Essays in Idleness

On this planet, there are no permanent “safe zones,” for Catholics or others of the Christian persuasion. Or anyone. But that’s not something to wring hands over. There never were, there will never be — till God pulls the curtains on our sordid drama. We have the advantage over other communities of barely stable human beings, in having been taught to expect invasion, these last two thousand years. Christ spoke to adults, not children; we should be teaching children in our turn. (First, of course, we have to beget them.)

Grown-ups should know they have what they can defend, individually and collectively. Graced with basic intelligence, we can also begin to appreciate that “defence” is required on many levels: some very plain, others rather subtle.

The idea of retiring from the world, to the monastery or the hermitage, has, approximately, nothing to do with the “no-go” and safe zones demanded by Muslim psychopaths and campus liberals. Those a little acquainted with history will know there is no mountain so high, no desert so wide, to keep off the Devil. He is familiar with our earthly geography, and has that spirit of enterprise that progressive folk so honour. He’s comin’ ta get ya, and only those already got will fail to discern his approach.

We have been invaded, we are going to be invaded: stop whining about it. We are under spiritual attack, every day, and what is more we may be under physical attack, too. Christ did not even bother to teach about the “kill or be killed” situations. I think this is because they were too simple to be worth His time. The human organism is anyway endowed with the capacity to suss out the advantages of self-preservation. Even in Parkdale, the pigeons have figured that out, and keep their “safe zones” moving. (I have, incidentally, an excellent Egyptian recipe for squab.)

On campuses such as that of the University of Missouri — where the law of non-contradiction has been abrogated, and the norms of civilization no longer apply — we have by contrast the demand for stationary safe zones. And from the Muslims in recent immigrant ghettos across Western Europe, we have not merely the demand, but the actual establishment of “no go” areas, where the police and other public services — including fire trucks and ambulances — will be met with rocks. To wander in, improperly dressed for Shariah, would be like taking an evening stroll into Palestine, for a skull-capped Jew. Which is to say, extremely inadvisable.

There are, to any reasonably intelligent young woman, wishing to forego molestation, parts of many cities best avoided. This is a fact of life, and not an acceptable one, either. Such women may want “safe zones” for themselves, but are insufficiently ambitious. The job of the cops is, on the contrary, to remove the safe zones for rapists and muggers — regardless of the local ethnicity. (This is also a task for any healthy young man.)

I am encouraged, for at least a moment, by the official reaction to the shootings in Paris, even if discouraged by the popular reaction, that will eventually tell in the polls. Notwithstanding the hand-wringing, and candlelight displays, Hollande and the more than one hundred thousand troops he has now requisitioned, seem ready to rumble. His aubergines (I love this old French slang for gendarmes, that sadly passed away with their puffy black raincoats) sprinkled five thousand bullets around the safest of the Jihadi safe places within Saint-Denis, and I think this was about the right number. Better still to test the next barrier with a tank.

Why should the adepts of Jihad be made to feel any more comfortable in the West, than we do? Especially when they are the principal source of our discomfort. My mediaeval conception of “rights” does not extend to ethnic factions. What does not further provide for all human beings from the moment of conception, should rather be considered case by case.

Unfortunately we no longer have that class of politicians, which I am persuaded we once had in both “conservative” and “liberal” ranks, who understood well and quickly that intimidation requires a virile response; and who would turn even upon their own supporters when unreasonable demands were shoved forward. Alas, I am referring mostly to times before the First World War. But the sense of irreducible public responsibility can, in principle, be stirred from slumber; and if those “Syrian refugees” with Kalashnikovs will keep it up, who knows what they may awaken. We can only hope for politicians who will not only rise, but shine.

“Comfort zones” is another term, for what Muslim psychopaths and campus hotshots think should be provided, at the expense of others. The liberals, as usual, were late to the discovery; the Muslims have many centuries on them, with their concept of the Dar al-Islam. It goes back to the Koran. In English it is conveyed by the phrase: “Mine is mine, and yours is for sharing.”

Too: the concept of constant progress, in a sense unknown to the classical world. (I am uttering an opinion with which, I admit, some classical scholars might disagree.) For the religious idea that this Dar al-Islam, or gigantic “safe zone,” must be constantly expanding, against neighbours who have only such rights as Muslims are in a mood to confer, is also an Islamic invention. Congratulate them at least for their originality; our liberals came to the “ratcheting principle” rather late in the day.

Charles Martel was the Western refutation: “So what happens when your frontiers contract?”

A shark, if I may revert to my earlier mention of animal life, is rather different from a pigeon. (Trust me on this, I was a science kid.) There are many kinds of shark, some of which (like Sufis) are habitually peaceful; but most sharks, from viviparous birth, are endowed with a system of respiration that requires them to ceaselessly swim forward. Stall, or push them backwards, and they asphyxiate. Their aggressive hunting customs are of a piece, reflecting this “progressive” need.

Sharks are sharks and will be, whether from the East, or from the West. Who am I to judge their nature? But it is not their nature that I oppose. Rather, it is the idea that we should keep backing off, so their comfort zones will not be impeded, when some kind of wall would be much more effective.

Call it, if you will, our own “comfort zone,” and grow it. Or as the feminists like to put it: “Take back the night.”