What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Weak Reeds That Pierce Our Hands

From time to time, I entertain a sort of running dialogue - with myself. No, I'm not crazy, at least not yet. What I am attempting to do in that dialogue is persuade myself that Western leaders and opinion makers could not betray the West, by incremental steps sometimes imperceptible, into the clutches of our adversaries - not by means of some nefarious conspiracy, but in consequence of their own imbecilic fantasies and delusions. Some part of me, cynical and melancholy though I am, is desirous that there occur no apocalypse of liberalism.

Alas, I believe that I'm am losing that argument with my pessimistic instincts, which suggest to me that, when the moment arrives, our leaders will sooner turn intolerant towards us, and our cultures, than acknowledge that, say, Islam is not a religion of peace.

Joseph Loconte, writing in the Weekly Standard of the film being prepared by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, you see, engages in the stereotypical hand-wringing and cleverer-than-the-messenger, who-should-be-shot posturing, which performance summons up all of those dark thoughts. His article is illustrative of everything that is wrong with the elite commentariat in the West, and why we cannot now rely upon them in this regard, and why they will likely continue to fail us.

Referencing the controversy the knowledge of the film's production has already occasioned, Loconte avers that

The sorry fact is that Holland and much of Europe are ill-prepared for a contest against religious extremism. This latest debacle is less about Islamist militancy, however, than about the moral vertigo created by Europe's liberal and secular ideologies. European approaches to religion, pluralism, and immigration are failing miserably--and few seem to understand why or what to do about it.

And right from the inception, his analysis is veering luridly off-course. Why should this matter be thought to be less of something and more of another, as though we were here confronted with an opposition? For clearly the matter is a both/and sort of affair, with the "moral vertigo" of European secularism having swept the house clean of vigorous belief, leaving it emptied for the arrival of "Islamist militancy". It is true that few understand what to do about this; but that pathetic fact is owing to the inability or unwillingness of European elites to think outside the box of their little managerial utopia, in which the old Marxist dogma of religion as epiphenomenon of material privation has never withered away. Europe indulges Muslims for a variety of reasons, but one of the most potent is that her elites simply cannot believe that anyone could take that stuff seriously on prolonged exposure to the material comforts and seductions of post-Christian, post-national Europe.

So, Wilders' proposed solution, involving the cessation of Muslim immigration, a ban on the Koran, and surveillance of mosques, strikes Loconte as a provocation, one that will engender what Wilders seeks to prevent, alienating moderates in the process:

Nevertheless, Wilders suffers from his own brand of dogmatism. He admits that most of Holland's one million Muslims are not violent theocrats-in-waiting, but he denies that there is such a thing as "moderate" Islam. What does he expect Dutch Muslims who play by the democratic rules to do in response? Tear up their Korans?

Now, I will gladly concede that Wilders' rhetoric is perhaps a bit overheated; given recent events in Holland, I cannot fault him for that. But Wilders does, for all of that, admit the crucial distinction, namely, that between the pernicious, hateful, and invidious doctrines contained within the Islamic tradition, and the adherents of that religion, who, as Christians themselves often do, take or leave what they want from a religion. Ironically, for one so concerned to preserve certain fictions of Western modernity, Loconte collapses this distinction, implying, as a good nominalist, that Islam is as its adherents do - and if this is so, then Islam both is and is not, or may be, a bellicose and persecuting creed. In such a case, the Dutch would be right to throw up their hands in resignation - to ignorance as to the nature of the religion - and to go along with Wilders on prudential grounds. Why take chances?

Loconte continues:

Thus we have a crusade to rescue liberal democracy that would dissolve one of the foundations of democratic government, namely, the separation between church and state. By assuming the mantle of Grand Inquisitor, Wilders seeks to wield state power not only to define the belief system of an entire faith community, but also to stigmatize and criminalize it.

Of course, Wilders does no such thing, as none of his proposals collapses the distinction between church and state. Merely defining some doctrine or creed as inimical to the (implicit limits of) a public orthodoxy (which all nations possess) does not conflate church and state, no matter how much defenders of the Open Society bleat that it does. To do so neither legislates in the name of some particular sect, nor mandates adherence to the doctrines of a sect; it is only to say that one may not propagate such and such a creed, because said creed is destructive of our way of life - which way of life is rather capacious, indeed. In essence, this complaint would have it that a negative act is simultaneously a positive act - that not-M equates to C. Which is absurd.

Loconte is not finished with the absurdities, however, as he next asserts that Wilders and his defenders assert a spurious right of government officials to launch witch-hunts against religious communities. Of course, this must be false, and on grounds Loconte has already admitted, namely, that Wilders acknowledges the majority of Dutch Muslims to be law-abiding. Were I in the position of Wilders, I'd be feeling a bit tetchy, and might accuse Loconte of trafficking in scurrilous and borderline-libelous accusations; if one distinguishes between the lawless and the lawful, and is then told that one does not, someone must be lying. However, this does not exhaust the disquieting undertones of Loconte's argument; he, in fact, hints that perhaps Wilders, and not the Muslims, should be silenced:

Free speech is a touchstone of democratic societies, as is freedom of religion. Sometimes these rights clash, but a just state strives to uphold them both. It apparently doesn't occur to Dutch elites that when government takes sides in religious questions--under the banner of free speech--it undermines democratic freedom. When it attacks people on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion, it lights a match.

Hence, if a government insists upon the rights of free speech in such incendiary cases, it subverts the democratic liberties of the aggrieved party. It seems to me that this is an instance of the "moral vertigo" caused by "liberal and secular" ideologies, particularly those of cosmopolitan liberalism and the Open Society, begging as it does the questions of the limiting conditions of the existence of a particular set of liberties. What, however, could I possibly know, being a would-be Grand Inquisitor? Prior to that concluding paragraph, Loconte delivers himself of the following:

The coalition government and others remain at odds over what do to about the Wilders film. The Christian Democrats favor a ban, while Labour defends freedom of expression. The prime minister warns of security problems and economic boycotts, and is looking for a legal way to stop its release. In January, a U.S. military task force in Afghanistan posted website commentary warning that the film could undercut local support for foreign troops (a post that was subsequently removed). Dutch forces in Afghanistan, where angry demonstrations have occurred, are reportedly bracing for the worst. As one soldier complained to a Dutch journalist: "As if we have nothing better to do."

Juxtaposing the statements about the Dutch Labour party, which is supportive of Wilders' rights of free speech, and the taking of sides in religious questions, what we are left with is the conclusion that free speech in this case would involve such a taking of sides and subversion of democracy (for the Muslims). And, because free speech might undermine the war effort, perhaps we should wish the prime minster success in devising a way around the constitutional protections of free speech. In the name of democracy and the war, speaking unpleasant truths about Islamic doctrine, thus puncturing the myths of toleration and openness, might best be forbidden, investing that old saw about "fighting them over there" with new meaning: We refuse to fight them here, because we're fighting them over there.

It ought not be doubted, not even for a moment, that such sentiments express the inclinations of our leaders, who would sooner shower with obloquy, even legal proscription, speech that contradicts their stultifying dogmas and baleful policies, than admit the untenability of these latter. Of course, they needn't worry themselves over the false dilemma Loconte poses, of free speech vs. the democratic rights of a diverse population: they could simply recognize that, certain doctrines being inimical to the latter - namely, those of Jihad, Sharia, and Dhimmitude - those doctrines should be deemed seditious, outside the scope of the freedom of speech. One cannot claim the protection of the community for activities aimed at its subversion. It is apparent, however, that our elites would prefer to subtilize themselves into dhimmitude. They are weak reeds, indeed.

Comments (9)

Loconte says, "Thus we have a crusade to rescue liberal democracy that would dissolve one of the foundations of democratic government, namely, the separation between church and state."

He's trying to make it look like Wilders is contradicting his own principles. But isn't Islam known for its desire to "dissolve" that separation? Wilders' proposals might effect a preservation of the principle, not its destruction.

In the UK, it would help if they just protected the Christians from the Muslims and reported openly that Muslims are routinely trashing churches, that Islam in England is the enemy of Christianity, that there's a war on and they are losing it. See here:


How about if they start letting people keep and bear arms, station armed police routinely at churches that are experiencing this sort of violence, start educating people about their right to self-defense, pass laws expressly permitting self-defense, defense of innocents, and even defense of property...

Nah. Never happen.

I don't know what part of all of this lie-down-and-grovel stuff is multiculturalism and what part of it is sheer, liberal, blame-the-victim, virulent pacifism. The latter has been sapping England and the continent for decades, making it ripe for conquest by "Asian youths" who have no such inhibitions.

Europeans "would prefer to subtilize themselves into dhimmitude." Nice line, Jeff. Is that a deliberate echo of Burke?

Loconte collapses this distinction, implying, as a good nominalist, that Islam is as its adherents do

Actually, nominalism seems to me to be the proper stance with regard to Islam. Since it is a false religion, it has no objective existence. Therefore, there is no frame of reference against which the actions of Muslims can be objectively judged to be Islamic or not Islamic, unless you take tradition to be a frame of reference. But tradition itself requires an absolute frame of reference in order to be judged reliable. And this requires the actual existence of the putative source of said tradition, which Islam, being false, lacks.

Furthermore, those who believe in freedom of religion on principle really must assume that no religion has any substantial existence. For if they assumed any religion did, they could never rationally justify treating truth and error equally.

Yes, I was going for the Burke allusion.

Curiously enough, if there weren't enough ironies surrounding this issue, while Loconte is all tremulous at the thought that saying truthful things about Koranic dogma might undermine democracy, his implicit call for the censorship of such truth-saying is, a fortiori, a greater threat to the health and stability of Western democracy - for reason of the proverbial elephant in the discourse he won't acknowledge; namely, that Islamic orthodoxy prescribes certain things, regardless of the fact that a majority of Muslims in any one place might regard them with indifference. There is an always-latent potentiality for quiescence to become fulminance, and that without warning, as indicated by the numerous 'sudden-jihad-syndrome' attacks on American soil. How is 'democracy' preserved by the importation and cosseting of such a population, or by the inevitable security and surveillance state that the establishment inflicts upon the nation, in order to avoid questioning its own stale dogmas of tolerance and openness?

This must be understood: they have no intention of 'fighting them here', by which is meant singling them out for especial attention in any notable fashion. Now, I have no intention of hijacking my own thread, but, given the utter incoherence of American policy in regards to Islam - coddling it in the Balkans and Caucasus, claiming to fight the jihadists elsewhere, and so forth, it stands to reason that this whole enterprise is not about jihadists in the first place. One might like to know what it is about, though I suspect that it is the Great Game: the establishment would sooner play the Great Game, and indulge multicultural fantasies, than actually protect us. That authorities in Britain - and elsewhere, I would imagine - have turned away so as not to see Muslim attempts to intimidate and subordinate the natives only means that official indifference is written in our blood.

Beautiful, artful, title, by the way: "The Weak Reeds That Pierce Our Hands."

Thanks. It is a phrase I've always liked.

What the derivation of it?

A passage from Isaiah that has always had a certain resonance for me: Isaiah 36:6.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.