Friday, April 06, 2012

History is the Fairest Instructor

Anestos Canelides’ latest essay is a meditation on the necessity for learning from history if we wish to avoid repeating it.

Theophylact Simocatta

History is the Fairest Instructor
by Anestos Canelides

I have written a number of articles for Gates of Vienna about the history of Islam’s zeal to subdue the Infidel. I began to ask myself: Why should we care about the history of the Islamic conquests? Of what importance is it to us today?

It is not only important to know the ideology of Islam, but also the history of Islamic conquest and the intolerance of the conquerors.

I ask again: Why should we care about the Barbary Wars or the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks? What is the real importance of knowing this history?

I don’t believe man has learned from history not to repeat the same mistakes, because we seem to be repeating history right now.

The Turks attempted to conquer Vienna several times but failed. Now the Austrians are allowing a stealth form of conquest by permitting massive Muslim immigration into their homeland. If the Austrians understood the Islam’s past goals for their nation, would they allow this stealth form of jihad to take place today in Austria? And yes, it is happening now!

Theophylact Simocatta, a Byzantine historian from the 6th and 7th centuries AD, sums up the importance of knowing history. We must not forget we are at war with radical fundamental Islam, and our enemies’ strategy is taking many forms.

How can we gain a clear picture of their current goals without understanding the past?

Theophylact Simocatta:
History is the common tutor of all men: it shows which course to follow and which to avoid as profitless. The most competent generals are those who have been instructed by history, for history reveals how to draw up troops and by what means to outmaneuver the enemy through ambush. History renders these generals more prudent because they know about the misfortunes of others, and it directs them through observation of the mistakes of others. Similarly, it has shown that men become happier through good conduct, pushing men to higher peaks of virtue through gradual advances. For the old man history is his support and staff while for the young, it is the fairest and wisest instructor…

We cannot allow history to be repeated through our ignorance. We must all become students of history if we are to truly understand Islam’s global intentions for the non-Muslim world.

Previous posts by Anestos Canelides:

2010 May 29 The Last Empire
  Jun 18 The Muslim Devastation of India
  Aug 20 Are They Lying to Us?
  Sep 28 Devshirme: A Muslim Scourge on Christians
  Oct 6 AIFD: Friends of America and Freedom
  Dec 3 A 19th-Century Jihad on American Shipping
2011 May 29 Borders, Language and Culture
  Oct 18 The Jihad Against Dogs
    31 Slavery and Jihad
  Nov 15 Abuse of Power
  Dec 10 Islam is not a Pacifist Religion
    28 Those Evil Crusades
2012 Mar 25 Why Do We Tolerate Their Intolerance?


Anonymous said...

The concept of conquest through immigration is not a new one. There are many examples. The Romans thought they could use the Goths and so let them into the empire as auxiliaries. The Romanized Britons thought they could use Saxon mercenaries to ward off Frisian pirates, and the tribes of America's east coast thought they could use English colonist to their benefit. In each time and place they were ultimately displaced by groups that had originally been invited in.

Sometimes this displacement occurs when individuals who are invited in as temporary laborers ultimately stay as rulers. For the Anglo-South Africans, it came as the result of Black laborers being brought in from Natal, Mozambique and elsewhere to work in the mines and farms.

In all of these cases, the net effect to the society accepting the immigrants is a short term advantage that comes at a long term cost to those who 'rule'.

But the story does not end with immigration.

The critical element for conquest comes from reproductive success. Europeans triumphed in the Americas because they were able to had larger families that survived to adulthood than did the American Indians who died at far higher rates from infectious diseases. In fact, the Puritans of New England viewed this fact as a sign of divine providence.

Anonymous said...

Too many people would rather remain oblivious and ignorant of what has gone before than look at the very discomforting facts before them.

For 3 centuries the West was safe from Islam and in the course of time, Westerners forgot what a terrible enemy Islam is. It was far easier for a majority to believe that Muslims were just like us except a little backward. So easy to drink the Lefty kool-aid.

Look, it's quite upsetting for many of a delicate constitution to consider the fact that Islam never ceased being at war with the West and that we fought them for a Millennia before we beat them back. Or that Muslims truly hate us to the point of killing us for merely being non-Islamic.

K. from Germany said...

Anonymous said...
The concept of conquest through immigration is not a new one. There are many examples.

Yes. Another one, a prime example of a success story, is how Kosovo fell to the Muslims. The West's painful awakening to the fact, what a tragic error it was to fight for the wrong side when conflict broke out there, is yet before us.

babs said...

@K - To this day I do not understand the rational the Clinton admin used to fight on the wrong side. Was it only because Russia supported the other side?
Look what a mess we have now.

Qualis Rex said...

Babs - that's exactly it. The US (Not JUST the Clinton administration, but going back to Nixon) has always employed a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy, specifically to Russia. And yes, as I have always repeated "if you lie with dogs, you will get fleas." ANYTIME the US (or the West) sides with the Mohammedan, much less arms them, it will come back to hurt them 3-fold.

K. from Germany said...

@babs, Qualis Rex

I doesn't actually seem that simply antagonizing Russia was the reason for taking military action against the Milosevic regime. What would that have possibly achieved? Of course I'm not sure how different things look from the other side of the pond.

At the time there was the perception here in Europe, that the US did it because if they wouldn't, everyone would blame them to have gone into Irak only for control over the oil. As Milosevic was obviously fitting the prototype of a bad guy, there was moral pressure on Western powers, and only one left to actually act as Europeans found themselves incapable of doing it. That's two points for USA seizing an opportunity to improve their standing. As for Western European mainstream opinion, it succeeded. Other blunders destroyed it again later.

Liquid said...

Anonymous said...
The concept of conquest through immigration is not a new one. There are many examples.

Another one would be the story of Hernán Cortés and the Tlaxcallans...

sheik yer'mami said...

"We must not forget we are at war with radical fundamental Islam"-

Not. Islam is at war with the rest of the world since its inception. Islam. Not "radical", not "fundamentalist"- just Islam.

Makes a big difference to be explicit about it.