Wednesday, October 31, 2007

My take on the anti-jihadist blogger wars

Recently a lot of controversy appeared over the recent anti-jihad conference held in Brussels, namely about some of it's participants. Charles Johnson, owner of the Little Green Footballs website attacked people from the Flemish(not Belgian)Vlaams Belang party and the Swedish Sverigedemokraterna as neo-nazis. Paul Belien of Brussels journal replied to these charges.

I'll say it straight up: I'm on the side of Belien and those who defend the accused participants.

The obvious reasons are the flimsiness of Charles' arguments, mostly based on guilt by association, and the effectiveness of Belien's(and not only his) response which with facts explained why the charges layed out against VB and SD are unjust.

Charles' response to this was quite instructive and has had me considerably taken aback. In it he has shown some of his thoughts, idelogical leanings and behaviour that I frankly find incomprehensible that someone who claims to be a defender of the west can hold. First he took the criticism personally and then he began to ban posters on his site that disagreed with his assesment. Then he took issue with some things other posters proposed as solutions to the jihadist problem, namely deportation of muslim immigrants back to the land of origin and banned them as well.

From there he went from bad to worse. Because the renowned Norwegian blogger Fjordman and and members of the Gates of Vienna staff disagreed with him he removed them from their blogroll. I guess they too became neo-nazis all of a sudden. Then in order to prove his point about the Swedish SD he began using articles from notoriously leftist sources that featured articles and photos over a decade old about SD members expressing nazi sympathies. When it was pointed out that the SD has since purged itself of such elements(which were never dominant in the first place), Charles replied that nobody could get away from their roots. Then confronted with the Walid Shoebat story(and may I add David Horowitz because he is Johnson's role model in many ways) he replied that "Shoebat is different". Why? Because he, Charles Johnson, says so. With every step of the way LGF is digging itself a deeper hole.

One comment is quite telling of the ideological leanings of Charles Johnson. On one of the threads a poster by the name of Truumax asks him:

Charles, quick question. Are you cool with dymphna's comments about "those who prefer to live among their own kind" and "protecting the ethnic swede"? I don't know about you, but to me they're kinda borderline.

and Charles replies:

Quick answer: no, I'm not.

Two questions immediately spring up by themselves. What is wrong with wanting to live among people of your own nationality? And if Charles has a problem with that, what is the difference between him and the multicultural left?

It's Halloween...

...and the first lady of America has chosen a rather unusual costume.

(with due thanks to Julia Gorin and Debbie Schlussel)


You can learn wondeful things on the net, including words of previously uknown languages. One of the things I picked up is the Hebrew word "chutzpah" which roughly translated means "gall" or "nerve", in a sense of someone murdering his parents and then pleading for clemency on grounds that he(or she, I don't fancy being attacked by feminist stromtroopers) is left orphaned.

Well, chutzpah is just the word to describe the demarche the western embassies in Belgrade handed to the foreign ministry of Serbia. Nofurther explanation needed, really.

My comment is that they can take their demarche and shove it where the sun never shines.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

What one believes and what is one allowed to express

As I announced a couple of days before, I am about to deal a bit more with the topic of religion, spurred on by the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter's recent remarks.

As I said previously, religion would be a touchy subject even without the unhealthy climate of political correctness created over the years. It deals not only with person's beliefs but largely with one's way of life. But some facts remain no matter what. Such as the one that says that if you believe in a certain religion you automatically believe that all other religions are wrong. It's an axiom dictated by elementary logic and common sense.

One of the basic tennents of Christianity is that salvation is achieved through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Saviour. The bond with the Old Testament(I'll be using Christian terms in this blog entry), however, was never broken and Jesus himself says in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". The Old Testament was always an integral part of the Christian Bible and the New Testament is not an abrogation of it but it's completion. This is what Ann Coulter was saying.

But even that didn't shock the post-modern leftists as much as Coulter's remark that "it would be better if everyone was a Christian". All of a sudden she has become the reincarnation of Torquemada, hell-bent(pun unintentional) on forcibly converting everyone. That's a complete non-sequitur. A person hoping that everyone would accept his religion is no more a proselyte then someone hoping to get rich is a potential bank-robber. There is also another way of looking at it. If Ann Coulter, like any serious Christian, believes that salvation is through Christ, wouldn't true hatred and bigotry be not hoping that other people accept what you see is a path to heaven?

The key of peaceful coexistence of religions is simple: freedom to express one's beliefs and no earthly punishment for not accepting other's. There is no need to dillute the meaning of a religion(well, most of them anyway) in order to preserve social harmony. And nobody should take offence at the fact that somebody believes your religion is wrong because that in effect means you take offence at every belief system other then your own. And that is indeed bigotry.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Further proof(as if we needed any) of how low the UK has fallen

The standards of handing out knighthoods have fallen considerably over the years but I never imagined that they would give it to her! "Services to journalism"? Which ones exactly?

Touchy, are we?

Being in public life means one has to withstand all kinds of questions from the reporters. There is of course a reasonable limit for everything, but for French president Nicolas Sarkozy the bar seems to be set a bit too low. Some 20 minutes into the interview he stormed off because one of the questions treated his relationship with his now ex-wife.

Somebody ought to tell him that there is more to being president then flashy palaces and driving around in luxury limousines.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Are we all square now?

Now that both Rangers and Bayern got their revenge could we please be spared mor heartbreakers? Please?

And if it's not too much to ask, could somebody beat up our goalkeeper and those responsible for the state of our pitch?

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Everything passes

Two weeks or so ago my cousin, wheelchair bound due to multiple sclerosis for quite some time, was singing, havng fun and looking great at my wedding. And all that in spite of, in addition to her basic illness, she was also diagnosed with cancer last spring.

Still, she responded well to her first chemotherapy session. So well that, after having recovered from it, she looked better then ever. We were looking forward to her further treatment with hope...

As of yesterday, however, she is gone. The bad reaction to the new treatment session was fatal. My reaction now is more of disbelief than sadness. The silver lining in this very dark cloud is that her final hours were much less tormenting then most of her life. Still, she never gave up hope and she spread her optimism on all of us. She will sorely be missed.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Catching up

That's the hardest thing to do after being away from the computer for some time. But I'll try...

The so-called Kosovo and Metohija negotiations "proceed" as before. It is a conversation of the deaf, mainly thanks to US promises that they are increasingly unable to keep. Further on Kosovo and Metohija Robert Spencer announces a conference in Washington on the subject on Jihadwatch. If you have the chance be sure to attend.

First Paris, now Amsterdam. Good thing me and my wife decided against going there on our honeymoon.

Ann Coulter caused quite a controversy last week. Liberals and leftists were screaming "A-ha!Gotcha!" and began throwing charges of "bigotry" in all directions. Religion is a touchy subject and I might cover this incident in the next days but I'd like to give a short comment that in a sane and sensible world would be self-evident. When you believe in one religion you ipso facto believe that all other religions are wrong. A Jew serious about his Judaism has to believe that Christianity (and all other religions, for that matter) is wrong and a Christian serious about his Christianity has to believe that Judaism(and, yes, all other religions) are wrong. The trick of "tolerance" is not in dilluting the meaning of religions but in not attempting to force your belief on others using any and all means.

On the sports front, my club Red Star is in a turmoil. The chairman Stojković has resigned under shady cricumstances and quite suddenly. Nobody has an idea on who will succeed him. Ironically, this happened just as the season was taking a turn for the better. And Bayern is coming in a couple days...As for the national team, it's all to little to late, as usual. When it mattered they were duds.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Just blogging some sports news

Our Argentinian centerforward Barcos hit the net twice on Sunday and finally broke the duck. But we had to wait until the final two minutes to grab points against a modest Banat side, even though we are finally starting to play well.

The draw for the UEFA cup groups was all right when it comes to teams but the schedule is a bit worrying. I would have preferred Bayern away. Still, the game against the Bavarian giants brings back some fond memories. More on that later.

Elsewhere, the world witnessed last wednesday the sorry spectacle that was Dida. He is not just an actor, not even a bad actor, he is a stupid actor! It took him half a minute to realize:"Hey I may have screwed up on the goals but I can get something out of this if I simulate". And the club was in it at first as well, otherwise they would not have arranged a substitution for a player they knew was not seriously injured. Only after seeing how truly grotesque the scene was on video did they think better of it. Worse then the defeat on the pitch, Milan damaged their image in front of the world and is now a laughing stock. What difference a couple of months make.

Friday, October 05, 2007

A small break

Yours truly is getting married and going on a honeymoon shortly. As a consequence there will be much less blogging then usual in the next two weeks. But rest assured that all will come back to normal by the end of this month. See ya.

What is going on with Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Hirsi Ali is going back to Holland. The official reason is because the Dutch governement does not want to pay for her bodyguards anymore.

I say "the official reason" because, while the story about the body guards is true in itself, I can not help thinking that there is more to it then meets the eye. For a couple of years now Hirsi Ali was the darling of the US conservative establishment because of it's anti-jihad stance even though her thoughts on other topics supposedly dear to them such as religion in general were rather perplexing. And what was the reaction of these conservatives to her departure? Nothing. Nada. For a couple of days not a word on conservative publications or blogs(save a couple of exceptions)about Hirsi Ali having to go back to Holland and put her life in danger since jihadist death threats are the main reason why she left Holland for the US in the first place. She was not simply attacked or ostracized, she became nobody, airbrushed like a purged Poliburo member from the times of Stalin.

Only yesterday did Robert Spencer, a long time supporter of Ali, react oh JihadWatch, citing preoccupation with other matters as a reason for the delay. But the tardiness could prove costly for Hirsi Ali because had the reaction been immediate it could have put pressure on either the US or Dutch governement to keep protecting her.

In any case, the story is quite peculiar. Not because of the actions of the US and Dutch governements which, sadly, could have been expected, but because of the reactions, or the lack thereof(at least for the time being) of those who have been voices of reason in the past years when it comes to global jihad.

Not bad, but there is room for improvement

Red Star beats Groclin in the return leg as well. The score was 1-0 again but it could have been better. We controlled the game for the whole 90 minutes, the Poles were never likely to make a comeback. And we created a couple of good chances as well. Defense was great and the Colombian Molina is the offensive midfielder we've been lacking in the previous games.

Elsewhere, the shocks of the round were the elimination of ajax at the hand of Dinamo Zagreb and the fact that only one out of four Italian teams made it to the group stages. Another indicator of the decline of Serie A.

The draw is on tuesday and on that will depend the Red Star's direction in this season.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

European renounciation of it's Christian tradition, causes and effects - conclusion

Part one

Part two

Part three

Part four

Is there any hope that Europe and her peoples will survive this situation? Of course there is but first certain conditions must be met.

First, the ruling worldview must change radically. The suicidal ideology of leftist liberalism must be removed frok the postitions of public influence. That includes not only removing politicians from power as well as those who pull the strings behind the scenes, but also the removal of all advocates of post-modern ideologies form the media and educational and scientific institutions along with limiting their influence on art by exposing their works as means for indoctrination. Considering that adherents of post-modern ideologies are deeply rooted in these extremely important segmenta of society nothing short of a revolution would require to realize the needed changes. With this in mind one has to ask two questions: has the critical mass for the social change been achieved and will this change be peaceful or violent?

As for the fist question the answer for the time being is "no". But we are steadily nearing the opportune moment. The social and economic relations in Europe, especially in the European Union, which defy reason and human nature at least superficially give a sense that something is not right. The ruling class is at this moment buying time by taking up the slogans of parties which were until fairly recently branded "extreme right" or "extreme left" but aside from some cosmetic measures they will continue with the variations of the same old because they know no different. This generation of mainstream party politicians is completely educated in the spirit of post-modern, post-national and post-christian "isms" and is not capable of thinking outside that matrix. Only the instict of keeping powere compells them of saying they will do something. If you add that the economies of European countries are not yet exhausted and that years of demonization of "extremists" did produce results and at least subconsciosly prevents people from voting for them on elections, it is clear that there can be no talk of a general turnaround. Failue after failure of the manstream parties to establish some reasonable order will, however, lead to a situation where people will shake off their fear of being called "racist" or "extremist" by the "creators of public opinion" and "analysts" and that will lead to a tectonic shift on the pollitical scene. Which brings me to the answer to the second question...

Whether these political changes happen peacefully or violently depends solely on those presently holding power in Europe. Will they accept the fact that the poeples of their countries do not want them any more, that their ideology is a dangerous utopia and that their social experiment is doomed? Or will they take Berthold Brecht's advice and elect themselves a better people, by mobilizing their supporters and allying themselves with the unassimilated immigrants and their sponsors outside of Europe against the "resurgent nazism"? I am not a prophet but based on what I know about the mentality of current rulers of Europe I fear they would, unfortunately, pick the latter.

Te second condition is that after the coup is done, europe does not get involved in any social experiments but go back to what made her great: it's Cristian civilisation. With the return of Christian moral values and national culturesthe issues such as immigration and economic structure will be dealt wiht in a far better manner then today. By throwing off the yoke of political correctness European creativity and sense for science will re-awake and legal and moral norms could not be so easily broken just because soemone posesses force. Only this kind of transformation will lead to the recovery of the European peoples. Otherwise, the demise will not only be inevitable but will also arrive much quicker and be even more painful.

(The end)

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

European renouncation of it's Christian tradition, causes and effects - part four

Part one

Part two

Part three

The attack on the World trade center in New York destroyed many pre-concieved notions of the world. "The only super-power" was no longer untouchable, and a significant number of people had their own ideas on the development of the world. With the twin towers collapsed also the theory of the "end of history".

The question inevitably surfaced: "Why?". What motivated those people to consciously fly to their own deaths and take thousands of us with them? Why do they hate us so much?

The ruling elites had an answer ready. According to them, the terrorists commit their crimes because they hate "freedom" and "democracy",and because they envy "the advanced nature" of modern civilisation and it's achievments. The objective of terrorists and "terrorist states" is to "sustain totalitarian systems that opress their peoples" and which would inevitably fall under the charge of "freedom" . "Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists" was their mantra. Accordingly, they found a solution to the problem of terrorism: they will bring "freedom" and "democracy" where "terrorist totalitarianism" rules.

Common people, instinctivly sensing something is wrong with that explanation, decided to look for answers themselves. And what they found painted a different picture. Authors and pundits that were set aside and even demonized as "racists" and "nationalists" that "that play on lowest atavistic feelings" got a new audience all of a sudden. The internet era erased the monopoly of mainstream media especially radio and television so the common citizen could finally reach facts that were concealed from him by the ruling establishment and mainstream media. Many discovered that the real reason for the terrorists' hatred were not the "freedoms" citizens of Europe and America enjoy but that it is rather deeply rooted in a jihad ideology that was almost a millenium and a half old and that jihad attacked and conquered Europe much before present-day social relations came to be. Like dissident literature in the former eastern block, publications and articles that presented the inconveniant and politically incorrect truths and jihad and which effectively refuted the "religion of peace hijacked by extremists" were disseminated on the internet.

The real shocks were just about to arrive. Many a police investigation against terrorism discovered that the center of terrorism and jihad were in mosques built for the immigrants from islamic countries which were financed by governements of some muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia. The imams of these mosques freely preached hatred for host-nations, their culture and tradition(the real ones, the ones those countries persistently tried to leave behind). In addition to this, it turned out that many of the most fervent jihadists were muslims born in the west and recent converts of European and American origin which effectively invalidated the thesis about "freedom" and "democracy". For the first time the public became aware that in many cities in Europe there are parts where local laws de facto do not apply but rahter the "laws" and customs of the immigrants' countries of origin. The problem of uncontrolled immigration could no longer be swept under the rug. The rise of popularity of anti-immigrant parties, which were routinely branded "fascist", forced the establishment parties, especially those nominally right-wing, to take up their rhetoric. Once they took power on the wave of anti-immigrant feelings, they would more or less continue with the same old.

The fact that the ruling circles in Europe and America did not want to accept the new reality was quite understandable. For decades they built their ideology on the maxim that "all cultures and religions are basically the same" and that "all people desire freedom and democracy". If they were to admit that those were erroneous, all their efforts would have been in vain. They would all have to give up power, and Europe might, o horror of horrors, go back to it's roots and traditions. This is why, like the soviet politburo once, decided to simply ignore all facts that do not support their ideas hoping they would simply go away.

In spite of the fact that the ruling elites could no longer hide the new reality from it's people the decades of brainwashing with political correctness had disastrous consequences on the population. Confronted with facts that do not represent the world through rosy glasses of the "global community" and "multiethnicism and multiculturalism" many restrained their instictive and natural mechanisms of defense of one's identity and security and kept convincing themselves that what they feel was "racist". The most glaring exapmle is the security guard on the airport where Mohammed Atta, the leader of 9/11 terrorists, boarded one of the ill-fated flights. According to his own admission, when he saw Atta he thought: "If this is not an islamic terrorist, nobody is." but he laet him board the plane because "he immediately pushed away such thoughts because they seemed racist". This is the mentality that has for decades been stuffed down the throats of the citizens of Europe and America. Under no circumstances must one discriminate based on looks, religious convictions or, God forbid, skin colour or nationality. And in some cases one must not discriminate at all. As long as such spiritual state lasts no positive movement will be made in the policies of European countries and America and thus in world relations as well.

(to be continued)

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

European renounciation of it's Christian tradition, causes and effects - part three

Part one

Part two

The last decade of the 20th century saw the peak of post-modern ideologies. With the disappearance of the eastern block disappeared the main cause of tensions in the wordl as well. Everything was set for the world to enter the "global community" era where national identity would remain merely as a folklore detail, and the expression of national culture would be considered as entertainment for the masses. The conflict in the former Yugoslavia shattered the idillical image somewhat and was an inconveniant obstacle but certainly not insurmountable especially when the ideological matrix was established.

The policy of the new western elites towards Yugoslavia lokked only on surface illogical and schizofrenic. If the world is looked at from their ideological angle it is quite sensible. The will of the Serbian people to continue to live united and not carved up in several artificial states, especially living under those who trried to physically exterminate them several times was deemed by new rulers of Europe and the US as "being mired in the past" and "excessive adherence to national myths". The conflict in Kosovo and Metohija was described in a simillar way. On the other hand, aspirations of other ethnic groups were represented not as a nationalistic project(which they were) but as their will to join the "global international democratic community" and that will had to be met, wothout getting into any senseless debate about legal and historical basis for something like that. The lack of a balancing act against the western post-modern ideologues, whether ideological, or in a form of a state, made sure that the Balkans conflict ended the way they did.

The headless jump of eastern Europe into western social processes lead quickly to a disappointment. The peoples of the former communist block soon saw that there is something rotten beneath the surface. Economic deterioration due to uncritical liberalisation was just the tip of the iceberg. For the first time Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and others could see the part of the west wich the "iron curtain" (albeit inadvertantly) kept concealed: the breakdown of family and morality, decadent and obscene works that mocked christianity and religion in general, tradition, history, culture, which globalist-liberal media proclaimed the height of artistic achievement, emphasis on sexual deviance, growing crime rate and the change of the ethnic-religious strusture due to uncontroled immigration. In spite of the rude awakening nobody ever thought of giving up the new "road to bright future". "Are we to revert to communism?" they would rationalize whenever some social behaviour on the west began to seem a bit outside the pale. The artifical dychotomy marxism-globalist liberlaism impeded them to find a rational way of developing their nations, one that does not include erasding national history and culture and national suicide.

The afore mentioned uncontrolled immigration is a logical product of a post-national society. When a country is stripped down to only a geographical concept and the connection between the population only that they live on a certain territory and nothing more, then this territory becomes no man's and thereby every man's. The severing of the emotional connection with the territory a antion populates was being done gradually and by various methods. It began by equaling any desire to preserve national territory with the hitlerite concept of "blutt und boden", and was continued by imposing "historical responsibility" on European peoples for the oppression of third world countries during the colonial period(in case of the US it is white responsibility for black slavery). This created a general feeling that European nations have an obligation to offer all the benefits of their society to third wordl immigrants because, it is obvious, the rich countries are responsible for poverty in Africa. New immigrants made no attempt to assimilate into the new environment. And why should they? First, nobody asked them to, and besides, if the so-called elite of their new countries debases their achievements, and praises immigrants as "the greatest contribution to the country" what possible incentive could they have to renounce the culture of their land of origin? Europe, especially western Europe, therby turned form the stronghold of Christianity into a mish-mash of religions and idiosyncratic belief systems from all over the world.

Not only did the new immigrants, with rare exceptions, did not take in European customs but also many native Europeans began to adhere to immigrant culture. This development should come as no surprise. Supression, abasement, even demonization of the European cultural tradition left a vacuum in the spiritual component of Europe's inhabitants. In an attempt to fill the void, the people in western Europe, especially young people, came face-to-face with untraditiona religions, pseudoreligious post-modern ideologies and sects, in short anything but Christianity which was the traditional spiritual base of all European nations, and which those that decide about social values in educational institutions and the medai proclaimed backwards and repressive.

Eastern Europe was somewhat spared such tendencies, partly because it wasn't interesting to potential immigrants потенцијалним имигрантима due to poverty caused by communism, partly because under the communists christianity was violently persecuted and being a christian was a way of resisting the totalitarian ideology. Besides this, the people exposed to the rule of an atheist dictatorship learned to cherish their traditional faith. The unconditional copying of everything from the west, however, took it's toll. The young people from eastern Europe, who are least aware of their nations' traditions (since they could barely learn it from anyone by the time the communists fell from power) were an easy target for post modern ideologues of all colours.

And so largely unnnoticed by the common man the Christian tradition was being ousted from Europe. Christianity did not seem capable of resisting those who tried to wipe out it's influence on European culture and tradition whether ideologicaly or technically. Who knows what fate might have befallen on it had the eleventh day of september of the year 2001 not changed our world from it's foundations.

(to be continued)

Monday, October 01, 2007

European renounciation of it's Christian tradition, causes and effects - part two

Part one

World War two was to a large extent a conflict betwee the two newly-established ideologies of national-socialism and marxism. In spite of heavy casualties, the USSR was an absolute winner and decided to cash in on it's triumph by forcefully imposing it's worldview on Eastern Europe. Christianity and judaism were nor formally banned but had many informal obstacles set before them. Church property was being confiscated and priests arrested on trumped-up charges...The main historical paradox is that such represion in the long run saved christian churches from the fate they now experience in the west. I will return to that a bit later...Soviet propaganda, besides pointing out correctly that it was their country that bore the brunt of the war effort, represented it's ideology as the only possible of fascism and nazism which marxists represented as the extreme product of "capitalist imperialism" which ruled US and Britain.

In western Europe there was still religious freedo. Although the horrors of war and concentration camps lead to a new re-considerations of existing values such thought did not catch root in a large part of the population in spite of the successes communist and other leftist parties in the first post-war elections which were a result of the victorious euphoria exported from the east. What was lacking, however, was an objective analysis of the causes of the secodn war by the western scientific elite which gave way to leftist interpretations. To the left, especially communists, it was not just fascist and nazi ideologies and their abuse of national feelings that were the main culprits for the war but nationalism and national feelings in general. They were proclaimed "аatavistic" and "a genrator of violent behaviour". The logical solution which would bring peace to mankind was self-evident: a break with national roots and the creation of the "citizen of the world". This coincided well with the marxist theory of "proletaire internationalism".

These ideas found fertile ground among the generations born during and right after World war two. Since they were witness to death, destruction and poverty during a very sensitive period of human development their goal became never to go through the hardships of early life again. After finding the root cause of all the trouble in the world in the nation and nationalism they set upon changing it as they saw fit. Concepts such as patroitism, faith, honour, loyalty, morality, were to be cast into the ash-heaps of history since they restrained human expression and divided people and were the basis of all historical conflict. For that end no means was off-limits. It is little wonder that these people were the pounding fist of the 1968 revolution.

The revolution had failed, but their most unrelenting opponents were not quitting. Although from the outside it had seemed that they cooled down and accepted reality they just started to realize their ideas by different means. They decided to take down the "system" from within, by infiltrating political mainstream and especially education institutions in accordance with guidelines set by the Italian marxist Antonio Gramsci. Soon the "68ers" began indoctrinating the future intellectual elite. They were teaching, and still teach, that christian morality is backwards and repressive, that national feelings are a source of criminal instincts and that their ancestors were savages and murderers. With such a worldview, students inherited the positions of their professors and what is more important inflitrated the mass media and reached the broad population . With subtle and other methods(such as branding their opponents fascists and racists) they killed any real debate and got a monopoly in the public. They created a guilt complex in the western nations over colonialism and world wars and any display of national feelings outside the boundaries of political correctness were deemed as racism. Concepts such as sovereignety, national culture and independence were proclaimed obsolete and were replaced with the "ideals of world community", which were set up slowly and gradually creating the impression that they were always there as an integral part of life.

While in the west there was still a facade of political and religious freedoms, east was run by evident marxist dictatorships which used brutal methods to supress traditional values and cultures of peoples they ruled over. This gave birth to a natural resistance of a part of the population which kept connection with their traditions in a semi-legal way. The social and economic insustainability of the marxist ideology lead to the fall of communism and a Christian renaissance in post-communist countries. In this lies the paradox I mentioned earlier,about communism that saved christianity in the long run.

Eastern European countries, however, were not aware of the radical spiritual changes the west has experienced. As far as what they knew of the west, the time has stopped in 1945. Uncritical rush towards the victors of the Cold war lead to more misunderstandings between East and West.

(to be continued)

Europe's renounciation of it's Christian tradition, causes and effects - part one

It's been a while since I wrote some personal considerations of mine due to some private business I had to attend to. One topic, however, forced me to make some time. I wanted to write about the pushing away of the Christian tradition from every day life in Europe, especially in the European Union.

I was inspired by a short essay from an American conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel titled "Why I'm Glad Most Americans Think Founders Intended Christian Nation
Schlussel in it, among other things, criticizes "the European athiest ethos" and says that Europe is dominated by "a spritual vacuum which is fast being replaced by an extremist belief in Allah ".

What Schlussel neglected to mention is that this spiritual vacuum is a relatively recent phenomenon. What caused it? Contempt for Christianity was first found in the works of Voltaire and Rousseau. Their theories were made into brutal reality by the French revolutionaries, especially Jacobins. After Napoleon took over, the church was again allowed to operate normally, but the emperor would never let them meddle in state affairs. In spite of this, christianity had it's influence in the society, especially on public morality. The population still firmly held on to their belief in God and behaved according to Christian morality and 10 Commandments. In the Balkans, which was still under Ottoman Turkish rule in the 19th century Cristianity had a national-liberating role as well.

Atheism, gnosticism and moral relativism was mostly on the margins of society, limited to philosophical and utopian socialist theories. Only with the emergence of marxism did the atheist ethos get it's ideological frame and historical explanation. Marx considered religion as a means of exploitation of the working class and thought that absolute reason must direct human behaviour. In the new communist society, according to Marx, there will be no place for religion and religious morality as well as nations and nation-states. Marxism, however, could not offer any moral values to replace the existing ones, and that which they offered was so contrary to human nature it could have been imposed only by brute force.

Marxism, or at least it's atheist, anti-christian and antinational component, did not have a large influence on socialist movements in the 19th and the beggining of the 20th century. Opportunity, however, presented itself during the First world war.

The influence of this war is to this day underestimated, and when one speaks of it's legacy, only political and geopolitical changes are taken into account. Very few authors dealt with the spiritual state of the nations that participated. Before that, fighting in a war was not only considered a question of honour but was depicted as some sort of a romantic adventure. That attitude largely explains the photos from 1914. where masses all over Europe greeted the beggining of the war. Besides, up to that point war was usually reserved for the top class, which provided the command cadre and for the poorest which was "cannon fodder". The middle burgois class(merchants, civil servants, bankers) were mostly spared the effort. WWI changed that. Mass armies formed out of conscripts made sure all social strata felt the consequences of the conflict. And many were deeply shocked by what they have seen. Mass butcherings at Verdun and the Somme, headless charges across no-man's land, conditions in the trenches, and evident lack of any kind of strategic vision by the commanders...Horrors never before seen in history. All that made many a participant sceptical not only of the earthly order but also in the spiritual values they previously considered sacrosant. "If God is good and just, why does he allow such evil?" For the first time such question could be heard in all segments of the population. The stage was set for marxists to take power.

The bolsheviks seized the opportunity and took power in Russia. In other countries hit hardest by the war, mostly in the defeated Central powers, their ideological brethrewn were not as successful. At that moment the victorious powers were wise enough not to istigate or aid marxist coups in Germany and Hungary. Later, triuphalist euphoria eclipsed such wisdom which was to the advantage of some other, up to that moment, obscure forces.

As a consequence of defeat in the Great war, relatively new ideologies based on racial theories and social-darwinism gained strength in Germany. Just like marxism, they existed before the war but did not have large support in the population or in the ruling class. Defeat and the peace of Versaille that followed made fertile ground for various chauvinist organizations which saw the break with traditional morality as a condition for recovery. Soon they were more or less united in the national-socialist party under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. They rejected the marxist theory of class struggle and the international brothehood of workers and took the doctrine of the "survival of the fittest". While marxists removed morality between individuals, national-socialists erased moral norms between nations. Might is right was their supreme law. Soon marxists and national-socialists began fighting over who will fill the vacuum in the sprits of Germans, a vacuum ever more profound with each economic crisis. The conflict ended when Hitler became chancellor in January 1933. Hitler made anti-marxism a pillar of German domestic and foreign policy, and placed the destruction of the USSR notl only as his highest personal goal but also as a necessity for the survival of the German people.

Countries that emerged victorious from WWI were hit by a moral erosion of another kind. The high price of victory lead to an unhealthy pacification of the public and the ruling elite. This is especially valid for France which was in 1918. served an opportunity to completely dominate continental Europe for the first time since Napoleon but had neither the force or the will to take it since the war practically wiped out a whole genration of it's best men. Publications which demanded the preservaqtion of peace in Europe at any cost dominated France between the two world wars. Situation in Britain was similar albeit to a lesser extent. This largely explains the appeasing attitude of these countries towards Hitler before the war as well as the collapse of France in 1940.

World War 2 brought an even greater material catastrophe and set the foundations of the definite spiritual destruction of Europe.

(to be continued)