Leaders literally with no future

As we celebrate motherhood today, there is a significant trend worth noting.  We often hear “think of the children” when an unpopular or unwise piece of legislation is being proposed.  And yet, few of our leaders have “skin in the game” when it comes to their nation’s future:

Emmanuel Macron founded a new party, and his election as France’s president is said to herald the “revival of Europe.” Interestingly, Macron has no children.

This is not that notable in itself. After all, George Washington had no biological children. But across the continent Macron wants to bind closer together, there’s a stark pattern:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also has no children. British prime minister Theresa May has no children. Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni has no children. Holland’s Mark Rutte has no children. Sweden’s Stefan Loumlfven has no biological children. Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel has no children. Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon has no children. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has no children.

This is too remarkable to ignore. While Macron is young—39 years old—the rest of Europe is being governed by childless Baby Boomers

It’s clear which side has political power now. But the demographics point to a different future. In 2009 Phillip Longman noted that in France (for example) a tiny minority of women are giving birth to over 50% of the children every year. These women are either practicing Catholics or immigrant Muslims.

Contemporary childless leaders, however ascendant they feel today, may be the last gasp of secularism. The future is won by those who show up, and only the religiously orthodox are having children.

Those still swimming in the ancient streams of Faith and Culture in France will have the observant offspring of two rival religions living within the borders of one nation. The second Battle of Tours, (or Vienna, or Lepanto) might be extra bloody due to the policies of today, but the authors of those policies will not be around because they will be dead, and their offspring will not be around, because they do not exist.

Surely Macron, Merkel, Juncker, and the rest would argue that they can do their crucial jobs better because they don’t have children to distract them. C.S. Lewis provides the rebuttal: “Children are not a distraction from more important work. They are the most important work.”

The elite have long been insulated from the effects of their piously pie-in-the-sky policies by doing such things as living in gated communities and sending their children to high-priced private schools.  As this article points out, they have even less reason today to worry about the effects of their futile utopianism.  This is probably a key reason why our leadership seems so out of touch with the people they allegedly lead, especially in the area of immigration.  It won’t be their children suffering from the resurgence of long-controlled diseases like measles and whooping cough.  It won’t be their children who will either have to fight or conform to alien ideologies that were allowed in through millions of adherents’ migration.   It won’t be their children who face falling wages due to competition from cheaper labor overseas and immigrant labor at home.  They can afford to wear utopian blinders in a way no parent can.

While I’ve excerpted a good bit, read the entire piece for yourself here.

Failure to assimilate

Turkey’s recent election, which further enhanced the Islamist totalitarian powers of Recep Erdogan, shows how far that nation has come from the secular society Kemal Ataturk intended.

The votes by Turks living abroad are even more telling, and should be noted:

About 1.4 million expatriate Turks voted in Turkey’s referendum to grant President Erdogan near-dictatorial powers, with three quarters of them residing in Austria, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. These Turkish voters, living in some of Europe’s most liberal countries, overwhelming cast their ballots for Erdogan’s illiberal reforms of Turkish society…

Life in liberal Europe is not having the impact people hoped—Turks in Europe are not any less nationalistic, less authoritarian or less Islamist than their compatriots at home—rather they are more of all these things..

If assimilation is failing with long established Turks in affluent, full employment Germany, what can we expect with other communities in less prosperous European countries?

The measure squeaked by at home, with just over 51% saying “yes.”  For the Turks living abroad, “Yes” had anywhere from 15 to 25% more support!  That would tend to confirm the thesis that the massive wave of ‘refugees’ in the past couple of years represents an ideological vanguard of Islamism that intends to make Europe submit to it, not the other way around.

The author of the quoted piece seems puzzled that good economic conditions in Germany haven’t produced assimilation.  That’s because assimilation is a primarily a cultural issue, not an economic one.  In the past, Western European nations and the Anglosphere (U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) fully expected newcomers to adopt their language, follow their laws, and to give their undivided loyalty to their new nation.

Immigrants today don’t have to cut the cord with the “old country” the way past generations did.  With global communication, the ability to travel and the tendency to settle into specific ethnic enclaves in their new land, immigrants today have far less motivation to assimilate.  Let’s face it: for Mexicans in the U.S., “home” is next door, you live in barrios with people like yourself, you can watch Spanish-language TV such as Univision, and even wave the Mexican flag while watching the U.S. play that country in soccer.  These are not Mexican-Americans.  They are Mexicans living in America.  The same is true of the Turks in Europe.  Even at the height of the Cold War, with Turkey a key partner in NATO, Europeans were strongly divided over whether or not to consider Turkey “European.”  Its current regression to pining for the days of the Ottoman Empire should answer that question.

The West has basically allowed a substantial fifth column to develop in their midst — a development our traitorous leadership class has encouraged.  While the resulting attacks rarely amount to more than a single actor at a time right now, I suspect that won’t remain the case much longer.  Even the “lone wolves” usually have ideological and communication ties with the Islamist movement.  At this stage of the game, Turks should be carefully watched, not welcomed in with no restrictions.  It’s time to shut the doors for a while and deal with what we’ve already admitted, rather than keep the welcome mat out for anyone with a pulse.

The “niceness” handicap

Brothers and sisters in Christ, this article is very much worth your attention:

I have long observed that an alarming swath of public evangelicals seems to be driven by a consuming desire to be liked by the world. ((note: link added to excerpt by me))

Now, that is my characterization, not theirs. To their minds, they are trying to be good representatives of Jesus. They are focusing on “kingdom” issues. They eschew evangelicalism’s past mistakes of tying itself to various moralistic fads such as outlawing alcohol or opposing nylons and lipstick. They want to be sure that unbelievers know that they love them, that the GOP is not the Kingdom of God. They want to be seen as scholarly, cautious, nuanced, careful, measured, and helpful. They shrink from the thought of being seen as dogmatic, triumphalistic, or narrow.

Are those bad motivations? As stated and as far as they go, most of them are not.

However, I’ve come to fear that they mask fatal flaws. For starters,  these sorts are willing to let their motivations be judged and dictated by the reactions of unbelievers…

I can’t say it any better.  Read the whole thing here.

Well… who’da thunk?

Note: this is a lengthy post in part because I’m refuting secularists who misuse scripture to justify the ongoing invasion of the West.  If you arrived on this site’s main page be sure to click on “Continue reading” below.

Both a judge in Washington and an appeals panel of the 9th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals have stayed President Trump’s executive order banning entry to the country by people from seven nations considered to be high risk (incidentally, it was Obama who first flagged these nations as problematic).  Both courts claimed there was no evidence to support such a ban.

Truth is, they just didn’t look for any.  After all, pesky facts would get in the way of their legislating AND presiding from the bench:

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

Let me repeat that: 72 people from the countries on Trump’s list arrived in the United States since 9/11, and were later convicted of terror-related actions.

This is why I can’t stand the Transportation Security Agency — it’s security theater, not real security.  Real security comes from keeping terrorists out of the country, not from harassing citizens at airports.

This is why I can’t stand the open borders crowd.  Either we are a sovereign nation or we’re not.  Sovereign nations have every right to control who is allowed to enter and under what circumstances.

Continue reading

What to do with those on the move?

I saw the graphic at the bottom of this post online today, and it got me to thinking.  On the one hand, we’re told to treat others as we’d want to be treated, not how they would treat us.  But as I’ve noted before, this is an individual instruction of discipleship.  We are living in an age of literal nations on the move — the current trends are far larger than a simple neighborly dispute between a couple of people.

And I’m not convinced that one can always extrapolate directly from what we as Christians are taught to do as individuals, and what nations are expected to do.  Sure, there is overlap… but nowhere in scripture do I see a command that nations “die to themselves.”  In fact, in the Old Testament there was great emphasis on making sure Israelites didn’t get so intermingled with the rest of the world (i.e. marrying foreigners who didn’t share their faith) that they forgot about Yahweh and His law.  In fact, there was an expectation that those who chose to live among God’s people would live like God’s people.  THAT is an individual concern I can see worth extrapolating to a national one.

America has already traveled a vast distance from the Christian consensus that existed at the founding.  It’s now a confused mass of conflicting and competing worldviews.  The continued importation of tens — even hundreds — of thousands of people from other cultures and faiths is only going to further balkanize our land.  As much as many of us would like to, we simply cannot absorb the entirety of the rest of the world and expect to have anything left for those who already live here, much less those who are coming to share in it (often with no intention of contributing back to that host society).

God, in His wisdom, divided the nations at Babel.  Some of those nations have chosen to follow Him.  Others have not.  And while the Bible clearly shows examples of the “stranger/foreigner” coming to faith and fully integrating with their new people, that process doesn’t tend to happen on the scale of the migrations we’re seeing.

This isn’t intended integration.  It’s an invasion.  And the sooner we realize that and restrict it accordingly, the better… if it’s not too late already.

image

 

Separate ways, worlds apart

Scripture asks what fellowship light can have with darkness.

Abraham Lincoln paraphrased Christ when he noted that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

So where are we headed as a nation?

If a family disagreed as broadly as we Americans do on issues so fundamental as right and wrong, good and evil, the family would fall apart, the couple would divorce, and the children would go their separate ways.

Something like that is happening in the country.

A secession of the heart has already taken place in America, and a secession, not of states, but of people from one another, caused by divisions on social, moral, cultural, and political views and values, is taking place.

Covenants and nations require some common ground.  What we find today is inherently incompatible worldviews vying for affection.  How far we’ve come from the founding generation!  As John Jay noted in Federalist #2:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

 

Let’s hope it doesn’t take another “long and bloody war” to reset a basic common frame of reference.

The West is not dead yet

There are still those willing to speak up for their civilization:

More than 17,000 people have marched on the German city of Dresden protesting the “Islamification of Europe” as a wave of xenophobia sweeps the country.

Supports of Pegida – a growing group calling itself the “Patriotic Europeans against the Islamification of the West” – filled the city’s historic square singing Christmas carols and waving German flags on Monday…

“We are the people,” a post on the group’s Facebook page proclaimed after Monday’s protest, claiming a record attendance of more than 20,000 people…

What has startled politicians, though, is that many Pegida supporters are not extremists or neo-Nazis but middle-class office workers, parents and pensioners.

The movement’s apparent appeal – going from marches numbering the hundreds in October to tens of thousands today – has forced Germany’s leading politicians to respond.

And by “respond,” they mean slander.  The globalist agenda will brook no resistance to the bland homogenization of the world under a spiritually barren, vacuously materialistic worldview.  So any attempt to assert support for the historic Christian character of Europe will be vilified as “pin stripe Nazism” or similar such rot.  It is the same dynamic that always seeks to tar Tea Party-type traditionalists as the most radical racists possible, but never looks too closely at the much stronger Marxist connections of the organizations on the other side of the political aisle.

The deck is stacked in government and the media, and more people have come to realize it.  They’re noticing that the same people who tut-tut them for any perceived attempt to “impose their values on others” also expect them to accept increasing marginalization in their own countries.  What frightens so-called ‘leaders’ like Merkel is that many no longer care if the typical slanders are hurled at them now — they’re going to speak up anyway.  As a German commented on the linked story:

We need to to have a public dialog on this and maybe a referendum, and our public SERVANTS should listen.

When I heard “nazis in pinstripe” was the last drop for me. It was clear that our elected leaders are considering us idiots, good just to pay taxes. Sometimes I’m voting for the Greens *environmental matters) and sometimes for the conservatives (fiscal matters). And because I do consider that we should have a dialog on immigration ^ integration I am called a “nazi in pinstripe” by those whose salary is paid by me.

We need more of this refusal to just let the so-called ‘intelligentsia” browbeat everyone into submission to their agenda.  After all, they’re really not all that intelligent, when you get down to it.  Snake oil salesmen rarely are.  And when you consider the breakdown in social cohesiveness that is occuring both in Europe and the U.S., it’s clear the utopian multiculturalist vision we’ve been sold the past few decades is just that: snake oil.