No, Obama is not a Muslim

No, dummies, Obama is NOT a Muslim

 

by Don Hank

 

I regularly receive propaganda pieces from various organizations with assertions representing a very common viewpoint among Neocons, worded essentially as follows:

The recent sham and highly dangerous deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons development is proof enough that the president sides with “his people” over not just Israel but also the rest of we [sic] real Americans.

In fact, this nuclear deal with Iran shows that Obama is not a Muslim. Since he was brought up in Sunni Indonesia (99% of Indonesian Muslims are Sunnis), then if he took seriously the religion in which he was steeped, “his people” would be Sunnis, the enemies of Shiite Iran. The Muslim world is dominated by the Saudis, the Gulf states and Turkey, all of which are SUNNIS, the arch enemies of Iran, which is predominantly Shiite.

Iran is the only fully SHIA-majority country in the world. The Sunnis are responsible for all terror attacks and populate ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Nusra and all throat slitting anti-Christian terror groups. Unlike the Iranian SHIA, the Sunnis, especially the Wahhabi sect, believe that all non-Sunnis must convert or die. Iran obviously does not support this concept.

The Sunnis rarely attack Israel, which sometimes has collaborated with the Islamic terrorist group Al-Nusra, for ex, in the Golan Heights. There is apparently a symbiotic relationship between Israel and terrorist groups, as shown here and here.

According to the theorists who believe Obama is a Muslim, he would be a Sunni, and indeed, he bowed before the Sunni king of Saudi Arabia and was also enrolled in a Sunni Muslim school in Indonesia.

Yet he has made this nuclear deal with the Shia in Iran which could theoretically enable Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. This is a real puzzle for those who postulate that Obama is a Muslim but not for normal rational people.

I suspect Obama has in fact been influenced by his most intimate advisor Valerie Jarrett, who grew up in Iran. I do not think there is any further explanation for this. The Saudis are livid over this deal.

Further, no devout Muslim would promote the homosexual agenda as Obama does.

The problem with Obama is not that he is a Muslim but that he belongs to the New World Order that seeks to eliminate white America and traditional American culture, especially Christianity. Some of the people behind the Obama-is-Muslim meme are seeking precisely the same goal.

 

Even after Paris, Libertarians want open borders

 

Even after Paris, Libertarians endorse open borders

 

by Don Hank

 

The libertarian think tank Mises Institute just published an article titled ISIS May Be Our Ally Some Day. (My thanks to our friend Peter in the UK for this tip).

Expressed in the following sentence from the piece is perhaps the most dangerous error of ideological Libertarianism:

 

“In the West, since the nineteenth century, nationalism has largely filled the role of manufacturing consent to government domination, by drawing arbitrarily the contours of a fantasized historical and cultural community.”

Libertarians make the same mistake as radical leftists in that they ignore cultural identity and pretend it does not exist. I discussed this and its disastrous effects here.

Their attitude is: 50 million people share the same likes and dislikes, the same customs, the same religion and the same cultural identity? So what? It’s up to us to erase this identity to protect the world from war and enslavement.

Liberals, including Libertarians, think that it was nationalism that gave the world the Third Reich and WW II. Quite the opposite is true. It was indeed the supranational idea of a united Europe that inspired Hitler, and the idea was carried on by his former officials after the war to create the EU dictatorship, as disclosed  here and here and in this video by Edward Spalton and Rodney Atkinson, respectively.

By attempting to erase all cultural differences, Libertarianism and Leftism both seek to dominate while hypocritically endorsing “liberty.”  Instead of divide and conquer, they seek to artificially unite and conquer.

The author mentions the 19th Century as a turning point, alluding to the Treaty of Westphalia which enshrined in international law the concept of respecting the sovereignties of nations. Today’s utter disregard for national sovereignties gave us, for example, the hideous grotesquery of a shattered Libya where the US hegemon decided arbitrarily to take out Ghadaffi, a progressive and beloved secular leader who brought unprecedented prosperity by refusing to allow Islamic radicalism to get the upper hand. The author is, perhaps unwittingly, supporting this lawlessness.

The contours of a historical and cultural community they speak of are anything but arbitrary. Calling them arbitrary is indeed arbitrary in itself. The author is referring to national groupings whose constituent populations identify with each other sentimentally and intellectually. Nor is this community in any way a fantasy.

Go tell an Italian that the Italian identity is a fantasy. Be prepared to run.

But especially, do not tell a Russian that there is no such thing as a Russian identity. It’s all in his head (BTW, the Russians’ strong sense of identity is one of the main reason for the utterly irrational hatred of all things Russian that permeates the West, particularly the upper strata, who cleave to the dangerous notion of supranationality endorsed by the Mises Institute author). False modesty aside, I am particularly alert to cultural differences because of my intimate exposure to many cultures and languages over about 55 years. My analysis is not only from intuition or from a study of other people’s ideas, eg, from having read books or heard lectures, but primarily from years of experience in total-immersion experiences in the field. Why listen to an armchair philosopher when you can get it from the horse’s mouth? Listen to me: Culture is real, more real than anything libertarians or their soul mates the liberal leftists have ever written. They, along with the liberal leftists, are in fact the reality-denying fantasists who promote the dangerous fantasy of a one-world world government that has wrecked swaths of our world both under the communists of the 20th Century and under the EU.

The lie that statehood and national identity do not exist is what is bringing down Europe before our eyes, flooding it with unvetted “refugees” from terror-nurturing countries and foisting a failed monetary system and military program on its constituent states, all subservient to the US government. It has enabled a small deceitful cabal to bring an entire continent to virtual economic and social ruin.

America is on the way to such a union. GW Bush tried to foist the North American Union on us years ago. Fortunately, Americans – most of whom think of ourselves as a nation despite the ill-intentioned propaganda of the kind so cheekily represented by the Libertarians above – protested vigorously and the project was apparently scrapped. But in reality, even after the elites stopped naming its name, they stealthily pursued its goals as vigorously as before, with Bush opening our borders ever wider, allowing more and more illegal aliens into our country and even refusing to repatriate violent criminals who had entered the US illegally, as I showed here long before Donald Trump raised the issue. Obama is carrying Bush’s torch. You don’t have to name it to create a supranational union. The unnamed ones are the most dangerous.

Like all ideologies, Libertarianism must deny reality to survive and receive donations. One clue as to why we ignore Putin to our peril is that he has stated publicly that he has no ideology at all. Recently he was named the most powerful man in the world. Realism is power. Ideology is doomed to failure.

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Secular Humanist: Please Keep Your Religious Views about Abortion out of Politics!

In our country, there is a general feeling that only positions backed by actual fact should drive public policy.  ‘Religion’ is perceived to be the realm of personal opinion.   Even Christians tend to accept the view that people are allowed to have their opinion, but they aren’t allowed to impose that opinion on others.   The result is that many Christians refrain from acting ‘politically’ because they see their own beliefs as nothing more than ‘mere opinion.’

Secularists tend to be people who have dispensed with ‘religion’ altogether, and like to think that they are entirely ‘fact driven.’

When these ideas collide, we observe something very curious:  secular humanists conclude that they can advocate for anything that they want in the public sphere, because nothing they believe is ‘religious, ‘ while distinctly Christian viewpoints are forbidden from entering the public domain, since those will be, by definition, ‘religious.’  And again, even Christians gravitate to that view.

This tends to lead to debates and discussions and policy proposals that take the ‘facts’ of the secularists as the starting points.  We are expected to proceed on their terms.  And why not?  Surely without the ‘religious’ component, those ‘facts’ are as close to actually being real descriptions of the world as one could get, right?

But what if ‘religion’ and ‘fact’ are not opposites? Continue reading

I Can See the Next Holocaust From My House

Anthony Horvath is a contributor at Laigle’s Forum, Christian apologist, pro-life author and speaker, and publisher.  To learn more about his latest project aimed at combating the philosophies discussed in the essay below and how you can help, click here.


Tina Fey, impersonating Sarah Palin, joked, “I can see Russia from my house.”

I can see the next holocaust from my house, and it is no joke.

In the decades leading up to one of the most horrific chapters in human history, the leading lights of the day openly discussed bringing about those horrors.  Eugenics was posited as the rational position of all intelligent, well-meaning individuals.  In journals, newspapers, academic conferences, public health offices and elsewhere, they talked about sterilizing people with or without their consent, segregating them from society, or even exterminating them.  And that was in America.

In a book written in 1920 by two German experts and applauded by American experts, it was argued that it was allowable to destroy the ‘life unworthy of life.’

Who was regarded as ‘life unworthy of life’?  The handicapped, the disabled, the diseased, the mentally ill, the ‘feeble-minded.’  Really, just about anyone the experts decided was ‘unfit’ could be deemed ‘unworthy of life.’  When eugenics morphed into the Holocaust, many of its proponents quietly went to ground.  Some asked ‘What went wrong?’ but few arrived at the right answer.

Fast forward sixty years.  Enter Julian Savulescu.

You probably don’t know who Julian Savulescu is, just as your average American off the street in 1910 wouldn’t have known who Charles Davenport was.  You probably don’t know who Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are, just as your average American in 1920 wouldn’t have known who Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding were.

But you may recall a few months ago when two ‘ethicists’ quietly submitted an article in an ethics magazine arguing that the logic of abortion does not cease after the child has fully exited the birth canal.  For all the reasons that abortion on demand was justified, so too, the two ‘ethicists’ Giubilini and Minerva argued, was infanticide.  Of course, they preferred to call it ‘after-birth abortion.’

I hope that nobody misunderstands me:  Giubilini and Minerva were correct in their analysis.  If they are to be faulted for anything, it is for stopping at the newborn.

When people heard about this article there was outrage, and not a little of it spilled over onto the journal that printed the article in the first place.  That journal was “The Journal of Medical Ethics.”  Flabbergasted, the editor defended the publication of the article, saying:

“As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.”

Yes, that is quite right.  The arguments presented were not new, and have been ‘presented repeatedly.’

He continued, “What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

This embattled editor of a renown journal of medical ethics is named Julian Savulescu. Continue reading

Why the West is deliberately failing

by Don Hank

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so…

The scientific method, while still used in scientific experiments in the laboratory and clinic, has long been abandoned in the persuasive arts, notably journalism, but also in politics. Any journalist analyzing facts based on logic and science instead of accepting the interpretation of our universe handed down from above would soon lose their job. We have long lived in an anti-scientific, and hence, an anti-natural, world and are now reaping the inevitable rewards of our denial of truth.

If we were to be honest with ourselves for just a brief moment, we would admit that Western society is deeply sinful (or in secular terms, unwholesome) and even worships sin, celebrating it with carnivals and gay parades, and teaching young children how to perform sex acts in schools. And of course, the Western world routinely commits infanticide. Romans 1:25 describes the Western world to a “t” (Paul uses homosexuals as an example but this issue ranges far wider than that):

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…

The end of that discourse on sinners describes the outcome.

…men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

A graphic depiction of some of that recompense for this particular group of sinners can be found here. I referenced that site in my commentary “The recompence of their error.”

So why do people deliberately engage in self-destructive practices that our otherwise superior intelligence should be telling us to avoid for the purposes of self preservation? Or for that matter, why do they pursue Keynesian economics amassing mountains of debt that no one could ever repay in a headlong rush to destroy our economy, our means of survival? No animal species would do that.

The answer is right there in Paul’s discourse, and this is the part Christians need to focus on when analyzing the causes of Western society’s failure to manage its laws, its immigration, its social ills, its fruitless wars, its finances and economy, its moral code, etc:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

And several verses later:

God gave them over to a reprobate mind.

Did you ever consider what that means?

GOD facilitates the destruction of the disobedient and the ungrateful by abandoning the disobedient to their own sinful desires. Paul is talking about people who worship nature instead of the Creator because they were ungrateful to Him for the blessings of life. Why would people who once worshipped nature turn around and do something unnatural, as Paul calls this behavior in this same passage? A person analyzing this without spiritual discernment might say this incongruence makes no sense and would be at a loss to explain it in rational terms. Some spiritually blind (but otherwise intelligent) analysts say that for this reason, Paul couldn’t really have meant “unnatural” when describing this behavior, and they therefore tweak the translation from the original Greek to make it say something else. (They forget that in the 4th Century, Jerome, a fluent speaker of koine Greek, rendered this term as “contra naturam” in his translation  of the Vulgate Latin Bible).

The fact is, God routinely allows people to do the unnatural—committing acts outside the laws of nature that can’t be explained by any scientific (e.g., psychological) laws. Once you turn your back on God, He abandons you and you fall into a behavior pattern designed by Satan. There is nothing natural about sinful behavior because it was not designed by God.

So if it is not natural, then is it supernatural?

No, it is not. Since God performs supernatural works—that is, works that are above nature—then Satan’s works and the works of humans gone over to the dark side might best be considered as infranatural, or beneath nature. An animal would not destroy its own economy – its food stores, for example – the way Westerner “leaders” are now doing, most notablyin the Euro Zone and the US through irrational banking practices and eradication of home industry and cheap energy by legal and regulatory means (even as they encourage other nations, notably China, to use cheap energy and high carbon combustion in competing with the West). Nor would an animal devote itself almost solely to the pursuit of sex, especially homosex, the way many humans do (although bisexuality is known in the animal kingdom, there are no known strictly homosexual animal individuals that eschew all individuals of the opposite sex).

Such infranatural phenomena are exactly why we face an imminent worldwide economic collapse. Economists, supposedly specialists in math, no longer use mathematics in their convoluted Keynesian calculations. Likewise, otherwise educated people who understand human anatomy deliberately and routinely utilize as an inlet a bodily organ designed as an outlet, a lifestyle that often leads to horrific diseases and death (see here).

But as Paul says, amazingly, GOD facilitates this mindlessness by abandoning those who abandon God — including His scientific laws. Because people stopped trusting in Him and thought they could come up with their own answers. Look around you. How do you like the results of Western secularist, humanist political, diplomatic, economic, social, military, etc, behavior? Vote for either candidate and you will get more of the same. Look at Europe. An entire continent that thinks it is smarter than God is now drowning in debt and fighting for its economic life. If this is not sufficient evidence of the God that Paul describes, i.e., a God who deprives disobedient humans of their cognitive faculties, then I can’t imagine what is.

This is why the West does not need more laws or a better government.

It needs a spiritual revival. And that revival will not happen without Westerners accepting the love, forgiveness and righteousness that Jesus taught, making a sincere attempt to do what is morally right as dictated by our God-given conscience. Americans, including the best and otherwise most civil and decent of us, are beating each other up because we think this is about people or the lack of wisdom of individuals or leaders. If people do this or that, or if we make this or that law or elect this or that politician, then we can get back on track. “How can this group or that group be so stupid?” they say of those who disagree with them.

But again, they ignore Paul’s teachings, as recorded in another letter of his:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

If you think this is too lofty and ethereal to relate to your life and the world around you, consider the antithesis, for example, in this article on John Maynard Keynes, a homosexual and pedophile who authored our current failed economic system (bailouts rewarding bad business and banking practices and other government interventions that kill free enterprise were his brain child):

http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html

If we take to heart Paul’s message in Romans 1:25-27, we can easily see it was no coincidence that Keynes was both a sexual deviant (pedophile, homosexual, etc) and the author of the most perverted economic system known to humankind.

There can be no logical or scientific explanation for Keynes’ self-destructive lifestyle and destructive teachings, or of an entire civilization deliberately patterning itself after him, destroying itself economically and morally with no apparent justification. These examples of a West deliberately weakening and sabotaging itself are the best examples of unqestionably infranatural phenomena.

As incredible as it may seem to those imbued with the rigid doctrinaire humanism that is foisted on Western society by an incessant drumbeat in media, schools and universities, in cinema and on the street, Paul’s brief discourse on a God having given people up to a reprobate mind is emerging as the default explanation of a civilization marching resolutely to its utter economic and moral ruin.

So why is this explanation for Western civilization’s failure never raised in the churches of our nation?

Perhaps because God is giving our clergy over to the very same reprobate mind that Paul spoke of. They interpret the scriptures as though they were hopelessly outdated when  in fact, these ancient writings offer the only glimpse of sanity–and hope–that is left in our reprobate world.

Opposing the tyrant while drinking his Kool-Aid

You can’t have it both ways. Either you want to stop the tyrant or you want to assist him.

 

by Don Hank

 

Pat Condell has a unique way with language, as a recent video shows.

Look at this delightful phrase: ” [the EU]…will collapse under the weight of its own illegitimacy.”

It occurs to me that, due to their opposition to tyranny, atheists like Pat are actually in the same boat as biblical Christians, though seemingly at opposite poles, and our plight —  as well as our tragic inability to grasp it — is as described by Martin Niemöller in that famous quote

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist…[etc]”

A sincere and questioning mind will, absent bias and external obstructions, come round to the truth. Atheism can be a painful first step in questioning received wisdom, but it may never be the last.

National unity means joining in common cause with everyone who opposes the common enemy, at least in the opposition to that enemy and until he is vanquished. There are no superiors or inferiors in that struggle, just people yearning for their share of the rights and voice that are rightfully theirs. Their God-given rights as we say. The term “God-given” may offend some people with claims to “higher enlightenment,” but consider that it was precisely the notion that man can create rights out of thin air that gave birth to the despotic EU — just as the corollary notion that central banks – part of that same entity — can create money out of thin air contributed mightily to our current financial malaise. Those perverse ideas are twins.

I doubt it has ever occurred to Pat that his militant atheism is part of the cultural Marxism that has been foisted on Europe for generations by the very elites he rails against. After all, the Fabian Society was founded (in London) for a twofold purpose:

1. to spread socialism, and

2. to eliminate Judeo-Christian culture.

Today’s elites are the spiritual and ideological heirs to that agenda, and yet, many of their putative opponents are unwittingly assisting them in their quest to destroy our Western culture and heritage by assailing Judeo-Christianity.

Pat is part of our landscape, his words are too powerful to ignore, and he is absolutely right that the EU has stolen from Europeans. But he needs to understand that opposing only the political agenda of the Imperial Powers he rails against is an incomplete task — even a futile one — unless we oppose their social agenda as well. Opposition to the enemy’s destructiveness is a vital first step. Railing against constructive faith that ultimately can replace what that agenda has torn asunder negates that opposition.

This is because a vital second step is restoring what the enemy has destroyed, and the will to restore it comes in no small measure from our inner spiritual resources invested in a common vision of national health and prosperity.

The myth that atheism was a vital component of the Enlightenment is false. There were in fact two Enlightenments, one that sought to reconcile the thought of Aristotle, for example, with Christianity, as Lawrence de Medici had done in Florence, and the other Enlightenment – embodied, for example, by Voltaire, which taught that religion itself had held back progress and needed to be abolished. Devotees of the latter branch cite, by way of support, the difficulties that some scientists like Copernicus and Galileo, have encountered with the Vatican. Yet they seem unaware that Roger Bacon’s pioneering work on the scientific method was in fact sponsored by Pope Clement IV.

Those spiritual resources we will need to rebuild our civilization once the enemy is overcome are, to paraphrase Pat, like the air we breathe and the water we drink.

We can’t afford to throw this baby out with the bath water.

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2011/11/dose-of-cold-hard-truth.html

Christianity and Libertarianism and the Consent of the Governed

Originally Posted here by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath


“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Declaration of Independence


The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives. I’m on several email lists where I’m seeing such commentary and of course its on the web, as in this example. I personally didn’t detect a huge uptick in libertarian sentiment, but alright. I describe myself as a ‘constitutional libertarian’ and in explaining why I hope that I can shed light on what I believe are the true reasons for a rise in libertarianism- among Christians in particular. I can’t speak for them all, of course, but I think I recognize in some of their commentary some of my own thinking.

So, to begin with, let me make two important observations. First of all, when one thinks ‘libertarian’ one might immediately think licentious. However, the two are not identical terms. This leads to the second observation, the direction by which one arrives at libertarianism greatly impacts the flavor of that libertarianism. There can be no question that there are a great mass of individuals, who calling themselves libertarians, really are just people who wish to engage in whatever depravity that they want, with no one to tell them otherwise or worse- stop them. By my observation, the people coming from this direction are really your typical atheist secular humanist progressive who is perfectly happy to foist as much government as people can bear onto themselves and others- in the form of nationalized health care, eg- just so long as they can have sex with whatever and whomever they want and smoke whatever happens to come across their path.

However, someone coming at ‘libertarianism’ from the other direction, say, from a Christian perspective and a conservative, is not looking for a reason to misbehave. This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul. Continue reading

Are Muslims God’s enforcers?

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against Him.

Daniel 9:11

by Don Hank

In the comments section of our article “My friend Abdul,” our Muslim reader Alif gave us some things to ponder.
Firstly, he pointed out how immoral the West has become and in so doing presented an uncomfortable argument as to why Muslims would have the moral authority to rule the West and the rest of the world.
Secondly, however, he ignored my question as to why Islam favors the Koran over the Bible — and specifically, why the Bible, parts of which were written thousands of years before the Koran, and most of the historical content of which was written by contemporaries, should be given short shrift or even be ignored by Islam, which is based on the writings of one man who has never met any of the protagonists of the Bible, whom he nonetheless claims to revere. I have posed this question to Muslims for years and never receive an answer.
Thirdly, Alif, like all good Muslims, defends cruel punishment, and to read his words is shocking to anyone with humanitarian instincts, regardless of their religious beliefs, and it echoes those of Abdul in our story:

“Punishments like amputation of hand, whipping, stoning to death and beheading have the dual impact of preventing the individual from committing the same crime in future and serving a stern warning to others.”

Given the tenuous position of the Western world at this critical time in history, all of these points deserve careful analysis.  I will attempt such an analysis herein.
Many secularists and liberal “Christians” who oppose the cruelty and terrorism displayed by Islamists do so on an untenable basis, namely, either  a denial of the existence of God or the claim that God does not intervene, or no longer intervenes, in the affairs of men and has no interest in their morality or lack thereof.  Thanks to such thinking, Muslims will always be able to point out how the West has failed in all possible ways through its loss of morality. For example:
Economically, because politicians, capitalists and bankers, for example, no longer feel constrained to be honest. They think honesty is for suckers. What would anyone expect since they deny the power of God and believe that life ends at physical death? Grab what you can, Boys!
Politically, because they, having no respect for God, think man must be in charge even of natural phenomena such as the weather, and hence, must make and enforce harsh laws to punish “carbon emitters.” Further, like the atheistic Soviet Union, they believe that only technocrats can solve our political and economic problems and even control nature, and hence, the common man (who, they think, isn’t smart enough to grasp their high-minded ideas) must be muzzled, enslaved and impoverished in a modern-day feudal system, which is now in place. The European Union, for example, now rules Europe with almost no input from the ruled. The US is slowly following suit, with politicians ignoring the will of the people (for instance, 90% of us opposed the bailout, but both parties rammed it through).
In the Old Testament, God chose the cruel enemies of the Jews to punish them for their immorality. He can be expected to act similarly today in dealing with us, using Muslims to punish the West for our open immorality.
Now the fact that Muslims cannot account for why they ignore the original accounts of the prophets and rely almost exclusively on a book written by one man on the basis of dreams to which only the author was witness, shows a serious lack of intellectual justification for that religion. Without the Bible, Mohammed would never have heard of the prophets he claimed to honor. Yet he spoke scornfully of the “People of the Book.” Despite its reliance on the Judeo-Christian scriptures for much of its teachings, Islam therefore remains outside Biblical history and, in those areas where it mentions the Jewish and Christian prophets yet portrays them differently from the original accounts, can be considered religious and historical revisionism.
Yet, if God so chooses, He can use Islam to enforce His laws in the West, just as He used the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar – unbeknownst to him — as an enforcer against the wayward Hebrews (see the book of Daniel).
Many solutions have been tried by ordinary people to end the Muslim invasion of Europe, but all have failed.  For example , Harry Taylor mocked Islam and was fined and jailed; secularist Geert Wilders made a movie “Fitna,” critical of Islam and has proposed banning the Koran, but that suggestion opens the door to the banning of other expressions as well, including potentially the Bible. He too was threatened with prison and will be tried soon.

Many other activists, including celebrities and high-ranking politicians, such as Nigel Farage, have railed against the EU and its out-of-control immigration policies that fill Europe with Muslims who refuse to integrate. Though an intelligent and fiery speaker, Farage is largely ignored by the media and EU leaders.

Many “intellectuals,” ignorant of history, declare that Christianity starts wars – ignoring that 100 million innocents were slaughtered by atheistic communism in the 20th Century. Others absurdly declare that Hitler was a Christian . This is all grit for Muslim mills.

So from a secular standpoint, you have a completely incomprehensible phenomenon: a Ruling Class insisting on importing Muslims and according them special status (welfare payments, enclaves of their own where police are not allowed to enter).

Such behavior does nothing but harm the ruled class (now reduced de facto to increasingly impoverished serfs), the economy, law and order, and makes no sense from a human standpoint.

But from a biblical standpoint, it is perfectly comprehensible that amoral Westerners, who reject God and accept moral relativism, even deliberately protecting sinful sexual behavior (eg, homosexuality, see, Romans 1:25-28), should be subject to the whims of a group that insists on a rigid set of moral rules and even threatens them with physical harm or annihilation if they continue to disobey.

God allowed the disobedient Jews on several occasions to be banished from their homeland and enslaved.  The Old Testament (Tanakh) is in fact mainly the story of man’s disobedience to God and the dire consequences thereof.

Our situation here in the West is astonishingly analogous.

There is one solution out of this conundrum, but it is one few Europeans and not all that many Americans can countenance (many, for example, have been brainwashed into believing Christianity is evil and causes war): return to our Christian roots and stop playing at religious relativism, atheistic Marxism and atheistic or secular libertarianism, the same ideologies that have failed since the beginning of recorded history.  

To answer Islam intelligently and effectively, Christianity must be strengthened morally and Christians must follow their Book in their daily actions, but avoid interpreting it in a way that allows them to practice sinful and self-destructive hedonism. Specifically, we must stop promoting abortion, prostitution, drug abuse, dishonesty in business, finance and government, sexual libertinism such as divorce, adultery and homosexuality, and be pure and above reproach, like the Hebrew captives Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Babylon, who ultimately led King Nebuchadnezzar to the Lord. Only in that way — that is, by walking the straitened and narrow — can westerners restore their honor and prestige in the world, and more importantly, find their way through the narrow gate.

The West has a long way to go in returning to a Biblical worldview. In fact, we are running, not walking, in the opposite direction, gleefully tossing aside the moral principles that once set us apart and made our country great. Most churches have ignored or distorted Biblical teachings, betrayed Christ and sinned mortally in so doing. Many churches of America, the Church of England and the evangelische Kirche in Germany, to name but a few, are on the verge of accepting homosexual marriage and ordaining homosexual clergy.  Many churches have support groups where not only divorced, but also separated – and still-married – men and women can meet people of the opposite sex for the purpose of finalizing the breach in their marriages. This open, festering sin is encouraged by the church leaders, most of whom never once encourage separated couples to renew their vows, considering it passé and psychological incorrect to do so. Some US churches openly support abortion. To avoid supporting the openly anti-Christian policies of apostate churches, house churches may be the only solution for many. We can do that — just as the Chinese do.

Many of us will be persecuted. We can do persecution. We’ve done it for 2,000 years.

But what we can’t do is continue to wallow in our sins and call ourselves Christians.
There is no way loveless, man-centered religion — false Christianity and the harsh militant religion of Islam — can be defeated except through a rigorous return to the religion of love in a genuine heart-felt and lasting revival, complete with weeping and heartfelt repentance. Not just a return, but a renewed devotion and commitment to the Lord of Lords and to His commandments. Though apostate leaders, touting the “Age of Grace,” insist that “Christians” can continue their sinful, disobedient lifestyles and still be saved, Jesus said “I am come not to abolish the law but to fulfill the law.” By this he is not referring to those parts of the law that were abused by the legalists of his day, such as the Levitican dietary laws, but rather to those biblical laws that, as Paul implies in Romans 1:18-20, all human beings deep down know to be righteous and true, laws which Cicero, for example,  called “natural law.”  In so saying, Christ makes it crystal clear: The Ten Commandments and other godly principles still apply.

He can save us from our past sins, but, as he said to the woman at the well, “go and sin no more.” That last part of the story is the part modern church leaders want us to forget.

Rigorous adherence to Biblical teachings on the part of kind and gentle Christians would put Christianity far above the legalistic, rigid and violent Islam, if it were taken as seriously as it deserves to be taken. Muslims would convert by the millions if they saw Christians behaving like Christians: humble, gentle, kind, patient, morally pure but wise. But thanks to false teachers, pastors and other religious leaders, Christianity has come to mean for many: Play first, pray later, pay never.
This is tragically out of keeping with the teachings of Christ and will lead our Western culture, and many souls, to irremediable perdition.

By putting aside all the secularist, psychological brainwashing of and by their leaders over the last half-century, true Christians can still muster the moral authority to assert themselves in the West.

They can, and they should.

Because if they fail to accept God’s moral laws in their own lives, then those laws will be brutally forced on them by God’s enforcers.

It’s already happening.

Muslim brutality documented in MSM:

Journalist Daniel Pearl beheaded

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/12/iraq/main616901.shtml

Nick Berg beheaded

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119615,00.html

Briton beheaded

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1190477/British-man-Edwin-Dyer-beheaded-Al-Qaeda-terrorists.html

This just in (Olavo de Carvalho):

http://financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/a-philosopher-warning

Conference Calls for Defense of Family through Film and Culture

Anthony Horvath, a contributor at Laigle’s Forum, is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries which in turn is an apologetics organization with a unique bent:  it aims not just to defend the Christian faith through evidence and argumentation, but by influencing the culture through the arts.

Their second annual online apologetics conference has a more narrow emphasis:  a defense of Biblical marriage and the family through film, video, and movies.  After all, the family is constantly being undermined in our movies and sitcoms.  Homosexuality is being normalized right beneath our noses, and with it gay ‘marriage.’  The defense will have to be mounted not just at the political level, though.  We’ll have to fight fire with fire.  And, as it happens, Christians were never supposed to abandon the arts to secularists, anyway.

Please take the time to check out the conference home page:  http://onlineapologeticsconference.com/

Since the conference is held online, you can participate from anywhere around the world.  We look forward to seeing you there.

More info:

Keynote:

(Topics, if listed, are tentative)

  • Gene Edward Veith, Jr. Provost and Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, and columnist for World Magazine.  Website.  Topic:  “Cultural Apologetics.”

Others:


“A picture is worth a thousand words.”  Whether this is good or not, it is the reality.  Today, attitudes and beliefs are often shaped by the things we see and the movies we watch.  For some Christians, this would prompt them to consider withdrawing altogether from our media rich society.  However, movies, music, art, and literature are all expressions of human creativity- and humans, though fallen, still are made in the image of the Creator God.  Our artistic endeavors bear witness to our created nature and therefore have the potential to open eyes, hearts, and mind to the nature of the Creator.

Read the Rest

The demolition of conscience

Olavo de Carvalho

Diário do Comércio, December 21, 2009

Whoever has fully understood my article “Weapons of freedom” must also have realized the conclusion to which it unavoidably leads: a good part of the moralizing effort expended by the “religious Right” in cleansing a corrupt society is useless, since it ends up being readily absorbed by the “cognitive dissonance” machine and used as an instrument for general perdition.

Nota bene: morality is not a ready-made list of laudable and condemnable behaviors for citizens to follow with the automatism of Pavlov’s dog. 

Morality is conscience, personal discernment, a quest for a goal of perfection which only gradually becomes clearer and finds its means of realization among life’s contradictions and ambiguities.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the greatest problem of moral existence is not knowing a general abstract rule, but bridging the gap between the unity of the rule and the inexhaustible variety of concrete situations, where oftentimes we are squeezed among contradictory duties or find ourselves lost in the distance between intentions, means, and results.

Luther—to dispel any notion that I am favoring the Catholics—insisted that “this life is not devotion, but rather a struggle for the conquest of devotion.”

And Saint Padre Pio da Pietrelcina said, “It is better to withdraw from the world little by little rather than all at once.”

Great literature, beginning with the Bible, is replete with examples of anguishing moral conflicts, showing that the path of good is a straight line only from the divine point of view, which encompasses all in one simultaneous glance. To us, who live in time and history, all is hesitation, twilight, trial and error. Only gradually, guided by divine grace, does the light of experience dispel the fog of appearances.

Consciousness—especially conscience—is not an object, a thing you possess. It is a permanent effort of integration, the search for unity above and beyond the immediate chaos. It is the unification of the diverse, the resolution of contradictions.

The codes of conduct consecrated by society, transmitted through education and culture, are never solutions to moral problems: they are very broad and generic frames of reference that give support to conscience in its effort to unify individual conduct. They are to each person’s conscience as a building plan is to the work of a constructor: they say in a broad manner what the final form of the work must be, but not how the construction must be undertaken in each of its stages.

When codes are various and contradictory, it is the final form itself that becomes incongruous and unrecognizable, wearing down men’s souls in vain efforts which will lead them to become entangled in ever more insoluble problems, and in a great number of cases, to give up any serious moral effort. Much of the reigning relativism and amorality is not actually beliefs or ideologies: it is diseases of the soul, acquired by depletion of moral intelligence.

Under such circumstances, fighting for this or that moral principle in particular, without taking into account that, in the reigning mixture, all principles are good as fuel for keeping the cognitive dissonance engineering at work, can be of catastrophic naïveté. What needs to be denounced is not this or that sin in particular, this or that form of specific immorality: it is the whole framework of a culture set up to destroy at its foundation the vey possibility of moral consciousness. Tiger Woods’ case, which I mentioned in my previous article, is just one among thousands. Adultery scandals pop up every day in the same media that advocate abortion, free sex, and gay ideology. The contradiction is so constant and obvious that no agglomeration of curious coincidences could ever account for it. It is a political option; it is the planned demolition of moral discernment. Many people who are outraged at specific immoralities haven’t the slightest inkling of the permanent and general scandal industry, in which denunciations of immorality are usefully integrated as machines in a production line. Either the struggle against evil begins with the struggle against confusion, or it can only end up contributing to the confusion between good and evil.

Translated by Alessandro Cota. Translation reviewed by Don Hank.