The Fall of Constantinople was the capture of the capital of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire by an invading army of the Ottoman Empire on Tuesday, 29th May 1453. The Ottomans were commanded by 21-year-old Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who defeated an army commanded by Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaeologos. The conquest of Constantinople followed a seven-week siege that had begun on Friday, 6th April 1453.
Yesterday’s report in the Guardian about the EU’s decision to impose quota’s on it’s reluctant members forms part of a series of events that might in future be described as “The Fall of Europe.”
To return for a moment to the end of the Byzantine Empire; the events of Tuesday, 29th May 1453 were a culmination of a long campaign by the Muslim invaders. The Muslim enemies of the Byzantine Empire were in fact aided by several states in Christian Europe who supported the Ottoman cause on the basis of “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.”
Much of the enthusiasm of the European Left’s support for the mass settlement of these folk is that survey after survey after survey across nearly every western European state shows a tribal tendency on the part of their ethnic minorities to vote for the centre left and left parties on not the centre right. For the UK, that is not to say that EVERY member of the ethnic minorities communities votes Labour. Clearly such a statement is nonsense as borne out by the fact that The Right Honourable Sajid Javid MP is Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Comments from the “politically incorrect” leaders of the governments of central Europe about a large influx of a middle eastern Muslim population will fundamentally change the nature of “Christian Europe” are condemned as outrageously racist. Such condemnation however does nothing to invalidate such statements.
If this population transfer from the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria continues unchecked these folk will in combination with the Muslim population already settled in Europe, bring about a fundamental change in Europe’s population. Such a population transfer on such a scale over such a short period of time will inevitably import the politics of these countries into Europe, along with the social attitudes of these folk.
What will be the consequences?
We are already seeing some.
The Conservatives are desperate to attract the ethnic vote. Female Conservative activists when out canvassing in Muslim areas have been instructed by their party “to dress modestly” and not to proffer their hand (for a handshake) unless the member of the ethnic minority takes the initiative and proffers theirs. NB: Conservative ladies are not known to “dress immodestly” – what this must mean is code for wearing a headscarf when in the presence of a Muslim man.
As for what might happen in the future, looking back to the past can often help. On Saturday evenings recently, Channel Four has been looking back at what some TV used to be like in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Interestingly they showed the reactions of some young people who were either too young or not born to have seen what they were shown before. Their reactions varied but many were horrified and shocked that such “homophobic”, “racist” and “sexist” material would be broadcast.
What this illustrates is just how far social attitudes can change in such a comparatively short space of time.
The mistake many people make is that the pendulum only swings one way. It does not. It swings both ways. Those watching such as Benny Hill in the 1970s holding this mistaken belief may well have concluded by now (2015) female nudity would be completely commonplace and that not only would have have attractive young ladies reading the news they may well be scantily clad or topless.
For instance, here is Azumi Mizushima the Japanese equivalent of one of our weather-girls nude on TV.The idea that Holly Green, below, BBC TV’s weather girl in the South West would appear similarly is unthinkable.The idea that openly homosexual men would be regarded as entirely respectable – who were openly referred to as “Puffs” and “Nancy Boys” – I distinctly remember as a teenager motor scooters being dismissively referred to as “Puff Chariots” – would horrify and shock such people – then – not now.
So, what does this say about the year 2055 – forty years away – when I – if I am still here – might receive a communication from the head of state congratulating me for reaching the age of 100?
I very much doubt Fiona Bruce’s successor would not be wearing a headscarf when presenting news. For a woman to appear on TV (or what replaces it) as Fiona Bruce does now will likely be regarded then as unacceptable as a remake of the TV series the “Black and White Minstrels” would be now.
Indeed, they may well be aghast that a public march such as a “Gay Pride” march could ever have been allowed.
The consequences however will go much much further.
We may well see the application of retrospective justice. This is where Parliament legislates retrospectively making actions that are now lawful – in the sense that that are not unlawful – as being illegal and those who had perpetrated such acts now liable to prosecution. A possible justification for criminalising such acts is that their effects would still be regarded as being extant.
For instance if a person was to write a book or publish an article on the internet, were such a thing to still exist in say forty years time, the author, if still around, could be prosecuted.