Chesterton’s Islamic England

G.K. Chesterton had a knack for anticipating future trends but when, in his 1914 novel The Flying Inn, he anticipated the Islamization of England, it seemed so far out of the realm of possibility that it was difficult to take it as anything but a flight of fancy.

True enough, the book has a whimsical, Pickwickian quality. It follows the rambling adventures of two British stalwarts, Patrick Dalroy and Humphrey Pump, as they try to stay one step ahead of the law, dispensing free liquor as they go in an England where alcohol has been banned. The “Flying Inn” is their motor car which they have furnished with a large keg of rum, a cask of cheese, and a pub sign.

Roughly one hundred years later, Chesterton’s scenario no longer seems improbable. Many observers believe the Islamization of England is just a matter of time. For example, in her 2006 book Londonistan, Melanie Phillips presents a detailed description of the Islamic “colonization” of England now underway and shows how it is made possible by the governing class’ abandonment of cultural and spiritual values. Chesterton was remarkably prescient not only in imagining that Islamization might happen, but also in envisioning how it would happen—through the instrumentality of a deracinated governing class. The reason that alcohol is banned in Chesterton’s tale is because some upper-class elites have become enamored of Islam and everything Islamic—including the prohibition of drink. Chief among these is Lord Ivywood, a Nietzschean diplomat who has enlisted the aid of a mysterious Turk, Misyra Ammon, to spread the new gospel among the jaded upper class who find exotic Islam to be more exciting than their own traditions and religion.

Among other things, the establishment of the new order involves a rewriting of history. As Ammon patiently explains to his sophisticated audiences, England was originally an Islamic country. This is evident, he says, in the existence of numerous pubs with Islamic names—“The Saracen’s Head,” for example—as well as in the English fondness for the word “crescent”—as in “Grosvenor Crescent,” “Regent’s Park Crescent,” and “Royal Crescent.” Moreover, like today’s multicultural elite, Chesterton’s “smart set” are all too happy to hear that this exotic culture is superior to their own, and are quite willing to accept that virtually all scientific and technical discoveries were first made by Muslims. As one of the English characters puts it: “Of course, all our things came from the East…. Everything from the East is good, of course.”

One of the imports from the East is polygamy or, as Ammon calls it, the “Higher Polygamy.” No one is as yet practicing polygamy, but it eventually dawns on one of the young ladies in the story that this is the direction in which things are trending—that Lord Ivywood’s mansion is, in fact, designed to be a harem. Not quite as astute, the other young ladies prefer to think, as Misyra Ammon tells them, “that women had the highest freedom in Turkey; as they were allowed to wear trousers.”

Chesterton was smart enough to realize that something like Islamization could not happen without a prior undermining of the existing culture. As Hal G.P. Colebatch observes:

Chesterton was original not only in seeing a then apparently down-and-out Islam was still a threat to Europe, but also in seeing that the Islamic conquest would not be possible without a preceding culture war to destroy the social agents of resistance, that Islam had a certain seductiveness for a type of jaded Western mind, and that the betrayers would not be the lower classes but the wealthy elite.

As Chesterton foresaw, and as is the case today, naïve clergymen would also help to pave the way for Islam. In The Flying Inn, the great cathedrals replace the cross with a cross-and- crescent emblem, and intellectuals believe that the time has come “for a full unity between Christianity and Islam.” “Something called Chrislam perhaps,” observes a skeptical Irishman. But others are convinced that Christianity and Islam are “natural allies”—to use a term that is currently in favor. In Chesterton’s Edwardian setting, progressives believe that Christians and Muslims can work together to “deliver the populace from the bondage of the all-destroying drug [alcohol].” Today, some conservative Catholics believe that Christians and Muslims can work together to fight pornography and restore sexual morality. And then, as now, many believe that we have much to learn from Islam. As Lord Ivywood puts it:

Ours is an age when men come more and more to see that the creeds hold treasures for each other, that each religion has a secret for its neighbour … and church unto church showeth knowledge.

Or, as one contemporary Catholic author claims: “Islam has great and deep resources of morality and sanctity that should inspire us and shame us and prod us to admiration and imitation.”

Then, as now, part of the softening-up process is accomplished by employing politically correct euphemisms to hide plain facts. The reclusive Turkish warlord, Oman Pasha, who has taken the estate next to Ivywood’s, and who, with Ivywood’s assistance, is secretly building a Turkish army in England, is referred to by naïve neighbors as the “Mediterranean gentleman.” “The description,” notes the author, “did not illuminate and it probably was not intended to do so.” In our day, the elites have invented a whole panoply of Newspeak terms designed to cover up for Islamic aggressiveness. Thus, in England and Europe, Muslim gangs that riot and rape on a mass scale are referred to in TV news as “Asian youth,” or simply “youths.” And Islamic terrorists are routinely designated by the generic, could-be-anyone label “violent extremists.” Meanwhile, in public and private schools, children are learning that jihad is an interior spiritual struggle to become a better person. Perhaps the mother of all euphemisms designed to keep us off guard is the oft-repeated assurance that Islam is a religion of peace. That phrase doesn’t appear in Chesterton’s story, but Misyra Ammon assures his listeners that Islam is a religion devoted to serving others.

Chesterton’s prophetic novel hits uncomfortably close to home. One thing he didn’t anticipate, however, is that the final Islamization of England could be accomplished without importing a foreign army. Since modern England has already imported enough Muslim immigrants to engineer a significant cultural shift, an occupying army won’t be needed. Otherwise, Chesterton was right on target. He foresaw that an Islamic takeover would be facilitated by cultural elites eager to show their tolerance for new ideas and fashions and their corresponding disdain for traditional culture. In Chesterton’s day, the cultural elites were referred to as the smart set; today they are the multicultural and media elites. And, as in Chesterton’s story, they are quite willing to believe that Muslims discovered or invented just about everything under the sun.

Recently, for example, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the President of Turkey, claimed that Muslims were the first to discover America and this, no doubt, will soon be taken seriously by Western educators. Multiculturalists would love to believe that America was discovered not by a light-skinned European Christian but by a dark-skinned Muslim. It would fit in nicely with their decades-long campaign to undermine the Western tradition. Thanks to his teachers, the average Western student doesn’t know much about history, but he does know that he was born into a rotten culture with an appalling history of racism, sexism, and imperialism.

Much of what Chesterton foresaw has already come to pass. Cross-crescent emblems haven’t yet appeared on the cathedrals, but several churches in the West have been sold to Muslim groups and subsequently turned into mosques. And just recently, in a gesture of Chrislamism, the Washington National Cathedral opened its doors to a weekly Muslim prayer service. Meanwhile, a senior Church of England bishop recommended that Prince Charles’ coronation service should be opened with a reading from the Koran. The gesture, he said, would be “a creative act of accommodation” to make Muslims feel “warmly embraced.”

In the England of Chesterton’s imagining, polygamy was just a gleam in Lord Ivywood’s eye. Nowadays, for all intents and purposes, it is an institution. Although polygamy is still against the law, it is, in fact, a growing practice among Muslims of Great Britain. Instead of enforcing the law, culturally sensitive police and courts look the other way, and the welfare agencies do their best to provide material support. A Muslim man with four wives can expect a welfare check for each of them—and all signed over to his name.

One of the things Western citizens take comfort in when contemplating Islamic radicalism is that we possess powerful armies and well-trained police. Once again, Chesterton skewers our illusions. As it turns out, the England of The Flying Inn has been disarming itself militarily as well as culturally. It gradually dawns on the citizenry that police are few and far between, and many of those who remain have taken to wearing Turkish fezzes. They also discover that while Ivywood and Pasha have been quietly bringing in a Turkish army, the “British army is practically disbanded.”

I don’t know if the British police are declining in number, but whatever their number, they have become one of the most politically correct organizations on the planet. For example, the London Metropolitan Police Authority recruitment target for 2009-10 required that 27 percent of all new recruits must be black and minority ethnic and 41 percent must be female. Many of them might as well be wearing fezzes or hijabs because, if you say something critical about the religion of peace, you will quickly find yourself in front of a magistrate on charges of Islamophobia. When, for example, Parliamentary candidate Paul Weston stood in a public space and read aloud Churchill’s unflattering assessment of Islam in The River War, he was promptly arrested.

As for the British army, it hasn’t been disbanded yet, but the armed forces of the UK are not what they used to be. The same can be said for NATO forces in general. They can be relied on to march in the local gay pride parade or help out with ebola patients or even launch an occasional “overseas contingency operation,” but major wars on multiple fronts are another matter. The United States, the largest NATO member, has been drastically reducing the size and strength of its military. The U.S. plans to shrink its Army to pre-World War II levels, the number of ships in the Navy is lower than in 1917, and, according to several reports, the Obama administration has been quietly conducting a massive purge of top military officers.

Just at the point when Islam is advancing by stealth jihad and armed jihad all over the world, the West is letting down its guard, both literally and metaphorically. And all the while, the Lord Ivywoods of the world assure us that we have nothing to fear from Islam. What at one time seemed merely a fanciful fiction is fast becoming fact. Chesterton would not have been surprised.

(Illustration credit: Washington Times)

William Kilpatrick

By

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

  • Steve Lee

    Islam scares me. I hope it scares more people. I try to do my bit and point out when I can what Mohammed really stood for. I don’t teach religious studies, i’m no church leader nor do I write knowledgeable articles on the nuances of each religion. I just try to do my bit to point out to family and friends that despite what “moderates” in Islam say, Mohammed, the founder of the religion did terrible things eg, marrying his wife Aisha when she was 6 and having sexual relations with when she was 9, his sex slaves, chopping off peoples hands and legs, having peoples heads cut off, ordering women stoned to death for alleged adultery, allowing people to be killed for criticizing or commenting negatively about the religion and allowing people who leave the religion to be killed etc and many more such edicts and acts. He is a terrible example of a human being and definitely not someone any decent person should blindly follow.

    • St JD George

      Steve, do not be afraid, your government has assured you that it is a religion of peace and is going out of it’s way to appease while allowing it to grow and flourish. Of course, this is the same group who covertly (and increasingly overtly) support those who scream that Christianity is hateful and is doing everything in it’s power to erase Christ from public discourse. Some very odd contradictions there that can’t be reconciled. I know the LGBT and SSM crowd will be thrilled when the custom of taqiyya is revealed to them and they are finally are forced to embrace sharia law, or else off with their heads.

      • Jdonnell

        Christian dominated countries like the US are second to none in making war, invading countries that are at peace and pose no threat to the US, and killing and torturing. The beam in some eyes prevents them from seeing clearly.

        • St JD George

          Dominated, really? Not the last time I checked as we are being relegated into a quite, private hobby. Try saying your are Christian in the military and see what happens to your career. I’m pretty sure the non believers are in charge of the asylum. That being said, we at least have some hope to effect change. I’m sorry to hear that you have so little regard. Wouldn’t it be fun to play a game and see what the world would be like without her. Maybe we’d all be better off talking German and saying heil in our greetings, or carrying around little red books to profess our allegiance in fear, or lining up to get what my government tells me is my fair share like a cog. We’re far from perfect, but I’d still rather be here than anywhere even if I am being marginalized, and I have no stomach for dishonest, elitist apologists. Instead of a beam in the eye perhaps you’d prefer a yoke around the neck and a whip on the back.

          • Jdonnell

            The vast majority of military identify themselves as Christian. The rest of your (sometimes incoherent) comment is beside the point of what has been going on in the world in the last few decades. A war waged defensively is just a tad different from invading countries, killing their legal leaders, and occupying them. As it is, we still even have tens of thousands of troops in Germany, defending against a no longer existent enemy. And, we used the war with Japan to enlarge the American empire. Instead of the beam in your eye, why not stop living off the taxpayers–the US military is as socialized an institution as there is–while complaining.

            • St JD George

              War is a complex subject, and I pray for anyone who soul searches before sending young men and women into combat. Every war can be debated on its merits and whether it accomplished it’s goals short or long term. America has not expanded it’s empire though we certainly have our sphere of influence – not entirely without self interest but as much to protect our allies as well who benefit both strategically and economically from our presence. Was it better to drop the bomb(s) and end the war or let it wage for years longer with multitudes of more dead. What would you have done if you were president on 9/11, sit on your hands and say I guess we had it coming. Would you try to prop up the Brotherhood of terrorists during the Arab Spring like you know who. Do you think we should only fly expensive airplanes and drop expensive airplanes on ISIS with little or not effect? Even our Pope as cried out for military assistance to help with the slaughtering of Christians. Maybe you are thinking about our first black president who bombed a baby aspirin company in Sudan to distract from his oval office dalliances with a barely of age intern.

              • Jdonnell

                Whenever someone wants to muddy the waters, the subject suddenly becomes “complex”–which is not to say that the word often applies. War is simple enough in what it means–killing people. The war in Iraq was illegal and immoral, as was sending US troops to lots of other places, like Grenada. The US bishops said as much about Iraq but did so in such a muted way that hardly any Catholics were even aware of their position. When the matter is sexual morality, they trumpet their views; when it’s something like war in Iraq, the light is kept nearly under a basket. One does not have to be a pacifist to realize that just about all the US war-making has been immoral.

                Had I been president on 9/11, I would have done what Obama did years later in response to that criminal act committed not by a country but by a gang of criminals. I would have pursued them and their leader just as Obama did with success. US foreign policy has repeatedly made more and more people around the world hate us–and with reason. Our “sphere of influence”–a euphemism grows in proportion to the animosity it creates. Russia is accused of wanting to enlarge or maintain its influence over an immediate neighbor, but the US is supposed to have the right to overthrow leaders on the other side of the world (as has been recently the case in Syria, with the expected disastrous consequences).

                Your confusion of presidents and interns only highlights your bias.

                • St JD George

                  I think war is complex and in the commentary section is not the place to write our version of war and peace here. There are always many debatable points and honest people can have disagreements about decisions, strategy and outcome. Though I try to look at all things objectively I’ll freely admit that I have a bias towards peace through strength, not cowardliness. War should always be a last resort, but there are just wars against evil and wars often do have the effect of preventing more death and destruction than not is stopping tyrannical monsters – including preemptively if necessary those heads of state. I don’t have a very fond disposition towards apologists or appeasers, and I’m not particularly fond of our current administration.

                  • Jdonnell

                    The trouble is that the US makes war nearly a first resort. It also uses agencies to destabilize govts .it doesn’t like and foments war to oust leaders wnen that doesn’t work. The US has no business telling Iraqis or Syrians or anybody else who should govern them.
                    Your biases don’t stop with the so-called “peace through strength” issue and your reference to it simply another of the red herrings you drag through your responses. The US spends as much on military related stuff as just about all the other countries in the world combined. That leaves the govt. to borrow for everything else. Too many military brass living their highly socialized lives in actively or in retirement. The US has literally thousands of retired generals getting six figure salaries, plus tens of thousands more in perks.

                    • St JD George

                      I guess we can agree to disagree as we’ve each revealed our biases. That may be troubling for you, but more troubling is the same that could be said for all our career congressmen and women who do little but enrich themselves while seated and cultivating relationships to peddle their influence when they leave while making the average life miserable with tons and tons of new regulations and laws that nobody could possibly understand and enforce, except selectively to punish those that do not curry favor with them, or donate to their coffers.

                    • Jdonnell

                      There is a difference between bias and a position supported by facts rather than slogans (as yours is–e.g. “peace through strength”). Nor do clichéd views help: as in your last remarks thata simply echo the Rush Limppaugh sort of nonsense. Not all elected people try to enrich themselves, e.g. Jimmy Carter; John Kerry, the Kennedys, etc. Sure, they were already rich, but they didn’t try to add to their wealth through office-holding. Those like Cheney, who directed contracts to his old company fit your claim better, tho your sweeping generalization doesn’t hold water. As for the regulations you deplore, you again follow the path of Limppaugh ignorance. Without them, more people would die in car accidents, etc. etc.

                    • St JD George

                      Maybe we should open our own show like point, counter-point to debate the finer points. We’re probably starting to get on the nerves of the editor and others here. There is plenty of disgust to be found in the pettiness, greed, avarice, incompetence and egoism in both parties to be sure. All the more reason for strict term limits to restore citizen rather than career politicians, and a greatly restrained executive branch lest they forget they are not kings. I never imagined a day when virtually every policy is opposed by the citizens of this country but is rammed down their throats anyway for their own good because a class of elitists thinks they know what is best for them.

            • St JD George

              It is the only agency explicitly granted it control over in the constitution, everything else has been contrived for the common good. Tell that to those who are able bodied but enslaved into generational poverty by their benevolent overlords. We have so many laws and regulations on the books no sane person can follow them all so the perfect storm has now been created for the selective enforcement to reward benefactors and punish detractors.

              • Jdonnell

                The common good is what govt. exists to promote–not war, business, etc. The rich are enslaving the poor that you cite, not “regulations,” which are too often written by and for the rich. Banking regulations are almost all written by bankers. Without decent regulations, we would still have children laboring in mines, workers required to work much longer hours, builders constructing fire traps, etc. Al of those exs. are real; all those unjust things were inflicted on the poor and helpless by the wealthy. Lots of unjust practices continue to be inadequately regulated, which is why the Earth’s pollution increases so rapidly. Your vague objections to regulations is in the Rush Limmpaugh tradition of disinformation.

                • St JD George

                  The point was explicitly. The other explicit point was that the central politburo has no other rights and that the all others were ceded to the sovereign states. Every agency has been created by a derivative interpretation. Now it no longer serves us we serve it. An administration who runs up $1T deficits year after year, now over $18T not including unfunded entitlement liabilities is deeply immoral in my opinion. So is one who says God bless you for all that you do addressing their supporters in the Planned Parenthood org. Also the party who boos God at their convention, and worships an ex who was a serial philanderer taking advantage of a barely of age intern in the Oval Office, yet has the nerve to wag his finger and say those other guys are waging a war on women because they revere motherhood and families. And on, and on and on.

                  • Jdonnell

                    “The point was explicitly.” This is too often the kind of incoherent remark you make. So is your next sentence. Most of your (distorted) remarks have nothing to do with regulations that you were so insistent on mentioning in earlier comments.
                    As for debt, Reagan ran up higher deficits than all past presidents combined. And, look what Bush Jr. did in the way of debt, after launching unfunded (and illegal and immoral) wars.

                    • St JD George

                      Alinsky’s favorite tactics in Radicals is to call names, is it he and his ilk you draw inspiration from? If it is I will pray for you. I personally think the modern DNC is full of Anti Christ disciples and the RNC leadership is mostly made up of cowards. RR’s debt was no where near the current occupiers, plus there was much tangible to show for it when done. Now we seek to enslave people in generational poverty and destroy the dignity of work.

                    • Jdonnell

                      No substance in your comment. You called the Dems. the war party, but when confronted with a few uncomfortable facts about Repub. and war making, you change the subject.
                      Your latest comment shows more right-wing ideology and its blinkered view of reality. The Catholic Church calls for a social justice few Republicans want to face up to, starting with the “preferential option for the poor.” The Rebubs. talk religion and wave flags–all fakery.

                    • St JD George

                      Who is helped in creating generational poverty for able bodied people, who creates perverse incentives for the destruction of families and fosters dependency on government, who spends more than can be repaid bankrupting the country, who promotes degeneracy in SSM and confuses our kids over their sexual identity and LGBT lifestyle as normal. Would you have sat in a church and listened to a so called Christian preacher scream out GD week after week for 20 years. If that’s your idea of social justice you can have it. I’d rather raise the water to lift all boats than drain it so that they all rest on the bottom if that is what your idea of equity is. You are a fairly condescending chap, quite a common trait I find.

                    • Jdonnell

                      Who keeps workers in poverty, even though they work full time? Who uses the govt. to supplement unfair, poverty wages with food cards? Who leads the way in spending over half a trillion in military war-making (current budget bill figs.)? A rising tide won’t lift a sinking ship.
                      Your ridiculous rant only shows you to be a bigoted “chap” who swallows the Limmpaugh style of twisted thinking.

                    • St JD George

                      You don’t seem to be able to face the realities of unrepentant immorality either. I wouldn’t trust my daughter around Billy Boy, my wallet or security to the current occupier, or my sons in his military. So on that note I wish you a Merry Christmas Jdonnell, and a healthy, prosperous, wise new year. Good bye.

                    • Jdonnell

                      An empty response ,as expected. I guess you would rather trust your sons in Bush Jr’s military, where they might have fought and died in an illegal and immoral war, launched on the basis of lies and disinformation. And, trust you wallet to him for his unfunded wars. And, for shipping off no one knows exactly how many shrink-wrapped billions to disappear among thieves–including both Arabs and US military.

                    • St JD George

                      You just can’t take a Merry Christmas greeting without hurling another insult can you? I’m not a huge fan of the Bush’s though I believe they were honest. Details were disputed but the fact remains that the weapons chem/bio arsenal was there. If the unaffordable care act is so great why did they lie to us to get it passed, and not bother to read? You know, the part about its going to cost us more, we won’t see our Dr’s and there will long waits and distances to see those who accept and still practice. You know, like Gruber did. You can tell a lot about people by how they act when not behind the TelePrompTer. By all accounts the Bush’s were the same in front of the camera or in private and adored by the staff. Same with RR, he would go out of his way to give thanks to the lowliest of staff members. They say Obama is aloof and full of himself, and they were in terror when the Hill-da-beast roamed the halls fearing the slightest whim would have them sent to the guillotine. My favorite almost private quote of all time though was LBJ to the two governors when he said we’ll have those nig..rs voting democratic for 200 years with the war on poverty programs meant to breed permanent voters, not independence. He was successful so some credit is due. Are you ready to write your check for $100k or whatever it is up to now to pay for all these things your government has obligated you too? It seems to me that we are in a race to the bottom, and when we are all bankrupt and poor (except for imperial donor class) we will the unity in status this line of thinking will bring.

                    • St JD George

                      I boil it down to this for you J as simply as I can. Phonies are those who will lie to your face and say or do anything to advance their agenda, especially when they know it’s unpopular and act differently to your face than behind your back. Genuine people whether you agree with them or not are the same all the time and care about people beyond just the election cycle. There isn’t one democrat in recent modern history who hasn’t been an elitist with largely contempt privately. The other life lesson is if you want to know who somebody is like watch who they hang out with.

                    • St JD George

                      You know J, dialog often gravitates towards extremes but that is not where reality lies. Of course no party has a lock on virtue any more than the other a lock on vice. Likewise a conversation that tilts towards a world with no regulations is equally as absurd. I do believe ultimately that government provides a false security and those that put their faith in it before God are in for bitter disappointment. I have a conservative view of the world but as I grow in my faith it defines me less. Enjoy you Christmas.

                    • Jfd6400

                      OK JDonnell, you’re lovely Democrats had the same disinformation as Bush had. Why is it that you liberals can’t accept that? Hear me JDonnell, everyone in the government received the same intel report!! By the way reject, if it weren’t for the good old USA, millions and millions of people would have been murdered through the decades of past wars. We did not invade countries and convert them to our ways. Why don’t you leave JDonnell. People like you make me sick!!

                    • Jdonnell

                      The Dems had less to go on than the Bush White House, but they should have known better too. Plenty of people pointed out at the time that there was no solid evidence. Even laymen could see that from a careful reading of news reports (as I myself saw back then). Nowadays, even some of the members of the Bush team think that he and others could be indicted for war crimes, as for ex., Richard Clarke, Bush’s lead counter-terrorism man, who believes President George W. Bush is guilty of war crimes for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as he said in an interview:

                      RICHARD CLARKE: “I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes. Whether that would be productive or not, I think, is a discussion we could all have. But we have established procedures now with the International Criminal Court in The Hague where people who take actions as serving presidents or prime ministers of countries have been indicted and have been tried. So the precedent is there to do that sort of thing.” Clarke has also said that right after 9/11, Bush came to him and said, “Start linking this to Iraq.”

                      Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Powell aide, thinks the same thing, when asked “Do you think that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, George Tenet, head of the CIA, and others should be held accountable for war crimes, should be actually charged?

                      COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON: I have to say that after all of my investigations, my students looking into the episodes in case studies and so forth, my own personal experience in that administration, I can only give you an answer that is, I think, utopian, I think it’s far too optimistic, it’s Pollyannaish: yes. But I don’t think for a moment that it’s going to happen.”
                      The US has invaded countries but–you are correct on this one point–we did not convert them to our ways. We created failed states in Libya and Iraq, and nearly that in Afghanistan. Bush lied; Cheney lied; Rummy lied. Those who actually love their country want to see justice prevail in it and to have war criminals like them indicted.

        • Lucretius

          So the US is a Christian country! When it comes to debates such as the “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, many people deny that the US is in any way Christian, often throwing out a quote from President John Adam’s treaty to the Barbary States. If the US is a Christian state, then phases such as “under God” and prayers in public schools shouldn’t be a controversy.

          Of course, the US is only a Christian country when it is ideologically convenient, so…

          Christi pax,

          Lucretius

    • former atheist

      “Augustine” says that ISIS is demonstrating to the world that the Crusades were in fact justified. To prove this – these books are compelling for all Christians:

      Compelling reading for all Christians to gain the TRUE FACTS (which completely dismantle the “pop” versions in the popular media):

      “A Concise History of the Crusades”, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of “The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.”

      The writer, Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, equally compelling.

    • Udayavar

      Your statements on Mohammed are actually mild compared with the reality. He was a monster.

    • The Truth

      Simple mathematics can tell you western civilization is coming to an end.

  • publiusnj

    Although it is not often acknowledged in a “Western Civilization” run by politicians whose idea is always to coopt by compromise, Islam went to war before Mohammed’s death and as soon as he died, his Arab followers went off on a rampage (or jihad), that has continued ever since. The only times they haven’t been on the attack is when they have been on the defense. They were generally on the defense in the West of the Mediterranean from 1200 AD or so with the Reconquista until quite recently and in the Eastern Mediterranean and Balkans after 1683 AD until quite recently. [Even while on the defense in the Mediterranean, though, Islam continued to pursue an aggressive agenda against cultures further East than Iran]. IOW, it wasn’t the Crusades that led to Islamic enmity toward Christians but the command for jihad uttered in the Early 7th Century.

    What we now call “Western Culture” was historically known as Christendom and it stood for different things than Islam. Yet, our politicians cannot be trusted to defend Christendom –or indeed any culture that is not the product of on-going regulation by the state using the ancient principle of all politicians: divide and conquer–because politicians have long seen the Church as an independent power to be controlled and as much as possible taken over by the State. That is what the Reformation did throughout most of Northern Europe. That, in particular, is the sorry tale of England since the Reformation, so it is not surprising that the next coronation of the head of the Church of England–the purported defender of its Faith–might open with a prayer from the Koran. Nor is it surprising that criticism of Islam is being more and more constricted in England. Otherwise, the Muslims would not feel at home. For at home in their ancestral lands, criticism of Islam is deemed Blasphemy and punished in a way that Muslims must feel comforting.

  • St JD George

    You mean Chesterton was a prophet – wow, who knew. A man of his time, ahead of his time, for all time, and a great man.

    • Steve D.

      I wonder if GKC would have ever envisioned a sitting pope helping to bring about the Islamization of the West, as we currently have?

      • St JD George

        Do you really think he is helping to bring about or that the problem is bigger than he can control. Having said that I know that appeasing doesn’t usually solve problems either, usually only delays the confrontation at best.

  • Siwash

    I was thinking yesterday with all the blame-throwing and such, that if I were Jewish I would be very frightened, here in America, since I think Jews will be unjustly pegged for a host of evils and will find no help in pushing back against the propaganda and nonsense.

    • St JD George

      I understand, there use to be a time when they could count us as a strong ally to defend themselves in the hostile region they are located. Now a days we seem more interested in building bridges to Hamas and the Brotherhood to aid them in building tunnels to terrorize them.

    • All you need to do is visit a college campus to understand that virulent anti-Semitism is alive and well among the patched elbow sweater set.

  • JohnE_o

    About this…

    The United States, the largest NATO member, has been drastically
    reducing the size and strength of its military. The U.S. plans to shrink
    its Army to pre-World War II levels, the number of ships in the Navy is
    lower than in 1917…

    The US Army does not now need to be as large as it was during WW II because at that time, there was a multiple front war being fought against industrialized nations. Since this is not currently the case, that sort of manpower is not required.

    Although the number of ships in the US Navy might be lower than it was in 1917, today’s vessels are armed with powerful weapons and associated targeting systems that were undreamed of a hundred years ago.

    Furthermore, there is a new branch of the US Armed Forces – The United States Air Force, that can rain death from the sky on anyone the US government designates as an enemy.

    So while you raise some valid points about Islamization in England (although I suspect they will sort it all out in their own British way) your fears about the American military are unfounded and detract from your piece.

    • Dennis Neylon

      The article is pointing to the size of the Army BEFORE World War II, when it was a paper tiger. The Navy may have more powerful ships, but you still need personnel to operate them and a reasonable deployment rotation (in the 80s, this was 12 months between major six month deployments; to keep this level, you needed 3 carrier battle groups in each theater [the Med, the north Atlantic, the western Pacific and the Middle East] which means a minimum of 12 battle groups [plus one more to cover for yard maintenance periods]). Finally, the Air Force may be able to project power, but considering the age of our heavy bombers and our refueling tankers, as well as the endless delays of the joint strike fighter, I would not put all my eggs in that basket either. As a veteran of the Cold War era, I think comparing our current and planned military forces to the pre-WWII era is probably spot on and possibly overly optimistic (we were more concerned about having our military project force rather than a politcally correct social service agency).

      • Howard

        This is getting off topic, but your discussion of carrier task forces is probably just as wrong as the pre-WW2 expectation that battleships define a navy’s strength, as they had for decades or even (depending how you define them) centuries before. Today battleships are obsolete; no one has really built one since WW2. Over the past 70 years I think we have taken the aircraft carrier about as far as it will go, or perhaps it is the manned military aircraft that is on the verge of becoming obsolete; maybe both. I don’t know, but I suspect the first blow in the next big war may be someone taking out our electrical infrastructure with a few keystrokes — and given how in places it struggles to deal with even routine summertime demand, it’s likely they could do it.

    • Howard

      The US military is good at fighting military opponents — not so much at fighting spiritual opponents. Make no mistake: however great you might think Uncle Sam is, he sucks eggs as a god. Neither military might nor patriotism, let alone jingoism, is the right way to fight a false religion; the right way is to fight it with the True Religion.

      • St JD George

        Don’t tell that to the current “occupier”, he might have the IRS target you for not calling him emperor or your highness. I agree with you in principle of course, but it’s hard to get the point across when you are threatened with suicide bombers, sword carrying Jihad-Joe’s, death by crucifixion, and wondering if anything can be believed by a culture that embraces taqiyya and believes that abrogation is a rational explanation for the whims of their God. How exactly should we march forward, or in military parlance, what tactical approach should we take … I mean after voting out the current occupier?

        • Howard

          That gets to another object. Because Uncle Sam is not a god, there is no reason to believe his is now, ever has been, or ever will be sinless, or even vaguely on our side, yet we have made him so powerful that he could do more damage to us by accident than bin Laden ever could have for all his malice.

          Frankly, a military that is too strong has always been a near occasion of sin for rulers to use it, just war or no just war. Our form of government does not give us a magical exemption.

          • St JD George

            All things being equal, I’d rather have one than not, and I believe that despite some questionable affairs that on balance the military has been used more wisely mostly for the greater good than not. Could write War and Peace on that, but brevity I believe is called for and I know not all agree.

            • The US military has not fought a just war in 70 years.

              • Rick Azevedo

                Come on… Vietnam? Gulf War I? Those were just wars…

                • Do you know the criteria to determine if a war is just at all? No conflict since the end of WWII was just, period.

            • Howard

              Don’t try to create a false dilemma.

        • If anything, ISIS is demonstrating to the world that Crusades were justified. Of course, answering your question, then there were devout Christians willing to die to defend the Faith, but now…

          • St JD George

            Now we have pockets of devout, innocent Christians willing to die in defense of their faith instead. I for one admit I don’t know how to defeat an ideology that wants to destroy me. Mounting a horse and armoring seems a bit brutish except to force to sit at a table, and that just drives deep held resentment underground temporarily. Vigilance in removing the ability to strike limits the damage potential but people grow weary living in fear of terror all the time even if only remote (ask Israel). You can’t have a dialog if you are headless after all except in the movies. Blessed are the meek doesn’t seem to strike the right tone if we are to carry the good news forward. I think of Japan and Vietnam and how we became allies after those wars and wonder if it’s possible, but of course the circumstances are so radically different. Should we tiptoe around and continue with the talking points about being peaceful and that only the crazies are bent on mayhem in defiance of what their prophet tells them to do, or should we be bold and speak the truth? One might buy you time.

          • Howard

            That, and there was a concept of Christendom. When terrorists flew planes into the WTC in New York, I was supposed to feel outraged in Texas (which I was) because we are in some way united; well, in a similar way a Christian in France could feel a real, powerful, important unity with Christians in Syria and Egypt and the Holy Land. This seems strange to us today because the world has convinced us that religion is at best just an old-fashioned and somewhat embarrassing personal hobby.

        • Bill Guentner

          You’re out of date. The present “occupier” cannot be voted out of office. His term will end in 2016. Furthermore, you might have greater believability if you lose you far right wing position in favor of facts.

          • St JD George

            There still could be a vote for impeachment for dereliction of duty to uphold the Constitution, but I’m not holding my breath. Yes I have conservative views, but I welcome you to challenge any facts in the spirit of mutual enlightenment.

      • Bob

        As if there is such a thing.

        • Howard

          They are rare.

  • ColdStanding

    Comeuppance.

  • “Or, as one contemporary Catholic author claims: “Islam has great and deep resources of morality and sanctity that should inspire us and shame us and prod us to admiration and imitation.”

    I think the a appropriate label is “dhimmi in training”.

    We have Islamophiles on this board, see “tom” posting in the article on usury.

    • Gail Finke

      Saying “wow, they are very devoted to what they believe and I should be as devoted to what I believe” would be good… but that’s not what they people who say things like that mean. They mean that we should be less devoted to what we believe. However, many people are lulled by the fact that it sounds good.

    • RufusChoate

      As Hilaire Belloc wrote in his book “The Great Heresies” Islam is the simplest of all Heresies demanding very little from the believer and rewarding them handsomely for their devotion.

      The word heresy holds no terror for the modern Catholic because of the pervasive nonsense that all are saved no matter what…

  • Nostromo

    The bit about how media treats Islamic crime is disturbing.

    Here in Canada we just commemorated the murder of 14 women in Montreal and the only thing that is mentioned for the motive is misogyny, or a hatred of feminists.

    No one dares mention that the murderer who is always referred to as Marc Lepine, has a real name, Gamil Rodrigue Liass Gharbi, born to an Algerian businessman who was a muslim who hated and abused women. Somehow all men in Canada have been indicted by this crime yet it’s obvious where the source of this misogyny was that no one can speak about.

    • Gail Finke

      I just went to the Wikipedia entry. Sounds as if he was not raised in a Muslim home (his mother was a former nun) and never was taught or practiced any religion at all. Otherwise he sounds very similar in character to other crazy mass murderers. Unless a lot is left out there (which could be– it’s Wikipedia after all) it doesn’t sound as if that had anything to do with Islam at all. He was a baptized Catholic, I sure wouldn’t say that had anything to do with Catholicism.

      • Nostromo

        He experienced great abuse from his father, who was a mysogynist of Algerian descent unable to reconcile western womens freedoms. Apples and trees..

        • Gail Finke

          Sorry but that is simply not true. Unless you can show a rash of violence against women from people whose parents were Algerian Muslims, there is no evidence that htis guy was anything but a nut. A couple of years ago in my hometown, a crazy man went into a health club and shot women because he hated women. He was not a Muslim or descended from Muslims, would you say that Western WASP upbringing was to blame because “apples and trees…”? I would not. Mass murderers have a specific psychological profile regardless of their upbringing; THAT’s the “tree.” There are plenty of problems with Islam and violence; pointing to crimes that have nothing to do with Islam does not help the case, it makes people disregard real problems.

          • Nostromo

            I have no doubt that this persons abuse caused him to become what he was. He was an apple from the tree. It’s a well know fact abusers become abusive. “Gharbi had contempt for women and believed that they were only intended to serve men.
            He required his wife to act as his personal secretary, slapping her if she made any errors in typing, and forcing her to retype documents in spite of the cries of their toddler. He was also neglectful and abusive towards his children, particularly his son, and discouraged any tenderness, as he considered it spoiling. In 1970, following an incident in which Gharbi struck his son so hard that the marks on his face were visible a week later.”
            I don’t know the background of your “wasp” as you didn’t post anything details, but there is no question about the place of women in Algeria.

            • RufusChoate

              You’re correct.

          • RufusChoate

            Your post is a little difficult to believe that you have avoided the extensive documentation of honor killings, mutilation and abuse of women by Muslims. It is a very common event. Muhammad himself was a complete misogynist who wrote that he believed the majority of humanity in hell were women while encouraging systematic rapine during military actions and sexual enslavement.

            The profile for mass murderers is invariably nihilistic leftist malcontents in the United States but it is not at all surprising that the one surviving mass shooter James Eagan Holmes who was a nihilistic Leftist malcontent converted to Islam during his trial.

            Islam is also more of cultural or ideological identification than a religion and Gamil Rodrigue Liass Gharbi was a muslim by the same Islamic law that allows observant Muslims to claim Obama as a Muslim even though he attended a National of Islam inspired Preacher’s congregation.

  • Howard

    I keep waiting for Peter Kreeft to revise his thinking about an “Ecumenical Jihad”. I thought for sure he would do so after 9/11, but he seems to still think that Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are greater threats, and that we should team up with the mujaheddin to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

    • R. K. Ich

      I love Kreeft, but this left me puzzled.

  • cestusdei

    It will be so much easier now that freedom of speech and thought are becoming illegal in the UK.

  • Ignoring the quasi-fascist sympathies with everything thuggish expressed by Kilpratick, such statements like “the governing class’ abandonment of cultural and spiritual values” and the “undermining of the existing culture” are patently false, speaking more to his ideology than the truth.

    There have been no cultural and spiritual values to abandon or culture to undermine in the UK or in pretty much all of the West. The Christianity that shaped and kept the culture and the spirit of Western nations has been abandoned en masse in merely a handful of generations since the Great War.

    Whatever fills the vacuum left by its demise, whether Islam or paganism, will be told by history, but not because of any active role by them in creating this vacuum. This responsibility lies solely with the apostates of Christianity. In other words, with the person reflected in the mirror.

  • Mitchell

    The Flying Inn, written in 1914, is even more tragically prophetic than we realize. In 1915 the genocide of the Armenian christian community started under the explicit direction of the sultan of Turkey, and the ruler of the Ottoman empire. The three pashas refer to the dominant political figures of the World War I, who carried out the ethnic cleansing. Over 1 million Armenian Christians were murdered by bullets, poison, starvation and exhaustion. Turkey has still never acknowledged the act as genocide.

    • Gail Finke

      “Who remembers Armenia?” — know who said that? (Or is supposed to have said it…)

  • Fish_G

    Crescent Moon Lunar Lunatic.

    Free association rocks.

  • doors open inwards

    I think the picture in the beginning of the article paints the picture all to well the only thing missing in the pic., is Big Ben’s top needs to be capped with a crescent like the mecca clock tower and the church dome to the left needs one, then presto it’s all done, complete and well who knows but I do know this, “God is in control even when it doesn’t seem like it, he’s never late he’s always on time, even though his time isn’t our time he’s always in control of the bigger picture.

  • Udayavar

    I don’t have a moral objection to polygamy. But why would anyone want to have multiple mothers-in-law?

  • Udayavar

    Islam should not be thought of as a religion. It is really a political ideology for global dominance, with the religious part providing an incentive for recruiting soldiers. This is analogous to the role of atheism in communism. The latter is again an ideology, with atheism playing a supporting role by removing connection to the prevailing establishment at that time.

  • vito

    IT IS the religion of peace: there’s a piece of you over here, there’s a piece of you over there…

  • Beatrix

    This reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ The Last Battle in the Narnia series. Specifically the melding of Tash and Aslan into Tashlan.

  • lalvarez62

    Do not be afraid of Islam. Learn their techniques. Their desires of world domination by the sword, if necessary. Already in France there are areas that are “No Go” zones to their law enforcement authorities. Please go to centerforsecuritypolicy.org and follow the link to Muslim Brotherhood in America – you read correctly – they are here already and infiltrating every aspect of American culture – very disturbing. Pax et bonum! Merry Christ-Mass.

  • Guest

    Split between Catholic and Protestant = Islamification.

  • St Pan

    Chesterton was a bloody good writer!

  • Looks to me like the West is now essentially run by Jews and homos.

    All this fear about Muslims is a red herring.

    Also, the main threat to Europe is not Muslim but African immigration.

    Black Africa is demographically exploding and sending millions to Europe. And the main problem is not their religion but the fact that they are tougher and more aggressive than whites. They commit crimes against whites, beat up white men, and conquer white women.

    That will really undo the West. But since the West worships MLK and Mandela, we are not supposed to notice the threat posed by blacks.

    The only acceptable fear-mongering is bitching about Muslims. By the way, the current immigration policy was urged on the West by Jews.

MENU