Essays in Idleness

The tide has turned, and I am now assured that the plurality of my female correspondents took no offence from my recent diatribes on Paris, but rather were quietly cheering me on. This, now balanced against a single instance of condemnation by a male; but he sounded like a wuss to me. Hereunder I post another item, in which I triple down on my original position, designed to test for bad nerves. I am determined to make myself tedious on this topic.

*

Through that unimpeachable news source, The Drudge Report, I learnt this morning not only of the latest blasts and shoot-outs, in what was once the holy quarter of Saint-Denis (north of Paris in the old Catholic France), but of football news. There is a link to one of those stories the “mainstream” media omit, since it interferes with their liberal “narrative.”

When a minute’s silence was called, to commemorate the dead in Paris, before a “friendly” match between the national soccer teams of Greece and Turkey in Istanbul, the fans booed. But this was only for a moment. For then a chant of “Allahu Akbar!” broke out through the crowd. It is moot how many were chanting this: it could be heard outside the Basaksehir Stadium. Soundtrack and video were supplied, along with a link to a tamer, originating Reuters story, which has already been removed from their thread. (Go there and it now says, “Page Not Found.”)

Not just a few disaffected psychos, but resounding through the stadium. The (famed) Turkish footballer and now coach, Fatih Terim, went on record after the match to criticize his own fans. I’m sure many other Turks were and are ashamed. But again, this is moot. They have something to be ashamed of.

I note as ironical this use of the term “friendly”; especially when applied to a match between Turkey and Greece. For even in unexceptional circumstances, there is nothing less friendly than a soccer match between rival national teams. The modern worship of the state, as the source of human identity, assures this. Professional sporting activities are justified as a proxy for war. It is suggested that casualties may be lowered that way, and property damage contained. I think this is often the case. Too, the games please the masses, as the bread and circuses of ancient Rome. (The distribution of free bread being the Roman equivalent of food stamps.)

The “narrative,” supported by President Obama in the States, and by the fellow we just elected in Canada, whom I will not stoop to describing as, “Pierre Trudeau’s idiot child,” is that the world shares our Western, post-Christian values, with perhaps the exception of a tiny minority who practice a religion called “Extremism,” which is understood to be in no way related to Islam. These values include the need, after every reasonably large terror attack, to go all soppy, with a tenderness that is a tendresse for Death.

How embarrassing, in retrospect, those Londoners during the last World War, who failed to bring flowers or to light their “candles in the wind,” in response to the Blitz. Who instead went all gritty and determined. Who did not demand retaliation, because they could rely on it; and in thinking of it, had something to which they could look forward. I’m not saying their attitude was especially Christian. But at least it was normal. Dresden was the reply to Coventry, and so forth: one mediaeval city centre for another. (It is a little known fact that “an eye for an eye” is a counsel of moderation.)

It is incidentally a lie that Coventry was targeted as an industrial centre. St Paul’s in London and Canterbury Cathedral were also targeted, but survived by miracle, in raids that left a great ring or halo of fire burning around each shrine; and it was the centre of Coventry that was X’d on Hitler’s map, not the suburbs where all the big factories were. It is instructive that the liberal account, that decries the “gratuitous” bombing of Dresden, is fixated on excusing Hitler.

Little lies, supporting bigger ones; lies as huge as the mantra that, “Islam is a religion of peace.” It would be unreasonable, in the light of fourteen centuries of cultural as well as political history, to say Islam is a religion of violence, only; though perfectly reasonable to observe that the recommendation of violence begins in the Koran.

But neither is Christianity, nor has it ever been, “a religion of peace.”

“Do you think I came to bring Peace on Earth?” … I am quoting Our Lord: check the gospels for the answer. There, if one is attentive, and has the requisite brains, one will discover that “the peace which passeth all understanding” is different from “Peace on Earth”; and that the two may at times be in direct conflict.

For now that gentle reader has found, for instance, Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51, he has also found, in the original or a good translation, the curious word “separation.” Among other things, Christ is separating the concepts. On Earth, as He makes very clear, the peace of heaven does not prevail, and cannot prevail in the shadow of Adam. The truth is that sanctity invites persecution; and that the worse take the better for suckers. And that, as Nehemiah projected, the walls of Jerusalem must be built with one hand on the trowel, and one on the sword. (In T.S. Eliot’s paraphrase: “The trowel in hand, and the gun rather loose in the holster.”)

Serious Christians have always understood this. (Saint Francis of Assisi, for example.) We have public record through twenty centuries of Christians who were not wimps. This is true of Christians both East and West, though I observe that the lands of Eastern Christendom all fell under the Islamic sword. Thanks to such men as Charles Martel, and his many successors, Western Christendom did not. We showed ourselves, even in the Crusades and the (several) Reconquistas, to be more pro-active. We did not accept the inevitability of retreat. Decadent as it may now be, that is why there still is a Europe. Because it did not fall through the centuries and centuries of previous Islamic invasions.

The vision of Christ turning the tables on the merchants of the Temple compound, is not that of “a nice man,” but of One divinely “good.” Likewise, there are real consequences when “men of goodwill” is altered to “all men” in the annunciation to the shepherds. It is, “Peace on earth to men of goodwill.” It is not, “Peace on earth, goodwill to all men.” Again, the “modern” translation is not a mere variant. It is a lie.

At the heart of all this mewling and soppiness over the most recent massacre is thus a big lie. It is moreover a big pharisaic lie, resting on the unshriven idea that, “We are all nice people, innocent victims.” Much is made of the fact that the victims were merely out enjoying themselves: listening to rock music; sitting in cafés; attending a football game. They were “innocent bystanders.”

For sure, they did not “deserve” to be murdered. No one “deserves” murder, though many may deserve hanging. But people get murdered anyway. There are devils in this world, and to mewl about the unfairness of it all, and whimper, “peace, peace,” does nothing more than to excite more chants of “Allahu akbar.”

The paradox here is that weakness invites attack. Strength and resolution discourage it. The Enemy needs to be assured that he can’t win; that every attempt he makes to push his infernal envelope will result in more lost fingers. (And yes there will be “collateral damage,” no matter how we try to avoid it; for we are not playing touch football here.) That is how “Peace on Earth” is actually kept, or restored.

On balance, I think President Hollande has the right general idea, for the moment. It is to escalate against the Daesh in Syria, and send the cops into such suburbs as Saint-Denis, backed up by troops if necessary. France, as all Western countries, needs to mind her borders more carefully; to stop and then reverse the flow of Muslim migrants, as humanely as possible; to accept only those whose willingness to accept us can be tested. (This is Lockean, too: that tolerance must never be extended to those who will not tolerate us.)

But these are only half measures. We cannot even trust our politicians to do the minimum necessary: for like “global warming” they have found Muslim terrorism useful. It is a way to increase their power, and expand the supervision of Nanny State. In the end, only by the faith, of men of goodwill, can a society stand against barbarism.

More deeply, we must rekindle the Christian faith, among people who no longer reproduce, and are slipping into the fear and despair natural to those who have abandoned their heritage; who have become empty husks. For that is the background against which Islam is advancing.