Supranationalism leads to war

by Don Hank

Herman Van Rompuy, the head of the European Council, is still propagating an ancient myth, the house of cards on which the EU’s acceptance by the masses is based. He recently trotted out the old platitude once more:

The biggest enemy of Europe today is fear. Fear leads to egotism, egotism leads to nationalism and nationalism leads to war.

If Europeans ever see through this thinly veiled propaganda, they will throw off the yoke of the EU – including the failed “Euro Zone” – that binds and gradually impoverishes them. More and more Europeans are waking up to the fact that, at variance with Rompuy’s pronouncement, neither fear nor egotism, nor nationalism lead to war.

Far from egotism, it is in fact a selfless obedience to ideals expressed by ambitious men portraying themselves as solicitous of their subjects that leads young men to put their lives on the line in battle.

Further, it is not fear but rather misplaced trust that leads to war. Neville Chamberlain foolishly trusted Hitler, signing a non-aggression pact and telling his countrymen not to fear Hitler.

And it was trust in the Soviet Union that led Churchill and FDR to entrust the administration of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, in turn leading to the Cold War and the military occupation of those nations and to violent invasions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union had adopted as its slogan: “Proletarians of the world unite!” (they did not say “proletarians of Russia”) and as its anthem the stirring antithesis of a national anthem titled “L’Internationale.”  

American nationalist Ronald Reagan played the key role in ending this warlike foreign domination.

As for nationalism, if the French revolutionaries had been nationalists, they would not have chosen a young Corsican to lead them.

Further, if Bonaparte had been a nationalist, as he was in his youth when he hated the French, it would never have occurred to him to lead that nation. Nor would he have married an Austrian woman. The fact is, the truly nationalistic French were the pre-revolution French whose loyalty was to the Bourbons – a family whom the young Bonaparte hated. It was not until Napoleon saw the French overthrow their nobility that he cast his lot with the revolution and helped them defeat the rest of Europe – not in the name of France but in the name of the revolution, which he saw as an international — and specifically, a supranational — ideal, which had in fact been shaped by not only French but also German, Italian, American and British thinkers.

For the French themselves, it was also this revolutionary idea, a longing for a borderless Europe united by the revolution, that united them around Napoleon and lured them into the most deadly wars mankind had ever known.

Far from causing the Napoleonic wars, the nationalists of the day – the Prussians, the Russians, the Austrians, the Spaniards, the Italians and the British – each individually solicitous of their own individual nations’ safety and welfare – resisted Bonaparte, ended the wars and made Europe safe once more.

Ah, but what about Hitler, you say?

If WW II had been between Hitler on the one hand and the Allies on the other, a case could have been made for nationalism as the primary motive for the war. However, except for Germany, none of the Axis powers or collaborators – from the Japanese to the Mufti and Franco to the Italians – was fighting to further the cause of the Vaterland. None of the nations that sympathized with Hitler (including Russia at the beginning of Hitler’s reign) would ever have agreed to adopt German customs, teach German in their schools and subjugate their people to the German government.

The war Europeans see brewing with Islam on their streets is born of the same old borderless, supranationalist ideology, with EU zealots ramming unlimited immigration down their throats to enforce it. The war that many foresee occurring between Americans and millions of illegal immigrants including a disproportionate number of violent criminals and drug lords, is another example of violence ascribed to the top-down assertion of a supranational ideal that is antithetical to nationalism.

Today’s main enemy is in fact anti-nationalism, or what the Germans teasingly call Multikulti, which is warping our cultures, values and Western civilization itself and bringing Westerners into increasingly violent conflict with their Islamic “guests” who refuse to integrate.

The startling fact of the matter is that, despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary from Western media, universities, churches and schools (and in Europe, from officialdom), nationalism itself has never led to a single major modern war. If the Germans had been more nationalistic, they would never have let an Austrian take over their country. It was a lack of confidence in their true roots in the form of Christianity (the pernicious belief that Christianity causes wars) — that misled Germany. Since the 1800s, German theologians had taught a perverted gospel teaching that Jesus was the bastard son of a German mercenary. Today, there is a pervasive myth that Christianity – which in fact opposed Soviet aggression and Hitler’s violence – causes wars. Anti-Christian propaganda was actually heavily involved in the major conflicts of the 20th century.

Clearly, far from nationalism, the seeds from which the very deadliest of modern wars sprang are the ideology of supranationalism, i.e., the foisting of a one-world government on a grassroots who reject the idea, and the eradication of traditional Christian values and beliefs in favor of Marxist dogma.

The story of modern war is the story of supranationalist tyrants invading the territory of peaceful nationalists. The European grassroots witnessed this history with their own eyes.

When will they learn to interpret it with those same eyes, and not through the eyes of elitist tyrants with an obvious agenda?

This just in from a reader (looks like “Multikulti” is on its way out):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWw7H4m389o&feature=player_embedded

And half of UK citizens want out of the EU:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/210804/Why-I-believe-it-is-time-for-Britain-to-get-out-of-the-EU

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/european-court-imposes-immorality-on-russia/1973.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/does-europe-have-a-future/1297.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/uk-elites-want-to-muzzle-christians/1177.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-eu-wants-unlimited-fines-for-christian-speech/928.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/nationalists-international/584.htm

Revolution USA, repeat history with a twist

by Don Hank

A look back at the French revolution reveals many surprising commonalities with today’s situation in America.

Yet, if the Tea Party Revolution succeeds, it will not be due to a revolutionary mindset as best described by Olavo de Carvalho (my review; full text). It will be the opposite, but with a similar historical lead-up and tactics ( hopefully with less bloodshed).

The main factors in both revolutions are:

Economic

Intellectual

Spiritual

Political

One of the main factors in the French Revolution was an economic one: worldwide famine caused by a weather anomaly. What later came to be known as the Little Ice Age contributed mightily to the timing of the revolution, as detailed by Brian Fagan.

In our case, while there is no famine, there is a shrinking economy, and a looming double-dip recession or even a full-blown depression, as predicted by economist Paul Krugman. Many realize government policy actually caused the initial failure of banks and the consequent economic slide. Most do not.

Regardless of the origin of this current economic malaise, it will eventually parallel the situation in France in 1788/9. Already, the number of unemployment recipients is staggering and is further gnawing at our national treasury, just as the excesses of Louis XV and XVI gnawed at and eventually drained, France’s treasury.

Added to this in France was the intellectual factor, i.e., the wide circulation of the ideas of the enlightenment, which generally called for equality among all people, undermining the notion of divine right of the nobility. In fact, the successful American Revolution added fuel to this equality movement.

But the American Revolution also contributed in a political way to the revolution: In an attempt to vindicate his father’s waste of national funds in the unsuccessful Seven Years War against traditional enemy Britain, Louis XV, Louis XVI, the incompetent king and husband of Marie Antoinette, decided to help the Americans in their war with Britain. Success in that war did not translate into political success for Louis XVI, however, because the aid the French had sent us bankrupted France and further undermined the King’s authority and popularity. Other political factors include the popularity of revolutionary-minded Minister Jacques Neckar and of Maximilien Robespierre. The former’s dismissal gave more fuel to the movement while the latter’s oratory inspired the people to revolt.

It bodes ill for Michelle Obama that her extravagant vacations and leisure life are garnering her the monicker “Michelle Antoinette” – even among Democrats.

It is intriguing that the scenario of the French Revolution is now being turned upside down:

Economically, while most of the ills caused by the government in France were unrelated to the will of the public, the ills in our country were by consent of the governed, who foolishly installed politicians imbued with Keynesian economic ideas. A close look at globalist G.W. Bush, son of globalist George Bush Sr., would have shown us this flaw in his character. Obama, obviously driven by leftwing ideology, could scarcely have been expected to reject the idea of bailouts for banks and businesses, which then could be controlled by the government. This amassing of power in the hands of globalists and Marxists was accomplished by stealth, but it was ultimately the uncritical masses who chose them.

Intellectually, while the ideas that bolstered the French Revolution were strictly leftist revolutionary, the ideas of the Tea Party, promulgated by media personalities and a few politicians, and increasingly, by bloggers and internet activists, are spreading and causing a new kind of movement that could best be called antirevolutionary, if we accept the definition of the Revolution as set down by revolutionaries themselves over the centuries (again, I refer to the masterful work by Olavo de Carvalo).

Spiritually, the French revolution marked an upsurge in the religion of humanism, which has held for centuries, while the tea party revolution marks a turn toward traditional Christian values and beliefs that the French would call “reactionary.” It is no exaggeration to call humanism a religion in this context. The spiritual descendants of Voltaire include Sartre, Camus and a host of artists dedicated to proselytizing for atheistic humanism. A look at French cinema (works like “Jean de Florette,” “The Stranger” and “Madame Bovary,” for example) make this fanatical missionary spirit abundantly clear. Meanwhile, in America, the new heretics, like Jim Wallis and wishy-washy feel-good, “cool” pastors are being rejected for what Americans see as the “real thing,” solid men of God dedicated to the winning of souls from perdition.

Politically, the situation is similar between France then and the US today. The National Assembly in the 1780s had been at loggerheads with the King over issues like equality of taxation (only the commoners were taxed, nobility and clergy were exempted). It was the people against the tyrant at the top. Today we see the will of the people in Arizona, for example, being thwarted by the heavy hand of Obama and an activist court.  In reaction to the general perception of such tyranny, the true patriot tea party candidates (as distinct from the GOP-led imitations) are overthrowing incumbents in many elections. The GOP establishment, even with endorsements from once-popular heavy hitters like Sara Palin and Jan Brewer, is no longer able to sell their wishy-washy candidates at face value. Given the economic climate, the established church is no longer able to sell open borders and amnesty to their parishioners. Even popular icon Ann Coulter can’t pied-piper her followers into accepting a coalition with the homosexual agenda. The establishment is slowly cracking.

Conservatives and libertarians are forming a natural coalition and spreading the ideas of liberty and constitutional government but without the leftwing claptrap.

It is too early to predict anything, but the climate is right for a revolution that is, like the first American Revolution, not a revolution at all but rather a return to common sense, natural law and the God of our fathers.

The Internet Monk is Wrong to Wish Obama an Unqualified Successful Presidency

by Anthony Horvath

To begin with, I need to say that as an occasional reader of the InternetMonk blog, I almost always approve of almost everything that I read there. Michael Spencer gets a lot of things right and a lot of things he says needs to be heard by the Church. So this is not knee jerk reaction. Indeed, I find him a kindred spirit and frankly wish that I didn’t have to challenge him on his recent blog entry, Christians: What are you saying about the President?

Before I begin, I should also mention that there is a sense in which I’m singling him out unfairly. I have been hearing similar sentiments from a variety of places. So, this should be read as a challenge to Spencer but also a whole host of other commentators too. Rightly or wrongly, his post is being taken as representative of several worrisome trends.

The IM begins with a litany of comments that he has heard that he finds disgraceful. Without hearing the context in which they were spoken we are left to take them on their face. There isn’t much we can do about that. We certainly can’t ask him to substantiate each one. Some of them we can join in denouncing, but others I think I’d like to hear the arguments for. Did Mr. Spencer solicit their arguments even? Therein lies the first problem. Mr. Spencer leaves little room for the possibility that the speakers have good reasons for what they are saying. Rather, we are told with utter certitude that these are all “threatening, hateful, hostile or untrue words.”

That approach only works if you expect that your audience already accepts the terms of the discussion, which of course most of the people commenting on the entry did. But since the whole point is to persuade those who don’t accept those terms to think like you then in my view you have to do more than just throw out statements that you expect any reasonable person to reject. Granted, we don’t want to endorse something that will get you on ‘some FBI list’ but I personally don’t see an inherent contradiction (for example) between praying for someone and hating them, or at least hating what they stand for.

Perhaps more worrisome then the possibility that a caricature is being painted is that the concern is over seeing “a black Democrat take the office of the President.”

That is utterly ridiculous. I know a lot of people who are horrified at an Obama presidency and none of them care one lick that he is black. What about the wide spread support of Alan Keyes? What about the folks who pined for Condi Rice to run? Then, when we heard examples of contemptible statements none of them supported the racial aspect. So where did this come from? I’ll tell you what it sounded like to me- it sounded like a very clever way to call people racists without using the word. Saying it bluntly would have seen immediately as insulting and patently false. Instead, it was still insulting and patently false, but cleverly worded. Still an insult and still patently false. Mr. Spencer calls people to repentance for saying the things they said. He should repent for this insult to fellow Christians.

But I don’t want to dwell on this aspect. My problems with his post run far deeper.

Spencer’s arguments after this basically have two halves. The first half is ‘No, I don’t agree with Obama but I still wish him well.’ The second half is his exposition on what the Christian’s attitude on government should be. I will take them each in turn and then wrap it up with a discussion of worrisome subtext to Mr. Spencer’s arguments, and others I’ve heard and read as well.

Like the many pundits and bloggers wishing Obama a ‘successful’ presidency, Mr. Spencer says: Continue reading

My African religion

My African religion

by Donald Hank

A few years back, when I was still subscribed to AOL, I went to a forum that was discussing black leaders.

One poster enthusiastically stated that Malcolm X had lived in Africa and had “the religion” and he knew “the language.”  Since Malcolm X was a Black Muslim who had learned Arabic while in Africa, this poster was obviously positing that Arabic, a language spoken mostly by whites, was “the language” and Islam “the religion” of Africa, where hundreds of languages are spoken and where Christianity came centuries earlier than the latter. 

Around that time, AOL also had another forum called “My African Religion,” whose stated purpose was to introduce readers to various African religions.  No doubt the assumption was that AOL members from Africa would use the forum to describe their various African religions, such as animism and the like.

I couldn’t imagine that many adherents to strictly African religions would even own computers, let alone be able to articulate their religious views in English.

When I went into the forum, my suspicions were confirmed.  There were no messages at all, despite the fact that the link to this forum had gone up several days earlier.

So I decided it was time to post something about my African religion there, and this is what I wrote:

Read more at WorldNetDaily

A Medicine Worse than the Sickness

Dorothy Sayers in her essay titled “Problem Picture” presents a perspective of a Christian writing in England during World War Two. I would like to draw a few statements from this essay:

“There is one vast human experience that confronts us so formidably that we cannot pretend to overlook it. There is no solution to death.” … “The spiritual and mental energy that we expend upon resenting the inevitably of death is as much wasted as that which we from time to time have expended on attempts to solve the problem of perpetual motion. Further, this irrational preoccupation curiously hampers us in dealing with such a practical question as that of the possibility of war. It encourages us to look on the evil of war as consisting, first and foremost, that it kills a great many people.” … “Because of that, we would not risk war, for right or justice, or even in the hope of preserving peace. We threw down our arms [after WW1], crying ‘No More War!’, and so delivered up Europe.”

I am also writing from the perspective of a Christian. As I survey the landscape today I believe we can see that the sort of attitude that Sayers decried back in World War 2 is still alive and well with us today. When I hear calls like “Support the Troops- Bring them Home,” I recognize that the speaker believes that the very worst thing that can happen in life is to die. We must ask ourselves how many tyrants are in power today, stifling their populace by whatever means that they have, because free men and women can’t bring themselves to assert their understanding of what is right and what is wrong for fear that war might break out.

That is the story of Rwanda in the 90s. It is today’s story in Sudan. This article is not about trying to lay out arguments for war but rather to expound on the principle at work in Sayer’s statement. That principle is: In the face of evils that will always be with us, we shouldn’t try to avoid them, stall them, or overcome them in such a way that is also evil or sets the stage for something more horrific.

I can think of other applications of this principle and when we are in a political season I think it is wise to consider the matter, especially those of us who are Christians.

Perhaps another illustration from history should be presented. Let us take the problem of poverty. Poverty has always been with us and though it may offend some to point it out, it will always remain with us in the face of all our efforts. Poverty, like war, and like death, is a thing we should be concerned about. Can we put our finger on an attempt to deal with poverty that not only was worse than the problem to be solved but also brought more poverty?

I believe we can point to the rise of Communism as a case in point. Communism surged because of the vast amount of people feeling the dull weight of exploitation upon them. The solution was to take from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have nots.’ This was done violently but in the end many of the ‘have nots’ still had not and hundreds of millions perished in an effort to enforce ‘equality’ on a national scale.

Communist countries became the poorest countries on the planet. Only by softening their principles, as in China and Vietnam, did they manage to stay afloat at all. With all of the efforts of the Chinese to stamp out the problem of economic disparities does anyone believe for a minute that there are no poor people in China?

Now, in America there are people who would like to take from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have nots.’ Is it ever right to take what belongs to someone else just to give it to another? Do we know from history what kind of outcomes might result if such a venture was carried out in its full strength? We do. Is there a way to take poverty serious while not offering ‘rob the rich’ as the solution? I think so.

There will always be problems – death, war, poverty, conflict, sickness, etc. Some people take the attitude that these problems must be fought at any cost and tend to elect people who will fight them at any cost, oblivious to the fact that in tending to one problem they are creating another. In my view, the ideal candidate will take the problems seriously but will be aware of the law of unintended consequences and try to keep government out of the way of good citizens at work on those problems at the local level.

But it might be argued that there are some problems that are so big that they can only be handled by an institution as massive as our government. I don’t believe there are as many as we might think. I am not arguing that we do nothing about the problems of society but that we do so in a way that doesn’t do even worse damage. If not the government, then, who do I propose tackle these issues?

Quite simply, I believe the Christian church itself has what it takes to handle many of these social problems. I fear, however, that many Christians have gravitated towards solving such problems with government. This, in my view, is shameful. Attending to the concerns of our fellow man is a task given to us by Christ. He didn’t give it to us so that we could delegate it off to bureaucrats, no matter how well meaning we think those people are.

I wonder how many other issues that we Christians take seriously could be largely managed if instead of trying to resolve issues legislatively we devoted our time, energy, and resources to dealing with these problems as they arise in our own local communities. A litany of examples comes to my mind. I am not saying that we don’t work legislatively. I am saying we don’t put our hope in the government and that we don’t give up duties that rightly belong to us.

In this political season, I will be looking for a candidate who trusts the people themselves to address the big issues of our time. I fear that even if we elect such a candidate, the Christian community would not capitalize on the opportunity such an approach will afford. So, no matter what happens in the next election, there is still plenty we Christians can do… and should do. We can start now.

Anthony Horvath is the author of the Birth Pangs series, the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries,  and the Chief Apologist at www.sntjohnny.com.