web analytics

Christmas and the Pri(n)ce of Peace

On balance, I think the Christmas holiday is a good thing.  This, despite the rampant commercialization, the secularization, and the demythologizing. This, despite ‘works righteous’ theology in which Santa only brings gifts to the ‘good boys and girls,’ which is especially ironic given that Santa is associated with a gift of God that only has value for the bad boys and girls, and is useless for the ‘good’ ones.  (Mark 2:17)  So be bad for goodness sake.

Yes, despite all that, it is clear that the holiday resonates with people near and far, of various backgrounds and ideologies, and so on.  Even people otherwise hostile to Christianity can’t help but get into the ‘spirit of the season.’  It is an annual encounter with Myth, and by virtue of that, I think, we are better for it.  And yet, I have one more thing to add to my list of things that I don’t like about Christmas.

Namely, the focus on Jesus as “holy infant, tender and mild.”  This, through Hallmark and the inertia born of not really thinking clearly, has come, within the Christian Church itself, to epitomize what God’s gift to man consists of:  a crisp winter night, the snow dulling the sounds of your feet crunching across the field, the stars twinkling down, and voila!  An encounter with the Ethereal Numinous!  The God who loves you so much that he came as a little child, who pats you on the back and says, “There, there!”  All is warm and cozy, and a feeling of peace falls upon you like heavy, wet blanket.   Why, if only we could bottle this sentiment, we could have world peace on the morrow!

There is your annual encounter with Myth, but forgotten is the fact that the peace actually obtained by this  precious infant was obtained by virtue of being murdered, hung on an instrument of torture.  As his blood dried on the rocky soil beneath him, his followers scattered to the four winds.  They had expected peace, too.  It was a peace that was going to be obtained by the son of David coming at last to restore his kingdom.  So it was that when Jesus had indicated to his disciples that the time was finally night, all they could think to do was say, “Here are two swords!”  (Luke 22:38)

You can almost see Jesus shaking his head, sadly.  Even now they did not understand his mission.

The world is unquestionably a violent place, filled to the brim with rape and war.  Man strives against man, kingdom against kingdom, and so on.  Christmas is ostensibly about bringing reconciliation between warring parties (“peace on earth, goodwill towards men…”), but in the real story of Christmas, God came to earth to end one specific war.   It is the war between God and Man.

Man has rebelled against God.  God has every right to put down the rebellion without mercy.  But, even while seeking to be merciful, God knows he cannot obtain real, lasting peace, without someone, somewhere along the way, DYING.   The rebels cannot be won over by negotiation.  They are too far gone for that.  How, then will peace be won?  In the full story of Christmas, the ‘gift’ is this:  GOD dies.   Instead of us.

And here we come upon an interesting part of the real story of Christmas that flies in the face of our soft sentiments.  We focus on the baby Jesus as meek and mild, and extend this soft sentiment right on through to the rest of his story, where Jesus is thrust upon the cross.  We come away with the idea that peace, and being people of peace, means being soft-spoken doormats, allowing everyone and their mother do as they please with you.  You know, like Jesus before Pilate.  Right?

In point of fact, Jesus was a tough dude.  He was not ‘tender and mild.’ In fact, it is precisely because he was a tough dude that makes his sacrifice laudable.   If a weak man gets pushed around by a strong man, no one is impressed, for the simple reason that a weak man can’t very well stop people from pushing him around.  If a strong man gets pushed around by a weak man, though, we know that the strong man is holding back.  He’s using discretion.  He has a larger agenda that transcends the current humiliation that he is enduring by allowing the weak man to have his way.

Many writers have pointed out that Jesus was a carpenter and as a consequence, probably a strong man.  Few, however, would suggest that anyone was afraid of him.  Nonetheless, if you look at the story of Jesus’ arrest and trial, it is clear that he was feared.   All signs pointed to him not being a mere carpenter.  Remember, he had performed many miracles and had just raised a man from the dead.  This is the man they set out to arrest.  Wouldn’t you fear him?

Did you ever notice what happens in John 18:4-8?  Jesus is about to be arrested.  He asks “Who are you looking for?” and they say, “Jesus of Nazareth.”  When Jesus replies, “I am,” “they went backward, and fell to the ground.”

Jesus is in charge, even here.

When Peter comes to his defense, Jesus reminds him that he needs no help from any mortal:  “Do you think that I couldn’t ask my Father, and he would even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?”   Jesus told the Pharisees right to their face that he sits at the “right hand of Power” and will come again “with the clouds of the sky.”  To Pilate, who thought he was something, Jesus said, “My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn’t be delivered to the Jews.”

The strong man did not put up a fight because he had a larger agenda.  It is described succinctly in Ephesians 2:

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

Jesus never perceived of himself as weak. He did not lay down his life because he was powerless to resist.  Jesus was not a panzy.  He did not overwhelm Pilate, the Pharisees, Death, and the Devil, by being “wrapped in swaddling clothes.”  Jesus knew full well that he could have instantly stopped the whole thing… easily… quickly… decisively.   But this would not have won us real, lasting peace.

We spend a lot of time crying out for ‘peace,’ forgetting that, historically, whenever we obtain something that comes close to passing for ‘peace,’ it is brought about because somewhere down the line, the blood of man was shed by other men.  It was always incomplete.  The ‘peace’ that Man wins almost always contains within it the seeds of the next conflagration.   We act as though peace can be won by hurling platitudes at each other, but in the real world, it never works that way.  We have to work to maintain it and it nearly always requires powerful men exerting themselves violently against other powerful men.

The peace that God obtained for us is full and complete.  But, this Christmas, we may wish to remember that it was still a peace that was won through violence and the shedding of blood–the blood of the most powerful man who has ever walked the planet.

The blood of Jesus, called the Christ.

Talk about a Myth to stir one’s soul!  Fortunately for us, this is a Myth that is also true.

Share

How Julian the Apostate Defeated the Church in America

HJTADTCIA-cover-1-smallI have penned a lengthy essay which is now available on Kindle and other digital outlets called “How Julian the Apostate Defeated the Church in America.”  I consider it one of the more important things that I have written, especially in light of my experiences as a Christian apologist, and also as a pro-life advocate.  Surveys and polls continue to show that the American Church (especially the mainlines) is in decline, and that the ‘religious nones’ are on the increase.

In the course of my various activities, it has become clear to me that Church itself is facilitating this twofold trend.

All signs point to the trends becoming even more pronounced.  I am very skeptical, in fact, that Christians of this generation are ever going to come to grips with the real reasons for their loss of stature in this country.  In a sense, this essay is almost better served as a post-mortem, something to be looked at two generations hence, after it has finally and fully come to pass.

I have invoked Julian the Apostate before on this blog.   He intentionally sought to carry out the ‘good works’ that the Christians were doing, recognizing that the Christian proclamation of the Gospel was given significant credibility in the eyes of non-Christians because of the near miraculous nature of those ‘good works.’  What Julian the Apostate attempted to do as one hostile to Christianity, Christians themselves have wrought, in the name of Christianity.

Not that Christians were alone in bringing it all about.  In fact, that’s kind of the point.  There are plenty of non-Christians that are perfectly happy to take on whatever ‘good’ that the Christians could properly be credited for, and then strip that ‘good’ from its Source.   Separated from the ‘Source,’ many things are considered that many Christians find reprehensible… alas, its too late.  Should have thought about that before handing these matters over to the State to administer!  (I use the Jaffe Memo to illustrate, but it is not by any means the only example.)

In the course of my research for my dissertation, which was on the topic of Darwinism and Eugenics, I had the opportunity to read a tremendous amount of primary source material in the time period of, say, 1890 to 1930.   I frequently encountered people–Christians included–advocating that the time was right for a ‘Scientifically Managed Society’ (my phraseology, but see here) in order to fight all of our social ills.  On top of that, I frequently encountered musings about how best to make the Church a less potent force in society (and they often meant by this, the Catholic Church).  This was necessary, because the Church wouldn’t go along with the more extreme ‘Management’ proposals, such as wiping out the weak and/or forbidding them from reproducing.

Taking the ‘duties’ of the Church over and having them done by the government, where, of course, the religious content and basis would have to be gutted to be ‘fair’ to the non-Christians in society (separation of ‘church and state’, anyone?), was hinted at as one possible way forward.  Eugenics was often put forward as a candidate for a new state religion for a somewhat related reason, in that it was seen that once the scientifically disproved religions were dispensed with, there would still be a need to fulfill man’s ‘spiritual’ needs.  Google Haeckel’s monism to get started.

The effort to take over whatever the Church was doing and have it done by the State seemed to pick up dramatically after the second world war.  A case can be made that folks like Julian Huxley pursued it as an active program, but whether or not this was intentional or deliberate or not is really besides the point.   The question is “What was the actual effect?”

The American Church is experiencing the ‘actual effect’ right now, in pretty much exactly the fashion that Julian the Apostate, who certainly was intentional and deliberate, anticipated.

As a case in point, even though the essay is written to Christians in particular, I let a British atheist friend of mine preview the essay.  I guess I was interested to see if he might say, counter to my charge in the essay, “No, that’s not true!  Secularists have not forgotten the valuable contribution that Christians made in erecting our innumerable social services!”  A man can dream, right?

But when I asked him about it, he seemed to miss the point completely, and in missing it, made it.

I had said that I was not as familiar with how things went down in England as I am in the US, but that I would be willing to bet that even there, their national health service was brought about with the help and advocacy of Christians there.  He protested, “In fact, our universal health system was established by the Labour party” (ie, liberals, and mostly of the non-Christian sort, I would guess).

But I would wager that if we looked at the ones who helped advocate for that system in England, a great many of them were Christians, or self-identified as such, or at least considered their efforts and support as consistent with Christian values.  I couldn’t produce documentation for the British Christian support of their health system the way that I could for, say, American Christian support for social programs in the United States, but I would be willing to bet money that British Christians advocated for universal health care just as American Christians were among those who advocated or backed FDR’s ‘Social Security.’  For, in the 1920s and 1930s, at least from my readings, many in Britain still considered their country to be ‘Christian.’

And now look at it.

And look at where the United States is today, and where it is clearly going.

Perhaps there is a pattern?

Christian ‘charity’ is not by any means the only thing that the State has taken over that originally was motivated largely by Christian concerns.  Many Christians have already spent some time talking about these, probably most prominently education.  My essay addresses ‘charity’ in part because it was a subtext of much of the debates of the Progressive movement which I studied so much, but also because I think it is one of the most vivid examples of something that has become almost thoroughly politicized which, at least from a Scriptural point of view, was always represented as something that individuals or small groups of Christians were responsible for.

And, in case you haven’t been paying attention, the pressure is on to make sure that religion is kept totally separate from politics.  A bit like that quote by C.S. Lewis that (paraphrasing), ‘religion is what you do when you are alone… and we will see that you are never alone….’  The same thing is happening here, except now it is “you can have your religion as long as you keep it out of politics… and we will make everything political.”

In this kind of context, it is not hard to predict what the outcome will be.  The sad thing is that Christians, past and present, have been complicit in creating this ‘context’ in the first place.

May this essay be a starting point for Christians who care about the Scriptures, as written, to begin following through on Paul’s commandment in 1 Thessalonians 5:21… “Test everything.”

You may purchase this ebook on the Kindle, here.

P.S., the short answer to, “Many people, think Christians only care about abortion and gay marriage. Since that is not true, how did this impression come about?” is, “Christians have given every other issue over to the state to manage.  These were… until recently… the only two issues left.”  Without even these, the Church in America is on the verge of complete irrelevance.

Share

Solving the Islamicist Problem Once and For All, Part 4: Citizens of Two Kingdoms

This conversation did not really happen, but it could be easily had:

Them:  Jesus would want us to show kindness to Muslims (eg., ‘refugees’) and if that means making ourselves vulnerable to extremists, so be it.  That is part of the Christian message.  We should be people of peace.

Me:  So, you’re saying that if a Muslim takes actions to kill you, you should basically let him.

Them:  Maybe, yea.  We should never turn to violence as a solution to our problems.

Me:  And if a Muslim takes action to kill your neighbor, you should basically let him?

Them:  Yes.  Oh, wait.  Uh….  no.  Obviously not.

Me:  How would you stop him?  Without using violence?

Them:  Well I’d call the police, I suppose.

Me:  Does the ‘Christian message’ apply to every human, or just to Christians?

Them:  Obviously, ultimately, to everyone.

Me:  So, if we should never turn to violence as a solution to our problems, what were you expecting the police officer to do to stop the attack?  Shout loudly at him?  According to what you said before, shouldn’t the police officer let the Muslim kill him, too?  Remember, Jesus wants us to be vulnerable to our aggressors.

Them:  [Insert various versions of hemming and hawing here].

I debated having this essay as part of my “Once and For All” series, because it is mostly directed towards Christians, whereas the rest of the series targets (if it targets anyone) so-called ‘moderates’ of all stripes.  The point of the earlier essays was to try to explain just what it was about Islam that makes it intrinsically dangerous.  It has nothing to do with global inequalities, poverty, low unemployment, or whatever other rationalization is put forward.  The bad news is that it has everything to do with theology, ideology, and politics.

Islam, on its own telling, is a religion that is hell bent on world domination, setting itself apart from other religions, just as Communism set itself apart from other ‘economic systems.’  (ie, Communism ‘only works’ if ‘EVERYBODY’ participates.)

Not comprehending this can only lead to more bloodshed; most likely, it will be our blood that is shed.

Which brings us back to my faux-dialog I began with.  [But see the comments on this post of mine as an illustration of what I mean.]

It may be Christian to sacrifice yourself, but it it not Christian at all to sacrifice others.

In fact, if you stand by and allow others to be killed, when it is in your power to do something about it, that is evil.

EVIL.

It’s not Christian, Jim.  I can tell you that.

With the continued growth of the Islamic State, we see two problems coming together, working towards an inevitable flash point.  1., A basic ignorance, or willful denial, of what Islam is all about, and 2., the inability to distinguish between an individual’s responsibility and a government’s responsibility.

Remember, I’m not talking to non-Christians here.  I’m talking about Christians.

And it seems to me that most Christians have never stopped to even consider the possibility that the Bible has anything to say about the government’s proper role.  As I said to the person in the comments on the other post, linked above,

Didn’t we just have resounding agreement that Romans 13 applied?

One of the things that I’ve always found interesting is how little Christians have thought to evaluate that very question. So many times we get a line of argument that is very similar to the one that you raised, where passages clearly applicable to individuals are uncritically applied to groups or governments. I’ve already addressed that. On the other hand, more ‘conservative’-leaning Christians have committed a similar error, but from the other direction.

A friend of mine once put it this way: conservatives tend to legislate morality while liberals tend to legislate compassion. Both think they are justified, and both appeal to the Scriptures to make their case. But, in both cases, the selected passages usually have limited scope; ie, Christians are clearly prohibited from engaging in homosexual behavior, but whether or not it is appropriate to impose that legislatively is an entirely different matter (see 1 Corinthians 5:12).

There is a reason why I classify myself as a ‘Constitutional-libertarian’, in a somewhat vain attempt to capture such nuances.

But as soon as one does sit down to see what the Scriptures say about the purpose of the government, and the areas where we do right to ‘impose’ on others, we find that there is more to go on than we may suppose. For example, Romans 13 is patently clear about what God perceives one purpose of the government is–to protect the people governed from wrongdoers.

This is a first-order responsibility, plainly and explicitly spelled out. It is therefore completely within my rights as a citizen and as a Christian to demand that my government fulfill this basic responsibility.

The distinction between an individual’s responsibility and the government’s responsibility is clearly referenced throughout the Bible.  As an example, from my quote:  “Romans 13 is patently clear about what God perceives one purpose of the government is–to protect the people governed from wrongdoers.”

The individual may be called to ‘turn the other cheek’ but to say that this applies to a government, as well, requires a complete disregard for basic reading principles and terrible logic.    Conversely, Romans 13 clearly states that people should be protected from wrongdoers, but it doesn’t follow from this passage that it is my job, as an individual, to fulfill that role in every conceivable fashion.

I could go on and on about the wisdom of this arrangement, but that would lead me into a fuller defense of the Christian faith than I intend for this post.  🙂  However, this distinction is well known to anyone who has ever bothered to really examine Christian theology.  You may find it described in systematic theology books perhaps as ‘Two Kingdom’ theology.  Time to bone up, my friend.

Instead, what I’d like to call attention to is the fact that governments are not mere abstractions.  They consist of people.   I used my question above about the Muslim attacking your neighbor to highlight the fact that it cannot possibly be the case that violence is never the solution, and that agents of a government could never use violence, or even that an individual Christian could never, actually, use violence.  (Would you like to imagine a police force consisting solely of atheists?  Of Muslims?  I know I wouldn’t.)

BUT.

And this is a big BUT.

The role of protecting the populace, by the government, does not at all, in any universe, encompass using the government to spread Christianity or preach the Gospel.

Not according to the Bible.  And, by the way, the same principle that precludes that, precludes all sorts of other ‘roles’ that ‘moderates’ like to give the government, such as health care, education, and so on.  Just sayin’.

And this puts us (Christians) in a bit of a bind, because Islam is such a force that it can never be defeated by force.  It must be taken out at the ideological knees.  (This is a theme of the three previous posts in this series).  True Believing Islamicists number in the hundreds of millions, and, given time and opportunity, THEY WILL COME FOR YOU.  They are COMING FOR US.  Where ‘us’ equals Christian, Jew, atheist, Buddhist, and so on.  It’s part of their doctrine.  Thus, the ‘doctrine’ itself must be crushed.  What other ideological system can do this job?

Not secular humanism, I can tell you that.  (And I will, and explain more, in another installment).

Christianity certainly can do the job… but the government is not to be used as an evangelistic tool.

So, just what should the Christian be advocating?

It is not an easy question to answer because it must be answered at a variety of levels (eg, individual vs. government).  I’m writing this post and including it in this series because, as I observe the public discourse on this issue, especially by Christians themselves, there seems to be hardly any consideration of the different ‘levels’ it must be considered.

What we might be obligated to do if an Islamicist catches you on the street and puts a knife to your throat may be different based on whether or not you are alone, or with your family.  (BREAKING NEWS:  Fathers–even Christian ones–have a BIBLICAL DUTY AND OBLIGATION to DEFEND THEIR FAMILY.  WITH VIOLENCE IF NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE).  Like I said, it is one thing to sacrifice yourself, and quite another to sacrifice others, especially if they are within your immediate sphere of responsibility.

Then again, how we task our government to deal with one kind of problem, say, jaywalking, might be different than what is needed to deal with another kind of problem, say, an internationally popular religio-political group hell-bent on world domination who will not stop, EVER.

Resolving this ‘bind’ is not an easy thing to do, but there is no point to it if I’m the only one that appreciates it.  The Christian community needs to start asking itself what its obligation to their fellow man is to provide for his physical security, and attempt to ground such thinking on what the Bible specifically says about the government and its proper role.

A conversation like this was had once in America.  The result was the U.S. Constitution, and, importantly, the Bill of Rights.   They attempted to delay the inevitable as long as they could, but eventually, despite what they wanted, war came.  War is coming again (Islamicists declared it more than a thousand years ago and never retracted the declaration) and we’re going to have to face reality.  If we get our act together in time, maybe we will be as fortunate to come up with a way forward that has the kind of positive impact that the Constitution did.

If not, it could, literally, be our heads.

And if that doesn’t particularly bother you, then think about your neighbor’s head, and what your responsibility might be to that.

 

Share

Solving the Islamicist Problem Once and For All, Part 3

Installment 1:

They’re coming for you, whether your like it or not.  War began before you were even born.

Installment 2:

Don’t give them a foothold. They will ABSOLUTELY use it against you.

In the second installment I argued that there were certain things about the Islamic religion that naturally bear certain kinds of fruit.  When Islam comes to dominate an area, certain things are going to inevitably start happening.  There will be a move towards implementing Sharia law, for example.  And honor killings.  And so on.

An underlying theme of this whole series is the complete and utter failure of many Western moderns to come even close to understanding what is going on, in particular the secular humanists.  The secular humanists are called out because, A., they’ve effectively been in charge of every lever of power in the U.S. and internationally since the end of World War 2 (ie., this is all going down on THEIR WATCH) and B., secular humanists themselves have an ideology that is toxic, one of the salient side effects being the inability to recognize real evil when they see it (because their worldview has no room for the existence of real evil; it is all relative).

Since they are in charge and probably will remain so, I have little hope for the West.  Instead, my basic position is that “we are on our own.”  The ‘levers of power’ attract the people who delight in exercising them, and the people we’d prefer to be in charge… don’t really want the job.  So, the void will always be filled with these idealists, and until people come to realize the necessity of radically reducing the number of ‘levers of power’ that are out there, we will continue to be extremely vulnerable to the Islamicists, who, in their own way, are attracted to the ‘levers of power’ and have no problem identifying evil:  Jews, Christians, and yes, secular humanists.  We will continue to die while the Elite meet in Paris to blame everything on Climate Change, and even seriously suggest that Islamic terrorism itself is a result of global warming.

Yes, it is positively stupid.  But I didn’t elect them.  Don’t look at me.

My impression is that more people are coming to terms with what I call Islamicism (Islam+fascism) and are trying to understand it.  In light of the fact that “we are on our own” while Rome burns, preparing ourselves appropriately means coming to grips with how the Islamicists themselves perceive the world, rather than what we think.  We cannot solve the problem unless we understand it.

In a previous installment I emphasized that the fact that Islamicists themselves perceive their religious duties and obligations as consisting of conquering the whole world for Allah.

This is so important, I wanted to flesh it out a little more just what it means to ‘conquer the whole world.’

According to the Koran, it is not necessary to make everyone a Muslim.  It is enough if the non-believers are in submission to Muslim governments.

This is important.

Everyone will remember from their elementary school text books just how ‘tolerant’ Muslims were to the Jews and Christians in their midst many hundreds of years ago (in contrast to those blood-thirsty crusaders!), but this is totally besides the point.  They were tolerant because the Jews and Christians were in submission–kind of like a slave owner is kind to his slave, just so long as the slave does what he is told and doesn’t try to rebel.

I’m not making this up.  Check it out for yourself.  There is an actual term for this, called dhimmitude, which I strongly encourage you to research if you’ve never heard before.

A population could consist of 80% non-believers, but so long as the country is run according to Islamic law, by Muslims, that is considered a job well done according to the Islamicist.

So, if you are a Christian and don’t object to essentially being a slave, then by all means, you will find your Muslim overlords to be fairly kind to you.  But don’t even think about evangelizing!  Seriously.  They will kill you.  Think you could ever end up as the prime minister or president of such a country?  Don’t make me laugh.

It is possible to be fooled into thinking that just because some Muslim countries don’t force women to be fully covered (for example), this means that the Koran can be interpreted in more ‘moderate’ fashion.  You must understand, only the Muslims are allowed to weigh in on that issue.  You, as a Christian (or atheist) are not going to be allowed to present what you think is a better interpretation.  This is important, because just as in the West, the ‘levers of power’ attract liberals and progressives hellbent on perfecting the world (cuz this world is all they got, ya know?), the ‘levers of power’ in Islam-dominated countries tend to attract the Muslims who really buy into the whole “Subject this land for Allah!”, thing.

In some Muslim countries, different Muslims will tend to influence the government differently, but they are all agreed that it will be governed by Muslims, and what YOU think is irrelevant.

And there are plenty of times when the make-up of the governing Muslims change, so that what seemed like a nice place for a Westerner to live is no longer.  Oddly, there are fewer cases of it going the other direction….

If it is not yet clear, let me spell it out:  Islam is an intrinsically political system.  The individual Muslim very much wants to please Allah so that he can enter Paradise, and ‘private’ religious acts, such as giving to the poor, praying five times daily, and so on, certainly rub Allah the right way.  But what Allah really wants is a world controlled completely by his delegates.  The individual Muslim duly takes notice.

This is why our own ruling powers are so hopelessly and pathetically incapable of truly addressing the problem that Islam poses to the world.   They already have a low view of religion as it is, thinking it is the product of indoctrination and so on (which, through public education, they may be able to counter), but tend to perceive it as mainly a person’s private beliefs about the world which occasionally has public manifestations.  Like the Muslim, the secular humanist is perfectly tolerant of the ‘non-believer’ as long as the ‘non-believer’ keeps their beliefs private.  Woe to the believer if he ever wishes to exercise his beliefs in public, or in public government!  You can get away with delivering this ‘woe’ on Christians, who have a belief system that intrinsically repeats after its founder, “God’s kingdom is not of this world.”  You cannot get away with this with Muslims, where the very nature of the private belief is that Allah’s kingdom is very much of this world.

But you, dear reader, can never forget this important feature of Islam.

Knowing, now, just how seriously the Muslim takes domination, you must now consider how the Muslim feels if that domination is thrown off.  There is nothing that chafes them more than seeing a territory previously controlled by Muslims (that is, subjected to Allah) now controlled by the Infidels.   Many examples of this could be offered, but the most volatile region of the world right now, Israel, is probably the best one to examine in this context.

Bin Laden famously turned his ire against the United States after the first Gulf War, when the U.S. established bases in Saudi Arabia in order to combat Saddam Hussein.  Self-loathing liberals have tended to rationalize Al Qaeda’s terror tendencies (“Why do they hate us?!?!?!”) with comments like, “How would YOU feel if a foreign army set foot on YOUR land?”  Forgetting, of course, that Saudi Arabia invited the U.S., and other coalition forces, because Saddam Hussein was poised to press on after Kuwait and go after Saudi Arabia, next.

You would have thought that Bin Laden would have been thankful.  But now you see why the very idea was anathema to him.  Bringing the ‘infidel’ army into land ruled by Muslims threw into question just who ‘dominated’ the region.  This was intolerable.

And when Bin Laden mentioned Israel in the same context, the liberals lapped that up, too, reasoning that the Jewish occupation of that region merely represented a violation of basic principles of fair play.  That is, it is perfectly reasonable for people to be angry that they are being shoved off their land, and if only that hadn’t happened, Muslims would quite happily leave the world alone.  Again, the liberals forget that it was an international effort, spearheaded by secular humanists and liberals themselves, working through the U.N. (which attracts just the sort), that invited the Jews to that region in the first place after World War 2.

But it is not perceived by the Muslims as a simple violation of fair play.

This land had been previously controlled by Muslims, fallen out of their control, and then most recently been ruled by the Ottoman Empire (in living memory to the Muslims in ‘Palestine’ in the 1940s), who themselves were battered by the infidels in Russia and England, setting the table for circumstances that unfolded in World Wars 1 and 2.

The displacement of Muslims from the region represented a tremendous, horrible loss in the eyes of Islamicists that went far beyond being forced from their homes.  It meant that Allah’s land had fallen under control of the Infidel.

If you have ever wondered why it is that these hordes of ‘Palestineans’ didn’t simply get absorbed by neighboring countries that one would have expected would have been sympathetic… eg., Muslim Saudi Arabia, Muslim Iran, etc, and instead remained in camps like so many thorns in Israel’s side, this is why.  For most of us, if we were displaced like this, we’d have moved on a long time ago.  But the Muslim has a religious obligation to restore the region to Islam.

This is why the presence of the Jews as the governing authorities there is so intolerable to them and why they attack it ferociously, and why, in the end, a ‘two state’ solution will never satisfy the Muslims.  It may be something that they accept as a near-term strategic gain, but re-conquering the land of Israel will always be on the agenda.

There is a name for this Islamic concept, but it escapes me.  Maybe one of my readers can produce it for me.  The most important part is to realize that the concept is thoroughly supported by the Koran and that it fuels the Muslim’s attitudes towards these issues.  In trying to remember the name of the concept, I found this excellent discussion of very similar things, including the obsession the Muslims have with Israel:  here.

Once the forces of Islam conquer a land or territory, it is to remain under Islamic dominion forever (‘for generations’), and it is a mortal affront to the supremacy of Islam when such territories would ever be lost to the dominion of Islam and revert to previous – infidel – ownership as was the case in Palestine.  It was a Muslim controlled territory (under the Muslim Turks and later the Muslim Arabs) and reverted by the decree of the U.N. resolution back to its previous owners: the Jews.

That article is definitely worth a look.

As an important aside, we here in the United States need to appreciate how the Muslim animosity to the U.S. is categorically different than the animosity towards, say, France.

The United States has never been conquered by Muslims.  It has never been under Sharia.  It is straight up, unadulterated Infidel territory.  It is certainly on the Muslim radar, being part of the globe and all, but there is not the same kind of religious intensity associated with it that Muslims will have towards countries that ever, even if briefly, were controlled by Muslims.  The above linked article said it quite well:

But when Israel is no more their hands will be free to turn yet again to the West as they did in the sixth and seventh centuries when they were finally stopped in their Islamic invasion at Tours and Poitiers in the middle of France having conquered all areas of Europe from Istanbul to Vienna and from Morocco to the middle of France, including Spain.  This time after Israel has been dealt with in true Islamic fashion they will try again.

Through their oil, wealth and the enormous spread of their religion through thousands of Mosques and millions of Muslim adherence all over the world, Islamic leaders believe the day has come to wipe out the humiliation of that defeat in Europe by the armies of Charles Martel and now re-conquer Europe and all the West for Allah thus adding also these territories Europe to become ‘Dar al-Islam’: part of the house and possession of Islam.

Again, I strongly encourage you to read that article in full.  Especially if you have never heard of Charles Martel.  In that case, you need to go kick your teachers in the shin.  (Well, the school board members are more likely deserving of your angst)

It seems unfathomable to us that anyone would still be chafing over defeats that occurred more than a thousand years ago, but it does chafe the well-informed, ‘true believing’ Muslim.  To say that it upsets them is to put it mildly.

The terrorist attacks on the United States, then, are less about trying to subject it to Islam and more about deterring the U.S. from standing in the way of Islamicist efforts elsewhere.   The Islamicists want it to be clear that they will be very angry if the U.S. does anything that would suggest that non-Muslims are now in charge.  They will be very angry, and it would be our fault.

In the meantime, they have other ways of subverting a nation and prepping it for Islamic rule.  I touched on that in the second installment, and if there are ever later installments, I have no doubt I’ll mention some others.  But if your eyes are sufficiently open, you’ll start seeing them yourself.

There is no particular ‘point of action’ that flows from this installment, which aims to help you understand the problem more fully.  However, it does accentuate points I made in the first installment about half measures and the ultimate need to defeat Allah.  Whether it is today or tomorrow, a decade from now, or a century, so long as Muslims think that they have a chance at world domination, they will continue to press their cause–and all means are justified.

Are there other interpretations of these volatile passages from the Koran that give rise to this theological/political orientation?  Why sure, if you think it is a reasonable interpretation of my comments to go looking under my bed for a cat if I say, “There is a dog in the kitchen.”  That would be absurd.  But you could get someone to think that is reasonable interpretation of my comment, if every time you went looking for the dog in the kitchen, I smashed a bottle over your head.  Likewise, you could get interpreters of the Koran to deviate from the plain reading of that text by always responding with extremely decisive action, whenever someone went with the more straight-forward interpretation and tried to act on it.

The only way that the political components of Islam will ever be removed is if every time they try to implement them by force, the ones making the attempt die quickly and the ones that backed them made to pay a cost that they deem was far more than they were willing to pay.

But that could not be the whole story.  Somewhere along the way, the whole underlying ideology needs to be combated.  And you don’t defeat ideologies with the sword (unless you use the sword to kill all the people with that ideology, something that strikes me as an undesirable approach in this case).  What we must do is mount an ideological offensive with the expectation that it will take decades and even centuries before it sees success.  To do this, one must have an ideology of their own that is robust for the job.

We are approaching almost a whole century’s worth of experience that show that secular humanism ain’t it.

Which is a problem, since secular humanism dominates the West, with its own brand of Sharia-like rule.

 

Share

Solving the Islamicist Problem Once and For All, Part 2

Last week I posted an article on the same topic, where I make the following points:

  1.  A problem cannot be solved unless one actually understands it.  But even that is not enough.  One must have the will to carry out the solution.
  2. World conquest in the name of Allah is Islamic doctrine.  Whether or not the rest of us are ‘at war’ with Muslims, Muslims, fundamentally, are at war with us.  Whether we like it or not.  It is an explicit and foundational aspect of the Islamic religion.  Islam, is, by nature, a political animal, even as it has ‘religious’ aspects to it.
  3. Half-measures have done far more harm, historically, than thoroughly decisive actions.
  4. It is not enough to talk about defeating Islamicists militarily;  the ideology itself must be defeated.   But when confronting it militarily, it must be done decisively.
  5. Having ruled out half-measures, this means, in ultimate terms, bringing the false god, Allah, down.
  6. In order to call something ‘false’, one must believe there is such a thing as ‘truth.’  One cannot act decisively unless one firmly believes they are within ‘truth.’  Or, to put it another way, in order for the Islamic ideology to be defeated, something believed to be better and superior needs to be advanced.
  7. Currently, the world order is dominated by secular humanists.  Their ideology will always be inadequate to the task.  Islamicists take advantage of the intrinsic weaknesses of the secular humanist worldview.  First and foremost, Islamicists believe that there is such a thing as ‘good and evil’ (and secular humanists and every non-Muslim is evil), while secular humanists are decidedly neutered on this score.  Islam is not wrong in saying that there is a real good and a real evil, but what they consider good and evil is very wrong.  Christianity offers a counter-weight that secular humanism is powerless to provide.
  8. This is not difficult to understand, but it is hard to accept.  People are not going to like this solution.

Islam is a religion with a history that is a thousand years in the making and is not going to be overthrown in a year or even a decade.   A characteristic of our current age is the expectation that seeds planted will bear fruit the next day.  Gardeners know better.  So do Muslims.  They think generationally, while moderns move from fad to fad.  If moderns embrace a significant cultural change and it does not end the world overnight, they figure the danger has passed.  Some problems… some changes… bring about dangers that do not manifest until decades, even centuries, have gone by.

Given the stated Koranic goal of conquering the world for Allah, what we might perceive as ‘danger’ is to them an opportunity.  Moderns play checkers.  Muslims play chess.

It is important to understand that when I talk about Muslims, I’m talking about the people who actually believe and act as though the Koran is true.  Merely self-identifying as a Muslim does not make someone a Muslim, just as self-identifying as a black person does not make a white person, black.  (Sorry.)  We can divide up the global Muslim population into three basic groups, which, importantly, exist in pretty much every ideology.

  • There are the true believers.
  • There are nominal Muslims.
  • There are cultural Muslims.

As I said, these groupings exist for every ideological system.

  • There are people who are Christian, through and through.
  • There are people who lean Christian, take the label, and so on, but are not fully invested in it.
  • There are people who, by place of birth, circumstance, or what not, live and breathe as though they are Christian, but don’t really believe any of it.

So, there are a billion Muslims, but a very large number of them do not pose a short term or long term threat.  Indeed, there are probably a good many ‘cultural’ Muslims who might feel a certain affection for their homeland or culture, who wish very much that they did not live under Muslim rule.

This is what makes it so despicable when the international community (ie, Obama) does nothing when the Iranians rise up to protest their rigged elections, or the coalition allows Hussein (the other one) to wipe out the Kurds after the first Gulf War, or Obama does everything in his power to empower Islamic radicals (whether intentionally or not is irrelevant here; it has been the actual impact of his policies) in the so-called Arab Spring.

This is just the tip of the ice berg.  Many examples can be produced.

Much of these horrific lapses with long lasting devastating consequences have taken place while ‘humanitarian’-minded secular bureaucrats stood by and dilly-dallied, hemming and hawing, perpetually unable to strike a definitive stance–precisely because their worldview is all shifting sand beneath them.  Although, they may have been padding their wallets (eg., Oil for Food scandal).

I believe that at bottom, in the main, most people who have ever lived desire freedom and earnestly long for it.  They have no intention of imposing their belief systems on other people.  If left to their own devices, they would be happy to mind their own business.  They wish people would leave their business alone.

But such people are vulnerable to those who possess tyrannical worldviews, especially of the ‘global conquest’ sort, and even more so where the ideology embraces ‘the ends justify the means’ as not just morally justifiable, but a real moral virtue.

Islam has within it explicit support for this perspective.  It manifests most obviously in jihad, but is formally expressed in the doctrine of taqiyyaTaqiyya is the teaching that it is quite alright, even justifiable, nay, obligatory, to lie, in the cause of Islam.  It is to Islam what Alinsky is to Progressives.

Moreover, because of Islam’s explicit political component, most familiarly known as Sharia law, the cultural (and sometimes nominal) Muslims are no match for the True Believer’s acceptance of some other important Islamic doctrines:

1., Allah is an angry, judgmental god, who is very hard to please.  Even a good Muslim’s ‘salvation’ is very much in doubt.  EXCEPT, there are ways to gain absolute certainty:

2.  Certain acts will win for the Muslim absolute confidence that one will be shown mercy by Allah:   Eg., making the Hajj and… Jihad.

You remember jihad, right?

So, entangled into the very fabric of Islam are more than one components that make the religion very dangerous in the hands of the True Believer in Islam, components that exist in other forms in other systems, but do not exist at all in other systems.

In other words, there are some ideologies where there is nothing to fear of ‘True Believers.’   Islam is not one of them.

In countries where Islam dominates the culture, even if you aren’t a True Believer, you’d better talk and act as if you are one, or you’re taking your life in your hands.  And I mean, YOU’D BETTER.

If the above seems like an unfair video to produce, perhaps because it occurs in the ‘wild west’ where the radicals are clearly in control, then you may want to take a gander at some of the videos we have of what transpires in the more ‘civilized‘ Saudi Arabia.   Or jump to this one.   Note the presence of uniformed agents of the country.

With such considerations bouncing around in our head, let us consider one of the foremost pragmatic and practical steps that we can implement if we wish to ultimately defeat Islam:

Numero Uno:  do not allow Islamic culture to spread beyond its current reach and decisively turn it back, whenever and wherever you are able, effective immediately.

If this means that Muslim refugees need to be held back from re-locating to places where Islamic culture does not yet hold sway, then, as much as it pains me to say it, so be it.

[Because of truly infantile people on the web, I need to add that this does not mean we do not show them compassion or try to tend to their needs.  It does mean that Islam is to ideology what Ebola is to disease; one does not knowingly bring someone who is infected with Ebola into your midst.  The soft-headed notion that surrounding the Islamicist with secularists will somehow cure the Islamicist has produced more fatalities in the West than Ebola has.]

It is not just because they are Muslim, per se, that you have to do this.   The ‘cultural,’ and a fair number of ‘nominal’ Muslims, would probably get along ‘ok.’  You have to do this because of taqiyya and jihad, and the absolute fact that the True Believers have expressly stated that they will use such migrations to infiltrate new lands, with the explicit and express intent of bringing those lands under Islamic rule.

The daft inevitably will make the argument that they are unlikely to have any success any time soon.  Any time soon.  See my paragraph beginning, “Islam is a religion with a history…”

The other reason we have to do this is because the people in charge are almost all, to the man, secular humanists who cannot see the categorical difference between refusing to bake a cake and cutting off a man’s head in the street.  They can’t recognize genuine evil because they do not understand the real nature of people (eg, the fact of ‘sin’) and the power of ideology.  They really believe those poor chaps at Charlie Hebdo had it coming, that they had only themselves to blame.   That the massacre was legitimate, per John Kerry.

A bit like Biden saying he wouldn’t judge the Chinese for implementing the One Child Policy, one of the gravest ongoing human rights travesties ever known to man.

These are the ‘humanitarians.’  These are the people in charge of ‘vetting’ the refugees.

There is no hope that any time soon, grown-ups will take charge of our bureaucracies.  In the meantime, every day that they are in charge, we are in peril.

The incompetence… or is it delusion… of people like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, is compounded by the absolutely known fact that the ‘True Believers’ will use this process (any process, really) to get into a country… and then bide their time.

From the link a couple of paragraphs above, was this excerpt from a document detailing the overall ISIS strategy (evidently, in ISIS’ own words)

Yes, my friends.  They are pleased with enclaves of ‘cultural’ Islam to hide within, and ultimately use as a staging ground for expanding their ‘land/territory.’

Remember, unlike many religions, in Islam, taking ‘land/territory’ is part and parcel of the overall intent of the religion.

Thus, given enough time (and they are patient… so it could be decades or even centuries), they will come for you.

Thus, preventing such a base of operations from taking root in your community may not have any immediate impact on your own life or livelihood, but you have to have the brains to think ahead, a bit.  If not you, what about your kids or your grandkids, or your great-grandkids?

There are many signs in the West already that the impacts are being felt.  Chances are, if you found this post at all, you already have seen some of those signs.

One of the problems is that the secular ‘humanitarians’ are pretty much in charge, everywhere.  This includes the media.  That means that a lot of the horrific stuff that is going on does not get reported.  It goes against the narrative, which, at root, excludes the reality of real, genuine evil.

For example, honor killings.

I’m not talking about ‘over there.’  I’m talking about ‘over there.’  And here.

Honor killings are not simply random, cultural artifacts.  They are derived from and logically and naturally flow from certain facets of the Islamic religion.

In another case of “they deserve what they get,” there was the case of the Christian evangelists assaulted in Dearborn, as the local police stood by and watched.

That wouldn’t have been my approach, but in this culture, which in the main has endeavored to advance liberty, freedom, and yes, even justice for all, the evangelists had the right to expect the police to protect them.

Of course, the evangelists knew exactly what to expect from the Muslims, which is why they were there.

One thing is for sure, Muslim missionaries would never get that kind of treatment from a Christian crowd, and, in the off chance that they did, sad to say, if current trends continue, the full weight of the law would be unleashed on the Christian.  (eg, ‘buffer zones‘, which after decades of unconstitutional abuse, are finally being rolled back).

And don’t even get me started about what Islam believes a person’s obligation should be towards the Muslim who becomes a Christian, versus what Christians believes they should do to the Christian who becomes a Muslim.

The point of this comparison is to illustrate that there are things intrinsic to the Christian ideology that are categorically different than the Muslim one.

Christians might get fired up, but they are not likely to actually fire you up, if you get my meaning.  Certain things will happen automatically and inevitably based on the composition and make-up of the culture.  We don’t have to use our imagination to fathom what kinds of things happen when Islam dominates the culture.  An ounce of research does the trick.

The question is whether or not you have the presence of mind to come to grips with reality as it really is, rather than hoping against all the evidence, that Muslims in the West will create a culture that honors life, freedom of religion, or democracy itself.

So, step one:  do not allow Muslims to have a cultural foothold.  Interact with them at arms length, and even help them.  And dear God, if they themselves try to stand up against the True Believers, such as what we saw in Iran, and in several other places, don’t leave them hanging out to dry.

Much more to say, but this will have to do it for this installment.

Share

The Christian and the Syrian Refugees: A Rebuke

The target audience of this post is the Christian who takes the Scriptures seriously, as written, but styles himself as a political moderate.  In particular, if you have seen fit to chastise your brothers for their ‘heartless’ and supposedly ‘unchristian’ attitude towards the Syrian ‘refugees’, this post is very much for you.

—-

It was so very interesting watching my Facebook feed fill up with sanctimonious denouncements of Christians, by Christians, who were opposed to absorbing the ‘Syrian Refugees.’  The interesting part was not the sanctimony, but the timing.  It was almost as if someone had rang a bell, and the dogs dutifully salivated.  You see, the people who have been raising alarm about the ‘Syrian Refugees’ have been doing so for a long time.

As it happens, my Facebook feed has been constantly updated over the last several years with numerous concerns about Christians being wiped out in the Middle East and the U.S. government doing nothing about it.  A Democrat, Mark Arabo, has been smuggling Christians out of the Middle East and into the United States for quite a long time–Syrian refugees among them.

When Glenn Beck openly declared that he would risk jail to smuggle Syrian refugees into the United States back in September, I saw some sympathetic remarks, but I saw an awful lot of comments to the effect that Christians should work within the rule of law, and therefore could not support Beck’s position.

Clearly, Syria did not just become a nightmare just last week, so why is it that only last week did you take an interest?  People, including many Christians, have been advocating for getting Syrian refugees (along with many others) out of the region for months and years, but only last week did you see fit to take a stand?

Let’s think about what happened last week.  Oh, yea, that’s right.  More than a hundred people were slaughtered in Paris.  What did that have to do with any refugees, Syrian or otherwise?

I will tell you the answer, and you’re not going to like it.

Essentially, Barack Obama knew that the Paris attacks were precisely the sort of thing that conservatives have been warning about for years and even decades.  The attack is one of many that have already transpired and many more that are yet to happen, with many of them due directly to his own policies in the Middle East.  The Paris attack is the kind of thing that has the ability to shake the cobwebs out for even the most uninformed person.  It does not require higher education in order to see the connection between radical Islamicists running amok and policies seemingly designed to facilitate them running amok.  In fact, my observations seem to suggest that the higher the education, the less one’s ability to see the connection.

So, Obama went on the offensive.

He invented an issue out of whole cloth, appropriating to himself a position that was actually the position of Christian conservatives for years, and painting those very same Christians as being in opposition to it.

And you fell for it.  Hook.  Line.  Sinker.

One of the reasons you fell for it is because you misconstrue and misunderstand why people pushed back against Obama’s comments.  You think the opposition is against the ‘refugees’, per se, just like you think that people who are against illegal immigration are being heartless (so much for the rule of law, eh?).  No.  The ‘opposition’ is a reflection of the complete lack of confidence that people have in Obama himself, and more broadly, a lack of confidence in the competency of our Federal government to do what they say they’re going to do.

Your reaction against your fellow Christians is based on Obama’s characterization of those who oppose him, rather than on the actual positions of those Christians.

Haven’t you noticed how under the Obama administration we’ve been led from one crisis after another?   This is intentional, and part of the program.

When I heard Obama’s comments, especially the ones about Republicans being afraid of ‘widows and orphans‘, I knew it was just part of the playbook that liberals and progressives have been acting out of for decades, but which Obama has mastered and institutionalized in his administration.

Go ahead and watch that video clip of the ‘widows and orphans‘ again, and then remember that Obama actually studied and taught the principles of Saul Alinsky.  Alinsky was an atheist who knew that he could not transform the United States unless he got the Church on his side.  Like Margaret Sanger, who specifically used black pastors in her effort to depopulate the black population, Alinksy would co-opt the Christian church in America; his ‘Industrial Area Foundation’ is the founder and sponsor of the ‘Gamaliel Foundation’, a group that lists Alinsky’s book as required reading and specifically goes into churches to agitate for the kinds of things Alinsky wanted to achieve.    Go ahead, check it all out.  Perhaps start here.

Three of Alinksy’s ‘rules’ jumped out at me when I heard Obama’s remarks.

Rule #13:  Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

You Christian ‘moderates’ have been decrying the polarization of the United States in the last decade or so and seem to think its because of something that conservatives have been doing.  It’s actually part of the liberal activist program.  It is they that have been personalizing and polarizing things, and Obama the most.  Can you not see how his comments are a perfect application of this rule?

Rule #5:  Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

You thought Obama’s comments merely unfortunate?  No sir.  They are calculated.  Completely calculated.

Rule #4: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

Alinsky immediately goes on to explain just who he has in mind, here:

“You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

He’s talking about you, brother.

Getting Christians to pile onto other Christians, ostensibly in the name of Christianity, is precisely what Alinsky–and Obama–wanted to do.

And you fell for it.

Again.

The seemingly impossible has been achieved:  Christians, thinking that they are interceding on behalf of ‘Syrian Refugees,’ have piled onto Christians who actually have been interceding for Syrian refugees for months, and even years.

Meanwhile, the one whose policies directly led to the destruction of country after country in the Middle East, manages to escape scrutiny.  Again.

Where do you think ISIS got their weapons in the first place?

The legitimate refugees are fleeing the various Islamo-totalitarian regimes that came into power due to Obama’s instigation of the Arab Spring, beginning in Tunisia, burning through Libya  and coursing through Egypt, on its way to Iran and Syria.  Do you remember what happened to Gaddafi? You can bet that Assad, in Syria, did, pal.

A funny thing happened in Iran.  When the Islamic hard-liners evidently rigged the election there, the genuine Muslim moderates took to the streets.  Given what had transpired elsewhere, these Iranian people thought the United States had their backs.  Instead, they were put down, mercilessly.  From Obama:  crickets.

The only reason there are refugees at all is because Obama put a torch to the region.   Except in a few cases where strange twists of fate occurred, hard-line Islamcists surged to power.  In Egypt, the military stepped in and deposed the Muslim Brotherhood, which had taken power.  Obama protested.  In Syria, Assad saw the writing on the wall and knew that he had to act decisively.  It appears extremely likely that Obama armed ISIS, and the death of the ambassador in Benghazi was connected to this fact.

No wonder that Hillary Clinton has fought the release of her emails so vigorously and the State Department has dragged its heels on everything.

If this is all true, and it seems likely that it is, what did you expect Assad to do?

I mean, really.

Pretty much everywhere else, Islamcists grabbed control, and moved to purge the region for Allah.

Don’t you think its reasonable to think that a better solution is to ‘fix’ the region so the people can live in their own homelands safely, rather than simply patching over the problem by bringing those people over here, leaving those lands firmly in the hands of Islamcists?  And what about the fact that Islamicists are not shy about their intention to infiltrate the mass of refugees in order to carry out their work?

Whatever else you may think, it is not ‘unchristian’ to want to solve a problem at its source.

I will tell you what is unchristian, though.

It is ‘unchristian’ to allow yourself to be manipulated, over, and over, and over, and over again.  Of all people, Christians are supposed to be the most discerning.  When the media says “jump!” Christians shouldn’t be the first to enthusiastically shout, “how high?”

Stop taking things at face value when there are obvious and glaring reasons to be suspicious about what is going on.  Stop paying attention only to what Obama is saying, and look at what he is doing.

Which, of course, is an important thing to remember for any politician–nay, for any person.

“By their fruits you will know them.”

Please, please, please stop playing right into ‘their’ hands.

Share

Solving the Islamicist Problem Once and For All

Evidently the talking points are out, since I have now heard multiple individuals, especially those of Democrat persuasion, opine that ‘We have been bombing Iraq for 20 years so obviously that doesn’t work!’ Under their breath, they take a jab at GW Bush… as if he was president 20 years ago.  But it is not exclusively a liberal argument.  Another commentator made a similar statement, calling attention to the fact that the U.S. has been involved militarily in the region for decades, under both Republican and Democrat presidents.

To some degree, the point can be conceded, and the question can be asked, “Just how DO we stop attacks like the ones we saw in Paris?”

The answer is really pretty obvious.  The problem is that no one likes the answer.

First consider the fact that these sorts of events are relatively new, originating roughly with establishment of Israel after WW2.  Much can be said about how this all went down, but I would like to highlight the fact that it was the international community that greenlighted that, and yet afterwards left Israel on its own.  Worse, it allowed the ‘refugees’ to stay in the region, throwing up roadblocks against Israel re-locating them.  We continue to reap the results of this.

Now consider the fact that Germany and Japan are as civilized as any other these days, and pose no military threat to any other nation.

What is the difference between these two instances?  Germany and Japan were totally annihilated in World War 2, whereas Israel/Palestine is a situation where things have been allowed to fester for decades.  Intentionally so, by regimes that could easily have absorbed the ‘refugees.’  Accidentally so, by the international community that created the ‘refugees’ in the first place, but then did not have the will to just finish the job.

Really, a lot of the history of the 20th century can be broken down into these two basic categories:  problems eradicated completely by decisive, thorough action, and problems created by not completely addressing the problems.

The same is certainly the case with Iraq and the vicinity.  After the first Gulf War, Hussein was allowed to live.  He used his time to massacre countless freedom-loving people inside his country who rose up thinking that the international community would back them.  Boy were they wrong!

If you wonder why it is that there does not seem to be any significant resistance to ISIS and other Islamic militants, its because the people who were of the sort to stand up and fight were mercilessly destroyed by Hussein as the US and UN stood by and watched.  That is, they are dead.  And the children they would have had and brought up in a liberty-loving ideology never came into existence.

Hussein continued to build up his arsenal and continued to pose a menace, buying off UN bureaucrats (Oil for Food) to impoverish his own people while strengthening his own position.  After he was implicated in 9-11 and an attack seemed imminent, he quietly moved his WMDs (which we are told by liberals never existed) to Syria.   Assad has now actually used them, crossing Obama’s vaunted red line.

These are important factors, but I wish to call attention to the fact that Iraq is indeed still a nightmare, left in a mess by George Bush and Barack Obama, both.  But if GW Bush is to be faulted, it is not for going into Iraq, but by not absolutely finishing the job.

“We’ve been bombing Iraq for twenty years!” blah blah blah.  We only bombed Germany and Japan for five years, and both countries had exponentially superior armament, organization, resources, etc, than Iraq, Syria, Iran, or a ragtag band of Islamic militants.  And yet, we’ve had trouble with the latter, while Germany and Japan are happily civilized and helpful today.

The big mistake–and that is an understatement–falls from the supposedly humanitarian ‘restraint’ that the international community is always calling for.  Now, whether it is because the international community is playing an angle, such as trying to make money hand over fist via ‘Oil for Food’ shenanigans, while duping scores of liberals, or because they legitimately want to be compassionate, the very basic question that should be asked is whether or not this ‘humanitarianism’ has ever actually brought us peace… or just years and years of more bloodshed.

And the answer is that these ‘humanitarian’ efforts have only resulted in getting lots of people killed.

Now, the ‘humanitarian’ insists that they want to help people, and prevent people from getting killed, but there is this little thing called ‘reality’ that proves that their good intentions amount to nothing.  After all, killing ONE man, Saddam Hussein, back in 1991, would have spared the lives of tens of thousands almost immediately and a half a million children supposedly killed by international sanctions on Iraq.  But hey, you just keep calling yourself the one who really cares about people, ok, champ?

Of course, the story goes on from there.  Hussein made himself a huge target after 9-11 (which also probably would not have happened if we had dealt with Iraq completely after the first Gulf War), prompting yet another invasion which yet again came to a conclusion that was nothing like the conclusion reached at the end of Germany and Japan.

And here we are today.

Just to spell out the difference for those in Rio Linda, in the case of Germany and Japan, full out war resulting in complete annihilation of the enemy and obtaining an unconditional surrender has brought us decades and decades of peace (vis a vis these two countries) that persists to this day.  Not committing fully to the establishment of Israel, or finishing up Iraq, or destroying the regime in North Korea, or… I mean, the list is long, here… has led to countless murders, imprisonments, slavery, torture… you name it.  The evidence of history is that so-called ‘humanitarians’ are complicit in decades of bloodshed and tyranny.  Well done!

Regardless of whether or not you think Israel should have been established or if you think we should have gone into Iraq the first time, or the second time, once the action is initiated, history shows that the absolute worst thing you can do is stay your hand until complete and utter surrender has been obtained by the enemy.

This is truth.

This is reality.

This is the way the world really works.

Sorry, but it is.

Now, bearing all this in mind, let us consider the present situation.

What we have to do here, whether we like it or not, is fix the problem once and for all.  The examples of Germany and Japan show that, in fact, it can be done.  It need not linger on for decade after decade, such as in the case of Israel and Palestine, or in the case of Iraq and so on.

Does it mean continued ‘bombing’?

It’s not quite as simple as that, but it is as simple as coming to grips with the real nature of the enemy and then acting accordingly.

Now, there is something very interesting about the difference between Al Qaeda and ISIS.  In the former, there was, ostensibly, only the goal of ridding infidels from the region.  (Anyone who has studied the Wahhabi sect knows that the word ‘ostensibly’ is well-chosen.)  In the latter case, there is the more explicit goal of conquering the whole world and establishing another Caliphate.  Holding territory and expanding into new regions is part of the program.

But of course, this latter point is part and parcel with the religion of Islam as a whole, which is the point I’m driving at.

This global agenda has similarities with the global agenda of Germany and Japan in World War 2, the global agenda of 20th century communism, and even the global agenda of contemporary secular humanism, although luckily for us, this last group temporarily is manned by ‘humanitarians.’  The ‘global’ aspect is what made these other regimes the clear and present danger that they represent today, as opposed, say, to what we see in North Korea.   North Korea is only ‘communist’ by appearances.  For all practical purposes, its really just the personal plaything of the Kim family.  They are a menace to their immediate neighbors, but is otherwise content to be left alone.

ISIS, and Islam more generally, is characterized by a desire to conquer the whole world.  Which means that, unchecked, they will come for you.

The ‘humanitarians’ would have us believe that Islamic militants are goaded along by poverty, or colonial imperialism, or what not.  These are only pretexts for violence, and the Islamicists use the ‘humanitarian’ arguments as shields behind which to move into action.  This is precisely what is happening in the current ‘refugee’ crisis in Europe.  Islamicists enjoy using the good intentions of others against them.  Speaking amongst themselves, however, both today and in centuries past, their objective is perfectly plain:  subjugating the planet for Allah.

Ultimately, then, the battle to end the threat of Islamicism means defeating Allah, just as defeating Germany and the Nazi movement meant exterminating Hitler and defeating Japan meant humiliating the Japanese god, Hirohito.   Compare and contrast with leaving Hussein alive after the first Gulf War, and looking to Germany and Japan today, versus Iraq and the middle east today.

You see, from the Muslim point of view, Allah’s will will be done.

The false god must be brought down.

It is akin to the fall of Pharaoh, in the book of Exodus, who likewise thought himself a god, and had to be revealed as a false god before the grip on the Israelites could be released.

This has to be a priority consideration for any attempt to really end the threat of Islamicism in the way that Nazism was ended, but of course this means getting into areas that a lot of people are loathe to do.  You know, liberals and even a few conservatives like to think about fighting Islamicism through ‘economic’ means, and what they really are doing is trying to find a ‘secular’ solution to what is really a pernicious ideology, enmeshed in theological and philosophical aspects.   You cannot end Islamicism without effectively proving to Muslims that their god is toothless.  Mohamed spread Islam with the sword and proved his case by pointing to his success.  Only by reversing the process can he be overturned.

But there is no way that process can be overturned unless the people who wish to do the overturning have the courage of their convictions.

And for that, you actually have to have convictions.

If there is anything about contemporary society in the U.S. and abroad that is clear, it is that people are so ‘open-minded’ that they have trouble making up their mind about anything.  They certainly never reach the level of confidence necessary to act.  It’s all, “What’s true for me may not be true for you… and that’s OK.”  The Islamicists love this, because they begin and end their day with, “What’s true for me… is true.”  It’s simple and straight-forward and the stuff of action.  “What’s true for me may not be true for you” means perpetual inaction.

In order to eventually take action, one has to actually come to certain conclusions and believe that one has good reason for taking action.

It is this ideological ‘certainty’ that facilitated the defeat of Germany and Japan.

Some think that the problem is ‘certainty’ itself.  They think that if only everyone was uncertain, no one would do anything untoward.  But the perpetually ‘uncertain’ person is only prey to the ‘certain’ person.  No ‘certain’ person was ever defeated or defanged by ‘uncertain’ people.  No, it takes ideologically ‘certain’ people to defend the ‘uncertain’ ones.  Just as the nation of pacifists only exists because other nations are willing to do violence on their behalf, contemporary ‘humanitarians’ are only able to spew their relativism because people more in tune with actual reality go out and risk their lives.

These ‘humanitarians’, and the relativistic nature of contemporary society itself, is fueling the Islamic bloodshed.  Not only is it refusing to take action, but it stands in the way and obstructs people from taking the necessary actions.

These actions include equipping themselves and their own communities with a more robust ideology than their own, in order to obtain the kind of reasonable certainty that can rise and defeat Islamicism.

To sum up, in order to end Islamicism you need to:

1. Come to terms with the fact that Islamicism is only going to be defeated by humiliating Allah by completely annihilating any and all who do war in his name.

2. Come to terms with the fact that it is proper and right to do so, and not doing so will actually, in the long term, result in thousands, if not millions more dead.

3.  Come to terms with the fact that one cannot remain uncertain forever–one has to come to certain conclusions that they believe are reasonable and true and enforceable.

Heck, these days, I would settle for just being reasonably certain that ‘self-preservation’ is a valid principle.  But, given the conduct of Europeans and American liberals, it seems that they really are unsure about whether or not they are allowed to defend themselves.

4.  Obtaining the right kind of certainty means coming to grips with the fact that there is much more truth in certain theological and philosophical systems than people are currently comfortable with.

To put it bluntly, secular humanism simply does not correspond to the way the world really is, whereas Christianity does.

I am not calling for a war in the name of Christianity, here.  I am pointing out that secular humanism and its fangless ‘humanitarianism’ only has merit at all because it has borrowed capital from a Christian worldview–the very one that drove the United States, Canada, England, and Australia to batter Germany and Japan into utter submission.  There are derivative aspects of the Christian worldview that, like it or not, are the only firm foundation for taking action against evil regimes or ideologies.

To begin with, the Christian worldview can speak about ‘evil’ as if it was a real thing, not the simpering and insipid weak-kneed descriptions of terrorist incidents as if they were unfortunate expressions of misunderstood individuals who really just need a hug.

But it is Christianity that is under relentless attack in the West, rather than the Islamicists.  Why?  Well, Christians are an easier mark for simpering children.  Christianity has a reputation for not endorsing every sexual behavior under the sun, and that’s not cool, but they won’t cut off your head.  You gotta be careful with the Muslims, ya know?

And therein lies the problem… and the solution.

Islamicism must be completely defeated, while there is still time, but only the Christian worldview is manly enough to do the job.

If you’re not ok with that (and I don’t expect many to be ok with it) I totally understand.  No, really, I do.  Just get ready for the Caliphate to set up shop in your own town sometime in the perhaps not-too-distant future, because, from where I sit, there is nothing else on tap that can, or will, stop the Islamicists from doing their worst.  Or best, as they see it.

The exception, ironically, appears to be Russia.

But not, I think, because it is a secular state.

Share

Paris in Flames: Time to Get Political About Guns

Does everyone remember not too long ago when a school shooter in Oregon made sure the Christians he encountered were executed while only maiming some of the others?  Within hours, Dear Leader, aka, Obama, took to the air waves along with a host of other liberals, to call for more gun control.  Perhaps knowing in their heart of hearts that this was vile, disgraceful opportunism, they defended themselves.  The importance of the issue excused their disgusting behavior.

I was even more disgusted watching people come to their defense.

Well, the blood has not even dried in Paris, but I’m going to descend into the cesspit myself, anyway.

It can’t be bad, right?  The importance of the issue justifies it.  Right?

Nah.  It is vile, disgraceful, and disgusting.  Still, I’m going to do it (in part to highlight the hypocrisy of the Left) because what happened in Paris is a reflection of a far more imminent danger than random school shootings.  You see, the French blood was spilled only a few hours after the Dear Leader indicated that ISIS was licked.  That was the fantasy of the afternoon.  The harsh reality broke through at night.  Usually, it takes a decent passing of time between wishful thinking and the dashing of that thinking.  It is often long enough (a few days is usually sufficient) that people don’t even connect the two things together.  Today, though, it all went down in a matter of hours.

It takes a sheer act of the will, or self-delusion, to not see the bloody irony.

Does it sound like I’m angry?

Yes, but it is not for the reasons that liberals think.  It is not, as Dear Leader said, because I am a ‘bitter clinger.’  It is not, fundamentally, because I insist on having my rights, society be damned.  It is not, fundamentally, because I favor an abstract notion of liberty at the expense of the suffering of many.

No.

It is because liberal fantasies about the nature of man in general, and the nature of Islam in particular, are going to get us killed.

While the mainstream media has gone bonkers over the war on ‘micro-aggressions’, a gathering storm of bloodthirsty ideologues plots their next atrocity.  That is to say, while liberals pull their hair out inventing things to get offended by, Islamicists are inventing plans to slaughter people, both home and abroad.

You see, as a person who believes in ‘limited government’ principles, I actually believe that it is entirely appropriate for the government to defend its populace.  All the more so in a Republic such as the United States, where it is implicitly recognized within the structure of the government itself, that the government essentially carries out duties that properly and rightly belong to the citizens, but that citizens themselves, acting individually, could never perform.

I have the God-given right to defend myself and my family.  However much I can do this in the context of my home and local community, I cannot practically do what is necessary to ensure that China, or North Korea, or Russia, or Iran, or ISIS, or whatever other threat you wish to name, does not inflict harm on me or my family.  You know, I can’t be a spy, work for the NSA, pilot fighter jets, captain air craft carriers, and pull sentry duty, all simultaneously.  I just can’t.

And so, when I see a whole political party in my country spend countless millions on positively asinine programs while doing virtually nothing substantial to make sure that I don’t die at the hands of Islamicists… I get a little cranky.  Ok, I get really cranky.

Here is the problem.

The same delusional worldview that has given us a Middle East in flames is the very same that thinks they can do what is necessary to protect me and my loved ones from more ‘domestic’ threats.  That is to say, because of their completely screwed up understanding of the real nature of the world, they really think that various social programs (read:  a 99% increase of taxes and a 200% increase in innumerable bureaucracies) will be able to end crime.  Such as the kind of ‘crime’ where someone sets out to murder my family during the night, or dozens in a school.

But they can’t.  It will never happen.

And in saying this, I’m not expressing a cynical or pessimistic sentiment.  I’m calling attention to a fact that is inexorably true and real as gravity.  I can wish and hope that jumping off of a 100 foot building will end with me walking away giggling, but the actual result will be SPLAT.

As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.  And the same principles work on international affairs.

But the children who are in charge are incapable of recognizing this.

The result, as seen tonight in Paris, is death.

 

 

Share

The Logic of God and Creation and the Ignorance of Atheists

By calling some atheists ignorant, I don’t mean to be rude.   You are not a bad person just because you don’t know something.  However, when you offer an opinion about something, it is usually best to be informed, and, unless you are a propagandist at heart, you should seek to react to the actual view of something rather than a false view.  Or worse, a strawman.

To illustrate where this is going, consider Richard Dawkin’s epic, sustained, logical failure exhibited in his Delusion, where he writes, “I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Watan.”  and earlier, “[The God Hypothesis is that] there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and anything in it, including us.”

I attacked the stupidity of this at length, here.  It would seem that the very dim Richard Dawkins is so intellectually immature that he is thrown off by the mere fact that one word, ‘god’, has been used historically to cover any number of different concepts, many of which are incompatible or even contradictory.

It would be as if he opened the telephone book to the entry for “Smith, John” and, seeing the 500 mentions, assumed they all referred to the same person, just because the name was the same.  Or, in a somewhat more sophisticated example (I don’t want to strain Dawkins’ brain too much), it would be as if one heard the word “set”, without any other context, and assumed that there was no qualitative difference between its use in the phrases, “television set” and “set of numbers” and “set the table.”

The problem here is not high philosophy, but basic literacy.  I take that back;  presumably, Dawkins wouldn’t have a problem grasping that every instance of “Smith, John” refers to a different person. That the word ‘god’ flummoxes him suggests something else going on… something not of the intellect.

Dawkins says that he is not going to take into account the “particular qualities” of Yahweh, versus, say, Zeus, but wishes to test “The God Hypothesis”, which includes (and this is his phraseology, remember) the clause, “who deliberately designed and created the universe and anything in it, including us.”

Now, according to his own phrasing, the entity in question “created the universe and anything in it”, and pardon the redundancy, “including us.”  (italics mine).  And this, at least, can be said to legitimately fit within the definition of God as Christians describe God.  Yet, Dawkins will say elsewhere in his book, “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. God’s existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.”

No, it is not a scientific hypothesis.

By definition, agreed to tacitly by Dawkins himself, God is an uncreated entity that transcends the universe and is non-contingent. The universe conversely is, by definition, contingent.   The very hypothesis he means to test says that the universe is created.  In its entirety.  Including us.  (Pardon the redundancy.)

Now, just how exactly do folks like us, who are, by the definition of the hypothesis being tested, part of the created order and thoroughly enmeshed in it, escape that framework in order to scientifically detect God?

Obviously, this whole idea is absolute nonsense, unless there is an awful lot of baggage in the definition of ‘scientifically’ that is not being spelled out.

We will talk about that baggage shortly.  However, it is so important to really understand what the Christian is referring to when he argues for the existence of God, we need to spell it out a bit more. I’ll try to keep it simple.*

Let U (the universe) refer to the set of items, [A, B, C, P, Z].

Atheists assert that U exhausts the set of every item that is real, whereas Christians assert that U is a creation of G(od).

Now, Dawkins would like us to believe that Z(eus) is the same sort of thing as what Christians mean by G(od).  If Dawkins were right in his characterization, U would = [A, B, C, G, P, Z].  How it is that this is consistent with his assertion that G = “who deliberately designed and created the universe and anything in it”?  Does he really think that it is reasonable to suppose that something within the universe also created the universe, including HIMSELF?  (“and anything in it”)  God planned out his existence even before he existed?  Seriously?

Honestly, if you think that is plausible, you’ll believe anything.

But the Christian is not at all arguing that G is the sort of thing that could belong to the set, [A, B, C, P, Z].  No.  NoNo.  G is defined as an uncreated entity that is the cause and creator of U.  This is the definition of the thing they are arguing exists.  Since, by definition, G is outside of U, and P(eople) are thoroughly locked inside of U, unable to get outside of it themselves, it follows that P could never, in principle, directly detect G.  They may be able to directly detect Z, because Z is an entity within U, just as all P’s are.  But not G.

Note, I am not here arguing that we cannot determine that G really exists.  I wouldn’t be penning this post if that were the case.  But if you could directly detect G, then it would not, by definition, be G that you are detecting.

Now, you may have to read the above closely, but it is really pretty simple to understand.  So, read it a few times if you need to.

I have gone after Dawkins here because he is a bully and the father of bullies, and like all bullies, needs to be put in his place, lest they hurt someone.  However, the fundamental inability to comprehend and take into account what Christians mean by God leads to all sorts of completely fallacious viewpoints and beliefs and pervades atheistic ‘thought.’

I encountered this massive logical lapse in a recent conversation on Facebook, where the gentlemen asserted that there was no “logic at all to espousing creationism.”

To which I asked (paraphrasing), “Are you saying that it is fundamentally illogical about the idea of God–that is, anything illogical about the idea that there is a Creator?”  To which he said, “Not at all. There could be a God.”

Now, not every atheist would concede this, but this one did.  So, I was obviously perplexed.  How could someone seriously say that there was no logic “at all” to talking about creationism but allow that it was logical to talk about a Creator?  Surely if one accepts, even for the sake of argument, that there is a Creator, then at some level, some description of the universe as created must be rational.

I therefore asked, “If you agree that there could be a God–and that THAT at least is not illogical, then from that proposition it follows–logically speaking–the belief in some form of creationism. Would it not?”

The gentleman decided to give up this line, saying, “Ok. sure. I concede on the semantics.”

But this isn’t a matter of semantics.  It was clear that there was a fundamental misunderstanding about what was actually being disputed, so I pressed the point further.  Finally, he bowed out, saying, “IF God created something, we have yet to find out what that is. Teaching that God created something that he did not create is to simply lie. Lying about God does no one any good.”  And, “Not saying a God could not be a Creator.”

Notice that we are allowing for the sake of argument that God exists–and God as the Christians understand him:  an entity outside of the universe, who created it “and anything in it.” On this view, it is completely nonsensical to say “IF God created something” and struggle to find an example of something that is created by God, because everything in the universe, by definition is created by God.

Teaching that God created something that he did not create, on the Christian view of God, is to say something that is completely contradictory, like saying, “The Artist painted all of these paintings in this room.  If the Artist painted them, we have yet to find out which ones.  Teaching that the Artist painted them when he did not paint them is to simply to lie.”

Or, to put it in a somewhat more formal way:

Let it be accepted that, A.,  “The Artist (G) painted everything in the room (U).”

Now, given A., is there anything in the room the artist did not paint?

Given A., isn’t the only thing you could do is teach that the Artist painted everything in the room?

It is not a matter of inductively detecting creation.  That it is created is deduced.  It is part of the definition, just as in proposition A, the Artist is defined as the painter of everything in the room.

When testing the ‘God Hypothesis’ then, this aspect of the situation must be taken into account, or else you really aren’t proceeding fairly.  But the problem is compounded if you, yourself, are one of the paintings.  If you, yourself, are locked into the universe.

By definition, the Painter/God are qualitatively and substantially different in nature then the thing painted/created.  Precisely because of this fact, if you define “scientifically” as that exploration of reality that is expressly limited to testing it through processes themselves constrained to detecting only that which is within the Universe, then, obviously, you can never scientifically detect God.

But, since Dawkins, and this gentlemen, and most atheists, somehow think that God can be empirically detected as if he was an empirically existing entity like the atheists themselves, it cannot be science that they are appealing to.

To try to get to the bottom of this gentleman’s confusion, I asked, “I am assuming that you believe science should proceed on the basis of ‘methodological naturalism.’ Am I right in this assumption?

He never replied.

However, I think I am probably safe in believing that this is precisely what he thinks, as many atheists, and even many theists, think precisely this.

The term ‘methodological naturalism’ has some utility, but since it arises usually only in conversations like this one, most of the time it should be seen as nothing more than a fig leaf for ‘philosophical naturalism.’

In ‘methodological naturalism’, theoretically, inquiry proceeds without reference to or unwarranted invocation of an entity that exists outside of the universe.  But here again, if this was a guiding feature of what constitutes ‘science’, then, by definition, there is nothing–for, or against–that could be said, scientifically, about the putative existence of an entity said to exist outside the universe.

Nonetheless, the phrase ‘unwarranted invocation’ is what separates this perspective from ‘philosophical naturalism’, because it would still allow for at least the possibility that things may arise in our investigation into reality that would warrant an ‘invocation.’  But it would be an inference from observations.  It could not possibly be a direct observation, as if went out to check our traps in the woods and were amazed to have caught God, attempting to chew his leg off to get through the chains (because God transcends the universe, does not have legs, and created, controls, and sustains each and every atom in the chains).

So why then could this Facebook gentleman constantly appeal to science as ‘debunking’ creationism?

Because, in actuality, his actual outlook goes far beyond ‘methodological naturalism.’  The fig leaf is easily blown away, and we find that actually he does not have a reasoned argument against the existence of God.  He has assumed it.  His ‘method’ does not actually allow for even the possibility that the best explanation for the universe or some phenomena within it is an entity that is simultaneously transcendent and immanent to the universe.

The argument looks like this:

A.  There is no God.
B.  Whatever we observe, we always interpret as if there is no God, because, duh, see point A.
C.  There is no evidence for the existence of God.
D. You believe in God, therefore you are an idiot.

Because who believes in things that there is no evidence for?

Don’t laugh.  This is the actual form that most atheistic arguments from ‘science’ take.

In fact, I’ve seen the above even acknowledged and defended.  Seriously.  If you think that argument is reasonable, there really is no hope for you.  For our own safety, we may hope that at least you do not operate heavy machinery.

2,000 words in, I don’t really want to overwhelm the PZ-bots too much more, but it is very relevant (especially in regards to the other statements the Facebook gentleman made) to note that the ‘big’ things offered as ‘proof positive’ that Creation is ‘scientifically’ repudiated (even though that is nonsensical, in principle, as argued), are things that quite explicitly set out to explain aspects of reality on the basis of A., There is no God.

Darwin, for example, had the explicit goal to interpret the biosphere on the assumption that there was no God.  Likewise, Lyell, whose philosophical predilections demanded that he interpret the geological structures of the world without reference to even the possibility that something (ie, God) may have reached into the universe and done something extraordinary.

When co-discoverer of Darwinism, Alfred Russell Wallace, concluded, from the evidence, that the biosphere could not be cogently accounted for on naturalistic principles only, Darwin expressed concern, saying to him that he hopes “you have not murdered too completely your own & my child.”

So, is Darwinism actually true and supported by the evidence?  Or is it only the ‘only game in town’ when one cannot bear even the possibility that there may be a God?

I’m pretty sure it is the latter, which is why stating that creationist theories are ‘debunked’ by theories like Darwin’s, which begin with the premise that there is no God, have absolutely no weight whatsoever for anyone who really cares about logic… or even science, itself.

* So even PZ Myers can understand.  Between blog posts subsidized by tax payer dollars, he likes to Google himself.  He and his PZ-Bots are sure to come quickly, now.

 

 

 

 

Share

China Lifts One-Child Policy; Few Know It was Instigated and Applauded by Western Liberals

A bit of fascinating news, today:  China has lifted its ‘one-child’ policy and will now, in its divine benevolence, allow its citizens to have two children.

In its own way, this move is an acknowledgement of one of the greatest government-perpetrated ideological blunders of the 20th century, right up there with the mass famines resulting from the Soviet ‘scientific’ policies such as those advocated by Lysenko.  The Nazi T-4 project also comes to mind.  That program led to the elimination of tens of thousands of disabled and mentally ill people “for their own good” and “in the name of public health” and culminated in the Holocaust itself (the technology perfected in the T4 project for mass extermination was used in the concentration camps).

All of these instances and many more serve as case studies into how well-intentioned government bureaucrats can, merely by paper-shuffling and attending international conferences, inflict untold harm on millions and millions of people.  They should give us pause when contemplating the war our contemporary governments are gearing up for–the war on ‘climate change.’  When bureaucrats think they have ‘settled science’ on their side, there really are no lengths they are unwilling to go.

Which raises another important observation:  without fail, and with few exceptions, these horrors were instigated by Western liberals and progressives, and applauded right up until that moment when it was no longer politically expedient to do so.

The story of China’s one-child policy amazingly hasn’t even yet risen to that level!  Liberals still merely avert their eyes, rather than issue denunciations, even though it is a history of government thugs holding down women and forcibly aborting their unborn children, bulldozing homes of families who denied the policy, and so on, not to mention the cultural conditioning of the populace that led to hundreds of millions of abortions.   Add to this the demographic nightmare that China inflicted upon itself, with there being a huge disproportion between males and females in the country, and the creation of ‘dying rooms‘ for the discreet elimination of unwanted children, and it becomes clear that a huge ‘mistake’ was made.

The irony is that China is now acknowledging this, if only by their actions, but Western liberals still handle the issue with kid gloves, or even go so far as to advocate for the same type of policy implemented on the entire world, rather than just China.

For example, VP Biden saying to the Chinese:  “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”

China’s ‘one child’ policy can be traced back most directly to Malthus, who, in the early part of the 1800s argued that the world’s troubles were the result of competition for finite, scarce resources.  This principle inspired Darwin, who in turn inspired countless more to begin thinking in terms of populations ‘improving’ or ‘deteriorating’, with the general conclusion being that degenerate and defective humans who would normally have died off due to natural selection were now ‘weighing down’ society.  This bred the eugenics movement, which flourished in England and America and elsewhere.  It fell out of favor due to the Nazi expression of eugenics, but since the ‘science’ was settled, only the application flawed, the eugenicists refashioned their enterprise in terms of ‘population control.’

The people who held these positions understood them to be pretty much interchangeable terms speaking to the same goals.  (see this and this, for examples, and since many of my readers will object to the Darwinian reference, look at this).

Almost to a man, people who advocated for such measures were liberals, progressives, and/or secular humanists.  They had and have an unshakeable faith in ‘Science’ and mankind’s capacity, through big government interventions, to apply ‘Science’ effectively and efficiently.

How does this all tie into the one child policy?

Well, in the late 1960s and 1970s, ‘population control’ transitioned from a mostly privately sponsored endeavor to a publicly financed one.  Rather than only running parallel within individual countries, internationalists became involved.  The United Nations, the IPPF, UNFPA, the World Bank, and so on, began throwing huge dollars at the ‘problem.’

One offshoot of these internationalists called themselves (and still call themselves) the Club of Rome.  Their “Limits of Growth” document of 1972 was the most direct incipient cause of China’s one child policy.

The account of how that happened, and the various government agencies, both nationally and internationally, that were and are ‘working’ on that problem, pouring billions and billions of dollars into the effort, is told in this article by Robert Zubrin.  You should read every word of that article, not just the section on China, because many of the charges I’ve made in this post and others on this blog are corroborated and illuminated by it. Zubrin’s Merchants of Despair is one of the finest discussions I know of that recounts the whole history of the population control movement more or less how I myself would tell it.

Here is an excerpt, though:

In June 1978, Song Jian, a top-level manager in charge of developing control systems for the Chinese guided-missile program, traveled to Helsinki for an international conference on control system theory and design. While in Finland, he picked up copies of The Limits to Growth and Blueprint for Survival — publications of the Club of Rome, a major source of Malthusian propaganda — and made the acquaintance of several Europeans who were promoting the reports’ method of using computerized “systems analysis” to predict and design the human future.

Fascinated by the possibilities, Song returned to China and republished the Club’s analysis under his own name (without attribution), establishing his reputation for brilliant and original thinking. Indeed, while Club of Rome computer projections of impending resource shortages, graphs showing the shortening of population-increase times, and discussions of “carrying capacities,” “natural limits,” mass extinctions, and the isolated “spaceship Earth” were all clichés in the West by 1978, in China they were fresh and striking ideas. In no time at all, Song became a scientific superstar. Seizing the moment to grasp for greater power and importance, he pulled together an elite group of mathematicians from within his department, and with the help of a powerful computer to provide the necessary special effects, issued the profoundly calculated judgment that China’s “correct” population size was 650 to 700 million people — which is to say some 280 to 330 million less than its actual 1978 population. Song’s analysis quickly found favor at top levels of the Chinese Communist Party because it purported to prove that the reason for China’s continued poverty was not thirty years of disastrous misrule, but the very existence of the Chinese people. (To make the utter falsity of Song’s argument clear, it is sufficient to note that in 1980, neighboring South Korea, with four times China’s population density, had a per capita gross national product seven times greater.) Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping and his fellows in the Central Committee were also very impressed by the pseudo-scientific computer babble Song used to dress up his theory — which, unlike its Club of Rome source documents in the West, ran unopposed in the state-controlled Chinese technical and popular media.

Song proposed that China’s rulers set a limit of one child per family, effective immediately.

Zubrin’s book also treats National Security Study Memorandum 200, which is a little known document generated at Nixon’s direction and produced by Henry Kissinger.  Gerald Ford ordered that the memo be made national policy.  Carter probably followed suit.  The memo remained secret until about 1989, when it was flushed out into the open.  Stunningly, this US policy effectively called for the depopulation of the earth… beginning with thirteen countries… and stating plainly that we should advocate for nothing around the globe that America is not willing to do to itself.

(I have begun compiling my research on NSSM-200 and posting it on this webpage: http://nssm200.com/)  The Nixon-Ford endorsement of these plans represent some of the few exceptions to the rule that liberals and progressives are the ones that spearhead such things.  But then, Nixon and Ford alike seemed to have the same ‘affinity’ for ‘big government’ solutions.  That is to say, they may have been Republicans, but they were hardly ‘limited government’ advocates!

The bottom line here is that the failure of China’s one child policy is really representative of the failure of countless ideologues whose guiding principles, ethical viewpoints, and ‘scientific’ conclusions fueled China’s policy in the first place. These ideologues also set the direction for public policy in countless other countries, and of course internationally as well.

While many of these ideologues have died and cannot see their failures, many of them are alive and well, and still very much in power.  (eg., John Holdren)

I led off with the examples of the T4 project and the starvation of millions of people in the Soviet bloc in connection to China’s failed ‘family planning’ program because there are some other things they have in common that are instructive.

It is a historical fact that the Nazis and Communists borrowed heavily for ‘progressive’ viewpoints that circulated in the West.  Indeed, American progressives at the time were jealous of the Germans and Russians.  They all had the same ideas, you see, but only in those countries could they actually be implemented.

For example, in 1934, a prominent American public official named Joseph Dejarnette, lamented, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”

And famed geneticist and fervent eugenicist (pardon the redundancy) H.J. Muller believed that the ‘nature vs nurture’ element confounded all attempts to implement eugenics proposals, because unless everyone was in the same environment, one could never tell if it was ‘nature’ that was really winning out; only in Soviet Russia did he perceive that there was a chance that a level playing field could be established–so to Soviet Russia he went.  And from which he would flee for his life, after he fell out of favor.  He landed in the United States, the only place safe from the effects of his own proposals.

Many would consider it an accident of history that these ideas happened to manifest so horribly in Germany, Russia, and ChinaThe reason things went so poorly in those places, they might say, was due to cultural realities on the ground, there.  Certainly, cultural components shaped how these policies unfolded, but this ignores the most important truth of all:  it was only in these countries that the governments had free rein to implement the policies.

To put it differently, liberals often behave as though they could really perfect society, if only the reactionaries, religionists, and traditionalists would get out of the way.  But in each of these three cases, there was nothing to stand in the way of their policies being implemented.  Not only was it the case that a perfect society was NOT created, but the exact opposite occurred.

Blood was spilled on an epic scale, people were subjective to horrific abuses, and they never did solve the problem(s) they set out to solve!  They always made matters worse!

As we ponder the end of China’s ‘one child’ policy, we would do well to remember that it is rooted in certain principles and policy ideas that were common in the past, and common today, too, even here in the West.  But we should also bear in mind that the ‘one child’ policy was a real world test of liberal policies, free of the obstacles raised by grumpy white Christian males vying for inclusion on the Southern Poverty Law’s domestic terrorism list.  Like all other real world tests of liberal policies that proceeded unhindered by such opposition, the one child policy failed, and failed miserably.

Keep this in mind as liberals in the West patiently strip away every meaningful check and balance.  Like a dog that returns to its vomit, they will not be able to resist trying out their ideas yet again.  It will be ‘for our own good’ and ‘in the name of public health’ but it would be madness to believe, really, that the actual effect will be at all different than their previous attempts.

Climate change is the area where this is most likely to be explored in the near future.  The first and second amendments our latter-day HJ Mullers’ salvation.

Share

The Gospel According to Gun Control

On the face of it, liberal arguments for gun control are utterly irrational, with no redeeming value whatsoever, except, perhaps, the good intentions that we charitably allow are genuine.   The internal inconsistencies of the arguments, and the complete detachment from reality that they represent, leave one baffled.  The position can be understood, however, if you lay hold of the central guiding principle that drives all the rest of it.

Let’s consider some of the strange things that are often said in favor of gun control.  The first one is one that will gain new significance by the end of this essay.  It goes basically like this:  we need gun control laws to prevent gun-related crime.   The argument is plainly incoherent–a person who is prepared to commit a gun-related crime is already prepared to circumvent any additional laws.   The actual effect of any gun control laws must always be the disarmament of law-abiding individuals (the only ones who would obey such laws) and rendering them defenseless against those who, by definition, could not care less about gun control laws.

Another argument invokes ‘public health.’  It certainly is true that in regions with a disarmed citizenry, gun-related homicides drop.  But other crime rates increase, such as assault and battery, rape, and so on.  It’s not that the numbers of violent criminals decrease.  If anything, more criminals are emboldened to use violence, because they have less to fear from their victims.

But the public health argument rings especially hollow when we look in vain for the kind of outrage at car accidents, drownings, stabbings, etc, that we see with gun incidents.  In the face of such disproportionate reactions, I find this CDC database a good reality check.

And finally, the vapid inconsistency of the pro-gun control position is laid bare when we ask them how it is they plan on enforcing such laws, or preventing terrorism, or standing up to hostile foreign states, when all three categories are chock full of “gun totin'” ‘bitter clingers.’  And then we find out that the liberals aren’t opposed to guns so much as they are opposed to guns in private hands.  The Government can have as many as they like.

There is a big problem with this.  The ‘Government’ is still composed of humans, and humans, whether in the government or not, are just as fallible as any other human.   The idea that the Government (read:  humans) could become emboldened to murder, assault, or rape the citizenry should it be disarmed is deemed laughable by liberals, despite the clear testimony of history that this is more the rule than the exception.  And by history I include, like, as recently as last week.

The greatest public health threat involving lethal force is not the school shooter, or the mobster, or the thug.  Go ahead and do the math if you like.  Add up all ‘private’ homicides that you can document and compare it to ‘murder by government’.  The latter far surpasses the former in every century of human history.  Despite this verifiable fact of history, there is still cackling when it is proposed that such a thing could ever happen in the so-called ‘civilized’ countries, such as the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and so on.  But there are reasons why these countries are ‘civilized,’ and it has a lot to do with checks and balances–nearly all of which have been stripped away, or are being stripped away, in every country named.  The values that made these countries ‘free’ have in many ways been outright repudiated by moderns.  ‘Murder by Government’ may happen overnight, but the conditions that make it possible in the first place sometimes stew for decades.

So, how is it that liberals have no objection to an armed government but pull their hair out if private individuals want to be able to defend themselves and their families?    Why can’t they accept very simple, virtually self-evident logical truisms, such as ‘law breakers won’t obey gun laws’?  Let me explain.

The reason why they contort themselves so violently to avoid obvious truths is because there is one Obvious Truth that they fear most of all.

To concede that the force of law is inadequate to check human violence is to concede that there is something very sick about the human race.  Liberals tend to view humans as just another kind of animal, a herd, if you will, that can be managed by careful conditioning.  Think Pavlov and his dog.  If you just pass a law, they think, they can, through indoctrination and public health campaigns, end crime, increase happiness, and so on.  Humans don’t actually function this way, and never will, but to acknowledge this is to acknowledge certain facts about what it means to be human that undercut their entire worldview.

Their allowance that the government will have to be armed represents a pragmatic concession to reality that simultaneously reflects their hope in Progress.  The reality is that the world is filled with tyrants, dictators, corrupt generals, roaming militia armies, terrorists, and the like, and not even the silliest liberal believes that these people will lay down their weapons just because someone wags their finger at them.  Thus, they reluctantly allow that the government must be armed for the same reason that gun rights people believe that they need to be armed:  despite whatever we wish were the case, there are bad people out there that can only be stopped by violence, or the threat of violence, that is equal to that which the bad people would themselves like to inflict.

Liberals allow for an armed government because they know that regimes like North Korea will not be deterred by a posted sign, “Do not invade.”  Just like a “No gun” sign will not deter an active shooter.

The difference in all this is that the liberal cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there really is a bad person.

If they did, then they would allow for the very real possibility that a person in government could also be bad.  They would recognize that it is not just possible–but a continual occurrence in history–for groups of bad people to take the reins of power in their city, region, or country, and then do very bad things.

But to acknowledge that there are bad people and that there are genuinely bad things is to bring one face to face with the existence of a objective standard, and the patently obvious fact that humanity collectively falls short of that standard at every turn.  In short, it would mean acknowledging not only that there are bad people, but that they themselves are a bad person, indeed, that we are all bad–everyone of us.

Here, then, is the reason why there isn’t outrage over ‘public health’ tragedies that have injuries and fatalities that often far exceed gun-related homicides.  A crashed up automobile does not challenge one’s conception of a human.  Nor do pool drownings.  It is often said in retort that the difference is that guns intrinsically have only one purpose–to kill.   (That is not true; most people with guns have good reason to believe that the mere presence of the gun makes the use of the gun unnecessary.)    Guns certainly do have an intrinsic element to them that do not exist in regards to car crashes and drownings:  their mere existence calls attention to the fact that there are bad people who cannot be stopped any other way than to kill them.

The liberals hope, without good reason, that by taking away the guns, they will obscure the real truth about human nature.

All this talk about there being ‘bad’ people puts the liberal right at the edge of a dangerous implication.  (Dangerous to their worldview, that is.)

Long before liberals resisted the plain logical rebuttals to their gun control laws, they resisted the plain logical fact that it is nonsensical to talk about anything being ‘good’ or ‘bad’ if there isn’t some kind of objective standard.  No one, not even a liberal, actually lives as though there isn’t a real good, because even they understand that it would be a demented person indeed who thought that “I think vanilla ice cream is bad” and “I think murdering humans is bad” is substantially the same kind of statement.

But to acknowledge this is to recognize immediately that we have all fallen short of a standard that must transcend humans themselves.

The Obvious Truth lurks behind every turn:  there is a God, and we are not Him.  God made us Good, but everyone of us has Fallen.  We are in desperate need of a Savior.

The liberal senses the need of a Savior as much as anyone else, but since acknowledging the Obvious Truth is intolerable to them,* they flail about in search of another one.  Thus, in the end, they come to  believe that the Government can be that Savior, history be damned.

I see the above reasoning working in reverse in my own life.  One of my most ‘liberal’ perspectives that I had growing up was that we should have more gun control.  At the same time I was digging deep into my study of history, and in particular the rise of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, I was confronted with G.K. Chesterton’s assertion that original sin “is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”

Proved empirically, mind you.  And not just in the world ‘out there,’ but in my own heart.

As my conviction grew that humans were by nature fallen (which necessarily implies a high station from which to fall from!), my conviction grew that no human–whether in the Government or out of it–should be allowed unchecked access to power.

Theoretically, someone could come to this conclusion without also endorsing genuinely liberal gun laws, but we are far from having such a conversation.  Where we stand now is a host of people living in abject defiance of reality as it really is:  denying the nature of criminals, the nature of humanity, the real history of Government, the existence of an objective moral law–which we have all fallen short of, and the plain implication that if there is an objective moral law there is an objective moral law giver:  the Obvious Truth.

And finally, the real fact that we need a Savior, and no legislation or policy initiative or health department program will ever, by virtue of being human (read: corrupted), will be able to do the job.  Thus, Gun Control laws represent one aspect of the secular equivalent of the Gospel, except devoid of Reason.  Once Reason is brought to bear, we inexorably arrive at a point where we need real good news, a real Gospel.

And there is only one Contender.

* usually because they feel it would stifle their sex lives, but sometimes also because they desperately want to rob from the rich with a clean conscience.

 

Share

The Rise and Fall of Scott Walker’s Presidential Fortunes

So word is dribbling out that Gov. Scott Walker is withdrawing from the 2016 presidential race.  As a staunch Christian-constitutionalist-libertarian-republican-conservative, I think the move is a good one.  However, it is only ‘good’ if the right lessons are learned, and already I’m hearing a bunch of junk that just isn’t true.

I say that as someone who lives in the state that Walker is presently the governor of and who has better than average insight into what Walker’s supporters… or shall I say, former supporters… are really thinking.  True, my anecdotal impressions can’t uncritically be applied to the whole ‘conservative base,’ but I think that the meteoric rise of Donald Trump is a powerful piece of evidence that what I’ve witnessed locally and regionally is what is at play nationally.

Walker should listen up.  More importantly, the GOP should listen up.  This is important.

The wrong lessons were hinted to in this article, reporting that Walker was withdrawing:

Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.

In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.

What, pray tell, were those missteps?  Not shaking up his campaign staff?  Ridiculous.  And why should his position decrease as Trump’s increase?  Is it because, as I heard Ed Rollins just say on Fox News, that Walker was collateral damage due to the massive anti-establishment fervor that has pumped up Trump?  Nonsense.   The reason why Walker was doing so well, even before he formally entered the race, was because the ‘base’ was under the impression (and for good reason) that Walker was not an establishment candidate.   Walker’s ‘missteps’ largely consisted of not backing Trump’s play regarding illegal immigration and other ‘over the top’ positions that Trump took.   Walker tried to present himself as the mature but genuine conservative candidate (in contrast to Trump) but it instead looked like capitulation to all the same crap that rank and file Republicans are in rebellion against.

The above linked article says:

But Mr. Trump’s surge as a political outsider galvanized grass-roots Republicans who are angry at all conventional politicians, and he drew support more from Mr. Walker than from anyone else.

Why was it more from Mr. Walker than anyone else?  If it was the ‘political outsider’ aspect, then Mr. Walker would have never had the numbers that could justify a characterization such as “politically invincible.”

No.

It was a question of courage and conviction and the willingness to stick it to the Left the way the Left has been sticking it to the Right, from like, forever.  The base believed that Walker was going to be willing to do that, but whenever there was any kind of media backlash against what were genuinely and sincerely (if expressed passionately and clumsily) stated conservative convictions, Walker became mute.  If anything, it seemed like he was trying to avoid the ire of the media.   The most gracious interpretation of that behavior was that he was trying to appeal to independents and ‘Reagan Democrats.’  Instead, it came across as cowardice… and isn’t it clear by now that along with beating on liberals, what we want out of a leader is someone who will pummel the media relentlessly and unapologetically?

The grass roots don’t care what the media says.  We don’t trust them.  They lie.  We despise them.  And in this, we are only returning the favor–the media is just the propaganda arm for the Democrat party.

But there was weakness on the home front, too.  Walker took credit for making Wisconsin a right-to-work state, but the strong rumor here in Wisconsin is that he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that fight.  The aforementioned article says:

Mr. Walker moved to the right, taking hawkish positions on immigration, signing an anti-union bill in Wisconsin and asking the state Legislature to send him a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks. [emphasis added]

Asking the legislature to send him a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks?  This must be the “Pain Capable” bill.  The conservatives I know–in particular the pro-life ones, since that is my own area of effort–weren’t exactly impressed by this because this is all that Mr. Walker has done.  There are, as we speak, at least 3 stridently pro-life bills working their way through the legislature and, as of this writing, I have not heard a peep from Walker’s office that he will sign those into law.   And I have called his office twice to demand an explanation.   A ban on abortion after 20 weeks is a good step in the right direction, but will not have nearly the impact that defunding Planned Parenthood or telling the ‘researchers’ at the University of Madison to pound sand if they want to trade in fetal baby parts.

The way it looks from here, Walker didn’t want to cause too much more controversy than he already had, with the result that, frankly, a lot of Republicans who had went out on a limb for conservative values (and for him) were being left high and dry.

You have to understand, in Wisconsin, the Republicans have majorities in the House, in the Senate, and in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  And the governorship.   You cannot get a better signal from Wisconsin citizens that they want to see Republican values implemented throughout the state, and yet since Walker’s re-election, only modest steps in that direction have been taken, and largely at the instigation of other Republicans in the state.  Over the last nine months or so, I have seen conservative support for Walker grow increasingly lukewarm, and I’m sure this is why:  Many wonder if Walker’s presidential aspirations had taken priority over Walker’s conservative principles.

With his own support in Wisconsin growing tepid, you can well understand how the chill wind might put a damper on his national numbers, too.  The reason why Trump sucked up support from Walker, primarily, is because people became less convinced that Walker was going to act on his convictions, and absolutely convinced that Trump would.

In my opinion, Walker has not lost the trust and confidence of the rank and file who elected him.  I think he will make an excellent candidate for 2020, but only if he implements Republican values with the same audacity that Democrats agitate for their own.

And this is a lesson to the rest of the GOP… the candidates and the ‘establishment.’  You are a stench in our nose.  If we wanted liberal policies implemented in the Federal government, we’d vote for a liberal.  We don’t want a Big Government.  STOP MAKING IT BIGGER AND APOLOGIZING FOR ANY HINT OR SUGGESTION OF MAKING IT THE TEENSIEST BIT SMALLER.  If you keep promoting liberal policies, why would we keep voting for you? It makes no sense at all.   Go big, or go home.  Go home, because we have no use for you.

You’ll never persuade people that conservative values are superior to liberal ones, if you never implement them and you seem afraid to even mention them, let alone criticize the liberal ones!

Good luck, Scott Walker.  I look forward to seeing the warrior emerge from you again.

Share

The REAL “Jaffe Memo”

Jaffe Memo - Horvath - image - featured imageI have been referencing the “Jaffe Memo” for some time in presentations and Jaffe on this blog.  It is a chilling look at the values and motivations of the ‘movers and shakers’ in the pro-abortion community, especially several decades ago, when they were working like mad to get abortion on demand legalized throughout the United States.  Far from being a matter of a “woman’s choice”, and with no regard whatsoever for a “woman’s health”, the primary concern had to do with the number and quality of the people on the earth.  The underlying ideology of ‘family planning’ was distinctly eugenic in nature, and had morphed into the ‘population control’ movement of the 1960s and 1970s.  Whether or not these values and beliefs drive organizations such as Planned Parenthood to this day is precisely the concern that people have–and the “Jaffe Memo” is the most succinct display of those values in action, from their own mouths, that I am aware of.  Hence, the reason I use it so much.  (Better than asking people to read fifty books!)

The silence of the pro-abortionists on the “Jaffe Memo” seemed to suggest that it was an incontrovertible piece of evidence, but still, I had never tracked down the original just to make sure that what I had matched what Jaffe actually produced.  Never, until recently, that is.

In the main, the reproduction that is in wide circulation is pretty good.  However, in comparing the two, it became clear that there were some areas where even better accuracy would have given even better insight.  For example, on the old one, the words “Chronic Depression” are bolded, implying that it is some kind of sub-category.  But in the original memo, if you can believe it, it is actually just one more idea they had for controlling the population!  Yikes!

A more significant insight is gained by looking at the top left on the old one, where you see the two headings:  “Universal Impact” and “Selective Impact Depending on Socio-Economic Status.”  They kind of just float out there, and didn’t line up with anything.  In my mind, I sort of lumped them in with the other ‘bolded’ items, as being categories of some sort.  But, in the original, as interpreted by reading the full memo, it becomes more clear that what Jaffe is getting at is that some of the measures are only going to work on those with a lower ‘socio-economic status.’  That is–those things will be most effective when employed against black people.

The racial overtones are undeniable when one reads Jaffe’s full memo (although he does not write as one endorsing the elimination of the black race) and made emphatic when one sees, on the original memo, stated that he is deriving some of his ideas from William Shockley (a eugenicist), who undeniably saw such things in racial terms.  These attributions are not present on the version of the memo that is widely being circulated right now.

We do need to put one thing to rest, though.  People who have defended Planned Parenthood have done so by protesting that Jaffe was ‘merely’ tabulating some of the ideas that were ‘out there.’  As a case in point, here is what the archivist with the Rockefellers had to say:

jaffe memo note - croppedIt is not at all a coincidence that the Rockefellers would lie like this.  They are as complicit in this as anyone.  But that’s another blog post.

The deception is revealed merely by looking at the materials which they provided.  Assuming someone is just barely literate, they can quickly determine that the full memorandum, as well as the “Review of the Literature” by Elliott, et. al, are internal documents that have the explicit purpose of helping Planned Parenthood determine the shape of their actions.  No, the documents do not in themselves recommend any particular course of action… that’s true.. but neither do they condemn any particular course of action, and, worst of all, are perfectly willing to consider any of them, should they be convinced that they are viable and/or necessary!

Which is the whole point being made by people who use the “Jaffe Memo” to illustrate the evil that we’re maintaining is entrenched in the Planned Parenthood organization and mindset!

I dare say that if any Christian pro-lifer laid down a list of ideas on how to achieve their aims, and included on it something like, “forbid women from working”, the fact that no one picked that up and thought to implement it would make no difference.  If that person said, “I was just reviewing the literature!’ there would still be no mercy.   The hypocrisy from the pro-choice side is stomach-turning.

That the documents had the purpose that I have stated is, as I said, explicitly described:

Purpose of Jaffe Memo ReviewI added the yellow line, because I am not certain that Supreme Court justice John Roberts has the basic literacy skills enough to see the connection.  Hint:  “as a basis for discussion of and action on […] by the Planned Parenthood national organization.”

From Jaffe’s own memorandum, we also see how his purpose was to generate ideas that they could seriously consider implementing.  Because he then goes on to reference the racial component to their considerations, I let the quote go on a little further, and underlined that part.

Purpose of Jaffe Memo by JaffeSo, we can dispense with this ridiculous idea that “Jaffe was merely cataloging various proposals for population control advocated by others, not Planned Parenthood” and learning about the “sources of the proposals” actually supports the opposite view, that these are sick, twisted people.

The obvious question is this:  so just what did Planned Parenthood decide?  I think that if you take this memo as your starting point, and are guided by the principle “by their fruits you will know them,” you will be able to come up with some pretty good ideas.  Whether or not we ever find the same kind of documentation to prove it, is an entirely different story.

Without further ado, here is the corrected “Jaffe Memo” which you can also download as a PDF:  Jaffe_Memo__--_Horvath.pdf (211.5 KiB, 1,108 hits)

Jaffe Memo - Horvath - image

For your reference, here is the absolutely original memo… you can see why it has been reproduced… it is a bit hard to read:

Jaffe Memo TableAs for the full memo, you can download and review it, here:  Original Jaffe Memo — Horvath Compilation

And for the Elliot ‘review of literature’ it can be read, here:  FPP-US-PopGrowthLitReview — Horvath

For real fun, track down the ‘sources’ for Jaffe’s brainstorming listed at the bottom of his memo!  Good stuff!

HT Dave Jaffe, Frederick Jaffe’s own son!

Share

The Teaserguide WordPress Hack

This problem surfaced for me on some of my WordPress sites beginning in August.  A Google search shows many compromised sites, but not a lot of people talking about it.  I will talk about my solution to the problem and hope that someone figures out a permanent fix.

This hack displays itself by redirecting the users to some other sites.  The sites have changed each time, and so has the path the redirects have taken.  In one case, the redirect started with something to ‘teaserguide.com’ and then went through four or five different websites before finally landing on one.  The intermediate sites appear to be for the purpose of padding traffic statistics.  You can watch this progression by looking at the pages loading in the bottom left of your browser (for me, Firefox).

The teaserguide.com domain is registered in Russia.

Here is what I discovered when trying to resolve this issue.

First of all, there were two or more lines of script added to the header.php file in one or more of my themes.  These lines had to be deleted.  The way they appear displayed on the website is like this:

teaser-guide-script-3

You can see from the element inspector that the nefarious script creates an iframe.  You can see the row of black squares at the top left.  You can stop the page from redirecting without removing these lines, and you can remove them and still have the page redirect, because this is only part of the problem.

Along with the change to the header.php file, a change was made to the .htaccess file.

Below the normal WordPress rewrite rules was this line:

RewriteRule ^oe/(.*)$ /openx-adm.php?$1 [L]

Deleting this line in the .htaccess file pretty much ended the redirects.  But it also revealed the fact that they had inserted some other files on the server.  I was able to find them using Clam virus scanner and manually, by inspecting the directories.

I didn’t bother to try to figure out what the connection was between all of of these modifications, because it seems to me that all they would need to do is make the change to the .htaccess file to get everything they needed.   But there presumably is some relationships.

It was the change to the .htaccess file that has me most concerned.  I had the most up to date WordPress and my plugins and themes were updated, too.  The passwords were changed and were solid.  Nonetheless, they still managed to get in and change the htaccess file and modify the headers.

Finally, I went through and played with the permissions of the files and directories.  I found one or two that seemed to be borderline to lax, and that was enough for me to go through and reset them all.  It took a while to find the right permission scheme for the files and directories to get the site to work the way it was supposed to, but now that I’ve done that, at least as of this writing, I have not been hacked again on that particular domain.

I am beginning to suspect that the way they are getting ‘in’ is not through a compromised password, but through a WordPress file with a default permission that is not secure enough.  I just don’t know how they are getting ‘in.’

On one of my domains that was compromised, the whole install is password protected by Cpanel.  You can’t even get to the domain without going through the directory privacy feature.  Out of millions of WordPress users, I’m probably one of only a handful that has that level of protection on their installation, but they still got ‘in.’  So, while the above may be an effective way to restore your site, please don’t think that this is the solution for keeping them ‘out’ in the first place.  I don’t know they are getting in.

If this has been helpful to you, buy one of my books

 

Share