How do we honor our dead?

Today – Memorial Day – is supposed to be a remembrance of all those who perished while serving in uniform, defending this nation.  It’s fitting that we have such a day.

But do we really honor our fallen?  This picture captures well the fact that today’s peace is underpinned by yesterday’s carnage:

holding up society

Would you be incensed if the young man in jeans was wearing a swastika armband?  I’d venture most Americans would.  It would show an appalling lack of appreciation how many of the dead represented in the image died to destroy Hitler’s regime.  But what if the young lady were wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt?  Or if the child were dressed in the uniform of the Soviet-era Young Pioneers, complete with a badge picturing Lenin?

Continue reading

The Name they will not say

Can you spot the difference?

57503453_10219595711068436_9062596425824600064_n

I don’t know anyone who worships Easter.  Do you?  Apparently a lot of Democrats do:

Former President Barack Obama, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and several other leading Democrats denounced terror attacks on what they called “Easter worshippers” — not Christians — Sunday in Sri Lanka.

Suicide bombers murdered nearly 300 people and wounded 500 more in attacks on three churches, three hotels, and a housing complex. Many were killed as they attended Mass for Easter Sunday. The government reportedly suspects that the bombers, all Sri Lankans, were members of “a domestic Islamist terror group named National Thowfeek Jamaath.”

Yet Obama, Clinton, and other Democrats — including 2020 presidential contender Julián Castro — could not bring themselves to identify the victims of the attacks as “Christians,” calling them “Easter worshippers” instead in eerily similar responses.

Of course they’re similar.  Satan is called “the Father of Lies,” so it stands to reason he’s pretty good at message discipline in his deception.  In his playbook, Christians can only be mentioned if they’re tarred with nefarious accusations, deserved or not.  Can’t have people sympathizing with them — that’s reserved for minorities and the “Religion of Pieces.”

At the same time, anyone who recognizes the prevalence of jihad and Christian persecution is just some angry right-wing extremist:

Screen-Shot-2019-04-22-at-16.18.03-517x600

As Glenn Reynolds points out:

They don’t want you to be angry, even though they know you have things to be angry about. They want you to be ashamed, all the time, for disagreeing with them about, well, anything. Meanwhile they want to keep their own base angry and inflamed 24/7. News spin revolves around this to a huge degree.

I refuse to be ashamed for disagreeing with people who can’t seem to figure out there are only two genders.  As for anger… Christians are never told in scripture not to be angry — only to be careful that in our anger, we do not sin.  Given how much we’ve had to become angry about since 9/11, that’s increasingly difficult.  At least for me.  I take some solace in this, though:  if this prayer was good enough for David, it’s good enough for me:

The righteous will be glad when they see sinners punished;
they will wade through the blood of the wicked.
People will say, “The righteous are indeed rewarded;
there is indeed a God who judges the world.”

Those who refuse to say Christ’s name today will one day bow at the sound of it.  May that day come soon, both here and abroad.  My waders are ready and waiting.

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.  They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”  Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Revelation 6:9-11

The asylum racket

Across Western Civilization, the Left demands entry for anyone “seeking a better life,” often promoting the use of ‘asylum’ claims for situations that are anything but systematic oppression.  Simply being born to a lower standard of living than is found in the West does not an asylum claim make.  If it did, we would have no choice but to accept the wholesale migration of most of the world.

Being a Christian in Pakistan, however…

A Pakistani Christian woman’s appeal to Britain for asylum has been denied because her arrival in the country may stir civil unrest, HuffPost UK has been told.

Asia Bibi, a Christian farm labourer, was released from prison in Pakistan on Wednesday after being acquitted of blasphemy. She had spent eight years on death row after an argument with a group of Muslim women in June 2009.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan overturned Bibi’s 2010 conviction for “insulting the prophet Mohammed” last week, saying the case against her was based on flimsy evidence.

But her acquittal sparked violent protests led by Islamic religious hardliners, and the government has now agreed to try to stop her leaving the country.

On Saturday her lawyer, Saif Mulook, fled Pakistan, saying he feared for his life. Bibi’s husband, Ashiq Masih, has also released a video message saying he too fears for his family’s safety.

“I am requesting the Prime Minister of the UK help us and as far as possible grant us freedom,” he said.

But campaigners working to secure Bibi’s move abroad said the UK government had not offered her asylum, citing security concerns.

The frankly surprising ruling by Pakistan’s Supreme Court merely makes it more likely Bibi will be killed by Muslim vigilantes instead of the state — which may be the intent, since it would relieve the government in Islamabad of some of the international condemnation it would receive.  I’ve personally spent time in Pakistan, and can say the Christian community there is under constant pressure.  Wild accusations of “burning Korans” and other unlikely inflammatory actions are often used to justify hurting or killing Christians in the country.

The cowardly capitulation of the British government is another matter entirely.  It’s not as if there is a policy of restricting immigration from Pakistan — far from it.  More than a million Pakistanis live in the U.K., the largest such population in all of Europe.  Roughly half of that group are people born in the U.K. to Pakistani immigrants, while the other half — roughly 500,000 people — are first-generation immigrants.  The community makes up a third of Britain’s roughly 3.4 million Muslim residents.  While they will not say so directly, it is the reaction of this group the British officials are concerned about, if they were to allow Bibi asylum.  Such concerns are not unwarranted.  The irony is that Britons have been convinced to allow in tens of thousands of immigrants with an alien worldview, but now refuse to allow entry to someone closer to their own.

This is not an accident.  The deliberate dilution and dissipation of Christendom continues.  The enemies of Western Civilization rightly recognize the Christian worldview as one of the essential pillars, even as our own intellectuals try to deny it.  This is why there is a pattern of policy geared toward letting anyone in, except those who would be spiritual kin.  This is one reason why the neighborhood YMCA where I took swimming lessons almost 40 years ago is now a Buddhist meditation center.  As Western governments yield to pressure from the alien populations they’ve already admitted, those pressures will only continue to grow.

At the founding of our nation, there were aspirations for us to be a “city on a hill,” a Christian example to the world.  Instead, we’ve allowed ourselves to become a microcosm of the world.  When our society does recall Christian virtues – charity, mercy, and so forth – they’re often cynically manipulated to cause us to act against our own  long-term interests.

This needs to stop.  Light has no fellowship with darkness, and it’s time we stopped pretending otherwise.

Saturday Sounds

September 12th marks the 335th anniversary of the Battle of Vienna, in which a normally fractured Christendom was able to unite forces to relieve the two-month siege of the Austrian capital by the Ottoman Turks. Over the succeeding decades, the Muslim influence in Eastern Europe would steadily be pushed back…

Because the Winged Hussars arrived.

Failing to defend the Faith

I’ve long considered Queen Elizabeth to be representative of class and tradition in an age that has largely rejected both.  But as this article points out, the history of her family — including Saturday’s marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle — shows her descendants have decisively spurned whatever faith and self-discipline the Queen Mother possesses.  Even worse, under her reign, including the title “Defender of the Faith,” the Anglican Church has rejected many Christian doctrines in the name of “tolerance” and “inclusion.”  The result is a Britain in far worse shape than when Elizabeth ascended the throne more than 65 years ago.  She is the longest-reigning monarch in British history.  But despite her personal popularity, it’s not altogether clear her legacy will be on the whole a positive one.

…the courtship and wedding of Meghan and Harry, who is sixth in line for the throne, signaled a sea-change for the royal family in many ways. The bride is American, divorced, biracial, a Catholic, and a commoner, all of which would have been considered scandalous just a generation ago. (Markle was baptized into the Church of England in a private ceremony in March.)…

That the Church blessed the union at all, coming as it did after the couple had been openly cohabitating and in light of Markle’s divorce, signals a radical departure from the traditions of the church headed by Queen Elizabeth, who inherited the title “Defender of the Faith” on the day of her coronation.

While the queen is said to be a very religious woman, her children and grandchildren don’t appear to share her faith. The marriages of the children of the queen and Prince Philip have been replete with scandals and divorces — the most infamous being Prince Charles’s divorce from Princess Diana. Her children and grandchildren, not to mention her husband, openly defied church teachings with pre-marital and extramarital affairs and cohabitation before marriage. Both Prince William and Prince Harry shacked up with their future spouses before marriage, something that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago….

…according to a 2017 British Social Attitudes survey, more than half the population claims they have no religion and only three percent of adults under the age of 24 describe themselves as Anglican. Amongst those ages 18 to 24, three out of four say they have no religion. Among all adults in Britain, only 15 percent now identify as Anglican, 17 percent as Catholics or “other Christian,” and 6 percent say they belong to a non-Christian religion.  (((Spiritually, then, it is no surprise a Muslim is now mayor of London itself.  The influence of that pernicious religion is likely to grow ever stronger there in the vacuum left by the abandonment of Christ.  — Jemison)))

The Church of England’s decline in numbers closely follows the sad trajectory of other mainline Protestant churches. As is almost always the case, declines usually begin with the decision to compromise on longstanding church doctrines. The Church of England began ordaining women in 1994, and ten years later the first female bishops were ordained. Not long after, the church began unofficially blessing same-sex couples. And while the Church of England doesn’t yet officially allow for same-sex marriage, the stage has already been set for approval with the acceptance of clergy in same-sex civil partnerships.

What a long way the Church has come from 1936 when King Edward VIII abdicated his throne so he could wed American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

Indeed.

“…Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”  (Luke 12:48)

Parasitical terrorism

I’m increasingly convinced that if we (and the rest of the West) got our own house in order with regard to immigration and welfare, terrorist activity would be severely curtailed even without further major military operations:

On the morning of March 15, Fox 9 chased a tip about a man who was leaving the country. Sources said he took a carry-on bag through security that was packed with $1 million in cash. Travelers can do that, as long as they fill out the proper government forms.

Fox 9 learned that these cloak-and-dagger scenarios now happen almost weekly at [Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport].  The money is usually headed to the Middle East, Dubai and points beyond. Sources said last year alone, more than $100 million in cash left MSP in carry-on luggage…

[Former Seattle police detective Glen] Kerns discovered some of the money was being funneled to a Hawala in the region of Somalia that is controlled by the al Shabaab terrorist group…

As Kerns dug deeper, he found that some of the individuals who were sending out tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of remittance payments happened to be on government assistance in this country.

How could they possibly come up with such big bucks to transfer back home?

“We had sources that told us, ‘It’s welfare fraud, it’s all about the daycare,’” said Kerns.

Read the whole thing.  Minnesota is now home to a very large Somali Muslim community.  Next door in Michigan the Muslims tend to be from Bosnia, Yemen and Bangladesh.  In both states, Islam is increasingly influential.  Those communities are already linked to a rise in female genital mutilation cases (a practice that is rightly illegal in most of the West).  It appears the community is also linked to shenanigans back home as well.

Think about it: we’re allowing colonists to come here, partake of our welfare system, and use some of the proceeds to fund extremist groups back home.  We can’t defeat what we’re allowing ourselves to subsidize.  Seal the borders and tighten down on foreign remittances.  Otherwise there’s no point in waging this war.

Anticipating change

One of the primary benefits of studying history is wrestling with the question “how could they not have seen that coming?”  As the saying goes, “hindsight is always 20/20,” but foresight usually falls far short of that.  Most people expect things to continue on as they always have in their experience.  Until suddenly they don’t.

Try to remember that Sarajevo once hosted an Olympics. Remember that Beirut used to be called “The Paris of the Middle East.” Remember that women used to wear lipstick and miniskirts in Tehran.

I believe this inability to visualize the possibility of disastrous change is one of the key vulnerabilities of the United States.  Yes, every generation whines about how things aren’t like they were “in the good old days” — mine included.  But few put these vignettes together into a narrative that might be pointing to a larger journey into disaster.  This blindspot in America is likely caused/enhanced by the fact we haven’t faced disaster as a society in a very, very long time by the world’s standards.  Even though we participated in both World Wars, the chance of either posing an existential threat to the United States was extremely low.  The last time American civilians had to fear soldiers on the march in their homeland was the War Between The States — over 150 years ago.

Any advanced and thriving civilization has large numbers of people – especially at the top of the pile – who are comfortable and safe, and are so for generations. This lack of meaningful threats, from birth onward, causes the amygdalae structures in the brain to not fully develop compared to prior, more stressed, generations because of a lack of stimulation; thus, the ability to recognize actual threats has atrophied. This leads to the society as an aggregate, and the leadership class in particular, taking actions that they do not recognize as dangerous, which result in the collapse of the civilization.

When gun controllers say the 2nd Amendment is outdated, they are reflecting the atrophy described above.  The Holocaust is well-known; the various Communist purges less so, but far too many believe that’s just what happens to “other people.”  It couldn’t happen in America, right?  Some people know better but choose to seek disarmament anyway, the better to advance a political agenda.  But a substantial number simply have no personal frame of reference of an experience where they were in mortal peril, and needed to defend themselves.  Media coverage of the topic emphasizes criminal use of firearms, neglecting the far larger number of cases of defensive use.  This is one reason why veterans and many civilians are separated by a wide gap on the 2nd Amendment.  The handful of veterans who are celebrated for advocating gun control are either those whose work never exposed them to danger, or who know better but desire public acclaim more than common sense.

The same dynamic is at work in the issue of mass migration.  The millions of current Muslim “refugees” (an abused term if there every was one) trigger a much different social memory in Eastern and Central Europe than it does in the West.  The advance of Islam in the Middle Ages was largely stopped at the Battle of Tours, so Western Europe, Scandinavia and England never dealt with the threat on any large scale.  Not so with the East, Islam’s initial momentum culminated in two sieges of Vienna (1529 and 1683), and sectarian violence and discrimination between Muslim, Orthodox and Catholic ensued for generations.  This is the origin of the term “balkanization,” and if you’ve paid attention you’ve heard it applied to modern demographic trends in the U.S.

That is why Polish, Hungarian and Czech attitudes toward the current wave of Muslim migration differ considerably from those of the Germans or French (though the latter two are starting to realize the consequences).

In the United States, immigration has become enshrined as part of the national experience.  The downsides of previous waves of immigrants (ethnic tensions in the cities, cramped living conditions, crime, etc) are rarely examined except to try to place the blame solely at the feet of Anglo-Americans.  That’s why those who oppose mass immigration (especially the illegal variety) today are accused of being “on the wrong side of history.”  Those who know their history, however, realize today’s wave of invaders “immigrants” bear little resemblance to those of Schoolhouse Rock fame.  For starters, immigrants in the late 1800s understood they were leaving most all ties to their homeland to become immersed in a new one, which required adaptation to language and culture.  They were scrutinized carefully by U.S. authorities to screen out political radicals, the diseased and those who would likely become a burden on society.  Today, millions have entered the U.S. without permission or scrutiny (the largest contingent by far being from Mexico and Central America).  In the U.S. they can watch Spanish-language TV, demand translation services for all official business, and largely insulate themselves from adapting to their new home if they so choose.  There is no incentive to assimilate; indeed, many ardently proclaim their greater loyalty to their country of origin.  As one person put it online:

“Too many people are coming to America just to be in America. They aren’t coming here to be Americans. That needs to change.”

In short, immigration today bears only a passing resemblance to the immigration of decades past.  It more closely resembles the settling of the Goths within the Roman Empire.

The point of this post is to emphasize that America is not immune to disaster, despite her long history.  Over the decades, many planks have been removed from the platform our Founders carefully constructed – overturning the prohibition of an income tax, allowing direct election of Senators, and so forth.  Each of these, while debated at the time, were considered incremental in effect.  But decades of such increments eventually add up to something substantial.  Our politics today are not about degrees of policy anymore.  There are irreconcilable differences in the worldviews in play, and a desire to use the machinery of government to enforce an orthodoxy at odds with our traditions.  We are at a tipping point in our history.  Those who would disarm and displace the historical American body politic now hardly disguise their intent.  Those who recognize what is at stake are more energized to resist it than ever before (hence the previously inconceivable election of a man like Donald Trump).

Many Americans assume those who are preparing for possible disaster somehow are looking forward to it.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  They fail to realize the ability to visualize potential futures and make preparations to meet them are the best ways to prevent America from suffering the fate of other nations.

What do YOU see ahead?  What are YOU doing to prepare?  What are YOU willing to do to prevent disaster?

IMG_4872

Molon Labe