November 2, 2009…
We’re At War Folks, let’s start acting like it.
By INVAR
11-2-09
I’ve given a lot of thought to where we have arrived, and the cognitive dissonance that exists among Americans that refuse to allow themselves to accept a serious reality; that we are at war.
We are at war for our very survival as a culture. A war that will determine if we live as destitute and dependent slaves of a Marxist oligarchy, or fight to retain what is left of our liberties for a little season longer.
It’s not a shooting war – yet. But the machinations set into motion most assuredly guarantee misery and death at the hands of the state and by the consequences of what the state is doing.
What I find disconcerting is the refusal of Americans to accept this reality. We constantly hear by those who think themselves leaders about the need to ‘compromise’; the need to be ‘civil’; the need to be ‘Christian’; the need to be moderate’. What that says to me is that the leaders of the nation are telling us to bend over, take it and enjoy it – because that is what ‘civil’ people do. That is what ‘Christians’ should do.
Of course if you don’t submit to such admonitions, you are called a hypocrite, and extremist and so forth – applying Rule No. 4 under Tactics of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals: 4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”. Of course that is done so that they can destroy you and your opposition to what they plan to do to you. It’s called using your own morality against you. They make you fight according to the rules they say you should adhere to – while they move outside those rules to wage the war while forbiding you to defend yourself by misapplication of your rules.
What they essentially want is for us to be carpets and allow tyranny to walk all over you – because as some would say: that is what Jesus would do.
Well that’s nonsense. Biblically speaking all one has to do is read the bible’s accounts of what happens when Jesus returns in Zechariah 14 and in Revelation to understand he’s not coming back as a lamb – but as a warrior seated on a white horse with a sword – to wage war on those who come against Him at His coming. Once again illustrating the true adage that peace comes through the other side of war.
But still we’re told by among our own numbers that we need to stop being confrontational, to be generous to our enemies while they prepare to rape us.
Meanwhile the Marxist juggernaut plows onward, ripping up our solid foundations and imposing with little to no opposition – tyranny of a sort never seen on these shores.
Americans are willfully oblivious to what is happening to them. They refuse to recognize the war that the Left have waged upon their liberties for decades.
It’s not too dissimilar from the indifference we and our leaders held towards radical Islam in the 80’s and 90’s, even though the leaders of Jihadist Islam declared war on America and the West in both word, thought and deed. We slept in the face of a clear and present danger – and ultimately thousands lost their lives by their hands and we awoke one bright September morning to horror that bewildered the majority of the nation that never saw it coming.
Likewise the Marxists in this nation have declared war on We The People, Our Constitution, our Rights and Liberty itself. They have done so in word, thought and deed, and we would understand what they are doing if only we paid attention to what they were actually doing via stealth and double-speak. They have achieved via deceit, the highest positions of power in the land, and thus having control of our education system, the media and government – have gone from subtle sabateurs – to in-your-face warfare.
They are bold in their declared war of “hope and Change” against the foundations of America. They have gone to war against God and Christian Principles and values in our society. They have lofted up government above God and made the people dependent upon them for their sustenance. They protect sin and abomination by law – and are about the task of criminalizing our faith and our very thoughts.
All under our very noses, while we watch them do it.
And yet we are told to be civil. To compromise. To engage in dialogue, so that we might somehow persuade those that support tyrants to our way of thinking.
Such is madness!
It’s a tool of the enemy to divide and conquer us from within. Men with no loyalty except to their power and ideology preying upon those who always want to see the better angels of mankind; who pervert the scriptures and preach to the biblically ignorant that Jesus was a Socialist – and to be a good Christian means we must adopt the Marxist plank – to eschew war but to wage it on those who refuse to convert to the new religion of ‘compassion’.
We have lost the language, and allow the enemy to define it for us – whereby we play by their ever-changing rules. Then we have those among us who tell us it’s all rotten and wrong unless we follow them and their “truths”. They assail those who stand up to tyranny because they do not follow specific ‘chosen’ leaders, so the opposition to a clear enemy becomes muddied and lost as we battle among ourselves and afford the Marxists the achievement of their goals without hardly any opposition.
Anarchy is being bred, along with the portents of a bloodbath that will make the French blush in astonishment.
One day, a majority are going to wake up to an absolute horror that their lives are in, and they will suddenly ask themselves “how could this happen?”. I fear by the time that happens, it will be too late to stop the things that will be visited upon us – things our minds cannot wrap themselves around.
For now a majority refuse to recognize reality, because they assume their lives will somehow return to what they were – as if that was the way the world resides normally. They have no clue that our very short 70 year stint of prosperity and world leader is an anomaly in world history. Those that are aware – are perhaps planning to go grey, sit on the fence and let the tyrants march on through so they can remain unnoticed and untouched – but eventually they too, will be left to beg for whatever bread crumbs they can obtain from the Oligarch’s table.
If we are to avoid that fate – we must be at war.
Before that war turns hot, or before we are being loaded into camps or prisons – the war has to be fought here and now on the battlefield of ideas and discourse. If we do not fight it now, then into bloodshed, camps and prisons we will go. That is the fate the Marxists have envisioned for those of us beholden to liberty, who openly defy them.
We cannot pussyfoot around with playing nice with Marxists and their supporters. We cannot pretend this is a civil society where we can all agree to disagree about the trunk of the tree. The trunk of the tree of liberty is what sustains and keeps us, and we cannot entertain those that say we need to cut it down and replant it – or waste time arguing with those who pretend to be of us – while preaching that the fruit you freely choose to eat from the tree is rotten and to eat the fruit of their tree instead.
They need to be opposed and fought. We need to reject the calls for compromise with those who work to undermine our liberties and refuse to engage fools in debate when their clear motive is to ridicule and sow discord among us. Ideas and agendas anathema to liberty need to be cut down, stomped on and rendered irrelevant.
We do not need to answer fools according to their folly, we simply need to kill their foolishness and not permit it to remain or give it any legitimacy. Marxist thoughts, ideas and plans need to be shown what they are and burned in a fury of outrage and contempt. No quarter must be given to the enemy and his ideas, for assuredly – they will give yours no quarter. They are actively engaged in demonizing you. They will demonize and criminalize you regardless of how reasonable you sound, no matter whether you remain silent or not. They wage war on us – whether we want it or not.
They want us to lie down and compromise and capitulate. They want us to surrender by sitting down and shutting up while they move to tighten the noose around your neck.
If you struggle and oppose these efforts – they may charge you with hate crimes, hating the poor, being racists and Nazis. The truth is they are projecting what they themselves are. So call them on it. They hate us anyway – so why pretend otherwise? They are at war with us – let’s start acting like it!
We can choose not to fight and be at war – but that makes little difference to the Marxists and the Politburo in power, because THEY are assuredly at war with you and liberty in this nation.
It’s time to fight this war.
Sharpen your swords and cut down the nonsense when you read it. Train your guns on the enemy’s ideology and show it no mercy.
God does not compromise with the Devil, and neither should we.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
——————————————————————————–
http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/were-at-war-folks-lets-start-acting-like-it/
8 responses so far ↓
centurean2 // November 7, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/were-at-war-folks-lets-start-acting-like-it/
centurean2 // November 8, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
Cultural sabotage in Britain
Posted by Richard Palmer at 1:52 pm on November 3, 2009
“So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag,” wrote Melanie Phillips last week. “For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.”
“The Labor government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage,” she writes, after an article published by Andrew Neather—a former speech writer for Britain’s top politicians—revealed the true agenda behind Britain’s immigration policy.
“Neather wrote,” says Phillips, “that until ‘at least February last year,’ when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy [former immigration minister Barbara] Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.” She continues:
This has been achieved. Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.
Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some 7 million more will be added to Britain’s population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the ’80s.
Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The government’s “driving political purpose,” wrote Neather, was “to make the UK truly multicultural.”
It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.
It was done to destroy forever what it means to be culturally British and to put another “multicultural” identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.
For more details on the dangerous threat this poses to British society, see “The Sickness in Britain’s Heart.” •
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=blog#6699
COMRADE BROWNSKI ” WE’RE IN AFGHANISTAN TO KEEP THE STREETS OF BRITAIN SAFE FROM TALIBAN AND MORE RECENT COMMENT AL-QAEDA ATTACKS….
The Sickness in Britain’s Heart
From the November/December 2006 Trumpet Print Edition »
The British have enabled extremist Islamism to infect their nation from within. It threatens to do them in. By Joel Hilliker
The soldiers are microscopic, but it’s a war just the same. Under constant assault by pathogens, the human body stakes its life on the multi-layered defenses of its immune system. Every millimeter of a man is a battleground. The border guards, messengers, warriors and generals are skin, lymph, mucus, antibodies, bone marrow and hormones, each with amazingly proficient means of detecting, destroying and dispatching anything that would jeopardize the home they exist only to defend.
If this unseen militia cannot carry out its mission, germs and toxins attack the system and trigger sickness and disease. When immunity is sufficiently disabled, a person faces certain death.
Such is the sick state of Britain today.
The United Kingdom is irreparably infected with a host of pathogens cultural, moral and spiritual. Though many of these hurt the national body, one is particularly deadly: the spread within British borders of aggressive, hate-filled, violence-loving Islamist extremism.
This deep, creeping cancer has grown in Britain’s bowels for decades virtually unnoticed. But on July 7 of last year, it announced its presence suddenly, with a shock of pain: Coordinated suicide bombings killed 52 Londoners on their morning commute. A mere 13 months later, this past August, an attack many times greater—the destruction of 10 transatlantic flights leaving from London—would have slain thousands had not British and Pakistani police busted it.
What was so appalling was, the minds that hatched these murders—filled with incomprehensible, alien hate—were homegrown. In both cases, the villains who deigned to rob innocent British fathers, mothers and children of life did not come from the hot sands of the Middle East, but from the boroughs of Mother England herself. Britain’s deadliest enemies were, in fact, Britons—outgrowths of the nation’s own sickness.
Remarkably, the weak immunity that enabled this sickness to flourish has unmistakably been Britain’s own doing. The British have systematically neutralized their own national defenses against this malignant infection, thus inviting it, even nurturing it.
A Peek at Britain’s Muslims
Of Britain’s 60.6 million people, at least 1.6 million are Muslim. The disproportionate impact of this minority can be discerned in part by the fact that Islam is Britain’s fastest-growing religion, and its second largest. More people in Britain attend a mosque each week than visit an Anglican church.
Alone, these facts speak more to the crippled state of the Church of England than to any particular threat from Islam. However, peering inside the numbers reveals some startling trends.
Among those 1.6 million British Muslims, a great number identify more with the global body of Islamic believers than with their home country. One third would rather live in the UK under Islamic law than British law, according to a Channel 4 Dispatches poll in August. That figure roughly matches a shocking one from a YouGov poll a year earlier: Almost a third of British Muslims believe that “Western society is decadent and immoral, and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, but only by nonviolent means” (emphasis mine).
When Muslims speak of bringing Western society to an end, they are talking about making it subject to Islamic law. Nonviolent means of achieving this goal include gradually promoting the spread of Muslim customs and rituals; securing special privileges for Islamic schools, mosques and other organizations; and gradually cracking down on un-Islamic activity. They also include swelling the number of Muslims through immigration, reproduction and conversion. In Britain today, one sees bustling activity by Muslims on all these fronts.
For many, it is a small step to sympathizing with those willing to blow themselves up in subways and on airplanes. The Dispatches poll showed that almost one fourth of British Muslims—and far more among those under age 24—believe the 7/7 bombings were justified because of the British government’s support of the U.S.-led “war on terror.” Thus, the relationship between the host country and a sizable percentage of this particular minority is already an adversarial one.
And among still smaller percentages of those 1.6 million British Muslims, one finds far more toxic attitudes. The YouGov poll cited above found that 1 percent believe the West’s end should come “if necessary by violence.” That equates to at least 16,000 Muslims living in Britain who hate their country enough to want to see it come to a violent end.
In her scorching book Londonistan, author Melanie Phillips documents the unbelievable extent to which the UK has become home to the most extreme elements of Islamism in the world. Because of the freedom with which they are able to operate in Britain, numerous radical groups—including arms of al Qaeda—have planted their headquarters or significant operations there. Says Phillips, “UK-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain and the United States.” Consider this list of infamous Islamists: the murderer of journalist Daniel Pearl; al Qaeda members who sought to target U.S. financial centers; the man who rammed an explosive-laden truck into police barracks in Kashmir; shoe-bomber Richard Reid; suicide bombers who blew up Israelis in a Tel Aviv bar; one of the masterminds behind two attacks in Bali. All these terrorists called England their home.
How could such monsters incubate within what is supposedly America’s strongest ally in the “war on terror”? The reasons are numerous and shocking—and deeply revealing of the nature of Britain today.
Misplaced Blame
Though the malignancy of radical Islamism is spreading in many non-Muslim nations—throughout Europe, North America and Southeast Asia in particular—in Britain the problem is uniquely bad. For its pathetic response to the incursion of militant Islam, commentator Daniel Pipes calls it the “weakest link in the Western chain.”
Official response to the July 7, 2005, terrorist attack in London provided a perfect cat scan of the advanced state of the disease. Reportage of the event quickly produced a politically correct, Islam-free version of the murders: The perpetrators were “bombers,” not “terrorists.” That they were Muslims who had been recruited at a British- and EU-government-funded Islamic youth center known for its radical politics was glossed over.
In the official account, the real victims were British Muslims, who were certain to suffer an increase in “Islamophobia” from ignorant Britons who would naturally conclude from the attack that all Muslims are evil. The deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, tried to head off public mistrust of Muslims by saying, “Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.” The Nottinghamshire chief constable made it his top priority to deal with the problem—not by clamping down on extremism, but by pacifying the Muslim community with gestures such as ordering 20,000 green ribbons for all public officials to wear in a show of solidarity with Muslims.
Prime Minister Tony Blair created a post-7/7 advisory task force to tackle extremism “head on”—made up of the best experts on the subject the government could find: Muslims, some of whom were notorious extremists. Unsurprisingly, the task force’s recommendations entailed appeasing Muslims by bending British culture and policy into closer conformity with Islam. In essence, it pinned the blame for 7/7 not on angry Muslims, but on the state—for making Muslims angry.
That ridiculous idea lies at the core of political correctness: that a minority culture is always a victim of the majority culture—that even its crimes can be understood as having been provoked by the oppressions of the majority. During the cultural revolution of the 20th century’s later decades, Britain swallowed that toxic brew in lethal doses.
Thus, even after Islamists filled London’s public transportation with corpses, British officials read from the script, blaming not Islamism, but Islamophobia. London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone, after initially condemning the attacks, within a couple weeks was saying that the true fault lay in “80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil.”
Yes—in Britain, one of the most widely used receptacles for pitching blame for Islamism is the war in Iraq. If only Tony Blair wasn’t George W. Bush’s poodle, 7/7 never would have happened, in other words.
The Church of England—deeply infected by liberalism and hatred of the West—put forward its recommendation for protecting Britain from another 7/7: Win the hearts of militant Muslims by prostrating before them. A group of Anglican bishops, in a September 2005 report, proposed that Britain apologize for the Iraq war. Since they didn’t expect Downing Street to do so, they agreed that the church itself should make a “public act of repentance” before Muslim leaders.
British criminologists came up with a unique explanation for what caused 7/7: that the terrorists were just trying to prove their masculinity. Presenting a paper on the subject to the British Society of Criminology, the University of Huddersfield’s Antony Whitehead explained, “It’s a very understandable dynamic. Young Muslim men in the British culture experience a lot of internalized pressure to conform to the idea of manhood—the ideal of courage and standing up for yourself. … We are coming at this from the wrong angle. We are making the assumption that it’s all about Islam.” In truth, virtually no one—at least, no one of influence—assumed it was “all about Islam”; in fact, they tied themselves in knots trying to prove their assumption that it was all about anything but Islam.
What Religion Connection?
British officials give the impression that they are far less afraid of terrorism than they are of being accused of racism or religious discrimination—hanging offenses under political correctness. Thus, they flee from anything that could be remotely construed as such. One of the most common and predictable means of proving one’s credentials as an officially tolerant person is to insist—surely if one says it loudly and often enough it must be true—that the vast majority of Muslims detest what the terrorists are doing, and that violence is anathema to the imminently peaceful religion of Islam.
It is hard to ignore the fact, however, that these statements always issue from white, non-Muslim types—never from the leaders of this supposedly vast body of “moderate” Muslims. “That a silent majority of European Muslims believed in democracy and despised terror was by now a truism,” wrote Bruce Bawer in While Europe Slept. “Observers found themselves thinking, however, that if that silent majority existed at all, it had to be one of the most silent majorities ever.” In fact, polls such as those revealing that one in 10 British Muslims supported the 7/7 attacks—that one in four sympathized with the “feelings and motives” of the attackers—that more than half could “understand” why someone would blow himself up in order to kill innocent people—belied the idea that terrorists are just crazy fringers, motivated by something entirely separate from their religion.
It is interesting that the British are so scrupulous in overlooking the patently obvious religious connection to terrorism. This is not only because they are loath to appear discriminatory, but also because theirs is a deeply secular society. Religion has been almost completely leeched out of British life. Thus, its people can only stare uncomprehendingly at a people so dedicated to and motivated by religious faith.
But by denying Islamist terrorism’s roots in religion, the British unwittingly guarantee that whatever solutions they undertake will absolutely fail to correct the problem. Setting its true causes aside, they are forced to manufacture sham causes. Having misdiagnosed the disease, they must then concoct cures for phantom diseases. As a result, their “cures” only fuel and aggravate the cancer—as much as if they tried to douse a wildfire with gasoline.
Identifying With the Jihadis
It is one thing for Islamists to blame Britain for Muslim rage—it is another for Britain to blame itself. Self-hatred is a sickness all its own. Britain has a raging case of it.
Case in point: The British establishment—including the media, particularly the bbc—is continually serving the British people a potent concoction with two noxious ingredients.
First is an absence of facts regarding the dangers of violent Islamism in Britain and abroad; much is underreported, and what is reported is often stripped of its Islamist context. For example, Prime Minister Blair’s speeches this past summer outlining his war strategy and explaining the seriousness of the danger posed by Islamism were barely reported in the British press. Daniel Johnson wrote in the New York Sun September 7, “If neither his officials, nor his political allies, nor the media are listening, how can he expect the public to hear? His message about the existential threat posed by Islamist ideology has been drowned by the din of speculation about his future.” Blair has been vilified even for what mild attempts he has taken to address the problem. Soon he will be run out of office for them. The nation is interested in other things.
Second is the incessant peddling of the message that Britain is somehow to blame for Islamist attacks on itself. Why? Because it is killing Iraqis to take their oil; because it oppresses British Muslims; because it supports the U.S., which supports Israel, which is the cause of all the world’s problems. These themes occur in various forms in print and on television ad nauseam.
A chilling truth the establishment must face is that its party line, on many specific points of doctrine, falls in lockstep with the radical Muslim view. Another way to look at it is that the Muslim worldview is measurably shaping Britain’s worldview.
Part of the reason for that is the newsmakers’ fear of provoking Muslims and stirring up violence—which in itself shows there is a serious problem that should be dealt with rather than papered over. (After all, what better proves that Islam is violent than the fact that anyone implying this is accused of provoking peaceful Muslims to become violent?) But the more insidious reason is that the leftist media and political personalities agree with many of the Muslim ideas: that the U.S. is imperialistic, that peace in the Middle East is contingent upon Israel moving somewhere else; that terrorism would stop if only coalition forces would pull out of Iraq. In fact, a majority of Britons believe these ideas. A YouGov poll conducted in June revealed that 65 percent of Britons consider Americans “vulgar,” and 58 percent see the U.S. as “an essentially imperial power, one that wants to dominate the world by one means or another.” A strong majority of Britons believe Israel used “disproportionate” force against Hezbollah in Lebanon. In these ways, the British people have more in common with Islamist extremists than with their own prime minister.
British leaders should be challenging the lies propagated by Muslims. Instead they publicize those lies—because they believe them!
As Bret Stephens wrote in the September 5 Wall Street Journal, “[W]hat really ought to terrify Britain’s leaders aren’t the conclusions that divide mainstream and Muslim Britain, but the premises that unite them. From the credence given to people like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, to the simplistic derision of the U.S. and the frenzied hatred of Israel, the two camps attend the same church and sing from the same hymnal.”
The irony is that, in purchasing the Islamist bill of goods regarding the evils of Western imperialism and so on, these opinion shapers are forced to overlook the evils of Islamist ideology—predominantly, that killing innocent people is a righteous act; not to mention its blatant contraventions of Western ideals such as women’s rights, monogamy and free speech.
In the end, whatever the reasons, the effect of the left’s sympathy with Islamism is the same: When people—Muslim, Christian, secularist or anything else—are endlessly flooded with such messages, they are bound eventually to have increased hostility, even rage, against the U.S. and Israel, as well as any British policy that aligns with them.
Thus, in yet another way, Britain, rather than treating its sickness, has aggravated it.
Covenant of Security
Of all the aspects of the diseased innards of British society that the nation’s collision with Islamist extremists has exposed, one of the most disgusting has been what is called its “covenant of security.”
This was revealed in the shock that British authorities registered after the 7/7 attack. Many of them simply never expected such a thing to happen there. Why? Even though they had long been aware of the bustling hive of extremist activity taking place in their midst? Even though, for decades, they had simply looked the other way? Why so shocked? In large part it was because of a sinister, tacit agreement they had made with local radicals: to leave them alone as long there were no attacks in Britain.
Melanie Phillips explains, “This bargain, or ‘covenant of security,’ had been the dirty little secret at the heart of the British government’s blind-eye policy” (op. cit.). Never mind the fact that these radicals were successfully masterminding, funding, supervising and carrying out murderous attacks in other countries. Never mind that they were actively recruiting foot soldiers for their evil acts in local mosques. As long as they didn’t do their dirtiest work at home, they could carry on.
And this from a supposed chief ally in the “war on terror”!
Disgusting. Appalling.
Surely Muslim leaders saw through the hypocrisy. Surely they recognized weakness when they saw it. How they must have shaken their heads in contempt at the British authorities, with their hollow religion and empty ideals, talking tough for the cameras and for the Americans, then caving in to Muslim demands—to the hurt of at least 11 other nations whose citizens were killed by UK-based terrorists. In this, and throughout British society, the devout believers in extremist Islamism saw plenty to confirm in their minds the superiority of their violent, uncompromising ideology over Britain’s self-serving one.
Decadence
Abu Abdullah, leader of the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, is a British-born convert to Islam who told cnn in August that it is an “Islamic right” to take up arms against the West, that Tony Blair and George Bush are legitimate targets for violence, that America and Britain should be subjected to further attacks. This man—whose candor in spewing out vileness, and with a British accent, takes one’s breath away—made a notable point in a 2004 interview with pbs’s Frontline. He explained, “The reason that I converted to Islam is because the Western world or the world in general had nothing to offer me other than gambling, sex, killings, etc. Islam gave me hope.”
This is a common argument made by Islamists to justify the idea that Western society should be destroyed: that it is decadent and immoral. Is this a valid charge?
Britain once had a firm sense of its own identity—rooted in biblically based morals and high standards—and of obligation to set an example of uprightness and civility for the rest of the world (see “How Britain Learned to Hate Itself,” page 18). Today, however, traditional British values have been almost wholly replaced by a rabid devotion to the hollow ideals of tolerance and multiculturalism. This “tolerance,” in practice, translates into a violent repudiation of tradition—which, in Britain, includes all scripturally based beliefs and morals. British society has vitiated its people’s sense of identity, of history, of responsibility. As a result, it has become the embodiment of secularism, self-loathing, immorality and loutishness. It seeks money rather than virtue; it worships pleasure rather than God.
Too many of Britain’s politicians, educators and religious leaders have failed to stand and shore up the nation’s defenses against this ravaging plague. A most notable example is Prince Charles’s attitude toward the UK’s state religion. Were he crowned king of England, Charles would be the titular head of the Anglican Church. In a seismic break from Britain’s past—but one thoroughly in touch with the modern values of his people who have turned their back on their founding religion—Charles once proposed that, as king, rather than assuming the title “Defender of the Faith”—that is, of Protestantism—he would be a “defender of faith”—any and all faith!
The ugly truth is, Islamism’s attack on Western decadence would never have gained such traction if the West had conducted itself in a morally upright way, and if it had unapologetically offered its people—of every creed—a firm sense of noble national identity. By trampling on its own sense of Britishness, this nation created a void that was filled on one hand by decadence, and on another by a deep loyalty among Muslims to the Islamic community that, in some cases, included embracing its most militant dogmas.
And because everything respectable that Britain once was is now regarded by many with shame, the nation simply has no answer. Devout Muslims are right to hate the materialism, the immorality and the selfishness. But those are not the things Western society should represent—they are the evils that rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the trashing of the pillar virtues Western society once aspired to represent.
Conservative mp John Hayes, in a scathing indictment of Britain’s moral state in the Aug. 6, 2005, Spectator, made this point—one that would be all-too-easy to dismiss for being too simplistic, but that should be deeply considered: “The most fitting response to the terrorist outrages would be the kind of moral and cultural renaissance that would make Britons of all backgrounds feel more proud of their country.”
That statement touches very close to the only possible healing for Britain in its advanced state of sickness.
Britain’s Sickness
You may be shocked to learn that the United Kingdom’s present diseased condition was prophesied over 2,700 years ago—as was its outcome.
Britain’s history with the God of the Bible is thoroughly documented and plainly evident throughout its system of law and governance, which is rooted in scripture and rich with biblical symbology. (Request a free copy of Herbert W. Armstrong’s book The United States and Britain in Prophecy to examine the historical and scriptural evidence of Britain’s identity.) Its past experience as the tribe of Ephraim within the biblical nation of Israel is clear: When it subjected itself to God’s commandments, it lived in peace, receiving blessings and favor. When it broke those commandments, it suffered from a host of plagues and curses.
Today’s Britain, having trashed that heritage and spurned the God of the Bible, has entrapped itself in this same pattern of curses.
Longtime Trumpet readers are aware that editor in chief Gerald Flurry has pointed to the dangerous Middle East “peace process” as fulfilling a specific biblical prophecy—that of “Judah’s wound,” found in Hosea 5:13. Biblical Judah is the modern nation called Israel, and its “wound” is the process by which Israel is trying to shore up its national security by placing its faith in its enemies—enemies who happen to be Muslims bent on Israel’s destruction.
That prophecy links Israel to Britain in a peculiar way. Here is the verse: “When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah saw his wound, then went Ephraim to the Assyrian, and sent to king Jareb: yet could he not heal you, nor cure you of your wound.” Ephraim is the biblical name for modern Britain (as The United States and Britain in Prophecy proves). And here, in the same context as Israel’s “wound,” is mentioned Britain’s “sickness.”
Does it not make sense that the wound that drives Israel to seek help from Germany (“the Assyrian”—proved in our booklet Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, free upon request) would be so closely linked to the sickness that causes Britain to do the same? In both cases they are partly caused by harmful dealings with a radical Islamist enemy.
In this prophecy, Britain at some point recognizes its sickness. This is certainly happening in some British circles already, as commentators like Melanie Phillips and Daniel Johnson send out warnings to the public. At present, they are minority voices. But even among Britons at large, a majority now believe, for example, that Britain’s immigration laws should be stiffer. Laws have been implemented to deny visas to foreign extremists, and to deport radicals who live in Britain (though, with endless appeals, this law is still woefully toothless). Based on Hosea’s depiction, we should expect to see the British increasingly wake up to just how dangerous the sickness they have allowed to develop within truly is.
But once they see that sickness, what will they do about it? It will quickly become clear that the time for self-healing is long past. The disease is too far advanced; the body too weak. But they will not turn to God—the God who first gave them all their national blessings and who alone could restore them to health—not at first, anyway. Hosea’s prophecy is that first, like the Jews, the British will instead turn for help to the Germans. And that, as several dozen other prophecies plainly tell us, will prove to be a fatal mistake.
But the biblical narrative doesn’t stop there! Prophecy also tells us that, once the British have learned the invaluable lesson that those who trust in man are cursed—once they have suffered through the plagues that come as a result of their faithlessness—the remnant of them will turn in heartfelt repentance to God, and He will re-establish them as a strong, robustly healthy nation! •
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=2920.0.88.0
USING FALSE POPULATION STATS- BUT THEN THATS’ ALL THEY HAVE TO GO ON….
centurean2 // November 8, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
OUR TROOPS ARE IN AFGHANISTAN TO KEEP THE STREETS OF BRITAIN—SAFE!!!
Because of the freedom with which they are able to operate in Britain, numerous radical groups—including arms of al Qaeda—have planted their headquarters or significant operations there. Says Phillips, “UK-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain and the United States.” Consider this list of infamous Islamists: the murderer of journalist Daniel Pearl; al Qaeda members who sought to target U.S. financial centers; the man who rammed an explosive-laden truck into police barracks in Kashmir; shoe-bomber Richard Reid; suicide bombers who blew up Israelis in a Tel Aviv bar; one of the masterminds behind two attacks in Bali. All these terrorists called England their home.
How could such monsters incubate within what is supposedly America’s strongest ally in the “war on terror”? The reasons are numerous and shocking—and deeply revealing of the nature of Britain today.
FFS-COMRADE BROWNSKI REALLY THINKS BRITS ARE SUCKERS!!
centurean2 // November 8, 2009 at 12:46 pm |
CFR=FABIANS WORLD-WIDE COMMIE NETWORK!
CFR MEMBERS INC–OBAMA- BIDDEN- McCAIN-BUSH-CLINTONS….GET THE PICTURE?
The NAU is Not a Conspiracy Theory, Neither is the CFR
2008 October 30
tags: Barrack Obama, Building A North American Community, CFR, Homeland Security, Passport Card, United Statesby
americanbadass607
As I sit down to write this, I keep in mind that I do this for my family, and anyone that is tired of the complacency that will lose this country as we know. Moreover, allowing it to be transformed into, a One Continent Nation, with a One Continent currency. Something that few citizens of the United States know anything about is The North American Union, and the slated currency, the Amero.
There is an emergence of coincidences which are pointing to a One World Economy and Currency void of an dealings with The United States economy.
When the U.S. economic meltdown began, it affected others in the Global Market. And with this shaky market, an uncertainty arose, a vote of no confidence in the U.S. dollar and its economy. Before the G-7 meeting on the weekend of October 9th 2008,it was reported that the Chinese and other countries were talking about the need for a One World Economy. The European Union is among the entities calling for a global currency, to help curb the meltdown.
With all of these things happening, the time is close. In the CFR publication “The Building a The North American Community”. The Blueprint points to 2010 as the completion of The North American Union. However, they list many things they will complete at this time.
Preparations have already started as far as travel within the North America continent. The State Department along with Homeland Security started a passport card which is good when traveling between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. (The slogan should be, Making your life easier, so we can track you. The Homeland Security.)
US Department of State
On June 1, 2009, the U.S. government will implement the full requirements of the land and sea phase of WHTI. The proposed rules require most U.S. citizens entering the United States at sea or land ports of entry to have a passport, passport card, or WHTI-compliant document .
Now that the NAU/SPP has been brought to the publics eye, the new terminology is, The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. (WHTI)
This is one of the do now list in the CFR publication, “The Building of The North American Community” which along with other publications show that we are headed to the NAU. But one of the most telling articles is, “The End of National Currency”, by Ben Steil.
The world needs to abandon unwanted currencies, replacing them with dollars, euros, and multinational currencies as yet unborn.
What is The CFR
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a not so well known entity that holds power and influence over the media, Presidential Candidates, and over all world affairs. Many will say, it is just a conspiracy theory that anyone or thing can have that much power over one country, let alone the world. However, it is true.
Source
The Council on Foreign Relations was formally established in Paris in 1919 along with its British Counterpart the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
The Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs can trace their roots back to a secret organization founded and funded by Cecil Rhodes, who became fabulously wealthy by exploiting the people of South Africa. Rhodes is the father of Apartheid.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nations wealth. The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every Presidential Administration since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform and disinform the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American People.
At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders. Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O’Connor) sit on the supreme court. The CFR’s British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets include British and American citizens.
After seeing who was appointed to the Supreme Court, is it any wonder George W. Bush is in the White House? One of the most interesting things to have been said by a CFR member in recent history is,
CFR member Congressman Richard Gephardt (D-MO), recently informed the TV audience America will soon have to relinquish control to a “International Regime.” Are we approaching the day when students and workers marching in the United States will be crushed by UN Peacekeeping Forces under the control of this International Regime?
So will that “Day” come under the next President? Both candidates are CFR members. One is the Chairman of The Committee for a Strong Europe.(PNAC) The other came from nowhere to greatness.
So, the next time someone tells you that it doesn’t matter if a candidate belongs to the CFR means nothing, point out just what the CFR stands for, and its origin.
ABA
THERE GOES THAT NUMBER AGAIN————2010!!
centurean2 // November 8, 2009 at 12:47 pm |
http://americanbadass607.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-nau-is-not-a-conspiracy-theory-neither-is-the-cfr/
centurean2 // November 8, 2009 at 12:52 pm |
NO ACCIDENT MINISTERS LIKE BALLS AND CO ATTENDED HARVARD IN THE USA…………
In 1905, American Fabians established the Rand School of [Social Science] in New York City. On September 12, 1905, five of the Fabians met at Peck’s Restaurant in New York’s Lower Manhattan: Upton Sinclair (well-known author and socialist), Jack London (well-known fiction writer), Rev. Thomas Wentworth Higginson (a Unitarian minister), J.G. Phelps Stokes, and Clarence Darrow (legendary lawyer). They incorporated the Intercollegiate Socialist Society for the purpose of promoting “an intelligent interest in socialism among college men and women,” and established chapters at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, New York University, and the University of Pennsylvania. Their true purpose was to begin de-Christianizing America.
One of its founding members was John Dewey, the father of progressive education, whose philosophy consisted of “atheism, socialism and evolution.” In 1921, they changed their name to the League for Industrial Democracy, whose purpose was “education for a new social order based on production for use and not for profit.” They established a network of 125 chapters. Dewey would later serve as its Vice-President, and in 1941, became its President.
The Fabians had broken away from the Liberal Party in the 1890’s and contributed to the founding of the Labor Representation Committee, which in 1906, became the Labour Party. Shaw called for “wire-pulling” the government in order to get Socialist measures passed. In 1918, the Labour Party adopted a program which implemented the ideas of Fabianism.
In 1931, the New Fabian Research Bureau was organized, joining the Fabian Society in 1938 to form a reorganized group. In 1940, the Colonial Bureau of the Fabian Society was established; and in 1941, the Fabian International Bureau was formed, which catered to international issues.
In December, 1942, the Fabians published the Beveridge Report, written by Sir William Beveridge (later made a Lord), who made a long list of promises to Britons, if they would accept his package of social reforms. In 1945, Fabian Socialists took control of the House of Commons, on the strength of the Report, and the Parliamentary Reforms, which had been published eleven years earlier by Sir Ivor Jennings. Within a few years, British industries and services were nationalized and put under government control, which now meant that the Rothschilds were able to control more, because all the banks were forced to use Bank of England notes, instead of their own.
At its peak in 1946, the Fabian Society had 8,400 members in 80 local chapters. Among their members: Bertrand Russell (philologist, mathematician and philosopher), (Pandit) Motilal Nehru (father of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharial Nehru, and leader of the Independence movement who founded the Swaraj, or ’self-rule’ Party), and Ramsey MacDonald (Prime Minister of England in 1924, 1929-35). Nearly half of all Labour Party representatives of the Parliament in the House of Commons were members, along with most Party leaders.
Today, from their headquarters at 11 Dartmouth Street, in London, they spread their ideas among teachers, civil servants, politicians, union officials, and other influential people. They publish the Fabian Review magazine. They also hold meetings, lectures, conferences, and seminars; do research in political, economic, and social problems; and publish their findings and views in magazines, books and pamphlets. Their concentration has been mainly on reforms to social services and the nationalization of industry.
Cecil Rhodes and the Rhodes Scholarships
Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902, South African financier, British statesman and industrialist, who wanted to make Africa a “British dominion from the Cape to Cairo”), with the financial support of Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild (1840-1915) and Alfred Beit, was able to control the diamond mines of South Africa with his De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd., by buying out the French Diamond Co. and then merging with the Barnato Diamond Mining Company. He eventually controlled the production of diamonds throughout the world. His Consolidated Gold Fields was also a prosperous gold mining operation. He made $5 million annually [a huge sum in those days --ed].
In 1877, while still studying at Oxford (it took him 8 years because of having to run the diamond mines), he wrote the first of seven wills, in which each became a separate and legally binding document. It called for the establishment of:
“…a secret society with but one object — the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, (and) for … making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.”
Frank Aydelotte, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Secretary to the Rhodes Trustees, wrote in his book, American Rhodes Scholarships:
“In his first will Rhodes states his aim still more specifically: ‘The extension of British rule throughout the world … the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the interests of humanity’.”
When he died, his third will, drafted in 1888, called for the establishment of a trust, run by his son-in-law Lord Rosebury, a Rothschild agent, to administer his fortune. His seventh and last will, named [Nathan] Rothschild administrator of his estate, and established an educational grant known as the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford University (which was controlled by the Fabians). The Scholarships provided a two-year program for young men, and later, women, from the United States, United Kingdom and Germany, to carry on the Illuminati conspiracy.
Among the more famous Rhodes Scholars:
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn05-1
centurean2 // November 8, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
The Council on Foreign Relations was formally established in Paris in 1919 along with its British Counterpart the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
The Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs can trace their roots back to a secret organization founded and funded by Cecil Rhodes, who became fabulously wealthy by exploiting the people of South Africa. Rhodes is the father of Apartheid.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nations wealth. The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every Presidential Administration since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform and disinform the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American People.
At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders. Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O’Connor) sit on the supreme court. The CFR’s British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets include British and American citizens.
FABIANS!!
UK WESTMINSTER TRAITORS!!
christianconscience // November 12, 2009 at 1:13 am |
Here’s what Christians should do:
“If you are slack in the day of distress, Your strenght is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death. And those who are staggering to slaughter. Oh, hold them back. If you say, “See, we did not know this,” Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?”
Proverbs 24:10-12
Man’s laws do not supercede God’s Laws.
narrowgatejournal.wordpress.com