Wednesday, July 14, 2010

NATO: a Deformed Instrument in a Derailed Atlantic World

Below is a response to Fjordman’s question, “Who Will Protect Us From NATO?” It was sent to us by a writer in the Netherlands who calls himself Penseur.

He has some further considerations on the problems we face as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shows signs of senescence.

NATO represented solidarity in the West. That is gone.

The Thinker by Auguste RodinNATO has stood for several generations as a solidarity structure representing the Atlantic World. As we know, this solidarity grew in the 20th century world conflicts culminating in the Cold War, and finally incorporated member states into a permanent organization.

Thus, since it is merely an instrument of solidarity, NATO in itself is not the problem. Instead, the real issue has become the two pillars on which NATO rests: America and Europe. These pillars now stand on a ground which has been eroded by the policies of their leaders.

It is clear that our leaders are no longer prepared to uphold or to defend the West. The common cultural heritage once shared by Atlantic countries is no longer so apparent. It seems our leaders move now to integrate their countries into a wider international ‘community’. This so-called community is more or less non-Western; perhaps it is even anti-Western.

Our leaders are using NATO as part of the implementation of their global community policy.
- - - - - - - - -
In doing this, they have deformed NATO to the point that it is losing its natural character. In this NATO an Islamised Turkey plays an important role in distorting the organization from its original meaning.

NATO soldiers give out Korans among the Afghan population. They are assisting the Afghans in building mosques. Supposedly these actions will “win their hearts and minds”.

Thus, NATO has gradually devolved into Dawa/Jihad instead of fighting in the Counterjihad.

The spiritual vacua in the West and in Islam

Several prominent experts on Islam, many of them former Muslims, have urged the necessity for Western leaders to expose Islam openly and explicitly as the evil ideology it really is.

Some of them suggest that offering the masses of Muslims a better alternative — e.g., Christian faith and morality — is possible. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one such person who has put forth this idea as having instrumental value, even though she herself is an atheist. Wafa Sultan, in her testimony at Geert Wilders’ trial, told the judge that Islam lacks all moral value. In her view, this points to a growing spiritual vacuum in the Islamic world.

Many Muslims are longing for something better than Islam. Wafa Sultan restricts herself to helping Muslims realize the deficiencies of Islam. She has no preference for a specific alternative, although she does not think that Islam can be reformed, due to its origins in the life of Mohammed, whose examples expose him as a very wicked man. Certainly he was such by any usual Western norm of truth as a virtue.

Meanwhile the political and religious leaders in the West are totally ignoring this situation. Instead of defending and promoting their own values, they willingly submit their countries to an aggressive Islamic infiltration. This indifference by our leaders is due to the spiritual vacuum now so pervasive in the post-Christian West. Our culture is unable and unwilling to discern the properties of a mature religious belief. With only a leftist, multicultural template by which to judge, all spiritual matters are reduced to pseudo-religions, cults, or ideological superstitions. Given such a world view, they must all be designated as “equal”. This facile reductionism has led us to the current crisis:

All vacua are the same, whether they are the spiritual void of Islam or the empty hole where Christianity was once rooted. One spiritual void cannot fill another one, equally emptied out. Instead the competition is between a vacuum and a ruthless fanaticism.

In such a case fanaticism has the best chance of winning.

Apologies to Penseur for not posting this in a more timely manner, and my gratitude for his patience.

I hope he is wrong, and that the fanatics do not prevail. However, it will be difficult for those who are weary of the constant barrage from malignly destructive elites, to hold onto their principles of conservatism in the face of these fanatics’ easy “answers”. This holds particularly true for the encroachments on freedom by the fanaticism of political correctness.

It will require great discernment and patience to live through interesting times.


In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces

Nato should have been put on ice after the end of the cold war.

The expanding of NATO into Eastern Europe was provocative, its actions in the the Balkans only brought about the creation of a muslim state in Europe, it has all but gifted iraq to Iranian influence, it is open to manipulation by Georgia and Turkey and has confused the misssion in Afghanistan and turnded the miltary into a quasi humanitarian quango/islamic relief misssion.

It probably has more committees than the Soviet Union had.

EscapeVelocity said...

Once people come to their senses and Turkey is kicked out and Russia brought into the fold, the alliance will be revitalized as defense against Islam and Muslim aggression.

jeppo said...

I totally agree with EscapeVelocity: Russia in, Turkey out.

Sure, NATO is now an ultraliberal, multiculti, politically correct, gay friendly and dhimmified organization, no argument there. But in being all that it merely reflects the decadent zeitgeist of the West in our time.

Every Western national government is the same way, and so is every state and provincial government within those countries. So too, probably, is every county, municipality, city, town, village and hamlet throughout the West, though if there are exceptions I'd love to hear about them.

But the unintended consequences of killing NATO may be nothing less than the permanent division of the West (aka the greater European world) into a North America and Europe ripe for takeover by Latin America and the Islamic world respectively. NATO's greatest strength as a pan-Western institution might be the nations and peoples it DOESN'T contain, namely the Mexicans and Arabs.

NATO, except for Turkey--which should be kicked out forthwith, is basically a white, Christian organization. It should be expanded to include all of white Christendom, meaning the rest of Eastern Europe and Russia. "No Mestizos and Muslims need apply" should be its unofficial motto.

Without NATO, North America would inevitably merge with Mexico and the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, while Europe would do the same with the Arab world and the greater Middle East. Of course this might happen anyway, but NATO now acts as a brake against being divided and conquered this way. Better one united Euro-Christian alliance, even if it is presently hopelessly PC, than two mutually antagonistic alliances, both majority non-white and with Eurabia being majority non-Christian.

EscapeVelocity said...

I dont agree with you jeppo.

The Latin Americans are largely European Christians. They are potentially (and some have been) fantastic allies.

That doesnt mean that we dont have a serious problem with Mexicans invading the US. But that blame lays partly with the US as well. Its a correctable situation. That being said, Mexico can redeem its past.

I have little love for the Ruskies. They are not insignificantly responsible for funding and proflagating the Political Correctness and New Left Radicals, that are destroying the West.

Yet there is also our decadence and the wholesale abandonment of Christianity by much of Europe.

So there is enough blame to go around.

As I said, once we all come to our senses...