John Dickson: Hugh “…Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised.”

It’s blindingly foolish to claim that Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, and Jesus are different.

For anyone who missed the easily understood story: Jesus is Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus is God, period.

Yet it’s become “a thing” to talk about how Jesus wants us to be compassionate to one another which is really a way of saying “Hey Christian, shut your mouth about God and truth but open your wallet and pay to fix all the problems that godless people have created.”

No surprises but that sounds a heck of a lot like Communism. If you can’t see it though, don’t strain yourself.

Frankly, either you quote Jesus on God’s judgment on the godless and the establishment of his rule over the nations or you don’t get to quote him.

You can’t ignore the topics Jesus speaks predominantly on – like judgment on the Godless, the lake of fire, the coming kingdom of God where Jesus rules the nations – in favour of the ones that atheistic Marxisxs accept to further their dominance in Western society.

Nonetheless, on a regular basis someone who totally rejects the biblical scriptures and Jesus own testimony of who he is will come out and attempt to tell all of us exactly why Jesus only cares about social justice issues and how to treat people.

Welcome to the May 2016 edition of that farce.

For good measure, here is a great response to said farce:

To suggest Jesus never told anyone what to believe in is not only historically wrong, it misses the essential connection between what we believe and how we treat others, writes John Dickson.

At the Sydney Writers’ Festival yesterday, the much loved social commentator and author of The Good Life and Beyond Belief Hugh Mackay opined about the teacher at the root of Western ethics: “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

My colleagues in the room – experts on this stuff – raised an eyebrow. The festival social media department thought the remark worthy of an immediate verbatim tweet.

Who knows whether Mackay’s words were a throwaway line or studied aphorism. But they are inaccurate in the extreme, both as a religious statement and as a historical one. Mackay may come from the modern school of thought that says that religion is not really a proper field of study. Anyone is therefore allowed a firm view without reference to “experts”. I mean, how can someone be an expert in something that doesn’t exist? And so on.

But forget religion. What about history? What do our first-century texts say Jesus said? I’ll spare you the long list, but what struck me once I gave this five minutes’ thought is the way almost all of the paradigmatic statements in the Gospels urge beliefs as the logical basis of ethics.

The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel opens with the words, “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The most famous sermon of Jesus, in other words, begins with a reminder that he is not just looking for moral riches but a humble recognition of our moral poverty as the key that unlocks the door to God’s kingdom. There’s a bit of belief in there.

Or consider the opening words of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel: “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel”. There’s that pesky “kingdom” stuff again, and a call to believe it all – as “gospel”.

Luke’s Gospel is often thought to contain the most “ethical Jesus”, with loads and loads of material about caring for the poor, being a Good Samaritan, and all that. The opening manifesto of Jesus in Luke declares, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners … to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” As so often in the Gospels, God’s grace and favour are the drivers of the grace and favour we are meant to show others.

What about the fourth Gospel? John has Jesus sum up the work of God in this way: Jesus says, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

It’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit.

Of course, a sceptic like Hugh Mackay might reply that these key passages represent the opinions of the Gospel writers not Jesus. Jesus, he might suggest, is authentically heard only in the humanitarian stuff about “loving enemies” and “turning the other cheek”. But maybe it’s the other way around. Perhaps the real Jesus only ever banged on about believing theological stuff, and it was the Gospel writers who invented the ethical material Mackay prefers. That’s the point: Mackay is just picking and choosing.

In truth, neither caricature is likely. Everywhere you look, Jesus appears to have endorsed the old-fashioned idea which Mackay wants us to abandon: namely, that what you believe about ultimate things impacts how you think you should treat others.

Two further examples bear this out clearly. When asked by an expert in the Jewish tradition, “Which is the greatest commandment?” Jesus replied that there were actually two great commands: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it: love your neighbour as yourself.” Like it or not, Jesus probably thought the religious hypocrite was in exactly the same position as the moral agnostic. The former cares for God but ignores people; the latter cares for people but ignores the source of all reality. Jesus would have condemned both.

And when Jesus himself summarised all his beautiful sayings about “love your enemies”, “do good to those who hate you”, and “turn the other cheek”, he concluded the speech with, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” Here we find the inner logic of all that Jesus taught about ethics: it is precisely because mercy is at the heart of God that it is also the central ethical principle of the universe.

I am almost tempted to say that Jesus never taught people “how to treat each other” without grounding it in stuff we are “meant to believe” about ultimate things, including God and his kingdom.

Read charitably, Hugh Mackay is trying to open up an important discussion about the role of “beliefs” – or fundamental convictions – in shaping ethics. Jesus is a bad example to use, but I agree it’s a vital public conversation to have.

Personally, I reckon Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised. It seems obvious to him that we should be humble, love our enemies, and show compassion to the destitute. But, historically, these things were connected with religious ideas in the West about the inestimable value of human beings made in God’s image, the love and mercy of God for all, and so on. These particular morals – humility, love, etc – played no role in the ethics of Greece and Rome for the simple reason that Greeks and Romans did not believe that everyone was made in God’s image or that God loved everyone the same. Their different beliefs led to different moral emphases.

I would love to see a genuine debate about whether one can logically justify an ethic of love, humility, and compassion – things Mackay admires so much – without appealing to the “kingdom of heaven” Jesus spoke so much about. I don’t think we can. I think it’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit rather than a logical match between fundamental realities and human ethics. I could be wrong, but it’s a debate that needs to be had. And if we’re going to have it, important public intellectuals like Hugh Mackay need to do better than give us quotable memes like “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

Mackay’s sad hope will not comfort him or anyone else when Jesus is established on the throne of the nations and executes long deserved judgment on everyone who refuses to belief exactly what the Truth proclaims is truth.

Do yourself a favour and get to know Jesus for yourself – he cares infinitely more about your future than Hugh Mackay does.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/dickinson-can-we-love-our-enemies-in-a-godless-world/7433288

Advertisements

The Problem Of The West: Socialist Policy, Low Birth Rates And Growing Muslim Immigration

Daniel Greenfield sums up a lot of the problems in the West right here:

Daniel Greenfield: There’s an old Hemingway quote about going bankrupt. How did you go bankrupt? Two ways, gradually and then suddenly. Here in the United States, we’ve had a front row seat to gradual bankruptcy. What does that mean? Under Obama, good policies have been replaced by bad policies. Good money has been replaced by bad money. Debt has been piled up in every state of the union. We have the same speech. The state of the union is strong. We’re investing trillions of dollars in Muslim, green energy self-esteem. Of course, that’s not an investment because an investment is when you get money back. It’s just spending, but that’s how you go bankrupt. And at the end of the day, the bill comes due and suddenly it’s, “Where did all the money go?” “How did we suddenly go bankrupt?”

Now demographic bankruptcy is also a very real thing. Economic bankruptcy is when you have no more money. You wake up one morning. There’s no more money. Demographic bankruptcy is when you wake up one morning. There are no kids, and this is a very real problem. You’ve heard China is abandoning its one-child policy. It’s now going to be a two-child policy. Germany though has a one-child policy of its own. The German birthrate is 1.3. That’s a one-child policy. That’s a 1.3-child policy. There’s a slight problem here because if you’ve got a birthrate of 1.3, and you’ve got socialism, who is going to pay for all of this? The entire system is based on the idea that the next generation is going to pay in, and the next generation is going to pay in, and this whole thing can keep running along indefinitely, but the Europeans aren’t having kids. I grew up in Europe myself for sometime, and it wasn’t unusual. I was one of the few kids running around. There are a lot of elderly people. There were some middle aged people. There were not that many young people, and it’s actually getting worse these days.

So if you look at Germany, Germany is a very bad case scenario, but there are even countries that have lower birth rates. Now this is a problem because in the normal birth rate, you’re supposed to have a pyramid. The younger workers at the bottom. Then it gets narrower. There are the middle age, and then there are the elderly. In Europe, the pyramid is upside down. You have the elderly at the very top. You have a small wedge of people who are middle aged, and you have a shrinking wedge of people who are young, which means they are going demographically bankrupt. Now Europe has been going demographically bankrupt for awhile now because of its falling birth rates, so the socialists who run it have come up with an absolutely amazing plan, which socialist plans can’t possibly fail. They’re going to solve this demographic bankruptcy and this resulting economic bankruptcy when there’s nobody to do the work or pay the bills or even write the welfare checks by bringing in millions and millions of Muslims to fill in the gap. So you’re going to have people from high birth rate countries come in, and they’re going to be at the very bottom of the pyramid.

They’re going to do the work, so Hans and Fritz will retire. They can retire at 55 or whatever. He’ll get his pension, and that’ll be fine, and Mohammed will come in, and he’ll work hard, and he will have a lot of kids, and the whole socialist system will keep working great. There’s just one, tiny, little, minor problem with it, and I’m not talking about the terrorism, the Sharia, the no-go zones, the attacks on Jews, or all the other fun stuff. There’s just one other minor problem, which is that the people coming in don’t actually work. Muslim unemployment rates, yeah. I mean you can count on socialists to bring in more people who don’t work to a country where the problem is that too many people already aren’t working.

But Muslim unemployment rates in Europe, it’s not unusual to see unemployment rates in the 20 and 30 percentile range. Among youth, you see unemployment rates in the 50 and 60 percent range, and that’s not because, as the excuses go, they’re disaffected. They’re not given work. They’re not given opportunities. They don’t want to work, and why should they want to work? Because there’s a basic cultural difference between Europe, between the West, and Islam, the Muslim world. Europe, the West, we’re a work ethic culture. We believe in working. We believe in coming home and saying okay, honey, what did you do? I worked 8 hours a day. That’s great. The Muslim world, it does not work like that because the Muslim world is a slave culture. We’re in the south now. We’re in Charleston. We’re supposed to feel very bad about slavery, which is a 19th century thing in America. In the Muslim world, it’s a 20th century thing.

Saudi Arabia abolished slavery, I believe, in 1962. 1962. The JFK administration came to the Saudis, and they said maybe you should give human rights to women, and let people vote and get rid of the slaves. Back then we had a little more leverage with the Saudis than we do now, so the Saudis grumbled and said all right. All right. Fine. We’ll get rid of the slaves. That was 1962. That was a great moment in Muslim human rights. The Muslim world has never really abolished slavery especially in the Middle East except because of European pressure. The English forced the Egyptians, for example, to get rid of slavery. The Saudis still have slavery, by the way. They just made it an even worse form of slavery. The original form of slavery, the slave owners would at least take care of the kids. They would take care of the old people. It was still evil, but it was slightly less evil. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis and the Qataris moved on to this kind of concentration camp slavery where you take workers at the peak of their lives. You take young workers. You burn everything out of them. In some cases, you downright kill them. Then you dump them back to the country where they come from with some pocket change. This is concentration camp slavery.

It’s what the Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, that’s what they’re built on. They have huge work forces. All these nice skyscrapers, you see all these paradises for the rich, they are built by slave labor. They are built by thousands of people just dying in the heat building this thing. They are built by this, and it’s like Sparta except we supply the military, and we supply the wealth, and they just sit around on their asses all day and own the slaves. That’s the Saudi — that’s all these societies. These are societies where the idea at the top is not to work. You do not work. You see all these leaders who are fat, who are ridiculously fat. They look like they have trouble walking across the room. The Saudi royals, Qatar, that’s because they don’t walk across the room. They sit on their asses all day, and they have these servants from Africa usually fanning them with palm leaves or whatever, and they’re not going to fan themselves with palm leaves because that’s what slaves are for. That’s how a slave culture works. Even the people who aren’t at the top believe that work is something you’re punished with. It’s not something you want to do, and socialists, by the way, believe the same thing. Work isn’t a good thing. It’s something you have to be forced to do.

This is a slave culture, and in the slave culture when people come into a country where it has generous socialism, that has generous welfare policies, they’re coming there not to work. In fact, you have the whole idea that these people are refugees. They are not refugees. They are not coming across the border from Syria, making it across the border into Germany, and saying, “Thank God, we’re in Germany now. We can be safe from the civil war.” That’s not how it is. They’re crossing into Jordan. They’re crossing into Turkey. In Turkey, there’s no war. There’s no war in Jordan. They stop being refugees the moment they leave Jordan or Turkey, and when they head to Europe, they’re no longer refugees. They are economic migrants. It is very important to remember that. There is no war in Turkey. There is no war in Jordan. They are not refugees once they leave Jordan or Turkey.

Now why are they going to Germany, for example? Why? What’s so great about Germany? Now I interviewed some of these guys, and they say you know what’s great about Germany? Hitler. We like Hitler. Germany is bringing in people to accord with tolerance and European values, and what these people admire most about Germany is Hitler. They may not have heard that he died awhile back, so they may be a little unclear about the details, but what’s so great about Germany? What’s so great about Sweden? Why are they all headed there? Welfare. It’s a great welfare state. You have a German teacher asking her students in class what they wanted to be when they grew up. Susie, what do you want to do when you grow up? I want to be an ecological engineer. Hans, what do you want to be when you grow up? I want to fly hot air balloons. Mohammed, what do want to be when you grow up? I want to be on Hartz IV. Hartz IV is Germany’s welfare. “Hartz” means “heart.” It’s because it’s very caring to give people free stuff, so they want to be on Hartz IV.

Germany has very generous welfare policies. So does Sweden. They don’t want to go to a lot of these countries. You have interviews with these refugees who are in Slovenia. They’ve never heard of Slovenia before. They’re not interested in Slovenia. They don’t want to live in Slovenia. Slovenia doesn’t have great, free stuff. They want to go to Germany for all the free stuff they can get, so Europe is dealing with its demographic bankruptcy by bringing in more people who don’t want to work, by bringing in more people who are going to take more out of the government than they’re going to pay into it. So the socialists have actually managed to take a crisis that they are responsible for and made it even worse. Now how did demographic bankruptcy happen in the first place? How did you get to a 1.3 child rate? That’s a ridiculous number. It’s not China. Nobody was forcing women to have abortions. Nobody was marching in at gunpoint forcing them to have abortions.

This was Germany. They voluntary did this to themselves, and it’s not just Germany. It’s across Europe. Why did this happen? This happened because they decided that their future wasn’t their children. There are two reasons that people have children. One’s slightly cynical. Children take care of you in your old age. The second one is that you care about children. Children are the future. Europe, of course, has no future because it doesn’t have children right now, so the first part, Muslims have high birth rates. They have very high birth rates, so when you have Muslims coming in to Sweden, you have Somalis, for example, coming into Sweden, they have a birth rate that’s three or four times higher than the Swedish population. Syrians are coming to Germany. Germany, as I said, has a birth rate of 1.3. Syrians have a birth rate twice that. Afghans, who are the second biggest group, forget about the Syrians. The Afghan refugee boom is now becoming very huge. It’s a country of 30 million. A quarter of them polled have said that they want to leave Afghanistan.

One hundred thousand are expected to try to get into Europe this year.

But their birth rate is much higher because this is an investment program. This is a retirement program. Their kids take care of them in their old age. In Europe, your kids don’t take care of you in your old age. The government takes care of you in your old age. Under socialism, you have a cradle to grave state. The problem is that Europe now has a lot more graves than it has cradles. It has a whole lot of people, who are elderly. It doesn’t have a lot of cradles. It doesn’t have a lot of kids. The Muslims are supposed to solve this problem, but, of course, their retirement plan is have a lot of kids, charge them for the government. It’s not a great plan because, again, you’re not producing any more workers.

Now the second idea was that in Europe the things you would care about were not your children. They would be progressive policies. People weren’t living to see — I want to see my kids get married. I want to live to see my grandkids get married. Hell, it’s I want to live to see the European Union. I want to live to see diversity, and they’re living to see it now. I want to see light rail. In the UK, they’re talking about it’s important to have no more than one child because of global warming. You can’t have too many children because of global warming. So global warming, leftist policies matter to them more than their kids. That’s why they have no kids. They have faced demographic bankruptcy because they faced economic bankruptcy, because they face ideological bankruptcy.

Now we’re not immune to this stuff. We’re going slower than Europe, but we’re also going gradually, politically bankrupt. We’re going economically bankrupt, and we’re going demographically bankrupt. The Muslim population in the United States has increased 67 percent since September 11. It’s a great way to commemorate September 11. Sixty-seven percent increase. The Muslim population in the United States is younger. Their birth rate is higher just like in Europe. In the UK, you can look at the sea at the bottom level. When you hear that Mohammed is the most popular name in the UK for children or the most popular name for children in Oslo — so Oslo is 10 percent Muslim, but it’s Muslim at the bottom where it matters, where the children are. And England and Wales it’s 4 percent Muslim, but if you look at the children under 4, 9 percent are Muslim, and that is the future.

We think economic bankruptcy, the numbers sometimes sneak up on you because we don’t pay attention to the numbers that matter. When it comes to demographic bankruptcy, the numbers that matter are under 30, under 20, under 10, under 4. The median age in Germany is 46. The median Muslim age in Germany is 34. They are a much younger population. They’re having more kids which means they define the future. Now this is important for us to realize because this immigration thing is not just a problem of borders. It’s a problem of values. It’s important for us to have the children. It’s important for us to raise the children that are going to be the future because if we fail to do that, if we do what the Europeans do then we turn it over. At some point we’re going to be facing an economic crisis, and we’re going to do what the Germans did, which is say we can bail ourselves out with 5,000, 10,000 Muslims. Germany expects 1.5 million Muslims, according to a leaked government document, but with family reunification that can be up to 7.3 million people, and that’s just one country.

They’re promising that this is going to solve our demographic problems. This is going to be the future, but what they’ve really done is said that our future, socialism, matters more to us than our country. It matters more to us than our people. It matters more to us than our children. We can’t allow our United States to go that route. We can’t allow refugee resettlement to fill our cities, to fill our towns with people who are supposed to be our future, who we are told are going to do the work that we don’t want to do. Socialism is the underlying problem here. The migration we’re seeing is caused by socialism. It’s caused by left-wing policies, and now the left wing as it always does manages to make a crisis that they caused even worse. The United States is now going to be facing the same crisis. We saw that again with Obama recently. We’re going to be seeing more and more of it as time goes by. If we don’t recover the birth rate, if we don’t fundamentally change the demographics, we’re going to go the way of Europe.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261007/muslim-migration-europe-eurabia-come-true-frontpagemagcom

The Marxist Subversion Of The West And The Way Back

Below is a review of Michael Walsh’s ‘The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West’ which also serves as a great summary of the basics regarding cultural Marxism and its attack on the West. 

It is necessary to understand how “Christendom” descended into the humanist society that now dominates in order to find a way back.

Of course, the only way to heal our society is through repentance and intimacy with Jesus Christ and this cannot be overstated.

Have a read:

Every student in America knows about the Holocaust. That is as it should be. But I would be surprised if more than 1 percent of students knows about the horrors of the Soviet Gulag, or the reeducation camps of Mao’s China, or the killing fields of Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or even the slaughters perpetrated by Castro and (yes) Che Guevera.

They have heard, courtesy of A Tale of Two Cities, about Robespierre’s Reign of Terror and the guillotining of aristocrats, but they do not know that the French Revolution is the mother of all socialist revolutions, that it set out to remake man, religion, and society (with bloody results), and that it included the decimation of the Catholic Church and the murder of innocent nuns—who were guillotined alongside the aristos.

What is the message here? That atrocities only occur on the Right side of the political spectrum, never on the Left. Yet even here there is an irony. Are students ever taught that Nazism is short for “national socialism?” That Hitler is inconceivable without Marx? That Nazism is just as firmly grounded in atheist utopianism as communism and that it uses the same methods for squashing all dissent, contorting the truth to fit anti-humanistic ideologies, and enforcing mindless conformity to the Party?

They are taught, rightly, to celebrate the abolition of the slave trade in England and of slavery in the American South, together with the triumph of Civil Rights in the 1960s—the only legitimate claim to fame of the far-Left platform in America—but are they taught that all three of these great liberation movements were informed, undergirded, and energized by Christianity

The Unholy Left

In The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West, Michael Walsh concedes that the far-Left (what he calls the “Unholy Left”) played a role in winning equal rights for American blacks, but not to the extent that they claim. “The civil rights movement,” he reminds us, “was largely a story of the center of American politics: The old liberals for whom the New Left had nothing but contempt united with boring Republicans to defang racist Southern Democrats.” As for the other initiatives and programs of the Unholy Left, they have all failed or are failing.

‘The civil rights movement was largely a story of the center of American politics: The old liberals for whom the New Left had nothing but contempt united with boring Republicans to defang racist Southern Democrats.’

The leftist agenda has not delivered on its promises to the poor and dispossessed—it has, in fact, made things far worse, creating a perpetually dependent underclass on which it can count for votes. This will not be news to those who have been able to step back and see through political and media smokescreens. What Walsh, a journalist, author, political and cultural commentator, and former classical music critic of Time magazine, provides for those already aware of these failures is a firm grasp of the historical origins of the Unholy Left.

Naturally, he finds those origins in the writings of Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Darwin, and Nietzsche, but he does not stop there. Rather than turn his gaze to the usual suspects, Walsh shows how the social-political-economic theories of these founding fathers of modern materialism were filtered through the literary, academic, and cultural criticism of the Frankfurt School to reach and influence a wide American audience who should have known better—and would have, had it all not come disguised in the fashionable guise of European nihilism.

Referencing the work of Frankfurters Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer, Georg Lukács, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich, Walsh exposes the anti-capitalist, pro-Marxist bias of all of these thinkers as well as their shared contempt for such central “bourgeois” values as patriotism, religion, marriage, family, sexual morality, tradition, as well as the celebration of beauty, truth, and heroism.

A Lack Of Cultural Self Confidence

How were these self-proclaimed critics and prophets able to convince the American public to embrace theories that violate not only their core beliefs but common sense? By using our weaknesses to deceive and delude us. What exactly are those weaknesses? “Chief among the weaknesses of Western man today are his fundamental lack of cultural self-confidence, his willingness to open his ears to the siren song of nihilism, a juvenile eagerness to believe the worst about himself and his society and to relish, on some level, his own prospective destruction,” Walsh writes.

How were these self-proclaimed critics and prophets able to convince the American public to embrace theories that violate not only their core beliefs but common sense?

Without descending into psychological analysis—or into any of the social sciences—Walsh wrestles honestly with our shared American inferiority complex and our hankering after respectable European angst and cynicism. Unfortunately, this weakness is exacerbated by one of our most appealing strengths: a love for the underdog that, alas, impels us to take to our national bosom strangers who despise everything we stand for.

Had the Frankfurters, or their heirs in the Unholy Left, come out clearly and said what they believed and sought, the mass of Americans would have rejected their nihilistic hatred of our Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian heritage and their resentment-driven desire for payback. But they were far more subtle than that. Thus, Gramsci and Lukács, knowing that economic Marxism had failed, substituted it with a cultural Marxism that they infused into the American bloodstream through the media and the academies.

Through critical theory, rather than Soviet five-year plans or Maoist purges, the Frankfurt School taught the last several generations of American college students “that there is no received tenet of civilization that should not either be questioned (the slogan ‘question authority’ originated with the Frankfurt School) or attacked,” Walsh observes. Everything is up for grabs—including, and especially, human sexuality.

Gramsci and Lukács, knowing that economic Marxism had failed, substituted it with a cultural Marxism that they infused into the American bloodstream through the media and the academies.

“On the Unholy Left,” writes Walsh with reference to sex guru Reich, “there is no idea too stupid to try, no institution unworthy of attack, no theory not worth implementing without care for its results, no matter what the practical cost. Intentions are everything, results are nothing. Results are an illusion; theory is what counts, because theory can be debated endlessly within the safe harbor of academe.” Yet here there is an irony that exposes the true hypocrisy and viciousness at the core of the Frankfurt School.

The Unholy Left has pushed through its poisonous ideas by championing freedom of speech. The minute they achieve their goals, however, they deny that freedom to any who would oppose them. Walsh locates the origin of this in Marcuse’s theory of “repressive tolerance,” and then traces its full manifestation in the rise of political correctness: a truly demonic force that both silences and scapegoats the traditional values that built our country by labeling those who hold them as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. By “declaring whole swatches of argumentation invalid, the Unholy Left seeks to erect a Devil’s Pleasure Palace around itself, a world of illusion peopled with fake monsters and hallucinatory apparitions, an anti-fun-house of horrors whose only purpose, directly antithetical to the United States Constitution, is to stifle opposition and debate,” he writes

The Sole True Medium Of Truth

How is one to fight such an insidious attack on the soul of America? Without discounting the political arena, Walsh directs our attention to the arts—both literature (Milton’s Paradise Lost; Goethe’s Faust; Mann’s Magic Mountain) and opera (Schubert’s Devil’s Pleasure Palace; Wagner’s Ring Cycle and Parsifal; Mozart’s Magic Flute and Don Giovanni—where he discerns a concept of heroism that can stand strong against the lies, cynicism, and anti-humanism of the Frankfurt School.

Walsh makes it clear that the arts are neither a diversion from reality nor a tool for propaganda.

First, Walsh makes it clear that the arts are neither a diversion from reality nor a tool for propaganda. “[F]ar from being mere imitations of deeper truths, art is born deep in the unconscious and shaped according to historical principles of structure and expression, and is God’s way of leading humanity to a deeper understanding of its own essential nature and potential, and of its own fate,” he writes. Indeed, he notes art “is the gift from God, the sole true medium of truth.”

Although Walsh identifies his analysis as “explicitly Christian” and himself as a Catholic, he is able to universalize his argument by grounding it in Paradise Lost rather than Genesis. Even those who do not believe literally in Genesis’s account of creation and the Fall will generally recognize the human truths embodied in Milton’s great epic, a work, Walsh reminds us, that “was once a fixture of the American household, not only a work of art but also a volume of moral instruction.”

What Walsh finds in the heroes of literature and opera is a kind of individualism that the Unholy Left both hates and dismisses as an illusion. Heroism shatters the proletarian anthill that the heirs of the Frankfurt School would build. It also champions free will over Marxian determinism and a certainty that there are real standards of goodness, truth, and beauty for which one should be willing to die. The Unholy Left are lovers of death, yet they are unwilling to risk their lives for anything. As Walsh observes, “The only thing they are willing to fight for (other than ‘the Fight’ itself) is their own survival, even as they declare it to be utterly meaningless.”

‘The only thing they are willing to fight for is their own survival, even as they declare it to be utterly meaningless.’

The great tales of heroism also embody a central truth about man that the Unholy Left particularly hates: that we were made male and female and that “the pansexuality of today . . . cannot replace this naturally primal force: the union of opposites into a harmonious, generative whole.” In literature, and particularly opera, this manifests itself in the guise of the eternal feminine, the redemptive woman who guides and saves the hero, often laying down her life for him, as Gretchen does for Goethe’s Faust. This “sexually anti-egalitarian concept that feminists of both sexes today would regard as laughable,” explains Walsh, “is one of the organizing principles of the cosmos.”

Not all of us will be heroes—like the eternal feminine, heroism is of its very nature anti-egalitarian—but we can all participate through the arts in that heroism and hearken to its call. Such is the true spirit of man, a spirit that has long animated our country and that the Unholy Left is powerless to totally eradicate.

“The goal of the Frankfurt School was, at root, to turn Americans into Central Europeans, to undermine the core self-perception of America—free individuals before God—and replace it with a Central European dependence on and worship of the God-State as embodiment of the General Will, History, Social Justice, Diversity, or whatever divinized chimera represents Utopia at the moment,” writes Walsh. We have only to remember who we are to throw off the illusions they have heaped upon us and our culture.

Renewing Heroism

Walsh’s call for a renewed heroism is a welcome and necessary one and his perceptive analysis of how the poison of critical theory has corrupted our sense of ourselves, not only as Americans but as fallen creatures made in the image of God, is spot on. But the overall organization is a bit haphazard—though always thrilling to read—and the book could use some clearer definitions of the key tenets of the Frankfurt School and a few more choice examples of how critical theory works in practice. His heavy use of opera, though instructive, also tends at times to dilute the central message of the book.

Walsh’s idiosyncratic reading of the Fall does not take away from the goodness, truth, and beauty that all but leap off the pages of his powerfully written and passionately argued book.

But the one aspect of The Devil’s Pleasure Palace that was both troubling and confusing was Walsh’s reading of the Fall. First, he insists that Adam and Eve did not have sex until after they fell. This not only goes against the Genesis account—where we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply before the Fall and where Eve’s curse is not to have children but to bear them in increased pain—but against Paradise Lost. Indeed, Milton goes to great lengths to make it absolutely clear (see book IV, lines 736-775) that Adam and Eve had sex before they tasted of the forbidden fruit.

Second, Walsh works too hard to present the Fall as a good thing in itself, rather than as something that God brought good out of. “We know [when reading Paradise Lost] that Eve will fail the test—not out of any innate female weakness, but from her sympathetic heart and insatiable curiosity, both quintessentially human traits; she is truly humanity’s Mother,” he writes. It seems highly unlikely that Milton would agree with this reading of Eve’s motives in eating the fruit. Rather, perhaps Walsh falls prey to a quintessentially American temptation: to allow individuality to descend into individualism and to ascribe to a radical notion of free will that, to borrow a cogent metaphor from C. S. Lewis’s Problem of Pain, insists that we are nouns rather than adjectives.

Still, Walsh’s idiosyncratic reading of the Fall does not take away from the goodness, truth, and beauty that all but leap off the pages of his powerfully written and passionately argued book. If you are a Christian and defender of our religious and literary tradition, it’s hard not to cheer out loud when you read these words: “The story [of Jesus], infinitely refracted, infinitely recursive, goes on. We keep telling it because we need to, to keep the forces of Hell at bay. Hell has no need for heroes; God does. That we keep providing them is one of the surest proofs of his existence.”

What Walsh has done here is no small accomplishment. He set out to write a book about the need for heroes, and created a work that is, in and of itself, an heroic act of truth telling.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/30/why-western-civilization-needs-heroes/

Tony Abbott: “All Cultures Are Not Equal” 

So true.

And I know that everyone agrees with this statement because I just can’t find anyone who will make the case for equality between life under the Third Reich and life in Australia today.

Given that Islam has killed far more than the Nazis ever did (240,000,000 versus 50,000,000 respectively and that’s only if you lump all the war dead together, both in Europe and The Pacific, at the feet of the Nazis).

On the topic of Tony Abbott’s bold and perfectly accurate statement though, man is he right!

You can tell because the mainstream media is trying to tear him to pieces, much like when he was Prime Minister. 

Some things never change!

Unfortunately, Abbott’s underlying understanding of Islam is seemingly as deeply flawed as everyone else in denial about the long doctrinal and historical record of Islam, as well will get to.

Here’s the report:

 Former prime minister Tony Abbott has called for a “religious revolution” inside Islam, declaring “all cultures are not equal”.

Key points:

Tony Abbott says Muslims must reform Islam

Abbott says a tolerant culture is preferable to one that kills in name of God

Former PM also defends 2014 budget policies

Abbott to further discuss Islam and extremism in speech in Singapore tonight

In a wide-ranging interview with Sky News, Mr Abbott also defended some of the most controversial measures from the 2014 federal budget, which put forward billions of dollars in cuts from health, education and foreign aid.

On Islam, he said: “We’ve got to work closely with live-and-let-live Muslims because there needs to be, as president [Abdel Fattah] Al-Sisi of Egypt has said, a religious revolution inside Islam.”

“All of those things that Islam has never had — a Reformation, an Enlightenment, a well-developed concept of the separation of church and state — that needs to happen.

“But we can’t do it; Muslims have got to do this for themselves. But we should work with those who are pushing in that direction.

“All cultures are not equal and, frankly, a culture that believes in decency and tolerance is much to be preferred to one which thinks that you can kill in the name of God, and we’ve got to be prepared to say that.”

Mr Abbott will make a speech in Singapore tonight and will further discuss Islam and extremism.

There’s at least a great point in there but I cannot stress this any more than by using capital letters:

REFORMING ISLAM MEANS MAKING ALL MUSLIMS LOOK LIKE THEIR FOUNDER MOHAMMED – A BLOOD-THIRTY, PAEDOPHILIC WARLORD WHO STARTED A RELIGION THAT MOTIVATED MUSLIM ARABS TO CONQUER THE ENTIRITY OF CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY IN A MERE DECADE!

You may know Classical antiquity as that place we call “The Islamic World” but the fact is that it was once the home of Western civilisation.

To clarify, Muslims sacked the place and forced its women into sex slavery.

So who really wants to see Islam reform?

Islamic State is the reformation of Islam and people don’t seem to like all the rape, crucifixions, torture and brutal murdering taking place!

If you though Islam was lukewarm Muslims who look and behave like atheist, please reconsider just how stupid that sounds.

Westerners are so self-absorbed with their own narcissistic nihilism that their first assumption is that all other peoples, cultures, and religions must want to be exactly like them.

Guess what?! They don’t!

Real Muslims want to look like Mohammed, just as real Christians want to look like Jesus.

And neither of them, though polar dichotomies, were atheists.

Reform Islam and you make your enemy much more dangerous.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/tony-abbott-defends-controversial-2014-budget/7012190

If All Cultures Are Equal, Why Are Millions Of Refugees Fleeing The Thoroughly Islamic Middle East?

Leftists love to insist that all cultures are equal. 

What they really mean is that if you disagree with them, you should shut your mouth and go die in a hole otherwise they will organise a hole for you to be murdered in.

They did it in numerous Communist states and while they haven’t worked their way up to murder in the West yet, ominous signs abound.

While Christians have been culturally scorned for decades now, the past decade has seen the progression to using the law to oppress believers through fines and even jail time.

Anyone who wants to claim that history will not repeat itself is either ignorant or part of the agenda to make the brutally historic Christian persecution happen again today.

In the mean time, we see entire nations worth of refugees pouring out of the Middle East and Northern Africa, locations where the population is almost entirely Islamic and that have been ruled by Islamic empires for the best part of fourteen centuries.

So what happened? 

Did these refugees not get the memo that all cultures are equal?

Are they racists?

Or are they uniquely positioned to understand that plenty of cultures actually suck hard?

The answers from Jerry Newcombe are worth some serious thought, especially from Christians who ought to know better:

Masses of people are leaving countries in the Middle East and North Africa and streaming into Europe for the chance of a better life. It’s an enormous tragedy. More than four million refugees have come out of Syria since 2011 because of its civil war.

How did such a disaster happen? No one takes a perilous journey to leave home unless home has become unsafe or impossible to stay in. No parents put their children on a dangerous, rickety old boat unless it is better than the alternative. They are desperate. Our hearts go out to them.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead penned “A Crisis of Two Civilizations.” He described this migration as “one of the worst humanitarian disasters since the 1940s.” He noted that even “the sick and the old are on the road.”

The main reason behind the mass migration appears to be the suppression of freedom and the violence wrought under various Islamic governments and the relative freedom afforded by formerly-Christian Europe.

Mead writes, “Today we are watching the failure of Islamism. From the Muslim Brotherhood to Islamic State, Islamist movements have had no more success in curing the ills of Arab civilization than any of the secular movements of the past.”

This crisis shows how cultural relativism — the idea that one culture is just as good as another — and that all cultures are basically equal — is just not true. People are voting with their feet, whether they realize it or not, and going to countries with a Christian base.

I am not saying that European nations, or America for that matter, officially acknowledge the contributions of the Christian faith to their civilization. But it is Christianity that has helped shape the positive aspects of the West.

Daniel Lapin, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, who appreciates the contributions of Jesus, made an interesting point when I interviewed him years ago for our television special, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, which was based on the book that I co-wrote with Dr. D. James Kennedy.

Said Rabbi Lapin, “The easiest way to answer the question of whether life on planet earth is better because Jesus walked Jerusalem or not is very simple, and that is: Just watch the way people vote with their feet. Watch where the net flow of immigration is in the world today. Is it from Christian countries to non-Christian countries or the other way around? It is so obvious.”

This current crisis in Europe reminds me of the plight of Cubans who have desperately been trying to get to America, as they flee the bankruptcy of atheistic communism.

One time I came across one of these Cuban refugee rafts on the beach from Cuba. This homemade craft was composed of three wooden doors, with flotsam at the bottom to keep it afloat.

One of the doors served as the hull and the other two made up the raft’s sides, with window shutters nailed across to serve as crossbeams. It was literally as if someone had torn apart his own home to put this thing together. Items of clothing in the raft indicate that it had held as many as ten people. I don’t know what became of them.

Since it is illegal to leave the island, those fleeing would have had to make this raft secretly. Then they would have to get safely out of Cuban waters. If they were discovered by the Cuban coastal authorities, they could have been shot on sight to prevent them from leaving. Yet they embarked upon the trip nevertheless.

And all cultures are equal?

Having escaped to international waters, the occupants of this doors-turned-into-a-raft had to row it or float a few hundred miles over several days. They would have had to deal with the grueling sun and the potential threat of sharks along the way in order to try and get to America.

Why? So that maybe — just maybe — they could get a chance to enjoy what you and I enjoy every day. Freedom. The chance for a better life.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans born here think little of the freedom we have. The tragedy is that because we are jettisoning our Christian roots, our freedom is now at risk.

Freedom is a great blessing and flows directly from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It may sound like heresy to modern ears, but all cultures are not the same. Some ideas are better than others. Millions of people would not risk everything, even the lives of their own children, if it were not so. There is certainly no mass migration of people into radical Islamic or communist countries. The supposed glories of multi-culturalism are sinking into the Mediterranean.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/25132/europes-immigration-crisis-proves-not-all-cultures-are-equal/

The Mainstream Media And The ABC: The Modern Equivalent Of Reeducation Camps

Some people can’t see the massive shift in Western culture towards serious trouble.

I could list a dozen facets off the top of my head but the reality is that every ape here of the West seems to exhibit the symptoms of a sick and dying society.

Take the issue of murdering children under the euphemism “abortion.”

I have very strong feelings about the 47 million children whose blood and guts have been torn asunder for the sake of convenience in America since Roe vs Wade. 

It’s called righteous anger and zeal for justice, just not by people who are selfish enough to murder children or look the other way while others do it for them.

Those selfish people are leftists, which is really just another euphemism for humanist and, in case it needed mentioning, humanists are all about serving the self.

Don’t get me wrong – I used to be one of them and so I completely empathise with being a supporter of tearing a baby’s guts out because that’s easier than taking responsibility being a parent. God’s forgiveness is greater than my crimes and that of the collective left.

Even now, I am in a war against my flesh which – no surprises – is constantly pulling at me to be self-centred instead of Christ-centred, self-led instead of Spirit-led.

Humanism and leftism don’t want that war – they want peace with an all-consuming enemy (which explains their cowardice before Islam) and their intention is to intimidate and force everyone else to do it (which explains their jackboot tactics with homosexuality).

Bill Muehlenberg’s recent article sums it all up:

The West is in a war. It has enemies aplenty but most of them are in the West itself. Those most eager to destroy the West are not hostile forces from without, but enemies from within. And the mainstream media is now fully involved in this war against the West.

Western media is leftist media, and it is hostile to what most folks in the West believe in and value. Many social commentators have made this case. Early on in his 2011 volume Righteous Indignation Andrew Breitbart put it this way:

Make no mistake: America is in a media war. It is an extension of the Cold War that never ended but shifted to an electronic front. The war between freedom and statism ended geographically when the Berlin Wall fell. But the existential battle never ceased. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the battle simply took a different form. Instead of missiles the new weapon was language and education, and the international left had successfully constructed a global infrastructure to get its message out.

He continued, “The left does not win its battles in debate. It doesn’t have to. In the twenty-first century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media. Narrative is everything.”

Exactly right. To understand the Australian media in general, and the ABC in particular, one simply has to be aware of this larger ideological framework. Then all the daily outrages perpetrated by groups like “our” ABC will all make sense. I have documented dozens of cases of outrageous bias, anti-Christian bigotry, and extreme left nonsense pouring forth on a regular basis from the national broadcaster.

Consider the most recent outrage – another “accident” which the ABC head honcho had to again “apologize” for. This despicable network is so utterly consumed in its diabolical hatred of all things conservative, Christian and especially Tony Abbott, that it just cannot stop venting its darkened spleen.

The devils there thought it would be fun to allow through yet another anti-Abbott tweet, with an account called “AbbotLovesAnal”. Gotta love the classy, professional folks who work at “our” ABC. So hate-filled are they, that any gutter crap will be given free run – as long as Abbott is crucified no matter what. Rita Panahi was spot on when she wrote:

Here we go again. The genius crew at the helm of the ABC’s flagship program, Q&A, have yet again covered themselves in ignominy. The decision to broadcast a tweet from an account with a highly offensive handle was either a malicious act of bastardry designed to embarrass Prime Minister Tony Abbott or simply due to gross ineptitude.

You can never be sure with the ABC but it’s remarkable that the lapses, factual errors and unfortunate “accidents” that occur with regular monotony on the behemoth’s many platforms tend to vilify only one side of politics.

Less than three weeks since the Prime Minister lifted a ban on government front benchers appearing on the program, the ideologues at the helm of Q&A have shown they’ve learnt nothing from the Zaky Mallah saga. Hapless CEO Mark Scott was once more left to apologise for the conduct of an organisation that has become a law unto itself.

The simple truth is the ABC is absolutely crawling with Abbott-haters, and they will seek to get away with any vile attack they can, all the while living the good life off our tax dollars. And that the ABC is crawling with lefties, Labor supporters, and anti-Abbott nut jobs is not mere speculation.

A recent piece posted at the Larry Pickering site is most revealing in this regard. It points out the uber-incestuous relationship between the Labor Party and ABC heavyweight:

“Why does the Left media protect the left?”

Because the political commentators of the Left media are either intermingled or married to the left politicians. It’s a family thing and they protect their own.

Greg Combet (Labor) partnered to Juanita Phillips (ABC).

Gai Brodtmann (Labor) married to Chris Uhlmann (ABC).

David Feeney (Labor) married to Liberty Sanger (guest commentator on ABC).

Barry Cassidy (ABC) former speech writer for Bob Hawke (Labor) from 1986-1991 married to Heather Ewart (ABC).

Maxine McKew (ABC) married to Bob Hogg (former ALP national secretary).

Virginia Trioli (ABC) married to Russell Skelton (The Age).

Mark Kenny (Fairfax) married to Virginia Haussegger (ABC).

Christine Wallace (ABC & Fairfax) married to Michael Costello (former Chief of Staff to Labor’s Kim Beazley).

Annabel Crabb (former Fairfax journalist now with the ABC).

Tony Jones (ABC) married to Sarah Ferguson (ABC). Coincidentally Jones took over the Lateline role from Maxine McKew (from ABC presenter to Labor politician).

David Penberthy (journalist) married to Kate Ellis (Labor).

Paul Kelly (former Fairfax journalist) formerly married to Ros Kelly (Labor).

Kerry O’Brien (ABC) former press secretary to Gough Whitlam.

Mark Colvin (ABC) married to Michelle McKenzie (Leichhardt deputy-mayor and Greens Councillor).

Denis Atkins (ABC Insiders regular) married to Melanie Christensen (ABC Canberra).

Paul Barry (ABC) married to Lisa McGregor (ABC).

The lamentable Mike Carlton (formerly Fairfax) and Morag Ramsay (ABC).

Andrew Fraser (Fairfax) and Catriona Jackson (formerly Fairfax and Labor press secretary).

And so the list goes on.

Labor, Fairfax and the ABC are joined at the hip.

Much like the relationship between Labor and the unions.

Why do they protect Burke where they savage Bishop?

They’re just looking after the family………….(wearing “I’ll ride with Burke” T-shirts.)

Hmm, why is all this not one bit surprising? These clowns deny their bias every day of the week, but they are up to their ears in political leftism, and proud of it. Indeed, were we able to do a poll of the voting record of the ABC leadership, I do not doubt for a moment we would find that Labor and the Greens would get 90 per cent of their vote.

American studies have found just that: folks in the media there overwhelmingly vote Democrat, are pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-big government, and so on. It is obvious in everything we find coming from these media outlets. It is a shameless control of the narrative, to push leftist agendas.

Some years ago now Chris Kenny wrote an article on “Whose ABC?” It is well worth repeating parts of it here. Writing in 2011 he said:

The ABC is certainly the most influential cultural institution in the nation, increasing its complexity and reach almost by the day. The corporation consists of six national and international radio stations, five television stations, online services, publishing and retailing, with annual public funding topping $1 billion, and more than 5000 staff in more than 70 locations in Australia and overseas. Yet as it has expanded there has been no commensurate increase in accountability or responsiveness to the public who fund it.

He continues:

Insiders talk about recruitment policies fuelling a political culture, particular in the Sydney and Melbourne city headquarters, at Ultimo and Southbank, where about half of all ABC staff members are based. There is a relatively low staff turnover so many employees have spent most of their working lives in the ABC, in the main cities. One former board member says recruiting people from a greater variety of backgrounds should be a high priority.

A very different ABC culture exists in the regions, but it has little influence outside of those regions. The ABC is still a heavily centralised beast, with all its operations outside the Sydney-Melbourne-Canberra axis referred to disparagingly as the BAPH states (Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart). Each capital has a state director, but because the operations are divided into national silos of television, radio, news and the like, board members believe state directors find it difficult to have any real impact. All big decisions are made in Ultimo. Staff outside NSW jokingly refer to their employer as the SBS: Sydney Broadcasting Service.

There are no easy answers to this Sydney-centric reality except to be aware of it.

But there is no end to the ways the ABC can keep pushing bias. As Kenny wrote just recently:

The ABC seems to have found a novel way to guard against the Green Left bias shown by so many of its leading presenters. Instead of having them conduct their own interviews, Auntie can simply have them read out questions from audiences.

On Lateline last week Tony Jones was interviewing former Labor environment minister Greg Combet. “Let’s go to a Facebook question,” said Jones. “This is from Linda Mae Reeb and it’s on this subject, she asks, ‘Can you estimate the investment required in the Australian renewable market to achieve a 50 per cent reduction in emissions?’ ”

Combet nodded as Jones read it out. Why wouldn’t he? What a pleasant break from the rigours of a forensic television interrogation.

We look forward to similar intermezzos when government ministers are grilled. “I know you’re on the back foot now, Treasurer, and my questioning is getting just a little snide,” Sarah Ferguson might say, “so let’s go to a Facebook question on taxation reform”.

Given revelations about high ABC salaries, perhaps this is also a way to save the public broadcaster some money. There are plenty of presentable and relatively cut-price juniors who could sit in the chair and read out the online questions.

No doubt government staffers are busy setting up fake Facebook accounts so they can post their curly queries. “Prime Minister, if we could just leave the Speaker’s woes and budget difficulties there for a moment we have a Facebook question,” Leigh Sales might say. “This one is from Jenny at Mt Druitt and she asks, ‘To what do you attribute your greatness?’”

Next, no doubt, we’ll have to commission an investigation into question selection. Perhaps a committee could be formed to devise an ABC code of conduct for social media question selection and presentation. A strong tip for rule No 1 would be to ignore Zaky Mallah’s Facebook questions until further notice.

Of course. They already stack their audiences with their buddies, they take video questions and comments from their buddies, and they stack the panels of their shows with their buddies. What bias?

There is no reason in the world why taxpayers must subsidise this gross and appalling bias. De-fund now.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/rita-panahi-abc-qa-accidents-only-vilify-one-side-of-politics/story-fnpp4dl6-1227498392096

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/whose-abc/story-fn59niix-1226063961087

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/abc-hides-green-left-bias-by-reading-out-questions/story-fn8qlm5e-1227448173065

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/08/31/the-media-the-abc-and-leftist-propaganda/

Gun Violence Is A Product Of Leftist Ideology

The left want power over everything and for that to happen, they need a reason to deny people freedoms that the West alone has long cultivated.

Cultural Marxism was their plan and it is bearing much rotten fruit, whether it’s perverse and unhealthy sexual practises, broken families, passive men who refuse responsibility or forceful women who demand the authority and position designed to men.

For decades they have sown confusion about morality, sex, family, and truth and we now live in a society so messed up that the more dangerous the behaviour, the greater it is celebrated under the banner of “diversity”.

Take the example of violence and specifically gun violence in America. Most of it is at the hands of men and while men have always been prone to resorting to anger and violence, I’m going to put it out there that cultivating passivity in a generation after generation of young men through easy access to sex and entertainment, all the while siphoning off their social responsibilities to women, doesn’t do anything to alleviate their anger and propensity to violence.

As a one-time product of this disastrous contemporary Western rights of passage, I can say that as a young man it made me confused, frustrated, and depressed.

The left appeal directly to the weaknesses of people and with young men, it’s to passivity, ease of lifestyle, and lust. That’s why, like many Western youth, I spent mine looking to get drunk, hunting for girls to have sex with, and avoiding any responsibility that might push me to grow as a human being.

Now, those choices are my fault and I take full responsibility for them but I’m in the minority. The left has been doing overtime to ensure that men not only do these things but also feel entitled to do so. Their entire social policy is literally demonic in that they encourage people who do everything that satisfies what scripture calls “the flesh,” which is in direct opposition to pleasing the Spirit of God.

It cannot be made any clearer that the left, cultural Marxists, “progressives”, or whatever tricky title they go by are antichrist to the very core of their ideology.

These cultural Marxists want a culture full of worthless, irresponsible men who are passive, aggressive and violent because it gives them a good façade to take control of our society, specifically control of families, the leadership of which was designated by God to men, not women and definitely not government.

It’s just another reason why these Marxists love divorce and family breakdown, because it opens the way for government to usurp the position of husbands and fathers as penniless single mothers find themselves dependent upon handouts.

Getting down to it, the out of control gun violence is the precise rotten fruit that their atheistic, humanist, flesh-centred, self-worshipping ideology produces.

Getting rid of guns will only consolidate their power even further which, in case anyone hadn’t guessed, the left have been planning for God alone knows how long.

Have a good read of D. W. Wilber’s excellent article and take the caution:

There is a very simple explanation as to why the country seems to be experiencing the gun violence of recent years. It basically comes down to one simple explanation, Liberals. Though I’m sure they’ll take exception to that, the reality is that we live in a society that has lost all sense of morality over the last sixty-odd years, leading to a societal breakdown. Brought to us by liberal politicians, liberal educators, and liberals in the entertainment industry.

As a child of the late sixties and early seventies, I grew up during the era of “free love,” “flower power,” “make love not war,” and “down with the pigs.” I witnessed firsthand what has been called traditional American values being tossed aside. Championed no less by liberals on the left wing of the American political spectrum.

It was liberals who preached to us that capitalism was corrupt and communism wasn’t all that bad. T-shirts with the image of Che Guevara were flying off the shelves during that era, and one can still find his image on posters and T-shirts nowadays. Even though the truth of what a brutal and despicable person he was is well-known and out there for anyone to see, as long as they choose to.

Che, the hero of the left was a brutal murderer who killed people he didn’t like just for sport. But to the ‘counter-culture crew’ he was just a ‘revolutionary,’ fighting against the corruption and evil of big business. Just as the truth about Che is ignored by liberals, so is the true nature of the Cuban regime of the Castro brothers.

Fidel has also been admired as a revolutionary, while he has brutalized the Cuban people now for decades. But hearing liberals talk, Che and the Castro boys represented ‘the people’ against ‘the man’ who oppressed and exploited everyone. More liberal theology. Heck, why not just open an embassy!

It was liberals who devalued human life by insisting on abortion on demand. Now we recently have discovered that the abortion industry is nothing more than a ‘baby bodies for profit’ enterprise. Not really about a woman’s right to choose at all.

Since the most innocent among us, the unborn, have found their lives devalued and only their lifeless bodies of any worth, we have seen on the streets of American cities a devaluing of all lives, with rampant violence, death and destruction. Thank you once again liberals.

While the old television programs like Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best and Leave it to Beaver might have been a fantasized vision of reality in America, glossing over many of the societal issues of that day and time, there was nothing wrong with the ideals they portrayed. Unless being viewed through the eyes of liberals.

Instead of programs promoting traditional family values we are “treated” to the misfits on MTV’s ‘The Real World’ and ‘Jersey Shore.’ It seems that holding the standards of traditional morality and decency is now viewed as archaic and out of the mainstream. If you believe that way then you’re obviously a hater. At least that is what the liberals tell us all the time.

At one point in the not too distant past “Firearms Safety” and “Marksmanship” were part of the curriculum in many American high schools. Young people growing up were taught to respect firearms, taught how to properly care for them, and also taught that a great deal of responsibility came with handling a firearm. Lessons that only youths who mostly live in rural areas and who are raised by hunters and other sportsmen receive anymore.

But thanks to the liberals the lessons of responsible gun ownership and safety are no longer taught in American schools. Most youths nowadays receive their weapons training playing video games, or watching many of the violent movies Hollywood produces each year.

Where a joystick you control kills your enemies in a most visual way, with body parts flying off in all directions. Good guys or bad guys, it doesn’t really matter. The amount of carnage one can produce is how one scores points.

A far cry from the pinball machines of my youth, or the Roy Rogers westerns where bad guys got shot and you knew they were dead, but you didn’t need to see their innards to confirm it.

Yes, thank you once again liberals for reducing America to a place where traditional family values are scorned. And now a place where dysfunctional lifestyles are admired. Where respect and safety with firearms, along with character and honor is no longer taught in our schools, but in fact is deemed as evil or outmoded.

And a place where the value of human life has been reduced to how much money can be made off of the pieces of a dead baby.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dwwilber/2015/08/28/why-all-the-gun-violence–the-answer-is-simple-n2044965/page/full

Support Homosexuality Today, Criminalize Christianity Tomorrow

If you doubt that this is goal, you might need to check up on the court rulings that have already forced Christians to pay massive fines because they don’t want to partake in redefined “marriage”.

At this rate, Christians will soon have to endure yet another season of persecution. Matt Barber’s recent article lays out this successful and near complete plan to shove Christianity into the closet:

It’s never fun to be proven right when warning of some impending wrong. Many in the pro-family movement have long stressed that the cultural Marxist left’s belligerent push for the judicial fiction that is “gay marriage” was never about gaining “equal access” to this biologically exclusive male-female institution, as they profess, but, rather, is, and has always been, about control.

While there are many layers to unfold, the almost instant explosion in government-sanctioned, anti-Christian extremism on display post Obergefell v. Hodges, confirms the poisonous three-fold agenda that underlies the “social justice” mob’s flowery “marriage equality” propaganda. That is: (1) the ultimate destruction of marriage, (2) forced affirmation of sexual deviancy under penalty of law, and (3) the eventual criminalization of Christianity.

The destruction of marriage

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence; they want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

Masha Gessen, a lesbian journalist, activist and author, expressly admitted this fact in a 2012 interview with ABC Radio: “It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry,” she said. “But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen’s candid sentiments: “Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it,” he once wrote. “James Dobson was right about our evil intentions,” he quipped. “We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

The goal is to water down marriage until marriage is pointless. And as evidenced by the burgeoning legal push for polygamous and incestuous “marriages” – even for the “right” to “marry” a robot – sexual anarchists are well on their way to achieving this goal.

Forced affirmation of sexual deviancy

Here’s what Christian America is already experiencing from coast to coast. On Wednesday, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel filed a request for a stay and an appeal of U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s opinion ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses both in violation of her First Amendment right to religious free exercise and the biblical mandate that she must not participate in this explicitly sinful activity. Davis had been sued by the ACLU and two lesbian political activists.

“The plaintiffs in this case only sought licenses from Ms. Davis after learning of her religious objections to same-sex ‘marriage,’ and they refuse to obtain a license elsewhere,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in Obergefell, secularists are trying to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Judge Bunning wrote, “Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk,” the ruling said.

“Judge Bunning’s decision equated Kim’s free exercise of religion to going to church. This is absurd!” responded Staver. “Christianity is not a robe you take off when you leave a sanctuary. The First Amendment guarantees Kim and every American the free exercise of religion, even when they are working for the government.

“Kim Davis did not sign up as a clerk to issue same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses. Her job duty was changed by five lawyers without any constitutional authority. At a minimum, her religious convictions should be accommodated,” concluded Staver.

Indeed, Davis’ oath as county clerk was to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of Kentucky. As Chief Justice John Roberts rightly observed in his Obergefell dissent, the activist majority’s opinion actually hijacks the democratic process and is in no way rooted in the Constitution: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution,” he said. “It had nothing to do with it.”

The fact is that if Ms. Davis were to issue counterfeit same-sex “marriage” licenses, she would not only be disobeying God and directly participating in expressly sinful activity, she would be violating her constitutional oath.

The criminalization of Christianity

To her credit, Ms. Davis is standing her ground while the decision is appealed. Predictably, many leftists are now clamoring for her imprisonment. They want her held in contempt of court and thrown in jail for refusing to at once affirm homosexual sin and violate God’s commands. This is the new pagan orthodoxy. It’s “here, it’s queer, get used to it.”

Meanwhile, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) reports on “a Colorado Court of Appeals decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig, regarding a cake artist who declined to use his artistic abilities to promote and endorse their same-sex ceremony even though other cake artists were willing to do the job.”

“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith,” observed ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco. “Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views. Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms.”

The court affirmed an earlier order wherein Phillips and his Christian staff were not only ordered to bake homosexual “wedding” cakes against their will, but were additionally forced into pro-homosexual “sensitivity” propaganda classes.

And if they refuse?

Then they go to jail.

That’s how it works. Christian free exercise isn’t outlawed all at once. Judges across our fruity plain simply order from the bench that millions of Christians, just like Kim Davis and Jack Phillips, must either deny recognition of God’s natural order and Christ’s admonition to “go and sin no more,” or face prison for “contempt of court.”

Welcome to America 2015, where evil is good, men are women, judges are tyrants, and Christians are persona non grata. There is no more in between. The anti-Christ left has thrown down the “gay marriage” gauntlet. It’s either God or man.

“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. … But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

The early Christians were outcasts because they refused to worship the pantheon of false gods and scripture is clear that there is nothing new under the sun. 

Since Christians were the first “atheists” who would not worship the many false Gods of Rome, I’m taking back the title with regard to the contemporary false gods of homosexuality and tolerance of evil.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/24533/the-gay-marriage-gauntlet-time-to-choose/

Hollywood Heroes: John Rhys-Davies

Hollywood Heroes sounds like it could be a series and it would be a good one but honestly, I’m not sure I could find even a handful of “heroes” in Hollywood despite the comic book obsession that is sweeping the industry.

Nonetheless, John Rhys-Davies, famous for his roles in Indiana Jones and The Lord of The Rings film series, has spoken bold truth about the sad, sorry state of Western culture and threat of Islam:

Perhaps John Rhys-Davies was channeling Gimli, his character from The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, because the Welsh actor delivered a soliloquy late Monday about good and evil and even warned of the end of days courtesy of radical Islamic terrorism and political correctness.

“There is an extraordinary silence in the West,” said Rhys-Davies on Adam Carolla’s podcast posted Monday night. “Basically, Christianity in the Middle East and in Africa is being wiped out — I mean not just ideologically but physically, and people are being enslaved and killed because they are Christians. And your country and my country are doing nothing about it.”

Carolla elicited laughter from Rhys-Davies when he asked him when it became fashionable to refrain from judging outsiders.

“This notion that we’ve evolved into a species that’s incapable of judging other groups and what they are doing, especially when it is beheading people or setting people on fire or throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls — I like that kind of judging. It’s evolved!” said Carolla.

Carolla joked that if Bill Maher had been around during World War II, Americans would not have fought the Nazis because the comedian would have been “screaming” about tolerance.

“This is a unique age. We don’t want to be judgmental,” said Rhys-Davies, who’s also known for his role in the Indiana Jones franchise. “Every other age that has come before us has believed exactly the opposite. I mean, T.S. Eliot referred to ‘the common pursuit of true judgment.’ Yes. That’s what it’s about. Getting our judgments right.”

Rhys-Davies was on Carolla’s podcast — which has been recognized by Guinness World Records as the world’s most popular podcast — to promote the DVD release of Return to the Hiding Place, a film about Jews in Holland during World War II that was directed and written by Peter C. Spencer, also a guest on Monday night’s podcast.

“It’s an age where politicians don’t actually say what they believe,” said Rhys-Davies. “They are afraid of being judged as being partisan. Heaven forbid that we should criticize people who, after all, share a different value system. ‘But it’s all relevant. It’s all equally relative. We’re all the same. And God and the devil, they’re the same, aren’t they, really? Right and wrong? It’s really just two faces of the same coin,’ ” he said, mocking what he sees as politically correct doctrine.

“We have lost our moral compass completely, and, unless we find it, we’re going to lose our civilization. I think we’re going to lose Western European Christian civilization, anyway,” said Rhys-Davies.

Listen to the podcast here. The discussion of politics, good and evil and Islamic terror begins around the 14-minute mark.

Rhys-Davies seems like an eloquent guy and on these issues he has nailed it to the wall – let’s hope that people wake up so the West doesn’t get nailed to the wall by Islam.

The Christian hope in Jesus Christ holds us firm though so even if the West goes under (it just about deserves it in my opinion), we need not fear or despair because the Kingdom of God will surpass all earthly kingdoms and that includes Islam, even if it reigns once again in bloody violence for a short while.

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”” ‭‭Daniel‬ ‭2:44-45‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’” Daniel‬ ‭7:27‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” ‭‭Psalm‬ ‭2:1-12‬ ‭ESV‬‬


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-rhys-davies-lashes-at-814662

http://adamcarolla.com/john-rhys-davies-and-peter-spencer/

Why The West Cannot Understand The Middle East

There was a time when the West fought many a war against the various Islamic empires because they understood that their existence was quite literally at stake.

Not so today, where people like Barack Obama and organisations including but not limited to the United Nations, the entire mainstream media and one and a half gazillion NGOs all demand that we respect an ideology that is motivating Muslims to behead, crucify, blow up, blow themselves up, terrorise, and generally be unpleasant.

Today, Islam is “the religion of peace” no matter how many are pilled on the already somewhat high death toll of anywhere between 240-270 million people, and much of that in the last century or so.

How can so many people be so blind? And how is it that so many of these people are all in positions of significant power, whether politics or the media?

The answer is: by deliberate and careful intention.

Yes, the leftists who go by the title “progressives” are the same who went by the titles “socialist”, “communist” and “Marxist” in decades past and the plan has always been the same:

  1. Stir up dissent and conflict between social groups within a society
  2. Rise to power as they fight it out, promising to end the conflict
  3. Become the saviours of humanity by establishing a “utopia” and executing resistors

It’s simple and it works because our fallen nature naturally inclines us to hate each other and simple differences are enough to drive wedge between groups of people collectivied by features like skin colour or sex. 

The natural, God-given role of government is to punish wrongdoing so when a society is at war within itself, the government must exercise its strength to end the conflict and this is the precise goal of leftists: powerful government with excessive reach and any opportunity to come down hard on “dissenters”, which are always their political and ideological enemies, especially genuine Christians and the church.

So while these leftist pretend that Islam is no threat, there is an abundance or truth about the matter: namely, that Islam and indeed the entire Middle East will never adopt our ways because in their mind they are antithetical, just as biblical Christians will never accept the false promises of the humanist left.

Consider the following response to the immigration problems experienced by Europe from an immigrant who has decades experience living in both the Middle East and the West:

On this morning’s translated op-ed about the European immigration crisis, our Arabic translator ritamalik left an excellent comment that is worth reproducing in its entirety. It has been edited slightly for punctuation and clarity:

I certainly disagree with you on so many levels, RonaldB. First let me say that I am an Iranian ex-pat, and I want to tell you my perspective on these issues as an outsider to Western culture:

As I have observed you Westerners now for close to twenty years that I have lived amongst you, I have learned that you are a people that think you are responsible for all the things that go on in the world.

You are obsessively solution-oriented people, which means you think for any problem that we have in this world, there must be a solution, and you implement various solutions to international problems that you see around you. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don’t.

You also are a highly responsible people, and when even the slightest thing goes wrong, you are very angry and indignant about it and you quickly want to find the one responsible for it and punish him. You quickly look for someone to sue.

Being a guilt-oriented culture (as oppose to shame- and honour- oriented) also you are very quick to take responsibility when you feel (real or imagined) that you did something wrong and quickly start to beat your chests in a public mea culpa and engage in proverbial self-flagellation.

All of the above make you incapable of understanding people from my neck of the woods, and your and our tendencies have made a really toxic combination on the world stage.

Why? Because we in the Middle East are a very irresponsible and fatalistic lot. When things go wrong for us (as they often do) we never fuss too much over why they went wrong. We expect things to go wrong all the time as part of the natural process of things, and when they do we don’t try to find the guilty party to sue him. Analysis and self-reflection and making sure it will never happen again and stuff like that are highly alien activities to us.

Unless of course what went wrong causes us shame and embarrassment, in which case we will do anything possible to deflect blame from ourselves, especially if we have a hunch that it actually was our fault. We will make a lot of noise, give lots of excuses and engage in a lot of blame-shifting. We roll up in a fetal position and pretend that we are actually the prime victims of what went wrong, all the while knowing full well that we have caused the damned thing to go wrong ourselves!

All of that dysfunctional behaviour is highly exacerbated if there is a willing person (or country or culture) who is gladly taking all the blame for our behaviour on himself and has the peculiar tendency to totally disregard our role in what went wrong.

Now this toxic mix applies to the politics and wars in the Middle East and in the Third World in general in this following way:

We in the Middle East have a problem. For example we have a brutal dictator like Saddam. Then you see that we are suffering and people are being tortured in his prison and you wonder how you could help. Then Saddam invades Kuwait. You decide, enough is enough, and attack and free Kuwait, but you decide not to go all the way in and remove Saddam. Then Saddam, angrier than ever, lashes out even more at his own people and kills lots of dissidents and gasses the Kurds.

Now all of this becomes your fault, because you didn’t finish the job and didn’t remove Saddam. Then Saddam continues his bad behaviour and now he is even trying to develop WMDs. This time you say, enough is enough, and you go in and remove him. You offer democracy and financial aid on a platter to the Iraqis. Now in post-Saddam Iraq, Shias and Sunnis start to fight and chaos starts to reign, and no matter how much you try you cannot properly pacify the country.

So now all of this chaos becomes your fault. Everybody says that you should not have intervened and removed Saddam because even though he was brutal, he was keeping everyone in line and preventing Shias and Sunnis from killing each other. So now what do you do? You say OK! Enough is enough, we leave and won’t intervene again because we just made a mess. So you pull out your troops, and now what? The Shia vs. Sunni fight is exacerbated, and even war and chaos spreads to the rest of the region. In Syria you decided not to intervene and now ISIS has taken over. So now you assume that the rise of ISIS was somehow your fault as well. But had you actually intervened and tried to put in a regime that was a bit more manageable than ISIS, you would have been blaming yourself for having installed a puppet regime that would predictably torture everyone and make people miserable and want to leave their country. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t seems to be the destiny of any policy that you pursue in the Third World.

People are still blaming the West for not having intervened in Rwanda in the ’90s when 800,000 people were killed, while simultaneously blaming the West for intervening in Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere.

In all of these blame and regrets one thing is missing: assigning responsibility to the people of the Third World themselves, who are actually the primary causes of the chaos and mayhem in their own countries. As if we are passive objects that if you push the wrong button in us we will inevitably act in a certain way. The West was not at fault for the genocide in Rwanda! The Rwandans were! The West is not at fault for the chaos in the Middle East, we Middle Easterners are! We are the ones who have a bloodlust and long to shed each other’s blood for silly reasons. Your “failure” to stop us from destroying ourselves IS NOT YOUR FAULT!! We are a confusing and hard to deal with lot! Please get that!!

In dealing with us, the people of the Middle East, you have had, and will have one long series of lose-lose options. There are no win-lose options! None! When dealing with irresponsible and bloodthirsty cultures you cannot have good outcomes, no matter how much you wrack your heads and try to come up with a policy that would work and bring peace and prosperity to us. It will not happen! We are the ones who have to change and do some self-reflection and soul-searching in order to maybe… just maybe, learn to be a bit more civilised!

Meanwhile, all that I ask of you is that, whether you decide to intervene or not in our affairs, keep your expectation of the outcome low. Accept no responsibility for the outcome. Put the blame for the negative outcome of whatever policy you pursued where it belongs (on us!) so that we won’t have the chance to save face despite our countries’ being in an embarrassing mess, and feel like victims when we should be soul-searching. And, for the sake of anything that you hold holy and dear, please don’t wreck your nice and orderly and civilised societies and advanced cultures by taking millions of refugees, in order to save us from the mess that has nothing to do with you and came about despite your best efforts, that we have caused with our own hands, and given half the chance, we will cause in your countries as well as soon as we settle down here, or even sooner!

Thank you!

It’s a necessary and timely warning but likely one that will remain unheeded by the leftist establishment that now dominates the West.
http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/08/in-the-middle-east-there-are-only-lose-lose-options/#more-37066