During the 1400 years of contact between the West and Islam, two-thirds of the original territory of the West was Islamized. Approximately 100 million Westerners were killed or enslaved. We commemorate three great victorious battles (Tours, Lepanto, Vienna) and, say, five others. They commemorate dozens of great victorious battles.It was only in the relatively short historical period of the European Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution that the tables were turned. The West without Enlightenment ideals and scientific and technological practice is clearly the weaker one.
New Apaches and new Sioux?
Up to this point it would have been something historically common. Two civilizations colliding and struggling to see if the powerfully weaker one can survive. We may be less fierce fighters, but we have freedom, rationality, science and technology.
What is historically quite unusual is the reaction of the European elites. By elites I mean the narrow group of people who possess the most wealth, the most political power, the most influence on the media, and the most cultural capital. I point out that the distribution of different kinds of power is not the same.The narrow anti-civilization elite has an absolutely overwhelming preponderance of financial power, a slightly smaller preponderance of power, an even smaller preponderance of media power (let’s not forget that alternative media influences tens of millions of people), and the smallest preponderance in terms of cultural capital. Today’s elite lacks the education and refinement of their predecessors; young multicultural and green activists are even the worst educated elite in centuries.
Yet there is an explanation for this enigma of the elites. There are dozens of sociological studies on it. But they are ignored.
Logically, we might expect that those who benefit most from contemporary Western societies would be most inclined to defend them. And this is even in the face of further power ambitions.How are you going to conquer Russia or China if you destroy your own base – economically and politically?
This brings us back to the colonization story. We know nothing of Indian chiefs and their shamans telling their people, “Those aggressive immigrants who are taking your hunting grounds and driving you out of your settlements are the new Sioux and the new Apache. Accept the fact that this is our future. The Apache of the future will have white skin, speak English and go to a Christian church. It is only your bigotry and your backwardness that prevents you from understanding this.”
Yet there is an explanation for this enigma of the elites. There are dozens of sociological studies on it. But they are ignored. I use the term “new aristocracy” in my books, but it can be confusing. The point is that we are ruled by people uniquely equipped to conduct intrigue in royal courts, but nothing else. We might as well describe ourselves as people with a lackey mentality.
But overall, it’s the same strata. What’s changed is the way they govern. Instead of all-powerful tycoons, we see managers.
Make no mistake. Today’s narrow ruling class is made up of the same families as generations ago. Someone who’s been at the top is barely in the big leagues. And the descendants of someone who barely stayed in the top league have climbed to the top. Someone from the elite dropped out and some new people came in. But overall, it’s the same strata. What’s changed is the way they govern. Instead of all-powerful tycoons, we see managers. Everybody serves somebody. Everybody is reporting for somebody. Anyone can be replaced. No one is accountable. It is always possible to appeal to the market or someone else’s decision. It’s not for people with big egos. But if you learn to live with it, you have even more money and even more power than your predecessors, and little or no accountability to boot.
