Polite Kid

Just to let everyone know, I seem to have beeen hit hard by some kind of respiratory bug. So if I am missing in action tomorrow it will likely be because of that.
I hope you all will excuse any incoherency in my previous post; my brain seems not to be functioning at optimum tonight.
And I'll leave you with a link to a great blog post by Irish Tory, (H/T Flanders Fields) which paints a rather stark picture of our predicament in the West but which at the same time is eloquent and inspiring. I hope you find some inspiration in his words of exhortation. We all need it at this point, I think.
This hope is not in politics, it is not in arguing with our enemies, it is not in letter writing or pointless protests, it is not in powerless 'constitutional monarchies', it is in our souls, in our spirits, our peoples, the men of the west.
Read the rest at the link.

Labels: Blogosphere, Blogs, Christendom, Western Civilization, Western Decline

The Cambria Will Not Yield blog has had a spate of wonderful posts lately, and this latest is another worthy one.
...What then do we lack that our ancestors had? We lack the heroic, integral way of responding to adversity. We no longer see an evil and say, "this must not go on," (1) and strike out at the evil. Instead, we form "think tanks" and study groups. We spend years of fruitless effort in trying to get someone elected who will address the particular evil we are trying to combat. In short, we are Hamlet prior to his conversion from confused graduate student to the lawful King of Denmark. We are "crawling around between heaven and earth."
[...]
Our ancestors who built Christian Europe lived life in the heroic mode. They did not feel called upon to match wits with the devil. They felt called upon to defend their souls and their civilization from the onslaughts of the devil. The Christian hero cares only about one thing: Is his cause God�s cause? And if it is, he sallies forth and leaves the rest to God.
There's a special Providence in the fall of a sparrow.
If it be now, 'tis not to come: if it be not to
come, it will be now: if it be not now,
yet it will come; the readiness is all.
Since no man has ought of what he
leaves. What is't to leave betimes?
Every society has men of courage. But it takes more than courage to maintain a Christian civilization or to mount a counterattack against a satanic civilization. It takes courage and vision. And the "vision thing" of which George Bush senior was so dismissive is what has been lacking and is still lacking in the ranks of the far right.''
By all means read the rest.
CWNY makes one point which I have alluded to a time or two: when, as frequently happens these days, somebody on our side is decrying Christianity as the cause of our decline in the West, they often add that we need a new religion, one which will strengthen our side, unlike Christianity. Or, more likely, they say we need to go back to our 'old' religions, which presumably our ancestors held to before Christianity.
Now, I take exception to that line of thought because, first of all, being a Christian and a student of history, I think it's a groundless accusation to indict Christianity for our post-modern failure of courage and will. I won't go into that again now. But even were I not a Christian, I would find fault with this notion that we need to order up a 'better religion'.
CWNY quotes such critics here as implying:
"We need a religion to beat the barbarians � let�s buy one at the religion store." It doesn�t work that way, of course. European man has a religion, he has the religion, and it has always been his religion.
Even before I was a Christian, when I was still a spiritual seeker, I knew that "picking a religion" was not, as CWNY says, like shopping at a store and picking out the most suitable one or the best bargain. Only an atheist at heart would imagine that one 'picks a religion' as one picks out an article of clothing. If religion is a matter of expediency, or of its usefulness to us as individuals or as a people, then there is no God at all, just a series of roughly equivalent personal preferences in the line of religious merchandise, according to your tastes and lifestyle. Religion is not a consumer product that one takes back to be exchanged if it doesn't 'give us our money's worth', or if it doesn't serve as a talisman that brings us good luck and good fortune. To regard religion in that way is on the level of superstition.
Stray into your local barrio or ghetto and you will see stores peddling 'good luck' candles and scents and powders; you will see 'wangas' or fetishes meant to bring love or sexual conquests or power or money. Is this what our people think religion amounts to? We know that the more primitive peoples certainly believe so. Their religion is meant to provide power or material goods or 'love'; their 'gods' or spirits are like the genies in the old Arabian Nights stories, to be conjured up to serve them, not vice-versa.
However anyone who thinks deeply about religion or about a God ought to realize that if there is a God who is the Creator of this universe, and who created us, we ought to be in great awe of Him. We would surely not try to summon up such a Being and demand favors from him; we ought to be on our knees, not attempting to extort things from him.
I have had considerable first-hand knowledge of people who dabble in the 'natural' religions, and ultimately they all believe that their will should come first, and religion, which often amounts to little more than ritual and ceremony, ultimately is meant to be a servant to their wills. They thus see themselves as 'gods' of a sort, who wield power over supernatural forces.
In other words, they don't believe that there is one transcendental and yet immanent God, but they may believe there are multiple 'gods' who can be put into harness to serve their ends.
In that sense, I would call them unbelievers. They simply don't believe in one Creator God who is to be served, but they see themselves as small-g 'gods' and 'goddesses' who can shape reality to their wills.
Isn't this what the people are saying who claim that we have to go back to worshiping some nature 'gods'? The idea is apparently that these gods will empower us to be successful and dominant as our ancestors supposedly were in some pre-Christian 'golden age'. So we order up some gods who will act as our personal genies and who will lead us to victory.
Either there is a God who created this universe and all that is in it, or there are only small-g 'gods' who are thus not really gods at all, just some kind of magical beings who can be pressed into service towards our ends.
So the non-believer who proposes we scrap Christianity because our team is losing too many games, and we need a new mascot, truly does not understand what religion is, or what deity means. Religion is ultimately a matter of truth. If religion is not based on truth, but only on its usefulness to us in our worldly needs or on its expediency, then it is not religion in the true sense; it's magic or superstition.
Either a religion is true or it is not.
I strongly suspect that those who propose we wheel out the old pagan deities and put up altars to them don't for a moment believe that those 'gods' even exist; I suspect they believe that religions are meant to be some kind of psychological crutch or pep-talk to help us toward success. Religion would seem, to these people, to be no more than a kind of self-help system that we employ.
Our forefathers prospered and succeeded when Christianity was at its Zenith. Our fortunes in the West have waxed and waned with Christianity. But that is not a reason to be faithful to Christianity; Christianity is not a mere means to an earthly end. But it's apparent that we were blessed when we were faithful, and we've lost that blessing to a great extent as we've strayed from the faith of our fathers.
I believe, as CWNY says, that our Christianity is part of our blood and our substance, and to the extent that we have walked away from it, or have in some cases perverted it into a caricature of its real self, we have forfeited our sense of our identity and our heritage as Westerners, heirs of Christendom.

Labels: Christendom, Christianity, Western Civilization, Western Decline

Well, why not resume my regular blog posts with a topic that is certain to be elicit sharply differing responses: Daniel Hannan -- who is himself controversial even on the right, expresses his opinion that the King James Bible is the greatest translation of all time.
I agree with him.
First, though, every time I make a reference to Hannan, someone will chime in that he is not on our side, not to be trusted, etc. I know his flaws and I may not agree with everything he says but he is right about many things. And he expresses himself with a clarity that is refreshing, especially by contrast with our forked-tongued American politicians and talking heads.
As for his high view of the King James Bible, that is, today, a controversial subject among Christians, and even non-Christians seem to feel strongly about it. There was a time when the King James Bible was THE version of the Bible for English-speaking people, although there have been others held in high regard, such as the Geneva Bible, which was the preferred translation for the Puritan fathers in this country. Actually the two versions seem very close, being both of them based in large part on the translation by Tyndale.
For being a partisan of the KJV, I have at least once been accused of 'bibliolatry', of worshipping a book rather than the Living God, which I think is a rather over-the-top accusation. To prefer that translation and to believe it inspired is not 'worship'. Tellingly, my liberal friend has used that same term as some of the conservative Christians who are negative toward the King James version.
So there are those who ridicule pro-KJV Christians, and then there are those who assert that 'the only way to get the real thing is to learn Koine Greek and Hebrew; the translations are flawed.' The fact is most people do not know Koine Greek and are not likely to learn it. Are we then left without a true version of the Bible, being deficient in ancient languages? Apparently so, according to these people. Apparently only the learned and the intellectually superior, then, can really read the Bible, since translations are not reliable.
Oddly the people who claim that all the existing translations are inadequate or flawed are often the people who claim that the latest 'modern' version is the best yet. The problem with that is that there are umpteen versions now, and new translations coming out every other day, it seems. That trend looks like going on indefinitely. It must be a profitable business for a number of people, this constant re-translating of the Bible and selling all the many new copies. And now of course there are Bibles aimed at every demographic. There are those hip new Bibles written in slangy modern American English, with some kind of trendy-looking covers to appeal to the young: Bibles covered in denim, or in Gothic-looking black, with fashionable typography. Then there are the Bibles especially for women, for blacks, for mothers, for dads.
It's all about packaging. But I've read through many of these upstart translations, and I find them to be lacking. The translations may have shed the archaic, old-timey style of the King James, but they are written in colorless, dull prose. The phrasings are often clumsy and awkward. They are flatfooted and unmemorable. Whatever you may say of the King James, it is written in a way that stays in the mind. Perhaps it's gone out of style to memorize Scripture, but it is infinitely easier to remember whole passages from the KJV than to learn and retain the same passages in the insipid prose of one of the newfangled translations.
Style, of course, is not all that matters -- though it does help to remember and retain the Scriptures, and it does add to the pleasure of reading. What matters is that with the more modern translations, somehow key meanings are changed, and it is just coincidental, I am sure, that certain passages having to do with homosexuality, for instance, are translated differently. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the references to homosexuals are changed in certain versions to 'homosexual offenders' or 'prostitutes', in other words, homosexuality in and of itself is suddenly not condemned.
The newer versions, written by committees of 'scholars' with appropriately PC views, often subtly, or not-so-subtly, alter the passages which are not acceptable to 21st century sensibilities. Politics, consciously or not, affects the changes that are made.
And in the quest for a 'perfect translation', have these 'improvers' in fact undermined for all time the idea that Scripture is inspired and not subject to a consensus, and not to be re-written every time fashions change, to suit the times?
If we admit that 'errors were made' in the KJV then errors have been made in all other translations, too, and will be made in every proposed new version. I suppose this does not really matter in that most professing Christians these days do not believe that Scripture can be inspired or inerrant, or that God can preserve it.
Hannan's piece is about the superior style of the King James Version, its greatness as literature. There was a time when in English literature classes, the KJV was studied as literature. I remember one of my college English lit professors including the Book of Job as one of the greatest pieces of literature in our language. But that is not PC today; I expect the Book of Job is replaced in the curriculum by something by one of the black female writers.
Regardless of whether we like or prefer the King James Bible, or even know it, we have all heard phrases and words from it; it is part of our linguistic heritage just as is Shakespeare. Of course to a Christian it is more than just another well-written book, and much more than a museum piece.
I didn't even read the comments at Hannan's blog; I looked at the first few and it appears that there are the usual detractors and scoffers along with a few pedants. I'd rather not read it; it would only leave me feeling more discouraged about the state of our post-Christian and post-Western world. And right now I need something more encouraging.
Hannan finishes his piece with this rather odd paragraph:
The English and their kindred peoples are, in my experience, rather less spiritual than Arabs, and it would not occur to them to make an equivalent claim. None the less, the Authorised Version stands as perhaps the greatest translation of all time. The day will eventually come when our power dwindles, and all our pomp of yesterday is one with Nineveh and Tyre. But as long as English is spoken, and our canon preserved, ours will never be just another country.''
The Arabs more 'spiritual' than we are? I am not so sure about that. And if the English-speaking countries are consigned to the dustheap of history, to use the cliché, then the KJV will not outlive us because those who will inherit the earth will discard it, along with all of our heritage. There will surely be a dark age if the West and especially the Anglosphere falls.

Labels: Bible, Christendom, English Heritage, English Language

In my previous post, the issue of a Catholic Bishop's liberal position on illegal immigration was raised. Unhappily, there are many Protestant clergy and lay people who share the post-modern liberal interpretation of Christian doctrine.
The problem is such that it is becoming increasingly hard for the faithful Christian to answer the ever-louder voices of the critics on the right who say that Christianity is to blame, solely or in part, for the fall of the West and the threatened loss of our country.
AmRen in particular, among racial-realist websites and forums, has its insistent critics and enemies of Christianity, a couple of whom regularly post quite disparaging comments about Christianity and Christians. I can only assume that their viewpoints are agreeable to the moderators of AmRen if not also to the site owner. It's a fact that many comments in general do not get past the moderators, so those which do see the light of day are apparently agreeable to the mods and/or to the site owner.
I know some will say this is just even-handedness. It's not. Islam has its critics on AmRen, but none as insistent as the regular anti-Christian voices. Judaism is not considered fair game for criticism on AmRen, presumably because this is a group which is being courted and whose support is apparently valued more than that of Christians. This makes little tactical sense, because Christians make up a much larger demographic.
For whatever reason, Christians are now on the defensive on the right as well as on the left, and Christianity's detractors are stubbornly unwilling to listen to any defense of Christianity.
It's noteworthy, and heartening, that a British clergyman, Reverend Robert West of the British National Party, has spoken out on the issues of immigration, race, and repatriation in light of Christian belief.
Whilst the BNP is a secular and not a religious party, its views generally agree with the Bible�s own teaching that we are to live as nations, in our nations, and not to submit to a "resurrection" of the Babel thesis of one undifferentiated mass under some form of, probably dictatorial and very unstable, world governance.''
To the credit of AmRen, the issue of Christianity's culpability for the decline of the West was debated there some dozen years ago, and this piece by H.A. Scott Trask was posted there later, although I do wonder if something similar would be posted today. (Incidentally, thanks to Dr. D for calling Trask's piece to my attention once again.)
The Christian Doctrine of Nations
Biblical law respects boundaries of race and nation
by H. A. Scott Trask
In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters ("How Christianity Harms the Race") acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig ("Defense of the Faith") acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.
The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World "refugees:" "These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion." Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one�s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.
Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of "diversity," conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.
If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children�s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.'
[...]
Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated "civil rights" lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe "racism" is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to "bridge the racial divide," integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.
White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.''
Trask goes on to refute the frequently-cited interpretation of Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
I will let you read the entire essay for yourselves. It's a very thorough job of answering the liberalized postmodern Christians who have no problem with breaking with two millennia of Christian belief to embrace the 'one-world' agenda. I often repeat this, and it doesn't seem to pierce through the indoctrination, but how do such Christians reconcile their radical departure from what their parents and grandparents and so on, as far back as you can go, believed? Our Christian parents and our forefathers did not believe there were no nations or races; they did not believe we were to drop all barriers and tear down borders and fences and become one undifferentiated mass of humanity, as today's PC pharisees have decreed we must do.
If we believe that the traditional understanding of nations, as laid out in the Bible and by centuries of custom and tradition were not only mistaken but sinful and immoral, where does that put our ancestors, who held such 'immoral' beliefs and lived by such 'hateful' customs? If today's politically correct believers are right, most of our forefathers will not enter the kingdom of heaven, having not known the 'truth' according to today's wisdom, and having lived what today's generation would call 'racist' and xenophobic lives.
As for me, I am not prepared to condemn our forefathers in that way, while assuming that today's confused Christians are the standard by which to judge.
I suppose there is little chance of exonerating Christianity from the accusations made by some nationalists and realists; I have always had the feeling that they have rejected Christianity already, and are simply looking for further reasons to denigrate the faith and to vilify Christians. So I don't think that anything will change their condemnation of Christianity.
If they are intellectually honest, they would surely at least try to explain why, as I often ask, Europe and the West generally were at their zenith when Christianity still reigned, and when it was a strong and muscular faith. And why, conversely, did the West become effete and passive and self-doubting as the Christian faith waned, and Christianity became stripped of its original power?
These questions are often touched on in various essays of Cambria Will Not Yield, such as this one.
If the ''Christianity did it'' theory of the West's demise were true, should not the West have fallen centuries ago when Christianity was at its peak of power, when the majority of people in the West truly lived their lives according to Christianity's precepts? Why did the fall of the West come only as Christianity became enfeebled and had strayed from its original truths, and when only a small number of faithful believers remain? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet I have never heard any of the anti-Christian critics explain why this paradox exists, if their theory is true.
I don't hold any hope of dissuading the 'Christianity did it'' sect from their beliefs. I would, however, hope that some Christians who think it is sinful and evil to close our borders, or to want to preserve our nation and our people, will rethink that position based on what Trask has to say, or better yet, what their Bible has to say, minus the politicized interpretations of our day.

Labels: Babel, Bible, Christendom, Death Of The West, Ethnonationalism, Liberal Christianity, Nationality, Nations, Political Correctness, Western Decline

Here, DanielJ of the blog Tomorrow in Vinland writes about Philip Rieff and the Triumph of the Therapeutic.
I will not even attempt to discuss Rieff and his ideas. I know little but that he was Jewish, and that he was married to Susan Sontag, she of the infamous ''the White race is the cancer of the human race'' comment.
Now that does not necessarily delegitimize his ideas or writings, but nonetheless I haven't been inclined to read his works. There is a thread at the Kinism Forum on Rieff, here, for those interested.
The excerpts I have read show his writing to be too abstruse and arcane and too intellectual for my liking; I am not one of those who can deal in abstractions and ideas about ideas on a sustained basis. So I will leave Rieff and his ideas to those who have a head for such rarefied stuff. I am, however, interested in the idea of the role of the therapeutic culture in a post-Christian West. That may be a topic for another entry. And even more, I am concerned with the ongoing anti-Christianism that many self-identified neo-pagans promote on the racial right.
Taking that last into account, this first reply to DanielJ's post was expected, and all too typical:
If today�s Christianity is a defence mechanism against non-White invasion of Euroman�s lands then I�m a baked hedgehog with mushroom sauce. Christianity, that ancient Hebrew heresy foisted upon White people by Jews and their proselytising, brainwashed catspaws, is the natural parent of multi-culturalism�s sponsor, Marxism. Of course, the supernatural element of Christianity�s arrant nonsense had to be excised in order for those foolishly egalitarian Whites who, at least, valued observed reality above blind, racially alien, Middle Eastern deity worship to accept the worthless religion�s new Communist guise.''
He pretty much hits all the usual notes sounded by the anti-Christian zealots on the racial right.
But wait, one pro-Christian comment appears:
1. Christianity has been for a long time the religion of the West. As an empirical proposition, as Europe has dispensed with the old faith, it has been transmogrified into a bunch of non-reproducing, non-white-ass-kissing pansies and socialists. Correlation or causation?
2. Must Christianity lead to multiculturalism? I genuinely do not know (and neither do you - this is one of the most profound yet largely unexplored areas of intellectual concern). All patriots should avoid this easy inference, however, as it is not clear that multiculturalism is a latent outgrowth of "taking Christianity seriously". At least as likely is the hypothesis that Christianity�s replacement, sentimental secular humanism, the aptly called Religion of Humanity, is what has directly lead to our modern hysterical denials of racial differences, and acceptance of race-replacement.''
Yes. If 'taking Christianity seriously' is the issue, then just about any generation before the 20th century took it much more seriously than today's lukewarm liberal Christians and CINOs (Christians In Name Only). So if Christianity was the toxic ingredient that killed off the spirit, and is killing the body, of the West, it would have done so long ago. None of the critics ever address this little anomaly.
3. Another empirical proposition. Most conservatives generally, and most racial conservatives in particular (I don�t mean celebrity racialists, or extreme rightists - just the plain people who vote against immigration, affirmative action, etc) describe themselves as "conservative Christians", at least here in America. There is, in other words, a much stronger correlation between Christian conservatism and racial conservatism, than between atheism and racial conservatism. Why this should be, or WHETHER this should be, intellectually, I don�t know. But this fact ought to influence political thinking about explorations of the intersection of Christianity and race-liberalism, especially when calls for a new paganism or similar nonsense start issuing forth.''
This is a point I haven't made sufficiently: there is at least as much of a case, if not more, as the commenter says, for a correlation between conservative Christianity and racial conservatism. I keep asking, with no response, why, if Christianity is guilty of destroying the West, it took millennia to do so. That's like saying that a meal eaten a decade ago could kill someone today. Presumably if Christianity was so destructive to the West, the West would not have survived and prospered and expanded for centuries.
4. I am sufficiently confident in my comparative theological knowledge to make this claim: the only philosophically and scientifically tenable alternatives to atheism are either some form of rational Christianity, or a deism as yet not fully articulated; that is, all existing non-Christian forms of supernaturalism, including various Christian sects, fail intellectually and scientifically. Christianity, especially Catholicism, is very strong, however. The more it is studied the more (intellectually) impressive it becomes. Paganism, however, whatever its former tribe-unifying merits, cannot be resurrected by the modern mind.''
The last sentence seems convincing to me. The fact is we know very little about the pre-Christian religions of Europe; there was no extensive body of writings, no holy books, nothing other than bits and pieces written by Roman historians or others in various places. Much of what is called 'paganism' today is a cobbled-together 'tradition', mostly the work of Gerald Gardner, who lived in the 20th century, far-removed from the traditions he was supposedly resurrecting. In Victorian times, Sir James Frazer and his work The Golden Bough also contributed a great deal to this reinvented paganism. In other words, the authenticity of it is very much in question, but then I suspect that matters not at all to its proponents, because it appears that to them, neo-paganism is merely a means to an end, a supplanter of Christianity which they deem as more useful to their cause of creating a new Europe in which the hated faith of our fathers will not exist. A Christendom without Christ, as some have put it.
5. Even if all religion is, finally, empirically false, white nationalists may want to encourage a new efflorescence of traditional Christianity, if only for its healthy, life-affirming aspects. The old faith encouraged large families (biological reproduction). We need this now. For centuries, moreover, the old faith was not seen to be incompatible with anti-miscegenation laws, with ethnic expulsions, with ranks and hierarchies, and with anti-immigration statutes. Instead of jettisoning the faith because it has been racially corrupted, the easier as well as more politically prudent and fruitful course would be to recover and reapply the earlier, non-multiculturalist understanding of Christian obligation."
[Emphasis mine.]
6. The Faith presided over great periods of Western (biological) expansion. It may have helped cause that expansion, directly and certainly indirectly. The Faith is therefore not necessarily inimical to the West; secular liberalism undeniably is. Oh, and the Faith may even be true ... racialists should adjust their thinking accordingly. ''
That last little point is not made often enough. What if Christianity is true? That should be the central question. Is it true? Is there a God, one God, as the Bible states, and is Christ his son and our savior? If so, then it behooves those who revere truth to seek out the true God, rather than inventing or 'rediscovering' a set of 'gods' who will serve as mascots or talismans for their new Christless Eurotopia.
I'm often tempted to ask those who profess to be pagans: do you really believe in your gods or are they just intellectual symbols for you? Props in your scenario for a new Europe? If they do exist, and if they are specifically tribal gods of the White race or the Northern European race, are they not there to help their people now? Or are they dormant until Christianity is overthrown?
Truth be told, I've known people who professed to be pagans or Wiccans or sort of freelance witches, or Druids. Before I was a Christian, I was something of a seeker, spiritually, and I learned about all religions, Eastern and Western. I never got the sense that the pagan gods were real and vital in the minds of those who called themselves pagans. How is worshipping them supposed to spiritually and racially revivify the West? Come to that, why did the pagan West fall to Christianity, if the gods were so potent, and if paganism was authentic while Christianity was alien and artificial for Europeans?
And I don't buy the allegation that Christianity was 'forced' at swordpoint on Europeans. Those who say that must be confusing Christianity with Islam. Christianity was not forced on Europe. The story of Constantine forcing his supposed 'faith' on Rome (his profession being in doubt, according to some observers) does not apply to Europe generally.
I have no grudge against the pagans or neo-pagans on the right, as long as they are not calling for the stamping out of Christianity, nor engaging in wholesale slanders against our Christian ancestors. I think that all of us who care about the future of our people have to come to some kind of modus vivendi, and tolerate one another. We can't afford the divisions, and I don't see these divisions as originating with the Christian side; the hostility consistently shows up in the constant blaming and vilifying of Christians and the faith of old Europe. I simply don't see how one can love Europe and hate the faith which informed it during its height of achievement and strength.

Labels: Christendom, Christianity, Europe, Liberal Christianity, Western Civilization

I've been hearing more about the recent trip to Central America by some of our local youth.
What I'm hearing and seeing is a deliberate program of making our young people believe that the Third World is our responsibility, and that being a good Christian involves feeling enormous guilt about how prosperous we are. After all, those poor people south of the 'border' have nothing, and we have everything.
Teenagers are emotional creatures, very susceptible to this kind of manipulation. Most are naive and have a tendency to want to help those who seem downtrodden or helpless, at least if those downtrodden people are Third Worlders.
So I don't blame the young people as much as I do their elders, who are just as emotionally vulnerable as the young people are. Is this another manifestation of our national adolescence? There are so many adults who seem to live as perpetual adolescents, with all the soft-headedness and gullibility that characterizes many immature young people.
One such person is a parent of one of the young folks who just came back after the guilt-trip (literally) south of the border. I am now hearing stories of how these youngsters were taken to a prison which is said to be 'controlled by gangs', and which is said to have an area where even the guards will not go, because the prisoners apparently have de facto control over that area.
Would any of you let your sons and daughters go into this prison, accompanied by a Christian chaperon who is as naive as the kids? I certainly wouldn't, especially a daughter. In today's PC climate, that is considered a 'racist' attitude, but a few decades ago it was simple common sense.
I don't hear of any concern or outrage on the part of the parents whose kids were taken into this prison to 'minister' to the criminals. Of course visiting those in prison is part of what Christians are enjoined to do. But surely some common sense should govern who goes to do this kind of thing, and under what conditions. Let grown men do this, not adolescent girls and boys with no clue about reality.
I am 100 percent certain that these parents would not let their sons and especially their daughters enter our state prison with its hardened criminals. But the Third World? They're all just victims there, of course, and we can't judge them, can we?
And another question occurs to me: Latin America was supposedly Christianized centuries ago, was it not? Why are missionaries and assorted other do-gooders, including kids, still having to bring them the Gospel?
That's a rather rhetorical question on my part; I don't believe that many Latin Americans are Christian, their beliefs being a hodgepodge of heathen superstition with various corrupted Catholic practices.
But even so, surely the many missionaries who go down there have spread the Gospel thoroughly? It seems to me that the purpose of going is to minister to the people's material needs, but why do Christians go there on seeming guilt tours? Is this part of the mission to make the young, especially, feel more connected to those who are coming to live among us? To give them more of a 'global consciousness'?
It may be noteworthy that the church sponsoring this is one of those 'seeker-sensitive' Oprah-ized churches. And though they are ostensibly Protestant, they seem to believe in 'earning' salvation by good works.
The kids, bless their idealistic hearts, are champing at the bit to go back and help those poor people 'who have nothing'.
The mother of one of the teens says that she now sees illegal immigration in a different light: these people 'have nothing', so it's understandable that they are entering our country in droves to find a 'better life.'
And just a side note: the woman in question has taken a tough line on illegals heretofore, sounding quite a bit like me at times, on the subject of the invasion. All it took was a few hearts-and-flowers stories about the poor peasants who 'have nothing', and she is suddenly full of sympathy for the illegals.
This encapsulates the average White American's response to the invasion. We are too prone to feel sympathy and pity for the poor illegals -- did you know they 'have nothing' in their countries? -- and to put our own interests last.
Our young people, as I said, are being inculcated with racial guilt, guilt over our supposed wrongs toward the have-nots of the world, and guilt for our prosperity and comfort. Protestants have not traditionally believed in self-flagellation and 'mortification of the flesh' as Catholics once did, but this is the modern equivalent, this racial guilt and a sense of enduring obligation to the downtrodden and the aggrieved have-nots of the world. So these kids will work and save money to go again next year to take care of the perpetual basket-cases of the world and thus do penance for their sin of being born White and born in a prosperous, comfortable country.
Maybe they are much better Christians than I, but then I don't pretend to be an exemplar in that regard.
At times I struggle with the question of whether I am a bad Christian or a bad human being because I am not inclined to such self-sacrifice and I don't believe we are compelled as Christians to embrace self-immolation, giving our home away to aliens, or sending our children into harm's way to make ourselves feel more virtuous.
This sending of our young to these dangerous and crime-ridden countries seems to me rather like the Old Testament stories of 'passing children through the fire', sacrificing them to the idol Moloch. That these local kids came back without having been physically harmed is beside the point; they are being indoctrinated into the multicult, which is Moloch in 21st century guise.
Again, I keep coming back to this idea of post-modern 'Christianity' as a cult of niceness, a mere empty shell of its former self.
Too many Christians today have no concept of goodness, knowing only 'niceness', which is an anemic, simpering caricature of Christian goodness. Niceness wishes only to think only good of everyone, even those who are evil, and those who are enemies of God. Niceness does not want to offend or exclude anyone. Niceness will tell flattering lies rather than unflattering truths. Niceness does not hold truth in high regard, as goodness does.
Niceness will not make tough decisions, or execute justice when needed; niceness wants only to accommodate everyone, please everyone, and make everyone 'equal', even though that flies in the face of justice. Niceness is a stranger to justice, and prefers it that way.
Niceness thinks that it is virtuous to give preference to those who least merit it, or least deserve it. Niceness seeks recognition for being self-abnegating and for appeasing evil -- in fact, niceness does not acknowledge that evil exists -- except in the case of those who violate political correctness.
In fact, political correctness is one of the most recognizable faces worn by 'niceness'; the emphasis is on falsehoods and obfuscation in the name of being 'sensitive.'
May the Lord preserve us from 'nice' people. Nice people are seldom good people.
Goodness includes within itself hardness when appropriate; true goodness is not weak and feeble, but strong and fearless, willing to actively oppose evil, to confront it.
Goodness recognizes evil where it exists, and calls it by its name. Niceness refrains from judging or confronting, except when condemning those who speak unflattering and uncomfortable truths.
Goodness takes a stand, discerning and judging. Niceness takes a neutral position, so as not to judge, much less to 'condemn.' Even worse, sometimes niceness aids and abets evil, and expects praise and approbation for its 'tolerance' and 'broadmindedness' or 'compassion.'
If goodness were like the impostor, niceness, it would long ago have been extinguished altogether from lack of willingness to oppose evil.
Niceness is held in higher regard, sadly, by most Christians today, than goodness and righteousness.
It seems niceness is at bottom a part of pride: the desire to be seen by all as tolerant and accepting. It's a kind of conspicuous display of 'virtue', the kind of public posturing which caused the Pharisees to be condemned for their pride and hypocrisy.
I do understand the exasperation expressed by so many people who see the role played by this counterfeit Christianity in the destruction of the West. I suppose it's understandable that there is dismay, given the way much of Christianity has gone off the rails, adopting a psychology-based, pop-culture-ized, universalistic, one-world, no-borders belief system while continuing to call it Christianity.
This 'new and improved' Christianity knows nothing of the God of the Bible, having created a god in their image, a god who does not condemn, and does not punish, but instead is an indulgent, tolerant, all-accepting friend and buddy. Their 'god' is unfailingly nice, always the lamb and never a lion. The god of niceness is not the 'consuming fire' or the Just Judge of the Bible. That was the God of our Fathers, who was not only perfectly good but perfectly just. 'Goodness and severity' combined. As we believed in that God, our society then embodied 'goodness and severity', at least to the extent that any flawed human society can. Now we have lost the 'severity' or strength, and have thus exchanged goodness for its useless counterfeit, niceness.
God, according to the Bible, commands that we not only cleave to the good, but abhor evil. Abhor. That is a strong word, but it is not in the vocabulary of the 'niceness' cultists, hence their bland and vapid response to evil
The Christianity which has become the fad of today, with its show business style and its feel-good trappings and catchphrases, is another gospel, and it preaches a god who is only half a god, a god of bland niceness, all mercy and forgiveness and no justice.
And even many non-Christians or outright atheists actually worship this hollow idol of niceness, so it can't be blamed on Christians alone.
Whoever is ultimately to blame, and we can point fingers everywhere, the niceness will surely be the end of us; it's what brought us to where we are now, surrounded in our own country, like Gulliver bound by the Lilliputians.
Speaking of that analogy, Pat Boone's recent article about immigration used that same metaphor, which I've also used here on the blog.
I suppose it's an obvious metaphor; we are Gulliver, tied down by the Lilliputians surrounding us. And it may be that we simply don't know our own strength. It's our own false perceptions that are tying us down, including our false ideas about niceness and the real article, goodness.
We need only to look through the fog of our present era back to earlier times, when we knew and thought and believed with more clarity and strength than we do in our present bound, helpless condition.
The old strengths are still available to us, if we can only break free of our mental and spiritual bonds.

Labels: Christendom, Christianity, Hypocrisy, Multicultists, Political Correctness

A Christmas Dinner
"Christmas time! That man must be a misanthrope indeed, in whose breast something like a jovial feeling is not roused - in whose mind some pleasant associations are not awakened - by the recurrence of Christmas. There are people who will tell you that Christmas is not to them what it used to be; that each succeeding Christmas has found some cherished hope, or happy prospect, of the year before, dimmed or passed away; that the present only serves to remind them of reduced circumstances and straitened incomes - of the feasts they once bestowed on hollow friends, and of the cold looks that meet them now, in adversity and misfortune. Never heed such dismal reminiscences. There are few men who have lived long enough in the world, who cannot call up such thoughts any day in the year. Then do not select the merriest of the three hundred and sixty-five for your doleful recollections, but draw your chair nearer the blazing fire - fill the glass and send round the song and if your room be smaller than it was a dozen years ago, or if your glass be filled with reeking punch, instead of sparkling wine, put a good face on the matter, and empty it off-hand, and fill another, and troll off the old ditty you used to sing, and thank God it's no worse. Look on the merry faces of your children (if you have any) as they sit round the fire. One little seat may be empty; one slight form that gladdened the father's heart, and roused the mother's pride to look upon, may not be there. Dwell not upon the past; think not that one short year ago, the fair child now resolving into dust, sat before you, with the bloom of health upon its cheek, and the gaiety of infancy in its joyous eye. Reflect upon your present blessings - of which every man has many, not on your past misfortunes, of which all men have some. Fill your glass again, with a merry face and contented heart. Our life on it, but your Christmas shall be merry, and your new year a happy one!
Who can be insensible to the outpourings of good feeling, and the honest interchange of affectionate attachment, which abound at this season of the year? A Christmas family-party! We know nothing in nature more delightful! There seems a magic in the very name of Christmas. Petty jealousies and discords are forgotten; social feelings are awakened, in bosoms to which they have long been strangers; father and son, or brother and sister, who have met and passed with averted gaze, or a look of cold recognition, for months before, proffer and return the cordial embrace, and bury their past animosities in their present happiness. Kindly hearts that have yearned towards each other, but have been withheld by false notions of pride and self-dignity, are again reunited, and all is kindness and benevolence! Would that Christmas lasted the whole year through (as it ought), and that the prejudices and passions which deform our better nature, were never called into action among those to whom they should ever be strangers!''
-Charles Dickens, Sketches by Boz

Labels: Christendom, Christmas

I like this piece; it expresses many of the same thoughts I have had about "political correctness" which is merely one of the more smarmy and obnoxious manifestations of liberalism.
The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don't have to lie. I don't have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don't have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine.
Nor do I have to say that everyone's special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don't have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don't have to pretend that Islam means peace.
Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility. It's not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are.
This is leftism's great strength: It's all white lies.''
It is true that conservatism, real conservatism, is grounded in a realistic attitude toward life, and in an honest appraisal of flawed human nature. In that sense, many of today's 'conservatives' and Republicans have abandoned that realism and have, perhaps unwittingly, bought into the liberal view of the world and of people. The liberal view is generally a utopian, wishful-thinking ideology. It tends to divide people up simplistically according to how closely they conform to liberal morality: those who engage in the pretense and flattery that we call "political correctness" are of superior character, while those who do not are classed as "mean-spirited" and hateful. Many Republicans and self-styled conservatives share the liberal predilection for quashing any frank speech which steps on the wrong toes; if we speak harshly but truthfully about illegal immigrants, we might be called "hateful" by a Republican almost as often as a Democrat. We have seen how skillful many Republican politicians are at pandering to various protected groups, and how they are just as practiced at uttering 'white lies' as are the Democrat politicians.
So the culture of white lies, craven flattery, and rose-colored glasses is not confined to one political party.
As a Christian, I am aware of how the Bible warns us against "flattering lips" and a lying tongue:
They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: [with] flattering lips [and] with a double heart do they speak.
- Psalms 12:2
The Bible also tells us repeatedly that we are not to be respecters of persons, and that includes giving preference to the poor or to the rich; we are not told that respecting the persons of 'victim groups' is permissible, any more than respecting the person of the rich or the famous.
Of course if someone is truly a victim, they are entitled to justice and sympathy where appropriate, but thanks to liberalism and its warped "compassion", everybody, including the most heinous criminals, is portrayed as a victim. Terrorists and mass killers have their vocal champions among the Politically Correct because of this twisted notion of 'victimhood.'
So our society, in its obsession with exalting 'victims', has become enmeshed in lying, distorting, and dissimulating.
But because it is all done in a "good cause", to spare someone's feelings, or to rectify some claimed injustice, however distant in time, it is seen as moral and noble. Thus the evils of lying and hypocrisy are called good.
These issues came to mind whenever our President or some other official spoke fawningly and flatteringly about Islam as a "Religion of Peace." Secretary of State Rice spoke of the "benevolence that is at the heart of Islam." When I discussed this with fellow Christians, who personally did not buy the 'religion of peace' cant, they justified the flattery and guile as being simply "diplomatic." But if lying and dissimulating is wrong, do we call it right because the need for "diplomacy" outweighed the commandment to be truthful?
Usually when I asked this question, somebody would respond, "well, do you expect the President to say Islam is a false, evil religion? He can't say that." No, he can't say it publicly, but are those the only choices? Being honest does not necessitate that we insult or confront or provoke everyone with blunt candor, but it certainly requires that we not truckle or flatter, especially when the object of our flattery is not the least deserving of praise or compliments.
We are living in an age when mealy-mouthed 'niceness', a bland, limp-wristed desire to placate and mollify, is considered the highest virtue. But I am left to wonder: is the motivation fear? Are we afraid of those we flatter and fawn over? Do we think that our niceness will disarm them and lead them to spare us, or do we simply want to ingratiate ourselves and buy goodwill and benevolence? Or is it a pharasaical desire to appear morally superior, like the Pharisee in the Gospels who loudly thanked God that he was not like other men, a sinner?
Do even the liberals believe their flattery and "white lies" or is it just a pose? Or are they speaking the lies as "affirmations", believing that saying it enough will make it so?
I have heard it said countless times by many people of all political opinions that Christianity is the cause of almost every social ill of our times; leftists, of the atheist or anti-Christian variety, think Christianity leads to xenophobia and persecution, and they gleefully cite the Inquisition, the Crusades, and of course the 'witch trials', slavery, and every other crime of history. Then, I have ultra-liberal Christian acquaintances, who see Christian doctrines as the basis for their pacifist, multiculturalist, all-'tolerant', 'progressive' ideology. According to them, the Bible supports open borders, mass immigration, socialism/globalism, the whole gamut of leftist ideas.
Here,Fjordman's latest essay seems to indict Christianity:
A Christian Background for Political Correctness?
As a non-Christian, I have been complimenting Christianity for contributing immensely to many of the positive aspects of our culture. But precisely because Christianity has so profoundly shaped our culture, isn�t it plausible that it may also, at least indirectly, have contributed to some of the flaws that currently ail us as well?
According to the blogger Conservative Swede, whom I have debated this issue with at some length, Christian ethics is more unfettered in modern liberalism than it is in Christianity itself. The West, and Europe in particular, is sometimes labeled as "post-Christian," but this is only partly true. We have scrapped the Christian religion, but we have still retained some of the moral restraints associated with it, which have been so mired into our cultural DNA that we probably don�t even think about them as Christian anymore. Yet our humanitarian ideas are secular versions of Christian compassion, and it is Christian or post-Christian compassion that compels us to keep feeding and funding the unsustainable birth rates in other cultures, even actively hostile ones. Likewise, there are elements of Christian thought, such as universalism, that could be seen as the inspiration behind our one-world Multiculturalists.
[...]
One major component of Western self-loathing is the idea that we should we be punished for crimes, perceived or real, committed by our ancestors before we were even born. It could be argued that this idea has its roots in Christian thinking, in the concept of original sin, committed by Adam and Eve, but where all their descendants are subject to its effects. Christian ethics have proved more durable than Christian beliefs. Even when we have supposedly left the religion behind, we still believe we have to make atonement for the sins of our forefathers, but since we no longer believe that Christ has made that sacrifice for us and washed away our sins, we end up sacrificing ourselves instead.
This proves that unbalanced Christian ethics without Christian beliefs can be unhealthy, especially if combined with a high degree of cultural feminization and a focus on the feminine aspects of the divine, the self-sacrificing.''
There are quite a few conservatives, of the secular sort, who blame Christianity for the West's decline and possible demise; some of these people are very bitterly anti-Christian, and suggest that the West can only survive if we renounce the 'weak' religion of Christianity. Fjordman is not as extreme as those critics, but I think he somewhat caricatures Christianity, and takes the modern, liberal version of Christianity as the norm, or the standard.
Some of the extreme critics of Christianity as the supposed destroyer of the West assert that we should find a new religion which will serve us better; some even suggest that we go back to the pre-Christian religions of Europe. Now supposing that it were even possible to reconstruct the old religions of Europe, which I doubt, this idea seems wrong-headed. The underlying idea is that a religion is simply a man-made institution or belief system which is meant to serve us: if it does not serve some purpose of our own, we simply shop around for a religion that suits us better, or tinker together a religion of our own. This presupposes that there is no God, a God who is and who exists, with a nature of his own. In effect, this is essentially an atheistic attitude: the idea that God exists only insofar as we construct him or conceive of him, and thus we can make a religion that is useful to us.
Fjordman cites the Christian doctrine of original sin, and blames it for our present 'guilt complex' in the West. To be fair, the doctrine of original sin does not mean that I am guilty for the personal sins of my ancestors. And Christians believe everyone, of every race and nation, is equally a sinner, but the leftist idea of Western guilt convicts Westerners only; according to the popular PC belief, only Western white people carry ancestral guilt. Western white nations are endlessly castigated for slavery, while the liberals never condemn the present-day slavery in the Third World, or the past guilt of the Arab nations in the slave trade. Liberals, influenced by Rousseau and his 'noble savage' idea, seem to see Third World peoples as innocent and childlike, capable only of being victimized, of being sinned against but not sinning. 'Victim' groups are seemingly exempted from accountability, much as we exempt minor children.
The modern idea of a uniquely Western guilt and the need for 'atonement' via self-abasement is not intrinsic to Christian belief.
I would say, and have said, that Christianity in past centuries did not emasculate the West; far from it. Were it not for the efforts of Charles Martel, El Cid, John Sobieski, and the efforts of the Crusaders, Islam would long ago have swallowed up Europe. Our Christian forebears had firm defenses against invaders; they did not understand Christianity as requiring that they welcome mass invasion by 'strangers', as today's Open Borders fanatics believe. They did not generally believe that Christianity demanded pacifism and passivity; certainly there were some who championed such ideas, but they were not the dominant group in Christendom.
Our Christian ancestors, who practiced a "muscular Christianity" that has all but vanished, were not guilt-ridden doormats to the world as we in the West are; did they misunderstand their Christian faith for all those centuries? Are we moderns and post-moderns the first to "understand" the supposed message of self-destruction inherent in Christianity? I would say, in our secular and confused age that we are the ones who have a corrupted form of Christianity. Christianity does not call on us to lay down before our enemies and offer our necks for the chopping block.
Those who say that Christianity is to blame for the West's enfeebled condition are missing the obvious fact that, were it not for the efforts of their Crusader ancestors, Europe as we have known it would never have come to be.
Christianity in our modern times has been, like our society as a whole, in a state of imbalance. As Fjordman mentions,
..unbalanced Christian ethics without Christian beliefs can be unhealthy, especially if combined with a high degree of cultural feminization and a focus on the feminine aspects of the divine, the self-sacrificing.''
But the overemphasis on the feminine aspects is not representative of historic Christianity.
It's no accident that liberal Christians tend to exclude the Old Testament; David, in the Old Testament, calls God a "man of war." The book of Ecclesiastes tells us that there is a time for war as well as a time for peace.
I am not a theologian or even much of a Bible scholar; I claim no authority on the subject, but simply as a daily reader of my Bible I know that there is wholeness and balance in the Biblical message; there is a place for strength and for the more masculine virtues, as well as the gentler and softer ones.
If the West falls, thanks to our dissolving borders and to the Islamic onslaught, Christianity is not the culprit; it is too easy to scapegoat Christianity. Our forefathers for 1300 years withstood Islam and they defended their territories and their way of life successfully. And they did so as Christians. The modern-day distortions of Biblical teachings, and the secularized perversions thereof, called 'leftism' are to blame for our present loss of nerve and will.
I continue to think that if the West fails to rediscover its historic faith and purpose, there will not be much of a future for the West.

Labels: Christendom, Christianity, Political Correctness, Western Civilization

Recently on this blog I've written about the role of Christianity in the decline of the West, and now Robert Spencer has written a book, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. John Derbyshire offered his review of the book, and Spencer replied here.
Derbyshire, in his review, first examines the question of moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity, because Spencer describes this as the 'prevailing malady in the West.' Derbyshire expresses impatience with this point of view:
I understand that this bogus equivalence must be very vexing to a committed Christian, but Spencer seems not to understand how wacky all religions seem to the irreligious. All religious faith, after all, depends on magical thinking. To people who eschew such thinking�people who prefer to ground their beliefs in the strict rules of evidence used in modern law and science�Mohammed�s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; and so, God�s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ.''
To begin with, that last sentence is a non sequitur. Whether or not Derbyshire the scoffer thinks Catholic doctrines are 'preposterous' has nothing to do with the question of the effect of Islam or Christianity on their respective adherents.
And another quibble, which may seem insignificant, is that Derbyshire evidently confuses the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth. These are not the same thing, and Derbyshire's evident confusion here shows me that he does not understand the basics, and has not done his homework vis-a-vis Catholicism or Christianity. He makes it clear that he considers Christian beliefs childish and absurd, on a par with the Koranic beliefs, and so he is in a sense making an equivalency on that basis between Mohammedanism and Christianity. If Derbyshire wants to argue Christianity with Spencer or anyone else, the least he might do would be to do some research, and not merely cite creaky anecdotes from friends who attended Christian Brothers schools. But Derbyshire seems uninterested; he's a sophisticated, empirically-minded man of the world and can't be bothered.
Indeed, everybody who grew up in the West, although many may scorn Christianity and the Bible, seem to feel qualified to argue theology or doctrine with Christians although the critics of Christianity may have little or no familiarity with the Bible, except in a second-hand fashion.
But Spencer does a masterful job at pointing out Derbyshire's inconsistencies in his own response.
John Derbyshire seems to think that since, in his view, Islam and Christianity are equally preposterous, they are equally likely to incite violence: "Mohammed�s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; and so, God�s instructions to us through Mohammed are no more or less likely to make us better or worse than his instructions through Christ."
Huh? "And so"? One thing is unbelievable, and so is another, and therefore they�re of equal moral value? Come now. I myself find National Socialism no more preposterous than Shakerism � does that mean that National Socialism is no more or less likely to make us better or worse than Shakerism?
[...]
Derbyshire�s review, while marvelously written and delightful to read, is full of inconsistencies. I don�t see how he could possibly find what I reveal about Islam to be "persuasive" if at the same time he thinks that Islamic and Christian doctrine are equally likely to inspire their adherents to commit acts of brutality, since the contrary assertion, as he himself notes, is a major point of my book.
[...]
But I digress. The ringing peroration of Derbyshire�s review is his declaration that while "Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology�the ideology of jihadism�the Christian West (Spencer actually says 'Judeo-Christian,� but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization." (Not a lagniappe at all, but that is a discussion for another time.) He claims that "a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.?"
One may wonder, given this line of reasoning, why Catholic Europe, at the apex of its self-conscious religiosity, didn�t throw open its doors to the jihadist invaders instead of resisting them. One may wonder why the United States, governed in the main by Protestant Christians for the most part throughout its history, maintained relatively sane immigration policies until the 1960s.''
I am glad Spencer makes this last point; I have been arguing it myself whenever this subject comes up, as it does frequently these days. I have never yet heard any of those who are accusing Christianity of weakening the West answer this argument satisfactorily. If Christianity inexorably leads to passivity and universalism, why did this tendency not manifest itself until more than 1900 years after Christianity began?
And I also wonder why, in this age of wholesale Christian apostasy, anyone seriously thinks that we in the West are committing suicide because of our Christian faith. Anyone who says this must believe that Christianity is much more widespread and that it is taken much more seriously than many 'Christians' in this lukewarm age actually take their faith.
But there is a grain of truth there: the only 'Christians' who seem to be full of 'passionate intensity' these days are the leftist kind: the Barry Lynns, the Cardinal Mahonys, et al. The universalist, open-border, self-immolating Christians are the most zealous of all, to judge by their visibility and their determination to force their agenda on everybody. However, despite all the sound and the fury from the Christian left, who are after all the 'religious' wing of the leftist army, they do not represent true, historical, Biblical Christianity. Yet few will be aware of this unless they educate themselves by reading the Bible, first of all, (which does not prescribe a 'one-world' globalist system), and by reading history books, in which they might learn that our European ancestors' Christian faith enabled them to drive back the Mohammedan interlopers, and to push them out of Europe. Christianity then was not incompatible with self-defense or with particularism and love of one's own. It is not incompatible with those things now.
European blogger JKayce at Kayce's Corner writes about Europe's Multiple Personality Disorder, and the rise of Islam in Europe:
We have acquired values that have estranged us from our true selves, values which basically are an expression of internal corruption, and in our pride we blinded ourselves to the corrupt source of our values.
So, now we are confronted with the consequences.
In our foolish idea of tolerance, compassion and love we have allowed the immigration matter to go completely out of hand, to the extent that our societies are disintegrating and people are reverting to yet another corruption, a weak bid: ethnical/racial identification.
The hollowing of the Christian faith whereby it degenerated into a dogmatic institution thriving on the conformity principle, even marrying the dogma of various Christian churches to the State ideology so that the idolatry is made complete, has rendered typical Christian institutions impotent and fossilized reminders of the past. The decline of Christianity is culturally based and rooted in this very principle of conformity, and it is the logical result of the culmination of a process which has been at work for many decades prior to its current demise.
Thus the inevitable outcome as embodied in the empty churches on the European continent is merely a symptom of the spiritual bankruptcy and corruption which preceded this.
When Mosques take the place once occupied by Churches it is really God asking us:
"What is the rock of your foundation?
Where is your claim of superiority based upon?
If your love and tolerance brings forth your own demise, how can you maintain its superiority?
[...]
I strongly feel that the most important reason why Islam is growing so strongly is due to the spiritual bankruptcy of Europe by which Europe does not have the spiritual armament necessary to combat the spirit of Islam.
Although often it is said that Europe has a Christian identity, it is overlooked that Europe suffers from a Multiple Personality Disorder. There is no one prevailing Christian identity, but instead we see a plethora of identities, often with conflicting and opposite interests.
So where is Europe able to get its spiritual strength from to wrestle with the spirit of Islam?
A house divided against itself cannot hold up.''
JKayce is right; the weakness of Europe, and the rest of the West, is not due to Christianity, which is very attenuated and divided within right now; the weakness is due to a fragmenting in which there is no common belief system and strength deriving therefrom.
Some claim that America is in better shape, in part because we still have a strong Christian foundation here. I wonder how true that is? We are suffering from the same division within Christianity and in the larger society, with leftists and even 'conservative' secularists lining up against Christianity.
Still, at least we are having this discussion now, and that in itself is a beginning. Spencer's book is one that I hope to read.

Labels: Christendom, Christianity, Islam, Jihad, Mohammedanism, Western Civilization

Men have always tried to isolate women, to keep them as creatures apart. Men have always put women in houses, shut them away behind walls, kept them for themselves, detained them apart from the community. Men used to put women in a harem; now they put them in a house. But the home, like the harem, has considered its own interests rather than the interests of the community, and in so doing it has jeopardized its well-being rather than fostering it. The home, like the individual, is insufficient when it stands alone.
If a man commits an indiscretion all other men protect him. If a woman is at fault, other women, instead of protecting her, are often the first to condemn.
Women in the past have been afraid to lose the respect or the admiration or the love of men by opposing their wishes. In the last few years the suffragists have demonstrated that women do not lose the admiration of the worthwhile men by expressing their own individualities. On the contrary, it has been my experience that the modern man finds the intelligent, socially conscious, individualistic woman a more companionable person than her frightened sister who fears to speak or move lest she offend him.
Women gain far more than they lose by an attitude of independence.''
The above is from a magazine article from 1922, called Women as Dictators, written by a Mrs. Oliver H.P. Belmont, president of the National Women's Party.
Notice how the writer asserts that men, all men, men in general, have 'shut women away behind walls' or 'in a harem.' She does not specify which men, where, but indicts all men as guilty of doing these things.
The earlier waves of feminists were little different than the later, post-1960s feminists in this respect. They refused to differentiate between men in the Western countries, the men who were their own forebears, and men in the Islamic world or the Eastern world where purdah was often practiced, and women were truly secluded and treated as children or worse. No; they convicted all men of doing these things, without exception. And in this respect they were also following the pattern of today's liberals and leftists, the first rule being 'never give your own people any credit for their good points, and never fail to criticize and condemn every imperfection of your own people.'
It's ironic that in the part of the world where women have traditionally enjoyed the highest status and the greatest degree of personal freedom, feminism of the most militant type arose.
The very women who already had the most privilege were the ones who complained the loudest about oppression and 'discrimination.'
Maybe this is not so ironic after all; it does follow a pattern. One of my black political science teachers in college said that the 'oppressed' groups only organize to demand their 'rights' when the Oppressor (guess who that would be?) takes his foot off the neck of the 'oppressed', thus giving them room to stand up for themselves. So the 'victim' groups who are organizing to make demands and to push back against their perceived oppressor are already in an improved position, or they would not have the chance to rebel or 'resist'. Organized 'activist' groups are by definition in a position to push 'back'. Were they truly denied any power or any 'rights', their protests and complaints would either be ignored or silenced. Their complaints and grievances would not even be heard, and in fact, they would be too harried or distracted to organize on their own behalf, if they were truly oppressed or persecuted.
And there seems to be a truth here. All the aggrieved 'victim' groups have the freedom to organize and accuse and complain and even to engage in open defiance of their supposed victimizers. This in itself discredits, to some extent, their claims to being helpless victims.
Most of the perpetually aggrieved minority groups already have considerable privilege and status. Few are really 'oppressed' or persecuted or even discriminated against. Why are the 'oppressors' so willing to put up with the constant accusations and demands? This is not what we would expect from a ruthless oppressor class of people.
If we look back in history, we can see that even in supposedly 'backward' ages in the Western world, women enjoyed much better treatment than their counterparts in the East, particularly in the Islamic world. The Western tradition of chivalry, which I've written about here in the past, was part and parcel of the Christian culture of Europe, although it can be argued that the Northern and Western European cultures, even before Christianity, were inclined to monogamy and an elevated status of their womenfolk.
Christianity, as often happens, is and has been blamed for 'holding women back' or 'keeping them subservient', with the blame being laid mostly on the apostle Paul and his politically incorrect remarks about women obeying and submitting to their husbands. But the rest of the quotes in question involved Paul's instructions to men to love their wives. It was not a one-way street; the Bible implies that men and women both have rights and both have duties in marriage and in the world in general.
The militant Mrs. Belmont quoted above rails against Christian male dominance:
The church has been very, very hard on women. It has done its best to keep us in subjection and to restrict us mentally. Women are beginning to feel very bitter toward the church or the men who control it. They haven't driven us away from the Christian religion. They can't do that. But by their dictatorial discrimination they are driving us out of the churches as they are organized -- out of the edifices.
Women have given their time, their energy and their money to support the church. We are allowed to sit in the pews, but not to stand in the pulpit. The men of the church accept our support, but are not willing to share their exalted position with us. We are required to acknowledge man as our spiritual superior. We do not acknowlege him as such, and we know that Christ did not so acknowledge him.
If man wants to make a little god of himself he will have to do it by himself and for himself. He may stand in the pulpit and sit in the pew, but we must also stand as well as sit.''
Mrs. Belmont may not have anticipated that her feminist successors would, a few decades later, be talking about women being 'goddesses', and even introducing goddess worship into 'Christian' churches.
I wonder, though, if Mrs. Belmont would even be troubled by that; I suspect she would find it reasonable, and in that light, she and other feminists would be doing what they accuse men of doing: making 'little gods' (or goddesses) of themselves. And that is a picture of our age: the 'self' is the true god of much of the world.
On another front, Christianity is now being blamed for the perverted altruism and pathological refusal to discriminate that is killing the West. But again, Christianity is not to blame, but a corruption thereof.
Chivalry arose as part of the Christian culture of Europe but the original pre-Christian cultures of Europe contained the seeds of chivalry in the great degree of equality between the sexes. The sexes were not considered the same, as among today's deluded feminists and egalitarians, but different and complementary. There can be a kind of parity without pretending that the sexes are 'equal' or 'the same.'
There's a very good piece here about chivalry and feminism. The writer quotes Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts on the subject of chivalry:
A man without chivalry is no man.''
I've heard some men curse chivalry as being another damaging practice from the past, like Christianity, and men are often understandably embittered by the excesses of feminism and leftism/liberalism generally. But it seems to me that chivalry, and the Christianity of which it was a development, actually strengthened men, and of course, society at large. It may seem paradoxical, but it certainly appears that the West was far stronger in the days in which we were Christendom, and in the days in which women and men had their separate spheres.
If we look to find the causes for the rise of feminism and of the left in general, I think it's easy to overlook the decline of Christianity and the loss of faith of much of the Western world. Into the vacuum steps the counterfeit Christianity which is the gospel of humanism and egalitarianism, with its bogus heaven-on-earth notions of a socialist multicultural utopia.
Instead of the 'easy yoke' of Christianity we now have the heavy hand of totalitarian political correctness, which has more 'thou shalt nots' than the Bible has, and which is enforced with a harshness that the strictest Christian sects cannot compare with.
I have no magic prescription of how to find our way out of the maze, except to say that I think men will have to assert their rightful leadership positions and simply stop bowing down to feminism and all the works and pomps of liberalism and leftism, which is after all the ideology of a coalition of the failed, frustrated and envious of the world: weak men and militant women.

Labels: Chivalry, Christendom, Egalitarianism, Feminism, Western Civilization, Western Decline

Regarding the royal wedding, from the Daily Mail (UK):
'Audrey Jones our producer was looking for the black people in the wedding and we found our Rosa Parks moment, because we were like 'where are the black people'?' she said.
'It was like where's Waldo, where are the black people?' she added.
'We found one little black child in the choir but where's the black people at this wedding?' she continued.''
Lately I've taken to saying indignantly, when viewing any kind of image of a public gathering with 'diversity' conspicuously absent ''But--but where's the diversity?'' It's laughable and yet tragic that this is the main concern of so many people today.
I don't know who 'Sherri Shepherd' is, and I suspect I'm better off not knowing. I have seen snippets in the past from that show, The View, with its panel of cackling harridans. But they are diverse, so I guess that's the important thing.
I've mentioned here before of how, when I was looking at old photos on Shorpy.com, a picture of a grade school class from the Old America was posted, and the first comment was ''Where are the African-Americans and Hispanics?' The poor soul who asked that question so earnestly was evidently ignorant of the fact that back when that picture was taken, Hispanics were hardly omnipresent, even in California or Texas then. Imagine.
And blacks, being a mere 10 or 11 percent of the total population, could not be everywhere either. So many schools, sadly, were diversity-starved. But we can thank our lucky stars, they are working to correct that now, in Britain as well as in this country.
As of now, Britain has a black population apparently in the single digits still, though looking at scenes of London, that's hard to believe. And if you believe the BBC, there once were blacks and 'Saracen Turks' roaming Robin Hood's Sherwood Forest, and then there was the black Guinevere. I wonder what happened? But not to worry; it's all going to be corrected as quickly as possible.
I did not see the Royal Wedding which has been the center of so much hype. I have seen snippets and read about aspects of it on the Internet. I hear that the wedding vows were somewhat altered to politically correct them in accordance with 21st century sensibilities, and that's not surprising. I saw a shot of Elton John and his man/wife there, prominently positioned.
I note, as always, that many ''conservatives'' on the Internet forums are engaging in their usual anti-royal, anti-monarchy diatribes, which I find misguided. To the FReepers: our revolution was not fought to overthrow monarchy as an institution; I think you have it confused with the French Revolution. And our aim was not to shake off alien rule; ''the British'' were our flesh and blood, and the Colonists regarded them as such. The Colonists claimed their own English origins.
So I don't share the loathing for royalty or for social classes that seems to animate many 'conservatives'. Our Founding Fathers did not regard 'democracy' as a desirable form of government, and spoke of it with disdain. They warned of the dangers of democracy, which can easily become mob rule, and can lead to rule by demagogues and tyrants.
Monarchy is as good as the people who are at the top, or as bad. Just as with our system.
Having said that, I have no particular admiration for the Windsors; it seems that they are part of the corrupt world system that is behind the slow and agonizing death of the West. The Queen, sadly, recites the multicultural propaganda these days, and it seems as if the royals care nothing that the English people, those who are the core of what is called Britain, are now second-class citizens in their own country. The English alone have no flag, no parliament of their own. The St. George's flag is now considered 'divisive' if not racist.
Still, despite all that, I can't help but regard the historical England, traditional England, with great fondness. I've felt that way since childhood, and just as with my loyalty to the South and to the best in America, it's the people to whom my fondness and loyalty belong, not a governmental system or the changing faces who 'rule' the country, or even a flag, historic though a flag may be. I somehow find the pageantry and the ceremony and the pomp to be stirring. It seems to awaken something in many people who have ties to that people and that land. It draws us to the past, and to our kin, living and dead, and to come.
We seem to have less and less of that in America as time goes by; not many of us seem to care about the past, and few even know our history. We have few symbols, except for our flag, which is trivialized in many ways.
As our country becomes ever more fractured and factionalized, made unrecognizable by the whirlwind of demographic change, there is little to hold us together, little common heritage and national memory. The monarchy, the institution and all that it represents, represents continuity, and history, extending back in the case of Britain for many centuries.
It's sad that the royals are now becoming little more than characters in soap operas, or tacky celebrities. I read that Prince William says he enjoys 'rap and hip-hop.' That in itself speaks volumes.
Despite all this, I know there is still a core there of the old England or the old Britain if you insist. Personally I think the Welsh and Scots should have full independence, and England be free to go it alone, all of them freed from the EU.
In the meantime, I am glad there is still a vestige of the England that was, even if it's a rather threadbare one. And in parting, I'll ask Sherri Shepherd, whoever she is, ''where are the English?'' That's the pertinent question.

Labels: Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Britain, Christendom, Royalty Tradition

This kind of thing is what gives fuel to the anti-Christian faction on the nationalist right.
When we talk of a society built on Christian values, it is often misunderstood as a reference to intolerance, of exclusivity. The ultimate expression of this tendency comes in a campaign billboard, unveiled in March, which quoted scripture out of context, then posed the question: "What would Jesus do?" The answer given was simple: "Vote BNP."
This was a clear example of using Christian-sounding words to promote a profoundly anti-Christian agenda. No one should be taken in by it. The policies advocated by the BNP are contrary to our belief that all human beings, regardless of race or colour, have a common origin and are made in God's image. It is this belief which underlies those British values of human dignity and equality. There can be no compromise about such values. It is recognised that the number of people coming to live and work in Britain must be limited to what the social and economic fabric can sustain. Nevertheless, the Christian value of hospitality demands that those who come legally are welcomed. Providing refuge for the genuinely persecuted is also a long-standing British tradition, and must be upheld.
So when we ask "What would Jesus actually do?", the answer is clear. He would include all in the embrace of his Father's love, and so change them that they begin to live for others, to meet the needs of strangers and to work for a just and compassionate society.
Such work is badly needed. Not only have we witnessed the sometimes deliberate destruction of a moral framework for our social and economic life in Britain, but we have also seen the steady erosion in the formation of character. For example, if The Daily Telegraph has revealed anything fundamental about our political masters, it is the woeful lack of that character building, which leads us to behave with integrity and put service to the nation before self. But before we give in to scapegoating people, we have to admit that there has been a lack of emphasis on the formation of conscience and moral awareness in the nation. Once, responsibility, trust, truth-telling and hard work characterised what was best about us. These are virtues derived from Christian beliefs. Have our schools and universities been inculcating such virtues? If they have, how have we come to such a pretty pass in our national life? ''
I understand that for those in the post-Christian churches of today, there is "neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28) and thus nationality and race are obsolete, if not downright heretical notions. But somehow, having foreign-born clerics lecturing Britons (or Americans, for that matter) on their own traditions is ironic to say the least; as if we have no leaders from among our own, and must be led and shepherded by our moral betters from among the world's victim groups.
Nazir-Ali is lecturing the British people about political matters, and justifying his moral prescriptions on the basis of Christian ethics -- or more accurately, on his interpretation thereof.
This kind of thing is why church and state should be separate; the church should not become a shill for the liberal regimes in the West, and Christians should not be full-time advocates for the globalized beggar classes who are looking for better pickings in the West. Does this sound uncharitable? Christian charity is a good thing, but so few people today understand the voluntary nature of charity; if it is compulsion, done with the force of government behind it, it is not 'charity'. No one can or should compel people to show charity or to offer hospitality to the point of giving up one's home and country to the ''poor''. This is what Nazir-Ali and those who preach 'another gospel' of open borders are doing.
A Christian moral and spiritual framework would lead, instead, to genuine hospitality towards those arriving to share our freedoms, on the basis of a principled integration into national life. Such integration would be based on sharing a common moral framework and a lingua franca. Integration of this kind should not be mistaken for assimilation. It is quite possible to respect people's faith, culture and language while insisting on a common framework for public life and reasoning.
[...]
In terms of our political culture, I hope that this newspaper's investigation leads not to voyeurism or recrimination, but to a national catharsis, a purging of all that is unworthy. We should reaffirm a Christian basis for society and the need for a common framework for our life together. If we are looking for moral and spiritual renewal, this will mean that new people, and new kinds of people, will appear in the political life. This is, of course, to be welcomed � as long as it is understood that their participation, and ours, is on the basis of a common moral understanding.''
It's funny how the multicultists and globalists generally despise Christianity, wanting to expunge it from public life and strip it of any political influence, but they are eager to marshal the meager moral authority of today's Christianity to try to make their case for their one-world Babel regime. "Christianity" is allowed to have its say as long as it speaks the language of the multicult and bows down to Baal.
I've written before about how the liberalized apostate Christianity is a precursor to leftism/Marxism, which is an attempt to counterfeit the faith to use it toward political ends. Yet this faux Christianity passes as the authentic faith, while those who believe as their fathers believed, and their fathers before them, are condemned by the left as being uncharitable and in fact un-Christian. At the same time, we are condemned by many on the secular or pagan right as being weaklings and liabilities, who are causing the West's destruction.
Thomas Fleming offers a welcome defense of Christianity:
And yet it is Christianity, not Marxism or liberalism, that usually receives the credit or blame for the repudiation of loyalty and patriotism. Pseudochristian leftists�including far too many Catholic bishops in the United States�make the preposterous claim that Christ came to liberate us from the duty to defend borders or respect the law. Antichristian nationalists, following in Nietzsche�s drunken meandering footsteps, complain that Christianity weakened Western man�s resolve to defend his interests against other peoples and races. Paradoxically, many of these neopagans are also followers of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman�the liberal gurus who did their best to dissolve all the bonds linking human beings and to replace them with (to use a phrase Marx borrowed from Carlyle) the cash nexus.
If the neopagan nationalists had ever read any history, they would, perhaps, be puzzled by the behavior of Christian warriors like Justinian and Charles Martel, Saint Louis and Saint Joan, but their response would be that Saint Joan was a bad Christian who did not understand Christ�s message as well as they do�ill-read pagans though they are. What else did Jesus mean in His Sermon on the Mount?'
[...]
To delegitimate nations, some radicals misleadingly cite Paul�s statement that, in baptism, "There is neither Jew nor Greek" (Galatians 3:28), but this statement is aimed at repressing quarrels that broke out between gentile and Jewish Christians. The sentence continues, "there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." And yet, so far from uttering a word against slavery per se, he instructs slaves to obey their masters, and Paul, who has been unfairly stigmatized as a misogynist, can hardly be accused of pursuing a feminist agenda.
Some leftists have pretended that Christians cannot restrict immigration into their country, even if they believe it is harmful to their nation�s security and prosperity. They cite such statements as "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Like most prooftexts taken out of context, these sentences are open to misinterpretation.''
Why are these points so hard to get across to most people? The secular/pagan right does not want to hear any good word about Christianity, because they wish a world free of Christianity and especially Christian morality. The liberal Christians whose faith is liberalism first and Christianity only insofar as it can be made to conform to liberalism, have to 'feel good about themselves'' and this means being 'non-judgmental, open and welcoming, unprejudiced', even to the point of self-immolation. So nobody wants to hear the other side of the story.
I agree with the point of view expressed by Cambria Will Not Yield: it is only through embracing our the Christian faith of old Europe that we can hope to survive and renew our people. Christianity was at the core of what made Europe what it was. There can be no strong and whole nationalism that does not embrace the faith of our fathers.

Labels: Anti-Christianity, Christendom, Christianity, Cultural Marxism, Liberal Christianity, Mass Immigration, Open Borders, Political Correctness