Return of the Crusades - Clash of civilizations may actually be right?

[mindlessobserver]

When Samuel Huntington wrote his book "clash of civilizations" in 1997, he put foreword a simple thesis. In the post cold-war era, Religious and Cultural differences will define the security issues of the 21st century and inevitably result in conflict. To say that the academic elite of the time lost their minds over this thesis is an understatement. The book remains one of the most hated in the Academy because it argues that an internationalist multi cultural utopia is impossible. Worse, it argues that rather then coming together like in John Lenons "imagine", close proximity between incompatible religions and cultures will result in violence. But it could not be burned entirely because just a few years later A couple hijacked aircraft destroyed some buildings in New York and Washington DC. The Bush Administration held the thesis up as a primary motivating force for their war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. A moral force they lost in Iraq, which allowed the thesis to be buried.

I would argue that Huntington is not wrong. Ideas are not random things people have. They exist in a cultural substructure that goes back millennia. And some ideas are incompatible. For example, Christianity believes that God created the world, and gave man the capacity to understand the world and Gods creation. Islam on the other hand believes God created the world...and that is all you need to know. There is nothing more to understand and if you try you will be wrong because men are imperfect. I highlight this difference because this function more then any other explains the split between the Christian west, and the Islamic east. The religions are not just different in how they treat women and what day of the week they go to services on. The very conception of the the nature of mans place in the universe is different. All the other differences grow from this, and have resulted in wildly different cultures where even if the people in them don't practice the religions, they are still products of them.

So what happens when two diametrically opposed world views are forced into cohabitation? Liberal westerners, products of a religion and world view that teaches that reason can be applied to any situation would argue that the two sides can work out their differences and improve both of them. Conservative muslims on the other hand would find the idea of people disagree with them not just a problem, but an existential threat and react accordingly. By killing the liberal westerners. This is not an idle supposition either. We see it play out every year now in Europe with increasing frequency via the "Truck of Peace" meme. Even worse, in the polling done of Islamic populations in Europe, you see a terrifying large MAJORITY of them supporting these extremist actions. They themselves don't do them because unlike the most extreme of the extremists, they are deterred by the authority of the State.

For now.

But what happens when they become the State? European countries are democracies. Everyone has the Franchise. Including the migrants and their children. What happens when they start to become the majority? We are already seeing "Islamic Parties" cropping up in the mileu of European parliamentary elections. For now they are a small fringe, but for how long will that state of affairs be? What will happen when through the Ballot box these people can at last vote into power officials who will implement the imperatives of their religion and culture? And just where will this leave the native populations suddenly become infidels in their own land?

IMO it will force them into the choice of acquiescence, or violence. But violence for violence sake won't do anything. Violence needs to serve a purpose if its to have any lasting impact. And if the western democracies and the ideologies driving them fail, where will that leave people? I would hazard to guess it would leave religion. And in the case of the west, that means Christianity. And if it is Christianity, then that means the violence would be done in support of a Crusade to drive the "opposing civilization" out. Just as it was done centuries ago in Spain and Eastern Europe successfully, and unsuccessfully in the Levant.

Am I autistic here? I've been thinking about this for some time and everything I think I know about human nature says that this is coming.

 

[skiddlez]

I think there are a lot of issues that have vastly different views determined by different cultures, and some of them are extremely sensitive (like as you're referencing the value of life, whether it be of all life or the lives of your opponents) which do nothing but drive people apart. It's very hard to be multicultural in a world where you're going to get people who say "the majority of people are infidels, and according to everything I personally know, they deserve death." This is obviously going to draw a pretty huge line between varying cultures.

I think extreme analogies work well in getting to the bigger picture of things, so for example, think about how many western nations are able to work together relatively peacefully even despite past conflict, such as the US and UK. And now think about how almost nobody wishes to work with North Korea due to their values and their culture, which most people find utterly reprehensible.

tl;dr I think if most people really exercised their brains, they'd also conclude that utopian multiculturalism is likely an impossibility, but I dunno if it's going to tread into some doomsday scenario shit.

 

[BlueArmedDevil]

Nah, we just buy their oil and bomb anyone who says otherwise.

 

[mindlessobserver]

no. god is dead in europe, even those who still call themselves christians have absolutely no interest in standing up for their beliefs, let alone fight for them. christianity as an ideology and identity for europeans has no future.

in my opinion, if anything is giong to rise up and make a stand, it will be plain old ethnic nationalism.
all across western europe the state and media machine are doing everything in their power to suppress it and keep it from resurfacing, and for now they are succeeding. the question is if they can keep it down until it is too late, or if it can break their power structure in time and establish a new one in its place.

I suppose I find ethno-nationalism to be a silly and weak thing to grab. I know lots of people of my race, and I really despise a good number of them. Its also really hard to draw the line. "White people" is a really broad term. And even trying to split them into different tribal groups gets difficult. FFS, even in the USA we STILL fight over regional differentiation between "White" populations. West Coast =/ Midwest =/South =/Northeast. Europe is even worse. Even the fucking Irish can't unite under North vs. South, let alone the scots. Or the East Germans vs. the West Germans. If God is dead in Europe, then they are fucked.

People need something to grab. Something more then "Well, I am Swedish, and therefore I must let migrants in. Because reasons". You don't want to let the migrants in because you are Swedish. You want to let them in because the beliefs of your culture say that is what you must do. Ethnic groups can have beliefs, and they are far more powerful then "well, we are all white so clearly we all want the same thing". It is the ideology that unites them, not their skin color.

 

[mindlessobserver]

all true, and all irrelevant.
you are right in that ethnic nationalism is prone to cause european infightng. but that is still a massive step above christianity, because christianity refuses to fight at all.
christianity has no draw, no power, no balls, not even the will to defend itself. while you daydream about neo-crusades on the internet, the pope himself is kissing refugee feet and preaching tolerance for immigrants.

(also, for the record, christian sectarianism has been causing european infighting for a much longer time than ethnic nationalism, from the schism between rome and constantinople all the way to the thirty years war and beyond)

So much to unpack in so few words.

First point. Christianity refuses to fight. This is not true. Christianity is not a pacifist religion. Christ himself used violence to drive the market from the Temple of God. He didn't ask nicely, he used force. And if you think he did it by himself you are wrong. He most likely was aided by his followers who helped in the smack down. The idea of the pacifist christ is a product of his acquiescence to the justice of Rome in the crucifixion. Christ was making MANY points with this act. First, in christian philosophy he was taking the punishment death upon himself for the sins of man. More importantly though, he was bestowing the authority of God upon the governance of man. By accepting the ultimate governing sanction, death, God gave permission to the Kings of Men to use violence. This is one of the pillars of the Christian "Divine Right of Kings". You can use "King" as stand in for Government. You, the Individual, cannot kill. But the State or Society CAN in Christian philosophy.

Enter the concept of "Just War" (another uniquely christian concept). The earliest examples of this come from Saint Augustine, who was responding to contemporary accusations just like yours. That Christianity was weak, and would show its back at the first threat of force. Augustine was the one who codified the interpretation of Society being permitted to use violence, with the admonition that the Sword should not be used at first action. The enemy must first be presented with the Truth of God, and be permitted to repent. But that is the only concession a Christian must offer to a hostile infidel. When under attack, and if the infidel refuses to cease his aggression, then not only is it necessary for the Christian to fight, it is a moral Imperative for the Christian to fight.

This imperative was added by Saint Thomas of Aquinas, who argued that that Society or Government had a moral authority to wage war, so long as the over all objective was to restore the peace of God. God desires Peace, but there are many evil men who will defy Gods will for peace, and so they must be MADE TO ACCEPT IT. Incidentally, I had a nerd boner playing Stellaris as a Pacifistic Egalitarian species who chose the colossus project. The Paragraph in their world destroying project was pure Aquinas "If the Galaxy cannot understand the need for peace then they need to be made too".

Christian philosophy has not failed. People have just forgotten it.

 

[OB 946]

I suppose I find ethno-nationalism to be a silly and weak thing to grab. I know lots of people of my race, and I really despise a good number of them. Its also really hard to draw the line. "White people" is a really broad term. And even trying to split them into different tribal groups gets difficult. FFS, even in the USA we STILL fight over regional differentiation between "White" populations. West Coast =/ Midwest =/South =/Northeast. Europe is even worse. Even the fucking Irish can't unite under North vs. South, let alone the scots. Or the East Germans vs. the West Germans. If God is dead in Europe, then they are fucked.

People need something to grab. Something more then "Well, I am Swedish, and therefore I must let migrants in. Because reasons". You don't want to let the migrants in because you are Swedish. You want to let them in because the beliefs of your culture say that is what you must do. Ethnic groups can have beliefs, and they are far more powerful then "well, we are all white so clearly we all want the same thing". It is the ideology that unites them, not their skin color.

You're right, ethno-nationalism is weak and unable to appeal to a wide enough base to do anything. That's why SFR Yugoslavia is still such a major regional power in the Balkans.

 

[AnOminous]

Worse, it argues that rather then coming together like in John Lenons "imagine", close proximity between incompatible religions and cultures will result in violence.

Except "Imagine" isn't about religions coming together. It's about them ceasing to exist.

 

[Vlad the Inhaler]

I suppose I find ethno-nationalism to be a silly and weak thing to grab. I know lots of people of my race, and I really despise a good number of them. Its also really hard to draw the line. "White people" is a really broad term. And even trying to split them into different tribal groups gets difficult. FFS, even in the USA we STILL fight over regional differentiation between "White" populations. West Coast =/ Midwest =/South =/Northeast. Europe is even worse. Even the fucking Irish can't unite under North vs. South, let alone the scots. Or the East Germans vs. the West Germans. If God is dead in Europe, then they are fucked.

People need something to grab. Something more then "Well, I am Swedish, and therefore I must let migrants in. Because reasons". You don't want to let the migrants in because you are Swedish. You want to let them in because the beliefs of your culture say that is what you must do. Ethnic groups can have beliefs, and they are far more powerful then "well, we are all white so clearly we all want the same thing". It is the ideology that unites them, not their skin color.

This whole thread honestly can only really be addressed in book length. You're touching on a great many (often interconnected, but not necessarily so) human societal constructs. Being thoroughly Eurocentric, I only feel comfortable commenting on European and European cultured nations. (US, Can, Austr)

Religion is no longer a source of war. This is NOT a minor point. Europe nearly destroyed itself in the wars of the Reformation.

Nationalism, still a potent force, has been significantly "defused" by the sheer Balkanization of Europe. Everybody has their own country, so ethnic tensions are eased. (Obviously the war in Ukraine and the Yugoslav civil war are rude reminders that its obituary may be a bit premature.)

Let's face it, Europe has essentially been at peace for over 70 years. I don't see that changing. Interdependent economies simply have too much leverage over rogue states, as do mutual defense treaties. The system that once rewarded military success no longer does.

If there is a wild card, I would say it's the oldest one of all: economics. Look at France. This is a minor speed bump. A financial disaster, globally, maybe will rupture the "civilizing" restraints. It's all wildly speculative, and would probably be more a matter of civil unrest than international conflict.

Lastly, we cannot ignore the fact that there are many groups, as many religious as not, who feel their beliefs are strong enough to die for. And if you're willing to die for something, you're almost certainly willing to kill for it. That said, for the most part these are for movements, not nationalities. We will likely continue to see low intensity (though possibly widely spread) conflicts into the foreseeable future. At least as of this writing, such movements have failed to force any real concessions from the industrialized world.

There are certainly a great many "worst case" scenarios still possible, but most really require extraprdinary leaps of logic to entertain.

 

[Alfons Schmitler]

It is the ideology that unites them, not their skin color.

Wrong it's the ethnic origin of a people that unites. Ideology is just a nice glue. I mean niggers in the US unite just fine against whites and they have nothing that unites them but their skin colour aka Race and "culture".

also Christianity is pretty much dead and buried in the West. The current new mainstream faith is liberalism. But it'll die soon enough.

 

[Imperialist #348]

like Bigruler said earlier about Christianity being dead, i think something will come along that replaces christianity will be more modern, hell it might for the sheer reason of pushing invaders back 'into the sea'.

and given that nations in Europe have all had storied variations of what they see as a warrior, the fight itself will come calling to those with that warriors blood, be they Russian,German,English Italian or any other people in Europe.


also like what Alfons said about blacks uniting quite easily in the US against whites i believe if a crusade were to happen that this would become the defence mechanism of Europe against any outside force, but once that force evaporates those within Europe go back to infighting, kinda creating this instant glue that unites them just as quickly it desolves them.

 

[AnOminous]

also like what Alfons said about blacks uniting quite easily in the US against whites i believe if a crusade were to happen that this would become the defence mechanism of Europe against any outside force, but once that force evaporates those within Europe go back to infighting, kinda creating this instant glue that unites them just as quickly it desolves them.

Except that's not really true. If there's anyone more distrusted by black Americans than white Americans, it's actual Africans, especially immigrants with educations who "act white" by being successful.

 

[Imperialist #348]

well crap back to square 1.

one way of gaining support for such an effort would be pushing the idea of 'reclaiming' of whoever's homeland has 'lost some of their clay.

then i suppose the problem with that is that any word of such an action possibly taking place would be immediately clamped down on by the the government.

logistically its a nightmare.

 

[Vlad the Inhaler]

also Christianity is pretty much dead and buried in the West. The current new mainstream faith is liberalism. But it'll die soon enough.

You can call it liberalism or secular humanism, samey-same. Europeans are not letting go of that any time soon. They work, pay taxes, and the state takes excellent care of them. In short, they've got it too good. Why would you want to change that? Don't kid yourself about these anti-immigrant protests. They are still very much fringe opinions. Europe will get more immigrants before it gets fewer. The backlash will grow, but will it grow enough?

As to African-Americans in the US, there is a tremendously powerful bond between them based on their shared experience of racism. It's dangerous to underestimate how strong a bond shared adversity creates. Of course you side with those like you. That will never change.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

A lot of people here seem to be talking about a peripheral threat as if it were an existential one.

It's really not difficult to point out the various problems with the way that immigration and multiculturalism have been managed in Europe in the recent past, and it's very clear that there are certain ideologies and ways of thinking that the West cannot peacefully coexist with (like Islamic fundamentalism), but does any of this actually spell the end for the European way of life? I don't think so, for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, on the world stage, Western liberalism enjoys global dominance in terms of power projection. This is true to the point where even Islamist parties in the Middle East feel exhorted to defend their agenda using the language of liberalism (see the way that the Muslim brotherhood makes a point of describing itself as a "peaceful, democratic organization" for instance). Sure, the organizations themselves may not be liberal, but they do on some level recognize it as the global standard against which all other ideas are compared to. That's a level of dominance that the enemies of Western civilization could only dream of, and the West is able to maintain this largely without needing to lift a finger militarily.

If you think that this Western hegemony is credibly under threat, then I think your fears are misplaced. You only have to look at the fact that it's enemies are invariably schismatic reactionaries who sustain themselves via organized crime, terrorism, and corrupt Saudi oil money to understand that they have already lost. The West could choose to do nothing and it would still outlast them.

As for the claims of a so-called 'demographic threat', these claims are similarly misplaced, and are largely manufactured by radicals on both sides of the cultural divide. The data shows that Europeans will still be an overwhelming majority in Europe by 2050, and that fertility rates around the world are stabilizing. If we look at the Muslim demographic for example (since most of these fears generally involve Muslims), they are projected to make up no more than 10% of the population by 2050, and the data generally shows that an increasing number of them will have grown more liberal and Westernized. As for the fears about birth rates, Muslims currently have the fastest shrinking birth rates in the world, and are expected to reach European levels by 2050, while European birth rates are set to remain stable. By this point, the world population will begin to contract, and we will have an aging, shrinking population worldwide.

In summary, if we are expected to treat this topic seriously, then talks of a coming "crusade" are completely laughable. There are certainly challenges posed by multiculturalism and globalization, but they are far from insurmountable, and won't lead to the end of civilization.

 

[Alfons Schmitler]

Firstly, on the world stage, Western liberalism enjoys global dominance in terms of power projection. This is true to the point where even Islamist parties in the Middle East feel exhorted to defend their agenda using the language of liberalism (see the way that the Muslim brotherhood makes a point of describing itself as a "peaceful, democratic organization" for instance). Sure, the organizations themselves may not be liberal, but they do on some level recognize it as the global standard against which all other ideas are compared to. That's a level of dominance that the enemies of Western civilization could only dream of, and the West is able to maintain this largely without needing to lift a finger militarily.

This is not due to the ideological superiority of liberalism but thanks to the US enforcing their Pax Americana. Americas global military and economic dominance is the sole reason for the power projection of democratic liberalism. Should the US sometime in the future fall behind or crumble due to national issues then you'll see just how fast democratic liberalism can die.

As for the claims of a so-called 'demographic threat', these claims are similarly misplaced, and are largely manufactured by radicals on both sides of the cultural divide. The data shows that Europeans will still be an overwhelming majority in Europe by 2050, and that fertility rates around the world are stabilizing. If we look at the Muslim demographic for example (since most of these fears generally involve Muslims), they are projected to make up no more than 10% of the population by 2050, and the data generally shows that an increasing number of them will have grown more liberal and Westernized. As for the fears about birth rates, Muslims currently have the fastest shrinking birth rates in the world, and are expected to reach European levels by 2050, while European birth rates are set to remain stable. By this point, the world population will begin to contract, and we will have an aging, shrinking population worldwide.

I'd like to see some sources for this data Mr. Furfag.

In summary, if we are expected to treat this topic seriously, then talks of a coming "crusade" are completely laughable. There are certainly challenges posed by multiculturalism and globalization, but they are far from insurmountable, and won't lead to the end of civilization.

Yeah talks of a coming crusades or religious wars are pretty retarded. Talks of upcoming racial, economic and ideological civil wars seem much more realistic.
But unless we manage to nuke ourselves back to the stone age I doubt it'll be the end of civilization.

Don't kid yourself about these anti-immigrant protests. They are still very much fringe opinions. Europe will get more immigrants before it gets fewer. The backlash will grow, but will it grow enough?

Oh I'm under no delusion here. There will be millions of economic migrants flooding into Europe. They'll abuse the social systems here till they break.
And what do you think comes after that?

 

[Übertroon]

It's going to take all of my mental fortitude not to stick Totenkopfs on shit as the civil war starts

 

[Cinderblock]

Lmao, this isn't the 12th Century. You may be able to recruit some tards to go fight in the middle east, but don't expect more than a few wackos from "The west" to go and fight for ideology. First, no one would be getting paid enough. Second, no one cares enough.

The state is more than capable of dealing with any existential threats. The odd bombing or terror attack just shows how weak non-state actors of terrorism are. If they were powerful, they'd be taking cities and land ( "WE'LL TAKE ROME" as ISIS said, and that worked well.)

Also, OP, if you wanna go volunteer to the Peshmerga, they don't want you. They want your money to buy weapons. Think about what that means. Think about it.

Geopolitically, the west has all the chips. If there is something to worry about (and trust me, I'm not a lefty) is people manipulating you to gain political power by exploiting your fear.

Edit: Also, before you comment "but they have all the oil!". Remember, Saudi Arabia is LOSING to Yemen in a war

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

This is not due to the ideological superiority of liberalism but thanks to the US enforcing their Pax Americana. Americas global military and economic dominance is the sole reason for the power projection of democratic liberalism. Should the US sometime in the future fall behind or crumble due to national issues then you'll see just how fast democratic liberalism can die.

I'd say it's more of a positive feedback loop. A democratic, liberal society is clearly more conducive to continued prosperity than autocratic and theocratic alternatives, and having more prosperity relative to those societies means having more power to project your ideals onto the rest of the world than they do.

The power that the US has is not artificial, nor did it happen by chance. The US ascended to it's position as the world's most powerful country in large part because it embraced a set of ideals that are highly conducive to success. The same cannot be said of it's most fervent enemies.

I'd like to see some sources for this data Mr. Furfag.

The fact that you're asking for sources indicates to me that you haven't read up on the subject yourself, because if you did, then you would know that all of the relevant research backs me up on this. Consistently across the Muslim world, the fertility rate is shrinking much faster than it is in the West (where fertility has remained relatively stable), and if these trends continue, then they will reach below-replacement fertility by around 2050.

In some Muslim countries, this has already happened. In the 1980's, the average Iranian woman had 7 children, whereas today, they're having less children than most Europeans with an average fertility rate of just 1.7. See this graph for a comparison (Source: Our World in Data. Fertility comparison).

If you want some more sources on the falling fertility rates of Muslim populations across the world, here are just two:

Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 2011. The Future of the Global Muslim Population.

Charles F. Westoff and Tomas Frejka, “Religiousness and Fertility Among European Muslims,” Population and Development Review 33, no. 4 (2007): 785-809.

As for the claim about young Muslims being more liberal, just this year the Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute did a survey on Muslim social attitudes in Britain, and they found that while Muslims across the board are significantly more conservative than the societal average, they also found that young Muslims are notably more liberal than their parent's generation: Ipsos MORI. 2018. A review of survey research on Muslims in Britain

If you want more sources to back up my assertion that most of the alarmist claims about Islam taking over Europe are misplaced, then I would be happy to oblige, but I would like to see some of your sources first.

Yeah talks of a coming crusades or religious wars are pretty exceptional. Talks of upcoming racial, economic and ideological civil wars seem much more realistic.

And who is going to be fighting these wars? The people who actually go off and join some Islamist insurgency or ethno-nationalist militia are very few and far between, and the trumped-up claims that such groups pose a significant threat to the status quo are largely manufactured by the groups themselves. The fact remains that the democratic liberal consensus remains undefeated, and you have yet to name a credible challenger.

 

[Vlad the Inhaler]

Hey all, this talk reminded me of one of the greatest movies ever made. Sorry, this monologue is kind of long (I haven't figured out how to do the "spoiler" thingy) but still fascinating 40 years later. Here:

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

Howard Beale: Why me?

Arthur Jensen: Because you're on television, dummy.