost all interest in public affairs, and was replaced by whoever in the Oligarchy tomorrow, this policy would not change, as it is popular among power brokers and the people alike.

No one in Russia believes Russia can be made stronger, or even wants to try, merely wishes to bring down the West by creating a massive nuclear exchange between it and Muslim peoples. Allowing even a weak people and state to pick up much.

Joshua said...

People need to realize that Western nations aren't consenting to death by not having children; they're breeding responsibly. Who can afford three kids and have a decent life? Normal people don't just have kids and keep reproducing for the sake of it. It all comes down to money and comfort, and the ability to pay one's own way, and that of their children. No one should be depending on the states or feds to pay their kids' way through college, after all.

Afonso Henriques said...

War Against The Middle,

"The Russian oligarchic thugocracy is too busy either directly or indirectly aiding the jihad. They can't even be bothered to act in their own best interests. They are more interesting in poking the US and Europe than in defending themselves against the massive threat of jihad (not to mention China)."

This coming from (I presume) an American, is especially hilarious.

"The oligarchic thugocracy decided that a couple of specks of territory in the Caucasus was worth sacrificing their Far East. (There is a massive illegal immigration problem from China in the Russian Far East. It makes the American illegal immigration situation look like a couple of kids jumping the fence.)"

Well, about that...
I've heard a lot about that but I never saw any raw data. Indeed, the data shows that the Russian provinces bordering China are more than 80% RUSsian (in much cases way more than 80%), and I say RUSsian because I am counting Russians, Belarussians and Ukrainians as one unique people. In the end, you can compare it to the Southeast of the United States that averages some few more than 60% white inclusively in big important States like California and Texas, and I am considering "Hispanic Whites" in that white thing.
Meanwhile, I know there is an increase of Asian immigration towards the East of Russia, I know (and this is more dangerous) that many businesses there are to dependent on China and Chinese people inside Russia proper. But I still think it cannot be compared to the situation in the Mexican border.

And if you think those Russians are half Asians or something, they look as Russians as the other Russians, even in the Jewish Obslat in the Extreme Far East of Russia, at least it is what the media shows. Now, Los Angeles... it's a whole different matter.

So, War Against The Middle, do you have any data to support what you say? Or is it only I herad of like speculation?
Please, show us some evidence that the Chinese conquest of the Russian Far East (the Russian colonies) is indeed taking place at a scale, let's say, comparable to that of the making of Mexifornia for instance. I mean, please, show me something! I truly want to know.

"I don't see how Russia is going to help in the counter-jihad."

Tip: Ask the Serbians and the Armenians. But don't tell anybody then!

Afonso Henriques said...

Whiskey, frankly, this comment of yours did not make any sense:

"The problem with Russia is that Putin has decided to align with Jihad, because he hopes the West and Islam will fight, leaving himself the last man standing."

No "Western" European Nation borders an islamic State. No one.
In fact, Greece and Bulgaria border Turkey.

Turkey's jet fighters recently attacked and killed a Greek pilot but still Turkey is wellcome in NATO, even after had attacked as it did the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Despite all the "strange behaviours" of Turkey, no European State ever said explicitly to the Turks: "F+ª* off! You're not European!" And thus, Turkey is admited to enter the European Union sometime in the future.

Despite this, Western States have invited multiculturalism in.

How will the West and Islam fight? Will Algeria invade France or something?

On the other hand, Russia borders Azerbaijan and Cazakistan. Also, it is dangerously close to Iran and Turkey and the whole of Central Asia lies right beneeth Russia's belly.

And I cannot see why you say that when in the Balkans there was (and continues to be) a kind of real war between European Nations and Turkish colonists:

Albania,
Bosnia, created by NATO, opposed by Russia;
Kosovo, created by NATO and opposed by Russia;
Macedonia, some 30% muslim.
Montenegro, some 20% muslim.

Russia has not been pouring islam and multiculturalism into Europe. Some other Nations did.

Russophobia can only harm European Civilisation. Say no to it.

Joanne said...

Mark 13:10 "The good news, however, must first be proclaimed among all the heathen."

Matthew 24:14 "The good news of the Kingdom, however, shall be proclaimed throughout the whole Empire, as a witness to all nations; and then the end will come."

I don't know if anyone, today, can fathom countries such as Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. allowing Christianity to be proclaimed in their countries, but all those who have never heard the 'good news' will hear the news before the end comes. I am very interested to see this come about. I certainly have my own ideas based on scripture, but I would have to go into too much detail now to explain it, and my eye sight is always better in retrospect anyhow.

WarAgainstTheMiddle said...

@whiskey

I don't know if Putin's plan is to be the "last man standing" after the West and Islam fight it out. It wouldn't surprise me if it was. Regardless, this plan will fail. (Such a plan could only work for China, and I doubt it would even work for them.) Like I said before Russia is imploding and that's going to continue to happen even if the West and Islam destroy each other.

@ Afonso Henriques

>>I've heard a lot about that but I never saw any raw data.<<

Take a look at this. The Chinese population of Russia is estimated to be 3.26 million making it the fourth largest ethnic group in Russia. I know that there is some dispute over how many Chinese are in Russia, but given that this is an ILLEGAL immigration problem an accurate number is hard to come by. Also, Russians are migrating away from the Far East and the rest of Siberia by the truckload.

Even Putin said, "If people here [the Far East] will not regenerate their region and economy, they will all be speaking Chinese or some other Asian language." You may not think this is a problem, but Russians who are familiar with the situation (including various levels of the Russian government) do.

Before you accuse me of being a Russophobe, I am not. I take no pleasure in what is happening to Russia. Fighting the jihad gives China to build up their power without challenge since the rest of us are busy fighting the jihad. We need Russia to protect its Far Eastern flank so that China isn't able to take it over. However, Russia is imploding, and that's a tragedy.

Charlemagne said...

I've been saying for quite a while now that I believe the eastern half of Russia will be taken by force by the Chinese and there is nothing Russia will be able to do about it. The Chinese look to the mineral rich, barren land to their north with jealous desire. A billion Chinese will roll over 160 million Russians.

Watchful Eagle said...

Joshua: "{Western Nations are] breeding responsibly."

There ARE nations such as Mali, Niger, Afganistan, Somalia, and Yemen which are breeding very responsibly-- what they all have in common starts with an I, and ends with a SLAM. The population of the world is 7-8 times what it was when Thomas Malthus wrote his theory on population, and food is much cheaper now than it was then.

Humans are able to increase their resources faster than they can repoduce. IF western civilization survives, we will develop nanotechnology to fabricate food from hay or yard waste (replicators from Startrek, anyone). But the IF is very big. The whole "overpopulation crisis" is total lunacy, it was probably invented by "progressive" ANTI-WHITE racists who think the west is forever undefeatable and oppressive, and that we must weaken the West.

"As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is the man whose quiver is FULL OF THEM."

Children are a civilization's ammo, the SINGLE most DIFFICULT resource to replenish. Our not having children is not going to "save the planet" [there never has been any global food shortage, and there WON'T BE ONE, EITHER] IT WILL JUST "GIVE THE PLANET" to the people who do breed (Read [The Empty Cradle] for info. from a progrssive if you don't understand this.) Also watch Demographic Winter as well.

demographicwinter.com


Remember that "the survival of the fittest" simply means the SURVIVAL OF THE SURVIVORS. If you think that these tribal nomads can never replace our civilization because they are "more psychologically primitive peoples", you have fallen under the delusion of Ethnocentric Ideological Racism, these tribal people are NOT sub-human in intelligence.

I can't see what is "responsible" to liquidate Western Civilization and sending it to the dustbin of history by not breeding enough to expand the native population. If fertility rates don't climb in the West, muslim tribal people's way of THINKING WILL PROVE MORE POWERFUL THAN OURS.

Czechmade said...

The Chinese have good chances to conquer Siberia - they marry Russian women and treat them much better than any Russian. The Russians have very islamic attitude to their women - they smoke and drink and watch them working hard for ex. on a building site.

The Chinese does not drink his vodka day and night and cares for the family, for his wife. In China the woman has a dominant position. This is - transmitted to Siberia - a blessing for the Russian wife.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Why did we have to give our Empire away and not the Russians? Is it because we conquered it by boat whereas the Russians conquered it (in) horses?"

A Portuguese General speaking to the National Television in 2008, questioning how "ethical" was decolonisation.

And that's it, the Far East is a Russian colony. But thank you very much for the link, man. I simply do not think that Russia will give in without a fight but if it has to lose one or two colonies, so be it. Thank you very much for the link once again.

Afonso Henriques said...

Czechmade,

"In China the woman has a dominant position."

LOL Are you being serious, or was that last comment of yours simply a joke? If it was a joke, I did not get it.

So "Chinese men" are better (superior) to "Russian men" somehow, and it is a blessing for Russian Women to marry Chinese men.
The Russophobia is so profound in you that you profess "anti-whitism" and frankly "anti-Europeanism" (give the Far East and it's women to China! That's a blessing!) as long as the Russian gets screwd.
I think your ideas (this ones) are odious. But I still like to read the majority of your comments.

Just one thought:
Due to the dominant position of women in the Chinese society there are tens of millions of young Chinese men who will not find a Chinese women to marry. Tell me, which are the most open societies? And multicultural? To where will they go? Will it be "a blessing" when Chinese men "treat" Czech women better?
Because according to (some, maybe the majority of) European women, they are opressed by European males...

"a blessing"... interestingly enough, Russian women seem to be the more "buyable". They are the foreign ethnic group the men of Turkey, Kazakhistan, Finland and other countries are more prone to marry. In the 70s and 80s, it was with Africans... many black-power types in the Portuguese colonies had Russian wifes, etc.
A blessing!

Czechmade said...

Sorry for being spot on. I know personally a number of Czech sinologists. The Chinese woman is just opposite of the Japanese. She is powerful and demanding.

So the Chinese guy was trained for generations in overrespecting his wife. Since the Russian wife is more interested in safety than in vodka she is well adviced to bring a guy who stays at home and works a lot.
Simple.

Stop loving Russia and start studying it. There is a saying in Russian "The man who does not beat his wife once a week at least does not love her".

Afonso Henriques said...

Once again, thank you fir the link.

"The Khabarovsk Region Governor, Viktor Ishayev, has banned granting citizenship to Chinese men who marry Russian women, even though foreigners have this option under federal legislation..."

That's it, they still have the backbone. I'd like to see something like this in Europe, for instance. That's why I think Russia is not diying now.

Czechmade said...

Yes, I know many stories about Chinese wives. My friends also worked for Chinese. They know the system from within and one friend has one at home.

It seems in case of a Russian-Chinese couple both must feel thoroughly liberated from two monsters - Russian man and Chinese wife.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Stop loving Russia and start studying it."

Let's do so!
But you do not study it. You came up with some gross generalisations and presnt it as if it was reveled to you by the most truthfull of the Gods.

Here, the country in Western Europe with more domestical violence or so, we have a say:
"Às mulheres não se bate, nem com uma flôr." (Women shall not be beaten, not even with a flower) and, what about it?

Yes, Russian man drink and are less cordial and such... I call it Asian influences. Look to the Turks and the Chinese.

Russians are more individualistic than Chinese. Russians are more family oriented than Chinese... What the Chinese men have is money.

I bet the (European) women who marry Chinese in the Far East will came up with the same arguments of those who marry poor and violent blacks in America.

If you want to talk about Russia, let's do so. You can also think the way you think "it's a blessing!". Somehow, it doesn't surpise me. But that does not mean I have to agree, or even accept your ideas. But again, I give you a descount because you are, after all, an Eastern European. And the kind of Eastern European who's more Western than many West Europeans (don't mean to offend you, just to put in prespective why you hate Russia).

Afonso Henriques said...

"It seems in case of a Russian-Chinese couple both must feel thoroughly liberated from two monsters - Russian man and Chinese wife."

Yes, give Russian women Chinese men!
And I start to think that those evil Russian males and Chinese females (why??) must really disearve eachother!

I guess also that parents-children relations between the teenage period shall be abolished and that we should sacrifice our mother in laws because no one diserves it!

As you see, I cannot accept your ideas. I can however tolerate them...

Czechmade said...

My ideas are irrelevant. Some nations are generally moronic, uncivilized, violent.
They make themselves hateful. I do not care whether they are called this or that. But it is always good to know who you want to keep outdoors - it is very practical.

WarAgainstTheMiddle said...

@ Afonso Henriques

>>"Why did we have to give our Empire away and not the Russians? Is it because we conquered it by boat whereas the Russians conquered it (in) horses?"

A Portuguese General speaking to the National Television in 2008, questioning how "ethical" was decolonisation.<<

Someone said this in 2008? I don't know how anyone can claim a "Russian Empire" exists at this point, at least in any meaningful sense. If you defined the "Russian Empire" as the Soviet Union plus Eastern Europe, Russia lost that empire in 1989. If you define the "Russian Empire" as the former Soviet Union then Russia lost that in 1991. Any "Russian Empire" that exists now is simply tundra and ethnic groups that are too diffuse and too few to maintain or care about having a state of their own unless you are talking about Chechnya and the like.

>>That's it, they still have the backbone. I'd like to see something like this in Europe, for instance. That's why I think Russia is not diying now.<<

Until last year, I would have agreed with you. The net effect of Russia's conflict with Georgia has been to give China an excuse to take the Russian Far East when it feels like it. Either the oligarchs are incredibly short sighted (certainly a possibility) or they have decided to give up on the Far East and who knows how much more of Siberia. I guess access to the Pacific is no longer important to them. For that matter, they have effectively reversed the policy of obtaining warm water ports. That policy of obtaining warm water ports has been a Russian policy for hundreds of years, and the oligarchs are no longer continuing it.

The oligarchs are giving up on major sections of Russia.

Afonso Henriques said...

War Against the Middle,

Russia was an European power that expanded Eastwards to Asia.
I see the ancient Nation of the Rus (Russia, Ukraine and Belarus) as Russia's ("land of the Rus" in latin) Nation. Meanwhile it has expanded here and there and took control of territories that did not belong to it. I think it can pretty much be considered a "colonial empire".

That is the thing. Of course I don't want to see China expand to that, especially at the expanses of Russia, but I also happen to think, almost quiet mystically, that the Russians are not really Europeans and the more they are concentrated towards Europe, the more "European" Russia will be (in every aspect).

This is so that in long term, even if Russia losses its "colonial empire" (amid this or that source of energy), it may become free of "Asian" influences. Solzyetsin (I can't spell it properly) also firmly believed that "the imperial tentation" was the poison of Russia and the Russian people. I tend to agree with him and trust his analysis of the Russian situation.