Monday, 9 April 2012

In the Telegraph today, and in this week’s Spectator, Ed West argues that we should give privileged treatment to the asylum applications of Iraq’s persecuted Christians. Although he doesn’t quite state it outright, he is in effect saying that we should let all of Iraq’s Christians come and live here. Their numbers have fallen from 1 million to the current 400,000 since the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime freed the jihadi impulse from the restraints his brutal dictatorship had imposed on it.

And the same tendencies are apparent all across the Middle East, basking in the false light of the “Arab Spring”. It is childishly naive to support democracy in the Middle East for the simple reason that democracy simply gives Muslims the freedom to follow their naturally evil impulses and persecute everyone who isn’t a Muslim. From the perspective of either western interests or civility in general, reasonably benign, reasonably non-corrupt dictators are better. Indeed, even malign and corrupt dictators are preferable to jihad-oriented democracies.

Granting asylum is almost never a good idea, even in the tiny minority of cases where the claims of persecution are genuine. Why? Because enlightened government only ever emerges after a process of conflict. Europeans only achieved freedom and prosperity after centuries of conflict with their own governments. But by acting as safety valves for those who are in conflict with oppressive regimes, asylum systems simply reduce the pressures of this conflict between what is and what should be and therefore tend to perpetuate the unjust status quo.

There are, as I see it, two alternatives to the gradual disappearance of Christians from the Middle East. One is for them to pay jizya. If the Christians agreed to pay jizya and meekly submit to Islamic rule, they would probably be left alone enough for them to at least preserve their own existence. That is, after all, how they survived through all the centuries of Muslim rule until now.

Of course, the idea of paying jizya is utterly abhorrent and I am not advocating it. But if it did happen, it would at least provide a clear illustration of the innate evilness of Islam to our still-deluded western compatriots.

A better solution, however, is to give the Christians their own homeland. Absent the paying of jizya or western-friendly dictators, Christians will never be safe in a country where the government is dominated by Muslims. Even if the governments go through the motions of trying to protect the Christians, in practice it or its junior officials will perform these protection duties half-heartedly at best and most likely will look the other way while the jihadis go on the rampage.

Christians will only be secure once they have a territory of their own, where they control the government, the police and the military forces. The argument for this is essentially the same one that led to the creation of Israel. We need a new Israel. A Christian one.

It would be nice to think that there could be an international consensus on the need for Middle-Eastern Christians to have their own homeland. Realistically, that’s not likely to happen. So we should just invade the relevant territory, occupy it and declare it to be a new country. Of course I realise that our leaders are pusillanimous fools who won’t not do this, but it’s important to remind ourselves occasionally of what rational government would look like – of what the policies of our governments would be if they weren’t shaped by cowards, traitors and fools.

The best place for a new Christian state is probably the plains of Nineveh. That is where the Christians of Iraq are most heavily concentrated. We could call the new state Nineveh. The name even has an epic, poetic quality, much like Israel. It would probably require a prolonged western military presence during its formative years but that shouldn’t be a problem, as the inhabitants will be Christian, not Muslim, so there should be fewer IEDs and the like.

If launching an unprovoked invasion of Nineveh is considered too extreme, there are various ways in which it could be made more palatable to audiences both domestic and international. A justification for it could be built up gradually. For example, we could start by covertly arming and advising the Christians there. When fighting breaks out, our governments could express grave concern and turn it into a major media theme. Once it has become enough of a public issue, we could invade the region under the pretence of restoring peace. After that, we just need to wait a few years until passions have died down then hold a referendum on the future status of the territory. Once the Christians vote for independence, we recognise the new state and it’s Game Over. The whole thing could be more or less a repeat of what happened in Kosovo, except this time we’d be establishing a Christian state instead of a Muslim one.

A Christian state in Nineveh, allied to the West as it must be, could also prove strategically useful in future. Plus there are some tasty oil reserves there. What’s not to like?

This is a good place to quote Kipling. Is it time to bring back Nineveh? And Tyre?
God of our fathers, known of old--
Lord of our far-flung battle line
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine--
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
The captains and the kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe--
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the law--
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard--
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding, calls not Thee to guard--
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy mercy on Thy people, Lord!

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

The French were meant to have created a Christian homeland when they had the League of Nations Mandate in Lebanon. Alas, promises were not fulfilled so the Maronites have become a minority there....

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Interesting. Didn't know that.

Anonymous said...

I never really thought of of like this, but I like it. I wonder how it might be moved forward? As we are talking about Christians here, I'm not sure that the U.N. would be interested...

DP111 said...

Population exchange, is what I've advocated for 10 years at the least. Christians in all Muslim countries for Muslims in the West. Then no further exchange of any sort, except the most temporary visits.

Time is short though. Soon there wont be any Christians in Muslim countries.

But there is the problem of numbers. Its a big problem. A big problem requires big solutions. Short of a major war causing a natural population shift, cant see any other politically acceptable solution.

In the meantime, our noble effort to take the light of democracy and freedom to Islamic countries, should continue.

DP111 said...

Several Christian countries should be considered.

Ninevah in western Iraq. Lebanese Christian state in south Lebanon, and a Coptic one in Sinai.

That should settle the dreams of a caliphate, and start the process of rescuing Muslims from the tyranny of Islam.

This can only happen in the aftermath of a major war, when a major re-drawing of the political map is permissible.

Anonymous said...

"Protecting the Christians"

How trustworthy is a guarantee that there will be protection for Christians anywhere in a muslim society?

All we need to check this out, I guess, is to be found in today's Egypt.

And today's Christians in Egypt, are as much "tolerated" and "protected" we might assume, as the Christians were under any muslim rule, going back to the times of "the, falsely named, Golden Age" in the South of Spain.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

@DP111

Good idea. But we could start the war ourselves rather than just waiting around for it to happen. It could be the real Counterjihad that the post-9/11 wars should have been, if only they hadn't been conceived by imbeciles and fools.

Anonymous said...

Remember that Lebanon was created for just this reason.

What happened? The naive lebanese let muslims move in that then outbred the lebanese and basically took over.

They even had that 1982 war.
If you kick out all the muslims then they can have that again, just as it was intended.

The problem is then they would again open their borders to muslims and the same scenario would play out.

DP111 said...

CZ wrote: Good idea. But we could start the war ourselves rather than just waiting around for it to happen.

Its started. You must have noticed that the imagined Islamophobia of the past decade, is getting real.

DP111 said...

Persecution of Christians

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=46868

Warning - its brutal.

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews