Amazing Insights About Cultural Marxism And The Erosion Of The West From It’s Own Proponents

Be warned: 

The following article comes from the website of “pick-up artist” Roosh, who spends their time picking up women for sex using the best tricks in the book.

As an atheist, I once used the very same techniques and skirted this subculture so I feel for the guy.

Now, Roosh is a product of cultural Marxism, which encourages people to indulge their natural, fleshly desires and he is also a perpetrator of cultural Marxism in his sexual pursuits. Sadly, he is aiding and a betting even though he doesn’t like its consequences. However, he has also somehow understood a number of the other damaging facets of cultural Marxism (beyond a shared appreciation of sexual immorality) to actually put together a pretty coherent study of the topic.

Furthermore, he actually makes some exceptionally good points.

But it is essential you understand the perspective he is coming from: hedonism, philosophical naturalism, atheism, and Darwinian evolution all form the basis of this mans worldview. With this is mind, be prepared to chew what meat he offers and spit out the bones of an anti-biblical worldview that sometimes creep into this dish. 

Just use discernment when you read it is all.

So without further ado, here it is:

It was Joe’s first date with Mary. He asked her what she wanted in life and she replied, “I want to establish my career. That’s the most important thing to me right now.” Undeterred that she had no need for a man in her life, Joe entertained her with enough funny stories and cocky statements that she soon allowed him to lightly pet her forearm.

At the end of the date, he locked arms with her on the walk to the subway station, when two Middle Eastern men on scooter patrol accosted them and said they were forbidden to touch. “This is Sharia zone,” they said in heavily accented English, in front of a Halal butcher shop. Joe and Mary felt bad that they offended the two men, because they were trained in school to respect all religions but that of their ancestors. One of the first things they learned was that their white skin gave them extra privilege in life which must be consciously restrained at all times. Even if they happened to disagree with the two men, they could not verbally object because of anti-hate laws that would put them in jail for religious discrimination. They unlocked arms and maintained a distance of three feet from each other.

Unfortunately for Joe, Mary did not want to go out with him again, but seven years later he did receive a message from her on Facebook saying hello. She became vice president of a company, but could not find a man equal to her station since women now made 25% more than men on average. Joe had long left the country and moved to Thailand, where he married a young Thai girl and had three children. He had no plans on returning to his country, America.

If cultural collapse occurs in the way I will now describe, the above scenario will be the rule within a few decades. The Western world is being colonized in reverse, not by weapons or hard power, but through a combination of progressivism and low reproductive rates. These two factors will lead to a complete cultural collapse of many Western nations within the next 200 years. This theory will show the most likely mechanism that it will proceed in America, Canada, UK, Scandinavia, and Western Europe.

What Is A Cultural Collapse?

Cultural collapse is the decline, decay, or disappearance of a native population’s rituals, habits, interpersonal communication, relationships, art, and language. It coincides with a relative decline of population compared to outside groups. National identity and group identification will be lost while revisionist history will be applied to demonize or find fault with the native population. Cultural collapse is not to be confused with economic or state collapse. A nation that suffers from a cultural collapse can still be economically productive and have a working government.

First I will share a brief summary of the cultural collapse progression before explaining them in more detail. Then I will discuss where I see many countries along its path.

The Cultural Collapse Progression

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.

3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.

6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.

7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.
1. Removal of religious narrative

Religion has been a powerful restraint for millennia in preventing humans from pursuing their base desires and narcissistic tendencies so that they satisfy a god. Family formation is the central unit of most religions, possibly because children increase membership at zero marginal cost to the church (i.e. they don’t need to be recruited).

Religion may promote scientific ignorance, but it facilitates reproduction by giving people a narrative that places family near the center of their existence.[1] [2] [3] After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking.[4] As of now, there has not been a single non-religious population that has been able to reproduce above the death rate.[5]

Even though many people today claim to believe in god, they may not step inside a church but once or twice a year for special holidays. Religion went from being a lifestyle, a manual for living, to something that is thought about in passing.

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles

Once religion no longer plays a role in people’s lives, the stage is set to fracture male-female bonding. It is collectively attacked by several ideologies stemming from the beliefs of Cultural Marxist theory, which serve to accomplish one common end: destruction of the family unit so that citizens are dependent on the state. They achieve this goal through the marginalization of men and their role in society under the banner of “equality.”[6] With feminism pushed to the forefront of this umbrella movement, the drive for equality ends up being a power grab by women.[7] This attack is performed on a range of fronts:

  • medicating boys from a young age with ADHD drugs to eradicate displays of masculinity[8]
  • shaming of men for having direct sexual interest in attractive and fertile women
  • criminalization of normal male behavior by redefining some instances of consensual sex as rape[9]
  • imprisonment of unemployed fathers for non-payment of child support, rendering them destitute and unable to be a part of their children’s lives[10]
  • taxation of men at higher rates for redistribution to women[11] [12]
  • promotion of single mother and homosexual lifestyles over that of the nuclear family[13] [14]

The end result is that men, confused about their identify and averse to state punishment from sexual harassment, “date rape,” and divorce proceedings, make a rational decision to wait on the sidelines.[15] Women, still not happy with the increased power given to them, continue their assault on men by instructing them to “man up” into what has become an unfair deal—marriage. The elevation of women above men is allowed by corporations, which adopt “girl power” marketing to expand their consumer base and increase profits.[16] [17] Governments also allow it because it increases their tax revenue. Because there is money to be made with women working and becoming consumers, there is no effort by the elite to halt this development.

3. Women begin to place career above family

At the same time men are emasculated as mere “sperm donors,” women are encouraged to adopt the career goals, mannerisms, and competitive lifestyles of men, inevitably causing them to delay marriage, often into an age where they can no longer find suitable husbands who have more resources than themselves. [18] [19] [20] [21] The average woman will find it exceedingly difficult to balance career and family, and since she has no concern of getting “fired” from her family, who she may see as a hindrance to her career goals, she will devote an increasing proportion of time into her job.

Female income, in aggregate, will soon match or exceed that of men.[22] [23] [24] A key reason that women historically got married was to be economically provided for, but this reason will no longer persist and women will feel less pressure or motivation to marry. The burgeoning spinster population will simply be a money-making opportunity for corporations to market to an increasing population of lonely women. Cat and small dog sales will rise.

Women succumb to their primal sexual and materialistic urges to live the “Sex and the City” lifestyle full of fine dining, casual sex, technological bliss, and general gluttony without learning traditional household skills or feminine qualities that would make them attractive wives.[25] [26] Men adapt to careerist women in a rational way by doing the following:

to sate their natural sexual desires, men allow their income to lower since economic stability no longer provides a draw to women in their prime[27]

they mimic “alpha male” social behavior to get laid with women who, without having an urgent need for a man’s monetary resources to survive, can choose men based on confidence, aesthetics, and general entertainment value[28]

they withdraw into a world of video games and the internet, satisfying their own base desires for play and simulated hunting[29] [30]

Careerist women who decide to marry will do so in a hurried rush around 30 because they fear growing old alone, but since they are well past their fertility peak[31], they may find it difficult to reproduce. In the event of successful reproduction at such a later age, fewer children can be born before biological infertility, limiting family size compared to the historical past.

4. Birth rates decrease among native population

The stage is now set for the death rate to outstrip the birth rate. This creates a demographic cliff where there is a growing population of non-working elderly relative to able-bodied younger workers. Two problems result:

Not enough tax revenue is supplied by the working population in order to provide for the elderly’s medical and social retirement needs.[32] Borrowing can only temporarily maintain these entitlements.

Decrease of economic activity since more people are dying than buying.[33]

No modern nation has figured out how to substantially raise birth rates among native populations. The most successful effort has been done in France, but that has still kept the birth rate among French-born women just under the replacement rate (2.08 vs 2.1).[34] The easiest and fastest way to solve this double-edged problem is to promote mass immigration of non-elderly individuals who will work, spend, and procreate at rates greater than natives.[35]

A replenishing supply of births are necessary to create taxpayers, workers, entrepreneurs, and consumers in order to maintain the nation’s economic development.[36] While many claim that the planet is suffering from “overpopulation,” an economic collapse is inevitable for those countries who do not increase their population at steady rates.

5. Large influx of immigration

An aging population without youthful refilling will cause a scarcity of labor, increasing that labor’s price. Corporate elites will now lobby governments for immigration reform to relieve this upward pressure on wages.[37] [38] At the same time, the modern mantra of sustained GDP growth puts pressure on politicians for dissemination of favorable economic growth data to aid in their re-elections. The simplest way to increase GDP without innovation or development of industry is to expand the population. Both corporate and political elites now have their goals in alignment where the easiest solution becomes immigration.[39] [40]

While politicians hem and haw about designing permanent immigration policies, immigrants continue to settle within the nation.[41] The national birth rate problem is essentially solved overnight, as it’s much easier to drain third-world nations of its starry-eyed population with enticements of living in the first-world than it is to encourage the native women to reproduce. (Lateral immigration from one first-world nation to another is so relatively insignificant that the niche term ‘expatriation’ has been developed to describe it). Native women will show a stubborn resistance at any suggestion they should create families, much preferring a relatively responsibility-free lifestyle of sexual variety, casual internet dating via mobile apps, consumer excess, and comfortable high-paying jobs in air conditioned offices.[42] [43]

Immigrants will almost always come from societies that are more religious and, in the case of Islam with regard to European immigration, far more scientifically primitive and rigid in its customs.[44]

6. Sanitization of host culture coincides with increase in immigrant power

While many adult immigrants will feel gracious at the opportunity to live in a more prosperous nation, others will soon feel resentment that they are forced to work menial jobs in a country that is far more expensive than their own.[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] The majority of them remain in lower economic classes, living in poor “immigrant communities” where they can speak their own language, find their own homeland foods, and follow their own customs or religion.

Instead of breaking out of their foreigner communities, immigrants seek to expand it by organizing. They form local groups and civic organizations to teach natives better ways to understand and serve immigrant populations. They will be eager to publicize cases where immigrants have been insulted by insensitive natives or treated unfairly by police authorities in the case of petty crime.[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] School curriculums may be changed to promote diversity or multiculturalism, at great expense to the native culture.[56] Concessions will be made not to offend immigrants.[57] A continual stream of outrages will be found and this will feed the power of the organizations and create a state within a state where native elites become fearful of applying laws to immigrants.[58]

7. Destruction of native culture

This step has not yet happened in any first-world nation, so I will predict it based on logically extending known events I have already described.

Local elites will give lip service to immigrant groups for votes but will be slow to give them real state or economic power. Citizenship rules may even be tightened to prevent immigrants from being elected. The elites will be mostly insulated from the cultural crises in their isolated communities, private schools, and social clubs, where they can continue to incubate their own sub-culture without outside influence. At the same time, they will make speeches and enact polices to force native citizens to accept multiculturalism and blind immigration. Anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws will be more vigorously enforced than other more serious crimes. Police will monitor social networking to identify those who make statements against protected classes.

Cultural decline begins in earnest when the natives feel shame or guilt for who they are, their history, their way of life, and where their ancestors came from. They will let immigrant groups criticize their customs without protest, or they simply embrace immigrant customs instead with religious conversion and interethnic marriages. Nationalistic pride will be condemned as a “far-right” phenomenon and popular nationalistic politicians will be compared to Hitler. Natives learn the art of self-censorship, limiting the range of their speech and expressions, and soon only the elderly can speak the truths of the cultural decline while a younger multiculturalist within earshot attributes such frankness to senility or racist nostalgia.

With the already entrenched environment of political correctness (see stage 2), the local culture becomes a sort of “world” culture that can be declared tolerant and progressive as long as there is a lack of criticism against immigrants, multiculturalism, and their combined influence. All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.

I want to now take a brief look at six different countries and see where they are along the cultural collapse progression…


This is an interesting case because, up to recently, we saw very low birth rates not due to progressive ideals but from a rough transition to capitalism in the 1990’s and a high male mortality from alcoholism.[59] [60] To help sustain its population, Russia is readily accepting immigrants from Central Asian regions, treating them like second-class citizens and refusing to make any accommodations away from the ethnic Russian way of life. Even police authorities turn a blind eye when local skinhead groups attack immigrants.[61] In addition, Russia has also shown no tolerance to homosexual or progressive groups,[62] stunting their negative effects upon the culture. The birth rate has risen in recent years to levels seen in Western Europe but it’s still not above the death rate. Russia will see a population collapse before a cultural one.

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very low


We’re seeing rapid movement through stages 2 and 3, where progressive ideology based on the American model is becoming adopted and a large poor population ensure progressive politicians will continue to remain in power with promises of economic redistribution.[63] [64] [65] Within 15 years we should see a sharp drop in birth rates and a relaxation of immigration laws.

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Moderate


Some could argue that America is currently experiencing a cultural collapse. It always had a fragile culture because of its immigrant foundings, but immigrants of the past (including my own parents) rapidly acclimated into the host culture to create a sense of national pride around an ethic of hard work and shared democratic values. This is being eroded as a fem-centric culture rises in its place, with its focus on trends, celebrities, homosexuality, multiculturalism, and male-bashing. Natives have become pleasure seekers with little inclination to reproduction during their years of peak fertility.[66]

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high


While America always had high amounts of immigration, and therefore a system of integration, England is newer to the game. In the past 20 years, they have massively ramped up their immigration efforts.[67] A visit to London will confirm that the native British are slowly becoming minorities, with their iconic red telephone booths left undisturbed purely for tourist photo opportunities. Approximately 5% of the English population is now Muslim.[68] Instead of acclimatizing, they are achieving early success in creating zones with Sharia law.[69] The English elite, in response, is jailing natives under stringent anti-race laws.[70] England had a highly successful immigration story with Polish immigrants who eagerly acclimated to English culture, but have opened the doors to other peoples who don’t want to integrate.[71]

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high


Sweden is experiencing a similar immigration situation to England, but they possess a higher amount of self-shame and white guilt. Instead of allowing immigrants who could work in the Swedish economy, they are encouraging migration of asylum seekers who have been made destitute by war. These immigrants enter Sweden and immediately receive social benefits. In effect, Sweden is welcoming the least economically productive people in the world.[72] The immigrants will produce little or no economic benefit, and may even worsen Sweden’s economy. Immigrants are turning some parts of Sweden, such as the Rosengard area of Malmo, into a ghetto.[73]

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high


From my one and half years of living in Poland, I have seen a moderate level of progressive ideological creep, careerism among women, hedonism, and idolation of Western values, particularly out of England, where a large percentage of the Polish population have emigrated for work. Younger Poles may not act much different from their Western counterparts in their party lifestyle behavior, but there nonetheless remains a tenuous maintenance of traditional sex roles. Women of fertile age are pursuing relationships over one-night stands, but careerism is causing them to stall family formation. This puts a downward pressure on birth rates, which stems from significant numbers of fertile young women emigrating to countries like the UK and USA, along with continued economic uncertainties faced from transitioning to capitalism[74]. As Europe’s “least multicultural” nation, Poland has long been hesitant to accept immigrants, but this has recently changed and they are encouraging migrants.[75] To its credit, it is seeking first-world entrepreneurs instead of low skilled laborers or asylum seekers. Its cultural fate will be an interesting development in the years to come, but the prognosis will be more negative as long as its young people are eager to leave the homeland.

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Possible

Poland and Russia show the limitations of Cultural Collapse Theory in that it best applies to first-world nations with highly developed economies. They have low birth rates but not through the mechanism I described, though if they adopt a more Western ideological track like Brazil, I expect to see the same outcome that is befalling England or Sweden.

There can be many paths to cultural destruction, and those nations with the most similarities will gravitate towards the same path, just like how Eastern European nations are suffering low birth rates because of mass emigration due to being introduced into the European Union

How To Stop Cultural Collapse

Maintaining native birth rates while preventing the elite from allowing immigrant labor is the most effective means at preventing cultural collapse. Since multiculturalism is an experiment with no proven efficacy, a culture can only be maintained by a relatively homogenous group who identify with each other. When that homogeneity breaks down and one citizen looks to the next and does not see a person with the same values as himself, the culture falls in dis-repair as native citizens begin to lose a shared means of communication and identity. Once the percentage of the immigrant population crosses a certain threshold (perhaps 15%), the decline will pick up in pace and cultural breakdown will be readily apparent to all observers.

Current policies to solve low birth rates through immigration is a short-term fix with dire long-term consequences. In effect, it’s a Trojan-horse prescription of irreversible cultural destruction. A state must prevent itself from entering the position where mass immigration is considered a solution by blocking progressive ideologies from taking hold. One way this can be done is through the promotion of a state-sponsored religion which encourages the nuclear family instead of single motherhood and homosexuality. However, introducing religion as a mainstay of citizen life in the post-enlightenment era may be impossible.

We must consider that the scientific era is an evolutionary maladaptive feature of humanity that natural selection will accordingly punish (i.e. those who are anti-religious and pro-science will simply breed less). It must also be considered that with religion in permanent decline, cultural collapse may be a certainty that eventually occurs in all developed nations. Religion, it may turn out, was evolutionary beneficial to the human race.

Another possible solution is to foster a patriarchal society where men serve as strong providers. If you encourage the development of successful men who possess indispensable skills and therefore resources that are lacked by females, there will be women below their station who want to marry and procreate with them, but if strong women are produced instead, marriage and procreation is unlikely to take place at levels above the death rate.

A gap between the sexes should always exist in the favor of men if procreation is to occur at high rates, or else you’ll have something similar to the situation in America where urban professional women cannot find “good men” to begin a family with (i.e., men who are significantly more financially successful than them). They instead remain single and barren, only used occasionally by cads for exciting casual sex.

One issue that I purposefully ignored is the effect of technology and consumerism on lowering birth rates. How much influence does video games, internet, and smartphones contribute to a birth decline? How much of an effect does Western-style consumerism have in delaying marriage? I suspect they have more of an amplification effect than being an outright cause. If a country is proceeding through the cultural collapse model, technology will simply hurry the collapse, but giving internet access to a traditionally religious group of people may not cause them to flip overnight. Research will have to be done in these areas to say for sure.


The first iteration of any theory is sure to create as many questions as answers, but I hope that by proposing this model, it becomes more clear why some cultures seem so quick to degrade while others display a sort of immunity. Some countries may be too far down the wrong path to be saved, but I hope the information presented gives concerned readers ideas on protecting their own culture by allowing them to connect how progressive ideologies that may seem innocent or benign on the surface can eventually lead to an outright collapse of their nation’s culture.


Communism, Islam, Or Christianity: These Are Literally Your Only Choices

There are two great powers in the world today: Islam and Progressivism.

You may know Progressivism from its starring role in murdering 100 million people last century. It also made a significant part of the world far poorer than it ever needed to be, given the whole Industrial Age and all. 

Like any destitute soul trying to hide a wanted felon, it’s proponents knew that Communism would not be able to show its face for a long while. It needed a disguise!
So they took Communism and threw a wig on it, gave it a spray-on tan, let it grow out a refined moustache and voilà: “Progressivism”.

In what must surely be the greatest snake oil rebranding in history, Progressivism offers the same impossible utopia at exactly the same asking price: your every human right and freedom. 

But who wants to believe that the West is going to get eaten alive by Islam when successive liars continue to promise the Marxist utopia?

When you reject biblical Christianity, those are your only two options and if you don’t much like truth, then crossing of the genuine and proven threat of Islam is just one more denial.

It is overwhelmingly obvious that we are being governed by people who absolutely do not share in the traditional values that once made this country great. The vast majority of people in this nation, however, still hold the ideals of individual liberty in very high regard, as well as the fundamental Christian principles that were the driving force behind the creation of our government and system of laws. People still believe our constitution should remain the law of the land, and, furthermore, many people are becoming increasingly frustrated with the continuous usurpations of power by the current governing body. In fact, many people are fully aware that we are being governed by communists whose number one goal is the destruction of American sovereignty in favor of a global hierarchy, in which we find ourselves subservient to the whims of global dictators. In order to overcome this, we have to understand it for what it is: spiritual warfare.

Communism is generally understood, at the very least, to be a system of economics in which government controls all aspects of a society’s production. This is purported to ensure equality and fairness among the masses. Communist regimes have historically claimed that a utopian, egalitarian paradise awaited the masses if they would simply surrender their rights and let government have the necessary power. Others believe communism to be a system of absolute atheism, where the belief in a God other than the state was absolutely forbidden, as people who worshipped a God would not offer total subservience to the governing powers. While these descriptions may give someone a basic understanding of what communism is, they are not totally accurate. Communism was actually created for the very purpose of destroying religion and being the anti-thesis to western capitalism. Communism itself is a Hegelian dialectic created to cause conflict between two world views, religion and anti religion, which would eventually see the rise of what many people recognize as the New World Order.

In order to gain a better understanding, we have to look at Karl Marx, the man who was understood to be the founder of socialism/communism. Though there is reason to believe that Marx was simply financed by others to create this system, it is generally understood that he was an atheist and his lack of religion is what motivated him to create what has become known as the most oppressive governing system known to man. Karl Marx was not an atheist; he was, at one point in his life, a devout Christian whose knowledge of scripture and Biblical principles were well-rounded. In fact, the following quote was written by Marx when he was young.

“Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort in sorrow, calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love, to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition and glory, but only for the sake of Christ”. 

This certainly doesn’t sound like the ramblings of someone who hated or didn’t believe in God. The truth is, at some point in the life of Karl Marx, he became very angry and turned on God. Karl Marx became a Satanist. Why this happened remains unknown, but the later writings of Marx confirmed that he had indeed turned his back on God and became one with God’s adversary. The following quote illustrates this.

“…Yet I have power within my youthful arms

To clench and crush you (i.e., personified humanity)

with tempestuous force,

While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.

You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,

Whispering in your ears ‘Descend,

come with me, friend.’”

For some reason, which again remains unknown, Karl Marx became a man filled with hatred towards God, and this is what motivated him to create communism. Though, as stated above, there is reason to believe that others from a group commonly known as the Illuminati actually paid Marx to create it. Take this quote for example from

“We know that, in 1848, a highly select body of secret initiates who called themselves the League of Twelve Just Men of the Illuminati, financed Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto.”

This puts our understanding of communism into a different perspective, doesn’t it?

The essential understanding that should be taken from this is that communism wasn’t created as an economic system to create total equality; it was created as a system of governance to be run by Satan in an effort to destroy humanity and man’s divine connection to God. That is why it was created as an “Anti-Thesis” to western capitalism. The ideas behind capitalism, liberty, the free market, and every other value that made America great all revolve around one spiritual absolute, and that is that man was created with free will. What do socialism and communism always do? They create populations of non-thinking people who become totally helpless and dependent on government. Would this happen if they retained their belief in God and operated from the notion they were born with free will? This is why communism seeks to destroy religion, or, as Marx described it in The Communist Manifesto, “Destroy God in the minds of men.” The purpose wasn’t to create a system full of atheists but to create the conditions that would enable the creation of Satan’s new order. Creating atheism was but a means to an end in the quest to defeat God.

To further illustrate this, let’s examine our current presidents continuous assault upon the economy that does little but destroy opportunity and create dependence. The economy has become so bad that we have more people living on welfare than working. This does nothing but enslave and destroy an individual’s initiative. Soon, people forget how to care for themselves and they will forego their principles and vote for whomever guarantees to maintain their lifestyle of dependence. By removing opportunities to live self-sufficient lives, the Marxists create a system of slavery and convince everyone that it was done in the name of fairness. It’s the same story every time. The question is: can Marxism prevail in the Land of the free? Or, do we still have the moral, intestinal fortitude to stop it?

The Importance Of Christianity To Western Foreign Policy

Nations dominated by Christianity tend to make pretty good allies to nations that enjoy things like not becoming a cesspool of poverty and/or warfare.

It makes sense if a large portion of your populous thinks it’s important to speak the truth, not steal from people, act generously, and value the life of others.

Even given the imperfection of even the best Christians around, it sure wins any contest against “allies” whose creed runs more like “kill the infidel”.

That may indeed be why Islamic countries can’t even be friends with other Islamic countries.

There are many Americans out there, close to 20%, that are atheist or agnostic. To those in this category, religion is typically meaningless and/or foolish. It is more often than not seen as a negative- one that can create wars and strife between nations.

Perhaps some of that is true, but the reality is that every American should desire that other nations should become more Christian. A simple look at our strongest allies, and our worst adversaries, clearly demonstrate this theory.

The section below show the list/rank of our allies and also some of our enemies- along with the top 2 prevalent religions in each country.

Top USA allies- per

United Kingdom (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Canada (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Israel (1. Judaism, 2. Islam) – big disparity

South Korea (1. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious, 2. Buddhism)

Mexico (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/Irreligious)

Japan (1. Shinto, 2. Buddhism)

Australia (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

France (1.Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Germany (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Philippines (1.Christianity, 2. Islam) big disparity
Top US adversaries – per a recent Gallup poll.

China (1. Confucianism, 2. Taoism)

Iran (1. Islam at 99.4%, 2. “Other”)

North Korea (1. Juche, 2. Korean Shamanism)

Note that out of the countries with the strongest geopolitical alliances to the USA, 70% list Christianity is the majority religion in their nation. 10% list Judaism, the older cousin of Christianity, and 20% list a different religion. NONE list Islam as the prevailing theology. The two countries that list Islam as #2 each have an enormous statistical spread between #1 and #2.
On the flip side, our 3 biggest adversaries are varied but have one main thing in common: Christianity is NOT their #1 or #2 religion. Iran is 99.4% Islam, which is merely an admission that an Iranian really cannot be anything other than Muslim, officially. The other 2 countries are special conditions that have nothing to do with Islam, or religion in general.

When searching out new worldwide alliances, the US needs to be looking for Christian nations. That is the #1 litmus test, it seems.

This topic became of interest after hearing a story on the radio about The Bible League- a missionary group that distributes Bibles (in native languages) across much of Africa. As many know, there is a battle for the hearts and souls of the majority of African peoples. Most in Africa practice some form of tribal religion, and both Muslims and Christians are actively trying to evangelize and convert these masses. The direction of these current religious leanings will likely determine if most of Africa will be a friend or foe to the United States.

So regardless of your view on Christianity, it is in your best interest as an American and for national security to hope (and pray if you believe in that) that Christianity is spread in non-Christian parts of the world. In this ever-dangerous world, we never know who could help us, or harm us, in the future.

Imagine A World Where Christian Terrorists Murder Muslims In The Name Of The Cross

It sure makes for an amusing fantasy and doubles as a great means of highlighting and underscoring the raging hypocrisy of Islamofacists (both Muslims and leftists):

Writing in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, Nadine Al-Budair asks how Muslims would react if western youths acting in the name of Christ blew themselves up in their midst. She also slams Muslim attempts to absolve themselves of guilt by saying that terrorists do not represent Islam, calling such disclaimers “pathetic.”

Taking the largest acts of terror from the last couple of decades, Al-Budair, who today lives in Qatar, wonders what would have happened if they had been perpetrated in the Arab world. Citing terrorist groups like the Islamic states desire to impose 7th century Sharia law, Al-Budair writes:

Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross. Imagine that two skyscrapers had collapsed in some Arab capital, and that an extremist Christian group, donning millennium-old garb, had emerged to take responsibility for the event, while stressing its determination to revive Christian teachings or some Christian rulings, according to its understanding, to live like in the time [of Jesus] and his disciples, and to implement certain edicts of Christian scholars.

She asks readers to imagine a world in which Christians call Muslims “infidels” and pray that God will eliminate them all. She continues by conjuring an Arab world that grants foreigners visas, citizenship, jobs, free education, and healthcare, and then asks what would happen if one of those foreigners killed Arabs indiscriminately.

Referencing American engineer Paul Marshall Johnson, who was abducted and beheaded by Al-Qaeda operatives in Saudi Arabia in 2004, Al- Budair writes:
“Imagine a Frenchmen or a German in Paris or Berlin leading his Muslim neighbor [somewhere] in order to slaughter him and then freeze his head in an ice box, in a cold and calculating manner … as one terrorist did with the head of an American in Riyadh years ago.”

The liberal writer condemns Muslims for thinking it is within their rights to condemn Trump’s statement rather than “address the implications of some of our extremist curricula, our education, and our regimes, and [to] be ashamed” of them.

Regarding Trump, she wrote:

“However, how much longer [will this last]? Today things are different. [Western] anger [at Muslims] is apparent, and they make scary declarations. One who recently championed [these views] is Donald Trump, who demanded to bar Muslims from entering the U.S.

“It is strange that we [Muslims] believe we have the right to condemn such statements rather than address the implications of some of our extremist curricula, our education, and our regimes, and be ashamed [of them]… It is strange that we condemn [the West] instead of addressing what is happening in our midst – the extremist ways in which we interpret the shari’a and our reactionary attitudes towards each other and the world. It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world.”

She takes the Muslim world to task for continuing to condemn the West instead of addressing its own radicalism, which holds that killing Westerners is part of a holy jihad that “leads to virgins of paradise.”

“It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world,” Al-Budair write. She says that claims made by Muslims that those who commit terrorism do not represent Islam are “farces” and “pathetic” attempts to absolve Muslims of guilt.

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.

The Slippery Slope From Transgendered To Transracial To Trasabled To Transpecies To Transaged…Seriously!!

When you decide that reality itself can be reinterpreted based upon feelings, your society is doomed.

This is the West today.

In an eagerness to ignore God, our society is wiling to plumb any depths it seems. Pretending the universe has no creator was the beginning of believing and endorsing a whole host of stupid things from the idea that life arose spontaneously to morality being a personalised pick-and-choose buffet bar.

And just when we had been promised that the slippery slope our society has been practically falling down is actually non-existent, we have plummeted to a new level of insanity.

Michael brown offers the diagnosis:

What if I told you that there was a married man with 7 children who left his wife and kids and now lives with another family where he believes he is a 6-year-old girl? Would you say that he had serious mental and emotional issues and needed professional help?

That would be the expected reaction, but today, we must expect the unexpected. And so, we are now told that this man is both transgender and transager. Some people are even celebrating this madness.

I kid you not.

So, we have Bruce Jenner, woman of the year, the world’s most famous example of transgender identity.

We have Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who identifies as black, a prominent example of being transracial.

Then there’s Jewel Shuping, who blinded herself so her mind could be in harmony with her body. She is now a poster woman for being transabled.

There’s also Gary Matthews, aka “Boomer,” who believes he’s a dog, apparently an example of being trans-species.

And now there’s Paul Woscht, known today as Stefonkee, who “thinks he is actually a six year-old girl—not just a woman, but a six year-old girl—stuck in the body of a 50-something man.”

As reported by Ashley Rae Goldenberg, “At age 46, Wolscht deserted his wife and his seven children to live his ‘true’ life.”

As he explains, “I can’t deny I was married. I can’t deny I have children. But I’ve moved forward now and I’ve gone back to being a child. I don’t want to be an adult right now, and I just live my life like I couldn’t when I was in school.”
I wonder if his ex-wife thinks that her former husband has “moved forward”? I wonder if his children think their father has “moved forward”?

Woscht now has a new family, with, he says, an “adopted mummy and daddy who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl. And their children, and their grandchildren, are totally supportive. … We have a great time. We color, we do kids stuff. It’s called play therapy. No medication, no suicide thoughts. And I just get to play.”

This man needs serious help, not just “play therapy” that affirms his confusion. And to the extent that he willfully abandoned his family, he needs to repent and seek forgiveness.

How has the transgender community related to this latest example of what must be dubbed “transanity” (a term I have used several times before)?

One group, the Canada-based Transgender Project, made a full-length documentary about Wolscht, explaining that, “We met Stefonkee Wolscht first in the documentary Paul Wears Dresses. … Like a large percentage of the transgender population, Stefonkee Wolscht knows first hand what it’s like to be homeless, unemployed and in fear for her personal safety.”

To repeat: This poor man needs serious, professional help—either spiritual, emotional, mental or all three. It is love, not hate, that motivates me to write this, since I do not mock “Stefonkee”—I pity him.

Really now, is there no point at which transadvocates will admit that there is a problem, or that, rather than affirm someone’s perceived identify, they should question it? Is there no limit?

It’s bad enough to believe that Paul is a woman trapped in a man’s body (from all we know, this is entirely a matter of his own perception and has nothing to do with biology or chromosomes). But it’s even crazier to believe that he is a little girl trapped in a middle-aged man’s body.
Based on what empirical data? Based on what verifiable facts, rather than on his own distorted feelings? Will anyone dare argue that he actually has the brain of a little girl?

To give you an idea of how far these things go, there are academic studies on “Species Identity Disorder” (what I referred to earlier as being “trans-species”), including articles like, “Furries and the Limits of Species Identity Disorder: A Response to Gerbasi et al.,” by Fiona Probyn-Rapsey of the University of Sydney, published in 2011 by the scholarly journal Society & Animals (vol. 19).

Yes, “furries” are people who identify as animals, and as noted in the abstract to the article, “Species identity disorder is modeled on gender identity disorder, itself a highly controversial diagnosis that has been criticized for pathologizing homosexuality and transgendered people.”

I’m certainly not putting all these people into the exact same category (it seems apparent that Rachel Dolezal’s issues are very different than those of Paul Wolscht), but what’s clear is that all these people have something in common—from “Boomer” who believes he’s a dog to “Stefonkee” who believes he’s a little girl, from “Caitlyn” who believes he’s a woman to Jewel who believes she should be blind.

They all have some deep psychological issues, and, rather than celebrating them, we should pray for them as well as pray for professionals to help them find wholeness.

I’m sure Wolscht must have been deeply conflicted and troubled in order to abandon his family and live in denial of his past.

And there’s obviously something terribly tragic about the thought of a grown man wearing a dress and playing with little children all day, while his own children have lost their dad and his wife has lost her soulmate.

So, to repeat, I am not here to mock him but to pity him.

Yet I am here to expose the insanity of affirming people’s perceptions, whatever those perceptions might be.

The transgender movement is about to hit a wall called reality, and the crash will be painful indeed.

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:


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.

The Mercy-Killing Of The West By Islam: Brought To You By Leftist Western Leaders, Academics And The Mainstream Media 

Peter Smith’s words below are worth heeding and he has nailed a serious, culture-altering problem. 

There is a solution though which he doesn’t offer and that is Christ Jesus, King of the nations in whom humanity finds salvation.

Nonetheless, salvation in Jesus won’t stop the West from eroding into a quagmire of philosophical idiocy nor the brutal assault from Islam that idiotic quagmires demand.

It is there, dead ahead and clear as day, the looming lee shore of terror, intolerance, tribal savagery and the liberties of all curtailed in the name of defending against an enemy our leaders perversely refuse to recognise, let alone name
Just suppose it were possible to shoot people in the name of a religion and have the leader of the Free World, together with his media sycophants, deplore gun ownership among potential victims. Just suppose it were possible to shoot people in the name of a religion and have the leader of the Free World, together with his media sycophants, refuse to blame and name the religion. Just suppose it were possible to shoot people in the name of a religion and have the leader of the Free World, together with his media sycophants, mainly fret about a potential backlash against followers of the religion.

That, indeed, would be cunning plan of Baldrick proportions. And it would, of course, be completely fanciful to imagine it would ever work. Wouldn’t it?

One “expert” on CNN explained that the attack in San Bernardino was likely to be workplace violence. But the interviewer asked how come Syed Farook’s wife, Tashfeen Malik, having left their 6-month-old baby at home, was with him, gun in hand? He responded smoothly that he may have enjoined her in his disgruntlement. But the interviewer, who inexplicably continued to take this nincompoop seriously, asked how come they attacked in combat gear? That is unusual, the nincompoop agreed, without this at all affecting his opinion that the massacre was most likely work-related.

In company with the President, CNN — and almost certainly most other mainstream media — and also the FBI, held out for as long as possible in the face of the evidence. They did their politically-correct best to put off conceding what was bleeding obvious from the start to anyone of average common sense. According to a Fox News reporter on the ground, the FBI even flirted with describing the event as work-inspired terrorism before settling on terrorism.

But still conjoining the descriptor “Islamic” with terrorism proved a step too far. And, just in case FBI Director James Comey stepped out of line and upset his President by mentioning Islam at his media conference, Attorney General Loretta Lynch sat by his side with a cattle prod resting on his sensitive parts. Figuratively speaking, I think.

Born in America, Farook had recently become devout and grown out his beard. He had travelled to Mecca, where he met Malik in person, having ‘wooed’ her over the internet. She was a Pakistani national living in Saudi Arabia. She entered the US on a visa reserved for intended marriage partners of American citizens. She subsequently shunned American values beneath a full burqa and helped gun down the same people who had given her a ‘baby shower’. It is disgusting and sickening and could only emerge from malignant ethos.

Eventually the IEDs which the pair had made in their garage, their destruction of communication devices, Farook’s social media liaison with extremists on an FBI watch list, and Malik’s pledging of allegiance on Facebook to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi probably, just barely, gave the game away. Apparently, none of Farook’s three siblings, or his mother who lived with Farook and Malik, noticed anything amiss. Not a thing! According to the family’s lawyers they are all shocked. Hmm, might have heard that before.

Reportedly, a neighbour saw what she thought were strange goings on, with numbers of young, Middle-Eastern young men repeatedly going in and out of Farook’s garage late at night. She also saw lots of boxes being delivered. Apparently she was afraid to contact the authorities for fear of being branded a bigot. I don’t know, but if Farook had been investigated, he might, like ‘clock boy’, have been able to claim Islamophobic victimization, have been invited to the White House, and sued for a huge amount of money.

We are in trouble; big trouble. The trouble is not that some people want to destroy us and our civilisation in the name of their morbid religion. That is as plain as the tumbling Twin Towers. The trouble is that significant numbers of commentators and political leaders and masses of Western self-hating leftists, greenies and borderless-world creeps are determined to look the other way, even to the extent of looking ridiculous.

In another time ISIS would have been destroyed by now. Mosques would have been infiltrated and the trouble makers rooted out. And, populations of Muslims – if, in the first place, such large numbers had ever been let in — would have been actively encouraged to integrate rather than set up separate cultish communes in the suburbs of major Western cities. Mind you, then multiculturalism hadn’t been invented and foisted on Western societies, patriotism and national pride were not openly despised by the mainstream media, and the aforementioned creeps were no more than an eccentric fringe group.

The West Cannot Understand Islam

Not because it’s unable to but rather because it refuses to.

Mark Durie offers the words that every Western needs to read:

LEADING commentator Janet Daley’s article in Saturday’s Telegraph ‘The West is at war with a death cult’ stands for everything that is woeful about European elites’ response to Islamic jihad. 

It is a triumph of religious illiteracy.

The jihadist enemy, she asserts, is utterly unintelligible, so beyond encompassing in ‘coherent, systematic thought’ that no vocabulary can describe it: ‘This is just insanity’, she writes.

Because the enemy is ‘hysterical’, lacking ‘rational demands’, ‘negotiable limits,’ or ‘intelligible objectives’ Daley claims it is pointless to subject its actions to any form of historical, social or theological analysis, for no-one should attempt to ‘impose logic on behaviour that is pathological’

Despite this, Daley then ventures to offer analysis of and explanations for ISIS’ actions, but in doing so she relies upon her own conceptual categories, not those of ISIS.

Her explanations therefore fall wide of the mark. 


Daley writes: ‘We face a violent and highly contagious madness that believes the killing of civilians is a moral act.’ 

Here she appeals to Western concepts of war, reflected, for example, in the Geneva Convention, which provides detailed principles for the ‘protection of civilian persons’. 

Yet the first step in understanding a cultural system alien to one’s own, is to describe it in its own terms.

ISIS does not subscribe to the Geneva Convention. Its actions and strategies are based upon medieval Islamic laws of jihad, which make no use of the modern Western concept of ‘civilian’. 

They do, however, refer to the category of disbelievers (mushrik or kafir).

ISIS believes that killing disbelievers is a moral act, in accordance, for example, with Sura 9:5 of the Qur’an, which states :‘Fight and kill the idolators (mushrik) wherever you find them’.

Not nihilism

Daley writes: ‘The enemy has stated explicitly that it does not revere life at all’ and ‘Civilians are not collateral damage in this campaign: their deaths are the whole point.’ She goes on to lament that the latest French attacks lack any purpose, but are ‘carried out for the sheer nihilistic thrill of it’.

The claim that ISIS does not ‘revere life’ seems to refer to any number of statements by Islamic radicals, including an ISIS militant who vowed to ‘fill the streets of Paris with dead bodies’, and boasted that ISIS ‘loves death like you love life’ (see here). This is a theological reference to a series of verses in the Qur’an in which Jews are criticised for desiring life (Sura 2:94-96, 62:6-8). According to the Qur’an, loving life is a characteristic of infidels (Sura 3:14; 14:3; 75:20; 76:27) because it causes them to disregard the importance of the next life. The taunt much used by jihadis, ‘We love death like you love life’, implies that jihadis are bound for paradise while their enemies are hell-bound. 

The point of these statements is that Muslims are willing to fight to the death, while their infidel enemies will turn back in battle. This is not about reverence for life, but about who has the will to win.
This has nothing to do with nihilism, which is a belief that there are no values, nothing to be loyal to, and no purpose in living. In fact ISIS fighters have strong and clear loyalties and values, alien though they may be to those of Europe.

Daley’s claim that the deaths are ‘the whole point’ is also mistaken. While it is true that the jihadis consider killing infidels a meritorious act, potentially earning the killer a place in paradise (see here), and they consider being killed in battle against infidels a ticket to paradise, in fact the killings do serve a strategic purpose. This is to make infidels afraid, and thereby to weaken their will to resist Islamic dominance.

This strategy is commended by the Qur’an, for example in Sura 8:12, ‘I shall cast dread into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike above (their) necks and strike (off) all their fingers!’, as well as by the successful example of Muhammad in fighting the Jews of Medina, referred to in Sura 33:26-27, ‘He brought down from their fortifications those of the People of the Book who supported them, and cast dread into their hearts. You killed a group (of them), and took captive (another) group. And he caused you to inherit their land, their homes, and their wealth, and a land you had not set foot on.’ A similar passage is Sura 59:2, which ISIS has in fact been quoting in its celebrations of the Paris carnage.

It may seem to Daley that ISIS’ often-stated intention of defeating the West is fanciful, but the point is to understand ISIS, and as far as it is concerned, these deadly attacks are instrumental in weakening the will of infidels and hastening eventual victory.
Not pointless

Daley wonders what possible point these attacks could serve. She speculates: ‘… what is the alternative that is being demanded? Sharia law? The subjection of women? An end to liberal democracy? Are any of these things even within the bounds of consideration? What could be accomplished by national self-doubt or criticism at this point, when there is not even a reasonable basis for discussion with the enemy?’ It is hardly a secret that the ultimate goal of ISIS is to bring non-Muslims everywhere to convert to Islam or live under an Islamic caliphate as dhimmis. Sharia law and the subjection of women are part and parcel of this. 

It is odd that Daley laments having no reasonable basis for negotiating with the enemy. ISIS is not playing by a Western-style negotiating rule book. It is following Muhammad’s instructions to his followers to offer three choices to infidels: conversion, surrender, or the sword. Bin Ladin has explained that the West’s rejection of this framework is the whole reason for its conflict with what he calls ‘the authority of Islam’:

‘Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue; one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice, and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; or [2] payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or [3] the sword, for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.” (The Al Qaeda Reader)

It may seem unimaginable to European elites that ISIS is fighting for the goal of the surrender or conversion of Europe, but ISIS is thinking in time frames which extend to centuries, and their forebears conquered vast territories using such tactics. A final act of conquest can be preceeded by decades, or even centuries, of military raids. 

While killing is currently the main mode of ISIS’ attacks inside the West, if they could they would use other tactics as well, such as taking booty and slaves or destroying infrastructure, as they have been doing in Syria and Iraq.


Daley claims it is pointless to argue with people who have no reasonable grievances, for ‘the French people did not deserve this, just as Americans did not deserve 9/11’. However the important question is how ISIS sees its own motivations. Their ideology teaches them that infidels deserve death, simply by virtue of their unbelief. This has nothing to do with France’s history of colonialism or its treatment of Muslim minorities. ISIS needed no appeal to grievances to justify killing and enslaving Yazidis in Iraq and Syria, so why should they view the people of France any differently? Their objection to Europeans is that they are not Muslims, and their objection to European states is that they do not implement sharia law.


It is irresponsible and dangerous to claim that a tenacious enemy is insane and incomprehensible. To refuse to acknowledge the ideology of ISIS, and to deny its relevance is tantamount to a death-wish.

Like so many other revivalist Islamic groups, ISIS believes that it will be successful if it stays faithful to its divinely-mandated goals and tactics. It believes the nations of Europe are morally corrupt, weak infidels who love life too much to fight a battle to the death with stern Muslim soldiers who have set their hearts on paradise. It believes Europe stands on the wrong side of history. 

To combat this ideology it is necessary for Europe to prove ISIS wrong on all counts. It must show strength, not weakness. It must have confidence in its cultural and spiritual identity. It must be willing to fight for its survival. It must show that it believes in itself enough to fight for its future. It must defend its borders. It must act like someone who intends to win an interminably long war against an implacable foe.

There is a great deal Europe could have done to avert this catastrophe. It could, long ago, have challenged the Islamic view of history which idolised jihad and its intended outcome, the dhimma. It could have demanded that Islam renounce its love affair with conquest and dominance. It could have encouraged Muslims to follow a path of self-criticism leading to peace. This lost opportunity is what Bat Ye’or referred to in a prescient 1993 interview as the ‘relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism’.

Instead the elites of Europe embarked on decades of religiously illiterate appeasement and denialism.

There is still much that European states could do to defeat ISIS. They could, for example, inflict catastrophic military failure upon it as a powerful counter-argument to its theology of success. This will not deliver decisive, final victory against jihadism, but it will make the supremacist claims of ISIS less credible and hurt its recruitment. Islam’s laws of war allow Muslims to suspend their battle with infidels temporarily if there is no immediate prospect of victory and the risks to their cause are too great.

Europe also needs to act to suppress incitement of jihadi ideology by its clients, including the anti-Israeli jihadism of the Palestinian Authority. It must put more pressure on the militarily vulnerable Gulf states to stop funding Islamic radicalism throughout the Middle East and exporting jihad-revering versions of Islamic theology throughout the whole world.

One hope for Europe is that Islamic populations will get tired of the doctrine of jihad and all its bitter fruits. There are some signs that this is already happening, and many of the Muslims who are now seeking asylum in their hundreds of thousands will have come to this conclusion. However it seems likely that Muslim communities now established within Europe will be the last to reconsider their dogmas and their take on history, because they have not had to suffer first-hard the harsh realities of life under Islamic dystopias such as the ISIS ‘caliphate’ or Iran’s Islamic Revolution. A 2014 opinion poll found that among French 18-24 year olds, the Islamic State had an approval rating of 27%, which must include the overwhelming majority of young French Muslim men. For Europe, the challenge from within will be more enduring and intractable than the challenge from without.

Nevertheless, European states could still do much on their own turf. They could ban Saudi and other Middle Eastern funding to Islamic organisations, including mosques. They could stop appeasing Islamists in their midst. They could, even at this late hour, demand that the large and rapidly growing Muslim communities now well-established across Europe engage in constructive self-criticism of their religion, for the sake of peace.

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.