The ‘misguided compassion’ of Europe

From the Russia Insider, an accurate assessment of the disaster in Europe.
The writer sees the capitulation — no, the betrayal by the European ‘leadership’ as an effort to demolish what’s left of Christianity and the Christian heritage in Europe.

 “The fierce hatred of the Western political elite for Christianity has robbed Europe of its moral compass. Using Christian arguments for waging war on Christianity and Christian culture is a vile demonic parody. From a spiritual perspective, it is clear that Europe has made an unholy alliance with islamism in order to annihilate its Christian civilisation. This diabolical scam wears a cloak of goodness and humanitarianism, but it is really a manifestation of moral decay and false altruism that threatens to bring about Die Untergang des Abendlandes, the end of Christian Europe.”

I might add that much of what the author writes about the surrender by the authorities to the incoming flood of refugees, and the abandonment of the rule of law also applies to our slow-motion tsunami of immigration. And the same tactics, such as the cynical appeal to ‘Christian ethics’ or ‘compassion’ are used to  silence any real debate and to shame and even criminalize in some cases those who object. In some countries criticizing immigrants results in a jail sentence. Remember Emma West in England? Even in our country, several years ago a Midwestern woman was overheard (in a private conversation) saying that Hispanics (she used a slang term) should learn our language if they are living here. Some busybody called the police (!) and a court case followed.

The situation herein the United States is much the same as in Europe, but with a slightly different cast of characters and a slower pace. But the common factor is an elite which apparently wants to replace both the people and the culture of the country over which they rule.

Putin, defender of the Faith?

I hear and read a lot of comments describing Vladimir Putin as the ‘hope of Christianity’, more or less. Is he a Christian?

Many of the commenters on this You Tube video of Putin discussing his Christian faith believe he is a real Christian, and some of the comments are almost adoring, like this:

“i am american and they try to brainwash us..i refuse to watch the news and listen to them..if they succeed in dragging him to war i pray for putin to win. Please come get me out of america putin I want to go to russia lol”

This comment is interesting — from a Russian:

“Now in Russia even communists are going to church. Both communist and christians were fighting in RedArmy against nazi. Communist’s idea has a lot from christianity – hard labour, protect weak ppl, help older, help everybody who suffer.”

I think he’s wrong in likening Communism to Christianity; the former is a cruel parody of Christianity, and is a false messianic system wherein man is supposedly to be his own savior — at least, Communist man, or the ‘new Soviet man’ as was.

And Communism is all about this world, and material possessions. Christianity knows this world is passing and that gathering material things is not what life is about.

Many American Christians and conservatives see Putin defending the traditional family and marriage, taking a stand against homosexuality. It does seem as if he is socially conservative or traditional — but is this based on his Christian faith or is it simply a holdover from the earlier times in Russia and the old Soviet Union? If you are old enough to remember the Cold War days, the Soviet regime was puritanical in the extreme. Many American movies were banned, as was much American and Western popular music. Rock ‘n roll in particular was described as ‘decadent’, as was just about anything related to Western popular culture. And in retrospect, the Soviets/Russians were right. It was decadent; we are now seeing the fruits of the permissive and libertine trends that were promoted so relentlessly in the West, especially from the 1950s onward. (Yes, I did say the 1950s; the rot started setting in at least that early). Now look at the vile stuff that Hollywood produces, and consider pop culture ‘icons’ like Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, and a host of others. The seeds were sown decades ago, and we are seeing the ugly fruition. The Russians only lately began to tolerate libertinism, since the removal of the Iron Curtain. Crime and vice seemed to flourish in the new, ‘free’ Russia.

In the days of the Cold War, it seemed that the United States and Russia/USSR needed each other; our leadership and media held the Soviet Union up as an example of the evils of totalitarianism, contrasting their system to ours, which of course made us the paragons of freedom and individualism. Russia was the bogeyman that we were taught to fear, while the Russians held the United States up as a bad example and a threat to the world. Each side needed its evil opposite for propaganda purposes.

The avowedly atheist Soviet system was contrasted to our supposed ”freedom to worship as we please.” The USSR was a ‘godless atheist regime’ unlike our ‘pluralistic religious society’ where ‘Protestant, Catholic and Jew’ could have mutual respect and worship freely.

Now all that has changed. Drastically.

Each side, the old Soviet Union and our side, seem to have adopted some of the worst features of the feared Other Side. The Russians have embraced post-modern ‘morality’ — though Putin and some of the more old-fashioned have not accepted it wholesale — and they’ve adopted our capitalism in their own fashion.

Our side is no longer so free religiously. Christians can’t acknowledge their God in the public square, in the schools, or in many other situations. Our system suddenly looks more repressive than the old Soviet Union seemed, while we still cling to our cherished permissive society, despite the fact that it has been disastrous for us in so many ways. Some things don’t change.

As for Putin, he is a product of the old Russia, the pre-libertine, puritanical Russia. His views on social issues reflect that, certainly, as that’s the environment he grew up in. Is he a Christian, truly? As with everyone else, only God knows his heart. I can’t say he is not sincere in  his profession of faith. It may just be that his views are derived from the more traditional and strait-laced Russia in which he grew up.

Is Putin the hope of Christianity or of the West? Is Russia the hope for the future? I don’t know; I think some Americans, particularly hungry for leadership or for something or someone to idealize, are focusing on Russia and on Putin. It’s sad, because our own country should be producing good leaders and good examples to inspire us — but where are they when we so sorely need them?

It can’t be emphasized enough

Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch has an important post reporting on the 12 Annual Immigration and Law Conference in D.C. It’s worth reading but brace yourselves for the speakers’ remarks, full of the obligatory name-calling rhetoric decrying immigration skeptics or opponents.

But Ann Corcoran deserves kudos for her observation in the intro to her report on the conference. She comments about the distinction between legal immigration (supposedly good, according to the official narrative anyway) and illegal (which is less good, and is the only kind of immigration which people are allowed to criticize). The pro-immigration activists may be supporting only legal immigration while the frank open borders crowd want even illegal immigration regularized. But ultimately both factions are working towards more immigration, regardless of legal status or lack thereof. More immigration is the point, by any means necessary it appears.

She says:

It is unrestrained MASS MIGRATION (and wide open borders) that they all want and they are all working together toward that end while those of us concerned with the numbers assiduously kept the two issues separate. NO more!
Don’t let the pundits and the politicians (and the likes of Fox News) make the distinction either—Legal immigration is pure as the driven snow and Illegal is bad—call them out whenever they do it.  Again, this is about MASS MIGRATION straight-up”

Some of you know, if you’ve read my blog over the years, that I’ve been belaboring that issue, to the point of probably wearying my patient readers, ever since the inception of the old blog. And before that I was bending people’s ears in the ‘real world’ or on Republican forums, where I was often ‘flamed’ for my trouble — by the usual Party Faithful types, of course, or the Wall Street Journal-reading open borders fans — and all to no avail, it seems, as the Free Republic crowd still parrots the old line “as long as they come here legally…” — you know how it goes. Ad nauseum. Will it ever change? Will the average ‘respectable conservative’ ever get a clue, and think about what he is saying when he parrots this nonsense? I have doubts. Even with Donald Trump going where no ‘respectable conservative’ has ever gone before, in criticizing immigration, the old ‘legal is good’ mantra lives on, stubbornly.

So if an amnesty is declared tomorrow (probably by presidential fiat, if it were to happen) would that then make all the illegals ”welcome”, and ideal new citizens? Apparently so.

The Refugee Resettlement Watch Blog has gained a lot of readers in recent times, from what I gather, and I’m happy to see that well-deserved success. Ann Corcoran, as I said some years ago, does sterling work and she has merited the attention her efforts have brought. I hope that her words will be heeded by the milquetoasts on the ”right” who haven’t dared to question the cliche about ‘legal vs. illegal’ when it comes to immigration.

It’s mass migration, which in our day amounts to ethnic cleansing, and population replacement, that is the problem. We have to pinpoint and name the problem to address it properly.

Cruz on immigration – once more

From his own website:

As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Sen. Cruz celebrates legal immigration. He has championed measures to secure the border, reform the legal immigration system, and uphold the rule of law.
In the summer of 2013 we witnessed a humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border, propelled by promises of amnesty from the White House. Immigrants deserve a better system in which they will be welcomed to the United States safely and with dignity.

As a critical step to protecting families and inviting more people to enter legally, in 2014, Sen. Cruz proposed legislation to prevent Obama from illegally expanding amnesty.

In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the “Gang of 8” bill that would strengthen border security, expand green card opportunities, increase high-skilled “H1B” visas, prevent illegal aliens from receiving welfare benefits, and enforce the rule of law.”

I blogged on this very subject back in January. But now I see that a considerable number of people on the ethnopatriot right seem to think that Cruz is ‘anti-immigration’, but please notice the quotes from Cruz’s website, which I’ve bolded for emphasis. Please note that he explicitly says he favors more legal immigration. In what sense, then, is he ‘anti-immigration’? It seems to me that he is trying to play both sides, but ultimately he shows himself to be just another ‘respectable’ conservative who thinks the immigration issue is all about legal vs. illegal. ”Just as long as they come legally and play by the rules”, is the usual refrain heard from that corner of the political world. Really, is this the best we can hope for?

I don’t take much interest in the election issue; I believe the candidates, as a rule, are all establishment types, hand-picked, and committed to the status quo, toeing the party line. Once in office, all the campaign talk will be forgotten, and it will be more of the same. Which is not acceptable.

Cruz may be ‘better’ than some of the other dismal candidates on some issues but that is not exactly high praise, considering the quality of the other presidential aspirants.

And what about this: Cruz is not American-born, though he was brought up in this country for much of his early life. Until 2014, he had dual Canadian-American citizenship. He renounced it, probably for political reasons, as it wouldn’t do for a president to have dual citizenship. His father is Cuban, and the GOP loves Cuban immigrants as they are (rather falsely) believed to be such solid conservatives. (Think Marco Rubio, or any number of Cuban congressmen and women; they have poor voting records on immigration.)

I have to wonder if Cruz has been groomed by the GOP, in its perpetual quest for the ideal conservative minority candidate. He is Hispanic by blood though not mestizo as are most of the Texas Hispanic population. Still the value of a Hispanic surname in running for office in Texas is considerable, and the GOP continue to pursue their ”big tent” philosophy, with an eye to the Hispanic coming majority. In that sense, Cruz just furthers the PC narrative: he might attract those alluring Hispanic voters that the Republicans lust after, and he is an embodiment of the ”successful immigrant” with conservative values. It fits the new PC multicultural agenda wonderfully, and continues the ”immigrant mystique” which is being promoted so insistently in this country.

Back in 2008 I warned that symbolism mattered; the symbolic importance of having a minority president was not to be underestimated. Once a precedent is set, then any departure from that ‘new standard’ is decried as a step backward to the ”bad old days” when Old White Guys ran everything, and that must never be allowed again. It’s time for the ‘disenfranchised’, the immigrant, the female, the Moslem or Hindu (Jindal, Keith Ellison) to have their ”turn” at running things. And what about ”Nikki Haley” and her crusade against the Confederate heritage? How is this all working out?

But Cruz can be a crossover candidate, getting the mainstream ‘respectable’ Republicans in Texas, especially the churchgoing evangelicals. And because of his surname and his Cuban father, he can draw Hispanic votes.
This was no doubt in the minds of the Party leaders when they groomed Cruz.

The founding fathers expressly said that only native-born Americans should be elected to office, and for those of us who are Christians, the Bible tells us that we are to choose rulers from among our own people.
We’ve seen the results of ignoring that precept.

The fact that Cruz is hyped as being ”tough on immigration” while promising more legal immigration is exasperating. Legal immigration is just as troublesome for Western countries as the illegal kind. We in the United States take in, supposedly, a million and a half legal immigrants a year — yet Cruz thinks more is desirable? Maybe, just maybe, he’s not unbiased on the subject, given that he is of immigrant origin. I don’t think he is capable, therefore, of seeing it from the viewpoint of a native-born American.

Somehow the unwary American voter has been conditioned to repeat the mantra ‘‘as long as it’s legal, as long as they follow the rules and come in the right way, I welcome them.” Cruz will just further establish that piece of destructive nonsense.

Don’t fall for the stories in the ‘conservative’ media that Cruz is under attack, proving supposedly that he is the most conservative of the candidates. I think there is some attempt at reverse psychology there, trying to get the ‘Tea Party’ faction to respond in knee-jerk fashion, rallying around Cruz.

What will happen, I don’t know, but I don’t put much stock in our sham party politics and our in-name-only
‘participatory democracy.’

An ‘outburst’, or truth?

It’s very clever, how the media/Ministries of Truth use biased language to discredit statements that contradict the allowed, ‘correct’ opinions.

Czech President Milos Zeman has said that the ‘migrants’ (aka ‘refugees’) who are now flooding Europe are using children as human shields in order to gain sympathy. The UK Daily Mail describes his statements as ‘outbursts’.

In his latest outburst, Zeman accused the thousands of refugees and economic migrants who have arrived in Europe this year of being ‘wealthy’, something which he claims is proven by the fact that they have smartphones.

He accused them of risking their children’s lives crossing the Mediterranean in order to use them to secure a right to remain in the EU.”

The Daily Mail further attempts to discredit Zeman and his statements by telling us that he has ‘sparked outrage’ by his comments, and that some UN apparatchik named Al-Hussein has called Zeman ‘Islamophobic.’ I suppose Al-Hussein would typify those who would feel ‘outrage’ or at least feign outrage at such blunt comments. And the usual suspects on the Left, for whom sainted ‘Others’ can do no wrong, will be outraged. Or put on a show of being outraged.

The fact is, it has been done, this use of children as ‘human shields’, especially by Moslems, and even if we are not talking about using them as shields, it has always seemed to me to be very bad judgment to put one’s children in harm’s way by embarking on long journeys to other countries, entering dangerous situations crossing seas and so on. What conscientious parent would do that, much less send their children unaccompanied to Europe or America, as many people in Third World countries do? I blogged in the past about that cynical use of children to gain entree into the ”rich countries”, where the family would then have a foothold. This tactic was used with the many Latin American children who were seeded into our country a while back. So it has been done, this manipulation via innocent children. To behave as though it is just some hatemonger’s imagination is dishonest in the extreme. But then that is what our foes on the Left are: dishonest to the core.

As for the ‘wealth’ of the masses now entering Europe, wealth is somewhat relative, and just looking at photos of the people flooding Europe, we see people dressed well, sometimes better than the people we see here at home who may be down on their luck. And it appears that most of these ‘wretched of the earth’ do have smartphones (personally, I have only a dumb phone) and other accoutrements of modern life. Nor do they look ill-nourished or sickly, for the most part. And I’ve noticed for years that our Latino border-jumpers arrive well-dressed and very well-fed, despite their alleged poverty and need. And once here in the States, I see ‘poor’ Latino families driving new SUVs or other pricey cars, using smartphones, and decked out in gold chains and baubles. The immigrants, for the most part, come here to get more material goods and social services, as well as having other motives (revanchism on the part of our Latino immigrants, who see this as ”their” land, and jihad on the part of many Moslem immigrants and refugees). Their motives are not necessarily as noble and pure as the Left maintains. Sometimes plain old envy, covetousness, and greed enter in, especially as the rest of the world believes we are filthy rich and undeserving of what we have. They want their piece of the pie, of our ‘ill-gotten gain’, as they perceive it.

Poverty as we used to know it, with people dressed in threadbare clothes and worn-out shoes, is seldom to be seen in most of the world, not even in the ”ghettos” of our country, and it appears, not in the Middle East or Africa, what with so much charity being poured into that continent.

So yes, most of those ‘refugees’ are not in desperate want; they are not (most of them) in fear for their lives, contrary to the media sob-stories. We’ve already learned that most are not Syrian, and most are able-bodied, well-nourished young males. Yet the media persist in the sad stories of these poor beleaguered people. But what about poor beleaguered Europe?

Most of today’s Babelist ‘Churchians’ lecture us that we have a Christian duty to help these people, even to the harm of our own people, even to the detriment of our safety, even to the destruction of our children’s and grandchildren’s future.  But where in the Bible does it tell us that we should lie down and become doormats for the world, giving up our very birthright and heritage and land on demand by strangers? We’re not enjoined to pauperize ourselves to help the ‘needy’, and in fact the Bible tells us that those of our own household (our kin and kind) have first claim on our charity. We do not give to those farthest from us first, or to the exclusion of our own. We are not to feed the world and ignore our actual neighbors locally — which today’s Churchians do.

No. These demands amount to emotional blackmail, with the Third World telling us that we owe them, and in fact owe them for all time, and therefore they feel entitled to trample our countries underfoot and claim they have more right than we and our children have to be here. It’s much the same as with the disgruntled ‘minorities’ (soon to be majorities) of our country, who, no matter how many concessions and privileges are offered, never have enough, never say thank you, only demand more and more. Where does it end? If Europe and the West roll over for this influx, where will it stop? There are tens of millions more who can follow in the footsteps of those who are now scattering all over the West. I keep telling people that Europe cannot withstand this kind of tidal wave. Europe will be swamped and overrun, as the do-gooders continue to lecture and hector us about ‘xenophobia’ and ‘hate’. Europe will be picked clean. It will cease to exist as Europe.

A Christian podcast I follow on Roku had a short report on the ‘death of Europe.’ I was disappointed that they spoke only of the death of the European Union. As if the failure of that political travesty was to be mourned. The EU may break up and it should. The only thing that is important is that the European peoples (and I say peoples, plural) survive, and survive as themselves, intact. That is what is at stake.

Round and round we go

Vox Day’s interlocutor here obviously does not know Christianity very well, if he believes it is an egalitarian belief system. Vox answers him correctly, but hasn’t this same old argument reappeared over and over again for the last dozen years or so? This ‘blame Christianity’ charge, claiming that Christianity weakened the West, and is at the core of our present crisis?

On the old incarnation of this blog, I know I wrote more than one piece attempting to refute those persistent charges, as have other Christian bloggers, but the allegations never seem to go away. All the arguments in the world won’t convince those who want to blame Christians, Christianity, or Jesus Christ himself for what is now happening to former Christendom.

The discussion in the comment section at VP is pretty good, except when it deteriorates into disputes over which Bible translation is ‘the’ correct one. Some think that only the original Scriptures (in Hebrew, Latin, or Koine Greek) are accurate, and all the rest untrustworthy. Think about that. If it’s true, then most of us today cannot get the true version of God’s word, because we are not native speakers or scholars of those languages. Only those who were contemporaries of the original transcribers could ever truly understand the Bible, according to that school of thought. Scholars or not, nobody today could understand Koine Greek as did the apostles who wrote the New Testament, so we are all in the dark, and just have to make wild guesses as to what the Bible really means. And some really do assert that. Which only discredits Christianity further in the eyes of nonbelievers, as it implies that Christianity is whatever the individual thinks it to be, according to his personal interpretation, as we can’t know the original meaning of God’s word.

All I can say to that is: God is “not the author of confusion.” God meant for every believer, scholar or not, of every generation, to be able to understand his Word. Otherwise we are just making it all up as we go along.

As for egalitarianism — that is purely the reflection of the times we live in, and for generations egalitarianism has been at the core of Western society, especially since the days of the Jacobins, and they were atheists, not Christians. We’ve made far too much of an idol of “equality” and universal brotherhood since then, and Americans, even conservatives, are in love with equalitarianism in their own way — ”I’m just as good as the next guy” –and many Americans are as militantly anti-royal as were the French revolutionaries or the regicides in Cromwell’s day.

But that is not Christianity. ”Fear God, honour the king.” Sound familiar? It’s 1 Peter 2:17.

Christianity or at least the ”Churchian” counterfeit has been corrupted by Marxism at least since the 1940s when one Christian writer warned that the World Council of Churches had been the victim of a sort of coup by Communists and Marxists. The writer’s name escapes me, but IIRC the book was written in 1949.
Now we have even the once-conservative churches embracing cultural Marxism if not economic Marxism, and then the new-agey leftist denominations like the UCC, the Presbyterians et al, and even the Southern Baptists have lost their bearings and caved to the spirit of the times. This is called ‘following the world”, and when Christians follow the world, they cease to be ”salt and light” to a dark world, and instead become absorbed by the corruption.

I don’t expect that the critics of Christianity will stop their accusations; in these times, as things get worse, the remnant of Christians will continue to be scapegoated, though the organized religions will probably continue in their error until they eventually join forces with the other ‘world religions’ in some kind of syncretic mixture which has little to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. And that religion will probably be embraced by most people as it will not ”offend” anyone. The truth, however, will always offend the lost.

Gradual or sudden?

I was just thinking, it would have been better for us in the United States to have a sudden influx of ‘refugees’ or immigrants rather than having it happen in dribs and drabs, as with our slo-mo invasion from the South (and elsewhere). It would be better if people had been able to recognize it for what it was instead of having it happen so gradually that people became accustomed to it as ”the new normal” for the last several decades.

Somebody on another blog was commenting that the Danes should get their rioting invaders to ”simmer down.” But then what? If they ”simmer down” then the easy-going Danes will, like us easy-going Americans, just assume things are under control, that ”assimilation” will work its magic, and that the incoming millions can be absorbed, no problem.

And how has that complacent assumption worked out for us?

I think it would be better for the European peoples if they aren’t allowed to be lulled, or lull themselves, into passivity or acceptance as so many on this side of the Atlantic have done and are doing.

A Russian view of the refugee crisis

Russian journalist/activist Nikolai Starikov gives his view of who is behind the massive influx of ‘Syrian’ ‘refugees’ coming to Europe.

I agree with him that it is being orchestrated. Only the blindest observer would think that the floods of ‘immigrants’ and ‘refugees’ to the whole Western world is one big coincidence, just ”poor people seeking a better life” or ”freedom.” No, it’s being engineered. But I question whether ‘America’ is the main architect of this catastrophe. Certainly the so-called Arab spring revolutions were mostly engineered by the U.S. government and last year I wrote that I thought that in part, the intent was to cook up a ”humanitarian crisis” to order, so that great numbers of displaced Syrians and whoever else would then be brought to our shores and to Europe as well. It seems that in the last few wars, our country has been intent on bringing those from former enemy nations to live here, in large numbers. Think Viet Nam and Cuba, for example. We’ve also brought many Somalis here, even after the dreadful events there wherein our military men were killed and their bodies dragged through the streets by the citizenry of Mogadishu. How many of those same people seen in the news footage, dragging American bodies through their streets now live in, say, Minnesota or Maine? Or your hometown? We have incredibly short attention spans and memories.

So yes, our country deliberately brings people from nations hostile to us to live amongst us, and in fact to be treated as our equals if not betters. Starikov, in the video interview, says the U.S. wants to ”weaken Europe”
by this massive inflow of ‘refugees’, and he is right that Europe will be weakened thereby — but so is our country weakened by the presence of tens of millions of illegal and legal immigrants and ‘refugees.’ If our government is out to weaken Europe by depositing mass numbers of aliens, it is also weakening itself (or weakening its own citizens, at least) by such self-inflicted injuries.

Starikov says Europe does not want these refugees — and I like to think that the actual people of Europe are healthy and sane enough to keep their (relative) national integrity by wanting to preserve their ethnic makeup and what homogeneity they have left. But the fact is, there has been ongoing immigration for some years now; Europe has let many Moslems and other Third-Worlders into their historical territory, and  the people have been relatively passive about it until recently. And the EU commissars have been more than happy to welcome tens of thousands of such immigrants and ‘refugees.’ Despite Merkel’s occasional pronouncements that ‘multiculturalism has failed’, she and her counterparts in the EU have been strong advocates for ever more immigration from the Third World. For a few years now, EU ‘leaders’ have been saying that 50 million Africans were to be expected into Europe in the near future, and they presented this as an inevitability, with no thought for the feelings of their citizenry about it. So no, Mr. Starikov, I am not buying the idea that anyone is forcing Merkel and the others to accept this tidal wave of refugees.

And Mr. Starikov is mistaken in saying that the immigrants are all being inflicted on Germany — there are reports from all over Europe, including the UK and our country, about the ‘Syrians’ and others arriving and still en route. The UK is not being spared, neither is our country. Or Canada or Australia or other Anglosphere countries.

One other noteworthy thing from the interview: Starikov, in speaking of hypothetical Ukrainians who might want similar rights to enter the EU: he pointedly says that such Ukrainians ”think they are of the same race as the Europeans” as their complexions are similar,  or words to that effect — then he says to the inteviewer, ”but you and I know they are not; they are of Russian culture”, or similar words. So, contrary to what ‘pan-European nationalists’ in America might say, Russians don’t believe they and Western or Central or Northern Europeans are “all one people” because of their White skin. It ain’t ”all about skin color.” Even Europeans are not all interchangeable. So in that I agree with Starikov. Leave each ethnicity to its own traditions and heritage.

So though I differ with Starikov in some respects, he does make considerable sense in his analysis of the refugee disaster. It is orchestrated, and it is insane. But why and by whom it is being engineered is where we differ.

The pro-lifers’ misguided tactics

In a post at Faith and Heritage, Ehud Would delineates the wrong-headedness of the Christian pro-life movement in pursuing a politically correct course.

I blogged recently about the recent meme asserting that ‘Margaret Sanger was a genocidal bigot, who wanted to eliminate blacks‘. The fact that this has been picked up by many of the ‘mainstream’ right, especially the Christian pro-lifers, is distressing in many ways, and my post only touched on the reasons why I find it so.  For one thing, I don’t think the evidence available shows Sanger to have been a hater of blacks, nor favoring ‘genocide.’ For a Christian to charge this requires possibly bearing false witness. Granted, Sanger is  long dead, but why convict her posthumously, based on very scant evidence, such as a quote taken out of context? The answer: for political gain; in hopes of winning blacks to the pro-life cause — but at the price of assigning more White guilt, more fuel to the claims that Whites in general have malicious designs against blacks. To convict Sanger casts blame on all of us, at least in the eyes of many blacks and PC whites.

But read Ehud Would’s piece, wherein he gives some very plausible reasons why the pro-life Christian ‘right’ is taking this leftward, Politically Correct turn, and wherein he describes the dangers therein.

Of welcome mats and plain old doormats

The latest news reports out of Europe give accounts of violent and hostile behavior on the part of the sainted ‘refugees’ who continue to descend on Europe. For instance this story about their antics in Slovenia.

                                  Migrants ‘torch tents’ in Slovenia camp

And this is only one of many such examples that could be cited. Yet the media, in their determination to depict the ‘refugees’ as helpless victims, minimize coverage of these incidents. Sky News, for example, is one of the worst, showing a constant montage of images of pitiful children or women, and focusing on the evils of far-right ‘xenophobia.’

Some of you may be old enough to remember the Mariel Boatlift from Cuba, back in the 1970s. For those who don’t, feckless Jimmy Carter, who was then President, wanted to score a propaganda coup, presenting America as the haven of the downtrodden (a la Emma Lazarus, ‘give us your huddled masses, your wretched refuse’) and Castro did just that, by opening the gates of its prisons and mental hospitals, thus getting the last laugh on Carter. Not to mention ridding Cuba many of its problem citizens.

“The exodus started to have negative political implications for U.S. president Jimmy Carter when it was discovered that a number of the refugees had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities. The Mariel boatlift was ended by mutual agreement between the two governments involved in October 1980. By that point, as many as 125,000 Cubans had made the journey to Florida.”

[The above paragraph is from the linked Wikipedia article.]
Today, the media tends to whitewash the Mariel Boatlift, and many Republicans stubbornly believe that the Cuban refugees are ‘conservatives’ and success stories. The conservatives tend to be of the pro-open borders persuasion, despite their alleged ‘conservatism’ — Marco Rubio, for example.

And was it last year that ‘our’ government brought in many thousands of Latin American ‘children’ of various ages to be scattered throughout our country, after first being placed in some kind of facilities until they could be settled in as foster ‘children’ or sent to family members who were already here. Many of the ‘children’ were said by medical personnel to be carrying various contagious diseases and parasitic infections. Whatever happened to the old principle of keeping diseases out, by the way? Is preference now given to those with contagious diseases? Was this engineered influx the 21st century Marielito equivalent?

There were reports of these ‘children’ rejecting the food they were given, and demanding better conditions — exhibiting the same arrogant attitude of entitlement shown by the ‘refugees’ in Europe. How do we sympathize with that? What’s the old adage about beggars and choosers? People who were truly in dire straits — hungry, destitute, fearing for their lives, would not show such arrogance and hostility — would they? Or am I being ‘racist’ for expecting them to behave as our folk would behave, and to show gratitude for help received, rather than demanding more and spitting in our faces?

Is it not possible, too, that the present-day ‘refugees’ are the Middle East and Africa’s own ‘Mariel Boatlift’? Are they offloading their problem citizens, their violent criminals and disturbed people onto Europe and the rest of the West? The arrogant, truculent attitude displayed by the refugees in so many of these incidents seems to indicate that they are not the crème de la crème of their countries. And if they are in fact representative citizens of their countries, then that presents an even more troubling picture, doesn’t it, given that Western governments are hell-bent on settling them in our midst?

A story from early this year out of Australia shows demanding ‘refugees’ sewing their own lips shut in a hunger strike, as a means to get what they want. And this is not new; I remember Afghan and Iraqi ‘refugees’ as long ago as 2000, pulling the same stunt, even sewing their own children’s lips together. Is that not barbaric? We can’t dismiss all these incidents, widespread as they are, as aberrations, or just a few ‘bad apples’ tainting the barrel. No, it’s endemic. And yet, in some baffling way, many Western people still feel sorry for these poor suffering folk. How is it that the ‘refugees’ still elicit sympathy on the part of so many, given their attitudes and actions? What about sympathy for your own folk, having to deal with the conflict and chaos that follows in the wake of these refugees? What about the victims of violence perpetrated by the refugees, such as the left-wing sympathizer stabbed by the very people he championed? What about the emotional destruction that has been wrought on Europeans and all Western peoples, the mental conditioning which has left them neutered and masochistic, complicit in their own destruction? That in itself should be alarming.

Is it too much to believe that the globalist/leftist leaders of the EU and other Western countries knowingly invite these obviously destructive people in the final assault, to finish the dismantling the old order of things? Are these people being used as weapons against the passive, too-trusting citizens of Europe and other Western countries? Given the open hostility shown by those in power towards their own citizens, it’s hard to discount the possibility. It’s either that, or they are completely oblivious and clueless. Stupidity or malice? Or insanity? No other explanations suffice.