Islam Is Not the Only Threat to the West

About the photo: Antonio Gramsci, co-founder of the Italian Communist Party in 1921, developed the theory of cultural hegemony, according to which the extreme Left has to take power indirectly and in a less visible way, through an ideological and cultural war that it has now de facto won all over the Western world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've often said that the West is allowing its own Islamisation - which it could easily stop, since it's in a much stronger position than the Muslim world - and that therefore, if we want to be effective in dealing with the Islamic threat, we must first understand and deal with what has brought Western civilisation to its knees long before Islam could use this predicament for its purposes.

We've got to understand what went wrong in the West's seemingly unstoppable march of progress.

We believe that European countries and those descended from them are the most successful in the world, yet they are just ready not just to accept but to welcome with arms wide open their own Islamisation.

If we are in this situation it’s obviously because we have taken a path which is not so successful and conducive to good results as we illusorily thought we had. There’s not much point in all this “progress” if it has the same causes as our predisposition to civilisational suicide.

Sometimes people respond to my assertion that something is rotten in the West by saying things like this message, which I've just received:

I think what you say is true. However, I also think there are more causes to the rise of militant Islamism in the UK and elsewhere in Europe than just the failings of cultural Marxism and Western liberal democracy. Violence, war, slavery and Jihad are built into the very DNA of the Quaran and no iman would argue with that. I have come to the conclusion that Islam itself is not a religion at all. In fact the Quran defines it as a "system of thought" which is a far more accurate description.

It's impossible to say with any remote appearance of logic - and therefore I've never said - that Islam invasion of the West can occur without Islam. If you think about it for a moment, it wouldn't make any sense even as a linguistic construct.

But what I'm saying is that, if we focus only on Islam, we miss the broader picture.

When Rome was invaded and sacked by the barbarians, that had the possibility to happen only because the Roman Empire was already weakened internally, by moral decadence and the loss of the values that had built its strength. The barbarians merely took advantage of that.

Something similar is happening to Western civilisation. If the West were not in such a state of moral and cultural confusion so serious as to resemble a loss of identity, Islam would be too weak a force to even dream of threatening it.

Let's not forget that, with unrestricted immigration, we opened the doors to the invaders. The perpetrators of 9/11, as an example, received their training in engineering and driving planes in Germany and the US. Without that training, they wouldn't have achieved anything, even after reading the Quran a thousand times. This is just a dramatically emblematic example of what I'm saying.

I'm not saying even for a moment that Islam is not a huge problem, threatening the very existence of our civilisation.

But it's far from being the only problem threatening it.

Even without Islam, the West for a long time has been on a path to destroy itself (witness the two totally unnecessary world wars, that many historians, including Niall Ferguson, call "Western civil wars").

We are conducting this analysis now exactly because we have to find out what went wrong. I anticipate the conclusions of my analysis: abandoning Christianity, losing our moral compass, turning man into God is what went wrong.

What all of us have been taught is different from the truth that we have to re-discover again.

Western civilisation was built on and for many centuries took its nourishment and lifeblood from Christianity. Without it, it will end.

I am personally not a believer, I was an atheist all my adult life until I became agnostic about two years ago. It's not necessary to believe in God to recognise these, which are historical facts. Or to become a follower of Christianity without its theological aspect.

Christianity, like all religions, has a theological and a cultural, ethical and social aspect. We can embrace the latter without embracing the former.