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.

Why do we have a “defense” department?

Would you be concerned if the government announced it expected roughly eight to ten divisions to invade the United States… but was making preparations to host them, rather than keep them from entering?

It has:

A city-sized rush of about 120,000 illegal immigrant children and teens from Latin America is expected to crash through the U.S. border this year, twice the administration’s prediction, leading humanitarians to seek much more than the $1.5 billion spent to handle the runaways.

U.S. authorities report that there was massive surge in May of children trying to escape crime, drug gangs and sexual exploitation in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, leading them to cast aside the administration’s prediction of 60,000, which was still more than twice the 24,000 apprehended last year…

Unlike adult illegal immigrants, children crossing the border on their own are generally linked up with family members in the United States and helped through the immigration process, not sent home.

The article says the sudden wave of children is due less to the appeal of America than it is fleeing crime and violence in their homelands.  That may well be, given the economic miasma our ruling class has created.  And I’m not unsympathetic to the fact there are tens of millions around the world for whom relocating is their best chance to improve life.

But let’s enumerate a few premises here:

1) Despite the Statue of Liberty’s plea to “give me your tired, huddled masses,” the U.S. can never absorb or give refuge to all the suffering people of the world.

2) Attempting to do so places further strain on an already burdened and broken society here.  What is ‘humane’ about that, unless your equalitarian impulse is so strong you’re not happy unless all are equally miserable?

3) No nation is sovereign unless it is able to choose who gains entrance and who does not.  A wise nation will ensure those who are invited to join and partake of their society will be a net enhancement (talent, energy, civility), rather than a dependent.

Is it clear yet that the leadership of the U.S. has no intention of following any of the premises above?  Keep in mind, this additional “ten divisions” of new immigrants will be added to the more than 40 million foreign-born already living in the U.SEveryone who believes any society can try to absorb that many newcomers without undergoing fundamental alteration is fooling themselves.

We cannot prevent all evil in this world from displacing people.  We can, if we choose, try to keep the rising tide from overwhelming us here as well.

The fact our nation seems powerless–or unwilling– to prevent such massive waves of people from crossing its borders would indicate that our hundreds of billions in ‘defense’ spending is rather ineffective.

But then, the “Defense Department” is a rather Orwellian name for what is really the Department of Offensive Meddling in Other Nations’ Affairs.  It’s not really focused on defense of the U.S. itself.  I fear most people understand and accept that subconsciously now, or else there’d have been more questioning of why we need BOTH a “Defense Department” and a “Department of Homeland Security.”

It’s simple:  The first one pokes the hornets’ nests abroad, often contributing to if not outright causing some of the displacement problems in the world in the first place.

The second one is a political entity that can be told not to enforce the border because the “right” kind of refugees are coming in and it’s considered a political advantage.

And just think: your taxes fund it all… except to actually, you know, defend the country.

Immigrants versus invaders

(HT: Vox Day)

A Canadian writer questions the effect of easy immigration combined with a fetish for ‘multiculturalism:’

The assumption, unspoken but taken for granted until the 1960s, was that immigration was beneficial as long as it was designed to serve the interests of the host society first. The immigrant’s own interests would be served by the opportunity to eventually join the host society. For this to have any meaning, of course, the existence and desirability of a host nationality had to be taken for granted. If there had been no “Americans” or “Canadians,” there would have been nothing to join. Inherent in the American model of a “melting pot” as well as the fussier Canadian model of a “cultural mosaic” was the pre-existence of a nation to which the immigrant was applying to belong.  …

It was in the past 40 years that the immigrant of dubious loyalty emerged, followed by the disloyal native-born, sometimes of immigrant ancestry, sometimes of Islamic conversion. The new immigrant seemed ready to share the West’s wealth but not its values. In many ways he resembled an invader more than a settler or an asylum-seeker. Instead of making efforts to assimilate, the invader demanded changes in the host country’s culture. …

Requests for cultural exemption were soon followed by openly voiced sentiments of disloyalty. By the late 1990s a Muslim group in Britain saw fit to express the view that no British Muslim has any obligation to British law when it conflicts with the law of Allah.  …

It’s not a matter of where immigrants come from but where they’re going. Refugees from the East are no threat; colonizers are. That’s where non-traditional immigration and multiculturalism become a volatile mix. Extending our values to others is one thing, but modifying our values to suit the values of others is something else.

By now multiculturalism has made it difficult to safeguard our traditions and ideals against a new type of immigrant whose goal is not to fit in, but to carve out a niche for his own tribe, language, customs, or religion in what we’re no longer supposed to view as a country but something between Grand Central Station and an empty space.

By eroding the Western traditions — especially the influence of Christianity — while simultaneously throwing open the gates to any person who wants to “share the West’s wealth but not its values,” the ruling class has deliberately, and with malice aforethought, destroyed the basis for what made this society the freest, most broadly prosperous in the history of the planet.   Without a shared worldview or framework, competing groups need a strong central power to arbitrate between them.  That benefits our self-appointed would-be rulers.   As the fruits of this decades-long effort to “elect a new people” become apparent, it seems the question is which, of two possible paths, will those of the traditional West travel:  allow themselves to be completely subsumed by the tide of invaders, aided and abetted by our own governments, or reassert that we, too, have a right to self-determination, securing for ourselves a portion, however large or small, of our inheritance that we will then defend not only against invading armies wearing uniforms, but stealth invasions of those who want to take “share” what we have, but not who we are.