…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.