It is easy to blame the intellectuals for their cultural relativism, moral ignorance, and a love of abstract utopian ideologies--but there are exceptions. Jean-Francois Revel, in his book, Anti-Americanism, makes many sound observations on the current cultural crisis on the Continent. One of the more pertinent is his point that terrorism and the West's confrontation with Islamo-fascism "is not a battle between civilizations, it is battle for civilization."

Revel correctly points out that the democratic, secular, multidenominational society that we enjoy, with its separation of church and state, women's rights of equality, and freedom of speech, cannot co-exist with radical Islam. Indeed, the radicals are bent on destroying our civilization.

 Solutions are difficult, but the first step is to recognize the problem. Those who would look too kindly on their opponents may well tolerate themselves to death.

Please allow me to add some of my own thoughts on the salvation of Europe.

We can never get back what once was. That much should be apparent from looking at history. Maybe it is safe to say, that we should reclaim the spirit, that is lost now among most people. Yet the spirit of european civilization, ｉｎ ｗｈｉｃｈ　Ｉ include the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, has grown in the few people that are left to uphold it (Whenever I go out for a beer with good guys from these parts, I rejoice in the fact, that our minds, culture, manners are alike and we are brothers in the world). What is the nature of this extension? It is the awareness of western spirit embattled. We have shed all traces of arrogance that we, through our feeling of superiority, have once possessed.

But what can we regain? What will it look like? Surely we will not return to cultural naivité, meaning: 'we consider not the future of our society in light of current development of society'. Our enemy has evolved. He knows exactly the shape that the society, he is trying to pervert now, will have in the future. For the communist mind, totalitarianism has not failed, only the first attempt has failed. They never gave up on their project. Recently I have come across a very neat argument concerning leftist behaviour regarding financial and fiskal mismanagement of western nations. The left wants no useful reform, not because they don't believe in curing our economy by way of reason. They oppose useful reform, because a recovery of the economy would not get them anywhere near installing their communist system again. They want to take the economy down so they can take back what they once had plus the regions they could not get hold of with the red army.

What can people conclude, who oppose these machinations? They have to develop their own machinations to counter the evolutionary headstart, that the left has in the struggle for dominance. One such mechanism used to be religion. I deeply believe, that it is engrained in our nature, to know right from wrong. If you harm somebody with malicious intent and for your own advancement, than you will always know, that you are doing the wrong thing. It is human. But different cultures have developed different ways to replace indiviual conscience with collective conscience. Adolf Eichmann, when tried in Israel, said that he could do the things he did, because the Führer had become his conscience (something I might have read in a brilliant article here before). He was aware, that he did evil, but denied to apply the distinction between good and evil on himself.

Hateful Islam pushes this collective conscience onto an alltogether abstract level: Allah. Islam is the Antichrist, in that it has made doing evil the paramount institution. By that, the creators and followers of Islam have substituted their conscience with Allah, and have therefore become the agents of the meme 'Allah', a living organism.

Ur-Christianity has done the same before, but by INSTITUTIONALIZING GOOD. This is where we must turn to to develop a new mechanism for preserving western civilisation. This can be the only starting point for us. The mental and cultural infrastructure is already there, it just has to be revived. But it also must be transformed. The meme 'Judeo-Christian' culture and religion must evolve to oppose Islam, Communism and all forms of Totalitarianism.

On a sidenote: We can seek no help in East Asia, for their societies have become stagnant and empty in spirit. China, where I currently reside, has not taken a good way. They will fall low from the heights that they are climbing economically. They are shedding their spirit and mentality much more quickly than we have, because they have no strong moral foundation. Already I can see the beginnings of political correctness, immigration and cultural egalitarianism take root here. One student of mine has described his society as full of cheaters, that do not trust each other. I found it to be a strong statement in line with my own observations. If there is no trust in friendship and true affection among the people around you, how can such a society defend itself against globalizing nihilism? If money is the new god, what space is left for spirituality? The only light on the horizon is, that recently the churches enjoy a rising number of conversions towards Christianity in China. For what it's worth, many people might be realizing, that the party cannot replace with economic development the emptiness they feel.

So where to begin? In a 'knowledge society' a mission must be knowledge-based. A missionary must not only be a scholar of his religion, but also a scholar of history, economy, science and human nature. Belief is not enough, because the enemy's propaganda is all-pervading, creating belief anytime, anywhere and about anything he wishes. Reason and clarity is the only weapon that a missionary has these days, to make people understand. Conservative debate is all good and well, but what is needed, is an interface with those out of bounds of these debates (the majority!). Only if the lowliest, poorest, least learned person can be shown, what is and what is not, than a strategy of saving western society can work.

Politicians must be shown, that it is meaningful for them to overcome their fear of peer pressure and stand up for what they really believe to be righ, because they only have a life-time left before they face their own hypocrisy on the death-bed.

Intellectuals, scholars and students must be shown, that their work only has meaning if their successors will find honesty and earnestness in it, even if the theories are long since disproven thereafter.

People with few resources and no useful occupation in their lives must be shown that no matter what they are promised by the political elite, they are used against their own interests, because their situation will not improve, rather their world will become more and more fragmented, less secure and nobody will remember them for their joys, only for their sorrows. They have to learn anew from Hesiod, that toil is the fate of man, that "men never rest from labor and sorrow by day and from perishing by night" (Works and Days, Hesiod), because of "the fundamental economic problem of the scarcity of resources for the pursuit of all human needs and desires" (from Wikipedia's article on "Works and Days").

Women, who act as judges over life and death in the trials of their unborn children, must be shown, that there is no boundary for humanity that can be counted in cell numbers or weeks, rather that they should face the personal consequences for their actions, face what burden they load unto their conscience.

These are just a few instances. They can only hint at the monstrous kraken, that with its numerous arms riddles our culture with false myths, lies, deceptions and malice.

It is very difficult for me to understand, in a rational way, why anyone in the West might view Arab/Middle East countries with much sympathy. However, there are explanations.

The French writer, Guillaume Faye, argues that there exists a strain of "conservatism"* that is anti-Jewish "at any cost." Because of what they perceive as Jewish victimization of the non-Jewish majority, these folks instinctively gravitate to the Islamic (re: Palestinian) cause. It is the “enemy of my enemy” psychology.

[*I follow Paul Gottfried's example of putting this term in quotes inasmuch as its definition is often questionable, and is often not defined at all]

Next we point to those left-liberals who ostensibly support "equality," and therefore take all cultures to be equally worthy of respect and even emulation. They are "students of multiculturalism" believing all the time that they (meaning the entire West) can learn something from Islam. Of course, in their naïve view, what is learned is always positive. And, ironically, their multicultural embrace usually does not extend to their own Western culture, which is typically deprecated.

Then there are the politicians who are happy to encourage an on-going majority dispossession. Perhaps they understand demographic trends, and realize that their welfare state (the source of their power) cannot continue without an infusion of "new blood," as it were. This, because the indigenous population have refused to reproduce at replacement rates. And in their quest to retain power they need new taxpayers, wherever they can find them.

Finally, there is a group that views the West as reprobate, and something that ought to be ended. These are the anarchists, the Communists, the eco-totalitarians etc. For them it is a moral issue (with the possible exception of the anarchists who might deny a moral foundation for anything).

Within this collection (to include certain right-leaning liberal “conservatives”) there are very few who appear to understand that Islam is incommensurate with Western existence. That is why I question using notions of Enlightenment derived right as a means to stem the Islamicization of Europe. To argue that the key is “free speech” misses the point.

The only way Europe can reclaim what it once was is if the idea of rights are limited to citizens, and then only if citizenship is limited to an ethnic, cultural, and religiously homogenous peoples. Once the idea of “the universal rights of man” are conceded, the end begins. And just as certainly, nihilism will follow. A little over 100 years ago Nietzsche heard the knock of the “uncanny guest” at the door. Now, that guest has entered the house and made himself quite comfortable. Not content to be a guest, he is in the process of throwing the old owner out—amazingly with the owner's help and cooperation.