Megalommatis
01-10-2007, 11:07 AM
2006 – 6th Year of War against Islamic Terror, and the Moral Collapse of the West
Engaged in a War against Islamic Terror, the divided Western world makes people allover the world seriously question its credentials to deal with an issue as serious as that. This is rather due to the Western World's collapsed moral standards, by which one can mainly evaluate future developments of universal significance.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
After many years of an odd war without perspectives, targets, and properly identified parts, several people allover the world have good reason to directly ask whether this war can be won by the West or what can be considered as West in today's multi-confused world.
Could the West lose the War against the Islamic Terror?
The question seems logical, but it is not. It should rather be reversed to the following interrogation: Who can win an non-identified enemy, against whom they have fought without first properly identifying themselves, without demonstrating faith to their values, and without testifying to a minimal status of virtue, impartiality, equity and justice?
The following questions should be thoroughly answered before we could possibly tackle the critical interrogation about the war outcome:
- What / Who is the West? What are its values, virtues, systems of faith, basic principles? Who does represent them? Whom do they serve?Is the West's self-evaluation a matter of topographical determinism or does it also involve values?
- What is Islamic Terror? What is its real connection with Islam? Does this religion generate a sort of extremism out of which emanates the Islamic Terror phenomenon?
- Does the Islamic Terror identify itself as such? What is its portrait of the West? What do people, who ascribe themselves to this current, reproach to the West?
- What is the appeal of the West and of the Islamic Terror to other populations of the World that are not either part of the West or Islamic Terror perpetrators, followers and/or admirers? Is it possible for a Christian, an animist and/or the follower of another religion to find him/herself closer to the 'values' or the 'targets' of the Islamic Terror than to those of the West?
- Could someone accept 'Islamic Terror' politically without accepting Islam religiously and spiritually?
- Finally, what are the two opponents' real targets and aspirations? Does the West target the eradication of Islamic Terror only or does it secretly desire the present death of Islam? Do all the people attached to what is called 'Islamic Terror' ultimately seek the imposition of their version of Islam throughout the surface of the earth?
The Warring parts. I – The West
What is the West and who does represent it best? In the eve of the US-led war against Iraq, what were the countries that represented Western values best? America, England, Italy, Spain and Portugal? Or France, Germany, Belgium and Russia? The answer may need volumes, and yet it would be controversial.
If we judge, based on the appearances, we would be fast led to the assumption that all the aforementioned countries and many more form the West as a united group, and that the division was a secondary political one. However, this would not be affordable at the moral level; it would demonstrate that the West is an amoral realm of states run by politicians, who utilize principles and ideas in a way that best suits their material interests. As an interpretative argument, it would signify the moral collapse of the West.
What are practically speaking the West's values to start with? A European scholar like Umberto Ecco would have it easy to highlight a well known diagram, starting with Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, and the Tragedians, passing through Cicero, Virgil, Ovid, Marc Aurel, to arrive to St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and then to the Masters of the Renaissance, the Classicism, the Romanticism, the Encyclopedistes, and the modern existentialists.
A confused, conventional identity
All this is an old story that does not work anymore; falsely interpreted, most of the aforementioned names are utilized to serve a bogus-model that cannot offer basics of self-identification. Not only they are contradictory to one another, but if alive they would reject the modern face of the West, Europe or America, firmly denouncing their contribution to the rise of, and utterly stigmatizing, the modern Western societies. None of them would find a trace of humanity in the modern Western construction, the duplicitous and hypocritical nature of which would have not escaped from their observation.
Positive or negative, reactionary or progressive, all the 'great names' the Modern West calls upon would not agree to a hypothetical posterior 'adoption' of the monstrous 'child' where abortion is benevolently practiced, gay and lesbian marriages are legalized, and everyone is constrained to live far from God(s), temples and other places of connection with the Transcendental World. More recent European philosophers, the likes of Montesquieu, Goethe and Voltaire, would find utterly inhuman to live as hypocritically as average Europeans are obliged by their leadership to do, when starvation, tyranny, pestilence, extreme deforestation, and barbarism are blatant in vast parts of the world.
The European philosophers of the Lumieres, to stick to a relatively recent period, would be delighted with the idea of rising European and American political establishments that would implement their principles and ideals; they would be flattered to hear that these establishments would do their best to diffuse the concepts of Liberty, Fraternity, Democracy, Human Rights, Justice, Equity to other parts of the world, the African continent, the Indian subcontinent, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire.
But these were their limits; we know that their knowledge of the Ottoman Empire was minimal. They viewed in this colossal empire as the embodiment of the Oriental Despotism, a notion they had developed after reading Ancient Greek and Romans authors, whom they had had a priori idealized. Yet, the milliyet system that had been long institutionalized within the Ottoman Empire offered protection to ethnic-religious minorities that the Bretons and the Corsicans of France did not have even in their wildest dreams.
Far from the dreams and the wishes of the Great Pillars of European Thought
The limits of the European philosophers became the starting point for the colonials; today, 209 years after Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, we know very well that the West did not intend to diffuse ideas and principles but to instigate hatred, to promote division, to fuel fratricide conflicts in the most perverse and disreputable way, and to ultimately exploit local resources by plunging indigenous populations into an unprecedented underdevelopment.
Many try to idiotically attribute the responsibility for the Middle Eastern hell to the - real – negative developments that had taken place within Islam. Fanaticism, backward obscurantism, hatred and hysteria would be the mistake of the Muslims of the Middle East. This is ridiculous.
If the Ottoman Empire had been left intact at the aftermath of the WW I, then the rising forces of Kemal Ataturk, who imposed great changes, republican system, emancipation of women, strictly observed secular state and society, secular education (without any religious elements), equal rights and obligations for male and female citizens, democratic elections with women participating (long before women had right to vote in France), Latin alphabet for Turkish, would have diffused the same political ideals among the populations that lived in the areas of today's Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait. If this had been done, the religious fanaticism, extremism and sick sentimentalism would have not been able to persist and deteriorate. Turkey ruling the surface of the pre-WW I Ottoman Empire would have it easily done, and a national home for the world's Jews would have found better protectors in the Turks than the British.
These realities have never been discussed in duplicitous, murderous Europe that bears the heaviest responsibility for turning the Middle East to a hell for all. America on the other hand failed to notice similar conditions that also prevail in other parts of the former European colonial empires.
American, Vatican and Europe in Search of the lost Western Soul
America has the military and political force to opt for an exit that would immediately equal victory in the War against Islamic Terror. Vatican has the spiritual and intellectual force to advance repentance and regret for the criminal schemes of the colonial and 'post-colonial' times. Many in Europe, peoples and governments, intellectuals and academia, have the inner capacity to ultimately understand what happened before the words 'Islamic Terror' appeared in the western mass media. Without an earlier understanding of the logic 'cause – effect', no one can aspire to a victory over the Islamic Terror and no one can claim credentials of Aristotelician thought.
Without a fresh effort for self-identification, America and Europe can never hope to possibly prevail over the Islamic Terror. The reason is simple; in its essence, this fight is a Conflict between Good and Evil. The “Good” will never prevail over the evil, unless the “Good” understands its nature, its real identity of 'Good', and perceives correctly the 'elements' the “Evil” is made of.
If in this fight, one meets in Europe and in America people who suggest that the fight is just another political confrontation that needs only military and political decision making, one must be sure that these people are the Fifth Phalange of the Islamic Terror. It may sound odd that people in the West have identical targets with Ossama Bin Laden, but there is nothing strange in it; beyond states and practices there are principles, and evil principles are served by evil people who pay little interest to tiny differences that fascinate idiotic and misguided (through mass media) masses.
So, to answer the question, we would say that the West is a multi-divided, multi-expanded condition of cultural, behavioural, societal order that involves various interpretational schemes and economic - political options that vaguely, poorly or hardly reflect the aspirations and the wishes of most of the great intellectuals on which the rise of the West is said to have relied upon.
Above all, the West is the epitome of a multileveled compromise among all of its different, if not diametrically opposed to one another, constituents, a conditio sine qua non for its later survival, as believed by most of its academia, intellectuals, socio-economic and political elites and spiritual leaderships.
The point has long been reached that Europeans (Russians and Turks included) and Americans, as the best expression of what stands as Western world (although we do not underestimate elites like those of Canada, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, and even China), do not attempt any groundbreaking step in what is supposedly the frame of academic and intellectual life because of fear that the entire baroque building would be destabilized, if not collapsed.
'Victory' over the USSR? An Omen Ominous for Europe
The West appeared victorious in the aftermath of the Cold War, a strange appellation as a lot of blood was shed by proxies; the West European countries and the USSR did not engage in a battle, but Vietnam, Korea, Angola and other peripheral countries became the field where many Americans, indigenous and others lost their lives in a very hot confrontation between Capitalism and Marxism – Leninism.
This feeling of 'victory' was ultimately false and surely misguiding; there was not victory for any side. Simply, the Socialist Soviet nomenklatura collapsed under the burden of its own, numerous, repetitive and at times lethal mistakes.
Contrarily to WW II, the 'Cold War' ended with the natural collapse of one of the two warring parts. This should rather be taken as an Omen Ominous by the superfluous Western bogus-intelligentsia. Unfortunately, it was not.
Yet, the lesson was very sheer; a war does not need militarily, economically and politically quasi-equal opponents to be won. The view “Republican France against Kaiserist Germany”, “Hapsburg Austria-Hungary against Romanov Holy Russia” and USA vs. USSR is either obsolete or childish. This sort of conventional wisdom ended. Few people in today's West realize how 'little' is needed for the entire West to collapse.
This would bring us back to the old discussion about the end of the empires and the civilizations; it is anyone's guess and all options are open. However, quite unfortunately, irrespective of the fresh ideas that anyone can inject into this debate, the common denominator will always be the same: cultures die, empires collapse, civilizations end, when the societies in which they had previously developed are devoid of diachronic virtues, moral principles, philosophical values, sets of concepts on which common faith in its diversity and common life in its variety help populations 'create'. It is all about a Moral Order that erroneously venerated people in the West have been besotted enough to exterminate.
No Virtue, no victory!
Whether you like it or not, when you have 'authors' who publish novels to describe that on the day their mother died they (or their supposed hero, but this does not truly matter) felt the need to spend some time with a prostitute, then modern literature makes a little step forward (this is the reason the novel is widely read and the author shamefully respected) but the entire society jumps backward in the most spectacular way.
These are the terminated societies of the West; how can guy, who mourns his dead mother by enjoying sex with a prostitute, possibly identify values in his society and engage in battle against the Islamic Terror?
How the West will convince the hundreds of millions of masses of Muslims that the terrorists of Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Courts of Justice, Al Qaeda and all the rest consist in a possible “threat” to Civilized Life? Is prostitution a desired part of civilization?
Can criminal Western bogus-historians justify Camus' L' Etranger on the basis of prostitution practiced in Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman temples? Is that not the most disreputable equation of all times? How can one pick up an individual element out of a context, illogically transfer it to another, and have it infiltrated therein? Ancient prostitution does not validate modern times prostitution, as the entire society was absolutely different, and certainly not a single Egyptian or Babylonian, Greek or Roman went to a temple prostitute in the aftermath of his mother's death.
What is more of a threat for a righteous person living in Poland or in Colorado? Ossama bin Laden's supposed order for attacks against Western soldiers in Iraq or the concept of a visit to brothels as response to one's mother's death?
This is an infinitesimal example of how low the Western societies have fallen, even if we judge by using criteria proper to Western culture and civilization. These societies of no virtue and no value have no courage to engage in a battle; they are already a rotten corpse much alike that of Nana, the famous heroin of Emile Zola. This is the reason the healthiest part of the West, the USA, entered into the War against Islamic Terror. But doing it in a way that reflects military and political considerations, the American administration deprived itself of the strongest weapon in this critical battle of battles: its moral dimension.
America does not face the same threat as Europe; the religious revival heralds developments of moral order that will sooner or later augur a New American Civilization. Europe is the most vulnerable part of the West, the more exposed to implosion and collapse, even without a military confrontation taking place. What makes the trans-Atlantic interrelationship even more particular is that, if America fails to confront the Islamic Terror in the Middle East and Africa, Europe will not avoid the major crisis in its millennia long history.
The most atrocious to be expected!
Without a need of armies attacking from Spain and the Balkans, the rise of the extremist Caliphate will have all possible means to trigger dramatic developments within Europe that would find itself in a position of USSR-1989. America would be very far to intervene; even worse for today's idiotically anti-American Europeans, when this takes place, there might be a spiritual leadership in America that will find it necessary to explain the collapse of Europe as well deserved moral castigation sent from God.
Frightened as they are, the present European leaders try to convince Americans not to generate major changes, lest the overall balance be upset. In their pathetic attitude, they contribute to speeding developments. Having long left untrustworthy presidential and royal tyrants rule artificial entities that are anything but a proper country, the Europeans have done their best to bring their own end as soon as possible. What will emanate from the vociferous, chaotic, barbaric realm of the Middle East will be the lowest of the low, and will spread the utmost negation of Virtue and Civilization. It can be very unexpected and can come very soon. To explain what it can be we should examine the other warring part – the Islamic extremism that in the name of Islam cultivates Satanism, sheer, pure, unadulterated Satanism.
First published in: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=18484
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Engaged in a War against Islamic Terror, the divided Western world makes people allover the world seriously question its credentials to deal with an issue as serious as that. This is rather due to the Western World's collapsed moral standards, by which one can mainly evaluate future developments of universal significance.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
After many years of an odd war without perspectives, targets, and properly identified parts, several people allover the world have good reason to directly ask whether this war can be won by the West or what can be considered as West in today's multi-confused world.
Could the West lose the War against the Islamic Terror?
The question seems logical, but it is not. It should rather be reversed to the following interrogation: Who can win an non-identified enemy, against whom they have fought without first properly identifying themselves, without demonstrating faith to their values, and without testifying to a minimal status of virtue, impartiality, equity and justice?
The following questions should be thoroughly answered before we could possibly tackle the critical interrogation about the war outcome:
- What / Who is the West? What are its values, virtues, systems of faith, basic principles? Who does represent them? Whom do they serve?Is the West's self-evaluation a matter of topographical determinism or does it also involve values?
- What is Islamic Terror? What is its real connection with Islam? Does this religion generate a sort of extremism out of which emanates the Islamic Terror phenomenon?
- Does the Islamic Terror identify itself as such? What is its portrait of the West? What do people, who ascribe themselves to this current, reproach to the West?
- What is the appeal of the West and of the Islamic Terror to other populations of the World that are not either part of the West or Islamic Terror perpetrators, followers and/or admirers? Is it possible for a Christian, an animist and/or the follower of another religion to find him/herself closer to the 'values' or the 'targets' of the Islamic Terror than to those of the West?
- Could someone accept 'Islamic Terror' politically without accepting Islam religiously and spiritually?
- Finally, what are the two opponents' real targets and aspirations? Does the West target the eradication of Islamic Terror only or does it secretly desire the present death of Islam? Do all the people attached to what is called 'Islamic Terror' ultimately seek the imposition of their version of Islam throughout the surface of the earth?
The Warring parts. I – The West
What is the West and who does represent it best? In the eve of the US-led war against Iraq, what were the countries that represented Western values best? America, England, Italy, Spain and Portugal? Or France, Germany, Belgium and Russia? The answer may need volumes, and yet it would be controversial.
If we judge, based on the appearances, we would be fast led to the assumption that all the aforementioned countries and many more form the West as a united group, and that the division was a secondary political one. However, this would not be affordable at the moral level; it would demonstrate that the West is an amoral realm of states run by politicians, who utilize principles and ideas in a way that best suits their material interests. As an interpretative argument, it would signify the moral collapse of the West.
What are practically speaking the West's values to start with? A European scholar like Umberto Ecco would have it easy to highlight a well known diagram, starting with Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, and the Tragedians, passing through Cicero, Virgil, Ovid, Marc Aurel, to arrive to St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and then to the Masters of the Renaissance, the Classicism, the Romanticism, the Encyclopedistes, and the modern existentialists.
A confused, conventional identity
All this is an old story that does not work anymore; falsely interpreted, most of the aforementioned names are utilized to serve a bogus-model that cannot offer basics of self-identification. Not only they are contradictory to one another, but if alive they would reject the modern face of the West, Europe or America, firmly denouncing their contribution to the rise of, and utterly stigmatizing, the modern Western societies. None of them would find a trace of humanity in the modern Western construction, the duplicitous and hypocritical nature of which would have not escaped from their observation.
Positive or negative, reactionary or progressive, all the 'great names' the Modern West calls upon would not agree to a hypothetical posterior 'adoption' of the monstrous 'child' where abortion is benevolently practiced, gay and lesbian marriages are legalized, and everyone is constrained to live far from God(s), temples and other places of connection with the Transcendental World. More recent European philosophers, the likes of Montesquieu, Goethe and Voltaire, would find utterly inhuman to live as hypocritically as average Europeans are obliged by their leadership to do, when starvation, tyranny, pestilence, extreme deforestation, and barbarism are blatant in vast parts of the world.
The European philosophers of the Lumieres, to stick to a relatively recent period, would be delighted with the idea of rising European and American political establishments that would implement their principles and ideals; they would be flattered to hear that these establishments would do their best to diffuse the concepts of Liberty, Fraternity, Democracy, Human Rights, Justice, Equity to other parts of the world, the African continent, the Indian subcontinent, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire.
But these were their limits; we know that their knowledge of the Ottoman Empire was minimal. They viewed in this colossal empire as the embodiment of the Oriental Despotism, a notion they had developed after reading Ancient Greek and Romans authors, whom they had had a priori idealized. Yet, the milliyet system that had been long institutionalized within the Ottoman Empire offered protection to ethnic-religious minorities that the Bretons and the Corsicans of France did not have even in their wildest dreams.
Far from the dreams and the wishes of the Great Pillars of European Thought
The limits of the European philosophers became the starting point for the colonials; today, 209 years after Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, we know very well that the West did not intend to diffuse ideas and principles but to instigate hatred, to promote division, to fuel fratricide conflicts in the most perverse and disreputable way, and to ultimately exploit local resources by plunging indigenous populations into an unprecedented underdevelopment.
Many try to idiotically attribute the responsibility for the Middle Eastern hell to the - real – negative developments that had taken place within Islam. Fanaticism, backward obscurantism, hatred and hysteria would be the mistake of the Muslims of the Middle East. This is ridiculous.
If the Ottoman Empire had been left intact at the aftermath of the WW I, then the rising forces of Kemal Ataturk, who imposed great changes, republican system, emancipation of women, strictly observed secular state and society, secular education (without any religious elements), equal rights and obligations for male and female citizens, democratic elections with women participating (long before women had right to vote in France), Latin alphabet for Turkish, would have diffused the same political ideals among the populations that lived in the areas of today's Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait. If this had been done, the religious fanaticism, extremism and sick sentimentalism would have not been able to persist and deteriorate. Turkey ruling the surface of the pre-WW I Ottoman Empire would have it easily done, and a national home for the world's Jews would have found better protectors in the Turks than the British.
These realities have never been discussed in duplicitous, murderous Europe that bears the heaviest responsibility for turning the Middle East to a hell for all. America on the other hand failed to notice similar conditions that also prevail in other parts of the former European colonial empires.
American, Vatican and Europe in Search of the lost Western Soul
America has the military and political force to opt for an exit that would immediately equal victory in the War against Islamic Terror. Vatican has the spiritual and intellectual force to advance repentance and regret for the criminal schemes of the colonial and 'post-colonial' times. Many in Europe, peoples and governments, intellectuals and academia, have the inner capacity to ultimately understand what happened before the words 'Islamic Terror' appeared in the western mass media. Without an earlier understanding of the logic 'cause – effect', no one can aspire to a victory over the Islamic Terror and no one can claim credentials of Aristotelician thought.
Without a fresh effort for self-identification, America and Europe can never hope to possibly prevail over the Islamic Terror. The reason is simple; in its essence, this fight is a Conflict between Good and Evil. The “Good” will never prevail over the evil, unless the “Good” understands its nature, its real identity of 'Good', and perceives correctly the 'elements' the “Evil” is made of.
If in this fight, one meets in Europe and in America people who suggest that the fight is just another political confrontation that needs only military and political decision making, one must be sure that these people are the Fifth Phalange of the Islamic Terror. It may sound odd that people in the West have identical targets with Ossama Bin Laden, but there is nothing strange in it; beyond states and practices there are principles, and evil principles are served by evil people who pay little interest to tiny differences that fascinate idiotic and misguided (through mass media) masses.
So, to answer the question, we would say that the West is a multi-divided, multi-expanded condition of cultural, behavioural, societal order that involves various interpretational schemes and economic - political options that vaguely, poorly or hardly reflect the aspirations and the wishes of most of the great intellectuals on which the rise of the West is said to have relied upon.
Above all, the West is the epitome of a multileveled compromise among all of its different, if not diametrically opposed to one another, constituents, a conditio sine qua non for its later survival, as believed by most of its academia, intellectuals, socio-economic and political elites and spiritual leaderships.
The point has long been reached that Europeans (Russians and Turks included) and Americans, as the best expression of what stands as Western world (although we do not underestimate elites like those of Canada, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, and even China), do not attempt any groundbreaking step in what is supposedly the frame of academic and intellectual life because of fear that the entire baroque building would be destabilized, if not collapsed.
'Victory' over the USSR? An Omen Ominous for Europe
The West appeared victorious in the aftermath of the Cold War, a strange appellation as a lot of blood was shed by proxies; the West European countries and the USSR did not engage in a battle, but Vietnam, Korea, Angola and other peripheral countries became the field where many Americans, indigenous and others lost their lives in a very hot confrontation between Capitalism and Marxism – Leninism.
This feeling of 'victory' was ultimately false and surely misguiding; there was not victory for any side. Simply, the Socialist Soviet nomenklatura collapsed under the burden of its own, numerous, repetitive and at times lethal mistakes.
Contrarily to WW II, the 'Cold War' ended with the natural collapse of one of the two warring parts. This should rather be taken as an Omen Ominous by the superfluous Western bogus-intelligentsia. Unfortunately, it was not.
Yet, the lesson was very sheer; a war does not need militarily, economically and politically quasi-equal opponents to be won. The view “Republican France against Kaiserist Germany”, “Hapsburg Austria-Hungary against Romanov Holy Russia” and USA vs. USSR is either obsolete or childish. This sort of conventional wisdom ended. Few people in today's West realize how 'little' is needed for the entire West to collapse.
This would bring us back to the old discussion about the end of the empires and the civilizations; it is anyone's guess and all options are open. However, quite unfortunately, irrespective of the fresh ideas that anyone can inject into this debate, the common denominator will always be the same: cultures die, empires collapse, civilizations end, when the societies in which they had previously developed are devoid of diachronic virtues, moral principles, philosophical values, sets of concepts on which common faith in its diversity and common life in its variety help populations 'create'. It is all about a Moral Order that erroneously venerated people in the West have been besotted enough to exterminate.
No Virtue, no victory!
Whether you like it or not, when you have 'authors' who publish novels to describe that on the day their mother died they (or their supposed hero, but this does not truly matter) felt the need to spend some time with a prostitute, then modern literature makes a little step forward (this is the reason the novel is widely read and the author shamefully respected) but the entire society jumps backward in the most spectacular way.
These are the terminated societies of the West; how can guy, who mourns his dead mother by enjoying sex with a prostitute, possibly identify values in his society and engage in battle against the Islamic Terror?
How the West will convince the hundreds of millions of masses of Muslims that the terrorists of Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Courts of Justice, Al Qaeda and all the rest consist in a possible “threat” to Civilized Life? Is prostitution a desired part of civilization?
Can criminal Western bogus-historians justify Camus' L' Etranger on the basis of prostitution practiced in Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman temples? Is that not the most disreputable equation of all times? How can one pick up an individual element out of a context, illogically transfer it to another, and have it infiltrated therein? Ancient prostitution does not validate modern times prostitution, as the entire society was absolutely different, and certainly not a single Egyptian or Babylonian, Greek or Roman went to a temple prostitute in the aftermath of his mother's death.
What is more of a threat for a righteous person living in Poland or in Colorado? Ossama bin Laden's supposed order for attacks against Western soldiers in Iraq or the concept of a visit to brothels as response to one's mother's death?
This is an infinitesimal example of how low the Western societies have fallen, even if we judge by using criteria proper to Western culture and civilization. These societies of no virtue and no value have no courage to engage in a battle; they are already a rotten corpse much alike that of Nana, the famous heroin of Emile Zola. This is the reason the healthiest part of the West, the USA, entered into the War against Islamic Terror. But doing it in a way that reflects military and political considerations, the American administration deprived itself of the strongest weapon in this critical battle of battles: its moral dimension.
America does not face the same threat as Europe; the religious revival heralds developments of moral order that will sooner or later augur a New American Civilization. Europe is the most vulnerable part of the West, the more exposed to implosion and collapse, even without a military confrontation taking place. What makes the trans-Atlantic interrelationship even more particular is that, if America fails to confront the Islamic Terror in the Middle East and Africa, Europe will not avoid the major crisis in its millennia long history.
The most atrocious to be expected!
Without a need of armies attacking from Spain and the Balkans, the rise of the extremist Caliphate will have all possible means to trigger dramatic developments within Europe that would find itself in a position of USSR-1989. America would be very far to intervene; even worse for today's idiotically anti-American Europeans, when this takes place, there might be a spiritual leadership in America that will find it necessary to explain the collapse of Europe as well deserved moral castigation sent from God.
Frightened as they are, the present European leaders try to convince Americans not to generate major changes, lest the overall balance be upset. In their pathetic attitude, they contribute to speeding developments. Having long left untrustworthy presidential and royal tyrants rule artificial entities that are anything but a proper country, the Europeans have done their best to bring their own end as soon as possible. What will emanate from the vociferous, chaotic, barbaric realm of the Middle East will be the lowest of the low, and will spread the utmost negation of Virtue and Civilization. It can be very unexpected and can come very soon. To explain what it can be we should examine the other warring part – the Islamic extremism that in the name of Islam cultivates Satanism, sheer, pure, unadulterated Satanism.
First published in: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=18484
(TO BE CONTINUED)