The Clash of Civilizations will Extinguish Liberalism

It has before.

If you study the advance of the Moorish kingdoms in their conquest of Spain 700-720, what you see is the moderate Christian princes made treaties with The conquerors, even working as mercenaries for the governor of Al-Andalus. But the fanatics, the kingdom of Asturias, were the lone holdouts, who managed to battle their way to the throne of Leon, and, over seven centuries, to expel the Moors entirely from the Iberian Peninsula.

The same thing happened at the battle of Tours in 722. Charles stopped the invading army that was sweeping into southern France as the doorway to Europe. The Moors had already conquered Sicily and Spain, and they seemed unstoppable. When Charles beat them, he became the leader of the now unified survivors, who called him Carolus Martellus--Charles the Hammer. The Kindgom of France owed it's existence for the next thousand years to the invasion of Moors in 722.

Likewise with the Ottoman attempts to invade Europe from the East. As they swept north and west through the Balkans, the Ottomans would simply work around the lone fanatics, the holdouts (like Vlad the Impaler) on their way to Vienna. And, Each time they laid siege to that city on the banks of the Danube, it was Christian partisans harrying their flanks that forced the Turks to retreat.

When muslim armies came within 100 miles of the gates for Rome, the liberal civic leaders fled the city; leaving the the Bishop of Rome as the only civic authority within its walls. Acting alone, the Bishop rallied the locals to form militias and hold the gates. Originally simply the bishop of the city, he was forever after known as "father" of the church---Pope.

In all these instances, the Islamist invaders had better technology, better discipline, and superior numbers. The only westerners who could survive their onslaught were the fanatics who couldn't be bribed or blackmailed, who couldn't be forced to surrender. In other words, Invaders destroy liberal culture because it's easier.

I think the West did the same thing in Gulf War I and Gulf War II. While various people blame bush or obama for "causing" Isis. The fact is that they are merely the fanatics who survived with their power intact when all the liberals and compromisers had been hauled off to concentration camps. The same thing happened with partisans in Russia in WWII. The German invaders killed the pacifists, but left the zealots.


Even today, more attacks are occuring in liberal areas-- moreso in Europe than America. Even in America, the attacks occur on college campuses--in gun-free zones--instead of at local churches who often now have private security.

Belligerants always go for the "easy" target. And liberalism presents an easier target.

But the belligerants are actually selecting (like natural selection) for the success of the fanatics.

a reply to: redempsh

None of this thread makes any logical or historical sense. It's like the OP has no clue what liberals are.

a reply to: redempsh

Why liberalism will NOT go away:



The rioting will continue until the people get good raises in wages.

a reply to: redempsh

In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

It's not about us vs. them but rather about us vs. us.
Devide & conquer is another roman concept that doesn't seem to get old.

Modern Liberalism has it's days numbered.

Rose colored glasses are coming off.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: redempsh

None of this thread makes any logical or historical sense. It's like the OP has no clue what liberals are.

Ummm...says the self proclaimed conservative...

Lets not equate liberal with libertarian...

Your quite right however...now if instead he had said...progressive...then his argument would have merit...

Too often...too many equate liberal with democrat...or progressive...when such only pays lip service to said...


YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

Yeah let's get our political troll bait correct right? Slandering the right group of people is all that is important. Honest interpretations of history are ancillary.

a reply to: redempsh

So what you re saying here with the OP, is that the NATO* led coalition is the conquering Empire that has wiped liberalism from the Middle East and parts of Africa, and are left to work around and face the resistance of the conservative fanatics?? Fascinating that someone could see objectively the actions of our empire.

*Refers to the 27 out of 28 NATO member states operating in the area, but not necessarily under an official mandate.

a reply to: redempsh
You made a false identification between liberalism and... whatever the hell it is you were trying to equate. A lot of liberal minded thinkers fought against tyranny in the French Revolution, WWII, every war.

And a lot of us liberal individuals own firearms, served in the military. This divisive trend on ATS needs to stop.

a reply to: redempsh

What do you define as liberalism?

I think it's important to define that which is the main subject of this thread.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

You know, I probably wrecked the thread from the outset by using that word, since liberalism didn't exist until the Enlightenment.

maybe I should have said, "advocate for an open society"

or

"who don't believe in defining "the good life" for other people."

maybe "non-fanatic."

how about "advocates of compromise."

Basically, my point was that what you have populations in collision, the culture that "loses" tends to have it's middle-of-the-road members killed off, and the fanatics are selected for, since they are usually holed up in some Masada-like enclave.

If you look at the movement of American pioneers onto the North American plains, you see the same phenomenon. In spite of the stereotype, the US government spent most of its efforts trying to protect the Indians, and provide a buffer between them and the river of immigrants who did most of the burning villages and slaughter. But the result was the same as the Ottoman moving across the Balkans: moderates were prey for the incoming tide; while the zealots and "1%-ers" managed to survive as partisan or scalawags.

It happened in the Boer Wars.

It has happened in Afghanistan for generations now. The British did it before the (American) coalition that is doing it today. The local peasants are merely pawns in a regional chess-game between rival war-lords. The best way to keep your family safe is to join a militia. Afghanistan has been the "graveyard of empires" since the time of Alexander; and each new waves pushes another generation of hill-people into zealotry.

Basically, when society-wide violence arrives on the social scene, the moderates try to preserve the status quo, and so are softer targets than the saucer-eyed fanatics who just knew this was bound to happen.

Imagine, if the Soviet Union really had nuked America. Who would have survived? Almost always, they would be people who had a fully stocked fallout shelter, and had meticulously planned for just such an emergency. Can you imagine a whole society of those folks?

That's the kind of people who survived the Moorish invasion of the Iberian peninsula, and carried out the "reconquista".

If we don't find a way to stop the impact of terrorism on the west, we will see the same thing over time... the end of moderation, and the increase of zealotry, and "Kill them all--let God sort them out!!" (a quote from the crusades.)